Criminal Law - Attempt to Murder – Conviction under Section 307 IPC – Modification to Section 326 IPC – Appellants’ Conviction Partially Reduced – The appellants, Sugreev and Ghanshyam, were convicted under Section 307 IPC for causing grievous injuries by firearm to the complainant and his father – Held: The injuries inflicted by Sugreev were on non-vital parts (legs), and medical testimony did not support the allegation of life-threatening injuries – As such, Sugreev’s conviction under Section 307 IPC was reduced to Section 326 IPC, with a sentence of 3 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50,000 – Ghanshyam, whose injury was deemed to be simple and not by firearm, was convicted under Section 323 IPC instead of Section 307 IPC, and as he had already served two years in custody, no further imprisonment was required [Paras 27-35].

Ocular vs. Medical Testimony – Prevalence of Medical Testimony – In cases where there is a conflict between ocular testimony (eyewitness accounts) and medical evidence, the medical evidence prevails if it completely rules out the possibility of the ocular evidence being true – Held: In this case, medical testimony contradicted the claim that the complainant Santosh was injured by a firearm – The court relied on the medical evidence, which indicated that the injury was caused by a hard and blunt object, not a gunshot [Paras 14-17].

Defective Investigation – Not Fatal to Prosecution Case – Allegations of defective investigation, such as missing X-ray reports and delayed witness statements, do not vitiate the trial if the material evidence, including testimonies of injured witnesses, remains reliable – Held: Despite some investigation flaws, the prosecution's case was upheld based on strong injured-witness testimonies and corroborative medical evidence – The appellants' convictions were modified accordingly [Paras 19-22].

Common Intention – Absence of Pre-Determined Common Object – The court ruled that common intention under Section 34 IPC was not applicable as the injuries were caused on the spur of the moment, and there was no evidence of premeditated common object – The appellants were held liable for their individual actions without invoking common intention [Paras 28-29].

Decision:

The criminal appeals are partly allowed.

Sugreev’s conviction under Section 307 IPC is modified to Section 326 IPC, and he is sentenced to 3 years rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 50,000. In default of payment of fine, he will undergo an additional 3 months of imprisonment.

Ghanshyam’s conviction is modified to Section 323 IPC, and as he has already served approximately two years in custody, no further imprisonment is required. A fine of Rs. 1,000 is imposed, and in default, he will undergo 10 days simple imprisonment.

Out of the total fine amount, Rs. 25,000 will be paid to injured Govind, and Rs. 1,000 to injured Santosh as compensation under Section 357(3) of CrPC.

Anticipatory Bail – Section 482 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Scope Expanded – The applicants filed for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, in connection with accusations under Sections 451, 394/34 of IPC – Held: The scope of anticipatory bail has been expanded compared to the earlier provision under Section 438 of the CrPC, 1973, removing guiding factors like the gravity of accusations and criminal antecedents, thus widening judicial discretion – The Court found no intention to commit the alleged offenses based on the facts and granted anticipatory bail on conditions of cooperation with the investigation and ensuring no interference with evidence [Paras 4-7].

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Offence under Section 370(A) IPC – The petitioner, accused as a customer in a brothel case, sought quashing of the proceedings against him under Sections 370(3) and 370(A) of the IPC and Sections 3 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act – The Court observed that for Section 370(A) to apply, the customer must have knowledge that the victim was trafficked – Held: The proceedings for Section 370(A) IPC against the petitioner were upheld, as there was sufficient prima facie evidence – Petition partly allowed, quashing proceedings under Section 370(3) IPC and Sections 3 and 5 of the Act, but continuing prosecution under Section 370(A) IPC [Paras 8, 12, 13, 17].

Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act – Sections 3 and 5 – Non-applicability to Customers – The Court noted that Sections 3 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act are aimed at brothel keepers and those procuring women for prostitution, not customers – Held: The petitioner, being a customer, is not liable to be prosecuted under these sections – Proceedings quashed for these offences [Paras 10-12, 15].

Interpretation of Section 370(A) IPC – Customer’s Liability – The Court distinguished between the acts of trafficking and the role of customers – Held: The petitioner was found at the scene of the offence and could be prosecuted under Section 370(A)(2) IPC for engaging in sexual exploitation of trafficked persons – Petition dismissed in this regard [Paras 7, 14, 16].

Decision: Petition partly allowed – Proceedings under Section 370(3) IPC and Sections 3 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act quashed – Proceedings under Section 370(A) IPC to continue​.

