Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Part-time temporary employee – Regularisation of -- Petitioner, who is part-time employee is not entitled to seek regularization as she did not work against any sanctioned post – As per regularization policy, the petitioner does not fulfill the requisite condition of appointment -- Writ petition dismissed.

(Para 10-12)

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 34, 37 -- Challenge to arbitration award -- Limitation -- No finding as to when the signed copy of the award was served upon the appellant – Held, Ld. District Judge should have inquired and found out the date of receipt of the signed copy of the arbitral award -- In absence of having done so, the Ld. District Judge has failed to appreciate the law that the period of limitation for challenging an award u/s 34 of the Act commences from the date on which the party making the application has received a signed copy of the arbitral award – Matter remanded back for fresh decision.

(Para 4-6)

Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servant Dying in Harness Rules, 1974, Rule 2(c) (iii), 5 -- Compassionate appointment -- Daughter-in-law – Right of -- Daughter-in-law is also supposed to be treated as a daughter as she is also an integral part of the family -- An exceptional situation created as though the husband of the petitioner is alive but he is having more than 75% disability and he is unable to earn/ work – Liberal construction required -- Writ petition allowed, direction given to reconsider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment as per Rule 5.

(Para 13-15)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 22 Rule 4, 5, 6 (As amended in Haryana) – Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (39 of 1987), Section 21 – Non-impleading L.R’s of deceased party -- Lok Adalat Award against dead person – Decree against dead person – Difference in -- An award in a Lok Adalat is passed only when the parties to the suit consent to it parties must be present before the Lok Adalat and also consent to passing of an award on the basis of which the settlement of dispute will take place is a sine qua non and a mandatory requirement for a valid and legal award -- In an adjudication, having regard to the provisions of the amendment as applicable to the State of Punjab, Haryana and U.T. of Chandigarh proceedings in a suit could take place and judgment could be rendered even in the absence of the legal representatives of the deceased party being brought on record, the reason for the same is that by a fiction the deceased person is deemed to be alive as on the date of passing of the judgment -- Such a fiction cannot apply to passing of an award in a Lok Adalat.

(Para 18, 19)

B. Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (39 of 1987), Section 21 -- Award of Lok Adalat – Presence of parties – Requirement of -- In order to have a validity in the eye of law, it is a sine quo non and a mandatory requirement that the parties to the litigation to the lis must not only express their consensus to arrive at a settlement but also be physically present in person or through a power of attorney holder or be present through video conferencing facility at least to affirm their agreement to a compromise arrived at before the Lok Adalat lest there would be chances of impersonation and cases of fraud.

(Para 20)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 256 – Complaint case -- Non-appearance of complainant – Dismiss in default – Acquittal -- Where the Magistrate is satisfied that the personal attendance of the complainant is not necessary, he can dispense with the attendance of the complainant and proceed with the case -- Such a situation may arise where complainant’s/ prosecution’s evidence has been recorded and to decide the case on merits, complainant’s presence is not necessary.

(Para 8-10)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 395, 397 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 9 -- Dacoity – Acquittal – Test identification Parade (TIP) -- In the absence of proper identification parade being conducted, the identification for the first time in the Court cannot be said to be free from doubt – Other circumstance that the Courts relied for resting the order of conviction is with regard to the recovery of an iron rod, which could be found anywhere – No stolen article recovered from the appellant – Conviction order not sustainable in law, quashed and set aside.

(Para 7-9)

A. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 18, 52A -- NDPS case – Duty of prosecution -- Investigation – Tempering with samples -- It is the fundamental duty of the prosecution to prove beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt that the investigation conducted in the case is absolutely flawless, specifically with regard to the link evidence, which is of utmost significant aspect -- It is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove that from the stage of affecting the recovery till the sample reaches the Chemical Examiner, there was no chance of tampering with it -- Once the presumption is stumbling on this vital aspect, the benefit is to be extended to the accused.

