A. Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899), Section 47A(1) -- Registration of document -- Reference to Collector – Nature of -- Registering Officer, after registration of the document, can refer the same for adjudication before the Collector, if he has reason to believe that there was deliberate undervaluation of the property -- Such a reference is not a mechanical act, but the Registering Officer should have a basis for coming to prima facie finding of undervaluation of the property -- Duty is enjoined upon the Registering Officer to ensure that Section 47-A(1) does not work as an engine of oppression nor as a matter of routine, mechanically, without application of mind as to the existence of any material or reason to believe the fraudulent intention to evade payment of proper Stamp Duty.

-- The expression ‘reason to believe’ is not synonymous with subjective satisfaction of the officer. The belief must be held in good faith, it cannot be merely a pretence. It is open to the Court to examine the question whether the reasons for the belief must have a rational connection or a relevant bearing to the formation of the belief and are not irrelevant or extraneous to the purpose of the section. The word ‘reason to believe’ means some material on the basis of which the department can re-open the proceedings. However, satisfaction is necessary in terms of material available on record, which should be based on objective satisfaction arrived at reasonably.

(Para 21)

B. Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899), Section 47A(1) -- Registration of document – Reference to Collector – Undervaluation property – Material to support – Roving enquiry – Permissibility of -- It is not permissible for the Registering Officer to undertake a roving enquiry for the purpose of ascertaining the correct market value of the property -- If the Registering Officer is bona fide of the view that the sale consideration shown in the sale deed is not correct and the sale is undervalued, then it is obligatory on the part of the Registering Authority as well as the Special Deputy Collector (Stamps) to assign some reason for arriving at such a conclusion -- In such circumstances, if the document in question is straightway referred to the Collector without recording any prima facie reason, the same would vitiate the entire enquiry and the ultimate decision.

(Para 27)

C. Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899), Section 47A(1) -- Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1968, Rule 4, 6, 7 -- As per Rule 6 of the Rules 1968, after passing the provisional order, it is obligatory on the part of the Collector to communicate the market value of the property and the duty payable by the parties concerned in Form II – After the issue of Form II, the parties concerned have to be given an opportunity to submit their representation in respect of determining the market value of the subject property -- Thereafter, as contemplated in Rule 7 of the Rules 1968, the Collector, after considering the representation if received in writing and the submissions that might have been urged at the time of hearing or even in the absence of any representation from the parties concerned, proceed to pass the final order -- Collector (Stamps) directly issued the final order without complying with sub-rules (2), (3) and (4) respectively of Rule 4 and also without following Rule 6 of the Rules 1968 -- This could be said to be in violation of the Rules 4 and 6 – High Court set aside orders passed by Chief Revenue Controlling Officer-cum-the-Inspector General of Registration – Appeal dismissed.

(Para 2, 30-32)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 406, 409 – Criminal breach of trust -- For bringing out the case under criminal breach of trust, it will have to be pointed out that a person, with whom entrustment of a property is made, has dishonestly misappropriated it, or converted it to his own use, or dishonestly used it, or disposed of that property.

(Para 23)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 201, 206, 217, 406, 409, 462, 34, 37, 120B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Criminal breach of trust by Bank – Quashing of FIR -- Not an allegation of entrustment of the property which the appellant-bank has misappropriated or converted for its own use to the detriment of the respondent No.5, as such, the provisions of Section 406 and 409 IPC would also not be applicable -- Since there was no entrustment of any property, the ingredients of Section 462 IPC are also not applicable -- Offences u/s 206, 217 and 201 of the IPC requires mens rea, the ingredients of the said Sections also would not be available against the appellant-bank --  FIR/complaint also does not show that the appellant-bank and its officers acted with any common intention or intentionally cooperated in the commission of any alleged offences, as such, the provisions of section 34, 37 and 120B of the IPC would also not be applicable -- Continuation of the criminal proceedings against the appellant-bank would cause undue hardship to the appellant-bank – FIR quashed.

(Para 23-31)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376, 506 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 406 – Constitution of India, Article 142 – Transfer petition -- Rape – Quashing of FIR -- Contents of the FIR clearly suggest that both the parties being adult had consensual relations for years before the complaint was filed alleging that there was backing out of promise to marry -- No case is made out u/s 376 IPC -- FIR and all proceedings subsequent thereto quashed.

(Para 2, 6, 8)

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 19 -- Corruption case – Sanction for prosecution -- Quashing of Sanction order -- Whether the Sanction has been granted by the competent authority or not, would be a matter of evidence -- There is not a whisper in the impugned order about any failure of justice having occurred on account of the impugned Sanction Order -- High Court also should not have entertained the petition for quashing the Sanction Order when the prosecution had already examined seven witnesses – High Court has committed gross error in quashing the Sanction Order and the consequent proceedings vide the impugned order -- Impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court set aside.