Bail Cancellation – Alleged Violation of Conditions – Matrimonial Dispute – The petitioner sought the cancellation of bail granted to respondent No.2, alleging that he had violated bail conditions by threatening her – Held: The alleged violation pertained to a separate incident for which an FIR was filed belatedly, and respondent No.2 had complied with the bail conditions post the Sessions Court's order – Petition dismissed [Paras 9-11].

Delayed FIR – Questionable Credibility – The FIR for the alleged threat by the respondent was lodged 25 days after the incident – The delay in filing the FIR raised doubts about the genuineness of the allegations – Held: The delay in filing the FIR undermined the credibility of the petitioner’s claim of threat [Para 9].

No Grounds for Bail Cancellation – Regular Compliance with Bail Conditions – Respondent No.2 had been regularly attending court and had not violated any conditions since the Sessions Court's previous order – Held: No valid grounds for cancellation of bail were made out – Petition dismissed [Paras 10-11].

Decision:   Petition for cancellation of bail dismissed – Respondent No.2 to continue on bail as per the existing conditions​.

Money Laundering – Corruption Allegations – PMLA Proceedings – Arrest Upheld – The petitioner, a former Forest Minister of Punjab, challenged his arrest under the PMLA, claiming violations of Section 19 and arguing that he had cooperated with the investigation. The Directorate of Enforcement arrested the petitioner for laundering proceeds of crime from bribes related to forest department activities, including issuing No Objection Certificates (NOCs), officer transfers, and illegal tree felling – Evidence, including witness statements and records of disproportionate assets, supported the allegations of money laundering – The court found the arrest was lawful, rejecting claims of procedural violations – Petition for quashing of arrest was dismissed [Paras 6.1-8.4].

Civil Law – Recovery of Money – Execution of Promissory Note – Appellant contested the execution of the promissory note by the deceased Ramachandran, alleging it was fabricated – Trial court dismissed the suit for lack of conclusive proof, but the first appellate court reversed the decision, holding that oral evidence of witnesses substantiated the claim despite adverse expert opinion – Appellants argued the appellate court wrongly disregarded the expert opinion and failed to properly assess the evidence – Held: Oral evidence, corroborated by other factors, sufficiently established the validity of the promissory note, and the expert opinion was considered a weak piece of evidence – First appellate court's judgment upheld, and second appeal dismissed [Paras 6, 11-26].

Presumption of Execution – Section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act – Legal heirs of the deceased Ramachandran denied the execution of the promissory note – Plaintiff unable to claim presumption under Section 118 of the Act as the signature was disputed – Burden of proof shifted to plaintiff to establish that the deceased executed the promissory note – The trial court held the plaintiff did not meet this burden; however, the appellate court found the oral evidence provided by the plaintiff's witnesses sufficient to prove execution [Paras 11, 12, 16, 21].

Evidence – Adverse Inference – Section 114(g) of Indian Evidence Act – Trial court invoked Section 114(g) against the plaintiff for withholding expert opinion that was unfavorable – Appellate court found that invoking Section 114(g) was incorrect as the expert’s opinion was available to the court and could have been marked as evidence if deemed necessary – Held: Plaintiff was not obligated to rely on expert opinion, and oral evidence took precedence under Section 47 of Indian Evidence Act, allowing witnesses familiar with the signature to testify [Paras 13-20].

Remand Request – Defendants sought remand to trial court for re-appreciation of expert evidence – Held: As the expert opinion was already available, the defendants had the opportunity to submit it in their defense – The appellate court’s decision not to rely on it, and its focus on oral evidence, was deemed appropriate – Remand was unnecessary as the appellate court had sufficiently dealt with the matter based on the existing evidence [Paras 27-29].

Decision: Second appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree dated 24.08.2021 of the first appellate court confirmed – No costs [Para 30].

Commercial Law – Civil Revision Petition – Maintainability – Petitioners challenged the rejection of an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of the plaint – Petitioners argued that the suit was barred by limitation and failed to comply with Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 regarding mandatory pre-institution mediation – Held: Civil Revision Petition not maintainable due to the bar under Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 against challenging interlocutory orders – Petitioners failed to file an appeal under Section 13(1) or (1A) of the Act – Dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition upheld [Paras 9-17].

