Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (Punjab Act 1 of 1914), Section 61 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 473 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 451 -- Excise matter -- Release of vehicle on superdari -- Stringent condition – Bank guarantee -- Trial Court, while releasing the vehicle on superdari, directed to furnish personal superdari bond along with bank guarantee of Rs.2,50,000/- -- Considering the hardship being faced by the petitioner that he is unable to get his vehicle released for the last one and half year and also in view of the fact that the vehicle is lying unused and parked in police station in an open space and may outlive its life, Court deemed it appropriate to substitute the condition of furnishing bank guarantee of Rs.2.50 lacs with furnishing of personal bond in a sum of Rs.2.50 lacs and additional security bond of Rs.2.50 lacs.

(Para 2-4)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 307, 323, 324, 326, 379, 382, 148, 149, 201 – Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Sections 25, 27 – Order declaring Proclaimed offender – Challenge to – Release on bail -- Objective of the coercive mechanism prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure is to ensure that the accused remains present before the Court to receive the orders and punishments as are passed qua the accused -- If the accused shows his sincere intention and desire to appear before the Court, then it would not be unjustified to protect him from being arrested -- Without commenting on the merits of the case, the petition disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to surrender before the trial Court within 10 days -- On doing so, he was ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 11, 12)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 451 – Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (Punjab Act 1 of 1914), Sections 61, 78 – Excise matter – Release of vehicle on superdari – Surety of land – Entry in revenue record – Legality of -- Surety for release of the vehicle – Ld. JMIC, directed vehicle would be released on Sapurdari upon the said land being attached in lieu thereof with an entry to that effect being made in the revenue record – Held, land as would be attached, would not be subjected to any other kind of encumbrance whatsoever during the period of the trial of the petitioner -- Thereafter, of course, orders would be passed as regards the vehicle in question, as per law.

(Para 6, 7)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 408 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 304-B and 498-A -- Transfer of trial -- No ground to transfer the case merely on presumption and assumptions of the petitioner that he will not get justice from the Court.

(Para 10)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 408 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 304-B and 498-A -- Transfer of trial -- Only ground seeking transfer of the trial is that the accused persons are making some proclamation that they have a talked with the staff of the Court to get an order of acquittal is no ground to raise a finger on the integrity of the trial Court/Presiding Officer – Transfer petition dismissed.

(Para 12)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 319, 482 – NDPS case -- Summoning u/s 319 Cr.P.C. – Proclaimed offender – Quashing of FIR -- Petitioner was declared as a proclaimed offender, and that too without following the mandatory provisions in this regard -- Co-accused stands acquitted -- There is no other evidence on record to sustain the prosecution of the petitioner – Mere fact that the petitioner stands declared as P.O., would not be a hindrance in quashing the proceedings against him, particularly when the co-accused already stands acquitted by the trial Court – Held, continuing of criminal proceedings against the petitioner is nothing but a futile exercise and an empty formality -- Hence, the FIR and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are liable to be quashed qua the present petitioner as well -- Petition allowed.

(Para 13-19)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 324 -- “weapon of offence” -- Wooden lathi and batten are the weapons which are possessed by the police and the submission cannot be accepted that the injuries cannot be caused by wooden lathi and batten which may cause death -- It depends on the manner of use of the wooden lathi and batten.

(Para 22)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 320(5) – Compounding of offence with leave by the court -- Grant of leave as contemplated by sub-section (5) of Section 320 is not automatic nor it has to be mechanical on receipt of request by the appellant which may be agreed by the victim -- Statutory requirement, makes it a clear duty of the Court to look into the nature of the offence and the evidence and to satisfy itself whether permission should be or should not be granted -- Administration of criminal justice requires prosecution of all offenders by the State -- Nature of offence, and its affect on society are relevant considerations while granting leave by the Court of compounding the offence -- Offences which affect the public in general and create fear in the public in general are serious offences, nature of which offence may be relevant consideration for Court to grant or refuse the leave.

(Para 30-32)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 320(5) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 324 – Beating by police -- Compounding of offence – Permissibility of -- Police of State is protector of law and order -- People look forward to the Police to protect their life and property -- Beating of a person in the Police Station is the concern for all and causes a sense of fear in the entire society – Accused who were police officers, one of them being in-charge of Station and other Senior Inspector have themselves brutally beaten the deceased, who died the same night -- Their offences cannot be compounded by the Court in exercise of Section 320(2) read with sub-section (5) – Prayer of the appellant to compound the offence rejected.

(Para 36-38)

D. Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 320(5) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 324 – Beating by police -- Custodial death – Compensation for -- Custodial violence on the deceased which led to the death is abhorrent and not acceptable in the civilized society -- Offence committed by the accused is crime not against the deceased alone but was against humanity and clear violations of rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution -- Although the High Court has awarded the compensation of Rs.3 Lakhs in favour of the legal representatives of the deceased, held compensation awarded was not adequate -- Sentence of one year is reduced to six months -- Compensation of Rs.3.5 Lakhs each to the legal heir of the deceased in addition to the compensation awarded by the High Court granted.