(Para 8-10)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319 –Additional accused – Who can be summoned -- Trial Court has jurisdiction at any stage of the proceedings on the evidence adduced that the persons who have not been arrayed as accused should face the trial -- Initially named in the F.I.R. as an accused, but not charge sheeted, can also be added to face the trial.

(Para 20(a))

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319 – Summoning of additional accused – Evidence – Charge-sheet/ Case Diary -- Consideration of -- Trial court can take such a step to add such persons as accused only on the basis of evidence adduced before it and not on the basis of materials available in the charge-sheet or the case diary, because such materials contained in the charge sheet or the case diary do not constitute evidence.

(Para 20(b))

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319 – Summoning of additional accused – 'any person not being the accused’ – Meaning of -- Phrase 'any person not being the accused' occurred in Section 319 covers any person who is not being tried already by the Court -- Persons who have been dropped by the police during investigation but against whom evidence showing their involvement in the offence comes before the Criminal Court are included in the said expression.

(Para 20(c))

D. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319 – Section 319 – Summoning of additional accused – Satisfaction of Investigation Officer – Requirements of -- It would not be proper for the trial court to reject the application for addition of new accused by considering records of the Investigating Officer -- When the evidence of complainant is found to be worthy of acceptance then the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer hardly matters -- If satisfaction of Investigating Officer is to be treated as determinative then the purpose of Section 319 would be frustrated.

(Para 20(c))

Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (20 of 1958), Section 3, 4, 12 – Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 3, 25 – Conviction under Arms act – Release on Probation -- Removal of disqualification attaching to conviction -- When a person who is found guilty, is extended the benefit of Section 3 or 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, then he shall not suffer disqualification, if any, attached to the conviction of an offence under such law.

(Para 10)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), NDPS – Recovery of 20 kg of ganja -- Acquittal – Taxi driver – Conscious possession -- Courts below convicted the appellant solely for the reason that the appellant was not able to give details of the passengers -- Contraband was seized from the taxi while he was carrying two passengers who fled from the scene -- It was not expected of any taxi driver to give details of the passengers, as ordinarily, no taxi driver/owner before allowing the passenger to board the taxi ask for such details from the passenger(s) -- No effort was made to search out the two passengers who may reveal the truth -- No incriminating material was seized from the person of the appellant and he had not made any effort to run away, moreover, the two bags from which the contraband was seized were not found to be hidden but were rather visible -- Conviction order, set aside.

(Para 2, 6-9)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 374 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 366, 376 (2)(n) – Constitution of India, Article 21 – Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 5 -- Rape -- Appeal against conviction – Delay of 1637 days -- Condonation of delay – High court dismissed the appeal on delay – Held, right to appeal, particularly when it concerns the liberty of an individual, is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution -- High Court's order dismissing the appeal solely due to delay, without properly examining the reasons for the delay warrants reconsideration – Dismissal of the appeal was erroneous -- Delay of 1637 days condoned -- High Court requested to dispose of the Criminal Appeal on merits in accordance with law.

(Para 5-8)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Injury case – Loss of one eye -- Dimond Cutting labourer – Disability assessed as 100% -- Diamond cutting is a task of immense skill which involves a great degree of precision and exactitude -- Seeing only with one eye, unquestionably makes it greatly difficult to effectively carry out these processes -- 65% as functional disability is insufficient -- Given the nature of the profession and the indispensability of the ability to see in carrying out the job required, facts and circumstances of the case warrant that disability of the claimant-appellant be taken as 100% -- Total compensation assed as Rs.15,98,000/- to be paid alongwith interest @ 8 % p.a payable from the claim petition.

(Para 7-9)

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 4 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 363, 366, 376, 342, 506 -- POCSO – Rape – Acquittal -- Prosecutrix 16 years and four months old -- In medical examination no injuries were detected on the body of the prosecutrix though her hymen was torn -- Prosecutrix in her examination-in-chief as well as in cross-examination has stuck to the fact that she was raped by the accused but the fact remains that she has contradicted her statement at more than one place -- She stated statement u/s 164 CrPC that she hit the accused on her head by Danda whereas in her examination-in-chief she stated that she hit the accused on his foot -- When the accused had surrendered none of these injuries were noticed on the body of the accused :

-- when a person can be convicted on the testimony of a single witness the Courts are bound to be very careful in examining such a witness and thus the testimony of such a witness must inspire confidence of the Court.

-- It is not believable that when the prosecutrix was caught by the accused who is known to the prosecutrix, she went with him quite a distance in the Bazaar and then to a shop, she never raised any alarm. The only reason she gave is that there was a knife with accused and he had threatened her that if she raises an alarm her brother and father would be killed.

Testimony of the prosecutrix does not inspire confidence, under these circumstances, Acquittal order, upheld.

(Para 9-12)

A. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Money claim – Writ jurisdiction -- It is not an inviolable rule that no money claim can be adjudicated upon in exercise of writ jurisdiction -- Non-payment of admitted dues, inter alia, may be considered an arbitrary action on the part of respondents and for claiming the same, a writ petition may lie – Writ petition restored for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.

