Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), Section 108, 117 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 4, 5, -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 174, 175 -- Summons u/s 108 of Customs Act – Non- compliance of – Applicability of Section 174, 175 of IPC --  Had there been no provision like 117 in the Customs Act, obviously the concerned person to whom summons have been issued under Section 108 of the Customs Act, if fails to comply therewith, would have been guilty for committing an offence under Section 174 of 175 or both of the Indian Penal Code -- Section 117 of the Customs Act, finds place in a Special Act i.e., Customs Act, which is a complete code in itself providing for various violations, offences and penalties and the procedure etc., therefore, Section 174 & 175 of Indian Penal Code will have no application, in view of Section 4 & 5 of the Criminal Procedure Code -- Prosecution u/s 174 & 175 of the IPC quashed.

(Para 8-13)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304B, 34 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378 -- Dowry death – Appeal against acquittal -- Parents-in-law -- They were residing separately and had no occasion to harass the deceased -- Difficult to believe the prosecution case that parent-in-paw used to harass the deceased on account of dowry soon before her death – Learned Trial Court had taken a reasonable view while holding that the complicity of the parents-in-law of the deceased was not established based on the evidence led before it – High Court will not interfere with the same even if an alternative view is possible – Appeal dismissed.

(Para 30-33)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 494, 34 – Bigamy – Common intention – Quashing of complaint/ order framing charge -- A perusal of the pre-charge evidence led in support of the complaint would reveal that accused No.3 and 4 were not even alleged to be present at the time of such marriage -- Hence, the involvement of these accused for the charge of having a common intention to commit the offence u/s 494 IPC is not established by an iota of evidence -- Criminal case qua them quashed.

(Para 3, 4, 18-22)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 494, 34 – Bigamy – Common intention – Quashing of complaint/ order framing charge -- Accused No. 5, 6 and 7 are friends and they witnessed the alleged bigamous marriage -- Not a shred of allegation by the complainant that these accused, acted as witnesses to the second marriage having knowledge that accused no.1 was already married to the complainant -- Charge of having a common intention to commit the offence u/s 494 IPC is totally unwarranted in the eyes of law -- Allowing the proceedings of the criminal case to be continued against the appellants would tantamount to gross illegality and abuse of the process of Court – Criminal case qua them quashed.

(Para 3, 4, 19-22)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21, 50 – NDPS case – Acquittal – Foreign national do not know English, Hindi and Punjabi language – Effect of -- Accused-appellant is from Kenya -- PW3 SI categorically stated that accused did not know Hindi, Punjabi or English language and that she only knew the Kenyan language and was speaking only the said Kenyan language and also disclosed that police party did not know the Kenyan language, which was being spoken by the accused-appellant – It cannot be stated that fair trial has been conducted -- Entire investigation is held to be vitiated on account of the accused not understanding any communication made to her by the police party – There is complete non-compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act and numerous material contradictions in the statements of material witnesses – Appeal allowed, impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence are set aside.

(Para 25-28)

A. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 42 – NDPS Case -- Prior information – Search warrant – Independent witness -- Police received prior information but did not obtain the search warrant because the police apprehended that case property would be destroyed by the delay in procuring the warrant, therefore, it resorted to the provisions of Section 42(2) -- The fact that independent witnesses have not stated anything about preparing the rukka and information under Section 42(2) in their presence and sending the police official with the same shows that there was no compliance with Section 42(2) and the same is fatal to the prosecution case.

(Para 23)

B. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 20 – NDPS Case -- Number of person present at the spot – Inconsistency in – Effect of – Recovery of 1 Kg 200 grams of charas from accused’s house -- Inconsistency regarding the number of persons present on the spot is not minor because the presence of the persons is so intricately connected to the recovery that any inconsistency in the former would affect the latter – Inconsistency cannot be ignored.

(Para 2, 24, 26)

C. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 20 – NDPS Case -- Number of seals – Inconsistency in – Effect of -- Recovery of 1 Kg 200 grams of charas from accused’s house -- Inconsistency regarding the number of seals put on the parcel would show that the testimonies of the witnesses regarding the putting of the seals are not correct, which would affect the integrity of the case property adversely -- Inconsistency cannot be ignored.

(Para 2, 25, 26)

D. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 20 – NDPS Case -- Date of arrest – Inconsistency in – Effect of -- Inconsistency regarding the date of the arrest of the accused will make the whole case of the prosecution suspect because if the accused was arrested on 06.07.2016 and was to be produced before the learned Court on 07.07.2016, the whole of the prosecution case that information was received on 07.07.2016 and recovery was effected on 07.07.2016 in the presence of the accused will become suspect -- Inconsistency cannot be ignored.