(Para 27)

B. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 18, 52A -- NDPS case -- Acquittal -- Tempering with sample -- Chemical report (Ex.PL) does not indicate who deposited the case property and whether it reached the office of Chemical Examiner in intact condition -- Report does not mention the description of seals, number of seals available on the sample parcel, nor does it provides that seals on sample parcel (if any) matches with the sample seal -- Report also does not indicate any sample seal or CFSL form were received in the office of Chemical Examiner – Held, Chemical report failed to establish that sample parcel remained in intact condition throughout till it reached the office of chemical examiner, and further that it was the same -- It cannot be asserted that link evidence is complete -- Conviction of appellant set aside.

(Para 30, 53)

C. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 18, 52A -- NDPS case – Acquittal -- Material infirmity in investigation  – Investigating Officers, ASI (PW-2) and SI (PW-6) did not comply with the provisions of Section 52-A (2) (c) of the Act, which provides drawing of sample before learned Magistrate – Appellant has not only challenged the seizure but also contested the investigation proceedings due to non-drawing of sample before learned Magistrate – It raised substantial doubts and shatters the foundational strength of the prosecution's claim that the recovered substance was contraband – Ld. trial Court fell into grave error, in recording conviction to the appellant -- Rather, benefit of same should have gone to the appellant – Conviction set aside.

(Para 31-38, 53)

D. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 18, 57 -- NDPS case – Investigation -- Seizure Memo – Signature of accused – Requirement of -- Seizure memo (Ex.PB) is not attested by the appellant -- No reason has been assigned as to why the appellant was not made to attest the recovery memo, a material document showing the recovery of contraband from the appellant-accused – It cast doubts on the fairness of the investigation conducted by the Investigating Officer.

(Para 39)

E. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 52A, 57 -- NDPS case – Acquittal -- Investigation – SI (PW-6), Investigating Officer admitted that he did not prepare CFSL form and special report as required u/s 57 of the Act is also not on record -- Other material witnesses ASI (PW-2), who partly conducted the investigation and ASI (PW-3), a recovery witness, both have stated that CFSL form was neither prepared at the spot nor deposited along with case property in Malkhana -- (PW-4) judicial Malkhana keeper, also deposed that CFSL form was not deposited in the Malkhana along with case property – No reason given for not handing over the seal after use to an independent witness, who was joined in the recovery -- Apprehension of possible misuse of seal and tampering of case property cannot be ruled out -- Conviction set aside.

(Para 40, 41, 53)

F. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 52A, 57 -- NDPS case – Recovery of contraband – Sample from --  Duty of prosecution – Keeping in view the stringent punishment, provided for the offence, punishable u/s 18 of the Act, it was required of the Investigating Officer, to strictly comply with the provisions of the Act, so that no doubt is cast on the prosecution story.

(Para 42)

G. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 52A, 57 -- NDPS Case -- Tampering of sample – CFSL Form -- Preparation of CFSL Form is an important safeguard against the allegation of tampering of the sample.

(Para 43)

Constitution of India, Article 227 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 21 -- Compensation in land acquisition case -- Security bonds for release of payment – Permissibility of -- Held, condition imposed by the Executing Court qua furnishing of security bonds by the petitioners-land owners to be totally unjustified -- It is a statutory entitlement of the land owner -- Unless there is any specific direction or order from the Appellate Court, no Executing Court is authorized to ask for any guarantee, surety, security or bonds of any kind for releasing the money to the entitled land owner.

(Para 1-7)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 419, 420 -- Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000), Section 66, 43(J), 66D (Amendment of 2008) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Cheating -- Regular bail -- Trial Court recorded the examination-in-chief of 12 prosecution witnesses (PW-1 to PW-12) one after the other on different dates without recording their cross-examination in the absence of Accused/ Appellant’s Advocate -- Appellants in custody since 8th January 2023 -- A case is made out for enlarging the appellants on bail, pending the trial subject to stringent terms and conditions.

