A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973—Section 156(3)—Rejection of application—Subsequent FIR—Res judicata: An order rejecting an application under S. 156(3) is confined to directing or declining investigation and does not amount to adjudication on the merits; therefore, such rejection cannot operate as res judicata to bar a subsequent FIR based on the same or substantially similar allegations. (Paras 34, 38–41) B. Criminal proceedings—Doctrine of res judicata—Applicability: The doctrine of res judicata applies to criminal proceedings where the earlier proceeding has culminated in a final adjudication on merits, as recognised in Pritam Singh, Bhagat Ram and Tarachand Jain; whereas it has no application where the earlier proceeding, such as successive proceedings under S. 482 Cr.P.C., involved...
A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988—Sections 166 & 168—Contributory negligence—Finding of contributory negligence against deceased cannot rest merely upon interpretation of a site plan—Where FIR, charge-sheet and eyewitness evidence consistently indicate rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle, unsupported inference against deceased is unsustainable—Liability accordingly fastened upon KSRTC. (Paras 22–26, 29–30) B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988—Section 168—Assessment of compensation—Deceased being professionally qualified and engaged in software/business activities—Income cannot be fixed mechanically on a low notional basis when reliable material establishes higher earning capacity—Professional qualifications, actual earnings and probable future prospects are releva...
A. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988—Section 20—Presumption—Demand of illegal gratification is the foundational fact for raising statutory presumption—Unless prosecution establishes demand and acceptance through reliable evidence, recovery of tainted currency alone cannot justify presumption of guilt—Failure to prove demand beyond reasonable doubt defeats prosecution case. (Paras 9, 12, 15) B. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988—Sections 7, 12 & 13(1)(d)—Demand of bribe—Material inconsistencies in complainant’s evidence regarding the alleged demand and amount demanded create reasonable doubt—Where prosecution evidence does not satisfactorily establish demand and acceptance, conviction for demanding or accepting illegal gratification cannot be sustained. (Paras 9–14) ...
A. Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Section 30—Apportionment of compensation—Lok Adalat award—Rival claimants—Award passed by Lok Adalat without all disputing claimants being parties/signatories cannot constitute a valid settlement—Acquiring body having no dispute regarding entitlement, rival claimants alone are necessary parties to the apportionment dispute—Such award is not binding upon non-signatories. (Paras 45–46, 52) B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908—Order I Rule 8—Lok Adalat proceedings—Representative proceeding—Principles of Order I Rule 8 cannot apply where claimants have conflicting and adverse interests regarding entitlement to compensation—Commonality of interest is an essential requirement for representative proceedings—Rival claims under Section ...
A. Finance Act, 1994—Section 65(105)(zzb)—Business Auxiliary Service—Referral charges—Automobile dealer receiving charges from banks and insurance company for customers availing motor vehicle loans and insurance policies through dealer—Such activity promotes and markets business of banks and insurance company and constitutes Business Auxiliary Service liable to service tax. (Paras 4–5) B. Finance Act, 1994—Section 73(3)—Penalty—Pre-notice payment of tax—Assessee having discharged entire service-tax liability before issuance of show-cause notice, and there being prevailing confusion regarding taxability of referral charges—Department ought not to have proceeded with penalty—Penalty under Section 78, like penalty under Section 76 already set aside by Tribunal, direct...
A. Recruitment—RPF/RPSF—Suppression of criminal antecedents—Verification/Attestation Form—Candidate deliberately failing to disclose pending criminal cases despite specific requirement of disclosure—Such suppression amounts to concealment of material facts and adversely reflects upon suitability and character—Discharge from service in accordance with RPF Rules, 1987 and recruitment conditions upheld applying principles laid down in Avtar Singh v. Union of India. (Paras 5, 9, 18, 21, 29) B. Employment Law—Criminal antecedents—Duty of truthful disclosure—Deliberate declaration of “No” despite pendency of criminal cases constitutes suppression and justifies termination/discharge—Nature of offence, acquittal or subsequent disposal cannot erase deliberate concealment ma...
