Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 173, 190, 200 – Police Report – Protest petition – Cognizance by Court -- On the receipt of the police report u/s 173 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate can exercise three options -- Firstly, he may decide that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding further and drop action -- Secondly, he may take cognizance of the offence u/s 190(1)(b) on the basis of the police report and issue process; and thirdly, he may take cognizance of the offence u/s 190(1)(a) on the basis of the original complaint and proceed to examine upon oath the complainant and his witnesses u/s 200 -- Even in a case where the final report of the police u/s 173 is accepted and the accused persons are discharged, the Magistrate has the power to take cognizance of the offence on a complaint or a Protest Petition on the same or similar allegations even after the acceptance of the final report -- Magistrate is not debarred from taking cognizance of a complaint merely on the ground that earlier he had declined to take cognizance of the police report.

(Para 11)

Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 (43 of 1978), Section 3, 4, 5, 6 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420, 506, 120-B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Fraud worth crore of rupees – Regular bail-- Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail -- Petitioner along with his co-accused had hatched deep-rooted conspiracies and cheated hundreds of innocent investors from the public, involving crores of rupees – During the course of investigation, serious threats have been extended to the complainant and the witnesses – Apart from that, the investigation is at a very crucial stage against some of the co-accused, who are yet to be arrested and are still absconding from the process of law -- There are well founded apprehensions that the said money may be used for terror fundings – Petition dismissed.

(Para 10-12)

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 391 – Cheque bounce complaint – Additional evidence at appellate stage -- Cheque dishonoured as drawer had closed the account and not on account of the difference in signature of the drawer -- Petitioner/ accused did not respond to the legal notice – Signature not disputed in statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. – Thereafter 6 opportunities to lead defence evidence but he did not produce any witness – Defence evidence closed on the statement of the counsel for the petitioner and not by a Court order – Application for additional evidence by examining fingerprint and handwriting expert dismissed by Appellate Court -- No illegality or impropriety in the order – Revision dismissed.

(Para 7)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 391 – Additional evidence at appellate stage -- Section 391 Cr.P.C. vests a discretion in the Appellate Court to permit additional evidence, if it is necessary, in order to enable it to give a correct finding -- Test is that such evidence should be necessary for the just and proper decision of the case -- Provision is not intended to remedy the negligence or latches of a party -- Not desirable to exercise power u/s 391 Cr.P.C. to enable the petitioner to fill in the lacunae.

(Para 8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 307, 324, 379, 411, 483, 506, 34, 120-B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Murder – Regular bail – Petitioner is incarcerated for the last about one year and four months --  Petitioner had not participated in the main occurrence and had only facilitated the escape of accused, after they had allegedly committed the crime -- Only five witnesses, out of total 20 witnesses have been examined so far and the conclusion of the trial may take a long time -- Petition allowed.

(Para 7)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 161, 164, 173, 207, 272 – Police report – Providing copies to accused -- Section 173 will have to be read with Section 207 -- It is the obligation of the learned Magistrate to furnish free of cost, without any delay, copies of the police report, first information report, statements recorded under sub-section (3) of Section 161 of CrPC except the portion in respect of which there is an order passed by the learned Magistrate by invoking powers under sub-section (6) of Section 173, confessions and statements recorded u/s 164 and copies of the documents or relevant extracts forwarded along with the police report in accordance with sub-section (5) of Section 173 -- When the statements of the witnesses or documents covered by sub-section (5) of Section 173 are very bulky, the learned Magistrate has the discretion to allow the accused and his advocate to inspect the said documents instead of providing copies thereof.

(Para 11)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 173, 272, 465 – Police report – Official language of State -- Language of Courts – Power u/s 272 is not a power to decide which language shall be used by the investigating agencies or the police for the purposes of maintaining the record of the investigation -- State Government may provide that the charge sheet must be filed in the official language of the State -- Section 272 deals with only the language of the Courts under Cr.PC – Even if such a requirement is read into Section 173, per se, the proceedings will not be vitiated if the report is not in the language of the Court -- The test of failure of justice will have to be applied in such a case as laid down in Section 465 of CrPC.

(Para 12-18)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 211(6), 215 – Framing of charge – Language of court -- Even if the charge is not framed in the language of the Court, the omission to frame the charge in the language of the Court shall not be material unless it is shown that the accused was misled and it resulted in failure of justice.

(Para 14(a))

D. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 240, 272 -- Warrant case – Framing of charge – Language of court -- Charge shall be framed in writing and the learned Magistrate shall read over and explain the charge to the accused -- Though the Section does not make it mandatory, normally, the charge will be framed in the language of the Court determined in accordance with Section 272 of CrPC -- Therefore, if the accused is not conversant with the language in which the charge is framed, it is the duty of the Magistrate to explain the charge to the accused in a language which he understands.

(Para 14(c))

E. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 279 – Evidence – Language of court -- Where evidence is recorded in the language of the Court which is not understood by the accused or his pleader, there is an obligation on the part of the Court to explain the evidence to the accused or his lawyer, as the case may be.

(Para 14(g))

G. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 272 -- Language of court – Failure of justice -- If something which CrPC specifically requires to be done in the language of the Court is done in any other language, per se, the proceedings will not be vitiated unless it is established that the omission has resulted in failure of justice -- While deciding the issue of whether there is a failure of justice, the Court will have to consider whether the objection was raised at the earliest available opportunity.

(Para 17)

H. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 207, 208 – Supply of police report alongwith documents to accused – Language of documents --  An opportunity is available for the accused to contend that he does not understand the language in which the final report or the statements or documents are written -- But he must raise this objection at the earliest -- In such a case, if the accused is appearing in person and wants to defend himself, a requirement of supplying a translated version of the charge sheet and documents or the relevant part thereof concerning the said accused to him -- When the accused is represented by an advocate who fully understands the language of the final report or charge sheet, there will not be any requirement of furnishing translations to the accused as the advocate can explain the contents of the charge sheet to the accused -- If both the accused and his advocate are not conversant with the language in which the charge sheet has been filed, then the question of providing translation may arise -- Reason is that the accused must get a fair opportunity to defend himself -- He must know and understand the material against him in the charge sheet -- That is the essence of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

(Para 19)

I. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167, 173, 272 -- Police report not in language of court – Language not understandable to accused -- Default bail -- A charge sheet filed within the period provided either under Section 167 of CrPC or any other relevant statute in a language other than the language of the Court or the language which the accused does not understand, is not illegal and no one can claim a default bail on that ground.

