Jurisdictional Challenge and Prayer for Quashing – Petitioner challenges the jurisdiction of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate and the subsequent cognizance taken by the Special Court under the Electricity Act in the alleged electricity theft case – Seeks quashing of proceedings in Spl.C.C.No.3 of 2018 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. [Paras 5, 15-17]

Allegation of Electricity Theft – Petitioner accused of stealing electricity from a free agricultural service connection for his ice factory – Investigation and charges under Section 135(1)(a) of the Electricity Act, 2003 – Estimated theft of 3,30,180 units causing a loss of Rs.33,84,345/- to TANGEDCO. [Paras 3-4]

Defense Arguments – Petitioner contends the impossibility of using an agricultural connection for industrial purposes, cites jurisdictional errors in investigation and proceedings, and challenges the application of Section 135 instead of Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003. [Para 5]

Prosecution's and Respondent's Submission – Emphasis on multiple previous offenses by the petitioner, the due process followed in investigation, and the applicability of Section 135(1)(e) of the Electricity Act, 2003 for theft of electricity. [Para 6-7]

Court's Analysis and Decision – Court finds prima facie evidence supporting the applicability of Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 – Dismisses the petition for lack of merit and irregularities in the procedure, and directs the Special Court to dispose of the case by 26th April 2024. [Paras 8-18]

Criminal Original Petition – Quashing of Proceedings – Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings in C.C.No.81 of 2019 at the Judicial Magistrate, Bodinayakanur – Petitioner/sole accused seeking to quash the criminal case against him on grounds of being baseless and filed with malafide intent. [Para 1, 3]

Property Dispute and Criminal Allegations – Dispute over property ownership leading to criminal allegations – Original property owner's legal heirs involved in partition suit (O.S.No.148 of 2014) – Petitioner, a tenant, regularly depositing rent – Respondent's purchase of property during the pendency of the suit and subsequent alleged trespassing and damage to petitioner's property – Counter-complaints filed by both parties leading to multiple criminal cases. [Para 3, 6-7]

Judicial Cognizance and Application of Law – Challenge to the manner of taking cognizance by the Judicial Magistrate under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. – Petitioner's argument on the necessity of an affidavit in 156(3) petition as per Priyanka Srivastava's case – Judicial Magistrate's decision to record a statement instead of requiring an affidavit considered sufficient. [Para 6, 9]

Assessment of Complaint's Validity – Examination of the validity of the respondent's complaint and the legal basis for the Judicial Magistrate's cognizance – Analysis of the respondent's possession claims and suppression of material facts in the complaint – Determination of the complaint as false and filed with ulterior motives. [Para 8-9]

Application of Bhajan Lal's Guidelines – Reference to State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajan Lal for parameters to quash prosecution – Case fitting under the 5th parameter of Bhajan Lal's guidelines, highlighting the absurdity and improbability of the allegations against the petitioner. [Para 10-11]

Decision – Quashing of Proceedings in C.C.No.81 of 2019 – Criminal Original Petition allowed, leading to quashing of proceedings against the petitioner on grounds of being an abuse of the process of law and based on improbable allegations – Connected Miscellaneous Petition also closed. [Para 12]

Criminal Law - Writ - Convict Seeking Education Opportunity – Petitioner, a life convict, seeks permission to join LLB course at KMCT Law College and to complete admission process – Also requests for emergency leave to attend the college for this purpose. [Para 1]

Educational Rights of Convicts – Acknowledging reformation as a key objective of criminal jurisprudence, the petitioner asserts his right to education while incarcerated, challenging the traditional confines of prison rules. [Paras 4, 14]

Opposition by College Authorities – Fourth respondent (college) resists admission of convict citing potential disciplinary issues, minority institution rights as per T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, and UGC regulations prohibiting online law courses. [Paras 6, 11]

Legal Precedent and Equality – Reference to Pattakka Suresh Babu v. State of Kerala, where life convicts were allowed online education – Arguments of discrimination by the college as they had admitted another convict under similar circumstances. [Paras 8, 11]

Fundamental Rights and Reformation – Emphasis on the fundamental rights of convicts, including the right to education as a pathway to rehabilitation and reformation, overriding objections of the college. [Paras 13, 14]

Decision – Court directs the college to admit the petitioner for the LLB course and arrange for his online education – Provision for escort leave for necessary physical presence for admission formalities, acknowledging the unique circumstances and the principle of reformation. [Paras 16, 17]