(Para 8, 10)

B. Constitution of India, Article 226 – Maintainability of writ – Availability of alternative remedy – Ground of -- Throwing a writ petition on ground of availability of alternative remedy after 10 years, particularly, when parties have exchanged their affidavits, is not the correct course unless there are disputed questions of fact which by their very nature cannot be adjudicated upon without recording formal evidence -- Writ petition restored for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.

(Para 8, 10)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Vehicle not involved in accident – Stand of -- Onus of proof -- In cross-examination, no suggestion was given to any of the witnesses produced by the complainants that the vehicle as claimed by the complainants was not the vehicle, which was involved in the accident and that it was some other vehicle -- Final Report u/s 173 of the CR. P.C. also stated that the vehicle as claimed by the complainants was the vehicle involved in the accident -- Therefore, the onus was on the Insurance Company or Owner/ driver to get the same disproved by either calling the Investigating Officer as a witness or by any other means to establish a factual position to the contrary.

(Para 3, 9)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Fraud in policy – Onus of proof -- Insurance Company has not been able to prove that it had not received the money/premium prior to the accident and the only stand taken was that the insurance was fraudulently obtained -- Fraud vitiates everything, but merely alleging fraud does not amount to proving it -- For, it has to be proven in accordance with law by adducing evidence etcetera, the onus of which would also lie on the person alleging fraud.

(Para 13)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 2(12A), 162, 164B – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Hit and run case – Golden hour treatment -- It is the obligation of the Central Government under Sub-Section (2) of Section 162 to make a scheme for cashless treatment of accident victims during the golden hour -- Such a scheme may contain provisions for creating a fund for such treatment.

-- Provision made in Section 162 for framing a scheme for providing cashless treatment in the golden hour seeks to uphold and protect the right to life guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution.

-- It is a statutory obligation of the Central Government to frame the scheme.

Central Government directed to make a scheme in terms of Sub-Section (2) of Section 162 of the MV Act as expeditiously as possible and, in any event, by 14th March 2025.

(Paara 4-8)

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 34 – Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 4-24 -- General Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of 1897), Section 10 -- Objection to arbitration award – Limitation – Extended period – Exclusion of holiday – Permissibility of :

(i) There is no wholesale exclusion of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act when calculating the limitation period under Section 34(3) of the ACA.

(ii) Section 4 of the Limitation Act applies to Section 34(3) of the ACA only to the extent when the 3-month period expires on a court holiday. It does not aid the applicant when the 30-day condonable period expires on a court holiday.

(iii) In view of the applicability of Section 4 of the Limitation Act to Section 34 proceedings, Section 10 of the GCA does not apply and will not benefit the applicant when the 30-day condonable period expires on a court holiday.

(Para 1.1)

Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 5 – Condonation of delay --  Liberal approach -- Concepts such as “liberal approach”, “Justice oriented approach”, “substantial justice” should not be employed to frustrate or jettison the substantial law of limitation -- Limitation is not merely a technical consideration -- Rules of limitation are based on the principles of sound public policy and principles of equity -- No court should keep the ‘Sword of Damocles’ hanging over the head of a litigant for an indefinite period of time.

(Para 13-17)

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 114 -- Recovery suit – Pronote – Proof of -- Non-appearance of defendant – Adverse inference -- Defendant having not entered the witness box, adverse inference is liable to be drawn against him that he did not want to face the cross-examination -- In the presence of the testimony of the two attesting witnesses of the pronote as well as receipt proving due execution of the same by the defendant, no reliance could have been placed upon the statement of an expert witness disputing the signature of defendant, particularly when defendant himself had not entered into the witness box, to deny his signature.

(Para 10)

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (43 of 2005) , Section 12 – Maintenance to wife/ children – Wife started earning – Effect of -- In case the wife in order to meet the responsibilities of herself and her two children started working at some place to make additional income, cannot be a reason for the husband to escape his liability to pay the maintenance.

(Para 6)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 125 (4) -- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 9 – Maintenance to wife -- Decree of restitution of conjugal rights – Effect of -- Mere passing of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights at the husband’s behest and non-compliance therewith by the wife would not, by itself, be sufficient to attract the disqualification under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C -- It would depend on the facts of the individual case and it would have to be decided, on the strength of the material and evidence available, whether the wife still had valid and sufficient reason to refuse to live with her husband, despite such a decree.

(Para 29)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 125 (4) -- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 9 – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (47 of 2023), Section 34, 35, 36, 37 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 40, 41, 42, 43 -- Maintenance to wife -- Decree of restitution of conjugal rights – Effect of -- Contention that the findings in the judgment for restitution of conjugal rights by the Family Court, being a Civil Court, would be binding on the Court seized of the petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C, as they are to be treated as criminal proceedings – Held, even if non-compliance with an order for payment of maintenance entails penal consequences, as may other decrees of a Civil Court, such proceedings would not qualify as or become criminal proceedings.