(Para 39-43)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 437(6) –Magistrate Trial -- Trial not concluded in 60 days – Right to Bail -- Contention that petitioner is in custody since 06.12.2019; he is not involved in any other case and despite the offences being triable by the Court of Magistrate; investigation has not been concluded within a period of 60 days after first date of recording the evidence i.e. 02.01.2020 – State has not disputed the factual position -- Out of total 21 prosecution witnesses, only 01 PW has been examined so far -- Petitioner is in long custody, due to COVID-19 situation, trial is not proceeding further -- Petition allowed -- Order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, set aside and the petitioner is granted bail u/s 437 (6) Cr.P.C.

(Para 3-5)

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (37 of 1967), Sections 13, 17, 18, 18-B, 20 -- National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (34 of 2008), Section  43(D)(2)(b) -- Explosive Substances Act, 1908 (6 of 1908), Sections 3, 4, 5 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167(2) -- Special Court under NIA – Challan not within 90 days of arrest – Extension of time by Illaqa Magistrate – Power of – Default bail – Held, Special Court only is competent to exercise powers u/s 43(D)(2)(b) -- Since the Illaqa Magistrate was not competent to extend the period as has been ordered, therefore, Court is left with no option but to hold that the challan which was presented beyond the period of 90 days without there being any valid extension of the said period – Order declining the application for release of the petitioners in terms of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. cannot sustain -- Petitioners ordered to be released on bail in terms of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.

(Para 4-7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Rape case – Compromise quashing of FIR -- Since the parties have arrived at a compromise and have decided to live in peace, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the criminal proceedings to continue -- Accordingly, FIR u/s 376 IPC, and all the consequential proceedings, arising therefrom, are quashed qua the petitioners on the basis of compromise.

(Para 7, 8)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 311 – Application for permission to cross-examine – Exhibition of documents – De-exhibition of -- No provision under law for de-exhibition of the document, which has already been exhibited in evidence -- Since the petitioner has got an opportunity of raising objection with regard to admissibility of the document at the time of final arguments and if the accused is successful in showing to the Court that the document has not been proved in accordance with law, then the same may not be taken into consideration.

(Para 6)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 446(3) -- Surety by old age parents for son in parole – Non-surrender by convict – Penalty of Rs. 2 lacs each imposed reduced to Rs.5,000/- each -- Convict failed to surrender and later on, he was found to be arrested in some other case and was in jail -- In view of the mitigating circumstances explained in the petition and considering the facts that the petitioners are old aged persons; their financial condition is not good; life convict already stands arrested in other case and has surrendered before the jail authorities; the petitioners are petty farmers, having meagre land holdings and the Covid-19 situation in country and also in view of the judgment rendered in Gopal Kaur’s case 2011 (6) RCR (Criminal) 1394, the penalty is reduced to Rs.5,000/- each.

(Para 12)

A. Constitution of India, Article 136 – Criminal appeal against conviction – Scope and ambit of -- Argument are either a question of fact or an abortive attempt for re-appreciation of evidence on record -- Such discourse ordinarily does not fall within the scope and ambit of powers vested in this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.

(Para 8)

B. Constitution of India, Article 136 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 20(i) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 313 – Recovery of Ganja – Ground not taken in defence statement u/s 313 Cr.P.c. – Effect of -- Appellant apprehended at the spot of the incident but also was found in conscious possession of the ganja -- As regard to his co-accused, there is unfortunately no material on record to shed light on the circumstances in which charge sheet was not filed against him -- Appellant, however, did not rely upon this fact either in his defense statement u/s 313, CrPC or otherwise -- Aforementioned supplication therefore cannot be entertained at this belated stage.

(Para 8)

C. Constitution of India, Article 20(1), 136 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 20(i) -- Reduction of sentence -- Passionately urges that: (i) the appellant has suffered protracted trial for more than 23 years; (ii) he alone has been convicted while his co-accused are acquitted; (iii) the appellant was not involved in any other case under the NDPS Act or other Penal Laws; (iv) the appellant has already undergone actual sentence of 2 years 4 months and 16 days out of the total sentence of five years; (v) and that the appellant has not misused the concession of bail granted by this Court on 02.11.2012 – Court found some merit in the submission noticed above – Appellant committed the crime in the year 1997, i.e., much before the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Amendment) Act, 2001 came into force -- Section 20(i) of NDPS Act (as it stood in 1997), that even though a maximum sentence of five years RI and a fine of upto Rs. 50,000/- was prescribed but there was no minimum mandatory sentence – Held, ends of justice would be adequately met if the appellant’s sentence is reduced to the extent of the period he has already undergone -- Appellant shall be liable to pay fine of Rs. 20,000/-.

