Family Law – Stridhan – Recovery of Gold Ornaments – Marriage Register as Evidence – Entry in SNDP Yogam Marriage Register showing quantity of gold worn by bride – Correction duly countersigned and supported by testimony of Secretary – Genuineness of register not challenged by respondents – Photographic evidence corroborating entry – Held: Bride possessed 800 grams (100 sovereigns) of gold at the time of marriage – Finding of Family Court limiting gold to 600 grams erroneous [Paras 7–9].

Stridhan – Possession and Misappropriation – Appellant admittedly retained about 15 sovereigns – Respondents already directed to return 60 sovereigns – On evidence, respondents likely retained 85 sovereigns – Held: Respondents liable to return additional 25 sovereigns of gold ornaments [Para 10].

Recovery of Gold – Mode of Relief – Market Value – When court directs return of gold or its value, prevailing market value at time of realisation to be awarded – However, no enhancement warranted for 60 sovereigns already settled – For remaining 25 sovereigns, market value at time of recovery payable if gold not returned in specie [Para 11].

Recovery of Money – Burden of Proof – Alleged Entrustment by Parents – Claims for Rs.11 lakhs, chit fund amounts, fixed deposit withdrawal, and partnership contribution – Parents not examined – No documentary proof of availability or withdrawal of funds – Bank statements inconsistent with pleaded payments – Amendment raising FD claim introduced belatedly – Held: Monetary claims not proved – Dismissal by Family Court upheld [Paras 12–15].

Chit Fund Amounts – Locus Standi – Claim relating to chits subscribed by petitioner’s mother – Mother neither examined nor claimant – No proof of entrustment for petitioner’s benefit – Held: Petitioner not entitled to decree for amounts allegedly due to mother [Para 16].

Minor Child – Gold Ornaments – Proper Proceedings – Claim for recovery of gold belonging to minor daughter cannot be sought by mother in her personal petition – Remedy lies in instituting proceedings on behalf of minor – Clarified: Dismissal does not bar such future proceedings [Para 17].

Appeal – Remand – Filling Lacunae Impermissible – Prayer for remand to adduce further evidence rejected – Appeal cannot be remanded merely to fill evidentiary gaps or enable production of additional material – Reliance placed on Supreme Court precedents [Para 18].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Respondents directed to return additional 25 sovereigns of gold ornaments within one month, failing which to pay market value at time of recovery – Rest of decree of Family Court upheld – No order as to costs.

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Presumption of Legally Enforceable Debt – Execution of cheque and receipt of statutory legal notice admitted by accused – Cheque dishonoured with remark “Account Closed” – Statutory presumption under Sections 118(a) and 139 attracted – Burden shifted on accused to rebut presumption by raising probable defence – Held: Mere denial or bald assertions insufficient to rebut statutory presumption [Paras 13–15].

Rebuttal of Presumption – Failure to Lead Evidence – Accused chose not to lead any defence evidence – Defence rested solely on statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. alleging cheque was stolen and absence of liability – No cogent material produced to probabilise defence – Held: Presumption under Sections 118(a) and 139 remained unrebutted [Paras 15, 23].

Privity of Contract – Cheque Issued on Behalf of Third Party – Contention that MoU was between complainant and accused’s brother and not accused – Evidence showed accused issued cheque voluntarily towards discharge of liability arising from joint transaction – Cheque admittedly handed over by accused – Held: Issuance of cheque by accused on behalf of brother towards legally enforceable liability sufficient to attract Section 138 NI Act [Paras 16–17].

Limitation – Relevant Date under Section 138 NI Act – Argument that underlying MoU dated 2009 rendered claim time-barred rejected – Limitation for Section 138 complaint to be computed from date of issuance and dishonour of cheque, not from date of underlying transaction – Held: Complaint within limitation [Paras 18–19].

