A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 311 -- Summoning of handwriting and fingerprint expert -- Belated stage -- Power u/s 311 Cr.P.C. is of a very wide amplitude and can be exercised by the Court at any stage of inquiry or trial if the evidence sought to be adduced appears to be necessary for the just decision of the case -- Merely because the application was moved at a later stage of the trial would not by itself render the order illegal.

(Para 9)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 311 -- Summoning of handwriting and fingerprint expert – Government FSL report already on record – Effect -- Evidentiary value of such testimony would always remain subject to cross-examination and appreciation at the stage of final adjudication -- No prejudice can be said to have been caused to the petitioner merely by permitting the examination of the said expert.

(Para 10)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 311 – Summoning u/s 311 Cr.P.C – No statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. earlier – Effect -- Proposed witness was not cited in the list of witnesses or that his statement was not recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. cannot be accepted as a ground to disallow the application -- Object of Section 311 Cr.P.C is to enable the Court to summon any person as a witness if his evidence appears to be essential for the just decision of the case -- Provision is not restricted only to those witnesses whose statements were recorded during investigation -- Trial Court, in its discretion, is competent to summon any such witness if the circumstances of the case so warrant.

(Para 11)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B – Cheating – Forgery -- Agreement to Sell -- Quashing of FIR -- Dispute between the parties arose out of an agreement to sell executed in 2004, and during the pendency of a civil suit for specific performance the accused sold a portion of the land to a third party -- Matter was already subject matter of adjudication before civil courts, and the decree passed therein had been challenged in second appeal where execution proceedings stood stayed -- FIR was lodged after an unexplained delay of about 11 years -- Not the case of the complainant that the petitioner had dishonestly induced him to part with property or money by making false representations at the very inception -- No allegations of fabrication or forgery of documents so as to attract offences u/ss 467, 468 or 471 IPC -- Allegations essentially pertained to non-execution of the sale deed and subsequent transfer of property, which would be governed by civil remedies and the doctrine of lis pendens -- Dispute is predominantly civil in nature and criminal proceedings are initiated merely to pressurize the opposite party -- FIR and all consequential proceedings quashed.

(Para 8-13)

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 483 – Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023), Section 109, 118(1)(2), 126(2), 191(3), 190, 61(2), 324(4) -- Regular bail – Attempt to murder -- Unlawful assembly – Long custody – Delay in trial – Petitioner member of an unlawful assembly assaulted complainant with an axe causing several injuries, the combined effect of which could be dangerous -- Prima facie case made out – However, petitioner in custody for about one year and one month and trial likely to take considerable time as even charges not framed -- Petitioner ordered to be released on bail subject to furnishing personal and surety bonds.

(Para 7, 8)

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 528 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120B --  Quashing of FIR – Cheating/ Forgery -- Civil dispute -- Allegations primarily related to return of money and alleged partnership without any written agreement -- Dispute was purely civil in nature – Criminal proceedings held to be an abuse of process of law – FIR and subsequent proceedings quashed.

(Para 10-17)

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 483 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 406, 420 -- Regular bail – Cheating/ Criminal breach of trust -- Long custody – Delay in trial – Custody for a period of more than ten months -- Apparently a dispute of civil nature, the offence is triable by the Court of Judicial Magistrate and maximum punishment prescribed up to seven years -- Trial is not likely to be concluded in near future as out of twenty two prosecution witnesses only four have been examined -- Right to speedy trial is a part of reasonable, fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India -- Bail allowed.

(Para 7-13)

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 18 -- Offence under SC/ST Act -- Anticipatory bail -- Prima facie case – Cancellation -- Not found any political or private vendetta for raising the allegations -- Even the police admit that there was tension prevailing in the locality which led to criminal acts being perpetrated -- Mere attempt at reconciliation cannot prevent the police from taking cognizance of criminal acts -- A prima facie case has been made out against the second respondents under the Act of 1989 -- Appeals allowed, anticipatory bail granted to the party respondents cancelled.

(Para 14, 15)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 341, 323, 498-A, 34 – Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961), Section 3, 4 – Quashing of criminal proceedings – General and omnibus allegations against in-laws -- High Court quashed proceedings against sister-in-law but declined similar relief to other in-laws – FIR disclosed that allegations against appellants and sister-in-law were identical – No specific overt act, date or place attributed to appellants – Mere allegation that appellants used to quarrel does not constitute ingredients of offences alleged – Applying different standards to similarly placed accused held erroneous – Where allegations against accused persons stand on identical footing, relief granted to one accused on ground of general and omnibus allegations must equally extend to others – Different standards cannot be applied -- Proceedings against appellants also quashed.

(Paras 7, 10, 11)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 341, 323, 498-A, 34 – Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961), Section 3, 4 – Quashing of criminal proceedings – Matrimonial dispute – Delay in lodging complaint – Counter-blast to divorce proceedings --  Marriage solemnised in July 2019 – Husband filed divorce petition in March 2021 – Criminal complaint against in-laws lodged in March 2022 – Though delay alone not sufficient ground for quashing, viewed in conjunction with the absence of any specific allegations attributable to them, the delay lends credence to the submission that the criminal complaint against the in-laws may have been instituted by way of a counter-blast to the divorce proceedings initiated by the husband -- When these two considerations are read together, continuation of the criminal proceedings against the present appellants cannot be sustained.

(Para 8)

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 483 -- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023), Section 238(a), 241, 308(2), 318(2), 318(4), 336(2), 336(3), 351(4), 61 – Cyber fraud – Regular bail -- Petitioner in custody for the last about one year and one month -- Out of 24 prosecution witnesses, only two witnesses have been examined so far -- Keeping in view the period of custody already undergone, the fact that the petitioner has already been granted bail in the connected FIR arising out of the same incident, the nature of allegations which would ultimately be a matter of evidence during trial, the medical condition of the petitioner and the slow pace of trial, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind bars for an indefinite period – Bail allowed.

(Para 7-9)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 323, 307, 289, 509, 34 -- Murder -- Regular Bail -- As per prosecution, the occurrence took place on the spur of the moment on a trivial issue -- It would be a moot point during the course of the Trial as to whether the offence made out is one under Section 302 IPC (Section 103 BNS, 2023) or Section 304 IPC (Section 105 BNS, 2023) -- Petitioner is a lady, a first-time offender, in custody since 21.03.2025 but none of the 23 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far -- Trial not likely to be concluded anytime soon – Bail allowed.

(Para 6, 7)

A. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 482, 483(3) -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 306, 34 -- Cancellation of bail -- Abetment of suicide – Anticipatory bail by learned Sessions Judge – Allegations are primarily based upon the suicide note and the version of the complainant, which are matters to be examined during the course of investigation and trial -- At this stage, it cannot be said that the learned Sessions Judge has ignored any material fact or considered irrelevant material while granting anticipatory bail to the private respondents -- Mere fact that the respondents are also involved in another FIR, by itself, cannot be treated as a sufficient ground for cancellation of the concession of bail already granted.

(Para 8)

B. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 482, 483(3) -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 306, 34 -- Cancellation of bail -- Abetment of suicide – Anticipatory bail by learned Sessions Judge – Parameters for cancellation of bail are different and much stricter than those applicable for grant of bail -- Once bail has been granted, the same can be cancelled only if the order granting bail suffers from patent illegality or if the accused has misused the concession by interfering with the investigation, influencing witnesses, or otherwise obstructing the course of justice – Except for a bald allegation that the respondents are extending threats, no specific material has been placed on record to substantiate such assertion – No material to show that the impugned order suffers from serious infirmity or that the private respondents have misused the concession of anticipatory bail – No justification to exercise powers u/s 483(3) of the BNSS for cancellation of bail --  Petition dismissed.

(Para 8)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 200, 468, 469, 473 -- Limitation for taking cognizance – Misbranded drug complaint – Where identity of accused emerges during investigation, limitation begins from the date when identity of offender becomes known u/s 469(1)(c) Cr.P.C. – Complaint filed within three years from such date held within limitation.

