A. Constitution of India, Article 21, 32, 72, 61, 226 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 413, 414 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 453, 454 -- Death sentence -- Undue delay in execution – Life and liberty of accused :

(i) Undue, unexplained and inordinate delay in execution of the sentence of death will entitle the convict to approach this Court under Article 32. However, this Court will only examine the nature of the delay caused and circumstances that ensued after the judicial process finally confirmed the sentence and will have no jurisdiction to reopen the conclusions reached by the Court while finally maintaining the sentence of death. This Court, however, may consider the question of inordinate delay in the light of all circumstances of the case to decide whether the execution of sentence should be carried out or should be commuted to imprisonment for life;

(ii) Keeping a convict in suspense while considering his mercy petitions by the Governor or the President for an inordinately long time will certainly cause agony to him/her. It creates adverse physical conditions and psychological stress on the convict. Therefore, this Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 32 read with Article 21 of the Constitution, must consider the effect of inordinate delay in disposal of the clemency petition by the highest Constitutional authorities and cannot excuse the agonising delay caused only on the basis of the gravity of the crime;

(iii) It is well established that Article 21 of the Constitution does not end with the pronouncement of the sentence but extends to the stage of execution of that sentence. An inordinate delay in the execution of the sentence of death has a dehumanising effect on the accused. An inordinate and unexplained delay caused by circumstances beyond the prisoners' control mandates the commutation of a death sentence;

(iv) The above principles will also apply to a case where there is a long and unexplained delay on the part of the Sessions Court in issuing the warrant of execution in accordance with Section 413 or Section 414 of CrPC. After the order of rejection of mercy petitions is communicated to a convict, the sword of Damocles cannot be kept hanging on him for an inordinately long time. This can be very agonising, both mentally and physically. Such inordinate delay will violate his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. In such a case, this Court will be justified in commuting the death penalty into life imprisonment;

(v) No hard and fast rule can be laid down as regards the length of delay, which can be said to be inordinate. It all depends on the facts of the case. The terms “undue” or “inordinate” cannot be interpreted by applying the rules of mathematics. The Courts, in such cases, deal with human issues and the effect of the delay on individual convicts. What delay is inordinate must depend on the facts of the case;

(vi) A convict can invoke even the jurisdiction of a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in the event there is an inordinate and unexplained delay in the execution of the death sentence, post-confirmation of the sentence. The same principles will be applied by the High Court, which are summarised above; and,

(vii) It is the duty of the Executive to promptly process the mercy petitions invoking Articles 72 or 161 of the Constitution and forward the petitions along with requisite documents to the concerned constitutional functionary without undue delay.

(Para 42)

B. Constitution of India, Article 21, 32, 72, 61, 226 -- Death sentence – Mercy petition – Right of accused : Following directions to all the State Governments and Union Territories:

A. A dedicated cell shall be constituted by the Home Department or the Prison Department of the State Governments/Union Territories for dealing with mercy petitions. The dedicated cell shall be responsible for the prompt processing of the mercy petitions within the time frame laid down by the respective governments. An officer-incharge of the dedicated cell shall be nominated by designation who shall receive and issue communications on behalf of the dedicated cell;

B. An official of the Law and Judiciary or Justice Department of the State Governments/Union Territories should be attached to the dedicated cell so constituted;

C. All the prisons shall be informed about the designation of the officer-in-charge of the dedicated cell and his address and email ID;

D. As soon as the Superintendent of Prison/officer-in-charge receives the mercy petitions, he shall immediately forward the copies thereof to the dedicated cell and call for the following details/information from the officer-in-charge of the concerned Police Station and/or the concerned investigation agency;

a. The criminal antecedents of the convict;

b. Information about family members of the convict;

c. Economic condition of the convict and his/her family;

d. The date of arrest of the convict and the period of incarceration as an undertrial; and,

e. The date of filing charge sheet and a copy of the committal order, if any.

On receipt of the request made by the jail authorities, the officer-in-charge of the concerned police station shall be under an obligation to furnish the said information to the jail authorities immediately;

E. On receipt of the said information, without any delay, the jail authorities shall forward the following documents to the officer-in-charge of the dedicated cell and the Secretary of the Home Department of the State Government:

a. Information furnished as aforesaid by the concerned Police Station with its English translation;

b. Copy of the First Information Report with its English translation;

c. Details, such as date of arrest of the convict, date of filing of chargesheet and actual period of incarceration undergone by the convict;

d. A copy of the committal order, if any, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate;

e. A copy of charge-sheet with its English translation;

f. Report about the conduct of the convict in prison;

g. Copies of the notes of evidence, all exhibited documents in the trial and copies of statements of convicts under Section 313 of the CrPC with its English translation;

h. Copies of the judgments of the Sessions Court with its English translation, if it is in vernacular language), High Court and this Court;

F. As soon as mercy petitions are received by the dedicated cell, copies of the mercy petitions shall be forwarded to the Secretariats of the Hon’ble Governor of the State or the Hon’ble President of India, as the case may be so that the Secretariat can initiate action at their end;

G. All correspondence, as far as possible, be made by email, unless confidentiality is involved; and,

H. The State Government shall issue office orders/executive orders containing guidelines for dealing with the mercy petitions in terms of this judgment.

