***

NDPS -- Recovery of Ganja – Search and Seizure – Non-compliance of Section 50 – Absence of independent witnesses – Prosecution failed to prove recovery beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction set aside and accused acquitted.

***

A. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 8, 20 & 50 – Recovery of Ganja – Search and Seizure – Compliance of Section 50 – Independent witnesses – Benefit of doubt – Acquittal – Prosecution failed to establish that accused was informed of his legal right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate; independent public witnesses were not examined despite their availability and evidence regarding weighment, sampling, sealing and safe custody of seized contraband was also found doubtful – Prosecution failed to establish the identity and untampered condition of seized contraband with requisite certainty – Conviction under Sections 8/20 set aside – Accused acquitted by extending benefit of doubt.

(Paras 17–28)

B. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 50 – Search and Seizure – Right to be searched before Gazetted Officer or Magistrate – Prosecution failed to establish that accused was meaningfully informed of his statutory right or consciously waived the same – Mere formal assertion by police witnesses insufficient to satisfy mandatory requirement of law -- Failure to establish due compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, in itself, goes to the root of the state case and renders the alleged recovery legally suspect.

 (Para 20, 21)

***

Prosecution of Managing Director – 138, 141 NI Act -- Company not arraigned as accused – Complaint against Managing Director, who was neither drawer nor signatory to cheque, held not maintainable and quashed.

***

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Sections 138, 141 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 528 -- Dishonour of Cheque – Vicarious liability – Quashing -- Prosecution of Managing Director – Company not arraigned as accused – Cheque issued on behalf of company and signed by its authorised signatories – Petitioner arraigned only in capacity of Managing Director and was neither drawer nor signatory to cheque – Arraigning of company as an accused is imperative for maintaining prosecution against its Directors or persons responsible for conduct of its business – Without impleading the company as an accused, complaint against Managing Director held not maintainable – Impugned complaint and proceedings against petitioner quashed – Petition allowed.

(Paras 9-19)

***

MACT -- Motor Accident Claim – Functional disability – Claimant suffering 100% permanent physical impairment and 100% visual impairment due to post-traumatic bilateral cortical blindness – Continued employment with specially created software and accommodations did not negate loss of earning capacity in open competitive market -- Functional disability assessed at 100% -- Compensation enhanced to Rs.3,77,84,297/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a.

***

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Motor Accident Claim – Compensation – Functional disability – Claimant suffered 100% permanent physical impairment, post-traumatic bilateral cortical blindness, pelvic fracture and permanent stoma – Continued employment with specially created software and accommodations did not negate loss of earning capacity in open competitive market – Career Growth Letter established loss of normal career growth and promotional progression due to accident – Functional disability enhanced from 80% to 100% – Future prospects at 50% and multiplier of 16 applied – Compensation for loss of future earning capacity enhanced to Rs.2,42,08,416/- – Attendant charges, future medical expenses, pain and suffering, loss of marriage prospects and other heads of compensation reassessed – Total compensation enhanced to Rs.3,77,84,297/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from date of claim petition till realisation – Insurer's appeals dismissed and claimant's appeal partly allowed.

(Paras 17-23)

***

Interim Compensation – Sections 138, 143-A NI Act – Discretionary power – Order directing payment of 10% of cheque amount as interim compensation under Section 143-A, after considering conduct of accused, stage of proceedings and possibility of delay, held reasoned and within statutory limit.

***

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Sections 138, 143-A – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 528 – Interim Compensation – Discretionary power of Court under Section 143-A is not mandatory or automatic – Court is required to exercise discretion judiciously after prima facie considering merits of complaint, nature of defence, conduct of accused and likelihood of delay in trial – Trial Court, after noticing that cheque, dishonour memo and statutory notice stood proved, accused admitted cheque and signature, had repeatedly defaulted in appearance and had obtained permission to travel abroad, directed payment of 10% of cheque amount i.e. Rs.8,00,000/- as interim compensation – Order contained reasons and reflected due application of mind – Amount awarded was within statutory limit of 20% of cheque amount – No arbitrariness, perversity or jurisdictional error found – Orders of Trial Court and Revisional Court upheld and petition dismissed.

(Paras 21-39)

***

NDPS – Habeas Corpus – Illegal detention – NCB failed to conduct quantitative analysis of seized contraband and destroyed/disposed of the case property without court order or notice to accused, rendering further quantitative analysis impossible – Detention held illegal and petitioners directed to be released.

***

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 36-A(4), 52-A – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022, Rules 13, 14 – Constitution of India, Article 226 – Habeas Corpus – Illegal detention – Recovery of 95.501 kgs of alleged contraband – No quantitative analysis conducted by FSL – Contraband destroyed/disposed of without order of competent court or notice to accused – Qualitative FSL test found Mephedrone whereas NCB's initial test indicated Amphetamine – Complaint filed without quantitative analysis report – Extension of investigation set aside and no fresh extension obtained – Complaint filed beyond permissible period – Repeated procedural violations under NDPS Act and Rules rendered detention illegal – Petitioners directed to be released forthwith on furnishing personal bond and two sureties.

(Paras 4, 6, 7, 11, 22, 29-35, 40)

***

NDPS – Regular Bail – Recovery of 2.3 kgs hydroponic weed being below commercial quantity, applicant having no criminal history and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, bail granted.

***

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 8, 20, 23 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 483 – Regular Bail – Recovery of 2 kgs 300 grams of hydroponic weed – Applicant in custody since 09.06.2026 – No criminal history – Hydroponic weed is cannabis and its cultivation through a water-based medium does not alter its legal status – Contraband recovered being below commercial quantity – Considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment and facts and circumstances of the case, applicant held entitled to bail – Bail application allowed.

(Paras 3-14)

***

NDPS – Sentence – Appellant convicted under Section 8 r/w Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act and sentenced to 12 years’ rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,20,000/- – Sentence reduced to statutory minimum of 10 years’ subject to payment of fine.

***

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 8, 20(b)(ii)(C) – Conviction – Sentence – Appellant was convicted and sentenced to 12 years’ rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,20,000/- – Appellant had already undergone sentence for almost 9 years -- Sentence reduced to statutory minimum of 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment subject to payment of fine of Rs.1,20,000/-.

(Paras 13–19)

***

NDPS – Bail – Appellant in custody since 28.12.2024 – Considering period of incarceration and totality of circumstances, bail granted.

***

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 21(C), 29 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 483 – Bail – Appellant arrested for offences under Sections 21(C), 29 of NDPS Act – Appellant had remained in custody since 28.12.2024 – Considering totality of circumstances and period of incarceration, direction given to release the appellant on bail on terms to be fixed by Trial Court – Trial expedited.

