Criminal Law – Abetment of Suicide – Conviction Set Aside – Appellant convicted under Section 306 IPC as mother-in-law of deceased who allegedly committed suicide nine years after marriage – Trial Court convicted appellant based on vague allegations of harassment – Held: No proximate or direct act of instigation or abetment proved against appellant – Essential ingredients of Section 306 IPC read with Section 107 IPC not fulfilled – Mere allegations of harassment not sufficient to constitute abetment – Mens rea absent – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 13–20]

Evidence – Inconsistencies and Omissions – Witnesses Contradicted Their Earlier Statements – PW-4 contradicted prior statement where he had stated that deceased was under depression due to childlessness and that relations with in-laws were cordial – Medical evidence incomplete as doctor who conducted post-mortem not examined – Held: Prosecution failed to prove active role of appellant in causing suicide – No cogent or corroborative evidence led – Accused entitled to benefit of doubt [Paras 17–19]

Judicial Precedents – Standard of Proof Under Section 306 IPC – Court relies on Supreme Court rulings including Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda v. State of Gujarat, Abhinav Mohan Delkar v. State of Maharashtra, Amalendu Pal v. State of West Bengal, S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan – Held: Proximity and direct link between accused’s conduct and suicide necessary – Conviction under Section 306 requires proof of instigation or intentional aid, mere harassment insufficient [Paras 15–16]

Abuse of Process – No Prima Facie Case – Harassment Not Proved to Be of Such Nature As to Drive Deceased to Suicide – Held: Criminal proceedings against appellant in absence of proximate cause and intent would amount to abuse of process – Acquittal warranted [Paras 20–21]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 306 IPC quashed – Appellant acquitted – Fine, if deposited, to be refunded – Bail bonds discharged – Appellant to be released forthwith if not required in any other case

Negotiable Instruments Act – Dishonour of Cheque – Dismissal in Default – Right to Appeal – Complainant's cheque dishonour complaint was dismissed for want of prosecution – High Court held that such dismissal amounts to acquittal – In light of Supreme Court ruling in M/s Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, a complainant in a private complaint under Section 138 N.I. Act qualifies as a ‘victim’ under Section 2(wa) Cr.P.C. – Such a victim has the right to file an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. without seeking special leave under Section 378(4) – High Court directed that the application be treated as an appeal under Section 372 and sent to the Sessions Court for adjudication [Paras 1–5]

Criminal Procedure – Right of Victim to Appeal – Supreme Court in M/s Celestium Financial clarified that complainants in Section 138 cases are entitled to file appeals as victims without procedural barriers applicable to the State or complainants under Section 378 – The distinction is rooted in the nature of the victim's harm and absence of State involvement in such prosecutions – High Court accepted this rationale and followed precedent [Paras 2–5]

Procedural Law – Appeal Transfer – High Court did not examine the merits of the appeal – Directed the Registry to transmit records to the Sessions Court – Applicant to appear before Sessions Court for further proceedings – Petition disposed accordingly [Paras 6–9]

Decision: Application disposed – Treated as an appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. – Transferred to Sessions Judge, Panipat for appropriate disposal.

Criminal Law – Section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act - Acquittal – Illegal Possession of Liquor – Compliance with Procedural Safeguards – Accused was acquitted by Trial Court in a case under Section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act for alleged illegal possession and sale of country liquor – Trial Court found that the prosecution failed to comply with mandatory provisions under Sections 100 and 165 of CrPC – Independent witnesses (PW-1 and PW-4) turned hostile and denied witnessing the recovery – Prosecution could not explain production of half-filled and unsealed bottles in Court [Paras 6, 15-22]

Search and Seizure – Section 165 CrPC – Validity of Search – IO did not reduce secret information into writing nor sent it to Magistrate as required under Section 165 CrPC – Supreme Court precedents mandate strict compliance in cases of warrantless search – Held: Search and seizure vitiated due to procedural lapses [Paras 15-18]