Proprietorship of Complainant Firm – Proof Not Mandatory – Cheque issued in favour of proprietary concern – Once cheque drawn in name of firm, complainant not required to separately prove proprietorship in absence of specific dispute affecting issuance – Held: Objection does not go to root of maintainability [Para 20].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Limited Scope – Revisional court cannot re-appreciate evidence or act as appellate court – Interference permissible only in cases of patent illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error – Concurrent findings of Trial Court and Appellate Court well reasoned and based on evidence – Held: No ground for interference under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C. [Paras 21–23].

Decision: Revision petition dismissed – Conviction under Section 138 NI Act and sentence upheld – No perversity or illegality found in concurrent judgments – No order as to costs.

Civil Suit – Declaration of Title – Burden of Proof on Plaintiff – Plaintiff sought declaration of title and injunction for Ac.0.73 cents in Sy.No.106/6 – In a suit for declaration, plaintiff must succeed on strength of his own title and not on weakness of defendants’ case – Failure to establish valid title to entire extent claimed fatal to suit [Paras 15–17].

Title to Immovable Property – Gift Deed – Excess Extent – Application of Nemo Dat Principle – Gift deed executed for Ac.0.73 cents though donor had title only to Ac.0.68 cents – Donor cannot convey better title than what she possessed – Registration of document does not cure defect of title – Gift valid only to extent of donor’s ownership [Paras 18–22, 27–28].

Partition – Documentary Evidence – Pre-existing Rights – Registered partition deed of 1963 established that Ac.0.20 cents out of Ac.0.88 cents in Sy.No.106/6 fell to branch of defendants – Revenue records and Tahsildar’s evidence corroborated defendants’ title – Plaintiff’s claim beyond Ac.0.68 cents untenable [Paras 18–24].

Revenue Records – Limited Evidentiary Value – Pattadar passbooks and revenue entries do not confer title by themselves – Title must be traced to valid source – Revenue documents cannot override registered partition deed and title documents [Paras 24–25].

Adverse Possession – Pleadings Mandatory – First Appellate Court held plaintiff perfected title over Ac.0.05 cents by adverse possession – No pleading or issue on adverse possession – Adverse possession cannot be inferred without specific pleadings and proof of animus possidendi – Finding held perverse and unsustainable [Paras 26, 29].

Section 100 CPC – Scope of Second Appeal – High Court can interfere where findings of First Appellate Court are perverse, based on no evidence or contrary to settled law – Erroneous application of adverse possession and misreading of evidence justified interference [Paras 14, 26, 29–30].

Decision – Second Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree of First Appellate Court set aside – Trial Court’s dismissal of suit restored – Plaintiff held entitled to title only for Ac.0.68 cents and not Ac.0.73 cents – No costs [Paras 30–31].

Juvenile Justice Act – Bail under Section 12 – Plea of Juvenility Raised During Pendency of Appeal – Convict sentenced to 25 years imprisonment under Section 6 POCSO Act – Age determination inquiry pending before Trial Court pursuant to High Court’s direction – Whether bail mandatory pending such determination – Held: Though bail to a child in conflict with law is the rule under Section 12 JJ Act irrespective of gravity of offence, it can be denied where release would defeat the ends of justice – Application rejected [Paras 13-16, 21].

Juvenility Claim – Can be Raised at Any Stage – Reformative and Child-Centric Approach – Applicant relied on Hari Ram, Rishipal Singh Solanki, Abuzar Hossain and other precedents – Court reiterates settled position that claim of juvenility may be raised at any stage and must be inquired into – No violation of this principle found as age determination already referred to Trial Court – However, pendency of inquiry does not automatically entitle accused to bail [Paras 15-16].

Section 12 JJ Act – Exception Clause – “Defeat the Ends of Justice” – Scope and Interpretation – Court relied on Raju @ Ashish v. State of U.P. – Nature and gravity of offence, past conduct, and likelihood of repetition relevant factors – Conduct of convict while previously on bail allegedly involved commission of similar offence against same survivor – Such conduct prima facie indicates criminal proclivity and undermines confidence for release – Held: Release at this stage would defeat the ends of justice [Paras 18-20].

