Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 279, 304A – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 401 -- Acquittal of accused – Accidental death case – Rash and negligent driving -- Offending vehicle on inappropriate side -- Best incriminating evidence withheld by prosecution -- It was incumbent upon the investigating officer, to both in Ex.P-3 (drawing) and upon his stepping into the witness box make, vivid disclosures suggestive of the offending vehicle occupying the inappropriate side of the road -- However, both the afore are not communicated by him in either -- Benefit has to be given to the accused -- Revision allowed, impugned verdicts, as, drawn by the both learned Court below, upon the convict, are quashed, and, set aside.

(Para 11-18)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 406, 420, 120-B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82 -- Proclamation order – Statutory period of 30 days not complied with – Effect of -- Impugned order being illegal, is liable to be set aside – Petitioner is directed to appear before the trial Court within one month and should seek regular bail, interim bail granted till his appearance. Ashok Kumar’s case 2013 (4) RCR (Criminal) 550 relied.

(Para 2-5)

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Section 12 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 401 -- Child in conflict with law -- Rejection of bail -- Revision against -- Bail is the general rule and only in cases covered by exceptions provided in the proviso to Section 12(1) of the Act, bail can be denied -- Impugned order stated that there is an apprehension that life of CCL would be in danger -- State is not in the position to substantiate the basis for the reasons recorded -- Impugned order set aside -- Matter remitted back to Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board to consider the matter afresh.

(Para 1-7)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 173(8) -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 279, 304-A, 338, 302 – Further investigation – Power of Magistrate – Right of complainant -- If the investigating officer, suppresses credible evidence with respect to the adding of an offence carried u/s 302 IPC, and, the afore omissions are willful and deliberate or are a sequel of slipshod investigations, being made by the investigating officer, in the FIR, thereupon, it is open to the petitioner to file an application, through the aegis of the learned Police Prosecutor concerned, before the learned trial Magistrate concerned, and, seek therein relief, for further investigations being made, in respect of the above by the investigating officer concerned, other than the officer who was earlier conducted the investigations, and, that too by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police.

(Para 4)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 139 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 401 -- Cheque bounce complaint – Legally enforceable debt – Friendly loan of Rs. 3 lacs -- Basic ingredients which are required for transaction is not disputed -- There was good acquaintance between the petitioner and the accused prior to the transaction took place – No dispute relating to the issuing of demand notice by the petitioner to the accused – Accused/ Respondent No.1 convicted, sentenced to pay fine of Rs.3,00,000/-, in default simple imprisonment for one year.

(Para 2, 29, 30)

Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (Punjab Act 1 of 1914), Sections 61/1/14, 78 (2) Third Proviso – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 452 – Excise matter – Release of vehicle on superdari – Value of vehicle – Assessment of – Third Proviso “equivalent to the value of the conveyance thereof” -- Valid connotation thereof, is that the value of the seized/ impounded vehicle, at the stage of either its seizure, and more importantly, at the stage of the preferment of the application -- Apposite depreciation which has occurred, since the date of purchase, and, upto the application, being preferred, is to be borne in mind, as it becomes the actual saleable price of the vehicle concerned -- Trial court making a direction to furnish a bank guarantee in the sum of Rs. 8 lakhs – High Court reduced it to Rs. 4 lac -- Impugned orders set aside -- Judicial Magistrate to receive evidence qua the depreciated value of the vehicle to make an order imposing a condition, either cash security or a bank guarantee.

(Para 3-5, 9-10)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 173, 248, 438, 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 148, 149, 323, 427, 447, 452, 506, 380 -- Anticipatory bail with a condition to deposit of Rs.1,10,000/- -- Acquittal in trial – Right to refund -- After acquittal, in a petition moved by the petitioner, High Court directed CJM for release of amount – CJM needlessly proceeded to interpret the order without any jurisdiction, and observed that filing of appeal against acquittal by complainant was not brought to the notice of High Court, therefore, the amount should not be disbursed to the applicant/accused till further clarification from the High Court – Held, CJM passed the order by giving irrational reasons, which not only show his dearth of understanding criminal jurisprudence & fundamental principles of law, but also reflect judicial indiscipline on his part, which amounts to grave misconduct and warrants departmental action against him -- Impugned order set aside -- Amount deposited by the petitioner ordered to be refunded forthwith -- Copy of the order sent to Hon'ble the Chief Justice for initiating departmental action against CJM.

(Para 2,3,9-13)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 279, 337 -- Rash and negligent driving -- Compromise quashing of FIR -- Accused and injured compromised the matter -- Continuing with proceedings will not suffice any fruitful purpose -- High Court invokes the inherent jurisdiction and quashed the FIR and all subsequent proceedings.

(Para 1,2,3,13)

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Complaint for dishonour of cheque -- Stop payment – Account closed -- Not only the cases of dishonour of cheques on account of insufficiency of funds or on account of exceeding of arrangement but the cases involving dishonour of cheques on account of “stop payment” and “account closed” have also been brought within the ambit of offence under the aforesaid provision.

(Para 10)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Complaint for dishonour of cheque -- Difference in signature -- Contention of the petitioner that in the case offence under Section 138 of the NI Act is not constituted because the cheque was dishonoured on account of difference in signatures and not for the reason of insufficiency of funds or exceeding the arrangement, deserves to be rejected.

(Para 15)

C. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Complaint for dishonour of cheque -- Security cheque -- Even if cheque issued as a security, still then it cannot be stated that no offence is made out, once the cheque issued by him has been dishonoured by the banker.

