Civil Law – Forensic Examination – Alleged Tampering of Sealed Documents – Mere Apprehension – No Foundational Basis – Administrative Enquiry Found No Tampering – Photocopies Identical to Originals – Article 227 Petition Dismissed with Costs [Paras 2, 5–8].

Evidence Act – Section 45 – Forensic Examination – Mere Apprehension Insufficient – Petitioner claimed that breaking of lac seal on envelope containing original documents indicated tampering; no concrete allegation or proof of actual manipulation inside the envelope – Held, mere apprehension cannot justify sending documents to a forensic expert; such a direction would unnecessarily delay trial [Paras 2, 5].

Court Records – Administrative Enquiry – Condition of Seal – Storage-Related Damage Not Indicative of Tampering – Trial court’s administrative enquiry found plastic tape intact and cracks in lac seal attributable to bulk storage of envelopes in Ahlmad rooms – Documents remained secure; no material supporting allegation of tampering [Paras 2–3, 6].

Forensic Request Limited to Envelope – Not Maintainable – Prayer to send only the envelope for forensic examination held irrelevant to the lis and outside scope of dispute – No forensic purpose demonstrated [Para 6].

Comparison With Photocopies – No Discrepancy Found – Photocopies earlier filed by petitioner matched originals retrieved from sealed cover, negating suspicion of manipulation [Para 7].

Reliance on Precedent Misplaced – Thiruvengadam Pillai Distinguished – Precedent encouraging expert comparison of handwriting irrelevant since present case did not concern disputed handwriting but alleged tampering of sealed documents [Para 4].

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Article 227 – No Perverse Error – Petition Frivolous – Trial court order found reasoned and justified; no illegality or perversity warranting interference – Petition dismissed as frivolous with cost of Rs.10,000 to be deposited with DHCLSC within one week [Paras 8–9].

Direction to Trial Court – Trial court to ensure compliance regarding deposit of costs [Para 10].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Appeals against Acquittal – Complainant under S.138 NI Act held to be “victim” under S.2(wa) CrPC – Appeal lies before Sessions Court under proviso to S.372 CrPC (now S.413 BNSS) without seeking special leave under S.378(4) – High Court directs withdrawal/transfer of pending leave petitions and appeals to Sessions Court – Consistent with Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1320 [Paras 2–15].

Criminal Procedure – Appeal Against Acquittal – NI Act – Status of Complainant as Victim – Supreme Court clarification – Reiterating Celestium Financial, the Court holds that a complainant in an offence under Section 138 NI Act suffers financial loss and injury due to dishonour of cheque and is, therefore, a “victim” within Section 2(wa) CrPC – Such complainant can appeal as of right under proviso to Section 372 CrPC (now Section 413 BNSS), without complying with the restrictions under Section 378(4) CrPC – Held: Complainant/victim has an independent statutory right to appeal against acquittal, conviction for lesser offence, or inadequate compensation [Paras 2–7].

Appeals – Forum of Appeal – Distinction between S.378(4) and S.372 Proviso – Unlike the route under Section 378(4) CrPC, which requires special leave from the High Court, an appeal under proviso to Section 372 lies before the Sessions Court, being the appellate court ordinarily competent to hear appeals from orders of conviction passed by Magistrates under Section 143 NI Act – High Court emphasises that Section 372 is a self-contained appeal provision independent of Section 378 [Paras 4–8].

Effect on Pending Leave Petitions and Appeals – Transfer to Sessions Court – Since complainants/appellants have a statutory right to approach Sessions Court directly, High Court holds that continuing proceedings before High Court may deprive parties of the hierarchical appellate remedies – Petitions under Section 378(4) CrPC accordingly dismissed as withdrawn (where requested) or treated as infructuous, and all accompanying appeals ordered to be transferred to Sessions Court to be registered as appeals under Section 413 BNSS (earlier Section 372 CrPC) [Paras 9–11].

Case Law – Consistent Application Across High Courts – Delhi High Court notes consistent national trend following Celestium Financial, referring to decisions of Bombay, Karnataka, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Gauhati, Allahabad & Himachal Pradesh High Courts – Co-ordinate benches of Delhi High Court have also adopted the same approach in similar matters [Paras 7–8, 10–13].

Procedural Directions – Registry directed to transfer complete record, including TCR, to the concerned Principal District & Sessions Judge; delay-condonation applications, if any, to be decided by the Sessions Court; Sessions Court requested to dispose of transferred appeals expeditiously; no observation on merits; rights/ contentions left open [Paras 11–16].

