Negotiable Instruments Act – Cheque dishonored – Account blocked – Maintaining the account – Accused acquitted of the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate – Petition seeking leave to appeal against the judgment – Issue of whether the account on which the cheques were drawn can be said to be maintained by the drawer when the said account was blocked/frozen/attached on the orders of an authority – Interpretation of Section 138 of the NI Act – The petitioner argues that the judgment ignored settled case law accommodating situations arising from deliberate acts/omissions of the accused – Relying on Laxmi Dyechem vs. State of Gujarat (2012) 13 SCC 375 and Pankaj Mehra & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2000) 2 SCC 756 – Respondent argues that the account was blocked for reasons beyond the control of the drawer – Citing Modi Cements Limited vs. Kuchil Kumar Nandi (1998) 3 SCC 249 and Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Pennar Peterson Securities Ltd. & Ors. (2000) 2 SCC 745 – Court finds that the account being blocked for reasons beyond the control of the drawer does not amount to a voluntary act of the drawer – Petitioner fails to prove the first ingredient of Section 138 of NI Act – Judgment of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate upheld – Leave petition dismissed.

Criminal Procedure – Section 482 CrPC – Quashing of Order and Release of Seized Property: Petition under Section 482 CrPC for quashing the order dated 28.06.2016 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gopalganj, and for release of a motorcycle and mobile phone seized under the NDPS Act. The petitioner, accused in an NDPS case, seeks interim custody of his belongings, claiming wrongful implication. [Para 1, 3]

NDPS Act – Confiscation Proceedings – Authority and Jurisdiction: Discussion on whether the Special Court under the NDPS Act or the police/authority under the NDPS Act initiates confiscation proceedings. Examination of Sections 60 and 63 of the NDPS Act regarding the liability of vehicles to confiscation and the role of the Special Court in deciding confiscation post-trial. [Para 7, 11-12, 14]

Application of CrPC to NDPS Proceedings – Section 451 CrPC: Consideration of the applicability of Section 451 of the CrPC for interim custody of seized property in NDPS cases. Analysis of Sections 36C and 5 of the CrPC concerning the application of CrPC provisions to NDPS proceedings, addressing the gap in the NDPS Act about interim custody during trial. [Para 7, 22-23]

Judicial Precedents – Interim Custody of Seized Property: Review of various High Court judgments (Karnataka, Chhattisgarh, Punjab & Haryana, Uttarakhand, Calcutta, Madhya Pradesh, Jharkhand) interpreting the powers of Special Courts under NDPS Act and CrPC to grant interim custody of seized vehicles and other properties during trial. [Para 25-34]

Order – Part Allowance of Petition – Conditional Release of Vehicle: The petition is partially allowed. The court orders the release of the seized motorcycle to the petitioner subject to conditions ensuring its availability for trial and confiscation proceedings. The request for the release of the mobile phone is denied, considering the potential for tampering and loss of evidentiary value. [Para 39]

Modification of Impugned Order – Special Court’s Jurisdiction and Conditions for Release: Modification of the order by the Additional Sessions Judge, recognizing the Special Court’s jurisdiction under NDPS Act and CrPC for interim custody and setting conditions for the release of the motorcycle. [Para 40]

Application for Leave to Appeal Against Acquittal – Filed under Section 378(3) of Cr.P.C. against acquittal in a case under the N.D.P.S. Act – Accused acquitted by the Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Act, Neemuch, in Special S.T. No.32A/2018. [Para 1]

Facts of the Case – Secret information led to the interception of co-accused Indarmal with 2 Kg 600 grams of opium – Respondent Ajay implicated based on Indarmal’s statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. [Para 2, 3]

State’s Contention – Appellant/State challenged the trial court’s judgment, claiming it overlooked the evidence and prosecution witnesses’ statements, and failed to consider the presumption in favor of the State. [Para 4]