(Para 19)

D. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Complaint for dishonour of cheque -- Security cheque -- Whether the petitioner had issued the cheque as a security and whether at the time when the cheque was presented for its payment, it was not for discharge of any debt or any other liability cannot be determined either by the trial Magistrate at the time of taking of cognizance or by High Court in these proceedings -- These are defences available to the accused/ petitioner, veracity whereof can be determined during the trial of the case -- Trial Magistrate directed to proceed further in the matter in accordance with law.

(Para 20, 21)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 406, 498-A -- Quashing of FIR -- Investigation is pending, challan has not been presented -- Held, petition is premature at this stage -- Petitioner would be at liberty to approach the court after filing of the challan.

(Para 3-5)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22(C), 36(4), 36-A -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167(2) – NDPS case -- Default bail – Challan without FSL Report -- Expiry of 180 days -- Petitioner was arrested on 02.10.2020 and had moved an application under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. on 21.05.2021. i.e. after the expiry of 180 days -- Challan was prepared on 14.11.2020 and was presented on 24.11.2020 and no FSL report has been presented in the Court till date -- Petitioner has been in custody since 02.10.2020 i.e. 1 year and 4½ months and there are as many as 12 witnesses, none of whom have been examined yet and thus, the conclusion of trial is likely to take time, moreso, in view of the present COVID-19 pandemic situation – Revision allowed at this stage and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail – In case question of law is held against the present petitioner and is contrary to the law laid down in Ajit Singh alias Jeeta's case, then, the State would be at liberty to seek cancellation/modification of this order, if warranted at that stage. Suresh’s case, (2020) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 15648 & Ajit singh @ Jeeta’s case (2018) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 14121 relied.

(Para 7, 8)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 125, 340 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 191, 193 -- Maintenance u/s 125 Cr.P.C – Wrong information of income to Family court – Complaint u/s 191, 193 IPC against wife -- Foremost duty of the party claiming maintenance is to disclose to the Court her actual financial status -- Petitioner joined as an Assistant Professor in University on a monthly salary of Rs.28,000/- on 3.7.2017 -- Her petition u/s 125 Cr.PC was filed on 26.07.2017 -- During the entire litigation she did not disclose information about her job and her earnings and infact deliberately and intentionally to grab maintenance, submitted wrong information to the Court that she was unemployed – Order initiating enquiry and complaint u/s 191/ 193, upheld.

(Para 1, 9-12)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 340 -- Proceedings u/s 340 Cr.PC are undoubtedly initiated at the instance of one party but it is a matter of administration of justice and, therefore, ultimately it is between the parties and the court.

(Para 8)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378, 389 -- Cheque bounce case -- Conviction in -- Appeal against -- Suspension of sentence -- Non-deposit of 20% compensation within 60 days -- Submits that the petitioner had already deposited an amount equivalent to 20% of the cheque amount as interim compensation during the proceedings of trial and that the petitioner presently is facing a financial crunch and is unable to deposit another 20% though he has a good case on merits -- Lower Appellate Court directed to take necessary steps to hear the appeal and dispose off the same in the given time – If the petitioner or his counsel is not present on the dates fixed, it shall be open to the Lower Appellate Court to nominate any counsel from Free Legal Aid.

(Para 1-3)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167, 482 – Police remand after 15 days/ 48 days of judicial custody -- Petitioner surrendered before the learned JMIC on 17.11.2020 and was sent to the judicial custody -- Precise grievance of the petitioner is that once he had spent 48 days in judicial custody, the investigating agency had no legal right to ask for his remand as the same was beyond the statutory period of 15 days as per the mandate of Section 167 Cr.P.C – Held, stage at which the petitioner had agitated the issue is equally relevant for consideration of his grievance – Petitioner approached High Court after a gap of more than one year -- Petitioner has already undergone the period of remand of one day, hence, the prayer for quashing of the same has already become infructuous.

(Para 7)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167, 173(8) -- Further investigation -- Remand beyond 15 days – Effect of -- Investigating agency has a statutory independent right for further investigation of the case -- Even if, the remand granted by the Magistrate was beyond 15 days, the same cannot result in making the investigation non-est in the eyes of law.

(Para 9)

A. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 20 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378 -- Acquittal by Trial court – Presumption of innocence – Power of Appellate Court -- It is well settled that:-

(A) While dealing with an appeal against acquittal, the reasons which had weighed with the Trial Court in acquitting the accused must be dealt with, in case the appellate Court is of the view that the acquittal rendered by the Trial Court deserves to be upturned .

(B) With an order of acquittal by the Trial Court, the normal presumption of innocence in a criminal matter gets reinforced.

(C) If two views are possible from the evidence on record, the appellate Court must be extremely slow in interfering with the appeal against acquittal.

(Para 7)

B. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 20, 50 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378, 379 -- Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970, Section 2A -- NDPS case -- Acquittal by Trial court – Conviction by High court – Non-compliance of requirement of affording an option for personal search – However, no recovery from personal search -- High Court proceeded to consider the evidence on record straightaway without considering the reasons that had weighed with the Trial Court -- It is true that the personal search did not result in recovery of any contraband material but the non-compliance of requirement of affording an option, was one of the reasons which weighed with the Trial Court in disbelieving the case of the prosecution -- Assessment on facts made by the Trial Court was absolutely correct and did not call for any interference by the High Court – Appeal allowed, judgment and order passed by the High Court set aside and order of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court restored.

(Para 8-13)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 323, 504, 406, 498-A, 506, 120-B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 401 – Acquittal in dowry matter – Revision against -- No medical evidence on record to prove the allegations of physical assault – Allegation of  physical assault in the presence of two cousins, but neither of them were examined during trial nor cited as prosecution witnesses -- Petitioner/complainant while appearing as PW-1 did not utter a word, much less, by way of a whisper regarding the allegations of physical assaults – A panchayat was convened between the parties with regard to the harassment but none of the members of the said panchayat were either examined during trial nor cited as prosecution witnesses -- Allegations of misappropriation of the dowry could not be proved by any cogent or reliable evidence in the absence of any evidence of entrustment of dowry – Revision against acquittal dismissed.