(Paras 3–10)

***

NDPS -- Bail – No recovery was effected from petitioner and his role was confined to driving the vehicle in which co-accused was travelling from whom recovery of Rs.2,50,000/- was made – Bali allowed.

***

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 20(B), 29 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 483 – Bail – Recovery of contraband – Petitioner was allegedly driving a car in which co-accused was sitting from whom recovery of Rs.2,50,000/- was made – Another co-accused had named petitioner and co-accused as suppliers – No recovery of money was made from petitioner and his role was confined to driving the other car – Without expressing any opinion on merits, petitioner was held entitled to bail.

(Paras 1–5)

***

SCST Act -- Anticipatory bail – Bar under Section 18 – FIR not suggesting accused’s awareness of complainant’s caste, absence of intention to insult or humiliate on caste basis – Bar under Section 18 not attracted – Interim anticipatory bail made absolute and appeal allowed.

***

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 18 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 482 – Anticipatory bail – Bar under Section 18 – Prima facie case – Intention is the sine qua non of the offence under Section 3 and has to be gathered from the first report to the police – FIR does not suggest that accused was aware that complainant belonged to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes and, therefore, intention to insult and humiliate on the basis of caste would be missing – Bar under Section 18 would not apply and anticipatory bail can be granted – Appellant joined investigation pursuant to interim anticipatory bail – Interim anticipatory bail made absolute and appeal allowed.

(Paras 2-5)

***

Cruelty – 498A IPC-- Vague and general allegations, lacking specific instances of cruelty, demand for dowry and harassment, cannot constitute a prima facie case under Section 498-A IPC – Complaint and summoning order quashed.

***

Cruelty – Prosecution under Section 498-A should not be initiated in a routine manner and is warranted only where complaint discloses a coercive dowry demand or life-endangering cruelty, not where parties are locked in an acrimonious but civilly resolvable conflict over assets or marital breakdown.

***

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 498-A, 120-B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Cruelty -- Quashing of criminal complaint – Petitioner No. 1 is the father-in-law, who is now 82 years of age and petitioner No. 2 is the husband of the complainant/ respondent No. 2 – Marriage was solemnized 30 years ago and the couple is blessed with three children – First complaint on similar allegations was filed but was withdrawn soon thereafter – Second complaint, subject matter of the present litigation was filed subsequently – Allegations in the complaint appear to be vague, lacking specific instances of cruelty, demand for dowry and harassment at the hands of the petitioners – The allegations are rather generic and ambiguous in nature – Scrutiny of the allegations does not prima facie make out any case against the petitioners justifying the ordeal of criminal trial – Complaint and summoning order quashed.

(Paras 12-21)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498-A – Cruelty – ‘Cruelty’ alone is not enough to constitute the offence – It must be done with the intention to cause grave injury or drive the victim to commit suicide or inflict grave injury to herself – Where allegations levelled in the complaint do not reveal existence of any such intention, offence under Section 498-A is not made out.

(Para 16)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498-A – Cruelty –Prosecution under Section 498-A should not be initiated in a routine manner and is warranted only where the complaint discloses a coercive dowry demand or life-endangering cruelty, not where the parties are locked in an acrimonious but civilly resolvable conflict over assets or marital breakdown.

(Para 19)

***

Forensic examination of cheque -- 138 NI Act -- Once cheque bears admitted signatures of drawer, it is immaterial who filled up its amount/details and forensic examination for that purpose is a superfluous exercise.

***

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Sections 138, 139 – Cheque -- Presumption in favour of holder – Forensic examination of cheque – Once cheque is admitted to bear signatures of drawer, it is immaterial as to who filled up the amount/details in the cheque – Question as to who filled up blanks would be a superfluous exercise and forensic examination cannot establish defence that cheque was issued under coercion – Application seeking forensic examination of writing on the body of the cheques dismissed.

(Paras 1, 7-9)

***

Quashing of complaint – 138 NI Act -- Whether cheque was issued against a legally recoverable debt and whether the underlying transaction was barred by law involved disputed questions of fact which could not be adjudicated in quashing proceedings – Petition dismissed.

***

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Section 528 – Quashing of complaint – Legally recoverable debt – Petitioner sought quashing on the ground that the cheque in question was not issued for any enforceable debt and that the transaction pursuant to which the cheque was issued was barred by law – Respondent/ complainant stated in the complaint that the petitioner/ accused borrowed Rs.6.00 lakhs for purchase of walnuts with the condition that the same would be supplied to him – Petitioner refused to supply the walnuts and thereafter issued the cheque, which was dishonoured – Petitioner relied upon the statement of respondent recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. to contend that no legally recoverable debt existed – Held, the facts pleaded and the contentions raised by the petitioner fall within the realm of factual disputes and cannot be adjudicated while exercising jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS (Section 482 Cr.P.C.) – Petition dismissed.

(Paras  1, 5 & 8)

***

MACT – Negligence -- Registration of FIR and the Chargesheet discharged the primary onus, thereby strengthening the case that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused.

***

MACT– Multiplier is to be determined by the age of the deceased and not by the age of the dependents.

***

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Motor accident claim – Negligence – MACT proceedings are summary in nature and negligence is assessed on the “preponderance of probabilities” rather than the strict criminal standard of “proof beyond reasonable doubt” – Registration of FIR and the Chargesheet discharged the primary onus, thereby strengthening the case that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused.

(Paras 11-12)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Motor accident claim – Compensation – Multiplier – Age of deceased – Multiplier is to be determined by the age of the deceased and not by the age of the dependents – Deceased aged 33 years – Multiplier of 16 correctly applied by MACT and High Court in determining compensation.

(Paras 13-14)

***

Appeal to NCLAT – Limitation – E-filing delayed beyond the maximum statutory period due to technical glitch in NCLAT’s e-filing system – First bona fide attempt to e-file to be treated as the date of presentation.

***

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (31 of 2016), Section 61(2) – Appeal to NCLAT – Limitation – E-filing delayed beyond the maximum statutory period due to technical glitch in NCLAT’s e-filing system – NCLAT ought to have invoked the principle of actus curiae neminem gravabit and treated the date of the first bona fide attempt to e-file as the date of presentation – Impugned order set aside and appeal restored.

