A. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 50 – NDPS case – Recovery from bag – Recovery effected from a bag and not from personal search of the accused, Section 50 of the Act would have no application.

(Para 11)

B. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21, 29, 50 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – NDPS case – Recovery of 1 kg 200 grams of heroin -- Regular bail -- In a case where compliance of Section 50 of the Act is not required but yet an offer is extended and there is some defect in the same, the same would not immaterial -- However, the absence of signatures on the consent memo and recovery memo cannot be said to be just a “defect” in procedure but is something which rather absolutely negates what the police claims to have done at the spot -- Omission of signatures on the said documents would tend to show that the DSP was not present at the spot -- At this stage, since some kind of doubt has been created, the petitioner may be extended the relief of grant of bail, particularly keeping in view that the petitioner has already been behind bars since the last about more than 1 year -- Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(Para 13, 14)

A. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 37 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Regular bail -- Rigour of Section 37 of NDPS Act – Standard prescribed for the grant of bail is ‘reasonable ground to believe’ that the person is not guilty of the offence -- Test which are required to apply while granting bail is whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused has not committed an offence and whether he is likely to commit any offence while on bail.

(Para 19, 20)

B. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 37 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Regular bail -- Rigour of Section 37 of NDPS Act – Bail by High court – Challenge to -- Respondent was travelling in the vehicle all the way from Dimapur in Nagaland to Rampur in Uttar Pradesh with the co-accused -- Complaint notes that the CDR analysis of the mobile number used by the respondent indicates that the respondent was in regular touch with the other accused persons who were known to him – Quantity of contraband found in the vehicle is of a commercial quantity -- Contraband was concealed in the vehicle in which the respondent was travelling with the co-accused -- High Court, apart from observing that no contraband was found from the personal search of the respondent has ignored the above circumstances – High Court has clearly overlooked crucial requirements and glossed over the circumstances which were material to the issue as to whether a case for the grant of bail was established -- In failing to do so, the order of the High Court becomes unsustainable – High Court ought to have given due weight to the seriousness and gravity of the crime which it has failed to do – Appeal allowed, impugned judgment and order of the High Court set aside -- Respondent shall accordingly surrender forthwith.

(Para 31-34)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319 – Summoning of Additional accused -- Trial court dismissed application u/s 319 Cr.P.C. – Challenge in revision -- State Counsel submitted that names of four persons surfaced in the statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C., after a period of about three months, therefore, there is every possibility that in order to implicate more persons, the complainant side has named the aforesaid four persons to be the accused and were found to be innocent in investigation – Held, case is not covered by guidelines of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hardeep Vs. State of Punjab, 2014 (1) RCR (Crl.) 623 = (2014) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 14978 -- Accordingly, the petition dismissed.

(Para 6, 8, 9)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319 – Summoning of additional accused -- Power u/s 319 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised only when there is a strong and cogent evidence against a person and not merely on a bald statement – Prima facie there should be a case established from the evidence led before the court that such evidence if goes rebutted would lead to conviction – There is no specific role attributed to the proposed accused who was found innocent during investigation – Her name does not find mention in either of the two statements given under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and even in the complaint made, there is no role attributed to her other than stating that the accused is involved – Main allegations have been made against “S” and “A”, who are already facing trial – Trial Court dismissed the application – Finding no infirmity in the order, revision petition dismissed.

(Para 3,7,8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 399, 402 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Sections 25, 27, 54, 59 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Regular bail -- Parity in bail -- Once, the co-accused, who is similarly situated as the petitioner, has been granted the benefit of regular bail, the petitioner cannot be denied the same benefit on the ground of parity unless and until a differentiating fact between the petitioner and the said co-accused is pointed out -- Petitioner and the co-accused are similarly situated -- Petitioner has made out a case for the grant of regular bail on account of parity -- Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(Para 6-8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304-B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319, 389 -- Dowry death – Appeal against conviction -- Suspension of sentence – Initially, applicant was declared innocent by the police during enquiry and she was summoned u/s 319 Cr.P.C. – Already undergone actual sentence of 04 years, 07 months and 29 days out of rigorous imprisonment for life – Case is covered by Dharam Pal's case, 1999(4) RCR (Criminal), 600 -- Appeal is not likely to be heard in the near future, the remaining sentence of applicant is ordered to be suspended during pendency of the appeal.

(Para 3)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 323, 324, 506, 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Quashing of cross-version -- Delay in reporting cross-version – Ground of -- Mere delay in registration of the cross version is no ground for quashing of the same -- It is a case of version and cross version, which can only be decided after leading evidence – Petition dismissed.