(Para 19)

H. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 173, 272 -- Police report – Language of court -- Central agencies like the National Investigation Agency, Central Bureau of Investigation, etc. investigate serious offences or offences having wide ramifications -- Such central agencies, in every case will not be in a position to file the final report in the language of the concerned Court as determined by Section 272 of CrPC.

(Para 21)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 269, 270, 188, 341, 506 -- Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 (3 of 1897), Section 3 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Covid-19 FIR – Illegal mining – Visit by political person -- Quashing of FIR:

-- In a democratic country, if a well-established political person, on hearing serious complaints regarding any public issue, decides to verify the same by visiting the spot itself, it cannot be said that he intended to violate any promulgation issued by any government under Section 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 or Disaster Management Act, 2006.

-- Petitioner had gone on hearing the complaints of illegal mining was a riverbed, which was not at all habited, and the workers had fled away on noticing the presence of the petitioner -- No evidence that at any point in time, the petitioner was having any symptoms of COVID-19 infection -- No other evidence collected by the investigator against the petitioner, which may call for violation of Sections 269, 270, 188, 341, 506 IPC, and Section 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897.

Continuation of criminal proceedings shall amount to an abuse of the process of law, and the Court invokes its inherent jurisdiction u/s 482 CrPC and quashes the FIR and all subsequent proceedings -- Petition allowed.

(Para 12-22)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 341 – Wrongful restraint -- Visit by political person -- On noticing the presence of the petitioner/ accused on the spot, the workers of the complainant firm had voluntarily fled away -- Petitioner claims that he visited the spot to check the ground reality about the allegations of illicit mining in an environmentally susceptible riverbed area, on receiving significant complaints being the people’s representative, watcher, and mouthpiece -- There is no evidence about stopping sand-laden vehicles or the vehicles going to ferry the sand -- No case for prosecution u/s 341 IPC.

(Para 16, 17)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 341 – Illegal mining –Visit by political person -- Criminal intimidation -- Petitioner claims that his objective was to check and find out the ground reality of various complaints received by him -- But no threat was made by the petitioner to anybody -- Petitioner's conduct at the spot does not point out any criminal intimidation -- Invocation of Section 506 IPC is nothing but an abuse of the process of law.

(Para 18, 19)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 365, 302, 34, 201 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Murder – Regular bail -- Case is based on the circumstantial evidence and the two planks of the case are the extra judicial confession and the evidence of last seen -- Whether the said evidence is sufficient to inculpate the petitioners shall be adjudicated upon during the course of trial -- Recovery of the scooter of the deceased is shown from the co-accused – Petitioners are in custody since 25.03.2022 and 09.04.2022 respectively and none of the 30 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far, the trial of the present case is not likely to be concluded anytime soon -- Further incarceration of the petitioners is not required – Bail allowed.

(Para 7)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 307 – Attempt to murder – Simple injuries -- Merely because the injuries sustained by the complainant were very simple in nature, that would not absolve the appellant/accused from being convicted for the offence u/s 307 of the IPC -- What is important is an intention coupled with the overt act committed by the appellant/accused.

(Para 8)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 307 – Attempt to murder – Cogent evidence that the appellant/ accused had tried to assault the complainant with Gupti and on his head -- Though the complainant received injury on his right shoulder while avoiding blow on his head, from the blunt part of the Gupti, such an overt act on the part of the appellant/ accused would be covered by the offence punishable u/s 307 of the IPC.

(Para 8)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 399, 402 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25, 54, 59-A – Making preparation and assembly for committing dacoity -- Regular bail -- Parity in bail – Criminal antecedents – Recovery attributed to the petitioner is gandasi alongwith Rs.30,000/- -- Apart from the aforesaid fact, there is no distinguish feature and the allegations levelled -- Co-accused stand admitted to bail – Petitioner involved in two more cases -- Keeping in view the parity and the incarceration already suffered by the petitioner, bail allowed.

(Para 4-6)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Cheque bounce complaint – Retirement of partner – Public notice -- Quashing of summoning order and complaint -- Premises owned by the appellants was taken on rent by the respondent no.3/firm – Issuance of cheques for rent -- High Court quashed the summoning order and complaints against respondent no.1 accepting the plea that he had retired from the partnership firm – Held, plea not tenable, it would be a matter of evidence to be proved before the trial Court, as to whether any Retirement Deed was issued and a public notice concerning the same was issued, before the complaints were filed -- Not the case set up by the respondent no.1 that in the Partnership Deed he was a sleeping partner in the firm -- Retirement Deed could not be taken on its face value, and treated as clinching evidence to quash the complaints -- Order passed by High Court set aside -- Complaints revived.

(Para 14-21)

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(4), 482 -- Quashing of FIR u/s 174A – Cheque bounce complaint – Proclaimed offender – Quashing of FIR u/s 174A IPC -- Complaint u/s 138 of N.I.Act was for an offence other than aforesaid offences specified in sub section (4) of the section 82 of CR.P.C. – Order passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate declaring the petitioner a proclaimed offender was/ is not legal -- Said order is the basis of the registration of the FIR u/s 174A IPC against the petitioner and is, therefore, fatal to the FIR in question -- Moreover, petitioner already been acquitted by the trial Court -- Impugned FIR and all subsequent proceedings emanating therefrom are liable to be quashed -- FIR alongwith all consequential proceedings arising there from against the petitioner quashed.

(Para 2.3, 7.2-9)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 174A – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 195 – Constitution of India, Article 21 – FIR u/s 174A of IPC -- Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), in its present form, encompasses Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) within its purview.

(Para 12.13-12.16)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82 -- Proclaimed person/ Proclaimed offender – Procedure -- Courts meticulously adhere to the statutory requirements in letter and spirit both, duly reflecting their compliance on the record prior to pronouncing an individual as a proclaimed person or offender and invoking criminal liability.

