Writ Petition – Transfer of Prisoners – The High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru adjudicated on a writ petition filed by several inmates seeking transfer to Bangalore Central Prison, invoking Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners, accused in a criminal case, requested consolidation at a single prison for safety concerns and better access to legal counsel. [Para 1, 3, 4]

Prison Transfer on Security Grounds – Background – The petitioners were dispersed across various prisons following an order by the lower court, based on a recommendation by the National Investigating Agency (NIA). This action was prompted by security concerns after one accused expressed intentions to turn approver, heightening the risk of intra-prison violence. [Para 3, 9]

Petitioners' Contentions – argued – emphasized the need for transfer to Bangalore Central Prison due to alleged threats to their safety in current facilities and difficulties in accessing legal counsel. Petitioners highlighted a previous violent incident involving some accused, advocating for consolidation at a single prison for security and logistical reasons. [Para 4, 6]

Respondents' Opposition – argued – The State and NIA opposed the petition, suggesting that the request for consolidation could facilitate further unlawful conspiracies and emphasizing the lack of any direct threat to the petitioners' safety in their current prisons. They also pointed out the sufficiency of existing facilities for legal communication. [Para 5, 7]

Court's Analysis and Conclusion – Held – dismissed the petition for prison transfer, underscoring the State's duty to ensure the safety of all prisoners. The court found no compelling reason for the transfer, considering the existing measures for prisoner security and legal communication. It directed the State to enhance video conferencing facilities in prisons for improved legal access, ensuring privacy through the provision of headphones. [Para 8-13, 14]

Order – Writ Petition Dismissed – The High Court dismissed the writ petition, rejecting the request for consolidation of the petitioners in Bangalore Central Prison. It directed the State to improve legal communication facilities in prisons and to maintain vigilant protection of all inmates, thereby balancing security needs with prisoners' rights. [Para 14]

Conviction and Sentencing – Chenthamarakshan convicted under Sections 302, 449, 450, 392, 394, and 201 IPC for murder and robbery of Preethi, his relative, and disposing of her body in Tamil Nadu using a Honda Activa scooter [Para 1].

Evidence and Circumstances – Lack of direct evidence; reliance on circumstantial evidence including recovery of victim's body, stolen items, and DNA evidence; bloodstains found in victim's bedroom; autopsy report confirming homicide; accused's debts and recovery of victim's ornaments from his house [Paras 2, 5, 8-10, 13, 22-24].

Witness Testimonies and Recovery – Testimonies from various witnesses including the victim's daughter, neighbors, and individuals who saw the accused on the day of the incident; recovery of the victim's body and stolen items based on accused's information [Paras 10-13, 20-21].

Call Records and Vehicle Registration – Analysis of accused's mobile phone location indicating presence near the victim's house and travel to Tamil Nadu; scooter used for disposing of the body registered in accused's wife's name [Paras 17-18].

Legal Principles on Circumstantial Evidence – Meeting the criteria for convicting based on circumstantial evidence; necessity of excluding other hypotheses and establishing a complete chain of events pointing to the accused's guilt [Para 25].

Appeal Outcome – Dismissal of appeal due to strong circumstantial evidence and corroboration by various sources confirming the accused's involvement in the crime [Para 26].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Security Cheque vs. Legally Enforceable Debt – Conviction Set Aside – Petitioners, Concord Exports, challenged their conviction for cheque dishonor under Section 138, asserting that the cheque for ₹33,51,876 was issued as security in a business transaction and not towards a legally enforceable debt – The trial court had sentenced the petitioners to two years rigorous imprisonment, which was upheld by the appellate court – Held: The petitioner successfully raised a probable defence, demonstrating that the cheque was issued as security and not in discharge of a debt – Both the trial and appellate courts failed to consider crucial defence documents, rendering their judgments perverse – Conviction and sentence were set aside [Paras 8.5, 9.3, 23].

Burden of Proof – Preponderance of Probabilities – Security Cheques – The petitioner raised sufficient doubts regarding the existence of a legally enforceable debt, proving by preponderance of probabilities that the cheque was issued as security for future transactions – The complainant failed to establish the supply of goods or an existing liability matching the cheque amount – Held: Mere issuance of a signed cheque does not constitute proof of liability without supporting evidence of debt [Paras 9.2, 9.3].

