Criminal Law – Acquittal Appeal – Scope of Appellate Review – Acquittal Upheld - Appeal by the State – The State of Gujarat preferred an appeal under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the acquittal of the accused for offenses punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506(2) IPC, and Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – The Trial Court acquitted the accused citing lack of substantive evidence and inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case – The appellant argued that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through oral and documentary evidence, particularly the testimonies of the complainant, his wife, and an independent witness - Held: The trial court’s decision to acquit was reasonable, and no grounds for interference were found . [Paras 1, 3, 5].

Delay and Medical Evidence – The alleged incident occurred on 16/07/2007 at 7:00 am, but the complainant and his wife sought medical treatment after a delay of 12 hours – Medical certificates (Exh. 16 and 17) did not name the accused as the assailant – Medical Officer stated that injuries were minor and consistent with a fall, undermining the prosecution’s case [Paras 2.1, 9.2, 10].

Witness Credibility – Complainant (P.W. 6) and his wife (P.W. 7) claimed the accused assaulted them with a stick and used caste slurs over a dispute concerning government seeds – Evidence revealed prior animosity between the parties linked to local elections – Independent witness (P.W. 8) provided contradictory statements and omitted critical details during the investigation – Panch witnesses (P.W. 1, P.W. 2) disowned knowledge of the incident, claiming their signatures were obtained on pre-prepared panchnamas [Paras 9.1, 9.4, 9.5].

Investigative Lapses – Investigating Officer did not ascertain whether the accused had authority to distribute government seeds or verify the alleged distribution or sale – Statements of neighbors and other potential witnesses were not recorded – Caste certificate of the accused was not collected to substantiate the offense under the Atrocities Act – These deficiencies weakened the prosecution’s case [Paras 9.7, 10].

Legal Principles on Acquittal Appeals – High Court relied on Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka (2007) and Sri Dattatraya v. Sharanappa (2024) to underline the double presumption of innocence favoring acquitted persons – Appellate interference is warranted only when the Trial Court’s findings are perverse, illogical, or wholly unsupported by evidence – Where two reasonable views are possible, the Appellate Court should not disturb the Trial Court’s decision [Paras 7, 8, 11].

Judgment – High Court found the Trial Court had meticulously analyzed the evidence and appropriately noted inconsistencies and contradictions in the prosecution’s case – Delay in seeking medical treatment and lack of corroborative evidence further weakened the reliability of the allegations – Prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt – The Trial Court’s decision to extend the benefit of doubt was justified [Paras 10, 11].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Acquittal of the accused confirmed – Bail bond canceled – Records and proceedings to be remitted to the Trial Court [Paras 12, 13].

Criminal Law - Challenging the judgment of acquittal - Abetment to Suicide – Definition under Section 107 IPC – Mens Rea Essential – Acquittal Upheld - The appellant alleged that the respondent-accused took money and gold ornaments from the deceased on the pretext of securing bail for her husband and refused to return them – It was claimed that the respondent's refusal led the deceased to commit suicide – The Trial Court found that there was no instigation or active act by the respondent to abet the suicide – Held: Mere non-return of money and ornaments or a quarrel does not amount to abetment unless there is clear instigation or intent to provoke the deceased to commit suicide – Mens rea is essential to establish abetment [Paras 8-20].

Suicide – Causal Link Between Conduct of Accused and Act of Deceased – Lack of Evidence - The appellant failed to establish a causal link between the respondent’s refusal to return money and the deceased’s suicide – Evidence showed no active or direct act by the respondent amounting to abetment – The Trial Court correctly observed that the deceased had alternative remedies and suicide was not the only option – Held: Acquittal justified as there was no evidence of intent or active instigation by the respondent [Paras 14-20].

Death Note – Failure to Prove Authenticity – Improper Reliance by Trial Court - The Trial Court improperly relied on the contents of a death note (Ex.P2) despite holding that its authenticity was unproven – The note was not proved to be in the handwriting of the deceased – Held: While reliance on the death note was improper, the remaining evidence independently supported the respondent’s acquittal [Paras 8-9].

Supreme Court Precedents – Requirements for Abetment under Section 306 IPC – Applied - Following the precedents in Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of M.P., (2002) 5 SCC 371 and M. Mohan v. State, (2011) 3 SCC 626, it was reiterated that abetment requires active instigation or direct act with the intent to push the deceased to commit suicide – Mere quarrels or refusal to repay money without intent to incite suicide do not meet the threshold for abetment [Paras 12-18].