(Para 26-36)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 200, 202 – Complaint by Public servant -- Magistrate is not required to examine the complainant and the witnesses, if a public servant is acting or purporting to act in discharge of his official duty or a Court has made the complaint -- An official complaint was made on authorisation by the State Government -- In this factual setting, Section 202 of the Code would necessarily have to be construed harmoniously with Section 200 of the Code when considering postponement of the issue of process.

(Para 40)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 200 – Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (23 of 1940), Section 17(b)(c), 18(a)(i), 27(d) -- Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, Rule 96  -- Misbranded drug complaint – High Court’s quashed the complaint -- Respondents-Directors were in the accused-Company’s management, whether or not, they were ‘in charge of’ and ‘responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company’ are questions of fact -- These questions are best left to be determined by the Trial Court, at the appropriate stage -- Impugned Judgment, set aside.

(Para 58, 59)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376 (2)(n), 506 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 528 -- Rape on false promise of marriage -- Consensual relationship -- Quashing of FIR -- Complainant, a married woman and mother of two children, employed in a massage parlour and in charge of running the same, had a physical relationship with the appellant who visited the parlour as a customer – Relationship commenced in August 2023 and continued till March 2024 – Complainant informed appellant of pregnancy on 15.03.2024 – FIR lodged after appellant’s marriage on 12.03.2024 alleging rape on promise of marriage – No allegation that she was divorced from her husband or even separated from him – Held, there was a consensual relationship, neither inducement nor threat and no possibility of a deception luring the complainant into a physical relationship on the pretext of marriage – Even if FSL report establishes paternity, consent demolishes allegation of rape on promise of marriage – Order of High Court refusing to quash proceedings set aside and FIR quashed.

(Para 7 to 9)

A. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 528 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 – Cheating – Forgery – Civil dispute -- Quashing – Inherent powers of High Court -- While considering a prayer to quash an FIR, ordinarily the allegations made therein are to be taken at their face value to assess whether prima facie commission of a cognizable offence is made out or not -- Where the cause espoused in the FIR is essentially of a civil nature, while addressing a quashing petition, the Court must have regard to the attending circumstances and assess whether it has been given cloak of criminal offence and whether proceeding further on the FIR would amount to the abuse of the process of the court/ law -- In making such assessment, the Court may consider not only the contents of the FIR but also the admitted facts / documents recited therein.

(Para 15)

B. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 528 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 – Cheating – Forgery – Civil dispute -- Quashing of FIR -- Parties had entered into a Joint Venture Agreement for development of property -- Disputes regarding title to the property/land including suppression of litigation pending in respect thereof, non-fulfilment of contractual obligations, non-refund of security money and furnishing false document arose -- If there was something stark about the dishonest intention on part of one of the parties to the agreement, it would have been reported promptly and not after 10 years -- Merely because a document is not traceable in the office records after several years of its issuance, it cannot be said that the document is forged -- Recourse to appropriate civil remedy was required -- Continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law -- FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom quashed.

(Para 16-30)

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 27, 106 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 – Murder – Circumstantial evidence – Recovery of dead body at the instance of the accused – Ransom calls made from the deceased’s mobile phone – Sale of the deceased’s mobile phone by the accused – Recovery of the deceased’s scooty at the disclosure of the accused – Identification of the deceased by relatives and known persons though the body was partially decomposed – Medical evidence establishing homicidal death due to throttling by ligature – Recovery of the dead body and other articles from places known only to the accused constitutes a strong incriminating circumstance – Identification of the deceased cannot be discarded merely on the ground that DNA test was not conducted – Circumstances proved form a complete chain pointing unerringly to the guilt of the accused – Conviction recorded by the Trial Court and affirmed by the High Court held justified – Appeal dismissed – However, considering that the accused has undergone more than 15 years of imprisonment, liberty granted to apply for remission in accordance with the applicable policy.

(Paras 12–30)

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 483 – Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023), Section 109(1), 111(2)(b), 111(5), 121(1), 132, 221 – Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25(1-B)a, 29, 54 – Regular bail – Attempt to murder – Criminal history -- Alleged encounter with police – Petitioner named only in disclosure statement of co-accused and recovery of weapon effected on basis of disclosure statement – Petitioner involved in two other cases under the Arms Act, third for the offence of theft, fourth under the Excise Act and last one is of cheating and fraud -- All these five cases are triable by the Court of Magistrate and the petitioner is on bail in all cases except one FIR -- Till date the petitioner has not been convicted in any of the cases registered against him – Petitioner in custody for more than one year and only 3 out of 33 prosecution witnesses examined – Role yet to be established and no injury caused to police officials – Bail allowed.

(Para 3-9)

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 430 – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 37, 50, 52A – NDPS – Appeal against conviction – Suspension of sentence -- Judicial Magistrate who issued the certificate u/s 52-A was not made a witness -- Gazetted Officer was not produced during trial -- As the prosecution is unable to show that the said 80 packets seized by them during raid were properly classified weighed and sampled and as the said drugs appear to have been mixed up without the order of the competent authority -- Rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act cannot stand in the way in view of such materials on record in favour of the appellants – Sentence suspended.

(Para 18-20)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438, 439(2) -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 483(3) -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B – Cancellation of anticipatory bail – Settlement/ compromise between parties – Terms of compromise not complied with – It is nowhere mentioned in the order that if respondent No.2 failed to comply with the terms of the settlement, his bail order was liable to be cancelled -- Petitioner himself had given no objection despite the fact that some terms of the settlement were not complied with -- Once bail granted, should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner – Petition dismissed.

(Para 9, 10)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 363, 376(2)(i), 201 – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 3, 4 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 106 -- Acquittal -- Rape of four-year old girl – Circumstantial evidence -- Omission in FIR – Investigation lapses -- First Information Report, despite the informant’s professed complete knowledge of the incident, is bereft of even the most rudimentary details, neither the name of the accused person (appellant herein) nor those of the purported witnesses of the last seen together circumstance find mention -- Investigation hopelessly botched and a trial conducted with a  pedantic rigidity that obscured, rather than unveiled, the truth -- Highly unnatural conduct of the witnesses, marked by gross insensitivity/ rank apathy, contradictions and apparent concoctions raises serious doubts about the reliability of the prosecution’s case -- Yet, in face of this disturbing matrix, the accused-appellant stands convicted and has remained behind bars for nearly thirteen long years – Judgment of conviction and order of sentence set aside -- Appellant acquitted.

(Para 2, 24-52, 78)

B. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 393 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 354 -- Criminal trials – Judgment must contain -- More structured and uniform practice must be adopted to enhance the legibility of criminal judgments -- Directions issued to all trial Courts across the country for :  

Preparation of Tabulated Charts in all the judgments:

All trial Courts dealing with criminal matters shall, at the conclusion of the judgment, incorporate tabulated charts summarizing: -

a. Witnesses examined,

b. Documents exhibited, and

c. Material objects (muddamal) produced and exhibited.

These charts shall form an appendix or concluding segment of the judgment and shall be prepared in a clear, structured and easily comprehensible format.

Standardized Chart of Witnesses

Each criminal judgment shall contain a witness chart with at least the following columns:

a. Serial Number

b. Name of the Witness

c. Brief Description/Role of the Witness, such as: Informant, Eye-witness, Medical Jurist/Doctor, Investigating Officer (I.O.), Panch Witness, etc.

The description should be succinct but sufficient to indicate the evidentiary character of the witness. This structured presentation will allow quick reference to the nature of testimony, assist in locating the witness in the record, and minimize ambiguity.

Specimen Chart for Witnesses Examined

Standardized Chart of Exhibited Documents

A separate chart shall be prepared for all documents exhibited during trial. This chart shall include:

a. Exhibit Number;

b. Description of document;

c. The Witness who proved or attested the document.

Illustratively, the description may include: FIR, complaint, panchnamas, medical certificates, FSL reports, seizure memos, site plans, dying declarations, etc.

The requirement of specifying the witness who proved the document ensures traceability of proof and assist the Court in appreciating compliance with the Indian Evidence Act, 1872/ Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.

Specimen Chart for Exhibited Documents

Standard Chart for Material Objects (Muddamal)

Whenever material objects are produced and marked as exhibits, the trial Court shall prepare a third chart with:

a. Material Object (M.O.) Number;

b. Description of the Object;

c. Witness who proved the Object’s Relevance (e.g., weapon, clothing, tool, article seized under panchnama, etc.)

