A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 463, 464 – False document -- Forgery -- Document containing a false recital does not amount to forgery.

(Para 33)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420 -- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 13(1)(d) -- Forest Rules of Kullu Division of 1878, Rule 4A -- Cheating – Corruption -- Acquittal -- Gift of land by accused – Sanction of Timber distribution right thereafter -- Mere gift of the half share did not amount to divestment of her forest right as per Rule 4A – Accused had not made any false representation, and she cannot be held to be guilty of cheating -- Accused/ Donor, being the right holder, was entitled to get the Tinder Distribution/ TD and the sanction of TD in her favour is not illegal; hence, the offence punishable u/s 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is not made out – Acquittal order, upheld.

(Para 2, 36-40)

A. Guarantee – Title of document -- Name of the document is not a decisive factor -- Only because the title of the document contains the word hypothecation, cannot conclude that guarantee is not a part of this document.

(Para 53)

B. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 (31 of 2016), Section 3(6)(12), 5(8), 7(1), 15(1) -- ‘default’ – Corporate Insolvency Resolution process -- Financial creditor – Corporate Debtor -- Definition of ‘default’ becomes relevant only while invoking the provisions of Section 7(1) of the IBC when the CIRP is sought to be initiated by the Financial Creditor -- There is no requirement u/s 5(8) of the IBC that there can be a debt only when there is a default -- The moment it is established that the financial debt is owed to any person, he/she becomes a Financial Creditor -- A public announcement of CIRP under Section 15(1) must contain the last date of submission of claims as may be specified -- Thus, if a person has a claim within the meaning of Section 3(6), he can submit it on public announcement contemplated by Section 15 being made -- A Financial Creditor has a claim as explained earlier -- For submitting the claim by a Financial Creditor, there is no requirement of actual default.

(Para 62)

C. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 (31 of 2016), Section 3(6) -- Claim -- If the right to payment exists or if a breach of contract gives rise to a right to payment, the definition of ‘claim’ is attracted -- Whether the cause of action for invoking the guarantee has arisen or not is not relevant for considering the definition of ‘claim’.

(Para 65)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 125(4) – Constitution of India, Article 51A(f) -- Maintenance to wife u/s 125 Cr.P.C. – Wife not want to serve old aged mother-in-law or grandmother-in-law -- One of the grounds for denial the maintenance, if wife refuses to reside with the husband without any reasonable cause -- In Constitution of India under Article 51-A of Part IV-A, wherein the fundamental duties of the citizen of India are enumerated in Clause (f), it is provided ‘to value and preserve the reach heritage of our composite culture’ -- It is the culture in India to serve the old aged mother-in-law or grandmother-in-law as the case may by the wife in order to preserve this culture -- It was obligatory on the part of wife to serve her husband’s mother and maternal grandmother and not to insist for unreasonable demand to live separate from his old aged mother-in-law and the maternal grandmother-in-law – Wife not entitled for maintenance.

(Para 17, 21, 22, 28)

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 397 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 357C – Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023), Section 64, 65, 67, 68, 70, 71, 124(1) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 326A, 376, 376AB, 376A, 376B, 376C, 376D, 376DA, 376DB, 376E – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 4, 6, 8, 10 – Rape – Grievous hurt by use of acid -- POCSO -- Treatment of victims – Directions issued:

(i) Whenever any victim/survivor of any of the said offences  approaches a medical facility, diagnostic facility, diagnostic lab, nursing home, hospital, health clinic etc., whether private and public/Government, such victim/survivor shall not be turned away without providing FREE medical treatment, including first aid, diagnostic tests, lab tests, surgery and any other required medical intervention;

ii. Such victim/survivor shall be immediately examined and if required, be given treatment even for sexually transmitted diseases such as HIV etc.;

iii. Such victim/survivor shall be provided physical and mental counselling as may be required;

iv. Such victim/survivor shall be checked for pregnancy, and provided with contraception, if required;

v. Further, if any tests are required to be conducted including ultrasound, etc., the same shall also be conducted. Proper medical advice shall be given to such victim/survivor by the concerned gynaecologist who shall also counsel the victim/ survivor and her family members;

vi. If the victim/ survivor has been brought in an emergent situation, the concerned medical establishment that is approached by or on behalf of such victim/survivor, shall not insist on ID proofs in order to admit the said victim/survivor and administer immediate treatment to the same;

vii. If such a victim/survivor requires in-patient medical treatment, no payment shall be demanded and admission shall be provided to the said victim/survivor;

viii. Every medical facility shall put up a board in the following terms:

“Free out-patient and in-patient medical treatment is available for victims/ survivors of sexual assault, rape, gang rape, acid attacks, etc.”.