(Para 13.1)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 174A – Proclaimed person/ Proclaimer offender – FIR u/s 174A IPC – Mandate of -- There is no mandatory prescription in the Code of Criminal Procedure requiring the Court to invariably initiate separate criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 174-A IPC in every instance where an individual fails to appear as summoned by way of proclamation -- Courts should act judiciously and exercise circumspection before embarking on the stringent path of instituting criminal proceedings u/s 174-A of IPC.

(Para 13.4)

D. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82 – Cheque bounce complaint -- Proclaimed person/ Proclaimer offender – FIR u/s 174A IPC – Order declaring the petitioner as proclaimed person is wholly silent as to when the proclamation u/s 82 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner was issued; what was the date specified therein for the petitioner to appear in Court; when the proclamation was actually published; whether it was publicly read in some conspicuous place of the town or village in which the petitioner ordinarily resided; whether it was affixed to some conspicuous part of the house or homestead in which the petitioner ordinarily resided or to some conspicuous place of such town or village; whether a copy thereof was also affixed to some conspicuous part of the court-house -- Further, the order does not contain a statement by the Court to the effect that the proclamation was duly published on a specified day and in the manner specified in clause (i) of Sub-Section (2) -- These facts were not even noticed in the order passed by the Court – Order is totally non-speaking and does not at all show that while passing it, the Court had applied its mind to the relevant facts and circumstances and taken any conscious decision that it was a fit case to invoke criminal liability of the petitioner for offence u/s 174-A of IPC -- It was/is cryptic, non-speaking and mechanical order sans any reasons or application of mind – Order declaring proclaimed person and FIR Quashed.

(Para 15-17)

E. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82 – Proclaimed person/ Proclaimed offender -- Guidelines framed:

Issuance of proclamation :

i. Preceding the issuance of the proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., the Court must deliberate upon its previous efforts to secure the presence of the through other legally permissible means. These efforts encompass the issuance of summons, the execution of bailable and/or non-bailable warrants against the accused. The Court must thoroughly document the results stemming from these endeavours, accompanied by pertinent facts and comprehensive details. It is incumbent upon the Court to satisfactorily ascertain that the individual in question has indeed absconded or is concealing himself to evade execution of warrant of arrest.

ii. The phrase "reason to believe," as articulated in Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, signifies that the Court must derive its belief from the available evidence and materials that the concerned person has absconded or is concealing himself to evade execution of warrant of arrest.

iii. Furthermore, in the proclamation, it must be set forth as to where and when the concerned individual must present himself. A designated location and time must be stipulated. Importantly, the specified date and time for appearance should not be less than a thirty-day from the date of publication of the proclamation.

Publication of proclamation–

iv. The publication of a proclamation, as outlined in Section 82(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, mandates adherence to all three prescribed modes, namely:

(a). The public reading of the proclamation in a conspicuous location within the town or village where the individual ordinarily resides.

(b). The affixation of the proclamation at a prominent spot at the individual's house or homestead.

(c). The display of the proclamation at a prominent location within the precincts of the court house.

v. All the aforesaid three modes of publication of a proclamation have to be adhered to. Failure to follow all or any of them renders the proclamation invalid in the eyes of the law. This is because the three sub-clauses (a) to (c) are mutually exclusive.

vi. If the Court so feels, in addition to the aforementioned trio of methods for securing the accused's presence, it may, at its discretion, also direct the publication of a copy of the proclamation in a daily newspaper circulating within the geographical area where the said individual ordinarily resides.

vii. If the Court, in its discretion orders publication of proclamation in newspaper, it shall also direct that the newspaper agency, upon the publication of the proclamation in the newspaper, shall dispatch a copy thereof to the accused's address, as is the procedure observed in civil matters, in terms of Order 5 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In essence, this supplementary measure ensures that the accused is duly apprised of the legal proceedings against him.

Declaration as “proclaimed person” or “proclaimed offender:

viii. Prior to the declaration of the concerned individual as a "proclaimed person" or "proclaimed offender," the Court shall pass a speaking order stating relevant facts and record its satisfaction that the proclamation has been duly and properly published in the prescribed manner.

ix. Furthermore, it must ensure that a period of not less than thirty days has expired between the date of publication of the proclamation and the date indicated in the proclamation for the individual's appearance. If the interval between the proclamation's publication and the date specified therein for appearance falls short of thirty days, such a publication of the proclamation cannot serve as the foundation for designating the individual in question as a "proclaimed person" or "proclaimed offender."

x. A person can be declared “Proclaimed offender” only where the proclamation published under sub-section (1) of section 82 Cr.P.C. is in respect of any of the offences as per table given below :-

xi. If person accused of the above offences fails to appear at the specified place and time required by the proclamation, the Court may, after making such inquiry as it thinks fit, pronounce him a proclaimed offender and make a declaration to that effect.

xii. In all other alleged offences, the concerned person can and shall be declared as a “proclaimed person”.

Invoking criminal liability for the offence under section 174-A of IPC:

xiii. It is imperative to bear in mind that the primary purpose behind the issuance and publication of proclamations under Section 82, as well as the attachment and sale of an individual's property, is the securing/compelling the appearance of the concerned person, to facilitate the expeditious trial of criminal cases by obviating the often protracted delays which impede their disposal.

xiv. It is noteworthy that the Code of Criminal Procedure does not prescribe an automatic or obligatory invocation of further criminal liability under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code, in every case where an individual fails to appear pursuant to he being declared as ‘proclaimed person’ or ‘proclaimed offender’ after the publication of the proclamation under subsection (1) of Section 82 of the Code.

xv. Consequently, it follows that even subsequent to the formal declaration of an individual as a "proclaimed person" or "proclaimed offender," the Court still retains the discretion to determine whether it is judicious to initiate the rigorous criminal proceedings under Section 174-A of the IPC, being mindful that the offence carries a punishment of imprisonment for up to seven years, coupled with a fine.

xvi. In arriving at such a pivotal decision, the Court should exercise due circumspection, once more apply its mind to the facts and circumstances of each case considering the majesty of law vis-a-vis the nature and gravity of the offence that triggered the publication of the proclamation under subsection (1) of Section 82 of the Cr.P.C.; the potential impact of said offence on the victim or society at large; steps, if any, taken for the attachment and sale of property of the person concerned and the result thereof; the stage/status of the ongoing trial, any mitigating factors that may favor the proclaimed person or offender, and conversely, any aggravating factors against them. It is thereafter, that the Court should pass a speaking and reasoned order for initiating criminal proceedings against the proclaimed person or offender for the offense under Section 174-A of the IPC.

xvii. Once the Court decides to proceed against the petitioner for an offence under Section 174-A of the IPC, it is imperative to institute a formal written complaint in the competent jurisdictional court. This imperative arises from the prevailing provision of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which mandates that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate.

