Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Security Cheque vs. Legally Enforceable Debt – Conviction Set Aside – Petitioners, Concord Exports, challenged their conviction for cheque dishonor under Section 138, asserting that the cheque for ₹33,51,876 was issued as security in a business transaction and not towards a legally enforceable debt – The trial court had sentenced the petitioners to two years rigorous imprisonment, which was upheld by the appellate court – Held: The petitioner successfully raised a probable defence, demonstrating that the cheque was issued as security and not in discharge of a debt – Both the trial and appellate courts failed to consider crucial defence documents, rendering their judgments perverse – Conviction and sentence were set aside [Paras 8.5, 9.3, 23].

Burden of Proof – Preponderance of Probabilities – Security Cheques – The petitioner raised sufficient doubts regarding the existence of a legally enforceable debt, proving by preponderance of probabilities that the cheque was issued as security for future transactions – The complainant failed to establish the supply of goods or an existing liability matching the cheque amount – Held: Mere issuance of a signed cheque does not constitute proof of liability without supporting evidence of debt [Paras 9.2, 9.3].

Judgment Quality – Section 354 of CrPC – Non-Consideration of Defence Evidence – The trial court's judgment was criticized for its failure to consider defence documents and evidence, violating Section 354 CrPC, which requires reasons to be recorded in judgments – Appellate court also failed to appropriately address these deficiencies – Courts must consider the accused's explanation under Section 313 CrPC and weigh all evidence before reaching conclusions [Paras 8.5, 9.4, 9.5].

Decision – The revision petition was allowed, and the conviction and sentence were set aside – Petitioners were directed to pay ₹13,51,876 with 6% interest from 12/02/2014 within three months, failing which recovery procedures may be initiated by the respondent [Paras 23, 22.2, 22.3].

Mortgagee vs. Licensee Rights Dispute – Petition challenging the approval of sale of mortgaged property at a price below the reserve price set by DRT, treating a licensee as a secured creditor over the mortgagee. [Paras 2, 14-15, 32-34]

Procedural and Factual Background – Mortgage created by Karias in favor of ARCIL (Petitioner), license agreement between Karias and SCB. DRT and DRAT treated SCB as having a "charge" on the property, overlooking the superior rights of the mortgagee. [Paras 3, 7-11, 26-27]

Principle of Law – Emphasis on established legal principles prioritizing the rights of mortgagees over licensees, highlighting misinterpretation in the Impugned Orders. [Paras 5, 14-15, 21-24, 28-29]

Erroneous Consideration by DRT and DRAT – Incorrectly treating SCB, a licensee, as a secured creditor with a "charge" over the property, resulting in the wrongful sale of the mortgaged asset. [Paras 7, 15, 23, 32]

Legal Precedents – Reference to cases establishing priority of mortgagee's rights over those of a licensee or lessee, and the ineffectiveness of a license in overriding mortgage rights. [Paras 18-19, 23]

Equitable Considerations – Discussion on SCB's knowledge of the mortgage and initiation of separate recovery proceedings, with the court finding no equities favoring SCB. [Paras 25-28]

Directions and Conclusions – Quashing the Impugned Orders, directing a fresh auction in accordance with the law, affirming the mortgagee's priority, and instructing a refund to the Purported Acquirers with interest. [Paras 33-35]

Disciplinary Proceedings – Judicial Officer’s Integrity Questioned – Petitioner, a former Judicial Officer, suspended and prevented from retiring on superannuation due to allegations of involvement in a telephonic conversation regarding financial transactions linked to a criminal case – Charges framed under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules – Charge Nos.1 and 4 proved against the petitioner [Paras 1-14].