(Para 8-10)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498A -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 357 – Conviction in dowry case -- Compensation to victim – Reduction of sentence -- Object of any criminal jurisprudence is reformative in character and to take care of the victim -- It is towards this objective that Section 357 of the Cr.P.C. is enacted in the statute -- Objective of which is to apply whole or any part of the fine recovered to be applied on payment to any person of compensation for any loss or injury caused by the offence -- Voluntarily offering the amount albeit to seek a reduction of sentence – Appellant has now undergone about seven months of sentence, sentence reduced to already undergone in case the appellant pays Rs.3.00 lakhs for complainant and her children.

(Para 9, 10)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154 – First Information Report/ FIR – Nature of -- FIR is certainly the starting point of the investigation, but it is well within the rights of the prosecution to produce witness statements as they progress further into the investigation and unearth the specific roles of accused persons -- FIR as is known, only sets the investigative machinery, into motion.

(Para 14)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 120B, 147, 148, 324 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 9 -- Conviction in murder case – Test Identification Parade/ TIP -- Two courts have concurrently concluded that appellant’s name not being specifically mentioned in the FIR, would not justify his acquittal as he was specifically identified by PW2, PW4, & PW6 -- In view of his positive identification by the eye witnesses, the TIP not being conducted, was held to be immaterial -- Eye witnesses here have ascribed the same specific role to the appellant and narrated the events in same chronology, without material discrepancies – Court cannot lose sight of the fact that this case involves multiple persons attacking in a group with deadly weapons and it is not reasonable to expect recollection of every minute details by the eyewitnesses -- Prosecution has produced cogent evidence of the appellant being part of a conspiracy by all the accused in the assault, which led to the death of BM and injuries to PW1 and others -- As such, the conviction of the appellant by the trial court, as upheld by the High Court, cannot be faulted.

(Para 15-18)

C. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 9 -- Test Identification Parade/ TIP – Requirement of -- Identity of the appellant/accused was known to the witnesses and he was specifically identified by PW1, and PW2 as the person who wielded the sword and inflicted the injuries -- TIP was unnecessary in the case -- In the face of appellant’s such identification by name in the testimony of the eye witnesses, it can, be safely concluded that the failure to conduct the TIP for the appellant will not vitiate his conviction.

(Para 17)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 211, 482 -- Framing of charge – Quashing of Charge-sheet/ criminal proceedings -- Inherent Jurisdiction of High Court – High Court quashed charge-sheet/ criminal proceedings -- High Court ignored what has emerged during the course of investigation, and entered into the appreciation of the evidence and considered whether on the basis of the evidence, the accused is likely to be convicted or not, which as such is not permissible at all at this stage while considering the application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. -- High Court was not as such conducting the trial and/or was not exercising the jurisdiction as an appellate court against the order of conviction or acquittal -- High Court ought not to have quashed the chargesheet -- Impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court quashed and set aside.

(Para 8, 9)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 354 (A)(1), 148, 149, 323 -- Summoning of additional accused -- Investigation was carried thoroughly, which was appreciated by an officer of DSP rank -- Complainant and other witness were examined as PW-4 and PW-1, on a conjoint reading of their deposition, application u/s 319 Cr.P.C. do not make out any case when it is tested on the law settled in Hardeep's case 2014 (3) SCC 92 i.e. summoning u/s 319 Cr.P.C. is an extra ordinary power and it should be used sparingly and not in a routine manner and satisfaction drawn for summoning of the accused should be more than the satisfaction for framing of the charge and less than that of resulting in conviction – Dismissal of application by courts below do not suffer from any infirmity – Petition dismissed.

(Para 8-9)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 325, 323/34, 452 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 397, 401 – Injury case -- Sentence reduced to already undergone -- Petitioner No.1 has already undergone 04 months and 23 days of actual sentence, and petitioner No.2 has undergone actual sentence of 07 months and 07 days out of 2 years – Petitioner No.1 is 57 years of age and petitioner No.2 is 33 years of age – FIR is of the year 2017 and the petitioners have suffered agony of trial for the last four years -- Petitioners never misused the concession of bail/parole nor were involved in any other case and they are also married and are bread-winners for their family -- Petitioners are also ready to compensate the complainant -- While maintaining the impugned judgment of conviction, the sentence awarded by the Courts below to the petitioners is reduced to the period already undergone by them -- Sentence of fine is enhanced from Rs.25,000/- each to Rs.55,000/- each.

(Para 7-11)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 41, 170, 173 – Filing of Investigation report/ Challan/ Charge-sheet -- Arrest of accused – Requirement of --  Section 170 does not impose an obligation on the Officer-in-charge to arrest each and every accused at the time of filing of the chargesheet – Held, if the Investigating Officer does not believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons he/she is not required to be produced in custody -- The word “custody” appearing in Section 170 of the Cr.P.C. does not contemplate either police or judicial custody but it merely connotes the presentation of the accused by the Investigating Officer before the court while filing the chargesheet.

