Complaint Case—Offence exclusively triable by Court of Session—Section 244 Cr.P.C.—Inapplicability. Where a complaint discloses offences exclusively triable by the Court of Session, the Magistrate is not required to record prosecution evidence under Section 244 Cr.P.C. before committing the case under Section 209 Cr.P.C. The Magistrate's function at the stage of commitment is confined to statutory compliance and commitment of the case. (Paras 6–13) Section 209 Cr.P.C.—Commitment proceedings—Nature of Magistrate's jurisdiction. The role of the Magistrate at the stage of commitment under Section 209 Cr.P.C. is administrative and ministerial in character. The Magistrate is not expected to undertake an evaluation of the merits of the prosecution case or hold a pre-trial inquiry before committing the case to the Court of Session. (Paras 10–13)

 Case: Neeraj Gupta v. Pardeep Kumar Bansal & Ors.

Citation: 2026 INSC 660 | Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 776 of 2026 | Decided on 01.07.2026.

Headnotes

1. Complaint Case—Offence exclusively triable by Court of Session—Section 244 Cr.P.C.—Inapplicability.
   Where a complaint discloses offences exclusively triable by the Court of Session, the Magistrate is not required to record prosecution evidence under Section 244 Cr.P.C. before committing the case under Section 209 Cr.P.C. The Magistrate's function at the stage of commitment is confined to statutory compliance and commitment of the case. (Paras 6–13)
2. Section 209 Cr.P.C.—Commitment proceedings—Nature of Magistrate's jurisdiction.
   The role of the Magistrate at the stage of commitment under Section 209 Cr.P.C. is administrative and ministerial in character. The Magistrate is not expected to undertake an evaluation of the merits of the prosecution case or hold a pre-trial inquiry before committing the case to the Court of Session. (Paras 10–13)
3. Section 244 Cr.P.C.—Scope.
   Section 244 Cr.P.C. applies only to warrant cases instituted otherwise than on a police report which are triable by a Magistrate. It has no application where the offences are exclusively triable by the Court of Session. (Paras 7–9, 13)
4. Commitment Proceedings—No duplication of evidence.
   Acceptance of the view that prosecution evidence under Section 244 Cr.P.C. must be recorded even in Sessions triable complaint cases would unnecessarily compel witnesses to depose twice regarding the same facts, contrary to the legislative intent of expeditious criminal trials. (Para 9)
5. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973—Legislative scheme—Abolition of elaborate committal inquiry.
   The 1973 Code consciously abolished the elaborate committal inquiry contemplated under the Code of 1898. The Legislature intended to eliminate delay by restricting the Magistrate's role and leaving consideration of evidence and framing of charge to the Sessions Court. (Paras 12–13)
6. Magistrate—No adjudication on merits at commitment stage.
   At the stage of Sections 207 to 209 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate cannot examine the sufficiency of evidence, assess guilt, or determine whether additional accused should be added or excluded. Such questions fall within the jurisdiction of the Sessions Court. (Paras 10–12)
7. High Court—Remand to Magistrate for recording evidence under Section 244 Cr.P.C.—Unsustainable.
   The High Court erred in remanding the matter to the Magistrate for compliance with Section 244 Cr.P.C. The impugned order was set aside as being contrary to the statutory scheme governing commitment of Sessions triable offences. (Paras 13–14)
8. Revision—Challenge to discharge and framing of charge—Remand.
   Upon setting aside the erroneous remand order, the Supreme Court directed the High Court to decide afresh both the complainant's revision challenging discharge of two accused and the revision filed by the accused challenging the framing of charge, independently and expeditiously. (Paras 14–15)

---

Cases Referred

• Ajoy Kumar Ghose v. State of Jharkhand — distinguished; Section 244 applicable to Magistrate-triable warrant cases. (Para 8.1)
• Sunil Mehta v. State of Gujarat — distinguished. (Para 8.3)
• Harinarayan G. Bajaj v. State of Maharashtra — distinguished. (Para 8.2)
• Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab — followed on the limited role of the Magistrate at the commitment stage. (Para 10)
• Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs v. Ashutosh Ghosh — followed; no evidence required before commitment. (Para 11)
• State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi — followed on the legislative object behind Section 209 Cr.P.C. and abolition of committal inquiry. (Para 12.1)
• Rattiram v. State of Madhya Pradesh — followed regarding the restricted role of the Magistrate in commitment proceedings. (Para 12.2)

BNSS—Sections 193(3), 193(8) and 230—Construction. Section 193(3) prescribes the essential contents of the police report; Section 193(8) requires filing of additional copies for supply to the accused; and Section 230 fixes the timeline for furnishing copies. Non-compliance with Section 193(8) or delay in supplying copies under Section 230 does not equate to non-filing of the police report for the purpose of default bail. (Paras 17–23) Default Bail—Right under Article 21—Nature. The right to default bail is an indefeasible statutory right flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution. However, the right is conditional and survives only until a valid police report is filed within the prescribed statutory period. (Paras 20–23) Charge-sheet—Incomplete filing of documents—Effect. Even where all documents relied upon by the prosecution do not accompany the charge-sheet, the police report is not rendered invalid. Such omission neither vitiates the charge-sheet nor revives the right to default bail. (Paras 22–25)

 ase: Shaurya Sunil Kumar Singh v. Central Bureau of Investigation

Citation: 2026 INSC 666 | Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4333 of 2026 | Decided on 01.07.2026.

Headnotes

1. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023—Section 187(3)—Default Bail—Scope.
   The indefeasible right to default bail arises only upon failure of the investigating agency to file the police report/charge-sheet within the prescribed period of sixty or ninety days. Once a charge-sheet complying with Section 193(3) BNSS is filed within the statutory period, the right to default bail stands extinguished. (Paras 19–23, 26)
2. BNSS—Section 193(8)—Non-filing of additional copies of charge-sheet—Effect.
   Failure to file additional indexed copies of the police report and accompanying documents as contemplated under Section 193(8) BNSS does not invalidate the charge-sheet and does not confer any right to default bail under Section 187(3) BNSS. (Paras 21–25, 27)
3. BNSS—Sections 193(3), 193(8) and 230—Construction.
   Section 193(3) prescribes the essential contents of the police report; Section 193(8) requires filing of additional copies for supply to the accused; and Section 230 fixes the timeline for furnishing copies. Non-compliance with Section 193(8) or delay in supplying copies under Section 230 does not equate to non-filing of the police report for the purpose of default bail. (Paras 17–23)
4. Default Bail—Right under Article 21—Nature.
   The right to default bail is an indefeasible statutory right flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution. However, the right is conditional and survives only until a valid police report is filed within the prescribed statutory period. (Paras 20–23)
5. Charge-sheet—Incomplete filing of documents—Effect.
   Even where all documents relied upon by the prosecution do not accompany the charge-sheet, the police report is not rendered invalid. Such omission neither vitiates the charge-sheet nor revives the right to default bail. (Paras 22–25)
6. Interpretation of procedural provisions—Section 193(8) BNSS.
   The requirement to furnish additional copies of the police report under Section 193(8) BNSS is procedural and cannot be construed so as to enlarge the scope of Section 187(3) BNSS relating to default bail. (Paras 23–25)
7. Default Bail—Cognizance taken—Effect.
   Where a charge-sheet complying with Section 193(3) BNSS has been filed within limitation and cognizance has been taken by the competent court, the accused cannot seek default bail on the ground that copies of the charge-sheet were supplied subsequently. (Paras 26–27)
8. Default Bail and Regular Bail—Distinct considerations.
   Consideration of default bail is independent of the merits of the prosecution case. Rejection of default bail does not preclude the accused from seeking regular bail, which must be considered independently on its own merits. (Para 28)