Limitation Law – Section 12A of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – Petitioners contended that pre-institution mediation was mandatory and that the suit violated this requirement – Respondent argued that the suit, filed before 20.08.2022, was exempt from the mandate per the Supreme Court's ruling in Patil Automation Pvt. Ltd. v. Rakheja Engineers Pvt. Ltd. – Held: Patil Automation applies prospectively from 20.08.2022, and the suit, filed on 30.11.2021, is exempt [Paras 3, 7].

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Article 227 of the Constitution – Petitioners invoked Article 227 of the Constitution of India to bypass the bar under Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – The court reiterated that the High Court’s power under Article 227 is not unrestrained and must be used sparingly, especially in light of specific statutes aimed at expediting dispute resolution – Held: Article 227 cannot be used to circumvent the bar on revision petitions under Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act [Paras 13-17].

Decision: Civil Revision Petition dismissed as not maintainable under Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – No costs awarded – No consideration of the merits of the dispute [Paras 18-19].
 

Service Law - Social Forestry Workers – Claim for Permanency – Kalelkar Award – Writ Petitions by Social Forestry Division challenging the Industrial Court’s orders granting permanency to daily wage workers under the Kalelkar Award – Petitioners contended that workers were engaged seasonally and not entitled to permanency as no sanctioned posts existed – Held: Industrial Court erred in granting straightaway permanency; instead, the workers’ cases should be considered under government schemes for regularization of daily wage workers as per the Government Resolutions – Cases remitted for consideration of absorption under Government Resolutions from 1996 and 2012 [Paras 1-4, 22-25, 30].

Grant of Permanency – Industrial Court’s Power – Umadevi Case Law – Petitioners argued that as per the Constitution Bench ruling in Umadevi, workers cannot claim regularization without following due process, and the Industrial Court overstepped by granting permanency – Held: Industrial Court’s order for regularization of casual workers without sanctioned posts contravenes Umadevi principles – Court referred to Government schemes that provided for absorption of workers after 5 years of service, requiring re-evaluation under those schemes – Permissible to grant absorption as per applicable schemes, but not direct regularization [Paras 17-19, 21, 22, 29].**

Kalelkar Award – Scope and Application – CRTE Status vs. Permanency – The Industrial Court granted permanency by applying the Kalelkar Award, which requires five years of continuous service for CRTE status – Held: The Kalelkar Award confers CRTE status and does not guarantee permanent government posts – The workers should have been granted CRTE status and considered for regularization under existing schemes, but not outright permanency – Industrial Court order modified accordingly [Paras 10-12, 22-25].**

Regularization Schemes – Government Resolutions of 1996, 2012, and 2018 – Court observed that several Government Resolutions provide for the regularization of daily wage workers completing 5 years of service between 1994 and 2004 – Directed petitioners to re-evaluate workers’ claims for regularization based on these resolutions, without insisting on conditions like active service in 2012 for those terminated in 2002 – Court outlined the method for calculating service benefits, continuity, and retirement benefits for eligible workers [Paras 23-30].

Premature Termination – Impact of Interim Orders – Petitioners argued that the workers’ continued service was due to the status-quo order, thus should not count towards permanency – Held: Interim orders did not prevent petitioners from terminating workers’ services – Workers continued in service for over a decade, justifying consideration for regularization – Termination during pending complaints did not negate their right to claim benefits under the regularization schemes [Paras 14-15, 16].

Decision: Petitions partly allowed – Industrial Court’s direction for permanency set aside – Petitioners to consider workers for regularization under relevant Government Resolutions – Cases remitted for re-evaluation – Eligible workers to be absorbed and granted consequential benefits, including monetary benefits, retirement benefits, and continuity of service [Paras 30-31].

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Allegations of Rape – Petitioners sought quashment of the FIR and charge sheet on the grounds that the prosecutrix is a consenting adult and the case has been amicably settled – Held: Offenses under Section 376 IPC (rape) are serious in nature and cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise, as they have a profound impact on society – The court must be cautious when using its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, especially in cases of heinous crimes like rape [Paras 7-8, 16-17].

Compromise in Heinous Crimes – Non-Compoundable Offenses – Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court held that offenses such as rape cannot be compromised even if the parties have settled – Crimes like rape affect the dignity and sanctity of women, and the court emphasized that these offenses are not merely private matters but affect public interest as well – Held: The petition for quashing was dismissed, and the court underscored that compromise does not mitigate or nullify the charges in such cases [Paras 9-13, 15-16].

Decision:

Petition under Section 482 of CrPC dismissed – Criminal proceedings will continue, as offenses of rape cannot be quashed based on compromise between the parties, given their serious nature and societal impact [Para 17].