(Para 2-8)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 242, 244 -- Criminal trial -- Evidence in the absence of Advocate – Permissibility of -- Trial Court ought to have provided a legal aid Advocate to the appellants-accused so that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses could have been recorded in the presence of the Advocate representing the appellants-accused -- Trial Court detected to hold a de novo trial.

(Para 5-11)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 242(3) – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 138 -- Examination of witness – Non-cross-examination of – Permissibility of -- Ld. Magistrate, by recording reasons, can permit cross-examination of a witness to be postponed till a particular witness or witnesses are examined -- Normal rule is that witnesses shall be examined in the order laid down in Section 138 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 -- Sub-section (3) of Section 242 of the Cr.PC is the exception to the rule -- Recording only the examination-in-chief of 12 prosecution witnesses without recording cross-examination is contrary to the law -- Trial Court directed to hold a de novo trial.

(Para 7-11)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 336, 338, 465, 466 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 202 -- Medical negligence – Summoning of Medical Professional as accused -- Cataract operation without doing any pre-operative assessment/ test --  Only Blood Sugar and BP was recorded -- No pre-operative intra-ocular pressure was recorded -- Increased IOP in both the eyes was found in post operative period is suggestive of pre-existing glaucoma – Finding of learned Additional Sessions Judge to the effect that glaucoma could develop at any time and that it could have developed even after surgery conducted by the respondent, is based upon conjectures and surmises and without any basis -- Summoning order passed by learned JMIC u/s 336, 338, 465, 466 IPC restored.

(Para 9-15)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438, 482 -- Transit anticipatory bail – FIR in another State -- Court of Sessions or the High Court as the case may be can exercise jurisdiction and entertain a plea for limited anticipatory bail/ transit bail by way of interim protection for a limited duration even if the FIR has not been filed within its territorial jurisdiction -- FIR registered at Hyderabad City -- Petition disposed of with the directions that the arrest of the petitioner shall remain stayed for a period of 15 days to enable him to file an appropriate petition for the grant of anticipatory bail before the appropriate Court at Hyderabad in the State of Telangana.

(Para 7, 8)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 9 Rule 13 – Ex-parte decree – Setting aside of -- Suit transferred from the courts at Gurugram to the courts at Pataudi -- For one date, two summons were issued to the counsel, the report on both the summons was different -- Summons sent for service on the respondent, Process Server visited his house it was disclosed by the respondent’s wife that her husband is serving in Delhi Police, however, no attempt was made by the plaintiff to serve the respondent at his office address -- Court has only granted an opportunity to respondent to contest the case – Revision dismissed.

(Para 5-8)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Cheque bounce complaint -- Proprietorship Firm as party – Requirement of -- Neither it is the case of the petitioner/ accused that the amount in question had been advanced as loan to the firm nor the cross-examination of the complainant suggest any such stand of the petitioner -- Firm in question is a sole proprietorship firm of the petitioner/ accused and, as such, it cannot be said that the petitioner would not be responsible for the affairs of the said firm – Guilt of the petitioner/ accused upheld.

(Para 9)

Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899), Section 47A – Deficient stamp duty – Limitation -- Sale deed was registered and the reference was made by the Sub-Registrar to the Collector pertaining to alleged deficiency in stamp duty after a period of 9 years – Writ petition allowed and impugned orders quashed.

(Para 1-6)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 21 Rule 37 -- Execution of decree – Conditional order of arrest -- Passing of order of conditional warrant of arrest without giving notice to the JD is in violation of the provisions of Order 21 Rule 37 CPC -- Court is bound to issue notice to the JD calling upon him to appear in the Court for showing cause against his detention in civil prison.

(Para 8)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 174A – Settlement in cheque bounce complaint – Proclaimed person -- Quashing o FIR u/s 174A IPC -- Proceedings under the N.I. Act culminated in a settlement with the withdrawal of the complaint – F.I.R. u/s 174-A of IPC along with all subsequent proceedings quashed.

