Criminal Appeal – Acquittal in Murder Charge – Appeal against conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code – Appellant acquitted of charge for the murder of his wife – Inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimonies, especially of key witness (PW-6) – Delay in FIR lodging raises doubt on veracity of allegations – Dying declaration of the victim (Exhibit D1) indicating accidental cause of death not properly considered by the Trial Court – Testimony of neighbor (PW-5) stating victim claimed self-immolation, and lack of implication by the victim against the appellant in her statements to others – Insufficient evidence to form a complete chain pointing to guilt of the appellant. [Para 34-42]

Evidence and Witnesses – Child Witness Testimony – Reliability of child witness (PW-6) under scrutiny – Material contradictions in her statements at different stages – Possibility of being tutored during the period between the incident and her court testimony – Her initial statement during investigation differed significantly from the trial testimony. [Para 35-37]

Delay in FIR Lodging – FIR lodged seven days after the incident – Delay unexplained and casts doubt on the allegations against the appellant – No immediate action despite awareness of the incident by the complainant. [Para 34]

Dying Declaration – Victim's Statement – Victim’s statement to Resident Medical Officer (DW-3) indicating accidental fire during cooking – Victim did not implicate the appellant in her statements to her sister (PW-11) and to the medical officer – The Trial Court's dismissal of this testimony as non-voluntary not substantiated by evidence. [Para 40-41]

Decision – Conviction and sentence by the Trial Court set aside due to inconsistencies and insufficient evidence – Appellant acquitted of the murder charge under Section 302 IPC. [Para 42]

Bail Application - NDPS Act Violation - Accused's Bail Plea Dismissed: In the case of Vinod Bijarnia vs. Union of India, the Gauhati High Court denied bail to the accused involved in a narcotics case. The accused had been in jail since 17.11.2021 for allegedly transporting a commercial quantity of Phensedyle, a Codeine-based cough syrup. The application for bail, under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., was considered in light of the charges under Sections 21(C)/29 of the NDPS Act. [Para 2, 4, 15]

Arguments for Bail - Delay in Trial and Lack of Direct Evidence: The defense argued for bail citing the long incarceration without trial completion, reliance on inadmissible confessions under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, and no direct recovery of contraband from the accused. Reference was made to the Supreme Court's decision in Toofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Ravi Prakash vs. The State of Odisha regarding the admissibility of statements and right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. [Para 5, 9, 12]

Prosecution's Counter and Court's Observation: The prosecution countered that the trial delay wasn't significant, with the first witness already examined. The court noted that despite the lack of direct recovery from the accused, he owned the vehicle used for transporting the contraband. The court also referenced decisions from the Supreme Court, highlighting the gravity of offences involving commercial quantities of narcotics and the necessity to satisfy stringent conditions for bail under the NDPS Act. [Para 6, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14]

Decision and Directions for Expedited Trial: The court concluded that due to the nature and gravity of the offence, bail was not granted. However, the court directed the lower court to expedite the trial, preferably completing it within three months, without being influenced by the High Court's observations. [Para 15, 16]

Challenge to Re-Advertisement of Job Position – Petitioner, a dental sciences diploma holder, questioned the legitimacy of a fresh advertisement for a Dental Technician post by respondent No. 3, alleging attempts to favor certain candidates over others. Original advertisement issued on 13.10.2013 and the subsequent re-advertisement on 20.12.2013 led to the petitioner’s exclusion. [Paras 1-4, 7-9]

Respondents’ Justification and Legal Stand – Respondents argued the re-advertisement was in line with updated guidelines from the J&K State Health Society and NRHM, asserting no legal infirmities in the process. They contended that the petitioner had no locus standi to challenge the fresh advertisement, as he could participate in the new selection process. [Paras 10-14]

Legal Analysis and Precedent Citations – The court examined the legal rights of candidates in such scenarios, referencing several Supreme Court decisions like Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, Asha Kaul v. State of J&K, and others, to determine the rights of candidates in response to advertisement withdrawals and re-advertisements. [Paras 15-21]

Court’s Findings – The court found no vested right of selection/appointment for the petitioner due to his participation in the initial selection process. It held that the re-advertisement notice did not infringe any fundamental, legal, or statutory rights of the petitioner, and thus, was not legally infirm. [Paras 22-25]

