Loan Recovery – Partnership Liability – Implied Authority – Plaintiff claimed loan of ₹2,33,800 was advanced to partnership firm through partner Avtar Singh – Trial Court found no evidence of implied authority or benefit to firm – Partnership deed not proved, and receipt not shown to be on behalf of firm – Held: Receipt Ex.P3 executed solely by defendant No.2; loan not binding on firm or other partners – Decree rightly confined to defendant No.2 personally [Paras 11, 14–15].

Forgery – Expert Opinion – Disputed Signature – Defendant denied signatures of deceased partner Avtar Singh on loan receipt – Handwriting expert DW2 confirmed forgery – Plaintiff failed to rebut expert evidence or examine own expert – Held: Signature of Avtar Singh on Ex.P3 found to be forged – Loan not proved against deceased partner or his legal heirs [Paras 11–12].

Foreign Loan – NRI Plaintiff – Admissibility of Oral Evidence – Plaintiff residing in USA did not appear as witness – Evidence led through attorney/son-in-law with no personal knowledge of transaction – No documentation shown for mode of remittance – Held: Plaintiff failed to prove source, transmission, or legality of funds – No permission under FEMA or RBI norms produced [Para 13].

Second Appeal – Scope of Interference – Concurrent Findings – Findings on authority, forgery, and lack of proof of partnership debt are factual – Held: High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact in second appeal unless substantial error shown – No such error made out – Appeal dismissed [Paras 16–17].

Decision: Regular Second Appeal dismissed – Decree against defendant No.2 personally for ₹2,33,800 with 12% interest upheld – Suit rightly dismissed against firm and other defendants [Paras 17–18].

Criminal Law – Rape of Minor – Age Determination – Essential Requirement – Acquittal Upheld – Prosecutrix claimed to be 13 years old but no documentary proof (school record, birth certificate) or medical evidence (bone ossification test) produced by prosecution – Investigating Officer admitted failure to collect age proof – Held: In absence of reliable age determination, accused could not be convicted under charges involving a minor – Adverse inference drawn against prosecution for non-compliance with mandatory protocols [Paras 17–27]

Criminal Trial – Sexual Assault – Refusal of Medical Examination – Investigating Agency’s Failure – Prosecutrix’s mother refused internal gynecological examination, despite serious nature of charges – No MLC report available – Held: Absence of medical corroboration substantially weakened prosecution’s case – Investigating Agency failed to discharge duty to collect essential evidence in sexual assault cases [Paras 29–31]

Criminal Law – Consent and Elopement – Public Travel and Cohabitation – Evidence of Voluntary Accompaniment – Prosecutrix travelled over 300 km in public transport with accused and stayed at his home for 2–3 days without raising any alarm – She admitted in cross-examination that she wanted to marry accused and had prior relationship with him – Child Welfare Committee also recorded voluntary elopement – Held: Circumstances indicated consensual relationship and belied theory of abduction or force – Consistency and credibility of deposition not established [Paras 32–38]

Appellate Review – Scope in Acquittal Appeals – Reversal of Acquittal – When Permissible – Acquittal not found perverse or based on misreading of evidence – Trial Court rightly found prosecution failed to prove essential elements of crime beyond reasonable doubt – Held: Appeal against acquittal must show perversity or manifest illegality – No compelling reason found to overturn acquittal [Paras 40–42]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment of acquittal passed by Trial Court upheld – No interference warranted in absence of perversity or manifest illegality – Respondent stands acquitted of all charges

Criminal Procedure – Pre-Arrest Bail – Concurrent Jurisdiction – Requirement to Approach Sessions Court First – Petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS directly before the High Court without approaching Sessions Court — Held: Though High Court and Sessions Court have concurrent jurisdiction, party must ordinarily approach Sessions Court first — Direct invocation of High Court’s jurisdiction permissible only in exceptional or extraordinary circumstances — No such circumstances made out in the present case — Reliance placed on Mohammed Rasal C. v. State of Kerala and Jagdeo Prasad v. State of Bihar [Paras 3–5].