(Para 19)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 120-B, 406, 420 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Cheating – Regular Bail -- Investigation complete qua petitioner, he is not required for custodial interrogation – Out of 126 prosecution witnesses none has been examined till date -- Commencement/conclusion of the trial likely to take time -- Petitioner has already been languishing in jail for the last more than 07 months in preventive custody – Bail allowed.

(Para 6-10)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 468 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 65 -- Forgery -- Secondary evidence -- To establish forgery it is imperative that the original document is produced or the existence and the destruction of the same is proved beyond doubt -- In the alternative, the party which wishes to lead secondary evidence with respect to the document must prove that it cannot possibly possess the primary original document as the same is in possession of the opposite party -- Original agreement to sell on which the complainants allegedly forged signatures had been affixed not brought on record but the complainant has also not been able to prove that the original had ever been executed but was in possession of the opposite party or had been destroyed -- Offence of forgery not made out.

(Para 12)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 200, 202(1) -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 120-B, 406, 420, 34 –  Cognizance on complaint -- Accused residing beyond jurisdiction -- 7 witnesses recorded before framing of charge -- Respondents-accused raised an objection that some of the accused were residing at a place beyond the area covered by the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate, the mandatory requirement of Section 202(1) of CRPC was not followed – High Court proceeded to quash the order issuing summons and remanded the complaint to the learned Magistrate to deal with the same from the stage of Section 202 of the CRPC – Considering the mandatory nature of 202(1) of the CRPC, non-compliance will result into failure of justice -- No error in the impugned order -- Special Leave Petition dismissed.

(Para 2-5)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 200, 202 (1) – Cognizance on complaint -- Accused residing beyond jurisdiction – Nature of Section 202(1) Cr.P.C -- In view of the use of word "shall" in sub-section 1 of Section 202 of the CRPC and the object of amendment made by the Act No. 25 of 2005, the provision will have to be held as mandatory in a case where the accused is residing at a place outside the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate.

(Para 4)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 384, 420 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Extortion – Anticipatory bail -- Petitioner and complainant were earlier having live-in-relation for a period of 8 years before married with each other -- FIR was got lodged by alleging that an amount of Rs.20,000/- was extorted by the petitioner from the complainant, who is her own husband, on the ground of pictures pertaining to the aborted fetus – Dispute appears to be a matrimonial dispute, subject matter of the present extortion money is only Rs.20,000/- -- It will not be in the interest of justice that the petitioner is to be arrested for custodial investigation especially when she is a lady of the age of 32 years -- Anticipatory bail allowed.

(Para 7-10)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 477-A, 468, 424, 420, 409, 405, 34, 120A -- Haryana Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishment Act, 2013 (32 of 2014), Section 3 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – 12 crores of investors duped -- Regular bail -- Co-accused, specifically named in the FIR and whose case is admittedly on parity with the petitioner, has already been allowed bail after noticing that he was in custody for 02 years, 11 months and 25 days -- Petitioner in custody for the last more than 02 years and 06 months -- Out of 66 witnesses cited by the prosecution, only five have been examined so far and thus, it is apparent that trial is likely to be conclude in long time -- Petitioner admitted to bail.

(Para 8-11)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 202 -- Cheque bounce complaint -- Accused residing beyond jurisdiction – Enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C -- High Court set aside the order issuing process for non-compliance with the mandate of Section 202 of the CRPC, however no further direction was issued to the learned Judicial Magistrate to hold an inquiry u/s 202 of the CRPC -- Impugned judgment modified, Trial Court directed to proceed from the stage of Section 202 of the Cr.PC – While doing so, the learned Magistrate will be guided by the direction issued by the Constitution Bench, Re : Expeditious Trial of Cases Under Section 138 of N.I.Act, 1881, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 325 = 2021(2) L.A.R. 366 = (2021) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 16184, clause (3) of paragraph 24. "3) For the conduct of inquiry under Section 202 of the Code, evidence of witnesses on behalf of the complainant shall be permitted to be taken on affidavit. In suitable cases, the Magistrate can restrict the inquiry to examination of documents without insisting for examination of witnesses."

(Para 3-5)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 311, 311A – Cheque bounce complaint -- Expert evidence in rebuttal -- Respondent/ accused disputed his signatures on the cheque from the very beginning -- If the complainant knowing fully well that the accused has denied his signatures on the cheque, did not choose to examine an expert, he cannot be permitted to examine such expert by way of rebuttal to defence evidence – Application dismissed by Trial court – Order upheld.

(Para 1, 8-10)

Insecticides Act, 1968 (46 of 1968), Section 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 29, 33 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Misbranding of insecticide -- Proceedings after 3 years -- Quashing of complaint against Dealer – Proceedings qua the manufacturing company and its responsible officers etc., already stand quashed on the grounds that the complaint had been instituted more than 03 years after laboratory report had been received -- No useful purpose would be served by allowing the present proceedings to continue --  Petition allowed – Complaint, summoning order and all consequential proceedings quashed.

(Para 7)

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6 – POCSO case -- Sodomy with minor boy – Acquittal -- Blood group of accused matched with the semen found on underwear of victim -- Affirmative incriminatory opinion recorded against the accused – Held, existence of semen stains on the underwear of the victim-boy, did require that the blood group of the victim also being collected by the investigating officer – In the event similarity of blood group of the accused and the victim conclusion would become sparked from the DNA specialist – Investigating officer did not collect the blood sample of the victim -- Resultantly, the opinion would beget thereto an exculpatory effect -- No apposite DNA profiling made – Benefit of doubt is to be accorded to the appellant-convict -- Victim completely resiling from his statements – Appeal allowed, convicting and sentence set aside -- Appellant acquitted.

