Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 173 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 33, Order 44 Rule 1, 3(2) – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Appeal as indigent person -- Whether a person being an award holder, of monetary compensation without actual receipt thereof, would be disentitled from filing an appeal seeking enhanced compensation as an indigent? -- Appellate Court did not conduct any inquiry – On both counts, one, that appellant had not yet received the money and, therefore, at the time of filing the appeal she was arguably indigent; and second, that the statutory requirement under the C.P.C., was not met, the impugned order set aside.

(Para 2, 17-19)

A. “May” – “Shall” – Interpretation -- Word “may” ordinarily does not mean “must” -- Ordinarily, “may” will not be construed as “shall” -- But this is not an inflexible rule -- The use of the word “may” in certain legislations can be construed as “shall”, and the word “shall” can be construed as “may” -- It all depends on the nature of the power conferred by the relevant provision of the statute and the effect of the exercise of the power -- The legislative intent also plays a role in the interpretation of such provisions. Even the context in which the word “may” has been used is also relevant.

(Para 9)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 143A – Cheque bounce complaint – Interim compensation -- Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 143A will apply only when the case is being tried as a warrant case -- In the case of a summary or summons trial, the power under sub-section (1) of Section 143A can be exercised after the plea of the accused is recorded.

(Para 10)

C. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 143A – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 421 -- Cheque bounce complaint – Interim compensation -- Recovery of -- By a legal fiction, the interim compensation is treated as a fine for the purposes of its recovery -- Section 421 of the Cr.PC deals with the recovery of the fine imposed by a criminal court while passing the sentence -- Thus, recourse can be taken to Section 421 of the Cr.PC. for recovery of interim compensation -- Interim compensation amount can be recovered treating it as fine -- Interim compensation amount can be recovered by the Trial Court by issuing a warrant for attachment and sale of the movable property of the accused -- If acquitted, he may get back the money along with the interest as provided in sub-section (4) of Section 143A from the complainant.

(Para 11, 12)

D. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 143A(5) – Cheque bounce complaint – Non-payment of interim compensation – Right to defend -- Non-payment of interim compensation by the accused does not take away his right to defend the prosecution.

(Para 12)

E. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 143A – Cheque bounce complaint – Interim compensation -- Power of Trial Court – It can be exercised even before the accused is held guilty -- Sub-section (1) of Section 143A provides for passing a drastic order for payment of interim compensation against the accused in a complaint u/s 138, even before any adjudication is made on the guilt of the accused.

(Para 14)

F. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 143A – Cheque bounce complaint – Interim compensation -- Word “may” used in Section 143A, cannot be construed or interpreted as “shall”. Therefore, the power under sub-section (1) of Section 143A is discretionary.

(Para 14)

G. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 143A, 148 – Cheque bounce complaint – Interim compensation -- Tests applicable for the exercise of jurisdiction under sub-section (1) of Section 148 can never apply to the exercise of jurisdiction under sub-section (1) of Section 143A of the N.I. Act.

(Para 15)

H. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 143A, 148 – Cheque bounce complaint – Interim compensation – Financial distress -- Factors to be considered while exercising discretion -- When the court deals with an application u/s 143A of the N.I. Act, the Court will have to prima facie evaluate the merits of the case made out by the complainant and the merits of the defence pleaded by the accused in the reply to the application under sub-section (1) of Section 143A -- Presumption u/s 139 of the N.I. Act, by itself, is no ground to direct the payment of interim compensation -- At this stage, the fact that the accused is in financial distress can also be a consideration –  Court will have to apply its mind to the quantum of interim compensation to be granted – Court will have to consider various factors such as the nature of the transaction, the relationship, if any, between the accused and the complainant and the paying capacity of the accused -- If the defence of the accused is found to be prima facie a plausible defence, the Court may exercise discretion in refusing to grant interim compensation -- Factors set out are not exhaustive -- There could be several other factors, such as, the pendency of a civil suit, etc. -- While deciding the prayer made under Section 143A, the Court must record brief reasons indicating consideration of all the relevant factors.

(Para 16)

I. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 143A, 148 – Cheque bounce complaint – Interim compensation – Law summarised:

a. The exercise of power under sub-section (1) of Section 143A is discretionary. The provision is directory and not mandatory. The word “may” used in the provision cannot be construed as “shall.”

b. While deciding the prayer made under Section 143A, the Court must record brief reasons indicating consideration of all relevant factors.

c. The broad parameters for exercising the discretion under Section 143A are as follows:

i. The Court will have to prima facie evaluate the merits of the case made out by the complainant and the merits of the defence pleaded by the accused in the reply to the application. The financial distress of the accused can also be a consideration.

ii. A direction to pay interim compensation can be issued, only if the complainant makes out a prima facie case.

iii. If the defence of the accused is found to be prima facie plausible, the Court may exercise discretion in refusing to grant interim compensation.

iv. If the Court concludes that a case is made out to grant interim compensation, it will also have to apply its mind to the quantum of interim compensation to be granted. While doing so, the Court will have to consider several factors such as the nature of the transaction, the relationship, if any, between the accused and the complainant, etc.

v. There could be several other relevant factors in the peculiar facts of a given case, which cannot be exhaustively stated. The parameters stated above are not exhaustive.

