Criminal Law – Negotiable Instruments – Dishonour of Cheques – Legally Enforceable Liability – Appellant convicted under Section 138 NI Act for dishonour of five cheques aggregating Rs.1,41,000/- issued towards commercial dues – Trial Court sentenced appellant to six months RI with fine – Appellant remained untraceable for over two decades – Counsel appointed through DHCLSC and Amicus Curiae for respondent due to non-appearance [Paras 1-4]

Cheque Dishonour – Presumption under Section 139 NI Act – Once cheque issuance and dishonour established, presumption of legal liability arises – Appellant’s defence that cheques were issued blank and no goods were supplied found unsubstantiated – Statement of account and bill proved by complainant – Evidence of bank officials confirmed dishonour due to insufficient funds and stop payment instructions – Appellant’s own Section 313 CrPC statement admitted stop payment and withdrawal of funds – Held: Defence failed to rebut statutory presumption under Section 139 [Paras 5-18]

Sentence – Mitigating Circumstances – Appellant aged over 83 years – Appeal pending for over 20 years – Already undergone 5 months in custody – Held: Conviction under Section 138 NI Act upheld – Sentence modified to period already undergone in light of mitigating factors and Section 138’s allowance of fine or sentence or both – Appeal partly allowed [Paras 20-22]

Decision: Conviction affirmed – Sentence reduced to period already undergone – Bail bonds and sureties discharged – Appeal disposed of [Paras 22-24]

Civil Law – Rejection of Plaint – Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC – Maintainability – Plaintiffs sought injunction against use of residential flats as dental clinic and for removal of encroachments – Petitioners claimed suit was barred by law, devoid of cause of action and amounted to abuse of court process – Trial Court rejected application – Held: Disputed facts regarding zoning, nature of use, and character of building cannot be resolved at threshold stage – No case for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC [Paras 6-7, 10]

Town Planning – Mixed Use Zoning – Commercial Activity in Residential Complex – Petitioners relied on mixed zone classification to justify dental clinic use – Court held that mixed zoning does not imply all buildings can be commercially used – Nature of building and permitted use to be established through evidence – Whether flats are residential or hybrid-use is a triable issue [Para 7]

Medical Practice in Residential Premises – Entire Residential Unit Converted to Clinic – Petitioners cited right of doctors to run clinics from home – Court distinguished facts – Held: Use of entire flat as clinic without residence amounts to commercial use – Protection limited to partial use of residence for professional practice – Not applicable here [Para 8]

Res Judicata – Prior Writ Proceedings – Petitioners contended that suit was barred due to earlier writ petition on same issue – Court noted writ petition only sought disposal of representation and did not address merits – Held: Present suit not barred by res judicata or re-litigation [Para 9]

Decision: Civil Revision Petition dismissed – No error in Trial Court's refusal to reject plaint – No costs – Connected CMP also dismissed.

Bail – Medical Grounds – UAPA Offences – Statutory Embargo under Section 43-D(5) – Appellant aged 77 sought bail citing multiple ailments including cardiac disease, pacemaker implantation, urological, ophthalmic and neurological conditions – Held: Bail on medical grounds can be granted only in exceptional cases where medical condition cannot be adequately treated in custody – Mere multiplicity of ailments or frequent hospital visits insufficient [Paras 17–22, 37].

Terrorism Offences – Murder of Advocate – Alleged Conspiracy with Terrorist Outfit – Influence of Accused – Investigation Transferred to SIA and Trial Shifted from Srinagar to Jammu due to threat perception – Held: Appellant’s influence and possibility of hampering free and fair trial weighs heavily against grant of bail [Paras 3–6, 23–24, 38].

Medical Treatment in Custody – Adequacy of Facilities – Pacemaker Implanted During Incarceration – Regular Follow-up with Multiple Specialties – Latest Medical Report Showing Stable Condition – Held: Record demonstrates that jail and State authorities have provided advanced and specialized medical care as and when required – No material to show inability of authorities to manage health condition [Paras 18–21, 33–35].

