Sanction for Prosecution – Retrospective application of amended Section 19 of the PC Act – Court held the amendment to Section 19(1) of the PC Act, which requires sanction to prosecute retired public servants, applies prospectively from the date of cognizance of the offence, not from the date of offence or FIR – Refusal of sanction by the Secretary, Industries Department, was set aside due to non-application of mind and misappreciation of evidence – Direction to re-examine sanction request [Paras 8-14, 20-23, 27-35].

Application of Central Vigilance Commission Guidelines – Court found that KSCDC, being a public sector undertaking, is bound by the Store Purchase Manual and CVC Guidelines, contrary to findings of the sanctioning authority – Allegations of diversion of funds and irregular awarding of tenders substantiate the need for sanction [Paras 20-21].

Officers of Public Sector Undertakings – Protection under Section 197 Cr.P.C not applicable to officers of public sector undertakings – Such officers cannot claim the requirement of prior sanction for prosecution under Section 197 Cr.P.C, even though they are public servants [Paras 31-33].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed in part – Ext.P3 order declining sanction set aside – Direction to the Secretary, Industries Department, to reconsider CBI’s request for sanction within three months – Proceedings in CC No. 45/2021 on the file of CJM Court, Thiruvananthapuram, stayed until decision on sanction is made – Criminal Miscellaneous Cases dismissed.
 

Narcotic Drugs – Conviction – Appeal: Appellant convicted for possession and trafficking of charas (9 kg and 800 grams) – Trial Court sentenced appellant to 20 years imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000 – Appellant’s challenge based on procedural lapses in sampling and certification as per NDPS Act and Standing Orders – High Court finds procedural irregularities in drawing samples and failure to follow mandatory provisions under Section 52A of the NDPS Act – Appellant’s conviction set aside [Paras 1-33].

Procedure under Section 52A of NDPS Act – Statutory obligation for drawing samples in presence of Magistrate – Failure to comply with Standing Orders No. 1/88 and 1/89 regarding the sampling and storage of seized narcotic drugs – High Court emphasizes necessity for compliance with statutory procedures to maintain integrity of evidence [Paras 20-28].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant acquitted – High Court underscores importance of adherence to prescribed procedures for seizure and sampling to ensure fair trial and uphold justice [Para 32-33].

Anticipatory Bail – Section 438 Cr.P.C. – Petitioner sought anticipatory bail in relation to accusations of caste-based atrocities and violence – Court analyzed the applicability of Sections 18 and 18A of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, which typically bar anticipatory bail – Court found no prima facie case of caste atrocity against the petitioner based on the allegations and evidence presented – Anticipatory bail granted under Section 438 Cr.P.C., considering petitioner’s age, political status, and lack of flight risk [Paras 1-17].

Evidence Assessment – Prima Facie Case – Court noted the need to examine whether allegations prima facie indicate involvement in an atrocity under the SC and ST Act – Found no direct evidence against the petitioner for inciting or participating in violence – Emphasized the necessity of judicial application of mind to determine applicability of statutory bars to anticipatory bail [Paras 7-14].

Application of Section 438 Cr.P.C. Despite Charge Sheet – Cited precedents affirming that filing of charge sheet does not preclude consideration of anticipatory bail – Analyzed facts and circumstances to determine the merit of bail petition, concluding custodial interrogation unnecessary due to completed investigation [Paras 10-15].

Decision: Petition for anticipatory bail allowed – Petitioner to be released on bail upon arrest with conditions for personal bond and sureties – Emphasized non-influence of this order on trial proceedings [Paras 16-17].

Bail – NDPS Act – Regular Bail – Petitioner (Accused No.2) involved in illegal possession and transportation of 48 kgs of Ganja – Arrested on 02.03.2024 and in judicial custody since then – Entire investigation completed except filing of charge sheet – Bail granted with conditions – Petitioner to execute a personal bond for Rs.10,000/- with two sureties – Required to appear before the Station House Officer once a week until charge sheet filing [Paras 2-9].

Investigation Status – Completion and Bail Considerations – Acknowledgment of completed investigation barring charge sheet submission – Court inclined to grant bail considering the petitioner’s prolonged detention without trial progression [Paras 4-8].

Bail Conditions – Personal Bond and Sureties – Requirement of Rs.10,000/- bond and sureties – Weekly appearance mandate before Station House Officer to ensure compliance and presence [Paras 8-9].

Decision:

Criminal Petition allowed. Petitioner granted bail with specified conditions.

Bail – NDPS Act – Commercial Quantity Recovery – Procedural Irregularities – Petitioner seeking regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a case under Section 22 of the NDPS Act, involving recovery of commercial quantity of Tramadol Hydrochloride – Contention that recovery was a chance discovery made by a police party in a private vehicle, not recorded in the police zimni – Court noted procedural irregularities and prolonged incarceration – Bail granted [Paras 1-10].

