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].

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.

Industrial Law – Stay of Proceedings – Section 10 CPC – Rejected – Petitioner-Management sought to stay individual industrial disputes before Labour Court under Section 10 CPC, pending a collective reference on the legality of a strike under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Management argued that the outcome of the collective reference would directly impact individual dismissal orders, making individual trials redundant – Labour Court rejected the application, holding Section 10 CPC inapplicable to its proceedings – High Court upheld the Labour Court's decision, reiterating that Section 10 CPC applies exclusively to suits in Civil Courts and not to proceedings before Labour Courts or Industrial Tribunals, which are not courts of concurrent jurisdiction – The limited applicability of CPC provisions to Labour Courts, as outlined in Section 11(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, does not extend to Section 10 CPC – Industrial disputes are not "suits" within the meaning of Section 10 CPC – The application was legally untenable and aimed at prolonging adjudication – High Court dismissed the writ petitions. [Paras 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 16]

Industrial Law – Jurisdiction of Labour Court – Section 11 Industrial Disputes Act – Limited Applicability of CPC – The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, specifically Section 11(3), grants Labour Courts and Tribunals certain powers of a Civil Court, limited to enforcing attendance, compelling document production, issuing commissions for witness examination, and other prescribed matters – This limited application does not extend to invoking Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to stay proceedings – The Apex Court has consistently held that Labour Courts are not Civil Courts of concurrent jurisdiction, and an industrial dispute cannot be equated with a civil suit – The invocation of Section 11 of the ID Act does not save an application seeking stay under Section 10 CPC – The Labour Court's rejection of such an application was justified. [Paras 11, 12, 13, 16]

Industrial Law – Speedy Adjudication – Interlocutory Orders – Discouraged – Industrial adjudication is founded on the objective of speedy and efficacious resolution of disputes – The Apex Court has repeatedly cautioned against entertaining challenges to interlocutory orders that stall proceedings and convert industrial adjudication into interminable contests – Allowing such petitions prolongs proceedings on unsustainable preliminary contentions, prejudicing workmen who have suffered dismissal and are pursuing statutory remedies for their livelihood and dignity – The writ jurisdiction of the High Court, though wide, is not meant for every procedural skirmish, especially when the statutory forum is competent to conclude proceedings – The High Court declined to interfere with the interlocutory order of the Labour Court. [Paras 14, 15, 16]

Industrial Law – Directions for Disposal – Time Limit – Considering the nature of the dispute and the hardship faced by workmen due to loss of livelihood, the Labour Court was directed to endeavor to decide the pending collective reference (Ref. No. 14 of 2024) along with the individual industrial disputes within an outer limit of six months from the date of receipt of the High Court's order – This direction aims to ensure that industrial justice is not rendered illusory by delay. [Para 17]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Labour Court directed to decide pending reference and individual disputes within six months – [Paras 16, 17].

Rape of Minor – Conviction Based on Sole Testimony of Prosecutrix – Reliability and Credibility – Victim aged 13 years gave a consistent and cogent account of forcible sexual assault and confinement by the accused – Minor discrepancies regarding school timings and routine held to be trivial – Evidence of prosecutrix found to inspire confidence – Held: Conviction can be sustained on sole testimony of prosecutrix without corroboration when evidence is of sterling quality – Sensitivity required in appreciation of evidence of child victims [Paras 31–38].

Sexual Offences Against Children – Consent Irrelevant – Prosecution proved victim was 13 years old at the time of incident – Question of consent wholly irrelevant – Act squarely falling within offence of rape and aggravated penetrative sexual assault under IPC and POCSO Act [Paras 34, 38].

Medical Evidence – Corroborative Value – Medical examination revealed old hymenal tear, redness, tenderness and history of repeated sexual assault – Minor discrepancy in medical opinion not fatal – Held: Ocular testimony of victim prevails over medical evidence – Medical findings sufficiently corroborated prosecution case [Paras 40–44].