(Para 26)

E. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985),  Section 20 – NDPS Case -- Photography of search – Evidential value -- Recovery of 1 Kg 200 grams of charas from accused’s house -- Heavy reliance was placed upon photographs and video recorded the process of search -- Photographs and the video recording could have been used to lend corroboration to the testimonies of the witnesses but when the testimonies are themselves suspect, there can be no question of their corroboration -- Photographs and the video recording by themselves are not substantive pieces of evidence upon which, a conviction can be recorded.

(Para 27)

Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (57 of 1994), Section 3, 5, 6, 23, 25, 28 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420, 120B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Disclosing the sex of foetus – Role of owner of Hospital -- Quashing of complaint/ summoning order -- No allegation, direct or indirect levelled against owner of Hospital -- Ownership of the Hospital where the ultrasound was allegedly carried upon a decoy pregnant woman would not make him liable under the PCPNDT Act -- At the very least, the allegations in the complaint should demonstrate the commission of a cognizable offence by the accused in question -- Any such evidence against owner is conspicuously absent – Petition allowed qua owner of hospital.

(Para 1, 13)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 332, 353, 395, 397, 307 -- Dacoity – Attempt to murder -- Acquittal -- None of the accused was identified at the spot nor any of the said persons was known to any of the members of the police party or to the complainant – PW-4, in whose presence dacoity had been committed and who had also signed on various recovery memos, failed to identify the accused and was declared hostile -- Occurrence had taken place during the midnight on ground floor, while the complainant was on the roof of his house and thus identification of accused would certainly be difficult -- Police official/  PW, in his examination-in-chief categorically stated that he cannot identify any of the dacoits, who had fired at him – Acquittal order upheld.

(Para 13)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 412 -- Dishonestly receiving property stolen in the commission of a dacoity – Charges framed only in respect of the jewellery recovered from the three accused and no charges were framed for remaining accused – Three accused convicted, remaining acquitted – Appellants were aged 68 years, 55 years and aged 32 years at the time of passing of impugned judgment and there is no evidence that they are involved in multiple cases – Sentence reduced to already undergone.

(Para 14-16)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 279, 304A – Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 133 -- Acquittal in motor vehicle accident case -- Statement of PW5-ASI, the Investigation Officer that notice u/s 133 of the M.V. Act was sent to the owner of the offending vehicle, who endorsed that offending vehicle was being driven by the appellant/ accused -- However, prosecution failed to examine the owner of the vehicle before the trial Court concerned – Held, statement made before the Investigating Officer cannot be accepted as a gospel truth – Conviction set aside – Petitioner acquitted.

(Para 10-14)

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 118, 138, 139 -- Cheque bounce complaint – Acquittal -- Huge amount of Rs.5 lacs was allegedly given to the respondent-accused in cash -- Complainant failed to provide any documentary evidence in support of the advancement of loan, raising doubts about the credibility of the said transaction – Absence of specific dates regarding the loan advancement and issuance of cheque further weakens the case of the complainant -- Concealment of facts by the complainant including his involvement in a case of fraud and also depositing money into unrelated party’s accounts further undermines the credibility of the case brought-forth by the complainant against the respondent-accused – Acquittal order upheld.

(Para 5-8)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 118, 138, 139 -- Cheque bounce complaint – Presumption for legally enforceable liability -- Huge amount of Rs.5 lacs was allegedly given to the respondent-accused in cash -- In order to draw presumption u/s 118 read with Section 139 of the Act, the burden was heavily upon the complainant to prove his case against the accused.

(Para 7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 403, 420, 421, 425 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Quashing of FIR – Commercial transaction – Breach of contract -- Three hypothecated trucks not produced for inspection -- Rather disclosed that they had dismantled  and disposed of the same -- Said act prima facie, makes out a case u/s 421 and 425 of IPC -- At the stage of considering the quashing of the FIR, the Court is required only to look into the allegations made in the complaint/ FIR by taking them to be at their face value -- Mere fact that the complaint relates to a commercial transaction or breach of contract, for which a civil remedy is available or has been availed, is not by itself a ground to quash the criminal proceedings -- Both criminal and civil law remedy can be pursued – Quashing petition dismissed.

(Para 34-38)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 306 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Abetment to commit suicide – Compromise quashing of FIR -- Power to quash the FIR depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case -- It is required to be seen by the High Court as to whether Section 306 IPC is even made out from the contents of FIR or not before coming to the conclusion that quashing of proceedings u/s 306 IPC on the basis of compromise should be allowed or not by exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. -- Merely by blaming the petitioners to be responsible for commission of suicide by the deceased in the suicide note, cannot be sufficient to invoke Section 306 IPC – FIR and subsequent proceedings quashed.

