Cognizance – Closure report – Magistrate relying on complainant’s statement and affidavit – Error in law – Matter should have been treated as complaint under s.190(1)(a) CrPC – Impugned order set aside; liberty to proceed under Chapter XV CrPC [Paras 12-16, 23-24].

Cognizance – Scope of Magistrate’s power – Magistrate not bound by investigating officer’s conclusion; may accept closure, order further investigation, or disagree and take cognizance under s.190(1)(b) – However, if relying on complainant’s evidence, must treat case as complaint under Chapter XV CrPC [Paras 12-14, 20-22].

Protest Petition – Nature – Judicially evolved concept; though not in CrPC, recognized by courts to safeguard victim’s participation – May be treated as complaint only if it satisfies s.2(d) CrPC and procedure under ss.200, 202 followed – Every protest petition need not be treated as complaint [Paras 18-21].

Trial Court Error – Magistrate misdirected in law by taking cognizance under s.190(1)(b) while relying on affidavit and statement of complainant – Proper course was to proceed as private complaint under Chapter XV – Impugned order set aside [Paras 23-24].

Voluntarily causing hurt – Assault on Village Revenue Officer – Conviction under Section 323 IPC upheld – Sentence of 3 months RI modified to fine only considering lapse of 16 years, no antecedents, and proportionality in sentencing – Revision partly allowed [Paras 15–26].

Criminal Law – Section 323 IPC – Assault on public servant – Accused slapped VRO during discharge of official duty, causing simple injury (bleeding ear) corroborated by medical evidence – Trial Court and Appellate Court concurrently upheld guilt – Conviction sustained [Paras 3–7, 11–14].

Revisional Scope – Sections 397/401 CrPC – Revisional Court need not reappreciate evidence where concurrent findings supported by cogent evidence – Limited to examining legality and propriety of sentence – Applied principle from State of Maharashtra v. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand, (2004) 7 SCC 659 [Paras 12–13].

Sentencing – Proportionality – Courts below imposed 3 months RI with fine of ₹500 – Supreme Court in Hazara Singh v. Raj Kumar, (2013) 9 SCC 516 emphasized proportionality – Given 16-year lapse since offence, absence of antecedents, and family circumstances, incarceration held excessive – Sentence modified to fine only [Paras 18–25].

Probation of Offenders Act – Consideration omitted – Courts below failed to call for probation officer’s report – High Court noted this as irregularity but ultimately balanced equities by setting aside imprisonment and retaining fine [Paras 22–23].

CrPC Section 354(4) – Sentencing policy – Imprisonment is norm, fine exception where offence punishable with ≥1 year – Yet in exceptional circumstances, Court may deviate – Applied here due to long passage of time and mitigating factors [Para 24].

Disposition – Conviction under Section 323 IPC confirmed – Sentence modified – 3 months RI set aside, fine of ₹500 upheld – Bail bonds discharged – Criminal revision partly allowed [Paras 25–26].

Tenancy Law - Eviction – Bona Fide Requirement & Misuse – East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act S.13 – Basement let for storage used as shop; misuse led to resumption order; landlords required basement for storage/general store; tenant’s objections of res judicata & alternative accommodation rejected – Eviction upheld; revision dismissed [Paras 7-20].

Change of User – Basement leased exclusively for storage of crockery (clause in rent agreement) – Tenant admitted sale activity since 1981 – Misuse contrary to lease terms and without landlord’s written consent – Estate Officer passed resumption order; appeal dismissed; change of user proved – Eviction justified [Paras 8-9].

Impairment of Value/Utility – Tenant’s continued misuse led to cancellation of lease and jeopardised landlords’ title – Held: Such misuse materially impairs value and utility of premises – Eviction warranted to protect landlord’s ownership [Paras 8-10].

Bona Fide Requirement – Landlord best judge of need – Earlier petition withdrawn due to exemption notification (later quashed by SC) – Present need different (basement for storage, upper floor for small shop) – Availability of other floors irrelevant; tenant cannot dictate how landlord should adjust – Courts below rightly upheld necessity [Paras 11-18].

Res Judicata – Not applicable to petitions based on personal necessity, especially when earlier petition withdrawn owing to change of law/notification – Changed circumstances and modified need justified fresh petition [Paras 12-14].

