Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166, 168 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Award beyond claim amount -- There is no restriction upon the court to award compensation exceeding the amount claimed -- It is the duty of the Tribunal or Court under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to award just compensation -- Since the Act is a beneficial legislation a “just compensation” is one which is fair and reasonable on the basis of the evidence adduced irrespective of the amount claimed.

(Para 6)

Constitution of India, Article 142 – Civil Services examination of 2014 – Re-medical test in 2024 -- Petitioner qualified in Prelims, Mains and also the Interview -- Though the petitioner was declared to be ‘temporarily unfit’ after the medical examination dated 29.04.2015 -- Petitioner assumed that he had lost out and overlooked the chance that was provided to him on 14.07.2015, when he was called for re-examination – Court considered it appropriate to grant a limited relief, directing the respondents to re-schedule the re-medical test -- Almost a decade has passed, in the event the petitioner qualifies, he shall neither claim appointment in the 2014 Batch, nor will he be entitled to seniority in the Batch -- If he is to be given appointment, his services shall commence from the date of the appointment – Court exercised jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to do complete justice, as such shall not be treated as a precedent in any case.

(Para 1, 11-15)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Future prospects -- Perquisites/ allowances -- House rent -- Flexible benefit plan -- Company contribution to provident fund -- Components of house rent allowance, flexible benefit plan and company contribution to provident fund have to be included in the salary of the deceased while applying the component of rise in income by future prospects to determine the dependency factor.

(Para 6-10)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304B – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 113B – Dowry death – Presumption -- Offence u/s 304-B IPC is such wherein presumption of guilt under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act may be drawn against the accused and the onus to establish innocence shifts upon the accused -- The necessary ingredients of Section 304-B IPC may be spelt out as follows:

(i) that deceased died due to burning or bodily injury or any other un-natural death;

(ii) that the deceased died within seven years of her marriage;

(iii) that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives;

(iv) that such cruelty or harassment was in connection with demand of dowry;

(v) that such cruelty or harassment was soon before her death.

(Para 13)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304B – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 113B – Dowry death – Presumption – Death within 7 years of marriage – Proof of -- Nikahnama assailed by the accused on the ground that the same has not been duly proved, but no such objection as regards exhibiting of said document was raised when the same was exhibited -- Although the DW examined by the accused has attempted to project that the marriage of deceased was solemnized more than 7 years prior to date of death, but there is no documentary evidence to support the said assertion – Nikahnama accepted so as to hold that death occurred within less than 7 years of marriage of the deceased.

(Para 14)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498A – Cruelty by father-in-law – Acquittal -- A perusal of the FIR would show that when the husband had come to take back his wife from her parental home, it was he who raised the demand of Rs.10,000/- -- Whenever any mishap occurs, it is very common that parents and relatives of the deceased-girl, would name not only her husband who would be the prime accused, but other members of the family also so as to wreak vengeance -- Father-in-law given benefit of doubt, his conviction for offence u/s 498-A set aside.

(Para 21, 26, 27)

D. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498A – Demand of cash post marriage – Whether qualify as dowry -- Demands of cash would qualify to be termed as ‘demand of dowry’ and that any such demand even if made post marriage would not lose the character of ‘demand of dowry’.

(Para 23)

E. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304B – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 113B – Dowry death – Presumption -- Marriage had taken place barely about 4 years prior to the death -- As per the testimony of the witnesses, whenever the deceased/ husband used to come to her parental home she used to disclose the demand of Rs.10,000/- by the accused -- It is further borne out from the testimony of PW-2 and PW-4 that the deceased had last visited her parental home about 2 months back and even at that time she had disclosed about the demand of dowry made by the accused -- Demand of dowry which were raised even two months prior to her death cannot escape from his liability on account of unnatural death of the deceased in matrimonial home on account of poison which will fully qualify to be termed as a ‘dowry death’.

(Para 24-26)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Disciplinary proceedings -- Censure to employee -- Delay in retiral benefits – Interest thereupon – Promotion – Right of -- Since in the said disciplinary proceedings, the charges levelled against the petitioner in the chargesheet have not been proved and the petitioner has only been ordered to be censure, therefore, the petitioner is held entitled for the grant of interest @ 6% per annum for the delayed payment of retiral dues and his case is liable to be considered by the respondents for grant of promotional increment on completion of 23 years of service and also for promotion from the date, when persons junior to him were promoted with all consequential benefits.

