A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 20, 118 -- Suit for recovery – Pronote & Receipt – Proof of -- Plaintiff-respondent himself duly appeared in support of his case -- Both the attesting witnesses examined as PW2 and PW3 -- Scribe of pronote and receipt who is an Advocate as PW4, who duly asserted that on the instance of defendant he had scribed the original pronote and receipt and got it typed in the presence of the parties -- He further asserted that the same was read over to defendant and after admitting the same to be correct, he had signed in his presence as well as in presence of witnesses after receiving Rs. 12,00,000/- – Appellant-defendant not denying his signatures over the pronote and receipt – His claim is that plaintiff has forged the pronote and receipt – Mere oral self-serving statement of appellant-defendant is not sufficient to conclude and throw the evidence of plaintiff-respondent, attesting witnesses and scribe who in a consistent manner had asserted due execution of pronote and receipt by appellant-defendant.

(Para 10, 11)

B. Punjab Registration of Money Lenders Act, 1938 (3 of 1938), Section 8 – Recovery suit -- Personal loan – Friendly loan – Money lending Licence – Requirement of -- One single act of personal loan to friend, relatives or known person does not amount to money lending and no licence is required.

(Para 19)

A. Indian Succession Act, 1925 (39 of 1925), Section 63 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 68 -- Will – Ignoring natural heirs – Effect of -- While deciding validity of Will, Courts cannot ignore fact that Will is generally executed by testator either to distribute his properties fairly or to disturb natural succession and make provisions of succession of his estate according to his wishes -- Merely, because natural heirs have been ignored from succession by itself is no ground to conclude the Will to be doubtful.

(Para 18)

B. Indian Succession Act, 1925 (39 of 1925), Section 63 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 68 -- Will in favour of one natural heir --  Whether makes Will doubtful ? -- Merely, because testator of Will has chosen to repose faith in one of his natural heirs on account of love and affection or for any other reasons on account of services rendered and after considering other natural heirs has executed Will in favour of one of them would not make the Will doubtful -- This by itself is not a suspicious circumstance and learned Appellate Court has erred in concluding so.

(Para 20)

C. Indian Succession Act, 1925 (39 of 1925), Section 63 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 68 -- Un-registered Will – Death within 5 months – Testator himself scribe – Effect of -- Non-registration of Will merely because Testator himself was scribe cannot lead to conclusion against due execution -- Death within 5 months cannot be held to be suspicious circumstance itself unless signatures of Testator are held to be forged or it is shown that he was not of sound deposing mind or that Will was not executed in accordance with law.

(Para 22)

D. Indian Succession Act, 1925 (39 of 1925), Section 63 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 68 -- Forged and fabricated Will – Fraud -- Onus of proof --  Duty to prove signatures is upon a person who denies it on the ground of fraud -- It was defendants who had challenged and asserted that Will is forged and fabricated -- It was duty of defendant to prove that Will was forged and fabricated once onus to prove Will stood discharged by examination of both the attesting witnesses.

(Para 23)

Haryana Land Revenue Rules Rule 15 --  Appointment of Lambardar – Knowledge of revenue terms – Requirement of -- Appellant failed to answer the questions of District Collector relating to the revenue, the said reason can be a sole good ground to oust the appellant from the zone of selection and to appoint respondent No. 5 as a Lambardar of the village concerned – Good knowledge of revenue proceedings is very essential to perform the duty on the post of Lambardar and the Financial Commissioner, has ignored the said fact while remanding the case back to the District Collector – Ld. Single Judge rightly set-aside the order passed by the Financial Commissioner, so as to uphold the appointment of respondent No. 5 as a lambardar.

(Para 7-10)

A. Haryana Land Revenue Rules Rule 15 -- Appointment of Lambardar -- Authorities are better suited to know which candidate is a right candidate to be appointed as Lambardar -- Unless and until, any disqualification is pointed out towards the selected candidate, the interference should be minimum --  Interference is only warranted when the process involves manifest illegality, gross arbitrariness or violation of the principles of natural justice.

(Para 5)

B. Letters Patent Appeal -- In the Letters Patent Appeal, the judgment is to be proved perverse either on facts or law.

(Para 7)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 118, 121 – Pronote – Execution of -- Allegation of forgery – Proof of – Suit for recovery decreed by learned Courts below -- Marginal witnesses PW2 and PW3 had duly proved that after taking the amount, the defendant had executed Pronote Ex.P1 in favour of the plaintiff and Receipt Ex.P2 -- Defendant has not even denied his signatures on the Pronote and Receipt -- Defendant had not moved any complaint before any police authorities or any other higher authorities against the plaintiff for the alleged forgery and fabrication of the Pronote -- Very fact that the cousin of the appellant/ defendant is deposing against the appellant, would prove the case against the appellant -- Defendant led no evidence to prove the alleged forgery -- No ground is made out to interfere in the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below -- Regular Second Appeal dismissed.

(Para 4-6)

Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (47 of 2023), Section 39(1) -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 118, 121 – Pronote -- Forged and fabricated – Expert examination -- Defendant has taken twin stand that stamp paper as well as receipt stamp are forged one and had not been issued since 2009 and their use in year 2016 goes to prove that pronote is false and fabricated -- Petitioner has also disputed his signatures over agreement -- At the stage of collection of evidence, finding given by the learned trial Court that age of stamp paper and receipt stamp is of no consequence cannot be accepted – Entire evidence as desired by defendant be allowed at this stage and its effect shall be taken in consideration at the time of passing of final judgement.

(Para 3, 4)

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (56 of 2000), Section 2(k) -- Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 – Juvenile – Determination of age -- Delayed application – School leaving certificate -- Entire case of the petitioner claiming to be a minor is based on a School Leaving Certificate making him out to be a juvenile on the date when the FIR was registered --  Other than the said document, there is nothing on record to establish his date of birth as 05.05.2000 -- Neither his birth certificate nor the record of the Chowkidar or Lambardar been brought on record to establish the fact that the date of birth of the petitioner is 05.05.2000 – Petitioner moved his application claiming to be a minor when the case was listed for recording of defence evidence -- Delay in raising the plea of juvenility also creates a significant doubt in the claim of the petitioner -- Held, an entry relating to the date of birth made in a school register is relevant only when there is a primary evidence with respect to the date of birth available on the record – Application to declare minor dismissed.

