Criminal Law – Sections 147, 148, 186/34, 353/34, 307/34 IPC – Unlawful Assembly – Obstruction of Public Servants – Acquittal – Appellants convicted by Additional Sessions Judge, 5th Fast Track Court, Malda for allegedly forming an unlawful assembly on 09.03.1993 at Piyasbari, armed with arrows, hasua, lathis and other weapons, and obstructing and assaulting police personnel – Sentenced to three months' simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.200/- each – On appeal, High Court finds prosecution case riddled with material contradictions, absence of medical evidence, non-production of seized weapons, and failure of independent witnesses to support the prosecution – Held: Prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellants acquitted [Paras 1–65].

"Independent Witnesses Turned Hostile – Prosecution Case Left Without Corroboration"

Witness Testimony – Independent Witnesses – Hostile – PW3 Mukul Mondal, PW5 Jiten Das, PW6 Ratan Das, PW8 Niren Ghosh and PW9 Sonatan Rajak cited as independent witnesses but did not support prosecution case – Declared hostile and cross-examined by prosecution, yet nothing useful elicited – PW4 Lalu Rajak denied putting his thumb impression on seizure list dated 09.03.1993 and stated he knew nothing about the incident – PW10 Sachindranath Mondal admitted signing the seizure list at the direction of police at a location one and a half kilometres from the place of occurrence without knowledge of articles seized – Neither PW4 nor PW10 was declared hostile by prosecution – Held: Witnesses cited to prove seizure have not supported prosecution case – Evidentiary value of seizure list becomes highly doubtful – Entire prosecution case rests primarily on interested testimony of police personnel [Paras 26–35].

"Absence of Medical Evidence – Injuries of Police Personnel Not Substantiated"

Medical Evidence – Injury Reports – Non-Production – PW14 (A.S.I. Ananda Kumar Mondal), PW15 (Constable Jagabandhu Adhikari) and PW18 (S.I. Bijoy Krishna Dey) claimed to have sustained injuries in the alleged attack and were treated at Malda Sadar Hospital – Prosecution only produced hospital admission tickets (Exhibit-7) without any injury report or medical certificate showing nature, extent or seriousness of injuries – PW17 (Dr. Ruchira Banerjee) found only one abrasion on PW18's right hand and admitted history of assault was not recorded and the injury could have been caused by a fall on a blunt surface – PW16 (first Investigating Officer) admitted he did not collect injury reports and that PW15 did not suffer any injury from stone throwing, directly contradicting PW18's testimony – Held: Prosecution failed to substantiate claim of injuries with proper medical evidence [Paras 36–49].

"Non-Seizure and Non-Production of Alleged Weapons – Fatal Gap in Prosecution Case"

Seizure – Non-Production of Weapons – PW18 alleged assailants were armed with hasua, lathis, stones, arrows and bows but Investigating Agency did not seize any such weapons during investigation – PW15 stated Investigating Officer seized a rifle and cartridges but these were neither produced before Court nor shown to the witness – PW16 admitted items seized were never produced in Court as material exhibits – Held: Non-seizure and non-production of alleged offending weapons amounts to a material irregularity and demonstrates failure of prosecution to establish essential aspects of its case – Creates significant gap in chain of evidence [Paras 36, 40, 53, 62].

"Contradictions Between Police Witnesses – Prosecution Narrative Unreliable"

Credibility of Police Witnesses – Internal Contradictions – PW18 claimed PW15 sustained injuries in the attack but PW16 in cross-examination categorically stated PW15 did not suffer any injury from stone throwing – PW1 (H.G. 339 Faruq Sk.) admitted he could not say whether any police officer sustained injuries and stated he "later came to learn" of injuries from the mob, based solely on hearsay – PW1 further admitted his statement was recorded for the first time in Court and he was never examined by the Investigating Officer during investigation – PW2 failed to identify any of the alleged miscreants before Court – Discrepancies exist regarding number of persons present, nature of injuries, and sequence of events – Held: Testimonies of police witnesses are fraught with contradictions and omissions and do not form a coherent or consistent narrative – Conviction based solely on interested witness testimony without independent corroboration cannot be sustained [Paras 50–58, 61].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and order of conviction dated 21.05.2005 in Sessions Case No. 95/03 (Sessions Trial No. 19(4)/04, English Bazar P.S. Case No. 68/93, G.R. Case No. 303/93) passed by Additional Sessions Judge, 5th Fast Track Court, Malda set aside – Appellants acquitted of all charges – Appellants discharged from bail bonds and set at liberty if not wanted in any other case – Direction to execute bail bonds under Section 437A CrPC/Section 483 BNSS for six months.