Registry of the Court shall forward copies of this judgment to the Secretaries of the Home Department of the respective State Governments/Union Territories for its implementation. The Secretaries shall report compliance within three months from today to the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court;

(Para 43)

C. Constitution of India, Article 21, 32, 72, 61, 226 -- Death sentence – Right of accused : Sessions Court shall endeavour to follow the following guidelines:

a. As soon as the order of the High Court confirming or imposing the death sentence is received by the Sessions Court, a note thereof must be taken, and the disposed of case shall be listed on the cause list. The proceedings can be numbered as Misc. Application depending upon the applicable Rules of the procedure. The Sessions Court shall immediately issue notice to the State Public Prosecutor or the investigating agency calling upon them to state whether any appeal or special leave petition has been preferred before this Court and what is the outcome of the said petition/appeal;

b. If the State Public Prosecutor or the investigating agency reports that the appeal is pending, as soon as the order of this Court confirming or restoring the death sentence is received by the Sessions Court, again, the disposed of case or miscellaneous applications should be listed on the cause list and notice be issued to the State Public Prosecutor or the investigating agency to ascertain whether any review/curative petitions or mercy petitions are pending. If information is received regarding the pendency of review/curative petitions or mercy petitions, the Sessions Court shall keep on listing the disposed of case after intervals of one month so that it gets the information about the status of the pending petitions. This will enable the Sessions Court to issue a warrant for the execution of the death sentence as soon as all the proceedings culminate;

c. However, before issuing the warrant, notice should be issued to the convict, and the directions issued by the Allahabad High Court in the case of People’s Union for Democratic Rights (PUDR), 2015 SCC OnLine All 143, and as elaborated above, shall be implemented by the Sessions Court;

d. The Sessions Courts shall consider what is held in Paragraph 25 above;

e. Copies of the order issuing the warrant and the warrant shall be immediately provided to the convicts, and the Prison authorities must explain the implications thereof to the convicts. If the convict so desires, legal aid be immediately provided to the convicts by the Prison authorities for challenging the warrant. There shall be a gap of fifteen clear days between the date of the receipt of the order as well as warrant by the convict and the actual date of the execution; and,

f. It shall also be the responsibility of the concerned State Government or the Union Territory administration to apply to the Sessions Court for the issuance of a warrant immediately after the death penalty attains finality and becomes enforceable.

(Para 43)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13, 15, 16 -- Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Unauthorised possession – Choice of  Collector – Since petitioner was in unauthorized possession of public land, learned Divisional Commissioner had rightly set aside petitioner’s appointment made by learned Collector -- Respondent No. 4 is younger in age and more educated than petitioner and has been rightly found to be suitable by learned Divisional Commissioner for the post of Lambardar (SC), further upheld by the Financial Commissioner – No  illegality or perversity in the impugned orders passed by learned Divisional Commissioner and learned Financial Commissioner – Writ dismissed.

(Para 7, 8)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 17 Rule 3 – Non-leading of evidence -- Dismissal of suit -- Plaintiffs opted not to lead any evidence also remained conspicuously absent from witness-box -- Trial Court rightly invoked Order 17 Rule 3 CPC and dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs for having failed to produce the evidence.

(Para 13)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Validity of license -- DHR endorsement on license – Accident by Tipper -- Driver of the offending vehicle was possessing a license having a valid DHR endorsement -- That was sufficient for the owner of the offending vehicle to satisfy himself with regard to the validity of the license of the driver.

(Para 7, 11)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Attendant’s chares (two) -- Injury case -- 100% permanent disability – Doctor stated that at least two to three attendants are required to take care of such a patient and the patient is bedridden – Compensation for requirement of two attendants assessed as Rs. 17,28,000/.

(Para 12)

C. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Injury case -- Government employee – Future loss of income – 100% permanent disability -- No compensation could be awarded for the future loss of earnings as there was no loss of income to the respondent No.1/ claimant because he continued to be in service and after retirement, he would get his retiral benefits including pension.

(Para 13)

D. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Injury case -- 100% permanent disability – Pain and suffering – Loss of amenities of life -- Injured would not improve and would require attendant for personal care for whole of his life -- Respondent No. 1/ claimant would require Ryle’s tube feeding (feeding through a pipe through nose) for rest of his life -- Patient is bedridden and special beds with air mattress are required to prevent bed sores and subsequent sepsis -- Rs. 10,00,000/-each awarded as compensation under the heads of ‘Pain and Suffering’ and ‘Loss of Amenities of Life.

(Para 14)

Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (4 of 1994), Section 131(3), 146(1)(d), 148 – Removal of Up-Pardha of Gram Panchayat – Appeal u/s 131(3)/ 148 of HP Act – Maintainability of -- Resolution by Gram Panchayat alleging absence of respondent No.6 from meetings of Gram Panchayat for a period of about one year -- Respondent No.6 had been raising his own grievances in writing against the Gram Panchayat & some of its office bearers and relations of the Pradhan about his being not allowed to participate in the meetings of the Gram Panchayat, were not enquired into and had gone un-redressed -- Deputy Commissioner in purported exercise of powers u/s 131(2) of the Act, had declared the post of Pradhan of Gram Panchayat as vacant, however, the given fact situation and the order had the trappings of Section 146 of the Act – G.P. contended that appeal u/s 131(3) is maintainable not u/s 148 of the HP Act -- Held, affected person-respondent No.6 justly assailed the order by preferring appeal as provided u/s 148 of the Act – Divisional Commissioner remanded back the case to Deputy Commissioner with the directions to carry out fresh proceedings in accordance with law and to pass a reasoned order within 45 days after conducting an inquiry by affording due opportunity of hearing to all the parties is in consonance with law and in accordance with principles of natural justice – Writ dismissed.

(Para 2-5)

A. Punjab Excise Act (as applicable to the State of H.P.), Section 61(1)(a) – Excise matter – Independent witness -- Non-association of independent witnesses is not fatal, and the prosecution case cannot be discarded due to the non-association of independent witnesses.

