(1) SUPREME COURT
Hindu Succession
A. Indian Succession Act, 1925—Sections 263 and 283—Probate—Revocation—Non-impleadment of necessary parties—Suppression of material facts—Held: Grant of probate liable to be revoked where proceedings suffer from substantive defects—Failure to implead persons having interest in estate (including purchasers and legal heirs) and non-issuance of citations vitiate proceedings—Suppression of material facts regarding prior sale of property and existence of interested parties amounts to “just cause” under S. 263—District Court rightly revoked probate. (Paras 21–24) B. Indian Succession Act, 1925—Section 263—Explanation (b), Illustration (ii)—Fraud and concealment—Caveatable interest—Held: Any person having even a slight or subsequent interest ...
(2) SUPREME COURT
Maintenance
A. Indian Evidence Act, 1872—Section 112—Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023—Section 116—Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005—Section 12—Maintenance—Paternity—DNA test—Held: Presumption of legitimacy of child born during subsistence of valid marriage under S. 112 IEA is strong but rebuttable—Where DNA test conducted with consent and has attained finality showing that respondent is not biological father, such scientific evidence prevails over statutory presumption—Child not entitled to maintenance from respondent—High Court justified in denying maintenance. (Paras 5, 9, 10) B. Indian Evidence Act, 1872—Section 112—DNA testing—Judicial approach—Held: Courts must exercise restraint in ordering DNA tests due to potential stigma and...
(3) SUPREME COURT
Res Judicata
A. Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950—Sections 117, 129, 132 and 195—U.P. Land Records Manual—Paragraph A-124 and Paragraph Ka-155-Ka—Land classification—Public utility land—Grant of patta—Validity—Held: Land originally recorded as Category-6 (including khalihan and pasture land) falls within public utility land covered under S. 132 where bhumidhari rights cannot accrue—Sub-Divisional Officer has no jurisdiction to alter land category from Category-6 to Category-5—Manual provisions relate only to entries affecting khata/tenure and not to change of nature of land—Re-categorisation without statutory authority illegal—Pattas granted on such basis void ab initio and confer no rights. (Paras 23 to 30) B. Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and La...
(4) SUPREME COURT
Bail
A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973—Sections 437 and 439—Indian Penal Code, 1860—Sections 304, 279, 337, 338, 427, 120-B, 201, 213, 214, 466, 467, 468, 471, 109 read with Section 34—Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988—Sections 7, 7-A, 8, 12 and 13—Motor Vehicles Act, 1988—Sections 184, 185, 199/177, 3(1)/180, 5(1)/181 and 199(a)—Regular bail—Parity—Prolonged custody—Held: Appellant, a doctor, in custody for about one year eleven months—Co-accused in connected matter granted bail by Supreme Court—Considering parity, length of custody and overall facts, continued incarceration not justified—Impugned order of High Court rejecting bail set aside—Appellant directed to be released on regular bail. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973—Sections 437 and 4...
(5) SUPREME COURT
Suspension of sentence
A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973—Section 389—Indian Penal Code, 1860—Sections 323, 325, 326 and 341 read with Section 34—Suspension of sentence—Pending appeal—Grant of bail—Held: Appellant convicted and sentenced up to five years’ rigorous imprisonment—Application for suspension of sentence rejected by High Court—Supreme Court, considering that appellant had undergone part of sentence, appeal of year 2026 unlikely to be heard in near future due to pendency, and overall facts, held that case for suspension of sentence made out—Impugned order set aside—Appellant directed to be released on bail pending appeal. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973—Section 389—Suspension of sentence—Conditions—Held: Bail granted subject to conditions—Appella...
(6) SUPREME COURT
Bail
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023—Sections 316(2), 316(5), 318(1), 318(3), 336(1), 336(3), 340(2) and Section 3(5)—Code of Criminal Procedure principles (Bail)—Regular bail—Parity—Delay in trial—Held: Appellant in custody since 02.08.2025 (about seven months)—Out of about seventeen accused, only appellant and one co-accused chargesheeted while others granted interim protection—Trial not yet commenced and likely to be delayed—Alleged offences not attributable solely to appellant—On facts, continued incarceration not justified—Impugned order of High Court rejecting bail set aside and appellant directed to be released on bail. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023—Sections 316, 318, 336, 340 and 3(5)—Bail—Conditions—Held: Bail granted subject to conditions to en...
