Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 401 -- Summary trial – Conviction in cheque bounce complaint -- Ld. trial court recorded the statement of the complainant and convicted the petitioner and imposed one year’s sentence and fine of Rs.14 lakhs – Additional evidence application for calling witness pending before appellate Court – Held, decision arrived at by the learned trial court held to be justified -- Trial u/s 138 of NI Act has to be a summary trial and if sufficient evidence  to convict and the preponderance of probability is met, then there is no reason for creating an elaborate trial -- No interference in the revision called for, dismissed.

(Para 3, 8, 9)

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 273, 299 – Cheque bounce complaint -- Absence of accused – Recording of evidence -- If the personal attendance of the accused is dispensed with, evidence may be recorded in the presence of the pleader of the accused -- Except u/s 299, evidence cannot be recorded for any other reason in the absence of the accused.

(Para 11)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 273, 299 – Absence of accused – Ex-parte proceedings -- There is no provision in Cr.P.c. for keeping an accused ex parte similar to one found in CPC -- Held, trial cannot be held in the absence of an accused unless personal appearance is dispensed with for valid reasons.

(Para 12, 15)

C. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 313 – Absence of accused – Statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. – Dispense with – Permissibility of -- There cannot be dispensation of examination of an accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C if incriminating evidence appears in the evidence of the witness -- Speedy trial does not take the meaning of jumping the stages in criminal trial.

(Para 16)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 417, 420, 467, 468 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 401 -- Agreement to sell with complainant – Concealment of previous agreement – Conviction by Trial Court, affirmed by Appellate Court – Revision against -- In agreement to sell executed with the complainant, it was stated that there is no prior agreement pertaining to the land -- Vendee of prior agreement to sell/ PW-1 submitted that the agreement to sell was executed with him and that the civil suit filed for specific performance of the said agreement under the Specific Relief Act was decreed in his favour and consequently, the sale deed was executed in his favour – Claim of the petitioner that he did not intend to defraud the complainant is apparently misconceived -- No explanation has been given as to why a wrong statement was made by the petitioner under his signature in the agreement – It cannot be said that the dispute in question was civil in nature – No illegality, perversity, infirmity or impropriety in the judgments passed by the Courts below – Revision dismissed.

(Para 10-16)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 401 -- Revisional jurisdiction -- Restricted to examine whether there is any manifest error of law or procedure, such a power is to be exercised only when there is an apparent illegality, gross procedural irregularity or impropriety leading to miscarriage of justice, legal infirmity or gross mis-appreciation of the evidence that does not reconcile to the conclusion drawn by the Court -- High Court in a revisional jurisdiction would not interfere in the opinion of the Courts below if such an opinion is a possible opinion on the basis of the evidence brought on record and would not substitute its own opinion merely because such opinion is also a possible opinion.

(Para 15)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 432(7), 433, 433A – Premature release – Crime in Gujarat and trial in Maharashtra -- Appropriate government for remission of sentence – After the conclusion of trial and the prisoner being convicted, stood transferred to the State where the crime was committed remain the appropriate Government for the purpose of Section 432(7) CrPC – State of Gujarat is competent to examine the application filed for pre-mature release.

(Para 11, 12)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 432(7), 433, 433A – Power to suspend or remission of sentence – Appropriate Government – Concurrent jurisdiction of Centre and State -- U/s 432(7) CrPC, the appropriate Government can be either the Central or the State Government but there cannot be a concurrent jurisdiction of two State Governments under Section 432(7) CrPC.

(Para 13)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 432(7), 433, 433A – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 376(2)(e )(g), 149 – Rape and murder case – Premature release -- Crime in Gujarat and trial in Maharashtra – Policy for pre-mature release of which State applicable – Held, all further proceedings have to be considered including remission or pre-mature release, as the case may be, in terms of the policy which is applicable in the State of Gujarat where the crime was committed and not the State where the trial stands transferred -- Respondents directed to consider the application of the petitioner for pre-mature release in terms of its policy dated 9th July, 1992 which is applicable on the date of conviction and may be decided within a period of two months.

(Para 14)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498-A, 304-B -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 32(1) – Acquittal u/s 304-B IPC – Conviction u/s 498-A IPC -- Dying declaration – Reliance upon – Test for admissibility is not that the evidence to be admitted should directly relate to a charge pertaining to the death of the individual, or that the charge relating to death could not be proved -- Rather, the test appears to be that the cause of death must come into question in that case, regardless of the nature of the proceeding, and that the purpose for which such evidence is being sought to be admitted should be a part of the ‘circumstances of the transaction’ relating to the death -- In some circumstances, the evidence of a deceased wife with respect to cruelty could be admissible in a trial for a charge u/s 498A of the IPC u/s 32(1) of the Evidence Act -- However, certain necessary pre-conditions that must be met before the evidence is admitted -- The first condition is that her cause of death must come into question in the matter, however the charge relating to death is proved or not is immaterial with respect to admissibility -- The second condition is that the prosecution will have to show that the evidence that is sought to be admitted with respect to Section 498A of the IPC must also relate to the circumstances of the transaction of the death -- How far back the evidence can be, and how connected the evidence is to the cause of death of the deceased would necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.