(Para 13-15, 26)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 306 -- Abetment to commit suicide – No details are given as to when and in what manner, petitioners harassed the deceased -- Simply by mentioning in the suicide note that accused-petitioner  harassed the deceased and is responsible for the commission of suicide by deceased, cannot be sufficient to invoke Section 306 IPC.

(Para 19)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 149 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 106 -- Murder – Acquittal – Last seen together theory -- The theory of last seen together is helpful to the prosecution if the deceased was seen in the company of the accused in the proximity of the time at which the dead body is found -- Deceased on the day he was found dead, after he was allegedly seen with the accused, attended a meeting of the Congress Party -- Involvement of other persons in the offence is not ruled out – Appellant no. 2 was found in the company of the deceased is not sufficient to link him with the commission of the offence of murder – Conviction of appellants u/s 302/ 149 of IPC set aside.

(Para 17, 18)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 467, 380, 411 – Acquittal – Theft -- Delay in FIR -- Theft had allegedly taken place on the night intervening 21/22.05.2009 at about 03.00 AM and the FIR had been got recorded on 24.05.2009 at 05.30 PM -- Once the accused were identified by the complainant/petitioner at the spot and they had been named in the FIR, the delay in the registration of the same is fatal to the case of the prosecution case – Revision against acquittal dismissed.

(Para 2, 12)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319, 482 – Murder – Summoning of additional accused – Quashing of summoning order -- Not being an eye-witness, PW-1’s deposition is not sufficient enough to invoke the extra-ordinary jurisdiction u/s 319 to summon the appellants -- No other witnesses deposed against the appellants -- No documentary evidence – No role attributed to the appellants -- Deposition of PW-1 is in line and consistent with her statement u/s 161 -- Higher degree of satisfaction required for exercising power u/s 319 Cr.P.C. is not met – Held, Trial Court committed a serious error in issuing summons to the appellants -- High Court should have quashed the order – Appeal allowed, impugned order/ judgment set aside.

(Para 23-26)

Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (15 of 2003), Section 3, 4, 8 – Money Laundering case – Acquittal/ discharge of accused – Release of attached property -- Right of – Pendency of appeal – Effect of -- Section 8(6) of the PMLA makes amply clear that if an accused under the PMLA is discharged / acquitted, the learned Special Judge under Section 8(6) has no option but to pass an order releasing the properties attached under the PMLA – Till the judgment of acquittal predicate offence is reversed in an appeal, all the effects of acquittal will continue to operate and mere filing of an appeal against acquittal would not mean that the respondents will continue to suffer the rigors of criminal proceedings or attachment under the PMLA -- No infirmity in the order whereby the attached movable and immovable properties were directed to be released by the learned Special Judge.

(Para 28-32)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 182, 199, 201, 203, 211 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 27 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 195, 482 -- Quashing of Challan/ Charge-sheet – Petitioner/ Complainant charge-sheeted in his own FIR -- Petitioner filed private complaint in which preliminary evidence has already been recorded – Not proper for the Investigating Agency to file the challan against the petitioner to prosecute him in the FIR, which was lodged on his own complaint instead of filing the cancellation report -- By not filing the cancellation report, petitioner was not afforded any opportunity to file protest petition -- Challan and Charge-sheet quashed.

(Para 11-19)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 39, 192, 207, 177, 179, 187, 196 -- Jharkhand Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 2001, Section 22, 28 (i) – Cognizance against Post / Non-juridical person – Permissibility of -- Summons in a criminal case to face trial cannot be issued against positions or post as a post is not juridical person – Ld. CJM issued summons against DGM Sail, M/s. RMD Gua Ore Mines more so when such post undisputedly does not even exist -- Taking cognizance by not naming any person who was responsible for the alleged criminal act is certainly not sustainable in law – Criminal proceedings quashed.

(Para 6, 7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 107, 306 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Abetment to suicide – Quashing of criminal proceedings – Inherent powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C. -- Uttering words “go and hang yourself” – Whether abetment – No -- Sole accused, husband of the lady with whom the deceased had certain relationship and had blunt out his anger and had uttered words ‘go and hang yourself’ cannot mean that it would become the ingredients of Section 107 of the IPC for it to become an offence u/s 306 of the IPC – Reason for the deceased to commit suicide may be myriad, one of which could be the factum of him having illicit relationship with the wife of the petitioner, despite being the Father and Priest of a Church -- Charge sheet filed -- Such cases should be nipped in exercise of its jurisdiction u/s 482 of the Cr.P.C. – Proceedings pending before the Principal District & Sessions Judge quashed.

