#criminal appeal

The Gujarat High Court held that conditions for suspending sentence in Section 138 NI Act appeals cannot be imposed mechanically, quashing a Sessions Court order mandating 100% cheque amount deposit. The Court substituted this with a 20% deposit and an undertaking to attend hearings, aligning with Section 148 NI Act's framework. This ruling protects appellants from oppressive pre-conditions while ensuring the complainant's interim relief.

The Gujarat HC held that a Section 138 NI Act complainant is a victim with a right to appeal acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC, without needing leave under Section 378(4). Following the Supreme Court’s Celestium Financial ruling, this lets complainants challenge acquittals directly before the Sessions Court.

The Supreme Court held that a statutory demand notice delivered to the correct address raises a presumption of service under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and that receipt of such notice by a family member residing at the same address does not rebut that presumption. The ruling restores the conviction of the accused for cheque dishonour and clarifies service requirements for NI Act prosecutions.

The Court held that the 20% deposit under Section 148 NI Act is directory, not mandatory. It set aside the non-speaking order and remanded for a fresh waiver application to be decided within 15 days by a reasoned speaking order.

Judges in Assam Nagaland Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh will treat medical treatment related FIR delays as non fatal in POCSO trials and defence teams must be prepared to rebut the Section 29 presumption to secure acquittal.

The Gauhati High Court held that an unexamined school admission register cannot establish a victim’s minority and that ossification test results must be interpreted with a two-year margin in favour of the accused. Consequently, the accused was acquitted under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, clarifying the evidentiary burden for age proof in POCSO prosecutions.

The Orissa High Court reduced a murder conviction to culpable homicide under Section 304 Part II IPC, holding that Section 301 IPC's transferred malice does not upgrade the offence when the unintended victim dies. The ruling clarifies that murder requires intent towards the actual victim, narrowing constructive liability in homicide cases.

The Supreme Court held dock identification is substantive evidence while TIP is merely corroborative, acquitting a POCSO accused due to contradictory medical timelines and investigation lapses. The decision underscores that convictions cannot rely solely on TIP without reliable dock identification backed by consistent medical proof.

Uttarakhand HC held that the 20% fine-deposit under Section 148 NI Act may be lowered to Rs 10,000 for appellants facing extreme financial hardship. The reduced deposit is conditioned on the appeal being heard on its merits, creating discretionary relief for indigent defendants.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that an acquittal cannot be set aside on the basis of a new investigation report, reaffirming the double-jeopardy protection of Section 300 CrPC and limiting the court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482. This safeguards accused persons from being retried after a lawful acquittal.

The Supreme Court struck down an ex parte externment order for breaching the mandatory notice and hearing provision of Section 8 of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, reaffirming natural-justice safeguards. The ruling bars authorities from imposing exile without prior notice, protecting individuals facing such orders across Chhattisgarh.

The Supreme Court ruled that a caste-based insult must be uttered in a place visible to the public to attract liability under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act. Consequently, charges were dismissed where the alleged abuse occurred in a private office. This clarifies the public-view test for all future SC/ST Act prosecutions.

A magistrate’s denial of a Section 156(3) application does not amount to a conclusive decision, so it cannot invoke res judicata to block FIR registration. This ensures police can proceed with investigations even after an initial refusal, affecting complainants and law-enforcement agencies alike.

Chhattisgarh HC ruled that an unauthorised company secretary cannot testify in a Section 138 case and a complaint filed via power of attorney is void if the authorised representative fails to appear. The judgment stresses that firms must secure proper corporate authorisation before filing cheque-bounce suits, affecting companies and their legal officers.

The Supreme Court acquitted the appellants, holding that the evidence supports accidental drowning rather than intentional homicide, and therefore quashed the life sentences imposed under IPC 302, 34, 201 and 120B. This ruling underscores that a plausible drowning scenario defeats a murder conviction, impacting future cases involving similar factual circumstances.