(Para 19)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 11, Order 23 Rule 1, Order 41 -- Constitution of India, Article 226 – Appeal dismissed as withdrawn – Writ jurisdiction -- Petitioner remained unsuccessful in the civil suit and withdrew the appeal by filing an application under Order XXIII Rule 1 of CPC by stating that there was a technical defect in the suit and the appeal -- Even no liberty was sought by the petitioner for filing afresh appeal before the learned Lower Appellate Court and she has filed the writ petition, seeking same relief which cannot be entertained and adjudicated upon -- Writ petition suffers from the principles of res judicata – Writ petition dismissed

(Para 11, 12)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Third party insurance -- Once the Insurance Company has deducted premium for third party, it cannot escape its liability -- Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation to the claimants.

(Para 16)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166, 168 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 41 Rule 33 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Non-filing of appeal -- Section 168 of the Act casts a statutory obligation on the Tribunal as well as this Appellate Court to award a compensation which is just and reasonable – High Court, therefore, must pass an appropriate order to deliver complete justice by awarding just and reasonable compensation while exercising powers under Order XLI Rule 33, in performance of its statutory duty imposed by Section 168 of the Act -- Appeal is an extension of the proceedings before the Tribunal – High Court exercised its power and discretion under Order XLI Rule 33 of the CPC read with Section 168 of the MV Act and moulded the relief which ought to have been granted by the learned Tribunal.

(Para 18-26)

Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 37 -- Suit for permanent injunction -- Using the suit property for storing cow dung etc. and lien was used for preparing lime mortar for building material -- No date mentioned when this property was being used for preparing lime mortar -- Mere storing cow dung and wooden sticks does not prove a case in favour of the plaintiff -- Since the plaintiff himself has failed to prove his possession over the suit property, he is not entitled for injunction.

(Para 13)

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 139 – Cheque bounce complaint – Presumption as to liability – Rebuttal – Standard of proof -- Once execution of the cheque is proved/ admitted, the presumptions u/s 118(a) and 139 of the said Act would arise that it is supported by a consideration -- Such presumptions are rebuttable in nature and the accused can prove the non-existence of a consideration by raising a probable defence, and if the accused is proved to have discharged the initial onus of proof showing that the existence of consideration was improbable or doubtful or the same was illegal, the onus would shift to the complainant who will be obliged to prove it as a matter of fact and upon its failure to prove would dis-entitle him to the grant of relief on the basis of the negotiable instrument -- Standard of proof so as to prove defence on the part of an accused is 'preponderance of probabilities' and inference of preponderance of probabilities can be drawn not only from the materials brought on records by the parties but also by reference to the circumstances upon which he relies.

(Para 6, 7)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Cheque bounce complaint -- Void cheque – Alteration in cheque -- Amount written in cheque corrected in figures or in number without the knowledge and consent of maker of the cheque amounts to material alteration and also amounts cancellation -- The figure “2" was specifically inserted in cheque specifically without the knowledge of the drawer is a material alteration which makes the documents void -- Accused is not liable for any type of legal recoverable debt -- Nothing is on file to prove any type of transaction or debt to held the accused liable – Acquittal order upheld.

(Para 8-10)

C. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Cheque bounce complaint – Receipt issued on the letter pad of the shop of accused is also not proved the liability of the accused in any manner as no witness regarding the receipt is on the letter pad and without any witness the document did not prove any type of liability towards the accused.

(Para 9)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 8 Rule 10 – Non-filing of written statement -- Passing of judgment in favour of plaintiff is subject to the satisfaction of the Court that there are no disputed facts in the plaint and judgment can be passed without asking the plaintiff to lead evidence -- If Court comes to the conclusion that evidence is required to be led by the plaintiff to prove the claim, then it cannot pass a judgment in favour of the plaintiff by invoking provisions of Order 8 Rule 10 CPC.

(Para 14, 15)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 8 Rule 10 – Non-filing of written statement -- Suit for partition -- Trial Court without application of mind whether plaintiff is required to lead evidence or not, adjourned the case for evidence of the plaintiff -- Trial Court was required to record its satisfaction whether suit deserves to be decreed on the basis of pleadings supported by documents annexed with the plaint or the plaintiff was required to prove its claim by leading evidence – Part of the order whereby case was adjourned for leading evidence of the plaintiff, is not sustainable in the eyes of law – Revision allowed to that extent.

(Para 16)

Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870), Section 7(x)(a) -- Suits Valuation Act, 1887 (7 of 1887), Section 8 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 – Suit for specific performance -- Rejection of plaint -- Advalorem court fees – Court fee on market value of property -- Trial Court directed to determine the market value of the suit property, as on the date of filing of the suit, by allowing the parties to place on record the documentary evidence in that respect and also by seeking information from the office of Collector/Revenue Authorities and thereafter direct the plaintiff to pay the ad-valorem court fee on the market price of the suit property -- On payment of said court fee, the Trial Court may proceed further with the suit.

