Criminal Law - Regular Bail - Disproportionate Assets and Benami Transactions - Section 439 Cr.P.C. - Held, granting regular bail in cases of disproportionate assets where most evidence is documentary - Petitioner, an ex-MLA, alleged to have acquired assets beyond known sources of income - Bail granted considering the completion of investigation and submission of documentary evidence to the prosecution - The court acknowledged that the primary issue for trial was whether the petitioner financed certain transactions, which were recorded as benami without proper adjudication. The court granted bail, emphasizing that documentary evidence had already been submitted, and further incarceration would unnecessarily restrict personal liberty​​ .

Evaluation of Evidence - Admissibility of Documentary Proof - Analysis - Held, documentary evidence is crucial and already submitted, rendering further custody unnecessary - The court noted that the state's arguments did not convincingly show that the petitioner's income was disproportionate to his known sources, as various legitimate earnings were not considered by the investigating agency. The argument that certain expenditures should be considered benami transactions lacked adjudication under the Prohibition of Benami Property Act, 1988​​ .

Decision - Grant of Regular Bail - Court finds no reason to deny bail given the nature of the evidence and the petitioner's cooperation during the investigation - The court ordered the petitioner to be released on bail, subject to the conditions of surrendering his passport and furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court​​ .

The petitioner, Nandakumar N, is the 2nd accused in Crime No.26/2021 of Excise Enforcement & Anti Narcotic Special Squad, Ernakulam. He is charged under Sections 20(b)(ii)C, 25, and 29 of the NDPS Act. The application for regular bail is submitted due to his prolonged judicial custody. [Para 2]

The prosecution argued that the petitioner was driving the vehicle in which the contraband was found concealed among boxes of mangoes. The prosecution cited the commercial quantity involved and the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act in opposing bail. [Para 5-6]

The Court observed that the petitioner was driving the vehicle and that the contraband was found in a large quantity (140 KG), making it implausible that he was unaware of it. The Court emphasized the strict conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act for bail in cases involving commercial quantities of contraband. [Para 6-7]

The petitioner's counsel cited Supreme Court decisions arguing for bail based on the length of detention. However, the Court distinguished these cases, noting that the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act cannot be ignored. [Para 8-10]

The Court found that the conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act were not met and denied bail to the petitioner. The Court also directed the Sessions Judge to complete the trial within the period mentioned in a report dated June 15, 2023. [Para 11-12]

Criminal Appeal – Bail Application – Offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Application for bail under Section 439 CrPC – Alleged involvement of the Applicant in drug trafficking – Recovery of commercial quantity of contraband – Conspiracy with co-accused persons – Interpretation of Section 37 NDPS Act – Admissibility of statements under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act – Retraction of statement – Analysis of electronic evidence – Consideration of Tofan Singh judgment. [Para 1-5]

Recovery of Contraband - Shared Residence: Recovery of Ganja from shared bedroom of Applicant and husband/co-accused – Disputed attribution of possession – Recovery made at the instance of husband – Court's analysis – Bedroom as a shared private space – Joint possession inferred – Knowledge of contraband – Shared relationship between spouses – Joint conscious possession established. [Para 7-15]

Recovery from Separate Office Premises: Recovery of contraband from separate office premises of co-accused/husband – Court's analysis – Separation by staircase – Exclusive control of husband established – Recovery not attributable to the Applicant – Different legal implications for different types of contraband – Hashish Chocolate recovery attributed to both the Applicant and husband – Commercial quantity recoveries not applicable to the Applicant. [Para 16-27]

Section 37 NDPS Act: Applicability of Section 37 NDPS Act – Analysis of recoveries and quantity – Commercial and intermediate quantity distinctions – No commercial quantity recovered from the Applicant – Rigors of Section 37 not applicable – Inapplicability of section 37 to recoveries. [Para 28-34]

Section 67 Statement: Inadmissibility of section 67 statements – Apex Court's stance – Court's analysis of complaint – Lack of new fact discovery – Retraction of statements – Lack of evidence linking pseudonym to Applicant – Chats not belonging to relevant group – Irrelevance of chats for bail decision. [Para 35-49]

Forensic Mobile Extraction Report: Reliance on forensic mobile extraction report – Chats relating to narcotic substances – Chats not directly linked to recoveries – Analysis of relevancy of chats – No dealing in commercial quantity established – Applicant's role as a consumer – Chats potential not equivalent to actual possession – Delay in trial – Comparison with released co-accused – Triple test of flight risk, evidence tampering, and witness influence – Imposition of stringent bail conditions. [Para 50-61]