(Para 11)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 41, 170, 173 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Filing of Investigation report/ Challan/ Charge-sheet -- Arrest of accused – Requirement of --  Personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate -- Occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond -- Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made -- A distinction must be made between the existence of the power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it -- If arrest is made routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person.

(Para 12)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 41, 170, 173 – Filing of Investigation report/ Challan/ Charge-sheet -- Arrest of accused – Requirement of --  Trial courts are stated to be insisting on the arrest of an accused as a pre-requisite formality to take the chargesheet on record in view of the provisions of Section 170 of the Cr.P.C – Held, such a course is misplaced and contrary to the very intent of Section 170 of the Cr.P.C.

(Para 13)

D. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 41, 170, 173 – Filing of Investigation report/ Challan/ Charge-sheet -- Arrest of accused – Requirement of --  Appellant has joined the investigation, investigation has completed and he has been roped in after seven years of registration of the FIR -- No reason why at this stage he must be arrested before the chargesheet is taken on record – Counsel for the appellant has already stated before the Court that on summons being issued the appellant will put the appearance before the trial court -- Impugned order set aside, appeal allowed.

(Para 14)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 420, 120-B -- Emigration Act, 1983 (31 of 1983), Sections 10, 24 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Cheating – 377 complaints – Regular bail -- After dismissal of bail more than a year elapsed – Against a total of 377 complaints only 17 have been looked into till date and challans having been presented, investigation process may not be concluded for another couple of years -- Petitioner has already faced incarceration since 26.04.2018 -- Investigation is in progress would not be a ground to keep the petitioner indefinitely in custody -- Amount of money which is alleged to have been taken by the petitioner on account of having duped the investors/complainants would be a subject matter of trial on the basis of evidence adduced – Bail after having suffered incarceration for a period in excess of three years cannot be declined on the demand of the complainants that certain amount be first refunded to them -- Investigation/trial is bound to take time to conclude -- Petitioner is held entitled to benefit of bail.

(Para 13-16)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 62 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 451 -- NDPS case -- Recovery of Poppy husk -- Superdari of truck -- Son of petitioner was found in possession of 60 kilograms of 'poppy husk' while he was driving the truck -- Truck being case property has been taken into possession by the police, which is liable to be confiscated -- However, as on date, the trial is yet to commence and there is no such finding that the accused is guilty of having committed the offence – Held, in case, the vehicle in question is not released on superdari, the condition of the same is likely to deteriorate on account of its disuse and on account of vagaries of weather, which would not be in the interest of anybody, as unnecessarily the value of the truck in question get diminished – Vehicle in question is ordered to be released.

(Para 5-8)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Sections 28, 29, 30, 31, 427 – Concurrent running of default sentence – Permissibility of -- Default sentence cannot be directed to run concurrently.

(Para 10)

A. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 9 -- Test Identification parade/ TIP – Object of -- Purpose of holding a test identification parade during the stage of investigation is only to ensure that the investigating agency prima facie was proceeding in the right direction where the accused may be unknown or there was a fleeting glance of the accused.

(Para 9)

B. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 9 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 395, 397 – Dacoity case -- Test Identification parade/ TIP -- FIR was registered against unknown persons -- Case of the prosecution solely rests on identification in the TIP -- A test identification parade u/s 9 of the Evidence Act is not substantive evidence in a criminal prosecution but is only corroborative evidence -- Mere identification in the test identification parade cannot form the substantive basis for conviction unless there are other facts and circumstances corroborating the identification.

(Para 9)

C. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 9 -- Test Identification parade/ TIP – Onus to Prove -- Onus lies on the prosecution to establish that the TIP was held in accordance with law -- It is only after the prosecution prima facie establishes a valid TIP having been held, the question of considering any objection to the same arises -- If the prosecution has failed to establish that a TIP was properly held by examining the witnesses to the same, there is nothing for the accused to disprove.

(Para 10)

D. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 9 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 395, 397 – Dacoity case -- Test Identification parade/ TIP -- Magistrate conducted the TIP -- Magistrate has not been examined -- No explanation is forthcoming why the Magistrate was not examined -- Only evidence available is that of PW-4 the SHO that during the investigation the TIP was held in the District Jail and he identifies the proceedings in the Court -- Identification of the proceedings is irrelevant as he could not have been present during the TIP -- There cannot be repeated TIPs till such time that the prosecution is successful in obtaining identification of the accused -- PW-1 who is the mother of PW-2, and both of them are stated to have been present in the house when the occurrence took place, did not identify any of the appellants -- Identification by a minor boy and that too in the 3rd and 4th rounds insofar as the present appellants are concerned -- In the nature of the TIP held it is completely non est in the law and the benefit has to go to the accused.