Civil Law – Suit for Declaration and Recovery of Possession – Maintainability – Mahanta Suing in Personal Capacity – Suit properties claimed to belong to Emar Math, Puri, but suit filed by Mahanta in his personal name praying for declaration of his own title without impleading Emar Math as a party or praying for declaration of Math's title – A Math is a juristic person capable of holding and vindicating legal rights through human agency – Mahanta acts as marfatdar of the Math – Held: Suit for declaration of Mahanta's own title over properties belonging to the Math is not maintainable under law [Paras 13-14].

Landlord-Tenant Relationship – Proof Essential for Eviction – Section 106, Transfer of Property Act – Both Trial Court and First Appellate Court concurrently found that plaintiff failed to establish monthly tenancy of defendant No.2 – Plaintiff issued notice under Section 106 of the T.P. Act seeking eviction on ground of non-payment of rent – No cross-objection filed by plaintiff challenging concurrent finding of failure to prove tenancy – Held: Concurrent finding attained finality; plaintiff not entitled to decree for eviction without proof of landlord-tenant relationship [Paras 15-16].

Title – Failure to Prove Ekpadiya and Jamabandi – Onus on Plaintiff – Plaintiff based title over suit properties on Ekpadiya submitted by ex-landlord Susilabala Dasi and Jamabandi created in his favour – Defendants denied issuance of any Ekpadiya in favour of plaintiff and corroborated claim of defendant No.1 – State also denied existence of Ekpadiya in favour of plaintiff – Plaintiff neither filed nor proved any Ekpadiya or Jamabandi at any stage – No explanation offered for non-production – Held: Plaintiff failed to discharge the onus to prove title and possession; suit for declaration and eviction not maintainable [Paras 17-19].

Limitation – Suit for Declaration – Article 58, Limitation Act, 1963 – Three-Year Period from Date of First Accrual of Cause of Action – Plaintiff's first cause of action arose on 15.05.1992; suit filed on 21.06.1999, i.e., seven years after the first cause of action – Prescribed period under Article 58 is three years from date of first accrual of right to sue – Multiple causes of action do not give rise to fresh periods of limitation; clock runs from the date when right to sue first accrued – Held: Suit barred by limitation; finding of First Appellate Court that suit was within limitation not sustainable [Paras 20-21].

Decision: Second appeal allowed – Impugned judgment and decree of First Appellate Court in R.F.A. No. 50/2010 set aside – Judgment and decree of Trial Court dismissing the suit vide T.S. No. 189 of 1999 confirmed [Paras 22-25].

TNPID Act – Default in repayment – Financial establishment – Accused induced public to deposit money through false computer job scheme promising monthly returns and repayment – Failure to repay matured deposits to 39 depositors established through consistent oral and documentary evidence – Conviction upheld [Paras 9–12]

Cheating and conspiracy – Sections 420 and 120B IPC – False promise and inducement – Accused issued advertisements and pamphlets to attract deposits with no intention to honour commitments – Common design established – Ingredients of cheating and conspiracy proved beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 9–11]

Evidence – Depositors as witnesses – Prosecution examined large number of depositors (PW1–PW39) and marked receipts, agreements and cheques – Evidence found cogent and trustworthy – Cross-examination did not discredit prosecution case [Paras 9–11]

Mens rea under TNPID Act – Requirement – Offence under Section 5 does not require strict proof of mens rea – Mere default in repayment of deposits sufficient to attract liability under the Act [Para 12]