This enables clarity regarding the physical evidence relied upon.

Specimen Chart for Material Objects/Muddamals

Special Provisions for Cases Involving Voluminous Evidence

In complex cases, such as conspiracies, economic offences or trials involving voluminous oral or documentary evidence, the list of witnesses and exhibits may be substantially long. Where the number of witnesses or documents is unusually large, the trial Court may prepare charts only for the material, relevant, and relied-upon witnesses and documents, clearly indicating that the chart is confined to such items. This ensures that the charts remain functional reference tools rather than unwieldy compilations.

Application to Defence Witnesses and Evidence

The aforesaid directions shall apply, mutatis mutandis, to all witnesses examined and all evidence adduced by the defence.

Adoption of Specimen Format and Permissible Deviations

The specimen charts provided herein shall ordinarily serve as the standard format to be followed by trial Courts across the country.

Observations Regarding Applicability to Civil Proceedings

While these directions are primarily intended to streamline criminal trials, we leave it open to the High Courts to consider, wherever appropriate,  the adoption of similar tabulated formats in civil matters as well, particularly in cases involving voluminous documentary or oral evidence, so as to promote clarity, uniformity, and ease of reference.

High Court may consider incorporating the above directions in their respective rules governing the procedure of trial Courts.

(Para 86-90)

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 483 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498A, 304B, 328 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 113B – Constitution of India, Article 14, 21 -- Dowry death – Presumption – Regular bail by High Court – Cancellation of -- Marriage took place on 22.02.2023, and the death occurred on 05.06.2023 i.e. within four months of marriage – Dying declarations to the father and elder sister, coupled with consistent testimony of relatives and post-mortem noting of an abrasion suggestive of restraint, satisfy the foundational requirements of Section 304B IPC -- Consequently, the presumption u/s 113B of the Evidence Act arises inexorably against Respondent No. 1/ husband -- High Court, however, failed to take this statutory presumption into account, and instead relied solely on general bail principles -- Courts has to evaluate the gravity of the offence, the nature of accusations and the prima facie evidence while considering bail – Held, such heinous offences strike at the very root of human dignity and violate the constitutional guarantees of equality and life with dignity under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India -- They corrode the moral fibre of the community, normalize violence against women, and erode the foundations of a civilized society -- Judicial passivity or misplaced leniency in the face of such atrocities would only embolden perpetrators and undermine public confidence in the administration of justice -- A firm and deterrent judicial response is, therefore, imperative, not only to uphold the majesty of law and do justice in the present case, but also to send an unequivocal message that neither law nor society will countenance barbarities born out of the evil of dowry -- Bail cancelled.

 (Para 17.1, 17.2, 25-26)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376, 376(2)(n), 507 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 528 -- Rape -- False promise to marry – Quashing of FIR -- Respondent No.2 continued to meet the appellant and indulged in physical relations with him even though she was already married -- FIR also states that in September 2022, when respondent No.2 found out that she was pregnant with the appellant’s child, she told the appellant, “You live your life and I will live my life” -- At that time, the appellant assured her that they would get married and asked for some time from respondent No.2, to which she refused -- However, despite her refusal to be with the appellant, respondent No.2 continued to meet him at Hotel and engaged in physical relations with him – Held, not a case where the appellant lured respondent No.2 solely for physical pleasures and then vanished -- Relationship continued for a period of three long years, which is a considerable period of time -- They remained close and emotionally involved -- In such cases, physical intimacy that occurred during the course of a functioning relationship cannot be retrospectively branded as instances of offence of rape merely because the relationship failed to culminate in marriage – FIR quashed.

(Para 24-28, 41)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 406, 420 -- Cheating – Criminal breach of trust -- Sale of partnership property by accused -- Cheating – Inducement – Dishonest intention -- There is a clear absence of material on record to attribute any dishonest and fraudulent intention to the appellant-accused at the time of creation of partnership agreement -- No allegation in the complaint indicating either expressly or impliedly any intentional deception or fraudulent/dishonest intention on the part of the appellant-accused right from the time of formation of the partnership deed -- Mere allegations that the appellant-accused dishonestly induced the complainant to part with the property of the partnership firm and subsequently sold the property to a third party does not satisfy the test of dishonest inducement to deliver a property or part with a valuable security as enshrined under Section 420 of the IPC – Complainant failed to place any material on record to show us as to how he had entrusted the subject property to the appellant-accused -- Furthermore, the complaint also omits to aver as to how the property, so entrusted to the appellant-accused, was dishonestly misappropriated or converted for his own use, thereby committing a breach of trust – Complainant has an alternative remedy of filing a civil suit to set aside the sale deed and claim damages for the alleged violation of his contractual rights which he is already pursuing against the appellant-accused which is currently pending adjudication – Held, criminal law ought not to become a platform for initiation of vindictive proceedings to settle personal scores and vendettas – Appellant-accused could not be attributed any mens rea and therefore, the allegations levelled by the prosecution against the appellant-accused are unsustainable – Criminal complaint quashed.

(Para 20, 22, 24, 29)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 406 -- Criminal breach of trust  -- Every act of breach of trust may not result in a penal offence unless there is evidence of a manipulating act of fraudulent misappropriation of a property entrusted to him -- In the case of criminal breach of trust, if a person comes into possession of the property and receives it legally, but illegally retains it or converts it to its own use against the terms of contract, then the question whether such retention is with dishonest intention or not and whether such retention involves criminal breach of trust or only civil liability would depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case.

(Para 21)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 406, 420 -- Cheating – Criminal breach of trust – Cannot co-exist together -- In case of criminal breach of trust, the offender is lawfully entrusted with the property, and he dishonestly misappropriated the same -- Whereas, in case of cheating, the offender fraudulently or dishonestly induces a person by deceiving him to deliver a property -- In such a situation, both offences cannot co-exist simultaneously -- Consequently, the complaint cannot contain both the offences that are independent and distinct -- Said offences cannot coexist simultaneously in the same set of facts as they are antithetical to each other.

(Para 23)

Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 (3 of 1984), Section 3 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 147, 323, 504, 506 -- Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) -- Criminal jurisprudence – Police complaint against public servant by Gram Pradhan – Maintainability of -- No provision in the Cr.P.C., which bars a citizen from filing a complaint for prosecution of a public servant or any other person who has allegedly committed an offence -- No specific provision in the 1984 Act which limits the eligibility of the person making the complaint – Held, High Court manifestly erred in law in holding that since the Gram Pradhan was not the competent authority to lodge an FIR, the action of the Special Judge in taking cognizance and summoning the accused is bad in law -- Impugned order passed by the High Court set aside.

(Para 7-11)

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 348 – Additional evidence -- Video footage and photographs -- Placing on record – On application moved by complainant, the learned trial Court permitted the complainant to place certain documents on record, i.e. the video footage and photographs of the incident – Claimed by the complainant that in the video footage and photographs, the incident has been recorded and given to the Investigating Officer also, but the Investigating Officer having been under the influence of accused-petitioners, has not collected the above mentioned evidence – Held, no illegality or infirmity has been committed by the learned trial Court in permitting the complainant to bring the above mentioned documents on record -- At this stage, when permission to produce the above mentioned documents has been accorded, the admissibility of the above mentioned documents cannot be looked into -- Appreciation of above mentioned point can take place at the time of final adjudication of the trial.

(Para 12, 13)

A. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 59 -- Injured eye witness version -- Ocular evidence is the best evidence unless there are reasons to doubt it -- Testimony of an injured eyewitness is accorded a special status in law -- As being a stamped witness, his presence cannot be doubted -- Deposition by the injured eyewitness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies -- Keeping in view the principle that an injured eyewitness enjoys a presumption of truth and the fact that the same is supported by the medical evidence, testimony does not suffer from any infirmity and has to be considered while fixing the guilt of the appellants.

(Para 33-37)

B. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 8 -- Motive -- Motive although is a relevant factor in all criminal cases, it, however, is not a sine qua non for establishing the guilt of the accused persons -- Motive even in a case which rests on an eyewitness account, lends strength to the prosecution’s case -- Fact of motive has to be seen in the light of the other cogent evidence available -- Fact of a prior enmity on account of the boundary dispute establishes the motive for the commission of the offence.

