Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 7, 138 – Cheque bounce complaint – Prosecution of -- Drawer of cheque – Joint account -- Though, the cheque has been drawn on a joint bank account of the petitioner and her husband, but the cheque in question has been signed by her husband only and the liability regarding the dishonour of the cheque can be fastened on the drawer of the cheque -- Mere fact that the petitioner happens to be the spouse of the co-accused is hardly sufficient to condemn her as co-accused with him – Complaint and summoning order quashed qua the petitioner/ wife.

(Para 8-12)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22, 37 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Commercial quantity -- Regular bail – Recovery of 2400 tablets of ‘Parvion Spas’ -- Petitioner in custody since 28.07.2021 -- Trial is unlikely to conclude in the near future -- Court deemed it appropriate to allow the petition by dispensing with the conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act – Bail allowed.

(Para 3, 8)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- NDPS case -- Jump of bail – Wrong date noted by clerk of counsel --  Petitioner directed to surrender before the Special Court within a period of 10 days and on his appearance, he shall be admitted to bail on his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds subject to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.

(Para 2-6)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 148 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 389 -- Conviction in cheque bounce complaint -- Suspension of sentence in appeal – Deposit of 20% compensation amount – Deposit of minimum 20% amount is not an absolute rule, not accommodating any exception -- When Appellate Court considers the prayer u/s 389 of the Cr.P.C. of an accused, it is always open for the Appellate Court to consider whether it is an exceptional case, which warrants grant of suspension of sentence without imposing the condition of deposit of 20% of the fine/ compensation amount -- In case, the Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that it is an exceptional case, the reasons for coming to the said conclusion must be recorded.

(Para 9)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439, 482 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Regular bail -- Interim bail – High Court was of the view that prolonged incarceration with no prospect of the trial coming to an end makes a case for the grant of bail -- High Court granted bail only for 45 days by describing it as an interim bail -- But after granting the interim bail finally disposed of the bail application – Held, if an order granting interim bail was to be passed, the bail application should have been kept pending – When a Court concludes that the accused is entitled to be enlarged on bail pending trial, granting bail only for a limited duration is illegal -- Such orders violate the right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India -- It puts an additional burden on the litigant as he is forced to file a fresh bail application for an extension of the bail granted earlier -- Appeal allowed, by modifying the impugned order, appellant enlarged on bail until the final disposal of the case.

(Para 4-9)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 406, 420, 120-B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 438 – Cheating -- Anticipatory bail -- Habitual offender – 16 complaints/ FIR pending – Petitioners have not only cheated the present complainant but several other criminal complaints have been filed against them -- Apart from that,  petitioner No.2 was declared a proclaimed person and four FIRs were registered against him in this regard -- Thus, there are chances that the petitioners may abscond from the process of law -- Custodial interrogation of the petitioners would be required in the case – Petition dismissed.

(Para 1, 6-9)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 323, 325, 148, 149 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25, 54, 59 -- Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 3(2)(v) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Murder – Regular bail -- Role and injury attributed to the appellant is on the thumb of the complainant -- Appellant in custody since 17.08.2022 -- As many as 20 witnesses have been cited by the prosecution and the evidence is yet to start, hence, the trial would take considerable time to conclude – Concession of bail granted to petitioner.

(Para 3-6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860)Section 306, 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Abetment to suicide – Anticipatory  bail -- On the contention that a criminal case was registered against the deceased u/s 377 of the IPC and allegedly on account of the deceased having felt humiliated he ended his life by consuming poison, interim bail granted --  Petitioner has joined investigation and cooperated with the investigating agency -- Petitioner not required for custodial interrogation -- Interim order made absolute.

(Para 1-5)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 379-B(2), 34, 411 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Snatching case – Regular  bail -- Petitioner is behind the bars since 25.05.2023 -- Final report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. was presented before the concerned Court on 25.08.2023 and out of 15 prosecution witnesses none has been examined so far -- Charges are yet to be framed -- Trial of the case would take long time to conclude – Bail allowed.

