Cheque Dishonour – Section 138 of the NI Act - Limitation for Sending Demand Notice – Exclusion of Date of Intimation – Notice Held Within Time – The Trial Court acquitted the accused holding that the statutory notice under Section 138(b) was sent on the 31st day after intimation of dishonour – Held: The date of receipt of bank intimation must be excluded while computing the 30-day period – On applying the correct legal standard, the notice was issued within time – Trial Court’s view was contrary to binding precedent and hence liable to be set aside [Paras 17-19].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Material Alteration in Cheque – Signature of Accused Validates Correction – Conviction Restored – Trial Court found material alteration in cheque amounting to Rs. 11,70,000/- as fatal to complainant’s case – Held: Correction in amount was duly counter-signed by accused – No plausible explanation or defense was put forth by accused – No rebuttal evidence led – Mere admission by complainant insufficient to rebut presumption under Section 139 NI Act – Finding of material alteration erroneous in law [Paras 20-22].

Cheque Dishonour – Failure to Rebut Presumption – No Reply to Demand Notice – Conviction Warranted – Despite receiving statutory demand notice, the accused did not dispute the liability or issue a reply – No evidence of lack of financial capacity or alternate explanation for issuance of cheque – Appellate Court found presumption under Section 139 unshaken and complainant's case proved – Judgment of acquittal reversed [Para 22].

Decision: Appeal against Acquittal – Principles for Appellate Interference – Trial Court Ignored Material Evidence – When the Trial Court’s findings are based on misapplication of law and disregard of material evidence, the Appellate Court may interfere – Present case warranted interference due to perverse reasoning on both limitation and cheque alteration issues – Judgment of acquittal set aside, appeal allowed [Paras 22-23].

Insurance Law - Insurance Coverage – Interpretation of Contract – Security Guard Not Covered – Appeal Allowed – The deceased was working as a security guard in a transport company and died in an accident during the course of employment – The insurance policy obtained by the employer listed coverage for cleaners and supervisors, but not for security personnel – Held: Security Guard did not fall within the specified categories in the policy and hence the insurer is not liable [Paras 9-11, 34].

Employee’s Compensation – Pay and Recovery – Not Applicable to Contractual Policies – Request Rejected – The claimants argued for applying the 'pay and recovery' principle despite insurer not being liable under the contract – Held: The doctrine of pay and recovery, though applicable in statutory motor vehicle insurance, cannot be extended to contractual policies under the Employees’ Compensation Act – Employer alone liable [Paras 12-14].

Construction of Insurance Contracts – Strict Interpretation Required – Security Personnel Not Implied – The policy was interpreted strictly according to its terms – Held: As the policy did not expressly include security guards, they cannot be presumed covered – Broader interpretation rejected as being contrary to contract law [Paras 9-11].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Insurer Exonerated – The insurer’s liability under the impugned award was set aside – The employer alone was held liable to pay compensation with interest and penalty – Insurer entitled to refund of deposited amount after 8 weeks [Paras 8, 11, 14].

Criminal Law - Murder – Ocular Evidence – Medical Corroboration – Conviction Upheld – The appellant was convicted for murdering the deceased by inflicting multiple knife blows – The conviction was challenged on the ground of false implication and contradictions in witness testimony – Held: Testimonies of three eyewitnesses, who were family members of the deceased, were consistent with medical evidence – Recovery of blood-stained knife corroborated prosecution’s version – Trial court’s reliance on their statements was justified despite minor inconsistencies – Conviction upheld [Paras 12-16].

Benefit of Doubt – Co-accused Acquitted – No Impact on Main Accused – The co-accused Bhim Singh was not named in FIR but added in testimony later – Trial Court gave benefit of doubt to him and acquitted – Held: Mere acquittal of co-accused due to doubt does not vitiate the case against appellant when sufficient evidence exists against him – Prosecution version against main accused Vinod Kumar remained intact [Paras 10, 14-15].

Appeal – Dismissal of Appeal – Interference Not Warranted – The court found no infirmity in the trial court’s findings – All essential elements of murder proved beyond reasonable doubt – Appeal against conviction dismissed – Directions issued for arrest and recovery of remaining sentence [Paras 16-17].
 

Service Law - Transfer – Equivalence of Post – Non-Cadre Transfer Held Illegal – Appellant transferred from post of Chief Medical & Health Officer (CM&HO), a cadre post, to Deputy Controller, which is not included in the amended cadre list of 2012 – Held: Transfer constitutes deputation to a non-cadre post without statutory backing – Reliance on outdated rules misled Single Judge – Transfer order quashed [Paras 15–18, 22].

