(1) SUPREME COURT
Acquittal, Criminal Trial
A. Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967—Sections 10(a)(i), 10(a)(iv) and 38(1)—Indian Penal Code, 1860—Section 120B—Identity of accused—Mistaken identity—Held: Conviction of appellant unsustainable where prosecution failed to establish through reliable oral or documentary evidence that appellant “Ranjan” was same person as absconding accused “Sri” (A-5)—Belated introduction of alias name after arrest constituted material improvement creating serious doubt regarding prosecution case. (Paras 41–56) B. Criminal trial—Appreciation of evidence—Material improvements and contradictions—Effect—Held: Where prosecution witnesses in earlier statements and depositions never referred to accused by alleged alias name and introduced such identity onl...
(2) SUPREME COURT
Electricity
A. Electricity Act, 2003—Punjab State Grid Code, 2013—Regulations 11.3.4, 11.3.12 and 11.3.13—Declared Capacity (DC)—Misdeclaration and demonstration of capability—Held: Failure of generating station to demonstrate declared capability on being called upon by State Load Despatch Centre within prescribed operational time frame attracts penalty under Regulation 11.3.13—Liability is distinct from “gaming” and does not require proof of mens rea, deliberate intention or illegal profiteering—Penalty imposed for failure to demonstrate DC is in nature of strict civil liability. (Paras 18–32) B. Electricity law—Gaming and misdeclaration—Distinction—Held: “Gaming” under Grid Code contemplates intentional misdeclaration of parameters to secure undue commercia...
(3) SUPREME COURT
A. Tender—Earnest Money Deposit (EMD)—Out-of-State bidders—Interpretation of tender conditions—Held: Furnishing of Demand Draft by out-of-State bidders was not mandatory under tender document—Clauses 2.13(a)(xiii), 2.13(b) and 2.15 employed expression “may”, indicating only an optional mode of furnishing EMD—Fixed Deposit Receipt furnished by appellant constituted valid “Approved Interest Bearing Security” under Clause 2.13(a)(iv)—Disqualification of appellant on opening of Envelope A held unsustainable. (Paras 7–10) B. Tender conditions—Interpretation of mandatory and directory clauses—Held: Tender clauses must be construed according to plain language employed therein—Use of permissive expression “may” ordinarily denotes directory or ...
(4) SUPREME COURT
A. Constitution of India—Article 21—Public safety and right to life—Stray dog menace—Held: Right to life guaranteed under Article 21 includes right of citizens to safe and secure public spaces free from threats of stray dog attacks—State authorities and local bodies are under constitutional obligation to ensure public safety while implementing animal welfare measures—Failure to effectively control stray dog population and enforce sterilization/vaccination mechanisms amounts to failure of public duty—Directions issued to ensure strict implementation of Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023 with primacy accorded to human safety and protection of vulnerable persons such as children, patients and senior citizens. (Paras 41–49, 101–104) B. Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023—Interpretation...
(5) SUPREME COURT
Criminal conspiracy, Murder
A. Indian Penal Code, 1860—Sections 302, 120B and 34—Murder and criminal conspiracy—Appreciation of evidence—Trial Court convicted accused persons on basis of direct and circumstantial evidence including eyewitness testimony, approver evidence, money trail, recoveries and motive—High Court reversed conviction by re-appreciating evidence and treating contradictions, omissions and delay in examination of witnesses as fatal—Held: High Court committed grave error in interfering with legally sustainable findings of Trial Court without demonstrating perversity, illegality or impossibility in Trial Court’s appreciation of evidence—Minor contradictions and omissions which do not affect substratum of prosecution case cannot render otherwise credible evidence unreliable—Evidence of approver, whe...
(6) SUPREME COURT
Appointment
A. Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980—Sections 12, 13 & 14—Waitlisted candidate—Change in place of posting—Held: Once a waitlisted candidate is recommended for appointment to a particular institution under Section 13(3) of the Old Act, there exists no power under Section 13(4) to subsequently alter or substitute place of posting merely because candidate did not join owing to personal reasons—Interpretation permitting such change would defeat statutory scheme governing appointments and recommendations. (Paras 13–20) B. Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980—Section 13(4)—Expression “otherwise”—Interpretation—Held: Word “otherwise” occurring in Section 13(4) must be construed ejusdem generis wi...
(7) SUPREME COURT
Quashing of proceeding
A. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023—Section 483—Scope of bail jurisdiction—Held: While exercising jurisdiction under Section 483 BNSS relating to grant or refusal of bail, High Court or Court of Session is confined to adjudicating question whether accused deserves release on bail or continued custody—Court cannot issue broad administrative or policy directions unrelated to determination of bail. (Paras 5–8) B. Constitutional power vis-à-vis statutory power—High Court jurisdiction—Held: Constitutional powers of High Court and statutory powers conferred under criminal procedure law are distinct and separate—While High Court remains a constitutional court, exercise of statutory jurisdiction cannot be enlarged by invoking constitutional status of Court—A statuto...