(Para 11, 17-22)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498-A – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 136, 137 -- Mental cruelty -- Deceased’s wife was being harassed is clear from the evidence of PW-3 (mother of the deceased) -- She had specifically stated in her chief-examination that within few days of their marriage, the appellant brought the deceased back to her parental home with the threat that if extra dowry was not given, he would leave her and marry another “beautiful” girl -- As a result of such harassment, the deceased allegedly attempted suicide for the first time by consuming poison -- While she was being treated in the hospital, a settlement was reached between the parties, to which appellant was also a part, wherein it was agreed that no further demands for dowry would be made -- Further, it was stated by PW-3 in her chief-examination that even after the settlement, the appellant had continued to illtreat the deceased -- Deceased, due to the ill-treatment faced by her had ultimately committed suicide by hanging herself with a saree -- Conviction of the appellant u/s 498A of the IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year, upheld.

(Para 25, 26)

C. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 136, 137 -- Interested witness – Evidence by mother of the deceased – Value of -- It is a settled principle of law that the evidence tendered by the related or interested witness cannot be discarded on that ground alone -- However, as a rule of prudence, the Court may scrutinize the evidence of such related or interested witness more carefully.

(Para 26)

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Sections 7, 13 (1)(a)(ii) -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Cheating and corruption case – Regular bail -- Petitioners are in custody since 16.12.2021 -- Considering that the investigation is complete, challan stands presented, petitioners volunteer to give their specimen signatures, conclusion of trial is likely to take time, the petitioners are granted bail.

(Para 6)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 143A -- Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 (4 of 1914), Schedule I, Clause 3 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 421 -- Cheque bounce complaint -- Interim compensation – Recovery as public demand -- Whether an order for payment of interim compensation under the Negotiable Instrument Act can be enforceable under the Bihar & Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 as a public demand? -- Interim compensation so ordered u/s 143A of the NI Act is recoverable as a fine u/s 421 of Cr.P.C. which then, clearly falls under the definition of ‘public demand’ – Held, interim compensation ordered under the NI Act falls within the ambit of Schedule I of the Recovery Act, realization thereunder cannot be stopped.

(Para 17-20)

A. Evidence law -- Circumstantial evidence -- In order to sustain a conviction, it is imperative that the chain of circumstances is complete, cogent and coherent -- Inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused -- Circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances.

(Para 10)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 -- Murder of children of A-1 -- Proximity between A-1 and A-2 – Circumstantial evidence -- Prosecution has not even established the motive of the crime beyond reasonable doubt -- A1 and A2 talked on call, only proves that they shared a close relationship -- However, what these records do not prove, is that the murder was somehow in furtherance of this alleged proximity between A1 and A2 -- High Court’s inference in this regard was a mere dubious conclusion in absence of any cogent or concrete evidence -- High Court itself based its inferences on mere probability when it held that “It is quite probable that A2 would have through that the minor children had been a hurdle for his close proximity with A1” -- Prosecution has also failed to establish by evidence the supposed objective of these murders and what was it that was sought to be achieved by such an act -- Court observed that the act of A2 was inspired by the desire to “exclusively possess” A1 -- However, it seems improbable that A2 would murder the minor children of PW5 and A1 to increase or protect his intimacy to A1 rather than eliminate the husband of A1 himself -- Conviction cannot be upheld.

(Para 13)

C. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 65A, 65B – Call records – Certification of electronic evidence – Requirement of -- Electronic evidence produced before the High Court should have been in accordance with the statute and should have complied with the certification requirement, for it to be admissible in the court of law -- Oral evidence in the place of such certificate cannot possibly suffice as Section 65B(4) is a mandatory requirement of the law.

(Para 21)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 342, 395, 397, 307, 34 and 120-B – Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25, 25(1) (a) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Robbery – Attempt to murder – Regular bail – Involvement in other case – Held, case for bail has to be considered on its own merits -- Even though the antecedents of an accused may be one amongst the relevant considerations while adjudicating a petition on merits for grant of bail, however, a mere involvement of the petitioner in other cases cannot be the sole basis to keep him confined in perpetuity – FIR does not attribute any overt act on the part of the petitioner in the commission of the offence -- Involvement of the petitioner is only on the basis of a disclosure made by the co-accused -- Role attributed to the person and the evidence collected during the investigation by the Investigating Agency would invariably remain a prime consideration with the Court while considering the application of bail along with stage of the prosecution case and the period of custody – Bail granted.

(Para 3-8)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (20 of 1958), Section 4 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 374 -- Probation – Conviction in cheque bounce complaint -- Matter pertains to an incident that occurred in the year 2000 and the present appeal has been pending since 2012 – No material on record that the accused-petitioner has any criminal antecedents – Held, the accused-petitioner are entitled to the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 -- Petitioner ordered to be released on probation, u/s 4 of the Act.

(Para 12-14)

Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 (8 of 1975), Section 3, 7, 10 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 468, 482 – FIR under Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act -- Quashing of FIR – Maximum sentence is three years -- Limitation of three years to take cognizance -- Sale deed was executed on 28.04.2011 -- Communication dated 23.02.2012 was sent by the DTP, Kurukshetra to Superintendent of Police on 28.09.2016 leading to the registration of the FIR on 29.09.2016 -- Respondent no.2 was aware of the alleged offence, if any, on 01.12.2011/13.12.2011 and, therefore, the court could have taken cognizance within three years of that date i.e. 01.12.2014/13.12.2014 -- Report u/s 173 Cr.PC was submitted on 17.08.2017 -- Thus, the court could clearly not have taken cognizance beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 468 Cr.PC -- Petition allowed and the FIR u/s 10 of Haryana Development and Regulations of Urban Areas Act, 1975 along with all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed.

