Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Dishonour of Cheque – Limitation – Cause of Action – Notice Returned ‘Refused’ – Applicability of 15-day Period – Held: Even when statutory notice is returned unclaimed or refused, service is deemed effected under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act – Cause of action arises only after expiry of 15 days contemplated under proviso (c) to Section 138 N.I. Act – Contrary view in Jayakrishnan v. Unnikrishnan, 2015 (5) KHC 683, held per incuriam for not noticing Supreme Court’s binding precedents in C.C. Alavi Haji v. Palapetty Muhammed, (2007) 6 SCC 555 and K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan, (1999) 7 SCC 510 [Paras 6–8].

Criminal Law – Section 138 N.I. Act – Refusal to Accept Notice – Effect – Refusal deemed valid service – However, drawer entitled to statutory period of 15 days for payment from date of deemed service – Complaint filed before expiry of 15 days premature, but one filed after expiry within limitation valid [Paras 7–8].

Precedent – Doctrine of Per Incuriam – High Court’s earlier decision in Jayakrishnan v. Unnikrishnan per incuriam as it ignored binding decisions of the Supreme Court – Law declared by Supreme Court in C.C. Alavi Haji governs – High Court bound to apply ratio [Paras 8–9].

Criminal Procedure – Acquittal under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C. – When based solely on erroneous interpretation of limitation under Section 142 N.I. Act – Proper course is to set aside and remand for fresh trial on merits [Para 9].

Decision: Held, Jayakrishnan (2015) incorrectly interpreted Section 138 – Supreme Court decisions in Alavi Haji and Bhaskaran apply – Complaints not time-barred – Judgments of acquittal set aside – Matters remanded for fresh consideration – All other issues left open – Parties directed to appear before Trial Court on 13.10.2025 at 11:00 a.m. [Paras 8–9].

Partition – Ancestral Property – Registered Settlement Deed – Plaintiff and defendants 2 to 4 inherited land from their father via registered settlement deed dated 24.09.1977 – Defendants 2 to 4 sold entire 1 acre of land to defendant no.1 in 1998, despite holding only 3/4th share – Held: Sale not binding on plaintiff’s undivided 1/4th share – Plaintiff entitled to 1/4th partition and possession [Paras 6, 17–20].

Adverse Possession – Not Established – Defendants claimed exclusive possession and adverse title from 1998 – However, failed to prove continuous, open, hostile possession to the exclusion of true owner – Constructing house or paying tax not sufficient proof – Plaintiff’s legal notice in 2010 rebutted presumption of adverse possession – Plea rightly rejected by courts below [Paras 7–8, 19–20].

Civil Procedure – Second Appeal – Section 100 CPC – Concurrent findings of fact by trial and appellate courts based on proper appreciation of evidence – No illegality or perversity found – No substantial question of law involved – Mere erroneous appreciation of evidence or plea of error in factual inference does not invoke jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC – Appeal dismissed at admission stage [Paras 14–23].

Registered Sale Deed – Validity Limited to Seller’s Share – Defendants 2 to 4 had no authority to sell plaintiff’s 1/4th undivided share – Buyer (defendant no.1) failed to verify title or join plaintiff in execution – Sale deed dated 30.03.1998 valid only to extent of 3/4th share – Held: Plaintiff's share unaffected by sale [Paras 6, 17, 19–20].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed at admission stage – No substantial question of law involved – Concurrent findings of both courts upheld – Plaintiff entitled to 1/4th undivided share in suit property – Pending applications closed – No costs [Paras 21–23].

Criminal Law – Attempt to Murder – Acquittal under Section 307 IPC – Conviction under Section 324 IPC – Appeal by the State against acquittal of accused No.1 (Jaison) under Section 307 IPC and of accused Nos. 2 and 3 (Biju and Mohanan) under Sections 341, 324, 307 r/w 34 IPC – Trial Court convicted accused No.1 under Section 324 IPC and sentenced him to two years’ imprisonment – Held: Trial court rightly appreciated the absence of premeditation and lack of sufficient evidence regarding intention or knowledge as required under Section 307 IPC – Evidence showed single stab during a scuffle following a verbal altercation – No second attempt by accused to inflict fatal injury – Hence, acquittal under Section 307 IPC justified [Paras 4, 23-25].

Witness Testimony – Injured Witnesses – Evidentiary Value – PW1 and PW2, both injured, consistently deposed regarding the incident and attributed the stabbing to accused No.1 – Their testimony corroborated by medical evidence (PW7, PW8) and injury certificates (Exhibits P3 & P5) – Minor inconsistencies in testimonies regarding accused Nos. 2 and 3 but consistent and credible as against accused No.1 – Held: Injured witnesses’ evidence carries greater weight and no reason found to disbelieve them with respect to accused No.1 – Conviction under Section 324 IPC upheld [Paras 9-11, 13, 15, 31, 33-34].

