The Negotiable Instruments Act – Dishonour of Cheque – Section 138 – Reversal of Acquittal – Trial Court acquitted accused on ground that complainant failed to prove financial capacity to advance loan of ₹10,00,000 – Lower appellate Court reversed acquittal and convicted accused – Held: Once issuance of cheque and signature are admitted, statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 arise – Trial Court erred in insisting upon proof of source of funds without accused discharging initial burden [Paras 2, 5].

Presumption under Sections 118 & 139 NI Act – Burden of Proof – Accused did not dispute signature or issuance of cheque – Defence that cheque was misused not supported by any material evidence – Mere suggestion or denial insufficient to rebut statutory presumption – Accused failed to probabilise defence [Paras 4–5].

Financial Capacity of Complainant – Requirement of Proof – Complainant stated that loan amount was mobilised from known persons and agricultural income – Sale deed produced to show ownership of agricultural land – Held: At initial stage, complainant is not required to prove financial capacity unless accused lays foundation in reply notice or evidence – Failure to reply to statutory notice strengthens complainant’s case [Paras 3, 6].

Failure to Reply to Statutory Notice – Adverse Inference – Accused neither replied to demand notice nor paid cheque amount – Held: Failure to reply to statutory notice permits inference that defence is an afterthought – Reliance placed on Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar [Paras 2, 6].

Appellate Jurisdiction – Interference with Judgment of Conviction – Lower appellate Court gave cogent reasons for reversing acquittal – Judgment found to be well-reasoned and based on evidence – Held: No perversity or illegality warranting interference under Section 374(2) CrPC [Para 5].

Sentence – Non-compliance of Suspension Order – Accused failed to comply with condition of deposit while seeking suspension of sentence – Held: Trial Court directed to secure accused for undergoing sentence [Para 5].

Transfer of Matrimonial Proceedings – Section 24 CPC – Convenience of Wife – Paramount Consideration – Wife sought transfer of divorce petition filed by husband at Kurnool to Vijayawada where she was residing with a minor child and where multiple connected proceedings were pending – Distance between Vijayawada and Kurnool exceeding 300 kms causing hardship to wife – Held: In matrimonial disputes, convenience of the wife ordinarily deserves precedence over inconvenience to the husband, particularly when she is residing with a minor child and dependent on her parents [Paras 6, 8].

Multiplicity of Proceedings – Same Parties – Avoidance of Hardship and Conflicting Decisions – Wife had already instituted maintenance proceedings, domestic violence case, and criminal proceedings at Vijayawada – Husband attending proceedings at Vijayawada – Divorce petition filed by husband at Kurnool – Held: Transfer justified to consolidate proceedings at one place to avoid multiplicity and unnecessary hardship [Paras 6–8].

Section 24 CPC – Ends of Justice – Scope of Power – Power to transfer proceedings to be exercised where ends of justice so demand – Court to consider economic condition, social background, standard of living, and protective umbrella available to parties – Reliance placed on Supreme Court decision in N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik – Held: Present case squarely falls within parameters warranting transfer [Paras 7–8].

Matrimonial Disputes – Socio-Economic Realities – Judicial Approach – Wife residing separately with five-year-old child and dependent on parents – Lack of male assistance and financial constraints pleaded – Held: Socio-economic realities of Indian society mandate liberal approach in favour of wife while considering transfer petitions [Paras 6–8].

Decision: Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition allowed – F.C.O.P. No.78 of 2025 withdrawn from the Family Court-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Kurnool and transferred to the Principal Family Court-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Vijayawada – Directions issued for expeditious transmission of records – No order as to costs.

Vehicle Requisition – Hire Charges – Non-payment by State – Petitioner’s Maruti Van requisitioned by police authorities for maintenance of law and order under Assam Requisition and Control of Vehicles Act, 1968 – Hire charges payable as per Government Notification dated 06.02.2014 – Bills raised for multiple periods during 2022–2023 – Outstanding amount of Rs. 6,65,004/- claimed – Liability not disputed by respondents [Paras 2–5, 8].

State Liability – Admitted Dues – Once liability admitted, State cannot withhold payment on ground of non-receipt of sanction or allotment of funds – Administrative delay not a valid justification to deny legitimate dues of citizen – Held: Petitioner entitled to payment of outstanding hire charges [Paras 6–9].

Writ Jurisdiction – Mandamus – Direction for Release of Payment – Where facts are undisputed and claim is admitted, writ court justified in issuing direction to authorities to release payment within a stipulated time – Held: Mandamus issued directing Director General of Police to release admitted amount [Paras 9].

