Negotiable Instruments – Cheque Dishonour – Financial Capacity – Section 138 NI Act – Accused issued cheque of Rs.5,00,000 which was dishonoured for insufficient funds – Trial Court acquitted accused holding complainant failed to prove her financial capacity to lend the money – Appellate Court held that unless accused disputes financial capacity with evidence, presumption under Section 139 operates – Held: Trial Court erred in doubting complainant’s capacity without any rebuttal by accused – Complainant’s explanation regarding source of funds from property sale found credible [Paras 9-10].

Presumption under NI Act – Section 139 – Accused did not rebut presumption – Accused neither entered witness box nor challenged issuance or signature of cheque – No defence evidence led – Held: Presumption under Section 139 NI Act remained unrebutted – Conviction proper [Paras 5, 11].

Criminal Procedure – Legal Notice – Notice returned as “Unclaimed” – Held: Due service presumed – Complaint filed within limitation – All conditions under Section 138 NI Act fulfilled – Accused did not respond to notice nor deny liability [Paras 8-9].

Compensation and Sentencing – Conviction under Section 138 NI Act – Fine of Rs.8,00,000 imposed – Rs.7,80,000 directed to be paid to complainant as compensation under Section 357A CrPC – In default, accused to undergo simple imprisonment for three months [Para 11, Order].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Acquittal set aside – Accused convicted under Section 138 NI Act – Fine of Rs.8,00,000 imposed – Rs.7,80,000 payable to complainant as compensation – Default sentence of three months’ simple imprisonment.

Criminal Law – Murder – Circumstantial Evidence – Acquittal – Accused convicted for murdering his wife with the help of others and mutilating the body to destroy evidence – Trial Court relied on last seen theory, motive of extramarital affair, and recovery of knife – High Court held that prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence – Last seen witnesses were unreliable and examined after unexplained delay of 3 months – Medical evidence proved homicidal death but not linked to the accused – Recovery of knife unsupported by independent seizure witnesses – Identification of body solely based on a tattoo, no DNA testing done – Section 106 Evidence Act could not be invoked as foundational facts were not proved [Paras 11, 17-38].

Criminal Procedure – Additional Charge – Trial Court framed charge under Section 498A IPC despite absence of specific allegations and opportunity for cross-examination – Held to be contrary to Section 212 Cr.P.C. – Conviction on that ground unsustainable [Paras 12(iii), 12(iv)].

Witness Testimony – Hostile Witnesses – Majority of material and independent witnesses turned hostile – Delay in recording last seen witnesses’ statements unexplained – Statements found contradictory and inconsistent – Held: Their testimonies failed to inspire confidence [Paras 26-29].

Evidence Act – Section 106 – Burden of Proof – Court clarified that burden under Section 106 arises only after prosecution proves foundational facts – Since place of offence was not linked to accused and no discovery at his instance, burden does not shift to accused [Para 35].

Criminal Trial – Standard of Proof – Suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute legal proof – Chain of circumstantial evidence must be complete – Missing links and inconsistencies fatal to prosecution case – Accused acquitted [Paras 36-39].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant acquitted of all charges – Directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case – Fine refunded – Matter referred to District Legal Services Authority for compensation to victim’s mother [Para 38-39].

Look Out Circulars – Quashing by Single Judge – Letters Patent Appeals by Public Sector Bank – Directors/Partners of borrower entities declared wilful defaulters – No criminal proceedings pending – Held: Mere civil default in repayment of loans cannot justify issuance of LOCs infringing fundamental right to travel under Article 21 [Paras 1, 6, 15].

Constitutional Law – Article 21 – Right to Travel Abroad – LOCs – Restrictions on movement – Held: Though right to travel is not absolute, any restriction must withstand judicial scrutiny and be backed by compelling reasons such as threat to sovereignty, security or economic interest of India – Absence of such foundational facts renders LOC unsustainable [Paras 14–15, 17].

Banking Law – Wilful Defaulters – SARFAESI Proceedings – Declaration as NPA – Civil Recovery Proceedings Pending before DRT – Held: Pendency of SARFAESI measures and recovery proceedings, without criminality, does not by itself warrant coercive restriction on personal liberty through LOCs [Paras 3–6, 15].

Administrative Law – Look Out Circular Regime – Authority to Issue Guidelines – Ministry of Home Affairs as Nodal Ministry – Office Memorandum of Ministry of Finance dated 22.11.2018 – Nature and Effect – Held: OM of Ministry of Finance is at best advisory and cannot override or expand the LOC framework prescribed by MHA [Paras 7, 13].

