Criminal Quash Petition – Offences under Sections 132 and 135(1)(a) and (b) of The Customs Act, 1962 – Petitioner challenges Criminal Complaint and summoning order – Allegation of smuggling arms and ammunitions – Petitioner’s License used by father for import – Petitioner’s statement under Section 108 of the Act – Petitioner studying law and a national-level shooter – Court’s duty to ascertain sufficiency of grounds for summons – Importance of issuing summons judiciously – No concept of vicarious liability under Criminal Law – No prima facie case made out against petitioner – Preponderance of probability not sufficient for summoning – Applicability of Section 138A not established – Petitioner’s License utilized without her knowledge – Petitioner’s statement reasonable and plausible – Allegations against petitioner not disclosing offence – Bright future and aspirations of petitioner – Criminal Complaint quashed against petitioner – Proceedings against other accused to continue.

Civil Writ Petition – Challenge to disciplinary action and dismissal from banking services – Petitioner dismissed based on allegations of financial misconduct – Past instances of departmental proceedings and interventions by the Court – Repeated assessment of charges and disciplinary actions – Legal principles on maintaining financial probity in bank services – Upholding the punishment as just and proper based on thorough analysis of charges and evidence – Writ petition dismissed. [Para 1]

Violation of Principles of Natural Justice – Previous orders set aside on grounds of procedural errors – Remand for independent reconsideration without being influenced by earlier observations – Disciplinary Authority’s analysis of charges and justification for punishment – Previous instances of setting aside orders not a blanket justification for reversal of subsequent actions – Reinstatement not feasible due to age of petitioner – Financial benefits discussed. [Para 22]

Financial Probity in Banking Services – Importance of honesty and integrity in handling bank finances – Officers and employees acting as trustees of public faith – Misconduct affecting trust in banking system – Need for strict actions against officers indulging in personal gains to the detriment of depositors’ interests. [Para 24-26]

Principles of Finality – Reference to res judicata and the significance of judgments in earlier proceedings – Reversal of previous orders not automatic justification for altering subsequent disciplinary actions – Citing relevant judgments emphasizing discipline and integrity in banking services. [Para 21, 23, 27]

Conclusion – Petition challenging dismissal and disciplinary actions rejected – Upholding the validity of punishment based on thorough analysis of charges, repeated interventions, and legal principles pertaining to financial probity and discipline in banking services. [Para 28-29]

Negotiable Instruments - Cheque Bounce - Acquittal - Appeal against acquittal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - Trial court held that complainant failed to prove the cheque was issued in discharge of legally enforceable debt - Presumption under Section 139 rebuttable - Accused raised a probable defense - Appeal dismissed. [Paras 9-11]

Presumption and Burden of Proof - Analysis - Section 139 presumption is rebuttable - Accused can raise defense contesting existence of debt or liability - Standard of proof for rebuttal is preponderance of probabilities - Accused's probable defense created doubt about debt existence - Prosecution failed. [Paras 9, 10]

Case Facts - Vehicle Purchase and Cheque Issuance - Respondent purchased vehicle, paid part by cheque which was dishonored - Loan from Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Limited - No evidence connecting loan and appellant - Appellant failed to prove cheque was for legally enforceable debt - Trial court's findings upheld. [Paras 2, 5, 8, 10]

Decision - Appeal Dismissed - Acquittal upheld - Trial court's decision confirmed - Appeal dismissed for lack of proof of legally enforceable debt. [Para 11]

Criminal Bail Application – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Regular bail application under Section 439 of CrPC – Applicant seeks bail in relation to NDPS Act case – Commercial quantity of contraband recovered – Disclosure statements under Section 67 of NDPS Act used to establish applicant’s involvement – Charges framed, trial likely to take a long time – Applicant in custody for over 4 years – Precedents highlight the importance of timely trial and bail when incarceration period is substantial – Statutory restrictions under NDPS Act not excluding the constitutional courts’ power to grant bail – Judicial custody exceeding substantial part of prescribed sentence – Applicant’s release on bail warranted. [Para 1-13]

