Right to Fair Trial – Denial of Legal Assistance – Violation of Article 21 – Retrial Ordered – The appellant contended that he was deprived of the right to legal assistance during the trial as his counsel did not appear, and he was asked to cross-examine the witnesses himself, despite his lack of legal expertise. The Court found that the trial was not conducted fairly, as the accused was denied his right to be represented by counsel, a fundamental aspect of a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. Held: The conviction and sentence are set aside, and the case is remanded for retrial with the direction to allow the appellant to engage counsel or to be provided legal aid – Appeal allowed, retrial ordered [Paras 36-52].

Sanction for Prosecution – Validity Not Proven – Absence of Examination of Sanctioning Authority – The appellant challenged the validity of the sanction order, arguing that the prosecution failed to examine the Sanctioning Authority to prove that proper sanction was granted. The Court found that the prosecution did not establish the validity of the sanction, as the Sanctioning Authority was not examined, and no material was provided to show proper application of mind by the authority. Held: The sanction was not proved as required by law – Retrial ordered [Paras 16-25].

Demand and Acceptance of Bribe – Corroboration of Prosecution Witnesses – Incomplete Cross-Examination – The prosecution relied on the testimonies of the complainant and shadow witnesses to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe. However, the accused was denied the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses fully due to his counsel's absence. The Court observed that incomplete cross-examination of key witnesses prejudiced the defense. Held: Retrial necessary to ensure fair opportunity for cross-examination – Retrial ordered [Paras 26-34, 49-52].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Dishonour of Cheque – Conviction under Section 138 – Cheque issued by the accused for ₹2.00 lakh dishonoured due to insufficient funds – Accused claimed cheque was issued as a security for ₹50,000 and not for a legal liability – Trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused to eight months of simple imprisonment and a fine of ₹2,50,000 – Appeal by accused was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge – Revision petition dismissed by the High Court, upholding the conviction and sentence – Held: All ingredients of Section 138 NI Act were satisfied – Presumption under Section 139 that the cheque was issued for legal liability was not rebutted by the accused [Paras 6, 7, 8, 13-22].

Presumption of Consideration – Accused admitted the issuance of the cheque – Accused claimed it was a blank cheque given as security for ₹50,000, but failed to prove this defence – Court held that under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act, once a cheque is issued, it carries a presumption of consideration which the accused failed to rebut – Defence of a blank cheque for security was rejected as no evidence was led by the accused [Paras 16, 17, 19, 20].

Notice of Demand – Notice of demand sent to the accused through registered post – Acknowledgment of delivery was produced by the complainant – Court presumed service of notice under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act – Accused failed to make payment within 15 days of receiving the summons, thus failing to discharge the liability [Paras 35, 36].

Sentence – Eight months of simple imprisonment and fine of ₹2,50,000 – Held not excessive – Fine compensates for legal expenses and interest loss – In line with Supreme Court guidelines to levy fines up to twice the cheque amount along with simple interest [Paras 38-41].

Decision: Revision petition dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the NI Act upheld – Accused failed to rebut presumption of consideration and notice of demand was properly served [Paras 43, 44].

Criminal Law – Acquittal – Appellants convicted by the trial court for murder under Sections 147, 148, and 302 read with 149 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment – High Court examines the reliability of sole eyewitness (P.W. 1) and finds inconsistencies in his testimony, as well as the absence of corroboration from other material witnesses – Confessional statements of accused recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. deemed unreliable due to non-compliance with legal procedures – Held: Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction set aside, and appellants acquitted [Paras 63-65].

Witness Testimony – Credibility of Sole Witness – P.W. 1 (father of the deceased) claims to have witnessed the murder, but his statements contained inconsistencies and contradictions, especially regarding who accompanied him to the scene – Testimony was not supported by other eyewitnesses, and key witness Raj Bahadur, who allegedly accompanied P.W. 1, was not produced during the trial – Court finds P.W. 1's testimony not wholly reliable due to these discrepancies and the absence of corroboration [Paras 43, 45, 47].

Confessional Statements – Non-compliance with Section 164 Cr.P.C. – Confessions of accused persons recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. found to be procedurally flawed – Magistrate failed to properly warn accused about the consequences of their confession and did not provide adequate time for reflection – Court rejects confessions as unreliable due to procedural irregularities [Paras 46, 55-61].