(Para 37)

B. Punjab Excise Act (as applicable to the State of H.P.), Section 61(1)(a) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 401 -- Excise matter – Recovery of 135 boxes of country liquor ‘Bara Malta’, 50 boxes of Santra No. 1 and 90 boxes of Rasila Santra -- Each box contained 12 bottles of country liquor in it, police recovered 3300 bottles of country liquor – Three bottles each took from a box of Bara Malta, a box of Santra No.1 and a box of Rasila Santra for chemical analysis -- Report of analysis shows that nine bottles were found to be of Country Liquor -- Samples were taken at random -- Prosecution was not supposed to examine all the bottles – All the bottles have to be treated as containing country liquor in them -- Simple imprisonment for a period of six months is not excessive, not required interference – Revision dismissed.

(Para 2, 44-48)

Constitution of India, Article 14 -- Appointment of Drawing teacher – Appointment in violation of policy/ rules -- Grant-in-Aid – Denial of – Respondents are utilizing the services of the petitioner for the last 17 years, as, he is teaching the students, but, his Grant-in-Aid, has not been released, merely on the ground that certain formalities were not completed by the PTA – Relief cannot be denied, as, in case, the appointment of the petitioner was found to be in violation of the terms and conditions of the Policy, the respondents should have not permitted him to continue for this long time – Denial is arbitrary and discriminatory and the respondent-department, being a modal employer, cannot be permitted to exploit the persons like petitioner -- Writ petition allowed, respondents directed to release the Grant in Aid to the petitioner from the date of his initial appointment, till date within three months.

(Para 33-35)

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (70 of 1971), Section 12 – Criminal law -- Direction by Court for not to take coercive step – Whether charge-sheet can be filed -- If a charge sheet is filed against an accused in whose favour there is an order directing not to take coercive action, the concerned officer will expose himself to contempt jurisdiction.

(Para 2)

A. Jammu and Kashmir Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1997 (35 of 1997), Section 31(7) -- Interest on amount of arbitration award -- Pre/ Post award period -- Arbitrator has a discretion in the matter of granting interest with a limit of 6% per annum, from the date of arising of the cause of action, to the date of the award made which included the period pre-reference to the arbitration and the arbitration period till passing of the final award and 6% per annum simple interest for the future period payable from the date of the award to the date of the payment.

(Para 11, 12)

B. Jammu and Kashmir Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1997 (35 of 1997), Section 31(7) -- Interest on amount of arbitration award – Award was passed on 06.12.2013 after the amendment was made in the year 2010, as such, the learned Arbitrator was bound by the amended provision as contained in sub-section (7) of Section 31 of the J&K Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1997.

(Para 14)

Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 (VI of 1978), Section 8 –Constitution of India, Article 21, 22 -- Preventive Detention order – Petitioner is accused u/s 341, 427, 451, 323, 147, 353, 336, 332, 354-B, 456, 504 of IPC – Petitioner-detenue while leading a group of people had obstructed road construction, assaulting the contractor and JCB operator and he was alleged to have attacked on police party and PWD employees causing injuries and halting road construction through stone pelting and unlawfully entered into the residence of a woman, attempting to assault her modesty – Offences are not of such a magnitude so as to constitute threat to the maintenance of the law and order much less of the public order -- Petitioner-detenue is an RTI activist and it appears that his activities would have caused inconvenience and embarrassment to the officers in the district -- Preventive detention of the petitioner is unwarranted, arbitrary, misconceived and illegal -- Preventive detention Order quashed and the petitioner ordered to be released from custody forthwith.

(Para 11-13)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Injury case – 100% disability – Pain and suffering – Appellant is in wheel chair bound with no movements (Grade 0/5) in both lower limbs, minimal movements in bilateral upper limb proximally with wrist being very weak (1/5 power) and grip is not possible -- He has no urinary control, has no sensation of bowels and is on urinary catheter. He needs help for all his day to day activities -- He was an Assistant Team Leader in LM Glass Fibers India Pvt. Ltd. and now can’t do any work -- He has almost no chance of further improvement and impairment is likely to be permanent -- All put together he has a disability of about 85% to the whole body -- Disability suffered by the claimant-appellant taken as 100% -- Rs.15,00,000/- under the head ‘pain and suffering’, awarded – Total compensation comes to Rs.1,02,29,241/-.

(Para 11-16)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908), Order 8 Rule 5 -- Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 27 -- Pleadings – Plea of Adverse possession – Admission of title -- Appellants did not specifically deny the plaintiffs' ownership of the suit property -- Instead, they primarily relied on the plea of adverse possession -- Allegations of fact not denied specifically are deemed to be admitted -- By asserting adverse possession, the appellants have impliedly admitted the plaintiffs' title.

(Para 8.1)

B. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 35 – Presumption of revenue record -- Revenue records are public documents maintained by government officials in the regular course of duties and carry a presumption of correctness -- While it is true that revenue entries do not by themselves confer title, they are admissible as evidence of possession and can support a claim of ownership when corroborated by other evidence.

(Para 8.2)

C. Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 27 -- Adverse possession – Onus of proof -- In a suit for possession based on title, the plaintiffs must establish their ownership -- Plaintiffs have done so by producing revenue records and, subsequently, the registered sale deeds and mutation entries – Appellants/ defendants failed to deny the plaintiffs' title specifically and instead relied on adverse possession, the burden has shifted to the appellants/ defendant to prove their adverse possession.

(Para 9)

D. Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 27 -- Adverse possession of State -- It is a fundamental principle that the State cannot claim adverse possession over the property of its own citizens -- Allowing the State to appropriate private property through adverse possession would undermine the constitutional rights of citizens and erode public trust in the government -- Therefore, the State/ appellants' plea of adverse possession is untenable in law.