(Para 9-12)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 363, 366-A -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 211, 482 – Kidnapping on pretext of marriage – Quashing of FIR and Chargesheet -- No allegation against the appellant -- Main allegation was against co-accused but the prosecutrix married him on 4.8.2013 and had given birth to two children out of that wedlock -- In the absence of any allegation against the appellant, continuation of proceedings against him is nothing but an abuse of process of law -- Proceedings initiated against him on the basis of FIR would be untenable -- High Court was not justified in dismissing the petition – Order of High Court set aside -- Entire proceedings consequent to FIR and charge sheet stand quashed.

(Para 9-11)

A. Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (15 of 2003), Section 17 – Money laundering case -- Freezing / Stop operation of bank accounts – Procedure of -- Material on record – Authorised officer/ Adjudication officer – Role of -- No material to show that Director or other Authorised Officer recorded his belief, on the basis of information in his possession, that appellant had committed acts relating to money laundering and there was need to seize record or property -- It only stated that the Officer was investigating the case and sought relevant documents, but in the tabular column it was abruptly stated that the accounts have to be ‘debit freezed/ stop operations’ -- Freezing or the continuation thereof is without due compliance of the legal requirement and, therefore, not sustainable.

-- Since freezing of accounts was without following the prescribed procedure, respondent banks are directed to defreeze the respective accounts and clear the cheques issued by the appellant towards statutory dues such as ITDS, PF, ESI, Professional Tax, Gratuity etc., subject to availability of funds in the accounts. If any further amount remains available in the accounts after payment of the statutory dues and with regard to the same any action is to be taken by the respondent No.4, it would be open to them to do so subject to compliance of the required legal procedure afresh.

(Para 11-16)

B. Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (15 of 2003), Section 17 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 102 – Money laundering case -- Freezing / Stop operation of bank account – Procedure u/s 17 of PLA not followed – Seizure u/s Section 102 Cr.P.C. would not be valid for the reasons :

Firstly, Since PMLA is a stand-alone enactment and it contains provision for seizure (including freezing), the procedure contemplated therein has to be followed.

Secondly, when power is available under a special enactment, power under general law cannot be resorted to.

Thirdly, scheme of Section 102 Cr.P.C. is different from the scheme under PMLA. Power under Section 102 CrPC is for the Police Officer to be exercised during course of investigation.

Lastly, if a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner alone and in no other manner.

(Paras 11, 12, 15)

A. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Sections 7, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) -- Corruption matter -- Recovery of currency notes -- Mere recovery by itself cannot prove the charge of the prosecution against the accused -- To prove the charge, it has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused voluntarily accepted money knowing it to be bribe -- Absence of proof of demand for illegal gratification and mere possession or recovery of currency notes is not sufficient to constitute such offence -- Even the presumption u/s 20 of the Act can be drawn only after demand for and acceptance of illegal gratification is proved. C.M. Girish Babu’s case (2009) 3 SCC 779 and B. Jayaraj’s case (2014) 13 SCC 55.

(Para 12)

B. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Sections 7, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 232, 378 -- Acquittal by trial court – Conviction by High Court – Possible view of Trial court – Interference in -- Initial presumption of innocence in the criminal jurisprudence gets doubled by acquittal recorded by the trial court -- Acquittal recorded by the trial court is a “possible view” as such the judgment of the High Court is fit to be set aside -- Before recording conviction under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, courts have to take utmost care in scanning the evidence – Appeal allowed, impugned judgment of conviction set aside.

(Para 12, 13)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 374 -- Appeal against conviction – Acquittal by High Court -- Non-consideration of reasons of trial court and re-appreciation of evidence – Sustainability of -- Impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court acquitting the respondent/accused without adverting to the reasons given by the Ld. trial Court while convicting the accused and without reappreciating the entire evidence on record in detail cannot be sustained and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside -- Appeal before the High Court is restored to its original file.

(Para 6, 6.1, 7)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 372, 378 -- Appeal against acquittal/ conviction – Power of Court -- Appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against acquittal passed by the Learned trial Court, is required to bear in mind that in case of acquittal there is double presumption in favour of the accused -- Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law -- Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial Court -- Therefore, while dealing with the cases of acquittal by the trial Court, the Appellate Court would have certain limitations -- So far as the appeal against the order of conviction is concerned, there are no such restrictions and the Court of appeal has wide powers of appreciation of evidence and the High Court has to re-appreciate the entire evidence on record being a First Appellate Court. Keeping in mind that once the Learned Trial Court has convicted there shall not be presumption of innocence as would be there in the case of acquittal.