The above board shall be put up at the- entrance, the reception, counters and all prominent places with in the medical establishment, in both English and vernacular language;

ix. All doctors, nurses, paramedical personnel, administrative staff of a medical establishment shall be sensitized about the relevant provisions being Section 397 BNSS (Section 357C of CrPC), Section 200 of BNS (Section 166B of IPC) and Rule 6(4) of POCSO Rules, 2020. Specific circulars shall be issued by the management of the medical establishments informing that anyone violating the above provisions would be liable to be punished with imprisonment for a period of one year or with fine or with both. Thus, non-providing such victim/survivor with required medical treatment is a criminal offence and all doctors, administration, officers, nurses, paramedical personnel etc., shall be informed of the same;

x. If any victim/survivor is required to be transferred from one hospital establishment or medical establishment to another, the transition shall also be made smooth and hassle free by providing ambulance, if required, along with certificate to the effect that the victim/survivor is entitled to free medical treatment as per law;

xi. If the police finds that any medical professional, para-medical professional, medical establishment, whether public or private, refuses to provide necessary medical treatment to such victims/survivors, then a complaint shall be immediately registered under Section 200 of BNS, 2023 (Section 166B of IPC) as the same is a punishable offence. The police may also inform the concerned DLSA or DSLSA to enable assistance to the victim/survivor;

xii. The concerned Police Station approached by or on behalf of such victim/survivor shall take the said victim/survivor to the nearest hospital, whether public or private, for obtaining the above medical treatment without any delay and in an expeditious manner;

xiii. Such victim/ survivor shall also be referred by the Police to the Delhi State Legal Services Authority (DSLSA) /District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) for providing legal assistance including appointment of a lawyer for the complaint to be filed in respect of the offence committed upon the said victim/survivor;

xiv. In the city of Delhi, if such victims/survivors approach the DSLSA/DLSA for seeking assistance for availing free medical treatment, then the Delhi Victims Compensation Scheme (DVCS), requires the DSLSA/DLSA to forward cases of such victims/survivors to Government of NCT of Delhi, to ensure free of cost treatment from any Government hospital, if the need so arises. However, the DSLSA/DLSA is also free to refer such cases to private hospitals, nursing home, laboratories, etc.;

xv. It is clarified that availing of free medical treatment by such victims/survivors from either Government/Public or Private hospitals is not dependent upon a referral by the DSLSA/DLSA under the DVCS, as the same is a statutory right of such victims/survivors under Section 357C of CrPC, Section 397 of BNSS and Rule 6 (4) of POCSO Rules, 2020.

xvi. The DSLSA upon receiving information on its “Sampark” email-id i.e., sampark.dslsa@gov.in regarding registration of an FIR in respect of any offence mentioned hereinabove, shall take necessary action and follow-up with the concerned victim/survivor in respect of receiving free medical aid. Further, the DSLSA shall take urgent steps to process such FIRs and communicate/circulate the same to the concerned DLSAs for taking appropriate steps in terms of the directions herein.

(Para 21)

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13(1)(ia) – Divorce petition -- Visiting right of father to meet minor daughter (born on 06.06.2022) -- Matrimonial disputes and grave allegations between parents should not be an impediment to a child’s right to have care, company, and affection of both the parents – While no guardianship or custody petition has been preferred by the respondent/ father, visitation rights require a careful and empathetic consideration during the pendency of the divorce proceedings – Respondent allowed to visit the minor daughter every Sunday between 10:00 AM and 02:00 PM.

(Para 3, 5, 14)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498A – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Quashing of criminal proceedings -- Cruelty – Relative/ Girlfriend / Women – A girlfriend or even a woman with whom a man has had romantic or sexual relations outside of marriage could not be construed to be a relative -- Apart from that for bringing a case u/s 498A of IPC, the material should show that the ill treatment was meted out by the husband or a relative, which is connected with non-fulfilment of demand of dowry -- No averment or material to show that causing harassment to respondent No.2 on account of non-fulfilment of demand of dowry -- Appeal allowed, criminal proceedings quashed.