(Para 11,12)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167(2) -- Default bail -- Application for default bail filed, there was no challan u/s 173 Cr.P.C against the petitioner, who was in custody for a period of 94 days – Held, Court below has erred in denying default bail on the ground that evidence had already been collected and a challan presented against the other co accused and, therefore, since evidence was available – Challan presented against the co-accused clearly stated qua petitioner that he is yet to be arrested and separate challan would be prepared and presented against petitioner -- An indefeasible right accrues – No provision in the Criminal Procedure Code authorising detention of an accused in custody after the expiry of the period indicated in proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 167 excepting the contingency indicated in Explanation I, namely, if the accused does not furnish the bail -- Petition allowed, petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail.

(Para 9-11)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 200, 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304, 316, 34 – Summoning in medical negligence case – Challenge to – Mens-rea – Requirement of -- High Court set side summoning order impressed by the fact that there was no evidence regarding mens rea, to show malicious or bad intent – Held, view taken by the High Court is erroneous -- When it is a case of medical negligence, it need not be because of mens rea as intent.

(Para 1-4)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 200, 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304, 316, 34 -- Summoning in medical negligence case – Challenge to -- Medical evidence – Requirement of -- Trial Court summoned without insisting for medical evidence or examination of professional Doctor as required in terms of the exposition of this Court in Jacob Mathew Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in (2005) 6 SCC 1 – Appropriate course is to set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court as well as summoning order issued by the Trial Court and relegate the parties before the Trial Court for reconsideration of the issue afresh -- Appeal disposed of.

(Para 6-9)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 357, 397, 401 – Cheque bounce case -- Conviction u/s 138  N.I. Act -- Revisional jurisdiction – Condition of pre-deposit of fine/ compensation – Trial court sentenced fine of Rs.6,00,000/-, in the event of default, appellant/ convict would undergo S.I. for six months -- Rs.5,90,000/- was directed to be paid to the complainant as compensation in terms of Section 357 Cr.P.C. and the balance amount was to be remitted to the State – High Court ordered unless the fine amount is deposited, the petitioner is not entitled to press into service the hearing the petition filed u/s 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C – Held, depositing of fine amount could not have been made a condition precedent for the purpose of hearing of the revision petition – Impugned order set aside.

(Para 3, 4, 8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, 506 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167(2) -- Default bail – Bail granted by JMIC u/s 167 (2) Cr.P.C. on 22.6.2021 on account of failure of the investigating agency to file challan within the prescribed period -- Requisite bonds were not furnished on behalf of the petitioner-accused on that very day, rather, on 25.06.2021, when an application was filed on behalf of petitioner/accused for furnishing of requisite bail bonds, the application was dismissed for the reason that the investigating agency had filed the challan on 22.06.2021, after passing of the order -- Impugned order cannot be sustained – Petition allowed.

(Para 2-7)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 42, 50, 67 -- NDPS case – Acquittal of accused in appeal – Investigaiton by Adhoc ASI -- Over-writing on consent Memo – Effect of -- Being not a substantive Assistant Sub Inspector, HC/EASI was an Ad hoc ASI and holding the substantive rank of a Head Constable -- As such, he was not competent to exercise the powers and perform the duties as specified in Sections 42 and 67 of the NDPS Act – Besides this, over-writing in the notice and consent memo u/s 50 NDPS Act, is sufficient to hold that thick clouds of suspicion are hovering over the case of the prosecution -- It is a cardinal principle of the criminal law that the prosecution has to prove the guilty of the accused beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt, however, the prosecution has failed to do as such -- Appeal allowed; the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court set aside; and the accused-appellant is acquitted of the charge framed by giving the benefit of doubt.

(Para 13-18)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 188 -- Offence committed abroad – Prior sanction from Central Government – Requirement of -- Previous sanction of the Central Government u/s 188 Cr.P.C. for offences committed by a citizen of India outside the country is not required at the stage of cognizance -- However, trial of the criminal case cannot commence without sanction being accorded u/s 188 Cr.P.C -- High Court dismissed application for quashing of FIR -- Special Leave Petition is dismissed, petitioner is at liberty to raise the ground pertaining to sanction before the commencement of the trial. Thota Venkateswarlu’s case 2011 (9) SCC 527 relied.

(Para 1-3)

Petroleum Act, 1934 (30 of 1934), Section 7, 8 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 451 -- Storage of diesel in excess of 2500 litres without licence – Seizure of diesel -- Release of diesel on superdari -- Petitioner is ready to furnish a bank draft before the trial Court of an amount equivalent to the price of diesel – Product seized is inflammable and has property of evaporation -- It would be suffice if lab report is taken as to nature of the product, if not already taken -- Product be measured in presence of the petitioner and his counter-signatures be obtained as a token of his acceptance to the measurement and thereafter product be released -- Petitioner shall deposit a Demand Draft equivalent to the price of diesel with the trial Court -- Trial Court shall keep the amount in an F.D.R. in a nationalized bank subject to outcome of the trial.