(Para 7)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154, 161, 162 -- First Information Report (FIR) -- First version of the incident as narrated by the Police Constable would be required to be treated as the FIR -- FIR was lodged much later based on the statement of PW-11, it would be relegated to the category of a statement u/s 161 CrPC -- Same could not have been treated to be the FIR as it would be hit by Section 162 CrPC -- Prosecution is guilty of concealing the initial version from the Court and hence, an adverse inference deserves to be drawn against the prosecution on this count.

(Para 21)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 120B -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 27 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154 -- Murder – Acquittal -- Daily diary report  (Roznamcha) -- Since the Police Constable (PW-12) claiming to be an eyewitness to the heinous assault had reported at the police station with the crime weapons, there was no reason whatsoever as to why his statement would not have been recorded immediately on his arrival at the police station -- A reasonable doubt is created in the mind of the Court that the statement of (PW-12) would definitely have been recorded in the daily diary (roznamcha) but his version may not have suited the prosecution case and that is why, the daily diary entry was never brought on record -- Non-production of the daily diary is a serious omission on part of the prosecution -- Neither the disclosure statements made by the accused were proved as per law nor the same resulted into any discovery which could be accepted as incriminating inasmuch as the requisite link evidence was never presented by the prosecution so as to establish that the recovered articles remained in the self-safe condition from the date of the seizure till the same reached the FSL -- Court gave the benefit of the doubt to the appellant-accused and acquitted them of the offence charged.

(Para 20, 48)

C. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 21, 26, 27 – Admission to doctors – Confession to Medical officer -- Admissibility of -- Confessions are ex-facie inadmissible in evidence for the simple reason that the accused persons were presented at the hospital by the police officers after having been arrested -- As such, the noting made by the Medical Officer (PW-2) in the injury reports of accused/ appellant would be clearly hit by Section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Court not inclined to accept the said admissions of the accused as incriminating pieces of evidence relevant under Section 21 of the Evidence Act.

(Para 40. 41)

D. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 27 – Disclosure statement -- Identification of crime place -- The circumstance regarding identification of place of incident at the instance of the accused is inadmissible because the crime scene was already known to the police and no new fact was discovered in pursuance of the disclosure statements -- This disclosure is irrelevant.

(Para 41, 45)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Bail – Principles – Court observed, over a period of time, the trial courts and the High Courts have forgotten a very well-settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment -- On account of non-grant of bail even in straight forward open and shut cases, Supreme Court is flooded with huge number of bail petitions thereby adding to the huge pendency -- Trial courts and the High Courts attempt to play safe in matters of grant of bail -- Trial courts and the High Courts should recognize the principle that “bail is rule and jail is exception”.

(Para 53)

B. Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (15 of 2003), Section 3, 45 – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 7, 7A, 8, 12 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420, 201, 120B -- Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Corruption case -- Regular bail – Bar contained in Section 45 of PMLA – Prolonged incarnation – Speedy trial – Right of -- Long incarceration running for around 17 months, trial even not having been commenced, the appellant has been deprived of his right to speedy trial – Right to speedy trial and the right to liberty are sacrosanct rights – 493 witnesses have been named, the case involves thousands of pages of documents and over a lakh pages of digitized documents -- Not even the remotest possibility of the trial being concluded in the near future – Keeping the appellant behind the bars for an unlimited period of time would deprive his fundamental right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution – Bail allowed, stringent conditions imposed.

(Para 49-58)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 91 – Cheque bounce complaint – Production of Bank Account statement of complainant from Bank – Locus standi of accused -- Trial Court dismissed the application by observing that power to summon any document on file is vested with the Court or the Officer In-charge of the Police Station and thus, the application moved at the instance of petitioner-accused could not be entertained -- Held, power u/s 91 of CrPC can be exercised either by the Court on its own or even on an application moved by either of the parties to the trial – Impugned order set aside, matter remanded back to trial court to adjudicate afresh.

(Para 3-6)

A. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 106 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 -- Murder – Circumstantial evidence -- Last seen theory -- Provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act are not intended to relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt -- Mere fact that the dead body of the deceased was found two kilometers back from place where the appellant had left him, could not be a ground to doubt the statement -- False explanation cannot be used as an additional link to fortify the prosecution case -- Suspicion, howsoever strong, it may be, cannot take the place of proof -- A moral conviction, however, strong or genuine cannot amount to a legal conviction supportable in law -- The cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence in a case can be stated to be proved only when there is certain and explicit evidence and no person can be convicted on pure moral conviction – Findings recorded by the learned trial Court are perverse and do not in any manner re-concile with the evidence on record -- Appellant acquitted.