(Para 12-14)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 143A – Cheque bounce case -- Death of accused – Interim compensation – Final compensation – Recovery from Estate – Permissibility of -- In case of death of an accused the compensation awarded u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 can be recovered from the estate of a deceased accused, but an interim compensation awarded u/s 143A of the said Act cannot be recovered from the estate of a deceased accused, who died before the conclusion of the trial.

(Para 38)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 120-B, 201, 302, 365 – Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 3(2)(v) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Murder -- Abetment to suicide – Criminal conspiracy -- Regular bail -- Co-accused enlarged on Bail -- Submits that co-accused was named in the FIR and there is direct allegation against him, whereas name of the appellant surfaced during the investigation in the disclosure statement of co-accused, therefore, his case is on better footings – Challan was presented u/s 306 IPC, after deleting Sections 302 & 201 IPC -- Appellant is in custody for the last 01 year, 05 months and 24 days; he is not involved in any other case and the case is still at the stage of framing of charge, therefore, it will take some time in conclusion of the trial – Without commenting anything on merits of the case and considering the facts and circumstances of the case appeal allowed, appellant ordered to be released on regular bail.

(Para 4-7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 384, 387, 506 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Sections 25, 27,  54, 59 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 173, 439 – Extortion matter -- Habitual offender – Regular bail -- All relevant recoveries effected at the instance of the bail applicant/ petitioner -- Report u/s 173 of the Cr.P.C. filed -- No further cooperation of the bail applicant / petitioner required -- Applicant suffering judicial incarceration since 21.12.2021 – Petitioner admitted to bail -- Stringent conditions upon imposed.

(Para 3-7)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Regular bail -- Involvement in other case – A mere involvement of the accused in other cases cannot be the sole basis for rejecting the petition for bail.

(Para 6)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302, 307, 452, 325, 324, 323, 427, 148, 149 and 120-B -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Sections 25 and 27 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Murder case – Regular bail -- Petitioner is not attributed any role in the incident -- It is also not denied that there were two incidents -- There is no rebuttal of the submission that in the statement u/s 161 CrPC, the complainant has retracted his allegations against the petitioner and has specifically stated that the petitioner was not involved in the incident -- Besides, the petitioner has already undergone an actual custody of more than 1 year and 08 months -- Only one witness has been examined so far out of 55 witnesses to be examined by the prosecution -- Conclusion of the trial is likely to take long time -- No further interest of justice would be served by continued incarceration of the petitioner – Court deemed it appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

(Para 6, 7)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 251, 254, 482 -- Cheque bounce complaint – Discharge application – Dismissal of -- Particulars of offence were stated to the accused/petitioners u/s 251 of CrPC, which was denied by him and it was stated that he had given the blank cheque to the respondent firm, which has been misused -- Complaint case u/s 138 of the NI Act is a summons trial case and the ld. Trial Court has rightly held that prima facie application cannot be decided without going into merits of the case in absence of any evidence -- This finding cannot be interfered with by High Court.

(Para 6-8)

A. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 32(1) -- Dying declaration – As per the dying declaration recorded by Assistant Divisional Transport Officer, six/seven persons attacked the deceased -- Even in the F.I.R., lodged by PW-5, it was specifically mentioned that six persons attacked his brother, who assaulted him with hockey stick and knife -- PW-5-informant turned hostile, however, no reason to doubt the dying declaration.

(Para 6)

B. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 32(1) -- Dying declaration – Recording of -- Danger to life – Serious condition -- Extreme emergence – Requirement of -- As the deceased was having a stab injury by a knife, there was a possibility of danger to his life and therefore, by way of prudence, if the dying declaration was recorded, there is no reason to doubt the dying declaration, which was recorded by Assistant Divisional Transport Officer.

(Para 6.1)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 141, 149 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 32(1) -- Unlawful assembly – Proof of – Dying declaration – Reliance upon -- From the dying declaration it emerges that six to seven persons attacked the deceased including respondent -- Prosecution held to be successful in establishing and proving that respondent was present at the time of the incident; he was part of the unlawful assembly and that he participated in the commission of offence.

(Para 6.1)

D. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 228, 464 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 141, 146, 148, 149 -- Framing of charge – Defective framing of charge – Effect of -- Respondent/ accused was not specifically charged u/s 302 r/w Section 149 IPC -- Ingredients for the offence u/s 302 r/w Section 149 and Section 148 of IPC were specifically brought to the notice of the accused -- At the most, it can be said to be a defective framing of the charge by not specifically charging u/s 149 IPC -- Therefore, section 464 Cr.P.C. is attracted to the case -- Ingredients of Section 149 IPC are satisfied -- It cannot be said that the accused is prejudiced by non-mention of Section 149 IPC in the charge.

