Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - Dishonor of Cheque - Presumption of consideration - Burden of proof - Admitted signature - The appellant filed a complaint against the respondent for dishonoring a cheque issued for partial repayment of an advance amount paid towards the purchase of a property - The Trial Court convicted the respondent, and the conviction was upheld by the Sessions Judge - The respondent raised a new contention before the High Court regarding the circumstances under which he signed the cheque - High Court allowed the Revision Petition, setting aside the conviction order, holding that the appellant had not proved payment of the advance amount, and the agreement for the property transaction was doubtful - On appeal, the Supreme Court reinstated the Trial Court's conviction order, emphasizing that the respondent did not successfully rebut the presumption of consideration arising from the admitted signature on the cheque - The Court considered the respondent's new contention but found it unsubstantiated, as it was raised for the first time during the arguments before the High Court and lacked supporting evidence - The Court modified the sentence to impose an enhanced fine instead of imprisonment, considering the age of the case, the non-commercial nature of the transaction, and the possibility of social and economic changes in the parties' status over time - The respondent was given the option to pay the fine, and in case of default, he would serve a six-month imprisonment.

Criminal Appeal – Conviction under NDPS Act – Appeal against the judgment of the High Court – Appellants convicted for possession of contraband – Various grounds of appeal raised, including the admissibility of confession statements – Examination of evidence and procedural safeguards required under the NDPS Act – Credibility of independent witnesses questioned – Handling of case property and discrepancy in description – Defense version of false implication raised. Evaluation of evidence – Review of the appellant’s case – Conviction order of Satnam Singh upheld, while Balwinder Singh acquitted based on legal analysis and evidentiary considerations. [Para 1-5, 27]

Legal Burden of Proof – Standard of Proof – Higher degree of assurance required for prosecution in serious offences – Initial burden on prosecution to establish foundational facts beyond reasonable doubt – Shift of burden to accused – Lesser standard for accused to prove innocence by preponderance of probability. [Para 15-16]

Criminal Appeal – Interpretation of NDPS Act – Significance of Tofan Singh's Decision – Re-examination of Kanhaiyalal and Raj Kumar Karwal – Confessional statements made to officers under Section 53 of NDPS Act – officers invested with powers under Section 53 of the NDPS Act are "police officers" within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, rendering confessional statements made to them inadmissible - Constitutional guarantees – Overruling of previous judgments – Satnam Singh’s case – Conviction based on confessional statements – Effect of Tofan Singh’s verdict – Acquittal of Balwinder Singh [Para 6-13]

Possession of Contraband – Essential for conviction under NDPS Act – Recovery must adhere to Section 50 of the NDPS Act – Prosecution successfully proves foundational facts in Satnam Singh’s case. [Para 18-19]

Unreliable Defense – Defense witnesses not able to provide adequate corroboration or substantiate claims – Claims regarding Satnam Singh’s custody before the naka laid not substantiated – Inconsistent mobile phone bill evidence. [Para 22-26]

Independent Witnesses – Application of Section 100(4) Cr.P.C. – Context-specific provision for search of closed places – Irrelevant to the case of an open area naka – Testimony of Sonu8, an independent witness, upheld. [Para 24-26]

Decision – Satnam Singh5’s conviction upheld based on sufficient evidence – Balwinder Singh3 acquitted due to the absence of conclusive evidence connecting him to the offence. [Para 27]

Property Dispute – Agreement to Sell – Interpretation of the clauses in the Agreement – Onus of applying for permission and intimating the respondents about it within a specified time – Consequences of non-performance of duties cast upon appellants – Suit for specific performance barred by limitation due to lack of diligence on the part of respondents. [Para 10-12]

Limitation Act – The suit filed by respondents for specific performance of the Agreement to Sell was barred by limitation as they failed to take prompt action within the specified time frame, and there was no indication of their readiness and willingness to perform their obligations under the agreement. [Para 12-13]