(Para 11-13)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 148 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 389 -- Cheque bounce case -- Appeal against conviction -- Suspension of sentence – Pre-condition of deposit of 20% of compensation amount -- Appellate Court required to consider whether the case falls in the exception or not -- Appellate Court directed to re-examine the case.

(Para 4)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 26 Rule 9 – Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Appointment of Local Commissioner – Maintainability of revision -- No revision would be maintainable against an order dismissing an application for appointment of a Local Commissioner -- 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 land -- Prima facie there does not appear to be any dispute regarding demarcation of the land inasmuch as the suit simpliciter is for possession and mandatory injunction -- It is for the plaintiff-petitioner to prove her case and she cannot take the aid of the Court agency for creating evidence for her – Application for appointment of Local Commissioner dismissed.

(Para 8, 9)

Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 -- Service matter -- Show cause notice – Writ jurisdiction -- Charge-sheet or the inquiry proceedings cannot be challenged unless there is some adverse order passed in pursuance to the said inquiry proceedings -- Ordinarily no writ lies against the show-cause notice and the writ petition cannot be entertained as a matter of routine.

(Para 6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 406, 420, 506, 120-B -- Haryana Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishment Act, 2013 (32 of 2014), Section 3 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Cheating with investors – Regular bail -- Amount of Rs.7 lakh deposited in the account of petitioner by the complainant -- Petitioner arrested on 28.12.2020, only 11 witnesses out of the 68 cited by the prosecution have been examined till date -- Husband of the petitioner, who is the prime accused is behind bars – Whole case of the prosecution rests on documentary evidence, which has already been collected by the police and is part of the challan – Bail allowed.

(Para 3-7)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Tripple riding – Contributory negligence -- No evidence to show that the accident took place due to triple riding -- Argument by Insurance Company that since there were two pillion riders on the motorcycle and that by itself would amount to contributory negligence, rejected.

(Para 9)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Deceased was 21 years of age was a graduate -- In the absence of any income proof he is treated as a skilled worker -- Income of a skilled worker at the relevant point of time was Rs.3,000/- per month -- One claimant i.e. mother of the deceased and hence a deduction of 50% ought to have been applied -- Claimant would be entitled to addition of 40% towards future prospects -- Multiplier of ‘18’ awarded – Total compensation assessed at Rs.5,37,600/- -- Interest @ 7.5% per annum awarded on enhanced compensation.

(Para 10-12)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11, Section 149 -- Rejection of plaint – Late deposit of court fee -- Plaintiff furnished/ filed the Court-fee, as asserted/ alleged by the defendant in his application to be deficit -- Even trial Court had the occasion to pass any order for making the alleged deficiency good and to grant him the time for doing so – Application for rejection of plaint dismissed – Revision not maintainable.

(Para 2-7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 304 Part II – Culpable homicide not amounting to murder -- Death of the deceased occurred on account of his chance intervention in the fight between the accused and PW-3 – No intention on the part of the accused to cause the offence as against the deceased -- Appellant must be given the benefit of conversion of the offence from 302 to 304 Part II – Appellant already in custody for over 14 years excluding the period of remission  -- Maximum punishment is only 10 years or with fine or with both -- Appellant ordered to be released.

(Para 6-9)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 202 – Accused residing beyond jurisdiction – Enquiry before summoning -- Enquiry with respect to Section 202 CrPC can be conducted by the Magistrate himself – It is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in order to determine whether process has to be issued or not -- Neither there was any requirement to join the accused nor it is required that all the witnesses shall be examined.

(Para 4, 6, 6.1)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 202 – Accused residing beyond jurisdiction – Enquiry before summoning -- Process issued after the complainant examined as many as six witnesses including himself and a handwriting expert after considering the documents brought on record by the complainant and the documents/ reports brought on record by the handwriting expert -- Requirement of enquiry substantially complied with.

