Criminal Law – Corruption – Conviction and Sentencing – Appellant, a clerk, convicted for accepting a bribe of Rs. 2000 to expedite the processing of a telephone PCO booth application – Trial court’s judgment affirmed with modification in sentencing – Sentences under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 upheld – Sentencing reduced from two years to one year due to prolonged trial and appellant’s age [Paras 1-24].

Trap Procedure and Evidence – Verification and Trap – Detailed recounting of pre-trap and post-trap procedures – Phenolphthalein test used to establish acceptance of bribe – Recovery of tainted money corroborated by multiple witnesses – Compliance with procedural requirements confirmed [Paras 11-17.2].

Witness Testimony – Reliability – Multiple witnesses including CBI officers and independent witnesses corroborated the prosecution’s case – Defense’s argument of appellant’s absence due to leave disproved by witness testimonies [Paras 9.1-9.12].

Sanction for Prosecution – Validity – Prosecution sanction provided by competent authority – Detailed perusal of relevant documents confirmed by General Manager, Dhanbad Circle [Para 18].

Quantum of Sentence – Mitigating Factors – Appellant faced trial for over 23 years – Age of appellant considered – Sentence reduced to minimum one year prescribed under the Act [Paras 20-21.2].

Decision:

Appeal Partly Allowed – Conviction Affirmed – Sentence Reduced – Appellant’s bail bonds cancelled – Directed to surrender for serving remaining sentence [Paras 22-24].

Custody of Minor Child – Interim Custody and Visitation Rights – Appellant sought interim custody of minor child, Master Shrestha Sharma, during ongoing divorce proceedings – Family Court denied interim custody, finding the child uncomfortable and apprehensive in the presence of the appellant – Delhi High Court upheld Family Court’s decision, prioritizing child’s best interest and psychological welfare [Paras 1-24].

Visitation Rights – Court’s Approach – Emphasized necessity of child’s comfort and gradual adjustment – Directed twice-a-month meetings under counsellor’s supervision – Relied on interim reports from Children’s First and Family Court Counsellor noting child’s discomfort and need for further assessment [Paras 20-22].

Parental Influence and Child’s Welfare – Court acknowledged allegations of tutoring by the respondent – Found no immediate evidence justifying change in interim custody – Focused on child’s current psychological state and need for stability – Rejected appellant’s suggestion for visitation at grandparents’ house due to child’s apprehensions [Paras 12, 22].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Family Court’s order upheld – Continued supervised visitation with counsellor presence mandated – No interim custody granted to appellant in the best interest of the child [Paras 23-24].

Procedural Law – Application and Transition – Savings Clause – FIR registered before the enactment of BNSS, 2023, must be dealt with under the provisions of the Cr.P.C., 1973, as per Section 531(2)(a) of BNSS – Petition initially filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was converted to Section 528 BNSS due to a registry objection – High Court clarified that ongoing investigations prior to BNSS enforcement should continue under the old code – Petition treated under Section 482 Cr.P.C. [Paras 2-9].

Investigation Fairness – Legal Remedies – Petitioner’s dissatisfaction with the investigation – Court directed petitioner to seek remedies through Section 36 Cr.P.C. or approach the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for further investigation – High Court emphasized the need for procedural propriety and exploring all legal avenues before approaching higher judiciary [Paras 10-15].

Decision: Petition disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach appropriate forums if advised. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of [Paras 15-16].
 

Jurisdiction – Commercial Nature of Dispute – Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Trial Court returned the plaint due to lack of jurisdiction, classifying the dispute as commercial in nature – Petitioner’s application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act dismissed – High Court emphasizes that the suit should be transferred to the appropriate Commercial Court instead of being returned – Orders of the Trial Court set aside and the suit transferred to the Commercial Court for trial from the current stage [Paras 1-23].

Section 14 of the Limitation Act – Exclusion of Time – Petitioner’s application for exclusion of time under Section 14 due to previous proceedings in a court without jurisdiction – High Court allows exclusion of time and mandates consideration of the application by the Commercial Court [Paras 20-23].

Transfer of Suit under Section 24 CPC – High Court exercises power under Section 24 to transfer the suit to the Commercial Court to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and ensure judicial efficiency – Emphasizes that non-compliance with special pleadings can be rectified upon transfer [Paras 20-23].

Decision:

Petition allowed – Impugned orders of the ADJ set aside – Suit transferred to the Court of learned District Judge (Commercial)-02, South-West District, Dwarka Courts, Delhi, for trial from the current stage – All objections including limitation to be considered by the transferee court – Parties directed to appear before the Commercial Court on 15.07.2024 [Para 23].

