Criminal Law – Conviction for Murder – Appellant convicted under Section 302 IPC for killing his mother-in-law during a quarrel related to his wife's pregnancy – Defense argued that the attack was a result of sudden provocation and there was no premeditation – Court reclassified the offense as culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I IPC, noting that the act was committed in the heat of passion without intention to kill [Paras 13-16, 21-23].

Presence of Provocation – Appellant's quarrel with the deceased over her interference in his marital dispute was deemed to have led to the fatal attack – Court found that there was no malicious intent or premeditation to commit murder, and the attack was a result of emotional outburst due to grave provocation [Paras 18-20].

Sentencing – The appellant’s conviction under Section 302 IPC was reduced to Section 304 Part I IPC – Court imposed a sentence of 7 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹1,000, with a default sentence of 3 months' simple imprisonment – Conviction under Section 324 IPC for causing injuries to the appellant's wife was upheld [Paras 24-26].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – Conviction under Section 302 IPC altered to Section 304 Part I IPC – Sentence reduced to 7 years' rigorous imprisonment for the culpable homicide and conviction under Section 324 IPC maintained [Paras 27-28].

Criminal Law – Appeal Against Acquittal – Acquittal Upheld – Sections 406, 420, 411, and 120-B IPC – The State appealed against the acquittal of the accused, who were charged with misappropriation of cement bags supplied for government construction work – The Trial Court convicted the accused, but the Appellate Court acquitted them, holding that the prosecution had not established misappropriation beyond reasonable doubt – Supreme Court reaffirms that in appeals against acquittal, interference is warranted only if the trial court's findings are illegal or perverse – Appeal dismissed [Paras 18-20, 42-44].

Criminal Law – Offences Under Sections 406 and 420 IPC are Antithetical – Conviction Set Aside – Court reiterates that the offences under Sections 406 (Criminal Breach of Trust) and 420 (Cheating) are mutually exclusive – The learned Trial Court's conviction under both sections was erroneous as the necessary mens rea for each is distinct – Appellate Court rightly acquitted the accused, and this was upheld [Paras 24-28, 41].

Appreciation of Evidence – Prosecution's Failure to Prove Misappropriation – Acquittal Upheld – Prosecution failed to establish the misappropriation of cement bags with certainty – Testimonies of prosecution witnesses did not conclusively show the exact dates of delivery and consumption of cement bags – Appellate Court's finding that the evidence was insufficient to prove the charges was reasonable, and no interference was required [Paras 29-32, 44].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment of the Appellate Court acquitting the accused is upheld – No order as to costs

Writ Petition – Maintainability – Internal Disputes Between Private Clubs – Article 226 Not Applicable - The petitioner challenged the order passed by the Ethics Officer and Ombudsman of the HCA, asserting that the dispute involved inter se issues between private clubs. The Court held that writ petitions under Article 226 are not maintainable for disputes concerning private clubs governed by the Telangana Societies Registration Act, 2001. The role of the Ombudsman is akin to that of an arbitrator in such disputes, and recourse must be sought through civil courts [Paras 12-13, 16-18].

Delay and Laches – Petitioner’s Long Silence – Bar to Relief - The Court dismissed the writ petition on the grounds of delay and laches, observing that the petitioner had remained silent for nearly 13 years before making a claim in 2024. The Court relied on precedents where a delay in asserting rights led to the dismissal of claims, reinforcing that equity does not favor those who sleep over their rights [Paras 22-23].

Res Judicata – Effect of Previous Orders – No Grounds for Reconsideration - The petitioner’s claim was further weakened by the fact that earlier orders of the Ombudsman (2018) had attained finality, which restrained the petitioner from representing the Nalgonda District Cricket Association. The Ethics Officer and Ombudsman were correct in relying on these unchallenged orders, and the petitioner's attempt to unsettle these established facts was rejected [Paras 21, 29-31].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – No Interference with Ombudsman’s Order - The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Ombudsman’s decision that recognized the 2nd respondent as the legitimate representative of the Nalgonda District Cricket Association. The Court found no merit in the petitioner’s claims of fraud or violation of procedural fairness [Paras 32-33].
 

Criminal Law – Possession and Use of Counterfeit Currency – The appellant was convicted under Sections 489B and 489C of IPC for allegedly handing over counterfeit currency notes to the second accused, who then used them to pay for bricks purchased from PW1 – Appellant contended that there was no evidence linking him directly to the possession or transfer of counterfeit notes – Court found no evidence proving the appellant’s involvement in the possession or use of counterfeit currency, and the trial court’s reliance on remote possibilities without concrete proof was insufficient – Conviction set aside [Paras 10-12, 23-26].

Insufficient Evidence – The prosecution failed to provide clear and cogent evidence to establish that the appellant handed over the counterfeit currency or was involved in any way with its use – The key witness, PW1, did not claim to have seen the appellant giving the counterfeit notes to the second accused, and no investigation connected the appellant to the counterfeit currency [Paras 16-18, 28-30].

Possession and Intention – Court emphasized that before convicting a person under Sections 489B and 489C of IPC, it must be proven beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was in possession of counterfeit currency and had the intention to use it as genuine – The prosecution failed to meet this burden of proof in the case of the appellant [Paras 22, 27-29].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 489B and 489C of IPC set aside – The appellant is acquitted, and his bail bond is canceled – The appellant, currently incarcerated, is to be released immediately unless required in any other case [Paras 30-33].