A. Constitution of India, 1950—Articles 14 and 21—Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973—Section 354(5)—Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023—Section 393(5)—Execution of death sentence—Hanging—Constitutionality— Execution by hanging, as prescribed under Section 354(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Section 393(5) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, does not violate Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution—The three-Judge Bench decision in Deena v. Union of India, (1983) 4 SCC 645, upholding hanging as constitutionally valid, continues to hold the field—No compelling scientific, empirical or legal material was produced warranting reconsideration of the said precedent—Hanging, when properly administered, satisfies the requirements of speed, simplici...
A. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Sections 386, 397—Revisional Jurisdiction—Enhancement of Sentence—High Court cannot enhance the sentence of a convict in exercise of revisional jurisdiction in the absence of an appeal by the State or complainant seeking enhancement—An appeal or revision preferred by the convict cannot be converted into n occasion to enhance the sentence so as to place the convict in a worse position. (Paras 17–19) B. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Sections 31, 386, 397—Consecutive Sentences—Life Imprisonment—Life sentences cannot be directed to run consecutively—Where multiple sentences include sentences of life imprisonment, they are required to run concurrently—High Court erred in exercising suo motu revisional jurisdiction to enhance the sen...
A. Tender Conditions—Challenge—Delay and Laches—Tender conditions must be challenged with due expedition — Where the tender process has substantially progressed, delayed challenge may be declined on grounds of delay and laches, particularly having regard to the compressed timelines of public procurement and the need to avoid disruption of the process. (Paras 19–25) B. Tender Conditions—Eligibility Criteria—Regional Office/Warehouse—Public Interest—A requirement of operational availability of an office or warehouse in a specified region is valid where it has a rational nexus with the object of procurement and facilitates prompt installation, servicing and maintenance — Judicial interference in an ongoing tender must also be guided by larger public interest and the need for time...
A. Service Law—Recruitment—RPF/RPSF—Suppression of Criminal Antecedents—Deliberate non-disclosure of pending criminal cases in the verification/Attestation Form amounts to suppression of material facts and renders the candidate unsuitable for service—Discharge from service in accordance with the RPF Rules, 1987 and recruitment conditions upheld by applying the principles laid down in Avtar Singh v. Union of India. (Paras 5, 9, 18, 21, 29) B. Service Law—Recruitment—Suppression of Criminal Antecedents—Parity—Candidates who had disclosed their antecedents or whose cases stood concluded before submission of the Attestation Form could not be treated at par with candidates who deliberately suppressed pending criminal cases — Reinstatement granted to other candidates on facts of the...
A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Sections 138 & 141—Dishonour of Cheque—Sole Proprietary Concern—Separate Arraignment—Not Necessary— A sole proprietary concern has no independent legal or juristic existence apart from its proprietor—the proprietor and proprietary concern are legally one and the same person—therefore, where the cheque is issued from the account of a sole proprietary concern and the proprietor is himself prosecuted, separate arraignment of the proprietary concern as an accused is not necessary—the principle in Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels & Tours (P) Ltd. requiring arraignment of the principal offender is applicable where the principal offender is a separate juristic entity and not to a sole proprietary concern. (Paras 17–20) B. Code of Criminal P...
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Section 143(3)—Dishonour of Cheque—Expeditious Trial—Time Limit— In a complaint under Section 138 of the Act, the trial is required to be conducted as expeditiously as possible, with an endeavour to conclude it within six months from the date of filing of the complaint—where the proceedings had remained pending due to the respondent’s non-appearance and pending exemption application, the Trial Court was directed to take necessary measures to secure his presence and endeavour to conclude the trial within six months from production of the certified copy of the order. (Paras 6–7) ...
A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Section 147—Section 138—Dishonour of Cheque—Compounding After Conviction— An offence under Section 138 is compoundable at any stage, including after conviction and dismissal of appeal or revision—voluntary settlement between the parties can be accepted notwithstanding that no further proceedings remain pending. (Paras 12–15) B. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023—Section 528—Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Section 147—Inherent Powers—Quashing of Conviction and Sentence— The High Court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction to give effect to a settlement and compound an offence under Section 138 even after conviction and sentence have attained finality in revision—upon valid settlement, the conviction and sentenc...
