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].

Coercive Recovery Proceedings by Bank - Kerala Bank initiated coercive proceedings for recovery of financial advance from the petitioner invoking the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Petitioner challenged the proceedings due to inability to repay due to COVID-19 pandemic. [Para 1]

Financial Transactions and Default - Petitioner received various loans from the Bank between 2011 and 2022 - Default in repayment due to COVID-19 - Petitioner sought to repay overdue amounts in monthly instalments, but the Bank commenced coercive recovery. [Paras 2, 3, 5]

Bank's Stance and Legal Position - Bank denied petitioner's claims - Stated petitioner defaulted deliberately and did not provide any legal basis to stop coercive proceedings - Bank open to allowing repayment if substantial payment made soon. [Paras 5, 6, 7]

Court's Observation and Directions - Court noted petitioner's initial regular repayments and subsequent default due to uncontrollable circumstances - Directed the petitioner to clear dues in 10 monthly instalments, starting 19.02.2024, along with current EMIs - Failure to comply will allow the Bank to proceed with coercive actions. [Paras 8, 9, 10, 11]

Quashing – PC Act - Tender Process and Alleged Misconduct – Petitioners, officials in port management, involved in tender process for manual dredging and sale of port sand in Kasaragod district – Alleged preferential treatment to unqualified co-operative societies – Allegations of criminal misconduct and conspiracy [Paras 2-3, 7, 22, 24-25].

Submission by Petitioners – Challenging the basis of allegations – No evidence of obtaining pecuniary advantage or causing loss to the government – Argued irregularities in the tender process do not constitute criminal misconduct [Paras 5.1-5.5].

Prosecution's Stand – Asserted that certain co-operative societies were wrongfully permitted in the tender – Alleged conspiracy and preferential treatment by petitioners [Para 6.1].

Judicial Analysis – The court examined the allegations of criminal misconduct under Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act – Emphasized the requirement of dishonest intention for criminal misconduct – Found that prosecution failed to establish dishonest intention or pecuniary advantage obtained by petitioners [Paras 11-13, 19-24].

Dismissal of Charges – Determined that the allegations pointed to procedural irregularities, not criminal misconduct – No evidence of pecuniary gain or dishonest intention – Proceedings against petitioners quashed, considering no prima facie case established against them [Paras 24-28].

Transfer Petition in Family Court Matters – Jurisdiction and Convenience – Petition for transfer of case from Family Court, Kozhikode to Family Court, Manjeri – Petitioner, a mother, citing financial and health constraints and shorter distance to Manjeri – Respondents argue minimal distance difference and minor child's school and Madrassa in Kozhikode – Court considers convenience of mother in guardianship matters and insufficient opposition by respondents. [Para 1-4]

Jurisdiction under Guardians and Wards Act – Section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1980, confers jurisdiction based on minor's residence – Court notes natural jurisdiction conferred by special statutes in family matters, emphasizing the need to consider mother's convenience in transfer petitions. [Para 4]

Decision – Transfer petition allowed – Case O.P.(G&W) No.720/2023 ordered to be transferred from Family Court, Kozhikode to Family Court, Manjeri – Transferee court instructed not to insist on minor's presence at every court date, except when essential for proceedings. [Para 5]

Criminal Law – Discharge - Conspiracy and Misconduct in Granting Dredging Permits – Accused alleged of forming a criminal conspiracy in granting permits for the disposal of dredged materials from Azheekkal Port – Accused allegedly adopted different criteria for different dredgers, causing a loss of Rs.3,20,000/- to the public exchequer. [Paras 2, 28-33]

Investigation Validity and Competence of Investigating Officer – Major part of the investigation conducted by an Inspector of Police, VACB, Kannur – Validity upheld based on Notification No.12094/C1/88/Vig dated 02.03.1993 authorising Inspectors to investigate offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. [Paras 7-12]

Evidence and Witness Testimonies – Reliance on testimonies of the Wharf Supervisor and other officials – Testimonies and documents indicating differential treatment in granting dredging permits and quantifying the resultant loss to the government. [Paras 14, 29]

Legal Interpretation of Section 239 Cr.P.C. – Court’s consideration for discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. – Evaluation of whether charges against accused are groundless, without going into probative value of materials. [Paras 16-27]

Accused's Arguments and Court's Analysis – Petitioners’ arguments on lack of guidelines for dredging and rate fixation under Section 68 of the Indian Ports Act, 1908 – Court's consideration of evidence indicating excess dredging and resultant loss to the government, and involvement of accused in alleged conspiracy. [Paras 31-37]

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Charges not groundless, necessitating full trial – Allegations of pecuniary advantage and loss to the government through differential dredging permits substantiated. [Para 41]