Money Laundering – Discharge Application – Prima Facie Case Established – The petitioner, a trustee of the All India Overseas Bank Employees Union Trust, sought discharge from a money laundering case under the PMLA, contending no involvement in the administration of the trust's funds. The Court held that the allegations, including siphoning of funds from union members and projecting proceeds of crime as untainted, prima facie implicated the petitioner. The discharge application was rightfully rejected [Paras 7-12, 44].

Trustees' Liability – Section 3 of PMLA – Possession of Proceeds of Crime – The petitioner argued that he had resigned from the trust and was not involved in any illegal activities. The Court rejected this contention, stating that mere resignation did not absolve the petitioner from the liability, and his role as a trustee during the period of alleged offenses was sufficient to invoke Section 3 of the PMLA. The trust, being an association under Section 2(s) of PMLA, was involved in laundering proceeds of crime, implicating the petitioner [Paras 14-16, 48].

Burden of Proof – Section 24 of PMLA – Presumption of Money Laundering – The Court emphasized that under Section 24 of the PMLA, the burden of proof lies on the accused to prove innocence once the presumption of money laundering is raised by the authorities. In this case, the prosecution's evidence, including statements and financial records, established a prima facie case, and the petitioner failed to disprove the allegations [Paras 18-20, 51-54].

Decision:

Criminal revision case dismissed – Order of the Principal Sessions Court rejecting the discharge petition is upheld – No costs.

Service Law – Voluntary Retirement – Claim for Past Dues – The respondent, who availed the Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme (SVRS), sought the setting aside of a disciplinary punishment imposed on him prior to his retirement – Held: The respondent, having voluntarily retired under the SVRS and accepted its benefits based on his final salary (which included the penalty imposed), cannot now claim a higher pay scale or retrospective benefits – The availing of SVRS amounted to a complete cessation of the employee-employer relationship, extinguishing any claims for enhancement of pay or reversal of penalties imposed earlier [Paras 43-48]​.

Disciplinary Proceedings – Impact of Voluntary Retirement – The Court ruled that once the respondent accepted retirement under the SVRS, he forfeited the right to challenge penalties that affected his salary – The judgment of the Single Judge setting aside the punishment imposed was reversed, as it would contradict the finality of the SVRS package [Paras 44-47]​.

Decision – Appeal allowed – Judgment of the Single Judge set aside – No further financial benefits to the respondent​.

Criminal Law – Murder vs. Culpable Homicide – The appellants were convicted for murder under Section 302 IPC. The Court held that the act of hitting the deceased on the head with a wooden reeper, even though fatal, did not indicate an intention to cause death – Held: The injuries inflicted, though serious, were likely to cause death but were not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Hence, the conviction was altered from Section 302 to Section 304 Part I IPC [Paras 11-12]​.

Evidence – Sole Testimony of Eyewitness – PW5’s Credibility – The Court accepted the sole testimony of PW5, the only eyewitness to the incident, as credible and reliable. His account of the appellants attacking the victim was corroborated by medical evidence, including the postmortem report. The absence of the murder weapon from trial was not considered fatal to the prosecution’s case [Paras 8-10]​.

Sentence Reduction – Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder – The Court reduced the appellants' sentence from life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC to seven years rigorous imprisonment under Section 304 Part I IPC. The appellants were also ordered to pay a fine of ₹10,000 each, with a default sentence of three months' simple imprisonment [Para 13]​.

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – Conviction altered from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I IPC – Sentence reduced to seven years rigorous imprisonment​.

Criminal Law – Conviction Based on Circumstantial Evidence – The appellant was convicted of murdering his elder brother based on circumstantial evidence – The prosecution failed to establish a continuous chain of circumstances leading to the guilt of the accused – There were discrepancies in witness testimonies regarding the timeline and actions of the accused, which raised reasonable doubt about the prosecution's case – The appellant was acquitted due to failure of the prosecution to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 27-58]​.

Dying Declaration and Witness Testimonies – Reliability – Witness testimonies were inconsistent about the events leading up to the victim's death – Despite allegations that the victim had made a dying declaration implicating the appellant, there was no corroboration by neutral witnesses – The inconsistencies in key testimonies regarding the victim's condition and the actions of the accused weakened the prosecution's case [Paras 31-42]​.

Discovery of Weapons – Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act – The recovery of a blood-stained iron pipe allegedly used in the crime was not forensically linked to the accused – The failure to establish a clear connection between the recovered weapon and the crime led the Court to dismiss the discovery as insufficient evidence for conviction under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act [Paras 47-55]​.

Decision – Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant acquitted of all charges and ordered to be released unless required in any other case [Para 58]​.

Merit List – Non-operation of Merit List Downwards – Petition Allowed – The petitioners, qualified candidates for Assistant Engineer (Electrical) posts, contended that despite the Supreme Court’s judgment, the Telangana State Power Generation Corporation did not operate the merit list downwards to fill 42 unfilled posts – The Court held that the corporation’s decision to not fill the vacancies was unjustified, especially since the same unfilled vacancies were carried forward in a fresh notification in 2023 – Directed the respondent corporation to consider the petitioners for appointment based on their merit and roster points [Paras 50-56].

Government Employment – Reasonable Expectation of Appointment – The Court noted that while inclusion in a merit list does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment, the State cannot arbitrarily refuse to fill up vacancies – The corporation’s argument of surplus employees was found to be factually incorrect in light of subsequent recruitments [Paras 43-50].

Decision: The writ petitions were allowed. The Court directed the respondent corporation to consider the petitioners for appointment to 42 unfilled Assistant Engineer (Electrical) posts based on merit and roster points within six weeks.