(Para 17, 19-24)

B. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 106 – Circumstantial evidence -- If the prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established and that those circumstances must be conclusive in nature unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused -- Moreover all the circumstances taken cumulatively should form a complete chain and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence -- Further, the proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence.

(Para 23)

Himachal Pradesh Judicial Service Rules, 2004, Rule 5(c) – Constitution of India, Article 233 -- Appointment of Additional District and Sessions Judge – Eligibility criteria -- Continuous practice as an advocate – Minimum period of 7 year of practice – Exclusion of judicial service period – Practicing Advocate at the Bar of a minimum period of seven years as on the last date fixed for receipt of the applications -- There is no requirement that such practice as an Advocate must be continuous as on the date of making application for the said post -- Respondent no. 4 has cumulatively more than 7 years of active practice, thus he is eligible to be considered for appointment to the post of Additional District Judge as per Rule 5 (c) – Rule 5(c) upheld, “Note” below clause (c) of Rule 5 (permitting counting of Judicial service of a candidate towards counting of 7 years practice as Advocate for being eligible to be appointed as Additional District Judge), declared unenforceable and struck down.

(Para 42-68)

A. Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Recommendation by Revenue authorities – Land ownership – Consideration of -- Not much difference in the age of petitioner (24 years) and respondent No.4 (30 years) and both are equally educated -- Respondent No.4 (appointed by Collector) owns land in his own name and his name was recommended by Tehsildar as well as Sub Divisional Magistrate – Although, the recommendation made by the lower Revenue Authorities may not be binding on the District Collector, however, due consideration is to be accorded to such recommendation as they are in a position to assess the suitability of a candidate and such recommendation would have some persuasive value – Order of Collector restored.

(Para 10-14)

B. Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Choice of Collector -- Learned Collector is the main authority for appointment of the lambardar -- It is the Collector, who not only appreciates the antecedents of all the candidates in the fray but also personally interacts with them -- Thus, the subjective satisfaction of the Collector, should have been respected.

(Para 12)

A. Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 37 -- Suit for permanent injunction – Co-sharer in possession -- Exclusive possession of the defendants since the time of their forefathers, is made out on the suit land -- Evidence does not establish that plaintiff had planted the trees in question on the suit land and nurtured them -- Plaintiff cannot be said to be clothed with the legal right to restrain the defendants from using or cutting the trees, standing on their land --  It is well established principle of law that where a co sharer who is in possession of the separate parcels of the property is entitled to the enjoyment of its possession, and it is not open to anyone to disturb the possession – Suit dismissed.

(Para 17)

B. Co-sharer in possession – Remedy to other co-sharer -- Remedy of a co-sharer not in possession of the joint property is by way of filing a suit for possession or actual possession but not for ejectment.

(Para 17)

C. Concealment of facts – Effect of -- Plaintiffs non-suited for concealing the earlier litigation -- Law is settled that who seeks equity, must do equity -- A litigant who conceals material facts from the Court is not entitled for relief.

(Para 18)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498A, 325, 506 – Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, (28 of 1961), Section 3, 4 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Summoning to husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law – Quashing of :

-- Complainant alleged that she was beaten up and a fracture was caused in her hand, no medical documents were produced by her either before the Magistrate or with the counter affidavit filed in this Court to support this contention.

-- Stated in the application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. that she was treated with great affection and respect by the grandfather of the applicant no.1 and her ill treatment and harassment started after his death, in the statement recorded u/s 200 Cr.P.C., the opposite party no.2/complainant stated that she was harassed for demanding dowry from the day following the date of her marriage.

-- At the same time, in the counter affidavit filed before this court, she stated that after the marriage, she had gone with her husband for honeymoon to Dubai and both of them had a very pleasant trip.

-- Complaint application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C filed after receipt of summon of the suit and after the suit filed under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act and after the Family Court had granted last opportunity to the opposite party no.2 to file her written statement and even after the date of that last opportunity had expired.

The learned Magistrate erred in summoning the applicants to face the trial without there being any specific allegation of commission of any act by the applicant nos. 2 and 3 which may amount to an offence -- Moreover, there is absolutely no material to support the allegations against the applicant no. 1 – Summoning order/ complaint quashed.