(Para 11)

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 118, 138, 139 -- Cheque bounce complaint – Acquittal -- Huge amount of Rs.5 lacs was allegedly given to the respondent-accused in cash -- Complainant failed to provide any documentary evidence in support of the advancement of loan, raising doubts about the credibility of the said transaction – Absence of specific dates regarding the loan advancement and issuance of cheque further weakens the case of the complainant -- Concealment of facts by the complainant including his involvement in a case of fraud and also depositing money into unrelated party’s accounts further undermines the credibility of the case brought-forth by the complainant against the respondent-accused – Acquittal order upheld.

(Para 5-8)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 118, 138, 139 -- Cheque bounce complaint – Presumption for legally enforceable liability -- Huge amount of Rs.5 lacs was allegedly given to the respondent-accused in cash -- In order to draw presumption u/s 118 read with Section 139 of the Act, the burden was heavily upon the complainant to prove his case against the accused.

(Para 7)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 446, 449 – Forfeiture of surety bond – Penalty – Show cause notice -- It was impossible for the appellant/ surety to produce the accused before the Trial Court on specific date as he was confined in some other case and this fact was not in the knowledge of the appellant as well as the Trial Court -- No show cause notice was ever issued by the Trial Court in terms of Section 446 of Cr. P.C. nor the Trial Court had recorded the grounds of proof of forfeiture of the bond – Held, mandatory provision, as laid down by Section 446 of the Cr. P.C had not been followed and the impugned order is legally unsustainable – Order of Additional Sessions Judge, whereby a penalty of Rs.50,000/- ordered to be recovered from him as arrear of land revenue, set aside.

(Para 1, 8, 9)

Will -- Examination of Scribe of Will – Video conferencing -- One of the attesting witness has expired and the other attesting witness has been summoned several times who is not coming forward to depose – Examination of scribe living abroad through video conferencing allowed -- Petitioner would not be in a position to get a Co-ordinator at the remote point -- Trial Court would give a direction in its order regarding appointment of a Coordinator at the remote point in accordance with the rules so that the petitioner is in a position to pursue his matter with the concerned consulate/ embassy/ High Commission.

(Para 8, 9)

A. Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 3 -- Limitation – Duty of court -- Even if the plea of limitation is not set up as a defence, the Court has to dismiss the suit if it is barred by limitation.

(Para 16)

B. Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (9 of 1932), Section 42(c) – Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Article 113 -- Death of partner – Dissolution of FIR -- Rendition of account – Limitation -- Period of limitation for filing a suit for rendition of account is three years from the date of dissolution -- Firm dissolved in year 1984 by virtue of death of partner and thus, the suit could only have been instituted within a period of three years from that event -- Suit filed in the year 1996 was clearly time-barred.

(Para 20)

Constitution of India, Article 226 – Delay in retiral benefits -- Interest thereupon -- Either before or after the retirement of the petitioner, no departmental/ criminal proceedings were pending against him, therefore, his retiral benefits were required to be released within a reasonable time after his retirement --  Interest @ 6% per annum allowed, on the delayed payment of retiral dues w.e.f. 01.01.2023 (after two months of his retirement) till the actual date of payment.

(Para 8-10)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82(2)(i)(a) – Proclaimed person – Quashing of order  – Service of proclamation not proper -- Constable in his recorded statement before the trial Court, nowhere mentioned that the proclamation was ever read out publically in some conspicuous place of the town in which the petitioner ordinarily resides – Held, there was apparent violation of Section 82 (2) (i) (a) of CrPC – Order passed by learned JMIC becomes unsustainable in the eyes of law and thus quashed.

(Para 7-10)

Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (15 of 2003), Section 2(1)(p), 3 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Proceeds of crime – Direction to register a case and arrest of  accused -- Enforcement Directorate is not an investigating agency stricto  sensu -- The command and mandate of the Enforcement Directorate under the 2002 Act is to ensure that no person benefits from the proceeds of crime derived out of the commission of a scheduled offence and to see that such property is confiscated to the State -- There cannot be any direction issued to consider representation which has been filed with a prayer to register a case and arrest certain individuals for that is not the mandate of the Enforcement Directorate.

(Para 1, 19)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 156(3) – Investigation u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. – Cognizance of offence -- When the Magistrate in exercise of his judicial discretion directs investigation u/s 156(3) of Cr. P.C., he cannot be said to have taken cognizance of any offence -- It is only when the Magistrate after applying his mind prefers to follow the procedure under Chapter XV of Cr.P.C. by resorting to Section 200, he can be said to have taken cognizance of the offence.

(Para 8)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 156(3) – Investigation u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. – Trial court perused complaint, the documents in support thereof and on submissions and after having been prima facie satisfied, exercised its judicial discretion directing investigation u/s 156(3) of Cr. P.C -- High Court should not have interfered with the same, more particularly while exercising limited powers u/s 482 of Cr. P.C --  Order passed by the High Court set aside, order of Trial Court restored.