Alternative Accommodation – Letting out of other portions during pendency does not defeat landlord’s claim – Law settled that even if landlord has other premises, tenant cannot compel him to utilise them – Tenant’s plea rejected [Paras 16-18].

Safeguard for Tenants – Court noted statutory protection under S.13(4) of the Act: if landlord after eviction does not occupy or misuses within 12 months, evicted tenant may seek restoration – Safeguard supports genuineness of need [Para 20].

Decision: Revision petition dismissed – Eviction order maintained – Tenant directed to vacate premises as per orders of Rent Controller and Appellate Authority [Para 20].

Partition Suit – Maintainability – Hindu Law – Son cannot sue for partition during lifetime of father-Karta without his consent – Principles laid down in Sitara Lal, Hari Kishen and Satish Narain reaffirmed – Suit filed by plaintiff-son against father-Karta held not maintainable [Paras 9-10].

Cause of Action – Bald pleadings – No particulars of ancestral property or joint family nucleus alleged – Mere assertion of HUF existence insufficient – Plaint lacking material facts discloses no cause of action – Trial court erred in rejecting O.7 R.11 CPC application [Paras 11-12].

Court Fee – Ad Valorem Liability – Plaintiff admitted non-possession of properties – Claim of 1/3rd share without joint possession attracts ad valorem court fee on market value of share claimed – Supreme Court ruling in Kinny Kapur v. Gunveer Kapur applied – Trial court erred in deferring issue [Para 13].

Benami Transactions Act – Defence plea that properties purchased in names of other family members hit by prohibition – Strengthens requirement for plaintiff to specifically plead source of HUF funds – Absence of particulars fatal to plaint [Paras 2.1, 3].

Procedure – Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Sufficiency of pleadings and valuation are threshold issues; cannot be deferred – Trial court’s approach contrary to settled law [Para 14].

Decision: Revision petition allowed – Impugned order dated 10.02.2023 set aside – Matter remitted to trial court for fresh decision on O.7 R.11 CPC application in light of findings – [Paras 15-16].

Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act, 1953 – S. 20-B – allottee-tenant’s full sale-price deposit (1973); Settlement Officer’s objections merely technical; prolonged State inaction – estoppel – Civil Court jurisdiction available – proprietary rights & injunction affirmed; RSAs 2581/4164/4193/4194 of 1999 dismissed with costs.

Declaration of ownership and injunction against dispossession - Land Tenure – Section 20-B, Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act – Vesting of Ownership Rights – Plaintiffs allotted surplus land in 1963 as tenants, deposited full sale consideration in 1973 under Tehsildar’s order – Settlement Officer raised only technical objections (uncertified girdawari, missing lease file) but no action taken for decades – Held: Proprietary rights vested upon deposit of price; officials’ negligence cannot defeat substantive rights – Plaintiffs declared owners in possession, revenue entries corrected, injunction granted [Paras 4-7].

Civil Court Jurisdiction – Bar under Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act – State contended bar of jurisdiction – Held: Where valuable civil rights are threatened due to inaction of authorities, Civil Court jurisdiction is not ousted – Plaintiffs entitled to seek declaration and injunction against State [Paras 5, 10].

Estoppel – State’s Silence – Nearly two decades of inaction after full payment – State never demanded batai nor rectified technical defects – Held: State estopped from denying ownership to plaintiffs – Conduct indicated recognition of proprietary rights [Paras 6, 10].

Appellate Practice – Concurrent Findings – Trial Court decreed declaration and injunction, First Appellate Court affirmed – High Court found no legal infirmity in concurrent findings – Regular Second Appeals dismissed with costs [Paras 8, 11].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Plaintiffs declared owners in possession; State restrained from interference; sale certificate to issue – All four appeals dismissed with costs [Paras 10-11].

Essential Commodities Act – Kerosene seizure – Serious procedural lapses (no seal/label, no weighing, seizure list at PS, doubtful spot seizure) – Prosecution failed to prove case beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction set aside – Appeal allowed [Paras 7–13].