(Para 42, 43)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 300 Exception 4, 302 – Murder – Culpable homicide not amounting to murder -- Nature and extent of injuries, coupled with the surrounding circumstances, leave no doubt that they were intentionally inflicted -- Use of the sharp edges of spades, phawadas to deliver fatal blows on the heads of the deceased demonstrates that the assailants acted with a clear motive and object of permanently eliminating them, thereby committing their murder -- Thus, the circumstances to bring the case under the fourth exception to Section 300 of the IPC do not exist.

(Para 45)

D. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154 -- Delay in FIR -- It is a settled position that delay in filing of the FIR cannot be considered to be fatal to the case of the prosecution when there is direct evidence and when the delay in filing the FIR is well explained.

(Para 46)

E. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 27 -- Non-recovery of the weapons cannot be considered fatal to the case of the prosecution if there is consistent medical and ocular evidence.

(Para 49)

F. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 173 -- Omission by Investigation officer – Effect of -- Any omission on the part of the investigating officer cannot go against the prosecution’s case -- Story of the prosecution is to be examined dehors such omission by the investigating agency -- Otherwise, it would shake the confidence of the people not merely in the law enforcing agency but also in the administration of justice.

(Para 50)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378, 386 -- Appeal against acquittal – Power of Appellate Court -- Appellate Court has full power to review and reappreciate evidence in an appeal against acquittal u/s 378 and 386 of the Cr.P.C. -- However, due to the reinforced or ‘double’ presumption of innocence after acquittal, interference must be limited -- If two reasonable views are possible on the basis of the record, the acquittal should not be disturbed -- Judicial intervention is only warranted where the Trial Court’s view is perverse, based on misreading or ignoring material evidence, or results in manifest miscarriage of justice -- Moreover, the Appellate Court must address the reasons given by the Trial Court for acquittal before reversing it and assigning its own.

(Para 12)

B. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 7, 20 – Corruption case -- Demand of illegal gratification and acceptance – Presumption -- Statutory presumption u/s 20 of the PC Act is not automatic and arises only once the foundational facts of demand and acceptance are proved.

(Para 18)

C. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 7, 20 – Corruption case -- Acquittal by Trial Court – Conviction in appeal by High Court -- Demand of illegal gratification and acceptance – Proof of – Sole basis of the prosecution to prove demand and acceptance is the narration of the complainant, a close scrutiny of which reveals serious infirmities -- Both, the DSP and the Inspector of ACB, admit they did not question the complainant on this point, and till date no explanation has ever been offered for keeping Mediator/ R out of the room -- They also admit that they did not question any of the other office staff or visitors -- Other mediator B was not examined by the prosecution at all -- These circumstances are nowhere addressed by the High Court -- Such omissions cannot be brushed aside lightly, as they strike at the root of the prosecution version and cast serious doubt on whether demand and acceptance were proved beyond reasonable doubt – Order of acquittal restored.

(Para 20-22, 35)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 195A – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154, Section 195(1)(b)(i), 340 -- Threatening Witness – Offence u/s 195A IPC – FIR  by police -- Permissibility of -- Section 195A IPC was conceptualized as an offence distinct and different from those u/ss 193 IPC, 194 IPC, 195 IPC and 196 IPC -- Those offences require a complaint to be made only by those named in Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC and they were all non-cognizable offences -- However, an offence u/s 195A IPC was a cognizable offence -- Threatened witness or other person may take immediate steps by either giving oral information of the commission of this cognizable offence to the concerned police officer, u/s 154 CrPC, or by making a complaint to a jurisdictional Magistrate, u/s 195A CrPC, so as to set the process of criminal law in motion.

(Para 28, 29)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302, 397, 34 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Parole – To accompany his ailing wife who is suffering from various diseases and maintain social ties with his daughter who is settled in Australia – Held, parole serves a reformative and humanitarian purpose by preserving family ties and supporting rehabilitation -- Despite directions dated 16.09.2025 requiring a decision on his parole within two weeks, the authorities failed to comply -- Such administrative delay cannot be allowed to prejudice the petitioner’s rights -- While parole, no doubt, is a concession, but it is, in essence, a reformative measure grounded in Article 21 of the Constitution, ensuring the right to life with dignity even during incarceration -- Petitioner ordered to be released on parole for four weeks.

(Para 3.1, 9)

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 143, 147 --  Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 278 -- Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (20 of 1958), Section 3, 4, 5 -- Cheque bounce complaints -- Compounding of offence – Release on probation -- Not only a voluntary compromise can bring the proceedings under Section 138 NI Act to an end, but the accused under the said offence are entitled to benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 -- Guidelines of compounding given in Damodar S. Prabhu’s case (2010) 5 SCC 663 modified :-

(a) If the accused pays the cheque amount before recording of his evidence (namely defence evidence), then the Trial Court may allow compounding of the offence without imposing any cost or penalty on the accused.

(b) If the accused makes the payment of the cheque amount post the recording of his evidence but prior to the pronouncement of judgment by the Trial Court, the Magistrate may allow compounding of the offence on payment of additional 5% of the cheque amount with the Legal Services Authority or such other Authority as the Court deems fit.

(c) Similarly, if the payment of cheque amount is made before the Sessions Court or a High Court in Revision or Appeal, such Court may compound the offence on the condition that the accused pays 7.5% of the cheque amount by way of costs.

(d) Finally, if the cheque amount is tendered before Supreme Court, the figure would increase to 10% of the cheque amount.

If the Accused is willing to pay in accordance with the aforesaid guidelines, the Court may suggest to the parties to go for compounding. If for any reason, the financial institutions/complainant asks for payment other than the cheque amount or settlement of entire loan or other outstanding dues, then the Magistrate may suggest to the Accused to plead guilty and exercise the power under Section 255(2) and/or 255(3) of the Cr.P.C. or 278 of the BNSS, 2023 and/or give the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to the Accused.

(Para 35-39)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 143, 147 --  Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 223, 278 -- Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (20 of 1958), Section 3, 4, 5 -- Cheque bounce complaints -- Compounding of offence – Massive backlog – Directions issued :-

-- In all cases filed under Section 138 of the NI Act, service of summons shall not be confined through prescribed usual modes but shall also be issued dasti i.e. summons shall be served upon the accused by the complainant in addition -- Trial Courts shall further resort to service of summons by electronic means  -- Complainant shall, at the time of filing the complaint, provide the requisite particulars including e-mail address, mobile number and/or WhatsApp number/messaging application details of the accused, duly supported by an affidavit verifying that the said particulars pertain to the accused/respondent.

-- The complainant shall file an affidavit of service before the Court. In the event such affidavit is found to be false, the Court shall be at liberty to take appropriate action against the complainant in accordance with law.

-- In order to facilitate expeditious settlement of cases under Section 138 of the NI Act, the Principal District and Sessions Judge of each District Court shall create and operationalise dedicated online payment facilities through secure QR codes or UPI links. The summons shall expressly mention that the Respondent/Accused has the option to make payment of the cheque amount at the initial stage itself, directly through the said online link. The complainant shall also be informed of such payment and upon confirmation of receipt, appropriate orders regarding release of such money and compounding/closure of proceedings under Section 147 of the NI Act and/or Section 255 of Cr.P.C./278 BNSS, 2023 may be passed by the Court in accordance with law. This measure shall promote settlement at the threshold stage and/or ensure speedy disposal of cases.

-- Each and every complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act shall contain a synopsis in the given format.

-- There shall be no requirement to issue summons to the accused in terms of Section 223 of BNSS i.e., at the pre-cognizance stage.