(Para 10, 11)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 16 Rule 10, Order 16 Rule 12 -- Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Closing of evidence -- One opportunity to lead evidence -- Due to pre-occupation of the counsel the evidence could not be recorded -- In order to do complete justice between the parties, plaintiff-petitioner granted one effective opportunity to lead its evidence, subject to payment of Rs.30,000/- as costs to be paid to the defendant-respondent.

(Para 5)

Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 18 – Recovery suit -- Acknowledgement of debt – Cheque dishonored – Postdated cheques -- Extension of limitation -- Payment made by the petitioner/ defendant through cheques, which got dishonoured, would tantamount to an acknowledgment of debt and liability and the period of limitation would stand extended by virtue of Section 18 of Limitation Act, 1963 -- Plea taken by the petitioner/ defendant that certain postdated cheques issued to the respondent/ plaintiff have been misused, does not cut much ice.

(Para 8, 9)

Jammu and Kashmir State Ranbir Penal Code, 1989 (XII of 1989), Sections 420, 406, 452, 465, 467, 506 and 120-B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1989 (XXIII of 1989), Section 561A – Quashing of FIR -- Occupation of the house despite expiry of the license agreement – Suit for mandatory injunction against the petitioner for vacation of the house in question already filed -- No doubt the suit has been stayed but it does not mean that respondent No.2 can continue to use the criminal proceedings for settling the civil dispute between her and the petitioner – Held, dispute between the contesting parties is predominantly civil in nature and the criminal proceedings have been used to settle the civil dispute – FIR impugned is nothing but an abuse of process of law – FIR quashed.

(Para 19-21)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1989 (XXIII of 1989), Section 156(3), 177, 190 -- Registration of FIR – Territorial jurisdiction -- Power of Magistrate – A Magistrate can order investigation of only those cases which the Court has jurisdiction to enquire into and try under Chapter XV of J&K CrPC which is applicable to the case -- Section 177 of CrPC which falls in Chapter XV provides that every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction it was committed.

(Para 10)

B. Jammu and Kashmir State Ranbir Penal Code, 1989 (XII of 1989), Section 4 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1989 (XXIII of 1989), Section 188, 561A -- Quashing of FIR -- Territorial jurisdiction -- A proposal for insurance policy from the travel agent of deceased  at Delhi and it was forwarded to the authorised agent of petitioner/ company stationed at Delhi -- Travel insurance was to take effect from Delhi as the deceased had booked himself from Delhi to Frankfurt -- Death of the deceased in Switzerland -- Thus, neither any event nor its consequence has taken place within the territorial limits of either CJM or within the territorial limits of Police Station, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu -- Neither the petitioner-company, nor respondent No.2 is a State subject -- They are not even registered as companies within the jurisdiction of erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir -- Therefore, the provisions contained in Section 4 of RPC and Section 188 of CrPC would not be attracted -- Order of Ld. CJM, Jammu, directing the SHO to register the impugned FIR and investigate the same is, without jurisdiction – FIR quashed.

(Para 11-13, 21)

C. Jammu and Kashmir State Ranbir Penal Code, 1989 (XII of 1989), Section 304 (II), 420, 409, 467, 468 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1989 (XXIII of 1989), Section 561A -- Medical insurance policy – Non-honour of medi-claim – FIR for cheating, forgery & culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Quashing of FIR -- Transaction between the insurer and the insured is purely contractual in nature, if any of the parties to this contract defaults in honouring its commitment, it cannot form a basis for launching a criminal prosecution -- Merely because, on the basis of non-payment of compensation under the insurance policy to the complainant, her son breathed his last, it cannot be stated that the petitioner-company was, in any manner, responsible for his death and it cannot be prosecuted for a serious offence like culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Petitioner/ company cannot be held responsible for forgery of the cancellation letter purported to have been issued by deceased through his agent – FIR quashed.

(Para 14-21)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Dis-membership from Bar association – Writ jurisdiction -- There is no public law element involved in the dispute between a member of the HP High Court Bar Association such as the petitioner and the said Association, and since the said Association is unregistered society, merely because its members are Advocates who appear in the High Court and assist in the administration of justice, it cannot be said that the writ petition against its office bearers in their personal capacity is maintainable.

(Para 4, 24)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Minimum criteria for appointment -- Relaxation at the time of appointment -- Once relaxation in eligibility criteria is granted to an employee at the time of his/her appointment, he/she is deemed to have satisfied the minimum eligibility criteria and thereafter, he/she cannot be asked to seek relaxation in qualification at each stage of his/her career progression, unless the higher post prescribes a different qualification/criteria -- It is not open to the respondent-University to deny to the petitioner consideration to higher scales of pay on the ground that the petitioner had not obtained 55% marks in her Master’s Degree at the time of her appointment as Assistant Administrative Officer.

(Para 18)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 332, 353, 395, 397, 307 -- Dacoity – Attempt to murder -- Acquittal -- None of the accused was identified at the spot nor any of the said persons was known to any of the members of the police party or to the complainant – PW-4, in whose presence dacoity had been committed and who had also signed on various recovery memos, failed to identify the accused and was declared hostile -- Occurrence had taken place during the midnight on ground floor, while the complainant was on the roof of his house and thus identification of accused would certainly be difficult -- Police official/  PW, in his examination-in-chief categorically stated that he cannot identify any of the dacoits, who had fired at him – Acquittal order upheld.

