Criminal Appeal – Conviction under Section 29 of the ND&PS Act – Lack of evidence to establish abetment or criminal conspiracy – Discrepancies in link evidence – Non-compliance with Section 42 – Production of seized contraband before Magistrate – Presumption of possession under Section 54 – Mere non-production of specimen seal – Appeal allowed – Conviction set aside. [Para 42]

Criminal Conspiracy – Ingredients to establish criminal conspiracy under Section 29 of the ND&PS Act – Agreement between accused – Doing of an illegal act or lawful act by unlawful means – No evidence of criminal conspiracy – Appellant's presence not sufficient to infer conspiracy – Reference to case law and precedent. [Para 46-53]

Link Evidence – Discrepancies in link evidence – Minor contradictions in testimonies – Normal errors of observations – Test of credibility – Marginal variations do not render evidence brittle – Necessity to separate grain from shaft – Discrepancies not affecting core of prosecution case – No material improvement or contradiction undermining witness credibility. [Para 70-71]

Seizure and Production – Compliance with Section 52A of the ND&PS Act – Sampling and drawing of samples – Judicial Magistrate's role – Description of proceedings – Discrepancies in inventory preparation – Role of court seal and re-seal impression – Non-production of specimen seal – Precedent on non-production of seal in evidence. [Para 72-78]

Conclusion – Conviction under Section 29 of the ND&PS Act not sustained – Lack of evidence for abetment or criminal conspiracy – Discrepancies not undermining core of prosecution case – Non-compliance with Section 42 not fatal – Appeal allowed – Immediate release of appellant ordered – Personal bond and surety required as per Section 437A Cr.P.C. [Para 79-80]

Criminal Appeal - Conviction under Sections 342/363/376 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act - Victim, a minor, allegedly sexually assaulted by the appellant - Appeal seeks to set aside the conviction and sentence - Various submissions made by the parties - Examination of victim's testimony, medical evidence, and corroborating statements - Analysis of inconsistencies in victim's statements - Consideration of age of victim - Appellant's contention of absence of injuries - Statutory presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act - Conviction upheld.

Personal Liberty - Court's duty to appreciate evidence and not attach undue importance to minor discrepancies - Emphasis on the credibility and reliability of victim's testimony - Age of the victim as a factor in evaluating statements - Relevance of corroborating evidence in sexual assault cases.

Sexual Offences - Importance of medical evidence and injuries in sexual assault cases - Acknowledgment that injuries may not be present in every case - Recognition of penetration as a crucial element, regardless of the presence of injuries - Reference to statutory presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act.

Conviction under Sections 342/363/376 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act upheld - Victim's testimony found credible and trustworthy - Minor contradictions and absence of injuries do not discredit the prosecution's case - Appellant's appeal dismissed.

Writ Petition - Challenge to Rejection of Representation for Reopening of IMFL "ON" Shop - Petitioner sought quashing of orders rejecting representation and a direction to grant permit for reopening - Shop had been closed due to Supreme Court's ban on liquor sale along highways.

Apex Court's Relaxations - Subsequent orders by Supreme Court provided relaxations based on proximity and development of the area in question - Government issued guidelines limiting distance for liquor outlets along highways to 3 KMs from municipal areas, subject to sufficient urban development.

Government's Policy - Discretion of the Government in policy formulation and decision-making not routinely subject to judicial review - Courts evaluate legality, not the wisdom of policy decisions.

Scope of Judicial Review - Judicial review concerned with decision-making processes, not the correctness of policy - Courts must avoid usurping government decision-making power.

Government's Decision Upheld - Petitioner's claim conflicted with government's policy decisions aligned with apex Court's directions - Court upheld government's rejection of petitioner's representation.

Writ Petition Dismissed - Petition seeking quashing of government's decision and reopening of petitioner's shop dismissed - No order as to costs.

