A. Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (37 of 1967), Section 18, 19, 20, 39, 43D(5) – Explosive Substances Act, 1908 (6 of 1908), Section 4, 5 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 120-B, 302 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Murder – Offence under UAPA – Regular bail – No reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations against the appellants of commission of offence under the UAPA are prime facie true -- Hence, the embargo on the grant of bail under proviso to sub-section (5) of Section 43D will not apply in the case -- Charge not framed, prosecution proposes to examine more than 140 witnesses -- Some of the accused are absconding -- Thus, no possibility of the trial commencing in the near future – Special Judge directed to release the appellants on bail on appropriate conditions determined by him after hearing the appellants and respondent.

(Para 21)

B. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 25, 27 – Confession – Discovery of fact – Section 27 of the Evidence Act is an exception to the general rule under Section 25 that a confession made by an accused to a police officer is not admissible in evidence -- The first condition for the applicability of Section 27 is that the information given by the accused must lead to the discovery of the fact, which is the direct outcome of such information -- Only such portion of the information given as is distinctly connected with the said discovery is admissible against the accused.

(Para 14)

A. Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (37 of 1954), Section 19(2) – Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, Rule 12A -- Adulterated food – Misbranded article -- Vendor shall not be deemed to have committed an offence pertaining to the sale of any adulterated or misbranded article of food if he proves that he purchased the article of food from any manufacturer, distributor or dealer with a written warranty in prescribed form -- Appellant sold the article of food after purchasing the same from the manufacturer through the invoices which contained the warranty as prescribed under the Act and the Rules Hence, he had the protection available under Section 19(2)(a) of the Act.

(Para 13, 15)

B. Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (37 of 1954), Section 19(2) – Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, Rule 12A – Warranty in writing – Adulteration of food -- A conjoint reading of Section 14, Rule 12A and Form VIA provides that no manufacturer or distributor or a dealer of any food article shall sell such article to any vendor unless he has given a warranty in writing in the prescribed form regarding nature and quality of such articles to the vendor -- Even a bill, cash memo or invoice in respect of sale of any article given by the manufacturer or distributor or dealer shall be deemed to be a warranty given by such manufacturer, distributor or dealer.

(Para 11)

A. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 464 -- Failure to frame charge u/s 7 of PC Act -- Appellant had clearly understood the prosecution case about the first alleged demand made and the subsequent alleged demand and acceptance – This is a case of omission to frame a proper charge, and whatever charge has been framed is, per se defective -- However, by reason of the said omission or defect, the accused was not prejudiced insofar as his right to defend is concerned -- Therefore, the omission to frame charge and/or error in framing charge is not fatal.

(Para 15)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 464 -- Failure to Frame a Proper Charge – Omission to frame a charge or any error in charge is never fatal unless, in the opinion of the Court, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby.

(Para 15)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 307 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 228 -- Attempt to murder -- Framing of charge -- While framing charge u/s 307 of IPC, what the Court has to see is whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in this section and It is sufficient in law, if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof.

(Para 6)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 307 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 228 -- Attempt to murder – Head injury -- Blow of sharp-edged weapon -- Proof of grievous or life-threatening hurt is not a sine qua non for the offence u/s 307 of the IPC and intention of the accused can be ascertained from the actual injury, if any, as well as from the surrounding circumstances -- Injury on the vital part of the body and among other things, considering the nature of the weapon used and the severity of the blow inflicted, prima-facie case u/s 307 IPC is made out.

(Para 6)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 151, Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 -- Electricity Act, 2003 (36 of 2003), Section 126, 127, 135 -- Theft of electricity – Ad-interim injunction for electricity connection -- Suit for mandatory injunction seeking new electricity connection – Arguments qua theft in abstract are admissible only when the theft has been proved by any competent Court below -- Merely, registration of an FIR does not amount to any conclusive proof of the theft, as has been pleaded – Application allowed by Trial court affirmed in appeal – Held, orders passed by ld. Courts below being interim in nature are subject to outcome of the trial, no grounds to interfere.

-- electricity being a basic requirement, cannot be deprived to a consumer when allegations qua his being an erring party are yet to be adjudicated.

-- balance of convenience, at this stage, is in favour of consumer and no irreparable loss would be caused as the outstanding dues, needless to say, will be recoverable from the consumer, in case the same are found admissible as per claim of petitioner-Nigam.

(Para 1-4)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378 – Appeal against acquittal -- There is double presumption of innocence in favour of the respondent-accused -- Initial presumption of innocence is on account of the basic principle of criminal law that an accused is presumed to be innocent till proven guilty -- Secondly, said presumption is reinforced by the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court after trial based on the evidence – In these circumstances, onus is heavy on the petitioner/ complainant to show the illegality or impropriety of the finding recorded by the trial Court.

(Para 7)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 405 – Criminal breach of trust – Following ingredients must be proved to constitute the offence of criminal breach of trust –

(A) entrusting a person with property or with any dominion over property;

(B) that the person entrusted (a) dishonestly misappropriated or converted that property to his own use, or (b) dishonestly used or disposed of that property or willfully suffered any other person to do so in violation, (i) of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, (ii) of any legal contract made, touching the discharge of such trust.

(Para 9)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 405, 406 – Criminal breach of trust – Misappropriation of 1657 bags i.e. 1055 quintals 50 kg and 942 grams of paddy -- 6614 bags weighing 4286 quintals 60 kg paddy were stored for the purpose of milling -- Prosecution utterly failed to prove the dominion of the accused over the said property – Civil suit filed by the petitioner/ complainant/ FCI for recovery, on the same allegations, has already been dismissed by the Civil Court despite the fact that burden of proof in the civil suit is of much lesser degree compared to the criminal case – Prosecution utterly failed to prove the entrustment of the paddy bags, which was allegedly misappropriated – Acquittal order upheld.