---

Cases Referred

• Saravanan v. State — right to default bail under Article 21. (Para 20)
• Fakhrey Alam v. State of Uttar Pradesh — default bail as an indefeasible right. (Para 20)
• State v. T. Gangi Reddy — object of default bail. (Para 20)
• Suresh Kumar Bhikamchand Jain v. State of Maharashtra — right ceases on filing of charge-sheet. (Para 20)
• SFIO v. Rahul Modi — filing of charge-sheet extinguishes default bail. (Para 20)
• Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State of Assam — application for default bail may be oral. (Para 20)
• Bikramjit Singh v. State of Punjab — liberal approach in matters of personal liberty. (Para 20)
• Judgebir Singh v. National Investigation Agency — filing of police report extinguishes right to default bail. (Para 21)
• Central Bureau of Investigation v. Kapil Wadhawan — non-filing of all documents does not invalidate charge-sheet. (Para 22)
• Central Bureau of Investigation v. R.S. Pai — requirement to file supporting documents is directory. (Para 24)
• Narendra Kumar Amin v. Central Bureau of Investigation — filing of police report complying with statutory requirements defeats claim for default bail. (Para 25)

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN: Will—Registration—Effect. Registration of a Will d...Will—Registration—Effect. Registration of a Will does not by itself remove suspicious circumstances or dispense with the obligation of the propounder to establish its genuineness. Even a registered Will must satisfy the judicial conscience of the Court where suspicious features exist. (Paras 17–18, 32)

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN: Will—Registration—Effect. Registration of a Will d...: advocatemmmohan Case: Sardari Lal v. Bishan Dass & Ors. Citation: 2026 INSC 669 | Civil Appeal No. 10990 of 2016 Headnotes Will—P...

Case: Sardari Lal v. Bishan Dass & Ors.
Citation: 2026 INSC 669 | Civil Appeal No. 10990 of 2016

Headnotes

1. Will—Proof—Burden of proof—Propounder.
   The burden of proving a Will lies upon its propounder. Proof of execution under Section 63 of the Succession Act and Section 68 of the Evidence Act is only the first step. The propounder must further satisfy the judicial conscience of the Court that the Will represents the free and conscious testamentary act of the testator. (Paras 27–32)
2. Will—Suspicious circumstances—Duty of propounder.
   Where suspicious circumstances surround the execution of a Will, the propounder must satisfactorily explain such circumstances and dispel all legitimate doubts before the Will can be accepted as genuine. Mere formal proof of execution is insufficient. (Paras 28–32, 38–40)
3. Will—Meaning of "suspicious circumstances".
   Suspicious circumstances include any legitimate circumstance creating doubt regarding the genuineness of the Will, such as unjust exclusion of natural heirs, unnatural disposition, doubtful execution, participation of beneficiaries, unexplained alterations or any circumstance inconsistent with the normal course of human conduct. Such suspicion must be real and not the product of conjecture or fanciful imagination. (Paras 30–32, 38–40)
4. Will—Disinheritance of wife—Suspicious circumstance.
   Where a testator disinherits his wife, who had cordial relations with him and cared for him throughout his lifetime, in favour of distant relatives or strangers without convincing justification, such exclusion constitutes a significant suspicious circumstance requiring satisfactory explanation. (Paras 41–45)
5. Will—Reasons assigned in testament—Court's scrutiny.
   Although a testator is not legally bound to record reasons for making a bequest, where reasons are stated in the Will, the Court is entitled to examine whether they are genuine or merely a facade to justify an otherwise suspicious disposition. (Paras 43–45)
6. Will—Registration—Effect.
   Registration of a Will does not by itself remove suspicious circumstances or dispense with the obligation of the propounder to establish its genuineness. Even a registered Will must satisfy the judicial conscience of the Court where suspicious features exist. (Paras 17–18, 32)
7. Will—Unexplained alterations in registration endorsement.
   Material and unexplained cuttings or alterations in the registration endorsement, particularly regarding the identity of the executant, constitute serious suspicious circumstances. Failure to explain such alterations may justify rejection of the Will. (Paras 14, 40)
8. Civil Procedure—Admissions—Alternative pleadings.
   A plaintiff may raise inconsistent or alternative pleas. An alternative plea that a Will is vitiated by fraud, undue influence or coercion does not amount to an admission of its execution where the principal plea is that no Will was ever executed. (Paras 35–37)
9. Evidence—Admissions—Doctrine of non-traverse.
   Facts specifically pleaded in the plaint and not specifically denied in the written statement stand admitted under Order VIII Rule 5 CPC and ordinarily require no further proof. (Paras 37)
10. Evidence—Failure of plaintiff to enter witness box.
    Where the plaintiff's title is founded upon admitted facts and the defendant seeks to defeat that title by propounding a Will, mere non-examination of the plaintiff or other witnesses does not relieve the propounder of the burden of proving the Will in accordance with law. (Paras 37–38)
11. Second Appeal—Section 100 CPC—Concurrent findings regarding suspicious circumstances.
    Findings regarding existence of suspicious circumstances surrounding a Will and the sufficiency of their explanation are primarily findings of fact. Interference in second appeal is impermissible unless a substantial question of law genuinely arises. (Issue 4; Paras 25, 32 and subsequent discussion)
12. Will—Judicial conscience—Governing principle.
    In cases involving disputed Wills, the ultimate test is whether the evidence inspires confidence and satisfies the judicial conscience of the Court that the testament truly represents the free and informed intention of the testator. (Paras 28–32, 38–40)

Cases Referred

• H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma
• Rani Purnima Debi v. Kumar Khagendra Narayan Deb
• Jaswant Kaur v. Amrit Kaur
• Kalyan Singh v. Chhoti
• Shivakumar v. Sharanabasappa
• Lilian Coelho v. Myra Philomena Coelho
• Madhukar D. Shende v. Tarabai Aba Shedage

Artificial Intelligence — Judicial use — Human control. Artificial Intelligence may legitimately assist judicial administration and legal research; however, adjudication, legal reasoning and decision-making must remain under complete human supervision. AI is only an aid and cannot substitute judicial application of mind. (Paras 1–6).

