Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), Section 108, 117 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 4, 5, -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 174, 175 -- Summons u/s 108 of Customs Act – Non- compliance of – Applicability of Section 174, 175 of IPC --  Had there been no provision like 117 in the Customs Act, obviously the concerned person to whom summons have been issued under Section 108 of the Customs Act, if fails to comply therewith, would have been guilty for committing an offence under Section 174 of 175 or both of the Indian Penal Code -- Section 117 of the Customs Act, finds place in a Special Act i.e., Customs Act, which is a complete code in itself providing for various violations, offences and penalties and the procedure etc., therefore, Section 174 & 175 of Indian Penal Code will have no application, in view of Section 4 & 5 of the Criminal Procedure Code -- Prosecution u/s 174 & 175 of the IPC quashed.

(Para 8-13)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 120-B, 147, 149, 188, 269, 270 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Murder – Regular bail – Petitioner name come in disclosure statement – No specific attribution or any overt act is attributed to the petitioner -- None of examined prosecution witnesses named the petitioner to be amongst the assailants – Petitioner in custody for the last 02 years 09 months and 28 days, though involved in various other cases as well -- Only 09 witnesses have been examined so far out of 54 witnesses -- Conclusion of trial is likely to take long time to conclude -- Material witnesses have already been examined – Bail allowed.

(Para 8-12)

Constitution of India, Article 22(5) -- Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (46 of 1988), Section 3 – Preventive detention of accused – Non-mentioning about bail in detention order – Non-decisioning on representation -- Effect of -- Non-mention about the grant of bail in the detention is serious lapse which in turn gives rise to the inference that there is non-application of mind – Right of detenue to prefer representation on his detention is a fundamental right enshrined under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India -- Non-consideration of the representation goes to core of the case -- Detention order quashed.

(Para 7-9)

Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (46 of 1988), Section 3 – Preventive detention – Delay in decision of representation – Non-communication of – Effect of --  Respondents took almost three months to dispose of the representation of the petitioner – Reasons for withholding the decision for almost three months is absent -- Decision taken on the representation must be communicated to the detenue – Delay in disposal of the representation of the detenue seriously affects the valuable rights of the detenue -- Detention order quashed.

(Para 7-10)

Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (15 of 2003), Section 4 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 436A – PMLA case – Bail -- Appellant will complete 3½ years of incarceration on 26th May, 2024, half of the prescribed sentence -- Trial has not started, as the charge has not been framed -- Section 436A of Cr.PC will apply even to a case under the PMLA -- But the Court can still deny the relief owing to the ground such as where the trial was delayed at the instance of the accused -- No occasion for the appellant to cause the delay in trial, as even charge has not been framed -- Appellant order to be enlarged on bail on 27th May, 2024 u/s 436A of the Cr.PC.

(Para 3-6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Regular bail -- Alleged occurrence, in which the three occupants of the car had given beatings to deceased and injured fled away -- None of the petitioners are named in the FIR, complainant did not disclose in the supplementary statement about the source, by which he came to know about the participation of the petitioners in the crime – Nothing in status report that whether any of the petitioners have any connection with that car -- Material witnesses have already examined --  Petitioners in custody for the last 1 year 2 months and 13 days and none of them have any other criminal case pending against them -- Trial may take time to conclude – Bail allowed.

(Para 7-10)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 494, 34 – Bigamy – Common intention – Quashing of complaint/ order framing charge -- A perusal of the pre-charge evidence led in support of the complaint would reveal that accused No.3 and 4 were not even alleged to be present at the time of such marriage -- Hence, the involvement of these accused for the charge of having a common intention to commit the offence u/s 494 IPC is not established by an iota of evidence -- Criminal case qua them quashed.

(Para 3, 4, 18-22)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 494, 34 – Bigamy – Common intention – Quashing of complaint/ order framing charge -- Accused No. 5, 6 and 7 are friends and they witnessed the alleged bigamous marriage -- Not a shred of allegation by the complainant that these accused, acted as witnesses to the second marriage having knowledge that accused no.1 was already married to the complainant -- Charge of having a common intention to commit the offence u/s 494 IPC is totally unwarranted in the eyes of law -- Allowing the proceedings of the criminal case to be continued against the appellants would tantamount to gross illegality and abuse of the process of Court – Criminal case qua them quashed.