(Para 10, 12, 13)

A. Border Security Force Act, 1968 (47 of 1968), Section 40, 46 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985)-- Section 9, 25 – NDPS case – BSF Commandant – Acquittal -- Conviction by General Security Force Court --  Appellant was commanding the Force operating over a large area, including from where the Jerrycans (controlled substance under NDPS Act ) allegedly moved from the Indian side to the Pakistani side -- Actual manning of the area is by the subordinate personnel of the Force -- Subordinate personnel have been adjudged guilty, indicating their active involvement -- No direct evidence against the appellant – Held, appellant, being the Commandant, had no responsibility/ duty to prevent such incident -- ceteris paribus, without other material(s) incriminating the appellant or pointing to his guilt, the statement of a single person alone, ought not to have, in this instance, resulted in his conviction -- Impugned Judgment quashed, conviction and sentence set aside -- Appellant held entitled to full retiral benefits from the date of his superannuation till date.

(Para 38-51)

B. Uniform pattern of judgments -- Supreme Court held, it is desirable that all Courts and Tribunals, as a matter of practice, number paragraphs in all Orders and Judgments in seriatim -- Secretary-General shall circulate this judgement to the learned Registrars General of all High Courts, to place the same before Hon’ble the Chief Justices, to consider adoption of a uniform format for Judgments and Orders, including paragraphing -- The learned Chief Justices may direct the Courts and Tribunals subordinate to their High Courts accordingly as well.

(Para 56, 57)

A. Constitution of India, Article 21, 72, 161 – Mercy petition – Expedite disposal – Directions issued -- Supreme Court observed and directed all the States/appropriate authorities before whom the mercy petitions are to be filed and/or who are required to decide the mercy petitions against the death sentence, such mercy petitions are decided at the earliest so that the benefit of delay in not deciding the mercy petitions is not accrued to the accused and the accused are not benefited by such an inordinate delay and the accused may not take the disadvantage of such inordinate delay.

(Para 10)

B. Constitution of India, Article 21, 72, 161 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 53, 54, 55, 302 – Murder -- Nine persons killed -- Death sentence – Long pendency of mercy petition -- Commuted to life imprisonment for natural life -- High Court commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment on the ground that there was an inordinate unexplained delay in not deciding the mercy petition(s) kept pending for about 7 years and 10 months – Judgment and order modified and it is directed that the accused to undergo life imprisonment for natural life and without any remission.

(Para 4-8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 306 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Abetment of suicide – Anticipatory bail -- Allegation against the petitioner are that he was one of the friends of deceased and was extending help to his wife to remain in adultery with one PS, leaving her husband and children – Held, there would be no justifiability for custodial or pre-trial incarceration at this stage -- Furthermore, the petitioner is a first offender, and one of the relevant factors would be to provide an opportunity to course-correct – Petition allowed.

(Para 5, 10,11)

A. Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 14, 14A – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439, 362 – Bail under SC/ST Act – Jurisdiction of High Court/ Special Court -- Changed circumstances -- Once an appeal under Section 14A against the order passed by the Special Court rejecting the application under Section 439 of the CrPC is decided on merits or otherwise by High Court, subsequent appeal under change of circumstances would not be directly maintainable under Section 14A before High Court even on change of circumstances and remedy to the accused, if any, is to file an application before the Special Court for grant of bail.

(Para 31)

B. Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 14, 14A – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Jurisdiction of High Court/ Special Court – Regular bail -- Power to grant bail u/s 439 of the CrPC has only vested to the Special Court constituted under Section 14 of the Act and High Court is only empowered to hear appeal under Section 14A(2) of the POA Act against refusal or grant of bail by the Special Court under the Act.

(Para 31)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82(1), 482 -- Proclamation – 30 days’ time for appearance – Quashing of proclamation order -- Proclamation was effected on 10.01.2020 for 14.01.2020 – For appearance giving only 04 days’ time to the petitioner, clearly falls short of the statutory period of 30 days prescribed u/s 82 (1) Cr.P.C -- Petitioner was declared as proclaimed offender on 12.03.2020; whereas for the said date, there was no proclamation u/s 82 (1) Cr.P.C. was either ordered or effected – Order dated 12.03.2020 being violative of Section 82 Cr.P.C. set aside.

(Para 8, 9)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82(1) – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Procedure of proclamation – Mandatory and inviolable -- Provisions of Section 82 (1) Cr.P.C. provides procedure for appearance of an individual before the Court in the criminal proceedings and thus, regulates the liberty of an individual as such it stems from Article 21 of the Constitution of India and accordingly becomes mandatory and inviolable.

(Para 8)

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Quashing of complaint -- Loss of cheques – Plea of – Inherent power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. -- FSL Report proving signatures on cheques -- Two cheques issued to repay debt – Petitioner did not deny the fact of execution of any deed of agreement on payment of such amount – Signature in the deed of agreement and two cheques are found to be similar – FSL report reveals that the signatures of the accused/petitioner in two cheques and in deed of agreement are similar in nature – Disputed question of facts cannot be adjudicated upon in a petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C.

(Para 11)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 118, 138, 139 -- Cheque bounced complaint -- Account Closed – Presumption -- Both the cheques were issued by the accused/ petitioner after closing of his account -- It transpires that the petitioner had knowledge regarding closer of his bank account and in spite of that he issued the cheques in favour of the respondent No.2/claimant -- Under such backdrop, it can be assumed that the presumption u/s 139 N.I. Act will come into play at this stage.

(Para 13)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 307, 148, 149, 323, 325 -- Attempt to murder – Unlawful assembly – Acquittal -- Conviction by trial Court upheld by High court – Challenge to -- In fight, lathi and kassi (spade) were allegedly used, these are the normal agricultural implements which are used in the rural areas, which the appellants were carrying in their trolley – Due consideration not given to the injuries suffered by the appellants, entire stress on the injuries suffered by the complainant party or the evidence led by them and defence of the appellants has not been touched – Both the parties suffered injuries in free fight and the passage, which was the root cause of the fight, has been held to be the passage owned by Gram Panchayat and Rafiamm and not belonging to the complainant party -- Conviction and sentence of the appellants cannot be legally sustained, set aside.