Custody of Minor – Guardianship Dispute – Appeal against the order of First Additional District Judge, Waraseoni, rejecting the application for custody of the minor son under Section 25 of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 – Trial court's decision based on the welfare of the child, considering the conduct of the appellant and the ability of maternal grandparents to provide care. [Paras 1, 4]

Welfare of Minor – Paramount Consideration – Emphasis on the welfare of the minor as the paramount consideration in custody matters – Reference to Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, and Section 19(b) of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 – Decision based on the welfare of the child rather than the legal right of the parents. [Paras 8, 9, 10, 11]

Preference of the Minor – Consideration of the minor's preference in custody matters – Section 17(3) of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, acknowledging the importance of the minor's preference if old enough to form an intelligent decision – The minor's desire to live with the maternal grandfather respected. [Paras 11, 12, 13, 15]

Judicial Observations and Precedents – Reference to Supreme Court judgments emphasizing the welfare and best interests of the minor as the paramount concern in custody disputes – Factors influencing the decision include the minor's welfare, upbringing, educational opportunities, and overall growth. [Paras 14, 16, 17]

Decision Upheld – High Court upholds the decision of the First Additional District Judge, Waraseoni – Custody of the minor to remain with the maternal grandfather, considering the minor's welfare and preference – Appellant's appeal dismissed, but the option to seek modification in future based on changed circumstances remains open. [Paras 17, 18, 19]

Factual Background and Trial Court Proceedings - Applicant-Appellant, engaged in the timber business, alleged that the respondent issued a cheque which was dishonoured due to 'Exceeds Arrangement' - Legal notice issued, but payment not made, leading to the complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act - Trial court acquitted the respondent-accused, finding that the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act was successfully rebutted [Paras 1-4].

Appellant’s Contention - Appellant contested the trial court's judgment, arguing that the respondent did not rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act and failed to provide evidence for his claim in the statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. - Relied on various Supreme Court judgments for the principle that signature on cheque and non-rebuttal of presumption are sufficient for conviction [Para 5].

Legal Analysis by High Court - High Court examined the essentials of offence under Section 138 of the NI Act and the rebuttable presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 - The respondent-accused's probable defense cast doubt on the existence of the debt or liability, shifting the evidential burden back to the complainant [Paras 6-10].

Examination of Facts and Evidence - The High Court observed discrepancies in the complainant's evidence, like absence of signatures on bills and failure to produce relevant documents to prove the sale of timber to the respondent - High Court found the respondent's explanation sufficient to rebut the presumptions under NI Act [Para 11-12].

Appellate Jurisdiction and Conclusion - The High Court emphasized the appellate court's limited scope in disturbing acquittal orders, especially where two reasonable conclusions are possible - Found no illegality or perversity in the trial court’s judgment, hence denied leave to appeal [Paras 13-15].

Workman Status – Nature of Employment – Determination based on Work Profile and Burden of Proof – Labour Court erroneously determined employee as ‘workman’ solely based on management witness’s negative statements during cross-examination – Employee’s failure to provide material on nature of work performed – Court’s selective use of evidence led to perverse finding – Legal standards for defining ‘workman’ not met [Paras 8-34].

Industrial Dispute – Jurisdictional Fact – Employee’s status as ‘workman’ is a jurisdictional fact impacting Labour Court’s authority – Erroneous determination of employee as ‘workman’ vitiates jurisdiction to adjudicate termination dispute – Reinforces necessity of establishing work nature to assume jurisdiction [Paras 46-47].

Judicial Review – Evidence Evaluation – Improper reliance on selective witness testimony – Ignoring uncontroverted material evidence regarding sales promotion and managerial duties – Reversal of Labour Court’s finding necessary due to misapplication of evidence standards and jurisdictional errors [Paras 35-38].

Decision:   Writ Petition (W.P. (L) No. 4378 of 2019) filed by the management is allowed, and the writ petition (W.P. (L) No. 924 of 2022) filed by the employee is dismissed. Labour Court’s award of reinstatement and back wages is set aside. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, are dismissed [Paras 48-49].

Criminal Law – Dishonour of Cheque – Appeal Against Acquittal – Application against the acquittal judgment in a case involving the dishonour of a cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act – The respondent was acquitted by the trial court on the grounds that he successfully rebutted the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act – The applicant-appellant challenged the acquittal, arguing that the trial court failed to consider the presumption of the cheque being issued in discharge of a debt or liability – Held: The trial court's findings were not perverse or illegal, and the respondent successfully rebutted the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act – Application for leave to appeal denied [Paras 8, 9, 13, 14].