(Para 3, 4, 19-22)

A. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 32(1) – Dying declaration -- Once a dying declaration is found to be authentic inspiring confidence of the court, then the same can be relied upon and can be the sole basis for conviction without any corroboration -- However, before accepting such a dying declaration, court must be satisfied that it was rendered voluntarily, it is consistent and credible and that it is devoid of any tutoring.

(Para 25)

B. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 32(1) – Dying declaration -- Unless the evidence tendered is tested by cross-examination, it is not creditworthy -- Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act is an exception to this general rule.

(Para 29)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 34 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 32(1) – Murder -- Dying declaration -- Attending doctor certified that the deceased was capable of narrating her statement -- Substance of the dying declaration is also borne out by the medical history of the patient recorded by the doctor which has also been proved in evidence -- Though there are inconsistencies and improvements in the version of the prosecution witnesses, there is however convergence with the core of the narration of the deceased made in the dying declaration and the medical history recorded by the doctor -- No reason to doubt the correctness of the dying declaration -- Evidence on record, particularly Ex. 59/ dying declaration clearly establishes the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt -- Appellant held guilty.

(Para 35-37)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21, 50 – NDPS case – Acquittal – Foreign national do not know English, Hindi and Punjabi language – Effect of -- Accused-appellant is from Kenya -- PW3 SI categorically stated that accused did not know Hindi, Punjabi or English language and that she only knew the Kenyan language and was speaking only the said Kenyan language and also disclosed that police party did not know the Kenyan language, which was being spoken by the accused-appellant – It cannot be stated that fair trial has been conducted -- Entire investigation is held to be vitiated on account of the accused not understanding any communication made to her by the police party – There is complete non-compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act and numerous material contradictions in the statements of material witnesses – Appeal allowed, impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence are set aside.

(Para 25-28)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 156(3) – Investigation u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. – Cognizance of offence -- When the Magistrate in exercise of his judicial discretion directs investigation u/s 156(3) of Cr. P.C., he cannot be said to have taken cognizance of any offence -- It is only when the Magistrate after applying his mind prefers to follow the procedure under Chapter XV of Cr.P.C. by resorting to Section 200, he can be said to have taken cognizance of the offence.

(Para 8)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 156(3) – Investigation u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. – Trial court perused complaint, the documents in support thereof and on submissions and after having been prima facie satisfied, exercised its judicial discretion directing investigation u/s 156(3) of Cr. P.C -- High Court should not have interfered with the same, more particularly while exercising limited powers u/s 482 of Cr. P.C --  Order passed by the High Court set aside, order of Trial Court restored.

(Para 10, 11)

A. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 42 – NDPS Case -- Prior information – Search warrant – Independent witness -- Police received prior information but did not obtain the search warrant because the police apprehended that case property would be destroyed by the delay in procuring the warrant, therefore, it resorted to the provisions of Section 42(2) -- The fact that independent witnesses have not stated anything about preparing the rukka and information under Section 42(2) in their presence and sending the police official with the same shows that there was no compliance with Section 42(2) and the same is fatal to the prosecution case.

(Para 23)

B. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 20 – NDPS Case -- Number of person present at the spot – Inconsistency in – Effect of – Recovery of 1 Kg 200 grams of charas from accused’s house -- Inconsistency regarding the number of persons present on the spot is not minor because the presence of the persons is so intricately connected to the recovery that any inconsistency in the former would affect the latter – Inconsistency cannot be ignored.

(Para 2, 24, 26)

C. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 20 – NDPS Case -- Number of seals – Inconsistency in – Effect of -- Recovery of 1 Kg 200 grams of charas from accused’s house -- Inconsistency regarding the number of seals put on the parcel would show that the testimonies of the witnesses regarding the putting of the seals are not correct, which would affect the integrity of the case property adversely -- Inconsistency cannot be ignored.

(Para 2, 25, 26)

D. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 20 – NDPS Case -- Date of arrest – Inconsistency in – Effect of -- Inconsistency regarding the date of the arrest of the accused will make the whole case of the prosecution suspect because if the accused was arrested on 06.07.2016 and was to be produced before the learned Court on 07.07.2016, the whole of the prosecution case that information was received on 07.07.2016 and recovery was effected on 07.07.2016 in the presence of the accused will become suspect -- Inconsistency cannot be ignored.