ECA – Contravention of Control Order – Proof standards – Failure to affix seal/label and to ascertain quantity at seizure – Where seized containers were neither sealed nor labelled and quantity was not measured on spot, prosecution version becomes inherently uncertain – Held: foundational facts of possession/quantity not proved to the hilt; conviction cannot rest on such infirmities [Paras 4–5, 8–9, 11].

CrPC – Section 100(4) compliance – Seizure list made at Police Station; spot not identified with precision – In busy market area (Kala Hati, Siliguri) prosecution neither proved exact site nor prepared seizure list at spot; independent shop-owners not examined – Held: non-adherence to procedural safeguards erodes credibility of seizure; benefit of doubt to accused [Paras 8, 10–11].

Witness credibility – Seizure witness signed at Police Station; zimmanama holder admitted no seal/label; IO admitted no weighing and no sealing – Such admissions coupled with absence of contemporaneous measurement and lack of local independent witnesses create reasonable doubt – Defence version that accused was picked up and asked to sign gains plausibility [Paras 8–9, 11].

Burden and standard – Criminal trial – If two possible views on evidence, the one favouring accused must prevail – Court reiterates settled principle; in absence of cogent and trustworthy corroboration, conviction under ECA unsustainable [Para 11].

Disposition – Appeal allowed – Judgment of conviction and sentence set aside – Consequential reliefs to follow as per law [Paras 12–13].

Quick Capsule – Essential Commodities Act – Wheat hoarding – Recovery from shop doubtful, seizure memo silent on place, no independent witnesses – Defence evidence of farmers storing wheat outside shop credible – Presumption under Section 10-C rebutted – Conviction set aside – Appeal allowed [Paras 14–28].

ECA – Licensing restriction – Clause 3, U.P. Foodgrains Order – Any person storing ≥5 quintals deemed dealer unless rebutted – Prosecution alleged appellant stored 100 quintals inside shop – Defence showed wheat belonged to DW-1 & DW-2 farmers, kept temporarily outside shop with mandi receipts – Trial Court wrongly rejected evidence for not knowing accused – High Court held such reasoning flawed – Deeming presumption rebutted [Paras 12–13, 23–25].

Search and seizure – Section 100 CrPC – Compliance mandatory – Officer must call independent witnesses and prepare seizure list specifying place – Here, Ext. Ka-1 & Ka-2 lacked details of search site, no independent witnesses present – Trial Court failed to assess compliance – Held: serious irregularity prejudicing accused [Paras 14–20, 25].

Evidence – PW-1 ARO sole witness – His testimony showed seizure but did not specify whether wheat inside or outside shop – Recovery memo deficient – Defence evidence unrebutted – Prosecution case left doubtful [Paras 15–17].

Section 294 CrPC – Admission of genuineness of documents – Appellant’s counsel admitted prosecution documents – Held: such admission only makes documents admissible but cannot cure substantive gaps in proving lawful search and seizure – Division Bench ruling in Saddiq v. State of U.P., 1981 CrLJ 379 (All) applied [Paras 26–27].

Reverse burden – Section 10-C ECA – Burden shifts once prosecution proves lawful seizure of excess stock – Here, prosecution failed to establish lawful seizure under Clause 14 and Section 100 CrPC – Hence reverse burden never triggered – Appellant not liable [Paras 22–25].

Case law – Applied Ranjan Kumar Chadha v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1262 (non-compliance of search provisions impacts evidentiary weight) – Saddiq v. State of U.P. (1981 CrLJ 379) on Section 294 documents – Both weighed in favour of appellant [Paras 21, 26].

Benefit of doubt – Serious lacunae in prosecution evidence, credible defence version supported by records – Trial Court erred in presuming guilt – Appellant entitled to acquittal [Paras 25–28].

Disposition – Criminal appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence dated 10.04.1987 under Section 7 ECA set aside – Appellant acquitted – Bail bonds discharged subject to fresh compliance under Section 437A CrPC [Paras 29–31].

Proclaimed Person – Quashment – BNSS S.528; CrPC S.82(2); NI Act S.138 – Non-service at correct address; cumulative compliance under S.82(2) mandatory – Proclamation dated 21-09-2023 quashed conditionally (surrender by 30-09-2025; Rs 10,000 costs; bail on bonds) – Petition allowed; non-compliance to entail dismissal.

