A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 139 – Cheque bounce complaint -- Legally enforceable liability -- Loan -- Money lending licence – Requirement of -- Complainant was involved in money-lending business without possessing any valid license -- Respondent/ accused used to borrow money from him -- Claim of the applicant/ complainant against the respondent is an unenforceable claim and thus, cannot be considered a legally enforceable liability u/s 138 of the NI Act.

(Para 4)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378(4) -- Cheque bounce complaint -- Acquittal by Trial court – Leave to appeal -- Power of the Appellate Court to unsettle the order of acquittal on the basis of re-appreciation of the evidence is subject to the settled law that where two views are possible and out of the two, one points towards the innocence of the accused, the view which favours the accused should prevail over the other pointing towards his guilt.

(Para 5)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 96, Order 42 Rule 5 -- First Appeal – Stay application – Non-decisioning upon – Warrant of possession by Executing Court -- Executing Court directed to suspend the order of issuance of warrant of possession and postpone it for another fifteen days – Ld. Appellate Court directed to decide the stay applications on the date already fixed, or any other date convenient to the Court but not beyond fifteen days thereafter.

(Para 10)

A. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 43, 49 -- NDPS case -- Recovery from vehicle in transit – Procedure of search, seizure and arrest -- Case set up by the prosecution is regarding recovery of narcotics from a vehicle which was stopped during transit -- Procedure of search and seizure would be governed by Section 43 read with Section 49 of the NDPS Act.

(Para 17)

B. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(c) – NDPS case – Weighment of contraband -- Evidence of Seizure Officer and the confession-cum-seizure panchnama would reveal that recovered contraband have ganja as well as green chillies -- Seizure Officer made no effort whatsoever to conduct a separate weighment of the contraband by segregating the chillies -- Rather, the panchnama is totally silent about presence of chillies with the bundles of ganja – Thus, it cannot be said with any degree of certainty that the recovered ganja actually weighed 80 kgs.

(Para 19)

C. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(c) – NDPS case – Discrepancy in sample – Acquittal -- Seizure Officer stated that he collected three samples of ganja at the spot made and handed over one sample to accused -- Apparently only two sample packets remained for being sent to the FSL -- Three samples reached the FSL -- This discrepancy completely shatters the prosecution case -- Appellants acquitted.

(Para 19-25)

D. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(c), 52A -- NDPS case – Acquittal -- Making of inventory and sample -- No proceedings u/s 52A of the NDPS Act were undertaken by the Investigating Officer for preparing an inventory and obtaining samples in presence of the jurisdictional Magistrate -- In this view of the matter, the FSL report is nothing but a waste paper and cannot be read in evidence --  Appellants acquitted.

(Para 22-25)

E. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 25 – Confession of accused -- It is trite that confession of an accused recorded by a Police Officer is not admissible in evidence as the same is hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act.

(Para 23)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 – Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870), Order 7 (i) -- Ad-valorem court fees – Rejection of paint – Specific/ quantified amount for damages claimed – Plaintiff claimed Rs.50 (fifty) lac, from the defendants as damages/ compensation -- Trial Court directed the plaintiffs to pay ad-valorem court fee payable – Order upheld.

(Para 1-5)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 – Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870), Section 7 (i) -- Ad-valorem court fees – Rejection of paint – Quantified/ Tentative damages claimed -- Plaintiffs have specifically quoted recovery of the sum of Rs.10 lac as tentative amount of damages/ compensation – This fact makes it crystal clear that they have quantified the damages/compensation, as sought to be recovered from the defendants -- Mere use of the word ‘tentative’ would not suffice – Trial Court directed the plaintiffs to pay ad-valorem court fee – Order upheld.

(Para 1-5)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82 (2)(i)(a) -- Constitution of India, Article 21 – Cheque bounce complaint -- Proclamation of service -- Provision of Section 82 Cr.P.C. being stemming from Article 21 of the Constitution of India thus inviolable, needs to be complied with mandatorily -- Statement of the serving constable was recorded in the shape of a printed proforma, mentioned that the proclamation was “announced in the public”, however, it has nowhere recorded that the proclamation was ever “read publically”  -- Statement of executant police official was on a printed proforma instead of same having been recorded in Court, raises doubt,  making the petitioner entitled for its benefit -- Proclamation having not been read publically, resulting into non-compliance of Section 82 (2) (i) (a) of Cr.P.C., therefore, the order passed by the learned JMIC set aside.

