Maintenance — Minor Child — Section 125 CrPC — Both Parents in Government Service — Father's Obligation Absolute — Interim Maintenance of ₹8,000/- Per Month Upheld — Revisionist-father serving in CRPF challenged the order of Family Court awarding interim maintenance of ₹8,000/- per month to the minor daughter on the ground that the mother is also employed in CISF and the entire burden ought not to fall on him alone, and that his loan repayments and other liabilities substantially reduce his net take-home salary — Held: The statutory obligation of the father to maintain his minor child under Section 125 CrPC is absolute — The fact that the mother is also earning does not ipso facto absolve the father of his obligation — While the income of both parents is a relevant consideration for quantum, the father cannot avoid responsibility merely because the mother is employed — Section 125 CrPC is a social justice legislation to be interpreted liberally in favour of dependents — Revision dismissed [Paras 21–24, 28].

Maintenance — Quantum — Loan Repayments and Voluntary Liabilities — Aged Parents and Siblings — Cannot Override Child's Right — Revisionist contended that loan deductions of ₹6,454/- and ₹18,640/- and responsibility towards aged parents and siblings substantially reduced his capacity — Held: Voluntary liabilities such as loan repayments cannot override the paramount right of a minor child to maintenance unless such liabilities are shown to be unavoidable and compelling — Responsibility towards parents and siblings does not eclipse the statutory obligation towards a minor child — Duty to maintain a minor child stands on a higher pedestal — ₹8,000/- per month is reasonable considering inflation, rising cost of living, educational, nutritional and medical needs of a growing child [Paras 26–28].

Maintenance — Date of Award — From Date of Application — Discretion of Court — The discretion to grant maintenance from the date of application or from the date of order is statutorily vested in the Court — No perversity or misapplication of law demonstrated in granting maintenance from the date of filing of application [Para 29].

Revisional Jurisdiction — Sections 397/401 CrPC — Supervisory, Not Appellate — Interference Only on Manifest Illegality or Gross Perversity — Interim maintenance is provisional and subject to final adjudication — Revisionist will have adequate opportunity during trial to establish his contentions regarding income, liabilities and proportionate responsibility of the mother — No patent illegality or perversity made out [Paras 30–33].

Decision: Criminal revision dismissed — Impugned order dated 24.07.2023 of learned Additional Judge, Family Court, Roorkee affirmed — Revisionist directed to continue paying interim maintenance of ₹8,000/- per month to respondent no. 2 — No order as to costs.

Criminal Law – Murder – Political Rivalry – Bomb Attack – Unlawful Assembly – Deceased, a CPI(M) activist, was chased by accused allegedly belonging to RSS/BJP group and killed by hurling a country-made bomb on his head – Medical evidence confirmed death due to blast injury resulting in destruction of skull and brain – Ocular evidence of eyewitnesses including injured witnesses found reliable – Held: Prosecution successfully proved that accused formed unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons and committed murder in prosecution of common object – Conviction under Sections 143, 147, 148, 447, 324 and 302 read with Section 149 IPC upheld [Paras 7–11, 38–39].

Evidence – Injured Witnesses – Evidentiary Value – PW2 and PW3 sustained injuries in the same incident and their testimony was corroborated by medical evidence and wound certificates – Court reiterated that testimony of injured witnesses carries greater evidentiary weight as it guarantees their presence at the scene and ordinarily they would not falsely implicate innocent persons – Their evidence found consistent and trustworthy despite rigorous cross-examination [Paras 16–19].

Delay in Medical Treatment – Effect on Credibility – Injured witnesses sought medical treatment on the next day of the incident – Defence argued that delay suggested fabrication of injuries – Held: Delay satisfactorily explained as witnesses attended funeral of deceased friend and injuries were comparatively minor – Such delay does not render their testimony unreliable [Paras 20–22].

Witness Conduct – Reaction to Crime – Failure of eyewitnesses to immediately inform police despite police arrival not unnatural – Human reaction to traumatic events varies and fear may prevent immediate disclosure – Evidence cannot be discarded solely because witnesses did not react in a particular manner [Paras 23–27].

