Criminal Appeal – Conviction under Section 376(2)(i) IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act – Appellant convicted by the Trial Court – Appeal against the judgment of conviction – Child victim's testimony found credible and reliable – No inconsistencies in her statements – Corroboration by the mother of the child victim – Conviction under Section 6 of the POCSO Act upheld. [Para 9-12]

Witness Turning Hostile – Eyewitness (PW-6) turning hostile – Material contradictions in her testimony – Prosecution's case not undermined – Reliance on other evidence to prove the case – Turning hostile does not discredit the child victim's testimony. [Para 17-18]

Medical Evidence – Hymen found intact and no external injuries – Not conclusive of non-rape – Penetration not always leading to physical injury – Reliance on precedent judgments – Definition of penetrative sexual assault under POCSO Act. [Para 21-25]

Statutory Presumption – Section 29 of the POCSO Act – Presumption against the accused in certain offences – Accused failed to rebut the presumption – Conviction upheld. [Para 27]

Sentencing – Reduction of sentence – Appellant sentenced to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment – Satisfactory conduct in jail – Remission earned – No involvement in other offences – Age of the appellant – Reduction of sentence to 12 years – Retention of fine. [Para 30-34]

Civil Suit – Grant of conditional leave to defend – Defendant challenges the Trial Court’s order granting conditional leave to defend – Defendant disputes financial transactions and execution of handwritten undertaking – Defendant failed to comply with the Trial Court’s directions and delayed approaching the Court – Defendant’s conduct indicates an intent to protract legal proceedings – Plaintiff relied on dishonored cheques and handwritten undertaking – Defendant’s defense of issuing blank cheques without consideration is weak – Defendant’s admission of signatures on the undertaking while disputing its contents – Trial Court’s discretion to impose conditions for leave to defend – Interference with discretionary order under Article 227 requires a showing of patently erroneous exercise of discretion – Defendant failed to make a case for interference – Petition dismissed.

Injunction – Restraining Sale of Property – Appellants restrained from selling disputed property till further orders – Appeal against Single Judge's order in Original Suit for partition, declaration, and permanent injunction – Court maintaining status quo to protect property rights during litigation. [Para 1, 7, 8]

Property Rights – Sale of Property in Dispute – Challenge to the legality of sale based on claims of fraud and collusion in execution of relinquishment deed – Consideration of legal heir's rights in property inherited from deceased father. [Para 2, 3]

Appellate Jurisdiction – Interference with Discretionary Orders – Appellate court’s approach to discretion exercised by trial court in granting temporary injunction – Appellate court not to substitute its discretion except in cases of arbitrary, capricious or perverse exercise of discretion. [Para 5, 6]

Temporary Injunction – Principles for Grant – Prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss – Upholding Single Judge's findings on all three considerations for granting injunction to protect property during litigation. [Para 7, 8]

Decision – Dismissal of Appeal – Upholding Single Judge's order, maintaining injunction against appellants from selling disputed property – Appeal and pending application dismissed. [Para 9

Negotiable Instruments Act – Cheque dishonored – Account blocked – Maintaining the account – Accused acquitted of the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate – Petition seeking leave to appeal against the judgment – Issue of whether the account on which the cheques were drawn can be said to be maintained by the drawer when the said account was blocked/frozen/attached on the orders of an authority – Interpretation of Section 138 of the NI Act – The petitioner argues that the judgment ignored settled case law accommodating situations arising from deliberate acts/omissions of the accused – Relying on Laxmi Dyechem vs. State of Gujarat (2012) 13 SCC 375 and Pankaj Mehra & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2000) 2 SCC 756 – Respondent argues that the account was blocked for reasons beyond the control of the drawer – Citing Modi Cements Limited vs. Kuchil Kumar Nandi (1998) 3 SCC 249 and Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Pennar Peterson Securities Ltd. & Ors. (2000) 2 SCC 745 – Court finds that the account being blocked for reasons beyond the control of the drawer does not amount to a voluntary act of the drawer – Petitioner fails to prove the first ingredient of Section 138 of NI Act – Judgment of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate upheld – Leave petition dismissed.

Criminal Procedure – Section 482 CrPC – Quashing of Order and Release of Seized Property: Petition under Section 482 CrPC for quashing the order dated 28.06.2016 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gopalganj, and for release of a motorcycle and mobile phone seized under the NDPS Act. The petitioner, accused in an NDPS case, seeks interim custody of his belongings, claiming wrongful implication. [Para 1, 3]

NDPS Act – Confiscation Proceedings – Authority and Jurisdiction: Discussion on whether the Special Court under the NDPS Act or the police/authority under the NDPS Act initiates confiscation proceedings. Examination of Sections 60 and 63 of the NDPS Act regarding the liability of vehicles to confiscation and the role of the Special Court in deciding confiscation post-trial. [Para 7, 11-12, 14]

Application of CrPC to NDPS Proceedings – Section 451 CrPC: Consideration of the applicability of Section 451 of the CrPC for interim custody of seized property in NDPS cases. Analysis of Sections 36C and 5 of the CrPC concerning the application of CrPC provisions to NDPS proceedings, addressing the gap in the NDPS Act about interim custody during trial. [Para 7, 22-23]

Judicial Precedents – Interim Custody of Seized Property: Review of various High Court judgments (Karnataka, Chhattisgarh, Punjab & Haryana, Uttarakhand, Calcutta, Madhya Pradesh, Jharkhand) interpreting the powers of Special Courts under NDPS Act and CrPC to grant interim custody of seized vehicles and other properties during trial. [Para 25-34]

