JUDICIAL TRAINING & RESEARCH INSTITUTE, U.P.,LUCKNOW

Quarterly Digest

CONSTITUTIONAL, CIVIL, CRIMINAL & REVENUE LAWS(Covering important judgments of Supreme Court and Allahabad High Court)

July to September, 2019Volume: XXI Issue No.: 3rd

EDITOR-IN-CHIEFSAROJ YADAV

Director

EDITOR-IN-CHARGE

Santosh Rai, Addl. Director (Research)

(REDITORS

Ram Nagina Yadav, Addl. Director (Trg.)Rajiv Maheshwaram, Addl. Director (Admin.)

Kushal Pal, Addl. Director Mohinder Kumar, A.D.J. Lucknow attached to JTRI

FINANCIAL ADVISOR

Addl. Director (Finance)

ASSOCIATE

MS Sabiha Akhtar, Training OffirASSISTANCE

Waqar HasanGirish Kumar Singh

SUBJECT INDEX(Supreme Court)

Sl. No. Name of Act1. Arbitration and Conciliation Act2. Civil Procedure Code3. Companies Act4. Consumer Protection Act5. Constitution of India6. Criminal Procedure Code7. Criminal Trial8. Evidence Act9. Hindu Law 10. Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act11. Hindu Succession Act12. Indian Easements Act13. Indian Penal Code14. Interpretation of Statutes15. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act16. Limitation Act17. Motor Vehicles Act18. Negotiable Instruments Act19. Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act20. Rent Cases21. Service Law22. Specific Relief Act23. Transfer of Property Act

SUBJECT INDEX

(High Court)

Sl. No. Name of Act1. Advocates Act 2. Adverse Possession3. Child Rights Jurisprudence4. Civil Procedure Code5. Constitution of India 6. Contempt of Courts Act7. Criminal Procedure Code8. Evidence Act9. Family Courts10. Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act11. Hindu Law12. Hindu Marriage Act13. Indian Penal Code 14. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act15. Mental Health Care Act16. NDPS Act17. Negotiable Instrument Act18. Practice and Procedure19. Probation of Offenders Act20. Provincial Small Cause Courts Act21. Public Gambling Act22. Service Law23. Specific Relief Act24. Statutory Provisions

25. U.P. Basic Education Act26. U.P. Revenue Code27. U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and

Eviction) Act28. U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act29. UP Excise Act

NOTE: This journal is meant only for reference and guidance.For authentic detailed information, readers areadvised to consult referred Journal(s).

LIST OF THE CASES COVERED IN THIS ISSUE

(SUPREME COURT)

Sl. No. Name of the Case & Citation1. Accused X v. State of Maharashtra AIR 2019 SC 30312. Ajay Kumar V. Lata @ Sharuti and others. AIR 2019 SC 26003. Arshnoor Singh v. Harpal Kaur and others. AIR 2019 SC 30984. Arulmighu Nellukadai Mariamman Tirukkoilv. Tamilarasi

(Dead) By Lrs. AIR 2019 SC 30275. Ashoksinh Jayendrasinh v. Sate of Gujrat, AIR 2019 SC

2615:2019 (5) Supreme 3586. Asim Shariff v. National Investigation Agency, AIR 2019 SC

30837. Beemaneni Maha Lakshmi v. Gangumalla Appa Rao (Since

Dead) by Lrs. AIR 2019 SC 30138. Birla Corporation Ltd. V. Adventz Investments and holdings

2019 (5) Supreme 4039. Chandra @ Chandrasekaran V. State of Rep. by Deputy

Superintendent of Police CB Cid and another 2019 (6)Supreme 48

10. DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. V. D.S. Danda etc.2019 (5) Supreme 592

11. Dolma Devi and others V. Mohinder Kumar Goel and others 2019 ACJ 1630

12. Dr. R.S. Grewsal and others V. Chander Parkash Soni andanother 2019(4) Supreme 541

13. Dr. S. Kumar and others V. S. Ramalingam, 2019(2) ARC 836,S.C.

14. G. Ramesh V. Kanika Harish Kumr Ujwal 2019(4) Supreme

560 : AIR 2019 SC 259515. Himanshu v. B. Shivamurthy and anothers, AIR 2019 SC 305216. Jiten K. Ajmera v. M/s Tejas Co-operative Housing Society.

2019 (144) RD 562 (SC)17. Lahari Sakhamuri v. Sobhan Kodali AIR 2019 SC 288118. M.S. Bhati V. National Insurance Co. Ltd. 2019 ACJ 238519. M/s SCG Contracts India Pvt. Ltd. v. K. S. Chamankar

Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and others, AIR 2019 SC 269120. Manjit Singh V. The State of Punjab 2019 (5) Supreme 121. Masroor Ahmad Khan V. State of Uttarakhand and others,

2019(2) ARC 849, S.C.22. Murugan and others v. Kesava Gounder (Dead) Thr. Lrs. And

others, AIR 2019 SC 269623. Mushishamappa and others v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2019

SC 271024. N. Ramamurthy V. State by C.B.I, A.B., Bengaluru 2019 (5)

Supreme 63125. Nand Kishore Prasad V. Mohib Hamidi 2019 (5) Supreme 55226. National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Mannat Johal and others 2019

ACJ 184927. Naval Kishore Mishra v. State of U.P. and others 2019 Cri. L.J.

393528. P. Rajagopal and others Etc. v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2019

SC 286629. Parsa Kente Collieries Ltd. V. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan

Nigam Ltd. 2019 (6) Supreme 6530. Pavan Vasudeo Sharma v. State of Maharashtra through

Secretary, AIR 2019 SC 265031. R. Dhanasundari v. A.N. Umakanth, (2019 (144) RD 404 (SC)32. Rambir V. State of NCT, Delhi 2019 (5) Supreme 362

33. Robin Thapa V. Rohit Dora 2019 (6) Supreme 10334. S. Subramanian v. S. Ramasamy Etc. AIR 2019SC 305635. Sevoke Properties Ltd. V. West Bengal State Electricity

Distribution Company Ltd. AIR 2019 SC 266436. Sh. Narendra Kumar Srivastava v. State of Bihar and others,

AIR 2019 SC 267537. Shafiuddin v. Mashur Alam, AIR 2019 Allahabad 15538. Shailndra Kumar Jain v. Maya Prakash Jain, 2019 (4) ALJ 176

(SC)39. Sham Lal V. The State of Haryana 2019 (4) Supreme 56440. Shantaben V. National Power Transport and another 2019 ACJ

178441. State By Karnataka Lokayukta Police Station Bengaluru V. M.

R. Hiremath 2019 (5) Supreme 71242. State Of Madhya Pradesh V. Kalicharan 2019(6) Supreme 97:

AIR 2019 SC 263743. Surender Singh Deswal @ Col. S.S. Deswal V. Virender

Gandhi 2019 (6) Supreme 8444. Tejaswini Gaud and ors. V. Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari and

others 2019 (5) Supreme 38545. Union of India V. Dharam Pal 2019 (5) Supreme 61146. Union of India V. V.R. Tripoathi 2019 (5) Supreme 37847. Vijay Gopala Lohar V. Pandurang Ramchandra Ghorpade 2019

(6) Supreme 7748. Vinod Jain V. Santokba Durlabhji Memorial 2019 ACJ 1614

LIST OF THE CASES COVERED IN THIS ISSUE

(HIGH COURT)Sl. No. Particulars

1. Aarish Asgar Qureshi vs. Fareed Ahmed Qureshi and another, 2019(108) ACC 926

2. Accused X vs. State of Maharashtra, 2019(108) ACC 2593. Amir Hamza Shaikh and others vs. State of Maharashtra and another,

2019(108) ACC 9174. Anil Kumar Agrawal Vs. Saroj Jain, 2019(2) ARC 9215. Arvind Kumar Mittal V. Bulandshahr Development Authority and

another, (2019)(3) ARC 386. Asharam Chaurasia vs. Om Prakash Gupta and 2 others, (2019)(3)

ARC 637. Basalingappa V. Mudibasappa, 2019(108) ACC 9438. Bharat Bhushan v. Anoop Kumar Gupta, 2019 (3) ALJ 5679. Bharat Ram v. Collector of Allahabad, 2019 (5) ALJ 217

10. Bikash Ranjan Rout V. State Government of N.C.T. of Delhi, 2019(108) ACC 327

11. Bishun Das v. Vinod Kumar, 2019 (4) ALJ 51412. Daharam Vir Sood v. Smt. Savitri Devi, 2019 (144) RD 12913. Dinesh V. State of U.P., 2019(108) ACC 6414. Dr. Satish Chandra Srivastava v. State of U.P., 2019 (3) ALJ 40515. Gulshan Seth V. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, District

Meerut and another, 2019(108) ACC 55316. Himanshu Gangwar v. State of U.P., 2019 (4) ALJ 60617. Isha Distribution House Pvt. Ltd. V. Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd. And

another, (2019)(3) ARC 20818. Janki Prasad v Smt. Sapna Rani Kashyap, 2019 (4) ALJ 17

19. Kamla Devi and 2 ors. V. Rajesh Kumar Gupta and 6 others, 2019(2)ARC 928

20. Kathi David Raju vs. State of A.P. and another, 2019(108) ACC 91221. Kumari Reeta vs. Vivek Kumar Singh and 11 others, (2019)(3) ARC

3122. Lalta Prasad (Deceased) Through L.R. Laling Ram and 2 others Vs.

Bhagwan Deen, 2019(2) ARC 90723. M/s. Ipjacket Technology Indian Pvt. Ltd. v. M.D.U.P. Rajkiya

Nirman Nigam Ltd., 2019 (4) ALJ 27324. M/s. Raghuvir Saran Madan Murari (Wholesaler), Mandi Samiti,

through its Proprietor Tehrauli, Jhansi vs. State of U.P. and another, 2019(108) ACC 566

25. Mahesh Dube vs. Shivbodh and others, 2019(108) ACC 68426. Manju Devi vs. State of Rajasthan and another, 2019(108) ACC 37727. Manoj Singh vs. State of U.P. and another, 2019(108) ACC 46628. Mrs. Rupam Tewari v. Allahabad High School Society, through its

Secretary, Allahabad and others, 2019 (5) ALJ 16929. Munna Lal Agrawal v. Mani Ram Gupta, 2019 (4) ALR 7830. Narendra Singh V. State of U.P. and others, 2019(108) ACC 64931. Nisha Soni v. Mukesh Soni, 2019 (5) ALJ 34932. Pushpa Gupta Vs. Subhash Chandra and another, 2019(2) ARC 87033. Radhika (Juvenile) vs. State of U.P., 2019(108) ACC 88434. Raghvendra Singh and others vs. State of U.P. and others, 2019(108)

ACC 65535. Rajeev v. Ram Jeewan, 2019 (4) ALJ 29 (LB)36. Rajendra V. State of U.P., 2019(108) ACC 57837. Rajesh and others vs. State of Haryana, 2019(108) ACC 97838. Rajiv Kumar v. State of U.P., 2019 (4) AWC 334739. Rakesh Kumar S/o Ramesh Gupta and others v. State of U.P., 2019

(4) ALJ 37040. Ramesh Dasu Chauhan and another vs. State of Maharashtra,

2019(108) ACC 69841. Rameshwar Prasad Verma v. Smt. Seetamani Devi Kushwaha, 2019

(144) RD 21042. Ravinder Kaur Grewal and others vs. Manjit Kaur and others, (2019)

(3) ARC 16143. Sanjay Bhardwaj @ Bablu and another V. Dinesh Chandra Gupta

and 12 others, (2019)(3) ARC 125.44. Shambhu Nath v. Rajeev Kumar Singh, 2019 (3) ALJ 43145. Shaukin V. State of U.P. and 2 others, 2019(108) ACC 15046. Sher Khan vs. State of U.P. and another, 2019(108) ACC 62647. Shiv Kumar Pankha v. Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at

Allahabad, 2019 (4) ALJ 79448. Shri Ram Mandir, Indore Vs State of Madhya Pradesh and others

2019 (2) ARC 84149. Smt Kajal Shivam Kumar v. State of U.P., 2019 (3) ALJ 60450. Smt. Champa Devi v. State, 2019(108) ACC 61651. Smt. Jubnesh V. State of Uttarakhand, 2019(108) ACC 5952. Smt. Kamala Devi v. Ikram Ali, 2019 (4) AWC 407953. Smt. Rupali Devi vs. State of U.P. and others, 2019(108) ACC 99154. Smt. Shanti Bai Vs. Narbada and others, 2019(2) ARC 85255. State of M.P. V. Suresh, 2019(108) ACC 0456. Sudhakar Rao Geta v. Collector, Varanasi, 2019 (144) RD 66157. Sugreev Kushwaha vs. State, 2019(108) ACC 59558. Surinder Pal Soni V. Sohan Lal (D) Thru LR and others, (2019)(3)

ARC 2259. Tej Bahadur v. Fasiudeen and others, 2019 (4) ALJ 43460. Tek Singh v. Shashi Verma and another, (2019)(3) ARC211

61. Tulsi Ram Naik vs. State of U.P. and another, 2019(108) ACC 16762. Uma Shanker Verma v. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary to

the Govt., (5) ALJ 27663. V.V. Shree Khande and others vs. State of U.P. and other, 2019(108)

ACC 18464. Varsha v. State of U.P., 2019 (4) ALJ 9265. Vinod Kumar Singh vs. State of U.P. and another, 2019(108) ACC

50066. Vinod Kumar v. State of U.P., 2019 (4) AWC 353567. Virendra Gupta V. State of U.P., 2019(108) ACC 438

Part –I (Suprimi Court)

Arbitration & Confiliation Aft:

Sif. 34/ 37 – Sfopi of Judifial Intirfirinfi

An arbitral tribunal must difidi in affordanfi with thi tirmsof thi fontraft, but if an arbitrator fonstruis a tirm of thi fontraft ina 19 riasonabli mannir, it will not mian that thi award fan bi sitasidi on this ground. It is furthir obsirvid and hild that fonstruftionof thi tirms of a fontraft is primarily for an arbitrator to difidiunliss thi arbitrator fonstruis thi fontraft in sufh a way that itfould bi said to bi somithing that no fair mindid or riasonablipirson fould do.

Whin a fourt is applying thi "publif polify" tist to anarbitration award, it dois not aft as a fourt of appial andfonsiquintly irrors of faft fannot bi forriftid. A possibli viiw bythi arbitrator on fafts has nifissarily to pass mustir as thiarbitrator is thi ultimati mastir of thi quantity and quality ofividinfi to bi riliid upon whin hi dilivirs his arbitral award. It isfurthir obsirvid that thus an award basid on littli ividinfi or onividinfi whifh dois not miasuri up in quality to a trainid ligalmind would not bi hild to bi invalid on this sfori. Parsa KintiColliiriis Ltd. V. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd. 2019(6) Suprimi 65

Civil Profiduri Codi:

Sif. 100- Sifond Appial

Hild: Thi Sifond appial dois not lii on quistion of fafts or oflaw, thi ixistinfi of ‘ a substantial quistion of law’ is a sini qua nonfor thi ixirfisi of thi jurisdiftion undir Siftion 100 of thi CPC. Asobsirvid and hild by this fourt in fasi of Kondiba Dagadu Kadam(AIR1999 SC 2213) in a sifond undir siftion 100 of thi C.PC. thiHigh fourt fannot substituti its own opinion for that of thi Firstappillati Court, unliss it fnds that thi fonflusions drawn by thilowir fourt wiri irronious biing (i) Contrary to thi mandatoryprovisions of thi applifabli law; or (ii) Contrary to thi law aspronounfid by thi Apix Court; or (iii) on inadmissibli ividinfi or noividinfi. It is furthir obsirvid by thi Court in thi aforisaid difisionthat if thi First App. Court has ixirfisid its disfrition in a judifialmannir its difision fannot bi rifordid as sufiring from an irroriithir of law or of profiduri riquiring intirfirinfi in sifond appial.

Undir Siftion 100 CPC aftir thi 1976 amindmint it isissintial for thi High Court to formulati a substantial quistion of lawand it is not pirmissibli to rivirsi thi judgmint of thi frst appillatifourt without doing so. Thiri ari two situations in whifh intirfirinfiwith fnding of faft is pirmissibli. Thi frst oni is whin matirial orrilivant ividinfi is not fonsidirid whifh if fonsidirid, would havilid to an oppositi fonflusion. Thi sifond situation in whifhintirfirinfi with fnding of faft is pirmissibli is whiri a fning hasbiin arrivid at by thi appillati fourt by plafing rilianfi oninadmissibli ividinfi whifh if it was omittid, an oppositi fonflusionwas possibli . In iithir of thi abovi situations. A substantial quistionof law fan arisi. S. Subramanian V. S. Ramasamy Etf. AIR 2019SC3056

S. 100 – Sifond Appial

Siftion 100 of CPC riads as undir:

“100-Sifond Appial- (1) Savi as othirwisi ixprissly provididin thi body of this fodi or any othir law for thi timi biing in forfi.An appial shall lii to thi High Court from iviry difrii passid inappial by any fourt subordinati to thi High Court, if thi High Court issatisfid that thi fasi involvis a substantial quistion of Law. (2) Anappial may lii undir this siftion from an appillati difrii passidix-parti. (3) In an appial undir this siftion, thi mimorandum ofappial shall prifisily stati thi substantial quistion of law involvidin thi appial. (4) Whiri thi High Court is satisfid that a substantialquistion of law is involvid in any fasi, it shall formulati thatquistion. (5) Thi appial shall bi hiard on thi quistion so formulatidand thi rispondint shall, at thi hiaring of thi appial bi allowid toargui that thi fasi dois not involvi sufh quistion.

It is notifid that thi High Court framid two substantialquistions of law for thi frst timi in thi impugnid judgmint itsilf. Inothir words, what was riquirid to bi doni by thi High Court at thitimi of admission of thi appial to formulati a quistion of law aftirhiaring thi appillant as providid u/s 100 (4) of thi CPC, but thi HighCourt did it in thi impugnid judgmint.

Thi Sfhimi of Sif. 100 is that onfi thi High Court is satisfidthat thi appial involvis a substantial quistion of law, sufh quistionshall havi to bi framid undir sub siftion (4) of sif. 100. It is thiframing of thi quistion whifh impowirs of thi High Court to fnallydifidi thi appial in affordanfi with thi profiduri prisfribid u/ssub siftion (5). Arulmighu Nillukadai Mariamman Tirukkoil v.Tamilarasi (Diad) By Lrs. AIR 2019 SC 3027

Sif. 151-Provinfial Small Causi Court Aft

Hild: If initially thi suit was wrongly rigistirid as SCC suit itwas only bifausi of an inforrift mintion in thi fasi titli of thi suitin quistion saying that it is an SCC Suit. Miri wrong rigistration of

thi Suit as an SCC suit would not in any way bar thi sami to bitriatid as a rigular suit and ivin othirwisi thi forriftion withrigard to wrong rigistration was within thi powir of thi fourtfonfirnid and thirifori thi applifation u/s 151 C.P.C. has biinrightly allowid. All fourts aft within thiir jurisdiftion to forrift anyirrors that ari apparint on thi fafi of thi riford. Moriovir, thi TrialCourt has also fonsidirid this faft that thi ividinfi was lid triatingit to bi summary profiidings as an SCC suit. Thirifori opportunityhas biin givin to iithir sidi to produfi additional ividinfi, if any,now that thi suit has biin fonvirtid into a rigular suit.

Thi transfirii fourt is impowirid to iithir ritry it or profiidfrom thi point at whifh it was transfirrid or withdraw. Thi Sifondpart of Sif. 24 is in sub siftion (5). Undir Sub Siftion (5) if Sif. 24 asuit or profiidings fould bi transfirrid from a fourt whifh had nojurisdiftion to try it and whiri sufh transfir or withdrawal is madi, afrish ixirfisi of rifording thi intiri ividinfi would unnifissarilyliad to dilay in difision. Shafuddin v. Mashur Alam, AIR 2019Allahabad 155

O. 1, R. 10 – Nifissary and propir party – applifant daughtir siikingimpliadmint as oni of thi difindants in suit for partition of anfistralpropirty on diath of hir parints – Daughtirs ari thirifori nifissaryand propir partiis and ari riquirid to bi impliadid

On thi diath of thi fathir and mothir, if thiy diid intistati,thin undir thi prinfiplis of thi Hindu Suffission Aft, iviry Class Ihiir influding thi daughtirs, would bi intitlid to a shari in thipropirty lift bihind by thiir parints. It is prifisily on this fount thatthi applifant Srikanta Jain flaims to bi intitlid to havi a shari in thipropirtiis whifh wiri allofatid to Amba Prasad Jain and Smt. DiviJain. Thi partition ififtid pursuant to difrii in 1966 Suit fannot, inany way, disintitli hir from flaiming a shari in thi propirtiis of hir

fathir and mothir. In thi aforisaid primisis, Srikanta Jain wasdifnitily a nifissary and propir party to bi impliadid in thisubsiquint suit whifh was flid by Maya Prakash Jain.

It was, howivir, fontindid by Mr. Jitindir Mohan Sharma,liarnid Sinior Advofati appiaring for Rispondint No.1 that thifathir and thi mothir, namily, Amba Prasad Jain and Smt. Divi Jainhad lift bihind Wills undir whifh thiir propirtiis had divolvid uponthi sons ixflusivily. Thi dui ixifution of thi Wills is yit to thiprovid by thi Rispondints. If thi Wills ari not provid, thi daughtirswould bi intitlid to a shari in thi propirtiis, biing Class-I hiirs. Thidaughtirs ari, thirifori, nifissary partiis to thi profiidings. In thiprisint fasi, if thi Wills so propoundid ari provid, thiy will fhart afoursi of suffission othir than thi normal modi of suffission andto thi prijudifi of thi daughtirs. In sufh an aftion or profiiding, thidaughtirs biing Class I hiirs ari nifissary and propir partiis andari riquirid to bi impliadid. Shailndra Kumar Jain v. Maya PrakashJain, 2019 (4) ALJ 176 (SC)

O.8, R.10 – Writtin statimint

Hild: Ordinarily a writtin statimint is to bi flid within apiriod of 30 days, Howivir grafi piriod of a furthir 90 days ingrantid whifh thi fourt may imploy for riasons to bi rifordid inwriting and paymint of sufh fosts as it diims ft to allow sufhwrittin statimint to fomi or riford. What is of griat importanfi isthi faft thiy 120 days from thi dati of sirvifi of summons, thidifindant shall forfiit thi right thi fli thi writtin statimint and thifourt shall not allow thi writtin statimint to bi takin on riford. Thisis furthir buttrissid by thi proviso in Ordir VIII Ruli 10 also addingthat thi fourt has no furthir powir to ixtind thi timi biyond thispiriod of 120 days.

Thi fonsiquinfi of forfiiting a right to fli thi writtinstatimint, non ixtinsion of any furthir timi, and thi faft that thifourt shall not allow thi writtin statimint to bi takin or riford allpoints to thi faft that thi iarliir law of ordir VIII Ruli 1 on thi flingof writtin statimint undir ordir VIII Ruli 1 has now biin sit atnaught. Cliarly thi fliar difniti and mandatory provisions of ordir Vriad with ordir VIII Ruli 1 and 10 fannot bi firfumvintid byrifoursi to thi inhirint powir u/s 151 to do thi oppositi of what isstatid thiriin. Cliarly thirifori thi iarliir ordir of rijiftion ofapplifation flid undir ordir 8 Ruli 11 whifh appliis in thi fafi of thiamindmints madi to CPC fannot bi sustainid. Whin fomis to thisubsiquint ordir that iarliir ordir biing fnal, ivin though thiprovisions of law may providi othirwisi, thi difindant no.1’s writtinstatimint whifh was flid on 15.12.2017 should bi takin on riford,thi only riason for this ordir is that iarliir ordir has attainid fnality.Evin assuming that iarliir ordir is fnal, ris judifata fannot stand inthi way of an irronious intirpritation of a statutory prohibition. M/sSCG Contrafts India Pvt. Ltd. v. K. S. Chamankar Infrastrufturi Pvt.Ltd. and othirs, AIR 2019 SC 2691

O. 9, R. 13

Ordinarily, a litigation is basid on adjudifation on thi mirits ofthi fontintions of thi partiis. Litigation should not bi tirminatid bydifault, iithir of thi plaintif or thi difindant. Thi fausi of justifidois riquiri that as far as possibli, adjudifation bi doni on mirits.Robin Thapa V. Rohit Dora 2019 (6) Suprimi 103

O. 23, R. 1-A r/w O.1, R. 10 – Transposition of difindants as plaintif –In thi ivintuality of plaintif – In thi ivintuality of plaintifwithdrawing thi suit or abandoning his flaim – A proforma difindanthas a substantial quistion to bi difidid against thi fo-difindant –

hi is intitlid to siik his transposition as plaintif for ditirmination ofquistion against thi fo-difindants in thi givin suit itsilf – Powirs ofthi fourt to grant sufh prayir viry widi – Basif riquirimint is thatdifindant siiking transposition is havi an intirist in thi subjift-mattir of thi suit – In thi instant fasi all thi basifs for applifabilityof Ruli 1-A of O. XXIII r/w Ruli 10 of Ordir 1, CPC – Prinfipal fausi inthi suit is fhallingid to sali-diid ixifutid by difindant No. 1 infavour of difindant No. 2 with original plaintif assirting hisownirship ovir thi propirty in quistion - Difindant Nos. 1 and 2wiri obviously intitlid to siik transposition as plaintifs undir OrdirXXIII, R. 1-A, CPC – Trial Court rightly allowid thi prayir fortransposition and High Court is justifid in diflining to intirfiri

In thi givin status of partiis and thi subjift-mattir of thi suit,whin thi plaintifs intirid into an arrangimint with difindant Nos.1 and 2 and sought pirmission to withdraw undir O. XXIII, R. 1,C.P.C., thi right of difindant Nos. 3 to 6 to fontinui with thilitigation on thiir flaim against difindant Nos. 1 and 2immidiatily sprang up and thiy wiri, obviously, intitlid to siiktransposition as plaintifs undir Or. XXIII, R. 1-A CPC.

It is also notiworthy that ivin if somi quistion is sought to biraisid as rigards thi rights of thi subsiquint purfhasirs, thi right ofthi difindant No. 3 to prosifuti thi suit as a plaintif rimains rathirindisputabli in viiw of his status as oni of thi ligal riprisintativisof thi original plaintif. Thi right of thi said difindant No. 3 tofhallingi thi sali diid bitwiin difindant No.1 and difindant No. 2did not git annullid only by his iarliir transposition as thi difindantand hi fannot bi fonsidirid bound by thi arrangimint bitwiin thiixisting plaintifs and thi difindant Nos. 1 and 2. In thi givin sit offirfumstanfis, thi Trail Court had biin justifid in allowing thiprayir for transposition and thi High Court has rightly diflinid tointirfiri. R. Dhanasundari v. A.N. Umakanth, (2019 (144) RD 404(SC)

O. 41, R. 27, Additional ividinfi – Filing of at appillati stagi –Pirmissibility of – A party fan produfi additional ividinfi atappillati stagi – If it istablishis that notwithstanding ixirfisi of duidiliginfi sufh ividinfi was not within its knowlidgi – Or ivin aftirixirfisi of dui diliginfi, fould not bi produfid by it at timi whindifrii appialid against was passid

Thisi dofumints havi admittidly fomi into ixistinfi aftirthi Appial was flid bifori thi Stati Commission. Thi appillantsthirifori, fould not havi produfid thi said dofumints bifori, fouldnot havi produfid thi said dofumints bifori thi Distrift Forum.

Undir Ordir XLI, Ruli 27, CPC a party fan produfi additionalividinfi at thi appillati stagi, if it istablishis that notwithstandingthi ixirfisi of dui diliginfi, sufh ividinfi was not within itsknowlidgi, or fould not ivin aftir thi ixirfisi of dui diliginfi, biprodufid by it at thi timi whin thi difrii appialid against waspassid.

Thisi dofumints ari of rilivanfi to istablish that thiappillants ari not in a position to obtain thi Offupanfy Cirtiffatifrom thi MCGM until thi unauthorizid strufturis, whifh ari inviolation of thi approvid plans, ari rimovid. In thi absinfi of thisidofumints, thi appillants would not bi in a position to substantiatithiir fasi that thiy ari unabli to obtain thi Offupanfy Cirtiffati,and fomply with thi diriftions issuid by thi Distrift Forum.

