🏛️ DELHI HIGH COURT

Acquittal of accused in case under Sections 366 and 376 IPC due to prosecution’s failure to prove age of prosecutrix conclusively and material inconsistencies in her statements

Sections 366 and 376 IPC Allegation of abduction and rape – Prosecutrix’s age crucial for determining minority – Trial court relied on unproved photocopy of birth certificate – Ossification test indicated age between 18 to 19 years, creating doubt regarding minority of prosecutrix – Court held reliance on unproved birth certificate amounts to error in law. [Paras 8 to 9, 15]

RELEVANT PARAS :

8. In the present case, having gone through the records of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Trial Court has failed to render a categorical finding regarding the age of the prosecutrix, which was a material aspect in the present case. It is noted that only a photocopy of the birth certificate was placed on record, which neither stood proved in accordance with law nor could be relied upon as admissible evidence to establish the age of the prosecutrix conclusively. On the other hand, the ossification test report, which forms part of the judicial record, has categorically opined that the prosecutrix was between 18 to 19 years of age at the relevant time.

9. In such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that it was incumbent upon the learned Trial Court to have recorded a clear and reasoned finding regarding the age of the prosecutrix, particularly when dealing with offences under Sections 366 and 376 of the IPC, where the minority of the prosecutrix is a material consideration. Though the learned Trial Court proceeded to observe that even if the age of the prosecutrix is taken as between 18 to 19 years, the same would be immaterial, this Court finds such reasoning to be unsustainable in law. The age of the prosecutrix, especially in cases alleging inducement or abduction, is a relevant and determinative factor. In the absence of any other reliable documentary proof of age, the ossification test report constitutes the best available evidence before the learned Trial Court, and due weight ought to have been accorded to the same while adjudicating the present matter.

15. Having considered the overall facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Trial Court erred in placing reliance upon the birth certificate of the prosecutrix, which was neither produced by the Investigating Agency during the course of investigation, nor seized in accordance with law, nor proved through any admissible evidence. The record is conspicuously silent as to how the said document came to be placed on record, particularly when it was neither filed by the parents of the prosecutrix nor produced by the prosecution through any witness. The birth certificate relied upon by the learned Trial Court was admittedly a mere photocopy, unaccompanied by any seizure memo or supporting testimony establishing its authenticity. In such circumstances, reliance on an unproved document to determine the age of the prosecutrix amounts to an error in law.

TO READ THE JUDGMENT CLICK HERE 

JUDGMENT DELHI HIGH COURT THE LAW LITERATES

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED (ADV VAIBHAV TOMAR)

🏛️ SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Section 138 of the NI ACT Act is maintainable, even in the absence of a partnership firm being named as an accused. It also stated that if the partners of the partnership firm are proceeded against, they are jointly and severally liable, along with the partnership firm, as well as inter se, the partners of the firm Court allowed an appeal filed by Dhanasingh Prabhu against the Madras High Court’s judgment of February 26, 2024, which quashed a complaint filed against respondents Chandrasekar and another under Section 138 of the NI Act with regard to dishonour of a cheque issued to repay a debt of Rs 21 lakh

9.1 Section 138 of the Act creates an offence for dishonour of a cheque for, inter alia, insufficiency of funds in the account by a deeming fiction. The complainant who is a victim of the dishonour of cheque issued by an accused has the right to file a private complaint in terms of Section 200 of the CrPC, (equivalent to Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik  Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”)). When the said  offence is proved against an individual/natural person, he is punished with imprisonment for a term which may be extended to two years or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque. But when such an offence is  committed by a company, which is an artificial juristic entity,
Section 141 of the Act applies. The said Section states that if the person committing an offence under Section 138 of the Act is a company, every person who at the time the offence was committed was in charge of, and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. Since an artificial juristic entity such as a company cannot be punished with imprisonment, by a deeming fiction certain persons associated with such an artificial juristic entity are deemed to be guilty of the offence and made liable to be proceeded against and punished
accordingly. This is an instance of vicarious liability on every person who, at the time the offence was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company. This is for the reason that a company is a separate entity vis-à-vis its shareholders or those who are in charge of the conduct of its business since a company is an artificial juristic entity. Thus, the liability would be on the company as well as on the category of persons mentioned above. Such a person must be both in charge of, as well as responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business of the company. However, the aforesaid category of person who is deemed to be guilty of the offence along with the company, can escape punishment (i) if he can prove that the offence was committed without his knowledge; or (ii) that he had exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such an offence. Hence, by way of a proviso to sub-section (1) to Section 141 of the Act, two defences are provided for the category of persons named in sub-section (1) of Section 141.