(Para 14-15)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498A, 406, 384, 420, 120(B) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Matrimonial dispute  -- Quashing of FIR – Misue of State machinery – One FIR at Hisar – Other at Udaipur – Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 misusing their official position by lodging complaints one after the other – Further, their conduct of neither appearing before the Trial Court at Hisar nor withdrawing their complaint at Hisar, would show that their only intention was to harass the appellant by first making him face a trial at Hisar and then again at Udaipur – Argument that no offence was committed in Hisar but only at Udaipur was also not correct – Court deprecated this practice of state machinery being misused for ulterior motives, imposed cost of Rs. 5,00,000/- on the respondent No.2 – FIR at Udaipur quashed.

(Para 8-12)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 376, 3(2)(V) – Murder – Rape – Acquittal -- Not a case of direct evidence -- Not a case of circumstantial evidence -- PW-1 and PW-2, star prosecution witnesses are parents of the deceased -- PW-2 was not present in the village when the incident occurred and PW-1/ mother has not seen the accused/ appellant committing the offence, she claims to have learnt of the complicity of accused/ appellant but no person has been identified from whom information has been received – No recovery from the accused/ appellant -- Not the case that dead body has been recovered on the pointing out of the accused/ appellant – Judgment of conviction and sentence set aside.

(Para 21-28)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21 -- NDPS Case – Acquittal – Independent witness – Exclusive possession -- No evidence to establish that the alleged place of recovery i.e. room where a motor was situated, was under exclusive possession, usage, or ownership of the appellant – No explanation from police officials regarding the absence of independent witnesses during the operation -- No efforts were made to establish a direct connection between the appellant and the recovered contraband material – Reasonable doubt created about the genuineness of the recovery – Appellant acquitted.

(Para 9-10)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21, 29, 31 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 30 -- NDPS case – Acquittal – Leave to appeal – Confession/ Disclosure of co-accused -- Prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the money allegedly recovered from the possession of respondent-accused i.e. Rs.7,500/- had been derived from the sale of narcotics -- Confession made by one accused cannot serve as a substantive piece of evidence against a co-accused -- Its admissibility is limited only for corroborative purposes -- Acquittal order, upheld.

(Para 5)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 406, 420, 120-B – Constitution of India, Article 142 – Cheque bounce complaint / FIR -- Compounding of offence – No consent of complainant – Quashing of criminal proceedings -- Initially, both sides agreed to compound at the appellate stage but the appellant could not pay the amount within the time – Now appellant has paid the entire amount with interest – Appellant in jail for more than 1 year before being released on bail – Now no purpose to keep the proceedings pending – Transaction between the parties was purely civil in nature which does not attract criminal law -- Even though complainant is unwilling to compound, proceedings must come to an end – While exercising powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, criminal proceedings in FIR and criminal appeals against conviction u/s 138 of the NI Act quashed and sentence awarded by the trial court set aside.

(Para 13-15)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Cheque bonce case – Quashing of complaint -- Though the prayer for quashing was made only as regards first and second respondents, by the impugned judgment, the complaint has been quashed in its entirety – Held, there was no reason for the High Court to quash the complaint in its entirety -- Impugned order modified.

 (Para 3-5)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154, 157 – Excise matter – Cognizable offence -- Search and seizure without FIR -- There are two kinds of FIRs namely, the FIR can be registered by the informant which was duly signed by him -- Secondly, the FIR can be registered by the police officer himself on any information received by him -- In both the cases, the information should be reduced into writing and thereafter, the investigation must be carried out -- Ex.P1 being a panchanama, it cannot be termed as a complaint -- FIR cannot be registered on the basis of panchanama.

(Para 15, 16)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154, 157 – Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 (21 of 1966), Section 32, 34, 38-A -- Excise matter – Cognizance by court -- Search and seizure without FIR – FIR based on panchnama – Void abinitio – Acquittal – Respondent registered the FIR on the basis of panchanama which is erroneous and not proper – Trial Court ought not to have acted upon such FIR and cognizance should not have been taken on the strength of the said FIR – When the registration of FIR itself is void abinitio, the subsequent proceedings including the judgments are liable to be set aside – Revision allowed, judgment of conviction and order of sentence set aside – Petitioners acquitted.