(Para 6-8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420 – Punjab Travel Professionals’ Regulation Act, 2012, Section 13 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Compromise quashing of FIR – Parties  have settled their dispute amicably -- No useful purpose would be served by keeping the proceedings alive -- It will be in the interest of justice, if the settlement reached between the parties is accepted -- FIR and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom quashed.

(Para 2, 7, 8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 386, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 190, 482 – Quashing of FIR – After filing of the challan, charges have already been framed by the trial Court – Petitioner has already filed criminal complaint so as to put forth his stand – No justification for quashing of the FIR.

(Para 3, 4)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 147 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 320, 397, 401 – Cheque bounce complaint -- Compromise after conviction at revisional stage – Acquittal of accused -- Waiver of cost of 15% -- Imposition of costs would be a matter of discretion of the Court -- Petitioner is a poor person, 15% of the cheque amount towards cost(s) of litigation can be waived off in the interest of justice -- Petition allowed, impugned judgments/order(s) set aside and petitioner acquitted.

(Para 9-11)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 379-B(2), 365, 506, 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Snatching case – Regular bail – Snatching of Rs.2000/- -- Several other cases against the petitioner, including the cases under the NDPS Act -- However, there was no harm caused to the complainant and an amount of Rs.500/- was recovered by the police – Petitioner in custody since 29.05.2023 -- Petitioner ordered to be released on bail pending trial.

(Para 1, 4-5)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 409, 420, 465, 466, 468, 471, 120-B -- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 13(1)(a), 13(2) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Corruption case – Anticipatory bail – Since the petitioners have returned 50% of the compensation amount and have also declared their assets, based on which, State can always avail legal remedies for attachment of assets as well as recovery of the amount, to which the State is entitled, it is not a case for pre-trial incarceration of the petitioners – Petition allowed and interim order made absolute.

(Para 6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420, 120-B -- Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (10 of 1955), Section 3, 7 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Quashing of FIR/ Chargesheet -- Prosecution's case is that a hydrocarbon mixture was found in the seized tanker, which was being sold by the appellants, representing it to be petrol or diesel – Samples were sent more than two years back for testing, and  report has not yet received -- In the absence of the report, taking the charge sheet as it is, no material is placed on record to show that the liquid in the tanker was neither diesel nor petrol but a mixture of hydrocarbons -- Allegation of cheating is also made on the footing that thousands of customers were supplied with the said mixture instead of petrol or diesel -- It is too late for the State to file a report after a gap of more than two years -- Continuation of the prosecution will be an abuse of the process of law – FIR and the consequent charge sheet filed thereon are quashed and set aside.

(Para 6-9)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 306, 323, 120-B, 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Abetment to suicide – Compromise quashing of FIR -- Deceased himself had not left any suicide note alleging anything against the petitioner -- Cause of death was not of any injuries or any attributable act, rather, the same is stated to be by consuming of poison by the deceased -- Complaint by the father of the deceased only, who has already compromised the matter with the petitioner -- Offence u/s 306 IPC can be quashed on the basis of compromise – FIR and all consequential proceedings quashed qua the petitioners.

(Para 8-10)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420, 406, 408, 120-B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 173, 438 – Cheating -- Criminal breach of trust -- Anticipatory bail -- Business transactions, where the material supplied to the complainant company, is alleged to be of inferior quality -- Further the petitioner has also alleged that he has to recover around Rs 2 crores from the complainant company, as per their account statement -- Petitioner has already joined the investigation and the final report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. has also been filed and he is facing the trial and that the entire case is based on documentary evidence, therefore, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is no more required – Petition allowed.

(Para 10)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 370, 370-A(2), 120-B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Trafficking a person – Regular bail -- Petitioner is behind the bars since 20.08.2023 -- Investigation is complete, final report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. was presented before the concerned Court on 19.10.2023 – Out of 13 prosecution witnesses none examined so far and as such, the trial of the cases would take long time to conclude -- Culpability, if any, would be determined at the time of trial – Bail allowed.