Decision – The writ petition challenging the re-advertisement notice was found to be ill-founded and devoid of merit. Consequently, the petition was dismissed along with all connected applications. [Para 26]

Writ Petition – Appointment of Chairperson for Karnataka State Commission for Protection of Child Rights – Petitioner challenging the appointment of the 5th respondent and seeking annulment and fresh selection process – Court considering the validity of the appointment under statutory requirements. [Para 1, 7, 9]

Qualifications and Eligibility – Requirements under the Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 and Karnataka State Commission for Protection of Child Rights Rules, 2010 – Examination of the 5th respondent's eligibility as Chairperson based on political affiliation and experience in child rights. [Para 8, 10, 11]

Selection Committee's Decision – Role of the Selection Committee in assessing candidates' qualifications and experiences – Court's limited scope of review over the Committee's decision – Upholding the autonomy and integrity of the selection process. [Para 12, 13, 14]

Judicial Review – Limits of Court's intervention in the selection process for public employment – Reference to the Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Tajvir Singh Sodhi v. State of Jammu and Kashmir emphasizing non-interference unless there is proven arbitrariness or statutory violation. [Para 14]

Decision – Dismissal of the writ petition for lack of merit – Upholding the appointment of the 5th respondent as Chairperson of the Karnataka State Commission for Protection of Child Rights. [Para 15]Referred Cases with Citations:

Criminal Petition – Quashing of Proceedings – Section 482 of Cr.P.C. – Petition seeking to quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.14766/2021 for offence under Section 420 IPC – Allegation of furnishing false information in application for District Judge post – Petition dismissed. [Para 1, 14, 19]

Judicial Selection Process – Misrepresentation in Application – Applicant's failure to disclose involvement in past criminal/civil proceedings – Impact on candidature for District Judge post – Misrepresentation leading to criminal proceedings under Section 420 IPC. [Para 3, 11, 15]

Criminal Law – Interpretation of Section 420 IPC – Deceptive acts for personal gain – Importance of honest declaration in judicial recruitment – Fraud and misrepresentation as grounds for criminal prosecution. [Para 12, 15, 17]

Legal Ethics – Responsibility of Legal Professionals – Obligation of truthful disclosure by practicing advocates in judicial applications – High standards expected from legal practitioners. [Para 16]

Judicial Proceedings – Scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Limitation on High Court’s power to interfere in criminal proceedings at the stage of charge sheet – Observations made in judgment not binding on pending proceedings against petitioner. [Para 18, 19]

Decision – Petition rejected, with observations made solely for consideration under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. – No bearing on other proceedings against petitioner. [Para 19]

Challenge against FIR – Petitioner, an MLA, challenging FIR registered by Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 based on Enforcement Directorate's information – FIR questioned for lack of preliminary inquiry and authorization – Dismissal of petition due to statutory backing of FIR and necessity of investigation. [Paras 1-16]

Preliminary Inquiry – Necessity in Corruption Cases – Contention that no preliminary inquiry conducted before registering FIR – Refuted by court, highlighting the three-month gap between Enforcement Directorate's communication and FIR registration as period of preliminary inquiry. [Paras 6, 10, 14]

Enforcement Directorate's Role – Validity of Information Sharing – Enforcement Directorate's report under Section 66(2) of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 used as basis for FIR – Court upholds validity, stating that the report and subsequent ACB's source report justify FIR against the petitioner. [Paras 10-11, 15]

Assets Disproportionate to Income – Allegations of Disproportionate Assets – ACB's source report indicating petitioner's assets disproportionate by 2031% to known income – Court finds prima facie case warranting investigation under Prevention of Corruption Act. [Para 12]

Investigation Proceedings – Interim Stay by Apex Court – Pending petition before Apex Court challenging refusal of interim stay on investigation – High Court suspends operation of its order dismissing the criminal petition for 30 days. [Para 16]

Decision – FIR against MLA for disproportionate assets to continue – Criminal petition challenging FIR dismissed – High Court's order suspended for 30 days considering the pending appeal before Apex Court. [Para 17]

Contract Interpretation – GST Inclusion in Contracts – The petitioner, a successful bidder in tender processes, sought refund for GST payments arguing that the tax regime change post-GST introduction was beyond the contract's contemplation. The court, interpreting the contract, emphasized the necessity of a pragmatic approach, stating that the contract should be interpreted to give efficacy rather than invalidate it. The argument for retrospective application of an oppressive circular was rejected, as the GST was applicable only from its introduction. [Paras 1-4, 20-21, 22, 26-27, 32-33]