Civil Jurisdiction - Territorial Jurisdiction - Arbitration Agreement - Interpretation of seat of arbitration - Dispute over territorial jurisdiction - Whether the court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present petition - Examination of arbitration agreement's clauses - Determination of the "seat" of arbitration - Analysis of relevant precedents regarding seat of arbitrationand jurisdiction - Seat of arbitration as indicated by the arbitration agreement's "venue" - Court's supervisory jurisdiction over arbitration proceedings situated at the designated seat - Applicability of amendments to Section 29A of the Act to pending arbitration proceedings - Extending the mandate of the arbitrator on sufficient cause being shown - Extension of time for completing arbitration proceedings and making the arbitral award granted - Petition allowed with directions. [Para 11]

Venue and Seat of Arbitration - Distinction and Interpretation - Examining the arbitration agreement's clauses to determine the intended "seat" of arbitration - Understanding the significance of designating a "venue" in the agreement - Precedents demonstrating the relationship between "venue" and "seat" in arbitration proceedings - Importance of the courts having supervisory jurisdiction over the seat of arbitration - Distinction between a general "exclusive jurisdiction" clause and a specific clause pertaining to arbitration proceedings - Prima facie interpretation of the agreement's clauses pointing to Delhi as the "seat" of arbitration - Importance of party autonomy in designating the seat of arbitration - Precedents reinforcing the principle of party autonomy in selecting the seat - Application of Section 29A of the Act to extend the mandate of the arbitrator - Factors justifying the extension of time for completing arbitration proceedings - Granting of one-year extension for completing arbitration proceedings and making the arbitral award - Jurisdictional analysis and directions for the petition. [Para 12-22]

Arbitration Proceedings - Extension of Arbitrator's Mandate - Interpretation of Section 29A of the Arbitration Act - Application of Section 29A to pending arbitration proceedings - Examination of circumstances justifying extension of the arbitrator's mandate - Review of the arbitral proceedings' progress and expedition - Acceptance of party's request for time extension due to ongoing evidence recording stage - Granting of one-year extension for the completion of arbitration proceedings and the issuance of the arbitral award - Court's role in ensuring fair arbitration process and timely resolution - Application of legal provisions and precedent in deciding on time extension - Court's jurisdiction and discretion in extending arbitrator's mandate - Petition allowed with appropriate extension of time and other directions. [Para 33-39]

Conclusion and Directions - Legal Interpretation and Jurisdiction - Analysis of clauses in the arbitration agreement regarding venue and seat - Determination of seat of arbitration based on agreement's provisions - Distinction between venue and seat in arbitration proceedings - Application of precedents and relevant legal principles to interpret the agreement - Examination of circumstances justifying extension of arbitrator's mandate - Application of Section 29A of the Arbitration Act to ongoing arbitration proceedings - Decision to grant one-year extension for the completion of arbitration proceedings and issuance of arbitral award - Ensuring fairness and expedition in the arbitration process - Petition allowed with the specified extension and resolution of pending applications. [Para 31, 32, 34-40]

Civil Suit for Injunction – Rejection of Plaint – Jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC – Defendants sought rejection of plaint on various grounds – Challenge to maintainability of a simpliciter suit for injunction without seeking relief of declaration of title – Applicability of principles of estoppel – Challenge to plaintiff’s claim based on unregistered and insufficiently stamped documents – Scope of power under Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Test to determine whether a cause of action is disclosed in the plaint – Importance of considering averments in the plaint and not the contentions in the written statement – Plaintiff’s claim based on Agreement to Sell, General Power of Attorney, and Deed of Apartment – Late Dr. Pushpa Khanna’s physical possession of suit property – Appointment of plaintiff as Interim Administrator of estate – Principles of estoppel in relation to earlier withdrawn suit – Prohibition of claim to ownership based on GPA/Agreement to Sell per Suraj Lamps decision – Clarification on genuine transactions and protection under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act – Application dismissed. [Para 1-16]

Facts: The petitioner sought to quash an order allowing the recall of PW5 for cross-examination through video conferencing in a criminal case where he was accused of abusing a Judicial Officer. [Para 4]

 Issues: The issues were related to the legality of the trial Court's decision to recall PW5 for cross-examination through video conferencing and whether the accused's rights were affected by this decision. [Para 5-6]

 Observations: The Court observed that the application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. must be allowed frequently, and that recording evidence through video conferencing is permissible under the law. The Court referred to the detailed rules and procedures laid down for video conferencing. [Para 7, 9-11]