(Para 1, 7-11)

Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 34 -- Released deed – Proof of – Challenge to -- Suit for declaration -- To prove the execution of Release Deed, the defendants had examined the attesting witness as DW1, who had categorically stated that he knew both the parties personally; the Release Deed was written on the instructions of the plaintiff by Deed Writer at Rewari; and that after reading over and explaining the contents of the Release Deed to both the parties, they had affixed their thumb impressions/signatures -- Defendants had further examined Deed Writer as DW5, who had proved the execution of Release Deed; and had deposed that the Release Deed was typed on the instructions of the plaintiff; which was then entered into the register of DW5 Deed Writer at Sr. No. 152 -- Defendants had also examined Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert, who had tendered her report Ex.DW4/B, wherein she gave opinion that thumb impressions marked D2 to D5 on the Release Deed were tallying with the admitted thumb impressions of the plaintiff, Mark S1 to S9 – Release Deed stood proven on record beyond doubt -- Oral statement of the plaintiff that she did not know the meaning of Release Deed or her denial of her thumb impressions on Release Deed, do not hold weightage.

(Para 2, 11, 12)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 201, 34, 120-B –  Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 483 – Constitution of India, Article 21 – Murder -- Regular bail -- Petitioner behind the bars since 19.06.2024 -- Investigation is complete -- Final report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. was presented before the concerned Court -- Charges were framed and trial of the case has not made much progress -- Out of 22 prosecution witnesses, no PW has been examined so far – Culpability, if any, would be determined at the time of trial and as such, no useful purpose will be served by further detention of the petitioner-accused -- Keeping the petitioner in further detention without the prospect of the trial being concluded in the near future, would be violative of his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India – Bail allowed.

(Para 6-9)

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 118, 121 – Pronote – Proof of – Plaintiff/ PW-1 reiterated the facts stated in the plaint -- PW-2 deposed that the pronote and receipt were written by him at the request of the defendant and further stated that the documents were duly read over and explained to the defendant, who, after understanding and acknowledging the contents to be correct and upon receiving Rs. 3,00,000/- in cash, affixed his signatures thereon -- Attesting witness to the pronote and receipt was also examined as PW-3, his testimony is in line with the assertions made by PW-1 and PW-2 --  PW-3 further affirmed that the defendant signed the documents in his presence and that he could identify the signatures of both the plaintiff and the scribe -- Defendant has not denied his signatures on the pronote and receipt, he merely pleaded that the documents were blank at the time of signing and that his signatures were obtained under a false pretext -- Plaintiff examined a handwriting and finger print expert as PW-5, who confirmed that the signatures on the pronote and receipt (Ex. P-1 and P-2) were indeed those of the defendant -- Both the Courts below have rightly found the execution of the pronote and receipt to be duly proved

(Para 7-10)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 118, 121 – Pronote – Presumption -- Fraud -- Burdon of proof -- Once the due execution of the pronote and receipt is proved through the consistent and credible evidence of the plaintiff and the defendant admits his signatures thereon, the burden shifts to the defendant to prove the allegations of forgery or the claim that the documents were signed under a false pretext -- It is a settled principle that the person alleging fraud must prove it -- Self-serving testimony of the defendant as DW-1 is insufficient to dislodge the otherwise consistent and credible evidence of the plaintiff, PW-2 (scribe), and PW-3 (attesting witness), especially in light of the defendant’s admission regarding his signatures on the pronote note and receipt -- In view of the provisions of Section 118 & 121 of the N.I. Act, the defendant cannot deny receipt of consideration or question the paying capacity of the plaintiff, as the plaintiff is claiming under a pronote, which is promissory note.

(Para 11-15)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 147 -- Conviction in cheque bounce complaint -- Compromise -- Acquittal – Non-appearance of complainant – Compounding of offence -- Dispute resolved before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre and the report submitted by the Mediator -- Matter was adjourned on numerous occasions mostly on account of non-appearance on behalf of respondent No.1 -- Amount of Rs.1,10,000/-, as agreed between them, already stands paid to respondent No.1- complainant -- Non-appearance on behalf of the respondent No.1- complainant is nothing but delaying tactics for finalization of proceedings  -- Offence u/s 138 of the N.I. Act, 1881 permitted to be compounded under Section 147 of the Act -- Judgment of conviction and order of sentence set aside -- Petitioner acquitted.

(Para 6-11)

A. Legal Metrology Act 2009 (1 of 2010), Section 15 -- Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011, Rule 18(2), 27 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), 100(4), 100(5), 165 – Search, inspection and seizure – Warrants – Mandate of -- Entire proceedings from search to seizure are illegal and unsustainable, as neither a warrant was obtained nor reasons recorded for search, inspection, or seizure -- Mandatory safeguards u/s 15 of the 2009 Act, and Sections 165, 100(4) and 100(5) Cr.P.C were disregarded -- The 2009 Act itself contemplates action against officials violating its provisions u/s 42 and 43 – Compliance with statutory procedures, including recording “reasons to believe” before initiating search or seizure, is incumbent upon officials; non-compliance renders the action futile and results in arbitrary excise of authority.

(Para 23)

B. Legal Metrology Act 2009 (1 of 2010), Section 15, 29, 36(1), 36(2), 48 -- Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011, Rule 18(2), 27 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), 100(4), 100(5), 165 – Constitution of India, Article 226 – Quashing of compounding notice -- Search, inspection and seizure – Respondents not only violated Section 15 of the 2009 Act, but also failed to comply with Sections 100(4) and 165 Cr.P.C -- Nothing on record to show that the search was so imminent as to justify dispensing with a warrant -- On the same day as the inspection, search, and seizure, a notice u/s 48 of the 2009 Act was issued, specifying a compounding fee for contraventions of Sections 29, 36(1), and 36(2) of the Act, and Rules 18(2) and 27 of the 2011 Rules, and directing the appellant to respond within 15 days, failing which further legal action would follow – Notices set aside.

