Criminal Procedure – Pre-Arrest Bail – Concurrent Jurisdiction – Requirement to Approach Sessions Court First – Petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS directly before the High Court without approaching Sessions Court — Held: Though High Court and Sessions Court have concurrent jurisdiction, party must ordinarily approach Sessions Court first — Direct invocation of High Court’s jurisdiction permissible only in exceptional or extraordinary circumstances — No such circumstances made out in the present case — Reliance placed on Mohammed Rasal C. v. State of Kerala and Jagdeo Prasad v. State of Bihar [Paras 3–5].

Wildlife Offence – Arms Possession – Applicability of Section 35(3) BNSS – Petitioner alleged to have participated in illegal hunting of Schedule-I species “Chowsingha (Tetracerus Quadricornis)” and possession of prohibited arms under Section 25(1A) of the Arms Act — Contention that offences were punishable below seven years and thus entitled to Section 35(3) BNSS protection rejected — Offence under Section 25(1A) Arms Act punishable up to fourteen years; hence statutory protection inapplicable [Paras 6–7].

Jurisdiction – Discretion under Section 482 BNSS – Limits – High Court reiterated that its inherent powers are to be exercised sparingly — Pre-arrest bail to be granted only on showing special or extraordinary circumstances — Since petitioner neither demonstrated such circumstances nor approached Sessions Court, discretionary relief declined [Paras 5, 8].

Relief – Liberty to Approach Lower Court – Criminal Petition disposed of with liberty to surrender before the Jurisdictional Magistrate within two weeks and move for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Judge — Direction issued to dispose of the application on merits within two days of filing [Para 9].

Decision: Criminal Petition dismissed — No interference under Section 482 BNSS — Liberty granted to petitioner to surrender and seek appropriate relief before Sessions Court — Interim orders vacated [Paras 8–9].

Civil Procedure – Rejection of Plaint – Court Fee – Suit for Damages – Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Plaintiff claimed damages of ₹2 crore in suit for malicious prosecution but affixed only nominal court fee of ₹100 claiming tentative valuation – Held: When a specific amount is claimed, even if termed “tentative,” ad valorem court fee is mandatory under Section 7(i) of Court Fees Act – Trial Court erred in treating suit under Section 7(iv) and allowing provisional fee – Plaintiff directed to affix appropriate court fee within one month failing which plaint to be rejected [Paras 6–8]

Court Fees Act – Section 7(i) vs. Section 7(iv) – Scope Distinguished – Referring to State of Punjab v. Dev Brat Sharma, 2022 (2) RCR (Civil) 464, Supreme Court clarified that liberty to value relief under Section 7(iv) is limited to specified categories – For suits involving quantified monetary relief, ad valorem fee under Section 7(i) is mandatory – Present case being a damages suit falls within Section 7(i), hence attracts ad valorem fee [Paras 7–8]

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Article 227 – Interference Justified – Trial Court wrongly permitted under-valuation of court fee by accepting tentative fee despite specific monetary claim – Discretion misapplied – High Court exercised supervisory jurisdiction to ensure compliance with statutory mandate [Paras 6–8]

Decision: Revision petition allowed – Impugned order dated 12.07.2023 set aside – Plaintiff directed to affix ad valorem court fee on ₹2 crore within one month – Failing which, plaint shall stand rejected

Criminal Law – Unlawful Assembly – Common Object – Conviction under Section 149 IPC Unsustainable in Absence of Shared Intent – Acquittal Ordered – Appellants convicted along with others for murder under Sections 148, 304 Part I/149 and 323/149 IPC – Trial court applied vicarious liability under Section 149 based on presence at scene – Appellate court held that fatal injuries were inflicted solely by two co-accused (now deceased) – No overt act, shared intent, or deadly weapon attributed to present appellants – Held: Mere presence without active participation or common object insufficient to attract liability under Section 149 IPC – Conviction set aside [Paras 3.1–3.7, 5–8].