(Para 1, 5, 6)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 125 – Maintenance to wife -- Family Court appointed a Local Commissioner for verifying the plight of respondent-wife and it was confirmed that the respondent-wife was living in house located in the agricultural land, which was 2-3 Kms away from the village -- On the perusal of the report, the petitioner was requested to provide a proper accommodation to the deserted wife but he refused to the same -- During the pendency of the proceedings u/s 125 Cr.P.C, the petitioner/ husband clandestinely transferred his land in favour of the son from his second wife -- Judicial Magistrate directed the petitioner to pay Rs.3 lacs in lumpsum for maintenance and compensation for the injuries including mental torture and emotional distress caused to the respondent-wife – Order affirmed.

(Para 4,5)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 125 -- Maintenance after 30 years – Limitation -- Petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance after more than 30 years – Held, cause of action for maintenance is continuing and thus, the arguments regarding delay in filing the same is without any merit.

(Para 4)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 275(1) – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 3 -- Evidence through video conferencing -- Petitioner residing in Canada and not fit to travel – Statement of petitioner is very material for the proper adjudication of the case – No serious objection raised by respondents – One opportunity granted to get statement recorded through video conferencing.

(Para 4-7)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 141, 142 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Quashing of complaint -- Cheque by Company – Vicarious liability -- Resignation by Directors before issuance of cheque – Plea that resignation not accepted by the Company – Resignation were tendered before issuance of the cheques and petitioners have sent resignation in the Form No. DIR 11 & 12 to the Registrar of the Company and the same are available in the website -- Only a bald averment is made in the complaint against the petitioners that they were responsible for day to day affairs of the company -- There is no specific averment against them to show, as to how and in what manner the petitioners are responsible for the conduct of the business of the Company – Moreover, they were not the Managing Director of the Company – Petition allowed, complaint qua the petitioners quashed.

(Para 4, 8-17)

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 190 -- Dishonour of cheques – Complainant has right to file and maintain separate complaint for dishonour of each and every cheque.

(Para 17)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 218, 219, 220, 482 -- Dishonour of cheques – Separate notices on dishonour -- Charge together -- At no stretch of imagination it can be termed to be a single transaction attracting the provision of Section 220 of Cr.P.C. -- Liability of accused in both cases is different in nature as in one case cheques are stated to have been issued to discharge the debt of financial assistance provided by an individual, whereas, in another case cheques are stated to have been issued for discharging the liability towards the purchase of goods from sole proprietorship concern – Application u/s 219, 220 of Cr.P.C. dismissed by Trial court, upheld.

(Para 1, 8-19)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 293, 313, 386 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Murder – Remand for trial in appeal -- Deceased died due to gunshot injury -- Seizure of firearm from appellant – Report of a Ballistic Officer although admissible u/s 293 of the CrPC, but before placing reliance on such a report, the person placing trial has to be given full opportunity to challenge and rebut the report -- Neither the copy of the report was supplied to the applicant nor the contents of the report were brought in evidence – Ld. Sessions Judge also omitted to put any question to the appellant in his examination u/s 313 of CrPC on the basis of contents present in the ballistic report/ Ex.P-39 which were admissible in evidence u/s 293 of CrPC – Held, grave error committed by the learned Sessions Judge – An accused person has an entitlement of a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution -- Conviction technically not sustainable, appeal allowed, conviction and sentence set aside -- Trial against the appellant stands revived, case remanded back.

(Para 11, 12)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 406 -- Supreme Court Rules, 2013, Order XXXIX – Transfer of complaint u/s 138 of NI Act – Karnataka to Telangana – Matter pending before the Court at Hubli, Dharwad District, Karnataka transferred to Kukatpally, Hyderabad, Telangana State where the petitioners are residing.

(Para 2-3)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82(2) – Proclamation proceedings -- Report of constable – Non-compliance of 82(2)(i)(a) – Omission to read the publication in some conspicuous place of the town -- Effect of -- One copy affixed on the wall of the house of accused/petitioner, the second copy affixed at a common place of village, and, the third copy affixed on the notice board of the Court – Held, in sub-section 2 all the provisions carried therein are to be conjunctively complied with -- There is no scope for the serving constable, to rather making fragmentary compliances thereto nor the serving constable can omit to also proceed to comply with the mandate carried in (i)(a) of sub-section 2 of Section 82 inasmuch as, his omitting to read the publication in some conspicuous place of the town, whereins, the accused person ordinarily resides -- Report of the serving constable is silent, with respect to compliance qua (i)(a) of sub-section 2 of Section 82 of the Cr.P.C -- Consequently, his report is legally infirm, and, also the reliance, as made thereons, by the learned Magistrate concerned, is not amenable for acceptance.

(Para 6)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82(2) -- Proclamation proceedings – Service at abroad -- Petitioner departed on 26.06.2017 to a foreign country and returned to India, on 27.11.2018 -- Legal effect thereof is that unless, he was validly served at his foreign abode concerned, through the embassy of India located in the foreign country concerned, rather thereupon the endeavour of the ld. trial Magistrate concerned, to serve him, at his abode at India was completely illegal -- Impugned order of 06.11.2018 quashed.

(Para 7-9)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82(2) -- Proclamation proceedings – Procedure of -- Magistrate to initially secure presence before him through summons, and, upon his failing to hence secure his presence, to thereafter, issue upon non-bailable warrants – Proclamation was completely illegal, as neither the summons could be validly personally served, upon the accused-petitioner nor the non-bailable warrants could be served, personally upon the petitioner at his abode in India -- Impugned proclamation order quashed.