(Para 23)

A. Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 3 -- Limitation – Pleadings -- Where the pleadings are silent, then it becomes the duty of the Court to ascertain from the evidence and the overall facts of the case, as pleaded by either party, and to render a finding on limitation where the question of limitation is to be treated as a question of law, since the Court cannot entertain frivolous or stale claims -- Question of law can be raised at any stage.

(Para 20)

B. Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 3 -- Limitation – Strict enforcement -- Auction purchaser's title was confirmed by court orders, and subsequent transfers were properly registered and recorded -- Respondent Nos.1 to 3, who have knowingly slept over their right to challenge the sale and allowed further rights to flow, cannot later question the sale of larger extent of share in an unpartitioned property -- Limitation is a matter of statute and must be strictly enforced, more so when the earlier transaction or sale is well within the knowledge of the parties -- Delay extends to seventeen years for filing the suit, despite the fact that they were arrayed as respondents/ Judgment Debtors in the execution proceedings -- Protection of bona fide purchasers for value is a significant consideration, and any disturbance to their rights or titles after such a long period, would create uncertainty in property transactions and undermine the sanctity of court sale -- Suit was barred by limitation and Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are not entitled for any relief.

(Para 23)

Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939 (8 of 1939), Section 2 – Writ seeking direction to decide proceedings u/s 2 of 1939 Act expeditiously -- Additional Judge, Family Court  directed to expedite the said case and conclude the proceedings as per law and as expeditiously as possible without granting any unnecessary adjournment to the parties.

(Para 1-3)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 363 -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 11(iv), 12 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 528 – POCSO – Kidnapping – Compromise quashing of FIR -- Applicant and the respondent no.3/ victim  solemnized marriage on 15.07.2023 and their marriage has been registered -- A male child, aged about one year three months, is born out of their wedlock -- Though this Court would normally be hesitant to quash the proceedings under Section 363 of the IPC and the proceedings under the provisions of the Act, 2012, but the applicant and the victim got married and they are living happily -- In case, the proceedings are allowed to continue, it would amount to denial of complete justice to the parties -- Inherent jurisdiction of this Court should be exercised to do real and substantial justice -- Entire proceedings quashed.

(Para 5-8)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Arms Act, 1959 (54 1959), Section 25 (1-B)(a) – Constitution of India, Article 21 – Fire arm case -- Anticipatory bail – After seeing the police, three persons ran away from the spot while the co-accused was arrested by the police and recovered eight pistols and sixteen magazines from his possession – Disclosure statement that applicant was also among those who fled from the spot and he also had pistol -- Co-accused granted regular bail by the Ld. Sessions Judge – Held, personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is very precious fundamental right and it should be curtailed only when it becomes imperative according to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case – Anticipatory bail allowed.

(Para 2-7)

Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 -- Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (54 of 2002), Section 13 -- Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (51 of 1993), Section 19 -- One Time Settlement Scheme, 2020 -- Whether the High Court erred in its interference with the order of rejection of the respondent’s application under the OTS 2020 Scheme and directing reconsideration thereof – Held, the High Court was not justified in its interference with the order of rejection :

-- every borrower in default, to have his application under the OTS 2020 Scheme considered, was required to apply together with an up-front payment of 5% of the OTS amount.

-- in terms of clause 4(i) of the OTS 2020 Scheme, any application received without up-front payment is not required to be processed even. Thus, in the first place, the respondent’s application was incomplete and it did not have any right in law to claim that such application should be processed.

-- Neither omission to make upfront payment assigned as a ground for rejection of the respondent’s application by the first appellant nor clause 4(i) of the OTS 2020 Scheme was brought to the notice of the relevant courts.

-- Crossing the hurdle of eligibility per se would not entitle a defaulting borrower to claim consideration of his/its application unless the application itself satisfies the other stipulated conditions.

From whichever angle one looks at the issue, the conclusion is irresistible that the respondent’s conduct disabled itself to have a fair and objection consideration of its application for OTS.

(Para 23-43)

Constitution of India, Article 136 -- Termination of service after conviction u/s 195A, 305, 506B IPC – Later acquittal in graver offence – Re-consideration of terminal benefits -- High Court set aside the conviction u/s 305 IPC and conviction under section 195-A now set aside -- Only the conviction for the offence u/s 506-B IPC survives – Held, in such circumstances, interests of justice would be best served if the respondent-State considers the matter of termination of service of “A” de novo and decides, whether for his conviction only u/s 506-B IPC, the right to terminal benefits accruing for rendering three decades of service would stand forfeited for all times to come -- Government to consider the matter upon taking into account the financial status of the appellant no.1 and her liability, if any, adopting a humanitarian approach preferably within three months from date.

(Para 32, 33)

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 528 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Long pendency of cheque bounce complaint – Petition seeking direction to decide expeditiously – Complaint is pending since 2020 – Petition allowed, Ld. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate directed to expedite the proceedings and conclude the proceedings as per law as expeditiously as possible without granting any unnecessary adjournment to the parties. Indian Bank Association’ case (2014) 5 SCC 590 relied.

(Para 1-5)

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 3(a), 4 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 528 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 376(3) -- POCSO -- Rape – Sexual assault – Compromise quashing of FIR -- Applicant and the respondent no.2/ victim solemnized their marriage and their marriage has been registered – Held, though High Court would normally be hesitant to quash the proceedings u/s 376(3) of IPC and Section 3(a) read with Section 4 of POCSO,  but, it is noticed that the applicant and the informant got married and they are living happily – if the proceedings are allowed to continue, it would amount to denial of complete justice to the parties -- Inherent jurisdiction should be exercised to do real and substantial justice – Application allowed and the entire proceedings quashed.

