Criminal Appeal – Dismiss for Default – Section 138 NI Act – Complaint Restored – Appellant filed private complaint for dishonour of cheque amounting to ₹3,00,000 – Trial Court dismissed the case for non-appearance during cross-examination – Appellant cited unavoidable reasons for absence and lack of representation by counsel – Held: Dismissal not justified as absence was not deliberate – Complaint restored and remanded for disposal on merits [Paras 1, 3, 6–7].

Restoration of Complaint – Default Not Wilful – Fair Opportunity Granted – Despite prior conditional orders, complainant failed to appear on date fixed – High Court accepted explanation that non-appearance was not wilful – Held: Considering monetary value of cheque and intent to prosecute, opportunity granted for fresh adjudication [Paras 3, 5–6].

Judicial Discretion – Remand with Conditions – Directions to Avoid Delay – Court directed both parties to appear on specific date – Trial Court instructed to proceed without unwarranted adjournments – In case of continued non-compliance by complainant, Trial Court may proceed appropriately – Held: Judicial discretion exercised to balance justice with procedural discipline [Para 7].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Complaint Revived – Matter Remanded – Dismissal of complaint set aside – Criminal appeal allowed – Complaint restored and matter remanded for fresh adjudication as per law [Paras 6–7].

Cheque Dishonour – Defence of Payment Stop Due to Defective Goods – Acquittal Upheld – Appellant filed complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act alleging dishonour of cheque issued by respondent towards outstanding dues for electronic goods – Respondent issued stop payment instructions citing defective and substandard goods – Trial Court found that respondent had sufficient funds to honour cheque but withheld payment due to dispute over defective goods – Held: The presumption under Section 139 NI Act rebutted as respondent established a plausible defence with documentary evidence including reply notice and account statement – Acquittal by Trial Court upheld as civil dispute over defective goods disentitles appellant from criminal remedy under Section 138 NI Act [Paras 6-7].

Payment Stop Instruction – Defence of Defective Supply – Validity of Acquittal – The respondent’s stop payment order coupled with detailed reply notice alleging defective goods amounts to rebuttal of presumption of debt – Criminal liability under Section 138 NI Act cannot be fastened where there is bona fide commercial dispute on quality of goods – Trial Court rightly concluded non-commission of offence under Section 138 [Paras 7-8].

Presumption under Negotiable Instruments Act – Rebuttal by Preponderance of Probability – Court reiterated that presumption under Section 139 NI Act is rebuttable by preponderance of probability – Where accused demonstrates credible reason for payment stoppage, prosecution fails to establish legally enforceable debt – Hence, conviction under Section 138 not warranted [Paras 7-8].

Appeal Against Acquittal – No Interference Warranted – Appeal dismissed as no perversity or illegality found in Trial Court’s reasoning – Acquittal sustained [Paras 8-9].

Decision of the Judgment – Criminal appeal dismissed – Judgment of acquittal confirmed [Para 9].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 141 – Vicarious Liability of Partner – Not Maintainable Without Firm's Conviction – Appellant sought conviction of accused partner under Section 138 read with Section 141 N.I. Act – Complaint alleged cheque issued by partner on behalf of firm – Firm (accused no.1) was acquitted and no appeal was preferred – Held: Once principal offender (firm) is acquitted and acquittal has attained finality, vicarious liability of partner does not survive – Conviction rightly set aside [Paras 6, 11–13].

Vicarious Liability – Firm Acquitted – No Personal Liability Established – Accused no.2 signed cheque on behalf of partnership firm – Complaint and evidence did not show that the cheque was issued in personal capacity – No separate legal liability pleaded or proved against accused no.2 – Held: Partner cannot be held liable in absence of firm’s guilt and absence of individual obligation [Paras 8–9, 13].

Binding Precedent – Applicability of Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels – Apex Court Overruled Anil Hada – Held Firm Must Be Arraigned and Convicted – Appellate Court relied on three-judge bench decision of Supreme Court in Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels (2012) 5 SCC 661 – High Court upheld the ratio: no vicarious liability arises unless company or firm is found guilty – No illegality or perversity found in acquittal [Paras 6, 11–12].