(Para 26)

E. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985),  Section 20 – NDPS Case -- Photography of search – Evidential value -- Recovery of 1 Kg 200 grams of charas from accused’s house -- Heavy reliance was placed upon photographs and video recorded the process of search -- Photographs and the video recording could have been used to lend corroboration to the testimonies of the witnesses but when the testimonies are themselves suspect, there can be no question of their corroboration -- Photographs and the video recording by themselves are not substantive pieces of evidence upon which, a conviction can be recorded.

(Para 27)

Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (57 of 1994), Section 3, 5, 6, 23, 25, 28 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420, 120B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Disclosing the sex of foetus – Role of owner of Hospital -- Quashing of complaint/ summoning order -- No allegation, direct or indirect levelled against owner of Hospital -- Ownership of the Hospital where the ultrasound was allegedly carried upon a decoy pregnant woman would not make him liable under the PCPNDT Act -- At the very least, the allegations in the complaint should demonstrate the commission of a cognizable offence by the accused in question -- Any such evidence against owner is conspicuously absent – Petition allowed qua owner of hospital.

(Para 1, 13)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 386, 120-B, 406, 420, 467, 469, 471 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Cheating – Extortion -- Regular bail -- Allegations against the petitioner are based upon the disclosure statement – He is in custody for the last 5 months and 22 days -- Although, he is involved in one more case, but has already been allowed bail -- Out of 14 witnesses cited by the prosecution, not even a single witness has been examined so far and thus, trial is likely to take long time to conclude -- The case is triable by Magistrate – Bail allowed.

(Para 5, 6)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319 – Summoning of additional accused – Procedure of -- Section 319 of Cr.P.C. becomes applicable, when during the trial after the filing of the challan and framing of the charge-sheet, evidence is presented indicating the involvement of a person, who was not initially charged by the police -- If the evidence establishes the person's complicity, the court may proceed to include them in the proceedings -- To apply Section 319 CrPC, evidence led should be such that it shows more than a prima facie case as is exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction.

(Para 11)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 323, 341, 506, 379, 379-B, 356, 201, 34 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319 – Snatching case -- Summoning of additional accused – As per the FIR version, the attribution to the petitioner is that he had caught hold of the petitioner -- Main accused and other assailants are attributed to be armed with weapons and having caused injuries -- There is no such attribution to the petitioner -- Apart from above, the FIR has already been quashed qua the main accused -- Merely on the basis of statement of PW1 made during trial, the trial Court was at fault in holding that there was more than a prima facie case so as to summon the petitioner -- Impugned summoning order set aside.

(Para 12-15)

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 8 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 342 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – POCSO – Anticipatory bail – Neither the victim nor his father is inclined to pursue the matter against the petitioner any further, interim bail granted – State acknowledged that petitioner has joined investigation, his custodial interrogation is not required – Petition allowed, interim order made absolute.

(Para 6-8)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 332, 353, 395, 397, 307 -- Dacoity – Attempt to murder -- Acquittal -- None of the accused was identified at the spot nor any of the said persons was known to any of the members of the police party or to the complainant – PW-4, in whose presence dacoity had been committed and who had also signed on various recovery memos, failed to identify the accused and was declared hostile -- Occurrence had taken place during the midnight on ground floor, while the complainant was on the roof of his house and thus identification of accused would certainly be difficult -- Police official/  PW, in his examination-in-chief categorically stated that he cannot identify any of the dacoits, who had fired at him – Acquittal order upheld.

(Para 13)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 412 -- Dishonestly receiving property stolen in the commission of a dacoity – Charges framed only in respect of the jewellery recovered from the three accused and no charges were framed for remaining accused – Three accused convicted, remaining acquitted – Appellants were aged 68 years, 55 years and aged 32 years at the time of passing of impugned judgment and there is no evidence that they are involved in multiple cases – Sentence reduced to already undergone.