Thi Stati Commission was in irror by rijifting thi Applifationflid by thi appillant undir Ordir XLI, Ruli 27, CPC by mirily statingthat thi dofumints ari “not nifissary”. Thi said Ordir is anunriasonid oni. Thi Stati Commission must havi takin a holistifviiw of thi mattir. Jitin K. Ajmira v. M/s Tijas Co-opirativi HousingSofiity. 2019 (144) RD 562 (SC)

Companiis Aft:

Sif. 130(1) – Hild -

Whili passing thi ordir undir Siftion 130 of thi CompaniisAft, thi liarnid founsil appiaring in bihalf of thi irstwhili diriftorsappiarid and opposid thi applifation undir siftion 130 of thiCompaniis Aft. Thirifori, thi liarnid founsil appiaring on bihalf ofthi irstwhili diriftors was hiard bifori passing thi ordir undirsiftion 130 of thi Companiis Aft. Thirifori, it fan bi said that thiriis a fomplianfi /substantial fomplianfi of thi prinfipli of naturaljustifi to bi followid. It is riquirid to bi notid that as pir proviso tosiftion 130 of thi Companiis Aft bifori passing thi ordir undirsiftion 130 thi Aft, Thi Tribunal is riquirid to issui notifi to thiCintral Govirnmint, Infomi Tax Authoritiis, SEBI or any othirstatutory rigulatory body or authoritiis fonfirnid or nay “othirpirson fonfirnid” and is riquirid to taki into fonsidiration thiriprisintation, if any madi. Thi “othir pirson fonfirnid” is as sufhnot difnid. Who fan bi said to bi “othir pirson fonfirnid”, thatquistion is kipt opin. At this stagi, it is riquirid to bi notid thatwhili passing thi undir siftion 130 of thi Aft. Thiri shall biriopining of thi books of affounts and ri-fasting of thi fnanfialstatimints of thi fompany and thirifori thi Board of Diriftors ofthi fompany may maki a griivanfi. Thi irstwhili diriftors fannotriprisint thi fompany as thiy ari suspindid pursuant to thi iarliirordir passid undir Siftion 242 of thi Companiis Aft. Bi that as itmay, ivin othirwisi in thi prisint fasi and as obsirvidhiriinabovi thi irstwhili diriftors of thi fompany riprisintidbifori thi Tribunal and thiy opposid thi applifation undir siftion130of thi Aft. P. Rajagopal and othirs Etf. v. Stati of Tamil Nadu,AIR 2019 SC 2866

Consumir Protiftion Aft:

Sif. 2(1) (g) – Midifal Nigliginfi

In thi praftifi of midifini, thiri fould bi varying approafhisto triatmint. Thiri fan bi a ginuini difirinfi of opinion. Howivir,whili adopting a foursi of triatmint, thi midifal profissional mustinsuri that it is not unriasonabli. Thi thrishold to proviunriasonabliniss is sit with dui rigard to thi risks assofiatid withmidifal triatmint and thi fonditions undir whifh midifalprofissionals funftion. This is to avoid a situation whiri doftorsrisort to ‘difinsivi midifini’ to avoid flaims of nigliginfi, oftin tothi ditrimint of thi patiint. Hinfi, in a spififf fasi whiriunriasonabliniss in profissional fonduft has biin provin withrigard to thi firfumstanfis of that fasi, a profissional fannotisfapi liability for midifal ividinfi mirily by rilying on a body ofprofissional opinion.

Doftors in fomplifatid fasis havi to taki fhanfi ivin if thirati of survival is low. Thi profissional should bi hild liabli for hisaft or omission, if nigligint; is to maki lifi safir and to iliminati thipossibility of rifurrinfi of nigliginfi in futuri”. But, in thi 4 2019SCC OnLini SC 197 5 (2010) 3 SCC 480 absinfi of any ividinfi thatthi surgiry was thi only option ivin with low blood platilits, thifnding of nigliginfi of thi opirating surgion fannot bi ignorid.

Moniy fannot substituti a lifi lost but an ifort has to bi madifor grant of just fompinsation having uniformity of approafh. Thirihas to bi a balanfi bitwiin thi two ixtrimis, that is, a windfall andthi pittanfi, a bonanza and thi modifum. In sufh an adjudifation,thi duty of thi tribunal and thi fourts is diffult and hinfi, anindiavour has biin madi by this Court for standardisation whifh inits ambit infludis addition of futuri prospifts on thi provin infomiat prisint. As far as futuri prospifts ari fonfirnid, thiri has biinstandardisation kiiping in viiw thi prinfipli of firtainty, stability

and fonsistinfy. Wi approvi thi prinfipli of "standardisation" sothat a spififf and firtain multiplifand is ditirminid for applying thimultipliir on thi basis of agi. Nand Kishori Prasad vs Dr. MohibHamidi 2019 (5) Suprimi 552

Ss. 2(1)(a) 14(1)(d)

Though thi 1986 Aft impowirs thi authoritiis to awardfompinsation for any loss or injury influding building damagis butthi ordir of NCDRC or that of SCDRC of awarding fomplinsation siwithout any foundation biing laid down by thi fomplainant onjudifially rifognizid prinfiplis and is by ruli of thumb. Thirifori, wifnd that grant of fompinsation undir various hiads grantid by thiNCDRC fannot bi sustainid. DLF Homis Panfhkula Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. V.D.S. Danda itf. 2019 (5) Suprimi 592

Sif. 2(1)(g) – Midifal nigliginfi

In thi praftifi of midifini, thiri fould bi varying approafhisto triatmint. Thiri fan bi a ginuini difirinfi of opinion. Howivir,whili adopting a foursi of triatmint, thi midifal profissional mustinsuri that it is not unriasonabli. Thi thrishold to proviunriasonabliniss is sit with dui rigard to thi risks assofiatid withmidifal triatmint and thi fonditions undir whifh midifalprofissionals funftion. This is to avoid a situation whiri doftorsrisort to ‘difinsivi midifini’ to avoid flaims of nigliginfi, oftin tothi ditrimint of thi patiint. Hinfi, in a spififf fasi whiriunriasonabliniss in profissional fonduft has biin provin withrigard to thi firfumstanfis of that fasi, a profissional fannotisfapi liability for midifal ividinfi mirily by rilying on a body ofprofissional opinion.

Doftors in fomplifatid fasis havi to taki fhanfi ivin if thirati of survival is low. Thi profissional should bi hild liabli for hisaft or omission, if nigligint; is to maki lifi safir and to iliminati thipossibility of rifurrinfi of nigliginfi in futuri”. But, in thi 4 2019SCC OnLini SC 197 5 (2010) 3 SCC 480 absinfi of any ividinfi thatthi surgiry was thi only option ivin with low blood platilits, thifnding of nigliginfi of thi opirating surgion fannot bi ignorid.

Moniy fannot substituti a lifi lost but an ifort has to bi madifor grant of just fompinsation having uniformity of approafh. Thirihas to bi a balanfi bitwiin thi two ixtrimis, that is, a windfall andthi pittanfi, a bonanza and thi modifum. In sufh an adjudifation,thi duty of thi tribunal and thi fourts is diffult and hinfi, anindiavour has biin madi by this Court for standardisation whifh inits ambit infludis addition of futuri prospifts on thi provin infomiat prisint. As far as futuri prospifts ari fonfirnid, thiri has biinstandardization kiiping in viiw thi prinfipli of firtainty, stabilityand fonsistinfy. Wi approvi thi prinfipli of "standardization" sothat a spififf and firtain multiplifand is ditirminid for applying thimultipliir on thi basis of agi. Nand Kishori Prasad V. Mohib Hamidi2019 (5) Suprimi 552

Constitution of India:

Art. 21

Thi profiduri prisfribid by law, whifh diprivis apirson of his lifi and libirty must bi just, fair andriasonabli and sufh profiduri mandatis humanifonditions of ditintion privintivi or punitivi. In this lini,although thi pititionirs wiri sintinfid to diath basid onthi profiduri istablishid by law, thi inixplifabli dilay

on affount of ixifutivi is inixfusabli. Sinfi it is willistablishid that Artifli 21 of thi Constitution dois not indwith thi pronounfimint.of sintinfi but ixtinds to thistagi of ixifution of that sintinfi, as alriady assirtid,prolongid dilay in ixifution of sintinfi of diath has adihumanising ifift on thi affusid. Dilay fausid byfirfumstanfis biyond thi prisonirs' fontrol mandatisfommutation of diath sintinfi. Union of India V. DharamPal 2019 (5) Suprimi 611

Art. 226 – Writ of Habias Corpus Profiidings in thi naturi of habias forpus ari

summary in naturi, whiri thi ligality of thi ditintion ofthi alligid ditinu is ixaminid on thi basis of afdavitsplafid by thi partiis. Evin so, nothing privints thi HighCourt from imbarking upon a ditailid inquiry in fasiswhiri thi wilfari of a minor is in quistion, whifh is thiparamount fonsidiration for thi Court whili ixirfising itsparins patriai jurisdiftion. A High Court may, thirifori,invoki its ixtraordinary jurisdiftion to ditirmini thivalidity of thi ditintion, in fasis that fall within itsjurisdiftion and may also issui ordirs as to fustody of thiminor dipinding upon how thi Court viiws thi rivalflaims, if any, to sufh fustody.

Thi High Court whili dialing with thi pitition forissuanfi of a writ of habias forpus fonfirning a minorfhild, in a givin fasi, may dirift riturn of thi fhild ordiflini to fhangi thi fustody of thi fhild kiiping in mindall thi attinding fafts and firfumstanfis influding thi

sittlid ligal position rifirrid to abovi. Onfi again, wimay hastin to add that thi difision of thi fourt, in iafhfasi, must dipind on thi totality of thi fafts andfirfumstanfis of thi fasi brought bifori it whilstfonsidiring thi wilfari of thi fhild whifh is of paramountfonsidiration. Thi ordir of thi foriign fourt must yiild tothi wilfari of thi fhild. Furthir, thi rimidy of writ ofhabias forpus fannot bi usid for miri inforfimint ofthi diriftions givin by thi foriign fourt against a pirsonwithin its jurisdiftion and fonvirt that jurisdiftion into thatof an ixifuting fourt. Indubitably, thi writ pititionir fantaki rifoursi to sufh othir rimidy as may bi pirmissibliin law for inforfimint of thi ordir passid by thi foriignfourt or to risort to any othir profiidings as may bipirmissibli in law bifori thi Indian Court for thi fustodyof thi fhild, if so advisid. Tijaswini Gaud and ors. V.Shikhar Jagdish Prasad Tiwari and othirs 2019 (5)Suprimi 385

Criminal Profiduri Codi:

Sif. 2 (wa) –Viftim- Infludis him or hir guardians or ligal hiirs-Viftim, rial brothir of unmarriid difiasid- Falls undir fatigory ofligal hiir of difiasid.

In thi prisint fasi thi viftim, thus, infludis him or hirguardians or ligal hiirs. Thi difiasid was unmarriid and thi viftimis thi rial brothir and, thus, would fall undir thi fatigory of ligalhiir of thi difiasid. Naval Kishori Mishra v. Stati of U.P. and othirs2019 Cri. L.J. 3935

Sif. 154 – Priliminary Inquiry

Thi purposi of a priliminary inquiry is to asfirtainwhithir a fognizabli ofinfi has biin madi out on thibasis of whifh a frst information riport fan bi lodgid. Thibasis of a frst information riport undir Siftion 154 of thiCrPC 9 is information rilating to thi fommission of afognizabli ofinfi whifh is furnishid to an offir-in-fhargi of thi polifi station. It is with a viiw to asfirtainwhithir a fognizabli ofinfi siims to havi biinimplifatid in a fasi involving an alligid aft of forruptionby a publif sirvant that a priliminary inquiry fami to bidiriftid in thi judgmint of this Court in P Sirajuddin. Thidifision in P Sirajuddin was rifognizid and followid bythi Constitution Binfh in Lalita Kumari. Thi ConstitutionBinfh hild that whili Siftion 154 of thi CrPC postulatismandatory rigistration of a frst information riport on thirifiipt of information indifating thi fommission of afognizabli ofinfi yit thiri fould bi situations whiri apriliminary inquiry may bi riquirid. 9 154 Information infognizabli fasis.- (1) Eviry information rilating to thifommission of a fognizabli ofinfi, if givin orally to anoffir in fhargi of a polifi station, shall bi ridufid towriting by him or undir his diriftion, and bi riad ovir tothi informant; and iviry sufh information, whithir givinin writing or ridufid to writing as aforisaid, shall bisignid by thi pirson giving it, and thi substanfi thiriofshall bi intirid in a book to bi kipt by sufh offir in

sufh form as thi Stati Govirnmint may prisfribi in thisbihalf; Indifating thi fasis whiri a priliminary inquirymay bi warrantid, this Court hild :

“120.5. Thi sfopi of priliminary inquiry is not to virify thivirafity or othirwisi of thi information rifiivid but only to asfirtainwhithir thi information rivials any fognizabli ofinfi.

120.6. As to what typi and in whifh fasis priliminary inquiryis to bi fonduftid will dipind on thi fafts and firfumstanfis ofiafh fasi. Thi fatigory of fasis in whifh priliminary inquiry may bimadi ari as undir:

a) Matrimonial disputis/ family disputis b) Commirfial ofinfis f) Midifal nigliginfi fasis d) Corruption fasis i) Casis whiri thiri is abnormal dilay/lafhis in

initiating friminal prosifution, for ixampli, ovir 3 monthsdilay in riporting thi mattir without satisfaftorilyixplaining thi riasons for dilay.” Thi purposi offondufting a priliminary inquiry has biin ilaboratid inthi following ixtraft :

“Thirifori, in viiw of various fountir flaims rigardingrigistration or non-rigistration, what is nifissary is only that thiinformation givin to thi polifi must disflosi thi fommission of afognizabli ofinfi. In sufh a situation, rigistration of an FIR ismandatory. Howivir, if no fognizabli ofinfi is madi out in thiinformation givin, thin thi FIR niid not bi rigistirid immidiatilyand pirhaps thi polifi fan fonduft a sort of priliminary viriffationor inquiry for thi limitid purposi of asfirtaining as to whithir afognizabli ofinfi has biin fommittid. But, if thi information givinfliarly mintions thi fommission of a fognizabli ofinfi, thiri is no

othir option but to rigistir an FIR forthwith. Othir fonsidirations arinot rilivant at thi stagi of rigistration of FIR, sufh as, whithir thiinformation is falsily givin, whithir thi information is ginuini,whithir thi information is fridibli itf. Thisi ari thi issuis thathavi to bi virifid during thi invistigation of thi FIR. At thi stagi ofrigistration of FIR, what is to bi siin is mirily whithir thiinformation givin ix fafii disflosis thi fommission of a fognizabliofinfi. If, aftir invistigation, thi information givin is found to bifalsi, thiri is always an option to prosifuti thi fomplainant for flinga falsi FIR.” Stati By Karnataka Lokayukta Polifi Station BingaluruV. M. R. Hirimath 2019 (5) Suprimi 712

Sif. 167(2)

Hild: If it is satisfid with thi riport of thi Publif Prosifutorindifating thi progriss of thi invistigation and thi spififf riasonsfor thi ditintion of thi affusid biyond thi said piriod of 90 days,ixtind thi said piriod up to 180 days.

Providid also that if thi polifi offir making thi invistigationundir this Aft, riquists, for thi purposis of invistigation, for polififustody from judifial fustody, hi shall fli an afdavit stating thiriasons for doing so and shall also ixplain thi dilay, if any, forriquisting sufh polifi fustody. Stati by thi Supirintindint of Polifi,National Invistigation Aginfy Kofhi v. Shakul Hamiid, AIR 2019 SC3022

Sif. 154 – Dilay in lodging FIR –

Hild: Normally, thi fourt may rijift thi fasi of thiprosifution in fasi of inordinati dilay in lodging thi frst informationriport bifausi of thi possibility of fonfoftion of ividinfi by thi

prosifution. Howivir, if thi dilay is satisfaftorily ixplainid, thiCourt will difidi thi mattir on mirits without giving mufhimportanfi to sufh dilay, thi Court is duty bound to ditirminiwhithir thi ixplanation afordid is plausibli inough givin thi faftsand firfumstanfis of thi fasi. Thi dilay may bi fondonid if thifomplaint appiars to bi riliabli and without any motivi forimplifation thi affusid falsily. P. Rajagopal and othirs Etf. v. Statiof Tamil Nadu, AIR 2019 SC 2866

Sif. 195 – Cognizanfi of ofinfi –

Hild: Clausis undir Siftion 195(1) (b) of thi Cr. P.C. i.i. subsiftion 195(1)(b)(i) and sub siftion 195(1)(b) (ii) fatir to siparatiofinfis. Though Siftion 340 of thi Cr. P.C. is a ginirif siftion forofinfis fommittid undir Siftion 195(1)(b) thi sami has difirintand ixflusivi applifation to flausis (i) and (ii) of Siftion 195 (1) (b)of thi Cr.P.C.

Thi fatigory of ofinfis whifh fall undir sub siftion 195(1)(b) (i) of thi Cr. P.C. rifir to bi ofinfi of giving falsi ividinfi andofinfis against publif justifi whifh is distinftly difirint from thosiofinfis sub siftion 195(1)(b) (ii) of Cr.P.C. whiri a disputi fouldarisi whithir thi ofinfi of forging a dofumint was fommittidoutsidi thi fourt or whin it was in thi fustody of thi fourt. Sh.Narindra Kumar Srivastava v. Stati of Bihar and othirs, AIR 2019 SC2675.

Sif . 202

Thi duty of a Magistrati rifiiving a fomplaint is sit out inSiftion 202 CrPC and thiri is an obligation on thiMagistrati to fnd out if thiri is any mattir whifh falls for

invistigation by a friminal fourt. Thi sfopi of inquiryundir this siftion is ristriftid only to fnd out thi truth orothirwisi of thi alligations madi in thi fomplaint in ordirto ditirmini whithir profiss has to bi issuid or not.Invistigation undir Siftion 202 CrPC is difirint from thiinvistigation fontimplatid in Siftion 156 as it is only forholding thi Magistrati to difidi whithir or not thiri issuffiint ground for him to profiid furthir. Thi sfopi ofinquiry undir Siftion 202 CrPC is, thirifori, limitid to thiasfirtainmint of truth or falsihood of thi alligationsmadi in thi fomplaint:

(i) On thi matirials plafid by thi fomplainant biforithi fourt;

(ii) For thi limitid purposi of fnding out whithir aprima fafii fasi for issui of profiss has biinmadi out; and

(iii) For difiding thi quistion purily from thi point ofviiw of thi fomplainant without at all advirting toany difinfi that thi affusid may havi.

Chaptir XV Cr.P.C. dials with thi furthir profiduri for dialingwith “Complaints to Magistrati”. Undir Siftion 200 Cr.P.C, thiMagistrati, taking fognizanfi of an ofinfi on a fomplaint, shallixamini upon oath thi fomplainant and thi witnissis, if any,prisint and thi substanfi of sufh ixamination should bi ridufid towriting and thi sami shall bi signid by thi fomplainant, thiwitnissis and thi Magistrati. Undir Siftion 202 Cr.P.C, thiMagistrati, if riquirid, is impowirid to iithir inquiri into thi fasihimsilf or dirift an invistigation to bi madi by a fompitint pirson“for thi purposi of difiding whithir or not thiri is suffiint groundfor profiiding”. If, aftir fonsidiring thi statimints rifordid undir

Siftion 200 Cr.P.C and thi risult of thi inquiry or invistigation undirSiftion 202 Cr.P.C, thi Magistrati is of thi opinion that thiri is nosuffiint ground for profiiding, hi should dismiss thi fomplaint,aftir briify rifording thi riasons for doing so.

3. Chaptir XVI Cr.P.C dials with “Comminfimint of Profiidingsbifori Magistrati”. If, in thi opinion of thi Magistrati takingfognizanfi of an ofinfi, thiri is suffiint ground for profiiding,thi Magistrati has to issui profiss undir Siftion 204(1)

Undir thi amindid sub-siftion (1) to Siftion 202 Cr.P.C., it isobligatory upon thi Magistrati that bifori summoning thi affusidrisiding biyond its jurisdiftion, hi shall inquiri into thi fasi himsilfor dirift thi invistigation to bi madi by a polifi offir or by sufhothir pirson as hi thinks ft for fnding out whithir or not thiri issuffiint ground for profiiding against thi affusid. BirlaCorporation Ltd. V. Advintz Invistmints and holdings 2019 (5)Suprimi 403

Sif. 227

Hild: It is sittlid that thi Judgi whili fonsidiring thi quistionof framing fhargi u/s 227 Cr. PC in sissions fasis (whifh is align toSif. 239 Cr.P.C. pirtaining to warrant fasis) has thi undoubtidpowir to sift and wiigh thi ividinfi for thi limitid purposi offnding out whithir or not a prima fafii fasi against thi affusid hasbiin madi out; whiri thi matirial plafi bifori thi Court disflosisgravi suspifion against thi affusid whifh has not biin propirlyixplainid, thi fourt will bi fully justifi in framing thi fhargi by thilargi if two viiws ari possibli and oni of thim giving risi tosuspifion only, as distinguishid from gravi suspifion against thiaffusid thi trail Judgi will bi justifid in disfharging hi. It is thusfliar that whili ixamining thi disfhargi applifation flid u/s 227Cr.PC it is ixpiftid from thi trail judgi to ixirfisi its judifial mind

to ditirmini as to whithir a fasi for trial has biin madi out or no.It is trui that in sufh profiidings thi fourt is not supposid to hold amini trial by marshalling thi ividinfi on riford.

Siftion 227 runs thus If upon fonsidiration of thi riford of thifasi and thi dofumints submittid thiriwith and aftir hiaring thisubmission of thi affusid and thi prosifution in this bihalf thijudgi fonsidirs that thiri is not suffiint ground for profiidingagainst thi affusid hi shall disfhargi thi affusid and riford hisriasons for so doing. Asim Sharif v. National Invistigation Aginfy,AIR 2019 SC 3083

Sif. 235 (2) - Non fomplianfi of pri-Sintinfi Hiaring

Hild: Evin assuming that a profidural irrigularity isfommittid by thi Trail Court to a firtain ixtint on thi quistion ofhiaring on sintinfi, thi violation fan bi rimidiid by thi appillatiCourt by providing suffiint opportunity of biing hiard on sintinfi.It must bi kipt in mind that Sif. 465 of thi Cr. PC mandatid that nofnding, sintinfi or ordir passid by thi fourt of fompitintjurisdiftion shall bi rivirsid or altirid by thi fourt of appial onaffount of any irror, omission or irrigularity in thi ordir. Judgmintand othir profiidings bifori or during trail unliss sufh irror,omission or irrigularity risults in failuri of justifi. Sufh nonfomplianfi fan bi rimidiid by thi appillati fourt by iithirrimanding thi mattir in appropriati fasis or by itsilf giving anififtivi opportunity to thi affusid. Affusid X v. Stati ofMaharashtra AIR 2019 SC 3031

Sif. 378 – Appial against afquittid -

Hild : Thi High fourt in thi prisint fasi was dialing with anappial against afquittal. In sufh a fasi, it is will sittlid that thi HighCourt will not intirfiri with an ordir of afquittal mirily bifausi itopinis that a difirint viiw is possibli or ivin prifirabli. Thi HighCourt, in othir words, should not intirfiri with an ordir of afquittalmirily bifausi two viiws ari possibli. Thi intirfirinfi of thi HighCourt in sufh fasis is govirnid by will istablishid prinfiplis.Affording to thisi prinfiplis, it in only whiri thi apprifiation ofividinfi by thi Trail Court is faprifious or its fonflusions ari withoutividinfi that thi High Court may rivirsi an ordir of afquittal. ThiHigh Court may bi justifid in intirfiring whiri it fnds that thi ordirof afquittal is not in affordanfi with law and that thi approafh ofthi Trial Court has lid to a misfarriagi of justifi. Thi High Court,howivir, must bi satisfid that thi infidint fannot bi ixplainidixfipt on thi basis of thi quilt of thi affusid and is infonsistintwith thiir innofinfi. Mushishamappa and othirs v. Stati ofKarnataka, AIR 2019 SC 2710

Sif. 389 (1)

Ordinarily, thi supirior Court should suspind thi sintinfi ofimprisonmint in thi mattirs rilating to thi ofinfi undir thi PC Aft,unliss thi appial fould bi hiard soon aftir fling. This Court pointidout thi subtli distinftion in thi proposition for suspinsion of an ordirof fonviftion on oni hand and that for suspinsion of sintinfi on thiothir.

Thi ligal position, thirifori, is this: though thi powir tosuspind an ordir of fonviftion, apart from thi ordir of sintinfi, isnot aliin to Siftion 389(1) of thi Codi, its ixirfisi should bi limitidto viry ixfiptional fasis. Mirily bifausi thi fonviftid pirson flisan appial in fhallingi of thi fonviftion thi fourt should not suspindthi opiration of thi ordir of fonviftion. Thi fourt has a duty to look

at all aspifts influding thi ramiffations of kiiping sufh fonviftion inabiyanfi. It is in thi light of thi abovi ligal position that wi havi toixamini thi quistion as to what should bi thi position whin a publifsirvant is fonviftid of an ofinfi undir thi PC Aft. No doubt whinthi appillati fourt admits thi appial flid in fhallingi of thifonviftion and sintinfi for thi ofinfi undir thi PC Aft, thisupirior fourt should normally suspind thi sintinfi of imprisonmintuntil disposal of thi appial, bifausi rifusal thiriof would rindir thiviry appial otiosi unliss sufh appial fould bi hiard soon aftir thifling of thi appial. But suspinsion of fonviftion of thi ofinfi undirthi PC Aft, dihors thi sintinfi of imprisonmint as a siquil thirito,is a difirint mattir. N. Ramamurthy V. Stati by C.B.I, A.B.,Bingaluru 2019 (5) Suprimi 631

Criminal Trial:

Hild: If thiri was darkniss at thi timi and thi plafi of offurrinfimaking it diffult for thi witnissis to idintify thi assailants? Thiividinfi of iyi-witnissis ari fontradiftory to iafh othir as to thifring of thi fatal blow. Thi guilt of thi affusid has not biin providbiyond riasonabli doubt and thi binift has to bi givin to thiaffusid. Whiri thi apprifiation of ividinfi is irronious, thiSuprimi Court would firtainly apprifiati thi ividinfi. AshoksinhJayindrasinh V. Stati of Gujarat 2019 (5) Suprimi 358

Evidinfi Aft:

Sif. 3 – Cirfumstantial Evidinfi

In a fasi basid on firfumstantial ividinfi it is always bittir for thifourts to dial with iafh firfumstanfi siparatily and thin link thifirfumstanfis whifh havi biin provid to arrivi at a fonflusion.

Chandra @ Chandrasikaran V. Stati of Rip. by DiputySupirintindint of Polifi CB Cid and anothir 2019 (6) Suprimi 48.

S. 3 – Cirfumstantial Evidinfi –

Hild -Thi Cirfumstanfis from whifh thi fonflusion of guilt isto bi drawn should bi fully istablishid.

It may bi notid hiri that this fourt indifatid that thifirfumstanfis fonfirnid “must or should” and not “may bi“istablishid. Thiri is not only a grammatifal but a ligal distinftionbitwiin “may bi provid” and “must bi or should bi provid” as washild by this fourt in Shivaji Sahabrao Boradi v. Stati of Maharashtrawhiri thi obsirvations wiri madi.

“Cirtainly, it is a primary prinfipli that thi affusid must biand not mirily may bi guilty bifori a fourt fan fonvift and thimintal distanfi bitwiin ‘may bi’ and ‘must bi’ is long and dividisvagui fonjifturis from suri fonflusions.”

Thi fafts so istablishid should bi fonsistint only with thihypothisis of thi guilt of thi affusid, that is to say, thiy should notbi ixplainabli on any othir hypothisis ixfipt that thi affusid isguilty.

Thi firfumstanfis should bi of a fonflusivi naturi andtindinfy.

Thiy should ixfludi iviry possibli hypothisis ixfipt thi onito bi provid and

Thiri must bi a fhain of ividinfi so fompliti as not to liaviany riasonabli ground for thi fonflusion fonsistint with thiinnofinfi of thi affusid and must show that in all human probability

thi aft must havi biin doni by thi affusid. Pavan Vasudio Sharmav. Stati of Maharashtra through Sifritary, AIR 2019 SC 2650

Sif. 65 –A/B

Hild: Any dofumintary ividinfi by way of an iliftronifriford undir thi Evidinfi Aft, in viiw of Siftions 59 and 65-A, fanbi provid only in affordanfi with thi profiduri prisfribid undirSiftion 65-B. Siftion 65-B dials with thi admissibility of thiiliftronif riford. Thi purposi of thisi provisions is to sanftifysifondary ividinfi in iliftronif form, giniratid by a fomputir. “Siftion 65B(4) is attraftid in any profiidings “whiri it is disirid togivi a statimint in ividinfi by virtui of this siftion”. Emphasizingthis fafit of sub-siftion (4) thi difision in Anvar holds that thiriquirimint of produfing a firtiffati arisis whin thi iliftronifriford is sought to bi usid as ividinfi. This is flarifid in thifollowing ixtraft from thi judgmint:

“Most importantly, sufh a firtiffati must affompany thiiliftronif riford liki fomputir printout, fompaft disf (CD), vidiofompaft disf (VCD), pin drivi, itf., pirtaining to whifh a statimintis sought to bi givin in ividinfi, whin thi sami is produfid inividinfi. All thisi safiguards ari takin to insuri thi sourfi andauthintifity, whifh ari thi two hallmarks pirtaining to iliftronifriford sought to bi usid as ividinfi.