(Para 6-8)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 317(2) -- Splitting of trial – Out of 31 accused presence of some of accused could not be precured -- Only 20 out of 31 accused persons were attending the Court -- When the High Court permitted splitting of the trial, two important aspects were not noted -- The first one was that the learned Magistrate was not satisfied that the police have made sufficient efforts to procure the presence of all the accused -- Second is order of further investigation – Therefore, this was not the stage at which the High Court could have permitted splitting of the case – Impugned order set aside.

(Para 2-5)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 120-B, 201, 148, 149 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Murder – Regular bail -- Two material witnesses of the prosecution have not supported the case of the prosecution -- Whether the remaining evidence available on record is sufficient to affix liability upon the petitioner and his co-accused shall be examined during the course of the Trial -- Petitioner is in custody since 13.01.2022 -- Only 02 of the 27 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far and he is a first-time offender -- Further incarceration is not required – Bail allowed.

(Para 6-8)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 407 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420, 406 – Cheating case --  Transfer of trial – Jind to Jalandhar -- 19 cases registered at District Jalandhar, but in the present case, most of the victims/ witnesses belonged to District Jind -- Huge money was collected by the petitioners from poor and rustic villagers --  Language spoken by the prosecution witnesses is different from the language of Jalandhar region -- In case, the trial transferred from the Court of CJM Jind to the Court of CJM, Jalandhar, Victims/ witnesses shall be put to great inconvenience and hardship -- Allegations may be similar, but the victims and the witnesses are entirely different -- No case made out for transferring the case – Petition dismissed.

(Para 7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 379B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Snatching case – Regular bail – Multiple FIR -- No recovery from the petitioner -- Four more cases registered against the petitioner – In all other cases, the petitioner has already been acquitted -- Petition allowed.

(Para 4-6)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 201, 34 – Summoning as additional accused – Quashing of --  Complainant is not the eyewitness – Except that R.K used to threat to the deceased that she will kill him with the help of her friend, there is absolutely no other evidence against the petitioner --  Investigation, carried out by the investigating agency, found that as the deceased was in illicit relationship with R.K and they were found in compromising position by son of co-accused R.K, therefore, it is said son, who hit iron angle on the head resulting in his death – There is neither any allegation nor any evidence collected to the effect that petitioner was at or nearby the place of occurrence or helped the co-accused RK and son in murder  in any manner -- Thus, the test of more than prima facie case is not satisfied so as to summon the petitioner as an additional accused to face trial -- Summoning order set aside.

(Para 18, 19)

Insecticides Act, 1968 (46 of 1968), Section 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 29, 33 -- Insecticides Rules, 1971, Rule 27(5) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 197, 468(2)(c), 470(3), 482 – Complaint under Insecticides Act -- Limitation – Cognizance of complaint -- Sanction Period consumed for obtaining the consent of the State Government to launch the prosecution is liable to be excluded while computing the limitation period -- If period of 5 months and 17 days is excluded for the purpose of computation of limitation, the complaint instituted after 5 years, 6 days from the date of commencement of limitation is beyond limitation period – Summoning order and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom quashed for the reasons that complaint itself is not maintainable, being barred by limitation.

(Para 12-22)

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 3 (X), (XIV), (XV) -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 323, 504, 506 & 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Criminal intimidation -- Offence under SC/ ST Act – Compromise quashing of FIR -- No useful purpose would be served by keeping the proceedings alive -- It will be in the interest of justice, if the settlement reached between the parties is accepted – FIR and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom quashed.

(Para 7, 8)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 24 -- Murder -- Extra-judicial confession -- Extra judicial confession before PW-2 and PW-3/ real brothers of deceased -- It is not brought on record by the prosecution that the appellant/ accused had any relationship with both of them -- Normally, an accused would make a confessional statement before a person in whom he has implicit faith -- In the normal course, an accused would not make a confessional statement before the real brothers of the deceased -- When prosecution relies upon the evidence of extra judicial confession, normally, the Court will expect that the evidence of the persons before whom extra judicial confession is allegedly made, must be of sterling quality – Theory of extra judicial confession discarded – Appellant acquitted.