(Para 14-16)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 279, 304A – Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 133 -- Acquittal in motor vehicle accident case -- Statement of PW5-ASI, the Investigation Officer that notice u/s 133 of the M.V. Act was sent to the owner of the offending vehicle, who endorsed that offending vehicle was being driven by the appellant/ accused -- However, prosecution failed to examine the owner of the vehicle before the trial Court concerned – Held, statement made before the Investigating Officer cannot be accepted as a gospel truth – Conviction set aside – Petitioner acquitted.

(Para 10-14)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 161, 299 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 33 -- Statement of complainant u/s 161 of Cr.P.C. – Exhibited by Investigation Officer – Accused/ appellant remained absconding for a period of nearly 10 years -- Complainant left his house where he used to reside earlier -- Despite ample efforts being made by the Investigating Agency to summon and examine complainant, he could not be traced out and produced in the witness box for deposition during trial after the accused had been arrested -- Viewed in light of the provisions of Section 299 CrPC read with Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the trial Court was justified in holding that the statement of complainant recorded in these proceedings was fit to be read as a piece of substantive evidence.

(Para 23, 38, 39)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 106 – Murder of wife -- Circumstantial evidence – Last seen together – Circumstances leading to murder were in the exclusive knowledge of the appellant -- He has offered no explanation as to the manner in which deceased was strangled to death within the confines of the room where only he and the deceased were present -- Bald plea of denial offered by the accused by way of an explanation to this gravely incriminating circumstance is not sufficient to absolve him of the burden cast upon him by virtue of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

(Para 46)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 106 -- Murder -- Incriminating circumstances -- Prosecution has established the following links in the chain of incriminating circumstantial evidence: (i) Motive; (ii) Last seen together; (iii) Medical evidence establishing that the cause of death of the deceased was homicidal. (iv) Confessional note; (v) Abscondence for nearly 10 years; (vi) Wrong explanation given by the accused in his statement under Section 313 CrPC; (vii) Failure of the accused to offer explanation for the homicidal death of his wife in the night time when only the accused and deceased were present in the house leading to the interference of guilt by virtue of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 -- Conviction of appellant confirmed – Appeal dismissed.

(Para 47-51)

A. Constitution of India, Article 21 – Punjab Police Rules 1934, Rule 23.8, 23.9 -- History sheet – Name of minor child -- Extra care and precaution, to be observed by a police officer while ensuring that the identity of a minor child is not disclosed -- It will prevent the undesirable exposure to the minor children.

(Para 9)

B. Constitution of India, Article 21 – Punjab Police Rules 1934, Rule 23.8, 23.9 -- History sheet – Scope of -- Police authorities of States and Union Territories may consider the desirability of ensuring that no mechanical entries in History Sheet are made of innocent individuals, simply because they happen to hail from the socially, economically and educationally disadvantaged backgrounds, along with those belonging to Backward Communities, Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes.

(Para 14)

C. Constitution of India, Article 21 – Punjab Police Rules 1934, Rule 23.8, 23.9 -- Life – Scope -- Expression ‘life’ unequivocally includes the right to live a life worthy of human honour and all that goes along with it –  Self-regard, social image and an honest space for oneself in one’s surrounding society, are just as significant to a dignified life as are adequate food, clothing and shelter.

(Para 15)

A. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Section 14(3), 15 -- Child in conflict with law -- Preliminary assessment – Time limit -- The provision of Section 14(3) of the Act, providing for the period of three months for completion of a preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the Act, is not mandatory -- The same is held to be directory -- The period can be extended, for the reasons to be recorded in writing, by the Chief Judicial Magistrate or, as the case may be, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.

(Para 18(i))

B. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Section 2(20), 19, 101 – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016, Rule 10, 10A, 11, 13 – ‘Children’s Court’ -- ‘Court of Sessions’ -- The words ‘Children’s Court’ and ‘Court of Sessions’ in Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and the 2016 Rules shall be read interchangeably -- Primarily jurisdiction vests in the Children’s Court -- However, in the absence of constitution of such Children’s Court in the district, the power to be exercised under the Act is vested with the Court of Sessions.

(Para 18(ii))

C. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Section 15, 101 -- Child in conflict with law -- Appeal – Limitation -- Appeal, under Section 101(2) of the Act against an order of the Board passed under Section 15 of the Act, can be filed within a period of 30 days -- The appellate court can entertain the appeal after the expiry of the aforesaid period, provided sufficient cause is shown -- Endeavour has to be made to decide any such appeal filed within a period of 30 days.