(Para 5-10

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023), Section 65(1), 137(2) -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 3(a), 4(2) – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 483 – Constitution of India, Article 21 – POCSO – Rape – Sexual assault -- Regular bail -- Applicant is in judicial custody since 02.06.2025 -- Alleged victim and the informant, the father of the alleged victim, have not supported the case of the prosecution – Held, bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception -- Refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India -- Object of keeping the accused person in detention during the trial is not punishment -- Main purpose is manifestly to secure the attendance of the accused -- No reason found to keep the applicant behind the bars for an indefinite period – Bail allowed.

(Para 3-6)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420 – Cheating – Delay in lodging FIR for about 5 years -- Quashing of FIR/ Charge-sheet/ criminal proceedings -- No allegation in the First Information Report or the chargesheet indicating either expressly or impliedly any intentional deception or fraudulent/ dishonest intention on the part of the appellants right from the time of making the promise or misrepresentation -- Mere vague allegations that the appellants failed to provide a product of a particular specification and failed to replace the faulty machines -- Delay in lodging of the FIR, coupled with the vague allegations do not inspire the confidence of the Court to allow the criminal proceedings to continue against the appellants -- Complainant had an alternative remedy of filing a civil suit claiming damages -- Criminal law ought not become a platform for initiation of vindictive proceedings to settle personal scores and vendettas -- Prosecution against the appellants are unsustainable -- Impugned order of the High Court set aside and consequently, the FIR, the chargesheet and all consequent proceedings initiated pursuant thereto quashed.

(Para 16-23)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 24 -- Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (43 of 2005), Section 12 -- Transfer of petition u/s 12 DV Act petition – Jalandhar to Hoshiarpur -- Generally the Courts take into consideration the convenience of the wife, while considering the transfer application relating to the matrimonial dispute, but however, it is not a thumb rule -- Respondent No.1/ wife residing in the matrimonial house at Hoshiarpur -- Applicant is facing trial in the criminal case, registered at the instance of respondent No.1, in the Courts at Hoshiarpur -- Considering these circumstances, petition transferred from the Jalandhar to Hoshiarpur.

(Para 8, 9)

Constitution of India, Article 21, 38, 39(e), 41 -- Beggars’ Homes require a paradigm shift, from being perceived as instruments of social control to being recognised as spaces of social justice -- Directive Principles of State Policy, particularly Article 38 (promoting welfare of the people), Article 39(e) (protecting workers’ health and strength), Article 41 (right to work, education, and public assistance), and Article 47 (raising the level of nutrition and public health) -- Together, these provisions articulate the constitutional expectation of a compassionate State, one that acts as a trustee of the well-being of the poor, the sick, and the destitute -- In this constitutional context, beggars’ homes cannot be conceived as quasi-penal facilities -- Their role must be restorative, not retributive, places of recovery, skill-building, and reintegration into society -- Failure to ensure humane conditions in such Homes does not merely amount to maladministration; it constitutes a constitutional breach of the fundamental right to life with dignity – Following directions issued, in respect of all Beggars’ Homes across the country to ensure improved conditions are continuously maintained:

I. Preventive Healthcare and Sanitation

(1) Every individual admitted to a Beggars’ Home shall mandatorily undergo a medical screening by a qualified medical officer within 24 hours of admission.

(2) Monthly health check-ups shall be conducted for all inmates by a designated medical team.

(3) A disease surveillance and early warning system shall be established in all Beggars’ Homes, with special protocols for the prevention, detection, and containment of communicable and waterborne diseases.

(4) All State Governments / UTs shall frame, notify, and strictly enforce minimum hygiene and sanitation standards in Beggars’ Homes, which shall mandatorily include:

(a) continuous access to potable drinking water

(b) functional toilets with proper drainage systems; and

(c) regular pest control and vector management measures.

II. Infrastructure and capacity

(5) All State Governments / UTs shall conduct an independent third-party infrastructure audit of every Beggars’ Home within their jurisdiction at least once every two years.

(6) Occupancy in each Beggars’ Home shall not exceed its sanctioned capacity, so as to prevent overcrowding and the spread of communicable diseases.

(7) Adequate provision shall be made for safe housing, ventilation, and access to open spaces, consistent with human dignity.

III. Nutrition and Food Safety

(8) Every Beggars’ Home shall appoint, or designate from an associated Government Hospital, a qualified Dietician to regularly verify the quality and nutritional standards of food served to inmates.

(9) Standardised dietary protocols shall be framed, ensuring nutritional adequacy.

IV. Vocational Training and Rehabilitation

(10) All Beggars’ Homes shall establish or expand vocational training facilities aimed at skill development and economic self-reliance of inmates.

(11) The State Governments / UTs shall explore partnerships with governmental agencies, NGOs, and private institutions to introduce diverse trades and employment-oriented training programmes.

(12) Periodic assessments shall be conducted to monitor the effectiveness of rehabilitation initiatives and to facilitate the reintegration of released inmates into society.

V. Legal Aid and Awareness

(13) Inmates shall be informed in a language they understand, of their legal rights, including the right to contest detention orders.

(14) State Legal Services Authorities shall designate panel lawyers to visit Beggars’ Homes at least once every three months, to provide free legal assistance and facilitate access to bail, release, or appeal remedies.

VI. Child and Gender Sensitivity

(15) Where women or children are housed in such Homes, the States / UTs shall provide separate facilities ensuring privacy, safety, and access to child care, education, and counselling.

(16) Children found begging shall not be detained in Beggars’ Homes but referred to child welfare institutions under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

VII. Accountability and Oversight

(17) Every State / UT shall constitute a Monitoring Committee for Beggars’ Homes, comprising officials from the Social Welfare Department, Public Health authorities, and independent civil society members, to:

(a) prepare and publish annual reports on the condition of Beggars’ Homes; and

(b) maintain accurate records of illnesses, deaths, and remedial actions taken.

(18) In every case where the death of an inmate is attributed to negligence, lack of basic facilities, or failure to provide timely medical care:

(a) the State / UT shall pay reasonable compensation to the next of kin of the deceased; and

(b) initiate departmental and, where warranted, criminal proceedings against the officials found responsible.

VIII. Implementation and Compliance

(19) State Governments / UTs shall maintain a centralised digital database of all inmates, recording details of admission, health, training, release, and follow-up.