(Para 7, 8, 11)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 27 -- Murder – Acquittal -- Blood stains on clothes of different Blood Group – Recovery of axe – Not believed -- Serology Report on record that the clothes on the person of the deceased were having blood stains of 'O' group -- As regards the trouser of the appellant, the opinion was inconclusive but as regards the other two items of clothes, it was found that the blood was of 'A' group -- This militates against the case of the prosecution that the blood stains on the clothes of the appellant were of the blood of the deceased -- Recovery of the axe at the instance of the appellant is of no relevance, as according to PW-2 and PW-3, the appellant was carrying a stick -- Appellant acquitted.

(Para 9-11)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 307, 323, 148, 149, 325, 285 IPC -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 27 – Attempt to murder -- Summoning as additional accused -- No specific allegation by the complainant except deposing in the statement that the petitioner No.2 was also sitting in the car, which was being driven by some other person at the time of the incident – It would not satisfy the test laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hardeep Singh's case 2014(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 623 = (2014) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 14978 – Criteria for summoning a person as an additional accused to face the trial with other accused, is higher than the criteria required by the police to file a challan – Revision allowed --  Summoning order set aside.

(Para 8, 9)

A. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 27 – Recovery during police custody – Admission of guilt -- Evidential value -- It is only the factum of recovery of the articles which can be taken into account and the statement made, if any, while getting the articles recovered which is to the effect of admission of guilt is to be discarded.

(Para 21)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 27, 106 -- Murder – Circumstantial evidence – Knowledge of PW/ Lambardar is in the nature of hear-say evidence that he had actually overheard some persons naming appellant as the murderer -- PW-3 with whom extra-judicial confession made stepped into the witness box did not support the case of the prosecution and was declared hostile -- Recovery of the auto-rickshaw on its own cannot be said to be an incriminating piece of evidence – Nothing on record either to show that the blood stain found on the recovered ‘datar’ and on the cardigan were of the same blood group or that the same matched with the blood group of the deceased – Appellant acquitted.

(Para 21-25)

C. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 106 -- Circumstantial evidence -- Law postulates two-fold requirements before reliance can be placed upon the same :

(i) Every link in the chain of the circumstances necessary to establish the guilt of the accused must be established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.

(ii) All the circumstances must be consistent pointing only towards the guilt of the accused.

(Para 22)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 36A(4) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167(2) – NDPS case -- Default bail -- Extension of time – Time sought for collecting FSL report -- Two essential ingredients i.e. first,  the report of the Public Prosecutor suggests or indicates regarding the progress of the investigation and the second condition sine qua non is that specific reasons for the detention of the accused beyond the period of 180 days -- These two conditions are co-existent -- Non-satisfaction of even one condition will not give any entitlement to the prosecution for seeking an extension of 180 days -- Nothing stated in the report pertaining to progress of the investigation nor any reason has been given seeking detention of the accused -- Grant of bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C is a statutory and indefeasible right -- Petitioner ordered to be released on default bail.

(Para 10-15)

Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (57 of 1994), Sections 4, 5(2) -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420, 120-B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 173, 482 -- Determination of sex of the foetus – Quashing of FIR -- Cognizance on police report – Permissibility of -- A complaint has to be filed – Complaint has already been filed by the competent authority -- Police cannot register an independent FIR, on its own -- Police after registering FIR have presented the report u/s 173 Cr.P.C., directly to the Court --  FIR quashed, however, the material collected by the police during the investigation of the said FIR permitted to be used as evidence in the complaint case, subject to the proof of the same, in accordance with law.