(Para 6.1-6.2)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 36-A -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167(2) – NDPS case – Challan without FSL report – FSL report presented after 180 days -- Default bail -- Petitioner is entitled to be released on bail considering the fact that the challan presented without being accompanied by the FSL report, would be treated to be an incomplete challan.

(Para 4)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319, 446 – Summoning of additional accused – Challenge to -- Non-bailable warrant and proceedings u/s 446 Cr.P.C. – Effect of -- Revisional Court – Power of -- High Court did not examine the correctness of the order by which the appellants were summoned by ADJ u/s 319 Cr.P.C., rather has dismissed the Criminal Revision on basis of a subsequent fact by which notice has been issued u/s 446 Cr.P.C. -- High Court took the view that since the proceedings in pursuance of Section 319 Cr.P.C. have already been initiated and that no simultaneous challenge to summoning order u/s 319 Cr.P.C. would be tenable before the High Court till the order u/s 446 passed in proceedings at the behest of revisionist subsist -- Held, High Court completely erred in refusing to consider the correctness of the summoning order on the ground that notice u/s 446 Cr.P.C. has been issued – As and when it is found that order dated 17.08.2019 (summoning order) could not have been passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 319 Cr.P.C., all subsequent proceedings thereto shall automatically come to an end – Matter remitted back to High Court, Criminal Revision of the appellants be considered afresh by the High Court in accordance with the law.

(Para 11)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 15 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 401, 451 – NDPS case – Recovery of 26 kgs of poppy husk from cabinet of truck -- Confiscation of truck -- Superdari declined – Revisional jurisdiction -- Petitioner comes out to be a habitual offender being involved in as much as 8 criminal cases, most of them under NDPS Act – Contention that condition of the truck may deteriorate being open to vagaries of nature – Held, comparative mischief shall be much more if the truck is released on superdari to the present petitioner, who comes out to be a habitual criminal and a drug peddler since that would facilitate more transportation of drugs rather than letting the truck remain in the premises of the police station open to the risk of damage on account of rain, wind and change of season etc. -- Lives of our people are more precious than damage to the truck -- Impugned order is detailed and well-reasoned -- Revisional jurisdiction of Court is quite limited -- Revision petition dismissed.

(Para 2,3, 8-11)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304-B, 498-A, 34 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 482 – Dowry death case – Proclaimed absconder -- Accused was not in India at the time of incident – Contention that service of summons never effected/ co-accused acquitted -- On interim direction petitioner has surrendered before the trial Court, joined the proceedings and has been released on interim bail – As such the purpose for which the proceedings u/s 82 Cr.P.C. have been initiated stand achieved and the petitioner no longer remains an absconder – Bail order made absolute.

(Para 7-11)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Third anticipatory bail application – Maintainability of -- On the third occasion, the learned Judge acceded to the request of respondent No. 2 and granted anticipatory bail, without referring to crucial facts noted in the status report -- None of the reasons cited can be said to be just basis to show indulgence to respondent No. 2 -- Successive anticipatory bail applications ought not to be entertained and more so, when the case diary and the status report, clearly indicated that the accused (respondent No. 2) is absconding and not cooperating with the investigation – Specious reason of change in circumstances cannot be invoked for successive anticipatory bail applications, once it is rejected by a speaking order and that too by the same Judge – Impugned judgment and order set aside, I.O. is free to take respondent No. 2 into custody forthwith.

(Para 7)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 311 -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6, 8 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376-AB, 354A(I) – Rape case – Recall of minor witness/victim – Alleged that letter by victim stating about registration of wrong complaint -- Considering the fact that the victim/PW as duly supported the prosecution version and has proved the original complaint (Ex. P-1), which is in her own handwriting, and also in view of the fact that medical evidence duly supports the allegations of penetrative sexual assault on the victim, Court find no ground to allow the application to recall the victim/PW – Petition dismissed.

(Para 1,2,10)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82 – Declaration of Proclaimed Person – Challenge to -- Complaint is u/s 138 of the N.I.Act, 1881, which is a bailable offence, petition disposed of with the observation that the petitioner may appear before the learned trial Court on or before 27.01.2021 -- On his doing so, he shall be enlarged on bail by the trial Court subject to his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to its satisfaction.

(Para 6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 307, 34 – Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Sections 25, 27 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Attempt to murder – Compromise quashing of FIR – Inherent jurisdiction of High Court -- After going through the record of the case, Court opined it a fit case for exercising the inherent jurisdiction of High Court u/s 482 Cr.P.C., so as to secure the ends of justice because the parties have arrived at an settlement, out of the Court, by way of compromise -- FIR and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, ordered to be quashed.

(Para 5-8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 323, 34 – Conviction in Murder – Juvenile (17 years 1 month) at the time of incident – Sentence of more than two years undergone -- Appellant being juvenile, conviction order passed by the Trial Court and the impugned judgment passed by the High Court affirming such conviction deserve to be set aside -- Since the appellant has already been in custody for more than two years, no reason to send the matter back to the Juvenile Justice Board – Appeal allowed.