(Para 4, 6.2)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 – Temporary injunction against co-sharer -- Plaintiffs and defendants are joint owners in possession over land and nobody has been shown to be in the exclusive possession over the suit land -- It is trite law that the no injunction is to be granted against the other co-sharer.

(Para 9)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 – Temporary injunction against co-sharer -- Co-sharer cannot be restrained from raising construction over the joint land except when co-sharer results in ousting of other co-sharer or is detrimental to the rights of other co-sharers -- Possession of one co-sharer is possession of all in the eyes of law -- So, even if the respondents raise construction over some portion, it will be subject to partition and respondents cannot claim any preferential right over a particular chunk of land due to raising of construction over it.

(Para 10)

Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 16 -- Suit for specific performance – Agreement to sell -- Forfeiture of earnest money -- Ready and willing to perform -- Earnest money is a payment towards security for performance of the contract on the part of the proposed buyer -- Once, the buyer fails to prove that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, the amount of earnest money is liable to be forfeited.

(Para 16)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 41 Rule 27, Section 96 – Additional evidence in appeal -- It is incumbent upon learned Appellate Court to consider the application for additional evidence along with the hearing of the appeal on merits -- Addl. District Judge decided the application without deciding the appeal -- Impugned order set aside.

(Para 12-14)

Medical re-imbursement – Unapproved hospital – Emergent situation -- PGI rates -- Once a person is suffering from a disease like cancer, any sudden development in health can turn the situation in a critical situation -- Patient cannot wait to seek approval from the Medical Board -- Once, a particular hospital starts the treatment, then shifting of the treatment in between is also not advisable – Wife of the petitioner was suffering from cervical cancer --  Medical reimbursement for treatment taken in an unapproved hospital ordered to be approved at PGI rates.

(Para 7-10)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319 – Summoning of additional accused -- Petitioner never raised any grievance by filing a complaint to the senior police officers -- Improvements made while deposing before the learned trial Court cannot form the basis for exercising the extraordinary power u/s 319 Cr.P.C -- Mere statement of the complainant, which is not substantiated by any credible material, cannot be a ground to invoke the discretionary and extraordinary power of the  Court to summon an additional accused u/s 319 Cr.P.C.

(Para 3)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319 – Summoning of additional accused -- In the absence of any material suggesting existence of more than prima facie case available during the course of trial of an offence, courts ought to refrain themselves from exercising its discretionary and extraordinary power under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

(Para 3)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 406 -- Transfer of cheque bounce complaint -- Several complaint cases u/s 138 of the N.I. Act are pending in the Court at Gurugram, Haryana and it is a solitary case which was instituted in the Court at Dwarka – Parties to the proceedings are residents of Gurugram and the witnesses are also hailing from Gurugram – Complaint transferred from Dwarka Court, New Delhi to the Court of the Gurugram, Haryana.

(Para 3-6)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Cheque bounce complaint – Quashing of complaint – Basic ingredients – Requirement of -- Submission that complaint does not contain date of presentation of cheque before the bank, the date of return of the cheque as unpaid from the bank, the date of issuing mandatory notice within 30 days and the date of service of such notice on the drawee – Held, complaint cannot proceed u/s 138 of the N.I. Act without the basic ingredients being mentioned therein – Proceedings of Complaint case quashed.

(Para 2, 5, 6)

Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 22 – Interpretation of Section 22 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 --  Suit for specific relief – Alternative relief -- It enshrines the over-riding effect of this section over the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – It enabled any person suing for specific performance of a contract to also seek additional relief of possession, partition and any other relief to which he may be entitled to including refund of earnest money or deposit, paid or made by him – Such alternative relief does not in any way adversely impact the primary relief i.e. specific performance of the agreement to sell -- Alternative relief is granted by the Court only in a case where the Court does not find it appropriate to grant the primary relief -- However, the alternative relief does not substitute the primary relief -- Language of Section 22 brings forth the clear intention of the legislature to enable the plaintiff to seek additional as well as alternative relief in the same suit.