(Para 7-9)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21, 25, 29 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Constitution of  India, Article 21 -- NDPS Case – Regular bail -- Recovery of 260 grams of heroin -- Marginally over and above the commercial quantity i.e., 250 grams and both the accused-petitioners were found travelling in car belongs to the other co-accused granted anticipatory bail – Petitioner in custody for 1 year, 2 months and 24 days --  After framing of charges no single prosecution witness has been examined by the prosecution, despite lapse of 6 months -- Examination of 10 prosecution witnesses is rightly to take long time -- Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the said Article also provides the right for speedy trial and otherwise also bail is a rule and jail is an exception -- Pendency of other FIRs involving the accused-petitioners cannot be a predicament to consider the case for regular bail – Bail allowed.

(Para 8-11)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 52A, 53, 57 -- NDPS Case – Acquittal -- Sample of contraband/ narcotic substance – Presence/ Certification by Magistrate – Requirement of -- No evidence on record to the effect that the procedure prescribed under sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) of Section 52A of the NDPS Act was followed -- In the absence of any material on record to establish that the samples of the seized contraband were drawn in the presence of the Magistrate and that the inventory of the seized contraband was duly certified by the Magistrate, seized contraband and the samples drawn therefrom would not be a valid piece of primary evidence in the trial -- Trial as a whole stands vitiated – Held, failure of the concerned authorities to lead primary evidence vitiates the conviction – Conviction and sentence/ fine set aside – Appeal allowed.

(Para 12-19)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167(2) -- Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Default bail – Condition to furnish bail bond on same day – Permissibility of -- Learned JMIC imposed a condition that the bail and bonds to be furnished only on the same day by 4.30 p.m. – Held, at the time when default bail is granted then no such impractical, unreasonable and onerous time limit can be imposed for furnishing of bail and bonds -- Condition imposed is onerous, unreasonable and impractical and does not qualify the test of reasonableness under Article 21 of the Constitution of India – Petition allowed, condition imposed by the learned JMIC by which the petitioner was directed to furnish surety by 4.30 PM on the same day is also set aside.

(Para 19-26)

B. Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section, 167(2), 437, 438, 439 – Bail matters – Fundamental rights – Life and liberty of accused -- For the purposes of considering bail matters, the Fundamental Rights especially under Article 21 of the Constitution of India have to be always kept in mind since the personal liberty of an individual is involved -- Judicial officers of District Courts should have full expertise not only on the practical aspects but also on the academic aspects pertaining to the Fundamental Rights -- Registrar General shall coordinate with the Director of the Judicial Academy, Chandigarh for arranging orientation course on specialized subject of Fundamental Rights to all the judicial officers of District Courts across the States of Punjab, Haryana and UT, Chandigarh.

(Para 28-29)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 211 -- Framing of charge – Role of Court – Evidential value of material on record – Assessment of -- Stage of -- At the time of framing of charges, the role of a Court is restricted to examining the material and documents which have been placed on record by the prosecution so as to determine whether a prima facie case based on the ingredients of the alleged offence, is even made out or not – Court is just to assess whether there is enough evidence to proceed with the trial -- Veracity or truthfulness of the material and evidence placed on record by the prosecution cannot be delved into by the Court while framing charges as evaluation of the material would take place when both the parties lead their respective evidence during trial.

(Para 5)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 211 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 307 – Attempt to murder – Framing of charge -- Injury inflicted upon the victim need not even be directly lethal under ordinary circumstances -- Several factors, such as the type of weapon used, the manner in which it was employed, the motive behind the crime, the severity of the injury and the seat of injury are the relevant factors to be considered to discern the intention of the accused.

(Para 6)

A. Punjab Pre-mature Release of Life Convicts Policy, 2011 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 – Murder -- Life sentence till death – Pre-mature release -- Order of the trial Court in sentencing the petitioner to undergo imprisonment for life, with a rider to extend to full life, is clearly in violation of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of V. Sriharan @ Murugan, 2016 (7) SCC 192 -- Such a sentence can be passed either by High Court or by Hon’ble Supreme Court only -- State authorities are not debarred from considering the case of the petitioner for premature release in the light of its policy dated 08.08.2011.

(Para 21-28)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 426, 427 – Murder -- Life sentence – Subsequent sentence – Concurrent running of Sentence -- Petitioner is already undergoing life imprisonment, therefore, even if she has been convicted and sentenced subsequently, the subsequent sentence is to run concurrently with the earlier sentence of life imprisonment.