(Para 13)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 412 -- Dishonestly receiving property stolen in the commission of a dacoity – Charges framed only in respect of the jewellery recovered from the three accused and no charges were framed for remaining accused – Three accused convicted, remaining acquitted – Appellants were aged 68 years, 55 years and aged 32 years at the time of passing of impugned judgment and there is no evidence that they are involved in multiple cases – Sentence reduced to already undergone.

(Para 14-16)

Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 (43 of 1978), Section 3, 4, 5, 6 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420, 506, 120-B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Fraud worth crore of rupees – Regular bail-- Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail -- Petitioner along with his co-accused had hatched deep-rooted conspiracies and cheated hundreds of innocent investors from the public, involving crores of rupees – During the course of investigation, serious threats have been extended to the complainant and the witnesses – Apart from that, the investigation is at a very crucial stage against some of the co-accused, who are yet to be arrested and are still absconding from the process of law -- There are well founded apprehensions that the said money may be used for terror fundings – Petition dismissed.

(Para 10-12)

A. Constitution of India, Article 233, 234 -- Judicial Officer – Code of Conduct -- Unwritten code of conduct is writ large for judicial officers to emulate and imbibe high moral or ethical standards expected of a higher judicial functionary -- Judge’s official and personal conduct be free from impropriety; the same must be in tune with the highest standard of the propriety and probity -- The standard of conduct is higher than expected from a layman and also higher than expected of an advocate -- Even his private life must adhere to high standard of propriety and probity, higher than those deemed acceptable for others.

(Para 22)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154 -- Judicial Officer – Involvement/ Becoming party in litigation/ FIR – A Judge who himself wants to become a party in a proceeding then he must quit his office first, to maintain the standard of purity and unblemished character -- It is not possible that he remain as a sitting Judge on one hand and after using his power prevail upon his subordinate officer to affect arrest his adversary.

(Para 23)

C. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Quashing of FIR -- F.I.R. does not disclose any offence -- Same has been procured by the C.J.M. after exerting threats upon the concerned S.I. – Taking into account the prima facie findings and the material collected by the S.I.T., F.I.R. is driven by malafides and in the colourable exercise of power -- F.I.R. quashed exercising the extra ordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(Para 26, 28)

D. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154 -- FIR -- Judicial Officer as first informant – Instructions given -- Except in the matter of grave and severe nature like murder, suicide, rape or other sexual offences, dowry death, dacoity and in rest of the remaining cases, if any, judicial officer or Judge wants to become the first informant in his personal capacity in any F.I.R., he must take his concerned District Judge into confidence and after having the assent from the District Judge, he can become an informant of any F.I.R.

(Para 27)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 17 --  Amendment of plaint based upon inheritance -- Limitation -- Bar of limitation is not available when a suit is filed on the basis of inheritance, as inheritance does not remain in abeyance.

(Para 10)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 17 --  Amendment of plaint – Suit for declaration on the basis of inheritance of estate – Amendment is to add one more property along with other properties already mentioned in the plaint – It is fundamental principle of law that parties should be allowed to bring all the material facts that may enable the Court to decide the controversy completely and judiciously -- Purpose of amendment is to narrow down the controversy by placing all material facts clearly on the record -- One effective opportunity granted to the petitioner to file the amended plaint.

(Para 10-15)

C. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 17 --  Amendment of plaint – Inefficiency of party/ Counsel – If a party or its Counsel is inefficient in setting out its case initially the shortcoming can certainly be removed generally by appropriate steps taken by a party which must pay costs for the inconvenience or expense caused to the other side from its omissions.

(Para 12)

A. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 32(1) – Dying declaration -- Once a dying declaration is found to be authentic inspiring confidence of the court, then the same can be relied upon and can be the sole basis for conviction without any corroboration -- However, before accepting such a dying declaration, court must be satisfied that it was rendered voluntarily, it is consistent and credible and that it is devoid of any tutoring.

(Para 25)

B. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 32(1) – Dying declaration -- Unless the evidence tendered is tested by cross-examination, it is not creditworthy -- Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act is an exception to this general rule.

(Para 29)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 34 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 32(1) – Murder -- Dying declaration -- Attending doctor certified that the deceased was capable of narrating her statement -- Substance of the dying declaration is also borne out by the medical history of the patient recorded by the doctor which has also been proved in evidence -- Though there are inconsistencies and improvements in the version of the prosecution witnesses, there is however convergence with the core of the narration of the deceased made in the dying declaration and the medical history recorded by the doctor -- No reason to doubt the correctness of the dying declaration -- Evidence on record, particularly Ex. 59/ dying declaration clearly establishes the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt -- Appellant held guilty.