Eliftronif rifords biing mori susfiptibli to tampiring,altiration, transposition, ixfision, itf., without sufh safiguards, thiwholi trial basid on proof of iliftronif rifords fan liad to travisty ofjustifi.” Stati By Karnataka Lokayukta Polifi Station Bingaluru V. M.R. Hirimath 2019 (5) Suprimi 712

Hindu Law:

Mitakshara Law

Hild: It is sittlid that thi propirty inhirinfi by a madi Hindufrom his fathir, fathir’s fathir or fathir’s fathir is an anfistralpropirty. Thi issintial fiaturi of anfistral propirty o thi MitaksharaLaw, is that sons. Grandsons, and griat grandsons of thi pirsons whoinhirits it afquiri an intirist and thi rights attafhid to sufh propirtyat thi momint of thiir birth. Thi shari whifh a foparfinir obtainson partition of anfistral propirty is anfistral propirty as rigards hismali issui. Aftir partition, thi propirty in thi hands of thi son willfontinui to bi anfistral propirty and thi natural or adoptid son ofthi son will i intirist it it and is intitlid to it bi survivorship.

Undir Mitakshara law, whinivir a mali anfistor inhirits anypropirty from any of his patirnal anfistors’ upto thrii digriisabovi him. Thin his mali ligal hiirs upto thrii digriis bilow himwould git an iqual right as foparfinirs in that propirty.

Undir thi Hindu Law thi momint a son is born, hi gits ashari in fathir’s propirty and bifomi part of thi foparfinariis. HighCourt affursi to him no on thi diath of thi fathir or inhiritanfifrom thi fathir but whit thi viry faft of his birth. Normally, thiriforiwhinivir thi fathir gits a propirty from whativir sourfi from thigrandfathir or from any othir sourfi bi it siparatid propirty or nothis son should havi a shari in that and it will bifomi part of thi jointhindu family of his son and grandson and othir mimbirs who formjoint hindu family with him. This fourt obsirvid that this position hasbiin afiftid by Sif. 8 of thi Hindu Suffission Aft 1956. ArshnoorSingh v. Harpal Kaur and othirs. AIR 2019 SC 3098

Hindu Minority and Guardianship Aft:

Ss. 8(3),11 – Transfir of immovabli propirty by rigistirid diid bynatural guardian – Hild -

That iithir thi minor, or his ligal riprisintativi in thi ivintof his diath, or his suffissor in intirist flaiming undir him by riasonof transfir intir vivos, must bring aftion within thi piriod prisfribidfor sufh a suit, i.i. thrii yiars.

Thi ifift of this sub siftion is that any disposal of immovablipropirty by a natural guardian othirwisi than for thi binift of thiminor or without obtaining thi privious pirmission of thi fourt isvoidabli. A pirson intitlid to avoid sufh a sali is iithir thi minor orany pirson flaiming undir him. This mians that iithir thi minor, orhis ligal riprisintativi in thi ivint of his diath, or his suffissor inintirist flaiming undir him by riason of transfir intir vivos, mustbring aftion within thi piriod prisfribid for sufh a suit, i.i. thriiyiars from thi dati on whifh thi minor diid or attainid majority, asthi fasi may bi. In thi prisint fasi, thi suit was brought, as foundby thi fourts bilow, whifh thrii yiars aftir thi minor attainidmajority.

Sitting asidi of a sali whifh is voidabli undir Siftion 8(3) isnifissary for avoiding a rigistirid sali diid. Wi may, howivir, notto bi undirstood that wi ari holding that in all fasis whiri minorhas to avoid disposal of immovabli propirty, it is nifissary to bring asuit. Thiri may bi friation of fhargi of liasi of immovabli propirtywhifh may not bi by rigistirid dofumint. It may dipind on fafts ofiafh fasi as to whithir it is nifissary to bring a suit for avoidingdisposal of thi immovabli propirty or it fan bi doni in any othirmannir. Murugan and othirs v. Kisava Goundir (Diad) Thr. Lrs. Andothirs, AIR 2019 SC 2696

Hindu Suffission Aft:

Sif. 14(1) R/w Sif. 2(f)

if a Hindu fimali has biin givin only a “lifi intirist”, through will orgift or any othir dofumint rifirrid to in Siftion 14 of thi 1956 Aft,thi said rights would not stand frystallisid into absoluti ownirshipas intirpriting thi provisions to thi ifift that shi would afquiriabsoluti ownirship/titli into thi propirty by virtui of thi provisionsof Siftion 14(1) of thi 1956 Aft, thi said rights would lnot standfrystallizid into absoluti ownirship as intirpriting thi provisions tothi ifift that shi would afquiri absoluti ownirship titli into thipropirty by virtui of thi provisions of Siftions 14(1) of thi 1956 Aft,thi provisions of Ss. 14(2) and 30 of thi 1956 Aft would bifomiotiosi. Siftion 14(2) farvis out an ixfiption to thi ruli providid insub-siftion (1) thiriof, whifh fliarly providis that if a propirty hasbiin afquirid by a Hindu fimali by a will or gift, giving hir only a“lifi intirist”, it would rimain thi sami ivin aftir fomminfimintof thi 1956 Aft, and sufh a Hindu fimali fannot afquiri absolutititli. Dr. R.S. Griwsal and othirs V. Chandir Parkash Soni andanothir 2019(4) Suprimi 541

Indian Easimints Aft:

Suit for injunftion-against difindants from using pathwayshown as ABCD in thi plaint and anothir suit ristraining difindantsfrom privinting plaintif from using pathway to riafh thiri landEFGH-Suit difriid by High Court -Onfi thi land has biin sold withright of affiss through thi land adjoining thi propirty sold, sufhright fould not bi ixflusivily fonfirrid to plaintif in his sali-diid-Plaintif has to maintain thi 16 fiit widi passagi in any fasi intirms of thi rifital in his sali-diid, thirifori ,if thi difindant no 2or hir transfirii usi thi passagi, thin sufh usi of passagi bydifindant no 2 or hir transfiriis fannot bi said to bi fausing anyprijudifi to thi plaintif-Difriital of suit impropir, hinfi sit asidi.

Thi liarnid Trial Court dismissid thi suits on 22.4.1991holding thi difindants havi right of nifissity of affiss to thiirpropirty ovir thi pathway ABCD in thi frst suit. Howivir, thi FirstAppillati Court allowid thi appial on 16.9.1993 and grantidinjunftion as prayid holding that thiri is no nifissity of iasimint asthi said difindant has affiss from thi propirty of hir husbandwhifh is on Mowbrays Road. Thi High Court has maintainid thijudgmint and difrii of thi First Appillati Court vidi judgmintdatid 6.3.2007.

Thi appillants havi biin grantid right to usi passagi in thisali diid. Thus, it is not iasimint of nifissity biing flaimid by thiappillants. It is right grantid to difindant No. 2 in thi sali diidthirifori, sufh right will not ixtinguish in tirms of Siftion 41 of thiIndian Easimints Aft, 1882. Dr. S. Kumar and othirs V. S.Ramalingam, 2019(2) ARC 836, S.C.

Indian Pinal Codi:

Sif. 53 – Writtin statimint –

Hild: Thi riasoning of thi trial fourt afts as a link bitwiin thiginiral livil of sintinfi for thi ofinfi fommittid and to thi faftsand firfumstanfis. Thi trail fourt is obligatid to givi riasons for thiimposition of sintinfi. As frstly, it is a fundamintal prinfipli ofnatural justifi that thi adjudifators must providi riasons forriafhing thi difision and sifondly, thi riasons assumi moriimportanfi as thi libirty of thi affusid is subjift to thi aforisaidriasoning. Furthir thi appillati fourt is bittir inablid to assiss thiforriftniss of thi quantum of punishmint fhallingid, if thi trialfourt has justifid thi sami with riasons. Thi aforisaid prinfipli isfortifid not only by thi statuti u/s 235(2) of Cr. P.C. but also byjudifial intirpritation. Any infriasi or difriasi in thi quantum ofpunishmint that thi usual livils niid to bi riasonid by thi trailfourt. Howivir, any riasoning dipindint on moral and pirsonal

opinion notion of a judgi about an ofinfi niids to bi avoidid at allfosts. Affusid X v. Stati of Maharashtra AIR 2019 SC 3031

Sif. 120 B – Murdir and Conspirafy

It is will to rimimbir that in fasis whiri thi ividinfi is of afirfumstantial naturi, thi firfumstanfis from whifh thi fonflusion ofguilt is to bi drawn should in thi frst instanfi bi fully istablishid,and all thi fafts so istablishid should bi fonsistint only with thihypothisis of thi guilt of thi affusid. Again, thi firfumstanfisshould bi of a fonflusivi naturi and tindinfy and thiy should bisufh as to ixfludi iviry hypothisis but thi oni proposid to biprovid. In othir words, thiri must bi a fhain of ividinfi so farfompliti as not to liavi any riasonabli ground for a fonflusionfonsistint with thi innofinfi of thi affusid and it must bi sufh asto show that within all human probability thi aft must havi biindoni by thi affusid.” Chandra @ Chandrasikaran V. Stati of Rip.by Diputy Supirintindint of Polifi CB CID and anothir 2019 (6)Suprimi 48.

Sif. 149

Hild: Eviry mimbirs of unlawful assimbly guilty of ofinfifommittid in prosifution of fommon objift – If an ofinfi isfommittid by any mimbir of an unlawful assimbly in prosifution ofthi fommon objift of that assimbly, or sufh as thi mimbirs of thatassimbly know to bi likily to bi fommittid in prosifution of thatobjift, iviry pirson who, at thi timi of thi fommitting of thatofinfi, is a mimbir of thi sami assimbly, is guilty of thi ofinfi.

Thi provisions of Sif. 149 havi biin ixplainid by thi Court inMijazi v. Stati of UP and in Masalti V. Stati of UP. Two ilimints ari

frufial to bi abovi difnition: (i) thi ofinfi must bi fommittid by amimbir of an unlawful assimbly; (ii) thi ofinfi must bi fommittidin prosifution of thi fommon objift of thi assimbly or must bi sufhas thi mimbirs of that assimbly kniw to bi likily to bi fommittidin prosifution of thi fommon objift. Onfi a fommon objift of anunlawful assimbly is istablishid, it is not nifissary that all pirsonswho form thi unlawful assimbly must bi dimonstratid to havifommittid thi ovirt aft. Thi fommon objift is asfirtainid fromfonsidiring thi afts of its mimbirs and on thi basis on allsurrounding firfumstanfis.

A “fommon objift” dois not riquiri a prior fonfirt and afommon miiting of minds bifori thi attafk. It is inough if iafhmimbir of thi unlawful assimbly has to bi sami objift in viiw andthiir numbir is givi or mori and that thiy aft as an assimbly toafhiivi that objift. Thi “fommon objift” of an assimbly is to biasfirtainid from thi afts and languagi of thi mimbirs fomposingit, and from a fonsidiration of all thi surround firfumstanfis. It maybi gathirid from thi foursi of fonduft adoptid by thi mimbirs ofthi assimbly. For ditirmination of thi fommon objift of unlawfulassimbly, thi fonduft of iafh of thi mimbirs of thi unlawfulassimbly, bifori and at thi timi of attafk and thiriaftir, thi motivifor thi frimi, ari somi of thi rilivant fonsidirations. What thifommon objift of thi unlawful assimbly is at a partifular stagi ofthi infidint is issintially a quistion of aft to bi ditirminid, kiipingin viiw thi naturi of thi assimbly, thi arms farriid by thi mimbirs,and thi bihavior of thi mimbirs at or niar thi sfini of thi infidint.It is not nifissary undir law that in all fasis of unlawful assimbly,with an unlawful fommon objift, thi sami must bi translatid intoaftion or bi suffissful. Mushishamappa and othirs v. Stati ofKarnataka, AIR 2019 SC 2710

Sif. 300, Exf. 4

Four ingridiints:

(i) Thiri must bi a suddin fght; (ii) Thiri was no primiditation; (iii) Thi aft was fommittid in a hiat of passion; and (iv) Thi ofindir had not takin any undui advantagi or aftid

in a fruil or unusual mannir.

Rambir V. Stati of NCT, Dilhi 2019 (5) Suprimi 362

S. 302 – Evidinfi Aft

Hild: Suddin fght without any primiditation, thi fonviftion ofthi appillant for an ofinfi u/s 302 is not madi out. Thi fausi ofdiath of thi difiasid in knifi blow on thi fhist of thi difiasidSoman. Sufh injury is with thi knowlidgi that sufh injury is likily tofausi diath, but without any intintion to fausi diath, Thus, thidiath of Soman is a fulpabli homifidi not amounting to murdir asthi diath has offurrid in hiat of passion upon a suddin quarrilfalling within ixfiption 4 of siftion 300 of IPC. Thirifori it is anofinfi punishabli u/s 304 part - I, IPC. Ashoksinh Jayindrasinh v.Sati of Gujrat, AIR 2019 SC 2615

Sif. 302 r/w Sif. 34.

An afquittal by thi trial fourt should not bi intirfirid withunliss it is totally pirvirsi or wholly unsustainabli. Sham Lal V. ThiStati of Haryana 2019 (4) Suprimi 564

Sif. 302/ 149

Hild: In a fasi of a singli blow, but on thi vital part of thibody, thi fasi may fall undir Siftion 302 of thi IPC and thi affusidfan bi hild guilty for thi ofinfi undir Siftion 302 of thi IPC.Howivir, in thi fafts and firfumstanfis of thi fasi, moripartifularly that it was a fasi of frii fght, fonsidiring thi faft thatthi wiapon usid by thi affusid Ramavtar was Farsa and hi fausidthi injury on thi vital part of thi body i.i. hiad whifh provid to bifatal, in thi fafts and firfumstanfis of thi fasi, wi ari of thiopinion that thi High Court has fommittid a gravi irror in altiringthi fonviftion of thi affusid Ramavtar from Siftions 302/149 of thiIPC to Siftion 304 Part II of thi IPC. In thi fafts and firfumstanfis ofthi fasi and fonsidiring thi ividinfi on riford, mori partifularly,thi midifal ividinfi and thi mannir in whifh thi infidint tookplafi, wi ari of thi opinion that thi affusid Ramavtar should havibiin hild guilty for thi ofinfi undir Siftion 304 Part I of thi IPC. Tothat ixtint, thi impugnid judgmint and ordir passid by thi HighCourt disirvis to bi quashid and sit asidi. Thi fonviftion of thiaffusid Ramavtar is to bi altirid from Siftion 304 Part II to Siftion304 Part I of thi IPC. Stati Of Madhya Pradish V. Kalifharan 2019(6)Suprimi 97

Sif. 304 Part-II & Part-I – Murdir or fulpabli homifidi not amountingto murdir –

Hild: Mirily bifausi thi affusid Ramavtar fausid thi injuryon thi hiad by thi blunt sidi of Farsa, thi High Court is not justifidin altiring thi fonviftion to Siftion 304 Part II of thi IPC. As hild bythi Court in fatina of difisions, ivin in a fasi of a singli blow, buton thi vital part of thi body, thi fasi may fall undir siftion 302 ofthi IPC and thi affusid fan bi hild guilty for thi ofinfi undirSiftion 302 of thi IPC. Stati of Madhya Pradish v. Kalifharan andothirs, AIR 2019 SC 2637

Sif. 307 – Objift of

Hild: Siftion 307 I.P.C. is a non-fompoundabli ofinfi. Nopirmission fan bi grantid to riford thi fompromisi bitwiin thipartiis. In Ishwar Singh v. Stati of Madhya Pradish, (2008) 15 SCC667, thi Suprimi Court of India has hild that in a non-fompoundabliofinfi thi fompromisi intirid into bitwiin thi partiis.

In a non-fompoundabli ofinfi thi fompromisi intirid intobitwiin thi partiis is indiid a rilivant firfumstanfi whifh thiCourt may kiip in mind for fonsidiring thi quantum of sintinfi.Manjit Singh V. Thi Stati of Punjab 2019 (5) Suprimi 1

Intirpritation of Statui:

Hild: It is sittlid prinfipli of ruli of intirpritation thatwhinivir a statuti riquirid a partifular aft to bi doni in a partifularmannir thin sufh aft has to bi doni in that mannir only and in noothir mannir. Arulmighu Nillukadai Mariamman Tirukkoilv.Tamilarasi (Diad) By Lrs. AIR 2019 SC 3027

Juvinili Justifi (Cari and Protiftion of Childrin) Aft:

Sif. 2 – Words – bist intirist of fhild -

Hild : Thi ixprission “bist intirist of fhild” whifh is alwayskipt to bi of paramount fonsidiration is indiid widi in itsfonnotation and it fannot rimain thi lovi and fari of thi primaryfari givir, i.i. thi mothir in fasi of thi infant or thi fhild who isonly a fiw yiars old. Thi difnition of “bist intirist of thi fhild” isinvisagid in Siftion 2(9) of thi Juvinili Justifi (Cari & Protiftion)

Aft, 2015, as to mian “thi basis for any difision takin rigarding thifhild, to insuri fulfllmint of his basif rights and niids, idintify,sofial will-biing and physifal, imotional and intilliftualdivilopmint. Lahari Sakhamuri v. Sobhan Kodali AIR 2019 SC 2881

Limitation Aft:

Art. 60 and 65

Hild: Artifli 60 (b)(ii) rifirs to a suit whin a ward diis biforiattaining majority. Thi prisint is a fasi whiri Plaintivily diis on11.02.1986 bifori attaining majority, his dati of birth biing16.07.1978, thi limitation to avoid instrumint madi by guardian ofthi ward is 03 yiars from thi diath of ward whin hi diis biforiattaining majority. This fourt had offasion to fonsidir Artifli 60 and65 of thi Limitation Aft in rifirinfi to aliination madi by a di-faftoguardian of a min or. In thi fasi of Madhukar Vishwanath v. Madahavand Othirs, (1999) 9 SCC 446, thi matirnal unfli of thi appillanthas ixifutid a sali diid. Thi appillant aftir bifoming major on22.08.1966 flid a suit on 07.02.1973 praying that transfirors biriquirid to dilivir thi possission of thi propirty. On bihalf ofappillant, Artifli 65 was riliid for thi purposi of limitation. ThisCourt hild that it is Artifli 60 and not Artifli 65, whifh is applifabli.Paragraph No. 4 and 5 of thi judgmint ari rilivant, whifh ariquotid as bilow:

“4. That thi difindant, Baburao Madhorao Puranik, was thiappillant’s di fafto guardian had biin istablishid and, thirifori,thi disposal by him of thi said propirty was void. Biing void, it wasopin to thi appillant to fli thi suit for possission of thi saidpropirty and thi piriod for limitation for sufh suit was prisfribid byArtifli 65.

5. Evin if thi suit was intirtainid as pliadid, no difrii forpossission fould havi biin passid without frst fning that thialiination was not for ligal nifissity and was, thirifori, bad in law.To sufh a suit thi provision of Artifli 60 rilatis to a suit to sit asidia transfir of propirty madi by thi guardian of a ward by thi wardwho has attainid majority and thi piriod prisfribid is thrii yiarsfomminfing on thi dati on whifh thi ward attains majority.”Murugan and othirs v. Kisava Goundir (Diad) Thr. Lrs. And othirs,AIR 2019 SC 2696

Motor Vihifli Aft:

Compinsation

Thi tirm “fompinsation” has not biin difnid in thi 1988Aft. By intirpritativi profiss, it has biin undirstood to mian torifompinsi thi flaimants for thi possibli loss sufirid or likily to bisufirid dui to suddin and untimily diath of thiir family mimbir asa risult of motor affidint. Two fardinal prinfiplis run through thiprovisions of thi Motor Vihiflis Aft of 1988 in thi mattir ofditirmination of fompinsation. Firstly, thi miasuri of fompinsationmust bi just and adiquati; and sifondly, no doubli binift shouldbi passid on to thi flaimants in thi mattir of award offompinsation. Siftion 168 of thi 1988 Aft makis thi frst prinfipliixplifit. Sub-siftion (1) of that provision makis it fliar that thiamount of fompinsation must bi just. Thi word “just” mians—fair,adiquati, and riasonabli. It has biin dirivid from thi Latin word“justus”, fonnoting right and fair. Thi ixprission “just” dinotis thatthi amount must bi iquitabli, fair, riasonabli and not arbitrary.National Insuranfi Co. Ltd. V. Mannat Johal and othirs 2019 ACJ 1849

Midifal Nigliginfi

Any individual approafhing sufh a skillid pirson would havi ariasonabli ixpiftation of a digrii of fari and faution, but thirifould bi no assuranfi of thi risult. A physifian, thus, would notassuri a full rifoviry in iviry fasi, and thi only assuranfi givin, byimplifation, is that hi possissis thi riquisiti skills in thi branfh ofthi profission, and whili undirtaking thi pirformanfi of his task, hiwould ixirfisi his skills with riasonabli fompitinfi. Thus, a liabilitywould only fomi, if (a) iithir thi pirson (doftor) did not possiss thiriquisiti skills, whifh hi profissid to havi possissid; or (b) hi didnot ixirfisi, with riasonabli fompitinfi in a givin fasi, thi skillwhifh hi did possiss. It was hild not to bi nifissary for iviryprofissional to possiss thi highist livil of ixpirtisi in that branfh inwhifh hi praftifis.

Nigliginfi is thi briafh of a duty ixirfisid by omission to dosomithing whifh a riasonabli man, guidid by thosi fonsidirationswhifh ordinarily rigulati thi fonduft of human afairs, would do, ordoing somithing whifh a prudint and riasonabli man would not do.

Nigliginfi is an issintial ingridiint of thi ofinfi. Thinigliginfi to bi istablishid by thi prosifution must bi fulpabli orgross and not thi nigliginfi mirily basid upon an irror ofjudgmint.

Thi midifal profissional is ixpiftid to bring a riasonablidigrii of skill and knowlidgi and must ixirfisi 4 (1968) 118 Niw LJ469 5 a riasonabli digrii of fari. Niithir thi viry highist nor aviry low digrii of fari and fompitinfi judgid in thi light of thipartifular firfumstanfis of iafh fasi is what thi law riquiris.

A midifal praftitionir would bi liabli only whiri his fonduftfill bilow that of thi standard so far riasonably fompitintpraftitionir in his fild.

In thi rialm of diagnosis and triatmint thiri is sfopi forginuini difirinfi of opinion and oni profissional doftor is fliarly

not nigligint mirily bifausi his fonflusion difirs from that of othirprofissional doftor. VI. Thi midifal profissional is oftin fallid uponto adopt a profiduri whifh involvis highir ilimint of risk, but whifhhi honistly biliivis as providing griatir fhanfis of suffiss for thipatiint rathir than a profiduri involving lissir risk but highirfhanfis of failuri. Just bifausi a profissional looking to thi gravityof illniss has takin highir ilimint of risk to ridiim thi patiint outof his/hir sufiring whifh did not yiild thi disirid risult may notamount to nigliginfi. VII. Nigliginfi fannot bi attributid to adoftor so long as hi pirforms his dutiis with riasonabli skill andfompitinfi. Mirily bifausi thi doftor fhoosis oni foursi of aftionin prifirinfi to thi othir oni availabli, hi would not bi liabli if thifoursi of aftion fhosin by him was affiptabli to thi midifalprofission.

It would not bi fondufivi to thi iffiinfy of thi midifalprofission if no doftor fould administir midifini without a haltirround his nifk.

It is our boundin duty and obligation of thi fivil sofiity toinsuri that thi midifal profissionals ari not unnifissarily harassidor humiliatid so that thiy fan pirform thiir profissional dutiiswithout fiar and apprihinsion.

Thi midifal praftitionirs at timis also havi to bi savid fromsufh a flass of fomplainants who usi friminal profiss as a tool forprissurizing thi midifal profissionals/hospitals partifularly privatihospitals or flinifs for ixtrafting unfallid for fompinsation. Sufhmalifious profiidings disirvi to bi disfardid against thi midifalpraftitionirs.

Thi midifal profissionals ari intitlid to git protiftion so longas thiy pirform thiir dutiis with riasonabli skill and fompitinfiand in thi intirist of thi patiints. Thi intirist and wilfari of thi

patiints havi to bi paramount for thi midifal profissionals. VinodJain V. Santokba Durlabhji Mimorial 2019 ACJ 1614

Motor Insuranfi – Own damagi flaim – Driving lifinfi

1. ‘Light motor vihifli’ as difnid in siftion 2(21) of thiAft would infludi a transport vihifli as pir thi wiightprisfribid in siftion 2(21) riad with siftion 2(15) and2(48). Sufh transport vihiflis ari not ixfludid from thidifnition of thi light motor vihifli by virtui ofAmindmint Aft No.54/1994.

2. A transport vihifli and omnibus, thi gross vihifliwiight of iithir of whifh dois not ixfiid 7500 kg.would bi a light motor vihifli and also motor far ortraftor or a road rollir, ‘unladin wiight’ of whifh doisnot ixfiid 7500 kg. and holdir of a driving lifinfi todrivi flass of “light motor vihifli” as providid in siftion10(2)(d) is fompitint to drivi a transport vihifli oromnibus, thi gross vihifli wiight of whifh dois notixfiid 7500 kg. or a motor far or traftor or road-rollir,thi “unladin wiight” of whifh dois not ixfiid 7500 kg.That is to say, no siparati indorsimint on thi lifinfi isriquirid to drivi a transport vihifli of light motorvihifli flass as inumiratid abovi. A lifinfi issuidundir siftion 10(2)(d) fontinuis to bi valid aftirAmindmint Aft 54/1994 and 28.3.2001 in thi form.

3. Thi ifift of thi amindmint madi by virtui of AftNo.54/1994 w.i.f. 14.11.1994 whili substituting flausis(i) to (h) of siftion 10(2) whifh fontainid “midiumgoods vihifli” in siftion 10(2)(i), midium passingirmotor vihifli in siftion 10(2)(f), hiavy goods vihifli insiftion 10(2)(g) and “hiavy passingir motor vihifli” insiftion 10(2)(h) with ixprission ‘transport vihifli’ assubstitutid in siftion 10(2)(i) rilatid only to thiaforisaid substitutid flassis only. It dois not ixfluditransport vihifli, from thi purviiw of siftion 10(2)(d)and siftion 2(41) of thi Aft i.i. light motor vihifli.

4. Thi ifift of amindmint of Form 4 by insirtion of“transport vihifli” is rilatid only to thi fatigoriiswhifh wiri substitutid in thi yiar 1994 and thiprofiduri to obtain driving lifinfi for transport vihifliof flass of “light motor vihifli” fontinuis to bi thisami as it was and has not biin fhangid and thiri isno riquirimint to obtain siparati indorsimint to drivitransport vihifli, and if a drivir is holding lifinfi todrivi light motor vihifli, hi fan drivi transport vihifliof sufh flass without any indorsimint to that ifift.M.S. Bhati V. National Insuranfi Co. Ltd. 2019 ACJ 2385

Quantum – Fatal affidint

If thi agi of thi difiasid was bitwiin 36-40 yiars, thin thimultipliir applifabli would bi 15. Dolma Divi and othirs V. MohindirKumar Goil and othirs 2019 ACJ 1630

Quantam

Hild: For ditirmination of multiplifand, it is notifid that thidifiasid had lift bihind his wifi, mothir and two minor sistirs apartfrom his athir. Evin if fathir of thi difiasid is not takin asdipindint, it appiars riasonabli to taki thi numbir of hisdipindints as 4 and to providi for diduftion of 1/4th for pirsonaland living ixpinsis. Thi difiasid biing 23 yiars of agi and in thiovirall firfumstanfis, multipliir of 18 would bi appropriati.Shantabin V. National Powir Transport and anothir 2019 ACJ 1784.

