Public Health – Food Adulteration – Suo motu action to address food adulteration impacting public health – Interim directions issued for implementation of Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006 – Monitoring and sampling of high-risk areas – Establishment of testing infrastructure – Public awareness campaigns to educate about food adulteration and its health impacts [Paras 1-20].

Constitutional Law – Article 21 – Right to life includes safe and healthy food – Article 47 imposes duty on the State to ensure public health – Food adulteration affects fundamental right to health – Directions issued to both Central and State Governments for effective implementation of food safety laws [Paras 7-8].

Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006 – Implementation – Act of 2006 aims to regulate food safety – Identifies the need for better enforcement and infrastructure – Gaps in the Act's implementation highlighted, particularly in unorganized sectors – Interim directions to improve enforcement and public awareness [Paras 8-12].

Public Awareness – Campaigns and Education – State and Central Governments directed to conduct public awareness campaigns about food adulteration – Utilization of various media to educate public – Inclusion of food safety education in school workshops [Paras 13-15].

Interim Measures – Immediate steps ordered to enhance food safety – State Food Safety Authority to conduct regular sampling – Establishment of a dedicated website for public complaints and information – Central and State Governments to report monthly compliance to Court [Para 15].

Decision: Interim directions issued for effective implementation of food safety measures and public awareness campaigns. Compliance reports to be submitted monthly. Further directions to be considered in future hearings.

SARFAESI Act – Jurisdiction of Consumer Forum – Interim order by District Consumer Redressal Commission under Consumer Protection Act, 2019 challenged – Consumer forum lacks jurisdiction over actions under SARFAESI Act – Overriding provisions of SARFAESI Act emphasized – Consumer Commission’s interim stay on auction quashed [Paras 14-16, 22, 28].

Consumer Protection Act – Concurrent Jurisdiction – Argument that provisions of Consumer Protection Act are in addition to other laws – Court finds SARFAESI Act provisions to override other laws in case of conflict – Reference to sections 35 and 100 of Consumer Protection Act considered [Paras 10-12, 18-19].

Judicial Restraint – Importance of courts exercising caution in interfering with SARFAESI proceedings stressed – High Court cites precedents emphasizing non-interference by civil courts in SARFAESI matters [Paras 6-7, 13, 20].

Conduct of Parties – Suppression of Material Facts – Opposite party suppressed pendency of securitization application before DRT while seeking interim order from Consumer Commission – Conduct criticized and costs imposed [Paras 21, 26-27].

Decision: Writ Petition Allowed – Proceedings in Consumer Case No. 91 of 2023 before District Consumer Commission, Jharsuguda quashed – Costs of Rs. 1,00,000 imposed on Opposite Party No.1 [Paras 22, 28-29].

Criminal Law – Abetment of Suicide – Framing of Charges – Section 306 IPC – Allegations based on suicide note – Deceased allegedly committed suicide due to non-repayment of loan by petitioner – Suicide note does not indicate instigation or intent to abet suicide by petitioner – Mere refusal to repay loan insufficient to constitute abetment – Insufficient material to frame charges under Section 306 IPC – Order framing charges set aside – Petitioner discharged [Paras 1-37].

Evidence Law – Suicide Note – Role in Framing Charges – Suicide note alleging harassment due to unpaid loan – Forensic report inconclusive on handwriting – No direct or indirect evidence of instigation or intent to abet suicide – Charge under Section 306 IPC requires clear instigation or aiding of suicide [Paras 19-30].

Legal Principles – Framing of Charges – Judicial Review – Section 227 Cr.P.C. – Court’s duty to sift and weigh evidence to determine prima facie case – Charges should not be framed on suspicion alone – Application of principles from Prafulla Kumar Samal and Kanchan Kumar cases [Paras 31-34].

Decision: Petition allowed – Order framing charges under Section 306 IPC set aside – Petitioner discharged in the criminal case arising out of FIR No. 355/2020.
 

Motor Accident Claims – Quantum of Compensation – Appeals against Tribunal’s award for accident resulting in deaths and injuries during a pilgrimage walk – Tribunal found rash and negligent driving by the offending vehicle – Compensation enhanced for pain, suffering, medical expenses, and other heads – Dependency claims considered but adjusted for the actual age of the deceased – Application of the precedent for major earning legal representatives – Orders for deposition of enhanced compensation with interest [Paras 1-14].

Enhanced Compensation – Pain and Suffering – Tribunal’s award for pain and suffering, medical expenses, and other compensatory heads deemed insufficient – Appellate court recalculates and enhances compensation – Recognition of hospitalization, medical procedures, and duration of treatment – Comprehensive breakdown and reallocation of compensation heads [Paras 9-12].

Dependency and Legal Representatives – Assessment of Deceased’s Age and Dependency – Tribunal’s assumption on age and dependency of deceased adjusted – Legal precedents affirming entitlement of major and earning children as legal representatives for compensation – Tribunal’s approach critiqued and corrected for equitable compensation [Paras 11-12].

Decision:

Appeals Partly Allowed – Compensation Enhanced – The second respondent insurance company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation, less the amount already deposited, with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of claim petition till deposit within four weeks. Enhanced compensation not entitled to interest for a specific delayed period. Deficit court fee to be paid by appellants if not already paid [Para 14].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Dishonour of Cheque – Appellant/complainant alleged issuance of cheque for payment of goods supplied – Cheque dishonoured due to insufficient funds – Trial court convicted accused – Sessions court acquitted accused, citing lack of reliable evidence and procedural lapses – High Court upheld acquittal [Paras 1-16].