(Para 6, 7)

Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), Section 17 – Indian Succession Act, 1925 (39 of 1925), Section 2(h) -- Registered Will – Un-registered Will -- There is no mandatory requirement to get the Will registered -- It is optional -- Unregistered Will is equally valid.

(Para 15)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 227, 239, 240 -- Framing of charge – Role of Court – It is only to form a presumptive opinion with regard to the existence of the factual ingredients breaching the threshold of the offence alleged -- At the stage of formation of opinion under Sections 227, 239 and 240 Cr.P.C., the trial Court is not required to weigh the probative value of the material brought on record in the golden scale or to presume the prosecution story as gospel truth.

(Para 8)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 227 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 307, 324 – Attempt to murder – Framing of charge -- Intention or knowledge to cause death is a sine qua non to attract the offence u/s 307 of the IPC – Neither the injuries sustained have been grave enough to be dangerous to life, nor a prima facie case has been made out to indicate the intention of the petitioners-accused to cause death of the complainant – Sufficient material not available on record to frame charge u/s 307 of the IPC, rather adequate grounds are made out to attract offence under Section 324 of the IPC – Impugned order set aside to the extent of framing of charge u/s 307 of the IPC -- Matter  remanded back to the learned trial Court to frame charges afresh.

(Para 12-15)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Anticipatory bail – Interim bail – Non-cooperation in investigation – Ground of -- An accused, while joining investigation as a condition for remaining enlarged on bail, is not expected to make self-incriminating statements under the threat that the State shall seek withdrawal of such interim protection – No reason for custodial interrogation of the appellant --  No aggravating factor either, which would justify his detention at the investigation stage – Petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 5-7)

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 3(2), 5, 14A – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 147, 148, 302, 307 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Challenge to validity of charge-sheet – Appeal under SC/ ST Act -- Inherent powers of High Court – Held, remedy of filing an appeal u/s 14-A of 1989 Act available, petitioner cannot invoke the inherent powers of High Court u/s 482 Cr.P.C -- Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed, leaving it open to the applicant to file an appeal.

(Para 15)

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 112 -- Divorce – Cruelty -- Paternity of child –  Disputants/ couple lived together as husband and wife between 2008 and 2019 -- Presumption in favour of legitimacy u/s 112 of the Evidence Act springs forth qua the minor child -- Appellant/husband chose not to question the paternity of the child till November 2020 -- Adulterous relationship of wife could be gone into without subjecting the child to a paternity test – Family Court rejected the application for paternity test -- No reason to interfere with the judgment -- Appeal dismissed.

(Para 2, 7-9)

A. Advocates Act, 1961 (25 of 1961), Section 22, 24A, 25 -- Enrolment as an Advocate -- Provisional degree by University – Presumption of eligibility -- When University has issued the Provisional Degree Certificate and Convocation Certificate to the petitioner, there is a presumption of eligibility of the candidate to be conferred the certificate -- It is not for any other authority to question the certificate on the ground of ineligibility to obtain the certificate, until and unless the certificate is cancelled by an appropriate authority and/or by a Court of law.

(Para 8)

B. Advocates Act, 1961 (25 of 1961), Section 22, 24A, 25 -- Enrolment as an Advocate -- Provisional Degree Certificate and Convocation Certificate by University – Held, University was established by a statute, recognized by the University Grants Commission, approved affiliated Centre of Legal Education / Departments of recognized University as approved by the Bar Council of India for the purpose of enrolment – Rejection of petitioner's application is unsustainable -- Respondents directed to consider the petitioner's request for enrolment afresh, expeditiously.

(Para 8, 9)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439(2) – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 18 – NDPS case – Cancellation of  bail – Concealment of fact – Misuse of bail -- Respondent-accused misrepresent and concealed the factum of his involvement in another case under the NDPS Act wherein also a huge recovery of 91 kgs of opium was effected but it is evident that he has misused the concession of bail granted to him as he has yet again been involved as an accused in a case under the NDPS Act in the State of Punjab – Prima facie, the respondent-accused comes across as a habitual offender as his involvement in cases under the NDPS Act is writ large – Bail cancelled.