(Para 5-11)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 174-A – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 482 – Cheque bounce case – Compromise between parties -- Proclaimed offender/ person -- FIR u/s 174-A IPC – Quashing of -- Respondent/complainant withdrew his complaint -- In such circumstances, the continuation of the prosecution of the petitioner u/s 174-A IPC would be nothing but an abuse of the process of law – Order declaring the petitioner as proclaimed offender and FIR registered u/s 174-A IPC are both quashed along with all subsequent proceedings.

(Para 6, 7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 365, 323, 506, 142, 427, 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Abduction case – Compromise quashing of FIR -- Parties on intervention of respectables have decided to patch up their difference.  -- Nothing to show that nature of the injuries were serious -- To meet the ends of justice and that no useful purpose would be served by continuing with the trial, FIR alongwith all consequent proceedings arising therefrom quashed.

(Para 9)

Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulation and Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1994 (57 of 1994), Section 6, 23, 27 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 27 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Pre-natal Sex determination and sex-selective abortion --  Regular bail -- Parity with co-accused – Allegations in the FIR and the charge sheet, as well the disclosure statements made by the petitioner and the co-accused u/s 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, reveal that prima facie, the petitioner had a more active role in conducting the alleged illegal medical practices of sex determination and sex-selective abortion -- Whereas the alleged role of the co-accused was limited to merely picking up and dropping off the petitioner’s clients -- No grounds for granting parity with the co-accused to the petitioner.

(Para 6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), section 482 -- Rape case – Compromise quashing of FIR – Complainant solemnized marriage with petitioner – Keeping in view the report by the Trial Court that the parties have genuinely entered into a compromise and all the disputes between the parties have been resolved, it would not be in the interest of justice to continue the criminal proceedings -- Resultantly, FIR as well as all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, stand quashed.

(Para 7,11,12)

Constitution of India, Article 32 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 357-A – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376 – Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 3 -- Writ jurisdiction -- Rape victim – Rights of -- Held, petitioner being a rape victim deserves treatment as rape victim by all the authorities – A rape victim suffers not only a mental trauma but also discrimination from the society – Petitioner has two sons and one daughter – One son major, two children of the petitioner are still minor – Section 357A of the Cr.P.C provides procedure for grant of compensation, the petitioner had already made application to seek compensation under the above Scheme and payment of compensation has already been made. Directions given :

-- The Deputy Commissioner, to take measure to ensure that minor children of the petitioner are provided free education in any of the Government Institutions in District where the petitioner is residing till they attain the age of 14 years.

-- The Deputy Commissioner may also consider the case of the petitioner for providing house under Prime Minister Awas Yojna or any other Central or State Scheme in which petitioner could be provided accommodation.

-- The Senior Superintendent of Police, and other competent authority shall review the Police security provided to the petitioner from time to time and take such measures as deem fit and proper.

-- The District Legal Services Authority on representation made by the petitioner shall render legal services to the petitioner as may be deemed fit to safeguard the interest of the petitioner.

(Para 16-19, 25-27)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302, 307, 349, 120(B), 101, 143, 147, 148, 149 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Sections 4, 25 -- Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 (22 of 1951), Sections 37(1)(3), 135 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Application for regular bail – Interim direction for producing CCTV footage – Legality of -- Impugned order indicates that the directions regarding the CCTV footage were made by the High Court on submissions by Respondents-accused before the High Court that they wished to rely on the same to prove their non-participation in the alleged incident – Held, it was not appropriate directions which will have a direct bearing upon the trial -- Direction of the High Court directing the IO to examine the CCTV footage and to submit a report, is not sustainable in the eyes of law and deserves to be set aside.

(Para 4, 9, 10)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 379-A – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Snatching of cash of Rs. 9500/- and ATM – Regular bail – Contention that Test Identification parade was done by force -- Authenticity of the test identification parade is a debatable issue and it is subject matter of trial -- Further, investigation in the case is already complete and challan stands presented on 20.10.2020 and that the petitioner is not involved in any other case -- It is also not the case of the State that in case the petitioner is released on bail, he may influence the witnesses or tamper with any evince – Petition for regular bail allowed.

(Para 6, 7)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 440, 482 – Surety for Bail -- Personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with two local sureties in the like amount -- Petitioner ready to furnish personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- by depositing Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) cash in the court as he is not having two local sureties and prays for modification – Order modified to the extent that the petitioner would furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and that too by depositing Rs.1,00,000/- in cash with the Court concerned -- Condition imposing furnishing of two local sureties by the petitioner vide impugned order is quashed.

