Constitutional Law – Violation of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) – Challenge to deduction of 1% Labour Cess by the government from contractors’ bills – Absence of specific contract provisions for such deductions – Petitioners, engaged in various infrastructure projects, claim deductions are illegal and arbitrary – Relying on prior judgment (Ch.V.V. Subba Rao), court finds in favor of petitioners – Held, government cannot deduct cess without inclusion in contract estimates [Paras 5-12].

Labour Cess Act 1996 – Applicability to infrastructure contracts – Petitioners argue Labour Cess was not included in original contract estimates for works initiated before the amendment of rules in 2007 – Court reiterates principle that deductions for Labour Cess can only be made if explicitly provided for in contract – Judgment in prior case deemed applicable – Relief granted [Paras 8-10].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Held, 1% Labour Cess cannot be deducted from contractors’ bills unless explicitly factored into contract estimates – Government directed to cease further deductions and refund amounts already deducted – No order as to costs [Para 13].

Promotion – Effect of Minor Penalty (Censure) – The Writ Court quashed the departmental proceedings and the penalty of "censure" imposed on the respondent, directing his promotion to the post of DGM (ATC) w.e.f. 01.10.1999 – Appellants argued that the "censure" penalty was a valid impediment to promotion – Court held that the respondent was not entitled to promotion in light of the penalty, and that the "censure," being a blameworthy factor, justified denying promotion – Writ Court’s decision to quash the penalty without examining its legality was improper [Paras 1-40].

Departmental Proceedings – Delay and Procedural Fairness – Respondent alleged that the six-month delay in initiating the departmental enquiry deprived him of his right to a speedy conclusion of the proceedings – Appellants argued that the proceedings were completed within a reasonable time frame (1.5 years), and the minor penalty imposed was warranted – Court concluded that the delay was not sufficient to invalidate the enquiry or the penalty imposed [Paras 20-30].

Applicability of Order II Rule 2 CPC – Court observed that the respondent had the opportunity to challenge the departmental proceedings in a previous writ petition (SWP No. 893/2005) but chose not to – As per Order II Rule 2 of the CPC, the respondent was estopped from raising the same challenge in a subsequent petition (SWP No. 862/2009) [Paras 31-35].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Writ Court’s judgment set aside – Departmental proceedings and the penalty of "censure" against the respondent upheld – Respondent not entitled to promotion to the post of DGM w.e.f. 01.10.1999.

Registration of Sale Deed – Duty of Sub-Registrar under Section 71 of Registration Act, 1908 – Sub-Registrar, Renigunta, refused to accept the sale deed dated 05.08.2024, presented by the petitioner, without providing any reasons – Petitioner challenged the refusal, relying on the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Salimeni Ravindra v. State of Andhra Pradesh (W.P.No.10392 of 2021) – Court emphasized the duty of the Sub-Registrar to either register the document or issue a speaking order recording reasons for refusal in Book No.2, with an endorsement "registration refused" – Held: Sub-Registrar is directed to process the sale deed or issue a speaking order as per law [Paras 1-7].

Obligation of Sub-Registrar under Registration Act – Reliance on Prior Case Law – Court refers to the judgment in Salimeni Ravindra v. State of Andhra Pradesh, holding that the Sub-Registrar is under a statutory duty to process documents presented for registration unless there are valid legal grounds for refusal, which must be recorded in writing – Sub-Registrar is bound to comply with the procedure established under Rules 161-164 of the Registration Act [Paras 3-5].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Sub-Registrar directed to process the sale deed dated 05.08.2024, or issue a speaking order within four weeks, stating reasons for refusal if applicable – Court also directs the petitioner to submit a copy of this order and the judgment in Salimeni Ravindra to the Registrar for future reference [Para 8].

Criminal Law – Abduction and Murder – Section 364A and 302 IPC – Conviction based on circumstantial evidence – Held, the prosecution established that the appellants abducted the victim for ransom, and when they failed to extort money, they murdered him. Despite no direct evidence of the murder, the chain of circumstantial evidence and the appellants' failure to provide an alternative explanation justified conviction. The Court upheld the trial court’s reliance on the confession under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, leading to the discovery of the dead body. [Paras 28-68].