Delay in Lodging FIR – Incident occurred on 09.07.2001 at 11:00 p.m., but FIR was lodged the following morning at 7:45 a.m. – Court finds the delay justified due to the fear of the first informant (P.W. 1) and the distance to the police station – However, the delay, combined with the inconsistencies in P.W. 1’s testimony, raised doubts about the prosecution’s case [Paras 36(v), 39].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Convictions and sentences under Sections 147, 148, 302/149 IPC set aside – Appellants acquitted – Appellants on bail, bail bonds canceled, and sureties discharged [Paras 64-65].

Maintenance – Modification of Maintenance Order – Quantum of Maintenance Increased – The Trial Court awarded ₹1,500/- per month as maintenance and ₹800/- as rent under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act – Held: The first Appellate Court modified the maintenance to ₹10,000/- per month based on the petitioner’s substantial agricultural income – The petitioner’s objection that the enhanced maintenance was excessive, considering his age (83 years), was rejected by the High Court – Held: The petitioner had sufficient income from agriculture, pension, and other sources to justify the increased maintenance [Paras 3-7].

Assessment of Income – Agricultural Income and Other Earnings – Petitioner admitted earning ₹40,000-50,000 per month from agricultural land, ₹6,000 from ‘Kisan Nidhi Yojana’, and ₹1,700 as old age pension – Held: Given the income sources, the maintenance awarded by the first Appellate Court was neither excessive nor unreasonable – The legal and moral duty to support the spouse was upheld [Paras 7-8].

Decision: Petition dismissed – The order of the first Appellate Court upheld – Maintenance of ₹10,000/- per month was found reasonable and appropriate based on the petitioner’s income [Paras 8-9].

Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault – Section 5(m) and 5(n) POCSO Act – Conviction Upheld - The appellant, convicted for committing aggravated penetrative sexual assault on his 8-year-old granddaughter, challenged the trial court’s judgment. The High Court upheld the conviction, finding that the evidence of the victim girl, supported by medical testimony, conclusively proved the offence. The contradictions in the victim's statements were minor and did not affect the credibility of her testimony [Paras 13-15, 19].

Medical Evidence – Corroboration of Victim’s Testimony – No Reason for Interference - The Court observed that the medical examination confirmed the victim's hymen was torn, indicating penetrative sexual assault. This medical evidence corroborated the victim's account, and there was no compelling reason to doubt the trial court's findings [Paras 14-16].

Presumption Under Section 29 of POCSO Act – Burden on Accused Not Discharged - The Court noted that once the foundational facts of the offence were established, the presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act came into play. The appellant failed to rebut this presumption, and his arguments about inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case were insufficient to cast doubt on the victim’s testimony [Paras 16-18].

Final Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Conviction and Sentence Confirmed - The High Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the appellant’s conviction under Sections 5(m) and 5(n) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment and fine imposed by the trial court were also upheld [Paras 22-23].

FIR Quashing – Offences Under Sections 457 and 380 IPC – Compromise Accepted – The petitioner sought the quashing of an FIR registered for house-trespass and theft, contending that the matter had been amicably resolved through a compromise with the complainants – Held: The offences in question are of a private nature and do not affect the public at large – Following the Supreme Court's guidelines in Gian Singh and Narender Singh, the High Court has the inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR based on compromise in cases with a predominantly private dispute – FIR quashed [Paras 8-14].

Quashing of FIR in Private Disputes – Judicial Precedent – The Court referenced prior decisions, including Musharaf vs. State of H.P. (2022), Harsh Anand vs. State of H.P. (2020), and Chaman Lal vs. State of H.P. (2023), where FIRs for similar offences were quashed following compromises between the parties – Following the principle of judicial consistency, the present petition is similarly allowed [Para 12].

Decision: The FIR No. 38 of 2022, registered at Police Station Sadar, District Shimla, under Sections 457 and 380 IPC, and all consequential proceedings are quashed based on the compromise between the parties. Petition is disposed of accordingly.

Partition Suit – Preliminary Decree – House Ownership – Allotment of Improved Property to Builder – The appellant and respondent were co-owners of the disputed suit land, with the appellant owning 4/5th and the respondent owning 1/5th – The respondent had constructed a wooden house on the suit land before the appellant became a co-owner – Held: In partition suits, the court must account for equitable distribution of property and improvements – The allotment of the land on which the house stands to the respondent, who built and maintained the structure, is just and equitable – No interference is warranted in the preliminary decree [Paras 8, 11, 18, 22].