Grant of Bail: Complete investigation – Charges not framed – Trial delay – Imposition of bail conditions – Conclusion of bail application – Observations without bearing on merits of the case. [Para 62-64]  

Criminal Misc. Case – Quashing of Proceedings under Section 498-A of IPC – Accused in a live-in relationship with the complainant’s husband – Whether the term “relative” under Section 498-A includes a woman in a romantic relationship with the husband – Strict construction of penal provision – Contextual interpretation – Quashing of FIR and Final Report in favor of the petitioner. [Para 1-8]

Facts:

The petitioner, Chandhini T.K, is the 4th accused in Criminal Case No. 116/2020 pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court (Economic Offences), Ernakulam. She is accused under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The case arises from a strained relationship between the defacto complainant and her husband, the first accused. The petitioner, who is allegedly in a live-in relationship with the first accused, is accused of subjecting the complainant to cruelty. The police filed a final report after investigation, charging the petitioner and others under Section 498-A. [Para 2-3]

Issues:

1. Whether the term “relative” under Section 498-A of IPC includes a woman who is in a romantic relationship with the husband?

2. Whether the petitioner can be prosecuted under Section 498-A of IPC?

Observations:

The petitioner’s counsel argued that since the petitioner is not a relative of the first accused, the offense under Section 498-A of IPC is not applicable to her. The counsel relied on legal precedents to support this argument. The court noted that the petitioner is not related to the first accused by blood, marriage, or adoption, and her relationship with the first accused is characterized as a live-in relationship. The court examined the language and scope of Section 498-A of IPC, emphasizing the term “relative” and the definition of “cruelty” provided in the section. [Para 5-7]

Decision:

The court held that the term “relative” under Section 498-A of IPC does not include a woman who is in a romantic relationship with the husband. It explained that the word “relative” conveys a status conferred by blood, marriage, or adoption, and such status does not apply to a woman in a live-in relationship. The court, therefore, quashed the FIR and the final report against the petitioner, stating that prosecution under Section 498-A is not applicable to her in this context. The Criminal Misc. Case was allowed in favor of the petitioner. [Para 8]

Jurisdiction - Article 227 of the Constitution of India - Scope of interference - High Court's power of judicial review under Article 227 - Limitations on the exercise of power - High Court cannot act as an appellate body or re-appreciate facts - Interference justified only when the lower court has exceeded jurisdiction or proceeded under erroneous presumption of jurisdiction - Interference warranted in cases of flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or when the order has resulted in grave injustice - Finding of facts by the lower court should be found to be perverse or patently erroneous and de hors the factual and legal position on record. (Para 10)

Scientific Investigation - Order of scientific investigation by the court - Permissible under Order XXVI Rule 10A of the Code of Civil Procedure - Purpose is to secure evidence in dispute - Court may issue a commission for scientific investigation if necessary or expedient in the interest of justice - Commission's report and evidence become admissible evidence - Commission may be appointed prior to trial if required - Court's power to elucidate disputed facts - No bar to appointing a Commission at any stage - Procedural law to advance the cause of justice. (Para 12)

Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 - Suit challenging the order of the District Judge - Suit's maintainability not the subject matter in the present petition - The Act's applicability not argued by parties in the Court below. (Para 9)

Scope of the Court below's order - Order under Article 227 of the Constitution of India - Limited scope of interference - Order inconsonance with provisions of law - Court cannot assume unlimited prerogative to correct all species of hardship or wrong decision - Interference warranted only for flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or grave injustice - No evidence of perversity or patent error in the lower court's findings. (Para 15)

Commission's proposed scientific investigation - Assurance by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) - Investigation to be non-destructive and without damage to existing structures - ASI's expertise in scientific investigation - No excavation to be conducted - Advanced technology to be used for survey, documentation, and non-destructive studies - ASI's undertaking to seek permission from the Court for any further investigation or excavation if required. (Para 20)

Order of the Court below - Order for scientific investigation upheld - Commission to undertake scientific survey and report on the disputed property - Commission's findings to be beneficial to all parties and aid the trial court in reaching a just decision - No grounds for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. (Para 21)

Arbitration and Additional Evidence - Petitioner filed a challenge against an order passed by the Arbitrator declining their application for additional evidence - Petitioner sought to present photographs, videos of locality, and sale-deeds to determine compensation - Court relied on Glenocore International case, holding that additional evidence may be permitted in appropriate cases - Impugned order set aside, and petitioner allowed to place additional evidence on record, subject to respondents' right to rebut - Petitioner directed to pay non-refundable costs of Rs. 2,00,000/- - Arbitrator not bound by all provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, governs the procedure for arbitration - Non-refundable cost to be deposited in "Chief Minister Punjab Relief Fund." (Para No. 1, 2, 10, 11, and 12)

Special Investigation Team (SIT) - Reports submitted by SIT - Serious allegations against petitioner - Drug trafficking and corruption - Misuse of authority - Money laundering - Acquisitions of properties - Need for custodial interrogation - High-ranking police officer - Potential for tampering with evidence - Application for anticipatory bail - Dismissal of petitioner's plea for anticipatory bail.