Palliative Care – Scope – Whether Independent Ground for Bail – Held: Palliative care is not an independent ground overriding medical grounds – Once bail on medical grounds is declined, plea for palliative care must also fail [Para 36].

Balancing Individual Liberty and Societal Interest – Article 21 – Right to Health vis-à-vis Right to Fair Trial – Held: In serious terrorism-related offences, Court must harmonize personal liberty with societal interest and right to free and fair trial – Enlargement on bail at this stage would prejudice prosecution and witnesses [Paras 24, 34, 38].

Precedents on Medical Bail – Distinguishable on Facts – Reliance on Manish Sisodia, Shoma Kanti Sen, Jalaluddin Khan, Varavara Rao and Others – Held: Judgments relied upon turned on distinct factual foundations including absence of prima facie case or lack of medical facilities – Not applicable where adequate treatment is being provided and prima facie case exists [Paras 25–32].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Order of trial court rejecting bail on medical grounds upheld – No illegality or perversity found – Bail declined [Para 39].

Succession Law – Conflicting Wills – Probate – Registered Will vs. Unregistered Will – Two first appeals arising from a common judgment rejecting probate of unregistered Will dated 25.5.2002 and granting probate for registered Will dated 20.9.1996 – Trial Court held registered Will valid and subsequent Will fabricated – Held: Second Will surrounded by suspicious circumstances, not proved in accordance with law, and judicial conscience not satisfied – Appeals dismissed [Paras 20, 56–72].

Will – Suspicious Circumstances – Burden of Proof – Later unregistered Will alleged to revoke earlier registered Will – Propounder took active role in preparation – Contradictions regarding place of execution – Delay and non-disclosure in mutation proceedings – Held: Suspicion surrounding execution of later Will not dispelled – Principles in Venkatachala Iyengar, Shivakumar, and Shashi Kumar Banerjee followed – Will rejected [Paras 49–53, 56–72].

Proof of Will – Attesting Witness – Credibility – DW-2 attesting witness admitted affidavit was not prepared on his instructions and he did not know contents – Found to be a beneficiary’s associate – Held: Witness unreliable – No credible attestation of Will dated 25.5.2002 – Will not proved under Section 63(c) of Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of Evidence Act [Paras 66–68].

Mutation Proceedings – Non-disclosure of Will – Inference of Fabrication – Mutation application filed after death of testator based on inheritance, with no mention of alleged Will – Drafted by same advocate who allegedly prepared Will – Held: Conduct casts serious doubt on existence and genuineness of Will – Indicates Will was fabricated later to defeat probate of earlier Will [Paras 63–65].

Will – Revocation of Earlier Will – Reason Unconvincing – No Evidence of Fraud – Alleged revocation of earlier Will based on claim of fraud – No supporting evidence adduced – Testator was aged and bedridden, looked after by original beneficiaries – Held: Stated reason for revocation not credible – Revocation plea rejected [Paras 69–70].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Probate of unregistered Will dated 25.5.2002 rightly denied – Probate of registered Will dated 20.9.1996 upheld – Trial Court’s judgment affirmed [Paras 73–75].

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments – Dishonour of Cheque – Legally Enforceable Debt – Acquittal Upheld – Appellant finance company alleged that accused (wife of chitty subscriber) issued cheque as guarantor for defaulted instalments – Trial court convicted – Sessions Court reversed, holding that complainant failed to prove existence of enforceable liability – High Court held: No guarantee agreement produced – PW1 admitted no direct knowledge of transaction – PW2’s testimony vague and inconsistent – Date of execution or issuance of cheque not disclosed – Complainant failed to establish legally enforceable debt on date of cheque – Acquittal justified [Paras 2–28]