 (A) Artificial Intelligence (AI) — Judicial adjudication — Use of AI-generated material — Zero tolerance.

Courts must adopt a policy of zero tolerance towards the production, citation or reliance upon AI-generated fake, non-existent or hallucinated precedents. Any decision founded, even partly, upon such material undermines the integrity of the adjudicatory process and cannot be sustained. (Paras 6–9, 15–17).

(B) Judicial Decision-making — AI-generated fake precedents — Effect.
A judgment or order based upon fake, hallucinated or non-existent judicial precedents is no decision in the eye of law. Such use contaminates the decision-making process, subverts the rule of law and renders the judgment liable to be set aside irrespective of the extent of its influence on the final decision. (Paras 7, 15–18).

(C) Advocates — Professional misconduct — Citation of AI-generated fake precedents.
It constitutes professional misconduct for an advocate to cite AI-generated fake or hallucinated precedents without proper verification. The Bar Council of India was directed to formulate appropriate guidelines and disciplinary norms to prevent such misconduct. (Paras 7–9).

(D) Judges and Tribunals — Reliance on AI-generated material — Duty of verification.
Reliance by a Judge or Tribunal upon fake or hallucinated AI-generated material amounts to a serious judicial lapse. While AI may be used as an aid to research, every precedent and legal proposition must be independently verified before being relied upon in judicial determination. (Paras 1–7, 15–17).

(E) Artificial Intelligence — Judicial use — Human control.
Artificial Intelligence may legitimately assist judicial administration and legal research; however, adjudication, legal reasoning and decision-making must remain under complete human supervision. AI is only an aid and cannot substitute judicial application of mind. (Paras 1–6).

(F) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — S. 7 — Orders of NCLT and NCLAT based on fake precedents — Validity.
Where the National Company Law Tribunal relied upon fake, non-existent and AI-generated precedents and the error escaped scrutiny before the Appellate Tribunal, both orders were vitiated and liable to be set aside. The Section 7 application was restored to the file of the Adjudicating Authority for fresh consideration on merits uninfluenced by the earlier orders. (Paras 15–20).

(G) Judicial Process — Integrity of adjudication — Paramount consideration.
Maintenance of the purity and integrity of judicial decision-making is paramount. Any contamination of the adjudicatory process by fabricated or hallucinated legal authorities strikes at the root of the rule of law and warrants immediate corrective action by the appellate court. (Paras 6–9, 17–20).

O. VII R. 11(d) — Rejection of plaint — Object and scope. The object of Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC is to terminate, at the threshold, civil proceedings which, on a meaningful reading of the plaint itself, are barred by law. The provision is intended to prevent abuse of the judicial process and avoid unnecessary trial in suits which are ex facie not maintainable. (Paras 18–21). (B) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — O. VII R. 11(d) — Limitation — Suit for specific performance — Article 54, Limitation Act, 1963. Where the foundation of the suit is an agreement to sell executed decades earlier and the plaint does not disclose any satisfactory explanation for failure to institute proceedings within the statutory period of three years prescribed under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, the suit is barred by limitation and the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC. (Paras 22, 25–28).

 (A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — O. VII R. 11(d) — Rejection of plaint — Object and scope.

The object of Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC is to terminate, at the threshold, civil proceedings which, on a meaningful reading of the plaint itself, are barred by law. The provision is intended to prevent abuse of the judicial process and avoid unnecessary trial in suits which are ex facie not maintainable. (Paras 18–21).

(B) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — O. VII R. 11(d) — Limitation — Suit for specific performance — Article 54, Limitation Act, 1963.
Where the foundation of the suit is an agreement to sell executed decades earlier and the plaint does not disclose any satisfactory explanation for failure to institute proceedings within the statutory period of three years prescribed under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, the suit is barred by limitation and the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC. (Paras 22, 25–28).

(C) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — O. VII R. 11 — Rejection of plaint — Test to be applied.
While deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Court must confine itself to the averments contained in the plaint read as a whole. The defence in the written statement or disputed questions of fact are wholly irrelevant. Where clever drafting creates an illusion of a cause of action or conceals a statutory bar, the Court must lift the veil and reject the plaint at the threshold. (Paras 19–21).

(D) Limitation — Specific performance — Right to sue — Accrual.
The period of limitation for a suit for specific performance commences when the right to sue first accrues. A subsequent judicial observation that no civil proceedings have yet been instituted does not create a fresh cause of action or revive a claim already barred by limitation. (Paras 24–25).

(E) Limitation — Delay of several decades — Effect.
A litigant who has remained silent for several decades without instituting proceedings cannot, as an afterthought, seek enforcement of an old agreement by ignoring the law of limitation. Such a suit is barred by law and constitutes an abuse of the process of Court. (Paras 22, 26–28).

(F) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — O. VII R. 11(d) — Rejection of plaint — Suit barred by limitation — Consequence.
Where the plaint itself discloses that the claim is hopelessly barred by limitation, the orders refusing rejection of the plaint are unsustainable and liable to be set aside, with rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC. (Paras 26–28)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Ss. 166 and 168 — Compensation — Assessment of annual income — Income-tax Returns — Governing principles. There is no rigid or universal formula for determining the annual income of a deceased or injured claimant on the basis of Income-tax Returns (ITRs). The paramount consideration under the Motor Vehicles Act is the award of just, fair and reasonable compensation. ITRs constitute an important statutory indicator of income but must be assessed in the light of the facts and circumstances of each case. (Paras 15–20).

 

(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Ss. 166 and 168 — Compensation — Assessment of annual income — Income-tax Returns — Governing principles.

There is no rigid or universal formula for determining the annual income of a deceased or injured claimant on the basis of Income-tax Returns (ITRs). The paramount consideration under the Motor Vehicles Act is the award of just, fair and reasonable compensation. ITRs constitute an important statutory indicator of income but must be assessed in the light of the facts and circumstances of each case. (Paras 15–20).

(B) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Compensation — Salaried employees — Assessment of income.

For salaried persons, ordinarily the Income-tax Return of the immediately preceding assessment year constitutes the appropriate basis for determining annual income. Where the deceased or claimant had recently received a promotion and the enhanced income is not reflected in the return, the Court may rely upon the promotion order and other corroborative financial material. (Para 18).

(C) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Compensation — Self-employed persons and business income — Assessment of income.

In the case of self-employed persons or persons carrying on business, annual income should ordinarily be assessed with reference to the average income disclosed in the Income-tax Returns of the preceding three years. The Court must also consider surrounding circumstances including the nature of business, growth pattern, future potential, initial losses, geographical factors and other relevant circumstances affecting earning capacity. (Paras 19–20).

(D) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Income-tax Returns filed after death or injury — Evidentiary value.