Deputation – Consent Requirement – Transfer Beyond Cadre Requires Consent – Appellant’s posting to Deputy Controller post amounts to deputation – Held: Deputation necessitates voluntary consent, which was not obtained – Such transfer is invalid in absence of employee’s consent [Paras 19–21].

Stigma in Transfer – Allegations Unsubstantiated – Complaints Largely Closed or Found Motivated – Transfer said to be based on administrative grounds pending inquiries – Held: No credible administrative exigency made out – Transfer found to be indirectly punitive in nature [Paras 4–5, 14].

Judicial Review – Interference in Exceptional Cases – Transfer Impacts Career Prospects – Held: Although courts normally do not interfere in transfer matters, interference justified where service rights are affected and post transferred to is of lower rank and non-cadre – High Court intervention warranted [Paras 23–25].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Transfer Order Set Aside – Special appeal allowed, impugned transfer order and learned Single Judge’s decision set aside – Appellant directed to be reinstated as CM&HO, Udaipur with consequential pecuniary benefits [Paras 26–27].
 

Civil Law - Second Appeal – Scope under Section 100 CPC – No Substantial Question of Law – Appeal Dismissed – The appellants failed to show any substantial question of law warranting interference under Section 100 CPC – Held: High Court cannot re-evaluate findings of fact where concurrent findings of two courts exist and evidence has been properly appreciated [Paras 13-14, 22-23].

Execution of Promissory Note – Attestation and Proof – Consideration Established – Plaintiff established execution of Ex.A-1 promissory note and passing of consideration through P.W.1 and P.W.2, the attestor – Held: Defendants failed to rebut presumption under Section 118 NI Act or produce contrary evidence [Paras 6, 16-17, 21-22].

Allegation of Forgery – No Proof or Expert Evidence – Defence Rejected – Appellants claimed Ex.A-1 was forged and fabricated but did not take steps to send the document to handwriting expert or file police complaint – Held: Mere plea of forgery without substantiation is insufficient to displace legally presumed validity of promissory note [Paras 7, 15-17, 21-22].

Cheque Dishonour – Corroborative Evidence of Debt – Section 138 NI Act Proceedings – Plaintiff filed cheque bounce case as parallel enforcement of debt – Held: Issuance of cheque for partial discharge of debt supports claim of enforceable liability under promissory note [Paras 6(a), 16].

Legal Presumption – Section 118 NI Act – Rebuttable Only by Preponderance – Courts Reaffirm – Held: Plaintiff enjoys presumption of consideration and valid execution which can only be rebutted through cogent contrary evidence—mere denial insufficient [Paras 18-19, citing G. Vasu v. Syed Yaseen].

Final Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Both trial and appellate court decrees upheld – Second appeal dismissed at admission stage without costs [Para 23].

Criminal Law - Murder – Eyewitness Testimony – Conviction Upheld – Presence Proved – Appellant assaulted his brother with a trident and bamboo lathi, packed the body in a gunny bag, and disposed of it in a jungle – Held: Evidence of P.W.13 and P.W.16, corroborated by recovery of the body and medical testimony, proved the crime beyond doubt [Paras 6, 8-10].

Dying Declaration – Admissibility of Verbal Shout – Res Gestae Covered – Victim’s last words calling for help and naming his assailant, heard by P.W.16, admissible as a dying declaration and as part of the same transaction under Section 6 of the Evidence Act – Held: Statement reliable and can form basis for conviction [Paras 9, 35].

Recovery of Weapon – Disclosure Under Section 27 – Trident Seized – Admissible Evidence – Appellant’s disclosure led to recovery of the murder weapon (trident) concealed near a well – Doctor opined injuries were possible by the recovered weapons – Held: Discovery valid, despite absence of blood on trident [Paras 4, 8-10, 31-33].

Minor Contradictions – Eyewitness Versions Consistent – Discrepancy Not Material – P.W.13 and P.W.16 gave slightly different versions of what was heard but corroborated each other on material facts – Held: Discrepancies minor and immaterial, consistent with age and perception variations [Paras 9, 30-32].

Motive – Familial Dispute Over Mango Tree – Sufficient Background – Motive established through testimony about dispute between appellant and deceased over falling mangoes from a tree – Held: While motive is not necessary in all cases, it supports prosecution story [Para 36].

Final Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Conviction under Sections 302 and 201 IPC confirmed – Sentence of life imprisonment with fines upheld – Held: Trial court rightly relied on credible eyewitnesses, corroborating medical and forensic evidence [Paras 10, 37].
 