(20) The above directions shall be implemented within six months from the date of this judgment,

The Union of India, through the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, shall, within three months, frame and notify model guidelines to facilitate uniform implementation of the aforesaid directions across all States and Union Territories.

(Para 16.2, 16.3, 23, 23.1)

Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 (14 of 2025) – Challenge to entire Statute – Stay of provisions of law -- In the totality of the circumstances, Court do not find that any case is made out to stay the provisions of the entire statute. The prayer for stay of the impugned Act rejected -- While doing so, in order to protect the interest of all the parties and balance the equities during pendency of this batch of matters, following directions issued:

(i) Part of clause (r) of Section 3 of the Amended Waqf Act

“any person showing or demonstrating that he is professing Islam for at least five years”

shall stand stayed until the rules are framed by the  State Government for providing a mechanism for determining the question as to whether a person has been practicing Islam for at least five years or not.

(ii) Proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 3C of the Amended Waqf Act, which reads

“Provided that such property shall not be treated as waqf property till the designated officer submits his report.”

and the provisions of sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 3C of the Amended Waqf Act, which read thus:

“(3) In case the designated officer determines the property to be a Government property, he shall make necessary corrections in revenue records and submit a report in this regard to the State Government.

(4) The State Government shall, on receipt of the report of the designated officer, direct the Board to make appropriate correction in the records.”

shall stand stayed.

(iii) Unless the issue with regard to title of the waqf property in terms of Section 3C of the Amended Waqf Act is not finally decided in the proceedings initiated under Section 83 of the Amended Waqf Act by the Tribunal and subject to further orders by the High Court, neither the waqfs will be dispossessed of the property nor the entry in the revenue record and the records of the Board shall be affected. However, upon commencement of an inquiry under Section 3C of the Amended Waqf Act till the final determination by the Tribunal under Section 83 of the Amended Waqf Act, subject to further orders of the High Court in an appeal, no third-party rights would be created in respect of such properties.

(iv) Central Waqf Council constituted under Section 9 of the Amended Waqf Act is concerned, it shall not consist of more than 4 non-Muslim members out of 22. Equally, insofar as the Board constituted under Section 14 of the Amended Waqf Act is concerned, it is directed that it shall not consist of more than 3 non-Muslim members out of11.

(v) Court not inclined to stay the provision of Section 23 of the Amended Waqf Act – Direction given that as far as possible, an effort should be made to appoint the Chief Executive Officer of the Board who is the ex-officio Secretary from amongst the Muslim community;

Observation above is upon prima facie consideration for the purpose of examining as to whether an interim stay should be granted or not to the impugned Act or the provision(s) contained therein. The observations made hereinabove will not prevent the parties from making submissions with regard to the validity of the provisions contained in the Amended Waqf Act or any of the provision(s) therein.

(Para 209)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21(b), 27(A) -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 483 – NDPS – Regular bail -- Recovery of 8 grams of Heroin and Rs. 600/- cash -- Contraband recovered falls within intermediate quantity -- Applicability of Section 27-A of the NDPS Act is seriously questionable as this provision has been invoked merely on the basis of the disclosure statement of the petitioner himself and the amount recovered is petty which can be found in the possession of a common man -- Petitioner is in custody since 08.06.2025 -- Trial is likely to take sufficiently long time to conclude – Bail allowed.

(Para 1, 6-8)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21(c), 25, 61, 85 -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 483 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- NDPS – Regular bail -- Commercial quantity – Habitual offender -- Bail application of the petitioner cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner is involved in other/another cases -- Petitioner is in custody for the last more than 01 year and 06 months -- Trial may take a long time to conclude -- Prolonged detention without any likelihood of the trial being concluded in the near future, would amount to a violation of their fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India – Bail allowed.

(Para 7-10)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Defence struck off -- Petitioner is appearing in person before the Ld. Tribunal and could not file the reply in time because of communication gap as well as lack of knowledge -- A lis should be decided on merits rather than on technicalities -- Justice demands that one last effective opportunity is required to be granted to the petitioner to file his written statement -- One last opportunity granted to the petitioner to file written statement subject to payment of Rs.5,000/-.

(Para 4, 5)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Family pension – Excess payment – Recovery of -- Petitioner is a widow and she is getting family pension – Excess payment was made from July’ 2008 to 2019 and there was no connivance, misrepresentation, fraud or mischief on the part of the petitioner --  She further submits that it was lapse of the system which was introduced in 2006 -- Writ petition allowed, respondent-bank ordered to not effect further recovery.

(Para 3-8)

Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (26 of 1947), Section 12, 12A, 12C – Election of Pradhan -- Recounting of votes –  Disparity in the count of votes informed to the appellant and finally disclosed in the official form -- It relates to 19 votes, i.e., the difference between 1193 and 1213 -- Margin of victory of the respondent was 37 votes, and so, in a sense, victory of position would remain yet elusive of the appellant – Held, process has to be in accordance with constitutional principles and established norms  -- Each vote has its own value irrespective of its effect in the final outcome of the election, its sanctity has to be protected -- It was a four-sided election, i.e., four persons were contesting for the post of ‘Pradhan’ -- Three of the four persons submitted by way of affidavit that they had doubts regarding the propriety of the election, and they would support a recount of votes -- Deliberate attempts made to benefit the ultimate victor such as the use of police force to remove the appellant from the vicinity of the polling area – Diary of the Presiding Officer of the polling booths, which is an essential document recording the casting of votes, could not be found despite a concerted effort -- If the Presiding Officers’ records are missing and cannot be verified, it can be found that the final conclusion is within the realm of questionability -- Each and every document pertaining to an election is important and all efforts should be made to preserve the same – Recounting is held to be justified.

