Criminal Law - Appeal Against Acquittal – Criminal Breach of Trust – Sections 409 and 424 IPC – Appeal Dismissed - The appellant challenged the acquittal order, alleging misappropriation of partnership firm funds by the respondents – The Trial Court had acquitted respondents citing lack of documentary evidence proving dishonest misappropriation – Held: The appellant failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the respondents misappropriated the firm's money and did not substantiate entrustment and misuse as required under Section 409 IPC [Paras 2, 18-21].

Partnership Dispute – Civil Nature of Dispute – No Criminality Attributed – Appeal Dismissed - The dispute between the parties arose out of business transactions within a partnership firm – Held: The allegations mainly constituted civil disputes over accounting and settlement, and the criminal charges were not established independently – Criminal liability cannot be presumed merely from civil disputes [Paras 12, 17-18].

Standard of Proof – Appeal Against Acquittal – Principles Applied – Double Presumption - In an appeal against acquittal, double presumption of innocence operates in favour of the accused – Held: The appellate Court should not interfere unless the trial Court’s view is perverse or unsustainable – No compelling reasons found to overturn the acquittal [Paras 22-24].

Final Decision – Appeal Dismissed - No evidence showing criminal breach of trust or fraud beyond reasonable doubt – No perversity in trial Court’s acquittal order – Appeal dismissed, upholding the trial Court’s judgment [Paras 23-24].
 

Bail Petition – Violation of Right to be Informed of Grounds of Arrest – Non-Compliance with Article 22(1) – Bail Granted – The petitioner challenged his custody citing violation of constitutional and statutory rights at the time of arrest – The Court found that the grounds of arrest were not communicated in writing as mandated under Article 22(1) and recent Supreme Court judgments – Held: Non-communication in writing renders custody illegal, entitling the petitioner to bail [Paras 1-13].

Constitutional Safeguards – Oral Communication Insufficient – Written Communication of Grounds of Arrest Mandatory – The State’s argument that oral intimation sufficed was rejected – Court emphasized that when a procedure is mandated in a particular manner, deviation is impermissible – Held: Oral communication inadequate to satisfy constitutional requirements [Paras 6-9, 13].

Bail Conditions – Petitioner to Remain within Jurisdiction – Compliance Monitoring – Bail granted on furnishing of sureties and strict conditions including regular attendance before police and court – Non-compliance to result in cancellation of bail [Para 13].

Decision: The bail application CRM (DB) 62 of 2025 was allowed. Petitioner granted bail on specified conditions.

Criminal Law – Quashing of Criminal Complaint – Section 4, 5, 19 of the Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900 (PLPA) - Section 2 and 3A of the Forest Conservation Act - Violation of Forest and Environmental Laws – Continuing Offence – Quashing Declined – Petitioners challenged the complaint and summoning order under PLPA and Forest Conservation Act on grounds of limitation – Held: As the illegal rasta continued to exist and forest land remained encroached upon, offence constituted a continuing wrong – Hence, Section 468 CrPC not applicable – Complaint and summoning order upheld [Paras 1, 7].

Limitation – Section 468 CrPC – Date of Institution Relevant – Not Date of Cognizance – Reference to Supreme Court ruling in Sarah Mathew v. Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases, 2014 (2) SCC 62 – Held: Limitation must be computed from the date of filing of complaint, not the date of cognizance – Complaint filed within limitation due to continuous illegal activity [Para 8].

Forest Encroachment – Private Ownership No Defence – Petitioners claimed land was privately owned – Held: Ownership immaterial if ecological restrictions under forest laws are violated – Unauthorized construction of rasta and felling of trees without approval from Forest Department amounts to criminal offence under forest and environmental law [Para 3, 6].

Prior Convictions – Repeated Violation by Petitioner – Petitioner No.1 previously convicted under Forest Conservation Act – Held: Establishes habitual disregard for forest protection norms – Complaint against petitioners justified [Para 4].

Final Decision – Petition Dismissed – No illegality or perversity found in complaint or summoning order – Continuation of proceedings not abuse of process of law [Para 9].

Dishonour of Cheque – Presumption of Legally Enforceable Debt – Section 138 NI Act – Conviction Upheld - The accused admitted issuance of cheque but claimed it was issued blank as security – Held: Admission of signature leads to presumption of consideration under Section 139 NI Act, which the accused failed to rebut by sufficient evidence – Defence witness' testimony relating to an unrelated withdrawal in 2013 was found irrelevant to the 2015-2016 transaction – Revision dismissed [Paras 15-20, 24-25].