Refund of Earnest Money – The respondents are entitled to a refund of the earnest money paid to the appellants in 1975, amounting to Rs.1,000, which has been quantified at Rs.1,50,000 due to the time elapsed, to be paid on/before 01.01.2024. [Para 14]

Disability Assessment - Evaluation of disability claims by Medical Board - Reports issued by the Medical Board upholding the claim of petitioners as persons with disabilities - No further clarification deemed necessary - Petitioners' claims upheld. [Para 1-3]

Admission of Disabled Students - Direction to treat the petitioners as persons with disabilities and consider their applications for admission - Compliance with other admission parameters required - Writ Petitions allowed accordingly. [Para 2-3]

Review of Disability Assessments - Need for detailed evaluation and reasoning in disability assessments - Lack of reasoning in the reports issued by the Medical Board - Direction to provide clarificatory note with elaborate reasoning based on the evaluation conducted - Consideration of recent developments in medical sciences - Petitioners' conditions and potential aids to be assessed - Earmarking of seats for disabled candidates in the counseling process - Compliance with principles of merit in allocation - Concerns regarding the benchmark disability criteria under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - One size fits all norm and potential anomalies - Directive to the Union to consider steps to mitigate such issues and enable effective participation - Listing for further proceedings. [Para 7-14]

Family Law – Maintenance Section 125 Cr.P.C. - Modification of maintenance order - Appellant challenges the High Court's modification of maintenance granted to the respondent No. 1-wife and son - High Court modified the maintenance order to be payable from the date of filing the application for maintenance - Appellant contends that the maintenance granted is excessive and questions the starting date of payment - Appellant's concealed receipt of compensation amounts revealed during the proceedings - Maintenance ordered to be payable at different rates and from different dates based on the appellant's income and circumstances - Appeals partly allowed, and modified maintenance orders issued. [Para 3-8]

Family Dispute – Mediation – Resolution of matrimonial disputes – Multiple cases filed by both parties – Decree of divorce already passed – Agreement reached on permanent alimony and visiting rights for the child – Criminal and civil cases between parties – All civil cases withdrawn, and criminal proceedings quashed – Certificates to be returned to the respondent/wife – Parties urged to cooperate for the sake of the child. [Para 1-7]

Criminal Appeal – Anticipatory Bail – Denial of anticipatory bail by the High Court – Appellants sought anticipatory bail in three separate cases – Non-disclosure of relevant facts regarding initiation of proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 of Cr.P.C. – Interim protection granted but subsequently found that relevant facts were not disclosed – Appellants not entitled to pre-arrest bail – Appeals dismissed. [Para 2-4]

Non-disclosure of relevant facts – Failure to mention the issuance of process under Section 82, Cr.P.C., and dismissal of Revision Petition against the same – Appellants approaching the Court with no clean hands – Lack of entitlement to leniency or favor – Disentitlement to relief at this stage. [Para 4]

Land Acquisition Dispute - Contempt Proceedings - Fresh Demarcation Ordered - Disposition of Special Leave Petition - Allegation against respondent Authority for utilizing land without proper acquisition process, including the construction of a bus stand - Previous proceedings led to the quashing of acquisition proceedings but allowed for compensation or possession restoration - Contempt initiated due to non-compliance - Contention over the specific land - Court orders a fresh demarcation by Revenue Authorities, compensation if construction found on Khasra No.276, restoration if unoccupied - Question of damages left open for future proceedings - Parties to approach Revenue Authorities for demarcation on 09th October, 2023.

Land Acquisition - Contempt Proceedings - Disputed land used for a bus stand - Court's order to determine compensation or restore land - Contempt initiated due to non-compliance - Contention over the land's identity - Previous demarcation proceedings - Exercise of Article 142 jurisdiction to resolve the matter - Direction for a fresh demarcation by Revenue Authorities - Compensation if construction found, restoration if unoccupied - Question of damages left open for future determination - Parties to approach Revenue Authorities for demarcation on 09th October 2023.