Refund of Security Deposit – Limitation Period – Kerala Municipality Act – Suit for refund of ₹2,06,287/- as security deposit from Kannur Municipality – First Appellate Court found claim barred by limitation under Section 544 of Kerala Municipality Act, requiring suit within six months of cause of action – High Court overrules, stating wrongful retention of security deposit by the municipality does not fall within actions done under the Act – Statutory notice requirement and six-month limitation period inapplicable – Ordinary limitation period for recovery of deposits under the Indian Limitation Act applies [Paras 11-19].

Notice Requirement – Kerala Municipality Act – Detailed analysis of Section 544 requirements for prior notice and special limitation period for suits against municipal authorities – High Court clarifies that wrongful acts not done under the Act do not attract Section 544 protection – Regular civil court procedure and limitation period govern the refund claim [Paras 12-18].

Decision:

Appeal allowed – Judgment of Additional District Court-I, Thalassery reversed – Decree of Sub Court, Kannur for realization of security deposit restored – Suit not barred by limitation under Section 544 of Kerala Municipality Act [Paras 19-21].

Election Law – Challenge to Holding Elections for Sarpanch Post – Allegations of Financial Irregularities and Misuse of Position – Continuation of Administrative Charge – High Court’s Interim Relief Pending Decision by Additional Commissioner

Context and Allegations – Election and Appointment of Officials – Misconduct During Tenure – The elections for the village panchayat were held on 15.01.2021, leading to the election of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 as Sarpanch and Upsarpanch respectively. Allegations of financial irregularities and misuse of position were made against them by petitioner No. 1. An inquiry by the Assistant Block Development Officer confirmed the allegations [Paras 2-6].

Statutory Requirements and Delays – Section 39(4) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1958 – Failure to Decide Application – Petitioners argued that the application for the removal of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 should have been decided within two months as per Section 39(4) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1958. Despite this, the application remained undecided, raising concerns about the timely resolution of the matter [Paras 7-8].

Interim Relief – Continuation of Administrator’s Charge – Prevention of Financial Misconduct – Given the allegations and the ongoing investigation, the High Court granted interim relief to the petitioners, directing that the charge of the Sarpanch remain with the Administrator until the Additional Commissioner’s decision. This was to prevent any further financial misconduct by respondent No. 4 [Paras 9-13].

Decision – Notice Issued and Interim Relief Granted – Continuation of Administrator’s Charge Pending Final Decision – The High Court issued notice to the respondents, with the AGP waiving service for the State. The Court recognized the severity of the allegations and the need to prevent further financial irregularities, thereby continuing the Administrator’s charge of the Sarpanch’s post until a final decision was made by the Additional Commissioner [Paras 11-14].

Custodial Death – Enquiry and Compensation – Writ Petition seeking directions for proper enquiry into custodial death and compensation – Allegation of torture by police resulting in death – Petitioner’s son died while in police custody – Post-mortem report indicated injuries – Respondents argued the death was due to an attempt to escape – NHRC had ordered compensation on humanitarian grounds – Supreme Court’s precedent on compensating next of kin for unnatural deaths in custody cited – High Court directed payment of Rs. 3 Lakhs as compensation to the next of kin after proper verification and identification – Compensation to be deposited before District & Sessions Judge, Dhemaji.

**Enquiry into Custodial Death – Analysis – Held – Post-mortem report indicated injuries inconsistent with the respondent’s narrative – Torture by police personnel suspected – Authorities failed to initiate proper enquiry or compensation – NHRC ordered compensation recognizing the humanitarian aspect. [Paras 3-10]

Decision – Compensation for Custodial Death – Court orders compensation of Rs. 3 Lakhs to be paid to the next of kin of the deceased – Compensation to be deposited before District & Sessions Judge, Dhemaji for disbursement after proper verification and identification – Directions issued for compliance within two months. [Paras 14-17]

Criminal Procedure – Suspension of Sentence – Condition to Deposit Amount – Application under Section 482 CrPC to quash the condition to deposit Rs. 13,73,890/- imposed by appellate court for suspension of sentence during pendency of appeal – Applicant contends that insolvency proceedings under Section 94 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 initiated before NCLT, and interim moratorium under Section 96 is in effect – Supreme Court in P. Mohanraj v. Shah Brothers Ispat Private Limited held that moratorium does not apply to proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act – Further reliance on Ajay Kumar Radheyshyam Goenka v. Tourism Finance Corporation of India Limited – Interim moratorium does not exempt personal liability under Section 138 NI Act – Application dismissed. [Paras 1-13]

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Interim Moratorium – Impact on Criminal Proceedings – Held – Interim moratorium under Section 96 of IBC does not extend to criminal proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act – Proceedings under NI Act are penal in nature, not merely compensatory – Applicant, as a signatory to the cheque, cannot escape liability due to pending insolvency proceedings. [Paras 9-11]

Decision – Application under Section 482 CrPC dismissed – Court upheld the appellate court’s condition for deposit of Rs. 13,73,890/- for suspension of sentence – Applicant’s reliance on interim moratorium under Section 96 IBC not tenable – No interference warranted. [Paras 12-13]

Education Law – Eligibility for UGC Scale of Pay – High Court of Orissa dismisses appeal against the State Education Tribunal’s decision – Tribunal held Respondent No. 1 eligible for UGC Scale of pay from 01.01.1986 despite initial lack of requisite qualification – Condonation of qualification deficiency by Utkal University and subsequent approval of appointment by Director of Higher Education validated eligibility [Paras 1-4.5].

