Criminal Appeal – Challenge Against Acquittal in Robbery Case - State of Karnataka's appeal against the acquittal of respondents for an offence punishable under Section 395 of IPC. The incident involved hijacking the complainant's car and stealing valuables on the night of November 4-5, 2010. The Trial Court acquitted the accused, leading to this appeal by the State. [Para 1-5]

Evidence and Identification of Accused – Test Identification Parade and Reliability - Issues raised regarding the identification of the accused. The complainant identified the accused in the CPI's office without a formal test identification parade, raising questions about the identification's reliability. Initially, the case was registered against unknown persons without a clear description of the assailants in the complaint. [Para 24-25]

Recovery of Stolen Items – Inconsistencies and Evidential Challenges - The prosecution's claims on the recovery of the complainant's car and mobile phone at the instance of the accused were challenged due to inconsistencies in the recovery process and evidence. The failure to establish a direct link between the accused and the recovered items led to doubts about the prosecution's version. [Para 19-23, 26]

Standards for Appellate Review of Acquittal - The principles guiding the appellate court in reviewing an acquittal include the double benefit of doubt in favor of the accused: the presumption of innocence and the reinforcement of this presumption by the trial court's acquittal. The appellate court should refrain from disturbing the trial court's findings if two reasonable conclusions can be drawn from the evidence. [Para 14, 17, 26]

Upholding Trial Court's Judgment of Acquittal - Based on the assessment of the evidence and the principles for appellate interference in an acquittal, the High Court found no grounds to interfere with the trial court's judgment, affirming the acquittal of the accused. The trial court's decision was considered to be based on substantial evidence. [Para 26]

Final Order – Appeal Dismissed - The criminal appeal was dismissed due to lack of merits. The High Court directed the registry to transmit the judgment and the trial court's records to the concerned Sessions Judge's Court. [Order]

Criminal Appeal – Acquittal in Robbery Case – Appeal by State against acquittal in a robbery case involving accused Nos. 2 and 3 – Incident involving carjacking and theft of cash, gold chain, and mobile phone – Trial court's acquittal based on insufficient evidence and discrepancies in prosecution’s case. [Para 1-6, 15-26]

Evidence and Witnesses – Issues in Recovery and Identification – Discrepancies in recovery of stolen items and identification of accused – Inconsistencies in prosecution witnesses' testimonies regarding recovery of complainant’s car and mobile phone – Complainant’s identification of accused not corroborated by prior descriptions or test identification parade. [Para 19-25]

Principles of Criminal Jurisprudence – Presumption of Innocence and Acquittal – Emphasis on the double presumption in favor of the accused in cases of acquittal – Appellate court's interference only for substantial and compelling reasons – Reference to relevant Supreme Court judgments establishing principles guiding appeal against acquittal. [Para 14, 17, 24]

Decision – Upholding Trial Court’s Judgment of Acquittal – Trial Court’s judgment based on careful consideration of evidence and legal principles – Acquittal of accused Nos. 2 and 3 upheld due to failure of prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. [Para 26]

ORDER – Dismissal of Criminal Appeal – Criminal Appeal No. 565 of 2017 (A) dismissed due to lack of merit, affirming Trial Court’s decision.

Property Dispute – Title and boundary dispute over a 15.89 cents of land – Plaintiff claimed ownership and possession of specific plots in the land – Defendants contested the claim – Trial Court decreed in favor of the plaintiff, confirming his title and directing boundary fixation – First Appellate Court upheld the decision – Appeal to the High Court challenging the concurrent findings of the lower courts – Substantial questions of law framed.[Para 1-10]

Interpretation of Rules – Rule 56 of Kerala Survey & Boundaries Rules, 1964 – Applicability of Rule 56 to recorded areas of fields or sub-divisions – Dispute not categorized as a ‘boundary dispute’ under the Act – Survey results not affecting the right and title acquired by parties through valid title deeds and possession.[Para 15-17]

Possession and Boundary – Narrow strip of land in dispute – Presumption of possession in favor of the plaintiff based on pleadings and evidence – Previous decisions supporting this presumption.[Para 19]

Decision – High Court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts – Regular Second Appeal dismissed.[Para 20]

Alleged Dowry Death and Murder – Acquittal of Accused - appeal challenges the acquittal of respondents in a case involving the alleged dowry death and murder of Sumalatha, sister of the appellant. The trial court acquitted the respondents, and the appellant seeks to overturn this decision. [Paras 1, 6]

Evidence and Witness Testimonies – Inconsistencies and Lack of Corroboration - The prosecution's case largely relied on the testimony of PWs 4 to 8, which the trial court found inconsistent and lacking in corroboration. The evidence regarding the alleged dowry demand and the circumstances of Sumalatha's death was deemed insufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. [Paras 11, 20-32]

Dying Declaration – Credibility and Acceptance - The trial court did not accept the alleged oral dying declaration of Sumalatha, finding inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses who claimed to have heard it. [Paras 33-35]

Legal Principles – Appeal Against Acquittal - The principles governing the appellate court's approach in appeals against acquittal were considered, emphasizing the need for careful scrutiny of the trial court’s judgment. [Paras 15, 37]

Decision – Appeal Dismissed: The High Court found no perversity or improbability in the trial court's judgment and dismissed the appeal, upholding the acquittal of the accused. [Paras 37, Order]

Non-Filing of Written Statement – Striking off Defense – Order dated 06.10.2023 by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ajnala, in CS No. 94 of 2021, struck off petitioners’ defense due to non-filing of written statement within 90 days from the service date. [Para 1]

Petitioners' Ex Parte Proceedings and Subsequent Appearances – Petitioners proceeded ex parte on 21.03.2022, reappeared on 09.01.2023, and had the ex parte order set aside, subject to costs. Multiple adjournments granted for filing the written statement. [Para 2]