(Para 10, 11)

E. Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 27 -- Adverse possession -- Placing bitumen drums, erecting temporary structures, and constructing a boundary wall in 1980 do not constitute adverse possession -- Adverse possession requires possession that is continuous, open, peaceful, and hostile to the true owner for the statutory period.

(Para 12)

Himachal Pradesh Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1971 (22 of 1971), Section 5 -- Himachal Pradesh Allotment of Government Residences (General Pool) Rules, 1994, Rule 16 – Eviction of employee/ allottee of government accommodation -- Deputation/ Transfer on non-family station – Protection of government accommodation – Right of -- In a case of transfer, unless the transfer is on the request of the employee, the same is effectuated by the employer per se --  However, in the case of deputation, he is not entitled for protection of the 2004 Rules -- Eviction passed by the Collector as affirmed by the Appellate Authority calls for no interference.

(Para 9, 10)

Constitution of India, Article 14 – Out of turn promotion -- Out of turn promotion to nine police officials in the year 2003 was a rare occasion where a team of J&K Police Band had won the competition and earned gold medals in recognition of their outstanding performance -- Petitioner, who has only Participated in the Republic Day Celebrations that, too, in the year 2014 cannot seek parity with those, who were promoted in the year 2003 that, too, for a rare distinction which the said officials had brought to the Jammu & Kashmir Police.

(Para 8)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Instruction of Government dated 18.1.1990 for compassionate appointment – HPSEB -- Compassionate appointment to second son – One son is already employed -- High Court cannot rewrite the policy prevailing qua the appointment on compassionate basis -- It was the widow alone who could have had applied for appointment on compassionate ground in a situation where already employed child was not looking after her, but she did not do so -- Second son under no circumstances is eligible to apply for appointment on compassionate basis, no mandamus can be issued to the respondents to offer appointment to the petitioner on compassionate basis – Writ dismissed.

(Para 8, 9)

A. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 20 -- NDPS – Independent witness – Relevancy of -- Non-association of independent witnesses is not fatal and the prosecution case cannot be discarded due to the non-association of independent witnesses -- However, the Court will have to carefully scrutinize the testimonies of the police officials.

(Para 24)

B. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 20 – NDPS – Acquittal -- Recovery of contraband – Doubt upon – Independent witness – Non-examination of – Effect of -- Police party was not carrying any sewing machine with them -- Police officials also admitted that the parcel was machine stitched from two sides -- No explanation was given by the police official as to how the parcel could have been machine stitched on the spot without any sewing machine -- This shows that either the parcel was already lying with the police official or the proceedings were not conducted on the spot and the testimonies of the police officials regarding the fact that the proceedings were conducted on the spot is highly suspect -- Prosecution witnesses have given different versions regarding the circumstances surrounding the recovery -- Inconsistencies would assume significance in the absence of independent witnesses – Acquittal, upheld.

(Para 30)

A. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 106 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 -- Murder – Circumstantial evidence -- Recovery of currency note from accused -- Nothing on record to show that the money belonged to the deceased -- Currency notes are commonly available and there is nothing in the statement of the witness to show that the currency notes shown to him during his examination had any distinguishing mark which would enable him to identify them; hence, his testimony that the currency notes handed over by him to the deceased were the same currency notes, which were shown to him in the Court is not acceptable.

(Para 20, 21)

B. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 27 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 -- Murder – Recovery on disclosure statement – Exclusive knowledge – Requirements of -- Disclosure statement shows that the stone was not concealed anywhere and was lying in the open -- Where the recoveries were effected from a place accessible, the same cannot be relied upon -- Since, there is no evidence of the exclusive knowledge of the accused, therefore, the stone cannot be connected to the accused.

(Para 25, 26)

C. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 27 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 -- Other articles and stick was recovered from the spot at a distance of 200 metre from the dead body by I.O. -- As per the statement of the accused recorded u/s 27, he had thrown the stone and the stick at the same place -- It is difficult to believe that the investigating officer would not have discovered the stone when he had inspected the spot and found other articles on the spot – These circumstances cast reasonable doubt on the recovery of the stone at the instance of accused.

(Para 27-29)

D. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 106 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 -- Murder -- Disclosure statement -- Statement u/s 27 of the Indian Evidence Act cannot be used to prove that the accused had killed the deceased.

(Para 39)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 8, 22 – NDPS – Acquittal – Safe custody of sample – Requirement of – FSL Report – Seized material deposited in Malkhana on 25.05.2013 – On 27.05.2013, 10 samples were taken by SHO for resealing and then returned – I.O. not placed on record either the Malkhana Register or its extract in respect of taking out of samples for resealing and their redeposit in Malkhana on 27.05.213 – Held, prosecution is under obligation not only to prove that after the samples were extracted, they were kept in safe custody so as to negate any chance of tampering with the samples but also is under obligation to ensure that the material recovered from the accused only is sent to FSL -- Prosecution not proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts that the recovered material only was sent to FSL for chemical analysis -- Proof of FSL report would be of no consequence -- Appellant deserves benefit of doubt, conviction order set aside, discharged.

(Para 20-25)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 107, 306 -- Abetment to suicide – Instigation – Mens rea -- ‘instigation’ to do a particular thing is necessary for charging a person with abetment -- ‘Instigation’ is to provoke, incite or encourage a person to do an act -- Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a particular thing and without the positive act on part of the accused there would be no instigation -- To convict a person for abetment of suicide u/s 306 IPC, there has to be a clear mens rea on the part of the accused to abet such a crime and it requires an active act or a direct act leading to the commission of suicide.

(Para 21-23)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 306 -- Abetment to suicide – Acquittal -- Discord and differences in domestic life are quite common in society -- Until and unless some guilty intention on the part of the accused is established, it is ordinarily not possible to convict him for an offence u/s 306 IPC.