Constitutional Rights – Liberty guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution – Right to speedy trial – Prolonged incarceration overriding statutory restrictions – Courts authorized to grant bail on grounds of fundamental rights violation – Need to strike a balance between legislative policy and constitutional rights – Applicant’s over 4 years of custody overrides statutory conditions – Bail granted considering lengthy trial, substantial custody period, and importance of liberty. [Para 4, 9, 10]

Trial Proceedings – Lengthy trial anticipated – Limited number of witnesses examined – Charges framed – Applicant’s custody for over 4 years – Prolonged incarceration militating against fundamental right under Article 21 – Importance of timely trial – Bail granted as a result. [Para 10, 11]

Bail Conditions – Conditions imposed upon bail – Applicant to furnish personal bond and sureties – Change of address notification to Investigating Officer – No leaving the country without prior court permission – Maintenance of operational mobile numbers – Non-tampering with evidence and witnesses – Warning of bail cancellation in case of similar offences or evidence tampering – Disposition of all pending applications – Communication of judgment to Jail Superintendent and website uploading. [Para 13, 14, 15, 16]

Applicant admitted to bail – Bail granted upon specified conditions – Prolonged custody period, anticipated lengthy trial, and importance of liberty being decisive factors – No opinion on merits expressed. [Para 14, 15, 16]

Criminal Appeal – Conviction and Release on Probation – Offences under Sections 148, 323, 316, 452, 506 read with Section 149 IPC – Convicts released on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 – Appellant challenges the acquittal of certain charges and the grant of probation – Court assesses evidence and reasoning provided by the Trial Court – Adequate evaluation of evidence and legal principles found – Principles underlying release on probation considered – No interference with findings of guilt or acquittal – Convicts granted probation to deter future criminal conduct and promote reformation. [Para 1-13]

Probation and Reformation – Release on probation as an alternative form of punishment – Focus on reformation and addressing underlying causes of criminal behavior – Principles to consider when granting probation, including nature of offense, individual circumstances, rehabilitation potential, compliance with terms, risk to public safety, and more – Court’s discretion to determine eligibility for probation – Dual purpose of probation to deter and reform – Role of probation officer assessment and judicial discretion. [Para 11-13]

Constitutional Rights – Fundamental Right to Life and Personal Liberty – Protection sought by two adult females in a live-in relationship – Invocation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India – Examination of the claim in light of established legal principles. [Para 1]

Protection of Rights – Duty of the State to protect fundamental rights – Assertion that living together in a same-sex relationship does not violate any provision of law – Recognition of the right to live as desired within the boundaries of law – Emphasis on the importance of Article 21 as a fundamental right. [Para 3]

Legal Precedent – Reference to Mohd Arif @ Ashfaq v. Registrar, Supreme Court of India, 2022:INSC:1154 [Para 17] (2014) 9 SCC 737 – Delving into the origin and significance of Article 21 – Recognition of its status as a precious fundamental right – Comparison to the Magna Carta and its historical evolution. [Para 4]

Protection Order – Appropriate protection ordered for the petitioners – Direction to concerned authorities to provide two female police officials for protection for two weeks – Provision for extension of protection based on ongoing threat analysis or request from the petitioners – No adjudication on merits or blanket bail granted. [Para 5-6]

Duration of Order – Clarification that the protection order will eclipse after thirty days – Temporary nature of the order and provision for fresh approach in case of new threat perception – No certified copy required. [Para 7-8]

Conclusion – Petition allowed to the extent mentioned – Pending applications disposed – Detailed examination of the fundamental rights of the petitioners and the corresponding duty of the State to protect these rights within the boundaries of the law. [Para 8]

Criminal Appeal – Acquittal - Section 307 read with 34 of IPC – Conviction challenged based on discrepancies in the evidence – Appellants convicted for assaulting victim’s mother – Informant’s presence doubted as he arrived after hearing noise – Inconsistencies in the story of prosecution witnesses – Victim not examined – Prosecution fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt – Benefit of doubt given to the accused – Appeal allowed, convictions set aside. [Para 31]