Order – Part Allowance of Petition – Conditional Release of Vehicle: The petition is partially allowed. The court orders the release of the seized motorcycle to the petitioner subject to conditions ensuring its availability for trial and confiscation proceedings. The request for the release of the mobile phone is denied, considering the potential for tampering and loss of evidentiary value. [Para 39]

Modification of Impugned Order – Special Court’s Jurisdiction and Conditions for Release: Modification of the order by the Additional Sessions Judge, recognizing the Special Court’s jurisdiction under NDPS Act and CrPC for interim custody and setting conditions for the release of the motorcycle. [Para 40]

Application for Leave to Appeal Against Acquittal – Filed under Section 378(3) of Cr.P.C. against acquittal in a case under the N.D.P.S. Act – Accused acquitted by the Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Act, Neemuch, in Special S.T. No.32A/2018. [Para 1]

Facts of the Case – Secret information led to the interception of co-accused Indarmal with 2 Kg 600 grams of opium – Respondent Ajay implicated based on Indarmal’s statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. [Para 2, 3]

State’s Contention – Appellant/State challenged the trial court’s judgment, claiming it overlooked the evidence and prosecution witnesses’ statements, and failed to consider the presumption in favor of the State. [Para 4]

Trial Court’s Acquittal – Grounded on insufficient evidence to establish respondent Ajay’s involvement in the alleged crime – Relied only on the co-accused’s memorandum under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. [Para 6]

Appellate Principles – Reference to Supreme Court judgments emphasizing the cautious approach in appellate intervention against acquittals – Interference only on compelling and substantial grounds. [Paras 7-8]

High Court’s Decision – Finding no illegality or perversity in the trial court’s order and no compelling reasons for appellate interference – Dismissal of appeal and declination of leave to appeal. [Para 9, 10]

Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 – Modification of maintenance amount by Appellate Tribunal – Original order requiring each brother to pay Rs.700/- per month – Appellate order enhanced petitioner's payment to Rs.3000/- per month, leaving other brother's payment unchanged – Petitioner's challenge to the discriminatory enhancement. [Para 2, 3]

High Court Intervention – Direction to deposit arrears at the rate of Rs.1000/- per month from November 2016 and to pay litigation expenses – Balance payment of Rs.19,000/- towards maintenance at the rate of Rs.1000/- per month confirmed by the court. [Para 3, 4]

Settlement and Court Order – Petitioner's agreement to pay Rs.1000/- per month as maintenance – High Court modifies the impugned order and sets the maintenance amount at Rs.1000/- per month, to be paid by the 7th of every month. [Para 5-7]

Decision – Impugned order dated 14.12.2016 partially modified – Civil Writ Petition disposed of with directions for regular maintenance payments by the petitioner. [Para 7, 8]

Bail – Grant of Regular Bail – Regular bail granted to petitioner in case FIR No.111 dated 04.07.2023, under Sections 323, 342, 307, 506 and 34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Sector 31, Chandigarh – Petitioner falsely implicated, no injuries attributed to him, and all injuries specifically attributed to co-accused, who is the petitioner's son. [Para 3, 10]

Criminal Jurisprudence – Principle of 'Bail is the Rule and Jail is an Exception' – Emphasis on the fundamental rights enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the presumption of innocence – The need for a balance between individual liberty and the interest of society. [Para 5, 7, 8]

Speedy Trial – Rights of a Detained Person – Consideration of the right to a speedy trial in deciding applications for regular bail – Importance of securing the accused's presence for trial without unnecessary detention. [Para 6]

Trial Proceedings – Current Status – No prosecution witnesses examined out of total 14, charges framed on 11.12.2023 – Petitioner has suffered incarceration of more than 6 months, and trial not likely to conclude soon. [Para 4, 10]

Final Order – Release on Bail – Petitioner to be released on bail upon furnishing bail bond and surety bond to the satisfaction of the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/trial Court/Duty Magistrate – Observations in order not to affect merits of the trial. [Para 11, 12, 13]

Amendment Application Dismissal – Specific Performance Plea – Limitation Issue – The plaintiff’s application for amendment to include a specific performance plea was dismissed by the Trial Court. The proposed amendment was found to change the suit's nature, introduce a new cause of action, and was barred by limitation under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963. [Paras 1, 1.6, 6, 6.4]

Plaintiff’s Arguments – Inadvertent Exclusion of Specific Performance – The plaintiff argued that the relief for specific performance was inadvertently not included in the original plaint. Cited Supreme Court judgments stating that a party must not suffer due to the mistake of counsel. [Paras 2, 2.1, 2.2]

Defendant's Counter – Application's Timeliness and Validity – The defendants argued that the amendment application was rightfully dismissed based on the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC and raised objections on the maintainability of the suit. [Paras 3, 3.1, 3.2]

Trial Court’s Findings – Dismissal of Amendment Justified – The Court agreed with the Trial Court's findings that the amendment would alter the suit's nature and introduce a time-barred claim, hence was not permissible. [Paras 5, 6, 6.7]

Due Diligence Lacking in Amendment Application – The application for amendment failed to satisfy the due diligence requirement as per the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC. [Paras 7, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 7.5]

Final Decision – High Court upheld the Trial Court’s decision, dismissing the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. [Paras 9, 10, 11]