-- Section 41 of Evidence Act specifically deals with instances where an earlier judgment, order or decree constitutes conclusive proof whereas Section 42 provides that an earlier judgment is relevant if it relates to matters of public nature relevant to the inquiry, but such judgments, orders or decrees are not conclusive proof of that which they state.

-- Two proceedings are altogether independent and are not directly or even indirectly connected, in the sense that proceedings u/s 125 Cr.P.C. do not arise from proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights.

(Para 30-34)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 125 (1) -- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 9, 13 – Maintenance to wife -- Decree of restitution of conjugal rights – Effect of -- A wife, who suffered a decree of divorce on the ground of deserting her husband, would not be entitled to maintenance u/s 125 Cr.P.C. as long as the marriage subsisted, but she would be entitled to such maintenance once she attained the status of a divorced wife, in the light of the definition of a ‘wife’ in Explanation (b) to Section 125(1) Cr.P.C. Rohtash Singh’s case (2000) 3 SCC 180, relied.

(Para 38)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 – Rejection of plaint – Limitation – Date of knowledge --  Suit for cancellation of registered sale deed in 2004, which they executed by conveying the plaint scheduled property in favour of the respondents in 2017 -- Alleged that the said sale deed was brought through fraudulent means and the Appellants came to know of it only in 2017, when the Deputy Collector issued notice to the Appellants on an application filed by the Respondents for correcting the revenue entries -- High Court was not justified in holding that the limitation period commences from the date of registration itself -- Judgment of the High Court is unsustainable – Suit restored.

(Para 2, 13, 16)

Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (23 of 1940), Section , 22(1)(d), 26A -- Prohibited article -- No notification issued u/s 26A of the D&C Act, 1940 prohibiting or restricting the aromatic tincture of cardamom -- Absence of such a notification is decisive -- Without it, the tincture remains a licensed medicinal preparation that can be manufactured and sold in accordance with the general rules and the conditions of the license held by the Appellants -- Respondent authorities cannot, on their own accord, treat this lawful product as a “prohibited article.” -- Section 22(1)(d) is not a substitute for Section 26A of the D&C Act, 1940.

(Para 9-11)

A. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 7, 11 – Appointment of Arbitrator – Arbitration agreement -- An arbitration agreement is sine qua non for arbitration proceedings.

(Para 20)

B. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 7, 11, 34 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 47 -- Ex-parte arbitration award – Setting aside of -- Objections filed by the appellants under Section 34 of the A&C Act were dismissed by the trial court on the ground that they were barred by limitation and had been filed beyond the condonable period -- Authenticity of the agreement cannot be established as it is not available on the record of the Municipal Board -- State Government has denied the existence of any such agreement – No evidence to show the existence of the arbitration agreement, except a piece of paper, which is not even a certified copy or an authenticated copy of the official records -- Arbitration, which is quasi-judicial, requires a standard of behaviour of arbitrators, which is impartial and independent, no less stringent than that demanded of judges – Both the Awards shall be treated as null and void and non-enforceable in law – Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, permits a party at the stage of execution to object to the decree, both on the grounds of fraud, as well as lack of subject matter jurisdiction – Appeals allowed, ex-parte awards set aside.

(Para 20-25)

Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 34 -- Joint land – Sale of specific khasra Number – Legality of -- Even if specific Khasra numbers are sold out of joint land, the same still is sale of share in the joint holding -- It is not disputed by the plaintiffs that subject matter of sale deed challenged in the suit, is less than the entitlement of K.S. – Held, suit seeking declaration to the effect that sale deed executed by K.S. in favour of the defendants itself was not maintainable once the share sold by him was less than the share of K.S.

(Para 15, 16)

A. Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 12 -- Part performance of contract -- It is not open to the High Court to direct specific performance of a part of contract except otherwise provided in the section in absence of any of the exigencies available under the provisions of sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) of Section 12 so as to decree the suit.

(Para 10)

B. Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 12 -- Part performance of contract -- Relinquishment of claim to further performance of the remaining part of the contract and all rights to compensation -- Relinquishment could be made at any stage of the litigation including the appellate stage.

(Para 18, 21)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378 – Appeal against acquittal – Power of -- Appellate court has the full power to review or re-appreciate or reconsider the evidence upon which the order/ judgment of acquittal has been based and there is no limitation, restriction in exercise of such power by the appellate court and the appellate court may reach at it is own conclusion on the same set of evidence, both on question of facts as well as on law.

(Para 14)

B. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 50 – NDPS – Recovery of Charas from rucksack/ pitthu-bag -- Right to be searched before Magistrate or Gazetted officer -- It was a case of chance recovery and the contraband was recovered from the rucksack, which the accused was carrying with him on his right shoulder and not from his personal search -- Personal search of the accused was conducted after recovery of the contraband -- Section 50 of NDPS Act is not applicable.

