Negotiable Instruments Act, Section 138 – Joint Account Holder Liability – Quashing of Complaint – Accused was arraigned merely as a joint account holder, not as the drawer or signatory of the dishonored cheque – The cheque was issued by the petitioner's husband in his personal capacity – The petitioner is not liable under Section 138 of the Act in the absence of compliance with Section 141 – Complaint against the petitioner is quashed [Paras 3-7].

Criminal Procedure Code, Section 482 – Abuse of Process of Law – Quashing Proceedings – High Court’s inherent power under Section 482 can be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of the court – The continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner would cause unnecessary harassment – Complaint against the petitioner is set aside to prevent abuse of legal process [Paras 7-9].

Decision – Petition allowed – The impugned proceedings being Criminal Case No. 49143 of 2018 pending in the Court of learned Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Surat, quashed and set aside qua the present petitioner (Accused No. 2) only [Para 9].

Criminal Law - Acquittal - Conviction under Sections 323 and 436 IPC - Sufficiency of Evidence – The appellants were convicted for voluntarily causing hurt and committing mischief by fire – The prosecution case was that the appellants demanded money from the complainant and, upon refusal, assaulted him and set his house on fire – Held: The court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt – The key prosecution witnesses, including the complainant and his wife, were not supported by independent witnesses, and there were inconsistencies in the evidence – The benefit of doubt was extended to the appellants, leading to their acquittal [Paras 12-20].

Role of Independent Witnesses – Credibility of Evidence – The court emphasized the lack of support from independent witnesses for the prosecution’s version – Testimonies from neighbors indicated a dispute over money between the complainant and the appellants – The court noted that the prosecution's case rested on unreliable evidence, and the failure to seize key items such as the stick and kerosene can further weakened the case [Paras 15-18].

Medical Evidence – Absence of Injuries – The medical examination of the complainant and the village Kotwar showed no external injuries, casting further doubt on the prosecution’s claim of assault – The complainant’s wife had minor scratch marks, which could have been caused by broken bangles – Held: The absence of injuries and the lack of seizure of weapons indicated the prosecution’s failure to establish the occurrence of the alleged assault [Paras 19-20].

Decision – Acquittal on Benefit of Doubt – The court held that the prosecution failed to establish the charges against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt – Given the inconsistencies and lack of credible evidence, the benefit of doubt was extended to the appellants – The conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellants were acquitted of the charges against them [Paras 20-22].

Maintainability of Writ Petition – Arbitration Clause in Contract – Article 226 of the Constitution – The petitioner challenged the termination of his LPG distributorship license by IOCL, raising issues of arbitrariness and violation of fundamental rights – The respondent argued that the presence of an arbitration clause in the contract barred the petitioner from seeking remedy under Article 226 – Held: The court ruled that the writ petition was maintainable as the petitioner alleged arbitrary and unreasonable action by a state instrumentality, and the presence of an arbitration clause did not constitute an absolute bar to judicial review in cases involving violation of constitutional mandates [Paras 6-12].

Termination of License – Misrepresentation and Ownership of Land – The petitioner was accused of misrepresenting ownership of land when applying for the LPG distributorship – He purchased the land in question based on a sale deed but later discovered that the vendor did not have full ownership – Held: The court found that the petitioner acted in good faith based on the information provided by the vendor and complied with IOCL’s instructions to cure the defect in the land title – IOCL conducted field verification before granting the license, and thus shared responsibility in ensuring due diligence – The termination of the license was deemed unsustainable as the alleged misrepresentation did not meet the criteria outlined under Section 18 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Paras 13-20].

Misrepresentation under Section 18 of the Indian Contract Act – The court analyzed the definition of misrepresentation under Section 18 of the Indian Contract Act, concluding that the petitioner’s actions did not amount to misrepresentation – The court emphasized that the misrepresentation must induce the other party to gain an advantage and that the party alleging misrepresentation had the means to discover the truth with ordinary diligence – In this case, both parties were mistaken, and IOCL had a duty to verify the information before entering into the contract [Paras 18-22].

Decision – Termination Quashed – License to be Continued – The court held that the termination order was unsustainable and quashed it – IOCL was directed to allow the petitioner to continue with the distributorship license, making a specific order within eight weeks – The court emphasized the petitioner’s right to livelihood and the absence of legal tenability in the misrepresentation claim [Paras 23-26].