Judgment Quality – Section 354 of CrPC – Non-Consideration of Defence Evidence – The trial court's judgment was criticized for its failure to consider defence documents and evidence, violating Section 354 CrPC, which requires reasons to be recorded in judgments – Appellate court also failed to appropriately address these deficiencies – Courts must consider the accused's explanation under Section 313 CrPC and weigh all evidence before reaching conclusions [Paras 8.5, 9.4, 9.5].

Decision – The revision petition was allowed, and the conviction and sentence were set aside – Petitioners were directed to pay ₹13,51,876 with 6% interest from 12/02/2014 within three months, failing which recovery procedures may be initiated by the respondent [Paras 23, 22.2, 22.3].

Mortgagee vs. Licensee Rights Dispute – Petition challenging the approval of sale of mortgaged property at a price below the reserve price set by DRT, treating a licensee as a secured creditor over the mortgagee. [Paras 2, 14-15, 32-34]

Procedural and Factual Background – Mortgage created by Karias in favor of ARCIL (Petitioner), license agreement between Karias and SCB. DRT and DRAT treated SCB as having a "charge" on the property, overlooking the superior rights of the mortgagee. [Paras 3, 7-11, 26-27]

Principle of Law – Emphasis on established legal principles prioritizing the rights of mortgagees over licensees, highlighting misinterpretation in the Impugned Orders. [Paras 5, 14-15, 21-24, 28-29]

Erroneous Consideration by DRT and DRAT – Incorrectly treating SCB, a licensee, as a secured creditor with a "charge" over the property, resulting in the wrongful sale of the mortgaged asset. [Paras 7, 15, 23, 32]

Legal Precedents – Reference to cases establishing priority of mortgagee's rights over those of a licensee or lessee, and the ineffectiveness of a license in overriding mortgage rights. [Paras 18-19, 23]

Equitable Considerations – Discussion on SCB's knowledge of the mortgage and initiation of separate recovery proceedings, with the court finding no equities favoring SCB. [Paras 25-28]

Directions and Conclusions – Quashing the Impugned Orders, directing a fresh auction in accordance with the law, affirming the mortgagee's priority, and instructing a refund to the Purported Acquirers with interest. [Paras 33-35]

Disciplinary Proceedings – Judicial Officer’s Integrity Questioned – Petitioner, a former Judicial Officer, suspended and prevented from retiring on superannuation due to allegations of involvement in a telephonic conversation regarding financial transactions linked to a criminal case – Charges framed under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules – Charge Nos.1 and 4 proved against the petitioner [Paras 1-14].

Authenticity of Evidence in Disciplinary Proceedings – The Court assessed the relevance and sufficiency of various evidences, including voice samples and Forensic Science reports, in establishing misconduct of a judicial officer. It highlighted the significance of circumstantial and corroborative evidence in departmental proceedings. [Para 33-34, 40]

Voice Sample Analysis – Upheld – The Court accepted the expert findings that the voice samples in the audio files matched those of the judicial officer and other involved parties, despite the absence of the original recording devices. This played a pivotal role in establishing the involvement of the judicial officer in the alleged conversations. [Para 33-34, 39]

Quantum of Punishment – Removal from Service – Justified – The Court upheld the punishment of removal from service for the judicial officer, citing the serious nature of the charges proven against him, which compromised his integrity and honesty. The Court asserted that judicial officers are expected to maintain high levels of integrity and honesty. [Para 37, 41]

Compliance with Natural Justice – Affirmed – The procedures followed in the disciplinary proceedings were scrutinized, with the Court affirming that all stages, including preliminary inquiry, framing of charges, and providing opportunities for explanation and defense, complied with the principles of natural justice. [Para 40-41]

Decision – The writ petition challenging the removal from service of the judicial officer was dismissed, with the Court finding no infirmity in the procedural aspects or the quantum of punishment. [Para 41]

Service Law - Petitioner's Alleged Illegal Termination and Subsequent Replacement – Petitioner, a Hindi teacher since 1988, allegedly terminated without due process in 1996 – School Management accused of appointing opposite party No.4 without adhering to natural justice principles – Dispute over notification and acknowledgment of termination notices [Paras 1, 2, 4, 8].