Presumption under Section 139 NI Act – Rebuttal of Presumption – Preponderance of Probabilities – Accused raised probable defence that cheque was misused – Evidence suggested that blank cheques were obtained at time of prize distribution – Company started collecting instalments even before chitty formally started – No clear evidence on due amount as of cheque date – Held: Accused rebutted statutory presumption by probable defence – Complainant failed to discharge burden thereafter – Acquittal proper [Paras 19–24, 26–28]

Cheque Law – Standard of Proof – Section 138 NI Act – Held: Mere admission of signature not sufficient – Complainant must prove that cheque was issued in discharge of debt – Evidence of power of attorney holder (PW1) based only on documents, without personal knowledge – PW2’s claim that cheque signed in his presence not corroborated with date or context – Court reiterated standard of “preponderance of probabilities” for rebutting statutory presumptions [Paras 20–23, 25–28]

Appellate Review – Scope – Reversal of Conviction – If Two Views Possible – Court held that Sessions Court’s view was plausible based on contradictions and lack of substantive proof – Interference not warranted in appeal – Acquittal affirmed [Para 28]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment of acquittal by the Additional District and Sessions Court (Adhoc-II), Thodupuzha affirmed – No legally enforceable debt proved – Accused not guilty under Section 138 of the NI Act

Matrimonial Law – Anti-Suit Injunction – Divorce Proceedings – Foreign Court Jurisdiction – Indian trial court granted ad interim anti-suit injunction restraining the wife from prosecuting divorce and maintenance proceedings in UK Family Court – Held: Principle of forum non conveniens cannot be invoked by Indian court to restrain proceedings in a foreign court – Jurisdictional challenge must be addressed by the UK Court itself – Both spouses had deep-rooted residential and financial ties with the UK – Respondent-husband’s claims of inconvenience held to be untenable [Paras 35-44]

Private International Law – Competence of Foreign Court – UK Family Court – Wife residing in the UK since 2015 and instituted proceedings in UK under UK law – UK court's competence under the Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act, 1973 already under adjudication by the UK Court itself – Indian court must defer to such determination – Even under Hindu Marriage Act, territorial jurisdiction principles could prima facie support UK jurisdiction based on wife’s residence and last place of cohabitation [Paras 45-53]

Foreign Judgments – Section 13 CPC – Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage – Whether ground recognized under Indian Law – Supreme Court in Rakesh Raman v. Kavita held that irretrievable breakdown may constitute mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) HMA – Ratio forms binding precedent under Article 141 – Distinguished from Rinku Baheti v. Sandesh Sharda, which did not overrule Rakesh Raman – UK proceeding not necessarily founded on refusal to recognize Indian law [Paras 54-62]

Comity of Courts – Respect for Foreign Proceedings – Indian court’s interference with valid maintenance order passed by UK court violates principle of comity – UK court had already fixed the matter for jurisdictional adjudication and stayed its own proceedings – Premature for Indian court to restrain UK proceedings through anti-suit injunction [Paras 63-71]

Civil Procedure – Section 10 CPC – Non-Applicability to Foreign Suits – Mere earlier filing of divorce suit by husband in India not sufficient to justify anti-suit injunction – Section 10 CPC applies only where both suits are in Indian courts – No authority for Indian court to stay a foreign proceeding [Para 76]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned anti-suit injunction order dated 01/11/2025 set aside – Respondent's plea for stay of judgment rejected – Observations made are tentative and will not prejudice either party in Indian or UK proceedings [Paras 76-79]

Criminal Law -  NDPS Act – Illegal Possession – Acquittal – Accused convicted under Section 15 NDPS Act for alleged possession of 160 kg poppy husk – Conviction based solely on official witness testimonies – Independent witness not examined – No written compliance or communication to superior officer under Section 42(2) – No production of case property before Magistrate proven – Held: Prosecution failed to establish compliance with mandatory statutory provisions – Testimonies of PW-1 to PW-4 found inconsistent and unreliable – Acquittal ordered [Paras 18–35].