(Para 7, 8)

E. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 32(1) -- Dying declaration – Non recovery of weapon – Effect of -- Merely because the weapon used is not recovered cannot be a ground not to rely upon the dying declaration, which was recorded before the Executive Magistrate, which has been proved by the prosecution.

(Para 9)

F. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 32(1) -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 141, 149 – Dying declaration – Unlawful assembly – Act of other person – Liable for -- Not proved, who actually inflicted the knife blow -- Deceased sustained an injury by knife blow, which is inflicted by one of the six to seven persons, who participated in commission of the offence -- Respondent was specifically named in the dying declaration, therefore, even if the role attributed to the respondent-accused was that of hitting the deceased by a hockey stick, in that case also for the act of other persons, who were part of the unlawful assembly of inflicting the knife blow, the respondent accused can be held guilty of having committed the murder of deceased, with the aid of Section 149 IPC.

(Para 10)

G. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 148, 149, 302, 304 Part 1 -- Unlawful assembly -- Rioting, armed with deadly weapon -- Murder – Culpable homicide not amounting to murder -- Deceased sustained an injury by knife blow, which is inflicted by one of the six to seven persons, who participated in commission of the offence -- Role attributed to the respondent-accused was that of hitting the deceased by a hockey stick --Deceased died due to septicemia after a period of thirty days – Conviction u/s 302 r/w Section 149 IPC is not warranted -- Respondent/ accused held guilty for the offence under Section 304 Part I r/w Section 149 IPC and for the offence u/s 148 IPC – Respondent/ accused is sentenced to undergo ten years R.I. for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part I r/w Section 149 IPC with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default to undergo further six months R.I. – Respondent/ accused also sentenced to undergo three years R.I. for the offence u/s 148 IPC with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default to undergo further two months R.I. -- Both the sentences to run concurrently.

(Para 10-13)

H. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 148 – Unlawful assembly of six to seven persons – Rioting, armed with deadly weapon -- Three accused charge-sheeted, charged and tried – Acquittal of two accused – Effect of -- Involvement of six to seven persons in commission of the offence has been established and proved -- Merely because three persons were charge-sheeted/ charged/ tried and even out of three tried, two persons came to be acquitted cannot be a ground to not to convict the respondent/ accused u/s 148 IPC.

(Para 12)

I. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 146, 148 – Unlawful assembly – Rioting, armed with deadly weapon -- Accused armed with hockey, deceased died due to knife injury – Effect of -- Six to seven persons were part of the unlawful assembly and they used force or violence and one of them used a deadly weapon, namely, knife and therefore, being a part of the unlawful assembly, the respondent/  accused can be held to be guilty for the offence of rioting and for the use of force/violence as a member of such an unlawful assembly -- Respondent was rightly convicted by the Trial Court for the offence under Section 148 IPC.

(Para 12.1)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 148, 149, 120-B, 201 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Murder case -- Regular bail -- No injury attributed with the weapon qua to the petitioner -- Petitioner is in custody since 01.09.2020 -- Court deemed it appropriate to allow the benefit of regular bail to the petitioner.

(Para 1-4)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 306 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 32(1) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Abetment to suicide – Anticipatory bail – Dying declaration -- Holographic made dying declaration by the deceased did not name the petitioners to abet him to commit suicide -- Any subsequent statement, made by the deceased to any witness, becomes an oral dying declaration, and, its effect becomes completely subsumed besides becomes eclipsed within the realms of the scribed dying declaration -- Court does not deem it fit, and, appropriate to order for the custodial interrogation of the petitioners-bail applicants, as, thereupons their personal liberty would become unnecessarily fettered, and, curtailed -- Bail applicants-petitioners are admitted to anticipatory bail.

(Para 3, 4)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378(4) -- Cheque bounce complaint – Pre-mature complaint -- Leave to appeal -- Trial Court found the complaint pre-mature -- Cheque dishonored and returned with the remark ”Account Closed” -- Notice sent to the accused, who refused to accept notice – Complaint filed on 13^th day of refusal – Complainant-appellant registered the complaint before the statutory period of 15 days -- Leave to appeal dismissed.

(Para 4-6)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 173(8) -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 279, 304-A, 338, 302 – Further investigation – Power of Magistrate – Right of complainant -- If the investigating officer, suppresses credible evidence with respect to the adding of an offence carried u/s 302 IPC, and, the afore omissions are willful and deliberate or are a sequel of slipshod investigations, being made by the investigating officer, in the FIR, thereupon, it is open to the petitioner to file an application, through the aegis of the learned Police Prosecutor concerned, before the learned trial Magistrate concerned, and, seek therein relief, for further investigations being made, in respect of the above by the investigating officer concerned, other than the officer who was earlier conducted the investigations, and, that too by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police.

(Para 4)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 139 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 401 -- Cheque bounce complaint – Legally enforceable debt – Friendly loan of Rs. 3 lacs -- Basic ingredients which are required for transaction is not disputed -- There was good acquaintance between the petitioner and the accused prior to the transaction took place – No dispute relating to the issuing of demand notice by the petitioner to the accused – Accused/ Respondent No.1 convicted, sentenced to pay fine of Rs.3,00,000/-, in default simple imprisonment for one year.