(Para 3, 15, 16)

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 139 – Cheque bounce complaint – Presumption as to liability – Rebuttal – Standard of proof -- Once execution of the cheque is proved/ admitted, the presumptions u/s 118(a) and 139 of the said Act would arise that it is supported by a consideration -- Such presumptions are rebuttable in nature and the accused can prove the non-existence of a consideration by raising a probable defence, and if the accused is proved to have discharged the initial onus of proof showing that the existence of consideration was improbable or doubtful or the same was illegal, the onus would shift to the complainant who will be obliged to prove it as a matter of fact and upon its failure to prove would dis-entitle him to the grant of relief on the basis of the negotiable instrument -- Standard of proof so as to prove defence on the part of an accused is 'preponderance of probabilities' and inference of preponderance of probabilities can be drawn not only from the materials brought on records by the parties but also by reference to the circumstances upon which he relies.

(Para 6, 7)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Cheque bounce complaint -- Void cheque – Alteration in cheque -- Amount written in cheque corrected in figures or in number without the knowledge and consent of maker of the cheque amounts to material alteration and also amounts cancellation -- The figure “2" was specifically inserted in cheque specifically without the knowledge of the drawer is a material alteration which makes the documents void -- Accused is not liable for any type of legal recoverable debt -- Nothing is on file to prove any type of transaction or debt to held the accused liable – Acquittal order upheld.

(Para 8-10)

C. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Cheque bounce complaint – Receipt issued on the letter pad of the shop of accused is also not proved the liability of the accused in any manner as no witness regarding the receipt is on the letter pad and without any witness the document did not prove any type of liability towards the accused.

(Para 9)

Public Gambling Act, 1867 (3 of 1867), Section 13(A) -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420 -- Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 (43 of 1978), Section 4, 5 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Quashing of FIR -- Dara Satta/ Gambling -- S.I. was not authorised to conduct the raid -- Petitioners being the authorised dealer/ a member of National Commodity and Derivatives Exchange Limited, so no offence u/s 4 & 5 of 1978, Act made out -- Ingredients u/s 420 IPC are completely missing – FIR, summoning order and subsequent proceedings quashed.

(Para 7)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 306 – Abetment of suicide – Suicide note – In suicide note general allegation against the appellant and her family members (her father, mother and brother) that they are responsible for his suicide -- It is also stated therein that the local MLA had also given him a threat, and therefore, he committed suicide due to mental torture -- Taking the suicide note as it is, the same does not help the prosecution at all, especially when there is no evidence on record to show that the appellant was in touch with the deceased on the telephone or in any other manner -- Chargesheet quashed qua the appellant.

(Para 9, 12)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 306 – Abetment of suicide – Quashing of charge-sheet -- No act is attributed to the appellant proximate to the time of the suicide which was of such a nature that the deceased was left with no alternative but to take the drastic step of committing suicide -- Therefore, no offence is made out against the appellant – Chargesheet quashed qua the appellant.

(Para 11, 12)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378(4) -- Acquittal -- Leave to appeal -- Ordinarily, the order of acquittal will not be interfered with, merely because another view is possible -- Upon passing the order of acquittal, presumption of innocence in favour of the accused gets reinforced and strengthened.

(Para 10)

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Section 15, 18 – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 363, 342, 302, 201 – Acquittal -- POCSO – Murder -- Child in conflict with law/ CCIL – Preliminary assessment – Mandate of – Investigating Officer and Trial Court was aware of the fact that Accused/ appellant was juvenile -- In absence of a preliminary assessment being conducted by the Board under Section 15, and without an order being passed by the Board under Section 15(1) read with Section 18(3), it was impermissible for the trial Court to have accepted the charge sheet and to have proceeded with the trial of the accused – Held, procedure adopted by the Sessions Court in conducting the trial of the accused appellant is de hors the mandatory requirements of JJ Act -- Entire proceedings stand vitiated – Such an exercise at this stage would be sheer futility because now the appellant is nearly 23 years of age – Impugned judgment quashed and set aside -- Appellant ordered to be released forthwith.

(Para 25, 26, 38-51)

Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (67 of 1957), Section 21, 22 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Mining offence – Quashing of FIR -- Registration of the FIR is bad in the eyes of law, as cognizance of an offence under the MMDR Act can only be taken upon a criminal complaint -- MMDR Act is a special statute provisions regarding procedure must be adopted, general provisions of the IPC or the Cr.P.C. will not be attracted -- FIR and subsequent proceedings quashed.

(Para 6-12)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Cheating -- Forgery – Quashing of FIR -- Information under RTI Act – Signature on application alleged to be forged -- No provision under the RTI Act or Rules made thereunder to file a complaint against an applicant, who sought any information under the said Act -- No loss of property or valuable security has been caused to the complainant, who is an official working under the DITS -- He had no locus standi to lodge prosecution against the petitioner(s) -- FIR ought to have been filed by SK, whose signatures are alleged to have been forged -- FIR and all subsequent proceedings quashed.