Constructive Liability – Section 149 IPC – Applicability Requires Proof of Unlawful Assembly, Common Object, and Knowledge of Likely Offence – Reiterated that liability under Section 149 cannot be stretched to convict passive bystanders or those with no criminal intent – Citing Zainul v. State of Bihar, Mizaji v. State of U.P., and Subal Ghorai cases – Held: Prosecution failed to prove appellants were members of unlawful assembly with intent to kill – Acquittal warranted [Paras 3.5–3.8, 4–6].

Evidence – Ocular and Medical Evidence – Fatal Blows Attributed to Co-accused Only – No Role Ascribed to Surviving Appellants – Post-mortem report revealed only two blows leading to death – Both ascribed to two now-deceased accused – No evidence linking appellants Ram Swaroop, Dalip Singh, and Tara Chand to the assault – No weapons recovered from them – Held: Trial court erred in applying collective liability mechanically [Paras 3.1, 5–6].

Principle – Rule of Prudence in Section 149 IPC Cases – Courts Must Guard Against Convicting Innocent Bystanders Based on Proximity Alone – Presence at the scene without participation or shared object does not establish guilt – Doctrine of caution to be applied in cases involving large number of accused – Held: Prosecution failed to produce credible material to show appellants shared the common object – Acquittal justified [Paras 3.8, 6–8].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 148, 304 Part I/149, and 323/149 IPC set aside – Appellants Ram Swaroop, Dalip Singh, and Tara Chand acquitted – Bail bonds cancelled, sureties discharged – Directed to furnish bonds under Section 437-A CrPC to secure presence in case of further appeal [Paras 9–10].

Criminal Law – Murder – Rape – House Trespass – Robbery – Circumstantial Evidence – Accused No.1 sentenced to death and Accused No.2 to life imprisonment by trial court for brutal murder of husband and vegetative-state causing injuries to wife following home invasion – Both accused allegedly fled with valuables – Death sentence reference made for confirmation – Held: Circumstantial evidence including recovery of stolen items, forensic evidence linking both accused, eyewitness testimony (PW11) and CCTV footage established guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction confirmed [Paras 1–25].

Circumstantial Evidence – Validity – Forensic and medical evidence supported theory of joint commission of offence – Recovery of stolen jewellery from accused and CCTV footage of gold exchange soon after crime supported robbery and presence at scene – DNA evidence linked accused No.1 to rape – Statements under Section 313 CrPC corroborated prosecution’s case – Chain of circumstances complete and consistent only with guilt of accused [Paras 10–18, 25].

Eyewitness Testimony – No Test Identification Parade – PW11 (milkman) saw both accused near scene at relevant time under streetlight – Identified them in court – Prior acquaintance with A1 established – Court held that failure to hold TIP not fatal in light of credible, consistent in-court identification – No motive for false implication – Testimony accepted [Paras 13–16].

Recovery under Section 27 Evidence Act – Accused-led recoveries of bloodstained clothes, weapons, and stolen items proved by Investigating Officer – Objections to recording language and translation process not raised in cross-examination – Even assuming irregularity, conduct of accused in leading to recovery admissible under Section 8 Evidence Act – Recovery held valid [Paras 20–24].

Sentencing – Death Penalty – Principles – Although trial court awarded death to A1, High Court considered mitigating factors including background of poverty, abuse, mental illness, and potential for reformation – Reports from jail authorities, probation officer, and NALSAR mitigation study considered – Applied principles from Manoj v. State of M.P. and Swamy Shraddananda (2) – Held: Case not “rarest of rare” – Death penalty commuted to life imprisonment without remission for 30 years [Paras 26–31].

