Introduction

Justice P.B. Varale was born on 23rd June 1962 in Nipani. He pursued a degree in Arts and Law from Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University.  

Career 

• Justice Varale enrolled as an Advocate on 12th August 1985. 
• He joined the chamber of S.N. Loya and this gave him exposure in diverse legal matters. 
• Justice Varale served as a lecturer in Law at Ambedkar Law College, Aurungabad from 1990 to 1992. 
• He served as the Assistant Government Pleader and Additional Public Prosecutor at the High Court Bench in Aurangabad. 
• On 18th July 2008 he was elevated to the bench of High Court of Bombay 
• On 15th October 2022 he took oath as the Chief Justice of the High Court of Karnataka.  
• With his appointment the Supreme Court now has three judges from the Scheduled Castes- Justices BR Gavai, CT Ravikumar and Varale. This is the highest ever representation of the community in the Supreme Court. 

Notable Judgments 

• Uniworld Logistics Pvt. Ltd v. Indev Logistics Pvt. Ltd. (2024) 
  • The Supreme Court held that claims for mesne profits and claim for possession are two different causes of action. 
  • It was held therefore that the subsequent suit for arrears of rent was maintainable after the suit for possession. 
•  State of Punjab v. Pratap Singh Verka (2024) 

• • The Supreme Court has reiterated that the court cannot take cognizance of an offence committed by a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 without prosecution sanction. 
  • The Court held that this condition is applicable even for summoning a public servant as an additional accused under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 
• P. Sasikumar v. The State Rep. By the Inspector (2024) 
  • The Supreme Court observed that if the accused is a stranger to a witness, then without holding a Test Identification Parade (TIP) of the accused, the identification of the accused by a witness in the court cannot be considered a good piece of evidence for deciding conviction. 
  • The Court added that if there was no TIP, then the conviction cannot be decided solely on the identification of an accused made by a witness in the Court. 
  • The court said so to prevent the dock identification of the accused by a witness, wherein the identity of an accused always remains under the cloud of suspicion being fairly determined by a TIP. 
• State of Maharashtra v. Shatrughna Baban Meshram (2015) 
  • The Bombay High Court in a first sentencing of its kind, confirmed double death sentence and double life imprisonment in a case of rape and murder of a two-year-old girl by her uncle. 
  • The sentence was awarded under Section 376-A of the IPC which was brought through the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2014 after the gruesome Nirbhaya case. 
  • This section provides for death sentence for an offence of committing rape and inflicting injury which causes death or causes the woman to be in a persistent vegetative state. 
• Sandip Baburao Waidande v. State of Maharashtra (2021) 
  • A Division Bench of Prasanna B. Varale and S.M. Modak, JJ., held that in a matter of circumstantial evidence, the law does not require a particular number of circumstances to establish the chain, it only depends on nature. 
  • Further, even if the circumstance of the last seen together was considered, the Court did not think that other circumstances were sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused.  
  • The Court opined that prejudice was caused to the accused. 
• Karnataka Power Transmission Corpn. Ltd. v. S Kiran (2023) 
  • A division bench of Karnataka High Court upheld an order of a Single Judge which directed the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited to reinstate an employee who was dismissed from service due to unauthorised absence of 632 days (about 1 year 9 months) on account of suffering from mental depression.