(Para 18(iii))

D. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Section 2(20), 14, 15, 18, 19, 17, 101 – Duties of Courts, Tribunals, Boards and the Quasi-Judicial Authorities -- In all the orders passed by the Courts, Tribunals, Boards and the Quasi-Judicial Authorities the names of the Presiding Officer and/or the Members who sign the orders shall be mentioned -- In case any identification number has been given, the same can also be added -- The Presiding Officers and/or Members while passing the order shall properly record presence of the parties and/or their counsels, the purpose for which the matter is being adjourned and the party on whose behalf the adjournment has been sought and granted.

(Para 18 (vii, viii))

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 403, 420, 421, 425 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Quashing of FIR – Commercial transaction – Breach of contract -- Three hypothecated trucks not produced for inspection -- Rather disclosed that they had dismantled  and disposed of the same -- Said act prima facie, makes out a case u/s 421 and 425 of IPC -- At the stage of considering the quashing of the FIR, the Court is required only to look into the allegations made in the complaint/ FIR by taking them to be at their face value -- Mere fact that the complaint relates to a commercial transaction or breach of contract, for which a civil remedy is available or has been availed, is not by itself a ground to quash the criminal proceedings -- Both criminal and civil law remedy can be pursued – Quashing petition dismissed.

(Para 34-38)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 306 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Abetment to commit suicide – Compromise quashing of FIR -- Power to quash the FIR depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case -- It is required to be seen by the High Court as to whether Section 306 IPC is even made out from the contents of FIR or not before coming to the conclusion that quashing of proceedings u/s 306 IPC on the basis of compromise should be allowed or not by exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. -- Merely by blaming the petitioners to be responsible for commission of suicide by the deceased in the suicide note, cannot be sufficient to invoke Section 306 IPC – FIR and subsequent proceedings quashed.

(Para 13-15, 26)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 306 -- Abetment to commit suicide – No details are given as to when and in what manner, petitioners harassed the deceased -- Simply by mentioning in the suicide note that accused-petitioner  harassed the deceased and is responsible for the commission of suicide by deceased, cannot be sufficient to invoke Section 306 IPC.

(Para 19)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 149 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 106 -- Murder – Acquittal – Last seen together theory -- The theory of last seen together is helpful to the prosecution if the deceased was seen in the company of the accused in the proximity of the time at which the dead body is found -- Deceased on the day he was found dead, after he was allegedly seen with the accused, attended a meeting of the Congress Party -- Involvement of other persons in the offence is not ruled out – Appellant no. 2 was found in the company of the deceased is not sufficient to link him with the commission of the offence of murder – Conviction of appellants u/s 302/ 149 of IPC set aside.

(Para 17, 18)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 307, 160, 323, 324, 148, 149, 212, 216, 201, 120-B – Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25, 27, 54, 59-A -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Murder – Regular bail -- Petitioner has clean antecedents and in the occurrence in question no specific role or injury has been attributed to him, other than his presence being reflected in the FIR -- Possibility of the trial concluding any time in the near future looks remote – Bail allowed.

(Para 5, 6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Murder – Regular bail – Delay in FIR for more than 100 days -- Two others accused are there -- Only circumstantial evidence against the petitioner is her disclosure statement coupled with the recovery of knife allegedly used in the crime -- FSL report is not on record to show as to whether there were any blood stains on the knife and as to whether those blood stains matched with the blood of deceased or other physical evidence as collected from the spot -- Petitioner in custody for the last 3 years 6 months and 22 days with no other criminal case -- Out of 19 only 8 have been examined so far – Bail allowed.

(Para 7-9)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 467, 380, 411 – Acquittal – Theft -- Delay in FIR -- Theft had allegedly taken place on the night intervening 21/22.05.2009 at about 03.00 AM and the FIR had been got recorded on 24.05.2009 at 05.30 PM -- Once the accused were identified by the complainant/petitioner at the spot and they had been named in the FIR, the delay in the registration of the same is fatal to the case of the prosecution case – Revision against acquittal dismissed.