Wildlife Offence – Arms Possession – Applicability of Section 35(3) BNSS – Petitioner alleged to have participated in illegal hunting of Schedule-I species “Chowsingha (Tetracerus Quadricornis)” and possession of prohibited arms under Section 25(1A) of the Arms Act — Contention that offences were punishable below seven years and thus entitled to Section 35(3) BNSS protection rejected — Offence under Section 25(1A) Arms Act punishable up to fourteen years; hence statutory protection inapplicable [Paras 6–7].

Jurisdiction – Discretion under Section 482 BNSS – Limits – High Court reiterated that its inherent powers are to be exercised sparingly — Pre-arrest bail to be granted only on showing special or extraordinary circumstances — Since petitioner neither demonstrated such circumstances nor approached Sessions Court, discretionary relief declined [Paras 5, 8].

Relief – Liberty to Approach Lower Court – Criminal Petition disposed of with liberty to surrender before the Jurisdictional Magistrate within two weeks and move for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Judge — Direction issued to dispose of the application on merits within two days of filing [Para 9].

Decision: Criminal Petition dismissed — No interference under Section 482 BNSS — Liberty granted to petitioner to surrender and seek appropriate relief before Sessions Court — Interim orders vacated [Paras 8–9].

Criminal Law – Prevention of Corruption – Telecom Stores Scam – Conspiracy – Diversion of Materials – Misappropriation – The prosecution proved that A1 to A5 and A7 to A12 conspired with contractor A6 (deceased) to raise false indents, obtain telecom materials from Chennai Stores and divert them to private scrap dealers – Evidence of PW-46, PW-47 and lorry booking registers established diversion – Held: Convictions of A1, A8, A9 and A12 confirmed; convictions of A5 and A7 upheld but sentences reduced to 1 year simple imprisonment – Acquittal of A10 and A11 affirmed [Paras 2, 3.1–3.3, 4.23–4.24, 30–31].

Sanction for Prosecution – Validity – Competent Authority – A1 contended that sanction was invalid as it was issued by PW-2, Assistant Director General – Court held that PW-2 was duly authorised; sanction valid; no prejudice caused; Trial Court findings affirmed [Paras 4.1–4.3].

Evidence – False Indents – Violation of Departmental Procedure – Indents not countersigned by Divisional Engineers; not routed through Chief General Manager; A7 issued unauthorized issue orders; compliance with material issuance norms violated – Held: Procedural deviations established intentional misconduct under the PC Act [Paras 4.24–4.35].

Acquittal – A10 and A11 – Trial Court found that goods pertaining to indents raised by A10 and A11 were actually delivered to the concerned stores – Held: Acquittal justified and confirmed [Para 3.3].

Sentence – Modification – Proportionality – For A5 and A7, while conviction was upheld, sentence reduced to 1 year simple imprisonment for each charge – concurrent – fine unchanged – set-off allowed – 8 weeks time granted for surrender [Final Order: Sections III and IV].

Appeal – Scope of Interference – Concurrent findings of Trial Court based on extensive documentary and oral evidence – No perversity or illegality demonstrated – Held: No ground for interference in convictions of A1, A8, A9 and A12; partial relief only in sentencing of A5 and A7 [Paras 10–14].

Decision: Appeals of A1, A8, A9 and A12 dismissed – conviction and sentence confirmed. Appeals of A5 (Crl.A.No.43/2014) and A7 (Crl.A.No.61/2014) allowed in part – sentence reduced to 1 year simple imprisonment – fine maintained – sentences to run concurrently.

Criminal Writ – Premature Release – Policy Implementation – Life convict Ramji’s claim for premature release rejected by Government of Punjab despite eligibility under 1991 Policy – Rejection order dated 17.12.2024 found cryptic, unreasoned, and mechanically based on opinion of Presiding Judge and Committee – Held: Rejection order unsustainable for being non-speaking and devoid of application of mind – Matter remanded for fresh decision in accordance with law [Paras 5–10, 13].