Decision - Appeal dismissed – Acquittal of the respondent-accused upheld as the prosecution failed to prove the ingredients of abetment under Section 306 IPC, and no intent or instigation could be attributed to the respondent [Paras 20-21].

Civil Law - Specific Performance – Prima Facie Case – Insufficient Evidence – Temporary Injunction Denied - Plaintiffs sought specific performance for agreements involving flats under a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) but failed to demonstrate a prima facie case. The discrepancies between the property descriptions in the agreements and the plaint schedules, coupled with unverified claims of advance payments, undermined the case. Held: Injunction cannot be granted [Paras 10-12].

Temporary Injunction – Identification of Suit Property – Essential for Relief – Lack of Clarity - Plaintiffs failed to identify the properties clearly as there were inconsistencies in flat descriptions and measurements between the plaint schedule and agreements. Held: Lack of identifiable property negates relief [Paras 10-12].

Admissibility of Documents – Insufficient Stamp Duty – Section 34 of the Karnataka Stamp Act - Sale agreements executed on insufficiently stamped paper are inadmissible as evidence without payment of duty and penalty. Held: Agreements lacked admissibility, weakening the plaintiffs’ case [Para 11].

Balance of Convenience – Favors Defendants – Pending Arbitration - Plaintiffs, partners in the developer firm, did not complete the owner's share of construction as required under the JDA and could not show irreparable harm. The disputes were referred to arbitration as per the JDA's arbitration clause. Held: Balance of convenience is against the plaintiffs; injunction denied [Paras 10-12].

Decision: The appeals were dismissed, affirming the trial court’s rejection of the injunction applications.

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Conviction and Sentencing – Section 21(c) NDPS Act – Possession of Commercial Quantity – Appellants convicted under Section 21(c) NDPS Act for possession of narcotic cough syrups containing Codeine Phosphate – Trial Court sentenced appellants to 12 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,10,000/- each, with a default sentence of 3 years rigorous imprisonment – High Court affirmed the conviction but reduced the sentence to 10 years rigorous imprisonment and modified the default sentence to 1 year rigorous imprisonment – Held: Seizure of contraband proved beyond reasonable doubt – No special reasons assigned for imposing sentence above the minimum prescribed – Sentence reduced – Appeals partly allowed (Paragraphs 1, 7, 23, 28).

Search and Seizure – Compliance with NDPS Act – Investigating Officer (PW-7): Conducted search based on credible information – 236 bottles of narcotic cough syrup containing Codeine Phosphate recovered from appellants – Independent witnesses turned hostile but admitted signatures on seizure documents – Compliance with Sections 42 and 50 NDPS Act established – Contraband classified as commercial quantity (Paragraphs 3, 15, 20, 23).

Determination of Quantity – Mixture of Offending and Neutral Substances: High Court relied on the judgment in Hira Singh v. Union of India – Held: For determining whether quantity is commercial, both the narcotic drug and neutral substances in the mixture must be considered – Appellants’ contention based on E. Micheal Raj rejected in light of Hira Singh (Paragraphs 21, 22, 23).

Sentencing – Section 32B NDPS Act – Factors for Higher Punishment: High Court noted that the Trial Court imposed a sentence above the minimum without assigning special reasons – Citing Rafiq Qureshi v. Narcotic Control Bureau, sentence reduced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment – Default sentence reduced to 1 year (Paragraphs 25, 26, 28).

Decision: Appeals partly allowed – Conviction under Section 21(c) NDPS Act upheld – Sentence reduced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,10,000/- – Default sentence reduced to 1 year rigorous imprisonment (Paragraph 28).
 

Bail in UAPA Cases – Long Incarceration and Delay in Trial – Section 43(D)(5) of UAPA – The appellant has been incarcerated for over 11 years and faces charges primarily under Sections 17 and 18 of UAPA, with allegations of providing funds to an individual involved in terror activities – Supreme Court precedent in K.A. Najeeb permits Constitutional Courts to harmonize statutory restrictions with Article 21 when trials are unduly delayed – Held: Appellant granted bail subject to stringent conditions, given the protracted trial and limited allegations [Paras 17-20].