Evidence – Non-Production of Case Property – No explanation provided for half-filled and empty bottles – Seizure not proved through credible testimony – No supporting entry in daily diary about leakage of liquor – Held: Non-production of intact case property creates serious doubt about prosecution’s case [Paras 22-23]

Witness Testimony – Hostile Independent Witnesses – Panchayat members turned hostile during trial and denied witnessing search or seizure – Admission of signatures on seizure memo held insufficient to prove recovery – Held: Trial Court rightly did not rely on uncorroborated official testimonies [Paras 19-21]

Appellate Interference in Acquittal – Scope – High Court reaffirmed that acquittal can only be reversed if findings are perverse or no other reasonable view is possible – Since Trial Court’s view was plausible based on record, appeal dismissed – Presumption of innocence reaffirmed [Paras 12-14, 26]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal of respondent upheld – Bail bond to be furnished as per Section 437-A CrPC [Paras 27-28]

Property Law – Permanent Injunction – Co-sharer plea – Adverse inference – Concurrent findings – Suit land 32 marlas marked ABCD – Trial Court decreed injunction on possession; First Appellate Court affirmed – Defendant’s belated co-sharer argument inapplicable as he never pleaded joint status and instead set up exclusive claims (7 marlas with himself, 25 marlas with sister) – Non-appearance of defendant warranted adverse inference – No substantial question of law – Appeal dismissed [Paras 4, 7–13].

Pleadings and Burden – Co-sharer principle not attracted – Legal proposition that one co-sharer cannot injunct another is undisputed, but inapplicable where the defendant’s own pleadings deny jointness and assert exclusive titles in defined portions – Court declines to permit a case beyond pleadings [Paras 8–9].

Evidence – Family partition and possession – First Appellate Court recorded that partition stood admitted even by defence witnesses – Sister (alleged owner of 25 marlas) residing in another village since 1947; no possession proved – Defendant did not enter the witness box; son (DW2) lacked personal knowledge of partition or identification of the alleged 7 marlas – Defence testimony inconsistent and unreliable [Para 10].

Adverse Inference – Non-appearance of a party – Adverse inference against the defendant for not stepping into the witness box, consistent with Prem Sagar v. Darbari Lal and Sardari Lal v. Kartar Singh – Defendant failed to substantiate title or possession; plaintiff’s possession proved – Decrees sustained [Paras 11–12].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – No substantial question of law arises – Concurrent injunction in favour of the plaintiff maintained [Para 13].

Civil Procedure – Appointment of Advocate Commissioner – Re-Entrustment of Commissioner Warrant – Identity of Property Dispute – High Court holds that Trial Court erred in dismissing petition seeking re-survey of suit lands – Commissioner failed to comply with specific directions in warrant and did not obtain allotment records or demarcate land per sale deeds – Held: Identity of property being core issue, re-survey is essential – Directions issued for re-entrustment of warrant and comprehensive survey using latest technology if necessary [Paras 43 to 51]

Commissioner Report – Non-Compliance with Court Directions – Advocate Commissioner failed to collect or verify allotment letters, layout plans or conduct full inspection as directed – Merely surveyed based on parties' indications – Omission to locate resumed land (Ac.0.29 gts) and excess land in possession of Blue Cross Society (Ac.0.05 gts) – Court held that Advocate Commissioner’s failure undermined purpose of original warrant [Paras 44 to 47]

Scope of Re-Survey – Identity of Land Central to Dispute – Without identification of respective plots of plaintiffs and defendants Nos.3 & 4, litigation cannot be resolved – Advocate Commissioner’s inability to survey entire 1398 acres of Jubilee Hills Society land not sufficient ground to deny re-survey – Directed to attempt alternate methods including Google Maps or superimposition of sanctioned plans [Paras 49, 50]

Role of Government – Lapses in Providing Allotment Details – Court criticized Government for failing to assist in identification of resumed or excess land – Held: Government and survey authorities must assist Commissioner in completing fresh survey – Allotment orders and layout maps to be made available for verification [Para 47, 50]