Witness Reliability – Importance of reliable witnesses in criminal trials – Testimony of single reliable witness can lead to conviction – Witness statements should have a ring of truth, be cogent, credible, and trustworthy – Presence of discrepancies and inconsistencies in witness statements raises doubt. [Para 27]

Evidential Standard – Criminal conviction requires proof beyond reasonable doubt – Quality, weight, and value of evidence more important than quantity of witnesses – Trustworthy evidence crucial for conviction. [Para 28, 29]

Presence of Witness – Witness’s presence at the scene crucial for credibility – Witness testimony supported by being present at the scene of the crime – Injured witnesses generally considered reliable as they have no reason to falsely implicate others. [Para 22]

Benefit of Doubt – In criminal cases, doubt benefits the accused – Onus on prosecution to prove each allegation beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction cannot be based on mere preponderance of probabilities. [Para 29, 30]

Acquittal – Inconsistent evidence, doubts about witness presence, and lack of corroboration weaken prosecution’s case – Convictions set aside based on lack of proof beyond reasonable doubt – Benefit of doubt goes to the accused. [Para 31]

Family Court Appeal – Custody Dispute – Appellant-husband’s challenge to the impugned order refusing his application for temporary custody of minor child – Analysis of facts and circumstances – Interpretation of mediated settlement – Importance of maintaining parent-child bond – Child’s best interest considered – Appeal disposed of with directions for video conferencing interactions between appellant-father and minor child every Saturday and Sunday. [Para 1]

Background and Parties – Marriage dissolution between appellant-husband and respondent-wife – Failed marriage leading to separate residences – Custody dispute over minor child – Series of interactions and e-mail exchanges between the parties – Appeal filed by appellant against the Family Court’s order declining his request for temporary custody. [Para 24]

Settlement Agreement – Mediated settlement dated 27.07.2019 – Payment of maintenance and visitation plan – Appellant-husband’s efforts to meet minor child – Non-compliance of settlement terms – Custody petition pending adjudication – Appellant’s continuous efforts to interact with the child. [Para 26]

Interim Orders – Family Court’s interim orders granting video/phone interaction – Non-compliance by respondent-wife – Order modified allowing physical meeting for limited period – Appeal against impugned order – Appellant’s contentions on respondent’s reluctance to comply. [Para 32]

Supreme Court Precedents – Reference to precedents emphasizing a child’s right to affection of both parents – Need for a balance between permanent custody and access to both parents – The significance of child’s welfare and balanced growth – Relevant case laws cited by both parties. [Para 34]

Judicial Analysis – Court’s analysis of the situation – Child’s age and circumstances – Failure of interactions and compliance with court orders – Importance of maintaining parent-child bond even when spatial distance exists – Need for meaningful interactions between father and son – Balancing child’s interests and father’s affection. [Para 35-40]

Directions – Appellant granted video conferencing interactions with minor child every Saturday and Sunday – Flexible timing for interactions – Directions for expeditious disposal of pending application – Emphasis on child’s best interest and meaningful interactions between father and son. [Para 40-41]

Decision – Appeal disposed of with directions to ensure regular video conferencing interactions between appellant-father and minor child – Emphasis on the importance of maintaining parent-child bond and considering child’s welfare. [Para 41]

Facts: The appellants were tried for offenses under Section 376-D of the IPC, Section 4 of the POCSO Act, and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, for committing gang rape on 21-1-2018. During the trial, the appellants filed an application for a DNA test of themselves, the victim, and the victim’s newly born baby, which was rejected by the Special Judge. The appellants were convicted, and they filed criminal appeals seeking a DNA test [Para 2-3].

Issues: Whether a DNA test of the appellants, the victim, and the victim’s newly born baby is necessary for the disposal of the criminal appeals [Para 2-3].

Observations: DNA profiling is a valid and reliable method for identification, but it cannot be ordered as a matter of course. A direction to use DNA profiling to determine paternity is an extremely delicate and sensitive aspect and must be conducted only when eminently needed. The baby child of the victim is neither a party in the criminal appeals nor is the paternity required to be examined, and directing a DNA test would violate the privacy right of the infant [Para 10-17].

Decision: The applications filed by the appellants for a DNA test were found to have no merit and were accordingly rejected [Para 18].