Role of Appellant – Financial Support and Alleged Association – Section 17 of UAPA – The appellant allegedly provided Rs. 30,000 as zakat to a person involved in terrorist activities, without direct evidence of intent to fund terrorism – Discharged under Sections 19, 38(2), and 39(2) for lack of evidence connecting him to banned organizations – Bail granted as the allegations did not indicate active involvement in terrorism beyond financial assistance [Paras 13-15].

Balancing Statutory Rigours with Article 21 – Constitutional Courts’ Jurisdiction – While UAPA imposes restrictions on bail under Section 43(D)(5), Constitutional Courts can override these in cases of excessive incarceration where trial completion is unlikely in the near future – Held: Denial of bail in such circumstances would breach the fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21 [Paras 18-19].

Bail Conditions – Safeguarding Against Flight Risk and Misuse of Liberty – Conditions include surrendering of passport, restricted movement, regular reporting to authorities, and prohibition of tampering with evidence – Failure to comply would permit cancellation of bail [Paras 20-21].

Decision : The appellant was granted bail considering the excessive incarceration period of over 11 years, limited allegations against him, and the improbability of an early trial conclusion. The Court imposed strict bail conditions to address potential misuse or flight risks.
 

Civil Law - Third Party Challenge to Consent Decree – Aggrieved Party – Scope of Leave to Appeal – Denial of Leave – The applicant sought leave to appeal against consent decrees under Section 96(1), CPC, alleging prejudice to his rights under an Agreement to Sell executed in his favor by the respondents. The court held that the applicant, being a holder of an unregistered Agreement to Sell, had no enforceable interest or title in the subject property under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Consequently, the applicant did not qualify as an "aggrieved party" with an appealable interest. Leave to appeal was denied [Paras 9-11, 20-24].

Agreement to Sell – No Title or Interest Conferred – Legal Position – The court reiterated that an Agreement to Sell does not create any title or interest in immovable property under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908. Consequently, the applicant’s claim of prejudice based on an unregistered agreement lacked legal basis [Paras 15-17].

Consent Decree – Challenge by Non-Party – Legal Remedies – A third party to a suit or compromise can only challenge a consent decree if they demonstrate that they are legally aggrieved, with an immediate and enforceable interest in the subject matter. The applicant's claim based on an Agreement to Sell failed to satisfy this standard, as his interest was contingent and speculative. The court upheld the principle that such persons must pursue independent remedies, such as a suit for specific performance [Paras 12, 19].

Bar on Independent Suits Against Consent Decree – The court reaffirmed that a party to a consent decree can only challenge it before the court that passed the decree, as per the bar under Order 23 Rule 3-A, CPC. However, this bar does not extend to third parties, who may seek leave to appeal under Section 96(1), CPC, provided they qualify as "aggrieved persons" with an enforceable interest [Paras 13, 23].

Fraud Allegations – No Automatic Aggrieved Status – The applicant's contention that the consent decrees were fraudulent did not suffice to establish an appealable interest. The court emphasized that fraud must be pleaded and proved independently in a separate proceeding, such as a suit for specific performance, which the applicant had already initiated [Paras 18, 25].

Decision – Applications Dismissed – The court dismissed both civil applications, holding that the applicant lacked appealable interest or legal standing to challenge the consent decrees. It directed the applicant to pursue his pending suit for specific performance in accordance with law [Paras 24-25].

Money Laundering – Bail Application – Role in Proceeds of Crime – Applicant sought regular bail after being charged for his involvement in the money laundering activities of the "Mahadev Online Book" betting syndicate – Prosecution alleged that the applicant actively facilitated operations, including managing funds, handling visas for associates, and holding assets linked to proceeds of crime – Held: The applicant's denial of involvement is insufficient to rebut prima facie evidence – Organized and large-scale economic offences require a stricter approach to bail – Bail denied [Paras 6–13].

Economic Offences – Organized Crime – Stringent Scrutiny for Bail – The Court emphasized that economic offences, particularly those involving large-scale money laundering, deeply impact the nation's financial health and society – Held: The applicant’s prima facie role in facilitating illegal betting operations and laundering proceeds of crime makes him ineligible for bail at this stage – Supreme Court precedents in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India and Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI applied [Paras 10–12].

