Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Criminal Revision – Scope of Interference – Concurrent findings of conviction by Trial Court and Appellate Court – Revisional Court not to reappreciate evidence unless findings are perverse, grossly erroneous or based on no evidence – Held: No jurisdictional error or perversity shown warranting interference [Paras 11–16].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Presumption of Debt – Sections 118(a) and 139 – Accused admitted issuance of cheque and signature – Statutory presumption of consideration and legally enforceable debt arises – Burden shifts to accused to rebut presumption by leading evidence – Mere denial in Section 313 CrPC statement insufficient – Held: Presumption not rebutted [Paras 18–21, 27–28].

Cheque Issued as Security – Liability under Section 138 – Even cheque issued as security attracts Section 138 if liability existed on date of presentation – Accused failed to prove prior discharge of liability – Held: Defence of “security cheque” not tenable [Paras 23–26].

Evidence – Defence of Lottery Business – Accused alleged cheque issued towards lottery dues – Complainant denied running lottery business – No defence evidence led by accused – Cross-examination and suggestions do not constitute proof – Held: Defence improbable and unsubstantiated [Paras 22, 27].

Notice under Section 138 – Validity – Demand of Cheque Amount – Notice mentioned total outstanding amount and specifically demanded cheque amount of ₹90,000/- with separate notice charges – Held: Notice valid and in compliance with proviso (b) to Section 138 – Mention of transaction background does not invalidate notice [Paras 41–42].

Financial Capacity of Complainant – Proof – Complainant not required to initially prove financial capacity unless specifically challenged – No reply to notice disputing capacity and no cross-examination on aspect – Held: Objection unsustainable [Paras 33–34].

Dishonour of Cheque – Proof – Bank return memo showing “funds insufficient” – Presumption under Section 146 NI Act – No rebuttal evidence by accused – Held: Dishonour duly proved [Paras 36–37].

Sentence and Compensation – Quantum – Sentence of one year simple imprisonment and compensation of ₹1,36,000/- (including interest @6% p.a.) – In line with deterrent object of Section 138 and Supreme Court guidelines – Held: Sentence and compensation not excessive [Paras 44–47].

Decision: Criminal Revision dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act upheld – Orders of Trial Court and Appellate Court affirmed.

Judicial Review – Tender Matters – Disputed Questions of Fact – Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 – Petitioner sought cancellation of tender and award in his favour alleging higher revised bid and violation of tender conditions – Rival parties produced mutually contradictory documents regarding the amount of revised bid submitted – Held: Where adjudication requires examination of disputed and contested facts and authenticity of documents, High Court would not exercise writ jurisdiction – Parties relegated to civil remedies [Paras 11–14].

Tender Process – Financial Bid – Alleged Non-Consideration of Revised Bid – Petitioner claimed submission of revised bid of Rs. 62,22,222/- whereas tendering authority asserted last valid revised bid was Rs. 11,00,000/- – Both sides relied upon separate acknowledgments and bid documents – Court held that determination of which document was genuine required leading of evidence – Such controversy not amenable to adjudication under Article 226 [Paras 12–13].

Tender Conditions – Clause 6.3 of RFP – Mandatory Notice of 7 Days for Opening of Financial Bids – Admitted infraction by tendering authority – Effect of Violation – Held: Mere violation of tender condition does not ipso facto vitiate tender process unless serious prejudice is demonstrated – Petitioner failed to establish prejudice caused due to non-issuance of notice, especially in light of disputed facts regarding presence of petitioner’s representative and bid amount – No ground for annulment of tender or grant of contract [Paras 15–18].

Natural Justice – Prejudice – Requirement of Proof – Even where procedural lapse is admitted, Court must be satisfied that such lapse resulted in real and demonstrable prejudice to the complaining party – In absence of clear proof of prejudice, extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 ought not to be exercised [Paras 16–18].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – No interference with tender process or award in favour of successful bidder – Liberty implicit to petitioner to pursue appropriate civil remedies – No order as to costs – Pending applications disposed of.