(Para 6, 7)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 133, 138 –Removal of nuisance – Opportunity of hearing -- SDM proceeded simply on the basis of report submitted by the officials of the Municipal Council – Order set aside by Ld. ASJ – Held, no evidence is required to be recorded while passing a conditional order u/s 133 Cr.P.C but the respondent had made appearance before learned SDM and had filed his reply, opposing the conditional order to be made absolute and, therefore, in those circumstances, SDM was required to provide opportunity to the parties to produce their evidence as per Section 138 of Cr.P.C. – Order upheld.

(Para 7-13)

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 4, 6 – Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 27 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Acquisition of land – Right of subsequent purchaser – Adverse possession – Plea of -- Award was announced on 22.01.1992 -- Possession of the acquired land including the disputed land was taken over by HSVP vide Rapat dated 26.01.1992 -- Petitioner purchased the disputed land vide sale deed dated 15.04.1997 -- Sale transaction after finalization of the acquisition proceedings would not confer any right or benefit on the petitioner -- Any transaction thereafter would be void ab initio – Petitioner cannot be permitted to raise the plea of adverse possession once he claims ownership/ title on the basis of sale deed -- Writ petition dismissed.

(Para 5-10)

A. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13(3)(iii)(a) – Bonafide need – Statutory pleadings – Amendment in rent petition – Amendment allowed by appellate authority – Permissibility of -- Rent Controller dismissed the respondent’s petition on the ground that he has not disclosed the fact that he has taken possession of ground floor of the commercial premises -- Application for permission to amend the rent petition was dismissed, appellate Court allowed the same – Held, only a procedural amendment in order to fulfill the statutory requirement was allowed -- Such amendments, which do not need any evidence but are necessitated by requirement of law should not delay the decision of the case – No ground to interfere – Revision petition dismissed.

(Para 7-9)

B. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 -- Bonafide need -- Tenant has no right to dictate the terms to the landlord -- Landlord claims that the premises is required for the bonafide requirement of his wife, who wants to run her boutique -- Even if the property is situated in a market, which is predominantly trading in iron (metal), still there is no prohibition in opening a boutique.

(Para 10)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Finding of Tribunal – Effect on criminal proceedings -- Insurance Company at liberty to pursue its criminal remedies available under the law and that any observations made by the Tribunal and the High Court would not come in the way of prosecuting its rights.

(Para 10)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Forging of insurance policy – Onus of proof -- Plea of Insurance Company that the owner did not step into the witness box and that they had no chance to cross-examine the owner would be of no avail as the objection that the policy itself was forged and fabricated was not pressed in all sincerity by the Insurance Company even before the Tribunal -- At no point of time was any application filed by respondent No.2-Insurance Company for getting an issue framed regarding the insurance policy being forged and fabricated -- Insurance Company held liable to pay the compensation.

(Para 10, 11)

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 139 – Cheque bounce complaint – Presumption of liability -- Complainant is not obliged to prove the loan or the financial capacity --  Once the presumption u/s 139 of the NI Act is available to the complainant, entire burden shifts upon the accused to rebut that presumption.

(Para 16)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 139 – Cheque bounce complaint – Loan or the financial capacity -- Entry in Income tax return – Requirement of -- Complainant in his testimony stated that he did not show the amount lent to the complainant in his income tax returns but that in itself cannot be a ground to disbelieve the complainant -- Non-mentioning of the loan amount in the Income Tax Returns may attract penal provision of Income Tax Act but cannot be a reason to discard the case of the complainant.

(Para 4, 17)

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 11, 20 – Appointment of Arbitrator – Territorial jurisdiction of Court -- Seat of arbitration – Relevancy of -- Once the contracting parties have chosen a particular place as the venue of arbitration, only that venue chosen will be the seat for the purpose of arbitration -- Only a court having jurisdiction over the venue of arbitration will have jurisdiction to entertain an application for the appointment -- Parties have chosen Hyderabad to be the venue of arbitration -- Application u/s 11 of Act, 1996 for appointment of an arbitrator before Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court – Application  dismissed as not maintainable with liberty to the petitioner to approach the court of competent jurisdiction.