(Para 12-15)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 307, 326, 341, 506B – Attempt to murder – Grievous hurt by dangerous weapon -- Acquittal u/s 307 IPC -- Incident taken place 23/24 years ago -- Root cause as per appellant that injured was having inappropriate relations with his wife -- Weapon used is a scissors which is not a normal weapon of offence in case there is any intention to cause death -- Injury, a scratch below the neck, incised wound on the left thigh and a small cut size 1 ½ cm x 1 cm x 5 cm below the ribs – Appellant was doing the work of a tailoring -- The scissors which was seized by the police is small scissors which is used by tailors – Held, offence will not fall within Section 307 I.P.C. – Held, conviction u/s 307 IPC cannot be sustained however conviction u/s 326, 341 IPC, 506B sustained.

(Para 6, 7)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 326, 341, 506B – Grievous hurt by dangerous weapon -- Conviction u/s 326, 341, 506B IPC -- Sentence reduced to already undergone  (11 months and 24 days) -- Appellant had already undergone actual sentence of 11 months and 24 days -- Considering the fact that the incident had taken place about 23/24 years ago, sentence awarded to the appellant deserves to be reduced to the period already undergone -- Amount of fine imposed is sustained, in case of non-deposit of fine, the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for a period of one month.

(Para 7, 8)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 149, 302 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319 -- Allegation of murder with the aid of Section 149 IPC – Unlawful assembly -- Charge against two person – In the report/FIR there were specific allegations against five accused persons and five accused persons were named in the FIR – Investigating officer charge-sheeted only two persons -- Remaining three accused persons came to be added as accused by the learned trial Court while allowing the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C -- As they absconded and therefore their trial came to be ordered to be separated – Held, when five persons were specifically named in the FIR and five persons are facing the trial may be separately, Section 149 IPC would be attracted.

(Para 10)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 149, 302 – Unlawful assembly – Murder -- Once the respondent/ accused was found to be member of the unlawful assembly of more than five persons and he actually participated in commission of the offence may be the fatal blow might have been given by the another accused, still with the aid of Section 149 IPC, respondent/accused can be convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC with the aid of Section 149 IPC -- Every person who, at the time of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence.

(Para 10.2)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154 – Delay in FIR – Benefit of doubt -- When the delay has been sufficiently and properly explained, no reason to give benefit of doubt to the accused on the aforesaid ground that there was a delay of 3 ½ days in lodging the FIR.

(Para 11.1)

A. Constitution of India, Article 32 -- National Security Act, 1980 (65 of 1980), Section 2(3), 3(3) -- Detention under NSA -- Revenue officials went to the property to recover their dues, allegation that petitioner was of endeavoring to obstruct locking of premises -- Subsequently added that on a phone call he threatened the officers -- Assuming all the facts to be correct, the exercise of the said Act (NSA) in respect of the incident is shocking and unsustainable – Proceedings quashed.

(Para 8-10)

B. National Security Act, 1980 (65 of 1980), Section 1, 2(3), 3(3) -- Detention order under NSA – Object and reason -- Statement of object and reasons of the Act would show that it was to control the antisocial and antinational elements including secessionist, communal and pro-caste elements, that affect the services essential to the community, thereby posing a grave challenge -- This was particularly in respect of defence, security, public order and services essential to the community which have resulted in the National Security Ordinance, 1980 being promulgated and the Act was to replace the ordinance.

(Para 9)

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 141 -- Vicarious liability -- Vicarious liability is a specific species and assumes critical importance, particularly when there is criminal liability involved and therefore, cannot be taken lightly -- If such an extension of principle of vicarious liability were to remain, it would go against the very grain and texture.

(Para 13)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 141 – Officer in Company -- Vicarious liability – Merely holding a designation or office in a company not sufficient for liability under section 141.

(Para 15)

C. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 141 -- Vicarious liability – Bald averment against petitioner – Some accused dropped -- Bald averments against Accused No. 3-8 being directors of Accused-Company and in-charge of and responsible for the conduct, affairs and business of the company -- No specific averment made that this was so at the time of the commission of the offence -- Signatory of the cheque was also the Managing Director of the Company would be deemed to be in-charge, it was not as if the complainant was remediless -- Considering that Accused No.4 to 8 were dropped by the complainant, there was no reason for the complainant to have continued with proceedings against Accused No.3.

(Para 18)

D. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 141 -- Incharge of Company – Vicarious liability – Letter head of company – Reliance upon -- Merely the mention of the name of Accused No.3 on the letter head as being the Head of the Group, does not ipso facto or ipso jure make him in-charge of and responsible for the affairs and business of the company at the time the offence was committed.

(Para 19)

E. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 141 -- Vicarious liability – Non-Executive Director – Non-executive director may be the custodian of governance of the Company but are not involved in the day-to-day affairs of running its business and only monitor executive activities of the Company -- Phraseology used in Section 141 of the Act of being in charge and responsible to the Company for the conduct of the business of Company is a reference to an “executive activity” which imports an element of running day-to-day affairs of the Company and would not be extended to a role which is essentially supervisory, policy oriented, of oversight or regulatory i.e. non-executive in character.

(Para 21)

F. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 141, 142 -- Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), Section 175 – Companies Act, 2013 (No. 18 of 2013), Section 104, 203 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Non-executive Co-chairman – Managing Director and executive directors are appointed for a company to ensure that all executive decisions – Non Executive Directors are to advice or oversight of the functioning of the company -- Even the role of ‘Chairman’/ ‘Chairperson’ is not typically of an executive nature -- Creeping up an escalating liability to Chairpersons of large conglomerates/ companies for cheques issued in day-to-day affairs of the business of a company would unfairly and unnecessarily expand the provisions of vicarious liability under the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act – No prejudice is caused to the complainant as the signatory of the cheque, the Managing Director is already arrayed as accused -- Proceedings quashed qua the petitioner.

(Para 13, 22-26)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167(2) -- Police remand beyond 15 days – Permissibility of -- In the case of Anupam J. Kulkarni (1992) 3 SCC 141, Supreme Court observed that there cannot be any police custody beyond 15 days from the date of arrest  -- View taken requires re-consideration -- On 16.04.2021, the ld. Special Judge allowed police custody of the respondent-accused for seven days i.e., up to 22.04.2021, the respondent-accused got himself admitted in the hospital 18.04.2021 and obtained interim bail on 21.04.2021 which came to be extended till 08.12.2021 when his interim bail came to be cancelled by the learned Special Judge by observing that the accused has misused the liberty – By not permitting the CBI to have the police custody interrogation for the remainder period of seven days, it will be giving a premium to an accused who has been successful in frustrating the judicial process -- Appellant-CBI permitted to have the police custody remand of the respondent for a period of four days.