Civil Law – Written Statement – Signature Requirement – Right to Lead Evidence – Trial court denied defendant no.2 permission to lead evidence holding that written statement was unsigned – High Court noted that written statement was signed by defendant no.1 and accepted as written statement on behalf of all defendants by Original Side of High Court – Replication also treated it as written statement of all defendants – Held: Technical objection regarding signature could not defeat substantive right to lead evidence, especially when written statement stood accepted on record [Paras 1–4].

Evidence – Defendant’s Right – Examination of Witness – Petitioners sought permission to examine one witness on behalf of defendant no.2 – Respondent fairly did not oppose setting aside of impugned order – Held: Defendant no.2 entitled to examine one witness subject to trial court schedule and convenience [Paras 4–5].

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Article 227 – Interference with Procedural Orders – Impugned order found to be hyper-technical and causing miscarriage of justice – High Court exercised supervisory jurisdiction to set aside the order and issued directions for expeditious disposal of suit [Paras 4–5].

Decision: Impugned order dated 10.03.2025 set aside – Defendant no.2 permitted to examine one witness – Trial court directed to record evidence on scheduled date or fix fresh date as per convenience – Trial court requested to dispose of suit expeditiously – Petition and applications disposed of by consent of parties.

Criminal Law – Acquittal Appeal – Kidnapping and Outraging Modesty – Respondents acquitted of offences under Sections 366-A, 342, 344, 368, 354, 420, 379 r/w 109 IPC – Prosecution case based primarily on victim’s testimony that she was enticed by A1 and wrongfully confined across various locations for over ten days, forcibly drugged and threatened to marry – Allegations uncorroborated by any independent witness – Babu Rao, in whose house she was allegedly confined, not examined – No medical evidence or recovery of stolen property – Alleged confinement in populous areas without alerting others raises serious doubts – Held: Victim’s version lacked credibility and was riddled with improbabilities – Findings of acquittal by trial court based on thorough appreciation of evidence and cannot be termed perverse [Paras 13–27, 33–39].

Criminal Procedure – Appeal Against Acquittal – Scope of Interference – High Court reiterates settled principles that acquittal can be reversed only if findings are perverse or manifestly illegal – Held: Trial Court rightly appreciated evidence and exercised caution in light of presumption of innocence – No compelling reasons shown to justify appellate interference – Appeal dismissed [Paras 10–12, 34–37].

Evidence – Delay in FIR – FIR filed 22 days after incident despite alleged abduction and theft – No satisfactory explanation offered by complainants – Trial Court held delay unreasonable and suspicious – Held: Unexplained delay in FIR adversely affects prosecution credibility [Paras 28–32].

Criminal Jurisprudence – Standard of Proof – Burden lies entirely on prosecution to prove case beyond reasonable doubt – In absence of independent corroboration, inconsistencies and delay fatal to prosecution – Reaffirmed that if two views are possible, appellate court must lean in favour of acquittal [Paras 35–38].

Decision: Criminal appeal dismissed – Judgment of acquittal dated 08.01.2002 by Assistant Sessions Judge, Tenali in Sessions Case No. 942 of 2000 upheld – No perversity or illegality found in trial court's findings – Miscellaneous applications also stand disposed of [Paras 39–40].

Public Interest Litigation – Abuse of Process – Forged Petition – Writ petition filed in the name of Adity Shivcharan Rathod found to be unauthorized and based on forged documents – Police investigation revealed petitioner had no knowledge of the case and disowned the documents – Court held filing of such petition amounts to fraud on the court [Paras 2, 10–13, 17].

Legal Ethics – Misconduct by Advocates – Investigation Ordered – Counsel named in the petition traced and found to have accepted cases through a third-party advocate – Court directed Bar Council of India to investigate professional misconduct of involved advocates – Emphasized lawyers’ duty as officers of the court and custodians of justice [Paras 18–22].

Judicial Process – Fraud on Court – Filing of multiple petitions in different names using identical documents and fabricated claims regarding property ownership – Court relied on Supreme Court judgment in Bhagwan Singh v. State of U.P. (2025) 6 SCC 416 – Held: No court can allow itself to be used as an instrument of fraud – Court must protect its process from abuse [Paras 6–8, 18].

Police Investigation – Aadhaar Misuse and Forged Documents – DCP (South-East) filed status report confirming unauthorized use of petitioner’s identity – FIR directed to be lodged – Investigation to continue against all persons involved, including tracing of advocate named as intermediary [Paras 12–16].