(Para 14-18)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 80 – Notice u/s 80 CPC – Importance of -- A statutory notice holds significance beyond mere formality -- Its purpose is to provide the Government or a public officer with an opportunity to reconsider the matter in light of established legal principles and make a decision in accordance with the law -- However, in practice, such notices have often become empty formalities -- Administration frequently remains unresponsive and fails to even inform the aggrieved party why their claim has been rejected – Held, Public Authorities must take statutory notice issued to them in all seriousness -- Public Authorities must not sit over such notices and force the citizens to the vagaries of litigation -- They are expected to let the plaintiff know their stand within the statutory period or in any case before he embarks upon the litigation -- In certain cases, courts may be obliged to draw adverse presumption against the Public Authorities for not acknowledging the notice or telling the plaintiff of its stand and in the absence of that, a stand taken during the course of trial may be considered as an afterthought.

(Para 105, 106, 113)

B. Constitution of India, Article 19(1)(g), 31, 300A – Right to hold property -- Article 300-A provides that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law -- This Article has been inserted by the Constitution (44th Amendment) Act, 1978 -- Prior to this amendment, the right to property was guaranteed by Article 31 -- While Clause (1) of that Article has been shifted from Part III to Article 300-A, Clause (2) of that Article, which dealt with compulsory acquisition of property, has been repealed -- Sub-Clause (f) of Clause (1) of Article 19, which guaranteed the right to acquire and hold property, has also been omitted by the same 44th Amendment Act, 1978 – The result of these changes, in short, is that the right to hold property has ceased to be a fundamental right under the Constitution and it has been left to the Legislature to deprive a person by the authority of law.

(Para 124)

Representation of the People Act, 1951 (43 of 1951), Section 100(1)(a)(d)(i), 116A – Election of Member Legislative Assembly / MLA –Seat reserved for Schedule Caste – Challenge to election -- Ground that the appellant/ wining candidate’s grandparents on the paternal side were persons who had migrated from Tamil Nadu, they and their successors were not entitled to claim that they belonged to ‘Hindu Parayan’ of Kerala State -- It was averred that hence, the Appellant is not entitled to contest from a Constituency reserved for candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes from Kerala – Held, a duly issued Caste/ Community Certificate would be amenable to challenge only under the provisions of the statute concerned, and not in an Election Petition – Election Petition dismissed.

(Para 2, 3, 59, 64)

A. Constitution of India, Article 226 – Disciplinary proceedings -- Writ jurisdiction -- High Court is well within its domain to examine whether the disciplinary proceedings suffer from patent illegality, perversity, or violation of constitutional and statutory safeguards, and whether the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the nature of the misconduct.

(Para 5)

B. Constitution of India, Article 20(3), 226 -- Absence from duty for 104 days – Dismissal from service -- Entire departmental enquiry, and finally the punishment of dismissal of service was, in entirety, based on the petitioner’s admission of guilt which could not have been the sole basis of the decision -- Statement of witnesses related solely to the absence of the delinquent official but, no documentary evidence or any other form of proof was produced to examine or verify the justifications put forth by the petitioner for his absence – Petitioner was dissuaded from producing any defence material qua the assurance made by the respondent no. 4 that his admission alone would suffice for lesser punishment or even pardon, inevitably denying him a reasonable opportunity of defence and striking at the root of the principle of audi alteram partem.

--    Inquiry report dated 23.08.1997 was forwarded to the petitioner on 30.08.1997, yet the order of dismissal came to be passed on 11.09.1997 violating the statutorily prescribed limit of a minimum 15 days to submit representation to the report as the petitioner was given only 12 days to respond -- This denial of statutory time for reply is not a mere irregularity but vitiates the fairness in procedure.

--    Penalty of dismissal for overstaying leave, even assuming misconduct, is shockingly disproportionate to the charge -- Impugned penalty cannot be sustained.

Proceedings culminating in the order of dismissal and its affirmance in appeal and revision are unsustainable in law as they stand vitiated on three counts (i) violation of constitutional guarantee against self-incrimination, (ii) denial of natural justice in not affording an effective defence, and (iii) imposition of grossly disproportionate punishment -- Impugned orders set aside, petitioner held entitled to reinstatement with all consequential benefits.

(Para 5, 6)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 2(c), 154 -- Registration of FIR – Cognizable offence -- Since, it is the duty of the police to register an FIR if a prima facie cognizable offence is made out, the police is not required to go into the genuineness and credibility of the said information.

(Para 32)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 2(c), 154, 482 -- Constitution of India, Article 226 – Cognizable offence – Registration of FIR – Jurisdiction of High Court -- Police authorities expressed reluctance to entertain the complaints as it would not be proper on part of the police to investigate against the officers of the CBI, the complainants approached the Constitutional Court for necessary action – High Court exercised its discretion in entertaining the petitions and directing for the registration of the FIR against the two officers, on being satisfied that the commission of a cognizable offence is prima facie made out against them -- It would not be a prudent exercise at this stage to scuttle the registration of the FIR or the investigation, when the High Court in exercise of its constitutional powers had opined that prima facie, a cognizable offence is made out against the two officers, that too upon elaborate consideration of the preliminary inquiry report of the Joint Director of CBI.

(Para 33-36)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 389(2) -- Suspension of sentence – Appeal pending -- Three years’ rigorous imprisonment along with fine u/s 147, 148, 323, 325, 354 149 IPC and Section 8 of POCSO Act – Despite sincere endeavour, the High Court has not been able to decide the appeal finally -- Right to appeal is a statutory right – Appellants are in custody -- Hearing of the appeal carried by the appellants does not seem to be imminent -- It could amount to a miscarriage of justice if the appellants were made to serve out such term without the appeal being heard -- Sentence suspended, appellants ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 2-6)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 23, 24, 420 -- Cheating -- In order to attract the offence of cheating, a person must knowingly make a false statement which would induce another to part with property or to do or omit to do a thing which the latter would not do or omit unless deceived and thereby is likely to suffer damage/harm in body, mind, reputation or property -- Intention is the gist of the offence.