Delay in FIR – Effect – FIR lodged after victim returned home next morning – Delay satisfactorily explained considering age of victim and circumstances – No adverse inference drawn [Paras 39, 44].

Criminal Trial – Error in Framing of Charge – Deleted Statutory Provision – Charge framed under Section 376(2)(i) IPC which stood deleted prior to date of incident – Accused contended grave prejudice and failure of justice – Held: Mere error in charge is curable under Sections 215 & 464 CrPC unless prejudice or failure of justice is shown – Accused fully aware that prosecution case was rape of a girl below 16 years – No prejudice caused to defence [Paras 45–58].

Alteration of Conviction at Appellate Stage – Powers of Appellate Court – Conviction under deleted Section 376(2)(i) IPC altered to Section 376(3) IPC – Ingredients of both provisions identical and maximum punishment same – Accused not placed in a worse position – Appellate Court competent to correct error and alter conviction where no failure of justice is demonstrated [Paras 54–66].

Sentencing – Meaningful Hearing – Alleged Prejudice – Contention that hearing on sentence was defective rejected – Accused had opportunity to address sentencing both before Trial Court and High Court – Any defect cured at appellate stage – No violation of principles of fair trial [Paras 61–63].

POCSO Act – Section 42 – Higher Punishment to Prevail – Trial Court correctly applied Section 42 POCSO Act and imposed sentence under Section 376(3) IPC as providing higher punishment – Sentence of rigorous imprisonment for remainder of natural life upheld [Paras 65–67].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Conviction under Sections 342, 363, 376(2)(n) and 506 IPC maintained – Conviction under Section 376(2)(i) IPC altered to Section 376(3) IPC – Conviction and sentence under Section 5(l) read with Section 6 POCSO Act upheld – Sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life (remainder of natural life) with fine confirmed [Paras 67–68].

Accident Claim - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 167 – Doctrine of Election – Claim under Motor Vehicles Act and Workmen’s Compensation Act – Bar of dual remedy – Claimants received compensation from employer under Workmen’s Compensation Act and also filed claim under Section 166 MV Act against owner, driver and insurer of offending vehicle – Held: Bar under Section 167 applies only when claim is made against same employer–tortfeasor – Where parties and liabilities are distinct, doctrine of election not attracted – Claim under MV Act maintainable [Paras 13, 25].

Motor Accident Compensation – Multiple Vehicles Involved – Distinct Liabilities – Deceased driver employed on one vehicle and accident caused by another offending vehicle – Compensation claimed from employer under Workmen’s Compensation Act and from tortfeasors under MV Act – Held: Statutory liability of employer and tortious liability of third-party tortfeasor operate in different spheres – No prohibition on claimants availing both remedies [Paras 13, 19–25].

Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 – Statutory Liability – Employer vis-à-vis Third Party – Compensation under WC Act does not absolve independent tortfeasor of liability under MV Act – Acceptance of compensation from employer does not bar claim against owner/insurer of offending vehicle [Paras 19–24].

Insurance Law – Validity of Driving Licence – Burden of Proof – Insurer alleged fake driving licence – Insurer examined legal officer and relied on investigation report – No examination of issuing authority or production of authentic records – Held: Mere oral evidence and unproved investigation report insufficient – Insurer failed to establish breach of policy conditions [Paras 26–28].

Motor Vehicles Act – Section 149(2) – Breach of Policy – Fake Licence – Knowledge of Owner – Even assuming licence to be fake, insurer failed to prove that owner had knowledge of such fact or permitted driving despite knowledge – Fundamental breach not established – Insurer liable to satisfy award [Paras 28].

Appellate Interference – Motor Accident Claims – Findings of Tribunal – Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.12,12,400/- with 9% interest – No perversity or legal infirmity found – High Court declined interference under First Appeal jurisdiction [Paras 25–29].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment and award dated 12.10.2018 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Navsari in MACP No.125 of 2013 upheld – Insurance company held liable – Tribunal directed to disburse compensation to claimants – Connected Civil Application disposed of – No order as to costs.

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].