Proclaimed Person—Quashment—Section 528 BNSS, Section 82(2) CrPC, Section 138 NI Act—Proclamation set aside subject to surrender and costs—Non-service due to incorrect address; mandatory cumulative compliance with Section 82(2) CrPC emphasized; petitioner ready to join—Held: Impugned proclamation order quashed subject to surrender by 30.09.2025 and payment of Rs.10,000; bail on bonds and conditions; failure to comply: petition deemed dismissed [Paras 5, 7-9].

Service of Process—Incorrect Address—Zimni orders—Proclaimed Person—Where the complainant did not furnish the correct address and the accused had shifted residence, non-appearance not wilful or deliberate—Process (summons/bailable warrants/warrants) not received; declaration as proclaimed person unsustainable—Quashment warranted to secure presence and expedite trial [Paras 2-3, 6-8].

Criminal Procedure—Section 82(2) CrPC—Mandatory Cumulative Compliance—Court reiterates that the steps under Section 82(2) CrPC must be complied with cumulatively, not alternatively; failure vitiates proclamation proceedings—Reliance placed on Gurbir Singh Mundi v. State of Punjab (P&H, 16.12.2021) [Para 5].

Purpose of Proclamation—Securing Presence, Not Punishment—Objective is to compel appearance and advance adjudication; where the accused shows readiness to join and reasons for absence are justified, setting aside proclamation with conditions furthers the ends of justice [Paras 6-8].

Conditional Relief—Surrender, Costs, Bail & Undertakings—Proclamation order dated 21.09.2023 set aside subject to surrender by 30.09.2025; costs of Rs.10,000 to complainant (R-2); on furnishing bail/surety bonds, release on bail; undertake to appear on all dates; not to leave India without leave; trial court free to impose additional conditions—Non-compliance results in petition being deemed dismissed [Para 8-9].

Decision: Petition allowed; proclamation order dated 21.09.2023 quashed subject to conditions—Surrender by 30.09.2025; pay Rs.10,000 costs to R-2; bail on bonds; affidavit undertaking to appear; do not leave country without permission; trial court may impose further conditions; non-adherence will deem petition dismissed [Paras 8-9].

Consumer Protection — Locus of “Complainant” — Brother filing on behalf of widow/children — Mother (Class-I heir) already co-petitioner — Liberal construction of welfare statute — Complaint maintainable — Petition under Article 227 dismissed; NCDRC requested to expedite final disposal [Paras 1, 8-18, 20-31, 32].

Consumer Protection — “Complainant” — Section 2(1)(b)(v) — Who can maintain complaint – In case of death of consumer, complaint may be instituted by “legal heir or representative” – Brother who initially described himself as trustee for widow/children is neither a stranger nor rank outsider – NCDRC had earlier recognized his standing; mother of deceased (a Class-I heir) was impleaded as co-petitioner, which relates back to institution – Held: Complaint maintainable and locus sustained [Paras 6-7, 12-15, 17-19, 23-31].

Succession — Class-I vs Class-II heirs — Relevance under Consumer Protection Act – The Act does not distinguish between Class-I and Class-II heirs; terms “legal heir” and “representative” are undefined and must not receive a rigid meaning – Even assuming strict succession principles, impleadment of mother (Class-I heir) cures objection; order attained finality [Paras 14, 29-31].

Procedural Law — Impleadment of legal representatives — Effect of Supreme Court order dated 26.04.2019 – SC directed heirs/legal representatives to implead themselves as co-petitioners within six weeks, with liberty to the opposite party to question locus if they declined – Non-service on widow/daughters did not imply resistance; repeated objections treated as dilatory [Paras 20-22, 27].

Consumer Law — Welfare legislation — Liberal construction – Consumer Protection Act being a welfare statute warrants liberal interpretation to avoid remedilessness for victim’s family; complaint can be filed by a family member; reliance placed on Spring Meadows Hospitals v. Harjol Ahluwalia (AIR 1998 SC 1801) [Paras 28-29].

Practice & Procedure — Final directions – Petition devoid of merit and dismissed; NCDRC requested to expedite disposal at final argument stage; memo of parties to conform to Supreme Court directions [Paras 31-33].