Criminal – PbHr
Cancellation of Bail–Habitual Offender–FIR under Section 18 NDPS Act–Firstly, accused misrepresented and concealed factum of his involvement in another case under NDPS Act wherein also a huge recovery of 91 kgs of opium was effected– Secondly, he misused concession of bail granted to him, as he has yet again been involved as an accused in a case under NDPS Act in State of Punjab–Prima facie, accused comes across as a habitual offender, as his involvement in cases under NDPS Act is writ large–In view of criminal antecedents of accused, bail granted to him cancelled.
Date of decision–26.02.2024
Criminal – PbHr (S.C Referred)
Section 216 CrPC–Complainant cannot file an application u/s 216 CrPC to seek alteration/amendment of charge. — Section 307 IPC–Non framing of Charge–Investigating agency deleted offence u/s 307 IPC after obtaining opinion of Board of Doctors–Complainant filed application u/s 216/209 CrPC praying for amendment of charge–Held, initially, when injured was examined by doctors, a report stating that injuries to be dangerous to life, furnished–However, later a Board of Doctors constituted and it was opined that injuries were not dangerous to life–Accused received a total of 17 injuries on his legs and arms–Only injury No.1 on left lower leg found to be caused by a sharp edged weapon–Mere recording of expression that accused caused injury with intention to kill, would not breach threshold of Section 307 IPC–Adverting to facts of case, nature of weapon used and parts of body on which injuries inflicted by accused, would not attract offence u/s 307 IPC–It cannot be expected even at initial stage to accept all that prosecution states as gospel truth, even if it is opposed to common sense or broad probabilities of case–Moreover, complainant cannot invoke provisions of Section 216 CrPC–Application dismissed.
Date of decision–09.02.2024
Criminal – PbHr (S.C Referred)
NDPS Act–Default bail–Non filing of FSL Report–Application u/s 36A(4) NDPS Act for extension of time of investigation allowed without hearing accused and without obtaining report from Public Prosecutor–Order of extension of time set aside–Default bail granted to accused. — FIR under Section 21(c) NDPS Act–Revision against orders whereby Special Court extended time for completion of investigation and benefit of default bail declined to accused–Held, before allowing application u/s 36A(4) NDPS Act, Court is required to give an opportunity of hearing to accused by serving notice of application upon him or his counsel–Public Prosecutor is required to indicate progress of investigation–Only then Court is required to give specific reasons as to why detention of accused is required beyond the period of 180 days–But in present case, neither copy of application supplied to accused or his counsel nor any report obtained from Public Prosecutor–Order set aside being contrary to provisions of Section 36A(4) NDPS Act–Accused is directed to be released on default bail u/s 167(2) CrPC.
Date of decision–16.01.2024
Criminal – PbHr
Bail–Sections 307, 384, 387, 452 IPC and 25 Arms Act–Second Application–After dismissal of first bail application, despite six months having gone by, trial has not made any progress and matter is still listed for consideration qua framing of charges–Admittedly, petitioner was not present at spot and no overt act attributed to him–Whether he was actually involved in incident or not, shall be determined when trial concludes–Merely because he has one more case registered against him would not mean that he does not deserve to be released on bail especially when he is on bail in said case also–Petitioner is in custody for 01 year and 04 days–Trial shall still take a sufficiently long time to conclude–Regular bail granted to petitioner.
Date of decision–01.12.2023
Criminal – PbHr (S.C Referred)
Dishonour of Cheque–Sections 138, 148 N.I Act–Appeal against conviction–Suspension of Sentence–Deposit of minimum 20% of compensation amount awarded by trial Court is not an absolute rule–In exceptional cases, suspension of sentence can be granted without imposing condition of deposit of 20% of fine/compensation amount. — Section 389 CrPC–Normally while accused applies for suspension of sentence, he prays for relief of suspension of sentence without any condition and when a blanket order is sought, Court has to consider whether the case falls in exception or not–In case, Appellate Court comes to conclusion that it is an exceptional case, reasons for coming to said conclusion must be recorded.