NDPS Act – Section 42 Violation – Secret information received by police was not reduced to writing nor communicated to superior officer within 72 hours – No explanation offered for non-compliance – Such procedural lapse held fatal to prosecution case – Supreme Court decisions in Sukhdev Singh v. State of Haryana and State of Rajasthan v. Jagraj followed – Recovery held suspicious [Paras 19–24].

NDPS Act – Link Evidence and Tampering – Failure to prove production of sealed case property before Magistrate – Seal retained by officer conducting seizure – Crucial link witness (ASI Ranjit Singh) not examined and no alternative proof provided – Absence of DDR entries and unexplained gaps raise possibility of tampering – Held: Break in chain of custody rendered recovery doubtful [Paras 27–30].

Witness Testimony – Official Witness Credibility – Contradictions in deposition of PW-1 and PW-2 regarding duration of presence, location, and process – Non-joining of independent witnesses despite availability – Failure to examine sole claimed eyewitness – Held: Prosecution version suffers from fatal contradictions and lack of corroboration – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 26, 32–34].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 15 of NDPS Act set aside – Appellants acquitted – Bail bonds discharged [Para 35].

Civil Law – Decree on Admissions – Partition Suit – Application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC filed by appellant seeking summary decree of partition and rental income – Defendants had abandoned defence of oral family settlement and filed relinquishment deeds – High Court held that such documents did not amount to unequivocal admissions – No clear pleading regarding title in plaint – Significant factual disputes existed as to title, area of property, shares, heirs, and income – Held: Summary decree rightly denied – Full trial warranted [Paras 2, 15–22].

Partition – Requirement of Proof of Title – Plaintiff failed to plead title documents of parents from whom rights claimed – Prior judicial finding that plaintiff had not established that suit properties were part of intestate estate had attained finality – Relinquishment deeds of some defendants did not establish complete or uncontested ownership by parents – Held: In absence of foundational title pleadings, decree on admission cannot be granted [Paras 10, 15–18].

Admissions – Legal Standard – Order XII Rule 6 CPC – Admissions must be unequivocal, unambiguous, and unconditional – Partition suits require detailed evidence on title, possession, and shares – Where disputes exist as to size of property, status of heirs, and rental income, matter not suitable for summary adjudication – Held: Appellant failed to demonstrate requisite admissions for decree [Paras 18–21].

Procedural Relief – Liberty to File Fresh Application – While dismissing appeal, Court granted liberty to file fresh and specific application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC if clear and unqualified admissions are identified – Any such application to be considered by learned Single Judge independently [Paras 23–25].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Decree under Order XII Rule 6 CPC declined – Appellant granted liberty to file a more detailed application identifying specific and unequivocal admissions – All pending applications also disposed of [Paras 24–26].

Limitation Law - Review – Delay in Filing – Condonation of Delay – Review Petition filed with delay of 5743 days from judgment date and 489 days from dismissal of SLP – Explanation based on routine administrative process, file movement, legal opinion, and internal approvals – Held: Reasons offered by the State reflect gross negligence, red-tapism, and callous approach – Delay not satisfactorily explained – Law of limitation binds all parties, including the State – Petition dismissed [Paras 6–23].

Limitation – Delay by State – No Special Treatment – Supreme Court precedents reiterated that delay by government departments cannot be condoned merely due to inefficiency or file processing – State must act diligently – Law of limitation applies equally to government and private parties – Casual explanation based on administrative routine is insufficient to constitute 'sufficient cause' under Section 5 of the Limitation Act [Paras 8–13, 21].

Judicial Discipline – Finality of Litigation – Supreme Court had already dismissed SLP against the same judgment citing both delay and merits – Review Petition effectively attempts to reopen what has attained finality – Held: Review jurisdiction cannot override or dilute findings of Supreme Court – Attempt to revisit settled matter rejected [Paras 5, 24].

Decision: Delay condonation application rejected – Consequently, Civil Misc. Review Petition also dismissed – State failed to offer sufficient cause for inordinate delay – Judgment dated 13.11.2009 attains finality [Paras 25–26].