Repayment – Partial repayment – Effect – Accused repaid part amount but substantial balance remained unpaid – Partial repayment does not absolve criminal liability [Paras 6, 12]

Sentence – Modification – Considering partial repayment and facts of case, sentence of 10 years under Section 5 TNPID Act reduced to 5 years – Fine amount maintained – Direction issued to deposit further sum towards dues [Para 13]

Conditional direction – Deposit of amount – Court directed appellants to deposit specified amount within stipulated time failing which original sentence to revive automatically [Para 13]

Appellate interference – Scope – No interference warranted in conviction where prosecution proved case beyond reasonable doubt – Interference limited to modification of sentence [Paras 12–13]

Decision: Criminal Appeals partly allowed – Conviction under Sections 120B, 420 IPC and Section 5 TNPID Act confirmed – Sentence under Section 5 TNPID Act reduced from 10 years to 5 years simple imprisonment – Fine confirmed – Direction to deposit ₹37,50,000/- each within stipulated time, failing which original sentence to revive.

Civil Law – Declaration of Title and Possession – Proof of Will – Plaintiff claimed title on basis of registered Will dated 28.03.1990 allegedly executed by testatrix Anasuyamma – Evidence of attesting witnesses contained serious inconsistencies regarding execution, presence of witnesses and circumstances of registration – Testatrix in earlier litigation failed to mention such Will though examined as witness – Held: Registered Will surrounded by several suspicious circumstances and not proved in accordance with Section 68 of the Evidence Act read with Section 63 of the Succession Act – Plaintiff failed to establish title to the suit property [Paras 21–24, 33].

Will – Suspicious Circumstances – Duty of Propounder – Court reiterated that when suspicious circumstances surround execution of a Will, the burden lies heavily on the propounder to remove such suspicions before the document can be accepted as genuine – Mere registration of a Will does not dispel suspicious circumstances – Discrepancies in testimonies of attesting witnesses and conduct of the testatrix created serious doubt regarding genuineness of the Will relied upon by the plaintiff [Paras 17, 21, 31–33].

Will – Subsequent Testament – Defendants relied upon later unregistered Will dated 10.08.1997 executed shortly before death of testatrix – All attesting witnesses examined and their evidence remained unshaken in cross-examination – Held: Unregistered Will proved in accordance with law and being the last testament of the testatrix prevails over earlier disputed Will [Paras 34–38].

Civil Law – Declaration Suit – Plaintiff must succeed on strength of own title – Plaintiff, being not a natural heir, failed to prove the Will forming basis of title – Defendants proved later Will and were also Class-II heirs under the Succession Act – Held: Plaintiff not entitled to declaration of title or recovery of possession – Trial Court erred in partly decreeing the suit [Paras 15, 39–40].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree dated 27.03.2006 passed by the III Additional District Judge, Guntur set aside – Suit in O.S.No.03 of 1998 dismissed – Parties directed to bear their own costs.

Constitution of India – Article 226 – Abuse of Writ Jurisdiction – Collateral Challenge to Contempt Proceedings – Petitioners challenged spot verification reports and sought to render contempt court order directing payment of compensation infructuous – Judgment dated 19.03.2015 directing joint verification and payment of rent had already attained finality – Verification completed and compensation assessed and forwarded to Ministry of Defence – Writ petition filed only after contempt court directed compliance – Held: Petition is a belated attempt to circumvent and frustrate binding judicial orders and is not maintainable under Article 226 [Paras 14–16, 26–28].

Finality of Litigation – Judicial Orders Attaining Finality – Once judgment directing joint verification and compensation attained finality and was not challenged, issues concluded therein cannot be reopened through subsequent writ proceedings – Permitting collateral challenge would defeat doctrine of finality and render judicial determinations uncertain – Held: Parties cannot reopen concluded issues after several years, especially after contempt proceedings are initiated for enforcement [Paras 22–23].