Service Law – Termination of Teachers – Petitioners, employed as teachers in various government schools, were terminated after their educational certificates, particularly B.Ed. degrees, were found to be forged – Petitioners challenged the termination, alleging procedural lapses in the inquiry – Court held that the use of forged certificates for securing public employment amounts to fraud, and such appointments are void ab initio – Protection under Article 311 of the Constitution cannot be claimed in cases of fraudulent appointments [Paras 13-16, 27-31].

Fraudulent Appointments – Ineligibility for Protection – The court held that persons who secured public employment through fraud are not entitled to the protection of Article 311 of the Constitution – Petitioners failed to prove the authenticity of their B.Ed. degrees, and the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) Act mandates that unqualified persons cannot be appointed as teachers [Paras 21-24, 36-38].

Procedural Safeguards – Departmental Inquiry – Petitioners argued that they were not given a fair chance to defend themselves, and the inquiry process was flawed – Court ruled that even though procedural lapses were alleged, the fact that the petitioners lacked the necessary qualifications for appointment rendered the inquiry irrelevant – Fraud vitiates all actions, and procedural safeguards cannot rescue an appointment secured through deception [Paras 28-33, 42].

Decision – Writ petitions dismissed – Termination orders upheld as valid – Petitioners, having used forged documents for securing employment, were not entitled to any relief – The appointments were void ab initio, and the challenge to their termination failed [Paras 43-45].

Land Acquisition – Illegal Possession – Article 300-A Violation – Compensation Awarded – The petitioner was dispossessed of her land in 1988 for the construction of a road, but no acquisition proceedings or compensation followed – The Court held that the petitioner was illegally deprived of her property in violation of her constitutional rights under Article 300-A – Compensation was awarded for the illegal possession of her land, directing the State to pay Rs.10,000 per month from 1988 until the land is lawfully acquired [Paras 50-55].

Delay in Acquisition – Breach of Due Process – The Court noted that despite multiple orders from the District Court and High Court, the State failed to take any steps for acquisition or return of the land – The prolonged delay of over 36 years in compensating the petitioner was condemned, with the Court emphasizing the importance of protecting property rights under the Constitution [Paras 8-22, 56].

Decision: The writ petition was allowed. The State was ordered to pay compensation at Rs.10,000 per month from 1988 until the completion of acquisition proceedings. The petitioner was granted liberty to file a civil suit for enhancement of compensation.

Partition Suit – Will and Estoppel – Appeal Dismissed – The appellant (plaintiff) filed a suit seeking partition of the family property, contending that her brothers constructed buildings on the property without her consent – The Trial Court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiff had no share in the property as her father had executed a Will in 1997 bequeathing the entire property to her brothers – The High Court upheld the Trial Court's decision, finding that the plaintiff, having signed the development agreement and received compensation for relinquishing her rights, was estopped from seeking a share in the property [Paras 12-20].

Undated Will – Validity Not Affected – The appellant argued that the Will was undated, casting suspicion on its validity – The Court held that the absence of a date on a Will does not automatically invalidate it, especially when the plaintiff herself admitted the existence of the Will during cross-examination [Paras 17-18].

Suppressing Material Facts – The plaintiff was aware of the Will and development agreement but did not disclose these facts in her plaint – The Court held that this suppression of material facts further weakened her case for partition [Paras 13-16].

Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the Trial Court's judgment was upheld, confirming that the plaintiff had relinquished her rights over the suit property.
 

Criminal Law - Externment Proceedings – Scope of Judicial Review – Section 47 of Delhi Police Act – The petitioner challenged an externment order issued under Section 47 of the Delhi Police Act for involvement in bootlegging and other criminal activities. The court observed that externment is not a punitive measure but preventive, aimed at ensuring public safety. Judicial review of such orders is limited to checking whether they are illegal, irrational, or procedurally improper – Held: Externment order valid, no procedural impropriety found [Paras 9-11, 15-16].

Habitual Offender – Interpretation of 'Habitually' – Explanation to Section 47 – The petitioner argued that her involvement in isolated FIRs over consecutive years did not satisfy the requirement of habitual criminal activity. The court held that 'habitual' under the Act does not require offenses within one year but refers to repeated engagement in illegal activities over time. The externment order was upheld as the petitioner was found to be involved in multiple FIRs across several years [Paras 14-16].

Public Safety – Witnesses Unwilling to Testify – In Camera Evidence – The court noted that witnesses were unwilling to testify in public due to fear of retaliation, which justified the use of in-camera evidence. The petitioner's criminal activities, including bootlegging, were found to be hazardous to the community, warranting externment [Paras 5, 13-14].

Decision: Petition Dismissed – The court found no merit in the petition and upheld the externment order, noting that a compassionate view had already been taken by reducing the period from two years to one year [Paras 16-17].

Tender Process – Cancellation of Tender – Petition Dismissed – The petitioner, whose financial bid was the highest, challenged the cancellation of a tender for the redevelopment of MAF – The Court held that the cancellation was within the scope of the tender terms, as the respondents had the authority to annul the bidding process without assigning any reason as per Clause 8.1 of the RFP – The cancellation aimed to ensure adequate competition, which was lacking due to the onerous conditions imposed, including a 12-year O&M experience requirement [Paras 31-34].

Tender Conditions – Discretion of Authorities – The Court observed that the petitioner, having accepted the RFP terms, could not later challenge them – The terms explicitly allowed the respondent to cancel the tender process without issuing a Letter of Intent (LoI) or entering into a binding agreement [Paras 33-34].

Decision: The writ petition was dismissed. The respondents' decision to cancel the tender and re-issue fresh tenders to ensure competition was upheld.