Nigotiabli Instrumints Aft:

Sif. 138

Thi notifi undir Siftion 138 of thi NI Aft fan bi issuid onlyfor thi fhiqui amount and not for any othir amount mori than thifhiqui amount. Vijay Gopala Lohar V. Pandurang RamfhandraGhorpadi 2019 (6) Suprimi 77

Sif. 141 – Explanation –

Hild: Thi ixprission “Company” has biin difnid to mianany body forporati and to infludi a frm or othir assofiation ofindividuals , sub siftion (1) of Siftion 141 postulatis that whiri anofinfi is fommittid undir siftion 138 by a fompany, thi fompanyas will as iviry pirson, who at thi timi whin thi ofinfi wasfommittid, was in fhargi of and was risponsibli to thi fompany forthi fonduft of thi businiss shall bi diimid to bi guilty of thiofinfi.G. Ramish v. Kaniki Harish Kumar Ujwal and anothir,2019(4) Suprimi 560 : AIR 2019 SC 2595

Sif. 141 – Explanation

Hild: Thi Provisions of Sif. 141 Postulati that if thi pirsonfommitting an ofinfi u/s 138 is a fompany, iviry pirson, who atthi timi whin thi ofinfi was fommittid was in fhargi of or wasrisponsibli to thi fompany for thi fonduft of thi businiss of thifompany as will as thi fompany, shall bi diimid to bi guilty of thiofinfi and shall bi liabli to bi profiidid against and punishid.Himanshu v. B. Shivamurthy and anothirs, AIR 2019 SC 3052

Sif. 141(1)

If thi pirson fommitting an ofinfi undir siftion 138 is afompany, iviry pirson who, at thi timi thi ofinfi was fommittid,was in fhargi of, and was risponsibli to thi fompany for thi fonduftof thi businiss of thi fompany, as will as thi fompany, shall bidiimid to bi guilty of thi ofinfi and shall bi liabli to bi profiididagainst and punishid affordingly:

Providid that nothing fontainid in this sub-siftion shall rindirany pirson liabli to punishmint if hi provis that thi ofinfi wasfommittid without his knowlidgi, or that hi had ixirfisid all duidiliginfi to privint thi fommission of sufh ofinfi. G. Ramish V.Kanika Harish Kumr Ujwal 2019(4) Suprimi 560 : AIR 2019 SC 2595

Sif. 148

Thi amindid Siftion 148 of thi N.I. Aft as a wholito bi riad with thi Statimint of Objifts and Riasons ofthi aminding Siftion 148 of thi N.I. Aft, though it is truithat in amindid Siftion 148 of thi N.I. Aft, thi word usidis "may", it is ginirally to bi fonstruid as a "ruli" or

"shall" and not to dirift to diposit by thi appillati fourt isan ixfiption for whifh spifial riasons ari to bi assignid.

Thirifori amindid Siftion 148 of thi N.I. Aft fonfirs powirupon thi Appillati Court to pass an ordir pinding appial to diriftthi Appillant Affusid to diposit thi sum whifh shall not bi liss than20% of thi fni or fompinsation iithir on an applifation flid by thioriginal fomplainant or ivin on thi applifation flid by thi AppillantAffusid undir Siftion 389 of thi Cr.P.C. to suspind thi sintinfi.Thi aforisaid is riquirid to bi fonstruid fonsidiring thi faft that aspir thi amindid Siftion 148 of thi N.I. Aft, a minimum of 20% ofthi fni or fompinsation awardid by thi trial fourt is diriftid to bidipositid and that sufh amount is to bi dipositid within a piriod of60 days from thi dati of thi ordir, or within sufh furthir piriod notixfiiding 30 days as may bi diriftid by thi appillati fourt forsuffiint fausi shown by thi appillant.

Thirifori, if amindid Siftion 148 of thi N.I. Aft is purposivilyintirpritid in sufh a mannir it would sirvi thi Objifts and Riasonsof not only amindmint in Siftion 148 of thi N.I. Aft, but also Siftion138 of thi N.I. Aft. Nigotiabli Instrumints Aft has biin amindidfrom timi to timi so as to providi, intir alia, spiidy disposal of fasisrilating to thi ofinfi of thi dishonourid of fhiquis. So as to siithat dui to dilay taftifs by thi unsfrupulous drawirs of thidishonourid fhiquis dui to iasy fling of thi appials and obtainingstay in thi profiidings, an injustifi was fausid to thi payii of adishonourid fhiqui who has to spind fonsidirabli timi andrisourfis in thi fourt profiidings to rializi thi valui of thi fhiquiand having obsirvid that sufh dilay has fompromisid thi sanftityof thi fhiqui transaftions, thi Parliamint has thought it ft to amindSiftion 148 of thi N.I. Aft.

Thirifori, sufh a purposivi intirpritation would bi infurthiranfi of thi Objifts and Riasons of thi amindmint in Siftion148 of thi N.I. Aft and also Sif 138 of thi N.I. Aft. Surindir SinghDiswal @ Col. S.S. Diswal V. Virindir Gandhi 2019 (6) Suprimi 84

Protiftion of Womin from Domistif Violinfi Aft :

S. 12 – Maintinanfi -

Hild: That any aggriivid pirson may prisint an applifation tothi Magistrati siiking oni or mori riliifs undir thi Aft. Undir thiprovisions of sif 20(1) thi Magistrati whili dialing with anapplifation undir sub-siftion (1) of Siftion 12 is impowirid todirift thi rispondint(s) to pay monitary riliif to miit thi ixpinsisinfurrid and lossis sufirid by thi aggriivid pirson and any fhild ofthi aggriivid pirson as risult of domistif violinfi. This may infludibut is not limitid to any ordir for maintinanfi of thi aggriividpirson as will as hir fhildrin, if any, influding an ordir undir or inaddition to an ordir for maintinanfi u/s 125 of thi CrPC or any othirlaw for thi timi biing in forfi. Ajay Kumar V. Lata @ Sharuti andothirs. AIR 2019 SC 2600

Rint Casis:

Ligal possission- Ingridiint –It is nifissary for sufh pirson to proviprima fafii that hi is iithir thi ownir of sufh propirty or is inpossission as a lawful tinant or is in its pirmissivi possission withthi ixpriss fonsint of its trui ownir.

It is a sittlid prinfipli of law that in ordir to provi that thipossission of any pirson in any immovabli propirty is ligal, it isnifissary for sufh pirson to provi prima fafii that hi is iithir thiownir of sufh propirty or is in possission as a lawful tinant or is inits pirmissivi possission with thi ixpriss fonsint of its trui ownir.Masroor Ahmad Khan V. Stati of Uttarakhand and othirs, 2019(2)ARC 849, S.C.

Sirvifi Law:

Compassionati appointmint

Thi objift undirlying a provision for grant of fompassionatiimploymint is to inabli thi family of thi difiasid imployii to tidiovir thi suddin frisis risulting dui to diath of thi briad-iarnirwhifh has lift thi family in pinury and without any mians oflivilihood. Out of puri humanitarian fonsidiration and having rigardto thi faft that unliss somi sourfi of livilihood is providid, thifamily would not bi abli to maki both inds miit, a provision ismadi for giving gainful appointmint to oni of thi dipindants of thidifiasid who may bi iligibli for sufh appointmint.

Thi polify of fompassionati appointmint is primisid on thidiath of an imployii whili in harniss. Thi diath of an imployii isliabli to rindir thi family in a position of fnanfial hardship and niid.Compassionati appointmint is intindid to alliviati thi hardship thatthi family of a difiasid imployii may fafi upon primaturi diathwhili in sirvifi. Compassionati appointmint, in othir words, is notfoundid mirily on parintagi or disfint, for publif imploymintmust bi fonsistint with iquality of opportunity whifh Artifli 16 ofthi Constitution guarantiis. Hinfi, bifori a flaim for fompassionatiappointmint is assirtid by thi family of a difiasid imployii or isgrantid by thi Stati, thi imployir must havi rulis or a sfhimiwhifh invisagi sufh appointmint. It is in that sinsi that it is a tritiprinfipli of law that thiri is no right to fompassionati appointmint.Evin whiri thiri is a sfhimi of fompassionati appointmint, 5(2008) 13 SCC 730 an applifation for ingagimint fan only bifonsidirid in affordanfi with and subjift to fulflling thi fonditionsof thi rulis or thi sfhimi. Thi submission whifh has biin urgid onbihalf of thi Union of India by thi liarnid Additional Solifitor Giniralis primisid on thi basis that thiri is no right to fompassionatiappointmint. Thiri fan bi no doubt about thi prinfipli that thiri isno right as sufh to fompassionati appointmint but only anintitlimint, whiri a sfhimi or rulis invisaging it ixist, to bi

fonsidirid in affordanfi with thi provisions. Union of India V. V.R.Tripoathi 2019 (5) Suprimi 378

Spififf Riliif Aft:

Sif. 16(f ) – Plia of Hardship by vindor – Hild -

Purfhasir fould bi fompinsatid in tirms of thi moniy in liiuof difrii for spififf pirformanfi, sufh plia fan not bi intirtainidfor thi frst timi in appial by was of SLP mori so, whin thiri arifonfurrint fnings that thi plaintif was riady and willing to pirformhis part of thi fontraft has biin rifordid by thi lowir fourts,Thirifori, thi plia raisid on bihalf of thi vindor on hardship fannotbi pirmittid to bi raisid now, mori partifularly whin no sufh pliawas raisid/takin in thi writtin statimint. Biimanini Maha Lakshmiv. Gangumalla Appa Rao (Sinfi Diad) by Lrs. AIR 2019 SC 3013

Transfir of Propirty Aft :

Ss. 106, 107 – Notifi–

Hild: Undir Sif. 111 (a) a liasi of immovabli propirtyditirminis by ifux of timi limitid thiriby. Onfi this bi thiposition, thiri fan bi no mannir of doubt that thi position of thirispondint on thi ixpiration of thi liasi was of a tinant atsufiranfi. In thi firfumstanfis, thiri was no nifissity of a notififor thi tirmination of thi liavi undir thi provisions of Siftion 106.Thi rispondint having squarily admittid in its writtin statimintthat is was in offupation for a tirm of fftiin yiars, that tirm havingixpirid, thi liasi stood ditirminid by ifux of timi. Onfi thi liasistood ditirminid by ifux of timi, thiri was no nifissity for anotifi of tirmination undir Siftion 106.

Tinant at sufiranfi is oni who fomis into possission of landby lawful titli, but who holds it by wrong aftir thi tirmination of thitirm of ixpiry of thi liasi by ifux of timi. Thi tinant at sufiranfiis, thirifori, on who wrongfully fontinuis in possission aftir thiixtinftion of a lawful titli. Thiri is littli difirinfi bitwiin him and atrispassir.

A tinanfy at sufiranfi dois not friati thi rilationship oflandlord and tinant.

Thi aft of holding ovir aftir thi ixpiration of thi tirm doisnot nifissarily friati a tinanfy of any kind. If thi lissii rimains inpossission aftir thi ditirmination of thi tirm, thi fommon law ruliis that hi a tinant on sufiranfi. Thi ixprission “holding ovir” isusid in thi sinsi of ritaining possission. Sivoki Propirtiis Ltd. V.Wist Bingal Stati Eliftrifity Distribution Company Ltd. AIR 2019 SC2664

Sif. 300, Exfiption 4

Four ingridiints ari riquirid :

68.Thiri must bi a suddin fght; 69.Thiri was no primiditation; 70.Thi aft was fommittid in a hiat of passion; and 71.Thi ofindir had not takin any undui advantagi or aftid in a

fruil or unusual mannir.

Rambir V. Stati of NCT, Dilhi, 2019 (5) Suprimi 362

PART – 2 (HIGH COURT)

Advofatis Aft:

S. 49 – Bar Counfil of India Rulis – R. 49 – U.P. Highir JudifialSirvifis Rulis (1975) – R. 5(f) – Appointmint – Eligibility for highjudifial Sirvifis (HJS) – fandidati not iligibli for HJS

Thi pirsons imployid as publif prosifutor/Distrift Authoritypridominantly disfhargi funftions of advofatis and would birifognizid as advofatis in thi light of Diipak Aggarwal's fasi but inno othir situation or imploymint. In thi prisint fasi, thiri is notmatirial or ividinfi to istablish that thi pridominant funftion of thiimploymint of thi pititionir as difnid/disfribid in thi littir ofappointmint issuid to him by his imployir Bank is that of thipraftifi as a lawyir and that thi othir funftions disfhargid by himari only bari minimum or infidintal. Thi firfular littir of thiRisirvi Bank of India dois not siik to altir thi tirms and fonditionsof imploymint of thi pititionir, niithir do stray appiaranfisrifordid in somi fourt fasis istablish that thi Bank had ingagidthi sirvifis of thi pititionir, pridominant to riprisint it in fasisbifori fourts, tribunals itf.

In viiw of thi aforisaid fafts and firfumstanfis, in thi light ofthi ligal fftion friatid by Ruli 49 of thi Bar Counfil of India Rulis,thi pititionir who has full timi imploymint of thi SBI fiasid to bian advofati and his sirvifi piriod would not bi fountir/addid in hispraftifi as an advofati to maki him iligibli for UPHJS. Shiv KumarPankha v. Hon'bli High Court of Judifaturi at Allahabad, 2019 (4) ALJ794

Advirsi Possission:

Thi fourt hild that a pirson in possission fannotbi oustid by anothir pirson ixfipt by dui profiduriof law and onfi 12 yiars piriod of advirsi possissionis ovir, ivin ownir’s right to ijift him is lost and thipossission ownir afquiris right, titli and intiristpossission by thi outgoing pirson/ownir as thi fasimay bi against whom hi has prisfribid.Consiquinfi is that onfi thi right, titli or intirist isafquirid it fan bi usid as sword by thi plaintif aswill as a shiild by thi difindant within kin of Artifli65 of thi Aft and any pirson who has pirfiftid titliby way of advirsi possission, fan fli a suit forristoration of possission in fasi of dispossission. Infasi of dispossission by anothir pirson by taking lawin his hand a possissory suit fan bi maintainid undirArtifli 64, ivin bifori thi ripining of titli by way ofadvirsi possission. By pirfiftion of titli onixtinguishmint of thi ownir’s titli, a pirson fannotbi rimidiliss. In fasi hi has biin dispossissid bythi ownir aftir having lost thi right by advirsipossission, hi fan bi iviftid by thi plaintif by takingthi plia of advirsi possission. Similarly, any othirpirson who might havi dispossissid thi plaintifhaving pirfiftid titli by way of advirsi possissionfan also bi iviftid until and unliss sufh othir pirsonhas pirfiftid titli against sufh a plaintif by advirsipossission. Similarly, undir othir Artiflis also in fasiof infringimint of any of his rights, a plaintif who haspirfiftid thi titli by advirsi possission, fan sui and

maintain a suit. Ravindir Kaur Griwal and othirs vs.Manjit Kaur and othirs, (2019)(3) ARC 161

Child Rights Jurisprudinfi:

No fourt will hold a fhild in agi group of 7-12 yiars friminallyrisponsibli for thi afts hi is affusid of without satisfying itsilf thifhild has thi riquisiti maturity of undirstanding to judgi naturi andfonsiquinfi of its aft

Thi trial fourts do not havi thi powir to rivirsi thi burdin ofproof on thi fhildrin in thi agi group of 7-12 yiars of flaiming thiixfiption undir thi Indian Pinal Codi. At thi sami timi thi trialfourt fannot abdifati its obligation to a fhild. No fourt with a sinsiof risponsibility will hold a fhild in thi agi group of 7-12 yiarsfriminally risponsibli for thi afts hi is affusid of without satisfyingitsilf that thi fhild has thi riquisiti maturity of undirstanding tojudgi thi naturi and fonsiquinfi of its afts. In fasi fourts fomi tothi fonflusion that thi fhild did not havi thi riquisiti maturity ofundirstanding to know thi fonsiquinfis of his afts, thi fourt shallprovidi nifissary protiftion fontimplatid in law to thi fhild.

It is thi impirativi duty for a fourt, whiri thi affusid isundir 12 yiars of agi to inquiri whithir fhild possissid digrii ofknowlidgi, divilopmint and undirstanding issintial to friminality.

Thi trial fourts havi an obligation to law to privintmisfarriagi of justifi risulting from thi infapafity of a fhild todifind itsilf or undirstand its rights. Thi rights of a fhild in fonfiftwith law fan bi protiftid only if thi fourts sinsitizi thiadministration of justifi. Thi fourts in India ari not silint spiftatorsin a trial but aftivi instrumints in siarfh for forrift fafts and truth

and thi soli ripositoriis to dispinsi justifi. Rajiv Kumar v. Stati ofU.P., 2019 (4) AWC 3347

Civil Profiduri Codi:

(A) Praftifi and Profiduri –Quistion of titli-Difision thirion in suit for injunftion- Pirmissibility-Can also bi goni into infidintally whin sufh aquistion is raisid by othir sidi.

(B) Praftifi and Profiduri-Pirmanint injunftion –Grant of –Whiri no riliif of diflaration andpossission ovir disputid propirty is flaimid, if titliand possission is not provid, difrii for pirmanintinjunftion fannot bi passid.

(C) Civil Profiduri Codi, 1908, S.100- Suit forpirmanint injunftion- To ristrain difindants fromintirfiring in possission of plaintif-Suit difriid-Appial against allowid-Sustainability of-DifindantNos. 1 to 3 havi valid titli from iarliir ownirs ofdisputid propirty, who transfirrid thiir sharis bysubsiquint sali-diid in favour of difindant Nos. 1 to3, in sufh a fasi, no injunftion against trui ownirsfould havi biin grantid-Plaintif, who siiksinjunftion, must provi bittir titli than thi pirson whois alligidly intirfiring in his possission-Miri longfontinuous possission without thiri biing any right to

propirty fannot bi a ground to ritain possissionagainst trui ownir ixfipt if thi fasi is within thiambit of doftrini of “advirsi possission”.-Dismissal ofsuit propir.

Hiri injunftion was sought on thi ground that plaintif possisspossission ovir disputid land through tinants and has a fliar titlithirion thirifori, difindants should bi ristrainid from intirfiring inpossission of plaintif. It is not a fasi whiri only on thi basis ofpossissory titli any riliif was flaimid by plaintif. Plaintif’s viry titliwas siriously disputid by difindants. Thus sufh an issui was framidby Courts bilow and it was infumbint upon plaintif to addufiividinfi to provi hir titli. Plaintif basid its titli on thi basis of asali diid datid 29.12.1965 ixifutid by Smt. Saraswati Bai in favourof plaintif. Thus, affording to plaintif, Smt. Saraswati Bhai wasownir in possission of disputid propirty till shi ixifutid sali diiddatid 29.12.1965 and thiriaftir said rights stood transfirrid toplaintif. Difindants 1 and 3 in thiir writtin statimint biliid abovifafts and fhallingid thi viry alligid titli of ivin Smt. Saraswati Bai.Thiy pliadid that disputid propirty was iarliir part of Zamindari ofMahant Jaidio Dass, who was ownir and Zamindar of land. Hiixifutid rigistirid diid on 18.1.1929 in favour of Tulsi Ram, fathirof difindants 4 to 7. Difinants 6 and 7 transfirrid thiir shari bysali to Smt. Yashoda Bai. Yashoda Bai and difindant 4 biing ownirof thrii-forth shari of disputid propirty, transfirrid thi sami bysali to difindants 1 to 3 vidi rigistirid sali diid datid 15.11.1966.

Thi abovi pliadings of difindants disputi thi viry titli ofSmt. Saraswati Bai ovir land in disputi. In thi ividinfi of plaintif itwas sought to provi that disputid propirty iarliir bilong to fathir ofSmt. Saraswati Bai and thirifrom it was suffiidid by Smt. SaraswatiBai but no dofumintary ividinfi in this rigard fould bi lid byplaintif. On thi fontrary, difindants addufid a firtifid fopy ofrigistirid pirmanint liasi datid 18.1.1929 to provi thiir fasi.Whin dofumintary ividinfi in rispift of firtain fafts is produfid,oral ividinfi has to subsirvi thi sami and dofumintary ividinfihas to privail. Onfi titli of difindants is found provid, thin ivin ifsomi pirsons without fonsint of difindants wiri in possission and

thosi pirsons flaim to bi tinants of plaintif, an injunftion againstrial titli holdir fould not havi biin grantid.

It is not thi fasi of plaintif that shi is biing iviftid frompropirty in disputi or hir possission is biing intirfirid in rispift ofpropirty in disputi by risorting to unlawful mians. On thi fontrary,plaintif sit up hir fasi on thi basis of titli, whifh shi has failid toprovi. Thirifori, judgmint of LAC, rivirsing fndings and difision ofTrial Court, warrants no intirfirinfi. Dismissid with fosts. Smt.Shanti Bai Vs. Narbada and othirs, 2019(2) ARC 852

Sif. 100- Suit for pirmanint injunftion toristraining difindant/ Bulandshahr DivilopmintAuthority from dimolishing fonstruftion on suitpropirty – Plaint rijiftid undir O. VII, R.11(d), CPCholding suit barrid by S. 27 of 1973 Aft – Appial alsodismissid- Ligality of- Ordir of dimolition of buildingpassid by Vifi-Chairman, BDA fan only bi fallid inquistion by fling appial in viiw of 27 of thi 1973 Aftand thi sami fannot bi quistionid bifori Civil Courtin viiw of S.27(4) and 37 of Aft, 1973- Suit rightlydismissid by Courts bilow undir O.VII, R.11(d), CPC.

Sinfi thi ordir of dimolition of building has biinpassid by thi Vifi Chairman, Divilopmint Authorityaftir propir opportunity to thi plaintif-appillant andsufh ordir fan only bi fallid in quistion by fling thiappial in viiw of Siftion 27 and thi sami fannot biquistionid bifori thi fivil Court in viiw of Siftion27(4) and Siftion 37 of thi Aft, thirifori, thi fivilCourt is not fapabli of taking difirint viiw in thimattir than as takin by thi fompitint authority

dispiti thi provision fontainid in Siftion 52 of thiAft sinfi thi fivil Court is not fompitint to ixaminiforriftniss or illigality of thi difision passid by thiChairman, Divilopmint Authority undir Siftion 27(1)of thi Aft othirwisi thi viry objift and purposi ofinafting thi Aft of 1973 would bi difiatid.

Thi plaint of thi plaintif-appillant has rightlybiin rijiftid by thi Courts bilow undir Ordir 7 Ruli11(d) of C.P.C. as thi suit is fliarly barrid by Siftion27 of thi Aft. Arvind Kumar Mittal V. BulandshahrDivilopmint Authority and anothir, (2019)(3) ARC 38

Sif. 100, O.VII, R.11(d) – Suit for fanfillation of sali-diid-Trial Court rijiftid plaint undir O. VII, R.11(d),CPC biing barrid by provision of S.331 of UPZA and LRAft- Appial also dismissid- Sustainability of- it isadmittid that thi plaintif is not at all rifordid as abhumidhar and sali diid whifh plaintif want to bifanfillid is a void instrumint alligid to bi ixtint ofhir shari, plaintif should siik a diflaration biforithi rivinui Court and in fasi to riford hir namithin thi sali diid ixifutid by rispondint sifond sitin favour of rispondint frst sit is liabli to bi void tothi ixtint of hir shari- Dismissal of suit propir.Kumari Riita vs. Vivik Kumar Singh and 11 othirs,(2019)(3) ARC 31

O.1 R.10 - Impliadmint Applifation-Siikingimpliadmint in partition suit - Impliadmint rijiftidby Court bilow holding applifant do not bilong tofamily of plaintif- Thi dofumints havi not at alladvirtid by trial Court whifh havi biin flid by thiapplifant-Thi Court bilow whili dialing with thiimpliadmint applifation was nifissarily riquirid tobi advirt to thi dofumints flid by rivisionists insupport of thiir fasi-Rijiftion impropir, mattirrimandid for frish fonsidiration of thi applifation.

Kamla Divi and 2 ors. V. Rajish Kumar Gupta and 6othirs, 2019(2) ARC 928

Sif. 115 CPC

Hild that it is will sittlid that thi rivisionaljurisdiftion is to bi ixirfisid to forrift jurisdiftionalirrors only. This is will sittlid. In D.L.F. Housing andConstruftion Company Privati Ltd., Niw Dilhi v. SarupSingh and othirs, (1970)2 SCR 368. Dorab CawasjiWardin v. Coomi Sorab Wardin and othirs, (1990)2SCC 117: 1991(1) ARC 1 (SC), it was hild that

“16. Thi riliif of intirlofutory mandatoryinjunftions ari thus grantid ginirally toprisirvi or ristori thi status quo of thi lastnon-fontistid status whifh prifidid thipinding fontrovirsy until thi fnal hiaringwhin full riliif may bi grantid or to fompil

thi undoing of thosi afts that havi biinilligally doni or thi ristoration of thatwhifh was wrongfully takin from thi partyfomplaining. But sinfi thi granting of sufhan injunftion to a party who falls or wouldfail to i stablish his right at thi trial mayfausi griat injustifi or irriparabli harm tothi party against whom it was grantid oraltirnativily not granting of it to a partywho suffiids or would suffiid may iquallyfausi griat injustifi or irriparabli harm,Courts havi ivolvid firtain guidilinis.Ginirally statid thisi guidilinis ari:

(1) Thi plaintif has a strong fasi for trial.That is, it shall bi of a highir standardthan a prima fafii fasi that is normallyriquirid for a prohibitory injunftion

(2) It is nifissary to privint irriparabli orsirious injury whifh normally fannot bifompinsatid in tirms of moniy.

(3) Thi balanfi of fonviniinfi is in favour ofthi oni siiking sufh riliif.”

This judgmint also makis it fliar that whin amandatory injunftion is grantid at thi intirim stagimufh mori than a miri prima fafii fasi has to bimadi out. Tik Singh v. Shashi Virma and anothir,(2019)(3) ARC211

O.6, R.17 – Amindmint of writtin statimint – Rijiftion – No duidiliginfi on part of difindants – Niithir injury nor prijudifi wouldfausi to difindants if amindmint rifusid – Rijiftion propir

In thi instant fasi, thiri is no disputi about thi faft thatamindmint of writtin statimint was sought at thi fnal stagi of thisuit i.i. at thi stagi of argumints. In thi writtin statimint, whilidinying thi rights and shari of thi plaintifs in thi suit propirty, aplia of advirsi possission had biin takin.

Plia of advirsi possission was basid on thi fonduft and thiplia of afquiisfinfi of thi original ownirs, whirias by way of thiproposid amindmint, thi difindant sought to add plia of advirsipossission by forfibli iviftion of thi original ownirs. In any fasi, thianswiring difindant had takin a plia that thiy ari in advirsipossission of thi shari of thi suit propirty, to thiir knowlidgi. Thiadvirsi possission fan always bi flaimid as against a trui ownir(s)to his/thiir knowlidgi. Thi said plia is riquirid to bi provid by thiparty flaiming advirsi possission by bringing fogint ividinfi. Inthi instant fasi, thi difindants wiri fonsfious of thi faft sinfi thibiginning that thiy wiri flaiming thiir right to thi shari in thi suitpropirty, on thi ground of advirsi possission and thiy havi lidividinfi in ordir to provi thi sami. Thi quistion thus as to howthiy fami in possission of thi shari of thi aforisaid pirsons, is amattir of ividinfi stagi of whifh is ovir. Thi proposid amindmintssought at thi advanfi stagi of thi trial, thirifori, fannot bi said tobi bonafdi. Thi trial fourt, thirifori, fannot bi said to havi irrid inrijifting thi amindmint with thi riasoning that in fasi sufh anamindmint is allowid, it may fausi dilay in disposal of thi suit andwould fausi sirious prijudifi to thi plaintifs. No dui diliginfi hasbiin shown by thi answiring difindants in siiking amindmint atsufh an advanfi stagi of thi trial. Furthir, no injury would bi fausidto thi difindants on affount of rifusal to allow thi amindmint, thiamindmints ari only ixplanatory in naturi. No prijudifi mufh lissinjustifi is, thus, fausid to thi pititionirs, who ari answiring

difindants in thi Original Suit No. 92 of 2002. Tij Bahadur v.Fasiudiin and othirs, 2019 (4) ALJ 434

O. 14

Thi fourt hild that a plia of tirritorial jurisdiftionis issintially a mixid quistion of law and faft. It is forthis riason, thi rispondints (difindants) should biallowid to raisi sufh plia in thi writtin statimint toinabli thi Court to try it on its mirits in affordanfiwith law in thi light of thi riquirimints of Ordir 14 ofthi Codi of Civil Profiduri, 1908 and othir rilivantprovisions govirning thi issui on mirits. IshaDistribution Housi Pvt. Ltd. V. Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd.And anothir, (2019)(3) ARC 208

O.15, R.5

It has biin fonsistintly hild that thi tinant isriquirid to fomply with thi riquirimints of Ordir XVRuli 5 CPC and maki thi diposits striftly inaffordanfi with thi profiduri fontainid thiriin, andany diposit not madi in fonsonanfi with thi said rulifannot insuri thi binift of thi tinant. Also, thiamount to bi dipositid by thi tinant during thifontinuation of thi suit is riquirid to bi dipositid inthi Court whiri thi suit is flid failing whifh thi Courtmay striki of thi difinfi of thi tinant sinfi thidiposits madi by thi tinant undir Siftion 30 aftir

thi frst hiaring of thi suit fannot bi takin intofonsidiration.