(Para 10-13)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 197 – Sanction for prosecution -- Earlier sanction declined -- Subsequent sanction given based on the same material -- In the absence of any other contra material which weighed in the mind of the sanctioning authority, the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law.

(Para 5)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 50 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS Case -- Regular bail -- Search of accused – Magistrate or Gazetted officer – Use of word “Any” instead “Nearest” Gazetted officer – Effect of -- Intent behind the provision is to ensure that the person about to be searched is made aware of the option to be taken before a third person other than the one who is conducting the search -- Use of the expression “nearest” refers to the convenience as the suspect is to be searched, delay should be avoided -- Nothing more is articulated and meant by the words used, or the intent behind the provision -- High Court granted bail stating that use of the word ‘any’ does not satisfy the mandate of the ‘nearest’ Gazetted Officer -- Recovery of 500 gms. of heroin is a substantial commercial quantity, respondent involved in another case, in which the quantity involved was an intermediate quantity, respondent is on bail in the said case -- Impugned judgment set aside.

(Para 5-10)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 18 Rule 17 – Further cross-examination – Right of party -- There is no vested right in a private party to seek recalling of the witnesses for the purpose of further cross-examination.

(Para 7)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439(1A) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376(3),376AB, 376DA, 376DB – Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 15A(3) -- Rape – Regular Bail -- Victim’s right of hearing – SC/ST victim -- As per Section 439(1A) of Cr.P.C., the presence of the informant or any person authorised by him or her is obligatory at the time of hearing of the application for bail to the person under sub-section (3) of Section 376 or Section 376AB or Section 376DA or Section 376DB of the IPC -- It is also mandatory on the part of the Special Public Prosecutor of the State Government to inform the victim about the court proceedings, including bail proceedings as contemplated in sub-section (3) of Section 15A of the SC/ ST Act, 1989.

(Para 6)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 323, 363, 376DA, 506, 392 -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 5(g), 6 -- Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Sections 3(2), 15(5A) – POCSO -- Regular Bail -- Victim’s right of hearing – SC/ST victim -- In gross violation of the statutory provisions contained in Section 439(1A) of Cr.P.C. and Section 15A(3) of the SC/ST Act, High Court granted bail in a very casual and cursory manner and without assigning any cogent reasons, though the concerned respondents are prima facie involved in a very serious offences -- Impugned orders in utter disregard of the mandatory provisions contained in the Cr.P.C. as well as in the SC/ST Act, set aside.

(Para 7)

Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 22, 28(3) – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 55 -- Suit for specific performance – Possession not part of decree – Execution of – Whether the relief of possession may be granted by the executing court in a case where the suit has been decreed for specific performance simpliciter and no express relief for the transfer of possession of the suit property has been granted – High Court directed Executing Court to issue a warrant of possession of the suit property in favour of plaintiff-decree holder – Plaintiff can amend the plaint to include a claim for the relief of possession, partition, etc. at any stage of the proceeding, includes the stage of execution of the decree by the executing court -- Order upheld, SLP dismissed. Babu Lal’s case (1982) 1 SCC 525 & Rohit Kochhar’s case 2024 INSC 920 relied.

(Para 14)

Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), Section 2(12) -- Factory – ESI contribution -- Amendment of 1989 – Effect of -- Dispute relates to demand raised by appellant Corporation for ESI contribution for the time period w.e.f. April, 1983 to April, 1984 -- Prior to Amending Act of 1989, the mandate of the statute was that the factory means any premises including the precincts employing 20 or more persons -- Number of persons employed being less than 20, the premises of the respondent would not fall within the ambit of ‘factory’ as adumbrated u/s 2(12) prior to Amending Act of 1989 – ESI Court rightly held that respondent was not covered under the ESI Act prior to 1989-the period for which demand was raised – Appeal dismissed.

(Para 13-19)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 2(c), 2(d), 156 (1), 156(3), 200, 202 – Cognizable offence -- Non-registration of FIR -- Complaint to Magistrate – Procedure of -- When a complaint is presented before a Magistrate, he has the option either to order an investigation as provided u/s 156(1) of Code or to proceed u/s 200 of Code, examine the complainant and his witnesses and then proceed further under the provision of Section 202 of Code -- An order u/s 156(3) of Code which is the second option is in fact in the nature of reminder to the police to perform its duty and reinvestigate into the alleged cognizable offence u/s 156(1) of Code.