Authenticity of Evidence in Disciplinary Proceedings – The Court assessed the relevance and sufficiency of various evidences, including voice samples and Forensic Science reports, in establishing misconduct of a judicial officer. It highlighted the significance of circumstantial and corroborative evidence in departmental proceedings. [Para 33-34, 40]

Voice Sample Analysis – Upheld – The Court accepted the expert findings that the voice samples in the audio files matched those of the judicial officer and other involved parties, despite the absence of the original recording devices. This played a pivotal role in establishing the involvement of the judicial officer in the alleged conversations. [Para 33-34, 39]

Quantum of Punishment – Removal from Service – Justified – The Court upheld the punishment of removal from service for the judicial officer, citing the serious nature of the charges proven against him, which compromised his integrity and honesty. The Court asserted that judicial officers are expected to maintain high levels of integrity and honesty. [Para 37, 41]

Compliance with Natural Justice – Affirmed – The procedures followed in the disciplinary proceedings were scrutinized, with the Court affirming that all stages, including preliminary inquiry, framing of charges, and providing opportunities for explanation and defense, complied with the principles of natural justice. [Para 40-41]

Decision – The writ petition challenging the removal from service of the judicial officer was dismissed, with the Court finding no infirmity in the procedural aspects or the quantum of punishment. [Para 41]

Service Law - Petitioner's Alleged Illegal Termination and Subsequent Replacement – Petitioner, a Hindi teacher since 1988, allegedly terminated without due process in 1996 – School Management accused of appointing opposite party No.4 without adhering to natural justice principles – Dispute over notification and acknowledgment of termination notices [Paras 1, 2, 4, 8].

Appellate Authority's Inquiry – Appellate Authority directed Inspector of Schools to investigate termination process – Inspector's reliance on affidavits collected during the appeal considered improper by the court – Adjudication questioned due to lack of impartiality and independent adjudication [Paras 8, 10].

Remittal for Fresh Adjudication – High Court quashes appellate authority's order due to procedural impropriety – Matter remitted for fresh adjudication strictly based on existing records, excluding Inspector's report and affidavits [11, 12].Paras

Allegation of Trespass, Mischief, Assault and Theft – Complainant accused Deo Narayan Sahu and others of trespassing, causing damage, assault, and theft in his shop – Initial statement held all accused responsible for stated offences – Specific involvement of Deo Narayan Sahu questioned. [Para 1]

Cognizance by Magistrate – Cognizance of offences under multiple sections of IPC taken against all accused – Sessions Judge set aside cognizance against Deo Narayan Sahu, citing lack of specific allegations against him and nature of dispute being civil. [Para 2]

Sessions Judge's Order Challenged – Petitioner challenged the order of the Sessions Judge for excluding Deo Narayan Sahu from the accused list – Alleged erroneous exclusion based on material considerations. [Para 3]

Analysis of Groundlessness – Court explained 'groundless' as lacking sufficient prima facie material for presumption of offence – Emphasized need for strong suspicion based on materials at cognizance stage. [Para 5]

Evaluation of Suspicion and Materials – Court noted necessity of founded suspicion on materials presented – Suspicions should not be of a vacillating mind but based on factual ingredients of the alleged offence. [Para 6]

Reinstatement of Cognizance Against Accused – Review of witness statements and inquiry report under Section 202 Cr.P.C. showed specific allegations against Deo Narayan Sahu – Court found no reason for his exclusion by Sessions Judge. [Para 7]

Order of Sessions Judge Overturned – High Court found no legality in Sessions Judge's order – Reinstated the order of cognizance by the Magistrate against Deo Narayan Sahu. [Paras 8-9]

Amendment of Complaint – Prohibition in Criminal Procedure – Held, amendments in criminal complaints, particularly regarding substantial aspects like cheque dates, are not permissible under the Criminal Procedure Code. Cites absence of provisions allowing such amendments. [Para 8-14]

Typographical Error in Complaint – Not a Simple Infirmity – Examines the distinction between simple clerical errors and significant errors in complaints. Asserts that errors in mentioning cheque dates are substantial and not mere typographical mistakes, affecting the very basis of the complaint. [Para 14]