(Para 7-10)

A. Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (15 of 2003), Section 3, 4 – Territorial jurisdiction of Court to take cognizance --  Irrespective of where the FIR relating to the scheduled offence was filed and irrespective of which Court took cognizance of the scheduled offence, the question of territorial jurisdiction of a Special Court to take cognizance of a compliant under PMLA should be decided with reference to the place/places where anyone of the activities/processes which constitute the offence under Section 3 took place.

(Para 3, 10)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 406 -- Transfer of complaint – Lucknow to Kerala -- Lack of jurisdiction of a Court to entertain a complaint can be no ground to order its transfer.

(Para 11)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 406 -- Transfer of complaint -- Lucknow to Kerala -- 7 out of 10 accused persons are residents of Kerala can hardly be a ground for ordering the transfer of investigation -- Majority of witnesses are also from Kerala/ South India is also no ground to order the transfer of the complaint.

(Para 12)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 294, 323, 342, 354, 506, 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439(2) -- Bail by trial court – Cancellation of bail by High Court – Explanation from Trial Judge – Legality of -- Trial Judge granting bail on the ground that the chargesheet had been submitted and that the other accused were on bail was eminently fair and reasonable – Order of the High Court directing that the appellant be arrested immediately and seeking an explanation from the Second Additional Sessions Judge was wholly disproportionate and was not warranted -- Members of the district judiciary cannot be placed in a sense of fear if they were to exercise the jurisdiction lawfully entrusted to them for granting bail in appropriate cases -- Application for cancellation of bail dismissed, bail confirmed.

(Para 9-11)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 311 – Additional evidence -- Application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. – Who can file -- It is not necessary that the applicant has to be either complainant or prosecution or victim or a listed witness -- The provisions can be invoked by any other person who is able to show that the evidence of witness sought to be examined will be necessary for just decision of the case.

(Para 27)

B. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 65-B – Certificate u/s 65-B of Evidence Act – Competent witness -- Certificate u/s 65-B and proving of the same, certainly goes to the root of the matter and therefore, the only person who is duly authorised regarding the same can be a competent witness in this regard.

(Para 19)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 153-A, 295-A, 298, 323, 406 and 506 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 --  Forcible conversion of religion -- Third petition – Regular bail --  Petitioner in jail for more than 1 year and 4 months -- 16 out of 34 witnesses have been examined -- Petitioner not involved in any other case except for one more FIR which was lodged on the next day pertaining to the similar kind of allegations – Court deemed it fit and proper to grant regular bail to the petitioner.

(Para 34, 35)

D. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 153-A, 295-A, 342, 506 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Forcible conversion of religion -- Third bail petition – Regular bail -- Incarceration for more than 1 year and 5 months -- 8 out of 31 witnesses examined -- Petitioner not involved in any other case except for one more FIR which was lodged one day prior to the present case pertaining to the similar kind of allegations -- Court deemed it fit and proper to grant regular bail to the petitioner.

(Para 43)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 174-A – Cheque bounce case – Quashing of Proclaimed person order/ FIR u/s 174-A IPC – Since the petitioner has joined the trial, order declaring proclaimed person has lost its significance -- Petitioner is no longer a proclaimed person and thus, continuing with the FIR would be oppressive -- Accordingly quashed.

(Para 1, 2)

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Dishonour of cheques -- Demand notice -- Three cheques for an amount of Rs.14,00,000/- -- Legal notice to pay the cheque amount and in case of legal action, to bear the entire cost of the proceeding, interest on the amount besides legal fee – It is not a case that the opposite party demanded an amount more than the cheque amount of Rs.14,00,000/- -- Impugned notice cannot be said to be not in conformity with law.

(Para 4-7)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Dishonour of cheques -- Demand notice with additional claim – Legality of -- Defect in notice cannot invalidate the proceeding when the demand is only for the cheque amount with additional claim towards the miscellaneous expenses.

(Para 8)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 107, 306 -- Abetment of suicide – Mens rea -- Essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 IPC are: (i) the abetment; (ii) the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide -- Insulting the deceased by using abusive language or maltreatment will not, by itself, constitute the abetment of suicide -- To constitute abetment, the intention and involvement of the accused to aid or instigate the commission of the suicide is imperative -- Any severance or absence of any of these constituents would militate against the indictment -- Mens rea to commit the offence is a sine qua non to convict a person under Section 306 IPC.

(Para 9-12)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 107, 306 -- Abetment of suicide – Acquittal -- Simply because of the fact that the wife (deceased) committed suicide in matrimonial home, itself does not make her in-laws and husband liable for harassment and abetment to commit suicide -- No concrete or conclusive evidence to prove their complicity in the commission of the crime -- Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained – Acquittal affirmed.

(Para 15, 16)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 379-A -- Snatching case -- Acquittal by trial court – Trustworthiness of witness -- Complainant stepped into the witness box as PW-6, in her examination-in-chief, she identified the accused, however, in the cross examination, she stated that the police had called her to the police station and had told her that her mobile phone had been recovered -- She stated in the cross examination that she had not told the police that the person in the police station was the same who had snatched the purse from her before the questioning of the accused started -- It has further come on record that no description of the accused had been given by the complainant at the time of registration of the FIR and even the number of the motorcycle could not be noted down by the complainant -- Cross examination of the complainant definitely created a dent in the case of the prosecution which was rightly considered by the trial Court.

(Para 9)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 379-A -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 27 – Snatching case -- Acquittal by trial court -- Recovery of mobile and Rs. 12,000 on disclosure statement – Reliance upon -- No bill of mobile was produced on record -- It was not proved that the mobile phone which had been released on Sapurdari was the same which had been allegedly recovered from the accused -- PW-6-complaiannt duly stated in her evidence that the bill of the mobile phone and the details of the Sim had been handed over to the police, but nowhere the IMEI number was mentioned nor the bill of the mobile phone saw the light of the day – Insofar as the amount of Rs.12,000/- is concerned, there is nothing to show that these were the same Rs.12,000/- rupees which had been snatched from the complainant -- Anyone could be in possession of a sum of Rs.12,000/- and the mere recovery of the same from the said person would not mean that they had been snatched from someone -- Recovery alleged to have been made in pursuance to the disclosure statement suffered by the respondent-accused not proved -- No reliance can be placed upon the disclosure statement – Acquittal order upheld.