Where Income-tax Returns are filed after the death or injury of the claimant, the Court must scrutinise them with greater care. If supported by balance sheets and other financial records, such returns may be relied upon; otherwise, surrounding business circumstances become decisive in assessing true income. (Para 20).

(E) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Compensation — Determination of business income — Judicial discretion.

Assessment of business income cannot rest upon a mechanical average of Income-tax Returns alone. The Court is empowered to determine a realistic annual income after considering the nature and potential of the business so as to ensure award of just compensation. (Paras 21–23).

(F) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Compensation — Insurance Agent — Assessment of income.

In the case of an Insurance Agent whose income is performance-oriented, averaging Income-tax Returns beyond the previous three years is unjustified. Income should be assessed keeping in view the fluctuating nature of commission-based earnings and the average of the immediately preceding three years. (Paras 9–12 of Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 3088 of 2025).

(G) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Compensation — Self-employed trader — Income-tax Returns filed after death.

Where recent Income-tax Returns were filed after the death of the deceased and supporting financial records were unavailable, remand was considered inappropriate. Having regard to the available Income-tax Returns and the nature of the wholesale grocery business, the Court determined a reasonable annual income to ensure just compensation. (Paras 10–14 of Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 7735 of 2025). 

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Ss. 200, 209 and 244 — Complaint case exclusively triable by Court of Session — Recording of evidence by Magistrate before commitment — Not required. In a complaint case involving offences exclusively triable by the Court of Session, the Magistrate is not required to record prosecution evidence under Section 244 CrPC before committing the case under Section 209 CrPC. The duty of the Magistrate is confined to complying with the statutory requirements of commitment. (Paras 6–13).

 (A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Ss. 200, 209 and 244 — Complaint case exclusively triable by Court of Session — Recording of evidence by Magistrate before commitment — Not required.

In a complaint case involving offences exclusively triable by the Court of Session, the Magistrate is not required to record prosecution evidence under Section 244 CrPC before committing the case under Section 209 CrPC. The duty of the Magistrate is confined to complying with the statutory requirements of commitment. (Paras 6–13).

(B) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — S. 209 — Commitment proceedings — Scope of Magistrate's jurisdiction.
At the stage of commitment under Section 209 CrPC, the Magistrate performs a limited statutory function. The Magistrate is not required to examine the merits of the prosecution case or evaluate the sufficiency of evidence, but only to ascertain whether the offence is exclusively triable by the Court of Session and thereafter commit the case in accordance with law. (Paras 7.2, 10–12).

(C) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — S. 244 — Applicability.
Section 244 CrPC applies to warrant cases instituted otherwise than on a police report which are triable by a Magistrate. The provision has no application where the complaint relates to offences exclusively triable by the Court of Session. (Paras 7.3, 8.1–8.3, 13).

(D) Criminal Procedure — Commitment proceedings — Legislative object.
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deliberately abolished the elaborate pre-committal inquiry under the old Code of 1898 with the object of expeditious disposal of criminal cases. Requiring recording of prosecution evidence before commitment would defeat the legislative intent and revive a procedure consciously omitted by Parliament. (Paras 11–12.2).

(E) Criminal Procedure — Commitment — Duplication of evidence — Impermissibility.
Acceptance of the view that prosecution evidence under Section 244 CrPC must be recorded before commitment in Sessions triable complaint cases would compel witnesses to depose twice on the same facts without statutory sanction and would unnecessarily delay criminal trials. (Para 9).

(F) Criminal Procedure — Sessions triable complaint case — High Court — Remand to Magistrate for recording evidence under S. 244 CrPC — Legality.
The High Court erred in remanding the complaint to the Magistrate for compliance with Section 244 CrPC. Such remand being contrary to the scheme of the Code was liable to be set aside. The High Court was directed to decide the pending criminal revisions afresh on merits. (Paras 13–14). 

(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — O. XXIII R. 3 — Compromise decree — Essential requirements. After the 1976 amendment to the Code, a lawful compromise can be recorded only if it is in writing and signed by the parties or by a duly authorised representative. Compliance with the mandatory requirements of Order XXIII Rule 3 is a condition precedent for passing a valid compromise decree. (Paras 5.1–5.2). (B) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — O. XXIII R. 3 — Compromise by Advocate — Authority to compromise. An advocate has no implied authority to surrender or conclude the substantive rights of the client by entering into a compromise unless expressly authorised or justified by exigent circumstances. In the absence of express authorisation or proof of necessity, a compromise signed or accepted on behalf of the client is invalid. (Paras 5.2(f), 5.3–5.6). (C) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — O. XXIII R. 3 — Compromise decree — Duty of Court. While recording a compromise, the Court is not a mere recording authority. It must apply its judicial mind to satisfy itself that the compromise is lawful, voluntary and in conformity with the requirements of Order XXIII Rule 3 before affixing its seal of approval. (Paras 5.2(e), (g), 5.6). (D) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — O. XXIII R. 3 — Voluntary consent — Absence of signature of party. Where the compromise petition does not bear the signature of the concerned party and there is no material establishing express authorisation to counsel, the voluntary consent contemplated by Order XXIII Rule 3 is absent and the compromise decree is contrary to law. (Paras 5.3–5.6). (E) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — S. 151 — Compromise decree obtained by fraud — Recall — Delay. The inherent power under Section 151 CPC may be exercised to recall a compromise decree alleged to have been obtained by fraud. Mere delay, however long, cannot be permitted to perpetuate an illegal or fraudulent decree where substantive rights are affected. (Paras 6.1–6.7). (F) Limitation — Fraud — Delay of 25 years — Effect. Though limitation is an important principle of law, it cannot be employed to defeat substantive rights or perpetuate an illegality. Where fraud is alleged, the compromise is prima facie contrary to law, and foundational facts remain seriously disputed, extraordinary delay may, in the facts of the case, be condoned. Such indulgence is not to be treated as a general rule but depends upon the facts of each case. (Paras 6.3–6.7). (G) Partition Suit — Compromise decree set aside — Consequence. Where the compromise decree is found to be invalid for non-compliance with Order XXIII Rule 3 and material factual disputes remain unresolved, the proper course is to set aside the compromise decree and direct adjudication of the partition suit by a full-fledged trial on evidence. (Para 6.7).

 (A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — O. XXIII R. 3 — Compromise decree — Essential requirements.

After the 1976 amendment to the Code, a lawful compromise can be recorded only if it is in writing and signed by the parties or by a duly authorised representative. Compliance with the mandatory requirements of Order XXIII Rule 3 is a condition precedent for passing a valid compromise decree. (Paras 5.1–5.2).

(B) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — O. XXIII R. 3 — Compromise by Advocate — Authority to compromise.
An advocate has no implied authority to surrender or conclude the substantive rights of the client by entering into a compromise unless expressly authorised or justified by exigent circumstances. In the absence of express authorisation or proof of necessity, a compromise signed or accepted on behalf of the client is invalid. (Paras 5.2(f), 5.3–5.6).