(Para 13-15)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420, 464, 465, 468, 471 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Quashing of criminal complaint -- NOC by Fire department – Fake document used -- To attract penal consequences, it must be shown that the false representation was of a material fact which had induced the victim to either part with property or act in a manner which they would not otherwise do but for such false representation -- In the absence of such vital link between the alleged false representation and the issuance of recognition/ renewal of affiliation, the essential ingredient of offence is not satisfied -- Nothing on record to show the appellant had manufactured the alleged fake document which is a sine qua non to attract Section 465 IPC – In fact, the original fabricated document had not been recovered -- No material connecting the appellant to the making of the fake document has been adduced in the impugned charge sheet -- Requisite mens rea, i.e., dishonest intention to cause wrongful loss to the Education Department and wrongful gain to himself has not been demonstrated as the issuance of the recognition was not dependent on the production of the alleged forged NOC -- Chargesheet do not disclose essential ingredients of cheating or forgery – criminal proceedings quashed.

(Para 16-22)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order VIII, Rule 6A – Counter claim by defendant – Nature of – Right of -- A defendant may assert any right or claim against the plaintiff before the filing of the written statement, even if such cause of action is unrelated to the plaintiff’s suit -- Only limitation is that the counter-claim must lie within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court -- Such a counter-claim is treated as a cross-suit and is governed by the rules applicable to plaints, including the obligation to disclose the cause of action and pay requisite court fees -- Legislative intent is to avoid multiplicity of proceedings by allowing both the original suit and the counterclaim to be tried and disposed of in a single trial, thereby avoiding prolonged and protracted litigation -- Rule 6A provides that counter-claim shall be against the claim of the plaintiff and such right or claim shall be in respect of cause of action accruing to defendant against the plaintiff.

(Para 18-20)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order VIII, Rule 6A – Counter-claim against co-defendant -- Relief of specific performance by defendant no. 2 cannot be set up by way of a counter-claim since the same is not directed against the appellant/plaintiff, but is instead directed solely against the co-defendant – It is not permissible.

(Para 22)

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 483,  193 -- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 7, 13(2), 13(1)(b) – Corruption case – Regular bail -- Investigation culminated in a police report (charge-sheet) filed u/s 7 of the PC Act -- However, investigation qua the role of the appellant is pending – Earlier Interim bail granted made confirmed -- Appellant shall continue to remain on bail on such terms and conditions as have been or may be fixed by the trial court.

(Para 3-7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420, 407, 409, 468, 120(B) – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 482 -- Cheating and forgery – Anticipatory bail – Appellant has joined the investigation and all forged deeds have been seized -- Court considered that custodial interrogation of the appellant is not necessary and that there is sufficient ground for the appellant to be admitted to an order for grant of bail in anticipation of arrest – Bail allowed.

(Para 3-7)

A. Rent laws -- Tenant-landlord relationship – Ownership of landlord – Tenants’ right to challenge -- Tenant having come into possession of the tenanted premises by a rent deed executed by the earlier landlord, cannot turn around and challenge his ownership -- Predecessor of the defendants and the defendants, after their father’s death had been paying rent to the R.D. -- Dispute regarding the title of R.D. could not have been raised by the tenant who had come into the premises by virtue of a deed executed by R.D. to whom, for more than half a century, the tenants were also paying rent.

(Para 10)

B. Rent laws -- Eviction of tenant -- Bona fide need -- No dispute as to the business carried on; of sweets and savouries, in the adjacent shop room -- There is also no dispute on the sons of the plaintiff also having joined the business and the plaintiff’s intention to participate in the business, thus expanding it to the tenanted premises -- Bona fide need hence stands established – order of eviction passed.

(Para 13, 14)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 2(c), 154 -- Registration of FIR – Cognizable offence – Duty of Police -- Once information relating to commission of a cognizable offence is given to the officer-in-charge of a police station, the investigative machinery is required to be set in motion -- It is mandatory to record the substance of the information in a book to be kept by the officer in the prescribed form -- It is mandatory to register an FIR.

(Para 16)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 2(c), 154 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 324, 325, 326 -- Registration of FIR – Cognizable offence – Duty of Police -- Inaction of the officer-in-charge of the Police Station despite being made aware of Medico-Legal Case, involving the appellant, and his admission in the hospital, and the failure in following through by recording his statement at the earliest opportunity and registering an FIR in that regard, clearly manifests total dereliction of duty on his part, be it deliberate or due to sheer carelessness -- Assault upon him would have constituted an offence under Sections 324 or 325 or 326 of the IPC, which are all cognizable, and required decisive and prompt action on the part of the police as soon as they came to know about it -- Secretary, Home Ministry, Government directed to constitute a Special Investigation Team/SIT  comprising senior police officers to undertake an investigation into all the allegations made by the appellant, by registering an FIR in connection with the assault and take appropriate action thereon as warranted -- Further direction given to initiate appropriate disciplinary action against all erring police officials, in accordance with law and due procedure, for the patent dereliction of duties.

(Para 21-24)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420, 463, 464, 468, 471 -- Cheating -- Forgery -- To attract offence of Section 468 IPC, the prosecution must establish that the accused made a false document within the meaning of Section 464 IPC, with intent to cheat -- Likewise, Section 471 IPC requires proof that the accused used a forged document as genuine, knowing or having reason to believe it to be forged at the time of its use.

(Para 7)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420, 468, 471, 511 -- Cheating -- Forgery -- Mark-sheet and the revaluation notification went through a chain of custody -- Firstly, from appellant to admission clerk and after the admission clerk had verified and received the alleged documents then the custody was routed to the principal of the college -- Prosecution had failed to prove, by any reliable evidence, that the alleged tampering was effected by Appellant herself or while the documents were in the exclusive custody and control of the appellant this tampering had occurred -- In such circumstances, the passing of the alleged document through the hands of several person before it was detected as forged renders unsafe to arrive at a conclusion that appellant had authored the tampering or possessed the contemporaneous knowledge of such tampering -- It is apt to mention that it is well-established principle of law that suspicion, howsoever grave, cannot replace the standard of legal proof – Conviction set aside.