Criminal Law – Common Intention – Acquittal of Accused Nos. 2 and 3 – Delay in implicating A2 and A3 – No mention of A2 and A3 in initial FIR (Exhibit P10) or doctor’s report (Exhibit P4) – Names added only later via Exhibit P15 – PW3 (independent witness) turned hostile and made no mention of A2 and A3’s presence – Delay and contradictions in the statements of PWs 1 and 2 regarding involvement of A2 and A3 create reasonable doubt – Held: Acquittal of accused Nos. 2 and 3 justified – Benefit of doubt extended [Paras 12, 26-29].

Evidence Act – Section 27 – Recovery of Weapon – Knife (MO1) allegedly recovered based on disclosure by accused No.1 – Recovery not reliable – Investigating Officer failed to depose exact words of the accused or prove the disclosure statement – No independent witnesses to recovery – Held: Recovery procedure did not satisfy requirements under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act – Recovery evidence discarded [Paras 17-22].

Criminal Procedure – FIR and Investigation – Initial FIR (Exhibit P10) registered under Section 324 IPC based on hospital intimation (Exhibit P4) – No mention of accused Nos. 2 and 3 – Involvement of A2 and A3 added only six days later via Exhibit P15 – Delay in recording witness statements and no explanation for non-inclusion in initial documents – Held: Such delay and omissions fatal to prosecution case against A2 and A3 [Paras 16, 27-29].

Legal Principle – Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus – Not Applicable in Indian Law – Argument that PWs 1 and 2’s testimony should be discarded entirely because disbelieved in part (as to A2 and A3) rejected – Held: Indian courts do not apply this doctrine – Duty of court is to separate truth from falsehood and assess credibility on a case-by-case basis [Paras 32-33].

Decision – Appeal filed by State against acquittal of accused No.1 under Section 307 IPC and of accused Nos. 2 and 3 under Sections 341, 324, 307 r/w 34 IPC dismissed – Appeal filed by accused No.1 against conviction under Section 324 IPC also dismissed – Conviction and sentence of two years’ imprisonment under Section 324 IPC against accused No.1 confirmed – Appeals dismissed in entirety [Paras 34].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Acquittals of accused Nos. 2 and 3 confirmed – Conviction of accused No.1 under Section 324 IPC affirmed – Sentence of two years’ imprisonment upheld.

Patent Law – Process Patent – Rejection under Section 3(d) – Controller and Single Judge held process to be a mere use of known processes not involving any new reactant or yielding a new product – Appellate Court held that Section 3(d) was wrongly invoked – Process yielded additional products like magnesium sulphate and activated carbon, which were not disclosed in prior art – Also held that process was not “known” in its entirety to attract bar under Section 3(d) [Paras 22.1–22.8].

Patent Law – Inventive Step – Section 2(1)(ja) and Section 25(1)(e) – Controller held process lacked inventive step in view of prior art D1 (US Patent 2018/0257945) and D2 (BIS Guide IS:8032-1976) – Single Judge adopted Hoffmann-La Roche test but incorrectly began analysis at Step 4 – Appellate Court held: Proper analysis requires identifying person skilled in art and inventive concept before assessing obviousness – Found substantial procedural lapses and inadequate reasoning – Held: Findings on obviousness unsustainable and matter remanded [Paras 17.1–21.6].

Patent Law – Prior Art Comparison – Court found significant distinctions between claimed process and prior art documents – Subject process involved unique steps for zero liquid discharge and recovery of multiple products – D1 and D2 lacked corresponding sequence or outputs – Held: Subject invention could not be treated as obvious without reasoned analysis – Rejected summary conclusions by Controller and Single Judge [Paras 21.1.1–21.3].

Patent Office Procedure – Need for Speaking Order – Appellate Court criticized laconic and mechanical reasoning of Assistant Controller – Held that conclusion of obviousness was unsupported by analysis of how prior art would lead a skilled person to the invention – Stressed need for reasoned orders following settled principles like Hoffmann test [Paras 20.1–20.11].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Orders of Assistant Controller and Single Judge set aside – Objection under Section 3(d) rejected – Matter remanded to CGPDTM for fresh decision confined to Section 25(1)(e) objection – No new material to be introduced – De novo decision to be passed within six months [Paras 23–25].