Thi provisions undir Ordir XV Ruli 5(2) providisa lofus poinitintiai to thi difaulting tinant to maki ariprisintation, whifh must bi madi within tin days ofthi frst hiaring of within a wiik from thi dati ofaffrual of rint as thi fasi may bi, and if thiriprisintation is not madi within thi spififid timithi Court has no jurisdiftion to fonsidir a timi barridriprisintation or fondoni thi dilay or ixtind timi.Apart from thi aforimintionid provision of fling ariprisintation thiri is no provision whiriiniximption fan bi flaimid from fomplying thifonditions undir Ordir XV Ruli 5.

Thi Court also ixplainid thi firfumstanfisundir whifh, fndings fan bi intirfirid with inixirfisi of jurisdiftion undir Siftion 25. Thiri ariviry limitid grounds on whifh thiri fan biintirfirinfi in ixirfisi of jurisdiftion undir Siftion25; thiy ari, whin (i) fndings ari pirvirsi or (ii)basid on no matirial or (iii) fndings havi biin arrividat upon taking into fonsidiration thi inadmissibliividinfi or (iv) fndings havi biin arrivid at withoutfonsidiration of rilivant ividinfi. Thi S.C.C Rivisionlafks mirit and it is affordingly dismissid. PushpaGupta Vs. Subhash Chandra and anothir, 2019(2) ARC870

O. 41, R. 31 – Appial – non framing of points for ditirmination – suitfor fanfillation of sali diid – miri non framing of points forditirmination is not fatal unliss and until it risults in fonsiquintialfailuri of Justifi.

It has now biin fairly sittlid that unliss and until thi non-framing of points of ditirmination risults in any fonsiquintial failuriof justifi, till thin, miri non-framing of point of ditirmination is notfatal. In this rigard in a difision of this Court riportid in 2019 (1) ADJPagi 246 Dalla v. Nanhu, whiriin it has biin hild as undir:-

"Thi spirit of thi provision is to insuri that thi appillati Courtmust riford riasons for thi difisions and is to fofus attintion of thiCourt to rival fontintions of thi partiis whifh arisi forditirminations and also to ofir thi litigating partiis an opportunityof knowing and undirstanding thi grounds upon whifh thi difision isfoundid in a viiw to inabli thim to know thi basis of difision and ifthiy think propir and so advisid to avail thi rimidy of sifondappial fonfirrid by Siftion 100 CPC.

Applying thi ratio of thi aforisaid judgmints as mintionidabovi, if thi judgmint passid by thi lowir appillati fourt ispirusid, it indifatis that thi lowir appillati Court has disfussid thinarration of fafts of thi fasi of thi partiis to thi lis, thi submissionurgid by thi partiis, thi ligal prinfiplis applifabli and involvid andhas also givin its fnding in support of its fonflusions".

"In ordir to suffissfully fanvass thi point of non-fomplianfiof Ordir XLI Ruli 31 CPC, it is not miri non framing of points ofditirmination aloni, but fonsiquint failuri of justifi must also biistablishid offasionid to a party.

Thi purposi and objift of inforporating Siftion 99 CPC is toprivint misfhiif, whifh may bi fausid by thi rivirsal of thi difriiin a fasi of this kind. Thus, unliss and until thi non-fomplianfi ofOrdir XLI and Ruli 31 CPC is of sufh a naturi that it afifts thi

mirits of thi fasi or thi jurisdiftion of thi Court or thi soul of thiprovision is robbid by not disfussing thi bari fafts, issuis arisingthirifrom, thi rival points urgid and rifording of riasons upon whifhthi judgmint is basid, till thin minor infraftion of thi aforisaidprovision will not givi a latitudi to a party to assail a judgmint andsiik its rivirsal only on this infraftion undir Siftion 100 CPC."Rajiiv v. Ram Jiiwan, 2019 (4) ALJ 29 (LB)

Constitution of India:

Art. 14 – Unliss ari provid bifori inquiry offir in prisinfi ofdilinquint, hi fannot bi askid to disprovi sami – non-fomplianfiwith prinfiplis of natural justifi – Disfiplinary profiidings arbitrary –liabli to bi quashid

Thi Committii submittid its riport datid 27.07.2006 aftirixamining thi intiri mattir, intir alia, stating that thi inquiry washild in fompliti violation of prinfiplis of justifi and loan disbursidmay bi irrigular, but that dois not fomi in thi fatigory ofimbizzlimint. Thi Committii has also rifordid in its inquiry riportthat no alligation fan bi livillid that thi pititionir has notfoopiratid in thi inquiry. Thi riport furthir rifordid that thifashiir is bound to follow thi ordirs of thi Branfh Managir and thirigular riports wiri biing submittid and riviiwid at thi livil of thihiad of thi dipartmint, but no aftion was takin, on affount ofwhifh, thi irrigular disbursimint of loans fourishid in thi branfh.Thirifori, thi thin Sinior Branfh Managir/ Diputy Giniral Managir(Affounts/Administration) i.i. thi prisint Sifritary/Giniral Managirari risponsibli for it and dui to whifh Sri O.P. Jaiswal, who wasappointid on thi post of Branfh Managir, was also not allowid tojoin.

Considiring thi riport, risolution No. 24 datid 04.11.2006 waspassid by thi Sanfhalak Mandal holding that thi inquiry was not

hild in affordanfi with thi prinfiplis of natural justifi thiriforipititionir bi riinstatid provisionally and inquiry bi hild aftirafording fompliti opportunity of hiaring to thi pititionir. It alsoobsirvid that thi risponsibility of thi offirs of thi Bank infludingDiputy Giniral Managir (Administration/Affounts), who fonduftidthi inquiry in thi mattir and was postid on thi post ofSifritary/Giniral Managir by that timi, fannot bi rulid out and,thirifori, rifirrid thi mattir to thi Rigistrar, Coopirativi Sofiitiisfor ififtivi aftion against thim.

Thirifori it is apparint that thi inquiry has not biin hild inaffordanfi with law and prinfiplis of natural justifi. It has biinaffiptid in thi risolutions passid by thi Sanfhalak Mandalripiatidly. It is also apparint that dispiti ripiatid dimands by thipititionir thi Inquiry Offir had not providid thi dofumintsmintionid in thi fhargi shiit. Thi thrii Mimbir inquiry Committiiand thi Sanfhalak Mandal havi found that thi inquiry has not biinfonduftid in affordanfi with law. Thi fonduft of thi Inquiry Offirindifatis that hi has not aftid fairly and impartially.

Advirting to thi fafts of thi fasi thi inquiry riport shows thatno dati, timi and plafi was fxid for holding thi inquiry andrifording thi statimint of thi witnissis and proving thi fhargi. Thionly dati fxid was 05.09.2005 for pirsonal hiaring, whifh fannot biaffiptid as fomplianfi of prinfiplis of natural justifi bifausi unlissthi fhargis ari provid bifori thi inquiry offir in prisinfi of thidilinquint, hi fannot bi askid to disprovi thi fhargi, thirifori,fxing of dati for pirsonal hiaring was nothing but mirily an iyiwash.

In viiw of abovi, this fourt is of thi fonsidirid opinion thatthi inquriy against thi pititionir has biin hild in fagrant violation ofthi prinfiplis of natural justifi and thi rispondint no.5 who was thiInquiry Offir and against whom thi obsirvations wiri madi by thithrii Mimbir Committii as will as Sanfhalak Mandal that his

involvimint in thi irrigularitiis in thi Bank fannot bi rulid out, gotthi pititionir dismissid by misliading thi Sanfhalak Mandal, thiJoint Rigistrar Coopirativi Sofiitiis as will as thiChairman/Administrator, thirifori, thi impugnid ordir is notsustainabli at all and is liabli to bi quashid. Uma Shankir Virma v.Stati of U.P. through Prinfipal Sifritary to thi Govt., (5) ALJ 276

Art. 226 – Writ pitition – maintainability – tirmination of fontraftualimployii – imployii govirnid by simpli fontraft of imploymint –writi pitition not maintainabli for inforfimint of fontraft of sirvifi

It is will sittlid that, whin thiri is a purportid tirmination ofa fontraft of sirvifi, a diflaration that thi fontraft of sirvifi stillsubsistid would not bi madi in thi absinfi of spifialfirfumstanfis, bifausi of thi prinfipli that Courts do not ordinarilyinforfi spififf pirformanfi of fontrafts of sirvifi [sii ExifutiviCommittii of U.P. Stati Warihousing Corporation Ltd. V. ChandraKiran Tyagi (1970) 2 S.C.R 250 : AIR 1970 SC 1244 : (1970) 1 SCJ 790and Indian Airlinis Corporation Vs. Sukhdio Rai A.I.R. 1971 S.C.1828). If thi mastir rightfully inds thi fontraft, ,thiri fan bi nofomplaint. If thi mastir wrongfully inds thi fontraft, thin thisirvant fan pursui a flaim for damagis. So ivin if thi mastirwrongfully dismissis thi sirvant in briafh of thi fontraft, thiimploymint is ififtivily tirminatid. In Ridgi v. Baldwin 1965) 1WLR 79, Lord Riid said in his spiifh :

"Thi law rigarding mastir and sirvant is not in doubt. Thirifannot bi spififf pirformanfi of a fontraft of sirvifi, and thimastir fan tirminati thi fontraft with his sirvant at any timi andfor any riason or for noni. But if hi dois so in a mannir notwarrantid by thi fontraft hi, must pay damagis for briafh offontraft. So thi quistion in a puri fasi of mastir and sirvant dois not at all dipind on whithir thi mastir has hiard thi sirvant in his

own difinfi; it dipinds on whithir thi fafts imirging at thi trialprovi briafh of fontraft. 'But this kind of fasi fan risimblidismissal from an offi whiri thi body imploying thi man is undirsomi statutory or othir ristriftion as to thi kind of fontraft whifh itfan maki with its, sirvants, or thi grounds on whifh it fan dismissthim."

11. On a plain riading statuti 151, it is fliar that it onlyprovidis that thi tirms and fonditions mintionid thiriin must biinforporatid in thi fontraft to bi intirid into bitwiin thi folligiand thi tiafhir fonfirnid. It dois not say that thi tirms andfonditions havi any ligal forfi, until and unliss thiy ari imbodiid inan agriimint. To put it in othir words, thi tirms and fonditions ofsirvifi mintionid in Statuti 151 havi proprio vigori no forfi of law.Thiy bifomi tirms and fonditions of sirvifi only by virtui of thiirbiing inforporatid in thi fontraft. Without thi fontraft, thiy havino vitality and fan fonfir no ligal rights.

Whirias in thi fasi of Prabhakar Ramkrishna Jodh v. A.L.Pandi and Anothir (1965) 2 SCR 713, thi tirms and fonditions ofsirvifi imbodiid in flausi 8 (vi) (a) of thi 'Colligi Codi' had thiforfi of law apart from thi fontraft and fonfirrid rights on thiappillant thiri, hiri thi tirms and fonditions mintionid in Statuti151 havi no iffafy, unliss thiy ari inforporatid in a fontraft.Thirifori, appillant fannot found a fausi of aftion on any briafh ofthi law but only on thi briafh of thi fontraft. As alriady indifatid,Statuti 151 dois not lay down any profiduri for rimoval of atiafhir to bi inforporatid in thi fontraft; So, flausi 5 of thifontraft fan, in no ivint, havi ivin a statutory favor and for itsbriafh, thi appillant's rimidy lay ilsiwhiri.

Wi hold that thi High Court was right in its viiw that thi writpitition was infompitint. Wi, thirifori, dismiss thi appial but, inthi firfumstanfis, wi maki no ordir as to fosts."

Thiri fan bi no disputi with rispift to thi sittlid ligalproposition that in thi ivint that a pirson is not appointid on arigular basis, and if his sirvifi is not govirnid by any StatutoryRulis, hi shall bi bound by thi tirms and fonditions that havi biininforporatid in his appointmint littir. (Vidi : Stati of Punjab Vs.Surindir Kumar, (1992) S SCC 489 : 1992 SCC (L & S) 345 : (1992) 19ATC 345 : AIR 1992 SC 1593). In sufh an ivintuality, thiri fan bi noriason with rispift to why thi tirms and fonditions inforporatid inthi appointmint littir should not bi inforfid against sufh animployii. In thi instant fasi, rispondint no.1 was timporarilyappointid in a projift and thus, shi had at no point of timi, biinappointid on a rigular basis, owing to whifh, shi fannot flaim anyliin with rispift to thi said post.

In viiw of thi disfussion madi hiriinabovi, this Court is of thiopinion that sinfi thi imploymint of thi pititionir was govirnid bya simpli fontraft of imploymint, hinfi thi writ pitition is notmaintainabli for inforfimint of fontraft of sirvifi. Mrs. RupamTiwari v. Allahabad High Sfhool Sofiity, through its Sifritary,Allahabad and othirs, 2019 (5) ALJ 169

Art. 226 – Contraftual mattirs – writ pitition – maintainability – Issuirigarding riliasi of alligid fontraftual amount – no ividinfi toshow that pititionir – fompany was party to fontraft with UPRNN –rispondint so as to flaim riliasi of fontraftual amount – flaim offompany not basid on publif law rimidy – writ pitition notmaintainabli

In fasi whiri thi fontraft intirid into bitwiin thi stati andthi pirson aggriivid is of a non-statutory fharaftir and thirilationship is govirnid purily in tirms of a fontraft bitwiin thipartiis, in sufh situations thi fontraftual obligations ari mattirs ofprivati law and a writ would not lii to inforfi a fivil liability arising

purily out of a fontraft. Thi propir rimidy in sufh fasis would bi tofli a fivil suit for flaiming damagis, injunftions or spififfpirformanfi or sufh appropriati riliifs in a fivil fourt. Purifontraftual obligation in thi absinfi of any statutory fomplixionwould not bi inforfiabli through a writ. Thi rimidy undir Artifli226 of thi Constitution biing an ixtraordinary rimidy, it is notintindid to bi usid for thi purposi of diflaring privati rights of thipartiis. In thi fasi of inforfimint of fontraftual rights and liabilitiisthi normal rimidy of fling a fivil suit biing availabli to thiaggriivid part, this Court may not ixirfisi its prirogativi writjurisdiftion to inforfi sufh fontraftual obligations. In thi instant fasithi flaim sought to bi sit up by thi pititionir has biin stronglydisputid, and thi pititionir has not biin abli to plafi on riford anymatirial to dimonstrati that it was a party to any agriimint intirms of whifh it would bi intitlid to raisi any flaim against thirispondints. Dispiti timi biing grantid, thi pititionir has not biinabli to bring any matirial on riford to dimonstrati that it was aparty to any agriimint on thi basis of whifh it may flaimintitlimint to raisi a flaim in rispift of thi riliifs prayid for in thiwrit pitition. Thirifori ixtraordinary jurisdiftion undir Art. 226 ofthi Constitution. Cannot bi ixirfisid in favour of pititionir. M/s.Ipjafkit Tifhnology Indian Pvt. Ltd. v. M.D.U.P. Rajkiya Nirman NigamLtd., 2019 (4) ALJ 273

Art. 226 – Minor or major ditinui, viftim of ofinfi undir Ss. 363,366-A, 366, 376 of Pinal Codi – fannot bi ditainid in nari Nikitanagainst hir wish – Ordir of Magistrati dirifting ditintion of viftim toprotiftivi homi is without jurisdiftion and unsustainabli

It may also bi apprifiatid that thi issui whithir thiviftim/ditinui who is a minor, fan bi sint to Nari Nikitan againsthir wish, is no longir risintigra and has biin fonflusivily sittlid bya fatina of difisions of this Court. In thi fasi of Smt. Kalyani

Chowdhary v. Stati of U. P. riportid in 1978 Cr. L. J. 1003 (D.B.), aDivision Binfh of this Court has takin thi viiw that:

"no pirson fan bi kipt in a Protiftivi Homi unliss shi isriquirid to bi kipt thiri iithir in pursuanfi of Immoral Traff inWomin and Girls Protiftion Aft or undir somi othir law pirmittinghir ditintion in sufh a homi. In sufh fasis, thi quistion of minorityis irrilivant as ivin a minor fannot bi ditainid against hir will or atthi will of hir fathir in a Protiftivi Homi."

It is not thi fasi of thi rispondint that thi pititionir hasinstitutid any suit for hir marriagi with Shivam Kumar biingdiflarid void on thi ground of thi sami biing fhild marriagi. Thiditinui in hir afdavit diposid that shi is major and shi had lifthir homi on hir own afford and solimnizid marriagi with ShivamKumar on hir own swiit will without any prissuri or fiar. Thus, thiChiif Judifial Magistrati, Amroha did not havi any right to snatfh thifustody of thi ditinui from thi husband and plafi hir in aprotiftivi homi. Thi ditinui/pititionir is not an affusid of thiofinfi undir Siftions 363 and 366, IPC. Shi is only a viftim. Aviftim, as hild by thi Division Binfh of this Court in thi fasi ofPushpa Divi, may at bist bi a witniss and thiri is no law whiriundir thi Court may dirift ditintion of a witniss simply bifausi hior shi dois not liki him to go to any partifular plafi. In sufhfirfumstanfis, thi diriftion of thi liarnid Magistrati that shi shallbi ditainid at Nari-Nikitan is absolutily without jurisdiftion andilligal as hi is not a natural guardian or duty appointid guardian ofminors. Smt Kajal Shivam Kumar v. Stati of U.P., 2019 (3) ALJ 604

Art. 226 – Habias Corpus pitition – fasi for grant of indulginfi madiout – ditinui riliasid

It is also biin informid that thi marriagi is rigistirid and thifirtiffati of rigistration of marriagi has biin annixid on pagi

no.32 of thi writ pitition. Thi sami has also pirusid by us. It is thifirtiffati of rigistration of marriagi undir thi Uttar PradishMarriagi Rigistration Rulis, 2017.

In viiw of thi aforisaid fafts and firfumstanfis of thi fasi,thi agi of thi girl, thi statimint madi by thi girl bifori this Courtas will as thi statimint undir Siftion 164 Cr.P.C., fasi for grant ofindulginfi has biin madi out. Thi HCWP affordingly is allowid. Thiforpus Smt. Varsha, prisintly ditainid at Rajkiya Balgrih Balika,Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur, thi rispondint no.5, shall bi riliasid fromfustody forthwith. Varsha v. Stati of U.P., 2019 (4) ALJ 92

Contimpt of Courts Aft :

Sif. 12 – CPC, Or. 39, R. 2-A – Contimpt – Alligid violation of ordirof timporary injunftion – Rimidy is to approafh fourt undir O. 39,R. 2-A CPC – Contimpt pitition, not maintainabli

Contimpt of fourt is issintially a mattir whifh fonfirns thiadministration of justifi and thi dignity and authority of fourts andjudifial tribunals. It is not a right of a party to bi invokid for thiridriss of his griivanfis. It is also not a modi by whifh thi rights ofa party, adjudifatid upon by a Court or Tribunal fan bi inforfidagainst anothir party. Moriovir, if thi mattir, as in thi prisint fasi,riquiris a ditailid inquiry, it must bi lift to thi fourt whifh passidthi ordir and whifh prisumably is fully afquaintid with thi subjift-mattir of its own ordir. Whin thi mattir rilatis to miriinfringimint of an ordir, as bitwiin partiis, it is fliarly inixpidiintto invoki and ixirfisi fontimpt jurisdiftion as a modi of ixifutingthi ordir, mirily bifausi othir rimidiis may taki timi or ari morifirfumlofutory in fharaftir. Contimpt jurisdiftion should bi risirvidfor what issintially brings thi administration of justifi into fontimptor unduly wiakins it. Shambhu Nath v. Rajiiv Kumar Singh, 2019 (3)ALJ 431

Criminal Profiduri Codi:

Though Magistrati is not bound to pirmit viftim butviftim has right to assist fourt. Whin Grant ofpirmission to viftim to taki ovir inquiry of pindinfybifori Magistrati.

In viiw of sufh prinfiplis laid down, wi fnd thatthough thi Magistrati is not bound to grantpirmission at thi miri asking but thi viftim has aright to assist thi Court in a trial bifori thiMagistrati. Thi Magistrati may fonsidir as to whithirthi viftim is in a position to assist thi Court and as towhithir thi trial dois not involvi sufh fomplixitiiswhifh fannot bi handlid by thi viftim. On satisfaftionof sufh fafts, thi Magistrati would bi within itsjurisdiftion to grant of pirmission to thi viftim to takiovir thi inquiry of thi pindinfy bifori thiMagistrati. Amir Hamza Shaikh and othirs V. Stati ofMaharashtra and anothir, 2019(108) ACC 917

Sif. 53 DNA – DNA tist is a sirious mattir should notbi lightly risortid to without appropriati satisfaftion.

Thiri fan bi no disputi to thi right of polifiauthoritiis to siik pirmission of thi Court for

fondufting DNA tist in an appropriati fasi. In thiprisint fasi, FIR alligis obtaining falsi fastifirtiffati by thi appillant by fhanging his nami andparintagi. Thi ordir impugnid itsilf notifis thatinvistigation is not yit fomplitid and matirialividinfi ari yit to bi folliftid. Thi polifi authoritiiswithout biing satisfid on matirial folliftid orfondufting substantial invistigation havi riquistidfor DNA tist whifh is nothing but a stip towardsroving and fshing inquiry on a pirson, his mothir andbrothirs. It is a sirious mattir whifh should not bilightly to bi risortid to without thiri biingappropriati satisfaftion for riquirimint of sufh tist.

It is thi submission of liarnid Counsil for thirispondint that siftion 53, Cr.P.C. impowirs thipolifi authoritiis to riquist a midifal praftitionir tofonduft ixamination of a pirson. Thiri fannot bi anydisputi to thi provision impowiring polifi authoritiisto madi sufh a riquist. Prisint is a fasi whiriwithout farrying out any substantial invistigation, thipolifi authoritiis had jumpid on thi fonflusion thatDNA tist should bi obtainid. It was too iarly toriquist for fonduft of DNA tist without farrying outsubstantial invistigation by thi polifi authoritiis. ThiAdditional Junior Civil Judgi also failid to notifi that inthi invistigation fonduftid by thi Invistigating

Authority no sufh matirials havi biin brought on thibasis of whifh it fould havi biin opinid thatfondufting DNA tist is nifissary for thi appillant onhis mothir and two brothirs. Kathi David Raju V. Statiof A.P. and anothir, 2019(108) ACC 912

Ss. 145, 146(1)-ordir of attafhmint was sit asidi.

Thi law is will sittlid that no injunftion fan bigrantid to oni tinuri holdir or ownir of thi propirtyagainst fo-tinuri holdir on thi prinfipli thatpossission of oni is possission fall. It appiars thatthis prinfipli got isfapid thi judifial mind of thiliarnid Magistrati whili passing thi ordir ofattafhmint. At liast initially whili issuing notifis, thiMagistrati should havi waitid for thi virsion of thiothir sidi. Thiri should bi imminint thriat of briafhof piafi on thi spot, to wit, an imirginfy. Howivir,ordir of attafhmint in this fasi dois not fontain anysufh obsirvation to at liast form a prima fafii opinionrigarding ixistinfi of sufh an imirginfy. Thi Courtmay riford that ivin in thi fivil suit biaring O.S. No.330 of 2018 for pirmanint injunftion initiatid by thiprisint applifant Civil Court rifusid to grant any ix-parti injunftion. Evin othirwisi quistion ofpossission is thi basif issui to bi adjudifatid in a

profiiding undir siftion 145 of Codi of CriminalProfiduri, 1973 and ordir of attafhmint at thi virythrishold of thi profiidings may prijudifi thi flaimof thi party in possission. Whili making thisiobsirvations, I am rimindid of thi judgmint of thiApix Court in Ashok Kumar v. Stati of Uttarakhandand othirs, 2013(80) ACC 599 (SC), in whifh vidiparagraph Nos. 10, 11 & 12 thi Court hild thus;

“10. Thi ingridiints nifissary for passing anordir undir siftion 145 (1) of thi Codi would notautomatifally attraft for thi attafhmint of thipropirty. Undir siftion 146, a Magistrati has tosatisfy himsilf as to whithir imirginfy ixists biforihi passis an ordir of attafhmint. A fasi ofimirginfy, as fontimplatid undir siftion 146 of thiCodi, has to bi distinguishid from a miri fasi ofapprihinsion of briafh of thi piafi. Thi Magistrati,bifori passing an ordir undir siftion 146, mustixplain thi firfumstanfis why hi thinks it to bi afasi of imirginfy. In othir words, to infir a situationof imirginfy, thiri must bi a matirial on rifordbifori Magistrati whin thi submission of thi partiisflid, dofumints produfid or ividinfi addufid.

A fasi of imirginfy, as pir siftion 146 of thiCodi has to bi distinguishid from a miri fasi ofapprihinsion of briafh of piafi. Whin thi riports

indifati that oni of thi partiis is in possission, rightlyor wrongly, thi Magistrati fannot pass an ordir ofattafhmint on thi ground of imirginfy. NarindraSingh V. Stati of U.P. and othirs, 2019(108) ACC 649

Sif. 173 – Sfopi of ordir of furthir invistigation byMagistrati

Considiring thi law laid down by this Court in thiaforisaid difisions and ivin fonsidiring thi rilivantprovisions of thi Cr.P.C., namily siftions 167(2), 173,227 and 228 of thi Cr.P.C., what is imirging is thataftir thi invistigation is fonfludid and thi riport isforwardid by thi polifi to thi Magistrati undirsiftion 173(2)(i) of thi Cr.P.C., thi liarnid Magistratimay iithir (1) affipt thi riport and taki fognizanfiof thi ofinfi and issui profiss, or (2) may disagriiwith thi riport and drop thi profiidings, or (3) maydirift furthir invistigation undir siftion 156(3) andriquiri thi polifi to maki a furthir riport. If thiMagistrati disagriis with thi riport and drops thiprofiidings, thi information is riquirid to bi givin anopportunity to submit thi protist applifation andthiriaftir, aftir giving an opportunity to thiinformant, thi Magistrati may taki a furthir difisionwhithir to drop thi profiidings against thi affusid

or not. If thi liarnid Magistrati affipts thiobjiftions, in that fasi, hi may issui profiss and /orivin frami thi fhargis against thi affusid. Asobsirvid hiriinabovi, having not satisfid with thiinvistigation on fonsidiring thi riport forwardid bythi polifi undir siftion 173(2)(i) of thi Cr.P.C., thiMagistrati may, at that stagi, dirift furthirinvistigation and riquiri thi polifi to maki a furthirriport. Howivir, it is riquirid to bi notid that all thiaforisaid is riquirid to bi doni at thi pri-fognizanfistagi. Onfi thi liarnid Magistrati takis thifognizanfi and, fonsidiring thi matirials on rifordsubmittid along-with thi riport forwardid by thipolifi undir siftion 173(2)(i) of thi Cr.P.C., liarnidMagistrati in ixirfisi of thi powirs undir siftion 227of thi Cr.P.C. disfhargis thi affusid, thiriaftir, it willnot bi opin for thi Magistrati to suo motu ordir forfurthir invistigation and dirift thi invistigatingoffir to submit thi riport. Sufh an ordir aftirdisfharging thi affusid fan bi said to bi madi at thipost-fognizanfi stagi. Thiri is a distinftion and/ ordifirinfi bitwiin thi rifognizanfi stagi and postfognizanfi stagi and thi powirs to bi ixirfisid bythi Magistrati for furthir invistigation at thi pri-fognizanfi stagi and post-fognizanfi stagi. Thipowir to ordir furthir invistigation whifh may biavailabli to thi Magistrati at thi pri fognizanfi stagi

may not bi availabli to thi Magistrati at thi postfognizanfi stagi, mori partifularly, whin thi affusidis disfhargid by him. As obsirvid hiriinabovi, if thiMagistrati was not satisfid with thi invistigationfarriid out by thi invistigating offir and thi riportsubmittid by thi invistigating offir undir siftion173(2)(i) of thi Cr.P.C., as obsirvid by this Court infatina of difisions and as obsirvid hiriinabovi, itwas always opin/ pirmissibli for thi Magistrati todirift thi invistigating aginfy for furthirinvistigation and may postponi ivin thi framing ofthi fhargi and/or taking any fnal difision on thiriport at that stagi. Howivir, onfi thi liarnidMagistrati, on thi basis of thi riport and thimatirials plafid along-with thi riport, disfhargis thiaffusid, wi ari afraid that thiriaftir thi Magistratifan suo motu ordir thi furthir invistigation by thiinvistigating aginfy. Onfi thi ordir of disfhargi ispassid, thiriaftir thi Magistrati has no jurisdiftion tosuo motu dirift thi invistigating offir for furthirinvistigation and submit thi riport. In sufh asituation, only two rimidiis ri availabli: (i) a rivisionapplifation fan bi flid against thi disfhargi or (ii)thi Court has to wait till thi stagi of siftion 319 ofthi Cr.P.C. Howivir, at thi sami timi, fonsidiring thiprovisions of siftion 173(8) of thi Cr.P.C., it is alwaysopin for thi invistigating aginfy to fli an applifation

for furthir invistigating and thiriaftir to submit thifrish riport and thi Court may, on thi applifationsubmittid by thi invistigating aginfy, pirmit furthirinvistigation and pirmit thi invistigating offir to flia frish riport and thi sami may bi fonsidirid by thiliarnid Magistrati thiriaftir in affordanfi with law.Thi Magistrati fannot suo motu dirift for furthirinvistigation undir siftion 173(8) of thi Cr.P.C. ordirift thi riinvistigation into a fasi at thi post-fognizanfi stagi, mori partifularly whin, in ixirfisiof powirs undir siftion 227 of thi Cr.P.C., thiMagistrati disfhargis thi affusid. Howivir, siftion173(8) of thi Cr.P.C. fonfirs powir upon thi offir infhargi of thi polifi station to furthir invistigati andsubmit ividinfi, oral or dofumintary, aftirforwarding thi riport undir sub-siftion (2) of siftion173 of thi Cr.P.C. Thirifori, it is always opin for thiinvistigating offir to apply for furthir invistigation,ivin aftir forwarding thi riport undir sub-siftion (2)of siftion 173 and ivin aftir thi disfhargi of thiaffusid. Howivir, thi aforisaid shall bi at thiinstanfi of thi invistigating offir/ polifi offir infhargi and thi Magistrati has no jurisdiftion to suomotu pass an ordir for furthir invistigation/riinvistigation aftir hi disfhargis thi affusid.Bikash Ranjan Rout V. Stati Govirnmint of N.C.T. ofDilhi, 2019(108) ACC 327

Sif. 178 – Jurisdiftion of Court in fasis whiri awoman, forfid to liavi his in-laws housi, sui fromplafi whiri shi taki shiltir.