Criminal Law – Minor Variations in Eyewitness Testimony – Difference in narration regarding events preceding bomb attack held immaterial – Core fact that the 5th accused hurled bomb at the deceased while he was on verandah remained consistent – Minor discrepancies on peripheral details strengthen authenticity rather than weaken prosecution case [Paras 30–33].

FIR – Delay in Registration – FIR lodged about six hours after incident – Police officer first prioritised taking injured to hospital and preventing escalation of political violence in the locality – Held: Delay satisfactorily explained and not fatal to prosecution case [Paras 34–37].

Unlawful Assembly – Common Object – Although overt act of bomb hurling attributed specifically to accused No.5, all accused liable under Section 149 IPC as members of unlawful assembly acting in prosecution of common object to murder the deceased – Act of hurling explosive bomb aimed at the head clearly indicates intention to cause death [Para 39].

Decision: Criminal Appeals dismissed – Conviction and sentences imposed by the Additional Sessions Court-II, Thalassery in S.C. No.25/2009 for offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 447, 324, 302 read with Section 149 IPC and Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act affirmed – Life imprisonment and other sentences upheld.

Criminal Writ - Child Custody – Habeas Corpus – Petition filed by father seeking direction to produce minor child and return him to Canada – Child presently residing in Delhi with mother – Held: Custody with biological mother cannot ordinarily be termed illegal detention so as to justify issuance of writ of habeas corpus – Petition not maintainable in such circumstances [Paras 19–21, 26].

Habeas Corpus – Scope in Child Custody Disputes – Habeas corpus is an extraordinary remedy meant to address illegal or unlawful detention – It is not intended to adjudicate complex custody disputes between parents involving disputed facts – Such matters ordinarily require detailed enquiry under statutory guardianship laws [Paras 20, 23–24].

Paramount Consideration – Welfare of Child – In custody disputes, welfare and best interest of the child override legal rights of either parent – Courts must independently evaluate the child’s welfare rather than mechanically enforcing parental claims or foreign orders [Paras 21, 34].

Foreign Custody Orders – Limited Enforceability in India – Orders of foreign courts regarding custody are relevant but not conclusive – Indian courts must independently assess whether enforcement of such orders would serve the welfare of the child – Habeas corpus jurisdiction cannot be used as an executing mechanism for foreign decrees [Paras 24–25, 32].

Jurisdiction of Family Court – Guardians and Wards Act – Where guardianship proceedings are already pending before a competent Family Court, writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be invoked – Family Court exercising parens patriae jurisdiction is the appropriate forum to determine custody issues after detailed examination of evidence [Paras 27–30].

Child Welfare – Stability and Continuity – Minor child residing with mother in Delhi and attending school for a considerable period – Abrupt removal and relocation to another country without detailed enquiry into welfare would not be appropriate – Matter requires full adjudication before Family Court [Paras 33–34].

Parallel Proceedings – Writ Jurisdiction – Entertaining habeas corpus petition when guardianship petition is pending may lead to parallel proceedings and prejudice adjudication before competent court – High Court declined to interfere [Para 35].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – No case made out for issuance of writ of habeas corpus – Parties relegated to pursue remedies before the Family Court where guardianship proceedings are pending – Family Court directed to decide the matter expeditiously on its merits.

Bail – UAPA Offences – Stringent Conditions under Section 43D(5) – Appellant accused of being member of criminal gang involved in terrorist activities, harbouring absconding accused and facilitating supply of arms and ammunition – Recovery of firearms and cartridges from flat where appellant was apprehended – Held: Where accusations appear prima facie true on basis of material in chargesheet, statutory embargo under Section 43D(5) UAPA operates and bail cannot be granted [Paras 41–44, 78].

Terrorism Related Offences – Prima Facie Evidence – Investigation revealed that appellant arranged safe house, harboured absconding accused and facilitated supply of arms to gang members – Arms and ammunition recovered from premises where appellant was present – Court held that such material indicates active involvement in conspiracy and terrorist activities [Paras 33–34, 71–74].