Acquittal – Appeal Against – Presumption of Innocence – No Interference Unless Perversity Found – High Court reiterated that in appeal against acquittal, interference is warranted only when order is perverse or illegal – Appellate Court’s view based on settled law and facts – No compelling reason to interfere with acquittal of respondent [Paras 15–17].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Conviction Rightly Reversed – Trial Court convicted partner without proving firm’s offence – Appellate Court corrected this legal error and acquitted – High Court upheld acquittal of accused partner Sujeet Kumar Jaiswal – Held: No illegality, appeal dismissed [Paras 15–17].

Arbitration Law  – Additional Work Beyond Contract – Award Upheld – Contractor executed additional work not covered under original agreement – Arbitrator awarded compensation for such work – Trial Court confirmed award – Employer challenged award citing contractual rate limitations – Held: Arbitrator took reasonable view that work done exceeded contractual scope and deserved separate compensation – No interference warranted [Paras 1–5, 19–21].

Scope of Arbitration – Reasonableness of Arbitrator’s View – Judicial Review Limited – Arbitrator held to be experienced engineer who evaluated evidence and site conditions – Arbitrator’s findings found reasonable and not violative of contract terms – Court reiterated its limited power under arbitration jurisprudence to interfere only in cases of perversity or misconduct – Appeal and Revision dismissed [Paras 10, 19–20].

Claim No.2 – Garbage Soil Conveyance – Supplemental Agreement – Equitable Rate Allowed – Contractor claimed extra amount for conveying garbage soil beyond stipulated distance – Arbitrator found actual distance exceeded contract – Awarded enhanced rate of ₹24.50/m³ over agreed ₹8.62/m³ – Held: Arbitrator's differentiation justified – Additional conveyance merited higher rate [Para 7].

Claim No.3 – Use of Power Roller – Practical Necessity – Extra Rate Justified – Contractor used 10-ton roller instead of agreed 2-ton hand roller – Arbitrator awarded extra ₹3/m³ – Held: Given soil conditions, heavier roller essential – Arbitrator's technical judgment upheld as reasonable [Paras 8–10].

Claim No.4 – Extended Leads and Lifts – Compensation for Change in Scope – Contractor executed soil movement over longer distances than specified 12 leads & 3 lifts – Arbitrator allowed ₹33/m³ – Held: Additional movement beyond agreement justified increased compensation [Paras 11–12].

Claim No.9 – Idle Machinery and Men – Compensation Granted – Contractor kept machinery idle due to employer’s delay in removing electric poles – Arbitrator awarded ₹28 lakhs – Held: Delay caused operational standstill – Employer’s admission and furnished machinery list validated claim – Award upheld [Para 13].

Binding Nature of Arbitrator’s Decision – Judicial Restraint – Cited Supreme Court decisions affirming limited scope for interference unless award patently illegal, irrational or contrary to agreement – Arbitrator found to have awarded compensation only for work falling outside agreement scope – Held: Award does not suffer from legal infirmity [Paras 16–18].

Decision – Civil Revision Petition and CMA Dismissed – No merit in challenge to arbitrator’s award – View taken by arbitrator held reasonable and supported by evidence – No violation of agreement terms – Orders of trial court upheld [Para 22].

Bail in Money Laundering Case – Twin Conditions Under Section 45 PMLA – Bail Granted – Petitioner, former bank president, arrested in connection with ECIR/BGO/05/2021 for offence under Section 4 PMLA – Court considered that trial was unlikely to commence soon, complaint had been filed, and proceedings in predicate offences were either stayed or not yet cognized – Held: Requirements under Section 45 PMLA not an absolute bar, bail can be granted based on foundational facts, absence of strong evidence, and petitioner’s age and medical condition [Paras 1, 4, 22, 27–28].

Predicate Offences – FIR Quashed and Cognizance Not Taken – Impact on PMLA Proceedings – Court noted that FIR in Crime No.16/2021 was quashed and that petitioner was not originally charge-sheeted in Crime No.325/2014 – Additional charge sheet filed without invoking scheduled offences and cognizance yet to be taken – Held: Absence of valid foundational proceedings for scheduled offences undermines the money laundering prosecution [Paras 3, 15–17, 20].