(Para 25)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 306 -- Abetment to suicide – Refusal to marry – Mens rea – Acquittal -- Accused-appellant simply refused to marry the deceased and thus, even assuming there was love between the parties, it is only a case of broken relationship which by itself would not amount to abetment to suicide -- Accused-appellant had not provoked the deceased in any manner to kill herself; rather the deceased herself carried poison in a bottle from her village with a predetermined mind to positively get an affirmation from the accused-appellant to marry her, failing which she would commit suicide -- No guilty intention or mens rea on the part of the accused-appellant had been established – Conviction set aside – Appellant acquitted.

(Para 29-32)

A. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 8 – Motive -- Motive on its own cannot make or break the prosecution case.

(Para 25)

B. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 106 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 -- Murder – Last seen evidence – Time gap – Relevant factor – It is a vital link in the chain of other circumstances but on its own strength it is insufficient to sustain conviction unless the time-gap between the deceased being last seen alive with the accused and recovery of dead body of the deceased is so small that possibility of any other person being the author of the crime is just about impossible -- Where the time-gap is large, intervening circumstances including act by some third person cannot be ruled out -- In such a case, adverse inference cannot be drawn against the accused merely because he has failed to prove as to when he parted company of the deceased.

(Para 26)

C. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 106 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 -- Murder – Last seen evidence – Walking in public street -- Time gap – Effect of -- No evidence led by the prosecution to demonstrate that the place where the deceased was last seen alive with the accused was near the place from where deceased’s body was recovered -- Further, the time gap between 4.30 PM of 2.2.1997 and 8.30 AM of 3.2.1997 (i.e., when the dead body was recovered) is so large that third party hand in the crime cannot be ruled out -- If two or more persons are seen walking on a public street, either side by side, or behind one another, it is not such a circumstance from which it may be inferred with a degree of certainty that those were together or in company of each other -- Likewise, a person may exchange pleasantries with another person walking on the path, but that by itself is not sufficient to infer that the two are in company of each other – Last seen circumstance not of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused-appellants – Appellants acquitted.

(Para 27, 41)

D. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 27 -- Disclosure Statement – Recovery -- Disclosure statement not admissible in evidence because the alleged discovery was not made pursuant to that statement -- Disclosure statement was recorded at the police station whereas recovery was made from the place pointed out by the accused enroute to the police station -- It was, therefore, a case of recovery from the place allegedly pointed out by the accused and not based on a disclosure statement.

(Para 37)

A. Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Section 14(1) – Hindu Women’s right to maintenance -- Absolute property of woman -- Right of maintenance is sufficient for the property given in lieu thereof to transform into absolute ownership, by way of Section 14(1) of the HSA, 1956.

(Para 9.4)

B. Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Section 14(1) – Hindu Women’s right to maintenance -- Hindu Women’s right to maintenance is not by virtue of statute, but is found in Shastric Hindu law; maintenance has to be proper, appropriate and adequate, giving the woman so maintained the ability to continue to live the life, similar to what she once lived; and that the very right to receive maintenance is sufficient title to enable the ripening of possession into full ownership if she is in possession of the property in lieu of maintenance.

(Para 10)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 256 – Cheque bounce complaint – Dismiss in default -- Complaint was filed on 18.12.2020 and thereafter, the appellant/ complainant was regularly appearing before the Trial Court, however, on 23.08.2024 the appellant could not appear as wrong date was noted by the counsel, complaint was ordered to be dismissed for non-prosecution -- Held, Magistrate has discretion to dismiss the complaint, however, if the Magistrate finds that there was some valid reason for non-appearance of the complainant or the presence of the complainant was not required during the Court proceeding, he can very well exercise his discretion to adjourn the complaint -- While exercising the jurisdiction u/s 256 Cr.P.C., the Court has to take into consideration that the powers vested in it have to be exercised judiciously and in the interest of justice -- Impugned order set aside and the complaint is ordered to be restored to its original number.

(Para 11-14)

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Section 6 -- Ancestral property -- Once a property is acquired by way of succession, the same loses its ancestral character.

(Para 5)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 18 Rule 3 -- Rebuttal evidence – Onus of proof – Effect of -- Onus of issue no. 1 was cast upon the plaintiff-petitioners and hence it was incumbent upon the plaintiff-petitioners to have led their evidence in the affirmative -- A party cannot be permitted to lead evidence in rebuttal the onus of which was cast upon the said party.

(Para 7)

Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), Section 17(2)(xii) – Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899), First Schedule, Article 18, 23 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 94 Rule 21 -- Auction sale – Sale certificate -- Stamp duty – Requirement of -- Sale certificate issued to the purchaser in pursuance of the confirmation of an auction sale is merely evidence of such title and does not require registration u/s 17(1) of the Registration Act -- Mere filing u/s 89(4) of the Registration Act itself is sufficient when a copy of the sale certificate is forwarded by the authorised officer to the registering authority – However, Articles 18 and 23 respectively of the first schedule to the Stamp Act respectively makes it clear that when the auction purchaser presents the original sale certificate for registration, it would attract stamp duty in accordance with the said Articles -- As long as the sale certificate remains as it is, it is not compulsorily registrable -- It is only when the auction purchaser uses the certificate for some other purpose that the requirement of payment of stamp duty, etc. would arise.

(Para 7, 13-20)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 446, 482 – Cheque bounce complaint – Absence of accused -- Forfeiture of bail bond – Presence of accused – Requirement of – Presence of an accused, where proceedings are semi-criminal/ civil in nature, should ordinarily not be insisted upon, if an application is moved for a particular hearing, unless the trial court needs to either examine the under-trial or his statement is to be otherwise recorded for proceeding further in the matter -- Impugned order directing the forfeiture of the bail-bonds of the petitioner accused and initiating proceedings against his surety u/s 446 Cr.P.C. set aside.

