Criminal Law – Anticipatory and Regular Bail – Appeals filed under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST (POA) Act – Appellants accused of abusing and threatening the complainant using casteist slurs – Complaint filed 14 days post-incident – Accused sought anticipatory bail (A1) and regular bail (A2) [Paras 1-4].

Delay in Filing Complaint and Nature of Dispute – Delay of 14 days in filing complaint – Complainant not an eyewitness – Complaint based on hearsay – Incident related to a civil dispute over allotment of sites [Paras 5-9].

Prima Facie Case and Applicability of SC/ST Act – Court found no prima facie case under SC/ST Act based on complaint – Cited Supreme Court's decision in Rahna Jalal v. State of Kerala, which allows anticipatory bail where no prima facie case under the Act is made out – Stringent conditions imposed to safeguard investigation process [Paras 10-13].

Decision – Appeals allowed – Appellant (A1) granted anticipatory bail – Appellant (A2) granted regular bail – Both appellants required to comply with specific conditions to prevent interference with the investigation and trial processes [Paras 13-13].

Criminal Law - Dishonour of Cheque - Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. - Conviction upheld by Special Judge (NDPS), Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi - Petitioner convicted under Section 138 N.I. Act for dishonour of cheque amounting to Rs.5,26,785/- - Sentenced to simple imprisonment for four months and fine of Rs.8,50,000/- with default clause - Fine amount directed to be paid to respondent.

Complaint under Section 138 N.I. Act - Allegation of dishonour of cheque issued in discharge of legal liability - Cheque issued for payment of goods received - Petitioner contested stating cheque particulars filled by clerical staff and goods returned due to defect - Legal notice served but payment not made.

Evidence and Trial Court Findings - Respondent presented evidence including bill, cheque, bank return memo, legal notice, and postal receipt - Petitioner admitted signatures on cheque but contested liability - Defence of return of goods not substantiated - No examination of transporter to confirm return - Trial Court presumed service of notice under Section 27 of General Clauses Act and held cheque issued for legally enforceable debt - Appellate Court upheld conviction and sentence.

Decision - Petitioner's defence of defective goods and return not proven - Failure to stop cheque payment or respond to legal notice considered indicative of liability - Distinguished from cases where cheques issued as advance payments for undelivered goods - Revisional Court found no perversity or jurisdictional error in concurrent findings - Revision petition dismissed.

Criminal Law – Conviction under Section 6 of POCSO Act, Section 506 IPC, and Section 323 IPC – Appeal against Trial Court’s Acquittal – High Court Reversal of Acquittal based on Victim's Testimony and Corroborative Evidence – Victim's consistent testimony, supported by medical evidence and corroborative witnesses, held sufficient for conviction despite delay in FIR – Reversed acquittal due to Trial Court’s misinterpretation of evidence and undue emphasis on minor contradictions [Paras 1-23, 25-106].

Delay in Reporting – High Court held delay in filing FIR not fatal – Explained delay due to victim’s fear and familial pressure – Victim’s testimony found credible and consistent despite delay – Case law cited to support that delay in sexual assault cases, particularly involving family members, can be condoned if satisfactorily explained [Paras 24-43].

Credibility of Testimony – High Court found victim to be a witness of sterling quality – Testimony consistent with initial statements and corroborated by mother and brother – Minor discrepancies considered trivial and not undermining the overall credibility – Legal precedent cited supporting reliance on victim’s sole testimony in sexual assault cases [Paras 44-96].

Acquittal Reversed – High Court found Trial Court’s judgment based on conjectures and misinterpretation of evidence – Guilt of accused established beyond reasonable doubt based on credible and corroborative testimony of the victim – Appeals allowed and respondent convicted under relevant sections [Paras 97-106].

Decision – Conviction Ordered – Held – The appeal is allowed, and the acquittal is reversed. Respondent convicted under Section 6 of POCSO Act, Sections 506 and 323 IPC. Sentencing arguments scheduled – Directions for victim impact report and confirmation of interim compensation [Paras 107-111].

Civil Procedure – Power to Amend and Strike Out Issues – Petition challenging the trial court’s order deleting certain issues in a civil suit and denying further cross-examination – High Court examined the validity of the trial court's suo moto deletion of issues and refusal to recall a witness for cross-examination on additional documents – Court reinstated two issues considering their relevance to the dispute but upheld the denial of further cross-examination – Jurisdiction under Article 227 explained as supervisory, not appellate [Paras 1-35].

Adoption and Property Dispute – Suit for possession and mesne profits of property involving complex family and adoption claims – Petitioner contested the suit claiming oral family settlement and disputed the adoption of respondent – Trial court deleted issues related to the adoption and nature of the property – High Court reinstated the issues concerning adoption and property characterization due to their critical role in resolving the dispute [Paras 1-5, 28-31].

Evidentiary Procedure – Application for further cross-examination denied – Trial court refused to recall respondent for cross-examination on new documents related to a will and probate order – High Court upheld the decision, finding no relevance or necessity for additional cross-examination on those documents [Paras 3, 13, 32-33].

Decision – Petition Partially Allowed – Held – The impugned order was set aside to the extent of deleting issue nos. 4 and 5, as they were deemed relevant to the case – The application for recalling the respondent for further cross-examination was rightly dismissed – High Court emphasized the limited scope of Article 227 jurisdiction for correcting grave errors rather than reassessing factual matters [Para 34-35].