(Para 2, 29, 30)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 279, 337 -- Rash and negligent driving -- Compromise quashing of FIR -- Accused and injured compromised the matter -- Continuing with proceedings will not suffice any fruitful purpose -- High Court invokes the inherent jurisdiction and quashed the FIR and all subsequent proceedings.

(Para 1,2,3,13)

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Complaint for dishonour of cheque -- Stop payment – Account closed -- Not only the cases of dishonour of cheques on account of insufficiency of funds or on account of exceeding of arrangement but the cases involving dishonour of cheques on account of “stop payment” and “account closed” have also been brought within the ambit of offence under the aforesaid provision.

(Para 10)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Complaint for dishonour of cheque -- Difference in signature -- Contention of the petitioner that in the case offence under Section 138 of the NI Act is not constituted because the cheque was dishonoured on account of difference in signatures and not for the reason of insufficiency of funds or exceeding the arrangement, deserves to be rejected.

(Para 15)

C. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Complaint for dishonour of cheque -- Security cheque -- Even if cheque issued as a security, still then it cannot be stated that no offence is made out, once the cheque issued by him has been dishonoured by the banker.

(Para 19)

D. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Complaint for dishonour of cheque -- Security cheque -- Whether the petitioner had issued the cheque as a security and whether at the time when the cheque was presented for its payment, it was not for discharge of any debt or any other liability cannot be determined either by the trial Magistrate at the time of taking of cognizance or by High Court in these proceedings -- These are defences available to the accused/ petitioner, veracity whereof can be determined during the trial of the case -- Trial Magistrate directed to proceed further in the matter in accordance with law.

(Para 20, 21)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 125, 340 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 191, 193 -- Maintenance u/s 125 Cr.P.C – Wrong information of income to Family court – Complaint u/s 191, 193 IPC against wife -- Foremost duty of the party claiming maintenance is to disclose to the Court her actual financial status -- Petitioner joined as an Assistant Professor in University on a monthly salary of Rs.28,000/- on 3.7.2017 -- Her petition u/s 125 Cr.PC was filed on 26.07.2017 -- During the entire litigation she did not disclose information about her job and her earnings and infact deliberately and intentionally to grab maintenance, submitted wrong information to the Court that she was unemployed – Order initiating enquiry and complaint u/s 191/ 193, upheld.

(Para 1, 9-12)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 340 -- Proceedings u/s 340 Cr.PC are undoubtedly initiated at the instance of one party but it is a matter of administration of justice and, therefore, ultimately it is between the parties and the court.

(Para 8)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 141, 142 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Quashing of complaint -- Cheque by Company – Vicarious liability -- Resignation by Directors before issuance of cheque – Plea that resignation not accepted by the Company – Resignation were tendered before issuance of the cheques and petitioners have sent resignation in the Form No. DIR 11 & 12 to the Registrar of the Company and the same are available in the website -- Only a bald averment is made in the complaint against the petitioners that they were responsible for day to day affairs of the company -- There is no specific averment against them to show, as to how and in what manner the petitioners are responsible for the conduct of the business of the Company – Moreover, they were not the Managing Director of the Company – Petition allowed, complaint qua the petitioners quashed.

(Para 4, 8-17)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 293, 313, 386 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Murder – Remand for trial in appeal -- Deceased died due to gunshot injury -- Seizure of firearm from appellant – Report of a Ballistic Officer although admissible u/s 293 of the CrPC, but before placing reliance on such a report, the person placing trial has to be given full opportunity to challenge and rebut the report -- Neither the copy of the report was supplied to the applicant nor the contents of the report were brought in evidence – Ld. Sessions Judge also omitted to put any question to the appellant in his examination u/s 313 of CrPC on the basis of contents present in the ballistic report/ Ex.P-39 which were admissible in evidence u/s 293 of CrPC – Held, grave error committed by the learned Sessions Judge – An accused person has an entitlement of a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution -- Conviction technically not sustainable, appeal allowed, conviction and sentence set aside -- Trial against the appellant stands revived, case remanded back.

(Para 11, 12)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 182 -- False information to police – Proceedings u/s 182 IPC – Right of -- There is no recommendation made by the investigating officer concerned, to initiate proceedings u/s 182 IPC – Conclusion cannot be interfered with, unless there is tangible material, completely, and, candidly suggestive, that the complainants are galvanising the criminal machinery rather theirs doing so, to harass the petitioner, through theirs filing false applications against the petitioner.

(Para 5)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 379-B, 364-A, 365, 506 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Abduction case – Regular bail – Recovery on disclosure not effected –Disclosure statement maybe prima facie admissible, and, relevant evidence, and, its legal effect cannot become stalled, through the maker of the disclosure statement failing to, in pursuance thereof, ensure its recovery, to the I.O. – Bail petitioner made the disclosure, hence, impose a condition upon, him, that if he fails to, within seven days after his being admitted to bail, and, rather ensure effectuation of recovery, at his instance -- Since the bail petitioners are in judicial custody for the last four months, petitioners admitted to bail only subject to the afore referred condition, which shall apply only to the maker of the disclosure statement.