Direction to Statutory Authorities – Bar Council of India directed to trace advocate Mr. Suraj Singh and examine involvement of Ms. Awanitika – Liberty granted to coordinate with police – MCD directed to act as per order of Appellate Tribunal (ATMCD) dated 27/10/2025, staying action on impugned construction [Paras 19–24].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Petition found to be filed fraudulently without authorization – Matter referred to police and Bar Council of India for investigation and appropriate legal action – Directions issued for continued investigation, filing of FIR, and professional misconduct inquiry [Paras 16, 19–22, 25].

Criminal Law – Appeal Against Acquittal – Rash and Negligent Driving – Sections 279, 337, 304-A IPC – State challenged acquittal of respondent in a road accident case resulting in death of one person and simple injuries to another – Trial Court acquitted respondent by granting benefit of doubt – Held: Appellate Court must be slow to interfere unless findings are perverse – Double presumption of innocence operates in favour of the accused – No ground made out for interference [Paras 1, 9, 14–15].

Rash or Negligent Act – Ingredients of Section 304-A IPC – Mere accident or hitting from behind not sufficient – Prosecution must prove that act was rash or negligent and was proximate cause of death – Presumption of negligence cannot automatically be drawn against the driver [Paras 5–6].

Evidence – Sole Eyewitness – Injured Witness – PW-1 failed to depose that vehicle was driven rashly or negligently – No statement regarding high speed, exact speed, lane of driving, or manner of driving – Identification of accused alone insufficient to establish culpable rashness or negligence [Paras 10–11].

Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur – Limited Application – Presumption of negligence arises only where nature of accident and surrounding circumstances unequivocally indicate negligence – Not applicable merely because a vehicle hit another from behind [Paras 6–7].

Contradictions in Prosecution Case – Place of Recording Statement – PW-1 stated his statement was recorded at police station, whereas IO claimed it was recorded at the spot – Serious doubt created regarding reliability of prosecution version [Para 12].

Investigation – Deficiencies – No photographs of spot – No evidence of skid marks or dragging marks – Site plan did not show dragging of motorcycle nor bore signature of eyewitness – Exact point of impact not established – Lapses weaken prosecution case [Paras 11–13].

Appellate Scrutiny – Plausible View – Trial Court’s appreciation of evidence found to be reasonable and well-reasoned – Where two views are possible, appellate court should not substitute its own view merely because it prefers another – Acquittal rightly sustained [Paras 14–15].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal of respondent under Sections 279/337/304-A IPC upheld – Personal bond cancelled and surety discharged.

Rent Control – Eviction for Non-Payment – Deposit of Arrears – Procedural Compliance Mandatory – Tenant’s application to deposit arrears after eviction order under third proviso to Section 14(2)(i) of H.P. Urban Rent Control Act was rejected – Court held “amount due” includes arrears of rent, interest, and costs – Deposit must be made within 30 days and comply with statutory requirements – Held: Failure to strictly comply disentitles tenant from benefit against eviction [Paras 2–5, 10].

Valid Tender – Requirement to Tender Rent to Landlord – Intimation of Deposit – Following Hans Raj Khimta’s case, Court held that rent must first be tendered to landlord – If refused, then deposited in Court with intimation to landlord within 30 days – In this case, no such valid tender or intimation made – Deposit in Court held invalid [Paras 7, 9].

Strict Compliance under Rent Laws – No Leniency on Procedural Requirements – Relying on Supreme Court precedents including Atma Ram v. Shakuntala Rani, Court held that benefits under rent laws can only be availed through strict compliance – Equitable considerations or minor shortfalls cannot override express statutory mandates [Paras 6, 10].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Rent Controller's rejection of tenant’s application upheld – No valid tender made – Tenant failed to meet statutory requirements – No interference warranted.

Arbitration – Objection to Award – Limitation – Delay in Filing – Section 30 of Arbitration Act, 1940 – Petition for setting aside arbitral award filed beyond 30-day period from deemed date of knowledge – Supreme Court clarified that limitation began from Court's direction to clear arbitrator's fee, not from notice of filing – Trial court rightly rejected application for condonation of delay – Held: Objection was time-barred – Delay not condonable under Section 5 of Limitation Act in context of Section 30 of Arbitration Act, 1940 [Paras 9–10, 35–38].