(Para 10)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 489-C, 489D -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 - Counterfeit currency – Regular bail – Recovery of 298 counterfeit currency notes of denomination of 100 each, 181 counterfeit currency notes of denomination of 200 each and 64 counterfeit currency notes of denomination of 2000 each --  Held, veracity of the prosecution case shall be established during the course of trial -- Petitioner is a first time offender in custody since 12.08.2022 and only 01 out of 07 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far -- Trial of the case is not likely to be concluded any time soon -- As such his further incarceration is not required – Petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 2-7)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 142 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Cheque bounce complaint -- Quashing of complaint against partner/ wife – Vicarious liability – Partnership firm -- Cheque from personal account of husband -- Petitioner is not a signatory to the cheque and the said cheque was issued on personal account of accused No.1/ husband – Though the petitioner is a partner in the partnership firm and amounts were taken from the finance firm, it would not be proper for the complainant to prosecute the petitioner, who is not a signatory to the said cheque – Petitioner is not vicariously liable u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act -- Petition allowed.

(Para 3-6)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 34 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 8, 27, 106 --  Murder -- Acquittal -- Circumstantial evidence – Last seen theory – Motive -- Virtually, the oral testimonies of PW-8 and PW-10 are at variance about the last seen and it becomes inconclusive – Prosecution has miserably failed to prove the alleged motive -- Though the deceased had met with a homicidal death it cannot be said that the rest of the circumstantial evidence culled out by the courts below unerringly point to the culpability of the appellants in the homicidal death of deceased -- Even the recovery of the weapon and the dress, at the instance of the appellant cannot, by itself, be conclusive as admittedly, the panch witnesses for their recovery also did not support the prosecution -- It is unsafe to maintain the conviction of the appellants; benefit of doubt extended – Appellants, acquitted.

(Para 29, 30)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 34 --  Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 8, 106 --  Murder -- Circumstantial evidence – Motive -- Where the conviction is based on circumstantial evidence, motive assumes great significance -- Failure to establish the alleged motive in a case based on circumstantial evidence it can only be held that the said failure had weakened the case of the prosecution.

(Para 18-21)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 34 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 8, 27 -- Murder -- Circumstantial evidence – Last seen theory -- In a case rested on circumstantial evidence and ‘last seen’ theory is relied on as a link in the chain of circumstances, the evidence relating the time at which the deceased was lastly seen with the accused has to be proved conclusively as when it is proximate with the time of finding the dead body the burden to establish the innocence would be that of the accused.

(Para 24)

A. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 24 -- Extra-judicial confession – Corroboration not required -- Generally, it is a weak piece of evidence, however, a conviction can be sustained on the basis of extra-judicial confession provided that the confession is proved to be voluntary and truthful -- It should be free of any inducement -- Evidentiary value of such confession also depends on the person to whom it is made -- Going by the natural course of human conduct, normally, a person would confide about a crime committed by him only with such a person in whom he has implicit faith -- Moreover, the Court has to be satisfied with the reliability of the confession keeping in view the circumstances in which it is made -- As a matter of rule, corroboration is not required -- However, if an extra-judicial confession is corroborated by other evidence on record, it acquires more credibility.

(Para 5)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 24, 27 -- Extra-judicial confession – PW-1 to PW-6 including the complainant himself whose son was killed did not support prosecution -- Case of the prosecution was that the appellant had confessed to PW-1 to PW-9 -- Prosecution’s case about extrajudicial confession does not inspire confidence – No other circumstances brought on record which could support or corroborate the prosecution case -- Evidence in form of the extra-judicial confession of the appellant deserves to be discarded -- Conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained at all -- Appellant is acquitted of the offences alleged against him.

(Para 5-7)

A. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 15, 42 – NDPS case – Acquittal – Non-compliance of Section 42 of NDPS Act -- Secret information was not reduced into writing -- Consequently, there was no question of sending the secret information to the police station or higher police officers -- Thus, there was breach of mandatory provision of Section 42 of the Act and the learned Trial Court has wrongly convicted the appellant -- Appellant is liable to be acquitted.

(Para 12-14)

B. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 42 – NDPS case – Secret information – Ruqa -- Sending of ruqa for recording of the FIR in the police station can never be termed as sufficient compliance of Section 42 of the Act.

(Para 13)

C. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 42 – NDPS case – Secret information – Information to higher police officers -- As per the mandate of Section 42 of the Act, when there is total and definite non-compliance of such statutory provisions, the question of prejudice looses its significance -- It will per se amount to prejudice.

(Para 13)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 102 – Seizure of property -- Police officer can seize any property, which may be alleged or suspected to have been stolen or which may be found under circumstances which create suspicion of commission of any offence.

(Para 15)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 102 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420 – Cheating -- Seizure of Bank account -- Petitioner/ accused received money from complainant and deposited the same in Adarsh Credit Cooperative Society and in the Post Office -- Nowhere alleges that the bank accounts of petitioner/ accused contains property received from complainant or relevant accounts were used for transaction at the time of commission of alleged offence of cheating so as to create suspicion of commission of offence through these bank accounts -- Not a case that Bank Accounts of accused is suspected for depositing/withdrawing or operating or transacting the stolen property – Held, necessary ingredient, empowering the Investigating Officer to seize the Bank Accounts of petitioner are missing and thus seizure/freezing of Bank Accounts of the petitioner is not sustainable.

(Para 16)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 102 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420 – Cheating -- Seizure of Bank account -- Instigating Agency submitted cancellation report but Law Officer raised certain objections but till date investigation has no progress -- Nothing to point out that how de-freezing of the account shall come in the way of Investigating Agency in investigating and concluding the investigation -- Pendency of investigation, that too for the last three years, is also not permissible under law for infinite period – Petitioner held entitle for de-freezing of her accounts.