Trial Court’s Acquittal – Grounded on insufficient evidence to establish respondent Ajay’s involvement in the alleged crime – Relied only on the co-accused’s memorandum under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. [Para 6]

Appellate Principles – Reference to Supreme Court judgments emphasizing the cautious approach in appellate intervention against acquittals – Interference only on compelling and substantial grounds. [Paras 7-8]

High Court’s Decision – Finding no illegality or perversity in the trial court’s order and no compelling reasons for appellate interference – Dismissal of appeal and declination of leave to appeal. [Para 9, 10]

Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 – Modification of maintenance amount by Appellate Tribunal – Original order requiring each brother to pay Rs.700/- per month – Appellate order enhanced petitioner's payment to Rs.3000/- per month, leaving other brother's payment unchanged – Petitioner's challenge to the discriminatory enhancement. [Para 2, 3]

High Court Intervention – Direction to deposit arrears at the rate of Rs.1000/- per month from November 2016 and to pay litigation expenses – Balance payment of Rs.19,000/- towards maintenance at the rate of Rs.1000/- per month confirmed by the court. [Para 3, 4]

Settlement and Court Order – Petitioner's agreement to pay Rs.1000/- per month as maintenance – High Court modifies the impugned order and sets the maintenance amount at Rs.1000/- per month, to be paid by the 7th of every month. [Para 5-7]

Decision – Impugned order dated 14.12.2016 partially modified – Civil Writ Petition disposed of with directions for regular maintenance payments by the petitioner. [Para 7, 8]

Bail – Grant of Regular Bail – Regular bail granted to petitioner in case FIR No.111 dated 04.07.2023, under Sections 323, 342, 307, 506 and 34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Sector 31, Chandigarh – Petitioner falsely implicated, no injuries attributed to him, and all injuries specifically attributed to co-accused, who is the petitioner's son. [Para 3, 10]

Criminal Jurisprudence – Principle of 'Bail is the Rule and Jail is an Exception' – Emphasis on the fundamental rights enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the presumption of innocence – The need for a balance between individual liberty and the interest of society. [Para 5, 7, 8]

Speedy Trial – Rights of a Detained Person – Consideration of the right to a speedy trial in deciding applications for regular bail – Importance of securing the accused's presence for trial without unnecessary detention. [Para 6]

Trial Proceedings – Current Status – No prosecution witnesses examined out of total 14, charges framed on 11.12.2023 – Petitioner has suffered incarceration of more than 6 months, and trial not likely to conclude soon. [Para 4, 10]

Final Order – Release on Bail – Petitioner to be released on bail upon furnishing bail bond and surety bond to the satisfaction of the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/trial Court/Duty Magistrate – Observations in order not to affect merits of the trial. [Para 11, 12, 13]

Narcotics Law – Freezing of Bank Accounts – Compliance with Statutory Procedure – The petitioner, a startup company, sought de-freezing of its bank accounts frozen by the NCB following a case against one of its directors for NDPS Act violations. The court found that the NCB did not comply with Section 68F of the NDPS Act, which mandates communication to and confirmation by the competent authority within specific timeframes. The freeze was ordered without following due process, rendering the action legally unsustainable. The court allowed the writ petition, quashing the freeze orders while allowing NCB to initiate fresh proceedings if necessary [Paras 1-9]. 

Mandamus – Relief Against Arbitrary Administrative Action – The court issued a writ of mandamus directing the de-freezing of the petitioner's bank accounts, emphasizing the importance of adhering to statutory mandates to prevent arbitrary actions by authorities [Para 9]. 

Decision: Writ Petition Allowed – The order dated 08/12/2022 freezing the petitioner's bank accounts is quashed. NCB is not precluded from initiating lawful proceedings in the future. 

