Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138—Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 391—Revision petition by convict in cheque dishonour case—To impugn order of Sessions Court, which denied the right to produce further evidence—FIR etc—Allowing the introduction of this evidence would serve the interests of justice, ensuring that all relevant and material facts are comprehensively examined prior to the rendering of a final judgment—Such an approach would not only safeguard the appellant's right to a fair hearing but also enable the court to render a just and informed decision, based on a comprehensive evaluation of all the facts and evidence available—The judiciary possesses discretionary authority to evaluate such applications, and this discretion is grounded in principles of justice and fair...

Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order XIV Rule 5—The validity of a Will, the Supreme Court clarified the burden of proof under Sections 101-103 of the Evidence Act and Section 63 of the Succession Act, 1925—It held that while the initial burden lies on the propounder to establish the Will’s due execution and dispel any suspicious circumstances, the burden of proving forgery or fabrication rests with the challenger—Framing an issue casting burden on the plaintiff (challenger) is legally permissible—Under Order XIV Rule 5 CPC, the Court reiterated that separate issues for each relief, such as permanent injunction, are not mandatory if encompassed within a general issue addressing the final relief—The Trial Court’s discretion in rejecting such proposed issues is valid when covered under broader fram...

Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order 14 Rule 1—In this case, the petitioners, under Article 227 of the Constitution, challenged the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Suratgarh, on 20.02.2025, which partly allowed their application under Order XIV Rule 5 of the CPC for amendment of issues in a civil suit—The petitioners contended that the learned Trial Court wrongly placed the burden of proving the validity of a registered Will on them, despite the respondent being the propounder—They further challenged the rejection of their proposed issue regarding permanent injunction—Burden of Proof — The Court found that the initial onus to prove the validity of the Will lies on the propounder (respondent)—However, once the validity is contested, the burden shifts to the challengers (petitioners) to p...

 Limitation Act, 1963—Section 5 —The appellants filed an instant criminal appeal against the order dated 15.07.2019, passed by the Special Judge, CBI Cases, Jodhpur, rejecting their application under Section 452 Cr.P.C—However, the appeal was filed after a delay of 1994 days (over five years)—The appellants sought condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, citing lack of knowledge of the trial court’s decision due to personal and medical issues, including the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and a health condition of one of the appellants—The court considered the explanation but found it insufficient—It emphasized that a party must demonstrate a "sufficient cause" for delay, and in this case, the appellants' failure to approach their counsel or inquire about the ...

Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order 8 Rule 1A(3)—The petitioners/defendants filed a writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Makrana, which partly allowed their application under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) read with Section 151 CPC, and refused to take on record a family partition deed—The petitioners sought the quashing of the order to the extent it rejected the partition deed and prayed for it to be admitted for collateral purposes—The petitioners argued that the trial court erred by not allowing the document, as it could be used for collateral purposes even if unregistered—The trial court had ruled that an unregistered partition deed could not be admitted for evidence without registration—Referring ...

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988—Section 20—The Court emphasized the essential ingredients required to sustain a conviction under Section 7 (read with Section 13), namely: (i) demand of illegal gratification by the accused public servant, and (ii) acceptance of the same by the accused—The prosecution must prove these beyond reasonable doubt, either through direct or circumstantial evidence; mere suspicion is insufficient—The Court clarified that the mandatory presumption under Section 20 can only be invoked after establishing proof of demand and acceptance—If the trap fails, the complainant turns hostile, and there is no corroborative evidence, the prosecution’s case is weak, and essential facts remain unproven—Additionally, the lack of any pending work with the accused at the time of the allege...

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Sections 397—The petitioner, through this criminal revision petition, challenged the order dated 12.09.2024 passed by the Special Judge, ACB, Pali, framing charges against him for offences under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act—The petitioner argued that the mandatory prior approval under Section 17A of the Act, which requires approval for investigation against public servants, was not obtained, making the proceedings invalid—The petitioner contended that no work was pending before him to justify the alleged demand for illegal gratification—However, the prosecution countered that the charges were prima facie valid, and the issue of sanction or approval did not affect the framing of charges at this stage—The Court, while considering Section 17A, held that failur...

Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987—Section 19(5)—The petitioner, Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., challenged the award dated 28.03.2006 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Hanumangarh, which partly allowed the respondents’ complaint and directed the Nigam to adjust an excess payment of Rs.8,200/- in future bills—The respondents had contested a demand of Rs.37,638/- raised by the Nigam, alleging they had not committed theft of electricity—However, the petitioner’s inspection report (VCR) showed that the meter seals were tampered with, implying theft of electricity under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003—The petitioner argued that the Permanent Lok Adalat exceeded its jurisdiction by entertaining a theft case, which is beyond its scope, as per Section 22-C(8) of the Legal Services Authori...

Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Section 151—The petitioners, husband and daughter of the deceased, challenged the order passed by the trial court dismissing their application under Section 151 of the CPC for a temporary injunction, which sought to restrain the respondents from disbursing the deceased’s service benefits and insurance policy amount to the nominees, pending the proceedings under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925—The petitioners contended that the learned trial court erred in rejecting their application and should have exercised inherent powers under Section 151 of the CPC—They argued that the nominees were merely collecting agents and the service benefits and insurance amounts should be granted to them as legal heirs—The respondents, on the other hand, contended that the nominees w...

Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order 7 Rule 11—The appeal challenges the order and decree dated 18.07.2022, whereby the learned trial Judge rejected the plaint in Civil Original Suit No. 23/2020 under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, on the defendant-respondent’s prayer—The plaintiff sought partition of his half share in agricultural land (Khasra No. 488), which was later developed into residential property—The defendant admitted the change in land use but argued that the suit was non-maintainable in Civil Court due to the land being still recorded as agricultural in revenue records, and also for non-joinder of necessary parties—The trial court upheld the objection, ruling that the Revenue Court had jurisdiction—The appellate court found that the nature of the land had changed from agricultural to reside...