Consequently, the impugned order of the High Court is set aside. The complaint bearing STC No.1106/2022 is restored on the file of the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Pollachi. The trial court is directed to dispose of the complaint in accordance with law.

to view the judgment kindly click here:

Partners Can Be Prosecuted Under Section 138 NI Act Without Naming the Firm, Says Supreme Court – The Law Literates – Judgment

In the latest development in the field of law, the High court of Allahabad remarked on the rising professional misconduct on the part of lawyers as many lawyers do not show up for their listed cases in the court. The remarks came from the court while hearing the criminal bail application in the matter of Smt. Pooja Vs State of U.P. where the Counsel for Applicant: – Anil Kumar Shukla and Counsel for Opposite Party: – G.A.,Sunil Kumar Upadhyay, where no one was present on behalf of the applicant to press the bail application even in the revised list. Court’s Observation on Advocates’ Non-Appearance “It is observed by this Court that advocates are not appearing in majority of listed cases that too on multiple dates. Non-appearance of the counsel for the applicant amounts to professional misconduct. It also tantamount to bench hunting or forum shopping.” Bench of Justice Krishan Pahal made the remarks while hearing the proceeding.

The court cited the stance taken in judgement of the Supreme Court in Ishwarlal Mali Rathod v. Gopal, (2021) 12 SCC 612, where it was categorically held that courts shall not grant the adjournments in routine manner and mechanically and shall not be a party to cause for delay in dispensing the justice.

Need for Timely Action and Accountability
The bench also highlighted that the courts have to be diligent and take timely action against all those at default including advocates, parties to the proceeding who are important for the disputed matter, in order to usher in efficient justice dispensation system and maintain faith in rule of law. Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal underlined that it is the professional obligation of advocates to be present in court whenever their matters are scheduled for hearing. Failure to appear not only prejudices the interests of the clients but also results in unnecessary waste of the court’s valuable time and obstructs the smooth delivery of justice. The Court observed that such absence on the part of lawyers amounts to a breach of professional standards and ethical duties and according to the Bar Council of India Rules, it is mandatory for advocates to attend court proceedings when required, repeated non-appearance may be treated as professional misconduct warranting disciplinary proceedings.
Outcome of the Case

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances the Court declined to entertain the bail application. The application was accordingly rejected.

Conclusion – Curbing Misuse of Judicial Time The resources available to the Court, especially valuable judicial time, are limited and already under immense strain. Time that should be devoted to resolving serious and genuine disputes gets consumed by frivolous, baseless cases that
misuse the legal process. Given that the judicial system does not have unlimited capacity to deliver timely justice to those with legitimate claims, Courts while hearing this case have rightly emphasized that such unwarranted misuse of judicial time must be checked. Parties who indulge in wasting the Court’s scarce resources should be made to compensate not only the opposing party but also the justice system itself.
Case Name –Smt. Pooja vs. State of U.P 2025
Other Relevant Judgement
Ashwani Kumar Srivastava v. D. Sen Gupta (2008)
In this case the division bench clearly emphasized that advocates, as officers of the Court, have a duty not only towards the Court but also towards their clients. They are expected to ensure that cases are pursued and decided without unnecessary delays so that justice is delivered promptly. The Court highlighted that judicial time is extremely valuable because it belongs to the public. It must be used wisely for hearing matters that genuinely deserve the Court’s attention and should be decided at the earliest possible opportunity. Justice must reach those who truly need it without undue delay. Unfortunately, when the Court’s time is taken up by frivolous and baseless cases, it reduces the time available for genuine disputes. This misuse of judicial resources denies real litigants the timely relief they deserve. The Court called upon members of the Bar to act responsibly and discourage unnecessary and bogus litigation. Lawyers should advise their clients not to file
cases that lack merit and should refuse to participate in such matters. By doing so, the burden on the courts will reduce, allowing deserving litigants to receive justice faster. This will strengthen the institution and help the judiciary fulfil its constitutional responsibility to deliver justice where it is genuinely needed.
Harish Uppal vs Union of India & Anr
In Harish Uppal, the Supreme Court held that lawyers do not have the right to go on strike or give a call for boycott. The Court declared that such actions amount to professional misconduct, as they disrupt the administration of justice and deny clients their right to be represented.
The Bench remarked that every Court has a solemn duty to proceed with the judicial business during Court hours and the Court is not obliged to adjourn a case because of a strike call. The Court is under an obligation to hear and decide cases brought before it and it cannot shirk that obligation on the ground that the advocates are on strike. If the counsel or/and the party does not appear, the necessary consequences contemplated in law should follow.