(Para 3-6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 379-A, 379-B, 201 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Snatching case -- Compromise quashing of FIR -- Both the parties appeared before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate for recording their statements in the context of genuineness of the compromise -- In view of compromise between the parties, there would be remote and negligible chances of the witnesses coming forward to depose in favour of the prosecution version -- There would be remote chances of conviction – F.I.R. as well as all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed.

(Para 4-7)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82 – Proclaimed person -- Service through proclamation for 21.01.2020 -- On 21.01.2020, the Court observed that since the period of 30 days had not elapsed, the case was further adjourned to 14.02.2020 for appearance of the petitioner --  On 14.02.2020, the petitioner was declared as a proclaimed person – Held, while adjourning the case vide order dated 21.01.2020, mandatory period of 30 days could have been granted to the petitioner to appear before the trial Court -- Impugned order dated 14.02.2020 is not in accordance with the provisions of Section 82(1) Cr.P.C – Petition allowed – Impugned order dated 14.02.2020 quashed.

(Para 2-7)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 72, 73, 82 -- Non-bailable warrants at the stage of Investigaiton -- Power of Magistrate -- Non-bailable warrants can be issued for procuring attendance of a person before the Court and on police remand being granted, investigation can be carried out from such accused -- Petitioner has been evading her arrest at the hands of the police and has also evaded execution of warrants for her arrest issued by the Court -- Court can proceed to issue proclamation u/s 82 of the Code -- Issuance of non-bailable warrants by the Court, being sine-qua-non for initiation of proceedings u/s 82 of the Code, the Court was fully competent to issue non-bailable warrants.

(Para 2, 15)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82 -- Proclaimed Offender – Detailed order – Satisfaction of court -- Requirement of -- While declaring a Proclaimed Offender, a lengthy detailed order is not required to be passed and it is the material facts as regards compliance of procedure which are required to be noticed before proceeding to pass an order under Section 82(4) of the Code -- Satisfaction of the Court for issuance of proclamation would be recorded when an order initiating proclamation proceedings is passed u/s Section 82(1) of the Code.

(Para 15)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319 – Summoning of additional accused – Dismissal of application -- General allegations leveled against all the four accused to the extent that they had given beatings to deceased with the help of sticks -- It is not uncommon that, the aggrieved party makes an attempt to rope in the maximum number of accused especially ladies from the opposite side so as to settle scores -- When the complainant stepped into witness-box, tried to improve the version by stating that respondent No.2 had given a slap to the complainant – During the course of investigation, the police recorded the statements of several villagers and came to a conclusion that respondent No.2 was innocent -- Impugned order upheld, revision petition dismissed.

(Para 7-9)

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 7, 13(2), 13(1)(d) – Corruption case – Quantum of sentence – Reduction of -- Out of two years sentence imposed by the learned Special Court, confirmed by the High Court, the appellant has already undergone approximately one year and one-month and considering the fact that the appellant is a senior citizen aged about 70 years and that he is already dismissed from service – Sentence of two years R.I. reduced to one year and one-month R.I.

(Para 6, 7)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 391 -- Two appeals i.e. one by accused and one by complainant – Appellate Court allowed additional evidence in complainant’s appeal, it could not have decided the appeals at that stage -- Both appeals necessarily had to await the adducing of additional evidence so that the appellate Court could take the same into account while deciding them comprehensively.

(Para 17)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 391 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 500 – Defamation complaint case -- Additional evidence -- Trial Court had not used coercive measures to secure the presence of the concerned Clerk of Jagbani Newspaper so as to determine the link between the advertisement and the accused, if any, and that the record maintained by the office of Jagbani Newspaper was also not produced -- It was in these circumstances that the appellate Court concluded that the trial Court had closed the evidence in a hasty manner and allowed the complainant's application u/s 391 Cr.P.C. -- Targeted case for early disposal – In such circumstances, the consent of the complainant cannot be held against him -- Appellate Court was always at liberty to exercise power independently u/s 391 Cr.P.C., once it felt that such evidence was necessary and recorded reasons therefor.

(Para 18-21)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 391 – Additional evidence in appeal – Delay in application – Effect of -- Application was filed in 2017, long after the institution of the appeal in the 2013 -- Delay cannot be held to be fatal -- Appellate Court had suo motu power to exercise discretion u/s 391 Cr.P.C. -- Therefore, delay in the filing of the application does not vitiate the opinion formed by the appellate Court.

(Para 22)

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 174-A -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 482 – Cheque bounce case -- Warrant remained unexecuted as accused-petitioner shifted – Proclamation on same address – Legality of – FIR u/s 174A of IPC – Sustainability of -- Without any basis, the Court formed an opinion that the petitioner is intentionally avoiding service and that he is either absconding or concealing himself -- Rather the Court was duty bound to ask the complainant to furnish his fresh address and ensure that the petitioner was duly served before commencing with the coercive process -- Held, trial Court was not required to invoke the provisions of Section 82 of Cr.P.C. -- Declaration of the petitioner as a proclaimed person, and the consequent registration of the impugned FIR cannot be sustained.

