Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – West Bengal Shops & Establishments Act, 1963 – Petitions filed for quashing criminal proceedings related to alleged violations under the West Bengal Shops & Establishments Act, 1963, including failure to display registration certificates, maintain overtime records, and comply with inspection orders – Petitioner argued that cognizance was improperly taken and various mandatory procedural rules, including Section 202 of the CrPC, were not followed – Held: The alleged procedural defects do not vitiate the proceedings; irregularities can be cured, and the allegations warrant a trial – Petition dismissed with liberty to raise objections before the Trial Court [Paras 19-21, 26-30].

Criminal Procedure – Section 202 Inquiry – Territorial Jurisdiction – Petitioner argued that an inquiry under Section 202 of the CrPC was mandatory as his residence is beyond the jurisdiction of the Magistrate – Court held that the lack of an inquiry under Section 202 does not automatically invalidate the proceedings if no prejudice is caused to the accused, and the matter can proceed to trial [Paras 22-23].

Shops & Establishments Act – Duties of Inspectors – Compliance – Petitioner contended that no proper inspection or inquiry was conducted as required under the Act, and the complaints were vague and lacked specific details – Court held that the issues regarding compliance with the Establishment Rules and inspection requirements are matters for trial, and it is not the role of the High Court to conduct a mini-trial at this stage [Paras 30-31].

Decision:

All four revision petitions dismissed – Petitioner granted liberty to raise the procedural and factual issues before the Trial Court – No interference in the cognizance and issuance of process by the Magistrate – Proceedings to continue on merit [Paras 32-33].

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].

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].

Civil Law – Recovery of Money – Execution of Promissory Note – Appellant contested the execution of the promissory note by the deceased Ramachandran, alleging it was fabricated – Trial court dismissed the suit for lack of conclusive proof, but the first appellate court reversed the decision, holding that oral evidence of witnesses substantiated the claim despite adverse expert opinion – Appellants argued the appellate court wrongly disregarded the expert opinion and failed to properly assess the evidence – Held: Oral evidence, corroborated by other factors, sufficiently established the validity of the promissory note, and the expert opinion was considered a weak piece of evidence – First appellate court's judgment upheld, and second appeal dismissed [Paras 6, 11-26].

Presumption of Execution – Section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act – Legal heirs of the deceased Ramachandran denied the execution of the promissory note – Plaintiff unable to claim presumption under Section 118 of the Act as the signature was disputed – Burden of proof shifted to plaintiff to establish that the deceased executed the promissory note – The trial court held the plaintiff did not meet this burden; however, the appellate court found the oral evidence provided by the plaintiff's witnesses sufficient to prove execution [Paras 11, 12, 16, 21].

Evidence – Adverse Inference – Section 114(g) of Indian Evidence Act – Trial court invoked Section 114(g) against the plaintiff for withholding expert opinion that was unfavorable – Appellate court found that invoking Section 114(g) was incorrect as the expert’s opinion was available to the court and could have been marked as evidence if deemed necessary – Held: Plaintiff was not obligated to rely on expert opinion, and oral evidence took precedence under Section 47 of Indian Evidence Act, allowing witnesses familiar with the signature to testify [Paras 13-20].

Remand Request – Defendants sought remand to trial court for re-appreciation of expert evidence – Held: As the expert opinion was already available, the defendants had the opportunity to submit it in their defense – The appellate court’s decision not to rely on it, and its focus on oral evidence, was deemed appropriate – Remand was unnecessary as the appellate court had sufficiently dealt with the matter based on the existing evidence [Paras 27-29].

Decision: Second appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree dated 24.08.2021 of the first appellate court confirmed – No costs [Para 30].

Maintenance – Assessment of Income – Section 125 CrPC – Income Assessed on Basis of Minimum Wages – Maintenance Awarded – The petitioner claimed that his income was incorrectly assessed as ₹16,000 per month by the Family Court, which relied on Delhi's minimum wage standards despite the petitioner being employed in Uttar Pradesh. Held: In matrimonial disputes, parties often understate their income. The Court, following precedents, affirmed the Family Court's decision to assess income based on reasonable estimates – Petition dismissed [Paras 37-38].