(Para 9,10)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420, 465, 467, 468 -- Cheating and forgery -- Any alteration in any part of a valuable security or anything which is signed or sealed and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security is also fall within the ambit of cheating -- Substitution of pages of a sale deed would amount to tampering and forging the original sale deed, it is not just offence u/s 465 IPC, which would be attracted, but the graver offences punishable u/s 467 & 468 IPC would also get attracted as the forgery was of valuable security and for the purpose of cheating.

(Para 10)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 173, 211 – Addition of more charges than Challan – Power of -- Mere fact that the Investigating Officer at the time of presentation of charge-sheet does not specifically mention a particular offence would not prevent the Court from looking into the entire facts and frame charges for such offence/s which are found prima facie to be made out from the facts of the case.

(Para 11)

A. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 118 -- Child witness – Reliability of -- Criminal jurisprudence does not hold that the evidence of a child witness is unreliable and can be discarded -- A child who is aged about 11 to 12 years certainly has reasonably developed mental faculty to see, absorb and appreciate -- Evidence of a child witness alone can also form the basis for conviction -- Mere absence of any corroborative evidence in addition to that of the child witness by itself cannot alone discredit a child witness -- More so when he is the sole witness, a heightened level of scrutiny is called for.

(Para 7)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 313 – Statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. – Value of -- Allegation that the appellant stuffed cloth in the mouth of the deceased was serious and specific against her – Held, in the absence of any question having been put to her in this regard u/s 313 Cr.P.C. the appellant has been seriously prejudiced in her defence -- Procedure u/s 313 CrPC is but a facet of the principles of natural justice giving an opportunity to an accused to present the defence -- Burden of proof on an accused in support of the defence taken u/s 313 CrPC is not beyond all reasonable doubt as it lies on the prosecution to prove the charge -- Accused has merely to create a doubt -- It will be for the prosecution then to establish beyond reasonable doubt that no benefit can flow from the same to the accused.

(Para 9, 10)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 34 – Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, (28 of 1961), Section 3, 4 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 118 – Dowry death/ Murder – Acquittal of Jethani -- PW-2/ Child witness was examined nearly one year after the occurrence -- Court has, therefore, to satisfy itself that all possibilities of tutoring or otherwise are ruled out and what was deposed was nothing but the truth -- According to PW-2, the appellant stuffed cloth in the mouth of the deceased, thereafter others tied her up and set her on fire leading to 95% burns -- He states that after the deceased had suffered burn injuries he had seen the entire scenario including the room where the burnt articles were kept including that he was a witness to his sister being put in a vehicle while being taken to the hospital -- He then states that the deceased in that condition was speaking -- At no stage has the witness deposed that the cloth was taken out from her mouth -- It stands to reason that if cloth was stuffed in the mouth of deceased she would have been unable to speak -- PW-8/ Doctor deposed that there was no cloth recovered from the mouth of the deceased -- He states that the mouth of the deceased was closed, the jaws were shut, no cloth was present in the mouth but burnt cloth was present on the whole body starting from the wrist -- More crucially he states that all the 32 teeth were intact – Blisters were present at various parts of the body but he does not talk about any blister being present in the mouth -- No injuries of any nature have been found inside the mouth neither has the cloth been found – Court not satisfied that the evidence of PW-2 attributing a specific role to the appellant is of such a sterling quality so as to inspire confidence in the court to base the conviction on the sole evidence of a child witness -- Appellant was a daughter-in-law like the deceased herself -- Nature of the evidence makes it highly unlikely that she would have engaged in such actions -- Benefit of doubt in the circumstances has to be given to the appellant.

(Para 7, 11-13)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 323, 498-A, 304B – Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, (28 of 1961), Section 3, 4 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Anticipatory bail -- Dowry death case -- Father-in-law and mother-in-law – Earlier anticipatory bail was granted with the observation that, after charge sheet is filed, it is open for the petitioners to surrender and apply for the Regular Bail before the Competent Court – Held, same does not preclude the petitioners to apply for anticipatory bail u/s 438 Cr.P.C. after filing of the charge sheet -- It also cannot be said, that same is a second application for grant of anticipatory bail -- Husband of the deceased was granted Regular Bail after he was arrested – Held, it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail.

(Para 2-5)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 21, 25 (Sections 27/29 added later) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Regular bail – Involvement in 4 more FIRs but on bail -- Petitioner could not repelled by the prosecution regarding the discrepancies in the documents prepared at the spot; the affidavit of independent witness and the Certificate given by the Panchayat; the manner in which the investigation is conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who has only verified one document and has not signed any other documents; all the memos are typed documents and in some documents, FIR number is blank and filled by Pen and in some documents, it is typed by mentioning the FIR number; the discrepancies in the order of the Illaqa Magistrate and the FSL report -- Pendency of other cases cannot be taken as a bar -- Petitioner is in custody for the last 01 year, 05 months; till date even charges have not been framed and therefore, no PW has been examined; the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required and the conclusion of the trial will take some time due to COVID-19 situation -- Petition allowed.