(Para 17-19)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 91, 92, 482 – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22(c), 29, 61, 85 -- NDPS case – Procuring Tower location and call details of mobile -- Prosecution alleges the apprehension of the petitioner on 10.10.2021, whereas petitioner contends that he had been arrested on 09.10.2021 at about 8 PM -- Prosecution alleges that petitioner had been arrested from main highway Rajpura, Sirhind; whereas petitioner contends that he was abducted by the police from near his house at Delhi -- Direction given that tower location and call details of the mobile of the petitioner be preserved for the period 09.10.2021 to 11.10.2021 and the same be produced in the Court and the copy thereof be also provided to the petitioner.

(Para 7-10)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 120-B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Regular bail -- Duped the complainant and 300 other persons of a huge amount of Rs.50 Crore -- Challan presented and charges were framed  -- Out of 317 prosecution witnesses only ten have been examined till date --  Trial is likely to take quite some time -- Petitioner has already been languishing in jail for more than 02 years and seven months in preventive custody – Offence allegedly committed by petitioner is of non-violent nature -- Petitioner is 64-year old, senior citizen, a family person and only bread winner of his family – Co-accused granted bail -- Petition allowed.

(Para 4-11)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 (31 of 2016), Section 14 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Cheque bounce complaint – Quashing petition -- Whether during the pendency of the proceedings under the IBC, the proceedings under the Negotiable Instrument Act can continue simultaneously or not – Recovery proceedings barred u/s 14 of the IBC are primarily civil in nature, whereas the proceedings u/s 138 of the NI Act are criminal in nature, and both have a different set of purpose -- By operation of the provisions of the IBC, the criminal prosecution initiated against the natural persons u/s 138 read with 141 of the NI Act would not stand terminated – Quashing petition dismissed.

(Para 6-10)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 295, 295A -- Hurting religious feeling – Anticipatory bail -- Petitioner attempted to hurt the religious feelings of a particular community -- Said utterances were made in the State of Rajasthan -- No other case against the petitioner – Petition allowed.

(Para 5, 6)

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Section 15, 18(3) – Trial of juvenile as adult – J.J. Board ordered to treat accused-juvenile as adult -- No Child Psychologist was consulted and so far as the two members are concerned, one of the member is M.A History and the another member is B.A. M.S. – In view of the report sent by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board that none of the Members or even the Presiding Officer was conversant with the child psychology or child psychiatry etc. – Impugned order set aside, matter remanded back to the Juvenile Justice Board for fresh consideration.

(Para 6-8)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 397, 401 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Conviction in cheque bounce complaint -- Criminal Revision – Absence of counsel/ party – Revision dismissed without consideration on merit – Held, even in the absence of a party or his counsel, a revision petition calls for consideration on merits in accordance with the parameters for consideration of a revision petition – Matter remanded to be considered anew -- Interim bail granted would continue to remain in force and would be subject to the outcome of the revision petition.

(Para 6-8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 182 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 195 – False complaint – Kalandra u/s 182 Cr.P.C – Quashing of Kalandra -- Complaint to the Superintendent of Police which was entrusted to DSP, who found the complaint to be false – SHO lodged the impugned Kalandra u/s 182 IPC before the Magistrate – Held, impugned Kalandra/ complaint is not maintainable being a clear violation of the provisions contained in Section 195 Cr.P.C. – Superintendent of Police or any officer superior to him could have filed the Kalandra u/s 182 IPC – Continuation of proceedings on such Kalandra/ complaint is sheer abuse of process of law – Impugned Kalandra/ DDE u/s 182 IPC and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom quashed.

(Para 8-14)

A. Abkari Act, Section 8  -- Investigation officer -- Simply because the person who detected the commission of the offence, is the one who filed the report or investigated, such an investigation cannot be said to be bad in law.

(Para 21)

B. Abkari Act, Section 8  -- Police official witnesses – No independent witness -- Law is well settled that if the evidence of a police officer is found to be reliable, trustworthy then basing the conviction thereupon, cannot be questioned, and the same shall stand on firm ground -- Testimonies of official witnesses can nay be discarded simply because independent witnesses were not examined.

(Para 22-26)

C. Abkari Act, Section 8  -- Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Delay in producing Contraband before the Magistrate – Day after the arrest of the Appellant, 2nd October, 2003 was a holiday and therefore the contraband seized was, upon directions produced before the concerned Magistrate on the next working day, that being, 3 October 2003 -- This being the uncontroverted position, the production of the seized Arrack cannot be said to be delayed.

(Para 27)

D. Abkari Act, Section 8  -- Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Delay in completion of investigation – Mere urging that delay casts a suspicion on the investigation, without any evidence being led in furtherance thereof, cannot be sustained -- Inordinate delay has been taken as presumptive proof of prejudice, but in particular cases where the accused is in custody -- Accused was released on bail on 21st October 2003 -- Hence, the presumption of prejudice will not apply in the instant facts.

(Para 28-30)

E. Abkari Act, Section 8  -- Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Dealy in investigation/ trial – Sentence reduced to 3 months -- Considering the facts that the offence in question is dated 1st October 2003; the final report after delayed investigation was submitted on 17th April 2006, appellant was convicted on 3rd November 2008, and that more than 20 years have passed since the commission of the offence, sentence modified, appellant to serve a period of three months, simple imprisonment.

(Para 31-33)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 406, 420, 467, 468, 471  -- Haryana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (19 of 2017), Section 132(1)(B)(C) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Creating false and bogus companies for extracting GST amount -- Habitual offender – Regular bail -- Bail to a petitioner cannot be denied solely on the ground that several other cases are pending against him, even though, he has been able to make out a case for grant of bail in the facts of the present case -- Petitioner has already undergone more than 01 year and 11 months of the custody and the trial is at an initial stage – Bail allowed.