Adjustment and Deduction – Statutory Deduction – Amount already paid to be adjusted – Payment to be made after statutory deductions and set-off of sums already credited to petitioner’s account [Para 9].

Decision: Writ petition disposed of – Respondent No. 3 (Director General of Police, Assam) directed to take steps to release the amount lawfully entitled to the petitioner after statutory deductions within six months from receipt of certified copy of the order – Amount already paid to be adjusted at the time of final payment.

Criminal Law  – Examination of Accused – Section 313 CrPC / Section 351 BNSS – Mandatory Duty of Court – Fair Trial – Convict sentenced to death for rape and murder of a five-year-old child – Trial Court failed to put vital incriminating circumstances, including DNA report, toxicology report and Section 164 CrPC statements, to the accused – Long omnibus questions reproducing entire prosecution case framed instead of specific material circumstances – Held: Such examination defeats the object of Section 313 and violates principles of audi alteram partem – Causes serious prejudice to the accused in a capital punishment case [Paras 22–29, 31–56].

Criminal Jurisprudence – Incriminating Evidence – DNA Evidence – Failure to Put to Accused – Ext PZ DNA report forming the backbone of prosecution case not put to accused under Section 313 CrPC – Held: Circumstances not put to the accused must ordinarily be excluded from consideration – In a case involving death sentence, omission is grave and non-negotiable – Fair opportunity to explain incriminating material is imperative [Paras 24–26, 40–43, 59].

Capital Punishment – Procedural Safeguards – Heightened Scrutiny – Death penalty imposed by Trial Court – Proceedings concluded with undue haste and without strict adherence to procedural safeguards – Held: In capital cases, every safeguard must be scrupulously followed – Any dilution of fair trial standards vitiates the conviction and sentence [Paras 59–60].

Appellate Powers – Remand – Section 386 CrPC – Curable Irregularity – Though defects under Section 313 CrPC are curable – Considering nature of omissions, defence rights, and need to balance justice to accused and victim – Held: Appropriate course is remand to Trial Court from the stage of recording statement of accused under Section 351 BNSS – Not a case of acquittal on merits nor mere exclusion of evidence [Paras 64–66, 69–70].

Criminal Appeal and Murder Reference – Result – Conviction and Sentence Set Aside – Death Reference Rendered Infructuous – Impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence quashed – Matter remanded to Sessions Court to re-commence trial from stage of Section 351 BNSS (Section 313 CrPC) – Accused to be examined afresh on all incriminating circumstances and permitted to lead defence evidence – Murder Reference disposed of as infructuous [Paras 67–75].

Decision: CRA-D-750-2021 partly allowed to the extent of remand – Conviction and death sentence set aside – Murder Reference No. 3 of 2021 disposed of – Trial to recommence from the stage of examination of accused under Section 351 BNSS.

Civil Law - Trade Marks – Opposition to Registration – Deceptive Similarity – Appellant, a well-known milk producers’ federation, challenged registration of the mark “nandini” for agarbattis and dhoops – Deputy Registrar rejected opposition holding “nandini” to be a personal/generic name and products to be dissimilar – Appeal filed under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Paras 1–3, 6].

Trade Mark “NANDINI” – Prior Use and Reputation – Appellant using the mark “NANDINI” since 1983 for milk and dairy products – Mark held to have acquired substantial goodwill and reputation, particularly in Karnataka and neighbouring States – Registration in favour of appellant undisputed [Paras 3(i), 5].

Generic Word – Scope of Protection – Reliance placed on Supreme Court judgment in Nandhini Deluxe v. Karnataka Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Ltd. – Held: Though “NANDINI” is a generic word, protection depends on overall similarity, manner of use, and likelihood of deception – Generic nature alone not decisive [Paras 7–10].

Deceptive Similarity – Phonetic and Visual Test – Impugned mark “nandini” adopted by first respondent without prefix or suffix and written in the same style and font as appellant’s mark – Phonetically identical and visually similar – Likelihood of confusion and deception among consumers established, despite difference in goods [Paras 11–14].

Distinguishing Supreme Court Precedent – In Nandhini Deluxe, offending mark contained suffix “DELUXE” and distinct logo – In present case, absence of distinguishing suffix and identical style of writing made the marks deceptively similar – Matter held factually distinguishable [Paras 9–11, 14].

Error by Trade Marks Registry – Failure to Consider Crucial Aspects – Deputy Registrar failed to consider phonetic identity, visual similarity, and reputation of appellant’s mark – Rejection of opposition held to be erroneous and unsustainable [Paras 15].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Order dated 05.04.2010 passed by the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks set aside – Opposition of appellant upheld – No order as to costs.