(Para 2, 12)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319, 482 – Murder – Summoning of additional accused – Quashing of summoning order -- Not being an eye-witness, PW-1’s deposition is not sufficient enough to invoke the extra-ordinary jurisdiction u/s 319 to summon the appellants -- No other witnesses deposed against the appellants -- No documentary evidence – No role attributed to the appellants -- Deposition of PW-1 is in line and consistent with her statement u/s 161 -- Higher degree of satisfaction required for exercising power u/s 319 Cr.P.C. is not met – Held, Trial Court committed a serious error in issuing summons to the appellants -- High Court should have quashed the order – Appeal allowed, impugned order/ judgment set aside.

(Para 23-26)

Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (15 of 2003), Section 3, 4, 8 – Money Laundering case – Acquittal/ discharge of accused – Release of attached property -- Right of – Pendency of appeal – Effect of -- Section 8(6) of the PMLA makes amply clear that if an accused under the PMLA is discharged / acquitted, the learned Special Judge under Section 8(6) has no option but to pass an order releasing the properties attached under the PMLA – Till the judgment of acquittal predicate offence is reversed in an appeal, all the effects of acquittal will continue to operate and mere filing of an appeal against acquittal would not mean that the respondents will continue to suffer the rigors of criminal proceedings or attachment under the PMLA -- No infirmity in the order whereby the attached movable and immovable properties were directed to be released by the learned Special Judge.

(Para 28-32)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 182, 199, 201, 203, 211 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 27 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 195, 482 -- Quashing of Challan/ Charge-sheet – Petitioner/ Complainant charge-sheeted in his own FIR -- Petitioner filed private complaint in which preliminary evidence has already been recorded – Not proper for the Investigating Agency to file the challan against the petitioner to prosecute him in the FIR, which was lodged on his own complaint instead of filing the cancellation report -- By not filing the cancellation report, petitioner was not afforded any opportunity to file protest petition -- Challan and Charge-sheet quashed.

(Para 11-19)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Parole for own engagement and marriage ceremony -- Petition allowed, petitioner granted parole for a period of two weeks.

(Para 1-5)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 300-Part 1, Exception 4, 302 -- Murder -- Culpable homicide not amounting to murder -- No premeditation,  incident occurred since the appellant believed that the utterances by deceased  were aimed at him and, therefore, he retaliated by abusing the deceased -- This was followed by a heated exchange between them -- They grappled out of the building of the Dhaba -- Accused-Appellant rushed to his car, pulled out a bottle from the driver’s seat side, broke it on the bumper of the car and attacked the deceased -- It is thus clear that the incident occurred without premeditation, in a sudden fight, in the heat of passion and upon a sudden quarrel -- Case would fall under Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC -- Conviction of the accused-Appellant u/s 302 of the IPC altered to one under Part I of Section 304 of the IPC.

(Para 13-15)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 107, 306 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Abetment to suicide – Quashing of criminal proceedings – Inherent powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C. -- Uttering words “go and hang yourself” – Whether abetment – No -- Sole accused, husband of the lady with whom the deceased had certain relationship and had blunt out his anger and had uttered words ‘go and hang yourself’ cannot mean that it would become the ingredients of Section 107 of the IPC for it to become an offence u/s 306 of the IPC – Reason for the deceased to commit suicide may be myriad, one of which could be the factum of him having illicit relationship with the wife of the petitioner, despite being the Father and Priest of a Church -- Charge sheet filed -- Such cases should be nipped in exercise of its jurisdiction u/s 482 of the Cr.P.C. – Proceedings pending before the Principal District & Sessions Judge quashed.

(Para 14-15)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 391 -- Additional evidence at Appellate stage -- Certified copy issued by Private Bank -- Application for bringing on record the certified copy issued by the private bank -- Certified copy issued by the private bank is not per-se admissible, rather the same is required to be proved by way of evidence -- In the absence of any prayer for proving such document, even if application is allowed, such document would not be admissible as an evidence -- Application dismissed.

(Para 6, 7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498A, 406, 384, 420, 120(B) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Matrimonial dispute  -- Quashing of FIR – Misue of State machinery – One FIR at Hisar – Other at Udaipur – Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 misusing their official position by lodging complaints one after the other – Further, their conduct of neither appearing before the Trial Court at Hisar nor withdrawing their complaint at Hisar, would show that their only intention was to harass the appellant by first making him face a trial at Hisar and then again at Udaipur – Argument that no offence was committed in Hisar but only at Udaipur was also not correct – Court deprecated this practice of state machinery being misused for ulterior motives, imposed cost of Rs. 5,00,000/- on the respondent No.2 – FIR at Udaipur quashed.