(Para 1,2,5-7)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 139 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 401 -- Cheque bounce complaint – Presumption – Rebuttal of presumption  -- Signature mismatch – Cheque lost Complaint – Stop payment – Effect of -- Cheque is dated 12.06.2017 -- Cheque books were lost in 2016, GD entry and the acknowledgment of the concerned police station cannot be ignored –Request for stopping of cheques way back in 2016 made to Bank -- Subject cheque which has been dishonoured is the leaf from the cheque book which is lost way back in 2016 -- Complainant failed to place any document to establish the transaction between the complainant and the accused – In the absence of the same, it throws a doubt that whether the cheque which is the subject matter of the dispute is legally enforceable or not -- Judgment & order passed by the trial court punishing the accused and order of the lower appellate court confirming the order of the trial court set aside.

(Para 2, 3, 9-14)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 392 -- Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Section 12 -- Robbery case -- Bail to juvenile in conflict with law -- JJ Board and Appellate Court depended, upon the proviso to Section 12 of Act in concluding that upon facility of bail, there being every likelihood of his being brought in association with hardened criminals, and, that there is being every likelihood of his hence being exposed to moral, physical and psychological danger – However, both the ld. Courts proceeded to, without any tangible and concrete evidence with respect to the afore factum existing on record rather made the above conclusion prima-facie imaginative, and, also surmisal – Statutory leverage in the Courts below with an alternate being placed under the supervision of a Probation Officer, and/or, under the care of any fit person neither been explored, nor has been thought fit to be worked vis-à-vis the juvenile in conflict with law – Consequently, the impugned orders quashed, and, set aside, with a direction, that the juvenile in conflict with law shall be released, and, shall be upon his release, become placed by the District Collector concerned, under, the supervision of the Child Welfare Officer.

(Para 8-12)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 – Murder case -- Extradition of accused from Canada – Accused served through proclamation – Trial stalled due to non-appearance of accused – Prayer to direct prosecution to initiate and conclude the extradition process with Canada – Held, jurisdiction vest with trial judge at this stage not with High court --  Trial Judge and Public Prosecutor directed to initiate the process with the Ministry of External Affairs for ensuring the extradition of co-accused from Canada to India -- Process ordered to be ensured to be completed within four months.

(Para 1-5)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 306 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Abetment to suicide – Anticipatory bail – Enquiry by SP(D) and DSP finding petitioner innocent – Pending approval of SSP – Effect of -- FIR registered solely on the basis of suspicion -- Neither, there is any suicide note nor there is any dying declaration nor the deceased had made any complaint with respect to any alleged call of threat made by any person – Held, although, the said enquiry is still pending approval with SSP, but in view of the same, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner would not be required -- Moreso, the mobile Number from which the alleged threats were given, does not even belong to the petitioner -- Question, as to whether, even in case, the allegations in the FIR are taken on its face value, the offence under Section 306 of IPC is made out or not, would be a matter of trial -- Petition allowed.

(Para 9)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 307, 323, 324, 148, 149 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Sections 25, 27 – Attempt to murder – Anticipatory bail -- Cross-case -- Submission that it is a case of version and cross-version and in the FIR case, father of the petitioner was murdered and cross-version was registered after 05 days -- It is further submitted that in the DDR version, the petitioner is attributed simple injury with a stick, whereas in the supplementary statement, the petitioner has caused a firearm injury -- It is also submitted that in the FIR version, two accused have already been granted the concession of anticipatory bail noticing the aforesaid facts – Further submitted that primarily, it is a dispute with regard to possession of agricultural land, which both the parties claim that they have purchased it and are in possession of the same and even in the anticipatory bail granted to accused in the FIR version, it is noticed that it is a case of free fight regarding the possession over the land in dispute -- Petitioner has joined the investigation and is no more required for any further investigation – Order granting interim bail confirmed.

(Para 1-5)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 399, 402 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Sections 25, 27, 54, 59 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Regular bail -- Parity in bail -- Once, the co-accused, who is similarly situated as the petitioner, has been granted the benefit of regular bail, the petitioner cannot be denied the same benefit on the ground of parity unless and until a differentiating fact between the petitioner and the said co-accused is pointed out -- Petitioner and the co-accused are similarly situated -- Petitioner has made out a case for the grant of regular bail on account of parity -- Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(Para 6-8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 323, 324, 452, 307, 379-B, 427, 506, 148, 149 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Attempt to murder – Regular bail -- Occurrence of 15.08.2020, both the parties received injuries including grievous ones -- Petitioner had also undergone surgery and remained hospitalized from 16.08.2020 to 27.08.2020 -- Though, complainant party received grievous injuries, it is highly debatable whether Section 307 IPC can be said to be made out or not -- Custody period of petitioner being almost a year -- Charges have not yet been framed, prosecution has cited 18 witnesses and trial will certainly take long time -- Being a case of version and cross-version, the question that which of the two parties was aggressor has to be adjudicated during trial -- Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 9-10)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304-B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319, 389 -- Dowry death – Appeal against conviction -- Suspension of sentence – Initially, applicant was declared innocent by the police during enquiry and she was summoned u/s 319 Cr.P.C. – Already undergone actual sentence of 04 years, 07 months and 29 days out of rigorous imprisonment for life – Case is covered by Dharam Pal's case, 1999(4) RCR (Criminal), 600 -- Appeal is not likely to be heard in the near future, the remaining sentence of applicant is ordered to be suspended during pendency of the appeal.

