Motor Accident Compensation – Contributory Negligence – Alleged intoxication of claimant – MLC noting influence of alcohol without blood alcohol test – Claimant was pillion rider and not driver – No causal connection established between alleged intoxication and accident – Held: No deduction for contributory negligence justified [Paras 11–13].

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Multiplier – Loss of future income in injury cases – Contention that multiplier should be reduced as claimant compensated for loss of income during treatment period rejected – Multiplier to be selected with reference to age at date of accident – Multiplier is a notional and standardised concept not dependent on factual variations – Application of multiplier of 16 for 35-year-old claimant upheld [Paras 14–21].

Permanent Disability – Functional Disability – Intellectual impairment assessed at 25% by medical board – Tribunal assessing functional disability at 100% based on nature of injury, prolonged treatment, inability to work, and court’s own observation of claimant’s slow responses – Held: Assessment of 100% functional disability justified on holistic consideration of evidence [Paras 22–27].

Future Prospects – Injury Cases – Application of principles laid down in Pranay Sethi – Self-employed/fixed wage claimant below 40 years entitled to addition of 40% towards future prospects – No serious opposition by insurer – Future prospects directed to be added while computing loss of future income [Paras 28–30].

Computation of Compensation – Loss of Future Income – Recalculation on basis of minimum wages with addition of 40% future prospects and multiplier of 16 – Loss of future income enhanced from Rs. 8,41,344/- to Rs. 11,77,882/- [Paras 31–32].

Future Medical Expenses – Claim for enhancement – No medical evidence on record to establish requirement of future treatment – Remand declined by claimant – Held: No amount payable towards future medical expenses [Para 33].

Appellate Powers – Enhancement of Compensation – Absence of cross-appeal or cross-objection by claimant – Conflict between Ranjana Prakash and Surekha – Held: In view of three-Judge Bench decision in Surekha and principle of awarding just compensation, appellate court empowered to enhance compensation even in insurer’s appeal [Paras 35–38].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – Award enhanced from Rs. 13,75,000/- to Rs. 17,11,566/- with interest at 9% per annum – Directions issued regarding deposit, release, and disbursement of enhanced amount – Statutory deposit ordered to be refunded to insurer [Paras 39–44].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Cheque issued for alleged discharge of third-party liability – Absence of proof of legally enforceable debt – Complainant alleged that accused undertook liability of borrower (third party) – No documentary or cogent oral evidence showing acceptance of such liability – Mere oral assertion insufficient – Held: Offence under Section 138 not made out [Paras 9–13, 15].

Criminal Appeal – Acquittal – Scope of Interference – Principles reiterated – Appellate Court may reappreciate evidence but must respect double presumption of innocence in favour of accused – Interference permissible only in case of perversity, misreading of evidence or when only one conclusion of guilt is possible – Sessions Court’s view found to be a plausible view – No interference warranted [Paras 5–8, 16].

Partnership Firm – Vicarious Liability – Section 138 NI Act – Partners/Directors – Requirement of Specific Averments – Bald assertion that accused were responsible for day-to-day affairs of firm insufficient – Complaint must disclose specific role and responsibility of each accused – Absence of such pleadings and evidence fatal to prosecution [Paras 9–11, 14–15].

Cheque Amount – Discrepancy – Loan of Rs.56,50,000/- allegedly increased to cheque amount of Rs.78,00,000/- – No explanation regarding rate of interest or calculation – Serious doubt on existence of legally enforceable liability – Findings of Sessions Court upheld [Para 13].

Privity of Contract – No Financial Dealings – Evidence showed no prior financial relationship between complainant and accused – Liability, if any, was of third party – No privity of contract established – Conviction under Section 138 unsustainable [Paras 12–13, 15].

Decision – Criminal Appeal dismissed – Judgment of acquittal dated 31.01.2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Pune affirmed – No perversity or illegality found in acquittal order [Paras 16–17].

Property Law – Title to Immovable Property – Registered Relinquishment Deed vs Unregistered Sale Documents – Plaintiff claimed title on basis of registered Relinquishment Deed dated 30.11.2015 – Defendants relied upon unregistered GPA, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit, Possession Letter, Receipt and Will dated 15.12.2015 – Held: Registered Relinquishment Deed confers valid and superior title – Unregistered documents cannot convey right, title or interest in immovable property [Paras 11–12, 29–33, 53].

Evidence Act – Sections 91 & 92 – Exclusion of Oral Evidence – Defendants pleaded oral family arrangement underlying Relinquishment Deed providing for reconstruction and re-allotment of floors – No recital in registered deed – No cogent evidence of such oral agreement – Held: Oral evidence cannot be led to contradict, vary or add to terms of a registered written document – Plea of oral understanding rightly rejected [Paras 18–21, 26].