(Para 8, 15)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420, 468, 471, 511 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 45 -- Forgery – Tampering -- Expert evidence – Requirement of -- No handwriting or forensic expert opinion was obtained regarding the authorship of alleged tampering -- While expert opinion is not mandatory, nevertheless when authorship is central to establish the guilt of the accused and by direct evidence it is not demonstrated to show that the alleged writing has been made in the presence of a witness, non-examination of an expert or any other cogent proof of authorship to corroborate the alleged forgery beyond reasonable doubt weighs heavily against the prosecution -- Courts below treated “apparent overwriting” as conclusive which approach is alien to the standard proof beyond reasonable doubt -- Conviction set aside.

(Para 9, 10, 15)

D. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420, 468, 471, 511 – Forged document used to secure admission – Mens rea -- Record do not establish the mens rea which is pre-requisite for Section 471 IPC (knowledge/reason to believe) or for attempt to cheat u/s 420 read with Section 511 IPC being present -- Documents were stamped by college authorities and passed through administrative scrutiny -- In the absence of evidence that the appellant had dishonest intention to either make the false document or knew of its falsity while submitting it, the mental status or mens rea remains unproved – Conversion set aside.

(Para 11, 15)

E. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 313 – Opportunity to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against accused – Right of – Several incriminating circumstances were put to the appellant in compound and omnibus questions -- Section 313 is not an empty formality -- Where there is failure to put material circumstances fairly and distinctly, it causes prejudice and vitiates reliance placed on such circumstances -- Said defect strikes at a valuable statutory right of defence -- Accused was not possibly able to understand the incriminating circumstances put against her and was not able to answer properly because of the compound questions – It causes prejudice to the accused.

(Para 12)

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (68 of 1986), Section 17 -- Consumer complaint – Medical negligence -- Finding contrary to pleadings – sustainability of -- Specific claim in Complaint Case was that there was medical negligence on the part of Doctor and the nursing home in the post-delivery treatment only, as sufficient facilities were not available in the nursing home to deal with post-delivery emergencies, and Doctor failed to take adequate care and caution after the delivery to save the life of the patient – No allegations whatsoever to the effect that the antenatal care and management in any manner -- Entire focus of the NCDRC, was only upon the antenatal care and management of the patient and its pinpointed findings were also in relation to the said period and treatment only – Held, NDRC transgressed its jurisdiction in building a new case for the complainants, contrary to their pleadings -- However, its finding that there was no negligence in the delivery and the post-delivery treatment have attained finality as no separate appeal was preferred by the complainants – Appeal allowed, complaint stand dismissed.

(Para 26-31)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Deceased had a diploma in Pharmacy -- Accident took place on 25.07.2010 – Deceased found to be in a partnership of pharmaceutical distributorship and associated with a Cooperative Bank -- Deceased was also running a medical shop, though prior to the date of the accident the licence stood cancelled – Monthly income assumed at Rs.12,000/- to look after the family of five comprising of himself, his wife, minor daughter and two parents -- Multiplier applied of 14 and the 25% future prospects as deceased having been 43 years old and not in a regular employment is perfectly in order -- 1/4th deduction made also is correct since his family consisted of 4 dependants -- Rs.20,80,000/- assessed as compensation with 6 % interest from the date of application.

(Para 4-7)

A. Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 34 -- Mere reason of the manure and waste having been found in the property, cannot lead to a finding of possession.

(Para 10)

B. Revenue record – Onus to prove/ disapprove -- Revenue records produced by the plaintiff showed the corrected area as per the sale deed -- Merely because the correction was done in the course of the suit is no reason to disbelieve the public record maintained -- Even dehors such proof the latest revenue records having shown the actual extent, it was for the defendants to disprove the same -- Trial court ought not to have suspected the sanctity of the correction, unless it was disproved.

(Para 11)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 306 – Abetment of suicide – Acquittal -- Over a period of few months the neighbours were at loggerheads -- Not only heated exchanges, but physical blows were also alleged to have been administered by the appellant’s party -- Appellant stands acquitted for the offence punishable u/s 323, 504, 506 IPC – Quarrels occur in everyday life, on facts not concluded that there was an instigation on the part of the appellant to such an extent that the victim was left with no other option but to commit suicide -- Appellant acquitted for offence u/s 306 IPC.

(Para 17, 23)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 147 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 438, 442 -- Cheque bounce case -- Compriomise after conviction at revision stage – Acquittal – Complainant and the petitioner have amicably resolved the matter -- Judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court, as affirmed by the learned Appellate Court set aside -- Petitioner/ accused acquitted of all the charges framed against him.

(Para 7-9)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 21 Rule 66, Order 41 Rule 6 – Execution of decree – Appeal pending – Attachment of property – Sale warrant of attached property – Stay of execution -- Sale would defeat the purpose of the petitioner of filing an appeal -- Since the learned Executing Court has already taken the security by warrant of attachment of the property of the petitioner, the application filed by the petitioner under Order 41 Rule 6 CPC deserves to be allowed.

(Para 8, 9)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Disbursement of compensation – Review of -- Rs.1,00,000/- given to the appellant/ mother, Rs. 6,26,000/- to the daughter in law & Rs. 3,00,000/- to minor -- Appellant received the cheque for Rs. 1,00,000/- which she encashed also without any protest and demur -- It was upon a joint application -- Appellant could not be permitted to resile from her own conduct -- She cannot be accounted to approbate and reprobate -- She acted with open eyes, overtly and consciously -- Appellant cannot reopen or dispute the factums of her own act by showing disagreement to the disbursement raising all after-thought contentions.

(Para 2, 6-7)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Death almost five months after the date of the accident -- Injuries suffered in the accident were not very serious -- Non-healing ulcer could have been for various causes, especially when the victim was known to be a diabetic, which necessitated the skin grafting procedure -- In the aftermath of the surgery, the patient succumbed to death -- Merely by reason of the proximity of the accident and the death or the possibility of acute myocardial infarction occurring for reason of a long bed rest, it cannot be assumed, without clear evidence to substantiate the death having been caused as a result of the injuries sustained in the accident – High Court has elaborately considered the evidence of PW-1, the plastic surgeon who carried out the surgical procedure and found the death to be not a direct cause of the accident – No reason to interfere.

(Para 1-3, 11)