Date of decision–29.11.2023
Criminal – PbHr
Quashing of FIR–Sections 4 and 5(2) PCPNDT Act and 420 and 120-B IPC–Court cannot take cognizance of offence under PCPNDT Act, on police report–Cognizance of same can be taken by Court on basis of complaint made by one of the persons mentioned in Section 28 PC&PNDT Act–FIR quashed–However, material collected by police during investigation of FIR, is permitted to be used as evidence in complaint case filed by Appropriate Authority, subject to proof of same, in accordance with law. ** Pre Conception and Pre Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act–Maintainability of FIR–Cognizance by Court–Law summed up–FIR for offence committed under this Act can be registered on complaint of Appropriate Authority and can be investigated by Police–Report u/s 173 CrPC also can be filed in Court–But Court cannot take cognizance of offence under the Act, on police report–Cognizance of same can be taken by Court on basis of complaint made by Appropriate Authority–Thus police can register FIR, it can investigate the matter and material so collected can be utilized in complaint filed by Appropriate Authority–Only prohibition is qua taking cognizance by Court on a police report and no more–Only way left out for Court is to quash the FIR, while permitting record of investigation to be used in criminal complaint filed by Appropriate Authority.
Date of decision–02.11.2023
Criminal – PbHr (D.B) (S.C Referred)
Section 167(2) CrPC–Charge sheet filed without valid sanctions cannot be said to be an incomplete charge sheet or no chargesheet in eyes of law to give an indefeasible right to accused to be released on default bail. — Section 21 National Investigation Act–Sections 25/27 Arms Act, 3/4/5 Explosive Substances Act and 13/16/18/20 Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA Act)–Accused seeking default bail on ground that report submitted u/s 173(2) CrPC is bereft of sanctions, which were mandated to be obtained u/s 45 UAPA Act, Section 39 Arms Act and Section 7 Explosive Substances Act–Held, filing of chargesheet is sufficient compliance with provisions of Section 167 CrPC and accused cannot claim any indefeasible right of being released on statutory/default bail on ground that cognizance has not been taken before expiry of statutory time period to file the chargesheet–Thus challan filed without valid sanctions cannot be said to be an incomplete challan–Application for grant of default bail u/s 167(2) CrPC read with Section 43(D) UAPA Act dismissed.
Date of decision–05.07.2023
Criminal – PbHr
Acquittal–Section 3(1)(x) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act (SC & ST Act)– Allegations that accused insulted complainant, a member of scheduled caste, by calling her “chuhriya” and “dhed” and intimidated her– Grounds of acquittal :- (1) To attract the offence u/s 3(1)(x) SCST Act, mens rea is essential ingredient–Utterances made in name of caste should be with an intention to humiliate or intimidate the persons belonging to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe in a place within public view–Expression “public view” has to be interpreted to mean that public persons present should be independent and impartial and not interested in any of parties–If in course of a quarrel or due to some other grouse, accused abused complainant by using caste name, said act by itself does not automatically attract offence u/s 3(1)(x) S.C.S.T Act–In present case, except abusing the complainant with her caste name, there is no allegation that accused, with a view to intentionally insult or intimidate or humiliate the complainant, abused her and that too in a place within public view. (2) Delayed FIR–There is delay of two days in lodging FIR and there is no explanation for said delay–Even during course of trial, prosecution did not lead any evidence to indicate sufficient reasons for reporting the matter so late. (3) Evidence on record shows that there was a dispute relating to land between members of scheduled caste and agriculturists of village and due to said enmity, accused was falsely involved in present case–Accused acquitted. (ii) Criminal Trial–Evidentiary value of defence witness–Deposition of a defence witness can not be discarded only on ground that he is supporting case of accused–Every defence witness has to be treated at par with a prosecution witness and if deposition of a defence witness is found to be creditworthy, same can always be relied upon by Courts.
Date of decision–07.06.2023
Criminal – PbHr
Gambling–Anticipatory bail–Sections 13-A Punjab Gambling Act and 420/120-B IPC–Allegations against petitioner are that he alongwith co-accused, indulged in activity of cheating the general public–Given the penal provisions imposed and sentence provided by Legislature, nature of allegations coupled with fact that petitioner is a first offender, one of relevant factors would be to provide an opportunity to course correct–Petition u/s 438 CrPC allowed.
Date of decision–08.05.2023
Criminal – PbHr
Acquittal–NDPS–Section 22(c)–FSL Report–Chemical examiner after examining the stuff inside the sealed cloth parcels, omitted to re-enclose the examined stuff inside cloth parcels and also omitted to emboss thereons seals of FSL concerned–It was required to be mandatorily done–It appears that stuff after becoming examined by chemical examiner concerned, enclosed in loose cloth parcels and, thereafter said loose cloth parcels, sent in an unsealed condition to incharge of Malkhana concerned–Such loose and unsealed cloth parcels, comprising case property, produced in Court–Thus FSL Report looses its evidentiary value and primary evidence for proving the charge drawn against accused, come under a cloud of deep suspicion–Accused acquitted.
Date of decision–01.06.2023