(Para 13-24)

***

Hypothecated vehicle – Repossession without seven-day notice and by breaking open steering lock at dead of night amounted to unauthorised and arbitrary seizure, violating Articles 14 and 21 – Sale not set aside as vehicle already sold – Financier directed to close loan accounts, refund Rs.4,50,000/- with 6% interest and pay Rs.10,00,000/- compensation for mental agony and loss of livelihood.

***

Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949), Section 35-A – Indian Contract Act, 1872 (9 of 1872), Section 39, 74 – Constitution of India, Articles 14 & 21 – Repossession of hypothecated vehicle – Financier’s right of self-help repossession – Such right being contractual, cannot be exercised by force, deceit or in violation of contractual and RBI safeguards – Repossession clause providing for unilateral waiver of notice and absence of procedure for taking possession or sale held contrary to RBI Guidelines and requirements of fairness – Vehicle repossessed without seven-day notice and by breaking open steering lock in the dead of night – Unauthorised and arbitrary seizure violated borrower’s rights under Articles 14 and 21 – High Court’s order set aside – Sale not set aside as vehicle had already been sold – Financier directed to close loan accounts, refund sale proceeds of Rs.4,50,000/- with 6% interest and pay Rs.10,00,000/- compensation for mental agony and loss of livelihood.

(Para 15-33)

***

Hindu Law – Alienation of ancestral/coparcenary property by father – Sale supported by legal necessity – Plaintiffs failed to establish alleged undervaluation, bad vices or absence of necessity; non-examination of material witness and other circumstances justified upholding the sale and dismissal of partition suit.

***

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Section 6 – Hindu Law –Alienation of coparcenary property by father – Legal necessity – Plaintiffs alleging undervaluation of property, gambling and drinking habits of father and absence of legal necessity – Allegations not supported by pleadings or evidence – Sale deed containing recital regarding financial difficulty of father – Sale proceeds found to have been utilised towards discharge of loan raised for construction of house – Material witness not examined, warranting adverse inference – Plaintiffs also failed to satisfactorily explain selective challenge to only two out of six alienated properties – Trial Court’s finding dismissing suit being based on plausible and reasoned appreciation of evidence, High Court erred in reversing the same – Judgment of High Court set aside and judgment of Trial Court dismissing partition suit restored.

(Para 18-30)

***

Territorial jurisdiction – Petition under Section 34 of Arbitration Act -- Seat and venue – Mere conduct of arbitral proceedings at a particular place cannot per se determine the juridical seat; in absence of express designation, such place is only the venue.

***

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Sections 11, 34, 42 – Petition under Section 34 – Territorial jurisdiction – Seat and venue of arbitration – Mere conduct of arbitral proceedings at a particular place does not make it the juridical seat of arbitration; in absence of an express designation or agreement as to seat, such place is only the venue, and petition under Section 34 is maintainable before the competent Court having territorial jurisdiction over the subject work.

(Para 26-31)

***

Arbitration – Proceedings under Section 37 cannot be remitted to the Arbitral Tribunal to be treated as proceedings under Section 17, as appellate jurisdiction under Section 37 is exclusively vested in the Court.

***

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Sections 9, 17, 37 – Interim relief – Appeal against rejection of application under Section 9 – Remission of proceedings to Arbitral Tribunal – High Court cannot remit proceedings under Section 37 to Arbitral Tribunal to be treated as an application under Section 17, as appellate jurisdiction under Section 37 is exclusively vested in the Court and cannot be exercised by the Arbitral Tribunal.

(Para 9-11)

***

Eviction petition – Closure of evidence – Illness of counsel – Litigant should not suffer on account of illness of counsel or bona fide lapse – Orders closing evidence set aside and two effective opportunities granted, subject to costs of Rs.5,000/-.

***

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (3 of 1949), Section 13, 15 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), Order 17 Rule 3 – Eviction petition -- Closure of evidence – Illness of counsel – Counsel suffering from neurological problem and hospitalized – Failure to lead evidence not intentional or deliberate – Litigant should not suffer on account of illness of counsel or bona fide lapse – Orders closing evidence set aside – Two effective opportunities granted to lead and conclude evidence, subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/-.

(Paras 6-8)

***

Criminal revision – Acquittal – Unexplained delay of six days in lodging FIR – Prosecution evidence found unreliable – Concurrent findings of acquittal upheld.

***

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 323, 341 & 506 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Sections 397 & 401 – Criminal revision – Acquittal – Unexplained delay of six days in lodging FIR – Civil litigation and political rivalry between parties – Prosecution evidence found unreliable – Prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt – Concurrent findings of acquittal by Courts below upheld – No ground for interference in revisional jurisdiction – Revision dismissed.

(Paras 15-21)

***

Prosecution for tax evasion – Assessment order forming basis of complaint set aside and matter remanded for fresh assessment – Foundation of prosecution demolished – Complaint not maintainable.

***

Income Tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), Sections 276-C, 277 & 278-B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Prosecution for tax evasion – Quashing – Assessment order forming basis of complaint set aside by High Court and matter remanded for fresh assessment – Foundation of prosecution having been demolished, complaint held not maintainable – Conviction and sentence set aside – Petitioners acquitted.

(Paras 7-14)

***

Default bail – NDPS -- Extension of investigation period without producing accused or affording opportunity to oppose – Extension held unsustainable – Right to default bail accrued and application filed before challan – Subsequent filing of challan cannot defeat such right – Accused entitled to default bail.

***

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 36-A(4), 21, 25 & 29 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 187(3) – Default bail – Extension of period for completion of investigation – Accused not produced before Court – Extension order passed without affording opportunity to oppose – Extension held unsustainable – Right to default bail accrued upon expiry of statutory period – Application filed before presentation of challan – Subsequent filing of challan cannot defeat accrued right – Accused held entitled to default bail.

(Paras 8-13)

***

Reduction of sentence -- Petitioner convicted for defalcating Rs.10,000/- of old age pension – Compromise arrived at during pendency of revision – Conviction maintained, substantive sentence reduced to period already undergone i.e. 04 months and 06 days.

***

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 409, 420, 467, 468 & 471 – Defalcation of old-age pension – Petitioner convicted for defalcating an amount of Rs.10,000/- out of old-age pension and sentenced under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468 & 471 IPC – During pendency of revision, parties entered into compromise – Conviction maintained – Substantive sentence reduced from 03 years to period already undergone i.e. 04 months and 06 days – Sentence of fine and sentence in default of payment of fine kept intact.

(Paras 1-8)

***

Replication in suit – Trial being at initial stage and issues not yet framed, refusal to permit filing of replication held unjustified.