(Para 5)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 2(c), 156(3) – Cognizable offence – Complaint u/s 156(3) of CR.P.C. -- Duty of Magistrate -- While disposing of a complaint moved u/s 156(3) of the Code, the Magistrate is required to apply his mind to the bare contents of the application regarding disclosure of cognizable offence, though he is not bound to proceed to decide whether or not there are sufficient grounds for proceeding further to satisfy himself regarding commission of cognizable offence.

(Para 5)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 2(d), 2(g), 156(1), 156(3) – Cognizable offence -- Complaint -- Complaint u/s 156(3) of CR.P.C. -- Duty of Magistrate -- The Magistrate may treat an application under Section 156(3) of the Code as a complaint within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the Code and is not bound to pass an order for registration of FIR -- He can also dismiss the complaint if no cognizable offence is made out and can also pass an order after going through the contents of the complaint and on analyzing the preliminary evidence appended with the complaint, by recording a finding that a prima facie cognizable offence appears to have been committed or not.

(Para 5)

D. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 2(d), 2(g), 156(1), 156(3) – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 528 -- Cognizable offence -- Complaint u/s 156(3) of Cr.P.C. – Treated as private complaint – Quashing of -- Though in the complaint, a specific prayer made for sending the same u/s 156(3) of the Code for registration of FIR but after receipt of action taken report, instead of applying its mind on the question as to whether a case for sending the case for registration of FIR was made out or not or that it was a case, which was to be treated as a private complaint, the learned trial Court straightway proceeded to pass the order for recording preliminary evidence and adjourned the case for that purpose -- Impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law as it has not been passed in consonance of the well-established principles of law -- Order set aside, matter remanded to the learned trial Court for hearing the arguments on the question as to whether the prayer made by him for sending the complaint to SHO concerned for registration of an FIR deserves to be allowed or not and to pass an order afresh by recording reasons thereof.

(Para 6, 7)

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 482 -- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023), Section 109, 115(2), 351(2), 191(3), 190 – Attempt to murder – Anticipatory bail -- No injury attributed to the petitioner, except lalkara raised by him -- Co-accused granted concession of interim anticipatory bail -- No reason to deny the petitioner the concession of anticipatory bail – Bail allowed.

(Para 4, 5)

A. Criminal trial -- Interested witness – Evidence of -- Merely because a witness is an interested witness, it cannot be a ground to discard the testimony of such a witness -- However, the testimony of such a witness has to be scrutinized with greater caution and circumspection.

(Para 13)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 -- Murder -- Acquittal – Deposition of witness – Parity for all accused -- High Court comes to a conclusion that it is difficult to believe that the witness could have witnessed the incident in the manner narrated by him and granted benefit of doubt to co-accused persons then conviction of accused on the basis of the evidence of the very same witness only on the basis of conjectures and surmises is not permissible -- Seizure of knife, testimony of Inspector of police would show that the recovery was made from an open place accessible to one and all -- As such, only on the basis of the circumstance of such a recovery, the conviction could not have been based – Appeal allowed, impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court quashed and set aside -- Appellant acquitted.

(Para 14-17)

Maharashtra Land Revenue (Disposal of Government Land) Rules, 1971, Rule 27 – Allotment of land --– Violation of rules -- There has to be transparency in matters of allotment of land by the government, adherence to the rules and regulations becomes important in the cases of allotment -- Not only MRCHS’ proposed members found ineligible, but the society was allowed to change its members frequently, starting from the point when it accepted the Letter of Intent in its favour – Land is a precious material resource of the community and therefore the least which is required from the State is transparency in its distribution -- There has been a complete arbitrariness in the allotment in favour of MRCHS -- Allotment of the plot in favour of MRCHS is not proper, as it is violative of the procedure as well as eligibility criteria -- Civil appeal allowed,  Letter of Allotment in favour of MRCHS stands quashed.

(Para 7, 11-13)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 58 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256 -- NDPS case -- Punishment for vexatious entry, search, seizure or arrest – Jurisdiction of Special Judge -- Special Judge could not have conducted the proceedings against the appellant/ Superintendent of Police  for the offence punishable u/s 58 of the NDPS Act inasmuch as such proceedings could have been conducted only by a Magistrate -- Procedure as required under Chapter XX i.e. Sections 251 to 256 of the Cr.P.C. has also not been followed -- Notice issued by the learned Special Judge to the appellant u/s 58 of the NDPS Act and all subsequent proceedings quashed and set aside.