Preventive Detention – Allegations of Mala Fide Action – The petitioner, a local journalist, was detained under the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978, based on a dossier alleging his involvement in repeated criminal acts – The petitioner contended that the detention was mala fide, with the authorities portraying him falsely as a habitual offender by selectively referring to FIRs against him, some of which had resulted in acquittals – Held: The court found that the detention order was issued without proper application of mind, and the authorities failed to acknowledge the acquittals in several FIRs, indicating a mala fide intent to suppress the petitioner’s rights.

Violation of Fundamental Rights – Right to Personal Liberty – The court emphasized that the right to life and personal liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India cannot be deprived without due process – The detaining authority acted in a mechanical manner, accepting the dossier without independently verifying the facts or applying its own mind – This led to a violation of the petitioner's fundamental right to liberty.

Reliance on Outdated and Non-Substantive FIRs – Lack of Immediate Threat to Public Order – The dossier included FIRs dating back to 2001 to 2013 and a recent FIR from 2023, but most did not involve grave charges or an immediate threat to public order – The court held that relying on outdated and minor FIRs to justify preventive detention was an abuse of power – Preventive detention requires a clear and present danger to public order, which was not established in this case.

Judicial Scrutiny of Preventive Detention Orders – The court reiterated the importance of judicial scrutiny in cases of preventive detention, cautioning against the casual use of such powers by the police and executive authorities – It emphasized that preventive detention must be based on concrete evidence of a real threat to public order, and not on vague or generalized allegations.

Decision – Quashing of Detention Order – The court quashed the preventive detention order No. 02/DMP/PSA of 2024 dated 09.03.2024, along with the approval/confirmation orders, as being illegal and a violation of the petitioner's fundamental rights – The Superintendent District Jail Poonch was directed to immediately release the petitioner from custody, restoring his personal liberty.

Criminal Law – Bail under PMLA – Offence under Foreign Law as Scheduled Offence – Petitioners accused of offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002 – Proceedings initiated after receipt of a Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA) request from the U.S. Department of Justice, alleging that accused Vishal Moral committed wire fraud and money laundering – ED registered a case under Sections 3 and 4 of PMLA – Petitioners sought regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. read with Section 45 of PMLA – Held: Foreign laws, if corresponding to scheduled offences under PMLA, can be treated as predicate offences with cross-border implications, but foreign law must be proved as a matter of fact [Paras 1, 3-5, 48-58, 85].

Predicate Offence – Need for Proof of Corresponding Law – ED argued that U.S. statutes under which Vishal Moral is accused correspond to Indian laws under IT Act and IPC – Court observed that foreign laws cannot be taken as judicial notice and must be proved through expert evidence – Absence of prima facie material to establish that the U.S. offences correspond to scheduled offences under PMLA – Benefit of doubt extended to petitioners, as no prima facie case of proceeds of crime being linked to a scheduled offence was established [Paras 80-86].

Incriminating Evidence – Section 50 PMLA Statements and WhatsApp Chats – Statements of Vishal Moral and co-accused under Section 50 PMLA, recorded post-arrest, are inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act – WhatsApp/Telegram chats recovered were not conclusive, and no scientific reports were available – Held: These pieces of evidence could not establish a live link between petitioners and the alleged crime at this stage – Retracted statements of co-accused lacked corroboration and thus could not be relied upon [Paras 96-105, 106-112].

Judicial Cognizance and Procedural Issues – Petitioners argued that cognizance was taken without sufficient material, and ED had not disclosed crucial documents such as the MLA request or communications between U.S. and Indian authorities – Court noted that while the cognizance order was not detailed, it did not affect the broad probability analysis for bail – Non-compliance with procedural requirements like sanction under Section 188 Cr.P.C. was not necessary since the offence of money laundering was committed in India [Paras 89-91, 76-79].

Delay in Trial – Impact on Bail – Petitioners had been in custody for over 16 months, and trial had not commenced due to pending investigations – Court referred to recent Supreme Court judgments affirming that "bail is the rule and jail is the exception" and considered the likelihood of delayed trial – Petitioners granted bail, observing that prolonged pre-trial incarceration without likelihood of speedy trial violates their right to liberty under Article 21 [Paras 117-121].

Decision – Bail granted to all petitioners with conditions – Petitioners to furnish personal bonds, report to the investigating officer, and not leave the country without permission – Court emphasized that observations made were only for deciding the bail applications and not on the merits of the case [Paras 122-124].

NEET Counseling – Refund of Security Deposit – Procedural Remedy – The petitioner participated in the NEET (UG) counseling for the academic session 2022-23 and deposited a security amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-. Despite not being allocated any institution, the petitioner did not receive the refund – Held: The respondent authorities are directed to decide on the petitioner's representation for a refund of the security deposit within six weeks of receiving the certified copy of this order – No objection from respondents [Paras 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6].

