Search Judgments

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) – Section 106 and Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 – Section 21(1) – The petitioner filed writ petitions to quash letters from the third respondent (Banks), seeking to defreeze accounts maintained by the petitioner, based on instructions from the second respondent (Police).

The petitioner’s husband, a quarry owner, was accused of offences under Sections 105, 125, 125(a), 303(2) of BNSS, 2023 and Section 21(1) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, following a fatal accident at his quarry and subsequent discovery of illegal mining. The police directed the banks to freeze the petitioner’s accounts, suspecting the funds to be proceeds of the crime.

The petitioner argued that freezing the accounts under Section 106 of BNSS, which corresponds to Section 102 Cr.P.C, was illegal, as the funds were neither stolen property nor did their presence create suspicion of an offence.

• Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – First Information Report (FIR) – Section 154 CrPC: The earliest information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, given to the officer in charge of a police station, constitutes the FIR. Any subsequent statement by the same or another person, if it contains the first information, can be treated as the FIR. However, if a detailed account of the incident is already with the police, a later statement cannot be treated as the FIR, and would instead be considered a statement under Section 161 CrPC, attracting the bar of Section 162 CrPC.
• Evidence Act, 1872 – Adverse Inference – Withholding Evidence: If the prosecution intentionally withholds crucial evidence, such as the daily diary (roznamcha) entries or the initial statement of a material witness (especially a police official present at the scene), an adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution, suggesting that such evidence, if produced, would not have supported their case.
• Criminal Trial – Witness Testimony – Discrepancies and Improvements: Gross inconsistencies, contradictions, and major improvements in the testimony of purported eyewitnesses, particularly when they contradict other material evidence (like the account of an independent witness or medical evidence), render their testimony unreliable and cast serious doubt on their presence at the crime scene.
• Identification in Court – Test Identification Parade (TIP): Identification of accused persons in court for the first time, after a significant lapse of time and without a prior Test Identification Parade, is a weak piece of evidence and may not be sufficient for conviction, especially if the witness did not provide details of the assailants in their initial statements to the police.

Final Decision:    The Supreme Court allowed the criminal appeals, setting aside the concurrent convictions of the appellants. The Court found significant flaws in the prosecution’s case, including a highly suspicious FIR, unreliable eyewitness testimonies marred by contradictions and improvements, inadmissible confessional statements to a medical officer, and a failure to establish a proper chain of custody for seized weapons, rendering the FSL reports inconclusive.

Indian Partnership Act, 1932 – Section 14; Order II Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) – This case involves a second appeal filed by the plaintiff, challenging the dismissal of his suit for dissolution of a partnership firm (“Hercules Weigh Bridge”), rendition of accounts, and a 1/8th share in the firm’s assets and profits. The plaintiff claimed he and the defendants were partners based on a 1984 agreement.

The defendants contested the suit, arguing that the property was the first defendant’s exclusive property, the suit was barred by Order II Rule 2 CPC due to a prior suit (O.S.No.325/2004) seeking a share of compensation for acquired land, and that the property was not purchased with partnership funds.

The trial court dismissed the suit, finding the property was in the first defendant’s name, and the firm lacked the financial capacity to purchase it.

Partnership Act, 1932 – The plaintiff filed a suit seeking dissolution of a partnership firm and rendition of accounts, challenging the First Appellate Court’s decision. The plaintiff claimed to be a partner in the firm, initially inducted in 1986. The defendant argued she ceased to be a partner in 1999 and that another individual, T. Subramanian, was a necessary party not included in the suit.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 168 – Enhancement of Compensation – This appeal concerns the enhancement of compensation awarded to the appellant who suffered 100% disability (quadriplegia) due to a motor vehicle accident. The appellant, a 21-year-old at the time of the accident with aspirations of becoming a veterinary doctor and a state-level volleyball player, was hit by a car, resulting in severe injuries.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) initially awarded Rs. 5,16,000, which the High Court enhanced to Rs.

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138 – This appeal challenges the acquittal of the accused by the Metropolitan Magistrate in C.C.No.6125 of 2006, concerning an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The complainant, a chit fund company, alleged that the accused issued a cheque for Rs.2,24,261, which was dishonored due to insufficient funds.

The trial court, however, noted discrepancies between the claimed amount and the passbook entries (Ex.D1), suggesting a significantly lower outstanding balance. The court also considered the possibility that the cheque was a blank one provided in advance.

The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 Section 26, Section 105 (3)– This case concerns the Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation’s challenge to the compensation awarded for land acquired under the 2013 Act. The corporation disputed the applicability of the “theory of deduction,” which allows for reducing compensation to account for development costs, especially for undeveloped land.

The land was acquired for widening a national highway. The Competent Authority initially determined compensation based on the Collector’s Guidelines for 2014-2015, which value land based on whether it’s converted/non-converted and the land area.

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138 and 141 – This case concerns a complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, regarding the dishonour of a cheque issued by a partnership firm, ‘Mouriya Coirs,’ to the appellant/complainant for repayment of a loan. The cheque, issued in the firm’s name and signed by one of the partners (respondent No.1), was dishonoured because the firm’s account was frozen. The appellant issued a statutory notice to the partners (respondents No.1 and 2) but did not include the partnership firm as a recipient of the notice nor did the appellant array the firm as an accused in the complaint filed before the trial court.

The Madras High Court quashed the complaint, stating non-compliance with Section 141 of the Act because the firm was neither issued the statutory notice nor was it named as an accused.

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) – Section 13(8) – This case involves appeals against a Madras High Court judgment that quashed a Sale Certificate issued to auction purchasers, directing the bank to allow the original borrowers to redeem their mortgage. The borrowers had defaulted on loans, leading the bank to classify the account as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) and issue notices under Section 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. The bank proceeded with an auction, where the appellants were successful bidders and received a Sale Certificate. Subsequently, the borrowers filed a writ petition challenging the Sale Certificate, which the High Court allowed, citing the borrowers’ right to redemption under Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Mathew Varghese vs.