Decision:

Crl.A. No. 79 of 2020 (A1): Conviction confirmed – Death sentence modified to life imprisonment for 30 years without remission for offences under Sections 302 and 376A IPC – Sentences to run concurrently – Appeal partly allowed

Crl.A. No. 401 of 2021 (A2): Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence upheld

D.S.R. No. 3 of 2019: Reference answered in negative – Death sentence not confirmed

Civil Procedure – Advocate Commissioner – Identification of Land – Appointment Set Aside – Trial court permitted appointment of Advocate Commissioner to identify suit land in Sy.No.125/E3 at the instance of the plaintiff relying on a sada bainama lacking boundary descriptions – High Court held that such appointment at preliminary stage amounted to collection of evidence – Also held that the trial court ignored findings in earlier CRP No.2136/2022 which declined injunction due to lack of prima facie title and possession – Held: Appointment of Advocate Commissioner was premature and perverse – Order set aside [Paras 3, 23-27]

Injunction Suit – Possession Dispute – Prima Facie Title and Possession Absent – Plaintiff failed to establish physical possession or valid title to the land – Sada bainama executed when plaintiff was allegedly a minor and lacking boundary details – Revenue records inconsistent regarding whether title was derived by inheritance or purchase – Plaintiff’s claim contradictory – Held: Injunction rightly denied earlier – Advocate Commissioner cannot be appointed to cure evidentiary defects [Paras 9-13, 22-24]

Land Identification vs. Demarcation – Legal Distinction – High Court clarified that identification (locating land generally) and demarcation (physically marking boundaries) are distinct – Appointment for mere identification without clear prima facie title or possession is impermissible – Advocate Commissioner cannot be used to fish for evidence or validate defective title [Paras 26.3-26.5]

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Article 227 – Scope – Trial court misdirected itself by misreading earlier High Court order and failing to appreciate the lack of credible evidence – High Court held that Article 227 powers warranted to prevent miscarriage of justice – Held: Order allowing appointment of Commissioner quashed [Paras 7, 27]

Negotiable Instruments Act – Dishonour of Cheque – Statutory Presumption – Section 139 – Execution of cheque admitted by accused – Held: Presumption arises that cheque was issued in discharge of debt or liability – However, such presumption is rebuttable on preponderance of probabilities – Accused not required to prove defence beyond reasonable doubt – M.S. Narayana Menon v. State of Kerala, (2006) 6 SCC 39; Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa, (2019) 5 SCC 418, followed [Paras 11–13].

Evidence – Rebuttal of Presumption – Financial Capacity of Complainant – Complainant failed to disclose date of issuance or execution of cheque either in complaint or affidavit – admitted contradictions in cross-examination regarding promissory note and cheque return – failed to produce partnership deed or authority to represent firm “Poornima Finance” – Absence of proof of financial capacity and contradictions in testimony sufficient to raise probable defence – Presumption under Section 139 held rebutted [Paras 8–10, 16].

Defence Evidence – Probable Case – Accused’s father (DW1) proved that cheque was issued blank towards balance payment for gold ornaments purchased from complainant’s jewellery on 15.04.2005, supported by Ext.D1 estimate and Ext.D2 account slip in complainant’s handwriting – Circumstances corroborate defence and cast doubt on existence of legally enforceable debt – Trial Court’s reliance on DW1’s evidence upheld [Paras 9–10, 18].

Burden of Proof – Standard – Accused only required to establish a probable defence by preponderance of probabilities – May rely on complainant’s own materials to raise doubt – Failure to establish source of funds or exact transaction date fatal to prosecution – ANSS Rajashekar v. Augustus Jeba Ananth, 2019 (1) KLD 492 and APS Forex Services (P) Ltd. v. Shakti International Fashion Linkers, 2020 (1) KLD 313, followed [Paras 14–15].

Non-reply to Statutory Notice – Effect – Though non-reply can be an adverse circumstance, not conclusive of guilt – Court must consider totality of evidence to determine whether presumption stands rebutted – Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar, 2025 (6) KHC 250 (SC), and M.M.T.C. Ltd. v. Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd., 2002 KHC 241, referred [Paras 17–18].