(Para 20)

C. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 20, 35, 54 – NDPS – Recovery of 840 gram Charas from rucksack/ pitthu-bag – Presumption -- It is not the case of the accused that the said bag did not belong to him -- From the front pocket of the bag, his voter ID was recovered -- Once a physical possession of the contraband by the accused has been established, the onus is upon the accused to prove that it was not a conscious possession – Accused has only pleaded that a false case has been lodged against him -- Accused held guilty. Madan Lal’s case (2003) 7 SCC 465 relied.

(Para 28-30)

Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 (VI of 1978), Section 8 – Preventive Detention order -- Probable that Senior Superintendent of Police was fully aware of the fact that the petitioner had applied for his bail before a criminal court of law in connection with his arrest by reference to FIR which was likely to be granted to him and, therefore, in order to pre-empt the release of the petitioner on bail, the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), planned to generate a dossier against the petitioner in order to somehow chain him in confinement in order to frustrate his prospective release on bail by a criminal court of law -- Preventive detention order quashed.

(Para 22-24)

A. Railways Act, 1989 (24 of 1989), Section 143 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Criminal proceedings against unauthorised agent – Quashing of -- Respondent/ accused alleged, had created hundreds of fake user IDs to sell tickets without any authorisation from the railways -- Although the internet and e-tickets were unknown in India when the Act was brought into force, this conduct of accused (who is neither a railway servant nor an authorised agent) nevertheless attracts criminality under Section 143(1)(a) of the Railways Act -- Mere fact of the system of e-reservation and e-tickets being introduced after the enactment of the Act does not render the provision in Section 143 toothless to combat the illegal sale of e-tickets – Criminal proceedings restored.

(Para 15, 19, 28)

B. Railways Act, 1989 (24 of 1989), Section 143 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Criminal proceedings against authorised agent – Quashing of -- Fraudulent activities such as supply of Tatkal e-tickets by creating multiple personal-user IDs and issuing unauthorised e-tickets procured through IRCTC website, contrary to IRCTC Rules -- Section 143 only deals with the actions of unauthorised persons and does not mandate a procedure to be followed by the authorised agents for procuring or supplying tickets to its customers – Section 143 would not be attracted insofar as he is concerned – Criminal proceedings quashed.

(Para 35, 39)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 – Murder – Evidence law -- Non recovery of the weapon of crime is not fatal to the prosecution case and is not sine qua non for conviction, if there are direct reliable witnesses. Rakesh’s case (2021) 7 SCC 188 relied.

(Para 70)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 – Murder -- Evidence law -- Testimony of police personnel involved in recovery of articles need not be disbelieved and testimony of police personnel is to be treated similarly as testimony of any other witness. Karamjit Singh’s case (2003) 5 SCC 291 relied.

(Para 71)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 154 – Murder -- Hostile witness -- Merely because the witnesses turn hostile does not necessarily mean that their evidence has to be thrown out entirely and what is supportive of the prosecution certainly be used. Gangadhar Behera’s case (2002) 8 SCC 381 relied.

(Para 76)

D. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 101 – Murder – Burden of proof -- Prosecution must stand or fall on its own legs and it cannot derive any strength from the weakness of the defence.

(Para 78)

Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1954 (6 of 1954), Section 14, 133 – Partition of land – Mutation entry thereof – Appeal by stranger – Maintainability of -- Mutation was entered and attested to give effect to the family partition carried out by the petitioners, i.e. co-owners of the joint land – Complete stranger to the joint land co-owned by the petitioners cannot have any grievance against the partition carried out between the co-owners (the petitioners) with respect to the joint land – Revenue Authorities had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal preferred by him against Mutation.

(Para 5-5(v))

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Minor penalty -- Censure  -- Promotion – Right of -- Awarding of censure, which may be a minor penalty, is a blameworthy factor and is a reason good enough to deny promotion to an employee -- Penalty, whether it is minor or major, is inflicted upon an employee for committing misconduct and an employee, who is found guilty of misconduct, is not entitled to be promoted.         

(Para 12)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Acquittal in criminal case – Effect of -- Investigations were duly carried out which revealed not only the involvement of the vehicle, but also that it was the offending vehicle which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner which resulted in the accident --  Acquittal of the Driver in a Criminal Case cannot be a ground for dismissal of the Claim before the Accident Tribunal – Held, accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the Offending Vehicle by the Respondent.

(Para 11-18)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 354 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Outrage modesty -- Quashing of criminal proceedings -- Record is silent with respect to the use of any force, apart from bald assertions of mental and physical discomfort caused to the complainant by the appellant – Held, mens rea to be established, something better than vague statements must be produced before the court -- No direct allegation nor any evidence in support thereof can be found attributing intent to the appellant -- It cannot be said, then, that a case u/s 354 IPC is made out against the appellant – Criminal proceedings quashed.