-- Since the object of Section 143 of the NI Act is quick disposal of the complaints under Section 138 by following the procedure prescribed for summary trial under the Code, the Court reiterated the direction given in In Re: Expeditious Trial of cases under Section 138 of NI Act (supra) that the Trial Courts shall record cogent and sufficient reasons before converting a summary trial to summons trial. To facilitate this process, the Trial Court shall be at liberty (at the initial post cognizance stage) to ask questions, it deems appropriate, under Section 251 Cr.P.C. / Section 274 BNSS, 2023 including the following questions:-

(i) Do you admit that the cheque belongs to your account? Yes/No

(ii) Do you admit that the signature on the cheque is yours? Yes/No

(iii) Did you issue/deliver this cheque to the complainant? Yes/No

(iv) Do you admit that you owed liability to the complainant at the time of issuance? Yes/No

(v) If you deny liability, state clearly the defence:

(a) Security cheque only;

(b) Loan repaid already;

(c) Cheque altered/misused;

(d) Other (specify).

(vi) Do you wish to compound the case at this stage? Yes/No

-- The Court shall record the responses to the questions in the order-sheet in the presence of the accused and his/her counsel and thereafter determine whether the case is fit to be tried summarily under Chapter XXI of the Cr.P.C. / Chapter XXII of the BNSS, 2023.

-- Wherever, the Trial Court deems it appropriate, it shall use its power to order payment of interim deposit as early as possible under Section 143A of the NI Act.

-- Since physical courtrooms create a conducive environment for direct and informal interactions encouraging early resolution, the High Courts shall ensure that after service of summons, the matters are placed before the physical Courts. Exemptions from personal appearances should be granted only when facts so warrant. Clarified that prior to the service of summons the matters may be listed before the digital Courts.

-- Wherever cases under Section 138 of the NI Act are permitted to be heard and disposed of by evening courts, the High Courts should ensure that pecuniary limit of the cheque amount is realistic. For instance, in Delhi, the jurisdiction of the evening courts to hear and decide cases of cheque amount is not exceeding Rs.25,000/-. Said limit is too low. The High Courts should forthwith issue practice directions and set up realistic pecuniary benchmarks for evening Courts.

-- Each District and Sessions Judge in Delhi, Mumbai and Calcutta shall maintain a dedicated dashboard reflecting the pendency and progress of cases under Section 138 of the NI Act. The dashboard shall include, inter alia, details regarding total pendency, monthly disposal rates, percentage of cases settled/compounded, average number of adjournments per case and the stage-wise breakup of pending matters. The District and Sessions Judges in aforesaid jurisdictions shall conduct monthly reviews of the functioning of Magistrates handling NI Act matters. A consolidated quarterly report shall be forwarded to the High Court.

-- The Chief Justices of Delhi, Bombay and Calcutta requested to form Committee on the Administrative side to monitor pendency and to ensure expeditious disposal of Section 138 of the NI Act cases. These Committees should meet at least once a month and explore the option of appointing experienced Magistrates to deal with Section 138 of the NI Act cases as well as promoting mediation, holding of Lok Adalats and other alternative dispute resolution mechanisms in Section 138 NI Act cases.

(Para 36)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 195, 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 182 -- False complaint – Kalandra u/s 182 of IPC – Quashing -- Complaint submitted to Director General, State Vigilance Bureau and marked to Deputy Superintendent of Police -- Proceedings u/s 182 IPC initiated by Superintendent of Police -- Held, complaint u/s 182 IPC could be filed only by the concerned public servant or the authority to whom he is administratively subordinate – Even such power cannot be delegated -- Initiation of proceedings by Superintendent of Police void ab initio being without jurisdiction -- Cognizance taken by Magistrate illegal -- Kalandra and all consequential proceedings quashed.

(Para 7, 8)

A. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 3, 65B – Electronic records – Document – Exhibition of Compact Disc (CD) – Playing of CD during deposition – Requirement of -- Author of the video not only deposed that he recorded the video, but he also gave a certificate, as contemplated under subsection (4) of Section 65B of the Evidence Act, to make the CD admissible in evidence – High Court did not dispute that the electronic record was duly exhibited -- High Court opined that the video would become relevant only if it is played during deposition of each witness so that the witness could explain its contents in his own words resulting in a transcript of the video – Held, this is a strange and unacceptable reasoning for the simple reason that the CD is an electronic record and once the requirement of Section 65B is fulfilled it becomes an admissible piece of evidence, like a document, and the video recorded therein is akin to contents of a document which can be seen and heard to enable the Court to draw appropriate inference(s) -- It is not the requirement of law that the contents of the video would become admissible only if it is reduced to a transcript in the words of a witness who created the video or is noticed in the video.

(Para 19)

B. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(C) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 293 – NDPS – Chemical examiner – Deposition of – Requirement of – As far as non-production of Chemical Examiner as a witness is concerned, u/s 293 of CrPC, report of a Chemical Examiner is admissible even if he is not produced as a witness though, the Court may summon and examine him as to the subject matter of the report -- There is no requirement of law that Chemical Examiner would have to be called in each NDPS case to prove the report when it is otherwise admissible under sub-section (1) of Section 293 of CrPC.

(Para 21)

C. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(C), 52A – NDPS – Production of contraband in Trial – Requirements of – Mere non-production of the seized contraband during trial may not be fatal if there is reliable evidence in respect of its seizure, drawing of samples therefrom, and FSL report relating to the sample drawn from the seized material – However, to ensure that no adverse inference is drawn against the prosecution for non-production of the seized contraband, documents prepared in terms of the provisions of Section 52-A, inter alia, evidencing preparation of inventory of seized contraband and drawing of samples therefrom, would have to be brought on record – Likewise, evidence should be there that the sample drawn from the inventory was sent to FSL in a sealed container/ envelop, as per guidelines, and that the seal was found intact at the end of FSL – This is to obviate any doubt regarding sample being tampered in transit – Similarly, FSL’s report along with the sample tested by it is to be placed on record so that there remains no doubt regarding the sample tested.

(Para 30, 31)

D. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 386(b)(i), 391 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(C), 52A – NDPS -- Re-trial – Additional evidence -- High Court, observed that the representative sample was not opened before the Court at the time of recording of statement of the concerned witness -- Be that as it may, this was not a ground to direct for a retrial when the appellate court has power to take additional evidence u/s 391 of CrPC, which, inter alia, can be exercised to exhibit a document or material already on the record of the Court -- And if those defects are fatal to the prosecution, the appellate court is free to take its decision as may be warranted in the facts of the case. But, in any event, it cannot be a ground to direct a re-trial.

(Para 33)

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 3(1)(viii), (ix) & (3)(2)(vii) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 --  Offence under SC/ ST Act -- Quashing of criminal proceedings by High Court – Challenge to -- Dispute occurred between two Scheduled Caste groups, and the same was not driven by caste-based malice -- There was no substantive evidence on record to reflect involvement in the matter beyond the complainant’s time-barred assertions -- Delay itself casts doubt on the credibility of the allegations made against them – No evidence on record which would indicate mala fide intention on the part of Respondent No. 2 or any connivance -- Bald allegations against the Appellant would not in itself be sustainable -- High Court’s order does not call for any interference – Appeal dismissed.

(Para 16-26)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 – Murder – Death sentence converted to life sentence till last breath -- Appellant-convict had barbarically murdered his family members – Probation report concludes that:  Appellant-convict has the ability to adapt, engage in constructive activities, pursue an education despite past difficulty, continued worry about his daughter’s future, shows a notable capacity for reform and personal growth – Appellant-convict’s continued incarceration has had a negative impact on daughter, who is really struggling to cope with life – Interactions with her, threw light on a gentle, loving side of the Appellant-convict – Possibility of reformation; as a criteria, apply to the instant case – It can be said that there is mixed opinion on whether he shall or shall not be able to reform his way, the Court will err on the side of caution just as when there are two possible interpretations of a given set of facts or circumstances, the one that favours the accused is to be adopted – Death penalty may not be appropriate – Appellant should spend his days in jail attempting to repent for the crimes committed by him – Appeals are partly allowed to the extent that he is released from death row – Instead, he shall await his last breath in prison, without remission.