***

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 – Replication – Plaintiff have right to rebut facts pleaded in written statement by filing replication – Trial at initial stage and issues not yet framed – Refusal to permit filing of replication held unjustified – Impugned order set aside and application directed to be reconsidered.

(Paras 1-6)

***

Habeas corpus – Custody of minor child – Natural parents having preferential right of custody – Alleged oral adoption involving disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated in writ proceedings – Custody with paternal aunt and her husband unlawful – Direction issued to hand over custody to natural parents.

***

Constitution of India, Article 226 –  Habeas Corpus – Custody of minor child – Natural parents seeking custody from paternal aunt and her husband – Writ Petition held maintainable -- Welfare of child is paramount consideration – Natural parents having preferential right of custody – Disputed question regarding alleged oral adoption cannot be adjudicated in writ proceedings and is to be decided in pending civil suit – Custody of minor child with paternal aunt and her husband held unlawful – Direction issued to hand over custody of minor child to natural parents forthwith.

(Paras 9-16)

***

Tender of rent -- Tenant having denied the landlord-tenant relationship and disputed respondent’s ownership, cannot simultaneously seek permission to deposit rent in Court.

***

Rent Laws (Punjab) – Deposit of rent – Denial of landlord-tenant relationship – Tenant having denied the landlord-tenant relationship and disputed respondent’s ownership, cannot simultaneously seek permission to deposit rent before Court on the basis that rent would be payable if respondent is ultimately held to be landlord – Such contradictory stand amounts to blowing hot and cold – Application for deposit of rent rightly dismissed.

(Paras 1-6)

***

Subsequent suit – Execution revision not being a previously instituted suit – Subsequent suit challenging decree on ground of fraud and execution proceedings not involving the same matter directly and substantially – Section 10 CPC not attracted.

***

Execution – Executing Court cannot go behind a decree which has attained finality – Subsequent revenue record or demarcation report cannot be relied upon to re-open concluded adjudication or declare decree inexecutable.

***

Decree for injunction – Subsequent dispossession – Executing Court can, in an appropriate case, restore possession where decree is violated by subsequent dispossession.

***

Executing Court -- Allegation of fraud involving disputed questions of fact requiring evidence cannot be finally adjudicated by Executing Court in execution proceedings.

***

Execution – Decree challenged on ground of fraud – Execution petition restored, but coercive steps including delivery of possession kept in abeyance till final adjudication of subsequent suit challenging the decree.

***

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 10 – Subsequent suit – Stay of proceedings – Subsequent suit challenging decree on ground of fraud – Applicability of Section 10 CPC – Execution revision is not a previously instituted suit – Question in execution proceedings was whether decree was executable, whereas subsequent suit sought adjudication upon validity of decree itself – Matters not directly and substantially the same – Section 10 CPC not attracted – Application for stay rightly dismissed.

(Paras 14-22)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 47 – Executing Court – Scope of jurisdiction – Executing Court cannot go behind decree – Decree having attained finality – Subsequent revenue record/demarcation report showing discrepancy regarding identity of property – Executing Court cannot re-open adjudication concluded by decree or declare decree inexecutable on such basis.

(Paras 23-31)

C. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 21 Rule 32(5) – Decree for injunction – Subsequent dispossession – Restoration of possession – Executing Court can, in an appropriate case, restore possession where decree for injunction has been violated by subsequent dispossession.

(Para 34)

D. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 21 – Decree obtained by fraud – Effect – Fraud vitiates judicial proceedings – Judgment or decree obtained by playing fraud upon Court is a nullity and can be challenged even in collateral proceedings – However, where allegation of fraud involves disputed questions of fact requiring appreciation of evidence, Executing Court cannot finally adjudicate such issue in execution proceedings.

(Paras 27-30)

E. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 21 -- Execution – Decree challenged in subsequent suit on ground of fraud – Delivery of possession – Execution petition restored but coercive execution kept in abeyance – Subsequent suit challenging validity of decree pending – Immediate delivery of possession may create a situation difficult to undo if decree is ultimately set aside – Appropriate course is to preserve execution proceedings without permitting coercive implementation till adjudication of subsequent suit.

(Paras 35-42)

***

Amendment of plaint -- Change in nature of suit -- Subsequent amendment introducing a new claim based on Will and altering the nature of original partition suit -- Amendment refused.

***

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 17 -- Amendment of plaint -- Change in nature of suit -- Plaintiff initially claiming 1/12th share by way of partition as co-sharer -- Subsequent amendment seeking declaration of exclusive ownership to extent of 1/4th share on basis of registered Will and correction of revenue mutation -- Amendment introducing a new case and materially altering nature of suit-- Inadvertent omission by previous counsel not sufficient ground to permit such amendment at advanced stage -- Revision petition dismissed.

(Paras 6-8)

***

Amendment of plaint -- Consequential relief – Suit for permanent injunction restraining from making further encroachment upon common passage -- Proposed amendment seeking mandatory injunction for removal of construction over said passage  allowed.

***

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 17 -- Amendment of plaint -- Consequential relief -- Suit instituted seeking permanent injunction restraining defendants from making further encroachment upon common passage -- Proposed amendment seeking mandatory injunction for removal of construction raised over common passage directly connected with original dispute and did not introduce new cause of action or alter nature of suit -- Evidence not commenced -- Amendment necessary for determining real controversy and avoiding multiplicity of proceedings -- Amendment allowed subject to costs of Rs.10,000/-.

(Paras 3, 9-16)

***

Rent laws -- Bona fide requirement -- Mere ownership of other properties does not defeat bona fide personal necessity where such properties are unsuitable for the landlord’s requirement.

***

Rent laws -- Bona fide requirement has to be examined with reference to the date of institution; subsequent events cannot ordinarily defeat an existing bona fide need.

***

Rent laws -- Revisional Court cannot re-appreciate evidence or disturb concurrent findings unless findings are perverse, unsupported by evidence or suffer from material illegality.

***

A. Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973), Section 13 -- Bona fide personal necessity -- Landlord owning other properties -- Mere ownership of other properties does not defeat landlord’s claim of personal necessity where landlord establishes that such properties are unsuitable for the requirement.

(Paras 19-26)

B. Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973), Section 13 -- Bona fide personal necessity -- Subsequent events -- Requirement to be examined with reference to date of institution of eviction petition -- Subsequent developments cannot be used to defeat bona fide requirement existing on the date of institution.

(Paras 33-41)

C. Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973), Section 15(6) -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 41 Rule 27 -- Revisional jurisdiction -- Additional evidence -- Additional evidence cannot be permitted merely to fill lacunae or where evidence was available earlier -- Revisional Court cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute its own view for concurrent findings unless finding is perverse, based on no evidence or suffers from material illegality -- Concurrent findings of Rent Controller and Appellate Authority upheld -- Revision petition dismissed.