Written By : Aryan Srivastava, LC1, Faculty of Law, DU

all rights reserved (Adv Vaibhav Tomar)

At the outset

The recent conflict between lawyers and police officers within the court premises of Kerala has sparked a crucial judicial discourse on preserving the dignity of legal institutions and the rights of individuals. What began as a violent altercation in the Alappuzha District Court complex has evolved into a significant legal matter, prompting Suo moto intervention by the Kerala High Court. As the judiciary seeks to establish protocols to prevent such incidents in the future, this case underscores the urgent need to safeguard constitutional rights and maintain harmony between two essential pillars of justice, the Bar and the Police.

Background

In an unprecedented turn of events over the period of months many things happened after conflict took place between the lawyers and the police which occurred inside the Alappuzha District Court complex where an Advocate, Gopakumar Pandavath, was reportedly attacked by police officers within the premises of the Ramankary Magistrate Court in Alappuzha on September 9, allegedly in retaliation to an altercation that began outside. The act of violence by the police authorities brought widespread condemnation from the Kerala High Court Advocates’ Association (KHCAA) demanding judicial intervention and asking strict actions against the police involved in
the act of violence.

After the incident the Kerala High Court took Suo moto cognizance of the matter, framing it not as a mere disciplinary concern but as a threat to the sanctity of legal institutions. “The courtroom must never be a battleground,” the Court noted in its preliminary remarks.

Committee for Reconciliation

Over the weeks of hearing, the matter again came to limelight on 9 June 2025 when the Kerala High Court constituted committee to suggest guidelines to improve the relationship between lawyer and police amid the ongoing tussle. The committee comprised of Kerala Advocate General K Gopalakrishna Kurup, Director General of Prosecution TA Shaji, Senior Advocates Santhosh Mathew and S Sreekumar and KHCAA President Yeshwanth Shenoy.

Oral Remarks by the Division bench – caution against mechanical arrests Fast forward to 2 July, the Kerala High court while hearing the matter, Division Bench of Dr. Justice A. K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice P. M. Manoj made oral remarks
to committee members urging the committee that there should be general guidelines regarding the protocols to be followed in the situations when the conflict, such as in this case where two police officer assaulted a lawyer, occurs inside the court premise.
The court also remarked that the sanctity of the court must be kept with the utmost dignity and respect. The court further stated that the guidelines should not only address situations where a lawyer is the accused, but it should also involve the situation when any accused
person engages in an altercation in the presence of a lawyer. In such cases, police should listen and consider to what the lawyer of the accused has to say for the incident. Emphasizing the importance of dignity in policing the court cautioned against mechanical arrests. The Court observed that neither law enforcement officers nor lawyers are above constitutional norms, and what is needed is not assertion of power but assertion of principles.

Conclusion
The oral remarks made by the Division bench of Kerala High court highlights the importance of Article 14, Article 20, Article 21, Article 22 and necessity to protect and respect the Right of Personal life and liberty of Every individual including the lawyers. Through its ongoing Suo motu proceedings, the Kerala High Court is doing far more than responding to a single episode of violence, it is reshaping the way institutions relate to each other within the justice system. This initiative reflects a proactive model of judicial leadership that moves beyond resolving disputes to nurture institutional harmony and respect for individual dignity. As the proceedings unfold, the Court’s July 2 observations offer a powerful reminder that the practice of law is not just about enforcing rules but it is about nurturing relationships. And the relationship between lawyers and police must be grounded in mutual respect, responsibility, and a common commitment to justice.

All rights reserved. 

Vaibhav Tomar (Adv)

Megha Verma (Adv)

Supreme Court has observed that the relief of specific performance of a contract cannot be granted in the absence of a clear title. The Court was considering an appeal filed by the Defendant in a suit for Specific Performance of a contract. The Trial Court had dismissed the suit. The first Appellate Court allowed the appeal of the plaintiff and decreed the suit. The High Court dismissed the second appeal filed by the appellant.

Registered But Not Owned? The Supreme Court Just Redefined Property Ownership in India

Introduction: The Illusion of Ownership

In India, owning property has always been seen as a symbol of security, success, and stability. Families invest their life savings, sign off on long and expensive sale agreements, and finally breathe a sigh of relief once their property is registered. That moment, when the registrar stamps the sale deed, feels like the finish line.

But what if I told you that having a registered deed does not actually make you the owner? Sounds shocking, right? Yet, that is exactly what the Supreme Court of India has clarified in a game-changing verdict in 2025 and as a practicing lawyer, I believe this may be one of the most important reminders in decades about the legal meaning of ownership.