(Para 34-36)

C. Constitution of India, Article 161, 226, 227 -- Punjab Pre-mature Release of Life Convicts Policy, 2011 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 374 -- Murder -- Life sentence till death by Trial Court – Appeal against conviction pending – Pre-mature release – Petitioner/ lady has already undergone 17 years 2 months and 20 days of actual sentence (Total sentence including remission 22 years 7 months) -- Conduct of the convict during the last five years is to be taken into account -- Jail offence was committed more than 9 years ago -- Conviction and jail offence in question cannot be the reason to withhold the case of the petitioner for premature release -- Respondent-authorities directed to consider the premature release case of the petitioner -- Till the decision is taken by the competent authority regarding premature release of the petitioner as per this order, she be released on interim bail on furnishing requisite bonds to the satisfaction of the ld. CJM concerned -- Order is subject to the final outcome of the Petitioner’s appeal.

(Para 19, 37-45)

A. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 32 -- Dying declaration -- A conviction can be solely recorded on the basis of dying declaration -- Court must come to a conclusion that the dying declaration is trustworthy, reliable and one which inspires confidence.

(Para 10)

B. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 32 -- Dying declaration -- Dying declaration recorded by Executive Magistrate -- Deceased received burn injuries on 5th November 1991 but the dying declaration recorded on 8th November 1991 after an application was made by the relatives of the deceased to the SDM -- Boys, who had brought the application containing the order of the SDM had told him that the statement of the deceased should be recorded and that she was in a position to make the statement -- Those boys told him that whatever they had to tell the deceased, they had told her -- Those 2-3 boys related to the deceased and some other persons were also in the room in which he recorded the statement of the deceased – There is a grave doubt as to whether the dying declaration recorded was a voluntary one or tutored -- Executive Magistrate had recorded the dying declaration of the deceased on 8^th November 1991 at 04.40 p.m. whereas the opinion with regard to her fitness was given by him at 06.00 p.m. on 8th November 1991 – It cannot be said that the dying declaration is free from doubt.

(Para 11-14)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304-B -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 32 – Dowry death – Acquittal -- Dying declaration -- High Court disbelieved the dying declaration insofar as father-in-law of the deceased is concerned – Court failed to understand as to how the same dying declaration could have been made basis for conviction of the appellant when the same was disbelieved insofar as another accused is concerned -- For harassment with regard to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry, except the vague allegation, there is nothing in their evidence to support the prosecution case -- No evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased was harassed on account of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry -- Case u/s 304-B of IPC is not made out by the prosecution – Judgment of conviction set aside -- Appeal allowed.

(Para 15-18)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 148, 149, 323, 341, 307, 506, 120-B -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319, 438 -- Murder -- Summoning u/s 319 Cr.P.C. – Despite the petitioner being specifically named as one of the assailants, who was armed with gun and despite the fact that there was eye-witness account in the form of statements recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C., petitioner was declared innocent -- Police authorities at their own, disbelieved the version of eye-witnesses, clearly indicating the collusion of the police with the petitioner -- No illegality in the impugned order summoning the petitioner u/s 319 Cr.P.C. as an additional accused to face trial.

(Para 16, 17)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 148, 149, 323, 341, 307, 506, 120-B -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319, 438 -- Murder -- Summoning u/s 319 Cr.P.C. – Anticipatory bail -- Having regard to the role of the petitioner in the crime, who is specifically attributed to have given gunshot injury resulting in the death and also having caused gunshot injuries  and the gravity of the offence, Court finds the case to be unfit for grant of anticipatory bail even if the petitioner has been summoned u/s 319 Cr.P.C. -- Simply because investigation is complete or petitioner is not required for custodial interrogation, cannot in itself be a ground to grant him anticipatory bail.