(Para 14-15)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 415, 417 – Cheating – Quashing of proceedings – Non-performing of marriage -- There can be multiple reasons for initiating a marriage proposal and then the proposal not reaching the desired end -- In order to prove an offence of cheating in such cases prosecution must have reliable and trustworthy evidence in order to first prosecute such a case -- No such evidence before the prosecution and therefore no offence u/s 417 made out -- Order of the Trial Court to the extent it has refrained from quashing the proceedings u/s 417 IPC against the present appellant set aside – Appeal allowed.

(Para 5-8)

A. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 36A – NDPS case -- Extension of period of 180 days for challan -- As per the mandate of Section 36A(4), the special Court may extend the period of 180 days up to one year on the report of the Public Prosecutor which must indicate the progress of the investigation and the specific reasons for detention of the accused beyond the period of 180 days.

(Para 12)

B. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 36A – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167(2) -- NDPS case – Default bail -- Extension of period of 180 days for challan -- An application seeking extension of time to file challan was simply forwarded by Additional Public Prosecutor -- Public Prosecutor/ Additional Public Prosecutor did not submit any progress report -- Only reason given was that report of FSL is still awaited and arrest of co-accused is also pending -- While forwarding the said application, no endorsement was made by the Additional Public Prosecutor that he applied his mind and was satisfied with the progress of the investigation and further did not assign any specific reasons for the detention of the accused beyond the statutory period of 180 days -- This aspect is also missing in the application moved by Anti Narcotic Cell – Impugned order granting extension of time set aside -- Indefeasible right of bail u/s 167 (2) of Cr.P.C accrued to the petitioner – Default bail allowed.

(Para 12-16)

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 15 -- Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000), Section 67(A), 67B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Pornography material uploaded on facebook – Anticipatory bail -- On the contention that petitioner is a student aged about 18 years, nobody make any complaint, the police has registered the FIR on the basis of Cyber Tip line -- Petitioner used to play online games on internet and his facebook ID was known to some of his friends and they had misused his account and ID to upload the pornographic material -- Offences are punishable up to 05 years, interim bail granted -- Petitioner has joined the investigation and is not required for further custodial interrogation – Interim order made absolute.

(Para 2-4)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 21 Rule 37, 40(1) – Execution of decree – Civil imprisonment -- When executing Court exercises discretion of issuing show cause against the detention in prison then executing Court has to follow the procedure laid down in clause (1) of Rule 40 of Order 21 which provides that after issuance of notice under Rule 37, the Court shall proceed to hear the decree holder and to take all such evidence as may be produced by him in support of his application for execution and shall then give the judgment-debtor an opportunity of showing cause why he should not be committed to the civil prison.

(Para 8)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 51, Order 21 Rule 37, 40(1) – Execution of money decree – Civil imprisonment -- Merely because there is a money decree in favour of respondent/D.H., the petitioner/J.D. who has no property or source to pay the decreetal amount, cannot be sent to civil prison because poverty is not an offence -- Impugned order also does not show that executing Court has followed the provisions contained in Section 51, Order 21 rule 37 and 40 CPC in their true letter and spirit -- Impugned order set aside with further direction to executing Court to decide the application under Order 21 rule 37 CPC afresh in accordance with the law.

(Para 8-11)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 307 – Attempt to murder – Petitioner had received a total of 17 injuries on his legs and arms -- Except injury No.1, all other injuries were opined to be caused by blunt weapons -- Only injury No.1 on the left lower leg was found to be caused by a sharp-edged weapon -- Investigating agency has deleted the offence u/s 307 IPC after obtaining the opinion of the Board of Doctors -- Nature of weapon used and parts of the body in which the injuries were allegedly inflicted would not attract the offence u/s 307 IPC.

(Para 6-8)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 307 -- Attempt to murder -- To attract the provisions of Section 307 IPC, following ingredients must exist:-

(i) Attempt to commit murder of a human being was made.

(ii) Accused must have made an attempt with intention of causing death or with an intention to cause such bodily injuries, as the accused has the knowledge that these injuries are likely to cause death.

(iii) Accused has made an attempt to cause death by doing an act to be so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death.