(Para 17)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 311 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 62, 65-B(4) -- Exhibition of documents – Objection to – Sustainability of -- Court is to visualize as a determinative factor that whether the evidence in question is essential for just decision of the case or not -- Trial cannot be held up on objection at the time of tendering of documents in evidence – Document had already been exhibited in the statement of PW-14 at the time of production of certificate u/s 65-B of the Act -- Reasonable opportunity has been given to the defence counsel to examine the witness -- Having acquiesced the opportunity by cross-examining the witness, the petitioner cannot turn around and object to the tender made by the witness.

(Para 10-13)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 107, 304-B, 306 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 227 -- Dowry death – Abetment to suicide -- Discharge u/s 306 IPC – Permissibility of – High Court discharged the parents in law u/s 306 IPC -- Considering the totality of the circumstances and keeping in view the suicide notes as well as the statements of witnesses, respondents no.1 and 2 (parents in law) ought not to have been discharged of the offence u/s 306 IPC, especially when the charges u/s 304B IPC and other related sections had already been framed and confirmed – Order of High Court set aside.

(Para 10)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506, 120-B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Cheating and forgery – Anticipatory bail – Compromise between parties -- Contends that the FIR is the outcome of a monetary dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.2 (complainant) which has been resolved, who contends that the matter has indeed been compromised – In view of the submissions Court deemed it a fit case to grant the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

(Para 2-8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 379-B, (Sections 393 and 411 IPC added later on) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Snatching case – Jump in bail -- Anticipatory bail -- Petitioner had earlier been granted regular bail by the trial Court, but he had absented once as he had noted the wrong date and consequently his bail was cancelled – Petitioner undertakes that the he shall henceforth appear before the Court on each and every date of hearing and would not absent himself except without prior permission of the Court – Petitioner has surrendered before the trial Court and has been released on interim bail -- Order granting interim bail to petitioner is made absolute.

(Para 2-6)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 311, 313 – Application for summoning of documents – Stage of -- Rejection of -- Right to summon document(s), indeed, is available but that has to be exercised when the trial is in progress and not when the trial is completed, including after the statement of accused u/s 313 of Cr. P.C. had been recorded -- Efficacy of the trial cannot be whittled down by such belated application.

(Para 4-6)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167(2) -- Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (37 of 1967), Section 43D(2) – Default bail – Extension of time for challan granted -- Since the Challan was not presented till 05.08.2020, the appellant moved an application on 06.08.2020 u/s 167(2) Cr.P.C. praying for default bail -- Prayer of the prosecuting agency for extension of time to present the Challan was granted vide order dated 07.08.2020, which has, since, attained finality – Appellant was/is not entitled to the relief of default bail.

(Para 14)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 306, 328, 34 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 32 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 401 -- Challan u/s 328, 306, 34 IPC – FIR as dying declaration -- Framing of charges u/s 302 IPC – Challenge to -- FIR was lodged at the instance of the deceased himself and which in a way assumes the character of a dying declaration which is on a very higher pedestal as far as the evidentiary value is concerned -- Further it is not disputed that the cause of death was poisoning -- In these circumstances it cannot be said that any error has been committed by the trial Court at the stage of framing of charges -- Meticulous examination of the evidence is not required at the time of framing of charges -- Revision petition dismissed.

(Para 2-5)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 324, 323, 148, 149 (Sections 325 and 307 IPC added later) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Attempt to murder – Anticipatory bail --  Submitted that petitioner was empty handed and is an old man aged about 60 years and has not caused any injury except that he has provoked the other accused persons – Son of the petitioner has already been arrested – Petition allowed and In the meantime, the petitioner is directed to join investigation within a period of 10 days and he shall be released on interim bail.

(Para 4-8)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22, 25 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case -- Interim bail – FSL report awaited – Recovery of 750 tablets of Clovidol 100 SR – Petitioner is in custody since his arrest on 30.03.2021 –Report of the FSL being unnecessarily delayed and the petitioner not being involved in any other case, the petitioner is ordered to be released on interim bail till the receipt of the report of the FSL – In case of the report of the FSL being against the petitioner, the petitioner would forthwith surrender before the learned trial Court.