(Para 19-33

B. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 9 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 156(3) -- Restitution of conjugal rights – Criminal proceedings – Opposite party no.2/ complainant/ wife filed the application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. merely to put pressure on the applicants and other members of their family for restitution of her matrimonial relationship with the applicant no.1/ husband -- However, she had filed a suit u/s 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act with the same objective, which has been dismissed by the Family Court -- Criminal prosecution cannot be allowed to be misused for ulterior objective to put undue pressure on the husband, his family members and relatives for restitution of conjugal rights.

(Para 30)

Haryana Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Acquittal in criminal case – Appellant/ ex-serviceman acquitted in criminal case -- Private respondent, who was aged 32 years and passed BA-II was having 5 acres of agricultural land found more suitable -- It is settled principle of law that though a person might have been acquitted but he is supposed to have clean antecedents should be no taint – Appeal dismissed.

(Para 4-6)

Constitution of India, Article 136 -- Supreme Court Rules, 2013, Order 22 Rule 3, 4, Order 5 Rule 1(19)  – Special Leave Petition (SLP) Civil/ Criminal -- Certified copy of impugned order – Requirement of – Exemption of -- Petitions shall be accompanied by a certified copy of the judgment or order appealed from -- If the certified copy is not available on the date of presentation of a special leave petition, proof of application for such copy has to be adduced for the court to consider the prayer for exemption -- This practice direction has to be observed by all litigants who propose to file special leave petitions both on the civil side as well as on the criminal side with effect from 20th August, 2024.

(Para 12-17)

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (54 of 2002), Section 2 (zd), 13, 35 -- Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (27 of 2006), Section 9 -- Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949), Section 21, 35A – Reserve Bank of India [Lending to Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSME) Sector] Directions, 2016, Direction 4, 4.8 – Secured creditors -- SARFAESI proceedings -- MSME – Rehabilitation of – Non-Performing Assets – Procedure of -- Revival and Rehabilitation of MSMEs -- Section 21 and Section 35A of Banking Regulation Act empower the RBI to frame the policy and give directions to the banking companies in relation to the advances to be followed by the banking companies -- Such directions have got to be read as supplement to the provisions of the Banking Regulation Act and accordingly are required to be construed as having statutory force and mandatory.

-- Entire exercise as contained in the “Framework for Revival and Rehabilitation of MSMEs” is required to be carried out by the banking companies before the accounts of MSMEs turn into Non-Performing Asset.

-- Whole process of enforcement of security interest as contained in Chapter III of the SARFAESI Act, could be initiated only when the borrower makes any default in repayment of secured debt or any instalment thereof, and his account in respect of such debt is classified by the secured creditor as non-performing asset, in view of Section 13(2) of the said Act.

-- Banking companies though may be ‘Secured creditors’ as per the definition contained in Section 2 (zd) of the SARFAESI Act, are bound to follow the same,  before classifying the loan account of MSME as NPA.

The Instructions/ Directions issued by the Central Government under Section 9 of the MSMED Act and by the RBI under Section 21 and Section 35A have statutory force and are binding to all the Banking companies.

(Para 12-18)

National Housing Bank Act, 1987 (53 of 1987), Section 29A -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 200 -- Cognizance in complaint -- Vicarious liability of Directors of Company – Role of -- In the absence of the averments as contemplated by sub-section (1) of Section 50 in the complaint, the Trial Court could not have taken cognizance of the offence against the third to seventh accused, who are allegedly the directors of the first accused company -- Complaint stand quashed against the third to seventh accused.

(Para 8, 9)

A. Compassionate appointment -- Principle of compassionate appointment has been put in place to ameliorate suffering that is cast upon members of a family upon the sudden death of the earning member -- Compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right -- A person, claiming an appointment on such ground, has to demonstrate his relationship to the deceased person and eligibility for appointment -- Same cannot be done without placing all relevant documents before the competent authority.

(Para 7)

B. Constitution of India, Article 311 -- Compassionate appointment by fraud – Termination from service -- Protection under Constitution of India – Availability of -- Fraud vitiates all proceedings -- Respondent-employees having obtained their position by fraud, would not be considered to be holding a post for the purpose of the protections under the Constitution.

(Para 2.2, 14)

A. Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 (53 of  1961), Section 9, 10 -- Contractual employee -- Maternity leave -- A contractual employee, is entitled to avail the benefit of maternity leave under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 and she is entitled for full salary during the period she availed the benefit of maternity leave.

(Para 6)

B. Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 (53 of  1961), Section 9, 10 -- Probation -- Maternity leave -- Once, an employee completes the period of probation during the maternity leave, she is entitled for fixation of actual salary, which she gets upon confirmation.