Commercial Contracts – Tax Liability – The court held that the GST Act merely subsumed existing indirect taxes like VAT, Sales Tax, etc., without introducing additional taxes. It was found that the petitioner was supposed to bear all indirect taxes as per the contract, which included any similar statutory levies, thus including GST. The petitioner’s liability to pay GST under the contract and statutory obligation as a supplier under the GST Act were affirmed. [Paras 18-19, 24-25, 30-31, 32-33, 35, 37, 38, 43]

Business Efficacy and Commercial Viability – The court rejected the petitioner's arguments regarding commercial viability and business efficacy. It was stated that the contract's tax clause was clear and unambiguous and that commercial viability does not imply unfair advantages to the contractor. The court emphasized that commercial contracts inherently involve calculated business risks, including tax changes. [Paras 40-43]

Decision – The petitions for refund of GST payments were dismissed, and it was held that the petitioner is liable to pay GST as per the contract and GST Act. The court concluded that no refund direction is warranted in the case. [Paras 45-46]

Amendment of Written Statement – Rejection by Trial Court – Defendants sought to amend their written statement to include new facts challenging the landlord-tenant relationship with the plaintiff, but the trial court rejected the amendment. The High Court upheld this decision, stating the amendment would change the nature of the defense and dispute previous admissions of the defendants. [Paras 2, 4, 7, 21]

Original Tenancy and Subsequent Legal Proceedings – The defendants, legal heirs of the original tenant, were involved in various legal proceedings challenging eviction suits and lease agreements with the plaintiff. These included cases before the Supreme Court and the High Court, which influenced the current litigation. [Paras 5, 6, 14]

Legal Principles on Amendment of Pleadings – Discussed the applicability and limitations of Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC for amendment of pleadings. Emphasized that amendments should not introduce new facts that change the fundamental nature of the original pleadings or contradict previous admissions. [Paras 8-12, 18-20]

Effect of Previous Admissions and Lease Agreements – The Court found that the defendants’ previous admissions regarding their landlord-tenant relationship with the plaintiff and the established legal history between the parties precluded the acceptance of the proposed amendment to the written statement. [Paras 13, 16, 17, 19, 20]

Decision and Direction for Expeditious Trial – The High Court dismissed the revision petition, affirmed the trial court’s order, and directed the trial court to expedite the conclusion of the long-pending suit without unnecessary adjournments. [Paras 22, 24]

Bail Application – Regular Bail in Multiple FIRs – Petitioner seeks regular bail in four FIRs (No. 42/2019, No. 33/2019, No. 10/2019, and No. 43/2019) under IPC Sections 420/406/120B related to allegations of cheating, fraud, and criminal breach of trust by Amrapali Group's directors in residential projects – Charges yet to be framed. [Para 1, 3, 4]

Allegations and Investigations – Accusations of stalled or incomplete residential projects despite payment by homebuyers – Misrepresentation of obtaining requisite permissions – Financial irregularities highlighted through ROC data and forensic audit ordered by the Supreme Court. [Para 2, 5, 7]

Applicant's Role and Arrests – Applicant, a director in accused companies with limited involvement in financial affairs – Arrest dates in respective FIRs detailed – Chargesheets filed, but charges not framed. [Para 6, 8, 9, 13, 18]

Legal Proceedings and Bail History of Applicant – Regular bail granted in other FIRs – Cooperative conduct in investigations – Prior judicial custody since 9th October 2018 in other FIRs. [Para 12, 16, 17]

Supreme Court's Involvement and Asset Recovery – Supreme Court overseeing project completion and homebuyer possession – Recovery of Rs. 8.36 crores from applicant and family as per Supreme Court order. [Para 21, 22]

Bail Considerations and Principles – Documentary nature of evidence reduces risk of tampering – Bail viewed as a rule, not exception, emphasizing personal liberty and right to speedy trial. [Para 23, 25, 26, 27]

Decision and Bail Conditions – Bail granted with conditions including Rs. 1,00,000/- bond, court appearance, investigation cooperation, and no contact with witnesses or involvement in criminal activities. [Para 27, 28, 29, 30]