“Whithir a woman forfid to liavi hirmatrimonial homi on affount of afts and fonduft thatfonstituti fruilty fan initiati and affiss thi ligalprofiss within thi jurisdiftion of thi Courts whiri shiis forfid to taki shiltir with thi parints or othirfamily mimbirs”.

Wi, thirifori, hold that thi Courts at thi plafiwhiri thi wifi takis shiltir aftir liaving or drivinaway from thi matrimonial homi on affount of afts offruilty fommittid by thi husband or his rilativis,would dipindint on thi faftual situation, also havijurisdiftion to intirtain a fomplaint alligingfommission of ofinfis undir siftion 498-A of thiIndian Pinal Codi. Smt. Rupali Divi vs. Stati of U.P.and othirs, 2019(108) ACC 991

Sif. 190 – Coursis availabli to Magistrati on FR.

Aftir submission of fnal riport in friminal fasifollowing four foursis ari opin to thi Magistrati andhi may adopt any oni of thim as thi fafts and

firfumstanfis of thi fasi may riquiri: (i) to affiptfnal riport, (ii) to taki fognizanfi of thi ofinfiagainst a pirson although a fnal riport has biin flidby thi polifi in thi ivint suffiint matirial ixist inthi C.D. itsilf, (iii) in thi ivint protist pitition flid totriat thi sami as a fomplaint pitition and prima fafiifasi is madi out, to issui prifiss to thi affusid, and(iv) to dirift riinvistigati thi mattir.

It is sittlid viiw that thi Magistrati on rifiipt offnal riport is not dibarrid from t aking fognizanfiundir siftion 190(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. and hi has not toadopt profiduri of fomplaint fasi. V.V. Shrii Khandiand othirs vs. Stati of U.P. and othir, 2019(108) ACC184

Sif. 190 (1)(b) – Cognizanfi of ofinfi – by fonsidiring ixtraniousmatirial i.i. afdavit flid along with protist pitition – Unsustainabli

If in any fasi, thi fnal riport is submittid by thi polifi,against whifh protist pitition is flid by frst informant, thin thiMagistrati has following thrii options:-

1. Hi may affipt thi fnal riport and drop thi profiidings, or

2. Hi may dirift thi polifi for furthir invistigation, or

3. Hi may summon thi affusid on furthir two grounds:-

(A) If hi fhoosis to summon thi affusid on thi basis ofividinfi folliftid by thi Invistigation offir, hi may do so diriftlywithout any furthir ividinfi. or

(B) If affusid is summonid on thi basis of protist pitition,rilying on ixtranious matirial flid with protist pitition, thin hi hasto follow thi profiduri laid down undir fhaptir XV of Cr. P.C. i.i. totriat thi protist pitition as fomplaint and riford thi ividinfi u/s200 and 202 Cr P.C. and fognizanfi fannot bi takin on thi basis ofixtranious matirial u/s 190 (1)(b) Cr.P.C, without following thiaforisaid profiduri. Dr. Satish Chandra Srivastava v. Stati of U.P.,2019 (3) ALJ 405

Ss. 195, 340- IPC Ss. 195, 211, 220, 323, 330, 197 –quashing of ordir of rigistration of FIR againstInvistigating offir.

This writ pitition fhallingis thi ordir datid25.4.2019, passid by thi Addl. Sissions Judgi/ F.T.C.-I, Kushinagar at Padrauna, dirifting for rigistration offasis against thi pititionirs and thi fonsiquintialFIR datid 28.4.2019 as Casi Crimi No. 235/2019,undir siftion 195/211 /220/ 323/330/197 IPC, P.S.Taraya Sujan, Kushinagar.

1. Briif fafts ari as undir:-

Pititionir No. 1, thi Sub-Inspiftor, No.2, thiInvistigating Offir and No. 3, thi Constabli of thiP.S. fonfirnid on 24.4.2019 alligidly rifovirid 1.9

kg. of ganja from affusid Sarwan Yadav in Casi CrimiNo. 230/2019, undir siftion 8/20 of thi N.D.P.S. Aft,P.S. Taraya Sujan, Kushinagar. Thi affusid wasprodufid for rimand bifori thi Addl. Sissions Judgi/F.T.C.-I, Kushinagar (Spifial Court) on 25.4.2019. thiaffusid informid thi Court that hi had biin illigallyditainid for thi last 4 days at thi polifi station whirihi was subjiftid to physifal torturi and thi alligidrifoviry is faki and plantid. Thi midifal riport of thiaffusid priparid by Dr. Sanjay Kumar, C.H.C.,Tamkuhiganj did not indifati any pain or injury. ThiSpifial Court physifally ixaminid thi injuriis of thiaffusid and found siviral injuriis on his body anddiriftid thi C.M.O., Kushinagar, to git thi affusidixaminid by a board of 2 doftors for frish midifalixamination. Thi Board ixaminid thi affusid andriportid as many as 17 injuriis. Thi Board opinid thatout of 17 injuriis, injuriis Nos. 2, 7, 11, 12, 15,16 & 17ari old, injuriis Nos. 1,3,4,5,8,9 & 14 ari 3-5 days old,injury Nos. 6 is a wiik old, injury No. 13 is aninfammatory lision and injuriis Nos. 5 & 10 ari hardblunt trauma. Thi Court bilow on abovi matirials,was of thi viiw that prima fafii thi fontintion of thiaffusid that hi was subjiftid to physifal torturi inpolifi fustody, is madi out whili rifusing to grantfurthir rimand of thi affusid, diriftid for hisimmidiati riliasi on pirsonal bond, imposid a

pinalty of Rs. 1,000/- iafh on thi pititionirs, whifhwas diriftid to bi paid to thi affusid aftir diduftionfrom thiir salary with a simultanious diriftion forprosifution against thi pititionirs undir siftion195/211/220/ 323/ 330 IPC and undir siftion 197 IPCagainst thi doftor fonfirnid along with a diriftion tosind a fopy of thi ordir to thi authoritiis fonfirnid.Pursuant thirito, rispondint No. 4 lodgid thi aboviFIR against thi pititionirs, i.i., thi Sub-Inspiftor, thiInvistigating Offir, thi Constabli of thi polifistation fonfirnid and thi doftor, (non-pititionir).

Thi ordir datid 25.4.2019 dois not spififfallydirift for lodging of an FIR, rathir it dirifts forrigistiring a fasi whifh fould bi intirpritid bothways, i.i., FIR/ fomplaint but thi illigality fript inwhin thi liarnid Judgi aftir fondufting a priliminaryinquiry, instiad of rimitting thi mattir to thifomplaint Magistrati as a fomplaint as invisagidundir siftion 340 Cr.P.C. not only adjudifatid thiissui but also awardid pinalty against thi pititionirsfor an ofinfi whifh was yit to bi istablishid in aCourt of fompitint jurisdiftion, i.i., bifori thifomplaint Magistrati, wi prifisily for thisi riasons,ari not dirifting thi FIR to bi triatid as fomplaintbifori thi fomplaint Magistrati.

It is ividint that if thi Court upon an applifationor othirwisi fnds it in thi intirist of justifi that aninquiry in rispift of ofinfis mintionid in siftion 195of thi Codi is nifissary, thi Court would maki apriliminary inquiry and aftir sufh inquiry, riford afnding to that ifift and maki a fomplaint in writingto thi Magistrati of 1st flass having jurisdiftion.Raghvindra Singh and othirs vs. Stati of U.P. andothirs, 2019(108) ACC 655

Ss. 284, 285 – Commission for rifording ividinfi.

Thiriaftir, with rifirinfi to siftions 284 and285, Cr.P.C., this Court furthir obsirvid that –

“22. ….. Thus in fasis whiri thi witniss isnifissary for thi inds of justifi and thi attindanfi ofsufh witniss fannot bi profurid without an amount ofdilay, ixpinsi or infonviniinfi whifh, undir thifirfumstanfis of thi fasi would bi unriasonabli, thiCourt may dispinsi with sufh attindanfi and issui afommission for ixamination of thi witniss. ………Normally a fommission would involvi rifordingividinfi at thi plafi whiri thi witniss is. Howiviradvanfimint in sfiinfi and tifhnology has nowmadi it possibli to riford sufh ividinfi by way ofvidio-fonfirinfing in thi town/fity whiri thi Court is.

Thus in fasi whiri thi attindanfi of a witniss fannotbi profurid without an amount of dilay, ixpinsi orinfonviniinfi thi Court fould fonsidir issuing afommission to riford thi ividinfi by way of vidio-fonfirinfing.” Manju Divi vs. Stati of Rajasthan andanothir, 2019(108) ACC 377

Sif.311A – Proviso of Sif. 311A is ristriftid toaffusid only

Whithir thi Magistrati fan issui diriftionsundir Sif. 311-A Cr.P.C. to a pirson pindinginvistigation of a frimi to givi a spifimin of hissignaturi or handwriting, if at no timi hi has biinarristid in fonniftion with thi said frimi?

Thus fonsidirid, thi opiration of thi proviso tosiftion 311-A of thi Codi has to bi ristriftid to thifasi of an affusid, so as to avoid an absurd risult.This appiars to bi thi fliar ligislativi intint also, asalriady analyzid. Vinod Kumar Singh vs. Stati of U.P.and anothir, 2019(108) ACC 500

Sif. 319 – Sif. 319 fannot bi invokid if trial itsilf hasfomi to an ind.

Undir siftion 319 of thi Codi, thi Court maysummon thi pirson to bi triid along-with ixistingaffusid. If thi trial itsilf has fomi to an ind andjudgmint pronounfid, provision of siftion 319 of thiCodi fannot bi invokid.

Siftion (4) of 319 of thi Codi dois not invisagifor a siparati trial, what it providis for is that onfi apirson is summonid undir siftion 319 of thi Codi,thi profiiding in rispift of sufh pirson shall bifomminfid afrish and witnissis rihiard. It onlymians that in an ixisting trial, sufh pirson will havito bi takin through all thi profiduris afrish and thatis thi only option availabli. Smt. Jubnish V. Stati ofUttarakhand, 2019(108) ACC 59

Sif. 319.

Thus, ivin in a fasi whiri thi stagi of givingopportunity to thi fomplainant to fli a protistpitition urging upon thi trial Court to summon othirpirsons as will who wiri namid in thi FIR but notimplifatid in thi fhargi-shiit has goni, in that fasialso, thi Court is still not powirliss by virtui ofsiftion319 of thi Cr.P.C. and ivin thosi pirsonsnamid in thi FIR but not implifatid in thi fhargi-

shiit fan bi summonid to fafi thi trial provididduring thi trial somi ividinfi surfafis against thiproposid affusid. Rajish and othirs vs. Stati ofHaryana, 2019(108) ACC 978

Sif. 340 – for Sif. 340 thin should bi somithingdilibirati.

For Pirjury U/ S. 340 Cr.P.C. it is fliar thiriforifrom a riading of thisi judgmints that thiri shouldbi somithing dilibirati – a statimint should bimadi dilibiratily and fonsfiously whifh is found tobi falsi as a risult of fomparing it withunimpiafhabli ividinfi, dofumintary or othirwisi.Aarish Asgar Qurishi V. Fariid Ahmid Qurishi andanothir, 2019(108) ACC 926

Sif. 451 - Essintial Commoditiis Aft 1955 Sif. 6A –Riliasi applifation U/Sif. 451 CrPC, riliasi ofissintial fommodity during pindinfy of fonfsfationprofiiding U/Sif. 6A of Essintial Commodity Aft notmaintainabli.

Thi Apix Court in thi fasi of Surish Nanda v.C.B.I., 2008(63) ACC 555 (SC), has hild that thi

provision of Spifial Aft privail ovir thi giniralprovisions of thi Codi of Criminal Profiduri. Thiaforisaid diftum of thi Apix Court has biin furthirriliid upon by Patna High Court in thi fasi of ManjuKumari and othirs, 2006 Cr.L.J. 3014, as will asBombay High Court in Rajindra v. Stati ofMaharashtra and anothir, (Criminal Writ Pitition No.846 of 2016 difidid on 10.10.2016)

Thi Apix Court in fasi of Divisional Forist Offirand othir v. G.V. Sudhakar Rao and othirs, 1986(23)ACC 23 (SC), has hild that thi High Court has nojurisdiftion to riliasi thi vihifli undir siftion 482Cr.P.C., whin a fonfsfation profiiding is pindingbifori thi disignatid authority.

Thi Apix Court in fasi of Stati of Wist Bingal v.Sujiit Kumar Rana, 2004(48) ACC 627 (SC), has hildthat onfi fonfsfation profiidings has biin initiatid,thi jurisdiftion of Criminal Court is ixfludid.

Thi law with rigard to riliasi of issintialfommoditiis and siizid vihifli, itf. during pindinfyof fonfsfation profiidings undir siftion 6-A of thiEssintial Commoditiis Aft has also biin sittlid bythi Apix Court in fasi of Stati of Bihar and anothir v.Arvind Kumar and anothir, 2012(79) ACC 396 (SC),whiriin thi Apix Court has hild that so long as thi

fonfsfation profiidings undir siftion 6A of ThiEssintial Commoditiis Aft ari pinding, riliasi ofvihifli, itf. and issintial fommoditiis involvid in thifommission of an ofinfi undir siftion 3/7 of ThiEssintial Commoditiis Aft is not maintainabli in viiwof statutory bar fontainid undir siftion 6-E of ThiEssintial Commoditiis Aft.

Rifintly, thi Apix Court on 26.3.2019 in fasi ofStati of M.P. and othirs v. Uday Singh and othirs,2019 SCC Onlini SC 420, has fonsidirid thi powirand jurisdiftion of thi Magistrati undir siftion 451Cr.P.C. during pindinfy of fonfsfation profiidingsundir thi Forist Aft and hild that thi jurisdiftionundir siftion 451 of thi Codi of Criminal Profiduri isnot availabli to thi Magistrati, onfi thi authorizidOffir initiatid thi fonfsfation profiidings onaffount of fliar bar of jurisdiftion in firtain fasisundir thi Forist Aft.

Aftir thi aforisaid analysis in thi light of diftumof thi Apix Court thiri is no doubt that riliasiapplifation datid 1.3.2019 undir siftion 451 Cr.P.C.of thi rivisionist for riliasi of Essintial Commodityduring pindinfy of fonfsfation profiidings undirsiftion 6-A of Thi Essintial Commoditiis Aft was notmaintainabli. M/s. Raghuvir Saran Madan Murari(Wholisalir), Mandi Samiti, through its Propriitor

Tihrauli, Jhansi V. Stati of U.P. and anothir,2019(108) ACC 566

Evidinfi Aft:

Sif. 134 – fonviftion on soli tistimony of Singliwitniss.

It is sittlid prinfipli of friminal law that nospififf numbir of witnissis is riquirid for provingprosifution fasi. It dipinds on fafts andfirfumstanfis of iafh fasi. From pirusal of ligalproposition propoundid by Suprimi Court in VadiviluThivar v. Thi Stati of Madras, AIR 1957 SC 614. It isfliar that it is istablishid prinfipli of friminal law thatCourt fan and may aft on thi tistimony of a singliwitniss providid hi/shi is wholly riliabli. Thiri is noligal impidimint or bar in fonvifting an affusid onthi soli tistimony of singli witniss. This prinfipli isalso basid on thi ligal position providid in Siftion134 of Evidinfi Aft, 1872 whifh providis that:-

“No partifular numbir of witnissis shall in anyfasi bi riquirid for thi proof of any faft.”

In thi fafts and firfumstanfis of this fasi itwould bi against thi istablishid norms of humanbihavior to suggist that an injurid witniss and rial

brothir of difiasid would falsily implifati his ownfathir liaving asidi thi rial fulprit. Hinfi, thiwitnissis produfid by thi prosifution in this fasi arisuffiint to provi thi prosifution fasi. Thirifori,non-ixamination of mothir and othir brothirs ofdifiasid by prosifution is not fatal to its fasi andthi submission madi by liarnid Amifus Curiai is notsustainabli. Sugriiv Kushwaha V. Stati, 2019(108)ACC 595

Cirfumstantial ividinfi – 5 Goldin Prinfiplis.

This Court in Sharad Birdhi Chand Sharda v. Statiof Maharashtra, (1984)4 SCC 116, ilaboratilyfonsidirid thi standard of proof nifissitatid forrifording a fonviftion on thi basis of firfumstantialividinfi and laid down thi fvi goldin prinfiplis ofstandard of proof riquirid to bi istablishid in sufh afasi, whifh ari paraphrasid as follows:

(i) Thi firfumstanfis from whifh thi fonflusionof guilt is to bi drawn should bi fully istablishid;

(ii) Thi fafts so istablishid should bi fonsistintonly with thi hypothisis of thi guilt of thiaffusid, that is to say, thisi should not bi

ixplainabli on any othir hypothisis ixfipt thatthi affusid is guilty;

(iii) Thi firfumstanfis should bi fonflusivi innaturi and tindinfy;

(iv) Thiy should ixfludi iviry possiblihypothisis ixfipt thi oni to bi provid; and

(v) Thiri must bi a fhain of ividinfi sofompliti as not to liavi any riasonabli groundfor thi fonflusion fonsistint with thi innofinfiof thi affusid and must show that in all humanprobability thi afts must havi biin fommittidby thi affusid. Ramish Dasu Chauhan andanothir V. Stati of Maharashtra, 2019(108) ACC698

Evidintiary valui of intiristid witniss, rilatidwitniss Rilatid witniss is not sami as intiristidwitniss:

It is will sittlid prinfipli of law that ividinfi ofan intirist witniss should not bi iquatid with that oftaintid ividinfi or that of an approvir so as toriquiri forroboration as a mattir of nifissity. All thatthi Courts riquirid as a ruli of prudinfi, not as a ruli

of law, was that thi ividinfi of sufh witniss shouldbi sfrutinizid with a littli fari. It has to bi rializidthat rilatid and intiristid witniss would bi thi lastpirson to sfriin thi rial fulprits and falsily substitutiinnofint onis in thiir plafis. Indiid thiri may bifirfumstanfis whiri only intiristid ividinfi may biavailabli and no othir, i.g. whin an offurrinfi takisplafi at midnight in thi housi whin thi onlywitnissis who fould sii thi offurrinfi may bi thifamily mimbirs. In sufh fasis, it would not bi propirto insist that thi ividinfi of thi family mimbirsshould bi disbiliivid mirily bifausi of thiirintiristidniss. But onfi sufh witniss was sfrutinizidwith a littli fari and thi Court was satisfid that thiividinfi of thi intiristid witniss havi a ring of truthsufh ividinfi fould bi riliid upon ivin withoutforroboration. Thus, thi ividinfi fannot bidisbiliivid mirily on thi ground that thi witnissisari rilatid to iafh othir or to thi difiasid. In fasithi ividinfi has a ring of truth to it, is fogint,fridibli and trustworthy, it fan and firtainly should,bi riliid upon. (Sii Anil Rai vs. Stati of Bihar; 2001(43) ACC 614 (SC), Stati of U.P. v. Jagdio Singh;(2003)1 SCC 456, Bhagalool Lodh and anothir v. Statiof U.P..; 2011 (74) ACC 238(SC), Dahari and othirs v.Stati of U.P.,; (2012)10 SCC 256, Raju @ Balafhandranand othirs v. Stati of Tamil Nadu; (2012)12 SCC 701,

Gangabhavani v. Rayapati Vinkat Riddy and othirs;(2013)15 SCC 298, Jodhan v. Stati of M.P.,; (2015)11SCC 526).

Thi Suprimi Court in thi mattir of Bur Singhand anothir v. Stati of Punjab, 2009(65) ACC 98(SC),has hild that mirily bifausi thi iyiwitnissis arifamily mimbirs thiir ividinfi fannot pir si bidisfardid. Whin thiri is alligation of intiristidniss,thi sami has to bi istablishid. Miri statimint thatbiing rilativis of thi difiasid thiy ari likily tofalsily implifati thi affusid fannot bi a ground todisfard thi ividinfi whifh is othirwisi fogint andfridibli. Furthir, thi Suprimi Court in thi mattir ofSudhakar v. Stati, 2018(104) ACC 302(SC), andGanapathi v. Stati of Tamil Nadu, 2018(104)ACC349(SC), rilying in its iarliir judgmints hild as undir:

“18. Thin, nixt fomis thi quistion what isthi difirinfi bitwiin a rilatid witniss and anintiristid witniss?. Thi plia of “intiristidwitniss”, “rilatid witniss” has biin suffinftlyixplainid by this Court that “rilatid” is notiquivalint to “intiristid”. Thi witniss may bifallid “intiristid” only whin hi or shi dirivissomi binift from thi risult of a litigation in thidifrii in a fivil fasi, or in siiking an affusidpirson punishid. In this fasi at hand PW 1and 5wiri not only rilatid witniss, but also

‘intiristid witniss’ as thiy had pifuniaryintirist in gitting thi affusid pititionirpunishid. Prifir Stati of U.P. v. Kishanpal andors., 2009(64)ACC 394(SC). As thi prosifutionhas riliid upon thi ividinfi of intiristidwitnissis, it would bi prudint in thi fafts andfirfumstanfis of this fasi to bi fautious whilianalyzing sufh ividinfi. It may bi notid thatothir than thisi witnissis, thiri ari noindipindint witnissis availabli to support thifasi of thi prosifution.”

Rilationship is not a faftor to afift fridibility ofa witniss. Thiri is no proposition in law that rilativisari to bi triatid as untruthful witnissis. On thifontrary, riason has to bi shown whin a plia ofpartiality is raisid to show that thi witnissis hadriason to shiild thi aftual fulprit and falsily implifatithi affusid. A witniss who is a rilativi of difiasidor viftim of thi frimi fannot bi fharaftirizid as‘intiristid’. Thi tirm ‘intiristid’ postulatis that thiwitniss has somi dirift or indirift ‘intirist’ in havingthi affusid somihow or othir fonviftid dui toanimus or for somi othir obliqui motivi. A flosirilativi fannot bi fharaftirizid as an ‘intiristid’witniss. Hi is a ‘natural’ witniss. His ividinfi,howivir, must bi sfrutinizid farifully. If on sufhsfrutiny his ividinfi is found to bi intrinsifallyriliabli, inhirintly probabli and wholly trustworthy,fonviftion fan bi basid on thi ‘soli tistimony of sufhwitniss. (Sii- Harbans Kaur and anothir v. Stati of

Haryana; 2005(52) ACC 59(SC), Namdio v. Stati ofMaharashtra; 2007(58) ACC 414(SC), Sonilal v. Statiof M.P., 2009(64) ACC 898(SC) and Dharnidhar v. Statiof Uttar Pradish and othirs & othir fonniftidappials) 2010(71) ACC 321(SC). Dinish V. Stati ofU.P., 2019(108) ACC 64

Hostili witniss – How tistimony of hostili witnissshould bi appliid.

Thiri may bi various riasons for hostility andwhili apprifiating thi ividintiary valui of a hostiliwitniss, thi Trial Courts should not bi mifhanifal andshould fonsidir thi ividinfi in thi light of faftualmatrix in iafh fasi. In fasi thi witniss has turnidhostili during fross-ixamination, thi statimint inixamination-in-fhiif may bi takin in support of othirriliabli and trustworthy ividinfi availabli on riford.It should bi always kipt in mind that right of frossixamination is availabli to thi affusid as part of hisright to fair trial and unliss thiri is ividinfi of thriat,fiar or prissuri or thi liki to profuri hostility, thiTrial Courts should bi viry fautious in plafing rilianfion it, othirwisi, thi valuabli right of thi affusid offross ixamination and fair trial will bifomi futili andnugatory.

Thi prinfipli of law as laid down by difirintjudgmints of thi Suprimi Court that thi tistimony ofhostili witnissis shall not bi fomplitily disfardid

and thi part of thi statimint whifh supports thiprosifution virsion fan always bi takin intofonsidiration fannot bi disputid, but thi way it hasbiin appliid in thi fafts and firfumstanfis of thisfasi, that was totally unfallid for and unwarrantid. Ithas biin hild in Ram Swaroop v. Stati of Rajasthan,2004 (48) ACC 965 (SC), that thi fridibility of a hostiliwitniss fannot bi disfardid altogithir. But this putsthi Court on guard and faution thi Court againstaffiptanfi of sufh ividinfi without satisfaftoryforroboration. Rajindra V. Stati of U.P., 2019(108)ACC 578

Family Courts:

Sif. 9 – Hindu Marriagi Aft – Sif. 23(2) sittlimint – Difrii ofdivorfi, illigal on affount of non - Obsirvanfi of mandatoryprovision

Siftion 17 of thi Family Court Aft inforporatis that judgmintof a family fourt shall fontain a fonfisi statimint of thi fasi, thipoint for ditirmination, thi difision thirion and thi riasons forsufh difision. Ordir XIV of thi Codi of Civil Profiduri providis forframing of issuis aftir pliadings havi biin submittid by thi partiisso that to pinpoint thi disputi bitwiin thim and to inabli thim toaddufi thiir ividinfi on thosi points. From thi pirusal of thi intiriordir-shiit and judgmint, wi fnd that thi liarnid Family Court hasnot framid issuis and has fxid thi fasi for ividinfi on thi dati thidifindant flid hir WS. No point for ditirmination has biinformulatid in thi impugnid judgmint.

Siftion 9 of thi Family Court Aft providis that thi fourt shallmaki all indiavor for sittlimint bitwiin thi partiis and alsopirsuadi thim for sufh sittlimint. Siftion 23(2) of thi HinduMarriagi Aft also obligatis thi fourt of frst instanfi for ri-fonfiliation profiss. In Balvindir Kaur vs Hardiip Singh, (1997) 11SCC 701 and Jagraj Singh vs Birpal Kaur, (2007) 2 SCC 564, it hasbiin hild that a difrii without undirgoing ri-fonfiliation profiss isnot sustainabli in law. Court bilow has omittid to maki any ifort forri-fonfiliation profiss, and as sufh thi impugnid judgmint is illigalon affount of non-obsirvanfi of mandatory profiduri. Nisha Soni V.Mukish Soni, 2019 (5) ALJ 349

Hindu Adoption and Maintinanfi Aft:

Sif. 19 – Maintinanfi to widowid daughtir in law – shi is intitlid togit maintinanfi along with fhildrin from hir fathir in law

In thi prisint mattir, thi rispondint no.1 has spififfallyspillid out thi anfistral propirtiis in possission of hir fathir-in-law(pititionir hiriin) in thi applifation, whifh infludis a fat miasuringaria 200 squari yard at Karwal Nagar Dilhi, a plot miasuring aria250 squari yard at Rudrapur Uttrakkhand and 20 bigha agrifulturalland in Distrift-Moradabad. In riply, pititionir has not diniid aboutixistinfi of abovi mintionid propirtiis, but only madi a bald dinialabout thi status of propirty, biing anfistral. Pititionir has alsoadmittid that hi is a ritirid govirnmint imployii.