Economic Interest of India – Interpretation – “Detrimental to Economic Interest” – Reliance on Prateek Chitkara v. Union of India – Held: LOCs cannot be issued in every case of bank default – Circumstances must disclose higher gravity and larger impact on national economy – Routine business failures or inability to repay loans insufficient [Paras 8–9, 14].

Precedent – Bombay High Court – Viraj Chetan Shah v. Union of India – Power of Public Sector Banks to Seek LOCs – Clause empowering CMD/CEOs quashed – Held: With authority of banks to request LOCs having been divested, reliance on Finance Ministry OM becomes untenable [Para 16].

Appellate Review – Interference with Reasoned Judgment – Single Judge’s Order Quashing LOCs – Held: No perversity or legal infirmity shown – Appeals dismissed at admission stage [Paras 12, 18].

Decision: All Letters Patent Appeals dismissed – Judgments of learned Single Judge quashing Look Out Circulars upheld – No order as to costs.

Tender Conditions – Judicial Review – Turnover Criteria – Challenge to Clause 5.2 of the tender document prescribing a minimum annual turnover of ₹9 crores for eligibility and awarding marks based on turnover brackets – Petitioner alleged the clause to be arbitrary, vague, and designed to favour a specific class of bidders – Held: Tender inviting authority justified the clause based on the scale of operations (1134-bedded hospital) and need for financial capacity to provide seamless service for 2–3 months without payment – Clause not found to be arbitrary or violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), or 21 – No interference warranted under Article 226 [Paras 1–2.2, 5–6, 13–15]

Level Playing Field – Discrimination and Arbitrary Conditions – Court reaffirmed that while State action in contractual matters is subject to judicial review, interference is limited to cases of manifest arbitrariness, mala fides, or absence of nexus with the object of the tender – Test of arbitrariness lies in whether the impugned condition furthers the objective sought or unfairly restricts competition – In present case, requirement of high turnover held to have rational nexus with the hospital's operational needs [Paras 6, 13–15]

Scope of Judicial Review – Tender and Contractual Matters – Courts cautioned against substituting administrative decisions made by expert bodies unless the action is arbitrary, biased, or lacks justification – Reliance placed on principles from Michigan Rubber, Master Marine Services, Balaji Ventures, and Subodh Kumar Singh Rathour – Procedural fairness ensured via pre-bid consultation – Petitioner’s objections duly considered [Paras 9–12.1]

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Turnover clause upheld – No costs [Paras 16–17]

Prevention of Corruption Act – Illegal Gratification – Proof of Demand and Acceptance Mandatory – Appellant, a police officer, was convicted under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act for allegedly accepting ₹10,000 as bribe to avoid arresting the complainant’s relative – Complainant (PW-7) turned hostile and denied having any direct interaction with the appellant – Panch witness (PW-8) gave contradictory testimony regarding raid and was unaware of crucial facts – Complainant’s friend (PW-11) also did not support the prosecution version – Held: Demand and acceptance not proved beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction unsustainable. Acquittal [Paras 5–16].

Criminal Trial – Hostile Witnesses – Effect – Complainant and other key witnesses failed to support the prosecution case – Their testimonies inconsistent and materially contradictory – Panch witness admitted he was unaware of facts and signed blank papers – Court held that prosecution failed to prove factum of demand and acceptance of gratification, which is a sine qua non for conviction under PC Act [Paras 5–15].

Burden of Proof – Demand and Acceptance – Standard Reiterated – Citing B. Jayaraj and Neeraj Dutta, Supreme Court decisions – Court reaffirmed that proof of both demand and acceptance is essential for conviction under Sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act – Mere recovery or possession of money is insufficient – Even circumstantial evidence must unerringly establish demand and acceptance [Paras 10–12].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Bail bond cancelled and surety discharged [Paras 17–19].

Criminal Law – Cruelty by Husband – Conviction under Section 498A IPC – Evidence of physical and mental abuse – Prosecution proved that husband repeatedly abused, assaulted, and neglected his wife – Evidence of illicit relationship and alcohol addiction corroborated by multiple witnesses including son of deceased – Complaint by deceased wife prior to suicide revealed consistent ill-treatment – Held: Conviction under Section 498A IPC upheld as prosecution established cruelty [Paras 10–15, 24–28, 29–31].

Criminal Law – Abetment of Suicide – Acquittal under Section 306 IPC – Prosecution failed to establish mens rea or specific instigation by accused to commit suicide – No direct act or provocation proved to have led to suicide – Mere cruelty not sufficient to convict under Section 306 IPC – Evidence lacked proximate link between accused’s conduct and suicide – Held: Conviction under Section 306 IPC unsustainable in absence of evidence of abetment [Paras 32–40].