Petitioner, a police officer, facing serious allegations related to drug trafficking and corruption - SIT constituted to investigate the matter - Three reports submitted by SIT - Allegations of complicity with dismissed police official involved in drug smuggling and other criminal activities.

SIT's findings include evidence of petitioner misusing authority to extort money and benefit drug smugglers - Investigation into petitioner's property acquisitions and suspected money laundering.

State government takes action against petitioner based on SIT reports - Dismissal from service and recommendation for nomination as an accused in criminal cases.

Court rejects petitioner's plea for anticipatory bail - Emphasizes stringent scrutiny required under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act) for granting bail in drug trafficking cases.

Concerns raised about potential tampering of evidence or intimidation of witnesses due to petitioner's high-ranking position in the police force.

Petitioner's lack of cooperation with the investigation noted - Filing of applications to avoid custody - Court dismisses petitioner's plea for anticipatory bail, allowing the state to take appropriate action based on SIT reports revealing alleged involvement in drug trafficking and corrupt activities. (Para 1-32)

Criminal Law - Appeal against conviction and sentence - Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Appellant convicted under Section 326 of IPC for causing grievous injury - Appeal filed against judgment of conviction and sentence - Sole testimony of credible injured witness relied upon - Conviction based on medical testimony and other relevant witnesses - Acquittal of co-accused not affecting credibility of injured witness - Maxim "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" not applicable in India - Sentencing to be proportionate to the nature of the offense - Mitigating circumstance of prolonged suffering taken into account - Sentence reduced from 5 years to 3 years R.I. with fine - Fine amount to be paid to the injured as compensation. (Para 1 to 26)

Evidence - Testimony of injured witness - Special status and reliability - Injured witness' testimony not contradicted in cross-examination - Medical testimony supporting injured witness' account - Discrepancies and contradictions not eroding credibility - Law does not require plurality of witnesses for proof of fact - Conviction based on sole testimony of injured witness upheld - Other witnesses' hostility does not undermine injured witness' credibility. (Para 10, 12, 13, 16, 17)

Sentencing - Sentencing philosophy - Protection of society and deterring crime - Sentence to reflect atrocity and brutality of the offense - Opportunity for reform balanced with proportionality - Undue sympathy leading to inadequate sentence undermines justice - Mitigating circumstance of prolonged suffering taken into account - Sentence reduced from 5 years to 3 years R.I. with fine - Fine amount to be paid to the injured as compensation. (Para 22, 25, 26)

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order VII Rule 11 - Suit for declaration of title and ownership of a property - Defendant contended that the suit was barred by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act and the Limitation Act - Plaintiff alleged that the cause of action arose in September 2016 when they became aware of the alleged gift deed executed by defendant no.2 in favor of defendant no.1 - Defendant sought rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC - Whether the suit is barred by the Benami Act and the Limitation Act - Whether the plaint can be rejected at this stage - Whether the defendant's contentions can be considered at this stage – Held - the determination of a benami transaction requires consideration of various tests and circumstances as laid down by the Supreme Court - The question of benami transaction can only be decided based on evidence to be led by the parties, and thus the suit cannot be dismissed at this stage on the ground of being barred by the Benami Act - The issue of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact, and it would require evidence to be led by both parties - The mere existence of an adverse entry in the revenue records does not give rise to the cause of action as contemplated under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, the cause of action accrues when the right asserted in the suit is infringed or threatened to be infringed - The court cannot consider the relative strength or weakness of the plaintiff's case on merit at this stage - The contents of the defendant's written statement and defense are irrelevant for the purpose of considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC - The plaintiff's pleadings alone are relevant for determining whether the plaint discloses a cause of action - The court cannot reject the plaint in part, it must be rejected as a whole - The issue of alleged admissions made by the plaintiff must be considered during the trial on the basis of evidence, a party is entitled to explain a previous admission - The effect of any suppression of material facts made by the plaintiff at the time of filing the plaint shall also be considered during the trial - The present application is found without any merits and is dismissed. (Para No. 58 to 76)