Presumption Under Section 24 PMLA – Foundational Facts Must Be Established – Burden Not Yet Shifted – Prosecution relied on confessions of co-accused, but no independent evidence presented – Citing Prem Prakash and Vijay Madanlal Choudhary, Court held presumption under Section 24 arises only when foundational facts are made out – Held: In absence of admissible material, petitioner not required to rebut presumption [Paras 7, 14, 24–25].

Confession of Co-Accused – Not Substantive Evidence – Cannot Alone Justify Custody – Petitioner’s alleged involvement was based on confessional statements of co-accused in predicate cases – Relying on Prem Prakash and P. Krishna Mohan Reddy, Court held such confessions are not substantive evidence and cannot be sole basis to deny bail [Paras 24–25].

Delay in Trial – Long Custody and Health Grounds – Bail Justified – Petitioner in custody since April 2025 and undergoing medical treatment including advised cataract surgery – Considering health condition, age, and delay in trial, Court found continued detention unjustified – Bail granted with conditions ensuring trial attendance and non-interference [Paras 27–28].

Criminal Law - Probation – Benefit of Probation of Offenders Act – Sentence Modified – Conviction Upheld – Petitioner convicted under Sections 279 and 337 IPC and sentenced to 3 months rigorous imprisonment – Petitioner already underwent 1 month and 26 days of sentence – High Court while upholding the conviction granted benefit of probation for good conduct – Held: In view of no criminal antecedents and short sentence, release on probation appropriate under Sections 3 & 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 [Paras 1–2, 10–11].

Sentencing – Principles of Reformative Justice – Emphasis on Rehabilitation – Referring to Som Dutt v. State of HP, (2022) 6 SCC 722 and Lakhvir Singh v. State of Punjab, (2021) 2 SCC 763 – Court reiterated the growing importance of reformation over punishment – First-time offenders should be provided a chance to reform rather than be exposed to hardened criminals [Paras 6–8].

Probation – Scope and Overriding Effect – Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act – Supreme Court in Lakhanlal v. State of MP, (2021) 6 SCC 100, held that the provisions of the 1958 Act have overriding effect – Section 360 CrPC applies additionally but not to the exclusion of the Probation of Offenders Act – Trial courts must consider probation where applicable [Paras 8–9].

Conviction and Service Benefits – Effect of Probation – Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act – Court clarified that conviction and sentence would not act as a bar to petitioner’s retiral or service benefits – Judgment shall not be treated as stigma in employment context [Para 12].

Regular Bail – Sections 4, 6, 8, and 12 of the POCSO Act -  Sections 137(2) and 126(2) of the BNS - Allegation of Sexual Assault – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act – Bail Rejected – The applicant sought regular bail under Section 439 of CrPC in connection with offences under POCSO Act and Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita alleging unnatural carnal intercourse with a minor boy – Victim's immediate reporting of the offence, prompt FIR, and medical report indicating recent forceful penetration established a prima facie case against the applicant – Court held that inconsistencies in victim’s statement regarding identification were minor and explained by trauma – Non-conduct of Test Identification Parade did not vitiate prosecution case – Court observed that in cases involving sexual offences against minors, extra caution is required and bail can be denied despite completion of investigation if there is apprehension of victim influence – Held: Prima facie case established, reasonable apprehension of influence on victim, bail application rejected [Paras 7-19].

Anticipatory Bail – Sections 305, 331(3), 331(4), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) - Civil Dispute with Criminal Colour – Prima Facie Civil Nature – Bail Granted - The applicant sought pre-arrest bail in connection with an FIR alleging theft and criminal intimidation – Held: The dispute pertained to possession of a shop already sub judice in civil courts with pending suits and earlier judicial findings confirming the applicant’s possession under a consent deed – Court found that the FIR reflected a civil dispute being given criminal colour – Bail granted subject to conditions [Paras 2–4, 7–9].