(Paras 54-56, 58-61)

***

Default bail – NDPS -- Extension of 180-day period -- Extension sought merely for non-receipt of FSL report without compelling reasons or application of mind by Public Prosecutor -- Extension granted without notice to accused set aside and petitioner ordered to be released on default bail.

***

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 36A -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 187(2) -- Default bail -- Extension of period for filing challan -- 180 days -- Extension sought merely on the ground that FSL report had not been received -- Application for extension filed by Investigating Officer and merely forwarded by Public Prosecutor -- Application not disclosing compelling reasons or application of mind by Public Prosecutor -- Extension granted without notice to accused -- Order granting extension and consequent rejection of default bail application set aside -- Petitioner ordered to be released on default bail.

(Para 8-13)

***

Judicial review -- Departmental proceedings -- High Court does not sit as an appellate authority or undertake fresh appreciation of evidence.

***

Constitution of India, Articles 226/227 -- Judicial review -- Departmental proceedings -- Scope of interference -- Findings of disciplinary authority/Tribunal -- Remand order -- Compliance – Tribunal, upon remand, specifically examined effect of punishment upon petitioner's increments -- No non-compliance with remand order or jurisdictional error made out -- High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226/227, does not sit as an appellate authority over departmental enquiry or undertake fresh appreciation of evidence -- Interference warranted where findings are unsupported by evidence, perverse or proceedings suffer from violation of natural justice or other jurisdictional infirmity -- Petition dismissed.

(Paras 9-19)

***

Written statement -- Delay -- Defence struck off -- Procedural technicalities should not be permitted to come in the way of a fair adjudication of the dispute -- One effective opportunity granted to file written statement subject to costs of Rs.5,000/-

***

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 8 Rule 1 -- Written statement -- Delay in filing -- Defence struck off -- Procedural technicalities -- Fair adjudication -- Defendants failed to file written statement even after expiry of statutory period of 90 days and pleaded that the certified copy of judgment and decree dated 17.11.1988 annexed with plaint was not readable -- Defence struck off by trial Court set aside -- Procedural technicalities should not be permitted to come in the way of a fair adjudication of the dispute -- One effective opportunity granted to defendants to file written statement subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- to plaintiff -- In case defendants fail to file written statement or deposit costs, no further opportunity shall be granted.

(Para 3, 6, 7)

***

Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 -- Framing of charge -- Where petitioner No.2 was neither living on the earnings of prostitution of another woman or girl nor procuring, inducing, taking or causing any woman or girl to carry on prostitution, basic ingredients of Sections 4 and 5 were absent and charges thereunder could not be sustained.

***

A. Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (104 of 1956), Sections 4 and 5 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 226, 227 -- Framing of charge -- Petitioner No.2 allegedly participated in prostitution -- Section 4 attracted where a person knowingly lives, wholly or in part, on the earnings of the prostitution of a woman or girl -- No allegation that petitioner was receiving or appropriating the earnings of any other woman or girl or was acting as a tout or pimp -- Basic requirement of Section 4 absent -- Section 5 requires an act directed towards another woman or girl, such as procuring, inducing, taking or causing or inducing her to carry on prostitution -- No such role attributed to petitioner -- Charges under Sections 4 and 5 cannot be sustained.

(Paras 8-11)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 226 -- Framing of charge -- Scope -- Court not required to undertake detailed appreciation of evidence -- Court required to see whether allegations and material collected during investigation disclose the basic ingredients of the offence sought to be charged -- Charge cannot be sustained merely because investigating agency has mentioned a particular penal provision in the challan, when the facts alleged, even if taken at their face value, do not constitute the ingredients of that offence.

(Para 11)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 384 and 120-B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 226, 227 -- Faming of charge -- Extortion and criminal conspiracy -- Specific allegation that petitioner No.1, in connivance with co-accused including petitioner No.2, demanded Rs.4 lakhs from family members of co-accused for getting their names deleted from rape case and received amounts of Rs.1 lakh and Rs.5,000/- -- Statements and electronic evidence relied upon in support -- Whether allegations are ultimately proved or statements relied upon by prosecution are trustworthy are matters to be examined during trial -- Material cannot be subjected to detailed appreciation at this stage -- Allegation against petitioner No.1 prima facie discloses ingredients of Section 384 IPC -- Charge under Section 384 IPC against petitioner No.1 and charge under Section 120-B read with Section 384 IPC against petitioner No.2 sustainable.

(Para 12)

***

Bail – PMLA -- Medical grounds -- Petitioner aged 76 years suffering from severe ailments and prolonged custody of more than five years -- Held, entitled to interim bail on medical grounds and prolonged custody.

***

A. Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (15 of 2003), Section 45 -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 483 -- Bail -- Medical grounds -- Petitioner aged 76 years and suffering from severe and debilitating ailments -- No specific denial of medical condition by Enforcement Directorate -- Previous rejection of bail on merits not relevant where present petition confined to medical grounds and prolonged custody -- Petitioner held entitled to medical bail.

(Paras 8-11, 21-24)

B. Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (15 of 2003), Section 45 -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 483 -- Bail -- Rigors of S.45 PMLA -- Medical infirmity and prolonged incarceration -- Statutory restrictions cannot operate as hindrance where treatment inside prison becomes a mere formality and continued incarceration infringes right to life under Art.21 of Constitution -- Constitutional Court may grant bail where fundamental right of undertrial under Art.21 is infringed.

(Paras 16-18, 20-24)

***

Appreciation of evidence -- Testimony must be read as a whole and cannot be selectively relied upon by ignoring material denials in cross-examination.

***

Murder -- Material uncertainty in eyewitness account coupled with absence of affirmative medical corroboration regarding manner of assault -- Benefit of doubt extended.

***

Recovery of weapon – Recovery pursuant to disclosure statement, without forensic linkage or other convincing evidence establishing its use in offence, insufficient to bridge evidentiary gap -- Conviction set aside and benefit of doubt extended.

***

A. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872) -- Appreciation of evidence -- Examination-in-chief and cross-examination -- Testimony to be read as a whole -- Court cannot selectively rely upon examination-in-chief which supports prosecution while ignoring material and categorical denial in cross-examination -- Cross-examination is an important part of process of testing truthfulness, correctness and reliability of witness -- Though testimony of hostile witness is not effaced altogether, any portion relied upon must be found truthful and duly corroborated -- Where PW-2 and PW-3 supported prosecution in examination-in-chief but denied their presence and occurrence in cross-examination, while PW-6 did not support prosecution even in examination-in-chief, ocular account held unsafe for sustaining conviction.