Motor Accident Claim – Rash and Negligent Driving – Determination of Liability – Deceased travelling as passenger in TATA Indigo car which collided with Swaraj Mazda goods vehicle that suddenly entered National Highway – Tribunal held accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Swaraj Mazda vehicle – FIR naming car driver as tortfeasor not relied upon as complainant disowned contents and no police witness examined – Finding of sole negligence on goods vehicle upheld [Paras 5–10].

Evidence – FIR – Evidentiary Value – FIR not substantive evidence – Complainant (PW-4) stated that he merely signed where police instructed – In absence of examination of police officials by insurer, Tribunal justified in discarding FIR contents – High Court affirmed approach [Paras 6, 8].

Contributory Negligence – Plea Rejected – Specific issue framed on rash and negligent driving of TATA Indigo vehicle – Tribunal held no negligence on part of car driver – High Court found no perversity in factual findings [Paras 9–10].

Compensation – Assessment of Income – Deceased aged 25 years, employed as software professional – Salary claimed at Rs.34,102/- per month – Tribunal restricted monthly income to Rs.17,000/- considering company was newly formed – Deduction of 50% towards personal expenses and addition of 40% towards future prospects upheld [Paras 7, 11].

Multiplier – Correct Application – Multiplier of 18 applied having regard to age of deceased – Compensation under conventional heads including loss of estate, funeral expenses and love and affection held to be just and reasonable [Paras 7, 11–12].

Appeal under Section 173 MV Act – Scope of Interference – High Court held that findings on negligence and quantum were well-reasoned and based on evidence – No ground made out for interference – Appeal dismissed [Paras 12–13].

Decision: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal dismissed – Award dated 29.06.2020 confirmed – Connected miscellaneous petition closed – No costs.

Income Tax – Reassessment – Second Reopening – Change of Opinion – Invalidity – Assessment for AY 2009–10 earlier reopened and completed under Sections 147/143(3) – Specific issue of interest-free loan received by assessee from closely held company examined – No addition made – Subsequent notice under Section 148 issued for same AY on same foundational facts – Held: Reopening based on mere change of opinion impermissible – Proceedings without jurisdiction [Paras 23–35].

Reassessment – Scope of Sections 147/148 – Abuse of Power – Once reassessment undertaken and concluded after conscious application of mind, Revenue cannot reopen assessment again for same transaction on different legal interpretation – Power of reassessment is an exception and cannot be exercised casually or repeatedly – Second reopening amounts to harassment and uncertainty in tax administration [Paras 31–33, 45].

Interest-Free Loan – Deemed Income – Sections 2(22)(e) and 2(24)(iv) – During first reassessment, AO examined interest-free loan under Section 2(22)(e) and dropped proposed addition – Subsequent attempt to tax notional interest as income under Section 2(24)(iv) based on same facts impermissible – Both provisions held to be “two sides of the same coin” – AO ought to have examined all possible legal consequences in first reassessment itself [Paras 34–35].

Failure to Disclose Material Facts – Extended Limitation – Section 149 – Revenue invoked extended limitation alleging failure to disclose fully and truly material facts – Held: Assessee disclosed primary facts including audited balance sheet, books of accounts and loan transactions – No obligation to disclose secondary facts or inferences – Invocation of extended period held baseless and contrary to law [Paras 36–41].

Primary vs Secondary Facts – Duty of Assessee – Assessee required only to disclose primary facts necessary for assessment – Drawing of inferences and legal conclusions is duty of Assessing Officer – Reopening cannot be justified on ground that AO failed to draw correct inference earlier [Paras 41–42].

Judicial Review – Maintainability of Writ Against Section 148 Notice – Despite availability of alternative remedy, High Court can exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 where proceedings are ex facie without jurisdiction, arbitrary and violative of fundamental rights – Particularly justified where proceedings stayed for years and relate to stale assessment year [Paras 21–22, 43].

Constitutional Law – Arbitrary Reassessment – Violation of Fundamental Rights – Repeated reopening for same issue held violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 300A of Constitution – Tax administration must adhere to certainty, fairness and rule of law [Paras 45–46].

Costs – Arbitrary Exercise of Power – Court deprecated conduct of Revenue in initiating second reassessment without jurisdiction – Token costs imposed to compensate petitioners and mark disapproval of arbitrary action [Para 47].

Decision – Writ petitions allowed – Notices dated 31.03.2016 under Section 148 and all consequential proceedings quashed – Costs of ₹1,00,000/- per case awarded to each petitioner – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 46–48].

Criminal Law – Murder – Conviction under Section 302/34 IPC – Appeal against life sentence – Victim sustained bullet injuries inside his house on the eve of Panchayat elections – Trial Court convicted appellants on the basis of eyewitness testimony and oral dying declaration – High Court reappreciated entire evidence – Held: Conviction justified and appeal dismissed [Paras 1–5, 79–80].