Possession of Property – Civil Court Findings – No Prima Facie Criminal Offence – Bail Allowed - Applicant relied on findings in RCS No. 27/2022 where the Civil Court had observed that the shop was in his possession under a registered agreement and consent deed – Held: The allegations of theft cannot prima facie sustain when possession of the accused is recognised by court orders – Ingredients of criminal offences under BNS not attracted at this stage – Custodial interrogation not warranted [Paras 4, 7–9].

Criminal Antecedents – Must be Judged in Context – Clean Acquittal and Bail Orders Considered – Not a Bar to Bail - The prosecution cited four prior FIRs – Held: The Court considered the applicant’s acquittal in one case and bail orders in another, affirming that antecedents must be assessed case-wise and are not a bar to anticipatory bail where a prima facie case is made out [Para 8].

Recovery – Partial Recovery Made – Bail Not Denied for Remaining Property - Of the ₹27 lakh worth items alleged stolen, ₹15 lakh had already been recovered – Held: Partial recovery supported the applicant’s claim that theft allegations were exaggerated in a civil dispute context – No need for custodial interrogation solely for recovery purposes [Para 9].

Decision – Bail Granted with Conditions – Anticipatory Bail Application Allowed - Applicant directed to be released on furnishing bond, with directions to cooperate with investigation, attend police station weekly, and not tamper with evidence or influence witnesses – Bail granted in view of prima facie civil nature of the dispute and pending litigation [Paras 9–10].

Family Law – Matrimonial Dispute – Section 13(1)(ia) of the HMA Act - Section 18, Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act - Divorce, Maintenance, and Return of Gold Ornaments – Partial Relief Granted to Both Spouses – The Family Court dismissed the husband’s petition for divorce and the wife’s claim for return of gold and maintenance, except for maintenance of the minor child – On appeal, the High Court held that the wife is entitled to recover 15½ sovereigns of gold ornaments from the husband and his parents – Divorce granted in favour of the husband on grounds of cruelty and irretrievable breakdown of marriage – Future maintenance of ₹10,000/month awarded to the wife until remarriage – Orders of Family Court modified accordingly [Paras 1, 11, 13, 17-18].

Return of Gold Ornaments – Partial Entitlement Proven – Burden Shifted to Husband – Wife alleged entrustment of 40½ sovereigns of gold ornaments to husband and in-laws – Husband admitted possession and claimed return, but failed to substantiate full restitution – Held: Wife entitled to recover 15½ sovereigns or its market value – Family Court erred in disbelieving wife’s consistent narrative based on minor inconsistencies – Order set aside [Paras 6-11].

Divorce – Matrimonial Cruelty and Irretrievable Breakdown – Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act – Divorce Granted – Husband alleged cruel behaviour by wife, including threats of suicide and violence toward in-laws – Parties separated since 2014 – Reconciliation attempts failed – Held: Evidence proved matrimonial cruelty and irretrievable breakdown – Compelling continued cohabitation would amount to further cruelty – Marriage dissolved [Paras 12-15].

Maintenance – Wife Denied Past Maintenance – Future Maintenance Granted – Child Maintenance Confirmed – Family Court awarded maintenance only to the minor child – High Court upheld denial of past maintenance to wife but awarded future maintenance of ₹10,000/month, considering husband’s earnings and wife's needs – Property of husband made subject to charge for payment – No interference with child maintenance [Paras 16-17].

Appellate Review – Findings of Fact Re-evaluated – Family Court’s Errors in Appreciating Evidence – High Court found that Family Court misappreciated the wife's deposition and failed to account for the husband's partial admission regarding custody of gold – Held: Appellate court may reappreciate evidence where factual findings are perverse or flawed in law [Para 10-11].

Decision :

Mat.Appeal No.672/2017 (by wife) – Partly allowed – Wife entitled to 15½ sovereigns of gold or equivalent market value

Mat.Appeal No.763/2017 (by husband) – Allowed – Marriage dissolved by decree of divorce

Mat.Appeal No.671/2017 (by wife) – Partly allowed – Wife granted future maintenance at ₹10,000/month until remarriage, charge created over husband’s immovable properties

Mat.Appeal No.667/2017 (by husband) – Dismissed – Maintenance to minor child confirmed