Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - Expeditious Trial - Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking direction for expeditious conclusion of trial - Complaint filed in 2021 but trial not concluded - Emphasis on statutory mandate under Section 143(2) and 143(3) N.I. Act for day-to-day trial and conclusion within six months - Apex Court directions in Indian Bank Association v. Union of India (2014) and In Re: Expeditious Trial of Cases under Section 138 N.I. Act (2021) for speedy disposal of cases reiterated - Court directs trial court to conclude trial within six months from receipt of order copy. [Paras 1-8]

Directions for Expeditious Disposal - Section 138 N.I. Act - Supreme Court Directions - Court reiterates necessity for expeditious trial and disposal of cases under Section 138 - Magistrates directed to follow procedures ensuring speedy trials as per guidelines from Supreme Court - Directions include day-to-day hearings, proper service of summons, and adherence to statutory timelines - Application disposed of with directions for trial court. [Paras 3-7]

Decision: The court directs the 5th Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 18, Basti, to conclude the trial of Complaint Case No. 23545 of 2021 expeditiously, preferably within six months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order, in accordance with Sections 143(2) and 143(3) of the N.I. Act, subject to no legal impediments. [Para 8]

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR and Consequential Proceedings – Compromise – Petition under Section 482 CrPC – High Court quashes FIR based on compromise deed executed between accused and complainant – Emphasis on reformative justice and maintaining societal harmony – Conditions imposed on social media conduct to prevent future violence – Petition allowed. [Paras 1-17]

Quashing of FIR and Consequential Proceedings – Conditions Imposed on Social Media Conduct – Analysis – Court acknowledges influence of social media influencers on public behavior – Quashing conditioned on petitioners refraining from promoting violence or substance abuse in their content – Provision for restoration of FIR if conditions violated. [Para 13-14]

Decision – Quashing of FIR Subject to Conditions – Court quashes FIR and all subsequent proceedings subject to petitioners adhering to stipulated conditions – Bail bonds of petitioners discharged. [Para 17]

Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – Rejection – Criminal petition seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC – Allegations of bribery involving a Clerk and a Nodal Officer under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, 1994 (PNDT Act) – Demand of bribe to settle a notice issued under the PNDT Act – Prima facie evidence of conspiracy and demand for bribe established through recovery of tainted money and audio recordings – Consideration of the societal implications of female foeticide – Petition dismissed due to sufficient prima facie evidence and severity of allegations – Custodial interrogation deemed necessary.

Role of Petitioner in Bribery – Analysis – Held – The petitioner, as a Clerk, actively participated in demanding and negotiating bribes – Frequent communication between the petitioner and the complainant highlighted complicity – Transcripts of calls and recovery of bribe money corroborated allegations – Rejection of anticipatory bail due to petitioner’s direct involvement in the alleged corrupt practices.

Decision – Dismissal of Anticipatory Bail Petition – Court finds substantial prima facie evidence against the petitioner – Observations on societal and legal implications of corruption and female foeticide – Interim orders vacated – All pending applications disposed of.

Criminal Law – Quashing of Complaint under Section 482 CrPC – Complaint under Section 138 of NI Act – Chief Financial Officer's Liability – Dismissal of Petition

Quashing Petition – Petition filed under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of complaint under Section 138 NI Act against petitioner, Chief Financial Officer of Accused No.1 company – Petitioner contends liability cannot be based solely on being signatory of the cheque – Rejection of petition on grounds of sufficient averments against petitioner being in charge and responsible for conduct of company’s business at the relevant time [Paras 2-7, 15-18].

Liability under NI Act – Supreme Court precedent in S.P. Mani and Mohan Dairy v. Dr. Snehalatha Elangovan emphasized – Persons signing cheque or having authority to sign can be assumed responsible for company’s business – Petitioner's role as Chief Financial Officer and signatory satisfies Section 141 NI Act requirements [Paras 10-12, 15].

Section 28 NI Act Argument – Petitioner's argument based on Section 28 NI Act (agent signing without indicating role) found inapplicable – Complaint correctly framed under Section 141 NI Act, focusing on petitioner’s responsibility and charge over company’s business [Paras 6, 16-17].

Decision – Dismissal of Petition – Held – Petition dismissed with the complaint fulfilling the Section 141 NI Act requirements – No merit in petitioner's submissions, including reference to Sivagurunatha Pillai judgment – No impact on petitioner’s defense in trial court [Paras 17-19].

Criminal Law – Right to Access Documents under CrPC and POCSO Act – Affidavit Requirement by Special Judge – Held Unwarranted – Accused’s Right to Certified Copies Upheld – The High Court of Kerala quashed the order of the Special Judge directing the petitioner’s counsel to file an affidavit stating that the copy of the statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC would not be misused. The Court held that the accused has a statutory right under Section 207 CrPC to access relevant documents, including statements recorded under Section 164 CrPC, without such conditions, as the statutory provisions and Supreme Court directives sufficiently safeguard the interests of victims. [Paras 1-14].

Constitutional Law – Right to Practice Profession – Protection of Legal Practitioners’ Duties – The High Court emphasized that imposing conditions on lawyers without any foundation is an interference in their right to practice, which is protected under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and governed by the Advocates’ Act. The Court held that lawyers, as officers of the court, are expected to perform their duties legally and ethically, and unnecessary apprehensions should not lead to imposing unwarranted conditions. [Paras 13-14].