Bail – Successive Bail Applications – Requirement of Change in Circumstances – Earlier bail application of appellant already rejected on merits by coordinate bench – No fresh ground or substantial change in circumstances shown in subsequent appeal – Held: Judicial discipline requires due weight to earlier findings while considering successive bail plea [Paras 45–46].

Delay in Trial – Long Custody – Not Sole Ground in UAPA Cases – Appellant in custody for about four years and seven months – Held: Mere long incarceration or possible delay in trial cannot override statutory restrictions under Section 43D(5) UAPA where allegations are grave and supported by prima facie material [Paras 47–50].

Parity in Bail – Not Applicable When Role Distinct – Several co-accused granted bail, however allegations against appellant included recovery of arms and active participation in conspiracy – Court held that principle of parity applies only when role and circumstances are identical – Case of appellant found similar to co-accused whose bail was already rejected [Paras 64–67, 75–77].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Order rejecting bail affirmed – No interference warranted as accusations against appellant are prima facie true and statutory bar under Section 43D(5) UAPA applies – Observations confined to bail stage and not to affect trial.

Disability Pension – Armed Forces – Attributability to Military Service – Requirement of Reasoned Opinion by Medical Board – Petitioner, an Indian Air Force Corporal invalided out of service due to Type-I Diabetes assessed at 20% disability for life, was denied disability pension on the ground that the disease was “not connected with service” – Medical Board merely stated that the disease was an endocrine disorder not related to military service without assigning reasons – Held: Recording of reasons by the Medical Board is crucial and mandatory since its opinion forms the basis for pension sanctioning authority – Absence of reasons renders the denial unsustainable – Petitioner entitled to disability pension [Paras 10-13].

Service Law – Presumption of Sound Health at Entry into Service – When a serviceman is enrolled without any medical note regarding pre-existing disease, he is presumed to be in sound physical and mental condition – Burden lies on the employer to establish that the disability was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service – Soldier cannot be compelled to prove that the disease originated from service conditions [Paras 7, 14].

Disability Pension – Beneficial Interpretation – Pension provisions governing disability benefits for armed forces personnel are beneficial in nature and must be interpreted liberally in favour of the serviceman who is invalided out before completion of tenure – In absence of convincing material displacing presumption of service connection, disability must be treated as attributable to or aggravated by service [Paras 8, 15].

Judicial Review – Opinion of Medical Board – Courts ordinarily refrain from interfering with expert medical opinions; however, where such opinion lacks reasons or fails to comply with statutory requirements, judicial review is permissible – A bare conclusion without supporting reasoning cannot form the basis for denial of disability pension [Paras 9, 13].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Order of the Armed Forces Tribunal rejecting disability pension set aside – Respondents directed to issue corrigendum PPO granting disability pension to the petitioner within three months – Failure to comply will render arrears payable with interest at 7% per annum.

document (38)

NDPS – Conviction under Section 21(c) – Recovery of Codeine-Containing Cough Syrup – Commercial Quantity – Four accused intercepted at a public place on the basis of secret information — 175 bottles of Codeine-containing cough syrup recovered from bags, plastic sacks and a ladies purse in their possession — FSL report confirmed presence of Codeine Phosphate and Chlorpheniramine Maleate — Trial Court convicted all four accused and sentenced each to 15 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,50,000/- — All three appeals dismissed and conviction affirmed [Paras 5-9].

"Public Place, Public Seizure" – Sections 42 and 43, NDPS Act – Applicability – Recovery effected at a place accessible to the public while accused were in transit — Held: Provisions of Section 42 apply to search of buildings, conveyances or enclosed places based on prior secret information; where recovery is made from a public place or during transit, Section 43 governs the situation and compliance with Section 42 is not required — Contention of non-compliance with Section 42 misconceived and rejected [Paras 44-55].

"Search of Bag Is Not Search of Body" – Section 50, NDPS Act – Personal Search Distinguished from Search of Baggage – Contraband recovered from bags and ladies purse carried by accused — Held: Section 50 is attracted only when the body of the accused is searched — Search of bag, briefcase, purse, container or article carried by accused does not amount to personal search — Contention of non-compliance with Section 50(4) regarding search of female accused also rejected on the same principle — Provisions of Section 50 not attracted [Paras 56-71].