(Para 17-19)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 374, 397 -- Revision against conviction – Maintainability of -- Judgment and order passed is appealable before the court of the Session Judge or Additional Session Judge, thereafter, if aggrieved, the party may move the High Court on an application for revision u/s 397 Cr.P.C. -- Petitioner has forgo one forum and has directly approached this Court which is not proper -- Petition is deemed not maintainable -- Petitioner may approach the competent court and considering the fact that the issues raised deserved to be heard on merits, the time period consumed while pursuing the matter before High Court condoned.

(Para 16-21)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 24, 27 -- Extra-judicial confession – Recovery memorandum – Non-preparation of – Acquittal of accused -- Trial court found that the evidence of PWs 10 to 12 before whom confession was made were contradictory to each other -- Conviction can be based on extra-judicial confession, but in the very nature of things, it is a weak piece of evidence – Trial court disbelieved the recovery of clothes and weapon on two grounds -- Firstly, that there was no memorandum statement of the accused as required u/s 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and secondly, the recovery of the knife was from an open place accessible to one and all –View taken by the trial court could not be said to be either perverse or illegal/impossible to warrant interference -- High Court has grossly erred in interfering with the well-reasoned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial court -- Appeal allowed, impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court convicting the appellant set aside – Acquittal by Trial Court, affirmed.

(Para 12-22)

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 141 – Cheque by Company – Vicarious liability of person responsible – Pleadings -- In order to make a person vicariously liable for an offence committed by company u/s 138 of the NI Act, the first and foremost pre-condition is that the said person should either be a signatory of the cheque or should be holding a position in the company and should also be responsible for the conduct of the business of the company while holding such designation -- Complainant also has to plead the exact role and the manner by which the said person is alleged to be responsible for the commission of the alleged offence.

(Para 12-14)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 141 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Cheques by Partnership Firm – Quashing of complaint -- Petitioner is not an authorised signatory -- Cheques were handed over by other partner -- Only allegation against the petitioner is that she had participated in the negotiations along with other partner and was also responsible for conduct of the business and accused company was working through the petitioner -- It is, however, not mentioned that in what capacity, the petitioner was working -- Petitioner is the wife of other partner in the accused firm -- On the date when the alleged offence was committed, the petitioner was not a partner – Holding a Trial against the petitioner u/s 138 read with Section 141, is utmost abuse of the process of law and the Ld. Trial Court has passed the summoning order without any application of mind – Impugned order and complaint in relation to the petitioner is quashed.

(Para 16-23)

C. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Cheque bounce complaint – Quashing – Inherent power of High Court u/s 482 Cr.P.C -- High Court is not to conduct a mini trial by considering the defence of the accused or holding an inquiry into the merits of the matter -- However, if, on the face of the documents which are beyond suspicion or doubt, the accusations against the petitioner are found to be frivolous, in order to prevent the injustice and abuse of the process of law, it is incumbent that appropriate relief is granted by exercising power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. -- Where ingredients of an offence are lacking against an accused, it is the duty of the Court to discharge such accused.

(Para 20-22)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 107, 306 – Abetment of suicide -- In order to bring the case within the purview of ‘Abetment’ u/s 107 IPC, there has to be an evidence with regard to the instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid on the part of the accused -- For the purpose proving the charge u/s 306 IPC, also there has to be an evidence with regard to the positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid to drive a person to commit suicide.

(Para 10)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498-A, 306 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 113-A – Cruelty – Abetment of suicide -- Nothing comes out from evidence as to whether the death was suicidal or not -- None of the witnesses mother, father, uncle and mediator of marriage  examined by the prosecution had any knowledge as to whether the deceased had jumped into the well or she had accidently slipped into the well -- PW-21/ Doctor opined that the death of the deceased was due to the drowning as a result of Asphyxia, there was no opinion given by her nor any opinion was sought from her as to whether it was a suicide committed by the deceased or it was an accident by which she fell down in the well -- Even if it is presumed that the deceased had committed suicide, there was no evidence whatsoever adduced by the prosecution that there was an abetment on the part of any of the accused which had driven her to commit suicide -- No evidence worth the name to show that any of the appellants-accused had either instigated or intentionally aided or abetted the deceased to commit suicide or had caused any abetment as contemplated u/s Section 107 of the IPC -- While upholding the conviction of the appellants u/s 498A, appellants acquitted from the charges u/s 306 of IPC by giving them benefit of doubt.

(Para 11-17)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498-A, 306 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 113-A -- Suicide within 7 year of marriage – Presumption u/s 113-A of Evidence Act -- Mere fact of commission of suicide by itself would not be sufficient for the court to raise the presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act, and to hold the accused guilty of Section 306 IPC.

(Para 14)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 201, 34 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 8, 24, 27 -- Murder -- Circumstantial evidence -- No one has seen the commission of crime -- Basic links in the chain of circumstances starts with motive, then move on to last seen theory, recovery, medical evidence, expert opinions if any and any other additional link which may be part of the chain of circumstances.

(Para 12)

B. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 8 -- Circumstantial evidence – Role of Motive -- In a case of circumstantial evidence, motive has an important role to play -- Motive may also have a role to play even in a case of direct evidence but it carries much greater importance in a case of circumstantial evidence than a case of direct evidence -- It is an important link in the chain of circumstances.

(Para 15)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 201, 34 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 8, 24, 27 -- Murder -- Circumstantial evidence -- Prosecution not come forward with any motive – Dead body not recovered, only a limb was recovered but no DNA testing was carried out – In respect to last seen theory in the first information (PW-7) not mentioned that deceased left his house along with the appellant and ‘juvenile K’ although in his statement before the Trial Court stated so but when confronted with his statement u/s 161 CrPC and also about the entry in the police records, he had no explanation for the same -- PW-25/ mother, the main witness of the last seen stated that when she returned from the office around 5 PM on 19.06.2007, she saw deceased/son going out on the motor bike of his father and she followed her son upto the gate and saw the appellant and ‘juvenile K’ standing at the gate, this witness in her cross-examination when confronted with her statement u/s 161 CrPC said that no such statement is there, although according to her, she had told the Investigating Officer that she had seen the appellant and ‘juvenile K’ at her gate – If the extra-judicial confession accepted, the statement of last seen theory given by the mother (PW-25) becomes difficult to be given any credibility -- Recoveries which is an important link in the chain of circumstances the recoveries have been from an open place – Major links of the chain of circumstances have not been proved -- Appellant would be entitled to benefit of doubt -- Appeal allowed and the appellant acquitted of all the charges.