(Para 7-9)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 148 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 374, 389 – Cheque bounce case -- Conviction u/s 138 NI Act – One year RI and Rs.60 lacs as compensation – Appeal against – Suspension of sentence with pre-condition of deposit of 20% of cheque amount given as compensation – Sustainability of – Direction(s) appears to be oppressive, especially given that a sum of Rs. 60 lakhs became assessed -- Necessarily, also it negates the efficacy of the impugned order, besides fetters the liberty of the petitioner – Held, Appellate Court was enjoined to ensure his bringing inter se proportionality inter se the compensation, and/ or the cheque amount, and, to thereafter, impose a tenable, and, just condition for the orders, suspending the execution of sentence of imprisonment, as imposed upon the convict(s)-appellant(s), by the learned trial Judge concerned, rather taking the fullest effect, through his hence directing them to deposit a reasonable, and, just sum, before the learned trial Judge concerned – Petition accepted, Court proceeded to modify the impugned order, through a direction to deposit 10% amount of the disputed cheque amount, before the learned trial Court concerned.

(Para 6-11)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 205, 211, 228, 273, 299, 313, 317 -- Blanket exemption from appearance – Charge – Notice of accusation – Proceedings u/s 313 Cr.P.C – Power of Trial Court to exempt appearance of accused -- There is no specific provision in the Cr.P.C., empowering the learned trial Judge concerned to, on all occasions purvey a blanket exemption to the accused from his making appearance before him -- There cannot be any valid empowerment in the learned trial Judge, even, to grant exemption to the accused from his making personal appearance, before him, even when the accused has to face charge/ notice of accusation or when he has to face the proceedings drawn u/s 313 Cr.P.C. or when he has to adduce defence evidence.

(Para 6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 326, 324, 506, 34 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 210(3) -- FIR – Private Complaint – Closure report in FIR – Acceptance of -- Cognizance by Magistrate in complaint – Power of – In FIR and private complaint, the offences are similar, and, also the offenders are the same -- Exception existing Section 210 (3), completely barred the ld. Magistrate, to after accepting the closure report, from yet assuming cognizance or valid jurisdiction, upon both, and/or to either consolidate the closure report, with private complaint.

(Para 11)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 173, 190 -- Re-investigation/ Further investigation order by JMIC on closure report –Closure report after re-investigation – Ld. Magistrate without any tenable reasoning rejected the cancellation report and proceeded to make summoning order – Court deemed fit to direct the ld. Magistrate to make a fresh decision in accordance with law, both upon the cancellation report, and, upon the protest petition.

(Para 2, 8)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82 -- Service by Proclamation – Statutory period of 30 days – Compliance of -- Period of less than 30 days was given to the petitioner from the date on which written proclamation was published as per which the petitioner was to appear in the Court -- Further adjournment granted by the trial Court whereby the case was posted just to complete the statutory period of 30 days, cannot be treated as compliance of the provisions of Section 82(1) Cr.P.C.

(Para 7)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82 -- Service by Proclamation – Accused residing abroad – Procedure of -- Trial Court received report that the petitioner (accused) was living abroad and consequently, a direction was given to issue proclamation against the petitioner – No attempt was made by the Court concerned to serve summons to the petitioner through Ministry of External Affairs -- Even proclamation was not got published in any newspaper -- When the accused is residing in foreign country and no attempt is made to serve summons through Ministry of External Affairs, order of proclamation of the accused is liable to be set aside. Kashmir Ram’s case (P&H) and Sunil Kumar’s case 2002 (1) RCR (Criminal) 119 (Delhi HC) relied.

(Para 7, 8)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 139 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 401 -- Cheque bounce complaint – Presumption – Rebuttal of presumption  -- Signature mismatch – Cheque lost Complaint – Stop payment – Effect of -- Cheque is dated 12.06.2017 -- Cheque books were lost in 2016, GD entry and the acknowledgment of the concerned police station cannot be ignored –Request for stopping of cheques way back in 2016 made to Bank -- Subject cheque which has been dishonoured is the leaf from the cheque book which is lost way back in 2016 -- Complainant failed to place any document to establish the transaction between the complainant and the accused – In the absence of the same, it throws a doubt that whether the cheque which is the subject matter of the dispute is legally enforceable or not -- Judgment & order passed by the trial court punishing the accused and order of the lower appellate court confirming the order of the trial court set aside.

(Para 2, 3, 9-14)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 306 – Investigation in FIR – Allegation of tainted and biasness - Transfer to independent agencies -- In the larger interest of justice, it is ordered that if the petitioner forthwith files an application before the ld. Magistrate concerned, thereupon, it is open to the latter to, in accordance with law, and, after hearing all concerned, order for further investigations, being conducted, by an agency, other than the one which was earlier carrying them, and, which now also is carrying them.

(Para 3-5)

A. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 173, 482 -- Change of Investigating officer – Adding of offences – Power of High Court -- Investigations is still underway -- Domain of investigation, and, also the manner of their conducting, lies squarely within the jurisdiction of the Investigating Officer concerned, and, that the exclusive jurisdiction vested in the investigating officer concerned, to hold investigations into the offences, cannot be either fettered, nor can become trammeled by High Court, through its coaching, mentoring and guiding the investigating officer concerned – However, a rider, inasmuch as upon, evident, and, palpable material suggestive of the investigations rather being done with active mala fides or becoming actuated by some extraneous considerations.

(Para 2, 3)

B. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Change of Investigating officer – Higher links – Effect of -- Mere connections, if any, of co-respondent No.7 with high profile politicians and bureaucrats, cannot per se, and, if so, be concluded to hold the imminent potentiality of endangerment being caused to the fairness, and, impartiality of investigations being conducted into the writ offences hence by the Investigating Officer.