Intention and knowledge within the meaning of Section 307 IPC can be gathered either from the act of the accused or from the nature and extent of injuries -- Intention cannot be inferred from the ipse dixit of the complainant -- Mere recording of expression that the accused had caused injury with intention to kill would not breach the threshold of Section 307 IPC.

(Para 7, 8)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 216 – Alteration of charge -- Complainant cannot invoke the provisions of Section 216 Cr.P.C.

(Para 8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 306 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Abetment to suicide – Regular bail -- Veracity of the prosecution case against the petitioner and his co-accused shall be adjudicated upon during the course of the Trial -- Petitioner is custody since 22.09.2023 and only 02 out of the 13 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far, therefore, the Trial is not likely to be concluded anytime soon -- Further incarceration not required – Bail allowed.

(Para 6, 7)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Nature of evidence -- Proceedings before the learned Tribunal are summary in nature and the facts are required to be proved on the touchstone of preponderance of probability -- Since Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation, so, strict proof of liability cannot be made applicable for grant of compensation.

(Para 12)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Delay of two days in disclosing number of offending vehicle -- Delay explained, that Panchayat was convened for effecting compromise in the matter -- Owner-cum-driver of offending vehicle did not step into the witness-box -- No evidence brought on record  -- Adverse inference is required to be drawn against him -- Challan has already been presented against respondent no.3, for causing the accident in rash and negligent manner and for causing death, he is facing trial for the same -- Accident in question held to be caused by respondent no.3.

(Para 13-16)

Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (39 of 1987), Section 22C -- Execution of award passed by Permanent Lok Adalat (PUS) -- Execution pending adjudication since 21.10.2022 – In view of guidelines issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rahul S. Shah’s case (2021) 6 SCC 418, (Executing Court must dispose of the Execution Proceedings within six months from the date of filing, which may be extended only by recording reasons in writing for such delay) direction issued to learned Executing Court to expedite the proceedings in letter and spirit by making earnest and sincere efforts, without prejudice to the rights of either petitioner or respondents.

(Para 6-8)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 415, 420 – Cheating – Criminal offence u/s 420 read with Section 415 of the IPC is not established in the absence of deception by making false and misleading representation, dishonest concealment or any other act or omission, or inducement of the complainant to deliver any property at the time of the contract(s) being entered.

(Para 9)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420 – Cheating -- Recovery of money – Role of police -- A prayer is made to the police for recovery of money from the appellants -- Police is to investigate the allegations which discloses a criminal act -- Police does not have the power and authority to recover money or act as a civil court for recovery of money.

(Para 9)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 405, 406, 420 -- Cheating – Criminal breach of trust -- Same act or transaction cannot result in an offence of cheating and criminal breach of trust simultaneously -- For the offence of cheating, dishonest intention must exist at the inception of the transaction, whereas, in case of criminal breach of trust there must exist a relationship between the parties whereby one party entrusts another with the property as per law, albeit dishonest intention comes later.

(Para 10)

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 139 -- Blank cheque – Presumption -- Even if a blank cheque leaf is voluntarily signed and handed over by the accused towards some payment would attract the presumption u/s 139 of the Act and in the absence of any cogent  evidence to show that the cheque was not issued in discharge of the debt, the presumption would hold good.

(Para 5)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 139 -- Blank cheque – Age of ink – Forensic opinion – Application for -- Accused has signed the cheque -- Only dispute is with regard to the age of the ink used in making the signature on the cheque and the age of the signature and contents of the cheque – Held, application was wholly frivolous -- Trial Court rightly rejected the application.

(Para 4-7)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Appellant Nos.2 and 3 (daughter and son) were students at the relevant time, and were surely dependent on the parents including their deceased mother -- Deceased was a homemaker -- Her direct and indirect monthly income, in no circumstances, could be less than the wages admissible to a daily wager under the Minimum Wages Act and income cannot be less than Rs.4,000/- p.m. -- Appellants and the respondents are closely related, and the delinquent vehicle was not insured, Court deemed it appropriate to grant a lump sum compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-.

(Para 1, 6-9)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Rash and negligent driving – Non-mentioning in FIR – Challan submitted u/s 279, 337, 338 and 427 IPC -- All sections of the IPC relates to the accident with regard to driving of a vehicle in a rash and negligent manner -- Mere fact that rash and negligent driving was not mentioned in the FIR in question, will not oust the claimants from raising a claim under the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal.