Arbitration – Maintainability of Claim – Locus Standi – Legal Representative – Claims raised by respondent after death of original contractor – Alleged power of attorney holder failed to furnish succession certificate or prove legal status – Appellants contended arbitration proceedings were invalid for want of standing – Arbitrator failed to consider preliminary objection on maintainability – Matter requires judicial scrutiny on appeal [Paras 13–14].

Arbitration Award – Departmental Delay – Claim of Delay in Payment – Award of ₹5.5 Lakhs challenged by appellants – Department argued delay was due to contractor’s fault and extensions were granted – Award based on out-of-contract claims and not supported by contract terms – Arbitrator awarded ₹1 crore with interest without detailing basis – Held: Grounds raised by appellants require consideration – Appeal admitted for final disposal [Paras 15–23].

Limitation – Condonation of Delay – Section 5 of Limitation Act – Inapplicability – Court reaffirmed that delay in filing objection under Section 30 of Arbitration Act cannot be condoned under Section 5 of Limitation Act – Relying on precedents including Madan Lal v. Sunder Lal, AIR 1967 SC 1233, and Indian Rayon Corpn. Ltd v. Raunaq, AIR 1988 SC 2054 – Held: Procedural bar on filing delayed objections absolute under Arbitration Act, 1940 [Paras 28–33, 38].

Appeal – Admission – Procedural Fairness – Delay Alone Not Sufficient to Defeat Substantive Challenge – Although delay in objection was not condoned, appellants raised substantial legal grounds including jurisdictional error, maintainability, and irregular award – Held: Appeal admitted for final hearing – Delay must not defeat justice [Paras 39–41].

Decision: Appeal admitted for hearing – Delay in filing objection against arbitral award held uncondonable – Application under Section 30 dismissed as time-barred – However, considering merits raised regarding validity and scope of arbitral award, appeal admitted for final adjudication – Matter to be listed on 08.01.2026.

Criminal Contempt – Forgery and Impersonation – Fabricated Court Filings – Conviction – Accused filed a statement of objections purportedly on behalf of Union of India by forging the signature and affidavit of the Central Government Standing Counsel – Counsel categorically denied preparing or filing the objections and disowned the affidavit – Held: Filing forged pleadings and impersonating counsel amounts to interference with due course of judicial proceedings and constitutes criminal contempt [Paras 1–2, 11–14].

Contempt of Courts Act – Section 2(c) – Interference with Administration of Justice – Accused personally served forged statement of objections on opposite counsel and filed the same before the Court – Evidence of Assistant Registrar, Oath Commissioner and Advocate witnesses corroborated fabrication – Held: Conduct squarely falls within definition of criminal contempt [Paras 6–7, 12–14].

Suo Motu Contempt – Procedure – Framing of Charges – Charges framed after detailed consideration by coordinate Bench – Accused given full opportunity to contest proceedings and lead evidence – Principles of natural justice complied with [Paras 2–4, 6].

Evidence – Oath Commissioner and Witness Testimony – Signature Mismatch – Oath Commissioner testified that signatures in oath register did not tally with genuine signature of the Central Government Counsel – Advocate witness identified accused as person who attempted service of forged objections – Held: Prosecution case proved beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 7, 12–14].

Defence of Accused – Plea of Assistance to Counsel – Rejected – Accused claimed he merely assisted counsel in filing objections – No documentary or electronic evidence supporting authorisation – Counsel entered appearance only later and expressly denied preparation or filing – Defence found false and untenable [Paras 10–13].

Sentencing – Criminal Contempt – Lack of Remorse – Accused showed no regret and persisted in allegations against Judges and counsel – Gravity of offence and impact on judicial process considered – Held: Custodial sentence warranted [Paras 16–18].

Decision: Accused convicted for Criminal Contempt of Court under Section 12(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Sentenced to simple imprisonment for four months and fine of Rs.2,000/- – Accused directed to be taken into custody forthwith – Conviction warrant ordered to be issued – Pending interlocutory applications disposed of.