(Para 8-12)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 120-B, 506, 34 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Murder – Regular bail – Speedy trial – Right of -- Petitioner suffered incarceration of 05 years, 08 months and 12 days -- Investigation is complete, challan stands filed, out of total 35 prosecution witnesses, 33 witnesses have been examined -- Trial will take long time, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for uncertain period -- Bail is a rule and jail is an exception – It would also violate Article 21 of the Constitution -- Bail allowed.

(Para 4-7)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 173, 190, 200, Chapter XV – Cancellation report by police -- Protest petition – Private complaint – Right of complainant -- Magistrate had the liberty to reject the Protest Petition along with all other material which may have been filed in support of the same -- In that event the Complainant would be at liberty to file a fresh complaint -- The right of the Complainant to file a petition u/s 200 Cr.P.C. is not taken away even if the Magistrate does not direct that such a Protest Petition be treated as a complaint -- Magistrate ought to have followed the provisions and the procedure prescribed under Chapter XV of the Cr.P.C..

(Para 3, 10, 11)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319 – Additional accused – Summoning -- Discretionary power is extraordinary and must be exercised judiciously only when compelling reasons exist to take cognizance against these individuals -- While summoning an individual, a prima facie case against him/her should be discernible which would reasonably lead to his/her conviction -- Evidence must be stronger than mere probability of complicity -- Trial Court is obligated to adopt a rigorous standard of appraisal of evidence, ensuring that the material on record could reasonably lead to the conviction of a person sought to be summoned.

(Para 5)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319 – Additional accused – Summoning – Alibi -- Contention that it had come during investigation that the petitioner was not present at the time of the alleged occurrence cannot be a ground for the learned Trial Court to not summon a person as an additional accused u/s 319 of the Cr.P.C. -- Right of an accused to present his evidence of alibi would always be available to him during trial.

(Para 10)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420, 120B – Constitution of India, Article 14, 21 -- FIR against petitioner -- Right to go abroad -- Mere involvement of the petitioner in a criminal case cannot be made the basis to reject his prayer to travel abroad, more so, when the petitioner has undertaken to abide by all the conditions to be imposed by the Court -- Right to travel is a fundamental right and there is no law depriving a person of such right -- Investigation at initial stage -- Petition allowed, petitioner permitted to travel abroad subject to the conditions.

(Para 12)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 376, 3(2)(V) – Murder – Rape – Acquittal -- Not a case of direct evidence -- Not a case of circumstantial evidence -- PW-1 and PW-2, star prosecution witnesses are parents of the deceased -- PW-2 was not present in the village when the incident occurred and PW-1/ mother has not seen the accused/ appellant committing the offence, she claims to have learnt of the complicity of accused/ appellant but no person has been identified from whom information has been received – No recovery from the accused/ appellant -- Not the case that dead body has been recovered on the pointing out of the accused/ appellant – Judgment of conviction and sentence set aside.

(Para 21-28)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21 -- NDPS Case – Acquittal – Independent witness – Exclusive possession -- No evidence to establish that the alleged place of recovery i.e. room where a motor was situated, was under exclusive possession, usage, or ownership of the appellant – No explanation from police officials regarding the absence of independent witnesses during the operation -- No efforts were made to establish a direct connection between the appellant and the recovered contraband material – Reasonable doubt created about the genuineness of the recovery – Appellant acquitted.

(Para 9-10)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 389 – Conviction in cheque bounce complaint -- Suspension of sentence – Condition to deposit  20% of compensation -- Petitioner directed to deposit 20% of the compensation amount awarded by trial Court, while passing the said direction, the Appellate Court has not referred to the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jamboo Bhandari’s case (2023) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 18509 and no reason given by the said Court – Condition of deposit set aside, Appellate Court directed to decide afresh.

(Para 4)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 205, 482 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 469, 471, 180, 120-B -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 23 -- Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000), Section 67B -- POCSO -- Permanent exemption from personal appearance – Charges framed on 14.07.2023 and only 5 PWs out of 15, have been examined so far – Personal appearance of the petitioners before the learned trial Court exempted subject to conditions.