(Para 6)

C. Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 (53 of  1961), Section 9, 10 -- Punjab Civil Service Rules, Volume-I, Rule 8.127 -- Order which has been passed on the basis of Rule 8.127 of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, Volume-I cannot be made applicable where a female employee has available benefit of maternity leave under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 -- Where there is a conflict between the Rules and Act, the Act will prevail -- A female employee, who availed the benefit of maternity leave will entitle for the service benefits, the same will include the actual salary in case, she is confirmed on the post in question during the period she availed the benefit of maternity leave.

(Para 6, 7)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 142 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 174A, 420 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Cheque bounce complaint – Withdrawal of complaint -- Quashing of FIR u/s 174A IPC -- Proceedings u/s 138 and 142 of the N.I. Act read with Section 420 IPC have culminated in a settlement with the withdrawal of the aforesaid complaint -- Petition allowed subject to a deposit of Rs.25,000/- as costs -- FIR u/s 174-A IPC and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.

(Para 12, 13)

Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (57 of 1994), Section 3, 4, 5, 6, 23, 25, 29 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 419, 420, 120-B, 201, 34  -- Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (34 of 1971), Section 3, 4 -- National Medical Commission Act, 2019 (30 of 2019), Section 34, 54 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Sex-determination – Regular bail -- Petitioner acted as a mediator between the decoy witness and the co-accused for the purpose of sex determination test -- Petitioner nominated on the basis of disclosure statement made by co-accused, who has been granted concession of regular bail -- Petitioner was arrested in this case on 27.03.2024, challan has already been presented -- Prosecution has cited 28 witnesses and none of them has been examined -- Conclusion of trial will take sufficient long time – Bail allowed.

(Para 5, 6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304A – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 190, 200, 482 -- Complaint against doctor – Death by rash and negligent act of doctor -- Cognizance by Magistrate – Quashing of criminal proceedings – Opinion of another doctor – Requirement of -- A private complaint may not be entertained unless the complainant has produced prima facie evidence in the form of credible opinion given by another doctor to support the charge of rashness or negligence on the part of the accused doctor -- To allow the proceeding to continue, will amount to an abuse of the process of law -- Entire criminal proceeding u/s 304-A of IPC quashed.

(Para 10,11)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 374, 389 – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 8(c), 21(c), 52A – NDPS case – Suspension of sentence – Appeal against conviction – Sample of contraband – Non-compliance of procedure -- Appellant sentenced to undergo 15 years’ R.I. with a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- with default stipulation of six months’ R.I. -- Appellant has already undergone almost three years and is in custody since the date of judgment and order i.e. 30.08.2022 continuously -- Court prima facie satisfied that provisions of Section 52A (2) of the Act were not complied with --  Bail allowed.

(Para 1, 5, 11-14)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 311, 397(2) – Examination of witness u/s 311 Cr.P.C. -- Interlocutory Order – Maintainability of revision -- Order rejecting the application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. is an interlocutory order -- Revision petition is not maintainable against the dismissal order.

(Para 5)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 311, 397(2) – Examination of witness u/s 311 Cr.P.C. – Locus standi -- Petitioners are neither complainants nor were they cited as witnesses in the original complaint filed by their brother in the year 2012 -- Petitioners were not examined during preliminary, pre-charge, or post-charge evidence stages and therefore, had no locus-standi to file the application u/s 311 Cr.PC.

(Para 8)

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 17 -- Eviction petition – Amendment of written statement -- Amendment sought is to clarify the location and the area of the demised premises -- Court should assist the parties in bringing on record the complete facts than to prevent them from exercising their rights on rigid technicalities -- Rent Controller, directed to provide one effective opportunity to the petitioners/ defendants to file their amended written statement.

(Para 7-9)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 – Murder – Acquittal -- Prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence as there is no eye witness – Statement of PW2/ mother of the deceased is based on suspicion --  She has not seen the deceased going to the house of the accused – No other evidence available on the file connecting the accused with the offence -- Dead body of deceased was recovered from the house of the accused which is not sufficient to connect all the accused with the offence -- Prosecution case is also doubtful as the prosecution has withheld the best evidence -- No reason to interfere with the well-reasoned judgment of acquittal – Revision dismissed.

(Para 13, 14)

Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 16 -- Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), Section 17 -- Agreement to sell – Registration of – Requirement of – Suit for specific performance -- First Appellate Court held that for the purpose of filing the suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell, the registration of the agreement to sell is not necessary – No ground to interfere is made out – Appeal dismissed.