Insurance Liability – Contract of Insurance – Appeal against trial court’s decree holding insurance company liable for compensation and medical expenses paid by employer to its employees – Appellant contends no contract of insurance exists between insurer and employer, policy was an Act policy with limited liability – No contractual obligation to cover medical expenses incurred by employer [Paras 1-23].

Motor Accident – Recovery of Compensation – Employer’s claim for recovery of medical expenses and compensation from insurer – Employees injured during employment while traveling in hired jeep – Jeep insured under Act policy, not comprehensive policy – No claim filed with Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by injured employees – No contract of insurance between employer and insurer under Workmen Compensation Act [Paras 13-23].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Decree and judgment of trial court set aside – Insurance company not liable to indemnify employer in absence of contractual obligation – No costs awarded [Paras 24-25].

Family Pension – Entitlement of Disabled Dependent – Petitioner, suffering from 60% disability, claimed family pension following the death of his mother. His claim was rejected by the Senior Accounts Officer on grounds of his prior ability to run a public call office (PCO). The High Court found the rejection improper, noting the petitioner’s entitlement under the government order dated 20.05.1997. It held that the committee assessing the claim lacked the requisite medical expertise to override the Chief Medical Officer’s disability certificate and emphasized the validity of such certificates unless questioned by a medical board or higher medical authority [Paras 1-12].

Medical Evidence – Validity and Assessment – The committee’s decision, lacking medical expertise, was deemed unsustainable. The court underscored that disability assessments for pension purposes should be conducted by qualified medical professionals and not by administrative officers without medical training [Paras 6-10].

Decision: Writ Petition Allowed. The rejection order dated 12.11.2020 was set aside. The respondents were directed to grant family pension to the petitioner within one month of the presentation of a certified copy of this order [Paras 12-13].

Family Law – Restoration of Petition – Appellant’s Conduct –

Petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act dismissed for default as appellant and his counsel failed to appear on the scheduled date – Appellant walked out during proceedings on the prior date and did not return – Filed for restoration under Order IX Rule 4 CPC after four months – Appellant blamed counsel for advising non-appearance – Family Court dismissed restoration application, citing lack of sufficient cause and appellant’s disrespect to the court [Paras 6-15, 23-27].

Presence of Parties in Family Court – Requirement and Consequences –

Under Section 13 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, personal presence of parties typically required – Appellant failed to justify absence and walking out of court proceedings – Supreme Court emphasized importance of parties’ presence and criticized appellant for not taking responsibility for his actions [Paras 17-24].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed –

Family Court’s decision upheld – Appellant’s petition for restoration dismissed due to failure to show sufficient cause – Court emphasized that appellant cannot benefit from his own wrong and must take responsibility for court proceedings [Paras 25-28].

Criminal Procedure – Bail Conditions – Imposition of Unusual Conditions – Petitioner released on bail with condition to deposit passport – Petitioner did not possess passport – Trial Court failed to consider affidavit and investigating officer’s statement confirming non-possession – Trial Court directed Petitioner to deposit passport within four months, implying Petitioner must apply for one – High Court held Trial Court exceeded its powers and imposed conditions not required for bail – Condition modified to deposit passport if any [Paras 1-16].

Modification of Bail Conditions – Requirement of Reasonableness – High Court emphasized necessity of considering factual circumstances and existing possessions of accused while imposing bail conditions – Held that imposing condition to deposit non-existent passport amounts to compelling accused to create new document [Paras 10-14].

Decision:

Criminal Writ Petition allowed – Condition for deposit of passport modified to “deposit the passport, if any” – Petitioner already released on bail under modified condition – Rule made absolute in above terms [Paras 15-18].

Pre-arrest Bail – Economic Offences – Judicial Discretion – Petitioners, accused of breach of trust and cheating in granting loans and fixing deposit interests contrary to circulars, sought pre-arrest bail – High Court denied the bail, emphasizing the serious nature of the economic offences and the necessity for custodial interrogation – Court underscored that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy to be granted sparingly, particularly in complex economic offences with deep-rooted conspiracies [Paras 1-15].

Judicial Principles – Application for Bail – The Court noted that detailed examination of evidence is not required at bail stage, but there should be a prima facie case and consideration of the nature and gravity of the accusations – Reference made to Supreme Court’s guidelines on dealing with economic offences and judicial discretion in bail matters [Paras 9-14].

Decision – Bail Application Dismissed – Held – Custodial interrogation necessary for thorough investigation – Granting bail could impede the investigation and affect public interest adversely [Para 15].