(Para 2-5)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 396 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 28, 433-A -- Dacoity with murder – Life imprisonment -- Remission of sentence – Power of -- Conviction for life imprisonment without remission before 20 years – Power of Trial Court -- In view of the Constitution Bench judgment, the sentence denial remission for a period of 20 years is unsustainable -- High Court failed to consider this aspect of the matter -- Part of the sentence for denial of remission before expiry of 20 years is set aside -- Conviction of the appellant u/s 396 is not interfered with -- Appellant have completed over 13 years of custody, any application for remission filed by him, has to be considered on its own merits in accordance with law.

(Para 6-8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 323, 427, 379, 148 -- Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Section 12 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Anticipatory bail to juvenile – Petitioner is aged about 17 years and is a juvenile and he is alleged to be armed with the baseball bat but no injury is attributed to him – On interim bail petitioner appeared before the SHO/Investigating Officer and has joined the investigation and is no more required for any further investigation -- Petition allowed and the interim bail granted to the petitioner, made absolute.

(Para 2-5)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 2(h), 173(8) – Challan submitted -- Application for further investigation for the recovery of Stridhan – Held, Investigation is solely the domain of the investigating agency, who are competent to take the decision in what manner the investigation should be conducted and the interference on behalf of the court is only in the limited circumstances when the same appears to be arbitrary or malafide -- It was the issue to be raised by the investigating agency whether the further investigation was required or not -- But they have chosen to file the charge sheet -- Both the courts below have rightly declined to entertain the application filed.

(Para 6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 406, 420 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 173, 482 – Quashing of FIR – Challan yet to be filed -- Petition disposed of at this stage directing the Investigating Officer to look into all the defences/pleas taken by the petitioners before filing the report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. -- Petitioners shall file a written application to the Investigating Officer explaining all their defences/pleas and the same will be considered by the Investigating Officer in accordance with law.

(Para 1-5)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 307, 324, 323, 326, 506, 148, 149, 201 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Attempt to murder –Third petition for regular bail -- Substantial change in the circumstances -- Subsequent to the withdrawal, similarly situated co-accused has been extended the concession of bail by High Court -- Charges have not yet been framed – Both the petitioner and co-accused (since granted the concession of bail) have been attributed the same injury on the thigh of the injured -- Petitioner has been in custody since 30.06.2020 -- Court deemed it a fit case for grant of the concession of regular bail to the petitioner, as the trial is unlikely to conclude in the near future, more so, in the prevailing conditions due to the outbreak of COVID-19.

(Para 2-5)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 363, 376, 120-B – Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 3 – Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (104 of 1956), Sections 4, 5, 6 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 389 – Suspension of sentence – Applicant undergone sentence of 3 years, 11 months and 23 days out of 7 years -- No other case pending against him -- Appeal being of the year 2020 is not likely to be heard in near future, so taking into consideration the period undergone and the attending circumstances and the fact that sentence of co-accused of applicant has already been suspended, sentence of applicant/appellant No.2 suspended during the pendency of the appeal.

(Para 5, 6)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Death and postmortem at Kolkata – Re-postmortem of dead body at Punjab – Petition for – Maintainability of -- Inherent power of Punjab and Haryana High court – Jurisdiction of -- Petitioner’s son alleged to have been killed in a police encounter -- Petitioner alleges that his son had mercilessly been tortured to death under the guise of a fake encounter – High Court dismissed the said petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C., since the petitioner’s son had died in Kolkata, West Bengal, outside the jurisdiction of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and post-mortem had also been conducted by the Doctors of Kolkata, West Bengal -- Serious allegations against the Punjab Police and Punjab Police is in seisin of the case -- Petitioner has alleged that the Punjab Police has resorted to manipulation of the post-mortem report – Held, High Court erred in dismissing the petition on the ground that the death had occurred in Kolkata, West Bengal and the post-mortem had been conducted in Kolkata, West Bengal -- Impugned order passed by the High Court set aside -- High Court requested to decide the petition filed by the petitioner on merits.

(Para 1-6)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 323, 376 -- Anticipatory bail – Direction for arrest of accused – Power of High Court -- High Court quashed the order granting anticipatory bail to petitioner, directed the Investigating Officer to take the accused into custody and produce him before the concerned jurisdictional Court – Held, such direction to take the accused into custody is to beyond the jurisdiction of the High Court -- Condition set aside and quashed -- It is open to the I.O. to take a call as to when the petitioner is to be arrested or he is not to be arrested.

(Para 2, 3)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 15 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- NDPS case – Jump of bail – Anticipatory bail -- Petitioner was suffering from fever and consequential unable to appear -- Except for the date, been regularly appearing before the learned trial Court and undertakes to be present before the learned trial Court on each and every date in future also – Held inability of the petitioner to appear before the learned trial Court on 23.03.2021 was apparently for a genuine reason -- Impugned order set aside and the petitioner directed to put in appearance before the learned trial Court within 01 week from today and to move a petition for regular bail.