(Para 4, 12, 15, 16)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 45, 106 -- Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (47 of 2023), Section 39, 102 -- Murder -- Circumstantial evidence – DNA evidence – Acquittal -- Despite the presence of DNA evidence, it has to be discarded for the reason that proper methods and procedures were not followed in the collection, sealing, storage, and employment of the evidence in the course of the Appellant-convict's conviction -- DNA evidence is only of probative value, subject to the condition that it is properly dealt with – DNA evidence collected has been rendered unusable, it suffers from various shortcomings in as much as there is large amount of unexplained delay; the chain of custody cannot be established; possibility of contamination cannot be ruled out etc. -- None of the circumstances posited by the prosecution are found to be conclusively proved against the Appellant-convict -- Chain of circumstantial evidence in no way points to a singular hypothesis, that is the guilt of the accused, ruling out his innocence or involvement of none else in the crime -- Conviction of the Appellant-convict vacated, he is directed to be released forthwith -- Appeal allowed.

(Para 35, 43, 45)

B. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 45 -- Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (47 of 2023), Section 39 -- DNA Evidence – Procedure to be followed – Directions issued, in all cases where DNA Evidence is involved:

1. The collection of DNA samples once made after due care and compliance of all necessary procedure including swift and appropriate packaging including a) FIR number and date; b) Section and the statute involved therein; c) details of I.O., Police station; and d) requisite serial number shall be duly documented. The document recording the collection shall have the signatures and designations of the medical professional present, the investigating officer and independent witnesses. Here only we may clarify that the absence of independent witnesses shall not be taken to be compromising to the collection of such evidence, but the efforts made to join such witnesses and the eventual inability to do so shall be duly put down in record.

2. The Investigating Officer shall be responsible for the transportation of the DNA evidence to the concerned police station or the hospital concerned, as the case may be. He shall also be responsible for ensuring that the samples so taken reach the concerned forensic science laboratory with dispatch and in any case not later than 48-hours from the time of collection. Should any extraneous circumstance present itself and the 48-hours timeline cannot be complied with, the reason for the delay shall be duly recorded in the case diary. Throughout, the requisite efforts be made to preserve the samples as per the requirement corresponding to the nature of the sample taken.

3. In the time that the DNA samples are stored pending trial appeal etc., no package shall be opened, altered or resealed without express authorisation of the Trial Court acting upon a statement of a duly qualified and experienced medical professional to the effect that the same shall not have a negative impact on the sanctity of the evidence and with the Court being assured that such a step is necessary for proper and just outcome of the Investigation/Trial.

4. Right from the point of collection to the logical end, i.e., conviction or acquittal of the accused, a Chain of Custody Register shall be maintained wherein each and every movement of the evidence shall be recorded with counter sign at each end thereof stating also the reason therefor. This Chain of Custody Register shall necessarily be appended as part of the Trial Court record. Failure to  maintain the same shall render the I.O. responsible for explaining such lapse.

The Directors General of Police of all the States shall prepare sample forms of the Chain of Custody Register and all other documentation directed above and ensure its dispatch to all districts with necessary instruction as may be required -- States requested to examine the necessity of conducting training of the Investigating Officers to ensure full compliance.

(Para 44, 45)

Constitution of India, Articles 14, 21 -- Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (49 of 2016), Section 2(h), 3, 39, 40, 47(1)(a) – Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 (10 of 1993), Section 2(d) -- India’s international obligations under the UNCRPD, Article 31 -- Tamil Nadu Prison Rules, 1983, Rules 196, 197, 198(iii) – Right of person with disabilities in prison -- Directions issued in the larger public interest to uphold the dignity, and healthcare rights of prisoners with disabilities in all custodial settings -- The obligations herein are rooted in India’s constitutional guarantees, statutory mandates, and international human rights commitments – Direction issued for immediate and time-bound compliance:

1) All prison authorities shall promptly identify prisoners with disabilities at the time of admission. Each prisoner shall be given an opportunity to declare any disability and provide information about their specific needs.

1.1) All rules, regulations, and essential information about prison life shall be provided to such prisoners in accessible and understandable formats (e.g., Braille, large print, sign language, or simplified language).

2) All prison premises shall be equipped with wheelchair-friendly spaces, accessible toilets, ramps, and sensory-safe environments to ensure universal accessibility.

3) All prisons shall designate and maintain dedicated spaces for physiotherapy, psychotherapy and other necessary therapeutic services.

4) A State-level access audit of all prisons in Tamil Nadu shall be completed within six months by an expert committee comprising officials from the Social Welfare Department, the Department for the Welfare of Differently Abled Persons, and certified access auditors.

4.1) Periodic audits shall thereafter be conducted and updated regularly in accordance with the Harmonized Guidelines and Standards for Universal Accessibility in India (2021).

5) The prison authorities shall ensure complete compliance with Sections 40 and 45 of the RPwD Act, 2016, Rule 15 of the 2017 Rules and the Harmonized Guidelines, 2021 in all prison infrastructure and services.

6) The State shall provide healthcare for prisoners with disabilities equivalent to that available in the community, including access to physiotherapy, speech therapy, psychiatric services, and assistive devices (such as wheelchairs, hearing aids, and crutches).

7) All prison medical officers shall be adequately trained and sensitized to address disabling conditions, ensuring provision of appropriate accommodations and treatment without discrimination or bias. Furthermore, regular awareness and sensitization programmes shall be conducted in all prisons.

8) Every prisoner with a disability shall be provided a nutritious and medically appropriate diet, tailored to their specific health and dietary needs.

9) Lifesaving treatments, including regular and need-based physiotherapy and psychotherapy must be made available on-site or through linkage with government health facilities. 10) All prison staff shall undergo comprehensive training on the rights of persons with disabilities. This training shall include:

- awareness of equality and non-discrimination principles

- proper handling of disability-related challenges

- use of appropriate language and behaviour, as per the UN Handbook on Prisoners with Special Needs.

11) The State Prison Manual shall be reviewed and appropriately amended within six months to ensure conformity with the RPwD Act, 2016 and the UNCRPD.

11.1) A specific section must be incorporated to prohibit discrimination against prisoners with disabilities and promote equal treatment and reasonable accommodation.

11.2) The revised Manual shall be prominently displayed in every prison establishment.

12) The State shall undertake periodic consultations with civil society organisations working in the disability sector to develop inclusive policies and identify accommodations based on real needs.

13) The State shall constitute a monitoring committee to conduct periodic inspections and submit compliance reports every three months.

14)The State shall maintain and update disaggregated data on the disability status of prisoners, including records on accessibility, reasonable accommodations, and medical requirements.

14.1) This is to ensure compliance with Article 31 of the UNCRPD and the RPwD Act, 2016.

14.2) The data shall be made available in the public domain, subject to privacy safeguards.

15) The Director General of Prisons shall file a comprehensive compliance report before the State Human Rights Commission within three months from the date of this judgment, detailing all steps taken in furtherance of these directions.

(Para 35, 35.1)

A. Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners’ (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 (11 of 1962), Section 1 -- Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 2022 (15 of 2022), Section 1 – Parole/ Temporary release – Object of – The very object of the Act is humanitarian in nature -- Providing opportunities for temporary release ensures that the ties between the prisoner and the society are not severed -- Ensuring that the incarcerated have healthy roots in the society greatly assists in their rehabilitation and reintegration -- It also incentivizes the inmates to maintain good conduct while in custody, that aids the jail authorities in administration as well.

(Para 7)

B. Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners’ (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 (11 of 1962), Section 3(1)(d) -- Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 2022 (15 of 2022), Section 3 – Constitution of India, Article 215 -- Parole/ Temporary release – Delay in disposal – Contempt against competent authority -- The incarcerated cannot be expected to live at the whims and fancies of the State and neither does their incarceration entitle the administration to jeopardize their fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India -- Since the statute itself bestows the convict with the right to be considered for temporary release and enlists circumstances therefor, it is all the more vital to decide such applications expeditiously. Directions issued :

All applications pertaining to temporary release on parole shall be decided by the concerned authority within a period of 04 months from receipt of such application -- In case, these directions are not adhered to without any justifiable cause, the convicts would be at liberty to move an appropriate application under Article 215 of the Constitution of India seeking initiation of contempt of Court proceedings against the officials concerned – Copy of judgment ordered to be supplied to States of Punjab and Haryana as well as U.T. Chandigarh for compliance thereof.