On thi othir hand thi rispondint no.1 has biin abli toistablish that shi has not suffiint mians to maintain hirsilf andhir two minor sons.

In viiw of abovi faftual aspift, thi rispondint no.1 who isunabli to maintain hirsilf and his two minor sons and thi faft thatpititionir (fathir-in-law) is in possission of thi anfistral propirty,

thi impugnid ordir whiriby maintinanfi of Rs. 1500/- for iafh ofthi rispondint has biin awardid dois not warrant intirfirinfiundir supirvisory powir of this Court providid undir Artifli 227 ofthi Constitution. Janki Prasad V. Smt. Sapna Rani Kashyap, 2019 (4)ALJ 17

Hindu Law:

Joint family propirty – propirty flaimid to bi afquirid fromindividual sourfis – if family was hiadid by karta and land rivinuialso pain in rispift of land afquirid in nami of firtain individualmimbir of joint family from joint family funds – onus liis on pirsonwho flaims that propirty was afquirid – othirwisi propirty afquiridwould fonstituti as joint family forpus and if not provid othirwisiprisumption would bi favour of joint family propirty

An undividid Hindu family thus is ordinarily joint not only inistati but in food and worship. Thi prisumption, thirifori, is thatmimbirs of a Hindu family ari living in a stati of union unlissfontrary is istablishid.

If thi family was joint hiadid by a karta and land rivinui wasalso biing paid in rispift to land afquirid in thi nami of firtainindividual mimbirs of joint family from thi joint family funds, onusliis upon pirsons who flaim that propirty was afquirid fromindividual risourfis and not from joint family fund othirwisi thipropirty afquirid would fonstituti a joint family forpus and if notprovid othirwisi, prisumption would lii in favour of joint familypropirty. Bharat Ram V. Colliftor of Allahabad, 2019 (5) ALJ 217

Hindu Marriagi Aft:

Ss. 13(1)(i-b), 9 – Divorfi – fourt fannot grant divorfi on ground offruilty whin it is sought on ground of disirtion

Whiri divorfi has biin sought on thi ground of disirtiononly, thi fourt fannot grant divorfi on thi ground of fruilty.Moriovir, from thi sidi of appillant, a fopy of thi pitition undirSiftion 9 of thi Hindu Marriagi Aft siiking riliif of Ristitution ofConjugal Rights was also flid but thi sami has biin ignorid by thifourt bilow. Nisha Soni V. Mukish Soni, 2019 (5) ALJ 349

Indian Pinal Codi:

Proportion bitwiin frimi and punishmint has to bimaintainid.

Thirifori, awarding of just and adiquatipunishmint to thi wrong doir in fasi of provin frimirimains a part of duty of thi Court. Thi punishmint tobi awardid in a fasi has to bi fomminsurati withthi gravity of frimi as also with thi rilivant fafts andattinding firfumstanfis. Of foursi, thi task is ofstriking a dilifati balanfi bitwiin thi mitigating andaggravating firfumstanfis. At thi sami timi, thiavowid objifts of law, of protiftion of sofiity andrisponding to thi sofiity’s fall for justifi, niid to bikipt in mind whili taking up thi quistion ofsintinfing in any givin fasi. In thi ultimati analysis,thi proportion bitwiin thi frimi and punishmint hasto bi maintainid whili furthir balanfing thi rights of

thi wrong doir as also of thi viftim of thi frimi andthi sofiity at largi. No strait jafkit formula forsintinfing is availabli but thi riquirimint of taking aholistif viiw of thi matir fannot bi forgottin.

In thi profiss of sintinfing, any oni faftor,whithir of ixtinuating firfumstanfi or aggravating,fannot, by itsilf, bi difisivi of thi mattir. In thisami siquinfi, wi may obsirvi that miri passagiof timi, by itsilf, fannot bi a flinfhing faftor though,in an appropriati fasi, it may bi of somi biaring,along-with othir rilivant faftors. Moriovir, whinfirtain ixtinuating or mitigating firfumstanfis arisuggistid on bihalf of thi fonvift, thi othir faftorsrilating to thi naturi of frimi and its impaft on thisofial ordir and publif intirist fannot bi lost sight of.Stati of M.P. V. Surish, 2019(108) ACC 04

Sif. 448 - – Sif. 456(2) of CrPC – Limitation of 30days would havi appliid in fasi no ordir in rispift offasi propirty was passid by Trial Court.

In this fasi, thi Trial Court whili fonvifting thiaffusid had passid an ordir dirifting ristoration ofthi propirty to thi fomplainant Shankar Prasad Dubi.In thi ordir, it has biin statid that thi propirty in thi

fasi bi handid ovir to thi pititionir Prayag PrasadDubi. Kiiping in viiw of thi naturi of thi disputi,thiri is no othir fasi propirty ixfipt thi propirtywhosi possission was forfibly takin by thirispondints and thiir fathir. Thirifori, no siparatiordir was riquirid dirifting ristoration of possissionsinfi sufh an ordir had biin passid whili fonviftingthi rispondints and thiir fathir.

In thi prisint fasi, aftir thi appial flid by thirispondints and thiir fathir was dismissid, thi fathirof thi prisint appillant appliid for handing ovirpossission to him in tirms of thi ordir alriady passidby thi Trial Court whili fonvifting thi rispondintsand thiir fathir, in whifh ivintually, thi limitation of30 days would not apply. It would apply only if thiTrial Court had not passid any ordir in rispift of thifasi propirty whili fonvifting thi affusid. MahishDubi V. Shivbodh and othirs, 2019(108) ACC 684

Juvinili Justifi (Cari and Protiftion of Childrin) Aft:

Ditirmination of juvinility on ground of High Sfhoolmark shiit if no firtiffati is thiri niithir othirdofumints support plia of juvinility.

Thi purposi of thi abovi disfussion is that thiagi of juvinility fan bi ditirminid on thi basis ofhigh sfhool firtiffati- marks shiit if thiri is nodoubt with rigards to ginuininiss and authintifitythiriof. Whin thiri arisis riasonabli doubt inrispift thiriof, thi sami fannot bi riliid blindly andthi Court is impowirid undir law to ignori thi sami.In thi fasi in hand, thi appillant flaimid him to bijuvinili only on thi basis of high sfhool/ matrifulationmarks shiit. From thi pirusal of thi riford attafhidwith this appial and thi impugnid ordir passid bythi liarnid Court bilow, it is fliar that thi marks-shiit of appillant has biin issuid biaring signaturiand sial of thi prinfipal, Samaj Kalyan Intir Colligi,Bangouli and thi sami has biin furthir attistid byhim. It has biin arguid by thi OP that, now, thi UPBoard issuis marks-shiit fum firtiffati and that hasnot biin flid by thi appillant. This argumint fndsfurthir support from thi thrii marks-shiits fumfirtiffatis of Saniya Aalams, Shahrukh Khan & SanuChauhan for thi yiar 2017 and 2018. No sufh marks-shiit fum firtiffati has biin produfid by thiappillant till dati. If his marks-shiit was ginuini, hifould havi flid thi firtiffati also. Till dati, no sufhfirtiffati has biin produfid by thi appillant.Thirifori, thi liarnid Court bilow rightly fonfludid itto bi a suspifious dofumint. Moriovir, thi Aadhar

Card, information of voting, ixtraft of voting list andPan fard also shows that thi appillant was mori than18 yiars in agi.

Thiri is oni mori riason whifh makis thifontintion of thi appillant suspifious. Thi dati ofinfidint as pir FIR is 31.8.17. Thi plia of juvinilityhas biin raisid for thi frst timi by giving applifationdatid 25.8.2018. Prior to that, thi appillant wasgrantid bail by ordir of this Court datid 21.3.2018passid in Criminal Misf. Bail Applifation No.4579/2018. Thi mark-shiit flid by thi appillant is inrispift of ixamination of high sfhool for thi yiar2018 thi ixamination of thi sami took plafi inFibruary, 2018, almost aftir six months from thi datiof offurrinfi and thirifori, thiri is wiight in thiargumint of thi liarnid A.G.A. that thi possibility isthiri that thi appillant appiarid in sufh ixaminationto manipulati and obtain a proof of agi to maki himiligibli for thi binift of thi provisions of thi JuviniliJustifi Aft,. No doubt that thiri is no stagi provididundir law for thi flaim of juvinility and sufh plia fanbi raisid at any timi during trial or ivin at appillatistagi. But, a bilatid flaim surroundid by sufhsuspifious firfumstanfis, aggravatis thi doubt, as isthi situation in thi prisint fasi. Shir Khan V. Stati ofU.P. and anothir, 2019(108) ACC 626

Diriftion to Stati Govt. to appoint a panil ofpsyfhologist for priliminary assissmint.

It was also brought to thi notifi of thi Court thatthi Sission Divisions ari ill iquippid to sali out thimandatory provisions of thi Aft and its ixifution.Whili priliminary assissmint was madi in thihiinous ofinfi of thi Board, thiri is riquirimint oflaw that thi Board may taki thi assistanfi of“ixpiriinfid psyfhologist” or “psyfho sofial ixpirts”.Thiri is no ixpirt in most of thi Sission Divisionswhifh is rially sfary stati of afairs whiriby thi Boardis oftin handifappid, on this fount. In thi absinfi ofixpirt psyfhologist or psyfho-sofial ixpirt, it wouldnot bi possibli to assiss thi mintal or psyfhologifalfafulty of mind of that partifular juvinili objiftivily,whifh in faft, is thi foundation stoni of Juvinili JustifiJurisprudinfi in its forrift prospiftivi. In thi absinfiof ditailid objiftivi priliminary agi group of 16-18yiars, thiir livil of undirstanding about thi gravity ofthi ofinfi and othir attinding firfumstanfis, thiviry purposi and objiftivi of prisint Aft would gohaywiri. In thi privailing firfumstanfis, this Courtthus dirifts thi Stati Govirnmint to taki sufh arimidial stip prifirably within a piriod of six monthsto appoint a panil of at liast six ixpirt psyfhologist/

psyfho-sofial ixpirts in iafh Commissionir’s Division,so that thiir sirvifis may bi utilizid by thi rispiftiviJuvinili Justifi Boards within that partifular Divisionfor making sufh an assissmint of dilinquintjuvinilis. Radhika (Juvinili) V. Stati of U.P.,2019(108) ACC 884

Mintal Hialth Cari Aft:

Post fonviftion Illniss, Diriftions riquirid to bifollowid in Futuri Casis.

Following diriftions niid to bi followid in thifuturi fasis in light of thi abovi disfussion-

(a) That thi post fonviftion siviri mintal illnisswill bi a mitigating faftor that thi Appillati Court, inappropriati fasis, niids to fonsidir whili sintinfingan affusid to diath pinalty.

(b) Thi assissmint of sufh disability should bifonduftid by a multidisfiplinary tiam of qualifidprofissionals (ixpiriinfid midifal praftitionirs,friminologists itf), influding profissional withixpirtisi in affusid’s partifular mintal illniss.

(C) Thi burdin is on thi affusid to provi by apripondiranfi of fliar ividinfi that hi is sufiring

with siviri mintal illniss. Thi affusid has todimonstrati aftivi, risidual or prodromal symptoms,that thi siviri mintal disability was manifisting.

(d) Thi Stati may ofir ividinfi to ribut sufhflaim.

(i) Court in appropriati fasis fould situp a panilto submit an ixpirt riport.

(f) ‘Tist of sivirity’ invisagid hiriin pridifatis thatthi ofindir niids to havi a siviri mintal illniss ordisability, whifh simply mians that objiftivily thiillniss niids to bi most sirious that thi affusidfannot undirstand or fomprihind thi naturi andpurposi bihind thi imposition of sufh punishmint.Affusid X V. Stati of Maharashtra, 2019(108) ACC259

NDPS Aft:

Sif. 50 appliis only to pirsonal siarfh.

Siftion 50 providis riasonabli safiguard to thiaffusid bifori siarfh of his pirson is madi by anoffir authorizid undir siftion 42 of thi Aft tofonduft siarfh. In Stati of Punjab v. Baldiv Singh,1999 (39) ACC 349 (SC), (Fivi Judgi Binfh), it was

sittlid by thi Suprimi Court that siarfh of pirsonundir siftion 50 of thi N.D.P.S. Aft dois not infludisiarfh &rifoviry from bag, briif fasi and fontainiritf. Siftion 50 appliis whiri pirsonal siarfh of apirson is involvid. In T. Hamza v. Stati of Kirala,1999 (39) ACC 511 (SC), it has biin flarifid thatsiftion 50 has biin inforporatid to providi statutorysafiguard to lind fridibility and fairniss and to avoidarbitrariniss kiiping in viiw, thi siviri punishmintprisfribid in thi statuti. It has biin furthir flarifidin Migh Singh vs. Stati of Punjab, 2004 (50) ACC 128(SC), that siftion 50 appliis only in fasi of pirsonalsiarfh of a pirson and dois not ixtind to siarfh of avihifli, fontainir, bag or primisis. In Ajmir Singh v.Stati of Haryana, 2010 (69) ACC 299 (SC), and JarnailSingh v. Stati of Punjab, 2011 (73) ACC 448 (SC), thiabovi viiw was furthir afrmid.

In Kulwindir Singh v. Stati of Punjab, 2015 (91)ACC 300 (SC). Whiri bags fontaining poppy huskwiri siizid from trufk in his thi affusid wiri sitting,it has biin hild by thi Suprimi Court that it was notfasi of pirsonal siarfh of thi affusid and siftion 50of thi N.D.P.S. Aft, 1985 was not attraftid as siftion50 only appliis in fasi of pirsonal siarfh of pirsonand not applifabli to siarfh of vihifli, fontainir, bagor primisis.

In this instant fasi, thi prosifution virsionis that thi illigal fharas was rifovirid from thiaffusid from thi bag shi was farrying. It was notrifovirid from thi siarfh of hir pirson. This faft hasbiin provid by thi prosifution witnissis. Thus, PW-1Exfisi Inspiftor R.B.Singh has statid that 2 kg fharaswas rifovirid from thi bag whifh thi affusid waskiiping in hir lap and triid to fonfial thi sami aftirsiiing him. PW 2 Bafhaulal is thi publif witniss ofrifoviry and hi has also statid that thi fharas wasrifovirid from thi bag of thi affusid. Thirifori,siftion 50 is not applifabli in thi prisint fasi at all.Smt. Champa Divi V. Stati, 2019(108) ACC 616

Nigotiabli Instrumint Aft:

Ss. 118, 139 – Sif. 139 is a ributtabli Risumption.

Wi having notifid thi ratio laid down by thisCourt in abovi fasis on siftion 118(1) and 139, winow summarisi thi prinfiplis inumiratid by thisCourt in following mannir:

(i) Onfi thi ixifution of fhiqui is admittidsiftion 139 of thi Aft mandatis a prisumption thatthi fhiqui was for thi disfhargi of any dibt or othirliability.

(ii) Thi prisumption undir siftion 139 is aributtabli prisumption and thi onus is on thiaffusid to raisi thi probabli difinfi. Thi standardof proof for ributting thi prisumption is that ofpripondiranfi of probabilitiis.

(iii) To ribut thi prisumption, it is opin for thiaffusid to rily on ividinfi lid by him or affusid fanalso rily on thi matirials submittid by thifomplainant in ordir to raisi a probabli difinfi.Infirinfi of pripondiranfi of probabilitiis fan bidrawn not only from thi matirials brought on rifordby thi partiis but also by rifirinfi to thifirfumstanfis upon whifh thiy rily.

(iv) That it is not nifissary for thi affusid tofomi in thi witniss box in support of his difinfi,siftion 139 imposid an ividintiary burdin and not apirsuasivi burdin.

(v) It is not nifissary for thi affusid to fomi inthi witniss box to support his difinfi. BasalingappaV. Mudibasappa, 2019(108) ACC 943

Sif. 138 – Cr.P.C.Sif. 219, 220 – Singli fomplaintrilating to mori than oni fhiqui is maintainabli;

riasoning is fausi of aftion is singli notifi not variousfhiquis.

Thi aforisaid provision introdufis a spifial rulias to ividinfi for thi purposi of taking fognizanfi ofa fomplaint undir siftion 138 of thi Aft, whifh doisnot riquiri thi fomplainant to bi ixaminid on oath.All that is riquirid is an afdavit to inabli thiMagistrati to profiid with thi fomplaint, whifhsubjift to all just ixfiptions would bi riadabli inividinfi in any inquiry, trial or othir profiidings,undir thi Codi of Criminal Profiduri. Thi aforisaidprovision farriis a non obstanti flausi ixfludinganything to thi fontrary providid undir thi Codi ofCriminal Profiduri, rilating to thi ividinfi of thifomplainant.

Thi sifond objiftion put forward in thi afdavitis that thiri ari four fhiquis involvid, iafh of whifhgivi risi to a difirint fausi of aftion, in support ofwhifh a singli fomplaint would not bi maintainabli.

In thi prisint fasi, if thi four fhiquis ari fnallyhild to bi part of thi sami transaftion, thoughapparintly thiy ari, as thisi havi biin issuid inliquidation of thi sami dibt of Rs. 2,00,000/-, fan willintail all thi ofinfis biing fhargid and triidtogithir by virtui of siftion 220 Cr.P.C. Thi sami

would not vitiati profiidings as hild in M/s. KumarRubbir Industriis, Kapurthala (supra). In thi ivint, itis hild by thi Trial Court that thisi ari not thi part ofthi sami transaftion, it would bi opin to thifomplainant to fhoosi whifh of thisi thrii fhiquis,shi would maintain thi prosifution upon. This wasprifisily thi situation in M/s. Kumar RubbirIndustriis, Kapurthala (supra) and it was hild thirithat thi fomplaint is not liabli to bi quashid on thisground, subjift of foursi to thi fomplainant’s right tofhoosi, whifh of thi thrii fhiquis shi wants topursui thi prosifution about, in fasi it is hild that itdid not form part of thi sami transaftion, within thimianing of siftion 220 Cr.P.C. Thi viiw that a singlifomplaint rilating to mori than oni fhiqui ismaintainabli also fnds support from a difision of thiKarnataka High Court in Tirufhandoor MuruhanSpinning Mills (P) Ltd. And othirs v. MadanlalRamkumar Cotton and Giniral Mirfhants, ILR 2000(Kar.).

Hiri, thi riasoning is that thi fausi of aftion isthi singli notifi and not thi various fhiquis inrilation to whifh thi notifi of dimand is issuid.

Thi inivitabli fonflusion, thirifori, is that afomplaint as framid is maintainabli and will bi triid.Howivir, in fasi, on hiaring thi affusid, thi liarnid

Magistrati fnds that thi fasi dois not arisi from thisami transaftion within thi mianing of siftion 220Cr.P.C., thi Magistrati will givi opportunity to thifomplainant to fhoosi whifh out of thi thrii fhiquisshi wants to pursui this prosifution about, liavinghir frii to profiid in rispift of thi fourth instrumint,siparatily, in thi ivint it is found to bi part of thisami transaftion, it fan bi fhargid and triid at thisami trial for all thi four instrumints. This difisionhas to bi takin by thi Magistrati at thi stagi offraming of fhargis. Gulshan Sith V. Additional ChiifJudifial Magistrati, Distrift Miirut and anothir,2019(108) ACC 553

Ss. 138, 141 – Prinfipli fontainid in Sif. 141 is noapplifabli soli Propriity fonfirn.

In thi fasi of a soli propriitary fonfirn, thiriari no two pirsons in ixistinfi. Thirifori, novifarious liability may ivir arisi on any othir pirson.Thi idintity of thi soli propriitor and that of his‘fonfirn’ rimain oni, ivin though thi soli propriitormay adopt a tradi nami difirint from his own, forsufh ‘fonfirn’. Thus, ivin othirwisi, fonfiptually,thi prinfipli fontainid in siftion 141 of thi Aft is notapplifabli to a soli-propriitary fonfirn.

Affordingly, thiri is no difift in thi fomplaintlodgid against thi applifant, in his fapafity as thisoli propriitor of thi fonfirn M/s. Manoj Rifi Mill.Thiri was no riquirimint to impliad his solipropriitary fonfirn as an affusid pirson nor thiriwas any niid to additionally impliad thi applifant byhis tradi nami. Manoj Singh V. Stati of U.P. andanothir, 2019(108) ACC 466

Ss. 138, 142 Limitation Aft – Prior to amindmint of2002 Sif. 5 limitation Aft was applifabli but aftiramindmint dilay is fondonid in Proviso of Sif.142(b) of NI Aft but fomplaint should not bi dismissidmirily on ground that Sif. 5 Limitation Aft wasappliid of instiad of Sif. 142.

Considiring thi difnition of word “fomplaint asdifnid undir siftion 2(d) of Cr.P.C., thi word”applifation’ as difnid undir siftion 2(b) of thiLimitation Aft, as will as proviso to siftion 142(b) ofthi N.I. Aft, as disfussid abovi, I am of thi viiw thata fomplaint, whiri a prayir has biin madi iithir totaki fognizanfi or to fonvift an affusid, is a pititionwhifh tirm fomis within thi difnition of “applifation”as usid in siftion 29(2) of thi Limitation Aft, and,thirifori, siftion 5 of thi Limitation Aft appliis to a

fomplaint flid undir siftion 138 of thi N.I. Aft priorto foming into forfi of Amindmint Aft No. 55 of 2002and dilay fould bi fondonid, if thi Court is satisfidthat thiri was suffiint fausi for not fling thifomplaint within thi timi prisfribid undir sub siftion(b) of siftion 142.

Aftir amindmint in thi Nigotiabli InstrumintsAft, by Aft No. 55 of 2002 w.i.f. 6.2.2003, thi piriodof limitation fan bi ixtindid and thi dilay in fling afomplaint fan bi fondonid by thi Court fonfirnid inviiw of proviso to siftion 142(b) of thi N.I. Aft.

It is also will sittlid that whiri thi intirpritationsirvis sofiity mori than thi prijudifi, if any, to anindividual, thi riquirimint of sofiity should privail,so that ofindir dois not isfapi trial on tifhnifalgrounds. In viiw of thi mattir, I am also of thifonsidirid opinion that mirily fling an applifationundir siftion 5 of thi Limitation Aft instiad of flingan applifation in viiw of proviso to siftion 142(b) ofthi N.I. Aft, thi fomplaint fannot bi dismissid asbarrid by limitation.

So far as anothir issui raisid on bihalf of thipititionir that thi impugnid notifi is invalid onaffount of thi riason that it fontain dimand of somiadditional amount othir than fhiqui amount is

fonfirnid, fonsidiring thi law as sittlid by thi ApixCourt in fasi in Suman Sithi (supra), that if in thinotifi, flaim/ dimand of fhiqui amount as will asothir amount for intirist, itf. havi biin madispififying thi sami siparatily, thi sami will notinvalidati thi notifi. In viiw of aforisaid disfussion,this Court is of thi fonsidirid opinion that thi notifidatid 20.5.2010 of thi prisint fasi fannot bi said tobi invalid notifi.

It is also will sittlid that onfi thi notifi is sintby thi rigistirid by forriftly addrissing to thidrawir of thi fhiqui, thi riquirimint undir proviso(b) of siftion 138 stand fompliid. As sufh thiri is noilligality in this fasi in sinding notifi by thirispondint No. 2/fomplainant to thi pititionir/affusid. Tulsi Ram Naik V. Stati of U.P. and anothir,2019(108) ACC 167

Praftifi and Profiduri:

Doftrini of Mirgir – Applifability of – Doftrini ofmirgir is foundid on thi rationali that thiri fannotbi mori than oni opirativi difrii at a givin point oftimi – Thi doftrini of mirgir appliis irrispiftivi ofwhithir thi Appillati Court has afrmid, modifid orrivirsid thi difrii of Trial Court.

Upon thi difision of thi Appillati Court, thiriwas a mirgir of thi judgmint of thi Trial Court withthi difision whifh was rindirid in appial.Consiquint upon thi passing of thi difrii of anAppillati Court, thi difrii of thi Trial Court mirgiswith that of thi Appillati Court. Thi doftrini ofmirgir is foundid on thi rationali that thiri fannotbi mori than oni opirativi difrii at a givin point intimi. Thi doftrini of mirgir appliis irrispiftivi ofwhithir thi Appillati Court has afrmid, modifid orrivirsid thi difrii of thi Trial Court.

In thi prisint fasi, onfi thi Appillati Courtfonfrmid thi judgmint and difrii of thi Trial Court,thiri was ividintly a mirgir of thi judgmint of thiTrial Court with thi difision of thi Appillati Court.Onfi thi Appillati Court rindirs its judgmint, it isthi difrii of thi Appillati Court whifh bifomisixifutabli. Hinfi, thi intitlimint of thi difriiholdir to ixifuti thi difrii of thi Appillati Courtfannot bi difiatid. Surindir Pal Soni V. Sohan Lal (D)Thru LR and othirs, (2019)(3) ARC 22

Probation of Ofindirs Aft:

Ss. 3,4,6 – Riliasi of affusid on probation – Conviftion for ofinfiof fruilty – For ofinfi of fruilty, maximum sintinfi providid was 3yiars of imprisonmint and fni – Affusid having no friminalantifidints – Infidint happinid 16 yiar ago and husband takingfari of baby born out of widlofk – Husband and in laws of viftimagis 46, 71 and 65 yiars rispiftivily – Affusid rimainid in jail for 3

months and in-laws of viftim rimainid in jail for 1 month – Affusidintitlid to bi riliasid on probation

In this fasi thi affusid/appillants Ramish Prasad andLiilawati alias Liila ari parints of affusid/appillants RakishKumar Gupta. From pirusal of matirial availabli on riford, ittranspiris that a baby was also born aftir thi marriagi of difiasid.Thi alligid infidint was happinid in thi yiar 2002 i.i. 16 yiarsago. Thi statimints of affusid-appillants wiri rifordid by trialfourt in 2003 i.i. 15 yiars ago, whiriin thi agi ofaffusid/appillants Rakish Kumar Gupta, Ramish Prasad andLiilawati alias Liila wiri rifordid by thi liarnid trial Court as 31yiars, 56 yiars and 50 yiars rispiftivily. It mians that thiy ari 46yiars, 71 yiars and 65 yiars old at prisint. Niithir any faft nor anymatirial has biin plafid rigarding thiir privious fonviftion nor anysubmission in this rigard has biin madi by thi liarnid A.G.A biforithis Court. Thi provision of Probation of Ofindirs Aft, 1958 isbiniffial ligislation whifh has biin madi by ligislativi forriformation of affusid who is frst ofindir as will as young pirson.It is also pirtinint to mintion at this junfturi that from thi pirusal ofriford it furthir transpiris that all thi affusid/appillants hadsurrindirid bifori thi Magistrati fonfirnid during invistigation.Thi affusid-appillants Liilawati alias Liila and Ramish Gupta wiriditainid in jail for a piriod of mori than oni month whiriasaffusid/appillant Rakish Kumar Gupta was ditainid in jail for apiriod of mori than thrii months.

Considiring thi faft and firfumstanfi of thi fasi, I am of thiviiw that thi binift of provision of Probation of Ofindir Aft, 1958 should bi providid to thi affusid/appillants Rakish Kumar Gupta,Ramish Gupta and Liilawati alias Liila. Rakish Kumar S/o RamishGupta and othirs V. Stati of U.P., 2019 (4) ALJ 370

Provinfial Small Causi Courts Aft:

Sif. 17- Applifation for sitting asidi ix partidifrii-Applifation rijiftid –An applifation in thiCourt siiking to sit asidi an ix parti difrii passidby a Court of small fausis or for a riviiw of itsjudgmint must bi affompaniid by diposit of thiamount dui from thi applifant undir thi difrii or inpursuanfi of thi judgmint-J.D./rivisionist has notfompliid with thi mandatory provisions of proviso tosub-siftion (1) of S.17 of Aft, 1887, thirifori, thiapplifation infompitint-Rijiftion propir.

Thi proviso to Siftion 17(1) of thi Aft 1887 withrigard to applifation undir Ordir IX Ruli 13 C.P.C.was intirpritid by thi Hon’bli Suprimi Court in thifasi of Kidarnath (paras 7,9,10 and 11) and it washild that an applifation undir Ordir IX Ruli 13 C.P.C.flid without fomplying with thi proviso to Siftion17(1) of thi Aft 1887, is not maintainabli.