Witness Testimony – Presumption and Rebuttal – The applicant argued that the trial court erred by not considering the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act – The court observed that while the presumption under Section 139 is mandatory, it is rebuttable by the accused by raising a probable defense – The respondent-accused successfully rebutted the presumption by indicating that the cheque was issued in a different context and not in discharge of any liability to the appellant – The complainant failed to provide sufficient evidence of the transaction or legally enforceable debt – The respondent’s denial of a legally enforceable debt and the absence of original transaction evidence led to the conclusion that the presumption was effectively rebutted [Paras 8, 10, 11, 12].

Circumstantial Evidence – Proof of Transaction – The applicant-complainant failed to produce necessary transaction documents such as the I-form or M-form to substantiate the sale of fuel wood to the respondent – The absence of these documents weakened the case for a legally enforceable debt – The presumption under Section 139 was not activated due to the complainant’s failure to establish the cheque's execution in the context of the alleged transaction – The respondent explained the circumstances and rebutted the presumption by pointing out the misuse of a blank signed cheque issued for a different purpose – The court held that without sufficient evidence from the complainant, the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act does not apply [Paras 11, 12, 13].

Decision: Appeal Dismissed – Application for leave to appeal against the acquittal was denied – The trial court’s judgment was found to be sound and based on proper appreciation of evidence – No perversity or illegality was identified in the trial court's findings – The respondent was acquitted as the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt – The appellate court reiterated the principle that in case of acquittal, the presumption of innocence is reinforced, and if two reasonable conclusions are possible, the view favoring the accused should be adopted – The court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the respondent's acquittal [Paras 14, 15].

Cheque Bounce under Section 138 of N.I. Act – Revision against orders of lower courts in a cheque bounce case – Question of mandatory notice service under Section 138 and its proof – Original case filed for dishonour of cheque worth Rs. 1.5 lacs issued by the petitioner – Lower courts convicted the petitioner based on Section 138 N.I. Act. [Paras 1-6]

Service of Mandatory Notice – Lack of Proof – Crucial issue of whether the mandatory notice under Section 138 was properly served and proven – Trial and Appellate Courts convicted the petitioner despite the absence of exhibited proof of notice service – Foundation of the case under Section 138 deemed not established. [Paras 7-10, 14-15]

Reliance on Accused’s Admission under Section 313 Cr.P.C. – Appellate Court's conviction based on petitioner’s admission in examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. – Supreme Court rulings state that conviction cannot be based solely on Section 313 statement – Accused’s statement not sufficient to substitute lack of notice proof. [Paras 11-18]

Judgment and Order Set Aside – High Court set aside the judgment and order of the Additional District & Sessions Judge and the Trial Court due to non-compliance with legal requirements under Section 138 N.I. Act – Petitioner acquitted of charges under Section 138 N.I. Act. [Paras 19-22]

Passport Issuance and Criminal Proceedings – The Court examined whether the pendency of a criminal case bars the issuance or renewal of a passport – Analyzed Sections 2(e), 3, 5, 6, 7, 10, and 22 of the Passports Act, 1967 and relevant rules – Recognized that Section 6(2)(f) mandates denial of passport if proceedings for an offense are pending in a criminal court in India [Paras 8, 12, 13, 18, 19].

Government Notification G.S.R. 570(E) – Discussed its applicability for issuance of short validity passports to individuals with pending criminal cases – Allowed issuance of such passports based on court orders, with specific conditions regarding the validity period [Para 9].

Judicial Precedents and Legal Interpretation – Cited various judgments to elucidate the principle that the passport authority can refuse passport renewal on the same grounds applicable for the first-time issuance under Section 6(2) of the Passports Act – Highlighted the significance of Section 6(2)(f) in cases of passport re-issuance or renewal when the applicant is facing criminal charges [Paras 14-17, 19].

Decision – Petition for issuance of a normal validity passport for 10 years was rejected – The Court sustained the impugned endorsement dated 14.12.2023 – Directed the petitioner to approach the concerned court for a short validity passport in accordance with the Act and G.S.R. 570 Notification – Emphasized that the court should not reject the application for a short validity passport merely due to the pendency of a criminal case [Paras 20-21].