(Para 8-13)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302, 34 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 483 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Murder – Regular bail – Speedy trial – Right of -- Petitioner is behind the bars from the last 03 years, 11 months and 02 days -- Investigation is complete -- Charges were framed and trial of the case has not made much progress – Right to speedy trial is enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India -- Speedy trial would cover investigation, enquiry, trial, appeal, revision and retrial etc. i.e. everything starting with the accusation against the accused and expiring with the final verdict of the last Court -- If a person is deprived of his liberty under a procedure which is not reasonable, fair, or just, such deprivation would be violative of his fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India – Bail allowed.

(Para 7-10)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 307, 323, 506, 341, 148, 149 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 483 -- Murder – Regular bail -- FIR was lodged on 04.01.2023 – Deceased was alive till 22.02.2023 – No effort was made to get the other assailants identified – NS/ Eyewitness in his statement made on 16.01.2023 nominated two others to be the conspirators, he did not name the petitioner to be amongst assailants -- It is only on 25.03.2023 i.e. after the death of injured, the petitioner was arrested on the identification of NS/ eye witness -- Charges framed by the trial Court on 11.10.2024 -- Matter adjourned several times for recording prosecution evidence -- However, the most material witness are not appearing despite repeated summons and bailable warrants -- Petitioner is in custody for the last 2 years 3 months and 3 days and he is not involved in any other criminal case -- Prosecution may take long time to conclude its evidence – Bail allowed.

(Para 8-10)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 8, 106 -- Murder – Acquittal -- Circumstantial evidence – Motive -- Recovery of weapon -- A blood-stained weapon even bearing the same blood group as that of the victim would not be sufficient to prove the charge of murder – Regarding motive, the evidence are very vague and vacillating -- Law is well settled that in an appeal against acquittal, interference can only be made if the only possible view based on the evidence points to the guilt of the accused and rules out his innocence -- Prosecution failed to lead clinching evidence to bring home the charges -- Impugned judgment of acquittal does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference – Appeal dismissed.

(Para 6-10)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304A – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 528 -- Causing death by negligence -- In order to attract the offence u/s 304A, the death must be the direct or proximate result of the rash or negligent act of the accused -- Petitioner cannot be attributed with criminality in taking up the work, since the harm involved, due to the passing of live electric wires, adjacent to the building was not foreseeable -- Unfortunate incident occurred when the worker stretched his hand while fixing the reducing coupling, as part of the plumbing work, and accidentally touched the live wire -- In such circumstances, the petitioner cannot be attributed with either rashness or negligence – Criminal proceedings quashed.

(Para 5, 6)

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 528 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 142, 148, 323, 506 -- Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (47 of 2023), Section 9 -- Quashing of FIR/ Charge-sheet – Plea of alibi – Held, plea of alibi put forward by the petitioners cannot form a ground for quashing the impugned challan -- Veracity of the defence put up by the petitioners can be gone into by the trial court – High Court in exercise of its powers u/s 528 of BNSS cannot hold a mini trial -- In case, the petitioners feel that their defence of alibi has not been investigated by the Investigating Agency, it is open to them to approach the learned trial Magistrate before whom charge sheet has been filed and seek further investigation of the case -- Petition dismissed.

(Para 6-8)

A. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 57, 187, 483 – Constitution of India, Article 21, 22 (2) – Arrest of accused – Non-production before Magistrate – Regular bail – Right of -- Petitioner admitted in hospital for last 45 day after the date of his arrest – His status is not of a free person but of an arrestee -- No order u/s 187 BNSS was passed by the Magistrate -- In absence of any order of remand beyond the period of 24 hours from the time of his arrest, his arrest gets vitiated on completion of 24 hours in custody -- Since such non-production of the petitioner, even through video conferencing mode, beyond 24 hours in custody amounts to violation of Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India, his fundamental right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is also violated and, on that count, the petitioner is entitled to go on bail – Bail allowed.

(Para 14-18)

B. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 57, 187 – Constitution of India, Article 21, 22 (2) – Arrest – Production before Magistrate -- Arrestee shall have to be produced before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours -- Where the arrestee is injured and requires urgent medical care have to be rushed to the hospital for providing urgent medical treatment -- However, in such cases also the Magistrate may ascertain the condition of the arrestee through video conferencing or personally visiting such arrestee -- After the arrest of a person if he is not released on bail, an order for remand to judicial custody has to be made -- Magistrate may authorize his detention either in judicial or in police custody -- Unless, such an order is passed, the initial arrest of the petitioner beyond the period of 24 hours from the time of his arrest, would become illegal.

(Para 15, 16)

A. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 8 – Relevant fact – Absconding of accused – Effect of -- Mere absconding by itself does not constitute a guilty mind as even an innocent man may feel panicky and may seek to evade the police when wrongly suspected of being involvement as an instinct of self-preservation -- But the act of abscondence is certainly a relevant piece of evidence to be considered along with other evidence and is a conduct u/s 8 of the Evidence Act, 1872, which points to his guilty mind -- Needle of suspicion gets strengthened by the act.

(Para 10.9.2)

B. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 8 – Motive – Circumstantial evidence -- Motive is something that is very difficult to prove as it remains hidden in the deep recess of the mind of the person concerned and in the absence of any open declaration by the person concerned himself, the motive has to be inferred from the activities and conduct of the person -- While proof of motive certainly strengthens the prosecution case based on circumstantial evidence, failure to prove the same cannot be fatal.

(Para 10.11.2, 10.11.3)

C. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 106 -- Circumstantial evidence -- If upon evaluation of a set of proved circumstances consistent with understandable and socially recognised human behaviour, as a cumulative consequence, a clear and definitive pattern emerges which irresistibly points to the culpability of the accused person, Court see no reason why it should not accept such an inferred conclusion to be correct to fasten criminal liability on the accused -- If such an inference is sought to be assailed on the ground of any doubt, the doubt must be a reasonable one consistent with human behaviour under the circumstances of the case and not fanciful, abstract speculation or imagination.

(Para 10.12.1)

D. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 106 -- Circumstantial evidence – Onus of proof -- Recovery of weapon – Effect of -- Prosecution cannot depend on the false alibi or unproven defence plea since the onus is always on the prosecution to prove the prosecution case and the onus never shifts to the accused – If weapon of crime was traced to the accused, it was incumbent upon the appellant/ accused  to explain the circumstances of the recovery of the weapon with which a linkage has been established with the injury suffered by the deceased through scientific evidence -- Apart from claiming ignorance and denying the various incriminating evidence presented during the trial, the appellant chose not to adduce any evidence to explain these circumstances -- Silence and failure to explain any of the incriminatory circumstances, would strengthen the prosecution case based on circumstantial evidence against him as proved by the Prosecution.

(Para 10.15)

E. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 106 -- Circumstantial evidence -- If upon evaluation of a set of proved circumstances consistent with understandable and socially recognised human behaviour, as a cumulative consequence, a clear and definitive pattern emerges which irresistibly points to the culpability of the accused person, no reason why it should not accept such an inferred conclusion to be correct to fasten criminal liability on the accused -- If such an inference is sought to be assailed on the ground of any doubt, the doubt must be a reasonable one consistent with human behaviour under the circumstances of the case and not fanciful, abstract speculation or imagination.

(Para 10.12.1)

F. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 313 – Non-explanation of evidence by accused -- Adverse inference -- Examination of an accused u/s 313 CrPC is to enable the accused to prepare and strategize his defence – Accused will have all the opportunities to discredit any prosecution witness or question any evidence and lead his defence evidence if any -- Despite the incriminating evidence which has come up against him has been pointed out to him by the Court, he has not explained any of these but merely denied or feigned ignorance to which necessary inference can be drawn against him.

(Para 10.16.1, 10.16.2)

G. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 106 -- Murder -- Circumstantial evidence -- Last seen theory – Dead body of the deceased was recovered in a decomposed state, three days after the deceased was last seen together with the appellant -- As per postmortem, the death occurred 3/4 days before the postmortem examination -- Dead body was discovered with gunshot wounds on the head -- A double barrel gun with 2 spent and 1 live cartridges were recovered at the instance of the appellant -- As per the opinion of the ballistic expert, the gun showed signs of discharge and was in working condition, pellets and wads were recovered from the brain/ skull of the dead body, and these could have been fired through the gun examined and the double-barrel gun could be dismantled. Following circumstances and acts of the appellant strengthens the linkage.

