Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Cheque Dishonor – Respondent accused of dishonoring a cheque issued to discharge a hand loan of Rs. 4,50,000/- – Trial court acquitted the respondent, finding the complainant entitled to Rs. 50,000/- with interest, observing doubts regarding the loan transaction – High Court held trial court erred in assessing evidence and misinterpreted the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act – Appeal allowed, acquittal set aside, respondent convicted and fined twice the cheque amount [Paras 1-22].

Presumption under Section 139 NI Act – Burden of proof – High Court emphasized mandatory presumption in favor of complainant under Section 139 upon proving issuance and dishonor of cheque – Respondent's defense of cheque issued as security found unsupported by evidence – Reiterated that presumption under NI Act is rebuttable only by credible evidence, not mere assertions [Paras 10-20].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of acquittal set aside – Respondent convicted under Section 138 of the NI Act and sentenced to fine twice the cheque amount i.e., Rs. 9,00,000/- failing which simple imprisonment for one year – Complainant awarded compensation of Rs. 8,90,000/- from the fine amount [Paras 21-22].

Evidentiary Value of School Admission Register –

Accused argued that Ex.P8, the extract of the school admission register, lacked evidentiary value as the author was not examined – Prosecution contended Ex.P8 is a public document under Section 74 of the Evidence Act, and secondary evidence of a public document can be produced under Section 65€ – Court held that Ex.P8, issued by the headmaster (PW5), was admissible as secondary evidence, satisfying Section 63 of the Evidence Act – Argument that PW5 was not the headmaster when the admission was recorded rejected – Court found Ex.P8 credible and sufficient to prove the age of PW1 as below 18 years, invoking the provisions of the POCSO Act [Paras 1-24].

Applicability of Section 162 Cr.P.C. –

Defense claimed Ex.P8 was inadmissible under Section 162 Cr.P.C. – Court held that Section 162 applies to statements made during investigation by persons acquainted with the facts of the case – Ex.P8, being an extract of the admission register, was not a statement made under Section 161 Cr.P.C. – Court distinguished Ex.P8 from information relating to the crime, thus not attracting Section 162 Cr.P.C. – Defense arguments regarding Vinod Chaturvedi and Kali Ram cases rejected [Paras 25-27].

Section 313 Cr.P.C. Examination –

Defense argued the conviction was vitiated as the age of the victim was not highlighted during Section 313 Cr.P.C. examination – Court observed that the age of the victim alone is not incriminatory; the fact of sexual assault on a minor is – Court found the incriminating circumstances were adequately brought to the accused’s notice – Any lapse at Section 313 stage considered curable by appellate court [Paras 28-29].

Findings on DNA Report and Conviction –

Defense contested the DNA report (Ex.P17) for lack of examination of the scientific officer – Court noted Section 293 Cr.P.C. allows the use of expert reports as evidence without examining the expert unless necessary – DNA report confirmed the accused as the father of PW1’s child, corroborating the sexual assault – Conviction under Section 6 of the POCSO Act upheld, but sentence modified due to lack of reasons for imposing life imprisonment – Accused sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment and fine [Paras 30-31].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – Conviction under Section 6 of the POCSO Act confirmed – Accused acquitted of Section 506 IPC – Sentence modified to 10 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.25,000/- – Compensation ordered to be paid to PW1 from fine amount – Legal services committee to compensate amicus curiae [Para 31].

Sports Gradation Certificate – Eligibility Criteria – Petitioner, a sportsman aspiring to join a five-year integrated law course, sought a sports gradation certificate from UT Chandigarh’s Sports Department. The Department refused, citing the petitioner’s educational background outside Chandigarh. The High Court examined the Chandigarh Administration’s policy dated May 5, 2003, and found that the policy pertained to institutions under the Chandigarh Administration’s control, not Panjab University. The policy did not bar issuing gradation certificates to students representing Chandigarh teams, regardless of where they studied. The Court directed the issuance of the certificate to the petitioner [Paras 1-33].

Administrative Law – Reasoned Decisions – The High Court criticized the Sports Department’s mechanical application of policy without proper consideration of the petitioner’s achievements and the context of his application. Emphasized the need for administrative authorities to provide reasoned decisions, especially in matters affecting individuals’ educational and professional futures [Paras 6-8, 29-30].

Judicial Review – Ultra Vires – The policy, when interpreted to bar issuance of certificates to students like the petitioner, was found to be misapplied and ultra vires the authority’s mandate. The High Court underscored the judicial responsibility to rectify administrative misapplications adversely affecting the rights of individuals [Paras 26-28].

Decision: Writ Petition Allowed – High Court set aside the Sports Department’s order dated June 13, 2024. Directed issuance of the Sports Gradation Certificate within three days and Panjab University to reserve a seat for the petitioner, subject to his merit and eligibility [Paras 30-32].

Revocation of Probate – Citation of Interested Parties – Applicant’s Status as Biological Son – Application for revocation of probate granted to respondents. Applicant, Michael Soumen Ghosh, contended he was the biological son of the testator, Satyabrata Ghosh, but was not cited in the probate proceedings. The court emphasized the necessity for a testamentary court to verify that the testamentary disposition reflects the testator’s genuine intent without fraud or collusion [Paras 1-22].

Non-citation – Legitimacy and Legal Presumption – Applicant born during the wedlock of Phyllis Irene Roy with Sudhindra Narayan Roy, name on birth certificate and passport/visa. Respondents relied on Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, establishing presumption of legitimacy. Testamentary court’s limited jurisdiction does not extend to ordering DNA tests or declaring status [Paras 9-20].