(Para 35-37)

Himachal Pradesh, Revenue Department, Patwari Mohal (Class-III Non-gazetted) Recruitment & Promotion Rules 1992, Rule 15(A), (B) – Seniority of Patwaris -- Seniority list was drawn on 7.01.2000 – Appellants are deemed to have knowledge of the seniority list, their seniority positions as well as the principle on which the seniority list was drawn -- For more than twenty years, the seniority list was accepted and acted upon -- Promotions had also been made on the basis of the seniority list – No cogent reasons given for not assailing the seniority list within a reasonable period – Re-drawal of seniority list after more than twenty years would not just affect a person or two but the seniority positions of more than 45 persons would be upset -- Settled seniority position could not be unsettled.

(Para 3, 4)

A. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 42 – NDPS Case -- Prior information – Search warrant – Independent witness -- Police received prior information but did not obtain the search warrant because the police apprehended that case property would be destroyed by the delay in procuring the warrant, therefore, it resorted to the provisions of Section 42(2) -- The fact that independent witnesses have not stated anything about preparing the rukka and information under Section 42(2) in their presence and sending the police official with the same shows that there was no compliance with Section 42(2) and the same is fatal to the prosecution case.

(Para 23)

B. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 20 – NDPS Case -- Number of person present at the spot – Inconsistency in – Effect of – Recovery of 1 Kg 200 grams of charas from accused’s house -- Inconsistency regarding the number of persons present on the spot is not minor because the presence of the persons is so intricately connected to the recovery that any inconsistency in the former would affect the latter – Inconsistency cannot be ignored.

(Para 2, 24, 26)

C. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 20 – NDPS Case -- Number of seals – Inconsistency in – Effect of -- Recovery of 1 Kg 200 grams of charas from accused’s house -- Inconsistency regarding the number of seals put on the parcel would show that the testimonies of the witnesses regarding the putting of the seals are not correct, which would affect the integrity of the case property adversely -- Inconsistency cannot be ignored.

(Para 2, 25, 26)

D. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 20 – NDPS Case -- Date of arrest – Inconsistency in – Effect of -- Inconsistency regarding the date of the arrest of the accused will make the whole case of the prosecution suspect because if the accused was arrested on 06.07.2016 and was to be produced before the learned Court on 07.07.2016, the whole of the prosecution case that information was received on 07.07.2016 and recovery was effected on 07.07.2016 in the presence of the accused will become suspect -- Inconsistency cannot be ignored.

(Para 26)

E. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985),  Section 20 – NDPS Case -- Photography of search – Evidential value -- Recovery of 1 Kg 200 grams of charas from accused’s house -- Heavy reliance was placed upon photographs and video recorded the process of search -- Photographs and the video recording could have been used to lend corroboration to the testimonies of the witnesses but when the testimonies are themselves suspect, there can be no question of their corroboration -- Photographs and the video recording by themselves are not substantive pieces of evidence upon which, a conviction can be recorded.

(Para 27)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 494, 34 – Bigamy – Common intention – Quashing of complaint/ order framing charge -- A perusal of the pre-charge evidence led in support of the complaint would reveal that accused No.3 and 4 were not even alleged to be present at the time of such marriage -- Hence, the involvement of these accused for the charge of having a common intention to commit the offence u/s 494 IPC is not established by an iota of evidence -- Criminal case qua them quashed.

(Para 3, 4, 18-22)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 494, 34 – Bigamy – Common intention – Quashing of complaint/ order framing charge -- Accused No. 5, 6 and 7 are friends and they witnessed the alleged bigamous marriage -- Not a shred of allegation by the complainant that these accused, acted as witnesses to the second marriage having knowledge that accused no.1 was already married to the complainant -- Charge of having a common intention to commit the offence u/s 494 IPC is totally unwarranted in the eyes of law -- Allowing the proceedings of the criminal case to be continued against the appellants would tantamount to gross illegality and abuse of the process of Court – Criminal case qua them quashed.

(Para 3, 4, 19-22)

Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (57 of 1994), Section 3, 5, 6, 23, 25, 28 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420, 120B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Disclosing the sex of foetus – Role of owner of Hospital -- Quashing of complaint/ summoning order -- No allegation, direct or indirect levelled against owner of Hospital -- Ownership of the Hospital where the ultrasound was allegedly carried upon a decoy pregnant woman would not make him liable under the PCPNDT Act -- At the very least, the allegations in the complaint should demonstrate the commission of a cognizable offence by the accused in question -- Any such evidence against owner is conspicuously absent – Petition allowed qua owner of hospital.

(Para 1, 13)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 24(8), 225, 397, 301, 401 -- Charges framed by trial court – Challenged in revision – Complainant/ victim right to be impleaded as party -- Held, while the victim/ complainant has a right to be heard in the revision proceedings, such right does not upscale itself to a right to be impleaded in the said criminal revision -- Victim/complainant may be heard, and such hearing shall be regulated by the Court depending on the facts and circumstances of each case.

(Para 73)

A. Will – Health of testator – Suspicious circumstances -- From the evidence of the witnesses with reference to the health of the testator Court do not find that he was not in good senses and was unable to understand his welfare or take correct decisions -- Hence, the Will cannot be held to be suspicious on the ground of the alleged ill-health of the testator at the time of the execution of the Will.