Relinquishment Deed – Validity and Effect – Execution and validity of registered Relinquishment Deed admitted by all executants including appellants – No suit or counterclaim filed for its cancellation – Mere assertion of fraud without seeking appropriate relief insufficient – Relinquishment Deed remained valid, operative and binding [Paras 15–19, 27].

Will – Proof of Execution – Section 63 Succession Act & Section 68 Evidence Act – Defendants relied on unregistered Will allegedly executed by plaintiff – Will disputed – No attesting witness examined – No evidence led to prove due execution – Mere marking of Will as exhibit (OSR) does not amount to proof – Held: Unproved Will cannot override a registered Relinquishment Deed [Paras 37–44].

Will – Operation During Lifetime of Testator – Suit instituted during lifetime of testator – Will operates only posthumously – Even after death, Will required strict proof – Failure to prove Will disentitled appellants from claiming any right thereunder [Paras 45–47].

Power of Attorney Holder as Witness – Competence to Depose – Plaintiff’s son deposed as PW1 on basis of PoA and as attesting witness to Relinquishment Deed – Held: PW1 had personal knowledge of execution of registered deed – Non-examination of plaintiff during his lifetime did not vitiate plaintiff’s case [Paras 50–52].

Unregistered GPA/Agreement to Sell/Receipt – No Conveyance of Title – GPA sales and SA/GPA/Will transactions do not amount to transfer of immovable property – Such documents at best create limited contractual rights – Cannot defeat title based on registered conveyance [Paras 29–33].

Better Title Principle – Decree for Possession – Plaintiff having established better legal title by registered instrument entitled to decree of possession – Defendants in possession cannot resist eviction on basis of inferior or defective title [Paras 53–54].

Appellate Interference – Scope under Section 96 CPC – Trial Court’s findings based on proper appreciation of pleadings, evidence and settled law – No perversity or illegality shown – Appellate court declined interference [Paras 59–60].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree dated 05.05.2018 upheld – Respondents/LRs of plaintiff entitled to possession and permanent injunction – No order as to mesne profits sustained [Para 60].

Criminal Law - Quashing – Non-Bailable Warrants during Investigation – Scope of Magistrate’s Power – FIR under Sections 376, 420, 506 IPC – Petitioner arrested but escaped from police custody after allegedly attacking police party – Application moved for issuance of arrest warrants – Magistrate issued warrants and later non-bailable warrants – Held: Power to issue non-bailable warrants not confined to post-cognizance or trial stage – Can be exercised during investigation where accused deliberately evades process – Issuance justified in cases of willful evasion and non-cooperation [Paras 6-8].

Proclamation Proceedings – Section 84 BNSS – Compliance with Mandatory Requirements – After failure to execute warrants, proclamation issued – Publication effected and statement of serving Constable recorded – Mandatory period of 30 days expired before declaration as proclaimed person – Held: Requirements of Section 84 BNSS duly complied with – Statement regarding publication is conclusive evidence under Section 84(3) BNSS – Order declaring petitioner proclaimed person valid [Paras 2.2, 2.3, 6].

Absconding Accused – Escape from Custody – Justification for Coercive Process – Petitioner allegedly escaped from police custody and fled outside State and later abroad – Conduct amounts to open defiance of process of law – Held: Coercive steps including non-bailable warrants and proclamation not measures of harassment but necessary to secure presence of accused charged with serious and heinous offences [Paras 6-8].

Anticipatory Bail Pending – Effect on Proclamation – Contention that petitioner could not be termed absconding as anticipatory bail was pending – Held: Pendency of bail does not bar issuance of warrants where accused has escaped custody and is evading investigation – Conduct of accused determinative [Paras 3, 7-8].

Distinguishing Precedent – Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar – Magistrate’s Ancillary Powers – Reliance placed on State through CBI v. Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar (2000) 10 SCC 438 – Held: Section 73 CrPC empowers Magistrate to issue warrants even during investigation to aid process of law – Delhi High Court decision in Shravan Gupta v. Directorate of Enforcement followed – Inder Mohan Goswami distinguished as relating to misuse of NBWs in non-serious matters [Paras 3, 7].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Orders dated 05.09.2025 and 11.09.2025 issuing arrest warrants, order dated 06.10.2025 issuing proclamation under Section 84 BNSS, and order dated 20.12.2025 declaring petitioner a proclaimed person upheld.