(Para 15-22)

D. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 24 -- Retracted extra-judicial confession – Extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and especially when it has been retracted during trial – It requires strong evidence to corroborate it and also it must be established that it was completely voluntary and truthful.

(Para 21)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 34 – Murder -- Common intention -- Appeal against acquittal – Trial court convicted the respondent u/s 302/34 IPC, however High Court acquitted the respondent by observing that the prosecution failed to prove the case of common intention – Held, if the respondent would not have caught hold of the deceased, the original accused No.1 might not have been able to cause injuries on the head of the deceased – Respondent participated actively in the commission of the offence and shared the common intention to kill the deceased -- Impugned judgment and order passed by High Court quashed, judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court restored.

(Para 1, 9-14)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 323, 341, 506, 393, 509, 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Attempt to commit robbery – Compromise quashing of FIR -- Continuation of the proceedings would be merely an abuse of process of the Court and by allowing and accepting the prayer of the petitioners by quashing the FIR would be securing the ends of justice, which is primarily the object of the legislature enacting u/s 482 Cr.P.C. -- FIR u/s 323, 341, 506 (393, 509, 34 added in challan) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom quashed qua the petitioners on the basis of compromise.

(Para 10, 11)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304-A -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Causing death by negligence –Compromise quashing of FIR – Victim died due to electric shock -- Quashing of cases u/s 304-A IPC, other than roadside accidents, can be quashed -- In the closely-knit village community, when the parties have buried their hatchets, the continuation of criminal proceedings will not advance the reformative purposes of jurisprudence just for the sake of deterrence -- Continuing these proceedings will not suffice any fruitful purpose whatsoever – By invoking the inherent jurisdiction u/s 482 CrPC, FIR and all subsequent proceedings qua the petitioners quashed.

(Para 1, 6, 7, 9, 19)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 452 – House trespass -- Exclusive possession – Requirement of -- Bara in question was being used by both the parties, though according to complainant, she was in exclusive possession of some specific portion of the Bara --  However, no evidence, much less cogent, was led by the complainant to establish her exclusive possession of a specific portion of the Bara – Hence, the ingredients to attract the mischief of offence u/s 452 of the IPC not made out.

(Para 5)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 307, 506, 148, 149 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Attempt to murder – Compromise quashing of FIR – Petitioners submitted that there are no injuries as alleged in the FIR and offence u/s 307 IPC is not made out – Private respondents also affirmed the submissions and has submitted that there was no injury pertaining to the offence u/s 307 IPC and they have compromised the matter with their free will – Held, continuation of the proceedings would be merely an abuse of process of the Court and by allowing and accepting the prayer of the petitioners by quashing the FIR would be securing the ends of justice, which is primarily the object of the legislature enacting u/s 482 Cr.P.C -- FIR and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom quashed qua the petitioners on the basis of compromise.

(Para 6, 7, 13, 14)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 – Constitution of India, Article 136 -- Conviction by Trial Court – Appeal dismissed by High Court -- Scope of Appeal in Supreme Court -- Wholesome reappreciation of evidence is not within the scope of appeal.

(Para 13)

B. Evidence law -- Discrepancy in deposition – Effect of -- PW-1, sixty-five years of age, was deposing before the Court from her memory after one year from the incident, such discrepancies would not result in rejection of her testimony altogether.

(Para 16.2)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 106 -- Murder -- Circumstantial evidence -- Medical officers established that the child suffered strangulation with a wound measuring 20 cm in length and 2 cm in breadth around the neck and with thyroid cartilage bone having been fractured -- PW-8/ Doctor opined that if outer end of the saree was twisted and put around the neck and the person was strangled, there was a chance of such a wound -- The saree in question duly recovered from the appellant and was said to be carrying blood stains – In statement u/s 313 CrPC, the appellant has not given any explanation whatsoever and has not made any statement except denying the circumstances put to her -- Victim child was last seen alive with the appellant only; she was required to explain the circumstances leading to the demise of the child -- Burden of Section 106 of the Evidence Act operates heavily against the appellant – No case for interference with the concurrent findings of fact is made out – Conviction and sentencing of the appellant under Section 302 IPC cannot be faulted.

(Para 17-22)

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 142 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 406 – Transfer of complaint u/s 138 of NI Act – Notwithstanding the non obstante clause in Section 142(1) of the Act of 1881, the power of Supreme Court to transfer criminal cases u/s 406 Cr.P.C. remains intact in relation to offences u/s 138 of the Act of 1881.

(Para 13)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 142(2) – Jurisdiction to try complaint u/s 138 of NI Act -- Section 142(2)(a) of the Act of 1881 vests jurisdiction for initiating proceedings for an offence under Section 138 in the Court where the cheque is delivered for collection, i.e., through an account in the branch of the bank where the payee or holder in due course maintains an account.

(Para 12)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 148, 149 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),  Section 439 -- Murder – Unlawful assembly – Regular bail -- Investigation concluded, charges framed – Petitioner is behind the bars for the past 2 years 2 months -- Even the statements of 3 independent witnesses have not been recorded completely by the prosecution, there are 20 witnesses in total -- Even on an application u/s 319 Cr.P.C., 2 other accused have been summoned -- Conclusion of the trial is likely to take time -- Petitioner being lady of 42 years of age has already suffered a long incarceration -- Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(Para 1-7)

A. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 7, 106 -- Circumstantial evidence – Last seen theory -- Last seen theory based on circumstantial evidence may be a weak kind of evidence by itself to base conviction solely on such theory, when the said theory is proved coupled with other circumstances such as the time when the deceased was last seen with the accused, and the recovery of the corpse being in very close proximity of time, the accused does owe an explanation u/s 106 of the Evidence Act with regard to the circumstances under which death might have taken place -- If the accused offers no explanation or furnishes a wrong explanation, absconds, motive is established and some other corroborative evidence in the form of recovery of weapon etc. forming a chain of circumstances is established, the conviction could be based on such evidence.