Appellate Review – Acquittal – Findings of trial court based on proper appreciation of evidence and supported by material record – No perversity or illegality shown – High Court declines to interfere with acquittal under Section 138 NI Act [Paras 18–19].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal of accused confirmed – Held: Complainant failed to establish legally enforceable debt or authority to represent firm; accused successfully raised probable defence supported by documentary evidence – No interference warranted [Para 19].

Motor Accident Claims – Maintainability of Revision – Award Below Threshold – Petitioners (owner and driver) sought to challenge award of Rs.21,380/- passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal via Article 227 petition – Contention raised that appeal barred under Section 173(2) MV Act but revision not expressly prohibited – Held: Revision petition not maintainable where statute bars appeal for awards below Rs.1 lakh – High Court cannot be used to circumvent express statutory bar on appeal under guise of Article 227 [Paras 2–6]

Article 227 Jurisdiction – Limited Scope – Petitioners relied on power of superintendence under Article 227 – Reiterated that supervisory jurisdiction cannot be invoked to bypass statutory remedies – High Court cited Bharti AXA (CR-6131-2016) and Shriram General Insurance (CR-1727-2025) to hold that intervention under Article 227 is not permissible where statute explicitly prohibits appeal – Supreme Court’s decision in Shalini Shyam Shetty followed to reaffirm limited, discretionary, and exceptional nature of Article 227 jurisdiction [Paras 5–7]

Decision: Revision petition dismissed – Tribunal award upheld – No interference warranted under Article 227 – Pending applications disposed of.

Criminal Writ – Premature Release – Policy Implementation – Life convict Ramji’s claim for premature release rejected by Government of Punjab despite eligibility under 1991 Policy – Rejection order dated 17.12.2024 found cryptic, unreasoned, and mechanically based on opinion of Presiding Judge and Committee – Held: Rejection order unsustainable for being non-speaking and devoid of application of mind – Matter remanded for fresh decision in accordance with law [Paras 5–10, 13].

Administrative Law – Natural Justice – Speaking Order – Right to Personal Liberty – Court reiterates that administrative/quasi-judicial orders must be reasoned and cannot rest on ipse dixit – Held: Absence of clear reasoning in executive orders, especially those affecting liberty, violates Article 21 and the principles of natural justice – Order must reflect due consideration of facts and relevant policies [Paras 10–11].

Delay and Administrative Apathy – Procedural Lapses – Respondent authorities delayed processing of petitioner’s release case for over 18 months due to repeated inter-departmental lapses – Held: Authorities displayed lackadaisical approach in discharging statutory duties, causing prejudice to petitioner – Costs of ₹25,000 imposed on State of Punjab for delay and administrative torpor [Paras 6, 12–13].

Remand and Relief – Reconsideration Directed – High Court sets aside rejection order and directs State to decide afresh within four weeks – Compliance affidavit to be filed by Home Secretary, Punjab within six weeks, failing which punitive consequences may follow [Para 13].

NDPS Act – Possession of Heroin – Sentence Reduced – Appellant found in conscious possession of 35 grams heroin and convicted under Section 21 NDPS Act – Trial Court sentenced him to 08 months' RI and ₹20,000 fine – Appeal filed only on sentence – Held: Though appellant is involved in other NDPS cases, he has already undergone 01 month 19 days in custody, trial lasted nearly five years, and no further unlawful activity reported – Sentence reduced to period already undergone while maintaining conviction [Paras 3, 7–8]

Criminal Procedure – Sentencing – Mitigating Circumstances – Appellant did not challenge conviction on merits – Protracted trial considered – No aggravating conduct shown during trial – Court exercised leniency and modified sentence – Fine amount and default sentence not interfered with [Paras 3–8]

Decision: Conviction under Section 21 NDPS Act upheld – Sentence reduced from 08 months’ imprisonment to period already undergone – Appeal disposed of