(Para 8)

C. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 173 -- Change of Investigating officer – Adding of offences – Remedy as available to the petitioners is to either ask for, through an application u/s 173 (8) Cr.P.C., becoming filed by them before the Court concerned, and, that too, only after a report u/s 173 Cr.P.C., being filed by the Investigating Officer, before the Court concerned, whereins, there are untenable exculpations of the accused, rather both for change of the Investigating Officer concerned, and/or, for further investigations being conducted by the Investigating Officer concerned.

(Para 10)

D. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 41, 482 – Arrest of accused – Power of -- High Court, cannot proceed to order the official respondents concerned, to arrest the respondents concerned,

(Para 11)

E. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Police protection against threats -- Mandamus cannot be granted, as there is no credible evidence, at this stage before the Court, rather in personification of potentialized life endangering threats, if any, becoming meted to the petitioners – However, in the larger interest of justice, if the co-petitioners apprehend the meteing of life endangering threats to them, by co-respondent Nos.6 to 8, thereupon they can make a representation at the appropriate stage, to respondent Nos.1 to 3 -- Upon the afore representation being made, the co-respondent Nos. 1 to 3, may promptly proceed to, in accordance with law, pass a speaking decision thereon.

(Para 12)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 392 -- Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Section 12 -- Robbery case -- Bail to juvenile in conflict with law -- JJ Board and Appellate Court depended, upon the proviso to Section 12 of Act in concluding that upon facility of bail, there being every likelihood of his being brought in association with hardened criminals, and, that there is being every likelihood of his hence being exposed to moral, physical and psychological danger – However, both the ld. Courts proceeded to, without any tangible and concrete evidence with respect to the afore factum existing on record rather made the above conclusion prima-facie imaginative, and, also surmisal – Statutory leverage in the Courts below with an alternate being placed under the supervision of a Probation Officer, and/or, under the care of any fit person neither been explored, nor has been thought fit to be worked vis-à-vis the juvenile in conflict with law – Consequently, the impugned orders quashed, and, set aside, with a direction, that the juvenile in conflict with law shall be released, and, shall be upon his release, become placed by the District Collector concerned, under, the supervision of the Child Welfare Officer.

(Para 8-12)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 – Murder case -- Extradition of accused from Canada – Accused served through proclamation – Trial stalled due to non-appearance of accused – Prayer to direct prosecution to initiate and conclude the extradition process with Canada – Held, jurisdiction vest with trial judge at this stage not with High court --  Trial Judge and Public Prosecutor directed to initiate the process with the Ministry of External Affairs for ensuring the extradition of co-accused from Canada to India -- Process ordered to be ensured to be completed within four months.

(Para 1-5)

Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (Punjab Act 1 of 1914), Sections 72F, 78 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 451 -- Excise matter – Release of vehicle on superdari – JMIC ordered release of the vehicle subject to depositing cash amount of Rs.3,00,000/- in the Treasury of the Court – Revision against dismissed – None of the Courts below has made any endeavour to determine the value of the seized conveyance/offending vehicle – No tangible evidence existing on record suggestive that the value of the seized conveyance/offending vehicle – Petitioner may file the credible valuation within 02 weeks, before the learned Magistrate concerned, and, the latter shall after giving an opportunity of hearing to all the concerned, shall within 03 weeks thereafter, make a fresh order, in accordance with law, upon, the apposite application.

(Para 2-7)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 344 – Perjury – Cognizance of offence against Complainant/victim – Challenge to -- Two material witnesses i.e., the victim and other had not supported the prosecution case -- Court also took notice of the fact that it was very common now-a-days that witnesses, while supporting the prosecution version at the investigation stage of the case take a complete U-turn at the trial by not supporting the prosecution, thereby leading to acquittal of the accused for want of evidence – It is observed that this practice had become a menace in the criminal judicial system – No infirmity in the impugned order of the learned Trial Court.

(Para 9-11)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439, 446A -- Breach of the bail condition – Personal hearing -- Cancellation of bail – Forfeiture of bail bond -- Warrant of arrest – It was incumbent, upon the learned Special Judge, to issue notice to them and also ensure their participation in the relevant proceedings, imperatively before his ordering for cancellation and forfeiting of personal and surety bonds of the bail petitioners and for his thereafter ordering for issuance of warrants of arrest – Issuance of warrants of arrest, prior to theirs being validly served with a notice has led to gross injustice -- Petition allowed, impugned orders quashed and set aside.

(Para 5-9)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 446A -- Cheque bounce case -- Non-appearance of accused – Cancellation of bail bond – Non-bailable warrant issued -- Order does not disclose that the complainants evidence was present or not -- Consequently, the ld. Judicial Magistrate, could not draw any valid conclusion whether merely for non-appearance of the accused, and, of his counsel both were intending to delay the proceedings – Yet a reading of the order also makes a disclosure that the notice for ensuring the personal appearance of the accused before the ld. Judicial Magistrate, rather was issued -- No echoing in the order that the above notice was ever validly served or not upon accused – Therefore, the impugned order is ridden with the vice of breaching the principles of natural justice and also for its untenably interfering with the personal liberty of the petitioner -- Petition allowed, impugned order set aside.

(Para 3-5)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 401 – Acquittal of accused – Revisional Powers for conviction -- Section 401 (3) of Cr.P.C. prohibits/bars the High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction -- High Court has revisional power to examine whether there is manifest error of law or procedure etc., however, after giving its own findings on the findings recorded by the court acquitting the accused and after setting aside the order of acquittal, the High Court has to remit the matter to the trial Court and/or the first appellate Court, as the case may be.