(Para 12)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Claim after a period of 5 years -- No interest has been given to the claimants on the amount of compensation so as to cause any prejudice upon the appellant-company for the said delay -- Merely that the claim was raised after a period of 5 years, cannot be a ground to oust the claimants from claiming the compensation under Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, especially when, the facts and evidence which had already come on record proving the entitlement of the claimants for the grant of compensation.

(Para 13)

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 4, 12 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 363, 366A -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 389 – POCSO matter -- Suspension of sentence – Pendency of appeal -- Victim and father did not support the case of the prosecution -- Victim not supported statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C -- Semen stains were found on the lower (Pyjama) of the victim as also on her undergarments and same matched with the DNA profile of the applicant-appellant which is borne out from the report of the FSL -- Whether this would be sufficient to prove penetrative sexual assault would be highly debatable -- Applicant-appellant is a young man aged 22 years (at the time of conviction) sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 20 years -- Appeal not likely to be heard in the near future – Appellant has already suffered incarceration for a period of almost 02 years -- He is not a previous offender -- Sentence the applicant-appellant suspended.

(Para 10, 11)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Charges in criminal case – Effect of -- Framing of the charge, in a criminal case does not ipso facto, prove that the concerned accused is solely responsible for the accident -- Since there is no eye witness account given, more particularly, when author of the FIR, who could have been the best person, to depose about the manner of taking place of the accident, as he was accompanying the deceased, at the relevant time, has also not been examined, no sufficient evidence come on record to establish about death caused on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle – Claim petition dismissed.

(Para 1, 15-18)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 18 Rule 3 -- Rebuttal evidence – Additional evidence -- Scope of rebuttal evidence is restricted to the evidence to be led by the plaintiff, with respect to the issue, onus whereof to prove otherwise was on the defendant – However, if the plaintiff files an application for permission to lead additional evidence, the same shall be decided independently.

(Para 3-5)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Delay in FIR -- Despite being an eyewitness to the accident and knowing the number of the offending tractor, FIR was not registered immediately -- No explanation on record as to why there was a delay of 25 days in registering the FIR, especially there were six eyewitnesses available to the accident in question -- Story put forth by the appellant, belies belief -- Claim petition dismissed by Tribunal --  Appeal dismissed.

(Para 1, 11, 19)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation  in motor vehicle accident case -- Where the claimant is entitled to reimbursement from the employer, he is not entitled to compensation under the Act

(Para 15)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 397, 401 -- Conviction in cheque bounce case – Compounding of offence --  Waiver of compounding fee -- Ld. ASJ directed the petitioners to deposit 15% of the cheque amount as compounding fee – Parties settled their disputes at their own -- Full amount of Rs.10 lakh paid to the respondent-complainant to settle the matter -- Being a poor person, it will be quite burdensome for petitioner to pay additional cost of 15% -- Impugned order set aside, Court directed to proceed further with the pending appeal, without insisting the petitioners to pay the cost of 15%.

(Para 8-10)

Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (39 of 1987), Section 22C -- Insurance claim -- Theft of vehicle – Late intimation to Insurance company – Breach of policy –Theft of the vehicle on 05.06.2016, FIR on 06.06.2016 -- Information of the theft of the motor cycle to the insurance company after a delay of 31 days i.e. on 06.07.2016 – Held, merely because claim was lodged after delay, it can't be held sufficient to assume that there is a fundamental breach and hence the claim ought to be rejected -- No dispute as regards the aspect of theft as well as the fact that the intimation in this regard was promptly made to the police has a bearing on the award – Respondents-insurance company directed to disburse the sum assured value of the vehicle.

(Para 1-3, 11-15)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 500 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 200, 202 -- Constitution of India, Article 19(1)(a) – Criminal defamation – News article – Freedom of speech -- News article published bearing a title “Advocate ne pan masala vyavasayi par karaya jhuta mamla darj” -- News article in question was published in good faith and in exercise of the Fundamental Right of Freedom of Speech and Expression enshrined under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India – All proceedings in pursuance of the complaint filed by the respondent-complainant u/s 500 of the IPC quashed.