Wife's Entitlement to Maintenance – Living Separately Without Reasonable Cause – Section 125(4) CrPC – Maintenance Upheld – The petitioner argued that his wife left the matrimonial home without sufficient cause and was not entitled to maintenance. The Court found the wife's testimony regarding dowry harassment credible and rejected the petitioner's claim, holding that she had justifiable reasons for living separately. Maintenance of ₹5,500 per month was upheld – Petition dismissed [Paras 30-33, 43].

Dependents of the Petitioner – Allocation of Income for Parents – No Evidence Provided – The petitioner contended that a portion of his income should be allocated for the maintenance of his parents. The Court observed that no evidence was provided to substantiate this claim, and accordingly, the petitioner's income was not divided for parental support – Petition dismissed [Para 38].

Wife's Educational Qualification – Not a Bar to Maintenance – The petitioner argued that since his wife was educated (holding BA and MA degrees), she was not entitled to maintenance. The Court dismissed this contention, holding that mere educational qualifications do not disqualify a wife from receiving maintenance unless evidence shows that she is capable of self-maintenance, which was not presented in this case – Petition dismissed [Para 42].

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].

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].
 

Bail - Hostile Witness – Testimony’s Value – Not Entirely Disregarded – The victim initially incriminated the applicant during her examination-in-chief, but later retracted during cross-examination – Held: Testimony of a hostile witness cannot be wholly disregarded – The court should scrutinize the evidence and rely on parts that remain credible and consistent with the prosecution’s case [Para 7].

Delayed Cross-Examination – Manipulation of Witness – Fair Trial – The victim's cross-examination was deferred by two months, and during this time, the applicant may have influenced the witness – Held: Deferring cross-examination for such a long period without valid reason can lead to manipulation of witnesses, as observed in Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab – A fair trial requires prompt and continuous examination to prevent witness tampering [Paras 8-10].

Bail Denied – Manipulation of Witness and Seriousness of Charges – Given the seriousness of the charges, the manipulation of the victim's testimony, and the circumstances leading to the delay in cross-examination, the court found no grounds to grant bail – Bail application rejected [Paras 10-12].

Decision: Bail application rejected – The court emphasized the seriousness of the charges, potential manipulation of the witness, and the need for a fair trial without interference – The trial court was directed to expedite the trial in accordance with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court [Paras 11-13].

Maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. – Prima Facie Marriage Dispute – Necessity to Establish Valid Marriage – The petitioner denied that the opposite party (Respondent No. 2) was his legally married wife and argued that she was his maid. The petitioner claimed to have been married to another woman since 1979 and provided documentary evidence, including a marriage invitation card and family nomination forms. The trial court erroneously concluded that the marriage was undisputed and awarded interim maintenance – Held: The court below must examine the disputed question of whether the opposite party is the petitioner's legally married wife before granting interim maintenance. The impugned order was set aside [Paras 6-9].

Wife Under Section 125 Cr.P.C. – Legal Definition – Need for Valid Marriage – The term "wife" under Section 125 Cr.P.C. refers to a legally married wife. In cases where the marriage is seriously disputed, the claimant must prima facie establish the existence of a valid marriage before any maintenance order can be made – Held: Prima facie proof of marriage is required even in summary proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The trial court must re-examine the issue after allowing both parties to present evidence [Paras 7-9].

Perverse Finding by Lower Court – Misinterpretation of Disputed Marriage – The trial court erred in holding that the marriage between the petitioner and Respondent No. 2 was undisputed, despite the petitioner's consistent denial and submission of evidence showing an existing marriage with another woman. This finding was perverse – Held: The trial court's order was based on an erroneous conclusion and was set aside [Paras 6, 9].

Opportunity for Fresh Hearing on Maintenance – Directions to Lower Court – The High Court directed the lower court to rehear the application for interim maintenance, allowing both parties to submit documents and evidence regarding the disputed marriage and other issues. The trial court was instructed to pass a fresh order within eight weeks – Held: The lower court must consider the disputed marital relationship and other issues afresh without being influenced by previous findings [Para 9].

Decision – CRR 2554 of 2019 allowed – The interim maintenance order dated 05.04.2019 was set aside, and the case was remanded to the lower court for a fresh hearing. Consequently, CRR 326 of 2024 was also allowed, and the execution proceeding was quashed [Paras 9-11].