Bail – Pending Age Determination – Whether Accused to be Treated as Juvenile Before Determination – Prosecution contended accused cannot be prematurely treated as juvenile – Court observed that until age is determined, and considering conviction for aggravated sexual assault, benefit of automatic bail cannot be extended – Gravity of offence coupled with past conduct justifies denial [Paras 11, 19-21].

Decision: Bail application rejected – Court not inclined to release convict pending age determination inquiry – Application disposed of – No costs [Paras 21-22].

Civil Law – Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC – DNA Test – Maternity in Dispute – Plaintiff sought declaration that registered Will executed by deceased father was void and claimed half share in ancestral property – Defendant No.2 (alleged mother) denied that plaintiff was her daughter – Trial Court rejected application for DNA test on ground of privacy and refusal – Held: Case concerns determination of maternity, not paternity – In absence of statutory presumption regarding denial of maternity, scientific investigation through DNA test is permissible where eminently needed – Order rejecting application set aside – Trial Court directed to order DNA test of Defendant No.2 and match with plaintiff – If refusal, presumption under Section 114 Evidence Act / Section 119 BSA 2023 to apply [Paras 14–24].

Evidence – Section 112 Evidence Act / Section 116 BSA 2023 – Presumption of Legitimacy – Scope – Court observed that statutory presumption contemplates legitimacy of child born during subsistence of marriage vis-à-vis father – Legislature did not envisage situation where mother denies maternity – No conclusive presumption operates in favour of woman denying childbirth – Hence, issue of maternity can be adjudicated on basis of scientific evidence [Paras 18–20].

DNA Test – Right to Privacy vis-à-vis Quest for Truth – Court cannot compel forcible medical examination but can direct DNA test where strong prima facie case exists and test is eminently needed – In case of refusal, adverse presumption permissible under Section 114 Illustration (h) Evidence Act / Section 119 BSA 2023 – Truth must prevail over presumptions when scientific evidence available [Paras 21–22].

Relief – Partial Allowance – No necessity to direct DNA test of Defendant No.3 claiming to be son of deceased – Burden lies on him to establish his status independently – Direction confined to Defendant No.2 for determining maternity of plaintiff [Para 23–24].

Decision: Writ Petition Allowed – Order dated 24.02.2022 rejecting application under Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC quashed and set aside – Trial Court directed to order DNA test of Defendant No.2 and match with plaintiff – Consequences of refusal to follow as per Section 119 BSA 2023 – All pending applications disposed of.

Criminal Appeal Against Acquittal – Scope of Interference – Presumption of Innocence Reinforced – Appeal against acquittal under Sections 302/120-B RPC – Trial Court disbelieved extra-judicial confession, child eye-witness testimony and recoveries – Held: In appeal against acquittal, interference warranted only when findings are perverse, manifestly illegal or based on misappreciation of evidence – Where two views are possible, view favourable to accused must prevail – No perversity found in impugned judgment [Paras 1, 16-17].

Extra-Judicial Confession – Panchayat Proceedings – Evidentiary Value – Alleged confession of respondent No. 3 before Panchayat made more than one month after incident – Different witnesses attributed inconsistent versions – Statement was exculpatory and implicated co-accused rather than maker – Delay and allegation of police influence eroded credibility – Held: Not a voluntary and unambiguous confession – Cannot be treated as substantive evidence against co-accused and cannot form sole basis of conviction without corroboration [Paras 3, 7, 15].

Confession of Co-Accused – Sections 25, 30 and 3 Evidence Act – Admissibility and Use – Confession not admissible unless made before Magistrate – Before being used against co-accused, it must be strictly proved and must be a confession proper – Such confession is not substantive evidence against non-maker and can only be used as corroborative material – In present case, alleged statement was exculpatory and hence of no assistance to prosecution [Para 7].