(8) SUPREME COURT
Possession
A. Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Section 2(2) & Order 20 Rule 18—Preliminary decree and final decree in partition suit—Held: A decree in partition proceedings may, depending upon its terms and effect, partake character of both preliminary and final decree—Where decree not only declares shares of parties but also provides mechanism for division, mesne profits and eventual sale of property if partition by metes and bounds is impossible, such decree is executable to that extent and need not await separate formal final decree. (Paras 13–16) B. Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order 20 Rule 18—Execution of partition decree—Held: Where Advocate Commissioner reports that subject property cannot be partitioned by metes and bounds, court is justified in directing auction/sale of pro...
(9) SUPREME COURT
Benefit of probation
A. Probation of Offenders Act, 1958—Sections 3 & 12—Benefit of probation—Offence under Section 304-A IPC—Held: Where offence is punishable with imprisonment not exceeding two years, Court may extend benefit under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act and release offender after due admonition instead of sentencing—Appellant convicted under Section 304-A IPC and Sections 134(b)/187 of Motor Vehicles Act held entitled to such benefit. (Paras 6–8) B. Probation of Offenders Act, 1958—Section 12—Disqualification attached to conviction—Held: Once benefit under Sections 3 or 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act is granted, offender shall not suffer disqualification attached to conviction—Accordingly, conviction under Section 304-A IPC would not adversely affect appe...
(10) SUPREME COURT
NDPS
A. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 437A—Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967—Section 43-D(5)—Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985—Sections 8, 21, 25, 29 & 37—Bail under special statutes—Prolonged incarceration—Held: Statutory restrictions on grant of bail under special enactments like UAPA and NDPS Act cannot eclipse constitutional guarantees under Article 21—Where accused has undergone prolonged incarceration and trial is not likely to conclude within reasonable time, continued detention becomes unconstitutional notwithstanding rigours of Section 43-D(5) UAPA or Section 37 NDPS Act—Appellant, having remained in custody for more than five years with over 350 witnesses yet to be examined, held entitled to bail. (Paras 27–53.7) B. Const...
(1) HIMACHAL PRADESH
Security cheque
A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Sections 118, 139—Presumption—Rebuttal—Held: Once issuance of cheque and signature thereon are admitted or proved, statutory presumption arises that cheque was issued towards discharge of legally enforceable debt—Burden shifts on accused to rebut presumption on preponderance of probabilities—Failure to lead evidence or raise probable defence results in conviction. (Paras 6–8, 12) B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Section 138—“Security cheque”—Liability—Held: Dishonour of cheque issued as “security” also attracts offence under Section 138, if it relates to a subsisting liability and becomes enforceable on default—There is no statutory exemption for security cheques under the Act. (Paras 10–11) ...
(2) ALLAHABAD
A. Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021—Section 35(1)—Appeal—Pre-deposit—Nature—Held: Requirement of pre-deposit of 50% of adjudicated amount is mandatory and jurisdictional—Use of expression “no appeal shall lie” makes it a condition precedent for institution of appeal—In absence of such deposit, appeal is non-est and not maintainable in law. (Paras 27–29, 55) B. Limitation—Pre-deposit—Interplay—Held: Pre-deposit and limitation are cumulative requirements—Deposit made beyond limitation does not validate an otherwise incompetent appeal—Appeal is treated as instituted only upon compliance of pre-deposit, and delay must be separately explained and condoned—Pre-deposit cannot cure limitation defect. (Paras 31–33, 4...
(3) ALLAHABAD
Custody of minor child
Constitution of India, 1949—Article 226—Custody of minor child—Writ jurisdiction—Natural guardian—After the death of the mother, custody of a 13-month-old child was claimed by the father as natural guardian—The child was in the care of maternal relatives—In the absence of any material showing the father to be unfit and considering his financial stability and ability to provide proper upbringing, the father’s legal and natural claim prevails—Welfare of the child does not justify denial of custody to the father merely on preference for maternal relatives—Mere claim that maternal relatives would better serve child’s welfare does not override father’s legal right —To preserve child’s emotional bond with father, custody directed to be given to him—Materna...