Criminal Law – Section 27 of the Evidence Act – Admissibility of disclosure leading to the recovery of a dead body – The Court affirmed that the recovery of the dead body following the accused’s disclosure was admissible, even though the body was found in an open area. The proximity between the abduction and recovery of the body supported the reliability of the disclosure. [Paras 50-62].

Motive – Establishing motive in cases of circumstantial evidence – Although the prosecution could not fully establish a motive, the appellants’ actions during and after the abduction pointed to a criminal intention, which negated the need for a distinct motive to commit murder. The demand for ransom and the subsequent killing to evade capture sufficed as inferred motives. [Paras 69-75].

FIR and procedural fairness – Alleged delay in FIR registration – Held, the FIR was registered promptly after the incident, and any minor procedural delays in the investigation, including sending the FIR to the Magistrate, did not affect the prosecution's case. The court rejected the appellants' claim of FIR manipulation. [Paras 76-88].

Judicial Precedent – Reliance on circumstantial evidence and recovery under Section 27 Evidence Act – The Court referred to Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra and State of W.B. v. Mir Mohammad Omar, supporting the conviction based on circumstantial evidence when the accused failed to explain the victim’s fate after the abduction. [Paras 89-102].

Decision: Appeal Dismissed – The Court upheld the trial court’s conviction and sentence of life imprisonment, finding sufficient circumstantial evidence to support the conviction for abduction and murder. [Paras 103-110].

Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – Reversal on Appeal – Appellant convicted for the murder of the deceased by severing his head with a chopper – Trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment – On appeal, High Court finds that key witnesses (P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 6) were unreliable and inconsistent with the prosecution's case – Confessional statement and recovery of the chopper failed to substantiate the conviction in the absence of corroborative evidence – Held: Prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 1-50].

Witness Testimony – Credibility of Eye-Witnesses – P.W. 1 (wife of the deceased) and P.W. 6 (brother of the deceased) claimed to be eye-witnesses but their statements were inconsistent with the FIR and later depositions – Investigating Officer (P.W. 10) confirmed that these witnesses had not initially claimed to have seen the incident – Court found that the witnesses developed their version during the trial, undermining the credibility of their testimonies [Paras 25-40].

Circumstantial Evidence – Recovery of Chopper – Chopper was recovered from the appellant’s house, allegedly based on his confessional statement – However, the seizure list was incomplete, and the mere presence of blood on the chopper (as reported by the FSL) was insufficient to prove guilt without corroborative evidence – Motive related to a land dispute was vaguely stated and not conclusively proved [Paras 35-50].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted – Appellant to be released from custody immediately if not wanted in any other case.

Criminal Law – Corruption – Sections 120-B, 420 IPC and Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act – Allegations of conspiracy and wrongful loss – Held, the prosecution alleged that the applicants conspired to manipulate tender procedures and awarded contracts for substandard Digital Display Boards for the SAFAR project, causing a loss of ₹2.50 crores to IITM. However, the court found no direct or circumstantial evidence suggesting any financial gain to the applicants. The court also noted that the procurement process was approved by committees and the Director of IITM, with no irregularities in the decision-making process. [Paras 20-80].

Administrative Law – Departmental Exoneration – Effect on criminal prosecution – The court noted that Applicant No. 2 (Vipin Mali) had been exonerated in a departmental enquiry on identical charges, and this exoneration on merits raised doubts about the likelihood of securing a conviction in criminal prosecution. The court referred to the standard of proof required in criminal cases, which is higher than that in departmental proceedings. [Paras 90-105].

Judicial Precedent – Radheshyam Kejriwal case – Impact of exoneration in disciplinary proceedings – The court cited Radheshyam Kejriwal v. State of West Bengal, holding that where exoneration in departmental proceedings occurs on merits, it can significantly affect the continuation of a criminal prosecution based on the same facts. The court ruled that continuing the prosecution would amount to an abuse of the legal process. [Paras 110-125].

Decision:

Applications Allowed – Discharge Granted – The court discharged both applicants, setting aside the trial court’s orders rejecting their applications for discharge. The prosecution had insufficient evidence to proceed against the applicants, particularly in light of Applicant No. 2's departmental exoneration. [Paras 130-135].