(C) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — O. XXIII R. 3 — Compromise decree — Duty of Court.
While recording a compromise, the Court is not a mere recording authority. It must apply its judicial mind to satisfy itself that the compromise is lawful, voluntary and in conformity with the requirements of Order XXIII Rule 3 before affixing its seal of approval. (Paras 5.2(e), (g), 5.6).

(D) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — O. XXIII R. 3 — Voluntary consent — Absence of signature of party.
Where the compromise petition does not bear the signature of the concerned party and there is no material establishing express authorisation to counsel, the voluntary consent contemplated by Order XXIII Rule 3 is absent and the compromise decree is contrary to law. (Paras 5.3–5.6).

(E) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — S. 151 — Compromise decree obtained by fraud — Recall — Delay.
The inherent power under Section 151 CPC may be exercised to recall a compromise decree alleged to have been obtained by fraud. Mere delay, however long, cannot be permitted to perpetuate an illegal or fraudulent decree where substantive rights are affected. (Paras 6.1–6.7).

(F) Limitation — Fraud — Delay of 25 years — Effect.
Though limitation is an important principle of law, it cannot be employed to defeat substantive rights or perpetuate an illegality. Where fraud is alleged, the compromise is prima facie contrary to law, and foundational facts remain seriously disputed, extraordinary delay may, in the facts of the case, be condoned. Such indulgence is not to be treated as a general rule but depends upon the facts of each case. (Paras 6.3–6.7).

(G) Partition Suit — Compromise decree set aside — Consequence.
Where the compromise decree is found to be invalid for non-compliance with Order XXIII Rule 3 and material factual disputes remain unresolved, the proper course is to set aside the compromise decree and direct adjudication of the partition suit by a full-fledged trial on evidence. (Para 6.7).

(E) Precedent — Larger Bench decision — Binding effect. A Bench of lesser or co-equal strength cannot disregard the ratio of an earlier larger Bench. Where an earlier three-Judge Bench has authoritatively declared the source of power under a remission policy, a later inconsistent decision of a smaller Bench is liable to be treated as per incuriam. (Paras 14–15).

(A) Constitution of India — Art. 161 — Remission — Haryana Remission Policy, 2002 — Nature of power — Constitutional power of Governor.
The Haryana Remission Policy dated 12-04-2002 is an exercise of the Governor's constitutional power under Article 161. A subsequent statutory remission policy issued under Sections 432 and 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot override, supersede or curtail the constitutional power exercisable under Article 161. (Paras 9–13, 16).

(B) Constitution of India — Art. 161 — CrPC, 1973 — Ss. 432, 433 — Remission — Constitutional and statutory powers — Distinction.
The power of remission under Article 161 is distinct, independent and superior to the statutory powers under Sections 432 and 433 CrPC. A statutory policy framed under the Code cannot abrogate or supersede a remission policy operating under Article 161 of the Constitution. (Paras 9–10, 12–13, 16).

(C) Remission — Applicable Policy — Beneficial policy — Life convict.
Where the earlier remission policy is constitutional in character under Article 161, its operation is not displaced by a later statutory policy. The convict is entitled to consideration under the more beneficial constitutional policy. (Paras 10, 12–13, 16).

(D) Precedent — Per incuriam — Principles governing.
A judgment is per incuriam where its ratio is irreconcilable with an earlier decision rendered by a Bench of equal or larger strength, or where a binding statutory provision or binding precedent has not been noticed. The doctrine is an exception to stare decisis and must be invoked sparingly. Judicial discipline requires adherence to decisions of larger Benches. (Paras 14–15).

(E) Precedent — Larger Bench decision — Binding effect.
A Bench of lesser or co-equal strength cannot disregard the ratio of an earlier larger Bench. Where an earlier three-Judge Bench has authoritatively declared the source of power under a remission policy, a later inconsistent decision of a smaller Bench is liable to be treated as per incuriam. (Paras 14–15).

(F) Remission — Haryana Remission Policies, 2002 and 2008 — Applicability.
The observation in the 2008 statutory policy that it supersedes the 2002 Policy is ineffective insofar as the 2002 Policy derives its authority from Article 161 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the appellant's remission application is required to be considered under the 2002 Policy. (Paras 16–18).

(G) Prospective operation — Remission.
The declaration of law shall operate prospectively and shall not reopen remission applications already decided. The State may thereafter maintain separate constitutional and statutory remission policies. (Para 17). 

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN: LAND ACQUISITION AND REHABILITATION — Right to Fai...

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN: LAND ACQUISITION AND REHABILITATION — Right to Fai...: advocatemmmohan LAND ACQUISITION AND REHABILITATION — Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re...

LAND ACQUISITION AND REHABILITATION — Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 — Challenge to Award passed after directions of High Court — Delay, knowledge of award, statutory remedy and validity of acquisition — Consideration.

Where landowners challenged awards passed under the Act, 2013 alleging non-service of notices, inadequate compensation, incorrect application of multiplier, non-grant of Rehabilitation and Resettlement benefits and violation of statutory procedure, while the State contended that notices were duly served, awards were passed pursuant to earlier High Court directions, compensation was deposited, petitioners had prior knowledge of the awards and had an effective statutory remedy before the LARR Authority, the Court examined the rival contentions in the light of the provisions of the Act, 2013 and the Rules.
(Paras 2 to 7)

---

LAND ACQUISITION — Notice to interested persons — Compliance with Sections 21 and 22 of the Act, 2013 — Burden of proof.

Petitioners contended that mandatory notices under Sections 21 and 22 of the Act, 2013 were never served before passing of the awards and that absence of claims recorded in the awards itself established non-compliance, whereas respondents asserted that notices were duly published and individually served and award enquiry was conducted in accordance with law.
(Paras 3(g), 4(c), 4(d), 7)

---

LAND ACQUISITION — Compensation — Market value — Multiplier factor — Applicability of Central Notification and State Rules.

Petitioners contended that market value was mechanically fixed at Rs.5,00,000/- per acre and multiplier factor of 1.25 was illegally adopted instead of factor 2.00 applicable to rural areas under the Central Notification and Rule 17 of the 2015 Rules, resulting in denial of fair compensation.
(Paras 3(h), 3(i))

---

LAND ACQUISITION — Rehabilitation and Resettlement — Mandatory benefits — Non-grant — Effect.

Failure to prepare Rehabilitation and Resettlement Award and to extend statutory rehabilitation benefits, if established, would amount to violation of the mandatory provisions contained in Sections 31 and 32 of the Act, 2013.
(Para 3(l))

---

LAND ACQUISITION — Consent compensation under Government Order — Whether bars statutory entitlement.