(Para 18)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Cheating – Quashing of summoning order – Revenue entry for more share of land -- Sale-deed based upon expired GPA – Stay was in operation – Effect of -- Allegation that petitioner and her mother in collusion with the revenue officials illegally, despite having the knowledge that their entitlement was only to the extent of 1/5th share, had got their share entered to the extent of 1/4th and thereafter, taking benefit of the error in the entries in the Jamabandi had fraudulently alienated the land to the extent of 1/4th – Held, essential ingredient to attract the mischief of Section 420 of the IPC is clearly amiss -- Complainant has not parted with the property -- Sale of the land, during the time when the stay was in operation, would at best give rise to action for contempt of Court and similarly, registration of sale deed on the basis of expired GPA, would not attract the mischief of Section 420 of the IPC -- Summoning order u/s 420 of the IPC along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom quashed qua the petitioners.

(Para 11-17)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420 – Cheating -- Essential ingredients to attract the mischief of Section 420 of the IPC are:

(i) the accused must have intentionally deceived someone;

(ii) by the said deception, the accused must have induced the person so deceived (a) to deliver any property (b) to make alter, or destroy the whole or part of the valuable security or anything which is signed or sealed and which is being capable of being converted into a valuable security;

(iii) the accused had dishonest intention at the inception.

(Para 13)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 174A – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 482 -- Cheque bounce complaint – Proclaimed person – Quashing of FIR u/s 174A IPC -- Proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act have culminated in a settlement with the withdrawal of the complaint -- FIR and all other subsequent proceedings arising out of the FIR quashed.

(Para 9-13)

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 118, 138 – Cheque bounce complaint – Presumption – Rebuttal -- Presumptions u/s 118 and 139 of the Act in favour of the holder of the cheque are rebuttable -- Rebuttal of presumption is not to the extent of proving beyond reasonable doubt but has to be on principle of probabilities and preponderance -- On rebuttal of the presumption, the onus shifts on the complainant.

(Para 7)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 118, 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378(4) -- Cheque bounce complaint – Acquittal – Leave to appeal -- Defence by the accused was that the cheques were misused and there was no enforceable debt due from him -- Defence was substantiated by deposition of witnesses and exhibiting application C-5 written to the bank stating that the cheques were lost -- Onus shifted upon the applicant/ complainant to prove existence of legally enforceable debt -- As per the case set up, applicant had given the loan at the rate of 24% per annum, no documents, books of account or evidence was adduced for proving advancing of loan – Acquittal order, upheld.

(Para 9-12)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 279, 304A – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 401 -- Death by rash and negligent driving – Acquittal -- Prosecution examined only 3 witnesses -- PW1 and PW2 disclosed in their cross-examination that they had seen the accused for the first time in the Court – PW3/ Doctor proved the postmortem report of the deceased – Prosecution did not examine the Investigating Officer of the case – Prosecution did not prove the site plan of the place of accident or the mechanical examination reports of the vehicles involved in the accident -- Identity of accused/ driver not established -- Conviction by the trial Court and affirmed by the Appellate Court, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law -- Revision petition allowed, impugned judgments of conviction set aside.

(Para 8-12)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 279, 304A – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 397, 401 -- Death by rash and negligent driving – Acquittal -- Prosecution examined 3 witnesses -- PW1 and PW2 were the occupants of the tractor trolley, though both of them deposed about the manner of accident, but as per their statements, the truck driver had fled away – None of them seen the truck driver at the spot, both disclosed in their cross-examination that they had seen the accused for the first time in the Court – The only other witness examined by the prosecution is PW3-Doctor, who proved the postmortem report of the deceased -- Prosecution did not examine the Investigating Officer -- Prosecution did not prove the site plan of the place of accident or the mechanical examination reports of the vehicles involved in the accident -- Impugned judgments of conviction as recorded by the trial Court and as affirmed by the Appellate Court set aside.