A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Section 138—Dishonour of Cheque—Joint Account Holder—Non-Signatory—Prosecution Not Maintainable— A joint account holder who has not signed the dishonoured cheque cannot be prosecuted under Section 138 merely because she is a joint account holder or wife of the signatory—liability under Section 138 is confined to the drawer of the cheque, except where Section 141 applies. (Paras 4–5) B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Section 138—Quashing of Proceedings—Joint Account—Non-Signatory—Abuse of Process— Where the applicant was impleaded as an accused solely on the ground that she was a joint account holder and wife of the cheque-signatory, without any allegation of her having signed or drawn the cheque, continuation of the...
A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Sections 138 & 141—Dishonour of Cheque—Vicarious Liability of Director—Specific Averments— Mere designation as Director or Whole Time Director does not create deemed vicarious liability under Section 141—complaint must specifically aver that the accused was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company’s business at the time of commission of the offence. (Paras 8–11) B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Sections 138 & 141—Resignation of Director Before Issuance of Cheques—Quashing of Proceedings— Where the accused had ceased to be a Director nearly two months before issuance and dishonour of the cheques, and statutory records conclusively established such cessation, he could not be held vicariously liable und...
A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973—Section 311—Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Recall of Witness—Additional Evidence— Power under Section 311 is wide and may be exercised at any stage where the proposed evidence is germane and essential for a just decision—mere delay or closure of evidence does not create an absolute bar, provided the opposite party is afforded an effective opportunity of cross-examination and rebuttal. (Paras 30–38, 58–62) B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973—Sections 294(3) & 482—Promissory Note—Disputed Document—Proof of Genuineness— Dispute regarding genuineness of a document does not make it inadmissible or incapable of being produced—Section 294(3) merely dispenses with formal proof where genuineness is admitted&...
A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973—Section 311—Criminal Trial—Defence Evidence—Fair Opportunity—The power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is wide and may be exercised at any stage where the evidence of a witness is essential for a just decision of the case—the accused must be afforded a fair and reasonable opportunity to adduce defence evidence, particularly where such evidence is necessary to rebut statutory presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act. (Paras 9–14) B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973—Section 311—Closure of Defence Evidence—Recall—Last Opportunity—Where defence evidence had been closed due to the accused’s repeated absence, but denial of such evidence would prejudice a fair trial, the Magistrate’s order refusing recall was set aside&md...
A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Sections 138 & 142—Dishonour of Cheque—Demand Notice—Deemed Service—Premature Complaint— Where the demand notice was sent to the correct address but its actual date of service was not proved, service could be deemed on expiry of 30 days from dispatch—the drawer thereafter gets 15 days to make payment and a complaint filed before expiry of such period is premature and not maintainable. (Paras 17–24 B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Section 138—Premature Complaint—Jurisdictional Defect—Revision— Filing of a complaint before expiry of 15 days from service or deemed service of notice creates a jurisdictional bar to taking cognizance—the issue can be raised in revision even if not urged before the Courts below, and t...
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Section 147—Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023—Section 528—Compounding of offence after conviction— Parties entered into compromise for Rs.11,90,000/-, out of which Rs.9,90,000/- was paid to complainant and Rs.2,00,000/- was deposited before Trial Court—Complainant consented to compounding—High Court, exercising power under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and relying upon Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H., (2010) 5 SCC 663, held that an offence under Section 138 can be compounded even after conviction by the Trial Court and dismissal of appeal—Conviction and sentence set aside and accused acquitted—Amount deposited before Trial Court directed to be released to complainant—Accused directed to pay Rs.20,000/- as litiga...
A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Sections 118 & 139—Section 138—Presumption of Consideration—Rebuttal— Admission of issuance of cheque and signature raises the statutory presumption that the cheque was issued towards discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability—the accused may rebut such presumption either through cross-examination of the complainant’s witnesses or by leading defence evidence, and where the complainant’s own evidence discredits the existence of consideration, the presumption stands rebutted and the complaint must fail. (Paras 19–25) B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Section 138—Limitation Act, 1963—Section 19—Time-barred Debt—Acknowledgment of Liability—Appellate Interference with Acquittal— A cheque issued ...