Decision: Writ petition disposed of – Respondent No. 2 (Director General, Medical Education and Training U.P., Lucknow) directed to decide the petitioner's representation for the refund of the security deposit dated 03.08.2023 within six weeks [Para 6].

Writ Jurisdiction – Tender Process – Preferential Policy – Petitioner, a micro enterprise registered under Udyam, challenged the tender terms for excluding it from the benefits under Assam Procurement Preference Policy, 2021, and the Procurement Preferential Order, 2017 – Court found that the petitioner did not meet the eligibility requirement of 10 years of existence as stipulated in the tender – Held: Tender terms, including requirements for bidder existence, fall within the domain of the tendering authority and are not arbitrary or unreasonable – Writ jurisdiction should not be exercised to interfere with commercial decisions unless malafide, arbitrariness, or irrationality is proven [Paras 22-28].

Micro & Small Enterprise – Benefits Under Tender – Registered Micro Enterprise ("Udyam") – Petitioner's registration as Udyam is not disputed, allowing for certain concessions in the tender process – However, to avail these benefits, the petitioner must first fulfill the technical eligibility criteria as laid out in the tender document – As the petitioner did not fulfill the 10-year existence clause, the preferential benefits were not applicable [Paras 23, 29].

Judicial Review in Tender Matters – Limited Scope – Evaluating tenders and awarding contracts are commercial functions, and the judiciary should not interfere unless there is evidence of arbitrariness, irrationality, or favoritism – The clause requiring 10 years of existence for bidders is not found to be arbitrary or unreasonable in this context [Paras 25-28].

Decision – Writ petition dismissed – The Court held that the petitioner did not meet the eligibility requirement of 10 years of existence as stipulated in the tender document – The conditions laid out in the tender were within the prerogative of the authority and not arbitrary or unreasonable – Interim order vacated [Paras 29-30].

Criminal Procedure Code, Section 439 – Bail – Third Application – Offences under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 326A, 302, and 304-B IPC – Accusation of administering acid to the deceased leading to her death – Second bail applications were dismissed with liberty to file afresh – First bail application dismissed as not pressed – Bail granted due to lack of prima facie evidence in postmortem report [Paras 1-12].

Evidence Act, Section 27 – Recovery of Evidence – Recovery of hydrochloric acid bottle based on information provided by the applicant – Postmortem report does not show external or internal injuries indicative of acid administration – Viscera sent for examination to determine the presence of poison – Bail granted considering lack of direct evidence of acid administration causing death [Paras 5-10].

Postmortem Report – No Indication of Acid Administration – The postmortem report did not reveal injuries consistent with acid administration – No external or internal injuries on face, lips, throat, etc. – Viscera sent to ascertain the presence of poison, suggesting no direct evidence of acid-caused injury or burns [Paras 6-10].

Decision – Bail application allowed – Petitioners granted bail due to the absence of prima facie evidence of acid administration in the postmortem report – Applicants to be released on personal bond and sureties [Paras 12-14].
 

Criminal Law – Prevention of Corruption – Proof of Demand – Demand not Established – The appellant, a Talati cum Mantri, was convicted under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for allegedly demanding ₹500 as illegal gratification for providing a copy of a mutation entry – The prosecution failed to prove the specific demand for gratification beyond reasonable doubt – Held: Mere recovery of tainted money is not sufficient to convict without proof of demand – The trial court erred in convicting the appellant without sufficient proof of demand or acceptance [Paras 9-10].

Defence of Appellant – Illegal Tax Demand – The appellant contended that the ₹500 was not a bribe but a tax owed by the complainant for the encroachment of a shop, as evidenced by the tax records and resolutions of the Gram Panchayat – The prosecution failed to disprove this defence, and the trial court did not properly consider this plausible explanation – Held: The appellant’s defence that the amount was legitimate tax dues, and not illegal gratification, was plausible and ought to have been considered [Para 10.1].

Prosecution Failure – Lack of Evidence of Prior Demand – The prosecution's case was primarily based on the complainant’s testimony, but no independent witness or documentary evidence supported the claim of prior demand – The complainant's son, who allegedly witnessed the demand, was not examined – Further, no phone call records were produced despite claims that the demand was made via telephone – Held: Prosecution failed to establish prior demand or demand at the time of the trap beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 10-11].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction set aside – Appellant acquitted of all charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act – Bail bond canceled – Fine to be refunded [Paras 12-14].