Dishonour Due to Insufficient Funds – Presumption under Section 146 NI Act – Service of Notice – Validity Upheld - The cheque was dishonoured for insufficient funds – Notice sent to correct address presumed served under Section 27 of General Clauses Act – Accused failed to rebut presumption and did not pay amount post-summons – No benefit of alleged non-service of notice available – Revision dismissed [Paras 32-35].

Issuance of Cheque as Security – Liability under NI Act – Legal Principles Affirmed - Even if cheque issued as security, dishonour attracts Section 138 liability if issued towards existing enforceable debt – Accused’s plea rejected citing multiple Supreme Court decisions – Revision dismissed [Paras 27-29].

Sentencing – Compensation and Default Imprisonment – Compensation Reduced – One-Year Sentence Maintained - Sentence of simple imprisonment for one year with ₹9 lakh compensation upheld – Compensation reduced from ₹12 lakh to ₹9 lakh considering quantum and interest standards laid by Supreme Court – Default imprisonment for non-payment of compensation justified under Section 357(3) CrPC – Revision partly allowed only to the extent of reducing compensation [Paras 37-41].
 

Criminal Law – Murder & Dacoity – Appeal Against Conviction - Last Seen Theory – Circumstantial Evidence – Conviction Confirmed - Appellant was last seen with the deceased shortly before the murder – No explanation offered by the Appellant regarding the period after he was last seen with the deceased – Evidence clearly established a minimal time gap between the deceased being last alive and discovered dead – Court upheld conviction applying the last seen theory and Section 106 of Evidence Act [Paras 1, 4, 5, 8, 11].

Recovery of Stolen Property – Admissibility and Corroboration – Conviction Upheld - Gold ornaments and mobile phone belonging to the deceased were recovered from the Appellant and from shops where he pledged/sold them – Recovery at the behest of Appellant corroborated by Panch witnesses – Identification of articles by the complainant accepted – Court held recovery to be clinching evidence linking Appellant to the crime [Paras 2.5, 2.6, 12-17].

Forensic Evidence – Bloodstained Clothes – Chain of Custody Maintained - Bloodstains on Appellant’s recovered clothes matched the blood group of the deceased – Chain of custody established by Panch witnesses and chemical analysis reports – Defense objections to recovery procedure rejected [Paras 12-13].

Test Identification Parade – Minor Irregularities – No Effect on Prosecution’s Case - Despite minor lapses in conducting the TIP, the Court held it non-fatal as the Appellant was independently identified by witnesses during trial – TIP corroborated the substantial circumstantial evidence [Paras 8, 18].

Standard of Proof – Application of Panchsheel Principles – Complete Chain of Circumstances - Court reiterated that suspicion cannot substitute proof – All incriminating circumstances were conclusively proven forming an unbroken chain leading only to Appellant’s guilt – Conviction upheld beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 21-22].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 302 and 397 IPC confirmed – Court found no merit in the appeal – Judgment of the Sessions Court sustained [Para 23].

Civil Law - Will – Execution and Attestation – Section 63 of Succession Act – Probate Denied – The appellant sought probate of a registered Will executed by her husband—Probate Court found that only one attesting witness was examined, who failed to confirm the attestation by the second witness – Held: Proof of attestation by both witnesses required under Section 63(c); mere attestation by one without corroboration does not fulfill the statutory mandate – Will execution not proven as per law [Paras 9, 29, 35-37].

Evidence – Section 68 of Evidence Act – Limited Scope – Mere signature of testator insufficient – The sole attesting witness did not testify to presence or signing of second attesting witness – Held: Section 68 permits examination of one attesting witness, but such witness must prove full compliance with attestation requirements under Section 63 of the Succession Act – Failure to do so is fatal [Paras 9, 36].

Appellate Procedure – Additional Evidence – Order XLI Rule 27 CPC – Application Rejected – Appellant sought to examine second attesting witness at appellate stage – Held: Witness was available during trial, and due diligence was not shown – Appellate Court not a venue to fill evidentiary gaps – Application dismissed [Paras 24-28].

Suspicious Circumstances – Language Barrier and Execution Doubts – Will typed in English but signed by testator in Urdu – No evidence testator understood contents – Held: Raises justifiable suspicion; burden on propounder to prove testator understood and voluntarily executed the Will – Not discharged in present case [Paras 10, 30, 35].

Final Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Probate rightly denied by Probate Court – No illegality or perversity found in lower court's reasoning – Will not proven to be duly executed or free from suspicion [Paras 37-38].
 