(Para 3, 13, 14)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 415, 463, 464 -- Cheating – Forgery – Essential ingredients for commission of offence of cheating are deception and inducement to deliver any property to any person or to consent that any person shall retain any property – There must be an intention to induce a person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and the act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property – Further, to attract ingredients of forgery, there must be making of a false document or false electronic record with an intention to cause damage or injury to the public or to any person.

(Para 10)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 467, 468, 471 -- Forgery -- Making of the false document is sine qua non for launching prosecution u/s 467, 468, 471 IPC.

(Para 11)

D. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 467, 468, 471 -- Forgery -- Ingredients of forgery are attracted; if a person (i) made or executed a document claiming to be someone else or authorized by someone else; (ii) materially altered or tampered a document; (iii) procured a document by deception from a person, who is not in control of his senses.

(Para 11)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Punjab Registration of Money Lenders Act, 1938 (3 of 1938), Section 3 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378 (4) -- Cheque bounce complaint – Acquittal – Money Lender’s license – Respondent/ accused is under no legally enforceable debt as the complainant-company has been advancing loans illegally -- It is imperative to possess a money lending licence as per the Money Lender’s Act -- Section 3 of the said Act provides that the suit or application for recovery of the loan shall be dismissed if the person claiming recovery does not hold a valid licence under the Act -- Thus, the debt becomes an unenforceable debt – Acquittal order upheld.

(Para 3-7)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Cheque bounce complaint – Quashing of complaint – Basic ingredients – Requirement of -- Submission that complaint does not contain date of presentation of cheque before the bank, the date of return of the cheque as unpaid from the bank, the date of issuing mandatory notice within 30 days and the date of service of such notice on the drawee – Held, complaint cannot proceed u/s 138 of the N.I. Act without the basic ingredients being mentioned therein – Proceedings of Complaint case quashed.

(Para 2, 5, 6)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 8, 18, 29, 67 – NDPS Case – Acquittal -- Confessional statement – Reliance upon -- Witnesses turned hostile, appellant was convicted and sentenced by taking recourse to Section 67 of the NDPS Act – Impugned order set aside, appellant acquitted of all the charges. Balwinder Singh (Binda)’s case (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1213 relied.

(Para 1-3)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498A, 323 -- Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, (28 of 1961), Section 4 – Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (20 of 1958), Section 4 – Appeal against acquittal – Duty of Appellate Court -- Limitation -- Trial Court acquitted the appellants -- Sessions Court convicted the appellants, however, granted a relief of probation -- High Court has not gone into the question, whether the Sessions Court was aware of the limitations of the appeal against acquittal -- 3 prosecution witnesses and 7 defence witnesses have been examined, there is not even a reference to the depositions of the said witnesses in the impugned judgment -- Impugned order set aside, matter  remanded for fresh consideration by the High Court.

(Para 3-5)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 174A – Settlement in cheque bounce complaint – Proclaimed person -- Quashing o FIR u/s 174A IPC -- Proceedings under the N.I. Act culminated in a settlement with the withdrawal of the complaint – F.I.R. u/s 174-A of IPC along with all subsequent proceedings quashed.

(Para 11-13)

Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (104 of 1956), Section 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 120-B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Objectionable position at Spa Centre – Quashing of FIR – For the past 4½ years, none of the prosecution witnesses has been examined and the petitioner is facing the agony of prolonged trial – Owner as well as the Manager of the Spa against whom specific allegation was levelled, have been exonerated by the Investigating Agency – Petitioner at best was found in the objectionable position with one of the girls working in the said spa – No offence u/s 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 of the 1956 Act read with section 120-B IPC made out – FIR and all the subsequent proceedings quashed qua the petitioner.

(Para 5-7)

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 139 – Cheque bounce complaint -- Legally enforceable liability -- Loan -- Money lending licence – Requirement of -- Complainant was involved in money-lending business without possessing any valid license -- Respondent/ accused used to borrow money from him -- Claim of the applicant/ complainant against the respondent is an unenforceable claim and thus, cannot be considered a legally enforceable liability u/s 138 of the NI Act.

(Para 4)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378(4) -- Cheque bounce complaint -- Acquittal by Trial court – Leave to appeal -- Power of the Appellate Court to unsettle the order of acquittal on the basis of re-appreciation of the evidence is subject to the settled law that where two views are possible and out of the two, one points towards the innocence of the accused, the view which favours the accused should prevail over the other pointing towards his guilt.