Government approval fixing compensation at Rs.20,00,000/- per acre for consent awards cannot, by itself, conclude the issue where landowners dispute the legality of consent, market value or compliance with statutory safeguards under the Act, 2013.
(Paras 3(j), 3(k), 4(c))

---

WRIT JURISDICTION — Land acquisition matters — Delay and laches — Prior litigation — Knowledge of award — Effect.

Where petitioners had earlier participated in connected proceedings arising out of the same acquisition and respondents established that awards had already been passed and were within the knowledge of several petitioners, the plea of lack of knowledge assumes significance while considering maintainability and delay.
(Paras 4(a), 4(g))

---

LAND ACQUISITION — Statutory remedy — Reference before LARR Authority — Writ petition.

Disputes relating to adequacy of compensation and allied claims are ordinarily to be pursued before the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority under Section 64 of the Act, 2013, unless exceptional grounds justifying exercise of writ jurisdiction are established.
(Paras 4(f), 7)

---

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA — Article 226 — Land acquisition — Public purpose — Interference by Court.

In matters of land acquisition undertaken for public purpose, Courts are required to balance private rights with public interest and exercise writ jurisdiction with restraint, particularly where statutory remedies are available.
(Paras 5, 6)

Kerala Registration of Marriages (Common) Rules, 2008 — Registration of second marriage of Muslim husband — Notice to first wife — Necessity. Where a Muslim man seeks registration of his second marriage while the first marriage subsists and the first wife is alive, the Registrar shall issue notice and afford an opportunity of hearing to the first wife before registering the second marriage. Such hearing is a requirement of the principles of natural justice and constitutional equality. (Paras 10, 11)

MUHAMMAD SHAREEF C. v. STATE OF KERALA

2025 KER 82441 (Ker.)

(A) Kerala Registration of Marriages (Common) Rules, 2008 — Registration of second marriage of Muslim husband — Notice to first wife — Necessity.

Where a Muslim man seeks registration of his second marriage while the first marriage subsists and the first wife is alive, the Registrar shall issue notice and afford an opportunity of hearing to the first wife before registering the second marriage. Such hearing is a requirement of the principles of natural justice and constitutional equality. (Paras 10, 11)

---

(B) Kerala Registration of Marriages (Common) Rules, 2008 — Registrar — Scope of enquiry.

The Registrar has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the validity of a marriage. His enquiry under Rule 11 is summary and confined to prima facie verification of the memorandum and the factum of solemnization of marriage. (Paras 7–10)

---

(C) Kerala Registration of Marriages (Common) Rules, 2008 — Objection by first wife — Effect.

If, after notice, the first wife objects to the registration of the second marriage on the ground that it is invalid, the Registrar shall refrain from registering the marriage and direct the parties to approach the competent civil court for determination of its validity. (Para 10)

---

(D) Muslim Personal Law — Polygamy — Nature of right.

Muslim Personal Law permits a second marriage only in limited circumstances. The Holy Qur'an emphasizes justice, fairness and equal treatment among wives, making monogamy the norm and polygamy only an exception. (Paras 5, 6)

---

(E) Constitution of India — Arts. 14 and 15 — Equality and natural justice — Marriage registration.

While personal law may permit a second marriage, registration under a statutory law must conform to constitutional principles of equality, fairness and natural justice. Constitutional rights prevail in matters governed by statutory procedure. (Para 10)

---

(F) Registration of Marriage — Previous marital status.

Form I prescribed under the Kerala Registration of Marriages (Common) Rules, 2008 requires disclosure of previous marital status and whether any spouse is living. These particulars enable the Registrar to ascertain whether the marriage presented for registration is a second marriage. (Paras 8–9)

---

(G) Writ Jurisdiction — Necessary party.

A writ petition seeking registration of a second marriage is liable to be dismissed where the first wife, whose rights are directly affected by the proposed registration, is not impleaded as a party. (Para 10)

---

(H) Directions.

Petition dismissed. Petitioners granted liberty to apply afresh for registration. Upon such application, the Registrar shall issue notice to the first wife and proceed in accordance with law; if validity of the second marriage is disputed, parties shall be relegated to the competent civil court. (Para 10)

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN: Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act...

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN: Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act...: advocatemmmohan ROUSANARA BEGUM v. S.K. SALAHUDDIN @ SK SALAUDDIN & ANR. 2025 INSC 1375 (SC) (A) Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on D...

ROUSANARA BEGUM v. S.K. SALAHUDDIN @ SK SALAUDDIN & ANR.

2025 INSC 1375 (SC)

(A) Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 — S. 3(1)(d) — Return of property — Property given at marriage — Beneficial interpretation.

Property given to a Muslim woman before, at or after marriage by her relatives, husband or their relatives is recoverable under Section 3(1)(d) of the 1986 Act. The provision is a beneficial legislation enacted to secure the dignity, financial security and autonomy of a divorced Muslim woman and must receive a purposive and liberal construction. (Paras 7, 9)

---

(B) Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 — S. 3(1)(d) — Gold ornaments and money given at marriage — Entry in marriage register — Return of articles.

Where the marriage register and surrounding circumstances establish that money and gold ornaments formed part of the marriage transaction, the divorced wife is entitled to their return. A mere recital describing the articles as having been handed over to the bridegroom cannot defeat the statutory protection intended for the divorced woman. (Paras 7–10)

---

(C) Evidence — Marriage Register — Kazi/Marriage Registrar — Evidentiary value.

The testimony of the Marriage Registrar explaining an inadvertent entry in the marriage register cannot be discarded merely because overwriting exists. Once the Registrar produces the original register and satisfactorily explains the discrepancy, his evidence deserves due weight. Mere suspicion is not a substitute for proof. (Para 8)

---

(D) Evidence — Appreciation of evidence — Previous criminal proceedings — Limited evidentiary value.

A statement made by the bride's father in proceedings under Section 498-A IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act cannot automatically prevail over the evidence of the Marriage Registrar, particularly when those criminal proceedings culminated in acquittal which attained finality. (Para 8)

---

(E) Constitution of India — Art. 227 — Supervisory jurisdiction — Interference.

Though the High Court possesses wide supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 to prevent abuse of process, interference is not justified where the subordinate courts have correctly appreciated the evidence and adopted the statutory object of a beneficial legislation. (Paras 5, 9, 10)

---

(F) Constitution of India — Art. 21 — Social justice adjudication — Rights of divorced Muslim women.

While construing the 1986 Act, Courts must adopt an interpretation advancing equality, dignity and autonomy of women. Judicial interpretation must remain sensitive to the lived realities of women and the constitutional commitment to social justice under Article 21. (Para 9)

---

(G) Supreme Court — Art. 136 — Two possible views — Exception.

Ordinarily, the Supreme Court does not interfere merely because two views are possible. However, interference is warranted where the High Court ignores the purposive construction of a welfare statute and approaches the dispute as a purely civil controversy, thereby frustrating the legislative object. (Para 9)

---

(H) Result.