(Para 2, 26)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 125 -- Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (54 of 2002), Section 13 -- Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (31 of 2016), Section 53 -- Maintenance to wife – Charge over property – Preferential right of wife -- No objection of any secured creditor, operational creditor or any other claim shall be entertained opposing the entitlement of the respondents for maintenance -- This right is a subset of the right to dignity and a dignified life, which in turn flows from Article 21 of the Constitution of India -- Right to maintenance being equivalent to a fundamental right will be superior to and have overriding effect than the statutory rights afforded to Financial Creditors, Secured Creditors, Operational Creditors or any other such claimants encompassed within the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 or similar such laws.

(Para 11, 12)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Multiplier method for 13 year old deceased -- Accident on 15.03.2016 -- Notional income taken as Rs.50,000/- per annum and multiplier of 15 applied --- No addition towards loss of future prospects is to be made -- Claimant-appellants would also be entitled to Rs.18,000/- (Rs.15,000+20% increase) towards loss of estate and Rs.18,000/- (Rs.15,000+20% increase) towards funeral expenses and the claimant-appellants would also be entitled to Rs.48,000/- (Rs.40,000+20% increase) each towards loss of consortium -- Total Compensation comes to Rs.9,78,000/-.

(Para 1, 6, 7)

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 491, 528 -- Absence from trial – Forfeiture of bail bond -- Arrest warrant – Quashing of -- Objective of the coercive mechanism prescribed under the BNSS, 2023 is to ensure that the accused remains present before the Court to receive the orders and punishments as are passed qua the accused -- If the accused shows his sincere intention and desire to appear before the Court, then it would not be unjustified to protect him from being arrested – Petitioner was granted bail by the learned trial Court, however due to a misimpression regarding the date, he could not appear before the learned trial Court on two dates and on account of the same, warrants of arrest were issued against the petitioner, he is ready to appear and face the trial -- Petition allowed, Trial Court directed to release the petitioner on same bail bonds/surety bonds.

(Para 5-8)

Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (15 of 2003), Section 19, 44, 45, 50 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 479, 483 – PMLA Case – Bail – Long incarnation -- A suspect cannot be held in custody indefinitely and that undertrial incarceration should not amount to punitive detention – The Court would, nevertheless, ensure that affluent or influential accused do not obstruct the ongoing investigation, tamper with evidence, or influence witnesses, namely, actions that undermine the fundamental doctrine of a fair trial – Trial Court directed to decide on framing of charges before 31.12.2024, thereafter fix a date within the second and third week of January 2025 for recording the statements of such prosecution witnesses who are the most material or vulnerable – All such witnesses, especially those who have expressed apprehension of danger to their lives (who might be two or three), will be examined on these dates – Petitioner ordered to be released on bail on 01.02.2025.

(Para 17, 18)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 23 Rule 3, 3A, Order 47 Rule 1, 2, Section 114, 151 -- Indian Contract Act, 1872 (9 of 1872), Section 19, 28 -- Compromise of suit – Lawful agreement – Requirements of law – Recalling application – Remedy of -- When the court disposes of a proceeding pursuant to a compromise under Order 23 Rule 3, it bears the duty to examine this issue and be satisfied that the agreement or compromise is lawful -- This issue can be agitated by way of a recall application even after the compromise decree has been passed -- Only the court that entertains the petition of compromise can determine its legality, at the time of recording the compromise or when it is questioned by way of a recall application -- No other remedy is available to the party who is aggrieved by the compromise decree as an appeal and fresh suit are not maintainable under the CPC -- Courts must not curtail statutorily provisioned remedial mechanisms available to parties – High Court to decide recall application on its own merits.

(Para 13-17)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons Engaged In Black-Marketing Of Essential Commodities Act, 1981 (LV of 1981), Section 3(2) -- Detention order -- Pubic disorder -- Every breach of peace does not lead to public disorder -- When a person can be dealt with in exercise of powers to maintain the law and order, unless the acts of the proposed detainee are the ones which have the tendency of disturbing the public order a resort to preventive detention which is a harsh measure would not be permissible -- Six cases are registered for selling illicit liquor, the Excise Authority did not find it necessary to arrest the appellant even on a single occasion -- It would have been a different matter after releasing on bail, appellant continued with his activities -- Statements of witnesses do not show that the said witnesses were threatened by the appellant in the presence of the villagers which would create a perception in the mind of the villagers that the appellant herein is a threat to the public order -- Detention order set aside.