(Para 9)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 7, 27, 106 – Constitution of India, Article 136 -- Murder -- Homicidal death -- Circumstantial evidence – Last seen theory -- Petitioner had taken the deceased with him on the previous day evening and thereafter he was also seen with the deceased by the witness (PW-4) and the very next day early morning, the dead body of the deceased was found lying in the field at village -- Time gap between the period when the deceased was last seen with the accused and the recovery of the corpse of the deceased being quite proximate, the non-explanation of the petitioner with regard to the circumstance under which and when the petitioner had departed the company of the deceased was a very crucial circumstance proved against him -- Enmity between the deceased and the petitioner had also surfaced -- Corroborative evidence with regard to recovery of the weapon-axe alleged to have been used in the commission of crime from the petitioner, also substantiated the case of prosecution -- Entire oral as well as documentary evidence having been threadbare considered by the Sessions Court as also High Court while holding the petitioner guilty of the charged offence – No need again reappreciate the same in the petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India – Special Leave Petition dismissed.

(Para 10-12)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 300 Exception, 302, 304 -- Murder – Culpable homicide not amounting to murder -- Sudden provocation -- Two separate episodes -- PW-13-wife of deceased/ eye witness stated that accused came to her house, during the course of quarrel between the appellant and the victim, the victim gave a stab injury to the appellant and on receiving the stab injury, the appellant went away from her house -- Second episode, according to her, started when she and her husband were sleeping in their dwelling house, the accused/ appellant stealthily entered into the house with a wooden stick and took a country grinding stone and hit on the victim’s head – Appellant had also attacked her by beating on her cheek and body and she fell down -- Appellant again hit on victim’s head with the country grinding stone and then left the place -- Death of the victim was not caused in the heat of the sudden fight and it was a case of murder u/s 302 IPC and not under any exceptions of Section 300 IPC -- Appellant rightly convicted u/s 302 and 449 IPC.

(Para 8-10)

Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (37 of 1954), Section 16(1)(a)(i) -- Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, Rule 14 – Sample in clean and dry bottle – Non-compliance of – Acquittal of accused -- Sample for the purposes of analysis has to be taken in clean and dry bottles -- Any violation would render the results of the analysis unreliable, therefore, due procedure must be followed under the rules – Equity demands that there must atleast be some evidence or supporting material to the effect that the jars were clean at the time of taking the samples -- In the absence of any testimony of any person, who had cleaned the jars, the only inference which can be drawn is that the jars were not cleaned at the time of taking of the sample for which the Court below rightly gave the benefit of doubt to the accused – Appeal against acquittal dismissed.

(Para 10)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 306 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 374 -- Abetment of suicide -- No intentional aiding or goading or incitement on the part of the appellants -- A person living in penury, addicted to drugs and alcohol, with his family also having left him, not being able to manage the stresses of life and on finding himself having been driven to the wall, sadly ending the same by setting himself ablaze --  For this, the appellants cannot be held liable -- They could have been held liable for assault and simple hurt etc. but no charges were framed -- Appellants have undergone some amount of imprisonment also and they have also been facing the ordeal of trial for the last almost 13 years from the date of the incident – Judgment of conviction and the order of sentence are not sustainable -- Appeals allowed.

(Para 26-28)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 118, 138, 139 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 401 -- Acquittal of accused -- Legal enforceable liability -- No direct transaction between the complainant and the accused-petitioner -- Entire story runs around the mother of the complainant, who is a vital witness, but she has not been produced and examined as a witness before the trial Court -- During obtaining loan from the bank, involvement of a third party witness was spoken by the complainant, but said person has not been examined as witness – Held, disputed question of facts and crucial persons like mother of the complainant and third party witness not being examined, conviction based on sole deposition of PW-1, the complainant, cannot be appreciated -- Complainant failed to establish "legally enforceable debt" -- Revision allowed, impugned judgment and order of sentence quashed.

(Para 8, 9)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A – Rash and negligent driving – High speed of car itself is not an offence -- Testimony that the offending car came from the opposite side and struck against the motorcycle, all witnesses clearly stated that the car was being driven at high speed -- None of them whispered even a single word as to how the car was being driven in rash or negligent manner -- Accident took place on a wide road, driving car on such road at high speed, in itself does not amount to rash or negligent driving – Conviction set aside.

(Para 7-13)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A – Rash and negligent driving – Test Identification Parade (TIP) -- Apparent from the testimony of eye-witnesses projected by the prosecution i.e. PW-8, PW-9 and PW-10 that none of them saw the petitioner-accused driving the car at the spot -- Test Identification got conducted in the police station is of no relevance, as only accused was shown to PW-9 -- Identification of the accused for the first time in the Court, when the witnesses did not have the opportunity to see the face of the driver of the offending vehicle at the spot, is of no significance -- As per the FIR version, the car driver had fled from the spot after talking to ‘S’, who was occupying one of the motorcycle, prosecution gave up PW - ‘S’ for reasons best known to it -- Had ‘S’ been examined and established the identity of accused as car driver, then statement of other witnesses could have been believed that it is the accused, who was driving the car – Held, prosecution failed to establish the identity of the accused – Conviction set aside.

(Para 10-13)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 106 -- Rash and negligent driving – Criminal liability of owner of vehicle – Release of vehicle on superdari – Effect of -- Accused-petitioner is the registered owner of the offending car and he got the car released on superdari as owner but this in itself cannot be a reason to draw conclusion that he was driving the offending car at the relevant time -- PW-9 deposed that car was occupied by two persons and he cannot say as to who was driving the car – Ld. First Appellate Court fell in grave error by observing that as the accused was the owner of the car, so it was for him to explain u/s 106 of the Evidence Act as to who was driving his car -- Onus was on the prosecution to prove that it is the accused-petitioner, who was driving the offending car at the relevant time, which the prosecution has failed to establish -- Conviction set aside.

(Para 11-13)