Preliminary and Final Decree – Partition – Rights of Co-owners – A preliminary decree in partition suits only determines the rights and shares of the co-owners and leaves further inquiry for final partition – Held: The preliminary decree declaring the respondent's 1/5th share in the suit land and directing further division during the final partition is consistent with law – The appellant is entitled to his 4/5th share in the land, subject to adjustments for the respondent's construction [Paras 12, 14, 16, 20].

Allotment of Improved Property to Co-owner Who Made Improvements – In determining equitable partition, courts must consider improvements made by co-owners on the common property – Held: The respondent constructed the house on the suit land and maintained it, which justifies the allotment of that portion of land to him – The appellant’s claim for possession of the house is rejected [Paras 17-19].

Distinction Between Preliminary and Final Decree – Need for Further Inquiry – The appellant's request for possession of the house was premature at the stage of the preliminary decree – Held: The final partition, considering adjustments or compensation for the house, will be carried out during the final decree – No grounds for intervention at this stage [Paras 21, 22].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – The preliminary decree remains unchanged – The final decree will address the equitable partition and any compensation or adjustments regarding the house [Paras 22].

Counter-Claim – Requirement for Separate Appeals – Appeal filed challenging the dismissal of the main suit without filing a separate appeal against the counter-claim – Held: When both the suit and counter-claim are decided, separate appeals must be filed to challenge both – Failure to file separate appeals results in res judicata – The First Appellate Court erred by reversing the trial court's judgment on the counter-claim without a separate appeal challenging the dismissal of the counter-claim [Paras 24, 26, 32-37].

Res Judicata – Non-Filing of Separate Appeals – The First Appellate Court reversed the trial court's judgment, despite no separate appeal being filed against the dismissal of the counter-claim – Held: Since no separate appeal was filed against the trial court's dismissal of the counter-claim, the First Appellate Court's interference was barred by the principle of res judicata – The judgment of the trial court should have been restored [Paras 36-37].

Counter-Claim – Legal Principles – Counter-claims are treated as cross-suits and must be separately challenged in appeals – Held: The counter-claim in this case was a separate legal issue requiring its own appeal – Failure to appeal against the counter-claim resulted in the finality of the trial court's decision on that aspect, and the First Appellate Court had no jurisdiction to reverse the decision on the counter-claim [Paras 27-30].

Single Appeal for Suit and Counter-Claim – Not Permissible – Where both the suit and counter-claim are decided, a single appeal is insufficient to challenge both – Held: The appellants' appeal was defective as it did not separately challenge the dismissal of the counter-claim – The First Appellate Court’s decision was thus improper [Paras 22, 23, 33].

Decision: Appeal allowed – The judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court is set aside – The judgment and decree of the trial court, which decreed the appellants' suit and dismissed the counter-claim, is restored [Paras 38-39].

Commercial Law – Civil Revision Petition – Maintainability – Petitioners challenged the rejection of an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of the plaint – Petitioners argued that the suit was barred by limitation and failed to comply with Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 regarding mandatory pre-institution mediation – Held: Civil Revision Petition not maintainable due to the bar under Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 against challenging interlocutory orders – Petitioners failed to file an appeal under Section 13(1) or (1A) of the Act – Dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition upheld [Paras 9-17].

Limitation Law – Section 12A of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – Petitioners contended that pre-institution mediation was mandatory and that the suit violated this requirement – Respondent argued that the suit, filed before 20.08.2022, was exempt from the mandate per the Supreme Court's ruling in Patil Automation Pvt. Ltd. v. Rakheja Engineers Pvt. Ltd. – Held: Patil Automation applies prospectively from 20.08.2022, and the suit, filed on 30.11.2021, is exempt [Paras 3, 7].

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Article 227 of the Constitution – Petitioners invoked Article 227 of the Constitution of India to bypass the bar under Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – The court reiterated that the High Court’s power under Article 227 is not unrestrained and must be used sparingly, especially in light of specific statutes aimed at expediting dispute resolution – Held: Article 227 cannot be used to circumvent the bar on revision petitions under Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act [Paras 13-17].

Decision: Civil Revision Petition dismissed as not maintainable under Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – No costs awarded – No consideration of the merits of the dispute [Paras 18-19].