Money Laundering – Proceeds of Crime – Evidence of Involvement – Evidence revealed the applicant’s active role in managing funds and operations of the betting syndicate, including his association with its promoters – Statements of co-accused and witnesses under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC, along with financial transactions, established prima facie involvement – Held: Material evidence and the nature of organized crime weigh against granting bail [Paras 8–12].

Bail Considerations – Economic Offences – Scope of Judicial Review – The Court clarified that at the bail stage, it does not delve deeply into merits but examines prima facie evidence of involvement – Statements of witnesses, financial transactions, and the applicant's association with promoters established a reasonable case against him – Held: Organized nature of the crime and its severity require rejecting bail to ensure a fair trial and prevent misuse of liberty [Paras 6–12].

Decision: The bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is rejected. The Court held that prima facie evidence, including the applicant's role in managing funds and facilitating operations for the "Mahadev Online Book" syndicate, sufficiently established his involvement in the alleged offences. The severity of the organized crime and its societal impact necessitated denial of bail to maintain public interest and prevent tampering with evidence [Paras 11–13].
 

Contempt Proceedings – Maintainability of Appeal – Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – No Punishment Imposed – Appeal Allowed – The appellants challenged the order passed by the Contempt Bench of the High Court, arguing that the proceedings and the impugned order were arbitrary and unjustified as no willful disobedience was evident. The Court held that the appeal under Section 19 of the Act was maintainable even in the absence of a punishment, provided that the impugned order demonstrated a proclivity toward imposing punishment. The appeal was allowed, and the order was set aside [Paras 25-29, 44-45].

Lok Adalat – Nature of Awards – No Contempt for Non-Compliance – The Court reiterated that awards passed by Lok Adalats, while binding, do not hold the trappings of a court and cannot serve as the basis for contempt proceedings. Contempt jurisdiction is limited to orders passed by courts or statutory tribunals with definitive judgment authority [Paras 37-38].

Execution Jurisdiction vs. Contempt Jurisdiction – Procedural Norms Highlighted – The Court emphasized that contempt proceedings cannot replace the proper execution of orders or resolve disputed claims regarding the merits of the matter. The Contempt Bench must frame specific charges and follow procedural norms, including granting the contemnor an opportunity to provide extenuating explanations before drawing conclusions [Paras 22, 27, 44].

Award of Lok Adalat vs. Speaking Order – Conclusivity and Binding Effect – The respondent’s rights were held to be contingent upon the successful challenge of the speaking order dismissing the representation, which had not been undertaken. Thus, the award of the Lok Adalat became merged with the rejection order, rendering the contempt proceedings unsustainable [Paras 30-36].
 

Negotiable Instruments Act – Interim Compensation – Prospective Effect of Section 143A – Amendment introducing Section 143A is prospective in operation – Provision applies only to complaints filed after its enactment on 01.09.2018 – Imposition of interim compensation on complaints filed prior to this date is impermissible – Held: Legislative intent and settled principles of retrospectivity dictate that Section 143A imposes new obligations and cannot be applied retroactively [Paras 15–25].

Principles of Retrospectivity – Substantive vs. Procedural Provisions – Statutes affecting substantive rights presumed to apply prospectively unless explicitly stated otherwise – Section 143A creates a new liability by mandating interim compensation even before conviction, hence cannot apply to prior cases – Distinguished from procedural provisions like Section 148, which governs appellate stages post-conviction [Paras 20–23].

Case Law Analysis – Apex Court Decisions – Reliance on G.J. Raja v. Tejraj Surana, AIR 2019 SC 3817 – Apex Court held that Section 143A imposes substantive obligations and applies prospectively – Distinguished from Surinder Singh Deswal v. Virender Gandhi, 2019 (8) SCALE 445, where Section 148 was held to have retrospective effect due to its procedural nature [Paras 21–23].

Application to Facts – Complaints Filed Before 01.09.2018 – Three complaints under Section 138 of the Act were filed in 2017, prior to the enactment of Section 143A – Trial Court's direction for interim compensation quashed – Refund of any amounts deposited pursuant to the impugned orders directed with applicable interest [Paras 9–26].

Decision: Impugned orders directing payment under Section 143A quashed – Complaints prior to 01.09.2018 not subject to the amended provision – Refund of deposited amounts with interest ordered [Paras 26–27].