Search Judgments

Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) – Sections 311, 311A & 528 B.N.S.S. – These Criminal Original Petitions were filed under Section 528 B.N.S.S., challenging the suo motu orders passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchirapalli, in various C.C.Nos related to alleged irregularities in the recruitment of Multi-Tasking Staff (MTS) at the Ordinance Factory, Trichy.

The CBI had filed final reports, leading to the cases being taken on file. After examining witnesses and nearing judgment, the Magistrate invoked Sections 311 and 311A Cr.P.C., ordering the accused to provide thumb impressions in open court for forensic analysis, due to concerns about compliance with Identification of Prisoners Act during the investigation.

Reserve Bank of India (RBI) Master Directions on Frauds – This writ petition challenges the proceedings of the 2nd respondent, which classified the petitioner’s loan account as “fraud.” The petitioner, a Director of Tecpro Infra Projects Limited, argued that the classification was made without providing a personal hearing or adequately considering the explanation submitted in response to the show cause notice.

The bank contended that sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner, relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in State Bank of India .Vs. M/s. Jah Developers Pvt., Ltd., & Ors which states that personal hearing is not required.

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 34 – This case involves a suit for recovery of money filed by the plaintiff, an electrical goods dealer, against the defendants, a company and its managing partner, for non-payment of invoice amounts for goods supplied. The defendants contested the claim, alleging excessive pricing and disputing the accuracy of the invoices.

The trial court dismissed the suit, and the first appellate court upheld the decision, citing the plaintiff’s failure to produce account books and examine the accountant, as required by Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The plaintiff appealed, arguing that the invoices and purchase orders submitted as evidence were sufficient and that the accountant’s examination was unnecessary.

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 316(4), 344, 61 (2) –  Appeal concerns the High Court of Punjab and Haryana’s decision to grant bail to Accused-Avinash Kumar under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with FIR No. 187, registered at P.S. Cantonment, Amritsar. The FIR was lodged by the Complainant, a Chartered Accountant for Amandeep Healthcare Private Limited, alleging that the Accused, a Senior Accountant at Amandeep Hospital, misappropriated over Rs.

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138 and 139 – This case involves a Criminal Appeal against the acquittal of the accused by the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Namakkal, in STC No.1935 of 2007, for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The complainant alleged that the accused had borrowed Rs.3,20,000 and issued a cheque that was dishonoured with the remark “account closed”. The Trial Court acquitted the accused, stating that dishonour due to “account closed” does not fall under Section 138 and that the accused did not expressly admit the signature, negating any presumption.

The appellant argued that dishonour due to “account closed” does fall under Section 138, referring to M/s Laxmi Dyechem Vs.

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) – Sections 8C, 20(b)(ii)(c), 29(1) and Indian Penal Code (IPC) Section 120-B – This case involves a petition to quash proceedings against A-3 and A-5, who are husband and wife, implicated in a case (C.C.No.120/2022) registered under Sections 8C, 20(b)(ii)(c), and 29(1) of the NDPS Act, 1985 and Section 120-B of the IPC, and a petition to defreeze A-3’s bank account. The FIR was initially registered against other accused persons based on information about the procurement and sale of ganja.

The petitioners were implicated based on the confession statements of co-accused. There was no recovery of contraband or cash from A-3 and A-5, and no evidence of contact or transactions with the other accused.

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) – Section 18A; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 102 – The central question is whether, in proceedings solely under the PC Act, investigating authorities can freeze accounts under Section 102 of the CrPC, or if the powers under Section 18A of the PC Act (applying the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944) and Section 102 CrPC are mutually exclusive.

The facts involve an FIR registered against an individual (son of the respondent) for possessing disproportionate assets. During the investigation, the respondent’s fixed deposits were frozen. The Trial Court rejected the application to de-freeze the accounts.

Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 – Section 166 – This appeal sought an enhancement of compensation awarded for a motor accident injury. The appellant, a minor at the time of the accident, sustained a 77.1% permanent disability due to injuries from a collision between an auto-rickshaw and a lorry in 2002. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal initially awarded Rs. 1,73,000 with 7% interest, which the High Court enhanced to Rs.