Prevention of Corruption – Acquittal Appeal – State challenged acquittal of accused for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act – High Court upheld acquittal, noting discrepancies in prosecution's case and lack of credible evidence against respondent No.2 – Highlighted importance of consistency and corroboration in evidence for conviction [Paras 1-13].

Evidence and Witness Testimony – Material Contradictions – Court noted significant contradictions in witness testimonies and evidence – Prosecution's case weakened by hostile witnesses and inconsistent statements regarding demand and acceptance of bribe – Emphasized need for clear and consistent evidence in corruption cases [Paras 9-10].

Legal Principles and Standards – Presumption of Innocence – Court reinforced the principle that acquittal should not be overturned unless findings are perverse or manifestly erroneous – Referenced Supreme Court rulings underscoring cautious approach in reversing acquittals [Paras 8, 11].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal confirmed – Trial court's judgment upheld due to lack of compelling evidence and contradictions in prosecution’s case [Paras 13].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Conviction based on dishonour of cheque – Petitioner convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and compensation of Rs. 5,50,000 – During revision, parties reached a compromise – Court directed statements to be recorded and verified the compromise – Genuineness confirmed, and proceedings quashed [Paras 1-9].

Compromise in Criminal Cases – Judicial Precedents – Various precedents discussed where post-conviction compromise led to acquittal – Court emphasized recovery of debt over incarceration – Applied inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings based on compromise [Paras 5-8].

15% Compensation Fee – Directed petitioner to pay 15% of cheque amount (Rs. 82,500) to Haryana State Legal Services Authority by 31.07.2024 – Failure to comply would result in automatic recall of the order [Para 11].

Relief – Revision petition allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Subject to compliance with payment conditions – Non-compliance would recall the order automatically [Paras 12-13].

Adverse Possession – Ownership Claim – Plaintiffs claimed ownership of suit land by adverse possession for over 12 years – Trial court held possession but dismissed suit as time-barred – First appellate court reversed, declaring plaintiffs owners by adverse possession – Regular second appeal dismissed by High Court, affirming adverse possession due to uninterrupted, hostile possession since 1969 [Paras 1-18].

Limitation – Cause of Action – Fresh suit filed after previous suit withdrawn with liberty – Fresh cause of action arose after 12 years from 1971, not time-barred [Paras 10-11].

Revenue Records – Analysis of entries – Plaintiffs' possession recorded without rent payment, indicating adverse possession – Revenue terms interpreted to support plaintiffs' claim [Paras 8-9].

Relief – Regular second appeal dismissed – First appellate court's judgment upheld – Plaintiffs declared owners by adverse possession [Para 18].

NDPS Act – Conviction and Sentence – Recovery of poppy husk – Appellants not apprehended at the scene – Identification issues – Procedural lapses – Independent witness not examined – Case property not produced – Appeals allowed, conviction and sentence set aside [Paras 1-16].

Adverse Inference – Case property destruction due to flood – Allegation deemed unsupported – Trial court's reliance on uncorroborated testimony criticized [Paras 10-11].

Identification – No test identification parade conducted – Prosecution's reliance on witness claiming prior knowledge of appellants deemed insufficient – Absence of local witnesses to corroborate presence at crime scene noted [Paras 12-13].

Investigative Bias – Investigating Officer also the complainant – Potential for bias highlighted – Supreme Court precedents referenced [Para 15].

Relief – Appeals allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellants acquitted – Bail bonds discharged [Paras 16-18].

Criminal Law – Narcotic Drugs – Compliance with Procedural Requirements – Appellants Rajinder Singh @ Bittu and Baljit Singh convicted for possessing 25 kg of heroin – Prosecution argued non-compliance with Section 42 of NDPS Act regarding information recording and senior officer notification – Held, Section 43 applicable as the seizure was from a vehicle in a public place, thus no requirement for Section 42 compliance [Paras 7-13].

Witness Testimony – Official Witnesses – Prosecution relied on official witnesses due to independent witness collusion with accused – Court upheld the credibility of official witnesses’ testimonies, rejecting the need for independent corroboration given the circumstances and the substantial recovery involved [Paras 14-16].

Section 50 NDPS Act – Applicability – Argued non-compliance with Section 50 due to absence of personal search recovery – Held, Section 50 not applicable to vehicle searches; compliance observed through Gazetted Officer’s presence during search [Paras 17-20].

Vehicle Ownership – Prosecution established appellants’ use of a stolen vehicle with a fake number plate for heroin smuggling – Conviction under IPC for forgery and possession of stolen property upheld [Paras 21-23].