(Para 5)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 141 – Cheque bounce complaint – Quashing of – Resignation of Director – Effect of -- Whether a appellant/ Director who has resigned from such position and which fact stands recorded in the books as per the relevant rules and statutory provisions, can be held liable for certain negotiable instruments, failing realization – Complainant not placed any materials on record indicating complicity of the appellants in the alleged crime -- Appellants had no role in the issuance of the instrument -- After the appellants have severed their ties with the Respondent-Company and, therefore, can in no way be responsible for the conduct of business at the relevant time – All criminal proceedings pertaining to the appellants arising out of the complaints filed by the respondent quashed.

(Para 2-11)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21(a), 22 -- NDPS case – Recovery of unbranded loose capsules -- Out of 1130 capsules, two samples of 10 capsules each were separated and therefrom only one sample was sent to FSL -- As per report of FSL, 648 mg of “Dextropropoxyphene Napsylate”, was found in each capsule -- Entire recovery could not have been presumed to have contained the salt of “Dextropropoxyphene Napsylate” -- Ld. Special judge convicted the respondent/ accused for sentence already undergone of 06 months & 02 days besides imposition of fine of Rs.3000/- and in case of default, RI for 15 days -- No illegality or perversity – Appeal dismissed.

(Para 7-9)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378 – Acquittal by trial court – Scope of appeal -- Scope of intervention in a criminal appeal -- It is the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, unless proven guilty -- Presumption continues at all stages of the trial and finally culminates into a fact when the case ends in acquittal -- Presumption of innocence gets concretized when the case ends in acquittal -- Higher threshold is expected to rebut the same in appeal.

(Para 24)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378 – Acquittal by trial court – Scope of appeal -- There is no inhibition on the High Court to re-appreciate or re-visit the evidence on record -- However, the power of the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence is a qualified power, especially when the order under challenge is of acquittal.

-- The first and foremost question to be asked is whether the Trial Court thoroughly appreciated the evidence on record and gave due consideration to all material pieces of evidence

-- The second point for consideration is whether the finding of the Trial Court is illegal or affected by an error of law or fact

-- If not, the third consideration is whether the view taken by the Trial Court is a fairly possible view.

A decision of acquittal is not meant to be reversed on a mere difference of opinion -- What is required is an illegality or perversity -- When two views are possible, following the one in favour of innocence of the accused is the safest course of action -- Furthermore, it is also settled that if the view of the Trial Court, in a case of acquittal, is a plausible view, it is not open for the High Court to convict the accused by reappreciating the evidence.

(Para 25, 26)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378 –  Acquittal by trial court – Scope of appeal -- Criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the promise that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty -- All the safeguards and the jurisprudential values of criminal law, are intended to prevent any failure of justice -- The principles which come into play while deciding an appeal from acquittal could be summarized as:

(i) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a criminal trial and such appreciation must be comprehensive – inclusive of all evidence, oral or documentary;

(ii) Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may result in a miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of challenge;

(iii) If the Court, after appreciation of evidence, finds that two views are possible, the one in favour of the accused shall ordinarily be followed;

(iv) If the view of the Trial Court is a legally plausible view, mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the reversal of acquittal;

(v) If the appellate Court is inclined to reverse the acquittal in appeal on a re-appreciation of evidence, it must specifically address all the reasons given by the Trial Court for acquittal and must cover all the facts;

(vi) In a case of reversal from acquittal to conviction, the appellate Court must demonstrate an illegality, perversity or error of law or fact in the decision of the Trial Court.

(Para 36)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 304 Part II – Culpable homicide not amounting to murder -- Death of the deceased occurred on account of his chance intervention in the fight between the accused and PW-3 – No intention on the part of the accused to cause the offence as against the deceased -- Appellant must be given the benefit of conversion of the offence from 302 to 304 Part II – Appellant already in custody for over 14 years excluding the period of remission  -- Maximum punishment is only 10 years or with fine or with both -- Appellant ordered to be released.

(Para 6-9)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 304 Part II – Murder -- Culpable homicide not amounting to murder -- Offence and the death of the deceased occurred on account of his chance intervention in the fight between the accused and PW-3 – Court do not think that there was any intention on the part of the accused to cause the offence as against the deceased -- Appellant must be given the benefit of conversion of the offence from 302 to 304 Part II – Since, appellant has already undergone 14 years without remission, he must also be given the benefit of immediate release – Appeal allowed.