Administrative Law – Natural Justice – Speaking Order – Right to Personal Liberty – Court reiterates that administrative/quasi-judicial orders must be reasoned and cannot rest on ipse dixit – Held: Absence of clear reasoning in executive orders, especially those affecting liberty, violates Article 21 and the principles of natural justice – Order must reflect due consideration of facts and relevant policies [Paras 10–11].

Delay and Administrative Apathy – Procedural Lapses – Respondent authorities delayed processing of petitioner’s release case for over 18 months due to repeated inter-departmental lapses – Held: Authorities displayed lackadaisical approach in discharging statutory duties, causing prejudice to petitioner – Costs of ₹25,000 imposed on State of Punjab for delay and administrative torpor [Paras 6, 12–13].

Remand and Relief – Reconsideration Directed – High Court sets aside rejection order and directs State to decide afresh within four weeks – Compliance affidavit to be filed by Home Secretary, Punjab within six weeks, failing which punitive consequences may follow [Para 13].

Criminal Law – Quashing - Defamation – Accused were members of Apartment Owners' Adhoc Committee – Petitioners issued a private letter to complainant’s husband expressing concerns over suspicious activities in the flat, based on reports from security staff – Incident of a man jumping from balcony half-naked cited – Husband allegedly used this letter to publicly malign complainant through Church representatives – Held: Letter addressed privately, not published publicly by petitioners – No evidence of mala fide intent or conspiracy with husband – Protection of Ninth and Tenth Exceptions to Section 499 IPC attracted – Petitioners’ actions done in good faith for safety and interest of residents and children [Paras 6–9]

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of Proceedings – Section 482 CrPC – No prima facie case made out against petitioners for offence of defamation – Letter issued in private, not with intention to defame – Continuation of proceedings against petitioners would amount to abuse of process of law – Held: Criminal proceedings against petitioners quashed [Paras 7–9]

Apartment Governance – Communication with Resident Owners – Responsibility of Association Members – Information about security violations conveyed to one of the owners – Court held that internal communication on issues affecting community safety, even if referring to another resident, is protected if issued in good faith and without malice – Not actionable as defamation when private and non-malicious [Paras 6–8]

Decision: Petition allowed – Criminal proceedings against petitioners (Accused Nos. 5 to 7) in C.C. No. 12 of 2021 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam quashed – Held to be an abuse of process of law [Para 9]

Preventive Detention – Subjective Satisfaction – Validity – Detention order passed under Section 3(2) of MPDA Act against petitioner for causing public disorder and terror – Petitioner challenged order on grounds that prior offences were stale and relied upon improperly – Held: Detention based solely on two recent FIRs and two in-camera statements demonstrating habitual conduct prejudicial to public order – Past offences only referred, not relied – Subjective satisfaction properly arrived at – Detention Order valid [Paras 17–19, 24].

Public Order vs. Law and Order – Distinction – Petitioner contended incidents at most involved law and order issues between individuals – Court held that the petitioner’s repeated public assaults with deadly weapons, extortion, and terrorizing of shopkeepers and vendors created widespread fear – Such conduct disturbs public order and affects even tempo of society – Justifies preventive detention [Paras 16, 22–23].

Eyewitness and In-Camera Statements – Reliance and Admissibility – In-camera statements of two witnesses narrated specific extortion incidents involving threats with weapons and violence in public places – Witnesses feared reprisal and public disorder was evident – Held: Statements credible and material validly relied upon for subjective satisfaction [Paras 13–15, 22–23].

Past Offences – Reference vs. Reliance – Detaining Authority merely referred to past offences to illustrate criminal background – Clearly stated in detention grounds that subjective satisfaction was based solely on recent FIRs and witness accounts – Held: Reference without reliance does not vitiate order – No legal infirmity [Paras 17–21].

Binding Precedents – Coordinate Bench Decision Held Per Incuriam – Judgment relied upon by petitioner in Raju @ Shendi Bhishan Tak (WP No. 311/2025) not considered binding – Held: Decision failed to apply binding precedents including Khaja Bilal Ahmed (2020) 13 SCC 632 – Hence not applicable [Para 21].