(Para 6-9)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319 – Summoning of additional accused – Court has wide powers to summon a person as an additional who has been exonerated by the Investigating Agency, if it finds that there is sufficient evidence available against the said person in order to try him along with the accused already facing trial -- However, there is no compelling duty to summon an accused – Discretionary power so conferred should only be exercised to achieve justice and must be based on the quality of evidence collected.

(Para 12)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319 – Summoning of additional accused – Court being the sole repository of justice, there is a duty cast upon it to uphold the law and ensure that the real accused should not get away by manipulating the Investigating Agency/Prosecuting Agency -- What the Court needs to examine while adjudicating upon an application u/s 319 Cr.P.C. is that there should be evidence available on the file in the shape of oral evidence or documentary evidence in order to invoke its powers to summon an additional accused u/s 319 Cr.P.C.

(Para 12)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 , 34 – Murder -- Summoning of additional accused – Hearsay evidence -- When the FIR was registered, no reference was made of the nephews disclosing to the petitioner that their mother had been assaulted – Deposition of the petitioner that he had been told by his nephews about the assault on their mother at the instance of the father and the grand-mother would amount to ‘hear say’ evidence and thus, inadmissible -- No admissible evidence available on the record to summon the respondent No.2 as an additional accused to face trial alongwith the charge-sheeted accused – Application dismissed by Trial court – Order upheld.

(Para 1, 13)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 -- Murder – Cognizable offence -- Registration of FIR -- Deceased, brother of the appellant was severely beaten and brutally assaulted by the accused and he succumbed to injuries -- Thereafter, the appellant and others had gone to the concerned police station to register the crime, however the same was not registered -- Appellant thereafter submitted the complaints to the concerned respondents however no action was taken to register the complaint – Held, in view of the decision rendered by the Constitution Bench in Lalita Kumari’s case (2014) 2 SCC 1, registration of FIR is mandatory u/s 154 of CrPC, if the information discloses commission of cognizable offence -- Appeal allowed and direction given to concerned respondents to proceed further with the complaints filed by the appellant in accordance with law.

(Para 3-7)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154 – Cognizable offence – Registration of FIR – Summary of law rendered by Constitution Bench in Lalita Kumari’s case (2014) 2 SCC 1 reiterated –

“120.1. The registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation.]

120.2. If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not.

120.3 If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first informant forthwith and not later than one week. It must disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further.

120.4 The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR if information received by him discloses a cognizable offence.

120.5 The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence.

120.6 As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under:

(a) Matrimonial disputes/ family disputes

(b) Commercial offences

(c) Medical negligence cases

(d) Corruption cases

(e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay.

The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry.

120.7 While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused and the complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be made time bound and, in any case, it should not exceed 7 days. The fact of such delay and the causes of it must be reflected in the General Diary entry.

120.8 Since the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is the record of all information received in a police station, we direct that all information relating to cognizable offences, whether resulting in registration of FIR or leading to an inquiry, must be mandatorily and meticulously reflected in the said Diary and the decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry must also be reflected, as mentioned above.”

(Para 5)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 195A, 386 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Threat to withdraw FIR – Extortion -- Quashing of FIR -- To give threat to a person to withdraw a complaint or FIR or settle the dispute would not attract Section 195A of the IPC -- Nowhere the first informant has stated that out of fear, she paid Rs. 10 Lakh to the accused persons – No offence under Section 386 of the IPC can be said to have been made out -- FIR quashed.

(Para 16, 24-26)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 191, 195A – False evidence -- The word “false” in Section 195A should be read in the context with what has been explained in Section 191 of the IPC which falls in Chapter XI – of False Evidence and Offences Against Public Justice.

(Para 16)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 383, 386 – Extortion -- One of the necessary ingredients of the offence of extortion is that the victim must be induced to deliver to any person any property or valuable security, etc. -- Delivery of the property must be with consent which has been obtained by putting the person in fear of any injury -- Forcibly taking any property will not come under this definition -- Nothing to indicate that there was actual delivery of possession of property (money) by the person put in fear -- In the absence of anything to even remotely suggest that the first informant parted with a particular amount after being put to fear of any injury, no offence under Section 386 of the IPC can be said to have been made out.

(Para 22-24)

D. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Constitution of India, Article 226 – Inherent powers of Court – Quashing of FIR -- Once the complainant decides to proceed against the accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance, etc., then he would ensure that the FIR/ complaint is very well drafted with all the necessary pleadings -- Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/ registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation.

(Para 26)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 194, 195, 199, 200, 120-B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Murder – Regular bail -- Two material witnesses examined and have not supported the prosecution case -- Whether the remaining evidence is sufficient to inculpate the petitioner and his co-accused shall be adjudicated upon during the course of the Trial – Petitioner in custody since 15.10.2021 and only 08 out of 36 prosecution witnesses have been examined – Bail allowed.

(Para 6-7)

A. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 9 -- Test Identification Parade (TIP) -- If the accused are already shown to the witnesses in the Police Station, then the sanctity of TIP before the court is doubtful.

(Para 13)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 34 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 9, 106 -- Circumstantial evidence – Appellants already shown to the witnesses in the Police Station, then the sanctity of TIP before the court is doubtful -- Call Detail Records (CDRs) of the mobile used by the accused to show that their location was at the place of incident -- Mobile numbers alleged to have been used by accused is not in his name but one person resident of Kanpur -- No evidence placed on record to show as to how the said SIM came to be in possession of the accused – Apart from that, if at the time of the incident both accused were at the same place and according to the prosecution inside the house of the deceased, and they were talking to each other on telephone, this itself creates a doubt on the prosecution version -- Evidence with regard to last seen theory is totally unreliable -- Appellants acquitted.

(Para 14, 15, 22)

C. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 106 -- Guilt of accused – Circumstantial evidence -- Circumstances concerned “must or should” and not “may be” established -- Facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty -- Circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one sought to be proved, and that there must be a chain of evidence so complete so as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused -- It is a settled principle of law that however strong a suspicion may be, it cannot take place of a proof beyond reasonable doubt.