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act – Requirements – Examination of evidence revealed unsigned invoices and alleged blank cheque issuance for a different purpose – Sessions court found insufficient proof of business transaction – No evidence from critical witness – High Court affirmed findings [Paras 10-13].

Appellate Review – Standards of Interference – High Court emphasized minimal interference when two views are possible, particularly if the appellate court’s view is plausible – Upheld acquittal citing lack of compelling reason to disturb the appellate court’s findings [Para 15].

Decision – Criminal Appeal Dismissed – High Court endorsed the acquittal of the respondent – Noted adherence to evidentiary standards and statutory requirements in appellate review [Para 16].

Legitimacy under Hindu Marriage Act – Section 16 – Plaintiff’s right to claim a share in ancestral property – Plaintiff’s legitimacy questioned due to parents’ marriage being void – Trial Court’s judgement granting 1/5th share to plaintiff challenged – Held: Legitimacy conferred under Section 16(1) of HMA – Plaintiff entitled to parents’ property but not ancestral property as per Section 16(3) of HMA [Paras 19-26].

Coparcenary Rights – Hindu Succession Act, Section 6 – Daughters’ right to ancestral property – Rights by birth – Amendment Act 2005 – Held: Daughters born before amendment acquire rights by birth – Coparcenary rights not dependent on father being alive as of amendment date – Section 6(3) of HAS brings gender equality in property rights [Paras 36-39].

Succession and Devolution – Hindu Succession Act, Section 6(3) – Share of deceased coparcener – Notional partition – Held: Deceased’s share devolves by testamentary or intestate succession – Coparcenary system ends with notional partition upon death after 09.09.2005 – Plaintiff entitled to 1/5th share in father’s 1/4th share of coparcenary property [Paras 41-45].

Procedure – Evidence – Proof of marriage – Presumption of marriage – Indian Evidence Act, Section 50 – Held: Plaintiff’s legitimacy supported by witnesses’ testimony and documentary evidence – Court’s duty to uphold social justice and legitimacy of innocent children born from void marriages [Paras 29-33].

Decision – First Appeal partly allowed – Plaintiff entitled to 1/20th share in suit properties – Cross Objection allowed – No costs [Para 46].
 

Criminal Law – Summoning Order – Validity – Petition to quash summoning order for offences including fraud and conspiracy – Accused alleged to have falsely claimed educational qualifications to contest elections – Court found prima facie evidence supporting allegations – Magistrate’s procedure in conducting police investigation and recording preliminary evidence deemed appropriate despite procedural anomalies – Summoning order upheld [Paras 1-11].

Election Fraud – Educational Qualification – Allegations of presenting false educational certificates to meet election eligibility criteria – Complainant obtained information via RTI showing discrepancies in accused’s educational records – Civil court already set aside election on similar grounds – Criminal proceedings based on prima facie evidence of fraud and conspiracy sustained [Paras 2.1-2.7, 10].

Procedural Compliance – Section 202 Cr.P.C. – Examination of complainant and witnesses – Requirement of police investigation due to out-of-jurisdiction accused – Magistrate’s actions within permissible scope, retaining control over investigation and enquiry phases – No prejudice against accused established – Summoning order found legally valid [Paras 3-9].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Summoning order and criminal proceedings sustained – Court emphasized that at summoning stage, only prima facie case needs to be established, not final determination of guilt or innocence [Paras 10-11].

Contempt of Court – Suo Motu Proceedings – Allegations Against Judicial Officer – Respondent’s petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. contained remarks about Magistrate’s reluctance to pass orders and frequent adjournments – Examination of zimni orders revealed adjournments requested by respondent’s counsel – Court examines whether the remarks constitute criminal contempt – Reference to various Supreme Court judgments on criticism and contempt – Remarks not amounting to contempt when made without malice and in good faith – Court accepts respondent’s unconditional apology – Criminal contempt proceedings dropped [Paras 1-25].

Judicial Criticism – Limits and Legal Framework – Criticism permissible if in good faith and without imputing improper motives – Courts open to reasonable public scrutiny – Statements against judicial officers considered within the bounds of fair criticism when made without malice – Reference to Section 6 of Contempt of Courts Act protecting good faith criticism – Respondent’s criticism aimed at seeking expeditious disposal of case not considered contemptuous [Paras 10-24].

Decision:

Criminal contempt proceedings against the respondent dropped. The Court emphasized that remarks made in good faith concerning judicial conduct, without malice, do not constitute contempt. The respondent’s apology was accepted, and the proceedings were concluded without further action​​.

Insurance Ombudsman – Powers and Jurisdiction – The appellant challenged the judgment of the learned Single Judge, arguing that the Insurance Ombudsman has the authority to direct the insurer to issue a policy at a pre-revised premium rate – High Court analyzed the provisions of Rules 13 and 17 of the Insurance Ombudsman Rules, 2017 – Rule 13 allows the Ombudsman to receive and consider complaints relating to disputes over premium, but Rule 17 limits the Ombudsman's power to awarding compensation, not issuing directives to insurers – Appellant’s reliance on previous apex court decisions found inapplicable as they did not involve Insurance Ombudsman awards [Paras 1-7].

Decision – Writ Appeal Dismissed – Held – Insurance Ombudsman exceeded jurisdiction by directing issuance of policy at specified premium – Judgment of learned Single Judge upheld, quashing such directions in Ombudsman’s award – Court clarifies limits of Ombudsman’s powers under Rule 17 of the Insurance Ombudsman Rules, 2017 [Para 7].