(Para 8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 379, 411 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 439 – Theft case – Proclaimed person – Regular bail -- Allegations with regard to dishonest receipt of 50 bags of wheat – Petitioner was earlier granted bail by the trial Court, however, he was confined in jail in some other case and after his release, he could not put appearance in the Court and has been declared proclaimed person – Petitioner is in custody for a period of about 06½ months and he has undergone sufficient incarceration for the lapse on his part in absenting from proceedings -- Furthermore, his coaccused has been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of 08 months and the conclusion of trial is likely to take some time on account of restricted hearing of the Courts due to Covid-19 Pandemic – Sufficient grounds to extend the concession of bail, he is ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 3-7)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154 -- Delay of six years in lodging the FIR – Explanation of delay – First informant deposed that he came to know that the petitioner-accused is a fraudulent person within 2/3 months of making payment -- Thus, once the first informant had come to know that the petitioner would not take steps to send his son to Italy or return the amount allegedly received, there was no occasion to wait for a period of six years before registration of the FIR -- Neither the first informant in his deposition has stated that there were several meetings for return of the amount nor detail thereof has been provided -- Hence, the prosecution has failed to explain the delay – Conviction order set aside.

(Para 17, 24)

B. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 19, 21 -- Admission – Reliance upon -- It is well settled that before the alleged admission of the accused is made the basis to convict the accused, it is incumbent for the court to examine as to whether such admission is clear and categoric -- If the answer to the aforesaid question is in negative, it would not result in conviction of accused.

(Para 18)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 8, 19, 21 -- Admission – Mens-rea -- Petitioner while cross examining the first informant had given him suggestion that the agreement was executed at the Police Station -- Such suggestion, in the facts of the case, cannot be read as admission of the offence -- As per the case of the prosecution, in the year 2009, the amount of ? 1,00,000/- was paid to the petitioner, whereas the agreement provides for return of ? 50,000/- only -- It is against normal prudence -- Still further, if it is accepted that such suggestion does amount to admission, still the agreement does not prove that the petitioner has deceitfully induced the first informant to part with ? 1,00,000/- or the petitioner had “mens rea” at that time -- Conviction order set aside.

(Para 18, 24)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 3 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 401 -- Proved -- Standard of proof -- In civil case the plaintiff is required to prove its case by a preponderance of evidence whereas in a criminal case, the prosecution is required to prove its case beyond shadow of reasonable doubt -- No doubt, ordinarily, the presiding judges are simultaneously required to decide civil as well as criminal cases and hence, the distinction gets overlooked -- However, it is expected from them that before convicting any accused, the presiding judges should keep in mind the important distinction -- Prosecution miserably failed to satisfy the aforesaid test -- Revision allowed, the judgments passed by both the Courts below, are set aside.

(Para 24)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 376(2)(f), 506 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Rape case – Victim resiled -- Petitioner has been behind bars for a substantial period of more than 1 year -- Further detention of the petitioner will not serve any useful purpose -- Petition accepted and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail.

(Para 1, 6)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 201 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B -- Locus-standi of complainant -- If a forgery had been done and mis-representation has been made, any person can set law in motion.

(Para 22)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 201 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B -- Representation of the People Act, 1951 (43 of 1951), Section 31 -- Summoning order – Challenge to -- Justice hurried is Justice buried -- It is the settled principle that the Magistrate could have always differed with police report, but once it had been approved by the Commissioner of Police, who had been directed by High Court to look into the same and it was on record and the record of the same could have been summoned from the office of the DCP -- Magistrate could not brushed aside and ignored the report, summoning order was passed on the same day the inquiry report (Ex.CW8/C) was exhibited when produced by the complainant -- Thus, the old adage came into play that is “Justice hurried is Justice buried” -- Summoning order is liable to be quashed on this ground.

(Para 26)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 201 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B -- Representation of the People Act, 1951 (43 of 1951), Section 31 -- Forgery case -- Summoning order – Challenge to -- Basis for summoning was on the strength of photocopy of the documents -- Allegations of forgery would not be justified by the Trial Court in the absence of the originals as such and without an opinion of any expert evidence -- Mere the strength of the photocopies produced and in the absence of any sufficient evidence, summoning order on the said basis is not legally sustainable.

(Para 32-35)

D. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 201 – Summoning of accused -- Criminal law should not be set into motion as a matter of course -- Magistrate is not a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence and summoning the accused on the asking is not to be done unless there is cogent evidence and there is a applicability of mind.

(Para 35)

E. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 197, 201 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B -- Representation of the People Act, 1951 (43 of 1951), Section 31 -- Forgery case -- Summoning of government employee as accused – Sanction of government – Requirement of -- Without the necessary sanction the Trial Court was not justified in summoning the said accused and he is entitled to the protection u/s 197 Cr.P.C. and there is a legal bar as such to initiate his summoning.

(Para 35-39)