Child Witness – Appreciation of Evidence – Delay in Disclosure – PW-Anju Bala claimed to be eye-witness – Statement recorded after unexplained delay of twenty-two days – Witness remained in custody of police official related to deceased, giving rise to possibility of tutoring – Admitted it was pitch dark at time of occurrence – Ocular version inconsistent with medical evidence which recorded multiple injuries and ruled out strangulation – Held: Testimony unsafe without independent corroboration – Once disbelieved, prosecution case collapses [Paras 4, 8, 12-14].

Non-Examination of Material Witness – Adverse Inference – PW-Rakesh Kumar cited as natural eye-witness not examined without explanation – Independent witness to recovery not examined and another turned hostile – Held: Adverse inference warranted – Alleged recoveries not proved in accordance with law [Paras 5, 13-14].

Motive – Absence of Corroboration – Alleged illicit relationship and conspiracy surfaced first time in Panchayat Nama dated 07.05.2005 – No independent evidence of animosity – Held: Motive not proved and could not sustain prosecution case in absence of reliable ocular or circumstantial evidence [Paras 11, 15].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment of acquittal under Sections 302/120-B RPC affirmed – No interference warranted – Respondents acquitted.

Criminal Law – Appeal against Acquittal – Murder during Communal Riots – Allegation that accused sprinkled kerosene and set deceased on fire near Idga Masjid during riots of 2002 – FIR lodged with delay of 11–12 days – Trial Court acquitted accused – Held: Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – No perversity in acquittal – Appeal dismissed [Paras 14, 18–19].

Evidence – Eyewitness Testimony – Reliability – Sole projected eyewitness (P.W.4) gave contradictory versions in examination-in-chief and cross-examination regarding role of accused – Improved version regarding carrying of kerosene – Presence at scene doubtful as incident occurred at 1:00 a.m. during curfew – Witness neither sought medical treatment nor immediately informed police – Testimony not trustworthy [Para 13].

Hearsay Evidence – Complainant and Brother of Deceased – P.W.2 and P.W.3 not eyewitnesses – Complaint lodged on information received from others – Names of accused not known prior to complaint – Delay in FIR unexplained – Hearsay evidence insufficient to sustain conviction [Paras 11–12, 14].

Investigation – Deficiencies – Investigating Officer admitted FIR lodged after delay of 11–12 days without explanation – Uncertainty regarding place from where dead body recovered – Scene of offence panchnama devoid of incriminating material – Inquest drawn at Civil Hospital – Prosecution failed to establish chain of circumstances [Para 13–14].

Appeal against Acquittal – Scope of Interference – Double presumption in favour of accused – Appellate Court may reappreciate evidence but should not interfere unless findings perverse or manifestly illegal – If two reasonable views possible, acquittal not to be disturbed – Reliance placed on Chandrappa & Ors. v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 [Paras 15–17].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment of acquittal dated 07.04.2003 confirmed – Bail bonds discharged – Record and proceedings to be sent back to Trial Court – No order as to costs.

Criminal Law – Further Investigation – Power of Magistrate – Limits on Directions to Police – Complaint alleging cheating, forgery and criminal breach of trust referred for investigation under Section 175(3) BNSS – Police filed negative final report – Magistrate refused to accept final report and ordered further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC – However, Magistrate also directed Investigating Agency to obtain FSL report regarding disputed signatures and conduct investigation in a specified manner – Revisional Court affirmed such directions – Held: While Court is empowered to order further investigation, it cannot dictate the manner, method or mode of investigation – Such directions amount to unwarranted judicial interference in statutory domain of police [Paras 15–22, 29–31].

Investigation – Exclusive Domain of Police – Separation of Powers – Scheme of Chapter XII CrPC shows investigation including collection of evidence, forensic examination and manner of inquiry lies exclusively with Investigating Agency – Court’s role commences after submission of report under Section 173 CrPC – Magistrate may accept or reject final report but cannot compel police to investigate from a particular angle or collect specific evidence – Direction to conduct investigation in a particular manner held without jurisdiction [Paras 20–23].