Civil Procedure Code – Rejection of Plaint – Cause of Action – Partition Suit Filed Without Challenging Gift Deed – Maintainability – Respondent (Plaintiff) filed suit for partition and possession without seeking declaration challenging the registered gift deed dated 02.12.2014 – Trial Court rejected plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(a) CPC, holding absence of cause of action – Lower Appellate Court reversed and remanded matter for trial – High Court held that meaningful reading of plaint (Paras 4 to 6) discloses cause of action based on fraud and misrepresentation – Memorandum of Understanding dated 10.11.2017 supports Plaintiff’s version of nominal transfer – Held: Relief of declaration not mandatory where fraud alleged and suit not barred at threshold – Trial and evidence necessary [Paras 15-17, 19]

Limitation – Article 59, Limitation Act – Commencement of Limitation in Case of Fraud – Gift deed executed on 02.12.2014 – Suit filed on 04.04.2019 – Allegation that Plaintiff unaware of gift nature and misled by Defendant – Memorandum of Understanding of 2017 supports Plaintiff’s case – Held: When fraud is pleaded, limitation begins when fraud is discovered – Plea of limitation is mixed question of fact and law – Rejection under Order 7 Rule 11(d) not justified [Paras 16, 18, 19]

Transfer of Property – Validity of Gift Deed – Alleged Misrepresentation – Whether Plaintiff’s failure to challenge gift deed fatal to claim – Plaintiff claimed gift was never intended and no consideration passed – Alleged misrepresentation by elder brother for loan purposes – Held: Suit not barred merely for want of declaratory relief when fraud alleged – Whether deed is void or voidable to be decided after trial [Paras 14, 16, 17]

Binding Precedents – Coordinate Bench Decision in Similar Suit – Civil Suit No. 108/2019 involving same parties upheld by Revisional Court and not interfered with by Apex Court – Respondent sought parity – High Court held that dismissal of SLP without reasons not binding precedent – Independently examined facts and law in this case – Held: Earlier decision not controlling [Para 26]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Order of lower appellate court upheld – Suit to proceed on merits before Trial Court – Civil Application also disposed of.

Criminal Law – Dishonour of Cheque – Section 138 NI Act – Appeal against Acquittal – Accused alleged to have taken Rs. 2,00,000/- as loan and issued two cheques which were dishonoured – Complainant served statutory notice and filed complaint upon non-payment – Trial Court acquitted the accused holding complainant failed to prove financial capacity and existence of legally enforceable debt – Held: Trial Court's findings justified – Accused rebutted presumption under Section 139 by raising probable defence – Complainant failed to prove specific date of loan transaction, failed to name lender friends, and produced no documentary proof of advancement of Rs. 2,00,000/- [Paras 2.1, 8, 11].

Negotiable Instruments – Presumption under Section 139 – Rebuttal – Accused claimed cheques were old, issued to his brother-in-law in 2000, and misused – No complaint filed by accused, but explanation consistent from notice reply onwards – Defence plausible – Once probable defence is raised, burden shifts to complainant to prove debt – Complainant earning Rs. 3000/- p.m., had dependent children, and gave no proof of loan capability or transaction – Held: Presumption rebutted on preponderance of probabilities – Trial Court rightly held complainant failed to establish foundational facts [Paras 8.1, 11].

Criminal Procedure – Appellate Review of Acquittal – Principles – High Court reappreciated evidence and found no perversity or legal error in Trial Court’s reasoning – Held: Interference not warranted when view of acquittal is plausible and supported by evidence [Para 12].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal of accused confirmed – Bail bond cancelled – No interference warranted with Trial Court's judgment [Paras 12-13].

Public Trusts – Suit for Possession – Consent of Charity Commissioner – Sections 50 and 51, Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 – Maintainability of Suit by Trustees – Trustees, as natural legal owners of trust property, are competent to sue for recovery of possession from trespassers without prior written consent of the Charity Commissioner – Section 50 is an enabling, not restrictive, provision conferring additional rights upon beneficiaries or the Charity Commissioner – Consent under Section 51 required only for “persons having interest in the trust,” not for trustees – Trustees’ common law right to protect trust property unaffected [Paras 25–29, 35].

Charity Commissioner – Jurisdiction – Section 80, Bombay Public Trusts Act – Scope – Charity Commissioner has no power to adjudicate on trespass or recovery of possession of trust property – Hence, civil court’s jurisdiction not barred – Suit for possession maintainable [Paras 36–39].

Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Rejection of Plaint – Non-joinder of Necessary Party – Housing Society not necessary party in a suit for possession against trespassers or co-owners – Non-joinder not a ground for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC [Para 40].