Condonation of Qualification – Tribunal’s decision based on condonation of Respondent No. 1’s qualification deficiency – Consistency with the judgment in Kalidas Mohapatra case upheld by the Supreme Court – Condonation allows deficiency to be overlooked, making Respondent No. 1 eligible for UGC Scale of Pay [Paras 2.1, 3.4].

Judicial Precedent – Conflicting judgments of the Supreme Court – High Court follows earlier decision of coordinate bench in Kalidas Mohapatra – Supreme Court ruling in Mamata Mohanty not binding on similar coordinate bench decisions – Legal principle that earlier decisions should be followed unless overruled by larger bench [Paras 3.8, 3.9, 3.10, 3.11, 4.5].

Decision – Dismissal of Appeal – Held – The appeal is dismissed as Tribunal’s judgment found to be consistent with existing legal principles and judicial precedents – High Court upholds Tribunal’s decision granting UGC Scale of Pay to Respondent No. 1, validating condonation of initial qualification deficiency by Utkal University and subsequent approval by the Director of Higher Education [Paras 4.5, 4.6].

Criminal Law – Acquittal Appeal – Counterfeit Currency – Criminal appeal by the State against the acquittal of the accused for offences under Sections 489(A), 489(B), 489(C), 489(D), 34, and 171 read with Section 114 IPC. The State contended that the trial court erred in not properly appreciating the evidence. The High Court found that the prosecution failed to prove mens rea and the conscious possession of counterfeit notes by the accused. Additionally, it was noted that the prosecution’s evidence was insufficient to establish the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. – Appeal dismissed; acquittal confirmed. [Paras 1-21]

Mens Rea in Offences Involving Counterfeit Currency – Held – Mere possession of counterfeit currency is not sufficient for conviction under Sections 489(B) and 489(C) IPC without proving mens rea. The prosecution must establish that the accused had knowledge or reason to believe that the notes were counterfeit. – No sufficient evidence of mens rea. [Paras 13-16]

Impersonation of Police Officers – Analysis – Held – The prosecution failed to provide evidence that the accused wore or used police uniforms to impersonate officers. Merely finding khaki dresses was insufficient to prove the offence under Section 171 IPC. – No evidence of impersonation. [Para 18]

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – The appeal against the acquittal is dismissed, confirming the trial court’s judgment. The prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, and the accused are entitled to the benefit of doubt. – Acquittal upheld. [Paras 19-21]

Certificate of Residence – Issuance and Cancellation – Petitioner challenged the cancellation of her Resident Certificate by the Sub-Collector, Balasore, which was initially issued by the Tahasildar after proper inquiry – Sub-Collector’s order was based on the claim that the petitioner’s family is native to village-Bhimpur – High Court found the cancellation unjustified, emphasizing that residency can be established by continuous residence and other supporting documents [Paras 1-13].

Procedure under Miscellaneous Certificate Rules – Inquiry and Evidence – High Court reviewed the inquiry report by the Revenue Supervisor, confirming petitioner’s residency in Paikasta – Documentary evidence such as RoR, Voter ID, and other records were considered sufficient – Court highlighted the need for procedural fairness and the proper assessment of evidence by authorities [Paras 11-13].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Held – Sub-Collector’s order cancelling the Resident Certificate set aside – Resident Certificate issued by Tahasildar restored – Emphasized the validity of residency claims based on continuous residence and documentary evidence as per the Miscellaneous Certificate Rules [Para 17].

Counterfeit Currency – Acquittal Appeal – State appealed against the acquittal of accused charged with possession and trafficking of counterfeit currency under IPC Sections 489(A), (B), (C), and (D) – High Court upheld the trial court's judgment acquitting the accused – Emphasized the requirement of mens rea and the prosecution's failure to establish knowledge of counterfeit nature [Paras 1-21].

Evidence and Procedure – Hostile Witnesses – Panch witnesses turned hostile, and no concrete evidence was provided to connect accused with the counterfeit currency – Investigating officer's failure to verify currency authenticity independently criticized – Court noted procedural lapses and lack of corroborative evidence [Paras 11-15].

Mens Rea and Legal Standards – Court reiterated the necessity of proving mens rea for offenses under IPC Sections 489(B) and (C) – Prosecution failed to prove that accused knew or had reason to believe the currency was counterfeit – Relied on Supreme Court precedents emphasizing mens rea as essential element [Paras 13-14].

Uniform Impersonation – Allegations under Section 171 IPC – Court found no evidence that accused impersonated police officers – Presence of khaki dress insufficient to prove impersonation – Emphasized need for clear proof of intent to deceive [Para 18].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal confirmed – Trial court's judgment upheld, citing lack of evidence and procedural errors by prosecution [Paras 19-21].

Murder and Destruction of Evidence – Acquittal Appeal – State challenged acquittal of accused for murder and destruction of evidence – High Court upheld acquittal, noting lack of evidence connecting accused to the crime – Focused on the absence of credible material proving involvement in the murder or subsequent destruction of evidence [Paras 1-15].

Evidence and Witness Testimony – Prosecution's Failure – Court highlighted prosecution's failure to provide concrete evidence – Panch witnesses and key testimonies did not support prosecution’s case – Investigating officer's failure to substantiate claims criticized [Paras 10-10.1].

Legal Principles and Standards – Mens Rea and Burden of Proof – Emphasized the necessity of proving mens rea and the burden of proof on the prosecution – Referenced key Supreme Court rulings underscoring the principles of criminal jurisprudence, including presumption of innocence and requirement for proof beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 11-13].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal confirmed – Trial court's judgment upheld due to lack of compelling evidence against the accused [Paras 14-15].