Further Investigation – Section 173(8) CrPC – Scope – Power under Section 173(8) enables further investigation and submission of supplementary report – Investigating Officer retains discretion as to manner of collecting further evidence – Court cannot supervise or micro-manage investigation even while directing further investigation [Paras 21–22, 26].

Monitoring vs Supervising Investigation – Distinction – Courts may monitor investigation to ensure fairness, promptness and absence of external influence – Supervising or directing execution of investigative steps, including forensic examination, impermissible – Supervision would prejudice fair trial and encroach upon executive function [Paras 27, 30].

Precedents – Supreme Court – Binding Principles – Reliance placed on M.C. Abraham v. State of Maharashtra, State of U.P. v. Aman Mittal, Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary, and D. Venkatasubramaniam v. M.K. Mohan Krishnamachari – Reiterated that courts cannot direct police to submit report in accordance with judicial view or prescribe investigative steps – Judicial interference limited to ordering further investigation, not manner thereof [Paras 23–28].

Relief – Partial Allowance – Order directing further investigation upheld – Directions prescribing manner of investigation including FSL examination of signatures set aside – Investigating Agency directed to conduct further investigation independently and in accordance with law [Paras 31–32].

Decision: Criminal Miscellaneous Petition partly allowed – Orders of Magistrate and Revisional Court set aside to the limited extent of directing investigation to be conducted in a particular manner – Direction for further investigation sustained – Investigating Agency to proceed independently as per law – All pending applications disposed of.

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138 – Dishonour of Cheque – Statutory Notice – Presumption of Service – General Clauses Act, 1897, Section 27 – Complaint dismissed by JMFC as premature for non-production of track report of registered notice – Revisional Court affirmed dismissal holding presumption of service arises only after 30 days from dispatch – High Court finds both courts erred – Held: Once a statutory notice is properly addressed, prepaid and dispatched by registered post, presumption of service under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act arises; non-production of track report or acknowledgment due card is not a ground to dismiss the complaint at the threshold; actual service is a matter of evidence to be examined at trial – Courts below set aside – Complaint restored [Paras 8–18].

Presumption of Service – Statutory Notice – Registered Post – Section 27, General Clauses Act, 1897 – Misinterpretation of Supreme Court Precedent – Revisional Court read Ajeet Seeds Ltd. and C.C. Alavi Haji as mandating a fixed 30-day period for presumption of service – Held: Neither judgment lays down any such rigid rule; presumption operates on the basis of ordinary course of postal business which depends on distance and mode of dispatch – High Court frames guidelines for computing presumed date of service based on geographical proximity [Paras 10–12].

Guidelines – Presumption of Service of Statutory Notice – Section 138 NI Act read with Section 27 General Clauses Act – For notices sent within the same city or district, service may ordinarily be presumed within 3 to 5 days from dispatch – For notices to another district within the same State, 5 to 7 days – For notices to another State, 7 to 10 days – Additional time permissible for remote or rural addresses – Presumption is rebuttable; accused may lead evidence to show notice was not received; complaint shall not be rejected at threshold on account of absence of track report [Para 13].

Application to Facts – COVID-19 Pandemic – Inability to Obtain Track Report – Both parties residents of Satna; notice dispatched on 12.08.2020 within the same city – Service presumed on or about 15.08.2020 – 15-day statutory period expired thereafter – Complaint filed on 01.09.2020 held to be within time and not premature – Non-production of track report during pandemic does not defeat the complaint [Paras 14–17].

Decision: Petition allowed – Orders of JMFC dated 01.07.2022 and Sessions Court dated 08.02.2023 set aside – Complaint under Section 138 NI Act restored to its original number – JMFC, Satna directed to proceed on merits – No opinion expressed on the merits of the case [Para 18].