(Para 3-9)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 96 -- Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 16 -- First Appeal – Stay of decree – Right of -- Suit for specific performance decreed – Appeal was filed, but no order relating to the stay was granted and after about a period of 11 months, the application was dismissed -- The Court, ought to take into consideration that it is the statutory right exercised by the petitioner-defendant, by filing appeal -- Creation of third party rights, may lead to multiplicity of litigation – Revision allowed, impugned order set aside -- Operation of the judgment and decree stayed, till the decision of First Appeal.

(Para 7-12)

Court-fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870), Article 1, Schedule 1 -- Ad-valorem court fee – Transfer of property in favour of family members by registered instruments -- Suit for cancellation of document -- Trial court directed the plaintiff to pay ad-valorem court fee – Held, suit will be governed by Article-I, Schedule-I of the 1870 Act, which provides for payment of ad valorem court fee on the value of the subject matter in dispute -- There is no error in the impugned orders of the trial Court -- Revision dismissed.

(Para 3, 11, 12)

Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (M.P. Act No. 20 of 1959), Section 257(f), (m) – Jurisdiction of civil court -- Dispute is to the effect as to whether the plaintiff is bhumiswami or the defendant 1 is bhumiswami of the land in question -- Suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction or for restoration of possession is maintainable before Civil Court only – Provisions of section 257 (f) & (m) have no relevance to the suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction.

(Para 10-13)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 363, 376-D, 320, 506 -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 5(g), 6 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Gang rape – POCSO case -- Regular bail -- In the FIR, the applicants are named, and according to the victim, she was taken from her house -- In her statement u/s 164 of the Code, the victim tells that she was forcibly taken from a public road, when the applicants introduced themselves to her -- In her medical examination, she did not name the applicants and told that unknown persons took her -- Prior to the medical examination of the victim, the FIR had already been lodged – If the victim did not know the name of the applicants when she was medically examine, how could she name the applicants in the FIR -- Bail allowed.

(Para 7-10)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 365, 143, 201, 364, 147, 148, 149, 323, 342, 120-B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Murder – Regular bail – Extrajudicial confession -- Only one eye-witness to depose against the petitioner, but he has turned hostile and has not supported the story -- In the charge-sheet, two other witnesses projected by prosecution to depose against the petitioner in respect of alleged extra judicial confession – Incident took place on 19.07.2023, however, the statements of these two witnesses got recorded by Police on 30.08.2023 -- Inordinate delay casts a serious doubt over the credibility of the investigation – In any wildest imagination, an accused shall not make confession before a person having connection with the opposite party -- High probability that the trial may take long time to conclude – Bail allowed.

(Para 4, 5)

Uttar Pradesh Excise Act, 1910 (IV of 1910), Section 72 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 457 – Excise matter – Confiscation proceedings before Collector – Power of Judicial Magistrate -- If a vehicle is seized under the provisions of the Excise Act and confiscation proceedings in respect thereof are going on before the Collector, a Judicial Magistrate has got no jurisdiction to release the aforesaid vehicle.

(Para 21-24)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 311 -- Scope and object of the Section 311 Cr.P.C. – Provision is to enable the Court to determine the truth and to render a just decision after discovering all relevant facts and obtaining proper proof of such facts to arrive at a just decision of the case -- Power is to be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily -- Such a power is to be exercised, provided that the evidence that is likely to be adduced by the concerned witness is relevant to the issue involved -- Application could not be rejected on the sole ground that the case has been pending since long.

(Para 5)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 311 – Cheque bounce complaint -- Re-examination of complainant/ witness – FIR by complainant for same transaction as well -- Complainant’s cross-examination was completed on 21.11.2019 -- However, challan in criminal case was filed in year 2022 – It is the case of the petitioner that certain new facts having bearing on the present case, surfaced in the said report submitted by the police u/s 173 Cr.P.C and it is necessary to put the said new facts to the complainant in his cross examination -- Application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. allowed subject to cost of Rs.5,000/-.

(Para 3, 6, 7)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- NDPS Case – Commercial quantity – Regular bail -- Petitioner has already incarcerated 2 years and 11 days in custody and not involved in any other case -- Probability of his false implication cannot be ruled out particularly in the light of the fact that police party was in a private vehicle, details of which have not been mentioned – Charges framed on 13.2.2023, wherein out of 9 prosecution witnesses, only 2 have been examined so far, meaning thereby the trial will take long time which tantamount to violation of right to life and liberty as has been enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India even including the right to speedy trial -- “Bail is a rule, jail is an exception” is the basic principle of criminal jurisprudence – Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(Para 5-9)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 11 -- Res-judicata -- General policy behind the principle of res judicata as enshrined u/s 11 CPC is to avoid parties to litigate on the same issue which has already been adjudicated upon and settled -- This is in consonance with the public policy so as to bring to an end the conflict of interest on the same issue between the same parties -- One of the basic essential ingredients for applying the principle of res judicata, is that the matter which is directly and substantially in issue in the previous litigation ought not to be permitted to be raised and adjudicated upon in the subsequent suit.