(Para 3)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 323, 324, 506, 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Quashing of cross-version -- Delay in reporting cross-version – Ground of -- Mere delay in registration of the cross version is no ground for quashing of the same -- It is a case of version and cross version, which can only be decided after leading evidence – Petition dismissed.

(Para 8-10)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498A -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 357 – Conviction in dowry case -- Compensation to victim – Reduction of sentence -- Object of any criminal jurisprudence is reformative in character and to take care of the victim -- It is towards this objective that Section 357 of the Cr.P.C. is enacted in the statute -- Objective of which is to apply whole or any part of the fine recovered to be applied on payment to any person of compensation for any loss or injury caused by the offence -- Voluntarily offering the amount albeit to seek a reduction of sentence – Appellant has now undergone about seven months of sentence, sentence reduced to already undergone in case the appellant pays Rs.3.00 lakhs for complainant and her children.

(Para 9, 10)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154 – First Information Report/ FIR – Nature of -- FIR is certainly the starting point of the investigation, but it is well within the rights of the prosecution to produce witness statements as they progress further into the investigation and unearth the specific roles of accused persons -- FIR as is known, only sets the investigative machinery, into motion.

(Para 14)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 120B, 147, 148, 324 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 9 -- Conviction in murder case – Test Identification Parade/ TIP -- Two courts have concurrently concluded that appellant’s name not being specifically mentioned in the FIR, would not justify his acquittal as he was specifically identified by PW2, PW4, & PW6 -- In view of his positive identification by the eye witnesses, the TIP not being conducted, was held to be immaterial -- Eye witnesses here have ascribed the same specific role to the appellant and narrated the events in same chronology, without material discrepancies – Court cannot lose sight of the fact that this case involves multiple persons attacking in a group with deadly weapons and it is not reasonable to expect recollection of every minute details by the eyewitnesses -- Prosecution has produced cogent evidence of the appellant being part of a conspiracy by all the accused in the assault, which led to the death of BM and injuries to PW1 and others -- As such, the conviction of the appellant by the trial court, as upheld by the High Court, cannot be faulted.

(Para 15-18)

C. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 9 -- Test Identification Parade/ TIP – Requirement of -- Identity of the appellant/accused was known to the witnesses and he was specifically identified by PW1, and PW2 as the person who wielded the sword and inflicted the injuries -- TIP was unnecessary in the case -- In the face of appellant’s such identification by name in the testimony of the eye witnesses, it can, be safely concluded that the failure to conduct the TIP for the appellant will not vitiate his conviction.

(Para 17)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 354 (A)(1), 148, 149, 323 -- Summoning of additional accused -- Investigation was carried thoroughly, which was appreciated by an officer of DSP rank -- Complainant and other witness were examined as PW-4 and PW-1, on a conjoint reading of their deposition, application u/s 319 Cr.P.C. do not make out any case when it is tested on the law settled in Hardeep's case 2014 (3) SCC 92 i.e. summoning u/s 319 Cr.P.C. is an extra ordinary power and it should be used sparingly and not in a routine manner and satisfaction drawn for summoning of the accused should be more than the satisfaction for framing of the charge and less than that of resulting in conviction – Dismissal of application by courts below do not suffer from any infirmity – Petition dismissed.

(Para 8-9)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 325, 323/34, 452 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 397, 401 – Injury case -- Sentence reduced to already undergone -- Petitioner No.1 has already undergone 04 months and 23 days of actual sentence, and petitioner No.2 has undergone actual sentence of 07 months and 07 days out of 2 years – Petitioner No.1 is 57 years of age and petitioner No.2 is 33 years of age – FIR is of the year 2017 and the petitioners have suffered agony of trial for the last four years -- Petitioners never misused the concession of bail/parole nor were involved in any other case and they are also married and are bread-winners for their family -- Petitioners are also ready to compensate the complainant -- While maintaining the impugned judgment of conviction, the sentence awarded by the Courts below to the petitioners is reduced to the period already undergone by them -- Sentence of fine is enhanced from Rs.25,000/- each to Rs.55,000/- each.

(Para 7-11)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 420, 120-B -- Emigration Act, 1983 (31 of 1983), Sections 10, 24 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Cheating – 377 complaints – Regular bail -- After dismissal of bail more than a year elapsed – Against a total of 377 complaints only 17 have been looked into till date and challans having been presented, investigation process may not be concluded for another couple of years -- Petitioner has already faced incarceration since 26.04.2018 -- Investigation is in progress would not be a ground to keep the petitioner indefinitely in custody -- Amount of money which is alleged to have been taken by the petitioner on account of having duped the investors/complainants would be a subject matter of trial on the basis of evidence adduced – Bail after having suffered incarceration for a period in excess of three years cannot be declined on the demand of the complainants that certain amount be first refunded to them -- Investigation/trial is bound to take time to conclude -- Petitioner is held entitled to benefit of bail.

(Para 13-16)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 62 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 451 -- NDPS case -- Recovery of Poppy husk -- Superdari of truck -- Son of petitioner was found in possession of 60 kilograms of 'poppy husk' while he was driving the truck -- Truck being case property has been taken into possession by the police, which is liable to be confiscated -- However, as on date, the trial is yet to commence and there is no such finding that the accused is guilty of having committed the offence – Held, in case, the vehicle in question is not released on superdari, the condition of the same is likely to deteriorate on account of its disuse and on account of vagaries of weather, which would not be in the interest of anybody, as unnecessarily the value of the truck in question get diminished – Vehicle in question is ordered to be released.