(Para 9-12)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378(4) -- Cheque bounce complaint – Acquittal by trial court – Leave to appeal -- Cheque book lost complaint on 7.4.2014 whereas the cheques were presented in August, 2014 -- Applicant failed to give details of month and year when loan was given -- Complainant except making a bald statement that he had advanced the loan, miserably failed to prove existence of legally enforceable debt – Signatures on the cheques not disputed, will in itself be not sufficient for conviction of the respondent – Cheque was returned not only for the reason that payment was stopped but also for material alteration having not been signed by the drawer -- View taken by the court is plausible one – Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

(Para 10-13)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 200, 202 – Summoning of accused – Duty of Magistrate -- At the stage of summoning, Magistrate is required only to see prima facie evidence brought on record -- At the same time, it is to be kept in mind that summoning an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter -- Magistrate is required to apply its judicious mind in order to record his satisfaction that there is a prima facie case against the accused on the basis of allegations made in the complaint supported by the admissible material.

(Para 8)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 256 – Complaint case -- Non-appearance of complainant -- Dismissal for want of prosecution -- When the complaint was dismissed for want of prosecution, it was fixed for defence evidence – Impugned order set aside -- Trial Court directed to restore the complaint and further directed to proceed in the case from the stage it had reached before the impugned order of dismissal was passed.

(Para 4)

Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956), Section 15(2), 15(3) – Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (34 of 1971), Section 3, 4 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Medical termination of pregnancy – Quashing of FIR -- Sale of MTP Kit itself cannot be said to be an offence punishable under the MTP Act -- FIR and the proceedings subsequent thereto cannot be allowed to continue – Petition allowed – FIR and all proceedings subsequent thereto quashed qua the petitioner.

(Para 4, 5)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 156(3) – Non-cognizable offence – Criminal conspiracy -- Prayer for registration of FIR u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. – Application filed by the petitioner was dismissed on the ground that except Section 120-B IPC, all the sections as mentioned by the petitioner in his application attract the non-cognizable offences and, therefore, the said application is not maintainable in the eyes of law -- When the complaint is not made out regarding the main offences involved, the offence of criminal conspiracy also does not survive on its own -- Impugned order passed by the Magistrate is in conformity with law and calls for no interference.

(Para 6)

Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (Punjab Act 1 of 1914), Section 61, 1, 14, 75 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 468 , 482 – Excise matter – Quashing of FIR -- FIR on 25.01.2016, the challan before the trial Court on 03.10.2020 – Reports of sample came on 04.07.2017, whereafter permission u/s 75 of the Act was sought from the Commissioner on 06.02.2020, which was received vide letter dated 24.09.2020 – Held, the prosecution as contemplated by Section 75(2) of the Act cannot said to have been launched within a period of one year of commission of the offence -- Considering the provision of Section 468 CrPC also, the period of three years for taking cognizance by the Court had expired even prior to 06.02.2020 – Proceedings are required to be dropped – FIR and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom quashed.

(Para 3, 4, 7)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 195 – False evidence – Prosecution u/s 195 IPC – Locus standi -- Where false evidence is given in Court then, proceedings can be initiated only on the basis of a complaint in writing by that Court or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate -- No proceeding can be maintained at the instance of a private individual even though he may be the person aggrieved in some manner.

(Para 11)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 195 – Acquittal of accused -- False evidence – Prosecution u/s 195 IPC --  In the judgment of acquittal, there is no specific finding of the Court as to the giving of false evidence by the respondents/ accused -- Merely because the petitioner was acquitted in FIR would not by itself be a ground to hold that false evidence had been given during the course of proceedings of that case.

(Para 11)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 148 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 374, 389, 397, 401 – Cheque bounce complaint – Appeal against conviction -- Suspension of sentence – Condition to deposit of 20% of compensation – Exception to -- Where the Appellate Court is satisfied that the condition of deposit of 20% will be unjust or imposing such a condition will amount to deprivation of the right of appeal of the appellant, exception can be made for the reasons specifically recorded -- Both the Sessions Courts and the High Court have proceeded on the erroneous premise that deposit of minimum 20% amount is an absolute rule which does not accommodate any exception – Orders passed  by High Court set aside, revision petition restored.

(Para 6-12)