Contempt Proceedings – Attempt to Avoid Compliance – Petitioners filed writ petition after contempt court ordered deposit of ₹2,16,81,261/- as assessed rental compensation for landowners whose lands were occupied by security forces between 01.09.1986 and 09.09.2008 – Court held filing of writ petition at this stage clearly intended to delay and defeat compliance with earlier judicial orders – Such conduct undermines authority of courts and administration of justice [Paras 16, 24–25, 31].

Writ Jurisdiction – Clean Hands Doctrine – Litigant invoking equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 must approach court with clean hands, clean mind and full disclosure of facts – Courts must refuse relief where proceedings are initiated to abuse judicial process or mislead the court – Suppression of material facts or filing misconceived petitions amounts to abuse of process [Paras 17–21, 29].

Costs – Abuse of Judicial Process by State Authorities – Petition filed by government authorities long after finalization of verification and assessment, and only after contempt directions – Such conduct caused prolonged deprivation of compensation to landowners and unnecessary litigation – Held: Exemplary costs justified to deter misuse of judicial process [Paras 27, 32].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed at motion stage – Court held petition to be frivolous and an abuse of judicial process – Petitioners directed to deposit costs of ₹50,000 with the High Court Legal Services Committee within 10 days – Amount to be reimbursed from salary of erring official (Defence Estates Officer, Guwahati Circle).

Civil Law – Adverse Possession – Declaration of Title – Suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction over suit tanks claimed to have been excavated by plaintiff's ancestor Trilochan Behera – Trial Court decreed the suit holding plaintiff and his predecessors in uninterrupted possession for more than statutory period – First Appellate Court reversed, dismissing suit for non-service of notice under Section 80(1) CPC and non-joinder of necessary parties – High Court holds First Appellate Court erred on both counts – Second Appeal allowed, trial court decree restored [Paras 1–16].

"Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Dispenses with Prior Notice – First Appellate Court Erred"

Notice – Section 80 CPC – Suit Against Government – Leave Granted by Trial Court – Trial Court on 15.05.1982 granted leave to the plaintiff to institute the suit without prior notice under Section 80(2) CPC – First Appellate Court dismissed suit holding notice under Section 80(1) not served, overlooking the leave already granted – Held: Once leave under Section 80(2) is granted, the requirement of prior notice under Section 80(1) stands dispensed with – Dismissal on that ground suffers from error apparent on the face of the record [Para 12].

"Non-Joinder Cannot Be Raised at Appellate Stage by Party Who Remained Inactive at Trial"

Non-Joinder of Necessary Parties – Order I Rule 9 and Rule 13 CPC – Defendant No.3 set ex parte before trial court – Petition for impleadment filed by Biswamber Behera, Brajamohan Behera and Defendant No.3 dismissed as not pressed on 16.09.1983 – No issue on non-joinder framed by trial court – No specific point raised before First Appellate Court either – Held: Objection as to non-joinder must be taken at the earliest opportunity and before settlement of issues – Permitting a party who remained inactive at trial to raise the plea at appellate stage would amount to defeating the decree on a technical ground neither pressed nor adjudicated earlier [Paras 13–14].

"Doctrine of Waiver and Acquiescence – Party Cannot Take Advantage of Own Default"

Waiver – Acquiescence – Defendant No.3 entered appearance before trial court but neither filed written statement nor contested the suit and was set ex parte – Having consciously abstained from participation, defendant No.3 deemed to have waived right to object – A party cannot be permitted to take advantage of its own default or omission – Plea of non-joinder not maintainable at appellate stage merely because trial court judgment was adverse [Para 14].

"Exclusive Adverse Possession – Co-Sharers Not Necessary Parties When Plaintiff Claims Independent Title Against State"

Adverse Possession – Necessary Parties – Where plaintiff asserts exclusive hostile possession against the State and perfection of title by lapse of statutory period, the foundation of the suit is such exclusive possession – Unless it is demonstrated that no effective decree could be passed in their absence, co-sharers are not necessary parties – Suit cannot be held bad for non-joinder on that basis alone [Para 13].

Decision: Second Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree of First Appellate Court set aside – Judgment and decree of trial court confirmed – No order as to costs.