Revision Jurisdiction – Article 227 Constitution – Interference Warranted – Trial Court’s order found to be perverse and in disregard of core issue in suit – High Court held that revisional jurisdiction can be invoked where Commissioner has failed to comply with judicial directions, and property identification remains unresolved [Paras 42, 51]

Decision – Civil Revision Petition Allowed – Order dated 16.03.2021 in I.A.No.128/2021 set aside – Warrant to be re-entrusted to same or another Senior Advocate Commissioner – Detailed instructions issued for resurvey, inclusion of earlier commission reports, assistance from government departments, and use of advanced survey methods – Commissioner directed to file consolidated report within one month [Para 52]

Criminal Law – Assault on Child – Section 323 IPC – Conviction Upheld – Section 8(2) Goa Children’s Act – Set Aside – Evidence of PW1 (injured child) found wholly reliable – Ocular testimony consistent and unshaken – Medical certificate not proved but ocular evidence given primacy – Incident held isolated and lacking ingredients of “child abuse” under Section 2(m); no deliberate cruelty or sustained maltreatment – Held: Conviction under Section 323 IPC sustainable; conviction under Section 8(2) Goa Children’s Act unsustainable [Paras 18-25, 29, 38-40].

Evidence Law – Injured Witness – High Evidentiary Value – PW1’s testimony inspires confidence – No material contradictions – Defence plea of enmity rejected – Law reiterated that injured witness has inbuilt guarantee of presence; cannot be disbelieved without compelling reasons [Paras 20, 24, 27].

Ocular vs. Medical Evidence – Primacy of Ocular Testimony – Medical certificate not proved as doctor not examined – However, ocular version corroborated by PW2 and not challenged in cross-examination – Medical evidence need not prevail unless it rules out prosecution case entirely – Conviction can rest on reliable ocular testimony [Paras 25-26].

Investigation – Panchanama – Non-examination of Panch Witness Not Fatal – Scene of offence panchanama proved through Investigating Officer – Law reiterated that recovery/panchanama can be proved by IO even if pancha turns hostile or is not examined [Paras 30-32].

Criminal Law – Goa Children’s Act – Scope of “Child Abuse” – Isolated Incident – Not Every Assault Amounts to Child Abuse – Supreme Court in Santosh Khajnekar followed – Abuse must involve cruelty, exploitation, deliberate ill-treatment or intent to cause serious harm – Mere assault during quarrel does not constitute child abuse under Section 8(2) – Conviction under Goa Children’s Act set aside [Paras 37-39].

Probation of Offenders Act – Applicability Mandatory for Offence under Section 323 IPC – Court must consider probation for offences punishable with less than life imprisonment – Matter remanded to Trial Court for determining grant of probation after obtaining Probation Officer’s report – Law reiterated that courts must assess probation for first-time offenders unless excluded by statute [Paras 41-46].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Conviction under Section 323 IPC Confirmed – Conviction under Section 8(2) Goa Children’s Act Set Aside – Matter Remanded on Probation Issue – Fine to be refunded [Para 47].

Criminal Law - SC/ST Act – Recommendation for FIR – Jurisdiction of Commission – Order dated 05.01.2018 passed by Member of National Commission for Scheduled Castes recommending registration of FIR under SC/ST Act against DDA official (Karamvir Narwal) and restoring vendor’s permission challenged – Held: NCSC is empowered to recommend enquiry but cannot direct FIR registration – The impugned order is merely recommendatory and not binding – No mandatory direction for FIR found [Paras 33-36].

Street Vendors Act – Right to Vend – Respondent street vendor had valid permission which was later withdrawn by DDA – Subsequent Writ Petition quashed revocation order – Vendor allegedly harassed and caste-abused by DDA official – Held: Grievance essentially related to vending rights and withdrawal of permission – No evidence of specific incident of caste abuse noted – Omnibus allegations insufficient to justify FIR [Paras 32-34].

Writ Jurisdiction – Maintainability – Petition filed by DDA challenging recommendation of NCSC – Held: Petition maintainable to clarify that NCSC’s order was only advisory in nature – Police not bound to register FIR solely on Commission’s recommendation – Enquiry may be conducted in accordance with law [Paras 35-36].