NDPS Act – Regular Bail – Petitioner, accused of possessing 8.25 grams of MDMA, sought bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. – Arrested on 30.3.2024, currently in judicial custody – Petitioner claimed innocence and alleged false implication – No previous criminal antecedents and no apprehension of absconding if granted bail [Paras 2-4].

Considerations for Bail – Court considered the quantity of the substance (intermediate quantity) and the period of custody – Noted that the prosecution raised no concerns of the petitioner absconding or tampering with evidence – Emphasized on the right to liberty and due process while ensuring conditions to prevent misuse of bail [Paras 5-6].

Decision: Bail application allowed – Petitioner granted bail subject to conditions to ensure cooperation with investigation and prevent tampering with evidence [Para 7].

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Limitation and Unauthorized Construction – Petitioners sought quashing of the criminal complaint for unauthorized construction under Sections 31-32 of the JDA Act. They argued that the construction was over 25 years old and barred by limitation, the notice was improperly served, and the inclusion of petitioners No. 1 and 3 was arbitrary as they were not owners of the property. The court found that the construction's age and the notice service were factual disputes to be decided at trial. However, the court held that petitioners No. 1 and 3 were wrongly implicated, as the property was solely owned by petitioner No. 2. [Paras 1-14]

Decision – Partial Quashing – The court quashed the criminal complaint and cognizance against petitioners No. 1 and 3, as their inclusion was arbitrary and without basis. The complaint against petitioner No. 2 was allowed to proceed, with directions to the Magistrate to expedite the trial. [Paras 11-18]
 

Criminal Law – Acquittal under Sections 302 and 120-B IPC – Leave to appeal dismissed by High Court – Prosecution failed to establish motive and link in the chain of circumstantial evidence – Alleged harassment for dowry not substantiated by evidence – No eye witnesses, case relied on circumstantial evidence – Last seen theory and recovery of material exhibit (chunni) deemed unreliable – Medical evidence indicated hanging, not strangulation – Delay in FIR registration unexplained [Paras 1-16].

Evidence Evaluation – High Court upheld trial court’s finding of doubt on the testimony of key witnesses – Material improvements and inconsistencies in statements – Medical evidence did not conclusively support prosecution's theory of strangulation – PMR indicated hanging as cause of death – No supporting forensic evidence to link accused with the crime [Paras 9-13].

Decision – Dismissal of Appeal – Held – Application for leave to appeal is dismissed – High Court found no illegality or perversity in trial court’s judgment – Prosecution’s evidence insufficient to overturn acquittal – Appellate court emphasized on limited scope of interference with acquittal unless findings are perverse or wholly unsustainable [Paras 14-16].

Service Law – Acquittal and Departmental Proceedings – Impact of Criminal Acquittal on Disciplinary Actions – Petitioners acquitted in criminal trial seek reinstatement with same rank and benefits – Petition dismissed – Petitioner seeking quashing of the charge-sheet and office order imposing penalties on the petitioners – Petitioners contended that their acquittal by the criminal court should impact the disciplinary proceedings – Court held that acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically affect the outcome of departmental proceedings, as the standard of proof differs between the two [Paras 1-13].

Disciplinary Proceedings – Impact of Criminal Acquittal – Petitioners argued that their acquittal in a criminal case should lead to the setting aside of penalties imposed in departmental proceedings – Court relied on Supreme Court judgments to affirm that disciplinary proceedings can proceed independently of criminal proceedings and an acquittal in the latter does not necessarily lead to nullifying the former – Reiterated that the standard of proof in departmental proceedings is based on the preponderance of probabilities, unlike the criminal standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 7-10].

Decision – Dismissal of Petition – Held – The petition was dismissed on grounds that the disciplinary proceedings were valid despite the criminal acquittal, and the court found no reason to interfere under Articles 226/227 – Confirmed that the penalties imposed during the departmental inquiry were within the legal framework and supported by substantial evidence [Paras 11-13].

Motor Accident Claims – Insurance Company Appeal – Appeal against award of compensation by the II Additional District MACT, Kasaragod – Accident involving collision between a Ford Escort car and an Alto car insured by the appellant – Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,07,447/- with interest to the respondent for damages to the car – Insurance company contended lack of negligence proof, improper reliance on unproved documents, and failure to account for depreciation – High Court upheld Tribunal’s decision based on prima facie evidence of negligence from police records and unchallenged survey reports and bills – Appeal dismissed, interim orders vacated, appellant directed to deposit awarded amount within one month [Paras 1-15].

Negligence and Liability – Proof of Negligence – Tribunal’s finding based on FIR, final report, and motor vehicle inspection report – Insurance company's lack of challenge to the evidentiary documents and absence of driver do not negate proof of negligence – High Court reinforced established principle that police charge sheet is prima facie evidence of negligence [Paras 11-12].

Assessment of Damages – Evidentiary Value – Reliance on unchallenged survey report and bills for repair costs – Tribunal’s acceptance of reliable documents and rejection of unreliable ones upheld – High Court found no error in Tribunal’s approach or awarded amount considering depreciation [Paras 12-14].

Decision: Motor Accident Claims Appeal dismissed – Tribunal’s award upheld – Appellant directed to deposit the awarded amount within one month – No costs [Para 15].