Criminal Law - Dishonour of Cheque - Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 - Section 138 - Locus Standi - Revisionist challenged the summoning order dated 26.07.2013 passed by Metropolitan Magistrate Kanpur Nagar in a complaint filed by M/s Krishna Hotels and Developers through its partner regarding eleven cheques drawn in favor of Hotel Paradise - Trial Court initially questioned the locus but subsequently summoned the revisionist - High Court analyzed Section 142 of the N.I. Act which restricts cognizance of offences to complaints made only by the payee or the holder in due course - High Court observed that the complainant failed to demonstrate how it qualified as the payee or holder of cheques issued to a different entity - Held - A third party or stranger with no legal title to the instrument cannot institute a complaint even if indirectly affected - Impugned order quashed and revision allowed - [Paras 1-17].

Criminal Law - Cognizance of Offence - Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 - Section 142 - Statutory Requirement - Provisions of Section 142 are mandatory and override the Code of Criminal Procedure - Complaint must be in the name of the payee or holder in due course - While authorized representatives like power of attorney holders can file on behalf of a company the entity itself must be the complainant - Held - Complaint by a third party in their own name is not maintainable unless they qualify as a holder in due course or act as an authorized representative of the payee - Opposite party no. 2 had no locus to file the present complaint in the name of M/s Krishna Hotels and Developers for cheques issued to Hotel Paradise - [Paras 9-14].

Decision: Revision allowed – Summoning order dated 26.07.2013 passed by M.M. VIIIth Kanpur Nagar in Complaint Case No. 1091/2012 quashed.

POCSO Act, 2012 – Cross-Examination of Child Victim – Forfeiture of Right – Appellants repeatedly sought adjournments on personal grounds of counsel despite presence of child victim on several dates – Trial Court closed further cross-examination after sufficient opportunity – Held: No illegality or violation of fair trial; forfeiture justified to protect child from repeated trauma [Paras 6–7, 11–12].

Criminal Trial – Right of Cross-Examination – Not Absolute – While cross-examination is a valuable right of the accused, it is subject to statutory safeguards under special enactments – In POCSO cases, right must yield to child-friendly procedure and mandate against repeated summoning of child witnesses [Paras 9–11].

POCSO Act – Sections 33 & 35 – Duty of Special Court – Child Not to Be Repeatedly Called – Trial Court bound to ensure dignity of child, prevent aggressive questioning, and complete trial expeditiously – Repeated adjournments sought by defence contrary to statutory scheme – Held: Trial Court acted strictly in accordance with law [Paras 9–11].

SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 – Section 14(3) – Day-to-Day Trial – Expeditious Disposal – Argument that case was “only three years old” rejected – Statutory mandate requires completion of trial at the earliest – Delay attributable to defence cannot be a ground to recall child victim [Para 11].

Recall of Witness – Relevance of Proposed Questions – Appellants furnished 11 proposed questions at appellate stage – Questions not shown to be exclusively answerable by child victim and could be proved through other evidence – Held: No prejudice caused to defence [Para 12].

Transfer of Case – Irrelevance – Subsequent transfer of trial by Sessions Judge cannot invalidate earlier procedural order closing cross-examination – Appellate Court not concerned with transfer order [Para 12].

Intersectionality – Child Victim Belonging to Scheduled Caste – Special Sensitivity Required – Court noted victim was a minor girl belonging to Scheduled Caste community – Enhanced duty on courts to avoid repeated exposure and secondary victimisation [Para 11].

Decision – Criminal Appeal Dismissed – Order forfeiting further cross-examination upheld – Trial Court found to have acted within jurisdiction and statutory mandate [Final Order].

Public Tender – Blacklisting / Debarment – Perpetual Disqualification – Constitutional Validity – Tender condition stipulated that bidder “must not have been ever blacklisted or debarred” by any authority and that revocation of blacklisting is not permissible – Clause operated as a permanent embargo irrespective of duration or revocation of earlier blacklisting – Held: Such condition amounts to perpetual civil disability and creates permanent hindrance on right to carry on trade or business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution [Paras 7–9, 13–15].

Blacklisting – Doctrine of Proportionality – Civil Death – Blacklisting is a serious measure having civil consequences – Perennial or indefinite debarment tantamounts to “civil death” – Apex Court has consistently held that blacklisting must be for a limited and proportionate period – Permanent exclusion offends constitutional ethos and settled judicial precedents [Paras 9–12, 14–15].

Interpretation of Tender Clause – Use of Word ‘Ever’ – Expression “have been ever blacklisted or debarred” conveys disqualification for all time to come – Even a bidder blacklisted for a single day stands excluded permanently – Such blanket exclusion held arbitrary, unreasonable and unconstitutional [Paras 8, 13, 15].

Judicial Review of Tender Conditions – Scope – While tendering authority has discretion to prescribe eligibility criteria to ensure discipline and efficiency, such discretion cannot transgress constitutional guarantees – Conditions resulting in permanent exclusion without proportionality are liable to judicial interference [Paras 6, 14–15].