(Para 1, 7-10)

Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25, 27, 30 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 309 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Attempt to commit suicide – Use of arms without license -- Petitioner No.1 was handling the licensed revolver of respondent no. 2 and while doing so, an accidental shot was fired -- Petitioner No.1 was having no mens rea to kill himself by committing suicide -- Illegal use of a licenced weapon per se does not constitute an offence u/s 27 of Arms Act – Alleged weapon used was having licence in the name of petitioner No.2 and thus no case is made out u/s 25 of the Arms Act -- Prima facie no offence u/s 30 of Arms Act is made out against the accused, as there was no breach of condition of the arms licence -- FIR and subsequent proceedings quashed.

(Para 8-14)

A. Railways Act, 1989 (24 of 1989), Section 2(29), 123(c), 124A -- Compensation in railway accident case – Untoward incident -- Strict liability – Negligence of victim – Ground of -- Liability of the Railway Administration is based on the ‘principle of strict liability’ -- Plea of ‘no fault of railways’ or ‘negligence of the victim’ is not available to the Railway Administration.

(Para 15)

B. Railways Act, 1989 (24 of 1989), Section 2(29), 123(c), 124A -- Compensation in railway accident case -- Untoward incident -- Passenger for the purpose of Chapter XIII of the Railways Act does not necessarily mean a passenger as contemplated under Section 2(29) of the 1989 Act -- Passenger shall include: a) a railway servant on duty; b) a person who has purchased a valid ticket for travelling by a train carrying passengers on any date; or c) a valid platform ticket and becomes a victim of an untoward incident -- Definition of ‘passenger’ as appended to Section 124A by explanation is much wider than the definition of ‘passenger’ as provided under Section 2(29) of the 1989 Act.

(Para 15)

C. Railways Act, 1989 (24 of 1989), Section 2(29), 123(c), 124A -- Compensation in railway accident case – Onus to prove -- Once affidavit is filed by the claimant that the victim was travelling on a valid ticket, the initial burden to prove that the victim was a bona fide passenger stands discharged -- Thereafter, it is for the Railways to rebut the same.

(Para 15)

D. Railways Act, 1989 (24 of 1989), Section 2(29), 123(c), 124A -- Compensation in railway accident case – Untoward incident is different from accident -- ‘Untoward incident’ is defined under Section 123(c) of the 1989 Act -- Under five situations as contemplated under proviso appended to Section 124A, the Railway Administration may be absolved of its liability -- Any other situation that does not fall within the ambit of proviso appended to Section 124-A, invites liability of Railway Administration to pay compensation.

(Para 15)

E. Railways Act, 1989 (24 of 1989), Section 2(29), 123(c), 124A -- Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990, Schedule -- Compensation in railway accident case – Untoward incident -- Appellant has placed on record the purchase of ticket by him – Initial onus  stands discharged, it was thereafter for the railways to prove that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger -- No evidence was led by railways to rebut the evidence of the applicant -- Appellant sustained injuries due to sudden jerk and jolt of the train -- Said situation does not fall within the exceptions as carved out in the proviso appended to Section 124A of the Act – Appeal allowed, accident is of the year 2013, thus, the compensation awarded to the appellant shall be as per Part I of the Schedule appended to the Railway Accident and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990 prior to amendment dated 1st of January, 2017 i.e. Rs.4.00 lacs along with interest @ 9% per annum payable for the period from the date of application till the date of actual realization.

(Para 16-19)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304A, 287 -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 359, 528 – Death by electrocution in Rolling Mill – Non-compoundable offence -- Compromise quashing of FIR -- When the deceased’s family absolves the accused of any negligence or rash act, it would be impossible for the prosecution to succeed during the trial -- Thus, quashing of cases u/s 304-A IPC, other than roadside accidents, can be quashed depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case, the role assigned to the accused, mens rea, and the guilt of the such person -- After the death, the petitioners helped the complainant family financially and emotionally -- Accident occurred in broad daylight, and as an adult, the victim should have been more careful while performing his duties -- It is not a case where the acts of the Rolling mill or the Manager can be termed as rash or negligent -- Inherent jurisdiction u/s 528 BNSS, 2023 invoked, the FIR and all subsequent proceedings quashed.

(Para 7-18)

Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 5 – Condonation of delay – Fault of Advocate – Ground of – Delay of 536 days in filing appeal -- Entire blame thrown on the head of the advocate -- Even if the concerned lawyer was careless or negligent, this, by itself, cannot be a ground to condone long and inordinate delay as the litigant owes a duty to be vigilant of his own rights and is expected to be equally vigilant about the judicial proceedings pending in the court initiated at his instance -- Litigant, should not be permitted to throw the entire blame on the head of the advocate and thereby disown him at any time and seek relief.

(Para 10)

Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 27 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 100 -- Adverse possession against co-sharer -- Possession of the plaintiffs was in a representative capacity being co-sharer -- Merely because a particular co-sharer is not in possession and is residing out of the village is not sufficient to prove ouster -- Concurrent findings of fact with regard to plaintiffs' failure to prove their ownership by way of adverse possession not interfered – Appeal dismissed.

(Para 12)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 91 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Fair trial -- Right of accused – Preservation of call details – Right to privacy of police officials -- Legislative intent behind enactment of Section 91 Cr.P.C. is to ensure that no cogent material or evidence involved in the issue remains undiscovered in unearthing the true facts during investigation, enquiry, trial or other proceedings -- While passing the appropriate direction for preserving and production of call details/ tower location details u/s 91 Cr.P.C. would violate the right to privacy of the police officials but the right of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India in ensuring free and fair investigation/ trial would prevail over the right to privacy of the police officials.