Decision: All leave petitions/appeals disposed of by dismissal as withdrawn or by transfer; accompanying appeals to be treated as filed under proviso to Section 413 BNSS and placed before Sessions Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

Criminal Law – Speaking to Minutes – Finality of Judgment – Section 362 CrPC bar – No power to modify or alter sentence after appellate and Supreme Court affirmations – Concurrent running of sentences cannot be inserted subsequently – Application for speaking to minutes cannot substitute review or modification – Application rejected [Paras 16–23, 25].

Criminal Procedure – Speaking to Minutes – Scope and Limits – Application seeking insertion of direction that sentences run concurrently – Held: Speaking to minutes is confined to correction of clerical or typographical mistakes and cannot be used to modify, review or alter substantive findings or directions in a judgment – Any such attempt amounts to impermissible review under Section 362 CrPC / Section 528 BNSS – Application not maintainable [Paras 4, 19–23].

Sentence – Concurrent vs. Consecutive – Section 31 CrPC – Trial court did not direct concurrent running of sentences and appellate court also confirmed conviction without such direction – In absence of explicit direction, sentences run consecutively – Principle that sentences in a single transaction must run concurrently is not absolute; depends on nature and gravity of offence – Heinous offence of gang rape, threats, children kept hostage – Trial court rightly refrained from granting concurrency – No ground to alter sentencing mode post-finality [Paras 7, 10–12].

Inherent Powers – Section 482 CrPC / Section 528 BNSS – Limits – High Court cannot invoke inherent powers to modify a concluded judgment when CrPC expressly bars review and alteration – Inherent powers cannot override statutory prohibitions – Only clerical/arithmetical errors may be corrected – Present request is for substantive modification and hence barred [Paras 14–16, 22].

Finality of Criminal Judgments – Section 362 CrPC – Once appellate and Supreme Court have affirmed conviction and sentence, the High Court becomes functus officio – No power to revisit or modify operative portion – Any change to sentencing mode (concurrent vs. consecutive) constitutes substantive alteration and is prohibited – No exception applicable (fraud, lack of jurisdiction, denial of hearing etc.) [Paras 17–21].

Delay and Conduct – Applicant never raised plea of concurrency before Trial Court, Appellate Court, or Supreme Court – Raised for first time after many years – No explanation for delay – Plea barred both on law and conduct [Paras 2.6, 3, 17–18, 24].

Held – Sentences imposed under Sections 376(g) and 506 r/w 34 IPC to run consecutively by default – No jurisdiction to insert concurrency after judgment reached finality – Application for speaking to minutes rejected – No direction for release – No costs [Paras 25].

Civil Procedure – Rejection of Plaint – Limitation – Gift Deed – Plaintiff challenged registered gift deed executed in 2010 on ground that it was a sham transaction done only to aid sister’s visa application – Suit filed in 2021 seeking cancellation and declaration – Trial Court and Appellate Court found suit barred under Article 59 of Limitation Act as limitation is 3 years from execution – Held: Execution and registration of gift deed not disputed; absence of fraud plea; cause of action stale – Plaint rightly rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC [Paras 6–9].

Mohammedan Law – Gift of Immovable Property – Plaintiff claimed gift deed lacked essential ingredient of delivery of possession – Court held: Registered deed contained covenant confirming delivery of possession – Gift complete in law under Section 123 of TP Act – Plaintiff continued in possession does not invalidate gift [Paras 3.4, 4.3, 6, 7].

Limitation – Article 59 – Cause of Action – Plaintiff relied on 2021 legal notice from defendant to claim discovery of cause of action – Court found such assertion artificial – Held: Knowledge of gift existed since 2010; no facts pleaded showing discovery of fraud or reason for delay – Delay of 11 years fatal to claim [Paras 3.5, 6–7].

Second Appeal – Scope – Concurrent Findings – Courts below held claim time-barred based on uncontroverted record – No substantial question of law arose – Held: Second appeal cannot be “third trial on facts” or a gamble – Dismissed at admission stage [Paras 11–16].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed at admission stage – No substantial question of law arose – Civil Application also disposed of.