(Para 2, 8-11)

A. Punjab Courts Act, 1918 (6 of 1918), Section 41 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 100 – Regular Second Appeal – Interference in finding on facts – Sub-clause No.(c) of Section 41 (1) of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918, enables the High Court for the States of Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory, Chandigarh, to reappreciate the evidence, if the decision is suffering from substantial error or defect resulting in defect in the decision of the case -- Consequently, it is permissible for the Court while deciding second appeal to re-appreciate the evidence if the decisions of the Courts suffer from perversity --  However, it is not permissible to interfere if two views are possible -- Interference in the second appeal has to be restricted to rare and exceptional cases where the court finds that the findings of fact stand vitiated by erroneous approach based on miss application of evidence or reliance on inadmissible evidence.

(Para 14, 15)

B. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 45, 73 – Agreement to sell – Handwriting expert -- It is well settled that invariably the Handwriting and Finger Print Expert gives a favourable opinion to the person who has engaged him – U/s 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the Presiding Judge is not debarred from carefully comparing the signatures and finger prints on various documents -- Adverse inference could not be drawn against the defendants for failure to examine Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert.

(Para 27(17))

C. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 32, 33 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 313 -- Statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C was neither relevant nor admissible in evidence as the plaintiff failed to fulfill the requirements of Section 32 and 33 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

(Para 27(18))

D. Agreement to sell -- Examination of the regular scribe was important.

(Para 27(21))

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 141 – Cheque bounce complaint – Quashing of – Resignation of Director – Effect of -- Whether a appellant/ Director who has resigned from such position and which fact stands recorded in the books as per the relevant rules and statutory provisions, can be held liable for certain negotiable instruments, failing realization – Complainant not placed any materials on record indicating complicity of the appellants in the alleged crime -- Appellants had no role in the issuance of the instrument -- After the appellants have severed their ties with the Respondent-Company and, therefore, can in no way be responsible for the conduct of business at the relevant time – All criminal proceedings pertaining to the appellants arising out of the complaints filed by the respondent quashed.

(Para 2-11)

Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870), Section 7(i) – Advalorem court fee -- Suit for damages of specific amount – Court fee is payable according to the amount claimed.

(Para 12)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376AB -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 3/4, 5(d)/6, 42 -- Rape of minor girl aged 7 years – Sentence of punishment -- Appellant was aged 40 year at the time of offence -- High Court commuted Capital sentence to life sentence -- Court are also to take into account the present age of the petitioner and the fact that he has already undergone the incarceration – Life sentence modified to a fixed term of sentence of 30 years with fine of Rs.1 lac.

(Para 7, 16, 17)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 363, 376 AB – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 3/4, 5(d)/6, 42 -- Punishment for rape on woman under twelve years of age – Sentence for 30 years -- Fine for medical expenses -- When a sentence of imprisonment for a term not less than 20 years which may extend upto life imprisonment is imposed, the convict is also liable to suffer a sentence of fine which shall be just and reasonable to meet the medical expenses and rehabilitation of the victim which quantified as Rupees One Lakh and the same shall be paid to the victim with respect to the conviction u/s 363, IPC -- No separate sentence for the aforesaid offence under POCSO Act is to be imposed on the petitioner-convict.

(Para 11, 16, 17, 20)

A. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 18, 23 -- Market value of acquired land – Three different revenue estates – As a whole towards north, the acquired land abuts already developed Industrial Area, whereas on the Southern side, there is Yamuna Nagar – Jagadhari Corporation building and the eastern side portion abuts the State Highway with number of industrial and commercial units existing in the adjoining vicinity -- Three revenue estates forming part of the acquisition proceedings in the case cannot be treated differently.

(Para 13, 14)

B. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 18, 23 -- Market value of acquired land – Agreement to sell – Reliance upon -- Registered agreement to sell duly proved on record -- Agreement in question besides the sale consideration mentioned therein being bona fide and genuine was required to be taken count.

(Para 16)

C. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 18, 23 -- Market value of acquired land – Old sale deed – Increase upon -- There has been a difference of around 10 to 12 months between the three sale deeds and the date of notification u/s 4 of the Act, an appropriate increase of 12% needs to be applied.