Criminal Law - Arms Act – Conviction under Section 7 vs Section 3 – Prohibited Arm Not Proven – Conviction Modified - Appellant was initially convicted under Section 7/25 of the Arms Act for possession of a country-made revolver – Trial court relied on a District Magistrate's report but no ballistic report or scientific evidence was produced to prove it was a prohibited arm – Held: In absence of proof that seized arm was automatic or met other criteria under Section 2(1)(i), conviction under Section 7 not sustainable – Conviction altered to Section 3 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act [Paras 5.5–5.7].

Proof of Weapon Type – No Expert or Technical Evidence Produced – Prosecution Failed to Prove Prohibited Nature of Weapon – No ballistic expert opinion or technical data was produced to confirm the nature of the firearm as “prohibited” – Armourer was a field constable without expert credentials – Held: Failure to meet evidentiary threshold required under Arms Act to convict under Section 7 [Paras 5.5–5.7].

Sentencing – Reformative Justice – Probation Principles Applied – Sentence Reduced - Appellant was 21 years old at time of offence, with no prior criminal record and had already undergone over 2 years in custody – Maximum punishment for Section 3 offence is 3 years – Held: Sentence reduced to period already undergone and benefit of reformative principles under Probation of Offenders Act considered appropriate [Paras 5.7–Conclusion].

Appeal – Partial Allowance – Conviction Modified – Appellant Acquitted of Section 7 Charge - Court set aside conviction under Section 7/25 – Convicted instead under Section 3/25 of Arms Act – Sentence modified to time already served – Appellant ordered to be released forthwith [Conclusion].
 

Unlawful Activities – Bail under UAPA – Long Incarceration – Bail Granted - Appellant, accused of involvement in ISIS-related recruitment and conspiracy, was in custody since 02.08.2023 – Charge not yet framed and further investigation ongoing – Court considered prolonged incarceration, bleak chances of trial commencement, and parity with similarly placed co-accused who was granted bail by Apex Court – Held: Incarceration of over 8 months without trial violates right to liberty and speedy trial under Article 21 – Bail granted with strict conditions [Paras 6-8].

Grounds of Arrest – Article 22(1) of the Constitution – Pankaj Bansal Doctrine – Not Applicable Retrospectively – Appellant challenged arrest as illegal due to non-supply of written grounds – Court held that Pankaj Bansal judgment applies prospectively – Since arrest occurred before the judgment date (02.08.2023 vs 03.10.2023), protection under the precedent not available – Arrest upheld [Para 5].

Jurisdiction of NIA – FIR Registration – Section 6(5) of NIA Act – Validity Upheld - Challenge to FIR on ground that NIA registered it directly without prior State referral – Court relied on prior ruling in Ali K. v. Union of India to affirm that Central Government can direct investigation under Section 6(5) even without prior case registration – No illegality found in FIR registration [Para 4].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Bail granted to appellant subject to stringent conditions including travel restrictions, regular reporting, and non-interference with evidence or witnesses – Breach of any condition may lead to cancellation of bail [Para 8].
 

Matrimonial Law - Permanent Alimony – Absence of Application or Evidence – Decree Set Aside – Appellant challenged the Family Court’s direction to pay ₹70 lakhs as permanent alimony despite absence of written or oral application by wife under Section 25 HMA – High Court held that permanent alimony, though discretionary and equitable, must be supported by pleadings, framing of issues, and evidence on financial condition of parties – Held: Award of alimony without any such foundation unsustainable in law [Paras 2.1-2.6, 4.7, 5-6].

Maintenance – Mandatory Framing of Issue and Financial Assessment – Court held that without framing issue or assessing oral and documentary evidence regarding earning capacity, conduct, and living standard of both parties, permanent alimony cannot be granted – Reliance solely on U.S. court’s child support order was impermissible – Matter remanded for proper adjudication [Paras 2.5, 3.7, 4.7, 5].

Oral Application – Permissible but Not Made – Equitable Relief Requires Legal Foundation – Though the Court accepted that application under Section 25 need not be written, it found that no oral prayer was made either – Respondent-wife’s failure to disclose income details and evidence of financial independence also weighed against grant without trial [Paras 2.2, 2.5, 4.7].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Alimony Order Quashed – Matter Remanded – Family Court directed to reconsider alimony based on oral and documentary evidence from both sides and complete adjudication within ten weeks – ₹15 lakhs deposited by appellant to be transferred to Family Court and kept in FDR pending outcome [Paras 6-7].