Interpretation – Distinction between Maharashtra and Gujarat Public Trusts Acts – Though Section 50 of BPT Act (Gujarat) refers to “any person including one holding adversely to the public trust,” it remains an enabling provision – Does not curtail trustees’ inherent power to sue trespassers – Consent requirement applies only to non-trustees or persons interested [Paras 19–21, 27–29].

Precedents – Reliance on Binding Authority – Division Bench ruling in Amirchand Tulsiram Gupta v. Vasant Dhanaji Patil (1992 SCC OnLine Bom 4) and Gujarat High Court decision in Nadiad Nagarpalika v. Vithalbhai Zaverbhai Patel (AIR 1980 Guj 161) followed – Trustees can maintain suit without Charity Commissioner’s consent – Earlier judgment in Shri Hari Ashram v. Khushalbhai Bhawan Kawa reaffirmed [Paras 22–26].

Decision: Application for rejection of plaint dismissed – Held that trustees can sue for recovery of possession of trust property without consent of Charity Commissioner – No bar under Section 80 of BPT Act – Non-joinder of Housing Society not fatal – Application misconceived and rejected [Paras 35, 39–42].

Criminal Law – Sections 7 and 12 of PC Act - Discharge – Prima Facie Case – Application under Section 239 CrPC by public servant accused of abetting co-accused in demanding illegal gratification for unfreezing bank accounts – Applicant alleged to have prepared and shared Excel sheets containing account details of 300+ individuals, which were misused by co-accused – Trial Court rejected discharge application – Held: On basis of WhatsApp chats, statements of co-workers, and material showing destruction of evidence (mobile phone), prima facie case made out – Discharge rightly denied [Paras 8–9].

Criminal Conspiracy – Use of Official Position – Petitioner allegedly shared account data of hundreds of bookies via Excel sheet used by cybercrime officials to extort money – Evidence includes statements of former employee and digital communication – Held: Material on record sufficient to presume commission of offence under IPC Sections 120-B, 389, 385 and PC Act – No “groundlessness” as per Section 239 CrPC [Paras 7–9].

Scope of Discharge – Section 239 CrPC – Court reiterated that at discharge stage, detailed evaluation of evidence is not permissible – Material must merely disclose reasonable suspicion of guilt – Cited Supreme Court’s rulings in R. Soundirarasu, M.R. Hiremath, and Ashok Kumar Kashyap – Held: Trial court not expected to conduct a mini-trial; mere sufficiency of suspicion enough for framing charge [Paras 10–15].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope of Interference – Revisional power cannot be equated with appellate review – High Court can interfere only where charges are groundless or continuation of trial is legally barred – Held: No error in Special Judge’s reasoning – Interference unwarranted in absence of perversity or legal infirmity [Paras 16–17].

Decision: Criminal revision application dismissed – Discharge rightly rejected by Special Judge – No interim relief extended post-judgment [Paras 17–18 and Further Order].

Anticipatory Bail – Sections 75, 79, 351(2), and 352 BNS - Allegation of Sexual Harassment – Guest Lecturer alleged that petitioner (Accused No.1), a University official, filmed her, used obscene language, and threatened job loss unless she complied with sexual demands – Accused Nos. 2 and 3 granted bail by Sessions Court – Petitioner’s bail rejected without reasons – Held: On parity and absence of direct evidence of mobile phone recovery or production, anticipatory bail granted with conditions [Paras 3, 6–9].

Criminal Law – Section 75 BNS – Abuse of Authority – FIR lacked corroboration that petitioner misused official position for sexual exploitation – Allegations stemmed from prior employment disputes and complainant’s removal from guest lecturer post – Held: Prima facie case of Section 75 BNS not made out at anticipatory bail stage – Other offences substantially bailable [Paras 6–8].

Parity in Bail – Accused Nos. 2 and 3, who were similarly placed and present during incident, granted anticipatory bail – No material distinction in allegations against petitioner – Held: Denial of anticipatory bail to petitioner unsustainable on parity grounds [Para 7].

Custodial Interrogation – Not Necessary – No evidence that complainant returned or surrendered mobile phone allegedly containing recording – No urgency for custodial interrogation – Bail granted with safeguards and liberty to investigating officer to approach Trial Court if required [Paras 6–9].

Decision: Petition allowed – Anticipatory bail granted in Cr. No. 393/2025 registered by Jnanabharathi Police – Petitioner to execute bond of ₹1,00,000 with two sureties – Directed to cooperate with investigation and refrain from influencing witnesses or committing similar offences [Para 9].