(Paras 12-19)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 -- Murder -- Acquittal -- Ocular and medical evidence -- PW-2 did not attribute any danda blow to appellant; PW-3 alone introduced allegation of danda blow to left side of forehead but subsequently denied having witnessed occurrence -- Medical evidence showed principal injury on front of forehead above right eyebrow and doctor admitted possibility of injury by face-down fall on hard surface -- Where ocular account itself is materially uncertain, medical evidence not affirmatively corroborating particular mechanism of injury assumes significance -- Benefit of doubt extended.

(Paras 18, 20-22, 30)

C. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 27 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 -- Disclosure statement -- Murder -- Recovery of weapon -- Acquittal -- Recovery pursuant to disclosure establishes, at highest, recovery of article in consequence of information furnished by accused; it does not, without more, establish that the same article was used in commission of offence -- Recovered bamboo danda was an ordinary article readily available and had no forensic or scientific linkage with deceased or fatal injury -- Absence of scientific linkage, though not by itself fatal to prosecution, assumes substantial significance when considered with infirmities in ocular account and medical evidence leaving open an alternative manner of causing injury -- Recovery insufficient to bridge evidentiary gap -- Conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside -- Benefit of doubt extended.

(Paras 25-30)

***

Preventive detention -- Detaining authority relying upon FIR in which detenue had already been granted bail -- Detenue' father's past as ex-militant and mere possession of Anti-national literature not establishing subversive activity -- Detention order quashed.

***

A. Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 (6 of 1978), Section 8 -- Preventive detention -- Non-application of mind -- Detaining authority relying upon FIR in which detenue had already been granted bail -- Detaining authority having failed to derive satisfaction as regards prejudicial activity warranting preventive detention -- Non-application of mind on part of detaining authority -- Detention order liable to be quashed.

(Para 7-8)

B. Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 (6 of 1978), Section 8 -- Preventive detention -- Detenue' father being ex-militant and having surrendered in 1990 -- Detenue alleged to have inculcated separatist ideology since childhood -- Such assertion being delusory -- No subversive activity shown against detenue compelling recourse to preventive detention -- Preventive detention ordered on such imaginary belief being an unmindful exercise of power.

(Para 9)

C. Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 (6 of 1978), Section 8 -- Preventive detention -- Anti-national literature -- Books allegedly seized from detenue and attributed to him as author -- Detenue being academic scholar and expected to be in possession of variety of literary material -- Mere possession of books with dispiriting titles not ipso facto making detenue a criminal against whom preventive detention was required to be invoked.

(Para 9)

***

Sexual harassment at workplace -- Complaint alleging last incident in July 2022 and subsequent mere apprehension of harassment -- Complaint lodged in January 2023 barred by limitation.

***

A. Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (14 of 2013), Sections 2(n), 3 and 9 -- Sexual harassment -- Complaint -- Limitation -- Complaint alleging sexual harassment till July 2022 -- Complainant seeing respondent in office three months thereafter and apprehending that she may have to face same harassment again -- Such apprehension not constituting an incident of sexual harassment under Act -- Complaint lodged in January 2023, in absence of any incident of sexual harassment within three months prior thereto, barred by limitation -- Apprehension, without any incident or unwelcome act or behaviour contemplated under Sections 2(n) and 3, cannot constitute sexual harassment for purposes of making complaint under Act.

(Para 17-26)

B. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (14 of 2013), Section 9 -- Writ jurisdiction -- Tribunal quashing report of Internal Complaints Committee as complaint was barred by limitation -- No error in Tribunal's order -- No interference warranted in exercise of extraordinary, discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India.

(Para 26-28)

***

Eviction – Maintenance -- Senior citizen receiving regular pension and family pension and having sufficient earning to maintain himself not entitled to make application under Section 5 of Senior Citizens Act, 2007 -- Eviction being an incident of enforcement of right to maintenance and protection cannot be claimed under the Act.

***

A. Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (56 of 2007), Sections 4 and 5 -- Maintenance -- Senior citizen -- Entitlement -- Petitioner receiving regular pension as also family pension of deceased wife -- Petitioner admittedly having sufficient earning to maintain himself -- Held, petitioner would not fall within meaning of Section 4 of Act of 2007 so as to make an application under Section 5 of the said Act.

(Para 13-15)

B. Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (56 of 2007), Sections 4 and 5 -- Eviction -- Senior citizen -- Right to maintenance and protection -- Eviction -- Eviction would be an incident of enforcement of right to maintenance and protection which should be granted only after adverting to competing claims of both parties in dispute -- Petitioner admittedly having sufficient earning to maintain himself -- Senior citizen like petitioner cannot claim maintenance from respondents and order of eviction in pursuance thereof.

(Para 9, 11, 14 and 17)

C. Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (56 of 2007) -- Gift Deed -- Validity of Gift Deed -- Validity or otherwise of Gift Deed being an issue which could not be within scope and ambit of Appellate Authority -- Issue relating to validity of Gift Deed left open for competent Court of Law.

(Para 12 and 15-16)

D. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (56 of 2007), Sections 4 and 5 -- Writ jurisdiction -- Concurrent finding of Authorities -- Authorities having applied their mind and recorded finding based on available material on record -- Petitioner having sufficient earning to maintain himself -- Such finding cannot be termed to be perverse warranting interference in writ jurisdiction -- Petition rejected.

(Para 18)

***

Revision before Financial Commissioner -- Section 16, Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887 -- Amending Act No.12 of 2017 -- Revisional jurisdiction vested in Divisional Commissioner -- Pending revisions to be returned for institution before Divisional Commissioner(s).

***

A. Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 16 -- Revision -- Amending Act No.12 of 2017 -- Retrospective/prospective effect -- Expression 'remedy' in context of Section 16 referring to revision and not original application -- Amendment not taking away right of revision -- Revisional powers now vested in Commissioner instead of Financial Commissioner -- Amendment only altering the forum -- Divisional Commissioner competent to entertain revision petitions after coming into being of amended Section 16.

(Para 14-16)

B. Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 16 -- Amending Act No.12 of 2017 – Revision before Financial Commissioner – Revision petitions instituted prior to 23.01.2026, before the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, if decided, shall not be challenged for lack of jurisdiction in the Financial Commissioner.