(Para 23)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 11 -- Res-judicata between co-defendants -- Principle of res judicata is applicable not only between the plaintiff and the defendants but also between the co-defendants -- In applying the principle of res judicata between the co-defendants, primarily three conditions are necessary to be fulfilled, namely, (i) there must be a conflict of interest between the co-defendants; (ii) there is necessity to decide the said conflict in order to give relief to plaintiff; and (iii) there is final decision adjudicating the said conflict -- Once all these conditions are satisfied, the principle of res judicata can be applied inter se the co-defendants.

(Para 23)

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 19(1) – Cognizance by trail court – Sanction from competent authority – Requirement of -- Trial Court was not justified and correct in law in taking cognizance in the absence of sanction by the competent authority -- Order taking cognizance set aside qua the appellant.

(Para 2, 3)

A. Haryana Registration and Regulation of Societies Act, 2012 (Haryana Act No. 1 of 2012), Section 22, 39, 40 – Ousting the membership -- Non-production of documents by Society – Effect of -- Society cannot be permitted to take benefit of its own lapse in not producing its own record in relation to the claim made by the petitioners – Impugned orders passed disregards the evidence adduced by the petitioners, finding that said record was not produced by the Society -- Same, is not a valid ground to defeat the rights of any person or to disregard its evidence in entirety and to oust him from membership -- Matter remanded back to District Registrar of Societies.

(Para 31-37)

B. Haryana Registration and Regulation of Societies Act, 2012 (Haryana Act No. 1 of 2012), Section 80 – Election of governing body under challenge -- Induction of 278 persons as members of the Society – Effect upon -- Unless any defect is pointed out at the outset as regards the eligibility of 278 members to be inducted as members or that they had not deposited the requisite charges or fulfill the eligibility conditions required under bye-laws, their induction cannot be said to be invalid merely on account of any subsequent defect as may be noticed in the election of the governing body.

(Para 36)

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 7, 138, 141, 143A -- Drawer – Cheque bounce complaint – Interim compensation u/s 143A of NI Act -- Liability of Directors of Company -- Interpretation of -- High Court's interpretation accurately identified the "drawer" as the individual who issues the cheque -- Drawer u/s 143A refers specifically to the issuer of the cheque, not the authorized signatories -- Primary liability rests on the drawer, emphasizing the drawer's responsibility for maintaining sufficient funds -- Section 141 of the NI Act extending liability to the company's officers for the dishonour of a cheque -- Appellants' attempt to extend this principle to Section 143A, to hold directors or other individuals personally liable for interim compensation, is unfounded -- Authorized signatories act on behalf of the company but do not assume the company's legal identity.

(Para 28-30)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 7, 138, 143A -- Drawer – Cheque bounce complaint – Interim compensation u/s 143A of NI Act -- Liability of Directors of Company – Interpretation of -- When statutory language is clear and unambiguous, it should be given its natural and ordinary meaning -- Legislative intent, as discerned from the plain language of the statute, aims to hold the drawer accountable -- Appellants' argument for a broader interpretation to include authorized signatories u/s 143A contradicts this principle and would lead to an unjust extension of liability not supported by the statutory text.

(Para 31)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Right to challenge – Compliance of impugned order passed in writ – Effect of -- Judgment sought to be challenged in the Writ Appeal was already complied with under threat of contempt – Held, compliance of an order under threat cannot take away the right of a party as available to challenge the same.

(Para 14, 15)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438, 439 – Bail – Anticipatory bail – Basic essentials required in order -- In bail/anticipatory bail matters, High Courts should endeavour to ensure that all basic essentials (i.e. FIR No., Date, the concerned police station and the offences allegedly committed etc.) are duly recorded or reflected in the format of the order.

(Para 3)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 323 -- Committal of case to Session Court – Application by prosecution seeking FSL report before Sessions Court -- Sessions court fell in grave error in observing that the application ought to have been filed before the learned Magistrate at the time of the committal of the trial -- To deny the application without seeking the report would result in a miscarriage of justice -- Application allowed.