(Para 9)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 401 – Acquittal by the first appellate court -- Revisional Powers for conviction -- High Court has two options available, (i) to remit the matter to the first appellate Court to rehear the appeal; or (ii) in an appropriate case remit the matter to the trial Court for retrial -- High Court has erred in quashing and setting aside the order of acquittal and reversing and/or converting a finding of acquittal into one of conviction -- Order of conviction is therefore unsustainable, beyond the scope and ambit of Section 401 Cr.P.C., more particularly sub-section (3) of Section 401 Cr.P.C.

(Para 9)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378(4) -- Acquittal in complaint case – Right to appeal -- Where an order of acquittal is passed in any case instituted upon complaint, the complainant (other than victim) can prefer an appeal against the order of acquittal as provided under sub-section (4) of Section 378 Cr.P.C., subject to the grant of special leave to appeal by the High Court.

(Para 10.1)

D. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 372, 378(4), 401 -- Acquittal of accused – Non-preferring of appeal by victim -- Revisional jurisdiction -- In a case where the victim and/or the complainant, as the case may be, has not preferred and/or availed the remedy of appeal against the order of acquittal as provided under Section 372 Cr.P.C. or Section 378(4), as the case may be, the revision application against the order of acquittal at the instance of the victim or the complainant, as the case may be, shall not be entertained and the victim or the complainant, as the case may be, shall be relegated to prefer the appeal as provided under Section 372 or Section 378(4), as the case may be.

(Para 10.2)

E. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 401(5) -- Power of High Court to treat Revision as Appeal -- Where under the Cr.P.C. an appeal lies, but an application for revision has been made to the High Court by any person, the High Court has jurisdiction to treat the application for revision as a petition of appeal and deal with the same accordingly as per sub-section (5) of Section 401 Cr.P.C., however, subject to the High Court being satisfied that such an application was made under the erroneous belief that no appeal lies thereto and that it is necessary in the interests of justice so to do and for that purpose the High Court has to pass a judicial order, may be a formal order, to treat the application for revision as a petition of appeal and deal with the same accordingly.

(Para 11)

F. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 372, 401(3)(5) -- Acquittal of accused – Conviction by High court in revision – Impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court reversing the acquittal and convicting the accused quashed and set aside – Matters remitted to the High Court – High Court directed to treat the revision applications as appeals under Section 372 Cr.P.C. and thereafter to decide and dispose of the same in accordance with law on their own merits.

(Para 12, 13)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Sections 310, 311, 319 – Misc. applications u/s 310, 311, 319 of Cr.P.C. -- Decision of misc. application with main appeal – Permissibility of --  Impugned order insofar as it orders for conjoint listing, and, hearings being made upon the main appeal, and, upon the miscellaneous applications, quashed, and, set aside – Direction given to Ld. Additional Sessions Judge before making a decision upon the main appeal, to decide miscellaneous applications, so as to give an opportunity to the aggrieved concerned, to access the appropriate remedy, in accordance with law.

(Para 1-5)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Cheque bounce case -- Proclamation Person – Accused was at abroad -- Averred that at the relevant time, of the serving constable proceeding to execute the proclamation notice, the petitioner was outside India -- Without believing the afore averment, supported by an affidavit, rather the impugned order yet depended upon the infirm report of the serving constable, and, hence becomes ridden with a vice of infirmity, as it was incumbent, upon the learned Magistrate concerned, to ensure, that prior thereto, his eliciting a report of the serving officer, whether the petitioner was residing at his abode, as mentioned against his name, in the memo of parties -- Service of the proclamation notice never became validly caused upon the petitioner – Impugned order quashed and set aside.

(Para 3-5)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82((2)(i)(a) – Proclaimed offender -- Proclamation notice – Service of – Mandate of – Non-compliance of -- Serving executing officer in his report/statement, made a disclosure that he affixed one copy of the proclamation on the gate of the house of the accused -- However, a reading of the afore report, does not disclose, that he had also read it publicly in some conspicuous place of the town or village, in which the accused ordinarily resides -- A reading of the apposite report, not disclosing that he had also meted compliance to Clause (a) of sub-sub-Section (i) of sub-Section (2) of Section 82, of the Cr.P.C, thereupon, his report is in departure of the statutory injunction, as therethrough, became cast upon him -- Consequently, the knowledge of the proclamation notice, was not hence completely acquired by the petitioner, and, also the endeavour of the executing officer to serve the proclamation notice, upon the accused, is completely deficit on score.

(Para 7)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82((2)(i)(a) – Proclaimed offender – Resident of Canada – Procedure of Service -- Petitioner is residing in Canada since 23.10.2008, therefore, it was rather imperative, for the learned trial Magistrate concerned, to even if he intended to secure his appearance before him, or before any other Court of law, to ensure that personal service of the process of Court, became through, the Embassy of India, located in Canada – Neither the executing officer, has ensured the causing of personal service upon the accused at Canada, nor the learned Magistrate concerned, has ensured that any proclamation notice became served, upon, the accused at Canada, hence through the aegis of the Embassy of India, located in Canada -- Petition allowed, and impugned order declaring the petitioner, as a proclaimed offender, as well as subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, become quashed, and set aside.