(Para 15)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420, 467, 406, 468 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Anticipatory bail – Cheating -- Petitioner already facing prosecution u/s 138 of the NI Act -- Submitted that mere dishonour of cheque does not amount to cheating – Appeal allowed, in case of arrest petitioner be released on bail by the arresting/ investigating officer/ trial court.

(Para 1-4)

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 34, 37 – Arbitration appeal – Stay -- Substantive appeal pending against an order made on a petition u/s 34 of the Arbitration Act -- It will be appropriate if the interim stay continued till the disposal of the appeal -- If the appeal is not heard within a period of one year, it will be open for the respondent to make a fresh application in the pending appeal for withdrawal of the amount on appropriate terms and conditions.

(Para 3-5)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation  in motor vehicle accident case -- Agriculturist deceased -- Details of the land owned by the deceased, as well as, full particular and proof of the livestock were not filed -- Income of the deceased taken as Rs.8,000/- per month.

(Para 3)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166, 173 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Injury case -- Compensation of Rs.17,04,451/- along with interest @ 6% per annum awarded -- Due compensation was not determined under different heads -- Right leg from below the knee was amputated for artificial limb, no amount was granted -- Appellant was working as a welder, this aspect should have been given due consideration -- Global enhancement of Rs.3,00,000/- additionally granted in the interest of justice.

(Para 8-11)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22 (c), 29 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Regular bail – High Court rejected the bail – Appellant   in custody for approximately 1 year 9 months -- Charge-sheet filed on 18.7.2022, additional charge-sheet has to be filed and 20 witnesses are to be examined in the trial -- In the earlier case the petitioner acquitted, as he is a trader dealing in medical products – Bail allowed.

(Para 3-7)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- DDR stating that a stray cow suddenly came in front of the motorcycle and all three fell on the road and injuries occurred to claimant -- In the claim petition a different version was put forward  that a cow suddenly came in front of the motorcycle and meanwhile, a car also emerged on the scene and the driver of the motorcycle and the car tried to save the cow – No allegation of rash and negligent driving on the part of the car driver -- Tribunal dismissed the claim petition -- No illegality or irregularity in the impugned award has been pointed out – Appeal dismissed.

(Para 5)

Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870), Section 7 -- Ad-valorem court fee -- Suit for declaration qua the suit property to be coparcenary property of Joint Hindu Family of the parties and also challenged to the transfer deed -- Relief of permanent injunction also sought – Transfer deed was not executed by the petitioners/ plaintiffs and possession was not sought -- No ad valorem Court fee, is required to be filed.

(Para 2, 12, 13)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498A, 323 -- Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, (28 of 1961), Section 4 – Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (20 of 1958), Section 4 – Appeal against acquittal – Duty of Appellate Court -- Limitation -- Trial Court acquitted the appellants -- Sessions Court convicted the appellants, however, granted a relief of probation -- High Court has not gone into the question, whether the Sessions Court was aware of the limitations of the appeal against acquittal -- 3 prosecution witnesses and 7 defence witnesses have been examined, there is not even a reference to the depositions of the said witnesses in the impugned judgment -- Impugned order set aside, matter  remanded for fresh consideration by the High Court.

(Para 3-5)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 389 – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 13(2), 13(1)(e) -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 109 – Representation of the People Act, 1951 (43 of 1951), Section 8(3) – Suspension of conviction/ sentence -- High Court overturned the acquittal and has convicted the appellant for three years – Appellant who is a MLA will incur disqualification as a result of the conviction -- High Court has not considered the main question whether the view taken by the Special Court was a possible view -- Conviction and sentence suspended. Afjal Ansari’s case (2024) 2 SCC 187 relied.

(Para 2-6)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 8, 18, 29, 67 – NDPS Case – Acquittal -- Confessional statement – Reliance upon -- Witnesses turned hostile, appellant was convicted and sentenced by taking recourse to Section 67 of the NDPS Act – Impugned order set aside, appellant acquitted of all the charges. Balwinder Singh (Binda)’s case (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1213 relied.