Appellate Authority's Inquiry – Appellate Authority directed Inspector of Schools to investigate termination process – Inspector's reliance on affidavits collected during the appeal considered improper by the court – Adjudication questioned due to lack of impartiality and independent adjudication [Paras 8, 10].

Remittal for Fresh Adjudication – High Court quashes appellate authority's order due to procedural impropriety – Matter remitted for fresh adjudication strictly based on existing records, excluding Inspector's report and affidavits [11, 12].Paras

Allegation of Trespass, Mischief, Assault and Theft – Complainant accused Deo Narayan Sahu and others of trespassing, causing damage, assault, and theft in his shop – Initial statement held all accused responsible for stated offences – Specific involvement of Deo Narayan Sahu questioned. [Para 1]

Cognizance by Magistrate – Cognizance of offences under multiple sections of IPC taken against all accused – Sessions Judge set aside cognizance against Deo Narayan Sahu, citing lack of specific allegations against him and nature of dispute being civil. [Para 2]

Sessions Judge's Order Challenged – Petitioner challenged the order of the Sessions Judge for excluding Deo Narayan Sahu from the accused list – Alleged erroneous exclusion based on material considerations. [Para 3]

Analysis of Groundlessness – Court explained 'groundless' as lacking sufficient prima facie material for presumption of offence – Emphasized need for strong suspicion based on materials at cognizance stage. [Para 5]

Evaluation of Suspicion and Materials – Court noted necessity of founded suspicion on materials presented – Suspicions should not be of a vacillating mind but based on factual ingredients of the alleged offence. [Para 6]

Reinstatement of Cognizance Against Accused – Review of witness statements and inquiry report under Section 202 Cr.P.C. showed specific allegations against Deo Narayan Sahu – Court found no reason for his exclusion by Sessions Judge. [Para 7]

Order of Sessions Judge Overturned – High Court found no legality in Sessions Judge's order – Reinstated the order of cognizance by the Magistrate against Deo Narayan Sahu. [Paras 8-9]

Amendment of Complaint – Prohibition in Criminal Procedure – Held, amendments in criminal complaints, particularly regarding substantial aspects like cheque dates, are not permissible under the Criminal Procedure Code. Cites absence of provisions allowing such amendments. [Para 8-14]

Typographical Error in Complaint – Not a Simple Infirmity – Examines the distinction between simple clerical errors and significant errors in complaints. Asserts that errors in mentioning cheque dates are substantial and not mere typographical mistakes, affecting the very basis of the complaint. [Para 14]

Principles for Permitting Amendments – Cites Supreme Court’s guidelines in S.R. Sukumar case. Emphasizes that amendments can be allowed only for curable infirmities without changing the original nature of the complaint or causing prejudice to the accused. [Para 12-14]

Impugned Orders – Set Aside – Finds the trial court’s decision to permit amendment of the complaint to correct cheque dates as legally unsustainable. Directs reconsideration of the application under Section 142 of the Act, 1881 by the trial court. [Para 15-16]

PETITION ALLOWED – Quashes the trial court’s order allowing amendment of the complaint. Remits the matter for fresh consideration of the application under Section 142 of the Act, 1881. [Para 17]

Defamation – Ad Interim Ex Parte Injunction – Plaintiff, a Senior Advocate and Spokesperson for BJP, seeks removal of defamatory videos and posts from social media platforms – High Court emphasizes balance between Right to Free Speech and Right to Reputation – Cites "Bonnard Principle" for granting interim injunctions in defamation suits, emphasizing caution in pre-trial restrictions [Paras 1-14, 32-34].

Fundamental Rights – Free Speech vs. Right to Reputation – Defendants argue for Right to Free Speech, stating reports were factual and within constitutional rights – Plaintiff asserts harm to reputation due to false depiction and over-sensationalization – High Court acknowledges need to protect individual dignity and reputation [Paras 14-19, 39-44].

Injunction – Balance of Convenience – Court finds irreparable harm to plaintiff if defamatory content remains public – Orders removal of specific videos and posts, directing platforms to make some content private pending trial – Injunction considered necessary to prevent further harm to plaintiff’s reputation [Paras 45-48, 52-53].

Decision: Application for interim injunction allowed – Defendant Nos. 6 to 13 to remove specified content within seven days – Defendant No. 14 to ensure videos are made private – Case to proceed for further pleadings and trial [Paras 49-54].