(Para 6-10)

Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (14 of 1981), Section 33A, 49  -- Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (6 of 1974), Section 33A, 43 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 188 --  Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 2(d), 4(2), 482 -- Quashing of FIR -- Offence for Water and Air pollution and Section 188 of IPC – Criminal complaint – Section 33A of The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, the provisions of Indian Penal Code are expressly excluded -- Statutory scheme under Act, 1974 and Act, 1981 provides that the prosecution under them can only be launched by way of a complaint case an FIR cannot be registered under the provisions of the same – Held, impugned FIR and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are void ab initio and are liable to be quashed -- FIR quashed.

(Para 6-10)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376AB -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 3/4, 5(d)/6, 42 -- Rape of minor girl aged 7 years – Sentence of punishment -- Appellant was aged 40 year at the time of offence -- High Court commuted Capital sentence to life sentence -- Court are also to take into account the present age of the petitioner and the fact that he has already undergone the incarceration – Life sentence modified to a fixed term of sentence of 30 years with fine of Rs.1 lac.

(Para 7, 16, 17)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 363, 376 AB – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 3/4, 5(d)/6, 42 -- Punishment for rape on woman under twelve years of age – Sentence for 30 years -- Fine for medical expenses -- When a sentence of imprisonment for a term not less than 20 years which may extend upto life imprisonment is imposed, the convict is also liable to suffer a sentence of fine which shall be just and reasonable to meet the medical expenses and rehabilitation of the victim which quantified as Rupees One Lakh and the same shall be paid to the victim with respect to the conviction u/s 363, IPC -- No separate sentence for the aforesaid offence under POCSO Act is to be imposed on the petitioner-convict.

(Para 11, 16, 17, 20)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Quashing of cheque bounce complaint – Drawer of cheque – Requirement of -- Proceeding in the complaint u/s 138 of the NI Act was quashed vis-à-vis respondent No. 2 on the ground that he was not the drawer of the cheque -- Above view of the High Court cannot be faulted qua the second respondent – Special Leave Petitions dismissed.

(Para 3, 4)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Quashing of conviction in cheque bounce complaint – Compounding of offence – Non-consent of complainant – Cheque amounting Rs.1,50,000/-, appellant deposited Rs.2,50,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a., further amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was deposited with the Trial Court as suggested by Court --  Respondent/ complainant ought to have come forward to compound the offence – Held, Court not appreciated the stand taken by the respondent, especially when the appellant has deposited a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- more than what was ordered to be paid by the Trial Court -- Conviction of the appellant quashed and set aside.

(Para 3-7)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498A, 325, 506 – Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, (28 of 1961), Section 3, 4 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Summoning to husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law – Quashing of :

-- Complainant alleged that she was beaten up and a fracture was caused in her hand, no medical documents were produced by her either before the Magistrate or with the counter affidavit filed in this Court to support this contention.

-- Stated in the application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. that she was treated with great affection and respect by the grandfather of the applicant no.1 and her ill treatment and harassment started after his death, in the statement recorded u/s 200 Cr.P.C., the opposite party no.2/complainant stated that she was harassed for demanding dowry from the day following the date of her marriage.

-- At the same time, in the counter affidavit filed before this court, she stated that after the marriage, she had gone with her husband for honeymoon to Dubai and both of them had a very pleasant trip.

-- Complaint application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C filed after receipt of summon of the suit and after the suit filed under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act and after the Family Court had granted last opportunity to the opposite party no.2 to file her written statement and even after the date of that last opportunity had expired.

The learned Magistrate erred in summoning the applicants to face the trial without there being any specific allegation of commission of any act by the applicant nos. 2 and 3 which may amount to an offence -- Moreover, there is absolutely no material to support the allegations against the applicant no. 1 – Summoning order/ complaint quashed.

(Para 19-33

B. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 9 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 156(3) -- Restitution of conjugal rights – Criminal proceedings – Opposite party no.2/ complainant/ wife filed the application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. merely to put pressure on the applicants and other members of their family for restitution of her matrimonial relationship with the applicant no.1/ husband -- However, she had filed a suit u/s 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act with the same objective, which has been dismissed by the Family Court -- Criminal prosecution cannot be allowed to be misused for ulterior objective to put undue pressure on the husband, his family members and relatives for restitution of conjugal rights.

(Para 30)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420 – Cheating – Protracted trial – Sentence reduced to already undergone -- Criminal complaint filed in the year 1998, the petitioner is facing agony of a protracted trial, which has lasted for approximately 25 years -- Out of the total sentence of 3 years u/s 420 IPC, the petitioner has undergone actual sentence of 6 months and 7 days -- In the interest of justice sentence reduced to the period already undergone by petitioner -- Fine increased to Rs.10,000/- in default of fine rigorous imprisonment for one month.

(Para 13, 14)