Evidence Law – Inconsistencies and Hearsay – Prosecution witnesses largely family members – Some statements hearsay or general in nature – Complaint regarding dowry demand found inconsistent and unsupported by documentation – Dowry Prohibition Act charges not framed – Held: Conviction under Section 498A not affected as cruelty proved, but higher threshold for abetment to suicide not met [Paras 4–6, 29–31, 36–38].

Criminal Procedure – Sentence – Appellant already undergone over 2 years in custody – Sentence for 498A IPC (2 years) covered by time served – Directed to be set off under Section 428 CrPC – Conviction under Section 306 IPC set aside – Appellant not required to undergo further imprisonment [Para 41].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Conviction under Section 498A IPC confirmed – Conviction under Section 306 IPC set aside – Sentence adjusted to time already served – No further imprisonment required.

Motor Accident – Compensation – Quantum – Income Assessment – Tribunal assessed monthly income of deceased at ₹15,680 based on Deputy Commissioner’s wage notification for skilled labour – Appellant insurer contended income should have been computed as ₹8,245 per minimum wage notification – Held: Deceased held valid licence for heavy vehicles and was rightly treated as skilled labour – Deputy Commissioner’s wage notification applicable – No perversity or illegality in Tribunal’s approach – Tribunal’s award of ₹19,60,000 with 7.5% interest upheld [Paras 3–11].

Appellate Review – Scope – Interference by appellate court only if findings are perverse or arbitrary – Mere alternative view not sufficient – Citing Saroj & Ors. v. IFFCO-Tokio General Insurance Co., 2024 INSC 816, Court held that absence of contrary evidence justifies reliance on local wage notifications for income computation – Findings of Tribunal affirmed [Paras 6–9].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Tribunal’s award upheld – Appellant Insurance Company entitled to refund of statutory deposit of ₹25,000 [Paras 12–13].

Criminal Law - Excise Offences – Illegal Possession and Transport of Liquor – Acquittal – Appellant convicted for transporting illicit liquor containing ethyl alcohol unfit for human consumption – Trial Court convicted under Sections 32 and 34 of Karnataka Excise Act – High Court finds prosecution failed to comply with mandatory provisions of Sections 53 and 54 of the Act and Section 102 CrPC – No search warrant, no timely production of seizure report or witness statements – Held: Violation of statutory safeguards renders search and seizure illegal – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 13-20].

Criminal Procedure – Seizure and FIR – Prosecution failed to submit seizure mahazar along with FIR or show compliance with Section 102 CrPC – Delay in submission of witness statements and non-production of search report before Magistrate undermines prosecution case – Trial court failed to consider these procedural lapses [Paras 17-18].

Evidence – Hostile Witness – Independent panch witness (PW4) turned hostile and denied signing seizure mahazar at the spot – Official witnesses’ testimony not corroborated by any independent witness – Held: Conviction cannot rest solely on interested testimony of official witnesses in absence of reliable independent corroboration [Paras 15, 19-20].

Precedent – Reliance on Apex Court Ruling – Court followed K.L. Subbaiah v. State of Karnataka, (1979) 2 SCC 115 – Held: Non-compliance of Section 54 of Karnataka Excise Act renders search without jurisdiction – Acquittal justified [Para 13].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Accused acquitted of offences under Sections 32 and 34 of Karnataka Excise Act – Fine, if paid, to be refunded [Para 21].

Tender Conditions – Judicial Review – Turnover Criteria – Challenge to Clause 5.2 of the tender document prescribing a minimum annual turnover of ₹9 crores for eligibility and awarding marks based on turnover brackets – Petitioner alleged the clause to be arbitrary, vague, and designed to favour a specific class of bidders – Held: Tender inviting authority justified the clause based on the scale of operations (1134-bedded hospital) and need for financial capacity to provide seamless service for 2–3 months without payment – Clause not found to be arbitrary or violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), or 21 – No interference warranted under Article 226 [Paras 1–2.2, 5–6, 13–15]

Level Playing Field – Discrimination and Arbitrary Conditions – Court reaffirmed that while State action in contractual matters is subject to judicial review, interference is limited to cases of manifest arbitrariness, mala fides, or absence of nexus with the object of the tender – Test of arbitrariness lies in whether the impugned condition furthers the objective sought or unfairly restricts competition – In present case, requirement of high turnover held to have rational nexus with the hospital's operational needs [Paras 6, 13–15]

Scope of Judicial Review – Tender and Contractual Matters – Courts cautioned against substituting administrative decisions made by expert bodies unless the action is arbitrary, biased, or lacks justification – Reliance placed on principles from Michigan Rubber, Master Marine Services, Balaji Ventures, and Subodh Kumar Singh Rathour – Procedural fairness ensured via pre-bid consultation – Petitioner’s objections duly considered [Paras 9–12.1]

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Turnover clause upheld – No costs [Paras 16–17]