(7) SUPREME COURT
Criminal Law
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973—Sections 437 and 439—Indian Penal Code, 1860—Sections 302, 504, 506, 120B, 201 read with Section 34—Arms Act, 1959—Sections 25 and 27—Maharashtra Police Act, 1951—Sections 37(1), 135 and 142—Criminal Law (Amendment) Act—Section 7—Bail—Prolonged incarceration—Delay in trial—Held: Petitioner in judicial custody for more than five years—Despite earlier directions of Supreme Court to conclude trial within stipulated period, only one witness examined—Inordinate delay attributable to prosecution and trial court—Right to speedy trial violated—Continued incarceration unjustified even in serious offence like murder—Petitioner entitled to bail. (Paras 8 to 10) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973—Sections...
(8) SUPREME COURT
Suspension of sentence
A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973—Section 389—Suspension of sentence—Cancellation of bail—Restoration by Supreme Court—Held: Appellant convicted under Sections 457 and 354 IPC and granted suspension of sentence by High Court during pendency of appeal—Subsequently, High Court recalled the order and cancelled bail on application by complainant—Supreme Court held that cancellation of suspension of sentence not justified in facts—Impugned order set aside and earlier order granting suspension of sentence restored—Appellant entitled to remain on bail pending appeal. (Paras 10 to 13) B. Criminal law—Bail—Conditions and compliance—Held: Even if there is allegation of breach of conditions, cancellation of bail must be justified on cogent grounds—In present case, res...
(9) SUPREME COURT
Anticipatory bail
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023—Section 482—Anticipatory bail—Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023—Sections 69 and 351(3)—SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989—Sections 3(1)(xii), 3(2)(v)—Grant of relief—Held: Appellant apprehending arrest in serious offences including those under SC/ST Act—High Court rejected anticipatory bail—Supreme Court, considering circumstances including interim protection already granted, cooperation with investigation and overall facts, held that appellant entitled to anticipatory bail—Impugned order set aside and interim protection made absolute—Directed that in event of arrest, appellant be released on bail on furnishing cash security of Rs 25,000 with two sureties—Subject to conditions that appellant shall cooperate with inves...
(10) SUPREME COURT
Contempt of Court
A. Contempt of Courts Act, 1971—Section 19—Criminal contempt—Impleadment of Judge—Held: A Judge who merely brings facts to the notice of the Chief Justice cannot be treated as a complainant or necessary/proper party in contempt proceedings—Prayer to implead such Judge rightly rejected—Contempt proceedings are between Court and alleged contemnor and not inter se adversarial litigation. (Paras 12 to 13) B. Contempt jurisdiction—Scandalising the Court—Limits of criticism—Held: While fair and bona fide criticism of judicial decisions is permissible, imputations against integrity, impartiality or motives of a Judge without cogent basis cross permissible limits—Public statements or press conferences making such allegations tend to scandalise Court and undermine public confidence in ...
(1) 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...
(2) 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...
(3) MADRAS
Rebuttal of
A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Section 138—Sections 118 and 139—Dishonour of cheque—Dismissal of complaint—Rebuttal of presumption—Held: Appellant/complainant failed to establish source of funds for alleged loan of Rs 5,00,000 and did not produce demand promissory note—Contradictions in her evidence regarding financial capacity and prior dealings created serious doubt—Respondent successfully rebutted statutory presumptions under Ss. 118 and 139 by cross-examination and by producing defence documents (Ex. D1 and Ex. D2)—Burden shifted back to complainant, who failed to discharge it—Trial Court’s dismissal of complaint held justified and based on proper appreciation of evidence. (Paras 2 to 5) B. Indian Evidence Act, 1872—Section 145—Contradictions—U...
(4) MADRAS
Statutory presumption
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Sections 118 and 139—Section 138—Dishonour of cheque—Statutory presumption—Rebuttal—Financial capacity—Evidentiary value—Held: Presumption that cheque was issued towards discharge of legally enforceable debt is rebuttable—Accused can discharge burden by raising a probable defence on preponderance of probabilities—Where accused questions complainant’s financial capacity and genuineness of transaction, burden shifts on complainant to establish source of funds—Failure to produce contemporaneous evidence such as income tax returns, bank statements or reliable records casts serious doubt on existence of debt—Documents prepared belatedly without supporting material lack probative value—In such circumstances, presumption stands re...