(Para 12-12.4, 14-17)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 503, 506 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Criminal intimidation -- Quashing of criminal proceedings -- A mere statement without intention would not attract the offence --  For an offence of criminal intimidation to be prima facie established, the intention should be clearly visible, and the same is to be established by evidence on record -- At least the results of the investigation and the material gathered should disclose somewhat of an offence -- FIR, interim investigation report and the chargesheet do not disclose any offence having been committed by the appellant – No prima facie offence is made out on the part of the appellant -- Criminal proceedings quashed.

(Para 13-17)

A. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 51 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 451, 457 – Return of seized vehicle – Superdari – There is no specific bar/ restriction under the provisions of the NDPS Act for return of any seized vehicle in the interim pending disposal of the criminal case -- In view of Section 51 of NDPS Act, the Court can invoke the general power under Sections 451 and 457 of the Cr.P.C. for return of the seized vehicle pending final decision of the criminal case -- Trial Court has the discretion to release the vehicle in the interim.

(Para 22, 23)

B. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 51, 60 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 451, 457 – Return of seized vehicle – Superdari – Vehicles in police custody are stored in the open -- If the Vehicle is not released during the trial, it will be wasted and suffering the vagaries of the weather, its value will only reduce -- On the contrary, if the Vehicle in question is released, it would be beneficial to the owner (who would be able to earn his livelihood), to the bank/financier (who would be repaid the loan disbursed by it) and to the society at large (as an additional vehicle would be available for transportation of goods) – Appeal allowed, trial Court directed to release the Vehicle in the interim on superdari after preparing a video and still photographs of the vehicle and after obtaining all information/documents necessary for identification of the vehicle, which shall be authenticated by the Investigating Officer, owner of the Vehicle and accused by signing the same – Conditions imposed.

(Para 34-36)

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 31(7) --  Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 14 – Arbitration award – Interest upon delayed period -- Delay attributed to claimant -- Time spent in wrong Forum – Ends of justice would be met if the appellant-insurance company is directed to pay interest as directed by the Arbitral Tribunal @ 12% per annum with effect from 06^th March, 2010 as it was on this date that the Arbitral Tribunal held the claims to be within time after excluding the time spent by the respondent-claimant in pursuing its remedy before the N.C.D.R.C. u/s 14 of the Limitation Act.

(Para 1-4)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908, Order 41 Rule 27 -- Additional evidence -- Additional evidence sought to be led qua the unregistered Will -- Trial Court while dismissing the application noticed that numerous opportunities had been given to conclude evidence and despite the same petitioners/ defendants No.5 and 6 failed to produce their evidence and by way of the present application, they wanted to fill up the lacunae in their case which cannot be permitted in law – Evidence were not led at the proper stage -- Revision challenging the order dismissed.

(Para 1, 6-8)

Will – Suspicious circumstances -- Mere exclusion of the natural heirs from any benefit is not of such suspicious circumstances as to create legitimate doubts on the genuineness of the Will -- Will is executed only to alter the mode of succession and by the very nature of things it is bound to result in either reducing the share or depriving the share of the natural heir.

(Para 7)

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (43 of 2005) – Bailable warrants in DV Act matter – Permissibility of -- Proceedings under the D.V. Act are quasi criminal proceedings which do not have any penal consequence except where there is a violation or breach of a protection order -- Learned Magistrate was absolutely unjustified in directing issuance of bailable warrants against the petitioner.

(Para 5)

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 (31 of 2016), Section 7 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 21 -- Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Objection to jurisdiction -- Objections regarding the place of suing shall not be allowed unless such objection is taken in the Court/ tribunal of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity – High Court, while exercising its discretion, overlooked the provisions of Section 21 of CPC -- Order passed by High Court set aside -- Proceedings under the IBC will continue in accordance with the law.

(Para 4, 7, 8)

Constitution of India, Article 136 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 326 – Compromise after conviction – Compounding of offence -- Recalling of order of SLP – Trial court convicted the appellant u/s 326/ 34 IPC, sentencing R.I. for two years and fine of Rs. 2,000/- -- High Court reduced the sentence to 1 year R.I., while enhancing the fine to Rs. 2,00,000/- -- Special Leave Petition dismissed -- Subsequently, the applicant/ petitioner compromised, Miscellaneous Application filed seeking relief for compounding the offense --  Order dismissing the SLP in limine recalled -- Leave granted, appeal partly allowed -- Conviction confirmed, however, the sentence of one year R.I. reduced to the period already undergone.

(Para 2-8)

Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (56 of 2007), Section 23 – Senior citizen case -- Transfer of possession of property  -- Setting aside of gift deed -- Power of Tribunal -- The Act is a beneficial piece of legislation, aimed at securing the rights of senior citizens, in view of the challenges faced by them -- It is in this backdrop that the Act must be interpreted and a construction that advances the remedies of the Act must be adopted -- It cannot be said that the Tribunals constituted under the Act, while exercising jurisdiction u/s 23, cannot order possession to be transferred.

(Para 13-25)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Rash and negligence driving -- Evidence of criminal case – Relevance of -- If the police records are available before the Tribunal, taking note of the purpose of the Act it cannot be said that looking into such documents is impermissible or inadmissible.