(Para 8-12)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Transfer of employee – Right of employee -- Transfer is an incidence of service and any employee can be transferred on administrative reasons and there is no vested right of an employee to seek posting of his own choice -- However, the aforesaid is not an absolute Rule and is subjected to various exceptions which cannot be put in any straight jacket formula -- Every case has to be seen according to its own facts and circumstances -- Petitioner is 70% handicapped and his wife is suffering from last stage of Lung Cancer -- Impugned order set aside, respondent-Nigam is at liberty to pass a fresh order after considering posting the petitioner near his house at Kaithal which may be a Non-Public Dealing Office.

(Para 7-9)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21(b) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 374, 389 -- NDPS Case -- Suspension of sentence -- Recovery of 18.17 grams of heroin – Conviction for 4 years – Appeal against conviction – Appeal raises arguable issues -- The applicant has undergone an actual sentence of 06 months and 10 days and there is no other case registered against him -- Hearing of the appeal is likely to take some time -- Sentence suspended.

(Para 2, 5)

Constitution of India, Article 14, 16, 309 -- Daily wagers – Regularisation of services – Natural justice -- If the competent authority takes a policy decision within the permissible framework, its benefit must be extended to all those who fall within the parameters of such a policy -- Authorities cannot be permitted to pick and choose in such circumstances -- Eligibility of respondent no.1 for the post he holds has not been controverted -- The fact that he initially entered through the process in conformity with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution is not a serious issue – High Court directed the petitioners to confer the status of a regular employee on respondent No.1 – No reason to interfere, SLP dismissed -- Petitioners/ State directed to grant all the benefits, including arrears of pay and seniority, to respondent No.1 from the due date.

(Para 5-8)

Constitution of India, Article 14, 15, 16, 21, 309 -- Appointment as constable – Denial of appointment due to pregnancy – Legality of – Now non-availability of post – Ground of -- Motherhood should never and can never be the basis for denying public employment opportunities to women – Maternity should not be seen as a barrier but as a fundamental human right of every woman -- Respondent’s plea that the vacancies of Constable in 2016 and 2018 already stand filled and therefore, the petitioner cannot now be appointed – Held, respondents having acted in a most illegal and arbitrary manner in rejecting the petitioner’s request for deferment of PET cannot now be permitted to urge that she cannot be appointed – Writ petition allowed with costs of Rs. 1,00,000/- -- Arrears of backwages will however, as volunteered by the petitioner, restricted to 50%.

(Para 10-15)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 354A – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482, 401 -- Outraging modesty of women – Female accused – Quashing of criminal proceedings -- A female cannot be an accused under Section 354A of the IPC -- This offence is gender specific and only a male can be prosecuted under this offence – Proceedings against petitioner quashed.

(Para 2a, 20, 21)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 9 -- Murder – Acquittal -- Test identification parade (TIP) – TIP not done during investigation -- All the prosecution witnesses who identified the accused in the Court were not known to the appellant -- They had not seen the appellant prior to the said incident -- TIP had become necessary particularly when both the accused, who are alleged to have committed this murder were arrested within two days -- Inspite of being questioned as to what the reasons were for not holding TIP in this case, no satisfactory reply was given by him -- Identification of the accused before the court ought to have been corroborated by the previous TIP which has not been done -- Appellant could not have been convicted on the basis of a very doubtful evidence as to the appellant’s identity -- Appeal allowed.

(Para 10-16)

B. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 9 -- Test identification parade (TIP) – TIP is only a part of Police investigation -- The identification in TIP of an accused is not a substantive piece of evidence -- Not conducting TIP in a given case may prove fatal for the prosecution.

(Para 12)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 374, 389 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 148A -- Cheque bounce complaint -- Appeal against conviction – Suspension of sentence – Condition to deposit 20% of compensation amount -- Appellate Court was required to consider whether the case falls under exception or not – Impugned order set aside, Ld. Appellate Court directed to pass the order afresh, after granting opportunity to the parties with regard to, whether the petitioner is able to make out a ground that his case falls under exceptional category which warrants grant of suspension of sentence without imposing the condition of deposit of 20% of the fine/compensation amount or whether the petitioner is liable to pay less amount of compensation.

(Para 6-8)

Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Age of candidate -- Respondent No.4 (24 years old) had an edge over the petitioner (39 years old) inasmuch as that he is younger in age than the petitioner -- Age of a candidate is a relevant factor.

(Para 3, 3.1, 12)