Refund of Stamp Duty – Section 49 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 – Refusal of Refund Upheld - The petitioner sought a refund of Rs. 65,37,500 paid as stamp duty and transfer duty for a sale deed that was refused registration. The High Court held that once the stamp duty has been utilized for a presented document, it cannot be refunded merely because the registration was refused for non-compliance with the Registration Act, 1908. The petitioner, having voluntarily withdrawn the registration proposal, could not seek a refund under Section 49 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, which allows refunds only in limited situations, none of which applied in this case [Paras 12-13, 18-19].

Utilization of Stamp Duty – No Refund Upon Document Execution - The Court emphasized that once a document is executed and stamp duty is paid, the intended purpose of the stamp duty is considered served, even if registration is subsequently refused. As such, the petitioner’s claim for a refund was denied, and the Court found no legal infirmity in the impugned order rejecting the refund [Paras 17-18].

Distinction Between Stamp Duty and Registration Fee - The Court noted the distinction between stamp duty and registration fees under the Stamp Act, 1899, and the Registration Act, 1908, holding that while registration fees may be refunded if registration is refused, stamp duty paid for an executed document cannot be refunded once the duty has been utilized [Paras 13-14].

Final Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed - The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the District Registrar's order refusing the refund of stamp duty. The petitioner’s arguments based on judgments from other cases were found inapplicable to the present facts [Paras 19-20].

Constitutional Law – Writ Petition Against Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) – Availability of Statutory Remedies – The petitioner filed a writ petition against the PAO issued by the Directorate of Enforcement under Section 5 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) before the expiration of the 30-day statutory period for raising objections before the Adjudicating Authority – Held: The writ petition is premature as the petitioner has not exhausted the statutory remedies available under Sections 5 and 8 of the PMLA, which provide adequate safeguards and opportunities to challenge the attachment – Petition dismissed, petitioner directed to approach the Adjudicating Authority [Paras 1.1, 3.1, 3.6].

Provisional Attachment Under PMLA – Judicial Review – The petitioner’s challenge to the PAO, asserting a lack of connection with the proceeds of crime, was found unsustainable – The PAO is subject to review and confirmation by the Adjudicating Authority within 180 days as per Section 5(5) of the PMLA – The court found that statutory remedies must be exhausted unless exceptional circumstances exist, which were not present in this case – Reliance placed on Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, (2022) SCC Online SC 929 to emphasize procedural safeguards provided under the Act [Paras 3.1, 3.6].

Exceptions to Exhaustion of Remedies – When Writ Jurisdiction Can Be Invoked – The petitioner failed to establish that the PAO was passed without jurisdiction, in violation of natural justice, or amounted to an abuse of process, which are the grounds for bypassing statutory remedies – Court reiterated the principles laid down in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd., (2005) 6 SCC 499 regarding the limited exceptions to the rule of exhausting remedies before invoking writ jurisdiction [Paras 3.2, 3.6].

Decision:

Writ petition dismissed – Petitioner directed to avail statutory remedy by approaching the Adjudicating Authority under the PMLA – No observation on the merits of the case made – The Adjudicating Authority is directed to expedite the matter [Paras 4.1-4.2].

Bail in NDPS Cases – Medical Grounds – Section 37 of NDPS Act – Bail Granted with Conditions - The petitioner sought bail under Section 483 of BNSS, citing critical health conditions requiring care outside the prison setting, while the prosecution opposed the application due to the commercial quantity involved and alleged serious misconduct involving misuse of position by police personnel. Given the petitioner’s critical medical needs, the court held that stringent conditions on release could meet the justice requirements and balance the health needs – Bail was granted, overriding Section 37’s rigor in this context, with specific restrictive and rehabilitative conditions on the petitioner [Paras 9-12].

Stringent Bail Conditions – Ensuring Fair Trial and Prevention of Offense Repetition - The court imposed conditions requiring the petitioner to submit detailed identification records and barred possession of firearms, emphasizing the significance of rehabilitation and reform as part of bail considerations – These conditions reflect the judiciary's intent to mitigate risks of witness tampering and recurrence of offenses, balancing bail with public safety concerns [Paras 14-19].

Discretion in Bail for Medical Reasons – Role of Proportionality and Necessity - Emphasizing the necessity for proportionality in bail conditions, the court aligned with Supreme Court observations that bail restrictions should not infringe rights disproportionately – The petitioner was held eligible for bail on medical grounds, subject to compliance with conditions supporting public and individual safety [Para 19].

Decision – Bail Granted – Given the petitioner’s critical medical condition and satisfaction of initial Section 37 conditions, the court granted bail with stringent restrictions to safeguard public safety and ensure the petitioner’s compliance.

Labour Law - Jurisdiction of Labour Court - Minimum Wages Act vs. Industrial Disputes Act - The petitioner challenged the Labour Court’s direction to pay differential minimum wages to a workman engaged through a contractor, arguing the Labour Court lacked jurisdiction under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act to determine disputed wage claims. Held: The Minimum Wages Act provides an exclusive remedy under Section 20 for wage disputes, making the Labour Court’s order under Section 33-C(2) ultra vires [Paras 8-9].

Principal Employer Liability - Contract Labour - The Court held that the Labour Court erred in directing the principal employer to pay differential wages without recourse to the prescribed process under the Minimum Wages Act. The workman must approach authorities under the Minimum Wages Act for such claims [Paras 3-4].

Relief and Directions - The Court set aside the Labour Court’s order, granting liberty to the workman to seek remedies under the Minimum Wages Act, with guidance that time spent in proceedings before the Labour Court and High Court would be considered regarding limitation [Para 9].

Decision: The petitions are allowed, and the Labour Court's order is set aside. The respondent-workmen are directed to pursue remedies under the Minimum Wages Act.