(Para 10-12)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 174-A -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 482 – Cheque bounce case -- Proclaimed person – Settlement between parties – Quashing of FIR u/s 174A IPC -- Entire amount of the cheque in dispute stands paid -- Complainant does not have any objection, in case, the impugned order and FIR are quashed -- Once there is an amicable settlement between the parties and the main petition u/s 138 of N.I. Act, wherein accused was declared as a proclaimed person, stands withdrawn, proceedings u/s 174-A IPC cannot be permitted to continue -- Impugned order and FIR u/s 174-A, IPC quashed along with all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom.

(Para 13, 14)

A. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 35 --  Date of birth -- Recitals of the admission and withdrawal register are admissible in evidence, as per Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act.

(Para 18)

B. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 4 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376(3) -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 154, 155 -- Hostile witness – Evidential value -- Reliance upon other evidence -- Simply on the score that witnesses did not support the prosecution version in the Court, does not ipso facto lead to the conclusion that no such occurrence had taken place -- Their testimonies, as such, cannot be discarded in toto – Testimony of the hostile witnesses can be relied upon by the prosecution, to the extent to which it supports the prosecution version and cannot be treated as washed off the records -- There is no legal bar to base conviction of the accused, upon such kind of testimony, if corroborated by other reliable evidence.

-- While facing cross-examination, the prosecutrix has identified her signatures on Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 and she has also admitted about having undergone medical examination.

-- Though, she had stated about the statement Ex.P4 before the Magistrate, to be an outcome of pressure of the police but however, no reason, as such, has been assigned, as to why the police intend to falsely implicate the appellant by making the prosecutrix as tool.

-- No bitterness or animosity at the behest of the police, towards the accused-appellant, as such, is coming forth -- Neither the accused, in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C., has stated about the reason for false implication.

-- MLR, opinion has been given that-'possibility of sexual assault cannot be ruled out and depends on semen and DNA analysis of supplied cloth and swabs.'

-- As per conclusion in DNA report-The Autosomal STR analysis indicates that DNA profile of seminal stains on source of item no.3B (Cotton Swab) and item No.4 (Salwar) is matching with the DNA Profile of Irshad (Source of item No.6).

Result of genuine DNA test is scientifically adequate and reliance upon the same can be laid to establish the connectivity of the wrong doer -- Thus, in the light of such medical evidence brought on record, sexual assault upon the prosecutrix, as such, and the role of the appellant, is established -- When linkage of the appellant, as such, through scientific manner is coming forth, it was incumbent upon the appellant, to lead sufficient evidence to rebut the legal presumption u/s 29 of the POCSO Act, operating against him -- Convection u/s 4 POCSO Act and Section 376 (3) IPC, upheld.

(Para 22-30)

C. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 4, 42 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376(3) -- Section 376(3) – Retrospective effect of penal provisions -- Sentence awarded u/s 376(3) IPC, while considering the same to be greater in degree than Section 4 of the POCSO Act -- Amendment in the IPC, thereby, adding Section 376(3) IPC, received assent of Hon'ble President of India on 11.08.2018 and in the light of the same, it is submitted that no retrospective effect can be given to this provision, in view of the occurrence in question (allegedly) having taken place on 02.06.2018 – Held, submission so made is not tenable, as the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2018, was deemed to have come into force on 21.04.2018 and that being so, it was in force at the time of taking of place of occurrence in question on 02.06.2018 – Ld. trial Court has imposed the minimum sentence (20 years RI), so provided in the aforesaid Section 376(3) IPC and the same is just and reasonable.

(Para 30)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 436(2) – NDPS case – Non-appearance on one date – Cancellation of bail – Non-bailable warrants -- Legality of -- Trial Court proceeded to pass the extreme order for solitary absence of petitioner, who was on regular bail since 29.05.2019 -- Accused or his counsel can be prevented by sufficient reasons and every such absence cannot be necessarily construed as a deliberate and willful absence -- Explanation offered by the petitioner appears to be probable and therefore, the same is accepted -- Impugned order and subsequent issuance of warrants (if any) set aside.

(Para 5, 6)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82 -- Proclamation u/s 82 Cr.P.C. – Procedural lapse – Setting aside of -- Proclamation, issued on 24.11.2015 for 11.12.2015, does not fulfill the requirement of Section 82 as the period is less than the prescribed period of 30 days -- Bare fact that on 11.12.2015, the Court adjourned the trial so as to complete the requisite period of 30 days and declared the petitioner as proclaimed offender on 04.01.2016 also does not meet the mandate of the provision -- Petitioner was abroad -- No material to show that any effort was made to serve the accused-petitioner through the Ministry of External Affairs – Held, impugned order has been passed in violation of the procedure and provisions of Section 82 of the Code and the same cannot be sustained.