Evidence Evaluation – Safeguards Against Misuse of Victim’s Statements – Adequacy of Existing Legal Provisions – The Court noted that various statutory provisions, including Section 228-A IPC, Sections 23 and 33(7) of the POCSO Act, and the IT Act, along with Supreme Court directives in cases like Sakshi v. Union of India and Nipun Saxena v. Union of India, provide adequate protection against the misuse of victims' statements and identity disclosure. Therefore, additional affidavits were deemed unnecessary. [Paras 4-12].

Decision – Quashing of Special Judge’s Order – Directive for Issuance of Certified Copies – The Court directed the Special Judge to issue certified copies of the statements recorded under Section 164 CrPC to the petitioner forthwith, reaffirming the accused’s right to these documents under Section 207 CrPC and Section 31 of the POCSO Act. [Para 14].

Service Law – Trifurcation of Directorate General of Security (DGS) – Reorganization and Pay Parity – Petition challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal’s order directing resolution of service condition disparities among ministerial staff post-trifurcation – Tribunal’s directive to devise a package and rectify lacunae affirmed – Relief limited to addressing pay grade disparity for Assistants.

Discrimination in Service Conditions – Held – Tribunal’s decision to remand matter to the Union of India for informed decision on grade pay of ₹4,600/- to Assistants in SSB upheld – Parity in pay with counterparts in ARC and SFF mandated – Petitioners to implement within three months – Tribunal’s broader directives for equitable treatment endorsed but specific prayer for 15% special allowance not pressed by respondents. [Paras 53-58]

Decision – Tribunal’s Order Upheld – Petition dismissed with direction to the Union of India to comply with Tribunal’s instructions regarding pay parity for Assistants in SSB – Applications for impleadment of additional parties dismissed as they were not parties before the Tribunal. [Paras 51-61]

Rent Control – Eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act upheld – Challenge in High Court against eviction order passed by the Additional Rent Controller – Ownership and jural relationship of tenancy not disputed by tenants – Tenants failed to file written statement and cross-examine respondent – Court found no infirmity in the eviction order – Petition dismissed. [Paras 1-11]

Landlord-Tenant Relationship – Eviction petition by landlord claiming ownership through registered sale deed and family settlement – Tenants' challenge based on ownership and availability of alternate accommodation – Court held family settlement valid despite being unregistered – Tenants' failure to provide evidence of alternate accommodation – Eviction order upheld. [Paras 2-9]

Evidence Evaluation – Tenants admitted pleadings and evidence of respondent unchallenged – Family settlement accepted as documentary record – Ownership through sale deed and family settlement deemed sufficient – Petitioners did not utilize opportunity to challenge evidence. [Paras 3, 6-8, 10]

Decision – Dismissal of Petition – Held – The eviction petition is upheld due to unchallenged evidence and pleadings, with no infirmity found in the Additional Rent Controller's order. [Paras 10-11]

Criminal Law - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe – Conviction and Sentence – Appeal against conviction under Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Allegations of demanding and accepting bribe by a Sub-Inspector from the complainant for favoring him in a case investigation – Prosecution failed to prove the demand of bribe beyond reasonable doubt – Inconsistencies in testimonies of prosecution witnesses – Non-production of crucial evidence like the bribe money and the scooter during the trial – Benefit of doubt given to the appellant – Conviction and sentence set aside. [Paras 1-45]

**Proof of Demand – Analysis – Held – Demand of illegal gratification must be proved beyond reasonable doubt – Mere recovery of currency notes not sufficient without proof of demand – Prosecution's evidence inconsistent and contradictory – Legal presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act not applicable in absence of proven demand. [Paras 14-32]

**Acceptance and Recovery of Bribe – Insufficient Evidence – Held – Prosecution failed to produce the case property (scooter and keys) during the trial – No independent public witnesses involved during the recovery – Doubtful recovery of currency notes – Prosecution failed to establish acceptance and recovery of bribe conclusively. [Paras 33-38]

Decision – Conviction and Sentence Set Aside – Appeal allowed – Appellant acquitted of charges under Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act – Judgment of conviction and sentence by the trial court reversed due to lack of sufficient evidence proving demand and acceptance of bribe. [Paras 43-45]

Murder and Dying Declaration – Acquittal Appeal – State challenged acquittal of accused for murder under IPC Section 302 – High Court upheld acquittal, citing lack of credible evidence and discrepancies in witness testimonies – Emphasized necessity of clear evidence to overturn acquittal [Paras 1-13].

Evidence and Witness Testimony – Prosecution's Failure – Court noted prosecution's failure to present consistent and corroborative evidence – Key witnesses turned hostile, and contradictions in complainant’s statements weakened the case – Dying declaration not considered due to lack of clarity on the deceased’s conscious state [Paras 6-7, 10].

Legal Principles and Standards – Presumption of Innocence – Court reinforced the principle that acquittal should not be overturned unless findings are perverse or manifestly erroneous – Referenced Supreme Court rulings underscoring cautious approach in reversing acquittals [Paras 11-12].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal confirmed – Trial court's judgment upheld due to insufficient evidence and contradictions in prosecution’s case [Paras 13].