(Para 6, 7)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 451, 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 201, 202, 302, 341, 34 – Murder case -- Superdari of vehicle -- If the vehicle remains parked in the police station for a considerable period of time, it would become unfit for being plying on the road as keeping it parked in the sun and rain could damage its tyres, colour, machinery, battery as also interiors of the vehicle -- Value of the vehicle would also diminish in such a situation – Petition allowed, vehicle ordered to be released to the petitioner/registered owner on superdari.

(Para 8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 307, 506, 148, 149 – Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25, 27 --  Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Attempt to murder – Anticipatory bail -- On the contention that petitioner has not been named in the FIR, his tower location was not found at the place of occurrence, specific injuries attracting Section 307 IPC attributed to the co-accused and there is nothing on record against the petitioner in the final report filed u/s 173 Cr.P.C. against the co-accused, interim protection was granted -- Petitioner joined the investigation, interim bail order confirmed.

(Para 5-7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 8 -- Murder -- Motive -- Mere absence of motive would not impinge on the testimony of a reliable eye-witness -- Motive is an important factor for consideration in a case of circumstantial evidence.

(Para 5)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22(c), 25, 37 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- NDPS Case – Commercial quantity – Regular bail -- Circumstances raises a finger of serious doubts for date and time of taking the petitioner into actual custody by the police, he was actually abducted from Delhi one day prior to showing his date of arrest, have come on record which needs to be examined by leading evidence before the trial Court – Petitioner has already incarcerated for a period of 01 year 05 months and 29 days in custody -- Petitioner not involved in any other offence -- Trial is bound to take long time -- Petitioner cannot be detained behind bars for an indefinite period -- Article 21 of the Constitution provides for a right to speedy trial even to an accused -- Judicial precedent is also to be borne in mind that “bail is a rule” and “jail is an exception” – Bail allowed.

(Para 16, 17)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 186, 353 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 195 -- Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty -- Cognizance of – Court cannot take cognizance of an offence committed u/s 186 IPC without there being a complaint made by the concerned public servant, but there is no such requirement for offence u/s 353 CrPC -- Section 195 Cr. PC does not bar the trial of the accused person for a distinct offence, disclosed by the same set of facts but which is not within the ambit of that section.

(Para 11-15)

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (37 of 1967), Section 3 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 120-B, 153-A -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Offence under UAPA – Regular bail -- Secessionist slogans painted on the walls of College and School – Petitioner not named in the FIR, arraigned as an accused on the statement of co-accused in another case -- Recovery of paint, clothes and mobile phone effected from the appellant in connection with the investigation in another FIR, no recovery made from him in the instant case -- No material to indicate that any monetary transactions had taken place and that the appellant had used a particular mobile phone for recording the incident and sending it to other accused -- Appellant in custody for 01 year and 09 months – Challan filed but charges are yet to be framed, prosecution cited 14 witnesses, therefore, the conclusion of trial would take some time – Bail allowed.

(Para 5-7)

Public Gambling Act, 1867 (3 of 1867), Section 13(A) -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420 -- Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 (43 of 1978), Section 4, 5 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Quashing of FIR -- Dara Satta/ Gambling -- S.I. was not authorised to conduct the raid -- Petitioners being the authorised dealer/ a member of National Commodity and Derivatives Exchange Limited, so no offence u/s 4 & 5 of 1978, Act made out -- Ingredients u/s 420 IPC are completely missing – FIR, summoning order and subsequent proceedings quashed.

(Para 7)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 36A(4) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167(2) -- NDPS case – Default bail -- Extension of time for investigation for another 180 days – Report of Public prosecutor – Requirement of -- Application for extension reveals that it was prepared by the Investigating Officer and forwarded by the Public Prosecutor, with no report submitted by the Public Prosecutor as per the mandate of Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act -- Held, there has thus, been a failure to adhere to the requirements outlined in section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act -- Order of the trial Court granting extension of time to the investigating agency for completing investigation was erroneous -- Consequently, the impugned order set aside -- As a sequel to the above, since the investigation remained incomplete on the day application u/s 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. was filed by the petitioner, he deserves to be enlarged on default bail – Default bail allowed.

(Para 11-14)