(Para 17(1))

C. Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 16 -- Amending Act No.12 of 2017 – Revision before Financial Commissioner – All the revision petitions filed after the Amending Act came into being i.e. 10.04.2017, pending before the Financial Commissioner, Haryana shall be returned to be instituted before the Divisional Commissioner(s) who shall decide the same in accordance with law -- No fresh revision petition under Section 16 to be instituted before Financial Commissioner in view of Amending Act No.12 of 2017.

(Para 17(2)-(3))

***

Appointment of arbitrator -- Prior application -- Subsequent application in respect of interconnected disputes not maintainable.

***

Appointment of arbitrator -- Interconnected disputes arising from original and reconstituted Partnership Deeds and Joint Development Agreements cannot be segregated for independent adjudication.

***

Appointment of Arbitrator -- Filing of application under Section 9 not decisive for determining entertainability of application under Section 11.

***

A. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (26 of 1996) Sections 11(6) and 11(11) -- Appointment of arbitrator -- Prior application -- Respondent having invoked arbitration and instituted proceedings before Karnataka High Court prior to applicants' invocation under reconstituted Partnership Deed -- Disputes arising from original Partnership Deed, reconstituted Partnership Deed and Joint Development Agreements being interconnected and incapable of being segregated -- Subsequent application before Telangana High Court not entertainable -- Applicants at liberty to raise their claims as defence and/or counter-claim in arbitration proceedings before arbitrator proposed to be appointed in prior proceedings.

(Para 7-12)

C. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Sections 9 and 11 -- Appointment of arbitrator -- Prior proceedings -- Filing of applications under Section 9 before Courts at Hyderabad and Bengaluru -- Date of institution of proceedings under Section 9 not decisive of entertainability of application under Section 11 -- Subsequent arbitration application filed later in point of time in relation to interconnected disputes not entertainable under Section 11(11).

(Para 6, 11)

***

Appeal against Acquittal -- Interference -- Acquittal not to be reversed unless view taken by Trial Court is perverse or impossible on evidence.

***

Abetment of suicide -- Mere matrimonial discord or harassment, without specific act of abetment and requisite intention, insufficient to attract Sections 306 read with 107 IPC.

***

Cruelty -- General allegations of harassment, without specific incidents of torture, dowry demand or unlawful demand, insufficient to establish offence under Section 498-A IPC.

***

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 306 and 107 -- Abetment of suicide -- Specific abetment -- Specific abetment as contemplated by Section 107, coupled with intention to aid, instigate or abet deceased to commit suicide, is necessary to constitute offence under Section 306 -- Mere disputes or discord in matrimonial life, in absence of evidence of any act of abetment, insufficient to attract Section 306 -- Appellant having immediately sought medical assistance and shifted deceased to hospital, prosecution failed to establish abetment – Appellant acquitted.

(Para 14-18)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498-A -- Cruelty -- Prosecution witnesses making general allegations of harassment without referring to any specific incident of torture, harassment or demand of dowry -- Material omissions and improvements in their testimony -- No evidence of unlawful demand or threat -- Mere harassment by itself cannot be treated as cruelty -- Prosecution failed to prove charge beyond reasonable doubt.

(Para 8-11)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Sections 378 and 386 -- Appeal against acquittal -- Interference by appellate Court -- Trial Court having considered evidence in detail and acquitted accused -- Appellate Court can reappraise evidence, but must give due weight to presumption of innocence, benefit of doubt, credibility of witnesses and advantage of Trial Court in observing their demeanour -- Where view taken by Trial Court is a possible view, acquittal cannot be reversed merely because another view is possible -- High Court having failed to find that view taken by Trial Court was perverse or impossible on evidence, reversal of acquittal unsustainable.

(Para 7, 12-13, 16-18)

***

Revisional jurisdiction -- Revision is not maintainable at the instance of a party having an appellate remedy, subject to the High Court's suo motu power and power to treat revision as appeal in cases covered by Section 401(5) Cr.P.C.

***

Recovery of blood stained weapon -- By itself, cannot lead to conviction unless connected with other circumstances forming a complete chain pointing exclusively towards guilt of accused.

***

Appeal against Acquittal -- Not to be overturned merely because another view is possible.

***

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Sections 372, proviso and 378 -- Appeal against acquittal -- Victim -- Statutory right of appeal -- Victim is not required to obtain special leave under Section 378 -- Proviso to Section 372, inserted by Act 5 of 2009, confers statutory right upon victim to prefer appeal against acquittal, conviction for lesser offence or inadequate compensation -- Where appellate remedy is available, revision at instance of victim against acquittal is not maintainable -- However, High Court may exercise suo motu revisional jurisdiction -- Section 401(5) permits revision to be treated as an appeal where remedy of appeal existed but revision was filed under erroneous belief that no appeal lay, in the interest of justice.

(Para 5-8)

B. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 27 -- Recovery of weapon -- Evidentiary value -- Recovery of weapon and finding of human blood thereon, by itself, cannot lead to conviction unless connected with other circumstances forming a complete chain pointing exclusively towards guilt of accused -- Mere recovery, without established connection with crime, insufficient for conviction.

(Para 18)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 372, 378 – Appeal against Acquittal -- Interference with order of acquittal -- Presumption of innocence -- Where view taken by Trial Court is plausible, acquittal ought not to be overturned merely because another view is possible -- Principle is a tenet of criminal jurisprudence and ensures benefit of reasonable doubt to accused.

(Para 21)

***

IBC -- Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process -- Pre-existing dispute -- Maintainability of application under Section 9 -- Genuine pre-existing dispute regarding defective supplies and reconciliation of accounts sufficient to defeat Section 9 application.

***

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (31 of 2016), Sections 8 and 9 -- Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process -- Pre-existing dispute -- Maintainability of application under Section 9 -- Reconciliation of accounts -- Adjudicating Authority is required to examine whether there exists a plausible contention requiring further investigation and not whether the defence is likely to succeed -- Dispute regarding defective supplies, reconciliation of accounts and liability existing prior to issuance of demand notice under Section 8 -- Held, existence of a genuine pre-existing dispute is sufficient to defeat application under Section 9 -- Mere fact that defence may not ultimately succeed is not relevant at the stage of such adjudication.

(Para 19-21)

***

Revenue records -- Revenue entries are relevant evidence of possession but neither create nor extinguish title nor constitute conclusive proof of ownership.

***

Religious or charitable dedication -- Mere long possession of Mahant or revenue entry showing possession for Dharam-Arth purposes insufficient to establish completed dedication.

***

Rival claims of title -- Pleas based on completed dedication and adverse possession rest on fundamentally different legal premises and cannot simultaneously operate as independent sources of title.