(Para 9.5)

B. Will – Genuineness of -- Testator left behind about 8 acres of land and three houses -- Respondent is bequeathed merely 3.5 Acres of land -- Meaning thereby the balance property is in possession of widow and daughter -- This is how the interest of the natural legal heirs has been taken care of -- Expenses for his last rites were borne by the husband of the respondent who was taking care of the land of the testator -- Nothing on record to suggest that the appellants were taking care of the property left by the testator immediately after his death or that any steps were taken by them to get the same mutated in their favour – Will found to be genuine – Judgment upheld.

(Para 2, 15)

C. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 8 Rule 3, 5 -- Pleadings – Admission and denial in written statement -- Order VIII Rules 3 and 5 CPC clearly provides for specific admission and denial of the pleadings in the plaint -- A general or evasive denial is not treated as sufficient -- Proviso to Order VIII Rule 5 CPC provides that even the admitted facts may not be treated to be admitted, still in its discretion the Court may require those facts to be proved -- This is an exception to the general rule --  General rule is that the facts admitted, are not required to be proved.

(Para 15.1)

Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (25 of 1961), Section 27 --  Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 9 -- Suit without authority – Permissibility of – Suspension of society – Appointment of Administrator – Fate of suit -- Learned Appellate Court found that President had not produced any authority by means of any resolution of the society authorizing him to file the suit or to defend the appeal and as such, the suit filed by him was not maintainable and apart from this, after suspension of the Managing Committee of the Society and appointment of the Administrator, President was left with no locus standi to continue with the suit or to defend the suit – No illegality, perversity or infirmity in the aforesaid findings of the First Appellate Court.

(Para 2.2, 11)

Insecticides Act, 1968 (46 of 1968), Section 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 29, 33 -- Insecticides Rules, 1971, Rule 27(5) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 468, 470, 473, 482 – Quashing of complaint/ summoning order -- Time barred complaint -- Sample of insecticide was taken on 26.07.2011 and the report of Public Analyst was received on 12.08.2011 – Limitation will commence from the date of receipt of the report of the Public Analyst -- Sanction letter is dated 01.01.2014, which was applied on 06.08.2012 -- Period of 1 year 4 months and 26 days is liable to be excluded for computing the period of limitation -- Complaint filed on 30.03.2016 is beyond the period of 3 years -- Ld. Magistrate was statutorily debarred from taking cognizance of the offence in view of Section 468 CrPC -- Complaint, the summoning order and all subsequent proceedings quashed.

(Para 8-17)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 216, 427, 120-B, 148, 149 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25, 29, 30 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Murder – Regular bail -- Petitioner is not amongst the assailants -- Only attribution to the petitioner is that he was handed over a pistol and two live cartridges by co-accused, which he concealed in a farm house and later on, handed over the same to the same co-accused -- Petitioner is in custody for the last 1 year 4 months and 27 days -- Trial may take time to conclude -- Though he is involved in two more criminal cases, but having regard to the nature of attribution to the petitioner, mere criminal antecedents of the petitioner cannot be a reason to decline him bail – Bail allowed.

(Para 7)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 26 Rule 9 – Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Appointment of Local Commissioner – Dismissal of application -- Maintainability of revision -- It is trite that an order refusing to appoint a Local Commissioner does not decide any issue nor does it adjudicate any rights of the parties for the purpose of the suit and hence would not be a revisable order.

(Para 6)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 26 Rule 9 – Appointment of Local Commissioner – Demarcation of possession – Suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant-respondent from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff-petitioner -- That being so, it is for the plaintiff-petitioner to prove his case and he cannot take aid of the Court agency for creating evidence for him.

(Para 8)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 23 Rule 3 – Compromise decree – Statement w.r.t compromise in court – Effect of – Challenged on the ground that settlement between parties in not in writing -- Parties and their respective counsel suffered a joint statement in the court which was not only recorded but also signed by all of them including their respective advocates -- Such settlement is in writing and signed by the parties – Appeal dismissed.

(Para 2, 5-8)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 96, 151, Order 21 Rule 30, 37, Order 44 Rule 3 -- Recovery decree -- Warrant of arrest issued – Appeal/ stay application pending – Indigent person/ Pauper application pending -- Learned Appellate Court requested to dispose of the application for pauper, within a period of fifteen days, from the date already fixed  -- After disposal of the pauper application, also pass any appropriate order, in accordance with law, on the stay application -- In the meanwhile, operation of the impugned order stayed.

(Para 4-8)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1909), Order 39, Rule 1 & 2 – Temporary injunction against co-owner – Exclusive possession -- From the revenue record, it transpires that parties are in separate possession of the suit land – Held, when exclusive possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land is evident from the revenue records, then the defendants have been rightly restrained from interfering into their exclusive possession over the suit land.

(Para 7)

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 8 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 342 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – POCSO – Anticipatory bail – Neither the victim nor his father is inclined to pursue the matter against the petitioner any further, interim bail granted – State acknowledged that petitioner has joined investigation, his custodial interrogation is not required – Petition allowed, interim order made absolute.

(Para 6-8)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Transfer on recommendation of MLA – Challenge to – No malafide against the Member of Legislative Assembly alleged -- Fact that the petitioner has remained posted District Mandi for nine years, he cannot have any ground to raise grievance against the impugned transfer order.