Right to Information Act, 2005 — Section 20(1) — Penalty Proceedings — Right of Appellant to be Heard — Petitioner filed RTI application seeking information regarding exclusion of her Form-6 application under Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 from Revenue Adalat — SPIO failed to reply within 30 days — State Information Commission issued show cause notice to SPIO — SPIO's explanation accepted and penalty proceedings dropped — Petitioner challenged the order contending she was not furnished copy of SPIO's explanation and was not afforded opportunity to rebut — Held: The first proviso to Section 20(1) mandates only that the SPIO be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before penalty is imposed — RTI Act does not provide for hearing the appellant in proceedings under Section 20 — Penalty proceedings under Section 20 are purely a matter between the Commission and the SPIO — Penalty goes to the State exchequer and not to the complainant — Appellant has no right to be heard in penalty proceedings under Section 20(1) unless permitted by the Commission — Commission's finding that SPIO's explanation was satisfactory cannot be termed erroneous or perverse — Writ petition dismissed [Paras 7, 8].

RTI Act — Section 20(1) — Nature of Penalty Proceedings — Distinguished from Compensation under Section 19(8)(b) — Unlike proceedings for compensation under Section 19(8)(b) which require adjudication of the complainant's loss and thereby necessitate presence of appellant, penalty proceedings under Section 20 do not require the appellant's participation — The show cause notice issued by the Commission is only prima facie in nature — If the Commission finds the SPIO's explanation satisfactory, penalty proceedings can be dropped — Appearance of appellant before State Information Commission is optional as per Rule 7 of the Kerala State Information Commission (Procedure for Appeal) Rules, 2006 [Paras 7, 8].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed.

Matrimonial Law – Divorce – Mental Cruelty – Unsubstantiated Allegations in Written Statement – Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act – Appellant-husband sought divorce on ground of mental cruelty – Trial Court dismissed the suit – On appeal, held: allegations levelled by the respondent-wife in her written statement, including attempt to kill their second daughter, illicit affair of the husband with another lady, and incitement of third parties to make immoral proposals to the wife, were wholly unsubstantiated – Allegation of attempt to kill daughter on February 15, 2019 demolished by wife's own admission in cross-examination that she had not returned to her matrimonial home after December 15, 2018, three months prior to such alleged incident – No corroborative evidence, oral or documentary, adduced for the alleged illicit affair – Testimony of wife (DW-1) and her mother (DW-2) stood in stark contradiction to each other – Reckless, defamatory and unsubstantiated allegations in pleadings against the spouse and his family, including jeopardising the husband's service in the CISF (a disciplined force), constitute mental cruelty – Trial Court erred in not taking this component of cruelty into account – Appellant entitled to decree of divorce on this ground alone [Paras 27–36].

Mental Cruelty – Plaint Allegations by Husband – Not Substantiated – Adverse Inference – Allegations by the appellant-husband of the wife refusing to do household work, ill-behaving with in-laws and perpetrating cruelty during her stay at the matrimonial home were vague and unaccompanied by specific dates or instances – PW-2, an acquaintance of the husband, admitted he learnt of the facts the day before deposing, relegating his testimony to hearsay – None of the family members of the husband, who would have been the best witnesses, were produced, warranting adverse inference against the appellant on the plaint case of cruelty during cohabitation – Trial Court justified in rejecting plaint allegations for want of independent corroboration [Paras 24–26].

Restitution of Conjugal Rights – Not a Prerequisite for Divorce – The learned Trial Judge erred in holding that non-filing of a suit for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act was indicative of lack of bona fides on the part of the husband – Held: there is no requirement in law that a party must initiate restitution proceedings as a precondition for seeking divorce – No evidence of animus revertendi on the part of the respondent-wife during the entire period of separation since December 15, 2018 [Para 38].

Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage – Independent Ground for Divorce – Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act – Parties had been separated for over eight years since December 2018 – Both parties stated during arguments that they did not wish to resume conjugal life – No attempt made by either party to unite during this period – Held: a marital relationship that has only become bitter and acrimonious over the years inflicts cruelty on both sides; keeping the facade of such a broken marriage alive does injustice to both parties – Irretrievable breakdown of marriage itself spells cruelty to both parties and is a ground for dissolution under Section 13(1)(ia) – Rakesh Raman v. Kavita, (2023) 17 SCC 433, followed [Paras 39–41].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree dated December 6, 2023 of the Additional District Judge, Khatra, in Matrimonial Suit No. 07 of 2020 set aside – Suit decreed – Marriage between the parties dissolved by divorce – No order as to costs.

Criminal Law – Human Trafficking – Immoral Traffic – Quashing of Charge – Sections 370, 370-A(2) IPC and Sections 3, 4, 5, 7 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 – Petitioner, owner-cum-manager of a Spa at Mapusa, sought quashing of order framing charges arising from a police trap operation in which a decoy customer paid marked currency notes for massage services, a victim girl accepted additional payment for extra/special massage, and marked notes were recovered both from the victim and the cash counter held by the Petitioner – Co-accused (customers and other named accused) had earlier been discharged by the Court – Held: Sufficient prima facie material exists on record to frame charge against the Petitioner and the challenge to the order framing charge fails – Petition dismissed [Paras 1, 20, 21].

"Owner-Cum-Manager Personally Implicated — Decoy Statement Establishes Direct Role"

Framing of Charge – Prima Facie Material – Role of Petitioner – The statement of the decoy customer disclosed that the Petitioner, seated at the counter, personally informed him of the massage charges, assured provision of female masseurs in closed-door rooms, received payment of Rs.1,500/- in marked currency, and arranged a victim girl for massage – Marked notes of Rs.1,500/- were recovered from the cash counter in the Petitioner's possession during the raid – Prima facie material clearly implicates the Petitioner in active management and facilitation of the alleged activities [Paras 10, 15].

"Victim Statements Alone Not Determinative — Context of Trap Raid Governs at Charge Stage"

Victim Statements – Stereotypical Nature – Insufficient to Negate Charge – The statements of the rescued victim girls were stereotypical, denying forced exploitation, but when read conjunctively with the complaint, decoy statement and scene of offence panchanama, prima facie material emerged showing one victim accepted Rs.500/- for extra/special/hand massage, which sum was recovered from her personal search – A packet of condoms was also recovered from the same room – The nature of the extra massage is a matter to be determined upon trial, not at the charge stage [Paras 12, 14, 15].

"Definition of 'Exploitation' Under Section 370 IPC is Inclusive, Not Exhaustive"

Trafficking Offence – Exploitation – Consent Immaterial – Section 370 IPC defines exploitation inclusively to cover any form of sexual exploitation, slavery or practices similar to slavery – Second Explanation to Section 370 renders the consent of the victim immaterial in determining the offence of trafficking – Whether a particular act constitutes exploitation depends upon the facts of each case and is a matter for trial [Paras 12, 13, 14].

"Principle of Parity Not Applicable — Role of Petitioner Distinct from Discharged Co-Accused"

Parity – Discharge of Co-Accused – Inapplicability – Accused Nos. 7, 8 and 9 were discharged as no role was attributed to them in the complaint or charge-sheet – Accused Nos. 2 to 6 were discharged as they were merely customers of the Spa – The Petitioner, being the licensee and owner-cum-manager who personally received payment and facilitated the alleged prostitution, stands on an entirely different footing – Principle of parity cannot be invoked in favour of the Petitioner [Paras 4, 17].

"Standard at Charge Stage — Court Not to Weigh Pros and Cons but Only Assess Prima Facie Grounds"

Framing of Charge – Standard of Scrutiny – At the stage of framing charge, the Court is only required to sift the evidence to determine whether sufficient grounds exist to proceed against the accused – The Court must assume the prosecution material to be true and assess whether the ingredients of the offence are prima facie disclosed – It is not the function of the Court at this stage to weigh the pros and cons of the evidence, which is the function reserved for the trial [Para 18].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Order dated 17.01.2024 of the Sessions Judge, North Goa, directing framing of charges against the Petitioner under Sections 370 and 370-A(2) IPC and Sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 upheld – Rule discharged [Para 21].