Criminal Law – Section 498A IPC – Applicability to Void Marriages and Live-In Relationships – Petitioner contended that Respondent No. 2 could not claim protection under Section 498A as the marriage was void owing to his subsisting marriage with another woman – Held: Section 498A covers not only legally valid marriages but also void or voidable marriages and relationships in the nature of marriage – A man who induces a woman into cohabitation under the false pretense of marriage cannot escape liability under Section 498A – Relationship with trappings of marriage falls within scope of the section [Paras 13.1–13.16].

Criminal Procedure – Section 498A – Parallel Proceedings – Two separate criminal cases pending against petitioner for offence under Section 498A in Shivamogga and Bengaluru arising out of related facts – Held: Permitting parallel trials under Section 498A in different fora would lead to conflicting judgments – Directed: Case pending in Shivamogga transferred to Bengaluru court for joint trial with pending proceedings [Paras 14.1–14.3].

Evidence – Dying Declaration – Admissibility of Statement by Surviving Complainant – Petitioner challenged statement recorded by Head Constable as not fulfilling requirements of dying declaration under Section 32 of Indian Evidence Act – Held: Respondent No. 2 survived – Statement is not a dying declaration but a regular witness statement – Evidentiary value to be tested at trial – Procedural irregularities in MLC registration not grounds for quashing proceedings at pre-trial stage [Paras 15.1–15.13].

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of Proceedings – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Petitions filed to quash proceedings in two FIRs alleging dowry harassment and attempt to murder – Allegations include setting complainant on fire and suppression of prior marriage – Held: Allegations are serious and require full trial – No grounds made out for interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Petitions dismissed [Paras 16.1].

Decision: Petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed – Proceedings in CC No. 630/2019 pending before III Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Divn) and JMFC, Shivamogga transferred to 24th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru to be tried along with CC No. 28129/2023 – Criminal proceedings to proceed in accordance with law.

Criminal Law – Prevention of Corruption – Bribe Demand and Acceptance – Accused public servant allegedly demanded ₹1500 from complainant to release subsidy amount of ₹3000 – Trap conducted by ACB – Accused caught with tainted currency – However, Demand Draft for subsidy not found tainted – Evidence showed that DD was handed over before any contact with anthracene-laced notes – Held: Sequence of events raises serious doubt about prosecution’s version and falsifies theory of bribe being a precondition for release of subsidy [Paras 13–15, 19].

Evidence – Tainted Money – Anthracene Test – Prosecution case that bribe was accepted prior to handing over of DD contradicted by fact that DD showed no trace of anthracene – If DD was handled after bribe transaction, it would have shown traces – Court held that this absence indicated subsidy was already released before any money changed hands [Paras 13–15].

Defence – Legal Recovery – Appellant’s defence that ₹1500 was towards licence fees for fishing activity – Complainant admitted that further ₹500 was sought for issuance of receipt – Court held that no bribe giver demands receipt, and no officer issues receipt for bribe – Admission of demand for receipt strengthens claim of legal transaction – Held: Serious doubt created about nature of payment – Benefit of doubt must be given [Paras 16–17].

Criminal Trial – Evaluation of Evidence – Trial Court failed to consider key admissions of complainant and crucial aspect that DD was untainted – Mere delay in Appellant raising defence theory insufficient to discredit it – Absence of evidence supporting defence does not ipso facto prove prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 18–19].

Presumption under Section 20 of PC Act – Rebuttal – Though presumption arises upon acceptance of tainted money, court held that surrounding circumstances, including prior release of DD and demand for receipt, sufficiently rebut presumption – Held: Explanation offered by accused plausible and unshaken [Paras 16–19].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act set aside – Appellant acquitted of all charges – Directed to execute P.R. bond of ₹15,000 under Section 481 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (formerly Section 437A CrPC) [Para 20].

Service Law – Age of Superannuation – NTC Employee – Validity of Reduction in Retirement Age – Petitioner, a mill-grade employee of Model Mills (taken over by NTC), challenged superannuation at age 58, claiming his retirement age was 60 – Labour Court and Industrial Court rejected complaint holding employer had legal authority to reduce retirement age to 58 – Writ Court upheld concurrent findings, relying on NTC Rules, 1985 and Section 14 of the Nationalisation Act, 1974 – Held: NTC validly altered conditions of service, including retirement age – No unfair labour practice established [Paras 2.3, 3, 6–8, 10].

Labour Law – MRTU & PULP Act – Complaint Under Item 1 of Schedule IV – Illegal Termination – Not Made Out – Superannuation notice challenged as illegal termination – Labour Court held notice was legal as per service rules – Revision by employee dismissed by Industrial Court – Writ Court concurred with lower courts and held action of employer did not amount to unfair labour practice [Paras 3, 4, 10].