(Para 7-10)

A. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 141, Order 6 Rule 17 – Amendment of writ petition – Even though the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure are not applicable in the writ jurisdiction by virtue of the provision of Section 141 CPC, but the principle enshrined therein are applicable.

(Para 8)

B. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 17 – Amendment of writ petition – Amendment sought for almost 12 years after the date of the institution of the petition -- It is not the case of the petitioner that facts now sought to be pleaded by way of amendment could not be pleaded despite due diligence – No plausible grounds have been mentioned in the application as to why the amendments, which are being sought to be incorporated at this highly belated stage and why these facts could not be pleaded earlier, especially when there have been no subsequent developments -- Amendment cannot be said to be bonafide -- On the ground of delay itself, the application is required to be dismissed – Application for amendment dismissed.

(Para 9-12)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 151 -- Additional evidence -- By proposed additional evidence, the petitioner intends to produce copy of Registration, Memorandum and Article of Association, pertaining to Gaushala --  Application moved at the stage of rebuttal and arguments -- Nowhere, in the pleadings as well as in the testimony of witnesses, any reference was made to the aforesaid documents -- These documents were very much in the active knowledge of the petitioner, at the time of recording of the evidence -- Application for additional evidence dismissed.

(Para 9, 10)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21, 50 – NDPS case – Acquittal – Foreign national do not know English, Hindi and Punjabi language – Effect of -- Accused-appellant is from Kenya -- PW3 SI categorically stated that accused did not know Hindi, Punjabi or English language and that she only knew the Kenyan language and was speaking only the said Kenyan language and also disclosed that police party did not know the Kenyan language, which was being spoken by the accused-appellant – It cannot be stated that fair trial has been conducted -- Entire investigation is held to be vitiated on account of the accused not understanding any communication made to her by the police party – There is complete non-compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act and numerous material contradictions in the statements of material witnesses – Appeal allowed, impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence are set aside.

(Para 25-28)

Jammu and Kashmir Migrant Immovable Property (Preservation, Protection and Restraint on Distress Sales) Act, 1997 (XVI of 1997), Section 7 – Appeal against eviction -- Surrender of possession of the property, which is the subject matter of appeal, is sine quo non for the purpose of entertaining an appeal against an order of eviction – Petitioner did not surrender the possession and the Appellate Authority granted repeated opportunities – Appeal was dismissed in limini – Held, section 7 of the Act has placed an embargo upon the competent authority against entertaining any appeal by the aggrieved person without surrender of possession of the subject property – Writ against dismissal of appeal, dismissed.

(Para 2, 9)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 406, 420 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Compromise quashing of FIR – Non-appearance of complainant – Compromise amount received by complainant – Effect of -- Respondent No.2-complainant is not coming forward to contest the petition or to refute the contention of the petitioners that she has already received the entire amount as per compromise – Held, continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners in the FIR in question shall be gross misuse of process of law -- Petition allowed, FIR and subsequent proceedings quashed.

(Para 6-13)

Constitution of India, Article 21, 226 -- Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Section 2(12), 94 -- Runaway marriage – Police protection – Minor girl -- School certificate – Birth certificate – Reliance upon -- Birth certificate relied upon by the father of petitioner would reveal that date of birth is 26.05.2007 as recorded in the birth register on 01.06.2007 -- Birth certificate was got issued, when there was no dispute -- Birth certificate relied, in order to form a prima facie opinion that petitioner is a child – No reliance can be placed upon abstract of the school register or a certificate issued by the Head Master of Government Primary School as it is not clarified as to on what basis and when this entry of date of birth was made – Petitioner is directed to be kept in the place of safety till she attains the age of majority, parental family disallowed to accompany her.

 (Para 12)

A. Service matter -- Once the disciplinary proceedings have already been concluded by awarding the punishment of compulsory retirement and recovery, the same cannot be reopened on the basis of conviction/ sentence awarded by the criminal Court.

(Para 12)

B. Service matter -- Dismissal order against dead person -- A dead person cannot be punished -- Once a government employee, who dies during the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, he cannot be proceeded after his death and the same principle can be followed against the State Government/Corporation Employees – Dismissal order set aside, petitioner held entitled for all the consequential benefits.

(Para 10-18)

Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), Section 108, 117 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 4, 5, -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 174, 175 -- Summons u/s 108 of Customs Act – Non- compliance of – Applicability of Section 174, 175 of IPC --  Had there been no provision like 117 in the Customs Act, obviously the concerned person to whom summons have been issued under Section 108 of the Customs Act, if fails to comply therewith, would have been guilty for committing an offence under Section 174 of 175 or both of the Indian Penal Code -- Section 117 of the Customs Act, finds place in a Special Act i.e., Customs Act, which is a complete code in itself providing for various violations, offences and penalties and the procedure etc., therefore, Section 174 & 175 of Indian Penal Code will have no application, in view of Section 4 & 5 of the Criminal Procedure Code -- Prosecution u/s 174 & 175 of the IPC quashed.

(Para 8-13)