Evidence Handling – Delay in sample dispatch to FSL – Court found delay insignificant as seals remained intact, ensuring evidence integrity [Para 23].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – Convictions and sentences upheld – No procedural violations affecting the trial’s integrity found [Para 24].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Dishonored Cheque – Petitioner issued a cheque for Rs.20,00,000 to the respondent which was dishonored – Respondent filed a case under Section 138 of the N.I. Act – Petitioner sought production of original agreement via Section 91 Cr.P.C., alleging potential discrepancy in ink used for signatures [Paras 1-3].

Section 91 Cr.P.C. – Discretionary Power – Trial Court’s discretion under Section 91 Cr.P.C. to call for documents – Petitioner’s application lacked clear indication of how the original document would materially aid the case – Trial Court found no necessity or desirability for the original agreement as certified copy was already on record and all entries were clearly visible [Paras 5-8].

Presumption under Section 139 N.I. Act – Burden on Complainant – Established law requires complainant to initially discharge burden of proving case – Respondent had submitted certified copy of agreement, fulfilling preliminary requirement – High Court found no error in trial court’s discretion to reject petitioner’s application [Paras 9-11].

Decision – Criminal Miscellaneous Petition Dismissed – High Court upheld trial court’s order, rejecting the application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. – Found no error in exercise of trial court’s discretion – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 12-14].

Civil Procedure – Remand Order – Appellate court quashed trial court's judgment and remanded case for fresh consideration – Appellant contended appellate court failed to specify new issues or necessity for additional evidence – High Court finds remand order lacks justification, sets it aside, and directs appellate court to decide appeal on merits [Paras 1-13].

Order 41 CPC – Powers of Appellate Court – Remand under Rules 23, 23A, 24 – Appellate court must specify issues or necessity for remand – Evidence on record sufficient for adjudication mandates final decision without remand – High Court emphasizes appellate court’s obligation to decide appeal on merits unless retrial is essential [Paras 7-10].

Judicial Precedents – High Court refers to Kerala and Allahabad High Courts' rulings, emphasizing minimal use of remand powers and appellate court’s duty to decide on merits when evidence suffices – References: Gopalkrishnan v. V. Ponnappan, Prem Raj v. Nagar Palika, RSRTC v. Haridwarilal Sharma [Para 10].

Decision – Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Allowed – Remand order quashed – Appellate court directed to hear and decide appeal on merits – Parties to appear before appellate court on specified date [Paras 11-13].

Criminal Law – Conviction Under Common Intention – Appellants convicted for offences under Sections 302/149 IPC – Court finds material contradictions in eyewitness testimonies – Appellants not proven to have individually caused fatal injuries – Conviction under Section 302/149 IPC set aside, convictions under Sections 147, 323, 325/149 IPC maintained [Paras 1-18].

Eyewitness Testimony – Reliability – Several prosecution witnesses turned hostile – Injured eyewitness could not identify attackers due to darkness – Court notes inconsistencies and contradictions in statements regarding involvement of accused in causing fatal injuries [Paras 12-14].

Evidence and Delay – Incident reported with two-hour delay – Bloodstained lathis recovered but blood group undetermined – Court finds prosecution failed to conclusively link appellants to fatal injuries [Paras 8, 16].

Joint Liability – Applicability of Section 149 IPC – Material contradictions in evidence regarding common intention – No direct evidence linking surviving appellants to causing fatal injuries – Court emphasizes requirement for clear evidence of common object for joint liability [Para 17].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Convictions under Section 302/149 IPC quashed – Convictions under Sections 147, 323, 325/149 IPC maintained – Benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act extended – Appellants' bail bonds discharged [Paras 18-19].

Criminal Law – Acquittal in Rash and Negligent Driving Case – Petitioner’s brother died due to an alleged rash and negligent driving by accused-respondent – Trial court acquitted the respondent, citing major contradictions and lack of conclusive evidence – High Court upholds acquittal, finding no error in trial court’s detailed and reasoned judgment [Paras 1-9].

Evidence Evaluation – Witness Testimony – High Court notes trial court’s thorough assessment of evidence, identifying contradictions and inconsistencies in witness statements – Prosecution failed to prove case beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 8-9].

Appellate Review – Parameters for Interference – High Court refers to Supreme Court precedents on interference in acquittal judgments – Emphasizes reluctance to interfere unless judgment is contrary to evidence, clearly unreasonable, or based on ignored material evidence [Paras 10-11].

Decision – Criminal Revision Petition Dismissed – High Court finds no compelling reason to overturn acquittal – Petitioner failed to demonstrate any legal or factual error warranting interference – Trial court’s judgment upheld [Paras 11-12].