Evidence Act – Res Gestae – Sections 6 and 7 – Victim’s spontaneous utterance naming appellants immediately after being shot – Statements heard by wife (PW 14) and daughter-in-law (PW 15) – Such utterances formed part of the same transaction and surrounding circumstances – Admissible despite being hearsay in nature [Paras 41–44, 47–49].

Dying Declaration – Oral dying declaration – Section 32, Evidence Act – Victim naming appellants as assailants immediately after first bullet injury and repeatedly thereafter to family members, police personnel and companions en route to hospital – Victim conscious though in pain – Oral dying declaration held admissible and reliable – No requirement of written form or Magistrate recording for admissibility [Paras 49, 55–65].

Witness Testimony – Related witnesses – Wife and daughter-in-law as eyewitnesses – Natural presence at place of occurrence – No motive to falsely implicate appellants – Minor inconsistencies and subsequent allegations of police coercion not sufficient to discard substantive testimony before Court – Court entitled to separate truth from embellishment [Paras 56–57, 71–73].

Medical Evidence – Corroboration – Post-mortem findings of bullet injuries and secondary injuries consistent with collision after being shot – Medical opinion corroborated ocular testimony regarding manner of assault – Absence of X-ray and recovery of bullet not fatal to prosecution case [Paras 14–18, 67–68].

Investigation – Lapses and irregularities – Delay in recording statements under Section 164 CrPC – Non-production of written dying declaration allegedly recorded by police – Deficiencies in sketch map and forensic collection – Held: Serious lapses noted but cannot outweigh cogent and credible eyewitness and dying declaration evidence [Paras 66, 74–76].

Identification of Accused – Visibility and presence at scene – Argument of insufficient lighting rejected – Assailants firing through grill gate necessarily implies mutual visibility – Victim’s immediate recognition of appellants, known to him earlier, found natural and credible [Paras 50–53, 68–69].

Criminal Procedure – Section 313 CrPC – Failure of appellants to take plea of alibi – Denial of presence without explanation – Adverse inference drawn in light of prosecution evidence establishing presence at place of occurrence [Para 78].

Sentence – Fine and compensation – Life imprisonment and fines upheld – Modification directing distribution of fine amount equally between wife and daughter-in-law of deceased – Direction to State to pay compensation of ₹5 lakhs in default of payment of fine by appellants [Paras 80–85].

Decision: Criminal Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 302/34 IPC, Section 448 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act upheld – Directions regarding surrender, payment of fine and compensation affirmed with modification.

Maintenance – Interim Maintenance – Section 125 Cr.P.C. – Sufficient Means – Physical Incapacity of Husband – Revisionist-wife sought interim maintenance claiming opposite party to be a practicing doctor having sufficient means – Trial Court rejected interim maintenance holding that husband had become incapable of earning due to grievous firearm injury – High Court examined scope and object of Section 125 Cr.P.C. as a measure of social justice for wives unable to maintain themselves – Held: One of the essential ingredients for grant of maintenance is that the husband must have sufficient means – Where earning capacity of husband is completely destroyed due to physical incapacity, requirement of “sufficient means” not satisfied [Paras 2, 8, 10].

Maintenance Law – Earning Capacity – Distinction between Unemployment and Physical Incapacity – Ordinarily, a husband is expected to earn according to his capacity and cannot evade maintenance by pleading unemployment – However, present case stands on a different footing where husband suffered grievous spinal injury with pellet lodged in spinal cord, rendering him incapable of sitting or practicing his profession – Held: Law does not compel a physically incapacitated person to earn when medical evidence shows inability to do so [Paras 12, 14A].

Conduct of Wife – Impact on Claim for Maintenance – Material on record showed that injury to husband was caused in a firing incident involving revisionist’s brother and father – Prima facie conduct of wife’s side contributed to incapacity of husband – Held: A wife who, by her own acts or by acts of her family members, causes or contributes to the husband’s incapacity to earn cannot be permitted to take advantage of such situation and claim maintenance – Grant of maintenance in such circumstances would result in grave injustice [Paras 12, 12A, 14A].

Judicial Discretion – Interference in Criminal Revision – Trial Court considered pleadings, medical condition, and earning incapacity of husband while rejecting interim maintenance – No manifest illegality, perversity, or material irregularity found – High Court held that Trial Court neither exceeded nor failed to exercise jurisdiction – Revisional interference unwarranted [Paras 15–16].

Decision: Criminal Revision dismissed – Order dated 07.05.2025 rejecting application for interim maintenance upheld.