Narcotics Law – Freezing of Bank Accounts – Compliance with Statutory Procedure – The petitioner, a startup company, sought de-freezing of its bank accounts frozen by the NCB following a case against one of its directors for NDPS Act violations. The court found that the NCB did not comply with Section 68F of the NDPS Act, which mandates communication to and confirmation by the competent authority within specific timeframes. The freeze was ordered without following due process, rendering the action legally unsustainable. The court allowed the writ petition, quashing the freeze orders while allowing NCB to initiate fresh proceedings if necessary [Paras 1-9].

Mandamus – Relief Against Arbitrary Administrative Action – The court issued a writ of mandamus directing the de-freezing of the petitioner's bank accounts, emphasizing the importance of adhering to statutory mandates to prevent arbitrary actions by authorities [Para 9].

Decision: Writ Petition Allowed – The order dated 08/12/2022 freezing the petitioner's bank accounts is quashed. NCB is not precluded from initiating lawful proceedings in the future.
 

Amendment Application Dismissal – Specific Performance Plea – Limitation Issue – The plaintiff’s application for amendment to include a specific performance plea was dismissed by the Trial Court. The proposed amendment was found to change the suit's nature, introduce a new cause of action, and was barred by limitation under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963. [Paras 1, 1.6, 6, 6.4]

Plaintiff’s Arguments – Inadvertent Exclusion of Specific Performance – The plaintiff argued that the relief for specific performance was inadvertently not included in the original plaint. Cited Supreme Court judgments stating that a party must not suffer due to the mistake of counsel. [Paras 2, 2.1, 2.2]

Defendant's Counter – Application's Timeliness and Validity – The defendants argued that the amendment application was rightfully dismissed based on the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC and raised objections on the maintainability of the suit. [Paras 3, 3.1, 3.2]

Trial Court’s Findings – Dismissal of Amendment Justified – The Court agreed with the Trial Court's findings that the amendment would alter the suit's nature and introduce a time-barred claim, hence was not permissible. [Paras 5, 6, 6.7]

Due Diligence Lacking in Amendment Application – The application for amendment failed to satisfy the due diligence requirement as per the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC. [Paras 7, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 7.5]

Final Decision – High Court upheld the Trial Court’s decision, dismissing the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. [Paras 9, 10, 11]

Defamation Trial – Petitioner, an acclaimed journalist and Managing Editor of 'Daily Ajit' and 'Ajit Samachar', facing defamation trial for 15 years – Dismissal of criminal revision petition by Sessions Court challenged – Petition filed under Section 482 CrPC for quashing summons in defamation case. [Para 1]

Publication of Alleged Defamatory News – Petitioner's newspapers accused of publishing news implicating respondent in corruption – Respondent, an IPS officer, filed criminal complaint for defamation. [Paras 2, 3, 4]

Legal Proceedings and Evidence – Magistrate's issuance of summons based on prima facie evidence – Detailed analysis of pleadings, submissions, and applicability of judicial precedents leading to the outcome of the case. [Paras 5-7, 16-17]

Jurisdiction and Applicability of Section 499 IPC – Complaint's failure to specify how news lowered complainant’s reputation among the public – Lack of sufficient prima facie evidence against the petitioner for summoning. [Paras 22-24, 27]

Protection under Exceptions to Section 499 IPC – Petitioner's entitlement to protection as news reports were statements of political leaders without any personal or biased comments from the petitioner – Benefit under the first and ninth exceptions of Section 499 IPC. [Paras 29-32]

Responsibility of Editor under Press Law – Petitioner as Managing Editor, not Chief Editor, not responsible for publication of content under Press and Registration of Books Act – No specific allegations against petitioner in the complaint. [Paras 38-41]

Inherent Powers under Section 482 CrPC – Invocation of Court’s inherent jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice – Quashing of summons and all subsequent proceedings against the petitioner. [Para 43]

Decision: Complaint, summoning order, and subsequent proceedings against the petitioner quashed due to lack of sufficient prima facie evidence and entitlement to exceptions under Section 499 IPC. [Para 43]