(Para 5-8)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Sections 28, 29, 30, 31, 427 – Concurrent running of default sentence – Permissibility of -- Default sentence cannot be directed to run concurrently.

(Para 10)

A. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 9 -- Test Identification parade/ TIP – Object of -- Purpose of holding a test identification parade during the stage of investigation is only to ensure that the investigating agency prima facie was proceeding in the right direction where the accused may be unknown or there was a fleeting glance of the accused.

(Para 9)

B. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 9 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 395, 397 – Dacoity case -- Test Identification parade/ TIP -- FIR was registered against unknown persons -- Case of the prosecution solely rests on identification in the TIP -- A test identification parade u/s 9 of the Evidence Act is not substantive evidence in a criminal prosecution but is only corroborative evidence -- Mere identification in the test identification parade cannot form the substantive basis for conviction unless there are other facts and circumstances corroborating the identification.

(Para 9)

C. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 9 -- Test Identification parade/ TIP – Onus to Prove -- Onus lies on the prosecution to establish that the TIP was held in accordance with law -- It is only after the prosecution prima facie establishes a valid TIP having been held, the question of considering any objection to the same arises -- If the prosecution has failed to establish that a TIP was properly held by examining the witnesses to the same, there is nothing for the accused to disprove.

(Para 10)

D. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 9 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 395, 397 – Dacoity case -- Test Identification parade/ TIP -- Magistrate conducted the TIP -- Magistrate has not been examined -- No explanation is forthcoming why the Magistrate was not examined -- Only evidence available is that of PW-4 the SHO that during the investigation the TIP was held in the District Jail and he identifies the proceedings in the Court -- Identification of the proceedings is irrelevant as he could not have been present during the TIP -- There cannot be repeated TIPs till such time that the prosecution is successful in obtaining identification of the accused -- PW-1 who is the mother of PW-2, and both of them are stated to have been present in the house when the occurrence took place, did not identify any of the appellants -- Identification by a minor boy and that too in the 3rd and 4th rounds insofar as the present appellants are concerned -- In the nature of the TIP held it is completely non est in the law and the benefit has to go to the accused.

(Para 11,12)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 200, 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304, 316, 34 – Summoning in medical negligence case – Challenge to – Mens-rea – Requirement of -- High Court set side summoning order impressed by the fact that there was no evidence regarding mens rea, to show malicious or bad intent – Held, view taken by the High Court is erroneous -- When it is a case of medical negligence, it need not be because of mens rea as intent.

(Para 1-4)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 200, 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304, 316, 34 -- Summoning in medical negligence case – Challenge to -- Medical evidence – Requirement of -- Trial Court summoned without insisting for medical evidence or examination of professional Doctor as required in terms of the exposition of this Court in Jacob Mathew Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in (2005) 6 SCC 1 – Appropriate course is to set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court as well as summoning order issued by the Trial Court and relegate the parties before the Trial Court for reconsideration of the issue afresh -- Appeal disposed of.

(Para 6-9)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 188 -- Offence committed abroad – Prior sanction from Central Government – Requirement of -- Previous sanction of the Central Government u/s 188 Cr.P.C. for offences committed by a citizen of India outside the country is not required at the stage of cognizance -- However, trial of the criminal case cannot commence without sanction being accorded u/s 188 Cr.P.C -- High Court dismissed application for quashing of FIR -- Special Leave Petition is dismissed, petitioner is at liberty to raise the ground pertaining to sanction before the commencement of the trial. Thota Venkateswarlu’s case 2011 (9) SCC 527 relied.

(Para 1-3)

Petroleum Act, 1934 (30 of 1934), Section 7, 8 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 451 -- Storage of diesel in excess of 2500 litres without licence – Seizure of diesel -- Release of diesel on superdari -- Petitioner is ready to furnish a bank draft before the trial Court of an amount equivalent to the price of diesel – Product seized is inflammable and has property of evaporation -- It would be suffice if lab report is taken as to nature of the product, if not already taken -- Product be measured in presence of the petitioner and his counter-signatures be obtained as a token of his acceptance to the measurement and thereafter product be released -- Petitioner shall deposit a Demand Draft equivalent to the price of diesel with the trial Court -- Trial Court shall keep the amount in an F.D.R. in a nationalized bank subject to outcome of the trial.

(Para 9,10)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420, 465, 467, 468 -- Cheating and forgery -- Any alteration in any part of a valuable security or anything which is signed or sealed and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security is also fall within the ambit of cheating -- Substitution of pages of a sale deed would amount to tampering and forging the original sale deed, it is not just offence u/s 465 IPC, which would be attracted, but the graver offences punishable u/s 467 & 468 IPC would also get attracted as the forgery was of valuable security and for the purpose of cheating.

(Para 10)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 173, 211 – Addition of more charges than Challan – Power of -- Mere fact that the Investigating Officer at the time of presentation of charge-sheet does not specifically mention a particular offence would not prevent the Court from looking into the entire facts and frame charges for such offence/s which are found prima facie to be made out from the facts of the case.

(Para 11)