Anticipatory bail – Appellant’s apprehension of arrest in connection with Crime No. 129/2022 registered at Police Station Dheerpura, District Datia – Alleged offences punishable under Sections 294, 323, 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 3(1)(n]/k) of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act – Prosecution case alleging that the appellant, Baldev Singh, abused and assaulted a member of the SC/ST community, and threatened him and his family members based on their caste – Appellant’s defense claiming innocence and false implication, asserting that the complainant and his son had abused and assaulted him first, leading to his lodging of an FIR (No. 130/2022) at the same police station – Earlier complaints by the appellant against the complainant highlighting threats and abusive behavior – Grant of anticipatory bail by the High Court on the grounds that custodial interrogation was not required and the offenses other than those under the SC/ST Act were bailable in nature – Conditions for anticipatory bail set, including furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with a solvent surety – Direction to the appellant to cooperate with the investigation and abide by the conditions of bail – Clarification that observations in this order would not affect the proceedings in the lower court.

Criminal Appeal – Conviction under sections 363, 366, 376(2)(i)(n) of IPC, and section 6 of the POCSO Act – Appeal against the order of the Special Court – Contentions of the Parties – Evaluation of Evidence – Determination of Age of the Victim – Reliability of Victim’s Evidence – Defense Plea. [Para 1]

POCSO Act – Section 34(2) – Special Court to determine whether a person is a child or not – Statutory mandate to record reasons for such determination – Importance of establishing the minority of the victim child as a condition precedent to proceeding with a case under the POCSO Act. [Para 8]

Evidence – Statement under section 164 of Cr.P.C. – Not substantive evidence – Can be used for corroboration or contradiction – Requirement of confronting the witness with contradictions during cross-examination. [Para 10]

Conviction under section 366 of IPC – Kidnapping or abduction of a woman with intent to compel her to marry against her will or for illicit intercourse – Merger of conviction under section 363 of IPC as a higher offense – No separate sentence required for section 363 of IPC. [Para 11]

Victim’s evidence – Corroborated by family members and circumstantial evidence – Trustworthy and reliable – Conviction justified – Dismissal of the appeal. [Para 11]

Partition – Preliminary Decree – Will – The appellant challenged the preliminary decree of partition favoring respondents based on a Will – High Court held the Will was duly proved, and the suit property devolved upon the respondents as per the Will – Appeal against the decree dismissed [Paras 1-28].

Will – Requirement of Probate – Delhi – Appellant’s contention that Will was not probated was rejected – High Court confirmed that probate is not mandatory in Delhi – Reliance on the Will for partition upheld [Paras 19-20].

Non-Joinder of Parties – Legal Heirs – The suit for partition was challenged for non-joinder of other legal heirs – High Court held that other legal heirs were neither necessary nor proper parties as they had not laid any claim to the suit property – Suit not affected by non-joinder [Paras 21-23].

Oral Partition – Fresh Decree – Appellant’s claim of an oral partition was dismissed – High Court noted no formal partition by metes and bounds had occurred – Preliminary decree of partition was correctly passed by the learned Single Judge [Paras 24-27].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Held – No merit in the appeal – Preliminary decree of partition and permanent injunction affirmed – Suit property to be partitioned equally between the appellant and respondents [Paras 28-29].

Property Dispute – Appointment of Advocate Commissioner – The petitioner filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction to restrain respondents from interfering with the possession of the suit property – Respondents claimed possession and existing constructions on the land, disputing the property description – During trial, respondents sought an Advocate Commissioner’s appointment for property demarcation and inspection – Trial court allowed the application – High Court upheld the trial court’s order, emphasizing the necessity of an Advocate Commissioner to resolve factual disputes about property possession and boundaries [Paras 1-11].

Scope of Advocate Commissioner – Evidence Collection – The High Court differentiated between the collection of evidence and clarification of facts essential for the suit – The appointment aimed at identifying physical features and existing structures, not gathering evidence per se – Upheld as a proper exercise of discretion [Paras 8-10].

Decision: Civil Revision Petition dismissed – Trial court’s order for Advocate Commissioner’s appointment upheld – No order as to costs – Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, dismissed [Para 11].

Constitutional Law – Right to Education – Amendment to Maharashtra RTE Rules – Petitioners challenge the amendment excluding private unaided schools from admitting children from disadvantaged groups if government/aided schools are within 1 km – Contention that the amendment violates the RTE Act and Article 21-A of the Constitution – High Court examines the legislative intent and statutory obligations under the RTE Act [Paras 1-29].

Statutory Interpretation – Subordinate Legislation – Legitimacy of Amendment Rules – Argument that the amendment overreaches Section 12(1)© of the RTE Act – High Court holds that subordinate legislation must conform to the principal act – Amendment deemed ultra vires as it contradicts mandatory provisions of the RTE Act [Paras 30-35].

Fundamental Rights – Right to Free and Compulsory Education – High Court emphasizes that the amendment impinges upon the fundamental right to education – Provision restricting private school admissions violates Article 21-A and is inconsistent with legislative objectives [Paras 36-40].

Administrative Law – Arbitrary and Unreasonable Provisions – Amendment challenged on grounds of arbitrariness – High Court finds the exclusion of private unaided schools arbitrary and contrary to the principles of equality and non-discrimination under Article 15(5) of the Constitution [Paras 41-45].

Decision: Writ Petitions Allowed – Held – The impugned Amendment Rules notified on February 9, 2024, are set aside – High Court directs the State Government to ensure compliance with Section 12(1)© of the RTE Act, including private unaided schools in admission of children from disadvantaged groups [Para 46].