(Para 18)

D. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 18, 23, 28 -- Market value of acquired land – Agreement to sell for land measuring 73 kanals 01 marla of land -- As per the agreement, the sale consideration was Rs. 96 lakh per acre – Land under acquisition as a contiguous unit was touching the Industrial Area, Phase-I developed by the appellant-HSIIDC, from one side and the National Highway 73-A on the other, all basic amenities, such as water, electricity, sewerage etc., besides other necessary infrastructure were already existing in the close vicinity of the acquired land and was just required to be expanded further for the purpose of development of Phase-II, Industrial Estate -- Besides considering the locational and potential value of the same, a cut of 20% instead of 40-45% was more than sufficient – Compensation enhanced to Rs. 54,65,600/- per acre, besides grant of all other statutory benefits as provided under Sections 23(2), 23(1-A) of the Act as well as interest in terms of Section 28 of the Act.

(Para 19, 20)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Injury case – Permanent disability – Medical certificate – Reliance upon – Discretion of -- Medical certificate showed the permanent disability at 45% and the Tribunal held it to be unreasonable and fixed it at 14%, taking it to be reasonable – Certificate was issued after three years beyond the period of healing of any injury which could be expected in a human body – No no reason for the Court or Authority to disbelieve such disability -- Discretion of the Court is always there if it is not fully satisfied with regard to the disability, like calling for a fresh report or even calling for the person to appear to assess; but no such exercise adopted -- Disability taken as 45%.

(Para 4, 5)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Injury case -- 49% disability -- High Court granted compensation of Rs.4,98,329/- -- Injured was a TV Mechanic and the injuries were mainly on the right hand, however, it affects the day-to-day working of the claimant/ injured – While calculating the compensation, future prospects not taken into consideration – Compensation enhanced in lumpsum of Rs.4,00,000/- in addition to the amount already awarded by the High Court – Interest @ 7% p.a. awarded for enhanced amount from the date of filing of the Claims Petition till its realization.

(Para 2-5)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Bachelor/ Deceased was a B.Tech (Computer Science) student -- Notional monthly income taken as Rs.20,000/- per month and 40% added towards future prospects -- 50% deducted towards personal expenses – Amount of Rs.30,24,000/- awarded towards the loss of dependency – For loss of love and affection and loss of filial consortium, compensation of Rs.88,000/- and Rs.50,000/-, Rs.18,000/- on each for Funeral Expenses and loss of estate allowed -- Enhanced compensation of Rs.1,74,000/- shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition till realization.

(Para 8)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 200, 406 -- Transfer of cheque bounce complaint -- Proprietor of the Complainant Company is working at Mumbai -- Yet the cheque was presented before the Bank at Darbhanga which led to the proceeding u/s 138 of the Act initiated before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga, Bihar -- Just because the respondent/ complainant who is a permanent resident of Darbhanga or has business interest in Bihar, may not justify filing of a case in another Court when all the transactions were in Mumbai -- Project site is at Maharashtra -- Complaint transferred to Mumbai.

(Para 4-8)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 141 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 200 -- Cheque bounce complaint -- Appellant was a mere employee, apart from being a lady, and was not the main accused -- Main accused was the sole proprietor, the allegations are primarily against him, who is no more -- No purpose would be served in continuing the proceedings against the appellant -- Impugned orders are set aside.

(Para 2-6)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 91 – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 8, 18, 25, 29 -- NDPS case -- Summoning of call details -- High Court directed all Courts in the State of Rajasthan that whenever an application is moved to summon the Call-details by the accused during the criminal proceedings, the same shall not be deferred and will be decided forthwith -- Accused cannot invoke and would not have right to invoke Section 91 Cr.P.C. at the stage of framing of charge -- Impugned order set aside.

(Para 2, 7, 8)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 311, 397, 401 – Summoning of material witness u/s 311 Cr.P.C. – Maintainability of revision – The highest Court of the land has unequivocally ruled on the non-maintainability of a revision petition against an interlocutory order passed u/s 311 Cr.P.C. – Disregarding or revisiting a judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court would undermine the integrity of the legal system and erode the foundation of justice itself – Revision petitions dismissed, being not maintainable.

(Para 1, 9-11)