Criminal Law – Maintenance – Section 125 CrPC – Enhancement of Maintenance – Whether the monthly maintenance of ₹5000 awarded under Section 125 CrPC should be enhanced – Held, the Court considered the financial status of both parties, inflation rates, and the prevailing standard of living, ruling that the ₹5000 awarded by the Family Court was insufficient – Maintenance was enhanced to ₹7500 per month, subject to adjustment with the maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act – [Para 12-14].

Maintenance – Adjustments under Different Statutes – The respondent contended that the ₹7500 awarded under the Domestic Violence Act should be considered and adjusted – The Court agreed, stating that maintenance orders under different statutes should be harmonized to avoid duplication – Accordingly, the revised amount is subject to adjustment against the ₹7500 already granted under the Domestic Violence Act – [Para 14].

Loan Deduction – Impact on Maintenance – The respondent argued that loan repayments for house construction, reducing his net income, should be factored into the maintenance calculation – The Court rejected this argument, noting that loan deductions undertaken voluntarily after separation cannot be considered mandatory statutory deductions and should not reduce the maintenance obligation – [Para 15].

Decision: Revision allowed – The monthly maintenance under Section 125 CrPC is enhanced from ₹5000 to ₹7500, subject to adjustment with the amount awarded under the Domestic Violence Act. The enhanced maintenance will take effect from the date of the original application.

Civil Law – Maintenance Order – Petition under Article 227 – The petitioner challenged the maintenance order passed by the Family Court, which granted only Rs. 2,500/- per month, claiming that it was too low considering the husband's income of Rs. 80,000/- per month – The High Court initially handled the matter as a writ petition under Article 226 – However, referencing the Supreme Court ruling in Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath (2015), which clarified that judicial orders of civil courts are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226, the court held that the petition should have been filed under Article 227 – The court granted the petitioner four weeks to convert the writ petition into a Civil Miscellaneous Petition, in compliance with the amended High Court rules [Paras 1-30].

Article 226 vs. Article 227 Jurisdiction – The Supreme Court in Radhey Shyam emphasized that while Article 226 cannot be used to challenge judicial orders from civil courts, Article 227 provides the correct recourse for such matters – The High Court’s power of superintendence under Article 227 remains unaffected by amendments to Section 115 of the CPC, but it must be exercised cautiously to avoid interference in ongoing cases unless there is a clear violation of the law – Orders under Article 227 are not meant for routine challenges but are limited to supervisory corrections of jurisdictional errors or gross procedural violations [Paras 18-30].

Decision: The court allowed the petitioner's request for time to convert the writ petition to a Civil Miscellaneous Petition, directing the registry to cooperate and ensure priority listing once converted.

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act – Acquittal - Search and Seizure – Non-Compliance with Section 42 - The investigating officer failed to obtain a search warrant or authorization from the jurisdictional Magistrate, a requirement under Section 42 of the NDPS Act - The search was conducted without the proper authorization, vitiating the procedure - Held: Non-compliance with mandatory provisions under Section 42 of the NDPS Act led to the vitiation of the search and seizure process - Acquittal granted [Paras 20, 21].

Evidence – Chain of Custody – Break in Chain - The prosecution did not produce the examined contraband in court for identification by witnesses, leading to a break in the chain of custody - The link between the seized contraband and the samples tested by the FSL was not maintained, raising questions about the integrity of the evidence - Held: Failure to maintain the chain of custody casts doubt on the integrity of the prosecution’s case - Benefit of the doubt given to the accused [Paras 21, 22].

Criminal Procedure – Expert Reports – Section 293 Cr.P.C. – Fair Trial - Section 293 of the Cr.P.C. allows the court to summon and examine an expert as to the subject matter of their report - However, the trial judge did not summon the FSL expert for cross-examination, thus denying the defense this opportunity - Held: The omission violated the accused's right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution - The FSL report, while presumptive evidence, is not conclusive without expert examination [Paras 22, 23].

Constitutional Law – Article 21 – Right to Fair Trial - The trial court's failure to allow cross-examination of the FSL expert compromised the appellant's right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution - Held: The right to a fair trial was infringed, rendering the conviction unsustainable - Conviction set aside [Paras 22, 23].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant acquitted of the charges – Fine amount, if deposited, to be refunded – Personal and surety bonds canceled – Case property to be dealt with in accordance with the law after the expiry of the limitation period for filing an appeal [Final Order].