(5) HIMACHAL PRADESH
Compromise
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Section 138—Conviction—Compromise between parties—Setting aside of conviction—Held: Petitioner convicted and sentenced under S. 138 NI Act and appeal dismissed—Subsequently, parties entered into compromise and complainant received entire compensation and expressed no desire to pursue proceedings—In view of settlement, judgment of conviction and sentence set aside—Petitioner acquitted subject to condition of depositing 10% of cheque amount with H.P. Legal Services Authority within stipulated time—Failure to comply to render order ineffective and petitioner liable to undergo sentence—Revision allowed and petitioner directed to be released forthwith unless required in any other case. (Paras 5 to 11) ...
(6) CHHATTISGARH
Presumption
A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Sections 118 and 139—Section 138—Presumptions and rebuttal—Acquittal—Held: Statutory presumptions regarding consideration and legally enforceable debt operate in favour of complainant but are rebuttable—Accused can discharge burden by raising a probable defence on preponderance of probabilities and need not prove case beyond reasonable doubt—Where complainant fails to establish existence of legally enforceable debt, particularly in cases involving large cash transactions unsupported by documentary evidence, presumption stands rebutted—Appellate Court justified in reversing conviction and acquitting accused—Further, where statutory notice is sent to correct address and returned unserved, presumption of due service arises unless rebutted by accused. (P...
(7) BOMBAY
Divorce, DNA Test
A. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955—Section 13(1)(i)—Evidence Act, 1872—Section 112—Divorce—Paternity—DNA test—Husband disputing paternity of child born during subsistence of marriage—DNA test directed by trial court—Held, DNA test may be ordered to aid adjudication of matrimonial dispute, including allegation of infidelity—However, it cannot be used to declare child illegitimate unless presumption under Section 112 is rebutted by proof of non-access. [Paras 12–13, 17] B. Evidence Act, 1872—Section 112—Presumption of legitimacy—DNA evidence—Strong statutory presumption in favour of legitimacy of child born during marriage—Held, such presumption can be displaced only by clear proof of non-access—DNA test alone insufficient to rebut presump...
(8) MADRAS
Time barred debt
A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Section 138—Indian Contract Act, 1872—Section 25(3)—Limitation Act, 1963—Time-barred debt—Legally enforceable liability—Held: Cheque issued in year 2004 on basis of transactions of years 1997–1998—No acknowledgment or fresh agreement to repay within limitation—In absence of a valid promise under S. 25(3) of Contract Act, debt remains time-barred and unenforceable—Cheque issued for such liability does not attract S. 138—Acquittal justified. (Paras 12–13) B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Sections 118 and 139—Company complaint—Power of attorney—Authorization—Rebuttal of presumption—Held: Complaint prosecuted through power of attorney holder without production of Board resolution authorizi...
(9) MADRAS
Settlement
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Section 138—Sections 118 and 139—Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 320—Dishonour of cheque—Conviction—Settlement and compounding—Held: Respondent initially convicted by Trial Court for dishonour of cheque and sentenced to imprisonment with compensation—Appellate Court set aside conviction noting discrepancies in evidence including variance in signature—During pendency of further proceedings, parties entered into amicable settlement and agreed amount paid through demand drafts—In view of compromise, continuation of proceedings held unnecessary—Statutory presumptions under Ss. 118 and 139 stood eclipsed by settlement—Offence treated as compounded and respondent acquitted—Appeals dismissed accordingly. (Paras 1 to 5) ...
(10) HIMACHAL PRADESH
Compounding of offence
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Sections 138 and 147—Dishonour of cheque—Conviction—Compounding of offence—Litigation cost and compounding fee—Held: Accused convicted under S. 138 NI Act for dishonour of cheque—During pendency of proceedings, entire compensation paid and complainant expressed no objection—Offence permitted to be compounded under S. 147 even after conviction in view of principles laid down in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H.—Impugned judgments of conviction and sentence set aside and accused acquitted—Accused directed to pay Rs 5,000 as litigation cost to complainant and Rs 5,000 as compounding fee to Himachal Pradesh State Legal Services Authority within stipulated time. (Paras 7 and 8) ...