The Case That Sparked It All

The matter before the court wasn’t new. A cooperative society had sold parcels of land to various individuals through registered sale deeds. The buyers, relying on those documents, believed they had legally become the owners. Their names were on papers, the registration was complete what could possibly go wrong?

Plenty, as it turned out.

The society that executed those transfers did not have a clean title to begin with. It never lawfully acquired the land, and there was no proper chain of title. The purchasers had the form the registration but not the substance: no valid origin of ownership, and no legitimate possession. The issue reached the doors of the apex court, and what followed was a ruling that turned conventional understanding on its head.

What the Supreme Court Held

In its verdict, the Supreme Court ruled in no uncertain terms that registration of a property document does not by itself confer ownership. The act of registering a sale deed or agreement is merely a procedural requirement under the Registration Act of 1908. It creates public notice and admissibility in evidence, but not title in itself.

Ownership, the Court emphasised, is a legal status that arises only when the transferor has a valid title to the property and has lawfully delivered possession to the transferee. Without this, a registered document becomes just a piece of paper legally ineffective and incapable of standing up in court.

This clarity is crucial. It distinguishes between registration as a legal formality and title as a substantive legal right. The Court further noted that even the most perfectly drafted and duly stamped deed cannot create rights if the person executing it had no rights to begin with.

Possession: The Silent Hero

Another vital aspect the Court emphasised was the role of possession in determining ownership. In Indian property law, possession isn’t just a physical fact it often carries presumptive legal weight. If a person has been in long, undisputed possession, especially with the knowledge of others, it can even help establish ownership over time (though that’s another discussion involving adverse possession).

But in this case, possession was never properly transferred. The so-called owners had documents, but not the land. And once again, the Court held firm: without lawful possession, ownership is incomplete even if the documents are registered.

Why This Judgment Is a Big Deal

This ruling has far-reaching consequences. For decades, Indian property transactions have operated on the assumption that once a property is registered in someone’s name, they become the owner. For many laypersons and even some practitioners “registry ho gaya” was the end of the story. But legally, this was never the whole truth.

Before this judgment, while courts did expect proof of title and possession, it was rare for ownership to be outright rejected just because the original seller didn’t have a perfect title, especially when registration had taken place. This verdict decisively changes that. It reasserts the need for a valid origin of title, a clear chain of transfer, and actual delivery of possession not just a rubber stamp from the registrar.

How the Law Stood Before — And What’s Changed

Historically, ownership in India was determined by a bundle of rights: title, possession, and the ability to transfer or alienate the property. Registration was always part of the legal process, but never a complete proof in itself. However, over time, due to the complexity of land records, delays in litigation, and lack of awareness, registration began to be treated as proof of ownership in practice, if not in law.

This judgment re-aligns that practice with legal reality. It reminds everyone from buyers to brokers to bankers that a registered document cannot transfer what never legally existed. The principle of nemo dat quod non habet (no one can transfer what they do not own) is alive and well in Indian jurisprudence.

What It Means for Buyers and Sellers

For buyers, this verdict should sound a warning bell. Before signing that sale deed or transferring funds, it is no longer enough to see a registered document or trust the word of the developer. Buyers must conduct thorough due diligence verify the root of title, examine past transactions, check mutation records, confirm physical possession, and obtain a non-encumbrance certificate. It’s no longer just good practice it’s essential.

For sellers, this judgment calls for honesty and caution. One cannot simply execute a sale deed and hope that registration will mask flaws in their title. If the ownership is unclear, disputed, or under litigation, those facts must be disclosed. Failing to do so could invalidate the entire transaction.

What Lawyers Need to Know

For us, as legal professionals, this judgment is a moment of both caution and opportunity. It raises the bar for legal scrutiny in property transactions. Drafting a good sale deed is no longer enough lawyers must now investigate title, examine possession, and advise clients on real risks.

At the same time, it offers us a chance to reinforce the value of the legal profession in real estate matters. In a field riddled with informal dealings and half-baked documentation, this verdict tells the world: law matters, and you better follow it properly.

Conclusion: More Than a Judgment — A Reset Button

This Supreme Court ruling does not merely interpret a statute it resets the way India views property ownership. It restores faith in legal principles, protects genuine owners, and warns against shortcuts and legal illusions.

As a lawyer, I welcome this decision. It brings clarity in a field that was becoming increasingly murky. It strengthens the rule of law in real estate, where ambiguity often leads to fraud and long-drawn disputes. And most importantly, it reminds everyone whether they’re buying a flat or a farm that ownership is not a matter of paperwork alone. It is a matter of law, possession, and truth.

So next time someone waves a registered deed and says, “This land is mine,” ask them:
“But did you check the title?”

All Rights Reserved (Vaibhav Tomar Adv)