Constitutional Law – Validity of Section 50(2) of PMLA – Petitioners challenged the constitutionality of Section 50(2) of PMLA on grounds of violating Articles 14, 20(3), and 21 – Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. UOI upheld the provision – High Court followed this precedent, asserting Section 50(2) does not infringe upon constitutional rights – Petition dismissed [Paras 84-89].

Criminal Law – Money Laundering – Investigation into petitioners’ involvement in bribery and corruption – Petitioners were initially witnesses but later summoned as accused based on emerging evidence – High Court upheld the summons, affirming the legality of petitioners’ arrest and subsequent investigation under PMLA [Paras 85-90].

Proceeds of Crime – Analysis of Financial Transactions – Investigation revealed significant monetary exchanges between petitioners and middleman Moin Akhtar Qureshi for undue favors – Evidence included BBM messages and witness statements – High Court noted proper procedure followed by Enforcement Directorate (ED) in tracing money laundering activities [Paras 73-87].

Witness to Accused – Change of Status – Petitioners argued improper change from witness to accused – Court found that new evidence during investigation justified this change – Statements under Section 50 PMLA implicated petitioners in money laundering – Court upheld the summons and subsequent actions by ED [Paras 80-87].

Procedural Fairness – Investigation and Trial – Court emphasized adherence to procedural fairness in investigation – Petitioners’ multiple statements analyzed, showing inconsistencies – Court found no procedural violations in ED’s actions – Emphasized need for thorough and fair investigation [Paras 70-79].

Look Out Circulars (LoCs) – Legality and Justification – Petitioners challenged issuance of LoCs – Court found issuance justified based on investigation needs and potential risk of absconding – Upheld LoCs as valid measures under ongoing investigation [Paras 60-63].

Decision: Writ Petitions and pending applications dismissed – Interim protections extended for two weeks [Para 91].

Custody of Child – Physical Presence – Writ petition against the trial court's order requiring the physical presence of the child – Trial court insisted on the child's presence on several dates – Father contended that the child can communicate via video conference and is currently residing in Guwahati – Mother's application for child's custody led to the impugned order – High Court upheld trial court's decision emphasizing the necessity of the child's interaction with the court for custody determination [Paras 1-6].

Jurisdiction and Compliance – Father argued lack of jurisdiction by Bangalore courts and child's refusal to come to Bangalore – High Court rejected jurisdictional challenge noting that the mother had moved to Bangalore with the child in June 2022 with father's consent – Father's failure to comply with court orders to produce the child noted – High Court found trial court's decision to interact with the child appropriate considering the child's age and circumstances [Paras 4-6].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Held – Father's non-compliance with court orders necessitates child's presence for proper custody determination – Trial court's order to produce the child upheld – Pending interlocutory applications closed [Para 6].

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Compensation Assessment – Appellant challenged the compensation awarded by the MACT for being excessive – High Court reviewed the computation of monthly income, considering evidence and minimum wages notification – Tribunal’s assessment of deceased’s income at Rs. 6000/- per month upheld – Adjusted compensation considering future prospects [Paras 4(A)(i)-4(A)(ii)].

Insurance Policy – Act Policy vs. Comprehensive Policy – Appellant insurer contested liability based on nature of insurance policy – High Court held that ‘Act Policy’ (Liability Only Policy) does not cover risk towards occupants of the vehicle – Comprehensive/Package Policy required to indemnify occupants – Appellant exonerated from liability to pay compensation – Registered owner and transferee held liable [Paras 4(B)(iii), 4(C), 4(D)].

Registered Owner’s Liability – Transfer of Ownership – High Court emphasized that registered owner as per RTO records remains liable to third parties despite any unregistered transfer – Liability cannot be shifted to transferee unless registered with RTO – Registered owner and transferee jointly and severally liable to pay compensation [Paras 4©, 4(D)].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned award modified – Appellant insurance company exonerated from liability – Compensation liability fastened on respondents (registered owner and transferee) – Remaining terms of the impugned award including interest component remain unchanged [Para 5].

Criminal Law – NDPS Act – Conviction and Sentence – Appellant convicted for possession of 77.36 kg of Cannabis (Ganja) – Conviction challenged on grounds of procedural lapses and non-compliance with Section 52A NDPS Act – Trial Court failed to present primary evidence in form of certified inventory, photographs, and list of samples – Seized contraband not physically produced during trial – Appeal allowed, conviction set aside [Paras 1-42].

Compliance with Section 52A NDPS Act – Mandate of Section 52A requires preparation of inventory, certification by Magistrate, and proper documentation of sampling – Prosecution's failure to produce inventory and certified photographs as primary evidence – Non-production of contraband resulted in adverse inference under Section 114[g] of the Evidence Act – Trial vitiated due to non-compliance [Paras 22-41].

Evidentiary Standards – Forensic and Physical Evidence – Testimony of witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.3 inconsistent regarding location and procedure of seizure – Photographs identified by witnesses conflicted with documentary evidence – Forensic samples tested positive but procedural irregularities in sampling noted – High burden of proof under NDPS Act not met by prosecution [Paras 16-21].

Procedural Lapses – Investigation and Trial – Appellant argued prosecution failed to follow mandatory procedures under NDPS Act – Court found discrepancies in seizure process, inventory preparation, and certification by Magistrate – Failure to produce seized contraband in court and lack of primary evidence led to acquittal [Paras 30-40].

Judicial Scrutiny – Appellate Review – High Court scrutinized trial court’s handling of evidence and procedural compliance – Found significant lapses undermining the integrity of prosecution’s case – Emphasized strict adherence to statutory requirements under NDPS Act [Paras 35-42].

Decision – Criminal Appeal Allowed – Conviction and Sentence set aside – Appellant to be released forthwith unless required in connection with any other case – Prosecution's failure to meet stringent standards of proof and procedural compliance under NDPS Act led to acquittal [Paras 42-45].