Right to Speedy Trial – Article 21 of the Constitution – Emphasized the right to a speedy trial as part of the right to life and liberty under Article 21 – Highlighted the principle that “Bail is a rule, jail is an exception” – Reference to precedents asserting the importance of minimizing pre-conviction detention periods [Paras 6-8].

Decision:

Petition allowed – Petitioner granted regular bail on furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court – Court clarified that observations made should not be construed as opinions on the merits of the case [Paras 9-10].

Wills – Validity and Proof – Dispute over the execution of multiple wills by Pohlo Ram – The trial court ruled in favor of the will dated 17.10.1997 – The appellate court allowed the appeal for the will dated 4.2.2000, finding it suspicious – High Court emphasized the need for clear proof and dismissed the appeal, reinstating the trial court’s decision [Paras 70-90].

Burden of Proof – Suspicious Circumstances – The burden lies on the propounder of the will to prove its genuineness and dispel any suspicious circumstances – Appellant failed to prove that the will dated 4.2.2000 was executed in sound mind and free of undue influence – Evidence highlighted inconsistencies and potential forgery [Paras 84-90].

Indian Succession Act – Sections 63 and 68 – Will must be attested by two or more witnesses – Evidence presented failed to confirm due attestation and mental state of the testator during execution – The appellate court’s reliance on procedural aspects without addressing core evidentiary issues resulted in the High Court overturning its decision [Paras 77-83].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Trial court’s judgment and decree reinstated – Will dated 17.10.1997 recognized as the last valid will of Pohlo Ram – Mortgage deed declared null and void [Para 74-75].
 

Administrative Law – Handover of Sites – Failure of Respondent Authorities to Provide Clear and Hindrance-Free Sites for Toll Booth Installation – Petitioner faced resistance from local authorities and public, impacting operations – Court directed recalculation of annual fees proportionately based on the actual number of operational toll booths – No coercive steps until recalculated demand is issued [Paras 1-41].

Contractual Obligations – Compliance and Breach – Respondent’s delayed execution of the work order and agreement despite payment by petitioner – Court emphasized the importance of timely and clear handover of sites as per the contractual agreement – Issues raised involving disputed facts unsuitable for writ jurisdiction – Contract terms and statutory obligations discussed [Paras 24-35].

Relief and Redress – Demand Notices Quashed – Directed District Magistrate to revisit issue, recalculate demands proportionate to actual operations, and consider the impact of COVID-19 on operations – No direction for refund of investment as it was not part of writ petitions [Paras 39-42].
 

Examination Process – OMR Sheet Filling Errors – Petitioners excluded from selection process due to improper filling/darkening of bubbles on OMR sheets – The court underscored the importance of strict adherence to instructions to maintain the sanctity and efficiency of the selection process – Emphasis on the mandatory nature of instructions and the lack of provision for rectification post-submission [Paras 1-12].

Sanctity of Selection Process – Upholding Instructions – Court referred to the Supreme Court’s precedent on strict compliance with examination guidelines – Allowing corrections post-submission would undermine the selection process and open possibilities for misuse – Highlighted that the process is automated, and errors cannot be manually corrected without disrupting the fairness and transparency [Paras 6-10].

Mandatory Nature of Instructions – Supreme Court’s Dictum – Reinforced the principle that instructions issued during examinations are mandatory and must be strictly followed – Cited Supreme Court’s decision in State of Tamil Nadu vs. G. Hemalathaa, stating that deviations from mandatory instructions cannot be condoned, and the High Court cannot relax such instructions under Article 226 [Paras 10-11].

Decision: The petition is dismissed. The court affirmed that the mandatory instructions for filling OMR sheets must be adhered to strictly. Any lapses by the candidates cannot be rectified post-submission, and such candidates must be excluded from the selection process.
 

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Proceedings under Sections 406/506/120B IPC sought to be quashed by petitioners – Dispute over unpaid rent for scaffolding material provided during a construction project – Petitioners argued the issue is purely civil and there is no criminal breach of trust or intimidation – Held, no prima facie case for criminal charges – Allegations do not disclose criminal intent or misappropriation – Proceedings quashed [Paras 1-19].

Ingredients of Criminal Breach of Trust – Essential ingredients under Section 405 IPC not satisfied – No dishonest misappropriation or use of property – Dispute over non-payment of rent and removal of scaffolding materials should be addressed in a civil court – Criminal proceedings inappropriate for resolving contractual disputes [Paras 10-13, 15-16].

Application of Section 482 Cr.P.C. – High Court invoked inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings – Recognized duty of magistrate to assess prima facie case before issuing summons – Summons issued without adequate basis constitutes abuse of legal process – Emphasized distinction between civil and criminal wrongs [Paras 17-19].

Decision: Petition allowed – Criminal proceedings in Complaint Case No. CN/1169/2021 before the 18th Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, quashed – Court directed to resolve disputes through appropriate civil litigation channels.