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].

Landlord-Tenant Relationship – Cross-examination – Section 21(2)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 – Petitioners (tenants) sought to recall P.W.1 (landlords) for cross-examination after proceedings were initiated under Section 21(2)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Act, due to lack of an agreement as required under Section 4 – Held, cross-examination is not a right for tenants where the landlord-tenant relationship is undisputed – Petition dismissed in line with prior precedents [Paras 1-20].

Departmental Delay and Procedural Fairness – Petition for Reopening Evidence – Order on Eviction Proceedings – Tenants claimed denial of their opportunity to present a defense due to being set ex parte – Held, tenants have the right to present evidence before 18.09.2024, failing which they forfeit the right – Rent Controller instructed to complete the proceedings by 04.10.2024 [Paras 21-40].

Decision: Petitions dismissed – Tenants not entitled to cross-examine or reopen P.W.1 in the eviction proceedings initiated under Section 21(2)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Act. However, the ex parte orders were set aside, allowing tenants to submit evidence before 18.09.2024.

Service Law – Rule 29(1)(vi) of CCS CCA Rules – Revisional Authority's powers to enhance punishment – Whether the Revisional Authority was justified in exercising its powers under Rule 29(1)(vi) to enhance the punishment of the respondent after five years – Held, the enhancement of the punishment by the Revisional Authority was not justified due to the lapse of a reasonable period since the original order. The Court applied the judgment in Union of India v. Vikrambhai Maganbhai Chaudhari, which held that revision powers must be exercised within a reasonable time even when no specific time limit is prescribed under the rules. [Paras 20-55].

Service Law – Principles of Natural Justice – Allegation of forged vouchers – The Court addressed the issue of whether allegations of forged vouchers, not part of the original charge sheet, could be considered during the inquiry – Held, that the allegation of forged vouchers, which came to light during the inquiry, should have been part of the original charge sheet. Failure to include these charges violated principles of natural justice. [Paras 56-70].

Judicial Precedent – Reliance on Supreme Court decisions – The Court relied on the precedent set in Union of India v. Vikrambhai Maganbhai Chaudhari, where it was held that the exercise of revisional powers must be within a reasonable period, even in the absence of a specific timeline in the rules. [Paras 40-60].

Decision:

Writ Petition Dismissed – The Court upheld the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), quashing the order of compulsory retirement and reinstating the respondent. The Court ruled that the Revisional Authority’s decision to enhance the punishment after nearly five years was unreasonable and invalid. [Paras 75-85].

Tenancy Law – Right to Cross-Examination – Section 21(2)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 – The tenants sought to reopen and recall the evidence of P.W.1 for cross-examination, which was dismissed by the Rent Controller – Held: A tenant does not have the right to cross-examine in proceedings under Section 21(2)(a) unless the tenant disputes the landlord-tenant relationship – The petitions were dismissed by the court, confirming the Rent Controller's view – The tenants were not entitled to cross-examine as there was no dispute on the landlord-tenant relationship in this case [Paras 2-3].

Reopening of Evidence – Civil Revision Petitions – The tenants filed petitions to reopen the evidence of P.W.1 and recall P.W.1 for the purpose of cross-examination – The Rent Controller dismissed the petitions, leading to the present Civil Revision Petitions – Held: The court confirmed the Rent Controller's view that the tenants do not have the right to cross-examination in this scenario – However, the court set aside ex parte orders passed on 23.08.2024, allowing tenants an opportunity to present their defense by producing evidence before 18.09.2024 – Failure to appear would result in forfeiture of their right to an inquiry before the Rent Controller [Paras 4-7].

Precedent – Reference to Previous Decision – The court relied on its earlier decision in J. Thennarasu Vs. Anita Nalliah, holding that a tenant does not have a right to cross-examination under Section 21(2)(a) unless there is a dispute regarding the landlord-tenant relationship – This principle was applied in the present case to dismiss the tenants' petitions [Para 3].

Decision: The Civil Revision Petitions filed by the tenants were dismissed, confirming the Rent Controller's view that the tenants do not have the right to cross-examination in proceedings under Section 21(2)(a) where the landlord-tenant relationship is undisputed. The ex parte orders passed by the Rent Controller were set aside, granting the tenants an opportunity to present their defense by producing evidence on or before 18.09.2024. The proceedings were directed to be completed by 04.10.2024, with arguments scheduled for 20.09.2024(Paras 4-7).

Live-in Relationships – Protection of Life and Liberty – Petitioners in CRWP No. 4660 of 2021 and CRWP No. 149 of 2024, though already married to third parties, sought protection for their life and liberty while living in a live-in relationship – Held: Despite societal and moral objections, the right to live with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution must be protected, irrespective of marital status or social norms – The Court affirmed the right of individuals, including those already married, to live in a live-in relationship, provided the threat to their life and liberty is genuine [Paras 1-5, 28, 37-39, 45].

Marital Status – Denial of Protection – In LPA No. 968 of 2021, the High Court had earlier denied protection to individuals in live-in relationships where one partner was married, citing potential harm to the social fabric – Held: The previous judgment was overturned, reaffirming that the right to protection under Article 21 overrides societal norms, and protection must be granted where threats exist, even if one partner is already married – The appeal was dismissed with costs [Paras 6, 45].