(Para 7)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304-A, 427, 279 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 91 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 65A, 65B -- Death by rash and negligent driving -- Fair trial – Right of accused -- Preservation of call details – Denial of an adequate opportunity to the accused by non-production of the electronic record, which is admissible u/s 65-A and 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act in criminal trial, would amount to miscarriage of justice -- Power u/s 91 Cr.P.C. must be exercised for production of such evidence, which would assist the Court in discovering the truth in the pursuit of justice -- Learned trial Court directed to pass necessary directions u/s 91 Cr.P.C. for preserving and production of the call details/ tower location details of the phone numbers mentioned in the application filed u/s 91 Cr.P.C

(Para 8-10)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 419, 420, 120-B, 467, 468, 471 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Cheating and forgery – Regular bail -- All the offences are triable by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class -- No prosecution witness has been examined so far as charges are yet to be framed -- Petitioner has suffered incarceration of 07 months 13 days not involved in any other case – Bail allowed.

(Para 9)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 506, 120-B – Attesting witness to agreement -- Cheating and forgery – Acquittal -- An attesting witness cannot be roped into the net of crime along with other accused persons, if there is no other allegations except that he is an attesting witness -- Original agreement to sell which was alleged to be forged was not produced in the trial Court -- Even no document expert was examined by the prosecution to prove the allegations of alleged fraud – Acquittal order, upheld.

(Para 13-16)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 8, 18, 29, 67 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 211, 401 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 27 – NDPS case -- Framing of charge – Challenge to – No direct material that petitioner is the same person, which has come in the statement of co-accused -- On the basis of statement of the co-accused while in police custody recorded u/s 27 of the Evidence Act, the petitioner cannot be arrayed as accused in the trial -- Trial Court  completely ignored the lack of evidence in this regard -- Impugned order of charge against the petitioner set aside.

(Para 4-8)

Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Interference in -- Writ jurisdiction -- High Court cannot determine suitability of the parties especially when  respondent No. 4/ appointed candidate is not suffering from any disability which makes him ineligible for the post -- Petitioner is simply claiming that he is more meritorious and available to the villagers -- Respondent is also resident of the same village and is a deed writer and remains in Tehsil Complex -- There is no complaint of the villagers and petitioner cannot be heard to say that he is always available and respondent No. 4 is not available – Not appropriate to interfere with impugned orders and invoke writ jurisdiction.

(Para 6, 7)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 148, 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Self-employed person – Fixed salary person – Future prospects -- Addition of future prospects cannot be denied in cases of self-employed persons or those employed on a fixed salary.

(Para 14-20)

A. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 11 – Appointment of Arbitrator – Scope of inquiry u/s 11 of the Act, 1996 is limited to ascertaining the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement -- High Court exceeded this limited scope by undertaking a detailed examination of the factual matrix -- High Court erroneously proceeded to assess the auditor’s report in detail and dismissed the arbitration application -- Existence of the arbitration agreement not disputed by the respondent –  Question whether there exists a valid dispute to be referred to arbitration can be addressed by the Arbitral Tribunal as a preliminary issue -- Appeal allowed, impugned order passed by the High Court set aside -- Sole arbitrator appointed to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.

(Para 18-23)

B. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 11 – Appointment of Arbitrator – Misue of process -- Limited jurisdiction of the referral Courts u/s 11 must not be misused by parties in order to force other parties to the arbitration agreement to participate in a time-consuming and costly arbitration process -- To balance the limited scope of judicial interference of the referral Courts with the interests of the parties who might be constrained to participate in the arbitration proceedings, the Arbitral Tribunal may direct that the costs of the arbitration shall be borne by the party which the Tribunal ultimately finds to have abused the process of law and caused unnecessary harassment to the other party to the arbitration.

(Para 20)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13, 16 --Appointment of Lambardar – Choice of Collector – Interference in – Permissibility of -- District Collector while appointing the appellant, had noticed that respondent no.4 was a serving Sarpanch and had been elected unanimously and he was also the Vice President of the Cooperative Society and therefore it could not be said strictly that he did not participate in the political activities -- He may be B.A pass and having more land is already 63 years old, whereas the appellant was 50 years of age -- Appellant is son of an ex-army man -- Commissioner interfered in the said appointment without recording any finding that there was any perversity in the order which is the basic criteria for interference -- Financial Commissioner dismissed the appeal -- Learned Single Judge chose to remand the matter -- Appeal allowed, setting aside of impugned orders, upholding the order of appointment of the appellant as Lambardar.

(Para 1-8)

Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 – Haryana Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1887), Section 13, 16 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Challenge to – Dealy and laches – Appointment was made way back in the year 2012 – Neither the Commissioner nor the Financial Commissioner chose to interfere with the order passed by the Collector – Ld. Single Judge dismissed the writ petition while noticing that there was an inordinate delay of almost four years in approaching the High Court after finalization of the proceedings upto the Financial Commissioner – LPA dismissed.

(Para 2, 3)

Haryana Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Death of appointed lambardar – Right of other candidate -- Deceased-appellant was appointed by the Collector on 11.06.1997 – LPA pending has been rendered infructuous -- For all practical purposes, the appellant continued to serve as Lambardar from 1997 before he has expired -- It is, thus, open to the authorities to initiate the process for appointment of Lambardar -- Respondent No.4 would not have a vested right to be appointed merely on account of death of the appellant as fresh candidates would have to be considered who would be fully eligible -- It would be open to respondent No.4 to apply afresh.