Analysis of Procedural Law – Application of Order 8, Rule 1 CPC. Supreme Court's interpretation in Kailash vs. Nanhku and others (2005) and subsequent cases – emphasizing the need for expeditious trials, while also acknowledging the courts' discretion for extension beyond the 90-day period in exceptional circumstances. [Paras 5-7, 9-11]

Grant of Last Opportunity to File Written Statement – Petitioners granted one last opportunity to file the written statement by 15.01.2024, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 25,000 to the plaintiff. [Para 12]

Order Modification and Notice to Respondents – Modification of the order dated 06.10.2023. Respondents may approach the court for recalling of this order if dissatisfied. [Para 13]

Decision:

Revision petition allowed; the order dated 06.10.2023 modified; petitioners granted last chance to file the written statement with a cost imposition.

Civil Procedure – Rejection of Plaint – Jurisdiction of Civil Court in Matters Involving SARFAESI Act – Petition challenging rejection of plaint by lower courts under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Civil Court's jurisdiction barred under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act – Exceptions to the bar limited – Debts Recovery Tribunal as the appropriate forum for disputes related to secured assets under SARFAESI Act. [Para 1-9(ii)]

Fraud Allegation in Loan Transactions – Role of Civil Court – Petitioner's claim of forged documents in a loan transaction – Civil Court's limited jurisdiction in cases alleging fraud by secured creditors – Matters primarily for the Debts Recovery Tribunal under SARFAESI Act – Exception when the claim of fraud is patently absurd or untenable. [Para 9(ii)-9(iii)]

Dismissal of Revision Petition – Jurisdictional Bar under SARFAESI Act – Petitioner's revision petition against dismissal of suit involving loan transaction dismissed – Jurisdiction of Civil Court barred by SARFAESI Act – Debts Recovery Tribunal identified as the competent authority for such disputes. [Para 9(ii)-9(iii)]

Decision – Orders of lower courts upheld – Civil Court's jurisdiction barred under SARFAESI Act in disputes related to enforcement of security interests – Revision petition dismissed as devoid of merit. [Para 9(iii)]

Bail Cancellation – Criminal Petition for Canceling Bail Order – Petition to cancel bail order dated 10.04.2023 granted by XXVI Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in S.C.No.2246/2022 for offenses under IPC Sections 302, 504, 506 – Allegation of violation of bail conditions and no change in circumstances since earlier rejections of bail applications. [Paras 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 18]

Bail Principles – Successive Bail Applications – Consideration of successive bail applications in light of Supreme Court judgments – Necessity for specific reasons for granting bail after previous rejections, particularly in cases of serious offenses without any change in circumstances. [Paras 5, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 18]

Judicial Discretion – Granting Bail – Need for courts to provide cogent reasons while granting bail in cases involving heinous offenses – Importance of adhering to established legal principles and judicial discipline in bail matters. [Paras 9, 15, 16, 17, 19]

Decision – Cancellation of Bail – Order granting bail to respondent no.2 set aside due to violation of principles for consideration of successive bail applications and lack of change in circumstances – Petitioner allowed to file a fresh petition for regular bail. [Para 20]

Cheque Dishonour – Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act – Conviction of the revision petitioner under Section 138 upheld by Sessions Court – Revision petitioner’s appeal against conviction and sentence. [Para 1, 4-5]

Legal Competence of Power of Attorney Holder to File Complaint – Challenge to the competence of PW1 to file the complaint on behalf of the complainant company – Held, the power of attorney holder can file a complaint and depose for offences under Section 138 of the NI Act. [Para 9-13]

Vicarious Liability of Managing Partner – Revision petitioner, as the managing partner of the convicted firm, held vicariously liable under Section 138 of the NI Act – Managing partner cannot have a defense distinct from that of the firm. [Para 14-17]

Existence of Legally Enforceable Debt – Contention of revision petitioner regarding the absence of a legally enforceable debt – Dismissed based on evidence and admission in Ext.D4 letter by the first accused firm. [Para 18]

Conclusion and Direction – Revision petition devoid of merit and dismissed – Revision petitioner directed to appear before trial court for sentence execution. [Para 19]

Plaint Rejection Application – Defendants No.3 and 4 (Petitioners) – Request for Rejection of Plaint Against Them – Petitioners filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of plaint, arguing they are not concerned with defendant No.1’s business and are wrongly implicated. [Paras 1, 4]

Suit Details – Recovery of `18,91,005/- and Permanent Injunction – Respondent No.1 (Plaintiff) filed a suit for recovery of dues and permanent injunction against defendants, alleging involvement of defendants No.3 and 4 (petitioners) in business transactions. [Para 2]

Plaintiffs’ Allegations – Petitioners’ Involvement – Allegations against petitioners as Managing Incharge and Manager of defendant No.1, responsible for receiving and acknowledging goods, thus liable for part of due payment. [Para 2, 11]

Petitioners’ Argument – No Personal Transaction with Plaintiff – Petitioners contended they have no direct dealings or transactions with the plaintiff and are not liable for the alleged debt. [Paras 8, 11-12]

Respondents’ Contention – Pleadings in Plaint as Basis for Decision – Counsel for respondents argued that decision on Order 7 Rule 11 CPC application should be based on plaint averments, which implicate petitioners. [Para 9]

Court’s Analysis – No Personal Liability of Petitioners – No direct transaction or contract between petitioners and plaintiff; no assertion of petitioners as guarantors or responsible for payment. [Paras 11-12]

Decision – Plaint Rejected Qua Petitioners – Court set aside trial court’s order and allowed application to reject plaint against petitioners, finding no cause of action against them. Trial to proceed against defendants No.1 and 2. [Paras 13-14]