Decision: Writ Petition disposed of – Clarified that impugned order of NCSC dated 05.01.2018 is recommendatory and not mandatory – No direction to register FIR – Police free to proceed with enquiry under law [Paras 36-37].

Army Law – Disobedience of Lawful Command – Section 41(2) of the Army Act – Punishment of Severe Reprimand – Legality of Summary Trial – Judicial Review under Article 226 – Scope and Limitations – Petitioner, a Subedar in EME Corps, challenged disciplinary action and discharge alleging that Movement Order was never served and enquiry was held ex parte – Record revealed that Petitioner was ordered to report to HQ Technical Group, EME, Delhi Cantt., but refused to comply – Summary trial conducted under Army Rules 22–26 after due opportunity – Eight prosecution and eight defence witnesses examined – Petitioner cross-examined witnesses but refused to sign proceedings – Held: Proceedings conducted in accordance with Army Act and Rules – No violation of natural justice or procedural irregularity – High Court cannot reappreciate evidence under certiorari jurisdiction – Findings supported by rational evidence – Punishment of “Severe Reprimand” not disproportionate [Paras 25–31].

Army Law – Discharge from Service – Extension of Service – Effect of Punishment of Severe Reprimand – Annexure-I to Appendix “A” of Army HQ Letter dated 21.09.1998 – Held: Personnel punished under Section 41(1) or (2) of the Army Act ineligible for extension for three years – Discharge validly ordered on completion of terms of engagement – No infirmity in discharge order [Paras 13–14, 31].

Judicial Review – Certiorari – Limits of High Court Interference – Finding of Fact – Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan, 1963 SCC OnLine SC 24 – Union of India v. Major A. Hussain, (1998) 1 SCC 357 – Court not to act as appellate forum in military discipline matters – Review limited to jurisdictional errors, perversity, or procedural unfairness [Paras 19–21].

Service Law – Pension – Right to Pension – Deferred Wages – Direction to Facilitate Pension Processing – Court observed that though punishment and discharge are valid, pension cannot be denied – Directed respondents to furnish pension papers to petitioner within six weeks and process pension from date of superannuation within four months thereafter [Para 32].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Punishment and discharge upheld – Respondents directed to process and release pension upon completion of formalities by petitioner [Paras 32–33].

Mines and Minerals – Quarry Lease – Renewal – Delay – Interpretation of Expiry Date – Application for renewal of quarry lease rejected as being filed after expiry of lease term – Lease expired on 29.12.2013 (a Sunday) – Application filed on 30.12.2013 – Held: By operation of Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, where the last day falls on a holiday, act done on the next working day is valid – Application held to be within time – Rejection order unsustainable [Paras 10, 15–17]

Service of Orders – Communication Requirement – Limitation for Revision – Revision petition under Rule 53(1) of 1994 Rules rejected as delayed by more than six years – Petitioner claimed order of rejection dated 18.01.2014 was never communicated and came to know only in 2019 through RTI – Held: No material to show rejection order was ever communicated – Limitation would run from date of communication – Matter remanded for reconsideration [Paras 18–19]

Quarry Lease – Penalty for Delayed Renewal – Acceptance of Application with Fee – Application filed with two demand drafts for renewal fee and security deposit – Prima facie shows compliance with payment requirement – Issue of absence of arrears clearance certificate not sufficient ground for rejection in absence of notice or opportunity – Revisional authority to re-examine [Para 20]

General Clauses Act – Applicability to Lease Renewals – Provisions of Section 10 applicable to statutory time limits for filing applications under mining rules – Sunday falling on last day of lease term entitled petitioner to file application on next working day – Similar approach adopted by High Court in Robo Silicon Ltd. case affirmed [Paras 12–13, 16]

Decision: Impugned order set aside – Matter remanded to Revisional Authority for reconsideration – Petition disposed of with liberty to parties to raise all contentions afresh [Paras 21–22]