(Para 13-20)

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 3(1)(x) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 294, 506 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 239 -- Offence under SC/ST Act -- Public view – Backyard of private house -- Place of occurrence was at the backyard of the appellant’s house -- Backyard of a private house cannot be within the public view -- Persons who accompanied the second respondent/ complainant were also the employees or the labour force she had engaged for the purpose of carrying out repairs to her house which is adjacent to the appellant’s house -- They cannot also be termed as public in general – Appellant discharged from the offence.

(Para 13)

Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (14 of 2013), Section 13, 26 – Copy of Inquiry report – Right of victim -- Report of the Inquiry Committee was not given to the petitioner, as she was not an accused and the Inquiry Report did not find anything material against the accused person – Held, Inquiry Report ought to have been given to the victim as it is required to be given u/s 13 (1) to all the “concerned parties” -- Petitioner is a concerned party.

(Para 8, 9)

National Highways Act, 1956 (48 of 1956), Section 3G -- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 34, 37 – Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 14 – Delay in objections u/s 34 of Arbitration Act – Applicability of Section 14 of Limitation Act – Regular First Appeal filed before the High Court on an erroneous understanding against arbitration award – When the substantive remedies u/s 34 and/or 37 of the Arbitration Act are by their very nature limited in their scope due to statutory prescription, it is necessary to interpret the limitation provisions liberally, or else, even that limited window to challenge an arbitral award will be lost -- Courts of law will keep in mind the need to secure and protect such a remedy while calculating the period of limitation for invoking these jurisdictions -- Applying Section 14 of the Limitation Act, period excluded, the appellant held entitled to the statutory remedy u/s 34 of the Act.

(Para 3, 7, 8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498A -- Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, (28 of 1961), Section 3, 4 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Dowry case – Quashing of FIR – Parents-in-law/ Sister-in-laws – Never resided with the couple and their children at Tamilnadu, are living in Andhra Pradesh and Nellore – No substantial and specific allegations have been made against them other than stating that they used to instigate appellant No.1/ husband for demanding more dowry -- Generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularised allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution -- Courts must exercise caution in such cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions and the legal process and avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent family members -- High Court, erred in not exercising the powers available to it u/s 482 CrPC and thereby failed to prevent abuse of the Court’s process by continuing the criminal prosecution against the appellants -- Appeal allowed, FIR against appellant Nos.1 to 6, charge-sheet filed in the Court and the trial against the appellants quashed.

(Para 2, 24-33)

Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970, Rule 8 -- Constitution of India, Article 226 – Corruption charges – Departmental enquiry – Compulsory retirement -- Judicial review -- Scope of judicial review in departmental inquiries is limited -- Appellant unable to point out any glaring illegality or violation of principles of natural justice in the conduct of proceedings or ignoring of any admissible or material evidence by disciplinary authorities or reliance upon any inadmissible evidence which would call for interference in the orders passed by Disciplinary and Appellate authority – Writ dismissed --  LPA dismissed.

(Para 2, 10-13)

Constitution of India, Article 22(5) -- Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (46 of 1988), Section 3 -- Detention order – Supply of illegible copies of the documents – Legality of -- Supply of legible copies of the documents relied upon is a sine qua non for making an effective representation -- Right to make effective representation being a fundamental right of the detenu under Article 22(5) of the Constitution and supply of the illegible copy of documents indeed has deprived him in making an effective representation and denial thereof will hold the order of detention illegal and not in accordance with the procedure contemplated under law – Detention order quashed.

(Para 12-14)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Appointment of TGT (Arts) against the rules – Withdrawing of appointment after 6 years – Permissibility of -- Illegality, if any, in appointing the petitioner as TGT (Arts) on 29.09.2017 was committed by the respondents -- Petitioner had already rendered six years of service as TGT (Arts) when respondents realized the mistake in his appointment -- It will be iniquitous to turn the clock back to 29.09.2017, especially when NCTE notification issued on 13.11.2019 comes to petitioner’s rescue -- Writ petition allowed – Impugned order withdrawing appointment quashed and set aside -- Petitioner shall be deemed to have been validly appointed pursuant to office order dated 29.09.2017 -- All consequential benefits, shall follow including petitioner’s regularization on that basis.

(Para 1, 4,5)

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)