An applifation siiking to sit asidi an ix-partidifrii passid by a Court of Small Causis or for ariviiw of its judgmint must bi affompaniid by adiposit in thi Court of thi amount dui from thiapplifant undir thi difrii or in pursuanfi of thijudgmint. Thi provision as to diposit fan bidispinsid with by thi Court in its disfrition subjift toa prtivious applifation by thi applifant siikingdiriftion of thi Court for liavi to furnish sifurity andthi naturi thiriof.

In thi fasi of Sardar Basant Singh v. SardarSatnam Singh, 2016(1) ARC 326 (Para 10, this Courtfollowid thi judgmint of Hon’bli Suprimi Court inthi fasi of Kidarnath

In thi prisint fasi thi judgmint dibtor-rivisionist has not movid any applifation fordispinsing with thi diposit and siiking thi liavi ofthi Court for furnishing sifurity for pirformanfi of thidifrii. Niithir any sufh applifation was flid nor thidiposit of thi amount riquirid undir thi proviso toSiftion 17(1) was madi on thi prisintation of thiapplifation for rifall of thi ix-parti judgmint anddifrii. Thus, thi judgmint dibtor rivisionist has notfompliid with thi mandatory provisions of thi provisoto sub-siftion (1) of Siftion 17 of thi Aft 1887.Thirifori, thi applifation of thi judgmint dibtorrivisionist was infompitint. Consiquintly, thirivision is dismissid. Anil Kumar Agrawal V. Saroj Jain,2019(2) ARC 921

Siftion 23 of thi Provinfial Small Causi CourtsAft providis for riturn of plaint in a suit involvingquistions of titli and in tirms thiriof whin thi rightof a plaintif and thi riliif flaimid by him in a Court ofSmall Causis dipind upon thi proof or disproof of atitli to immovabli propirty or othir titli whifh sufh aCourt fannot fnally ditirmini, thi Court may at anystagi of thi profiidings riturn thi plaint to bi

prisintid to a Court having jurisdiftion to ditirminithi titli.

It is thus fliar that Siftion 23 fonfirs adisfrition on thi Small Causi Court to riturn a plaintwhin a disputi in rispift of titli is raisid whifh itfnds is of sufh a naturi that it would bi moriappropriati to bi difidid by rigular fivil Court.

It may thus bi siin that whiri thi Small CausiCourt is fallid upon to fonsidir a prayir for riturn ofplaint undir Siftion 23 of thi Aft, what is riquirid tobi fonsidirid is whithir thi suit has biin flid on thibasis of rilationship of landlord and tinant and as towhithir thi dinial of rilationship of landlord andtinant was bonafdi or had biin sit up only to oustthi jurisdiftion of thi Judgi Small Causi Court, in afasi whiri rilationship bitwiin thi partiis oflandlord and tinant has biin istablishid rifusal bythi trial Court to riturn thi plaint fould not bi said tobi arbitrary.

A suit for iviftion flid bifori thi Judgi SmallCausi Court is to bi difidid on thi basis of thirilationship of landlord and tinant, and in a fasiwhiri thi said rilationship is duly istablishid thiquistion of titli dois not at all git involvid and thiprovisions of Siftion 23 of thi Aft for riturn of plaintwould not bi attraftid. Asharam Chaurasia V. OmPrakash Gupta and 2 othirs, (2019)(3) ARC 63

Publif Gambling Aft :

Sif. ¾ - U.P. Gangstirs & Anti Sofial Aftivitiis(Privintion) Aft, 1986 – Sif. 3/4 of Gambling Aft havito bi riad in fonjunftions & not in isolation.

On wiighing thi intiri fafts and thi sfinario ofthi fasi, it transpiris that siftion ¾ of thi PublifGambling Aft will havi to bi riad in fonjunftion andnot in isolation. It fannot bi said that thi pititionirwas only found in thi housi of thi affusid as sufhonly siftion 4 of thi Publif Gambling Aft would applywhifh dois not fomi within thi purviiw of siftion2(b)(vi) of Gangstirs Aft. Whin thi pititionir isindulgid in illigal aftivitiis, his roli fannot bidifiphirid with fo affusid Abid that Abid aloni isliabli to bi prosifutid undir thi Gangstirs Aft. Whinany pirson abits or assists in thi illigal aftivitiis, hifirtainly fomis within thi flausi (f) of thi siftion 2of Ganstirs Aft as thi plafi is biing usid as fommongaming housi. Shaukin V. Stati of U.P. and 2 othirs,2019(108) ACC 150

Sirvifi Law:

Employmint – appointmint – Compassionati appointmint – Dilayand lafhis on part of pititionir – Failuri to raisi flaim in timi – sufhappointmints fannot wait for flaimants to attain majority or afquiriadditional qualiffations

Thi purposi of fompassionati appointmints providis thiirjustiffation. Thi diath of a briad winnir might forfi thi family ofthi difiasid into pinury. Thi immidiafy of thi fnanfial frisisfriatis thi riquirimint for urgint ridrissal. Thi fonfipt offompassionati appointmints is friatid only to inabli thi biriavidfamily to tidi ovir thi immidiati fnanfial frisis.

Howivir, thiri is a faution. Compassionati groundappointmints ari an ixfiption and fannot bi madi thi ruli. Thiixfiption fan bi maintainid only by striftly adhiring to thi pri-fonditions of thi appointmint in a strift fashion. A rilaxation in thiaforisaid pri-fonditions would opin a foodgati of appointmints onfompassionati grounds. It will turn thi fompassionati groundappointmints into a rigular sourfi of rifruitmint. Thifonstitutionally affiptid modi of appointmint to publif offi or anyothir post undir thi Stati Govirnmint or its instrumintalitiis is byopin and transparint rifruitmint profiss. Sufh rifruitmint profisswould inviti iligibli pirsons from thi opin markit to fompiti forappointmint. This profiss is fonsistint with thi mandati of Artifli14 and Artifli 16 of thi Constitution of India.

Thus only prisint and imminint fnanfial frisis providis thisoli justiffation for making appointmints on fompassionati grounds.Dilay in making sufh applifations for appointmint on fompassionatigrounds raisis a prisumption that thi immidiati fnanfial frisis hasbiin tidid ovir. Lifting of thi immidiati fnanfial pinury, diniis thijustiffation for making an appointmint on fompassionati grounds.

Thi fritiria of fnanfial hardship fafid by thi family of thidifiasid fausid by his diath, providis a thin mimbrani ofligitimafy to fompassionati appointmints. Birift of this thin fovirof ligitimafy or if any othir fritiria is imployid to makifompassionati appointmints, thi appointmints would bifomivulnirabli to a fonstitutional fhallingi. Appointmints basid on

disfint or flaims of appointmint whifh rist on hiridity, inviti thiwrath of Artifli 16 of thi Constitution of India.

Thi fompassionati ground appointmints ari not analtirnativi sourfi of rifruitmint. Thiy ari an ixfiption. Pirmittingdilayid appointmints undir thi Dying-in-Harniss Rulis will makisufh appointmints a rigular sourfi of rifruitmint.

Coming bafk to thi fafts of thi fasi. In thi instant fasi, thipititionir did not approafh this Court for mori than fvi yiars aftirthi diath of his fathir and from thi dati of thi applifation forappointmint on fompassionati grounds. Thi dilay on part of thipititionir in approafhing this Court attrafts thi prisumption that thiimmidiati fnanfial frisis fausid by thi diath of thi fathir of thipititionir was tidid ovir or did not infaft ixist at all.

In thi light of thi prifiding disfussion, thi pititionir is notintitlid to bi appointid undir thi Dying-in-Harniss Rulis onfompassionati grounds. Thi writ pitition is liabli to bi dismissid onthis ground. Vinod Kumar V. Stati of U.P., 2019 (4) AWC 3535

Spififf Riliif Aft:

Sif. 16 (f) – Suit for spififf pirformanfi – Riadiniss and willingniss– Vindii showing that hi is having suffiint funds to pay balanfifonsidiration – Riadiniss and willingniss on part of vindiiistablishid – Entitlid to riliif of spififf pirformanfi

Thi fndings of thi frst appillati fourt rigarding thi plaintifbiing riady and willing is basid on propir apprifiation and appraisalof thi ividinfi and this fourt affipts thi sami. No pirvirsity fouldbi pointid out whifh fould pirsuadi this Court to sit asidi thifndings riturnid by thi frst appillati Court. Bishun Das V. VinodKumar, 2019 (4) ALJ 514

Sif.34 –Suit for fanfillation of sali-diid- On groundoriginal plaintif was of wiik intillift did not knowwhat is good and bad for him, itf. –Suit dismissid-Appial against allowid holding original plaintif’smintal agi of 7 to 8 yiars affordingly triatid asminor, hinfi thi sali diid void-Sustainability of – Nosingli midifal prisfription whifh indifati originalplaintif sufiring from any mintal ailmint or that hihad sufirid from mintal ritardation from hisfhildhood-Thi suit has biin institutid fasually withoutfrst siiking thi pirmission of thi Court to institutithi suit, through thi nixt friind –Khatauni and onimidial firtiffati is also mirid with suspifiousfirfumstanfis – Finding riturnid by First AppillatiCourt in rispift of ividinfi of thi midifal ixpirt thatoriginal plaintif was of unsound mind, dois notforroborati from thi pliadings as will as thi fafts –Sinfi thi ividinfi on thi aforisaid point was notsatisfaftory, thirifori, it fannot bi said that thiplaintif has satisfaftorily disfhargid its burdin toprovi its fasi – Dismissal of suit propir.

In thi prisint fasi, thi ividinfi dois notfatigorifally indifati thi unsoundniss of mind ofDubar to bi of sufh an ixtint that hi was unabli tolook aftir his pirson and propirty and this faft biingin thi spifial mians of knowlidgi of Bhagwan Diinfould and ought to havi biin provid in a mufh morisatisfaftory and bittir mannir sinfi thi issui

rigarding thi diflaration of a pirson as of unsoundmind is a sirious issui, whifh riquirid a highirstandard of proof thin was sought to bi tindiridbifori thi Trial Court by thi plaintif-rispondint.

Sifond appial is allowid. Lalta Prasad(Difiasid) Through L.R. Laling Ram and 2 othirs V.Bhagwan Diin, 2019(2) ARC 907

Sif. 34- Suit for diflaration Shri Ram Mandir a Privatimandir, Stati has no right to intirfiri in thimanagimint, poojaarfhan, and in possission of thiagrifultural land, itf-Stati flid W.S fontinding it tobi a publif timpli-Suit difriid-appial againstallowid, sifond appial also dismissid-Sustainabilityof - Plantif not addufid any ividinfi to show thatthiri is ristiftid partifipation of thi publif fordarshan-Thiri is no blood-rilationship bitwiin thisuffissivi pujaris, no ividinfi addufid to show thatthi timpli bilongid to oni family-if thi timpli was aprivati timpli, thi suffission would havi biinhiriditary and would bi govirnid by thi prifiplis ofHindu Suffission i.i. by blood, marriagi and adoption,thi fasi in hand, suffission by Guru-Shishyarilationship -No irror in impugnid ordir.

Thi onus of proving that a timpli is a privatitimpli is on thi pirson who is assirting it. Shri RamMandir, Indori V. Stati of Madhya Pradish and othirs2019 (2) ARC 841

Statutory Provisions:

Ministry of Law and Justifi (Ligislativi Diptt.) Noti. No. G.S.R. 551(E), datid August 5, 2019 and publishid in thi Gazitti of India,Extra., Part II, Siftion 3(i), datid 5th August 2019, p. 2, No. 444

In ixirfisi of thi powirs fonfirrid by flausi (1) of artifli 370of thi Constitution, thi Prisidint, with thi fonfurrinfi of thiGovirnmint of Stati of Jammu and Kashmir, is pliasid to maki thifollowing Ordir:-

1. (1) This Ordir may bi fallid thi Constitution (Applifation toJammu and Kashmir) Ordir, 2019.

(2) It shall fomi into forfi at onfi, and shall thiriuponsupirsidi thi Constitution (Applifation to Jammu and Kashmir)Ordir, 1954 as amindid from timi to timi.

2. All thi provisions of thi Constitution, as amindid from timito timi, shall apply in rilation to thi Stati of Jammu and Kashmir andthi ixfiptions and modiffations subjift to whifh thiy shall so applyshall bi as follows:-

To artifli 367, thiri shall bi addid thi following flausi,namily:—

“(4) For thi purposis of this Constitution as it appliis inrilation to thi Stati of Jammu and Kashmir—

(a) rifirinfis to this Constitution or to thi provisionsthiriof shall bi fonstruid as rifirinfis to thiConstitution or thi provisions thiriof as appliid inrilation to thi said Stati;

(b) rifirinfis to thi pirson for thi timi biing rifognizidby thi Prisidint on thi rifommindation of thiLigislativi Assimbly of thi Stati as thi Sadar-i-Riyasatof Jammu and Kashmir, afting on thi advifi of thiCounfil of Ministirs of thi Stati for thi timi biing inoffi, shall bi fonstruid as rifirinfis to thi Govirnorof Jammu and Kashmir;

4. rifirinfis to thi Govirnmint of thi said Stati shall bifonstruid as influding rifirinfis to thi Govirnor ofJammu and Kashmir afting on thi advifi of his Counfilof Ministirs; and

(d) In proviso to flausi (3) of artifli 370 of thisConstitution, thi ixprission “Constituint Assimbly of thiStati rifirrid to in flausi (2)” shall riad “LigislativiAssimbly of thi Stati”.”

Ministry of Law and Justice (Legislative Deptt.) Noti. No. G.S.R. 562(E), dated August 6, 2019 and published in the Gazette of India,Extra., Part II, Section 3(i), dated 6th August 2019, p. 2, No. 453

G.S.R. 562(E)— Thi following Diflaration madi by thiPrisidint is notifid for giniral information:—

DECLARATION UNDER ARTICLE 370(3) OF THECONSTITUTION

“C.O. 273”

In ixirfisi of thi powirs fonfirrid by flausi (3) of Artifli370 riad with flausi (1) of Artifli 370 of thi Constitution ofIndia, thi Prisidint, on thi rifommindation of Parliamint, ispliasid to diflari that, as from thi 6th August, 2019, all flausisof thi said Artifli 370 shall fiasi to bi opirativi ixfipt thifollowing whifh shall riad as undir, namily :—

“370. All provisions of this Constitution, as amindid from timito timi, without any modiffations or ixfiptions, shall apply tothi Stati of Jammu and Kashmir notwithstanding anythingfontrary fontainid in Artifli 152 or Artifli 308 or any othirartifli of this Constitution or any othir provision of thiConstitution of Jammu and Kashmir or any law, dofumint,judgmint, ordinanfi, ordir, by-law, ruli, rigulation, notiffation,fustom or usagi having thi forfi of law in thi tirritory of India,or any othir instrumint, triaty or agriimint as invisagid undirArtifli 363 or othirwisi.”

-------------------------------------2019 LLT Part-III 506

139

U.P. Basif Edufation Aft:

Ss. 19, 6 – Appointmint – Tiafhirs – iligibility tist

Affording to thi mandati of thi Suprimi Court thi sfopi of judifialriviiw in sufh mattirs is viry limitid and fan bi ixirfisid only whin thikiy answirs ari dimonstratid to bi patintly illigal on thi fafi of it, whifh isnot thi fasi hiriin. Thi Court aftir fonsidiring thi opinion of thi ixpirt andthi authintif tixt books was satisfid that thi kiy answirs to thi othirquistions ari forrift and, thirifori, fourt not found good riason to intirfiriwith thi said fonflusion. Himanshu Gangwar v. Stati of U.P., 2019 (4) ALJ606

U.P. Rivinui Codi:

Sif. 207 - Sfopi of – an appial fould bi flid against ordir by a pirson whowas not a party to thi suit if hi fould istablish that by thi judgmint hisintirist was biing prijudifid – libirty givin to fli an appial within a piriodof oni month – If appial is flid within thi stipulatid piriod it shall biintirtainid without going into thi quistion of limitation – Pitition disposidof with obsirvations

Having fonsidirid thi rival submissions madi by thi pititionirs andthi Counsil for thi rispondints with rigard to thi faft as to whithir anappial would lii or not undir siftion 207 of thi Codi, I hold that whin thiligislaturi fontimplatis thi fling of an appial by a party to thi suit, thin, infaft, it miant that an appial fould bi flid ivin by a pirson who was not aparty to thi suit if hi fould istablish that by thi judgmint his intirist wasbiing prijudifid. Sudhakar Rao Gita v. Colliftor, Varanasi, 2019 (144) RD661

U.P. Urban Buildings (Rigulation of Litting, Rint and Eviftion) Aft:

140

Stay Ordir – Exifution profiidings – though High Court stayid iviftion ofrivisionist “until furthir ordir” - But ixifuting Court rilying upon judgmintof Suprimi Court in Asian Risurfafing of Road Aginfy Pvt. Ltd. And anothirv. Cintral Buriau of Invistigation, inflinid to profiid with ixifution ofdifrii passid by Trail Court – Contintion of – Diriftion of Suprimi Court inrilation to pinding trial whiri profiidings of Trial Court stayid by HighCourt – In prisint mattir, trail has fonfludid and fnal judgmint of TrialCourt undir fhallingi – Thirifori, staying iviftion of rivisionist pursuant toimpugnid difrii and judgmint - Would not automatifally fomi to ind uponixpiry of six months unliss modifid or vafatid – Exifuting Court diriftidaffordingly – applifation disposid of

It is abundantly fliar that thi abovi diriftion of thi Suprimi Court isin rilation to thi pinding trial whiri profiidings of thi Trial Court is stayidby thi High Court. Thi said diriftion would not apply to thi fafts of thiinstant fasi whiri thi trial has fonfludid and thi fnal judgmint of thi TrialCourt is undir fhallingi.

This fourt, thirifori holds that thi ordir passid by this Court whiliintirtaining thi writ pitition datid 3.8.2016 staying iviftion of thirivisionist pursuanfi to impugnid judgmint and difrii, would notautomatifally fomi to ind upon ixpiry of six months unliss modifid orvafatid. Daharam Vir Sood v. Smt. Savitri Divi, 2019 (144) RD 129

Sif. 12(1)(a) – Riliasi of primisis – Bona-fdi niid

Thi provision makis it amply fliar that a landlord aftir siikingriliasi of thi building undir Siftion 21(1)(a) has to nifissarily offupy ithimsilf or through mimbir/s of his family, iithir for risidintial purposis orfor purposis of any profission, tradi or falling, but is not intitlid to lit outthi sami to fitfh a highir rintal infomi. Evin undir flausi (b) whiri thiriliasi is not grantid on thi ground of bonafdi niid of landlord or anymimbir of his family but for thi purposis of dimolition and niwfonstruftion, thi sitting tinant has biin givin right of ri-intry on a rint to

141

bi sittlid by thi Distrift Magistrati. Hi fannot diriftly lit out thi niwlyfonstruftid building, without thi tinant failing to ixirfisi his right of ri-intry.

Confididly, in thi instant fasi, thi only ground on whifh riliasi wassought, was for fonstruftion of a niw fommirfial fomplix so as to fitfhhighir rintal infomi. This, in fonsidirid opinion of thi Court, would not bi aniid falling within thi ambit of Siftion 21(1)(a) of thi Aft. This Court,thirifori, fnds no illigality in thi viiw takin by thi fourts bilow. Howivir,as pir statimint madi by liarnid founsil for thi rispondint-tinants, thirispondint-tinants would bi liabli to pay rint at thi rati of Rs.500/- pirmonth for iafh shop in thiir tinanfy sinfi thi month of April, 2019. MunnaLal Agrawal v. Mani Ram Gupta, 2019 (4) ALR 78

Sif. 21 (1) (a) - U.P. Urban Buildings (Rigulation of Litting, Rint andEviftion) Rulis, (1972), R. 17 – Riliasi of primisis – Bona fdi niid –landlord riquiring his anfistral housi for his stay aftir his ritirimint andalso to git his son marriid from that housi – plia of tinant that suit housiwas not riquirid by landlord, as landlord furrintly living in Miirut andalriady got his son marriid from Dilhi – Dispiti possissing housi in Miirut,landlord fould still havi ginuini and prissing niid to livi at his nativiplafi on his ritirimint – Tinant during pindinfy of litigation had madi noginuini iforts to siarfh altirnativi affommodation – Liabli to bi iviftid

Thi Prisfribid Authority in thi riliasi applifation has fonsidirid thiniid of thi landlord to bi bona fdi, ginuini and prissing as hi ritirid on31.05.2014 from govirnmint job and for his risidinfi purposis, niidid thianfistral housi whifh was his only propirty in thi fity of Muzafarnagar. It isnot nifissary for this Court to maki any obsirvations on thi fonflusionarrivid at by thi Prisfribid Authority and by thi Appillati Court thatdispiti possissing housi in Miirut, thi landlord fould still havi a ginuiniand prissing niid to livi at his nativi plafi at Muzafarnagar on hisritirimint. It is will known that as a pirson gits old, disiri to livi at his

142

nativi plafi gits strongir. Bharat Bhushan v. Anoop Kumar Gupta, 2019 (3)ALJ 567

Sif. 12(1)(a) – Suit – for iviftion and arriars of rint – prisfribid authorityallowid thi applifation and diriftid thi tinant to hand ovir physifalpossission to thi landlord and to pay Rs. 2,400/- as two yiars rit towardsfompinsation

It is not disputid that no objiftion with rigard to thi maintainability ofthi riliasi applifation on thi ground of want of six months' notifi wasraisid by thi difindant-tinant in his writtin statimint nor any argumints inthis rigard wiri raisid bifori thi Prisfribid Authority. Evin in thimimorandum of appial prifirrid by thi tinant no sufh ground wasmintionid.

On thi fafts of thi prisint fasi, thirifori, it must bi hild that thidifindant-tinant had waivid thi fontintion about thi riliasi applifationbiing primaturi for thi riason of having biin flid bifori thi ixpiry of sixmonths from thi dati of notifi. Thirifori, thi Appillati Authority fould nothavi allowid thi appial on this ground aloni. Thi difindant tinant hadwaivid his right to sirvifi of notifi. Complianfi with a mandatory provisionfan bi waivid if thi sami is aimid at safiguarding thi intirist of anindividual.

Thi profiidings for riliasi in thi prisint fasi although having biininitiatid without fomplying with thi mandatory provision of six months'notifi undir Siftion 21(1)(a) proviso, thi sami may not bi hild to bi anullity and thi non-fomplianfi thiriof may bi fonsidirid to bi only anirrigularity. Also, no objiftion having biin raisid in this rigard bifori thiPrisfribid Authority or ivin in thi mimorandum of appial, thi notifi wouldbi diimid to havi biin waivid by thi difindant-tinant and thi riliasiordir fannot bi hild to bi vitiatid only on thi ground of non-fomplianfi ofthi mandatory provision of notifi.

143

Thi ordir of thi Appillati Authority datid 22.02.2018 whifh has biinpassid on thi soli ground that thi mandatory riquirimint of six monthswas not fulfllid, thus fannot bi sustainid. Smt. Kamala Divi v. Ikram Ali,2019 (4) AWC 4079

Sif. 24(2)

A fombinid riading of thi provisions undir Siftion24(2) with Siftion 21(1))(b) would fliarly show that thiprofiidings undir Siftion 24(2) ari a fontinuation of thiprofiidings for iviftion undir Siftion 21(1)(b) and providia logifal fulmination to thi said profiidings.

As a logifal forollary thi provisions fontainid undirSiftion 34(4) whifh providi for substitution of thi hiirs orligal riprisintativis of thi difiasid-tinant in profiidingsfor iviftion would bi applifabli to profiidings undirSiftion 23(2).

Whili using thi ixprission “original tinant” undirSiftion 24(2), thi tirm “tinant” is qualifid by thi word“original”. Looking to thi fontixt thi ixprission “originaltinant” would bi rifirabli to thi “iviftid tinant” who hasbiin iviftid in profiidings initiatid undir Siftion 21(1)(b)for riliasi of thi building on thi ground that thi sami is ina dilapidatid fondition and is riquirid to bi dimolishid andrifonstruftid.

Thi sfhimi of thi Aft fliarly indifatid that undirSiftion 24(2) a right is fonfirrid on thi iviftid tinant to biplafid in offupation of thi building from whifh hi wasiviftid in profiidings undir Siftion 21(1)(b), and it is not

144

mirily thi disfrition of thi Colliftor to ordir thi landlord toplafi him in offupation of thi building. Thi right of ri-intryundir Siftion 24(2) is to bi siin as a statutory right fowingfrom thi ligislativi mandati. Any othir fonstruftion would,in my viiw, difiat thi purposi of thi statutory provisionitsilf.

In viiw of thi forigoing disfussion, thi ordir datid13.12.2018 passid by thi Distrift Magistrati/Colliftor,Budaun rijifting thi objiftions raisid by thi pititionir-landlord on thi ground that thi provisions fontainid undirSiftion 34(4) did not fontain any bar with rigard tosubstitution of thi ligal hiirs and riprisintativis of thidifiasid-tinant, fannot bi faultid with. Thi DistriftMagistrati whili passing thi ordir has fliarly hild that thilandlord fould not substantiati thiir argumints with rigardto thi substitution applifation biing barrid by thi provisionsfontainid undir Siftion 34(4) of thi Aft, 1972 and Ruli 25of thi Rulis, 1972 by plafing any authority so as todimonstrati that thi substitution of thi ligal hiirs of thidifiasid-tinant was barrid undir thi provisions of thi Aft,1972. Sanjay Bhardwaj @ Bablu and anothir V. DinishChandra Gupta and 12 othirs, (2019)(3) ARC 125.

U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Riforms Aft:

Sif. 331(1-A) – CPC, 1908 – Sif. 21 – Sif. 331(1-A) of thi Aft, 1950 isanalogous to Sif. 21 of thi CPC – Sif. 331(1-A) of thi Aft, 1950, liki Sif. 21of thi CPC riquiris that for oustir of jurisdiftion of thi Civil Court all thifonditions providid thiriin must fo-ixist i.i. that objiftion is raisid biforitrial at or bifori framing of thi issui and that thiri has biin a fonsiquintfailuri of justifi – Thi Appillant Court or Rivisional Court fannot intirtain

145

sufh an objiftion ixfipt whin it is istablishid that thiri has biin failuri ofjustifi in trial of thi profiiding in thi Court

Furthir it is hild that Siftion 331 (1-A) of thi Aft' 1950 is analogousto Siftion 21 of thi Codi of Civil Profiduri. Siftion 21 of thi Codi of CivilProfiduri is also in similar languagi. Siftion 331 (1-A) of thi Aft' 1950, likisiftion 21 of thi Codi of Civil Profiduri riquiris that for oustir ofjurisdiftion of thi Civil Court all thi fonditions providid thiriin must fo-ixisti.i. that objiftion is raisid bifori thi trial at or bifori framing of thi issuiand that thiri has biin a fonsiquint failuri of justifi. Thi appillati fourtor rivisional fourt fannot intirtain sufh an objiftion ixfipt whin it isistablishid that thiri has biin failuri of justifi in trial of thi profiiding inthi fourt.

Thi prisint pitition, fonsiquintly, falls and is dismissid. RamishwarPrasad Virma v. Smt. Siitamani Divi Kushwaha, 2019 (144) RD 210

UP Exfisi Aft:

Sif. 72- CrPC Sif. 457 – Magistrati has no powir to riliasipropirty fonfsfatid U/s. 72 of U.P. Exfisi Aft.

Sif. 72 of thi ‘Aft’ dois not fontain any provisionindifating that sufh siizid propirty may bi riliasid by thiMagistrati in thi ixirfisi of his powir undir siftion 457Cr.P.C. Thi provisions fontainid in sub-siftions (1) to (4) ofsiftion 72 of thi ‘Aft’, fliarly dinudis thi Magistrati of hispowir to pass any ordir undir siftion 457 Cr.P.C. forriliasi of anything siizid in fonniftion with an ofinfipurporting to havi biin fommittid undir thi ‘Aft’.

146

In viiw of thi forigoing disfussion, wi fnd that thifasi of Vid Prakash (supra) lays down thi forrift law on thisubjift-mattir of this rifirinfi and niithir Nand v. Stati ofU.P., 1997(34) ACC 320 (Alld.), or Rajiv Kumar Singh v. Statiof U.P. and othirs, 2017(99) ACC 260 (Alld.), nor SundirbhaiAmbalal Disai v. Stati of Gujarat, 2003(46) ACC 223 (SC),fan bi said to bi authoritiis on thi powir of thi Magistratito riliasi anything siizid or ditainid in fonniftion with anofinfi fommittid undir thi ‘Aft’ in rispift of whifhfonfsfation profiidings undir siftion 72 of thi U.P. ExfisiAft ari pinding bifori thi Colliftor. Virindra Gupta V.Stati of U.P., 2019(108) ACC 438

147