Principles for Permitting Amendments – Cites Supreme Court’s guidelines in S.R. Sukumar case. Emphasizes that amendments can be allowed only for curable infirmities without changing the original nature of the complaint or causing prejudice to the accused. [Para 12-14]

Impugned Orders – Set Aside – Finds the trial court’s decision to permit amendment of the complaint to correct cheque dates as legally unsustainable. Directs reconsideration of the application under Section 142 of the Act, 1881 by the trial court. [Para 15-16]

PETITION ALLOWED – Quashes the trial court’s order allowing amendment of the complaint. Remits the matter for fresh consideration of the application under Section 142 of the Act, 1881. [Para 17]

Defamation – Ad Interim Ex Parte Injunction – Plaintiff, a Senior Advocate and Spokesperson for BJP, seeks removal of defamatory videos and posts from social media platforms – High Court emphasizes balance between Right to Free Speech and Right to Reputation – Cites "Bonnard Principle" for granting interim injunctions in defamation suits, emphasizing caution in pre-trial restrictions [Paras 1-14, 32-34].

Fundamental Rights – Free Speech vs. Right to Reputation – Defendants argue for Right to Free Speech, stating reports were factual and within constitutional rights – Plaintiff asserts harm to reputation due to false depiction and over-sensationalization – High Court acknowledges need to protect individual dignity and reputation [Paras 14-19, 39-44].

Injunction – Balance of Convenience – Court finds irreparable harm to plaintiff if defamatory content remains public – Orders removal of specific videos and posts, directing platforms to make some content private pending trial – Injunction considered necessary to prevent further harm to plaintiff’s reputation [Paras 45-48, 52-53].

Decision: Application for interim injunction allowed – Defendant Nos. 6 to 13 to remove specified content within seven days – Defendant No. 14 to ensure videos are made private – Case to proceed for further pleadings and trial [Paras 49-54].

Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – Appellants convicted for the murder of Tuntun whose body was found mutilated on a railway track – Conviction based on circumstantial evidence including "last seen together" and recovery of bloodstained clothes – Trial court’s judgment affirmed by High Court – Appeal challenges credibility of witnesses and reliability of circumstantial evidence.

Last Seen Together – Witness Testimony – Testimonies of key witnesses (PW16, PW17, PW9, and PW25) – Inconsistencies and contradictions in witness statements – One key witness declared hostile – High Court evaluates reliability of "last seen" evidence in absence of corroborating factors [Paras 43-57].

Recovery of Weapon and Bloodstained Clothes – Knife recovered near body not linked to accused – Discrepancies in witness accounts regarding the weapon – Uncertainty over recovery dates and handling of evidence – Lack of forensic clarity on bloodstains matching with the deceased's blood group [Paras 38-62].

Motive – Prosecution's failure to establish motive – Witness (PW15) turned hostile – No corroborative evidence supporting alleged illicit relationship as motive for murder – High Court notes importance of motive in cases based on circumstantial evidence [Paras 21-37].

Decision – Appeals allowed – Conviction and sentences set aside – High Court extends benefit of doubt to both appellants – Orders release of appellants unless required in another case [Para 66].

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Quashing of Proceedings – High Court considered the application for quashing the criminal proceedings against the applicants under Sections 153 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicants were accused of raising objectionable slogans and threatening people in a religious gathering. [Para 2, 3, 13]

Allegations and Investigation – Noted – The FIR and the investigation by the police established prima facie allegations against the applicants. The court observed that the applicants were identified and apprehended at the scene, with eyewitness accounts supporting the FIR's claims. [Para 3, 4, 6, 7]

Scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Discussed – The Court delineated the scope of its powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, citing precedents from the Supreme Court, emphasizing that it cannot engage in a detailed analysis of evidence at this stage but only assess whether prima facie case for trial exists. [Para 8, 9, 10, 11, 12]

Decision – Application Rejected – The Court, after examination, found that the allegations against the applicants constituted a prima facie case warranting trial and thus, declined to quash the criminal proceedings, stating that the application lacked merit. [Para 13, 14]