Appeal allowed. Judgment of the High Court set aside. Respondent directed to remit the amount directly to the appellant, furnish compliance affidavit within six weeks, failing which interest at 9% per annum shall be payable. (Para 10)

In cases of permanent disability, compensation must be based upon functional disability affecting earning capacity and not merely upon the percentage of physical disability certified by medical experts. Where the injury completely disables a person from pursuing his established vocation, the functional disability may be assessed at 100% notwithstanding a lower percentage of physical disability.

 APEX COURT 

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Injury claim — Amputation above knee — Functional disability.

(A) Permanent disability — Physical disability and functional disability — Distinction.

For determining compensation in injury cases, the relevant consideration is not merely the percentage of physical disability certified by the medical expert, but the effect of such disability upon the earning capacity of the injured. Physical disability and functional disability are distinct concepts. (Paras 20 to 22)

Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343, followed.

---

(B) Functional disability — Mason suffering above-knee amputation — 100% loss of earning capacity.

Where the claimant was employed as a mason and suffered amputation of the right leg above the knee, rendering him incapable of performing manual and physical labour constituting his sole avocation, the functional disability was liable to be assessed at 100%, notwithstanding physical disability being certified at 70%. (Paras 23 to 26)

---

(C) Loss of earning capacity.

The percentage of physical disability cannot mechanically be adopted as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity. The Tribunal must ascertain the effect of the injury upon the actual vocation of the injured. (Paras 21 and 22)

---

(D) Manual labourer — Amputation.

A mason necessarily depends upon continuous use and support of both lower limbs. Amputation of a leg above the knee effectively destroys his capacity to continue such avocation and may justify assessment of total functional disability. (Paras 23 to 25)

---

Motor Vehicles Act — Compensation.

(E) Future prospects — Injured claimant.

Where the injured claimant was aged about 30 years and self-employed, addition of 40% towards future prospects was rightly granted. (Paras 9 and 26)

---

(F) Assessment of income.

In the absence of documentary proof supporting the claimed income of Rs.20,000/- per month, the High Court was justified in assessing the claimant's monthly income at Rs.12,000/-. (Para 18)

---

(G) Future medical expenses — Artificial limb.

Where the claimant suffered above-knee amputation and would require repeated replacement, maintenance and rehabilitation in relation to artificial limbs throughout his lifetime, compensation towards future medical expenses deserved enhancement. (Para 27)

---

(H) Prosthesis and rehabilitation.

Compensation in amputation cases must adequately account for continuing medical expenses, prosthetic replacement, rehabilitation and long-term assistance necessitated by the permanent disability. (Para 27)

---

Principles.

(I) Loss of future earnings.

The Tribunal must undertake three distinct inquiries:

1. Nature and extent of permanent disability.
2. Occupation and avocation of the claimant.
3. Actual impact of the disability on earning capacity.

The economic loss may in appropriate cases be greater than the medical percentage of disability. (Paras 21 and 22)

---

Held

The Courts below erred in mechanically equating 70% physical disability with 70% loss of earning capacity. Since the appellant was a mason whose livelihood depended entirely upon physical labour and he had suffered amputation of his right leg above the knee, the functional disability was liable to be assessed at 100%.

Further, the amount awarded towards future medical expenses for prosthesis required enhancement from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/-.

Accordingly, compensation was enhanced from Rs.29,01,570/- to Rs.40,29,730/- with interest at the rate awarded by the High Court. (Paras 26 to 31)

---

Ratio Decidendi

In cases of permanent disability, compensation must be based upon functional disability affecting earning capacity and not merely upon the percentage of physical disability certified by medical experts. Where the injury completely disables a person from pursuing his established vocation, the functional disability may be assessed at 100% notwithstanding a lower percentage of physical disability.

---

Cases Referred

1. Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar

---

Compensation Reassessed

Heads	Tribunal	High Court	Supreme Court
Monthly Income	Rs. 6,000	Rs. 12,000	Rs. 12,000
Functional Disability	70%	70%	100%
Loss of Earning Capacity	Rs. 8,56,800	Rs. 17,13,600	Rs. 24,48,000
Future Prospects	Nil	Rs. 6,85,440	Rs. 9,79,200
Pain and Suffering	Rs. 50,000	Rs. 1,00,000	Rs. 1,00,000
Transportation	Rs. 5,000	Rs. 25,000	Rs. 25,000
Nutrition	Rs. 10,000	Rs. 10,000	Rs. 10,000
Clothing and Ornaments	Rs. 5,000	Rs. 5,000	Rs. 5,000
Medical Expenses	Rs. 1,57,530	Rs. 1,57,530	Rs. 1,57,530
Attendant Charges	Nil	Rs. 30,000	Rs. 30,000
Loss of Amenities	Nil	Rs. 75,000	Rs. 75,000
Future Medical Expenses	Nil	Rs. 1,00,000	Rs. 2,00,000
Total Compensation	Rs.10,84,330	Rs.29,01,570	Rs.40,29,730

---

Result

Appeal partly allowed.

The judgment of the High Court was modified.

Compensation enhanced from Rs.29,01,570/- to Rs.40,29,730/- together with interest at the rate awarded by the High Court.

The Insurance Company was directed to deposit the enhanced amount within six weeks. (Paras 30 and 31)

A stationary vehicle left on a public road during nighttime without adequate warning signals constitutes actionable negligence. Rear-end collision by itself does not establish contributory negligence. Compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act cannot be determined solely through mathematical formulae and must account for the human element underlying the loss. Parents of an unmarried deceased are entitled to filial consortium. Even where the methodology adopted by the Tribunal may disclose technical overlap, the Supreme Court may decline to reduce compensation if the overall award satisfies the test of "just compensation."

 APEX COURT 

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Sections 166, 140 and 173 — Motor accident claim — Stationary truck without warning signals — Negligence.

(A) Motor accident — Truck parked on road at night without indicators, parking lights or reflectors — Negligence.

Where a truck was stationed on the road at about 3.00 a.m. without parking lights, indicators, reflectors or warning signs, thereby rendering it virtually invisible to road users, the proximate cause of the accident was the negligence of the truck driver. (Paras 14 to 16)

---

(B) Contributory negligence — Rear-end collision — Presumption.

Merely because a moving vehicle collides with a stationary vehicle from behind does not automatically establish negligence on the part of the driver of the moving vehicle. The issue must be examined in the totality of the surrounding circumstances. (Para 16)

---

(C) Adverse inference.

Where the driver and owner of the offending truck failed to enter the witness box to substantiate their defence that the vehicle had been parked on the extreme left side due to puncture, the Tribunal was justified in drawing an adverse inference against them. (Para 15)

---

(D) Concurrent findings of fact.

The Supreme Court ordinarily does not interfere under Article 136 with concurrent findings of fact unless such findings are perverse, manifestly erroneous or based on no evidence. (Para 18)

---

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Just compensation.