 Decision: The High Court held that the trial Court's decision was permissible and did not affect the rights of the accused. The petition was dismissed. [Para 12]

Facts:

The accused were charged with the murder of Shihab, allegedly committed using an Ambassador car (MO11) and a motorcycle (MO13). The prosecution claimed that the accused were members of the organization RSS and had targeted Shihab, who was the prime accused in the murder of an RSS member. The case was built on the evidence of two witnesses (PW1 and PW2) and the seizure of the vehicles. The accused denied involvement, claiming false implication due to their RSS membership. [Para 27-30]

Issues:

1. Whether the evidence provided by the prosecution, including the testimony of PW1 and PW2, is sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused. [Para 27-29]

2. Whether the investigation was conducted properly, without bias or external interference. [Para 30-31]

3. Whether the accused were falsely implicated due to their association with the RSS organization. [Para 29]

Observations:

1. The court found that there was no satisfactory evidence connecting MO11 and MO13 to the crime or the accused to the vehicles. [Para 27]

2. The court noted serious lapses in the investigation, including a delay in questioning key witnesses, lack of material evidence, and inconsistencies in the police diary. [Para 30-31]

3. The court expressed concern over the manner in which the investigating officer concluded the accused's guilt without sufficient materials and the impact of such flawed investigation on the credibility of the justice system. [Para 34]

Decision:

The court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction of accused 1 to 7 and acquitting them. The court emphasized that the acquittal was not due to a finding of innocence but rather due to flawed investigation and lack of evidence. The accused were ordered to be released from custody unless required for any other case. [Para 33-34]

Facts - Police investigation in the present case recorded statements of Mr. Tanveer Khan and Mr. Nirmal Paul, witnesses mentioned by Respondent No.2 in her FIR. The witnesses did not support Respondent No.2's allegations.

- Respondent No.2 falsely claimed that the company, Max Life Insurance, did not take cognizance of her complaints, even though an inquiry was conducted into them.

- There was a three-month delay in lodging the FIR. The Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized the importance of timely FIRs, citing the case of Thulia Kali V/s. The State of Tamil Nadu.

 Legal Issues

1. Whether the FIR lodged by Respondent No.2 was mala fide and filled with improvements and suppressions of material facts.

2. Whether the case falls under the exceptional categories mentioned in State of Haryana & Ors. V/s. Bhajan Lal that would warrant quashing the FIR under Article 226 or Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

 Observations

The FIR by Respondent No.2 is filled with inconsistencies and deliberate suppression of material facts, and appears to be lodged with mala fide intentions.

- The case qualifies under categories 6 and 7 of principles outlined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. V/s. Bhajan Lal, making it a fit case for quashing the FIR.

 Decision

- The court concluded that continuing further investigation in the FIR would be an abuse of process and should be quashed in the interest of justice.

- Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b) and the rule is made absolute.

Anticipatory Bail – Applicant seeks anticipatory bail for offences under Sections 420 of IPC and various sections of the Information Technology Act, 2018 – Application filed in the wake of apprehension of arrest for involvement in an exam cheating scam – High Court considers the merits of the application. [Para 1]

Prosecution's Allegations – Prosecution builds case on the basis of a scam involving remote access to computers for cheating in exams and subsequent monetary demands – Relies on WhatsApp chats and diary entries as prima facie evidence against the applicant. [Para 2, 5-6]

Prior Judicial Proceedings – Applicant's initial application for anticipatory bail rejected by the Sessions Court – Current application filed as an appeal against the Sessions Court's decision. [Para 3]

Applicant's Defense – Applicant claims false implication and lack of material evidence connecting him to the alleged offences – Seeks protection under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. [Para 4]

Court's Analysis – Court scrutinizes material on record, including payments and WhatsApp chats – Emphasizes the importance of cooperation with the investigation as per prior judicial observations. [Para 6-9]

Custodial Interrogation – High Court finds custodial interrogation necessary for effective investigation – Cites Apex Court's views on the efficacy of custodial interrogation. [Para 10]

Decision – High Court concludes that the applicant failed to make out grounds for anticipatory bail – Application for anticipatory bail rejected. [Para 11]