Interpretation of Service Rules – Applicability of NTC Rules, 1985 – Whether Agreement with Union Overrides Rules – Petitioner relied on past agreement between Model Mills and Union to claim retirement age of 60 – Court held such an agreement was not an industry-wise agreement under Rule 2.3 of NTC Rules – Held: Agreement confined to one establishment cannot override NTC Rules applicable post-nationalisation [Paras 7–8].

Binding Precedent – Reliance on Division Bench Decision in Vasant Sheshrao Kale (2010 (3) Mh.L.J. 610) – Issue squarely covered by binding precedent holding that NTC validly altered age of superannuation through statutory rules – Petition devoid of merit in light of precedent and concurrent findings of fact [Paras 6–8, 10].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – No error found in concurrent findings of Labour Court and Industrial Court – No unfair labour practice or illegal termination established – Rule discharged, no costs awarded [Para 10, Order].

Civil Law – Amendment of Pleadings – Order VI Rule 17 CPC – Rejection of Amendment Application set aside – Plaintiffs sought to amend plaint to include property details and elaborate coparcenary claim – High Court held that trial had not commenced as affidavit of evidence had not been tendered – Delay alone not sufficient to deny amendment – Amendment allowed subject to cost – Learned Single Judge erred in treating amendment as mala fide without supporting material [Paras 9, 19, 23]

Civil Procedure – Rejection of Suit – Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Trial Court dismissed suit without trial citing prior judicial admission and law post-Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Held: Dismissal without permitting parties to lead evidence was improper – Suit raised arguable questions of fact and law regarding nature of properties and formation of coparcenary – Pleadings sufficiently disclosed cause of action [Paras 16, 21]

Hindu Law – Coparcenary – Ancestral Property – Plaintiffs claimed partition based on Mitakshara law, asserting property devolved from forefathers and retained ancestral character – Court held that such assertions require factual determination – Premature to dismiss suit on basis of legal assumption or prior compromise by one defendant without trial [Paras 5, 21–22]

Civil Procedure – Discretion of Court – Costs and Interim Orders – Learned Single Judge erred in requiring plaintiffs to deposit Rs. 10 lakhs as condition to maintain suit – Also erred in linking amendment rejection to subsistence of interim orders – Court emphasized that procedural defects and interim reliefs cannot override substantive adjudication of claims [Paras 24–25]

Decision: Appeals allowed – Order dated 12.08.2016 rejecting Amendment Application and dismissing suit set aside – Suit restored to original number – Amendment allowed on payment of Rs. 25,000/- as cost – Parties to appear before learned Single Judge (Roster Bench) on 11.11.2025.

Criminal Law – Attempt to Murder – Section 307 IPC – Reversal of Acquittal – Accused Gulab stabbed victim Raju during a scuffle while co-accused held the victim – Trial Court acquitted all four accused citing inconsistencies and lack of recovery – High Court held that intention to kill was not clearly made out but injury with sharp weapon and testimony of injured victim established offence under Section 324 IPC – Judgment of acquittal set aside – All accused convicted under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC [Paras 1–30]

Evidence – Injured Witness – Credibility – Testimony of injured Raju (PW-2) corroborated by PW-3 and PW-4 – Minor inconsistencies and contradictions in witness accounts held immaterial – High Court reaffirmed principle that injured witnesses are generally more reliable and their testimony cannot be discarded lightly in absence of major contradictions [Paras 13–19]

Common Intention – Section 34 IPC – Scope – Co-accused held victim while main assailant delivered knife blow – Though there was no pre-planned attack, co-accused did not prevent the stabbing and facilitated the act – Held: Their conduct established common intention to cause injury – All liable under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC [Paras 24–28]

Investigation – Defective Investigation – Lapses in seizure, non-examination of public witnesses, and recovery of weapon – Held: Such lapses, though present, were not fatal to prosecution case – Credible evidence from victim and corroborative testimony sufficient to sustain conviction [Paras 22–23]

Sentence – Delay and Time Already Undergone – Incident occurred in 1998 – Appeal pending since 2002 – Accused had spent some time in custody during trial – Considering long passage of time, High Court sentenced accused to period already undergone [Para 31]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Acquittal set aside – All four accused convicted under Section 324/34 IPC – Sentenced to period already undergone – Appeal disposed of.