(Para 18, 19)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 161, 482 – Quashing of Proceedings – Inherent power u/s 482 Cr.P.C – Trustworthy of witness -- Whether the testimony of the witnesses is trustworthy or not has to be found out from the examination-in-chief and the cross-examination of the witnesses when they stand in the box at the stage of  trial – Held, such an exercise, is not permissible while exercising the jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.P.C.

(Para 5, 6)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 161, 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 – Murder – Quashing of proceedings -- Inherent power u/s 482 Cr.P.C – Trustworthy of witness -- Scope of interference, while quashing the proceedings u/s 482 Cr.P.C. and that too for a serious offence like Section 302 of IPC is very limited -- High Court has almost conducted a mini trial and quashed the proceedings -- High Court has elaborately discussed the statements of the witnesses recorded u/s 161 of the Cr.P.C. -- It is not permissible for the High Court to go into the correctness or otherwise of the material placed by the prosecution in the chargesheet -- Order passed by the High Court set aside.

(Para 4-10)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 153, 153-A, 212, 216, 120-B -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25 – Regular bail – Allegation that petitioner alongwith other unknown persons was illegally supplying arms and ammunitions and funding separatists with an intent to create disturbance in the name of religion, at the instance of Pakistani Agency ISI and, to target the leaders of religious organizations and political leaders to disturb peace and tranquility in Punjab – Petitioner is in preventive custody for past more than 11 months -- Petitioner is a 23-year old young student, was aspirant to study further in Canada, where he had though secured admission, but was apprehended at the airport when he was leaving from India -- He has already done his food course from the Food Craft Institute and also worked for the Taj group at the Taj Hotel Resorts and Palaces -- No probability of tampering with evidence as the same has already been seized by the investigating agency -- Co-accused of the petitioner have been granted concession of bail -- Petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 6-11)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 397, 401 – Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (20 of 1958), Section 4, 5 -- Conviction u/s 452, 324, 323, 506 IPC – Accused released on probation – Probation period already stands expired -- Compensation as ordered by the Appellate Court already stand deposited – Held, nothing survives in the criminal revision, dismissed.

(Para 1-4)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 306 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Abetment to suicide – Regular bail -- Petitioner is a lady of the age of 33 years having two minor children -- Petitioner was married to the deceased – Although the allegations have been levelled against the petitioner not only in the FIR but also so stated in the suicide note but these are to be seen only at the time of adducing evidence -- Incarceration of the petitioner is more than 6 months – Petition allowed.

(Para 5-7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 333, 353, 451 – Deter public servant to discharge his duty -- Caused fracture in little right finger – House trespass -- Appellant held guilty of the offences punishable u/s 333, 353 and 451 of the IPC – Leniency in sentence shown considering the facts and circumstances that:

a. For espousing the cause of the labourers, the appellant visited the office of the Directorate;

b. Evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 (a peon working in the Office of the Commissioner) indicated that the appellant had sent a slip of her name to PW-6 which was kept on the table of PW-6 as she wanted to meet him. After waiting for a considerable time, as she was not allowed to meet PW-6, she forced her entry to his cabin and complained that she was made to wait;

c. PW-1 admitted that the appellant was not annoyed with her. She stated that the appellant did not indulge in any scuffle with her. When she tried to stop the appellant, she was pushed by the appellant and that is how she received injury to her little right finger;

d. The incident is more than thirty years old;

e. During the last thirty and a half years, when the trial and appeal were pending, the appellant was all throughout on bail. Even in this appeal, an exemption has been granted to her from the requirement of surrendering;

f. During this long period of more than 30 long years, there was no allegation of any objectionable activity by her; and

g. The appellant is a female whose present age is 62 years.

appellant sentenced to simple imprisonment for one month and fine of Rs.30,000/- for the offence u/s 333 IPC, fine of Rs.20,000/- u/s 353 IPC and sentence for one month and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/ u/s 451 IPC -- Substantive sentences ordered to run concurrently.

(Para 5-10)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 323, 504, 506 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Trivial nature of offence -- Long pendency of trial -- Quashing of Chargesheet -- Considering the nature of allegations which are of very trivial nature and considering the fact that there is no progress made in the proceedings since the chargesheet was filed in the year 2015, continuing the proceedings would be a persecution and harassment to the appellant -- Proceedings pending in the court of CJM against the appellant quashed and set aside.

(Para 3-7)

A. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 19 -- Corruption case – Sanction for prosecution – Validity of -- Stages of proceedings at which an accused could raise the issue with regard to the validity of the sanction would be the stage when the Court takes cognizance of the offence, the stage when the charge is to be framed by the Court or at the stage when the trial is complete i.e., at the stage of final arguments in the trial -- Such issue of course, could be raised before the Court in appeal, revision or confirmation, however the powers of such court would be subject to sub-section (3) and sub-section (4) of Section 19 of the said Act.

(Para 10)

B. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 19 -- Corruption case – Sanction for prosecution – Validity of -- Competence of the court trying the accused would be dependent upon the existence of the validity of sanction, and therefore it is always desirable to raise the issue of validity of sanction at the earliest point of time -- In case the sanction is found to be invalid, the trial court can discharge the accused and relegate the parties to a stage where the competent authority may grant a fresh sanction for the prosecution in accordance with the law.

(Para 10)

C. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 19 -- Corruption case – Sanction for prosecution from Superior authority – Validity of – Challenge to -- Special Judge, while dismissing the third application filed by the respondent seeking discharge after examination of 17 witnesses by the prosecution, specifically held that the sanction accorded by the government which was a superior authority to the Karnataka Water Supply Board, of which the respondent was an employee, was proper and valid -- Such findings recorded by the Special Judge could not have been and should not have been reversed or altered by the High Court in the petition filed by the respondent challenging the said order of the Special Judge, in view of the specific bar contained in sub-section (3) of Section 19, and that too without recording any opinion as to how a failure of justice had in fact been occasioned to the respondent-accused as contemplated in the said sub-section (3).

(Para 14)

D. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 19 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 227 -- Corruption case – Sanction for prosecution -- Discharge of accused -- Interlocutory application seeking discharge in the midst of trial would not be maintainable -- Once the cognizance was taken by the Special Judge and the charge was framed against the accused, the trial could neither have been stayed nor scuttled in the midst of it in view of Section 19(3) of the said Act -- Issue of validity of sanction was raised at the earlier point of time, the same was not pressed for -- Only stage open to the accused in that situation was to raise the said issue at the final arguments in the trial in accordance with law.