Severability – Section 5A MPDA – Even if one ground fails, others sufficient to sustain detention – Court noted each ground independently valid – Detention justified even under severability clause [Para 24].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Detention Order upheld – Rule discharged – No interference warranted [Para 25].

Criminal Law – Murder – Rape – House Trespass – Robbery – Circumstantial Evidence – Accused No.1 sentenced to death and Accused No.2 to life imprisonment by trial court for brutal murder of husband and vegetative-state causing injuries to wife following home invasion – Both accused allegedly fled with valuables – Death sentence reference made for confirmation – Held: Circumstantial evidence including recovery of stolen items, forensic evidence linking both accused, eyewitness testimony (PW11) and CCTV footage established guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction confirmed [Paras 1–25].

Circumstantial Evidence – Validity – Forensic and medical evidence supported theory of joint commission of offence – Recovery of stolen jewellery from accused and CCTV footage of gold exchange soon after crime supported robbery and presence at scene – DNA evidence linked accused No.1 to rape – Statements under Section 313 CrPC corroborated prosecution’s case – Chain of circumstances complete and consistent only with guilt of accused [Paras 10–18, 25].

Eyewitness Testimony – No Test Identification Parade – PW11 (milkman) saw both accused near scene at relevant time under streetlight – Identified them in court – Prior acquaintance with A1 established – Court held that failure to hold TIP not fatal in light of credible, consistent in-court identification – No motive for false implication – Testimony accepted [Paras 13–16].

Recovery under Section 27 Evidence Act – Accused-led recoveries of bloodstained clothes, weapons, and stolen items proved by Investigating Officer – Objections to recording language and translation process not raised in cross-examination – Even assuming irregularity, conduct of accused in leading to recovery admissible under Section 8 Evidence Act – Recovery held valid [Paras 20–24].

Sentencing – Death Penalty – Principles – Although trial court awarded death to A1, High Court considered mitigating factors including background of poverty, abuse, mental illness, and potential for reformation – Reports from jail authorities, probation officer, and NALSAR mitigation study considered – Applied principles from Manoj v. State of M.P. and Swamy Shraddananda (2) – Held: Case not “rarest of rare” – Death penalty commuted to life imprisonment without remission for 30 years [Paras 26–31].

Decision:

Crl.A. No. 79 of 2020 (A1): Conviction confirmed – Death sentence modified to life imprisonment for 30 years without remission for offences under Sections 302 and 376A IPC – Sentences to run concurrently – Appeal partly allowed

Crl.A. No. 401 of 2021 (A2): Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence upheld

D.S.R. No. 3 of 2019: Reference answered in negative – Death sentence not confirmed

Civil Procedure – Rejection of Plaint – Court Fee – Suit for Damages – Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Plaintiff claimed damages of ₹2 crore in suit for malicious prosecution but affixed only nominal court fee of ₹100 claiming tentative valuation – Held: When a specific amount is claimed, even if termed “tentative,” ad valorem court fee is mandatory under Section 7(i) of Court Fees Act – Trial Court erred in treating suit under Section 7(iv) and allowing provisional fee – Plaintiff directed to affix appropriate court fee within one month failing which plaint to be rejected [Paras 6–8]

Court Fees Act – Section 7(i) vs. Section 7(iv) – Scope Distinguished – Referring to State of Punjab v. Dev Brat Sharma, 2022 (2) RCR (Civil) 464, Supreme Court clarified that liberty to value relief under Section 7(iv) is limited to specified categories – For suits involving quantified monetary relief, ad valorem fee under Section 7(i) is mandatory – Present case being a damages suit falls within Section 7(i), hence attracts ad valorem fee [Paras 7–8]

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Article 227 – Interference Justified – Trial Court wrongly permitted under-valuation of court fee by accepting tentative fee despite specific monetary claim – Discretion misapplied – High Court exercised supervisory jurisdiction to ensure compliance with statutory mandate [Paras 6–8]

Decision: Revision petition allowed – Impugned order dated 12.07.2023 set aside – Plaintiff directed to affix ad valorem court fee on ₹2 crore within one month – Failing which, plaint shall stand rejected