(Para 3-5)

A. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023), Section 80, 85, 108, 3(5) -- Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, (28 of 1961), Section 3, 4 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 482 -- Dowry death – Abetment to suicide -- Anticipatory bail -- Son of the appellant (mother-in-law) has been arrested and he is still in custody – After interim protection, despite communication sent by the appellant to investigating authority, the investigating authority has not called her for joining the investigation – Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the custodial interrogation of the appellant is not required – Anticipatory bail allowed.

(Para 2-9)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 438 – Proclaimed person/ Proclaimed offender – Anticipatory bail – Maintainability of -- Consideration of anticipatory bail, in the event of the declaration u/s 82 of the Cr.P.C., it is not as if in all cases that there will be a total embargo on considering the application for the grant of anticipatory bail -- When the liberty of the appellant is pitted against, the Court will have to see the circumstances of the case, nature of the offence and the background based on which such a proclamation was issued.

(Para 8, 9)

Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870), Section 6A, 7(iv-A) – Advalorem court fee -- Suit claiming a decree for declaration to the effect that the gift deed be declared as null, void, forged and fabricated having no effect on the rights of the plaintiff and consequential information in this regard be sent to the Sub-Registrar's office -- It is not a simplicitor suit for declaration of rights and it clearly falls under section 7(iv-A) of the Act.

(Para 3, 11)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 482 -- Cheque bounce complaint – Proclaimed person --  Petitioner is keen to join the proceedings -- Petition disposed of and the impugned order set aside subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- as costs to be paid to the complainant – On surrender of the petitioner with cost of Rs.10,000/- within 10 days, the Court concerned directed to admit him to bail subject to its satisfaction and decide the application for revival of the complaint in accordance with law.

(Para 4)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21, 21(c), 22(c), 23(c), 25, 27-A, 29 -- Prisons Act, 1894 (9 of 1894), Section 42, 52-A – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – NDPS – Regular bail -- Recovery of 1600 grams of heroin from co-accused -- Petitioner in custody since 18.09.2023; challan was presented on 12.03.2024 followed by framing of charges on 07.06.2024 -- Till date none of the 31 prosecution witnesses examined – No recovery of any contraband or even mobile handsets was affected from the petitioner; the petitioner is being sought to be linked to the co-accused only on the basis of some mobile calls made between him and them – Bail allowed.

(Para 7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 489-A, 489-B, 489-C, 489-D – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Recovery of counterfeit currency – Regular bail -- Petitioner in custody since 04.04.2024 -- Entire case of the prosecution is based on documentary evidence, which is already part of the challan -- Trial is unlikely to conclude in the near future – Bail allowed.

(Para 6)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Retail and Wholesale Drug License  -- Delay in submission of application beyond time granted by High court – Rejection on that ground – Justification of -- Ends of justice would be well served in case the applications that were filed by the petitioner beyond the time prescribed by High Court, are treated as being in compliance of order passed by High Court and adjudication thereof is done by the concerned Authority on merits of the same, after granting an opportunity of hearing to the respective parties – Petition allowed.

(Para 1-7)

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 480(6), 483 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420, 406, 120B – Cheating – Non-conclusion of trial within 60 days -- Bail – Right of -- Charges framed on 31.05.2024, case is triable by the Magistrate -- First date for recording evidence was 14.06.2024 and 60 days completed on 13.08.2024 -- Accused-petitioner is in custody for more than two years -- Only one prosecution witness out of total 33 prosecution witnesses examined -- Accused cannot be continued in custody for an indefinite period and that too for no fault on his bail in conclusion of the trial as per the mandate of Section 480(6) of BNSS – Bail allowed.

(Para 9, 10)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 374, 389 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 148A -- Conviction in cheque bounce complaint -- Appeal -- Suspension of sentence – Pre-deposit of 20% of compensation -- Looking at the financial condition of the petitioner, directing her to deposit 20% of the amount as per impugned order shall result in jeopardizing her appeal being dismissed on account of non-compliance of the condition of deposit -- Condition of pre-deposit of 20% of interim compensation set aside, Ld. Sessions Judge ordered to proceed with hearing of the appeal without insisting for pre-deposit and dispose of the same in accordance with law.

(Para 8, 9)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Truck hit scooty from back side -- Contributory negligence – Plea of -- No evidence produced in regard to allegation of contributory negligence -- Case pleaded that on being hit by the truck from the back side, the deceased had fallen and came under the front wheel of the truck, which is possible -- Contention of the insurance company that there was contributory negligence of the deceased is liable to be repelled only and accordingly repelled.

(Para 18-21)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Future loss of income -- Future prospects -- Compassionate appointment to dependent – Effect of – Deceased was getting Rs.34,351/- at the time of accident, son of the deceased was appointed on a remuneration of about Rs.12000-13,000/-, therefore, firstly it cannot be said that there was no loss of income to the family – Secondly, compassionate appointment cannot be equated with the future prospect – Contention that the claimants are not entitled for the future prospects on the ground of 58 years of age deceased is misconceived and not tenable because the death of bread earner of family is always loss to the family, who would have contributed to the family in future and his earnings may have increased in any manner.

(Para 22-33)

C. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 134, 149, 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Enquiry u/s 134 of MV Act – Ground of -- Grounds of section 134 (c) of the Act of 1988 is not provided u/s 149 (2), ground not available to the appellant/ Insurance Company – Even otherwise, once an enquiry has been held by the tribunal after affording sufficient opportunity to the appellant/ insurance company, the plea of the appellant that since provisions of Section 134 (c) of the Act of 1988 have not been complied, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to make the payment of compensation is misconceived and not tenable because it has no concern with the claim of the dependents and family members of the deceased.

(Para 34-38)