(Para 8)

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 148 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 374, 389 -- Cheque bounce case -- Conviction u/s 138 NI Act – Suspension of sentence on furnishing of personal and surety bonds in the sum of Rs. 1 Lakh – Later on an application by complainant, Appellate Court proceeded to direct the appellant, to pay an amount of Rs. 2,30,000/- comprising 20% of the compensation amount to the complainant within one month – Order made by Appellate Court is a discreet, and, tacit attempt, to proceed to impermissibly review, and scuttle the effect of the binding order -- It is ridden with a vice of infirmity, if so, and, even if assuming the order did hold some aura or tinge of validity, yet until and unless there was some evidently deterrent circumstances, prevailing upon the learned Appellate Court, as comprised in the appellant rather deliberately delaying the making of an expeditious decision, upon the appeal, there was no occasion for the learned Appellate Court to make the order -- De hors finality being assignable to P-3/order suspending sentence, High Court directed the convict / petitioner to deposit 15% of the cheque amount before the learned Appellate Court within one month.

(Para 2-9)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 148 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 374 -- Cheque bounce case -- Interim deposit of compensation u/s 148 of NI Act – Restoration of compensation to accused/appellant – Order of – Requirement of -- Legally incumbent upon the learned First Appellate Court, to order that in case there is allowing of the appeal, as preferred before it, by the accused-convict, thereupon the interim compensation, as determined, be restored or refunded to the accused/ convict, by the complainant -- However, the directions, as legally required to be made, while being seized with an application, u/s 148 of the NI Act, are not existing, hence the order suffers from an infirmity.

(Para 7)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 37, 67 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Regular bail – Rigour of Section 37 of NDPS Act -- Confessional statement u/s 67 of NDPS Act – Recovery from one accused -- Bail to all accused – Challenge to -- Arrests made by the petitioner-NCB, on the basis of the confession/ voluntary statements of the respondents or the co-accused u/s 67 of the NDPS Act, cannot form the basis for overturning the impugned orders releasing them on bail -- CDR details of some of the accused or the allegations of tampering of evidence on the part of one of the respondents is an aspect that will be examined at the stage of trial – Bail order upheld, except respondent-M from whom recovery of substantial commercial quantities of drugs from a rented accommodation occupied by him -- This respondent cannot seek parity and no such benefit could have been extended to him in view of Section 37 of the Act when he was found to be in conscious possession of commercial quantity of psychotropic substances – Bail granted to the respondent-M cancelled forthwith, he directed to surrender before the Sessions Court/Special Judge (NDPS) within a period of two weeks, for being taken into custody.

(Para 9-12)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 307, 323, 324, 148, 149 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Sections 25, 27 – Attempt to murder – Anticipatory bail -- Cross-case -- Submission that it is a case of version and cross-version and in the FIR case, father of the petitioner was murdered and cross-version was registered after 05 days -- It is further submitted that in the DDR version, the petitioner is attributed simple injury with a stick, whereas in the supplementary statement, the petitioner has caused a firearm injury -- It is also submitted that in the FIR version, two accused have already been granted the concession of anticipatory bail noticing the aforesaid facts – Further submitted that primarily, it is a dispute with regard to possession of agricultural land, which both the parties claim that they have purchased it and are in possession of the same and even in the anticipatory bail granted to accused in the FIR version, it is noticed that it is a case of free fight regarding the possession over the land in dispute -- Petitioner has joined the investigation and is no more required for any further investigation – Order granting interim bail confirmed.

(Para 1-5)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 311 – Power to summon witness – Nature of -- Section 311 Cr.P.C. gives wide powers to the Court to summon a witness or re-examine a witness who has already been examined and the word 'any' which has been used as a pre-fix would also include a person who is not cited as a witness -- Paramount requirement is just decision and for that purpose an additional person can be summoned while invoking provisions of Section 311 Cr. P. C.

(Para 12)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 311 – Summon of additional witness – Complainant/ PW-15 reveals that at the time of occurrence in question, he alongwith his cousin-Arashdeep (being pillion rider) on motorcycle was following his father (since deceased) who  was going ahead of them on his scooter -- Further, two days after formation of Special Investigation Team (SIT), third statement of petitioner/complainant was recorded (Ex.P-15/A) which reveals that Arashdeep (cousin of petitioner/complainant) was accompanying him at the time of occurrence in question and even there is an endorsement of the said fact by Arashdeep at the foot of said statement -- It is not a case where the petitioner (complainant) was making an attempt to fill up the lacuna in the prosecution case but it was merely a fall out of an oversight committed by the Prosecuting Agency conducting the case – Held, a fair chance has to be given to petitioner (complainant) assisted by State to prove its case and, thus, to arrive at the truth, which is the only object and guideline while exercising the powers u/s 311 Cr.P.C., incorporation of name of Arashdeep, in the list of prosecution witnesses and examination of said Arashdeep as prosecution witness, appears to be essential for the just decision of the case -- Impugned order dismissing the application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. -- Petition allowed.

(Para 13-15)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 427 – Life imprisonment or Sentence of imprisonment -- Subsequent sentence/ life imprisonment -- Concurrent running of sentence -- Consecutively running of sentence – Provision explained:

-- When a person who is already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment or imprisonment for life, such imprisonment or imprisonment for life shall commence at the expiration of the imprisonment to which he has been previously sentenced -- Meaning thereby both sentences shall run consecutively unless the Court directs that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence.

-- As per Sub­section (2) of Section 427 of Cr.PC when a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for life is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment for a term or imprisonment for life, the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence -- Therefore, in aforesaid two cases only the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with previous sentence.

In aforesaid two cases only the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with previous sentence. Otherwise the subsequent sentence shall run consecutively and the imprisonment in subsequent sentence shall commence at the expiration of the imprisonment to which he has been previously sentenced.