(Para 11)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 451 --  Vehicle ordered to be released on superdari – Challenge by NCB – Release of vehicle with conditions that superdar shall not change its colour and condition -- Car remained with revisionist/ NCB for about eight months, which was sufficient time for the investigation -- In case the NCB finds that the car in question is required to be scrutinized or examined for the purpose of further investigation qua the other two accused against whom complaint has not been filed so far, then it can move appropriate application before the trial Court, which shall then direct the superdar to produce the car in the Court, the temporary custody of which can then be given to Narcotic Control Bureau – No reason to set aside the impugned order.

(Para 5)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 306, 116 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Abetment to suicide – Compromise quashing of FIR -- Dispute between the parties has been resolved amicably – Compromise is in interest of peace and tranquility in the society and for such like reasons high Court can quash the FIR and ancillary proceedings exercising power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. -- Petition allowed and the FIR along with ancillary proceedings quashed.

(Para 7-9)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 396 -- Dacoity with murder -- Acquittal in – No test identification parade – Accused identified first time in court – Finger prints at place of occurrence – Value of – Child eye witness 5 years old (PW5) -- Both accused were unknown faces to PW5, and were not subjected to any Test Identification -- Apart from identification by PW5 in Court for the first time, there is no other material to establish their presence -- Thus, even if Court accept that fingerprints lifted from the house of the deceased could be associated with the said two accused, that by itself, in the absence of any substantive piece of evidence, cannot be made the basis of their conviction -- These accused are therefore entitled to the benefit of doubt -- Orders of conviction and sentence recorded against them set aside.

(Para 16, 35)

B. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 8, 27, 118, 134 -- Child witness – Corroboration of -- Perspective from which the evidence of a child witness is to be considered -- “corroboration of the testimony of a child witness is not a rule but a measure of caution and prudence” is a well-accepted principle.

(Para 22)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 396 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 8, 27, 118, 134 -- Dacoity with murder -- Acquittal in – 5 year old Child eye witness -- A chhuri or knife was said to have been recovered upon being pointed by accused/HO -- In the absence of any memorandum, the trial court rejected the theory that such recovery would be admissible u/s 27 of the Act -- It was however observed that such recovery would be admissible u/s 8 of the Act -- Not enough to sustain the finding of guilt -- PW-2 in his cross-examination reveals that he made no attempts to talk to the police though he asserted in his examination-in-chief that in the morning he was sure that the culprits were accused/ HO and his associates, version given by PW2 is, therefore, not free from doubt -- Evidence of PW2 also contains inherent inconsistencies -- Sample fingerprints of accused H.O. did not match with any of the fingerprints taken from the house of the deceased -- With the acquittal of all the accused in respect of offences punishable u/s 412 IPC and under the Arms Act, there is no other material pointing towards the involvement of accused/HO – Court do not find the material on record sufficient to record conviction of accused/ HO for the offence u/s 396 IPC -- Benefit of doubt given.

(Para 26-28)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 307, 324 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 320 -- Attempt to murder – Conviction of appellants -- Compromise between parties – Reduction in quantum of sentence -- There can be no doubt that Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. does not encapsulate Section 324 and 307 IPC under its list of compoundable offences – Held, fact of amicable settlement can be a relevant factor for the purpose of reduction in the quantum of sentence – Appeal partly allowed, sentence of both the appellants reduced to the period already undergone by them.

(Para 6-17)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 51(5), 55, 61 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 364, 392 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Removal of hypothecation fraudulently – Sale of vehicle thereafter -- Vehicle involved in criminal case – Release of vehicle -- Right of subsequent purchaser – Statutory authority under MV Act recorded his conclusion that entry of the appellant in whose favour the vehicle was hypothecated has been fraudulently deleted – Held, in consequence of above, all subsequent acts including the registration certificate issued in the name of respondent No.1 became nonest -- Respondent No.1 although claimed that he is a bonafide purchaser but fact remains that he is beneficiary of fraud -- Held, High Court committed error in directing the release of the vehicle in favour of respondent No.1 -- Order of the High Court, thus, is unsustainable and set aside -- Vehicle ordered to be released in favour of the appellant.

(Para 20-23)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 452, 323, 148 & 149 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- House trespass – Compromise quashing of FIR – Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court, after recording the statements of the parties qua the execution and veracity of the alleged compromise furnished the report – FIR and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom quashed.

(Para 2-6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 363, 366, 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Kidnapping case -- Compromise quashing of FIR -- Parties got their statements recorded and Ld. Magistrate submitted report to the effect that the compromise is genuine – None has put in appearance on behalf of complainant party but no prejudice would be caused to them as they have already made a joint statement with regard to compromise before Ld. Magistrate – FIR and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua the petitioners on the basis of compromise.

(Para 2-8)