(Para 9)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378 -- Appeal against acquittal – Change in law – Ground of -- Change of law by itself cannot be a ground for finding fault with the acquittal judgment rendered in favour of the appellant as far back as on 10.12.2018 -- Impugned order dated 23.06.2023 of the High Court cannot be sustained and set aside.

(Para 3-10)

RBI Circular dated 06.07.2017, Clause 8, 9 -- Fraudulent transaction from the Bank account – Liability of Bank -- It is the responsibility of the bank so far as unauthorized and fraudulent transactions are concerned -- Bank should remain vigilant -- No negligence on the part of respondent No. 1/ account holder could be established by the Bank --  Within 24 hours of the fraudulent transaction, the customer/ respondent No.1 brought it to the notice of the Bank -- Clauses 8, 9 of the RBI Circular dated 06.07.2017 would apply -- Respondent No. 1/ Account holder will not have any liability.

(Para 1-7)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Income Tax Return – Reliance upon – Monthly income could be fixed taking into account the tax returns only if the details of payment of tax are appropriately brought into evidence so as to enable the Tribunal/Court to calculate the income in accordance with law.

(Para 12)

Arbitration Act, 1940 (10 of 1940), Section 14(2), 17 -- Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Article 119(b) – Arbitration award -- Limitation for filing objections – Starting date -- The trigger for the limitation to start running is the date of service of notice of the filing of the award –  Word ‘notice’ is that the parties merely reach a state of awareness about the award and plan their next steps accordingly, and not the imposition of another procedural step -- Date of receiving a copy of the award is not the requirement of Section 14(2), but merely awareness that it is available to the parties -- This holding signifies that the parties have to take steps to scrutinise the award themselves -- Any contrary interpretation will give a licence to the award-debtor to delay the arbitration by insisting on procedural nuances despite of being aware that an award exists and that its contents are accessible to it.

(Para 14-18)

Constitution of India, Article 226 – Writ claiming promotion after retirement – Delay and laches -- No one can claim promotion after he/ she already stood retired from service -- Petitioner retired from service on 30.06.2018 and after a period of 06 years, the petitioner is claiming promotion -- Petition dismissed on the ground of delay and latches.

(Para 17, 18)

A. Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973), Section 2(c), 13 – Eviction petition -- Landlord – Co-owner – Role of -- In the absence of there being any objection by the co-owner against filing of the eviction petition, the objection raised with respect to the maintainability of the petition for non-joining co-owner cannot be sustained.

(Para 30)

B. Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973), Section 13 – Eviction petition -- Non-payment of rent -- Both the tenant as well as sub-tenant denied the relationship, they cannot claim opportunity to make non-payment of rent good.

(Para 31)

A. Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (70 of 1971) -- Contempt of Court -- In order to punish a contemnor, it has to be established that disobedience of the order is ‘wilful’ -- It means knowingly-intentional, conscious, calculated and deliberate with full knowledge of consequences flowing therefrom -- It would exclude casual, accidental, bonafide or unintentional acts or genuine inability and would also not include involuntary or negligent actions -- Deliberate conduct of a person means that he knows what he is doing and intends to do the same -- If two interpretations are possible, and if the action is not contumacious, a contempt proceeding would not be maintainable.

(Para 1.10)

B. Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (70 of 1971) -- Contempt of Court – Execution/ Implementation of order -- The weapon of contempt will not be used for execution of the decree or implementation of an order for which alternative remedy in law is provided for -- Paramount consideration is given to maintain court’s dignity and majesty of law.

(Para 1.11)

C. Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (70 of 1971) -- Contempt of Court -- The Court exercising contempt jurisdiction would not enter into question which have not been dealt with and decided in the judgment or order, violation of which is complained by the applicant -- Court will consider whether the direction issued in the judgment or order is complied in true sense or in its letter and spirit and would not embark upon the journey of examining as to what the judgment or order should have contained.

(Para 5.3)

A. Violation of building approved plan – Regularisation of construction – Construction(s) put up in violation of or deviation from the building plan approved by the local authority and the constructions which are audaciously put up without any building planning approval, cannot be encouraged -- In the event of any violation being brought to the notice of the Courts, it has to be curtailed with iron hands and any lenience afforded to them would amount to showing misplaced sympathy -- Delay in directing rectification of illegalities, administrative failure, regulatory inefficiency, cost of construction and investment, negligence and laxity on the part of the authorities concerned in performing their obligation(s) under the Act, cannot be used as a shield to defend action taken against the illegal/unauthorized constructions – Regularization schemes must be brought out only in exceptional circumstances.

(Para 20)

B. Building approved plan – Occupation certificate – Amenities -- In the larger public interest, directions issued, in addition to the directives issued by this Court in Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3291:

(i) While issuing the building planning permission, an undertaking be obtained from the builder/applicant, as the case may be, to the effect that possession of the building will be entrusted and/or handed over to the owners/beneficiaries only after obtaining completion/occupation certificate from the authorities concerned.