Societal Morality vs. Constitutional Rights – The Court held that the right to privacy and autonomy under Article 21 includes the right to form relationships of one’s choice, even in live-in arrangements, irrespective of societal moral disapproval – Social fabric concerns cannot outweigh fundamental rights – Court highlighted the decriminalization of adultery in Joseph Shine v. Union of India as a basis for granting protection to those in live-in relationships where one partner is married [Paras 13-19, 22-24].

Protection Mechanism – Overburdened Police – A mechanism for live-in couples seeking protection was outlined, involving first approaching District Legal Services Authorities or the State Human Rights Commission for counseling and mediation – The Court suggested this as a first step before approaching the Courts, thereby easing the burden on the judicial and police systems [Paras 25-27].

Minors in Live-in Relationships – The Court clarified that minors cannot enter into live-in relationships due to legal incapacities under laws like the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 and the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 – Minors cannot claim protection in such cases, and their welfare must be ensured through custody arrangements with parents or guardians, or by sending them to appropriate care homes under the Juvenile Justice Act [Paras 40-44].

Decision: CRWP No. 4660 of 2021 and CRWP No. 149 of 2024 allowed – LPA No. 968 of 2021 dismissed – Clear mechanisms outlined for protection of individuals in live-in relationships, including pre-litigation counseling, and reaffirmation of minors’ legal incapacities regarding live-in relationships [Paras 45-47].

Criminal Law – Prevention of Corruption Act – Demand and Acceptance of Illegal Gratification – The appellant, State of Gujarat, challenged the acquittal of the respondent, a Clerk in the SRP Group, who was accused of demanding and accepting ₹200 for fixing the pay and leave salary of the complainant – The trial court acquitted the respondent on the grounds of insufficient evidence – Held: The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent made a demand for illegal gratification and that the accused had the authority to fix the complainant’s pay – There were material contradictions in the testimony of witnesses and no clear evidence of demand and acceptance [Paras 3, 9, 10].

Judicial Standards – Acquittal in Corruption Cases – The trial court’s acquittal was based on the principle that the prosecution must prove both the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification – The appellate court reaffirmed that mere possession of currency notes is insufficient to convict under the Prevention of Corruption Act without concrete proof of demand and acceptance – Held: The view taken by the trial court was plausible and did not suffer from illegality or perversity, warranting no interference [Paras 10-11].

Presumption of Innocence – High Standard for Reversal of Acquittal – The appellate court reiterated that in acquittal appeals, the presumption of innocence is strengthened – The acquittal can only be reversed if the trial court's decision is found to be manifestly erroneous or based on misinterpretation of law or facts – Held: The trial court's reasoning was based on sound legal principles, and no compelling evidence was found to overturn the acquittal [Paras 8, 11].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – The acquittal of the respondent by the 5th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Surat, in Special ACB Case No. 4/1993 is upheld – Bail bond canceled – Judgment dated 26.02.2010 is confirmed [Paras 12-14].

Criminal Law – Corruption – Proof of Demand – Demand Not Established – The respondent, a clerk in SRP Group 11, was acquitted by the Trial Court of charges under Sections 7, 13(1)(d), and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act – The prosecution alleged that the respondent demanded ₹200 from the complainant to process his pay and leave records – The Trial Court found that the prosecution failed to prove the demand of illegal gratification – Held: Mere acceptance of money without clear proof of demand does not constitute an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act – The acquittal was upheld [Paras 10-11].

Competence of Accused to Process Salary – The prosecution alleged that the respondent, being a clerk, could influence the processing of salary bills – Held: The respondent had no authority to process or fix the salary of the complainant – The prosecution’s case failed as the respondent was not in a position to fulfill the alleged promise in exchange for the bribe [Para 10].

Prosecution Failure – No Clear Evidence of Demand – The prosecution relied on the complainant's testimony, which was inconsistent and lacked corroboration – The Panch witness did not hear any demand, and the trap laying officer could not directly witness the transaction – Held: The prosecution failed to prove demand beyond reasonable doubt, a sine qua non for establishing guilt under Sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act [Paras 9-10].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment of acquittal confirmed – The respondent was acquitted of all charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act [Paras 12-13].
 

Parole – Grounds for Granting – Convict sought parole to arrange finances and bid farewell to his son departing for higher studies abroad – Authorities rejected application citing pendency of appeal – High Court held pendency of appeal not a valid ground to deny parole – Rule 18 of Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, interpreted to allow parole for significant family events, including happy occasions [Paras 1-10].

Parole – Emotional Well-being – Court recognized parole’s role in maintaining family ties and mental well-being of inmates – Emphasized humanistic approach to allow convicts temporary release for significant family moments – Criticized rigid interpretation of parole rules limiting to emergencies [Paras 7-10].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Held – Petitioner granted parole for 10 days from 12^th July 2024 to 22^nd July 2024 – Required to execute personal bond and one local surety of Rs.25,000/- – Ordered to report to local police station on alternate days [Paras 10-12].