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.

Criminal Law – Quashing - Drugs and Cosmetics Act – Rule 45 – Mandatory Time Limit – Quashing of Prosecution – Criminal prosecution launched against manufacturer and its directors alleging manufacture of drug not of standard quality – Samples drawn on 12.07.2022 and sent to Government Analyst on 14.07.2022 – Analyst sought extension only on 01.11.2022, i.e., after expiry of statutory period of 60 days – Report furnished on 18.01.2023 without proof of valid extension being granted – Held: Rule 45 mandates analysis and report within 60 days, extension to be sought within stipulated period with reasons – Non-compliance vitiates prosecution – Proceedings liable to be quashed [Paras 3–5, 8–9].

Right of Accused – Retesting of Sample – Prejudice Caused by Delay – Delayed analysis defeats valuable right of accused to seek re-testing of sample – Time is of essence in drug analysis as quality may deteriorate with passage of time – Failure of Drug Inspector to monitor compliance or issue reminders to Analyst compounds illegality – Prosecution held unsustainable [Paras 9–10].

Precedent – Binding Nature – Reliance placed on decision in Swapnil s/o Liladhar Mane v. State of Maharashtra, 2024(4) Mh.L.J. (Cri.) 673 – Held: Ratio squarely applicable – Delayed analysis beyond statutory period without justification renders complaint invalid [Para 8].

Drugs Regulation – Lapses by Authorities – Need for Systemic Reforms – Court expressed concern over repeated procedural lapses by Drug Administration benefiting manufacturers of sub-standard drugs and frustrating objectives of the Act – Emphasised that public health is paramount and strict adherence to statutory timelines is mandatory [Paras 10–12].

Directions – Regulatory Oversight – Compliance with Rule 45 – Detailed directions issued to Commissioner, Food and Drugs Administration, Maharashtra – To ensure timely testing within 60 days – To take disciplinary action against erring officers – To augment laboratory infrastructure – To create efficient online, web-hosted, real-time monitoring system for drug sample testing and reporting – Compliance directed within three months with report to Court [Paras 14–15].

Decision: Criminal writ petition allowed – Prosecution in S.C.C. No. 637/2023 quashed – Directions issued to Drug Administration authorities – Matter listed for compliance [Paras 13–17].

Medical Reimbursement – Emergency Treatment – Non-Empanelled Hospital – Petitioner’s wife admitted in critical condition and underwent life-saving surgeries in a private hospital – No time to seek prior permission or approach empanelled hospital – Emergency certificate subsequently issued and bills duly verified – Only a nominal amount reimbursed without reasons – Held: Denial of full reimbursement is arbitrary and illegal [Paras 2–4, 9–10].

Right to Health – Article 21 – Medical reimbursement is an integral facet of right to life – State under constitutional obligation to bear expenses incurred for bona fide emergency treatment – Preservation of human life of paramount importance – Technical objections cannot override constitutional mandate [Paras 11–13].

Medical Reimbursement Policy – Beneficial Interpretation – Policy cannot be interpreted in a restrictive or defeatist manner – Once genuineness of treatment and bills is not disputed, reimbursement cannot be denied merely because hospital was not empanelled or prior approval was not taken – Reimbursement at PGIMER/AIIMS rates alone held insufficient in emergency circumstances [Paras 13–16].

Administrative Delay – Arbitrary Inaction – Petitioner pursued reimbursement since 2014 – Authorities delayed processing despite compliance with all objections – Prolonged delay caused financial hardship and mental agony – Such conduct held violative of Article 21 and indicative of callous administrative approach [Paras 17].

Interest on Delayed Payment – State Liability – Petitioner entitled to interest on delayed reimbursement – Direction issued to pay balance amount with interest to compensate for prolonged deprivation of legitimate dues [Para 18].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Impugned order dated 18.05.2020 set aside to extent of denial – Respondents directed to reimburse balance medical claim of Rs. 4,20,766/- with 6% interest from due date till realization within four weeks – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 18–20].