Civil Law - Partition Deed – Admissibility of Certified Copy – Requirement under Indian Evidence Act – Reversal Set Aside - The First Appellate Court relied on a certified copy of a partition deed (Ext-4) without proving foundational facts for admitting secondary evidence under Section 65 of the Evidence Act, despite denial of execution by the defendants – Held: Certified copy was inadmissible as secondary evidence, and the appellate court erred in reversing the trial court's findings without meeting its reasoning [Paras 1-4, 15-18, 27-50].

Secondary Evidence – Loss of Original Document – Requirement of Proof – Finding of Loss not Established - Plaintiffs failed to prove the loss of the original partition deed necessary for admission of secondary evidence – Mere pleading that the original was lost during Section 145 CrPC proceedings was not sufficient without supporting evidence – Held: Foundational requirements for secondary evidence not satisfied [Paras 31-34, 44-47].

Certified Copy – Presumption under Section 90 of Evidence Act – Applicability Only to Originals – Certified Copy Not Entitled to Presumption - Section 90 presumption of genuineness applies to 30-year-old originals, not to certified copies – Held: First appellate court erred in extending presumption to Ext-4 which was a certified copy [Paras 44-46].

Evidence Beyond Pleadings – Deviation in Oral Testimonies – Findings Ignored by First Appellate Court - Plaintiffs’ witnesses led evidence contradicting pleadings and documents, which the trial court rejected – Held: First Appellate Court ignored these material contradictions and wrongly decreed in favour of plaintiffs [Paras 24, 37-38].

Decision – Second Appeal Allowed – First Appellate Court’s Reversal of Trial Court Judgment Set Aside – Suit Dismissed - Judgment of the first appellate court was legally unsustainable; trial court’s dismissal of the suit restored – Second appeal allowed [Paras 48-55].

Motor Accident Compensation – Review of Judgment – Income Estimation – Review Rejected – Respondents sought review of judgment reducing compensation from ₹2.23 crore to ₹49.29 lakh, arguing court ignored proven U.S. tax returns showing income of $97,500 – Held: Court had already evaluated ITRs and found that figure merely reflected social security ceiling, not actual income – No error apparent to warrant review [Paras 1-5, 13-14].

Foreign Evidence – ITRs from USA – Admissibility – Not Duly Proved – Claimants submitted notarized U.S. ITRs but failed to meet evidentiary requirements under Section 3 of Diplomatic and Consular Officers Act – Held: Documents not authenticated by consular officers and not accepted as conclusive proof – Summary nature of MACT proceedings does not override foundational proof obligations [Paras 3, 6-8, 11].

Compensation Calculation – Income Assessed at $28,000 p.a. – Deceased’s net income computed from available records – Court considered earnings from all sources and applied Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi principles – Held: Income rightly assumed at $28,000 and loss of dependency calculated accordingly; no ground to revise [Paras 11-12].

Scope of Review – No Error Apparent – Review Denied – Review petition failed to demonstrate any clerical or patent error in the impugned judgment – Plea essentially sought re-arguing the appeal – Held: Review not a substitute for appeal; petition dismissed [Paras 9-10, 14].

Final Direction – Realisation Permitted – Insurance company confirmed full deposit of awarded compensation – Held: Claimant entitled to realise amount as per law without delay [Paras 15-16].
 

Civil Law - Succession – Escheat Proceedings – Class-II Heirs under Hindu Succession Act – Validity of State Action – Escheat Declared Invalid - The State initiated escheat proceedings on the assumption that deceased Challa Venkataramana had no legal heirs – Plaintiff, as daughter of deceased’s paternal uncle, claimed entitlement under Class-II heirs – Court held that Government failed to establish proper procedure including public notification before assuming possession – Escheat held invalid and plaintiff entitled to possession of property [Paras 1-5, 15-20].

Procedural Compliance – Requirement of Public Notice – Failure by State – Proceedings Invalidated - No evidence adduced by the State to show compliance with mandatory publication and notice under the Escheats Act – No denial to plaintiff’s legal notice by the State – Held: Failure to issue general notice and lack of vide publication rendered escheat proceedings legally unsustainable [Paras 18-19].

Civil Procedure – Declaration and Recovery of Possession – Escheat Proceedings Set Aside – Possession Directed - Trial Court’s decree granting declaration, recovery of possession of scheduled properties, and profits upheld – First Appellate Court found no illegality in findings of trial court – Held: Appeal dismissed, possession to be restored to plaintiff and other Class-II heirs [Paras 20-21].