(Para 1-3)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(c), 25 and 29(1) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – NDPS case – Regular bail -- No effective steps taken to conclude the trial -- Petitioner was arrested on 11.03.2022 and is in custody since then -- Bail declined, the Special Judge directed to make an endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously and preferably within six months.

(Para 5, 7)

Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (104 of 1956), Section 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 120-B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Objectionable position at Spa Centre – Quashing of FIR – For the past 4½ years, none of the prosecution witnesses has been examined and the petitioner is facing the agony of prolonged trial – Owner as well as the Manager of the Spa against whom specific allegation was levelled, have been exonerated by the Investigating Agency – Petitioner at best was found in the objectionable position with one of the girls working in the said spa – No offence u/s 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 of the 1956 Act read with section 120-B IPC made out – FIR and all the subsequent proceedings quashed qua the petitioner.

(Para 5-7)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 200, 204 -- Complaint – Dismiss in default – Permissibility of -- Before issuance of process u/s 204 of Cr.P.C. the complaint cannot be dismissed in default for non-prosecution due to the non-appearance of the complainant.

(Para 6-8)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Composite liability – Other tortfeasor not party -- Claimant is entitled to sue both or any one of the joint tortfeasors and to recover the entire compensation as the liability of joint tortfeasors is joint and several -- Tribunal held that it was a case of composite negligence and since only one of the tortfeasors was impleaded as a party alongwith the insurer, the claimant-appellants would be entitled to claim only 50% of the compensation awarded – Said finding cannot be sustained, set aside -- Claimants would be entitled to the entire compensation.

(Para 7, 8)

Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 27, Article 64, 65 -- Suit for possession – Limitation of 12 years -- Adverse possession -- Defendant/ appellant has not set up the plea that his possession was adverse -- In the earlier case, defendant took the plea that suit property was given by his father in the family settlement, which, he failed to prove -- Possession of defendant is permissive possession and suit cannot be held to be barred by limitation -- An owner of the property cannot be deprived to get possession of the property.

(Para 19)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 384, 506, 120-B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Extortion – Anticipatory ball -- On the contention that the maximum sentence provided for commission of offences as alleged in the FIR is upto 3 years and no notice u/s 41-A Cr.P.C. was issued -- Petitioners joined the investigation and are not required for further custodial interrogation – Interim order made absolute -- Petition allowed.

(Para 2-5)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21(a), 22 -- NDPS case – Recovery of unbranded loose capsules -- Out of 1130 capsules, two samples of 10 capsules each were separated and therefrom only one sample was sent to FSL -- As per report of FSL, 648 mg of “Dextropropoxyphene Napsylate”, was found in each capsule -- Entire recovery could not have been presumed to have contained the salt of “Dextropropoxyphene Napsylate” -- Ld. Special judge convicted the respondent/ accused for sentence already undergone of 06 months & 02 days besides imposition of fine of Rs.3000/- and in case of default, RI for 15 days -- No illegality or perversity – Appeal dismissed.

(Para 7-9)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Bachelor deceased – Since the deceased was a qualified person and had completed his course in BCA, Court deemed it appropriate to assess his income as Rs.15,000/- per month – Deduction to the extent of 50%, multiplier of ‘17’ would be applicable keeping in view the age of the deceased being 26 years at the time of the accident – 40% addition made towards future prospects -- Claimant-appellants would be entitled to Rs.18,000/- (Rs.15,000+20% increase) towards loss of estate and Rs.18,000/- (Rs.15,000+20% increase) towards funeral expenses and the claimant-appellants, being parents of the deceased, would also be entitled to Rs.48,000/- each (Rs.40,000+20% increase) towards loss of consortium -- Total Compensation of Rs.22,74,000/- awarded with interest.

(Para 5-9)