Conscious Possession – Statutory Presumptions – Sections 35 and 54, NDPS Act – Accused found carrying bags containing contraband — Members of raiding party and Investigating Officer consistently deposed regarding recovery — Accused made only bald denial in examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and adduced no evidence — Held: Once possession established, burden shifts to accused to rebut presumption of conscious possession — Appellants failed to discharge said burden — Prosecution case proved beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 72-79].

Informant as Investigating Officer – No Per Se Bias – PW-10 was both informant and Investigating Officer — Held: Following Constitutional Bench in Mukesh Singh (supra), merely because informant and investigator are the same person does not vitiate investigation or trial — Question of bias depends on facts of each case — No material placed by appellants showing actual prejudice or motive for false implication [Paras 19, 29, 74-75].

Delay in Forwarding Samples – Safe Custody Established – Sealed samples initially forwarded to Drug Inspector, then resealed and forwarded to FSL — Seals found intact on receipt at FSL — Defence did not cross-examine PW-10 on delay or tampering — Held: Delay in routing samples through another authority does not vitiate prosecution case when chain of custody and link evidence are duly established — Contention of non-compliance with Rule 13 of NDPS Rules, 2022 raised for first time in appeal without cross-examination, not sustainable [Paras 81-86].

Decision: All three criminal appeals dismissed — Conviction under Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act and sentence of 15 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,50,000/- affirmed — Appellants to serve remaining sentence — Registry directed to transmit copy of judgment to Superintendent of Jail and to inform appellants of their right to appeal before the Supreme Court and availability of free legal aid [Paras 92-97].

Constitutional Law – Statutory Right of Appeal – Validity of Conditions – Challenge to proviso (b) of Section 7 requiring surrender of possession before entertaining appeal – Held: Right of appeal is statutory and legislature can impose reasonable conditions – Condition not per se unconstitutional unless arbitrary, excessive or rendering remedy illusory [Paras 5, 22]

Interpretation of Statute – Reading Down – Expression “surrender of possession” – Literal interpretation requiring physical possession would render appeal harsh and unworkable – Court reads down provision to include constructive/symbolic possession – Provision upheld by purposive interpretation [Paras 16, 19, 20, 23-25]

Alternative Remedy – Maintainability of Writ – Availability of efficacious appeal under Section 7 – Writ petition under Article 226 not maintainable when statutory remedy exists – Petition dismissed on this ground [Paras 2, 26]

Property Law – Migrant Property – Object of Act of 1997 – Preservation and protection of migrant properties and prevention of distress sales – Custody vested in District Magistrate including deemed custody – Condition of surrender ensures protection of property during appeal [Paras 8-11, 15]

Possession – Scope and Meaning – Includes actual, constructive and symbolic possession – Determination depends on statutory context and purpose – For Section 7, symbolic possession sufficient compliance [Paras 18-19]

Eviction – Appeal Against Eviction Order – Requirement of surrender of possession – Held: Symbolic/constructive possession sufficient – Appellant may retain de facto possession while competent authority retains de jure custody pending appeal [Para 24]

Precedent – Division Bench Ruling – Symbolic possession recognized as compliance with Section 7 – Followed [Para 21]

Decision:

Writ Petition dismissed – Proviso (b) to Section 7 upheld subject to reading down – Petitioner relegated to statutory remedy of appeal – Four weeks’ time granted to file appeal – Status quo to be maintained for four weeks.

Criminal Law – Sections 332 and 333 IPC – Hurt to Public Servant to Deter from Duty – Conductor of UPSRTC bus convicted for assaulting traffic inspectors during inspection – Allegation that accused punched Traffic Inspector causing loss of two teeth and assaulted other inspectors – Held: Prosecution failed to establish essential ingredient that the inspectors were lawfully discharging official duty at the time of incident – No documentary proof or authority produced showing that the inspectors were authorised to stop and check the bus – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 25–28].