(ii) The builder/developer/owner shall cause to be displayed at the construction site, a copy of the approved plan during the entire period of construction and the authorities concerned shall inspect the premises periodically and maintain a record of such inspection in their official records.

(iii) Upon conducting personal inspection and being satisfied that the building is constructed in accordance with the building planning permission given and there is no deviation in such construction in any manner, the completion/occupation certificate in respect of residential / commercial building, be issued by the authority concerned to the parties concerned, without causing undue delay. If any deviation is noticed, action must be taken in accordance with the Act and the process of issuance of completion/occupation certificate should be deferred, unless and until the deviations pointed out are completely rectified.

(iv) All the necessary service connections, such as, Electricity, water supply, sewerage connection, etc., shall be given by the service provider / Board to the buildings only after the production of the completion/occupation certificate.

(v) Even after issuance of completion certificate, deviation / violation if any contrary to the planning permission brought to the notice of the authority immediate steps be taken by the said authority concerned, in accordance with law, against the builder / owner / occupant; and the official, who is responsible for issuance of wrongful completion /occupation certificate shall be proceeded departmentally forthwith.

(vi) No permission /licence to conduct any business/trade must be given by any authorities including local bodies of States/Union Territories in any unauthorized building irrespective of it being residential or commercial building.

(vii) The development must be in conformity with the zonal plan and usage. Any modification to such zonal plan and usage must be taken by strictly following the rules in place and in consideration of the larger public interest and the impact on the environment.

(viii) Whenever any request is made by the respective authority under the planning department/local body for co-operation from another department to take action against any unauthorized construction, the latter shall render immediate assistance and co-operation and any delay or dereliction would be viewed seriously. The States/UT must also take disciplinary action against the erring officials once it is brought to their knowledge.

(ix) In the event of any application / appeal / revision being filed by the owner or builder against the non-issuance of completion certificate or for regularisation of unauthorised construction or rectification of deviation etc., the same shall be disposed of by the authority concerned, including the pending appeals / revisions, as expeditiously as possible, in any event not later than 90 days as statutorily provided.

(x) If the authorities strictly adhere to the earlier directions issued by this court and those being passed today, they would have deterrent effect and the quantum of litigation before the Tribunal / Courts relating to house / building constructions would come down drastically. Hence, necessary instructions should be issued by all the State/UT Governments in the form of Circular to all concerned with a warning that all directions must be scrupulously followed and failure to do so will be viewed seriously, with departmental action being initiated against the erring officials as per law.

(xi) Banks / financial institutions shall sanction loan against any building as a security only after verifying the completion/occupation certificate issued to a building on production of the same by the parties concerned.

(xii) The violation of any of the directions would lead to initiation of contempt proceedings in addition to the prosecution under the respective laws.

(Para 21)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 195, 340 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 193, 199, 200 – False evidence before Tribunal – Private complaint – Maintainability of --- An offence u/s 193/199/200 of IPC can theoretically be committed inside as well as outside a court -- Proceedings which are taking before the Tribunal is not a Court, as defined under the law – It is not empowered to entertain such an application as prescribed under the law u/s 195 read with Section 340 Cr.P.C. -- Only way such an application can be entertained and that too, for the precise offences of Sections 193, 199 and 200 is through a private complaint and only relating to the offences before the Tribunal -- Complaint shall be entertained by the concerned Tribunal and thereafter, the orders shall be passed.

(Para 10,11)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Inherent powers of High court – Change in law -- Second petition – Maintainability of -- Change of law can legitimately be regarded as a vital change in circumstance clothing the high court with the power, competence and jurisdiction to entertain the subsequent petition notwithstanding the fact that the earlier petition was withdrawn without obtaining any leave, subject to the satisfaction recorded by the high court that the order prayed for in the subsequent petition ought to be made, inter alia, either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice.

(Para 19)

B. May – Shall – Interpretation of -- Use of the verbs ‘may’ and ‘shall’ in a statute is not a sure index for determining whether such statute is mandatory or directory in character -- The legislative intent has to be gathered looking into other provisions of the enactment, which can throw light to guide one towards a proper determination -- While the general impression is that ‘may’ and ‘shall’ are intended to have their natural meaning, it is the duty of the court to gather the real intention of the legislature by carefully analysing the entire statute, the section and the phrase/expression under consideration.

(Para 24)

C. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 148 – Appeal – Conviction in Cheque bounce complaint – Suspension of sentence Since the self-same section, read as a whole, reveals that ‘may’ has been used twice and ‘shall’ thrice, it must be presumed that the legislature was well and truly aware of the words used which form the skin of the language -- Reading and understanding the words used by the legislature in the literal sense does not also result in manifest absurdity and hence tinkering with the same ought to be avoided at all costs -- Therefore, read ‘may’ as ‘may’ and ‘shall’ as ‘shall’, wherever they are used in Section 148.

(Para 27)