(4) MADRAS
Partition, Hindu Law
Hindu Law (Mulla, 22nd Edn.)—Artcles 241 & 254—Karta—Powers & Alienation—Legal Necessity—Binding Effect of—Karta of a Hindu Undivided Family is its supreme manager and legal representative, empowered to manage family affairs, represent it in proceedings, incur debts, and alienate coparcenary property—Such alienation is valid and binding on all coparceners, including minors and widows, if made for legal necessity or benefit of estate, with a presumption of validity attaching to Karta’s acts—Existence of legal necessity is fact-specific; discharge of tax liabilities of family business constitutes legal necessity—Once such necessity is proved, the alienation cannot be challenged by any coparcener. A. Specific Relief Act, 1963—Section 10 (prior to amendment)—Sp...
(5) JAMMU & KASHMIR
Interim compensation
A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Section 143-A—Sections 138 and 142—Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023—Section 528—Interim compensation—Discretionary power—Held: Power under S. 143-A NI Act to grant interim compensation is discretionary and not mandatory—Use of expression “may” requires judicial application of mind—Court must prima facie evaluate complainant’s case and defence of accused before granting such relief—Mechanical exercise of power without consideration of defence (such as denial of signature) is impermissible—Impugned order granting 10% compensation set aside. (Paras 16 to 20, 23 to 25) B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Section 143-A—Interim compensation—Requirement of reasons and quantum—Held: Grant of in...
(6) ORISSA
Appeal against acquittal
A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973—Section 372 proviso, Section 2(wa), Section 378(4)—Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023—Section 413, Section 2(1)(y), Section 419(4)—Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Section 138—Appeal against acquittal—Complainant as “victim”—Maintainability—Held: In cheque dishonour cases, complainant who suffers pecuniary loss is a “victim” within meaning of S. 2(wa) CrPC / S. 2(1)(y) BNSS—Such complainant has independent statutory right to file appeal against acquittal under proviso to S. 372 CrPC / S. 413 BNSS—Resort to S. 378(4) CrPC / S. 419(4) BNSS not mandatory—Victim’s right of appeal is substantive and not diluted merely because case instituted on complaint. (Paras 11 to 18, 21) B. Code of Criminal Pro...
(7) ALLAHABAD
A. Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021—Section 35(1)—Appeal—Pre-deposit—Continuing obligation—Held: Pre-deposit of 50% of “entire amount payable” is mandatory and not confined to a one-time deposit at the time of filing appeal—Where impugned order creates recurring liability (e.g., revised rent), obligation extends to continuous deposit during pendency of appeal—Requirement is dynamic and subsists so long as liability continues. (Paras 14–17, 23.3–23.4) B. Rent law—Recurring liability—Interpretation of “entire amount payable”—Held: Expression “entire amount payable” includes ongoing accruals and cannot be restricted to amount due on date of appeal—Restrictive interpretation would defeat legislative ...
(8) ALLAHABAD
Rejection of plaint
A. Hindu Succession Act, 1956—Section 14—Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order VII Rule 11— Rejection of plaint—Suit by son and daughter claiming property in mother’s name as HUF property—Held, not maintainable—Any property purchased by female Hindu whether before or after the commencement of the Act shall be held by her as full owner thereof and not as a limited owner—Where property is purchased in the name of a female Hindu after commencement of the Act, she becomes its absolute owner U/s 14, irrespective of source of consideration, unless a restricted estate is shown—Mere bald assertion by daughter and son that property was acquired from Hindu undivided family funds, without proof of nucleus, is insufficient—Therefore, even if consideration was provided by husband, title vest...
(9) ALLAHABAD
Eviction, Rent Law
A. Constitution of India—Article 227—Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021—Sections 21(2)(b), 4(3) and 4(7)—Eviction—Scope of supervisory jurisdiction—Held: High Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of Rent Authority and Rent Tribunal where landlord-tenant relationship and statutory default stand proved—Non-compliance with S. 4(3) constitutes a valid ground for eviction under S. 4(7)—Eviction orders upheld. (Paras 2–4) B. Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021—Sections 21 and 4—Grounds of eviction—Statutory non-compliance—Held: Even if default prior to commencement of Act may not independently justify eviction, admitted non-furnishing of tenancy particulars under S. 4(3) is sufficient—Eviction le...
(10) RAJASTHAN
Handwriting expert
A. Indian Evidence Act, 1872—Section 45—Handwriting expert—Right of accused—Held: Accused disputing signatures on cheque is entitled to seek examination by handwriting expert—Denial of such opportunity amounts to denial of fair trial—Application should ordinarily be allowed unless found to be vexatious or intended to delay proceedings—Impugned order rejecting such request set aside. (Paras 9–11, 15–17) B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Sections 138, 139—Presumption—Rebuttal—Held: Section 139 creates a rebuttable presumption in favour of the holder of cheque—Burden shifts on accused to disprove liability—To rebut such presumption, accused must be afforded full opportunity to lead defence evidence, including expert opinion. (Paras 12–14) ...