Public Servant – Requirement of Lawful Discharge of Duty – For attracting Sections 332 and 333 IPC prosecution must prove that public servant was acting in lawful discharge of official duty – Mere status as public servant insufficient – Evidence on record did not show that traffic inspectors possessed authority under applicable rules to conduct inspection of the bus – Essential nexus between act of accused and lawful duty not established [Paras 16–18, 25–28].

Evidence Appreciation – Interested Witnesses – Prosecution relied primarily on testimonies of three traffic inspectors – Their statements contained inconsistencies regarding place of boarding the bus and circumstances of inspection – Independent witnesses including passengers or driver not examined – Investigating officer also failed to record statement of passengers – Evidence required closer scrutiny and found unreliable [Paras 22, 35].

Medical Evidence vs Ocular Evidence – Injury to Informant – Alleged two fist blows resulted in loss of two teeth – Medical evidence showed abrasion inside lip and possibility of injury due to fall – Doctor stated swelling would normally occur in fist blows and teeth could also be lost due to fall – Ocular and medical evidence inconsistent – Benefit of doubt to accused [Para 34].

Delay in FIR – Possibility of Concoction – Informants after alleged assault did not immediately lodge report or seek medical treatment though police station was nearby – They waited for third inspector to arrive and thereafter lodged FIR – Delay contributed to possibility of concocted version [Para 34].

Cross Cases – Proper Procedure – Where cross cases arise out of the same incident, both cases should be tried by the same judge sequentially and decided independently on evidence recorded in each case – Trial court failed to follow proper approach laid down by Supreme Court [Para 38].

Criminal Jurisprudence – Benefit of Doubt – Where prosecution evidence suffers from inconsistencies and fails to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, appellate court must extend benefit of doubt even if trial court recorded conviction – Appellate court justified in interfering with conviction [Para 39].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence dated 23.10.1986 under Sections 332 and 333 IPC set aside – Accused Rajendra Kumar acquitted – Bail bonds discharged.

Negotiable Instruments Act – Dishonour of Cheque – Vicarious Liability of Directors – Complaints filed against Managing Director/Directors for dishonour of cheques issued by company – Company itself not made an accused in the complaint – Held: Prosecution under Sections 138 and 141 N.I. Act cannot be maintained against directors in absence of arraigning the company as an accused – Proceedings quashed [Paras 13–15, 21].

Corporate Criminal Liability – Requirement of Arraigning Company – Section 141 N.I. Act creates vicarious liability of persons in charge of company only when the company itself is prosecuted for offence under Section 138 – Commission of offence by company is a condition precedent for fastening liability on its officers – Without impleading company as accused, prosecution against directors is legally unsustainable [Paras 13–14].

Vicarious Liability – Strict Construction of Penal Statutes – Liability of directors or officers arises only by virtue of statutory deeming fiction – Such liability must be strictly construed – Words “as well as the company” in Section 141 make it mandatory that the company must be prosecuted along with persons responsible for its business [Paras 13–14].

Distinction Between Filing Complaint Through Managing Director and Prosecution of Company – Judgment in Bhupesh Rathod distinguished – In cases where company authorises Managing Director through board resolution to institute complaint, the complaint may proceed – However, where company itself is accused but not impleaded as a party, proceedings against directors alone cannot be sustained [Paras 16–19].

Section 138 N.I. Act – Cheques Issued by Company – Where dishonoured cheques were issued from company account and signed by authorised signatory on behalf of company, criminal liability primarily lies upon company – Directors cannot be prosecuted in their personal capacity unless statutory conditions of Section 141 are fulfilled [Paras 18–21].

Decision: Applications allowed – Entire criminal proceedings in Complaint Case Nos. 41 of 2012, 1109 of 2012, 28 of 2012, 3044 of 2011, 40 of 2012, 29 of 2012, 372 of 2012, 347 of 2012, 30 of 2012, 5424 of 2017 and 5425 of 2017, including summoning orders, quashed – Liberty granted to complainant to pursue appropriate legal remedies for recovery of amount in accordance with law.