(i) The appellant remained hidden from 11.07.2006 till 22.07.2006. He was arrested on 22.07.2006 after extensive search on numerous locations after the identification of the identity of the dead body on 14.07.2006.

(ii) The appellant had misled his friends, his family members and that of the deceased.

(iii) Personal effects of the deceased like gold chain was recovered from the appellant.

Appellant’s silence and failure to explain any of the incriminatory circumstances, would strengthen the prosecution case based on circumstantial evidence against him as proved by the Prosecution -- Conviction of the appellant by the Trial Court which the High Court upheld does not warrant any interference.

(Para 10, 11)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376(2)(n) -- Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 3(2)(v) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Rape – Promise to marry – Quashing of FIR -- No material on record to substantiate the allegations of cheating or sexual intercourse under a false promise of marriage – de-facto complainant is a highly educated woman aged 30 year, in the chat, she admitted that she was manipulative and was trying to “get a green card holder” -- It would not be difficult for her to trap the next one -- She would not waste time with the accused appellant and needs to “invest on the next victim” -- She would irritate her victims to the extent that they dump her, and she could happily start with the next one -- She also stated that she was using the accused-appellant -- Accused/ appellant was absolutely justified in panicking and backing out from the proposed marriage upon coming to know of the aggressive sexual behaviour and the obsessive nature of the de-facto complainant -- It cannot be said that the offence was committed by appellant/ accused with the de-facto complainant on the ground that she belonged to the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes community – FIRs and all proceedings consequence thereof quashed in entirety.

(Para 22-31)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 120B, 420, 468, 471 -- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 13(2), 13(1)(d) -- Quashing of criminal proceedings -- Cheating, forgery and corruption in bank loan – OTS with Bank – Effect of – Dispute culminated in a comprehensive One Time Settlement under which the Bank has received the entire outstanding amount -- Recovery proceedings before the tribunal have been dismissed as settled and no residual claim survives -- Bank has not raised any objection to the closure of the matter and has issued formal acknowledgments of satisfaction -- In identical proceedings the charge sheets quashed – Settlement having taken place after the alleged offence and there being no continuing public interest, the Court saw no justification for allowing the matter to proceed further found appropriate to quash the proceedings -- Appeals allowed.

(Para 7-10)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 306, 34 – Abetment to suicide -- Frequent quarrels – Ground of -- Frequent quarrels between the petitioner and the deceased arising out of misunderstandings and discord these alone are not sufficient to constitute an offence u/s 306 of the IPC -- Such disputes between a husband and wife may be considered part of the ordinary wear and tear of marital life and, without credible and substantial evidence, cannot be treated as instigation or abetment to suicide.

(Para 4)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 306, 34 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 483 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Abetment to suicide – Regular bail -- Petitioner has already suffered incarceration of 1 year, 1 day and is a person of clean antecedents; co-accused has already been granted the concession of regular bail -- Investigation is complete, challan stands presented and charges framed, out of 14 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined so far -- Conclusion of trial is likely to take considerable time and therefore, detaining the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period would solve no purpose – Right to speedy trial is a part of reasonable, fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India -- This constitutional right cannot be denied to the accused -- Bail allowed.

(Para 4, 5)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 20, 37 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 483 – Constitution of India, Article 21 – NDPS Case -- Commercial quantity -- Recovery of 3 Kg 500 grams of Sulfa (charas) – Regular bail -- FIR on secret information -- Alleged recovery from the public place -- Petitioner is behind bars for 01 year, 05 months and 02 days -- No criminal antecedents as he is not involved in any other case – Accused has a right of speedy trial -- Only 02 prosecution witnesses have been partially examined, out of total 17 prosecution witnesses -- Veracity of the allegations would be assessed only after the conclusion of the trial – Bail allowed.

(Para 4-10)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 500 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154, 156(3), 173, 199 – FIR for defamation – Permissibility of -- Whether there can be a Chargesheet u/s 500 IPC -- Procedure for initiating any Complaint for defamation, has been specifically provided u/s 199 Cr.P.C – FIR could not have been registered u/s 500 IPC, in view of the express bar u/s 199 Cr.P.C. -- Cognizance for the offence u/s 500 IPC could have been undertaken only on a Complaint u/s 200 Cr.P.C filed by the “Person Aggrieved”; no cognizance for the offence u/s 500 IPC can be taken on an FIR -- Furthermore, even the contents of the Complaint do not prima facie establish any case of defamation -- Summoning Orders set aside.

(Para 38-43, 57, 58)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 500 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154, 156(3), 199 – FIR for defamation – Offences under other Sections also – Permissibility of -- Irrespective of there being other Sections involved in the FIR or not, the cognizance u/s 500 could have been only on the Complaint and not on the FIR.

(Para 45)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 499, 500 -- Defamation -- In order to constitute “defamation? u/s 499, there must be an “imputation” with the “intention” to harm the reputation of the person about whom such imputation is made -- It would have to be shown that the accused intended or knew or had the reason to believe that such imputation would harm the reputation of the complainant or that he would be directly or indirectly suffered by it.

(Para 52)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 306 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 227, 228 -- Abatement of suicide – Discharge of accused -- No normal person could have imagined that a scolding, that too based on a complaint by a student, would result in such tragedy due to the student so scolded taking his own life -- No mens rea can be attributed to the appellant much less, with regard to abatement of suicide committed by the deceased -- Appeal allowed, order framing charge against the appellant under Section 306 of the IPC set aside.

(Para 8, 9)

A. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 8, 22 – Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (15 of 2003), Section 3, 50 -- NDPS – PMLA – Discharge in NDPS case – Continuity in Money laundering offence – Permissibility of -- Money laundering itself is a separate crime, distinct from the original (or scheduled) offence like corruption, drug trafficking, fraud, etc. -- Even if the scheduled offence is tried under Indian Penal Code, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Act, etc., money laundering is prosecuted separately under PMLA -- Offence u/s 3 is dependent on the scheduled offence, but it is a separate and independent offence once the activity of laundering begins -- Mere discharge or quashing  of a FIR by a competent court does not automatically result in the quashing of an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) filed under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 -- Discharge in the predicate offence may influence the procedures under the PMLA; however, it cannot be regarded as an automatic or definitive basis for nullifying the ECIR.

(Para 30, 40, 41)

B. Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (15 of 2003), Section 3, 50 -- PMLA – Not an accused in scheduled offence – Effect of -- A person can be prosecuted for money laundering even if they are not directly involved in the commission of the scheduled offence, so long as they are involved in the laundering process -- A person accused of an offence u/s 3 PMLA need not necessarily be shown as an accused in the scheduled offence.

(Para 31, 32)

C. Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (15 of 2003), Section 3, 50 -- Discharge in the predicate offence -- Summon u/s 50 of PMLA – Nature of -- Enforcement Directorate's authority to summon individuals u/s 50 is intended for the acquisition of factual evidence pertaining to money laundering offences; obtaining a summons under this section does not inherently indicate that one is an accused in a money laundering investigation -- This indicates that the individual may have information or documents pertinent to the investigation -- Issuance of summons is a fundamental component in the execution of a fair and unbiased investigation -- It affords the relevant parties an opportunity to be heard, to articulate their case, and to address the allegations levied against them -- Issuance of summons under the PMLA should be regarded as an essential element of due process, intended to advance the rule of law and bolster public trust in the legal system -- Discharge in the predicate offence, albeit substantial, does not, as a legal principle, impact the ongoing validity of the summons -- Mere discharge of the petitioner concerning the predicate offence does not, in itself, grant the Court the power to annul the summons.

(Para 34-39)

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 13(1(d) -- Criminal misconduct by public servant – Corruption case -- No allegation in the chargesheet that the appellant obtained for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage -- No allegation that the appellant agreed to accept or accepted any gratification -- No allegation that he had agreed or accepted any valuable thing or had dishonestly misappropriated or converted for his own use any property entrusted to him – Held, the ‘criminal misconduct’ as provided in Section 13(1) is not attracted -- Direction to frame charge for the offences u/s 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act set aside.

(Para 14, 15)