***

A. Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 34 -- Revenue records -- Evidentiary value -- Revenue entries are relevant evidence of possession but neither create nor extinguish title nor constitute conclusive proof of ownership.

(Para 23)

B. Religious or charitable dedication -- Burden of proof -- Party asserting dedication must establish clear and unequivocal intention of owner to permanently divest ownership -- Mere long possession of Mahant or revenue entry showing possession for Dharam-Arth purposes insufficient to establish completed dedication.

(Para 25)

C. Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 27, Article 65 -- Adverse possession -- Mere long and continuous possession insufficient -- Possession must be actual, open, continuous and hostile, accompanied by hostile animus -- Specific pleading and proof of commencement of hostile possession essential for commencement of statutory period.

(Paras 28-31)

D. Rival claims of title -- Dedication and adverse possession -- Pleas based on completed dedication and adverse possession rest on fundamentally different legal premises and cannot simultaneously operate as independent sources of title -- Each party must succeed on strength of its own title and not on weakness of opponent's case.

(Paras 26, 37)

E. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 100 -- Second appeal -- Concurrent findings of fact -- High Court justified in interfering where findings are based on erroneous application of settled legal principles, including treating revenue entries as conclusive proof of ownership and long possession as adverse possession -- Substantial question of law furnishes foundation for such interference.

(Paras 39-43)

***

Sexual intercourse by deceitful means -- Allegation that accused subsequently refused to marry because of mother's opposition – No deceitful means alleged -- FIR quashed.

***

A. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023), Section 69 -- Sexual intercourse by deceitful means -- Promise to marry -- Offence requires promise to marry to have been made without intention of fulfilling the same -- Mere subsequent failure or refusal to marry, where promise was made with bona fide intention, does not constitute deceitful means punishable under Section 69.

(Paras 3-4, 6)

B. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023), Section 69 -- Sexual intercourse by deceitful means -- Promise to marry -- Consensual relationship -- FIR indicating parties developed friendship and love affair and entered into a physical relationship, with no specific allegation that consent was obtained solely on promise to marry -- Mere communication of desire to marry does not constitute deceitful means under Section 69.

(Paras 5-6)

C. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023), Section 69 -- Sexual intercourse by deceitful means -- Quashing of FIR -- Allegation that accused subsequently refused to marry as his mother was not agreeable to marriage indicating that promise, if made, was with bona fide intention -- FIR not disclosing deceitful inducement within meaning of Section 69 -- Continuation of criminal proceedings held unwarranted -- FIR quashed.

(Paras 5-7)

***

MACT -- Foreign domestic driving licence without valid international driving permit or requisite authorisation recognised under Indian law does not constitute a valid and effective driving licence in India.

***

MACT -- Acquittal in criminal case -- Acquittal in criminal proceedings does not ipso facto exonerate driver from civil liability.

***

MACT -- Acquittal in criminal case -- Identity of driver -- Sworn testimony of eyewitness, contemporaneous FIR and police record supporting identification of appellant as driver -- Subsequent statement of witness in criminal trial creating inconsistency, but not sufficient by itself to render Tribunal's finding perverse.

***

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 3 -- Motor accident claim -- Foreign driving licence -- Criminal acquittal -- Recovery rights of insurer -- Acquittal in criminal proceedings does not ipso facto exonerate driver from civil liability, proceedings before Claims Tribunal being governed by preponderance of probabilities -- Foreign domestic driving licence, without valid international driving permit or requisite authorisation recognised under Indian law, does not constitute valid and effective driving licence in India -- Insurer liable to satisfy award to third-party victims in first instance with right to recover from driver/owner.

(Paras 9, 12, 18-25)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Motor accident claim -- Identity of driver -- Acquittal in criminal proceedings -- Effect -- Finding that appellant was driving offending vehicle -- Sworn testimony of eyewitness, contemporaneous FIR and police record supporting identification -- Subsequent statement of witness in criminal trial creating inconsistency, but not sufficient to render Tribunal's finding perverse where evidence before Tribunal establishes involvement on preponderance of probabilities.

(Paras 7-8, 13-17)

***

Dishonour of cheque -- Conviction -- Plea of guilt -- Admission of issuance and signatures on cheque not amounting to unqualified, unambiguous and voluntary admission of guilt -- Mandatory procedure under Sections 251 and 252 Cr.P.C. not complied with -- Conviction unsustainable.

***

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Sections 251, 252 and 375 -- Dishonour of cheque -- Conviction -- Plea of guilt -- Statement of accused under Section 251 Cr.P.C. -- Accused admitting issuance and signatures on cheque but stating that cheque was given as security in connection with business transaction -- Such statement not constituting unqualified, unambiguous, clear and voluntary admission of guilt -- Magistrate required to state particulars of offence to accused and record plea as nearly as possible in words used by him -- Strict compliance with Sections 251 and 252 mandatory -- Mere admission of issuance of cheque and signatures thereon, without admission of legally enforceable debt or unconditional liability, insufficient to record conviction on plea of guilt -- Essential ingredient of offence relating to service of statutory demand notice not put to accused while recording plea -- Alleged admission, therefore, not sufficient to sustain conviction -- Payment of Rs.50,000 during pendency of complaint not amounting to admission of guilt -- Appellate Court having no jurisdiction to entertain appeal against conviction recorded on plea of guilt in view of Section 375 Cr.P.C. -- Impugned judgments set aside -- Matter remanded to Trial Magistrate to proceed further in accordance with law.

(Paras 8–21)

***

Pension -- Post-retiral benefits -- Withholding of pension and gratuity -- No departmental or judicial proceedings pending -- Mere pendency of FIR/investigation insufficient -- Pension and gratuity being property protected under Article 300-A -- Employee cannot be deprived of full pension and other post-retiral benefits.

***

Constitution of India, Article 300-A -- Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services Regulations, Articles 168-A and 168-D -- Pension -- Post-retiral benefits -- Withholding of pension and gratuity -- Retired employee -- No departmental or judicial proceedings pending against employee at time of retirement -- Mere registration of FIR and pending investigation -- Insufficient to withhold pension, gratuity and other post-retiral benefits -- Pension and gratuity being hard-earned benefits in the nature of property, constitute a constitutional right under Article 300-A -- Such benefits cannot be taken away except by authority of law -- Unless departmental or judicial proceedings are instituted under Article 168-A, resort cannot be had to Article 168-D to grant only provisional pension or withhold gratuity -- Tribunal rightly directed release of pension and other post-retiral benefits with interest -- Petition dismissed.

(Paras 12–15)