(Para 15)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 17 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – NDPS case – Regular  bail – Recovery of 1.5 kg of opium -- Custody 3 months and 3 days -- Petitioner on interim bail since 29.09.2022, not misused the liberty granted; not involved in any other case under NDPS Act; challan was presented on 20.08.2022, however, charges have not yet been framed and in all there are 16 witnesses -- Trial is likely to take a considerable time, thus his further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose -- Regular bail allowed.

(Para 2, 6, 7)

A. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 25, 35 – NDPS case – Transportation of poppy husk -- Punishment for allowing vehicle -- Presumption of culpable mental state -- Crucial words used in section 25 are “knowingly permits it to be used for the commission of the offense by any other persons.” -- Intent of Section 25 and Section 35 is parametria the same but carves a special role upon the investigation while proving an offense u/s 25 of the NDPS Act because of the usage of the word “knowingly.” -- Thus, the presumption u/s 35 of the NDPS Act is similar to the intent of Section 25 of the NDPS Act, and as such, Section 35 of the NDPS Act would not dilute the burden that the Legislature had put upon the investigator in section 25 of the NDPS Act – Held, presumption u/s 35 of the NDPS Act would not apply in the case u/s 25 of the NDPS Act if there is not even an iota of evidence regarding knowingly permitting the usage of the things mentioned in Section 35 of the NDPS Act for the commission of the offence.

(Para 13)

B. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 25, 35 – NDPS case – Transportation of poppy husk – No evidence that the appellant knew about the other two convicts transporting the poppy husk in his tractor trolly or that he had permitted them to do so for this purpose -- Essential requirements to prove knowledge are missing -- Impugned judgment convicting the appellant u/s 25 of the NDPS Act is not in consonance with the law -- Appeal allowed, appellant acquitted.

(Para 14)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 499, 500, 52 – Complaint to SDM -- Defamation – Good faith -- Whether the allegations made in the complaint addressed to the SDM make out the offence u/s 500 IPC or not? – Held, no case is made out to put the appellant to trial for the alleged offence -- No defamation as such -- Exception 8 to Section 499 clearly indicates that it is not a defamation to prefer in good faith an accusation against any person to any of those who have lawful authority over that person with regard to the subject-matter of accusation.

(Para 15, 16)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 190 -- Cheque bounce complaint – Amendment/ correction w.r.t. to cheque number in complaint -- Typographical error, which originated from the legal notice, was indeed unintentional -- Application to correct the cheque numbers approved -- Proceedings shall continue based on the corrected cheque numbers, which are already on record before the trial court for further proceedings in the trial -- Proceedings shall commence from the same stage.

(Para 9-11)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 489-A, 489-B, 489-C, 489-D, 120-B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Counterfeited currency – Regular  bail -- Petitioner in preventive custody merely on an unfounded suspicion that if he is let out, he may either tamper with evidence and/or influence witnesses -- Offence allegedly committed by petitioner is of non-violent nature and in that sense his release on bail is not a threat to society at large by committing any violent crime – Bail allowed.

(Para 7-13)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 304 Part-I – Murder -- Culpable homicide not amounting to murder -- Father of PW-1 refused to provide Rs.500/- for NCC Camp -- PW-1 narrated the said incident to her mother, who asked father to give the said amount, even then, the father did not provide the said amount -- Thereafter, a quarrel started between father and mother – Mother gave blows with a stick on the head and legs of her father, he sustained injuries, which led to his death -- Stick by no means, can be called a deadly weapon -- Possibility of the appellant causing the death of the deceased while being deprived of the power of self-control, due to the provocation on account of the deceased not agreeing to pay Rs.500/- to PW-1, cannot be ruled out – Appellant held entitled to benefit of doubt, inasmuch as the offence committed shall fall under Exception I of Section 300 IPC -- Appeal allowed, conviction of the appellant altered from Section 302 of the IPC to Part-I of Section 304 of the IPC.

(Para 12-16)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 -- Murder – Acquittal – Non-examination of Viscera – Consumption of tranquillizer -- Post-mortem report refrains to give any opinion about the cause of demise on the premise that the report of the chemical examiner upon the viscera of the deceased is awaited – Non-making of examination(s) thereof, cannot lead to an opinion, that the deceased had died on account of his either voluntary consuming or becoming forcibly administered rather any tranquillizer -- When no candid material exist(s) on record suggestive about the cause of demise of the deceased, irrespective of the fact that the body of the deceased was found in the premises of the convict-appellant,  no conclusion can be made that the convict-appellant had any incriminatory role in the demise of the deceased -- Appellant acquitted.

(Para 19, 29)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 -- Murder – Acquittal – Report of the pathologist – Report states that the condition of the lungs of the deceased showed mild congestion and the said fact is also spoken by PW-16 in his cross-examination -- Cause of demise of the deceased was owing to a lung infection, which may have remained untreated -- Consequently, the demise of the deceased appears to be natural than homicidal -- Appellant acquitted.

(Para 21, 29)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 211 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 326 -- Charge – Grievous hurt -- Injury resulted into avulsion fracture, completely severing the digital phalanx of the two fingers of the complainant -- Specific allegation in the FIR that weapon used was iron rod having sharp edge -- Injury is grievous in nature -- No reason for the Trial Court to decline the application for addition of Section 326 IPC -- Impugned order set aside -- Trial Court directed to frame charge u/s 326 IPC as well.

(Para 13-15)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 211, 216 – Charge – Alteration of charge -- Prima facie case -- Charge can be altered as per Section 216 Cr.P.C. at any stage before pronouncement of judgment -- Only prima facie case is to be seen at the stage – Charge should be as wide as possible – Ultimately, if offence of lessor gravity is found to have been committed comparing to the offence charged, conviction can be recorded accordingly -- However, if on conclusion of trial, graver offence is found to have been committed as compared to the offence charged, then de novo trial may have to be ordered depending upon the circumstances.

(Para 14)