(Para 8.2)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 427 – Concurrent running of sentence – Consecutively running of sentence – Law summarised :

(i) if a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment, such subsequent term of imprisonment would normally commence at the expiration of the imprisonment to which he was previously sentenced;

(ii) ordinarily the subsequent sentence would commence at the expiration of the first term of imprisonment unless the court directs the subsequent sentence to run concurrently with the previous sentence;

(iii) the general rule is that where there are different transactions, different crime numbers and cases have been decided by the different judgments, concurrent sentence cannot be awarded under Section 427 of Cr.PC;

(iv) under Section 427 (1) of Cr.PC the court has the power and discretion to issue a direction that all the subsequent sentences run concurrently with the previous sentence; however discretion has to be exercised judiciously depending upon the nature of the offence or the offences committed and the facts in situation. However, there must be a specific direction or order by the court that the subsequent sentence to run concurrently with the previous sentence.

(Para 9)

C. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21(c), 23, 29 -- NDPS case – Conviction in two different trials -- Concurrent running of sentence -- Appellant sentenced to undergo 12 years RI for the offence u/s 23 and Section 21 of the NDPS Act by Amritsar Court – In another case he has been sentenced to undergo 15 years RI for the offence u/s 29 read with Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act by Delhi Court -- In one case he has been convicted for having possession of 4 kg of heroin and in another case for having 750 grams of heroin -- In the subsequent judgment and order of conviction and sentence by the Delhi court there is no specific order passed by the learned Trial Court (Court at Delhi) that the sentences to run concurrently – Held, while awarding sentence or punishment in case of NDPS Act, interest of society as a whole is required to be taken into consideration – Even while applying discretion u/s 427 of Cr.P.C, discretion shall not be in favour of accused who is found to be indulging in illegal trafficking in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.

(Para 11)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 311 – Material witness given up – Additional evidence for – Witness had procured the CCTV footage from the camera installed in the building, where the occurrence in question took place -- It has been submitted that the prosecution would just take one day to examine the aforementioned witness and hence it would in no way hamper or delay the proceedings before the trial Court – Trial Court directed to record the evidence of PW-8/Constable, as prayed for -- However, prosecution shall ensure that the evidence of PW8/Constable is recorded and concluded within two days.

(Para 3-5)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302, 148, 149, 506, 201 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25 – Proclamation Notice – Period of 30 days to appear – Non-providing of -- Quashing of Proclaimed offender order -- Section 82(1) Cr.P.C. mandates that a period of not less than 30 days has to be provided for causing appearance from the date of publication of such proclamation -- Accused was required to appear on 9.11.2020, it was on 23.10.2020 that the proclamation was actually effected -- As on the date when the proclamation was effected i.e. on 23.10.2020, the accused was afforded only 16 days to cause his appearance – Declaration of proclaimed offender order set aside.

(Para 1, 4-6)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438, 439 -- Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (15 of 2003), Section 45 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 37 -- Companies Act, 2013 (No. 18 of 2013), Section 212(6) -- Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (37 of 1967), Section 43D (5) -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012) -- Bail after filing charge-sheet – Consideration of -- Categories/Types of Offences – Guidelines issued :

“Categories/Types of Offences

A)    Offences punishable with imprisonment of 7 years or less not falling in category B & D.

B)    Offences punishable with death, imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for more than 7 years.

C)    Offences punishable under Special Acts containing stringent provisions for bail like NDPS (S.37), PMLA (S.45), UAPA (S.43D(5), Companies Act, 212(6), etc.

D)    Economic offences not covered by Special Acts.

REQUISITE CONDITIONS

1)       Not arrested during investigation.

2)    Cooperated throughout in the investigation including appearing before Investigating Officer whenever called.

(No need to forward such an accused along with the chargesheet (Siddharth Vs. State of UP, 2021 SCC online SC 615)

CATEGORY A

After filing of chargesheet/complaint taking of cognizance

a)    Ordinary summons at the 1st instance/including permitting appearance through Lawyer.

b)    If such an accused does not appear despite service of summons, then Bailable Warrant for physical appearance may be issued.

c)    NBW on failure to failure to appear despite issuance of Bailable Warrant.

d)    NBW may be cancelled or converted into a Bailable Warrant/Summons without insisting physical appearance of accused, if such an application is moved on behalf of the accused before execution of the NBW on an undertaking of the accused to appear physically on the next date/s of hearing.

e)    Bail applications of such accused on appearance may be decided w/o the accused being taken in physical custody or by granting interim bail till the bail application is decided.

CATEGORY B/D

On appearance of the accused in Court pursuant to process issued bail application to be decided on merits.

CATEGORY C

Same as Category B & D with the additional condition of compliance of the provisions of Bail under NDPS S. 37, 45 PMLA, 212(6) Companies Act 43 d(5) of UAPA, POSCO etc.”

Category A deals with both police cases and complaint cases -- Trial Courts and the High Courts will keep in mind the aforesaid guidelines while considering bail applications -- While issuing notice to consider bail, the trial Court is not precluded from granting interim bail taking into consideration the conduct of the accused during the investigation which has not warranted arrest -- This aspect would be guided by the statutory provisions.

Separate set of offences are categorized as “economic Offences” not covered by the special Acts. In Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40, Court has observed that in determining whether to grant bail both aspects have to be taken into account:

a)       seriousness of the charge and

b)       severity of punishment.

Copy of this order ordered to be circulated to the Registrars of the different High Courts to be further circulated to the trial Courts so that the unnecessary bail matters do not come up to Supreme Court -- This is the only purpose for which guidelines issued, but they are not fettered on the powers of the Courts.

(Para 2-12)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 391 -- Defence witness at appellate stage – Conviction u/s 279, 304-A and 427 of the IPC –  Appellate Court dismissed the application -- Evidence closed by the trial Court on 04.10.2016 -- Statement of the petitioner u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 17.10.2016 and he had been granted adequate opportunity to lead his evidence -- Witness, who has been sought to be examined at the appellate stage, was not examined in defence before the trial Court – Court do not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Appellate Court -- Petition dismissed.

(Para 4)