Decision – Petition for Revocation Dismissed – Held – Testamentary court cannot adjudicate on the status of the applicant as biological son without a civil court’s declaratory decree. The application for revocation of probate dismissed on contest [Paras 21-22].
 

Custody of Minors – Habeas Corpus Petition – Petitioner, the biological mother, seeks custody of her minor children from the step-brother and step sister-in-law – Supreme Court precedents emphasize welfare of the child as paramount – Mother’s right to custody upheld unless disqualified by clear exceptions [Paras 1-17].

Writ of Habeas Corpus – Maintainability – Writ is appropriate where a minor’s detention by a non-guardian relative is unlawful – Jurisdiction rests on inherent equitable powers – Ordinary remedy lies under guardianship statutes but habeas corpus is applicable in exceptional cases [Paras 13-21].

Paramount Consideration of Welfare – Court underscores that in custody matters, child’s welfare supersedes all other considerations – Mother’s natural ability to cater to young children’s needs prioritized – Step relatives’ custody deemed secondary to biological mother’s right [Paras 17-20].
Decision: Petition allowed – Custody of minors granted to the biological mother – Directions issued for prompt communication and compliance.
 

Impleadment of Parties – Necessary and Proper Parties – Petitioners challenged the impleadment of opposite party No. 14 in a partition suit, arguing the party had no direct interest in the suit after an order of amendment was passed – Trial Court allowed the addition of opposite party No. 14, finding their presence necessary for complete adjudication – High Court upheld the Trial Court’s decision, emphasizing the importance of including all interested parties to resolve the dispute effectively [Paras 1-14].

Order 1, Rule 10(2) CPC – Discretionary Power of the Court – Court highlighted the discretionary power under Order 1, Rule 10(2) of CPC to add necessary and proper parties at any stage – Noted the Trial Court’s responsibility to ensure all relevant parties are included to adjudicate all issues completely and effectively [Paras 7-13].

Supervisory Jurisdiction under Article 227 – High Court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction to uphold the Trial Court’s order, stressing that the inclusion of opposite party No. 14 would not alter the nature of the suit but ensure all issues are addressed [Para 15].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Order of the Learned 3^rd Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Howrah affirmed – Special Officer appointed to inspect the suit property and property of opposite party No. 14 – High Court allowed future striking out of opposite party No. 14 if found unnecessary after inspection and issue framing [Para 16-20].

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of charge sheet – Allegations of fraudulent inclusion of property Dag Nos. in Power of Attorney – Investigating officer collected evidence showing a prima facie case of forgery – FIR disclosed cognizable offence – Court found criminal proceedings not a mere civil dispute but with criminal overtones justifying the charges [Paras 1-21].

Jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Court’s obligation to consider overall circumstances beyond FIR – Court relied on principles from Haji Iqbal alias Bala through S.P.O.A v. State of Uttar Pradesh & ors., and Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand – Emphasis on looking into attending circumstances and materials collected during investigation – Court found sufficient material to proceed with charges [Paras 13-20].

Forgery – Intent to Deceive – Essential element for constituting offence of forgery – Mere act of altering documents with intent to deceive attracts penal consequences – No necessity for accused to make wrongful gain – FIR and evidence demonstrated intent to deceive, validating charges under IPC [Paras 18-19].

Decision – Revision Application Dismissed – Criminal Revision application dismissed – Proceedings in G.R. Case No. 1330/2013 to continue in accordance with law – Trial Court instructed not to be influenced by observations in this decision [Paras 21-24].
 

Property Tax – Arrears and Interest – Demand Notice: Appeal against the modification of a notice demanding arrear property tax and current dues with surcharge and interest – Appellant contended no bills were raised for the arrear period, and sought to pay arrears in installments – Municipality asserted the bills were duly raised and interest cannot be waived – Single Judge had waived 50% interest – Division Bench upheld the waiver of interest, noting the absence of a clear record of bills due to passage of time, and dismissed the appeal and cross-appeal [Paras 1-16].

Waiver of Interest on Arrears: Single Judge’s discretion to waive 50% interest was upheld – Interest charged at the highest rate – Discretionary power of the Board of Councillors noted, but currently administered by an administrator – Reduction justified under circumstances [Paras 11-12].

Service of Demand Notices: Appellant’s claim of non-service of bills for arrear period rejected – Plea raised for the first time at appellate stage considered unfounded – Importance of raising such issues timely emphasized [Paras 6-10].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Order of Single Judge upheld – Municipality directed to issue revised demand notice – Appellant to comply within specified timeframe to avoid additional interest charges [Para 13-15].

Police Clearance Certificate – Issuance for Overseas Employment – Petition for the issuance of PCC in light of an opportunity for employment in Brazil – Petitioner’s criminal case history cited as reason for delay in issuance – Trial court’s No Objection Certificate considered – Directed authorities to issue PCC if no adverse information beyond the mentioned criminal case is found – Undertaking required from petitioner to ensure availability during trial [Paras 1-7].

Writ Petition – Mandamus – Petitioner, a B.Tech graduate, faced delay in obtaining PCC due to pending criminal case – High Court acknowledged petitioner’s right to travel for employment – Ordered Superintendent of Police to issue PCC within a week, subject to conditions – Petitioner must assure presence at trial [Paras 5-7].

Decision: Writ Petition disposed of – Superintendent of Police directed to consider and issue PCC if no adverse information is found other than the stated criminal case – Petitioner to provide an undertaking for availability during trial – No order as to costs – Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, closed [Paras 7-8].