Effect on Batch of Writ Petitions – Since tender itself quashed, other challenges relating to earlier tender or ancillary issues rendered academic – No further adjudication required on those grounds [Paras 17–18].

Direction to Authorities – Balasore Municipality directed to float a fresh tender in accordance with law and constitutional principles, keeping in view observations of the Court – Exercise to be completed within fifteen days [Para 16].

Decision: Impugned tender quashed and set aside – Batch of writ petitions disposed of – Liberty granted to Municipality to issue fresh tender consistent with Article 19(1)(g) and doctrine of proportionality.

POCSO Act – Sexual Assault on Minor – Conviction – Prosecutrix kidnapped while going for nature’s call during marriage ceremony – Confined in accused’s house and subjected to repeated sexual intercourse – Victim recovered from accused’s house on third day – Trial Court convicted accused under IPC and POCSO provisions – High Court upheld conviction – Held: Prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 25–35].

Age Determination – Minor Victim – School Records vs. Ossification Test – Prosecutrix and parents consistently stated age to be 13–14 years – School admission register from first attended school showed date of birth as 04.07.2006 – Defence relied on doubtful scholar register showing different date of birth – Register found unauthenticated and unreliable – Held: As per Rule 12 of JJ Rules and Section 94 JJ Act, school record has precedence – Victim held to be minor on date of incident [Paras 11–18, 24].

Medical Evidence – Ossification Test – Not Mandatory – Doctor advised X-ray for age determination but ossification test not conducted – Held: Ossification test required only in absence of reliable documentary evidence – Non-conduct does not vitiate prosecution case when school records are available – Reliance placed on Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana and State of M.P. v. Anoop Singh [Paras 19–24].

Evidence Appreciation – Testimony of Prosecutrix – Credibility – Prosecutrix gave consistent and cogent account of forcible sexual intercourse – Supported by testimony of mother, father, friend and grandfather – No material contradiction elicited in cross-examination – Sole testimony of prosecutrix sufficient when found trustworthy [Paras 25–29].

Scientific Evidence – DNA Report – Corroboration – DNA analysis confirmed match between accused and biological samples of prosecutrix – Strong corroborative evidence establishing sexual intercourse by accused – Defence plea of false implication rejected [Paras 33–34].

Consent – Minor Victim – Irrelevant – Defence plea of consensual relationship rejected – Victim below 18 years of age – Consent, even if assumed, legally inconsequential under IPC and POCSO Act [Paras 34–35].

Sentence – Confirmation – Multiple offences including aggravated penetrative sexual assault – Sentence of up to 20 years’ rigorous imprisonment upheld – No mitigating circumstance warranting interference [Paras 1, 35].

Decision: Criminal Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentences imposed by Trial Court affirmed – Records directed to be sent back to Trial Court forthwith [Paras 35–36].

NDPS Act – Regular Bail – Commercial Quantity – Section 37 – Rigours of Statute – Petitioner sought regular bail in FIR involving recovery of 195 intoxicant tablets (Etizolam) amounting to commercial quantity – Court held that once commercial quantity is involved, bail can be granted only on satisfaction of twin conditions under Section 37 NDPS Act – Mere completion of investigation or prolonged custody not sufficient ground for bail [Paras 1, 8].

NDPS Act – Conscious Possession – Prima Facie Satisfaction – Recovery allegedly effected from polythene bag thrown by petitioner at the spot – Contentions of false implication, planted recovery and lack of conscious possession held to be matters of trial – At bail stage, Court not required to conduct meticulous examination of evidence – Prima facie material sufficient to attract statutory embargo under Section 37 NDPS Act [Paras 2, 4, 8–9].

NDPS Act – Non-compliance of Sections 42 and 50 – Effect at Bail Stage – Plea of violation of mandatory provisions raised by petitioner – Held: Alleged non-compliance of Sections 42 and 50 NDPS Act is a mixed question of law and fact – Cannot be conclusively adjudicated at stage of regular bail – Such issues to be examined during trial [Paras 3, 8].

Criminal Antecedents – Impact on Bail – Petitioner found involved in other NDPS cases – Criminal antecedents weighed against grant of bail – Court held that antecedents coupled with nature of recovery indicate prima facie involvement and disentitle petitioner from discretionary relief [Paras 4, 8].

Bail Jurisprudence – Discretion of Court – NDPS Offences – Court reiterated that discretion in granting bail must be exercised judiciously keeping in view gravity of offence, severity of punishment and societal interest – In serious NDPS offences, liberty of individual must be balanced against societal interest and statutory mandate [Paras 7–9].

Decision: Petition for regular bail dismissed – Court held that no reasonable grounds exist to believe that petitioner is not guilty or that he would not commit offence while on bail – Observations made confined to bail proceedings and not to influence trial [Paras 10–11].