(E) Assessment of income — Professional student.

Where the deceased was a young student pursuing Chartered Accountancy (Final) and undergoing articleship, the Tribunal was justified in considering his educational advancement, professional trajectory and likely earning potential while assessing his income. (Paras 19 and 23)

---

(F) Future prospects — Double addition — Refusal to reduce compensation.

Although the Tribunal had already adopted a forward-looking assessment of the deceased's likely professional income and further added 50% towards future prospects, the Supreme Court declined to reduce the compensation considering:

(i) the beneficial nature of the legislation;

(ii) the long passage of time;

(iii) the loss of a young life with substantial professional potential; and

(iv) the requirement of awarding just compensation.

(Paras 20 and 21)

---

(G) Just compensation — Human element.

Determination of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act is not an exercise in strict mathematical precision. The concept of "just compensation" seeks to provide a measure of solace to the dependants of the deceased within the limitations of monetary compensation. (Paras 20 and 21)

---

(H) Future earning potential — Limits.

Compensation cannot be founded upon speculation that a student would certainly succeed professionally or attain a particular level of earnings. Salary benchmarks of successful professionals cannot automatically be applied in every case. (Paras 22 and 23)

---

Conventional heads — Consortium.

(I) Filial consortium — Parents of unmarried deceased.

Parents of an unmarried deceased are entitled to compensation under the head of filial consortium. Failure to award compensation under this conventional head requires correction by the appellate court. (Paras 24 to 26)

---

(J) Beneficial legislation.

The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation and the Court has a duty to ensure award of just compensation even where the Tribunal or the High Court omitted a legitimate conventional head of compensation. (Para 25)

---

Ratio Decidendi

1. A stationary vehicle left on a public road during nighttime without adequate warning signals constitutes actionable negligence.
2. Rear-end collision by itself does not establish contributory negligence.
3. Compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act cannot be determined solely through mathematical formulae and must account for the human element underlying the loss.
4. Parents of an unmarried deceased are entitled to filial consortium.
5. Even where the methodology adopted by the Tribunal may disclose technical overlap, the Supreme Court may decline to reduce compensation if the overall award satisfies the test of "just compensation."

---

Held

The findings of negligence recorded by the Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court were upheld. The compensation awarded towards loss of dependency was not interfered with. However, the claimants, being parents of the deceased bachelor, were held entitled to filial consortium of Rs.40,000/- each.

Accordingly, compensation was enhanced by Rs.80,000/- together with interest as awarded by the Tribunal. (Paras 24 to 30)

---

Cases Referred

1. National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi
2. Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram

---

Compensation Reassessed

Head	Tribunal	Supreme Court
Loss of Dependency	Rs. 80,91,900	Confirmed
Loss of Estate	Rs. 15,000	Confirmed
Funeral Expenses	Rs. 15,000	Confirmed
Filial Consortium	Nil	Rs. 80,000
Total Compensation	Rs. 81,21,900	Rs. 82,01,900

---

Result

Insurer's appeal dismissed.

Claimants' appeal partly allowed.

Compensation enhanced from Rs.81,21,900/- to Rs.82,01,900/- with interest at the rate awarded by the Tribunal.

The insurer was directed to deposit the enhanced amount within four weeks. (Paras 27 to 30)

Where an appeal is confined only to the question of sentence, the Court may reduce the substantive sentence to the period already undergone if the long passage of time, absence of criminal antecedents, substantial incarceration, and other mitigating circumstances render further imprisonment disproportionate to the overall facts of the case.

 APEX COURT 

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 — Forged revenue document produced in Court — Sentence.

(A) IPC — Ss.420, 467, 468 and 471 — Conviction affirmed — Appeal confined to quantum of sentence.

Where leave was granted only on the question of sentence, the conviction recorded by the Trial Court and affirmed by the High Court was not open for reconsideration. The scope of the appeal remained confined to examining the proportionality of the sentence. (Paras 3, 13 and 22)

---

(B) Sentencing — Principle of proportionality.

Sentencing requires balancing the gravity of the offence with the attendant circumstances of the offender, the period of incarceration, passage of time, absence of criminal antecedents, and other mitigating factors. The principle of proportionality is central to sentencing jurisprudence. (Paras 18 and 22)

---

(C) Forgery of documents used in judicial proceedings — Seriousness of offence.

Offences involving forgery and use of forged documents before courts strike at the purity and sanctity of the administration of justice. Such offences cannot be viewed lightly. (Para 17)

---

(D) Reduction of sentence — Mitigating circumstances.

Where:

(i) the occurrence took place more than ten years earlier;

(ii) the accused had undergone prolonged criminal proceedings;

(iii) no criminal antecedents were shown;

(iv) the accused was not a habitual offender;

(v) no subsequent criminal conduct was brought on record; and

(vi) substantial incarceration had already been undergone,

the substantive sentence may be reduced while maintaining conviction. (Paras 19, 23 to 26)

---

(E) Long pendency of criminal proceedings — Relevant consideration.

The fact that the accused remained under the shadow of criminal proceedings for more than a decade constitutes a relevant mitigating circumstance while considering the question of sentence. (Paras 19 and 23)

---

(F) Forged document detected at threshold stage.

Where the forged document was detected during scrutiny at the initial stage itself and no irreversible pecuniary or proprietary loss resulted, such circumstance, though not diminishing the seriousness of the offence, remains relevant while assessing proportionality of sentence. (Para 20)

---

(G) Sentencing discretion.

Sentencing cannot be reduced to a purely retributive exercise. Courts must consider the overall factual matrix, degree of criminality, nature of the offence, and circumstances of the offender while determining the appropriate punishment. (Paras 18 and 21)

---

Criminal Law — Reduction of sentence while maintaining conviction.

This Court may, in appropriate cases, maintain the conviction while reducing the sentence already undergone where the interests of justice so demand and mitigating circumstances substantially outweigh the need for further incarceration. (Paras 23 to 26)

---

Held

Although offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC involving use of forged documents before a Court are serious in nature, the present case warranted reduction of sentence considering:

• the occurrence of the year 2014;
• more than ten years of criminal proceedings;
• absence of criminal antecedents;
• no subsequent criminal conduct;
• custody already undergone for more than two years; and
• the overall proportionality of punishment.

Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction, the substantive sentence was reduced to the period already undergone. The fine imposed by the Trial Court was maintained. (Paras 25 and 26)

---

Ratio Decidendi

Where an appeal is confined only to the question of sentence, the Court may reduce the substantive sentence to the period already undergone if the long passage of time, absence of criminal antecedents, substantial incarceration, and other mitigating circumstances render further imprisonment disproportionate to the overall facts of the case.

---

Cases Referred

1. Padum Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh

---

Result

Appeal Partly Allowed.

Conviction under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC maintained.

Substantive sentence reduced to the period already undergone.

Fine imposed by the Trial Court left undisturbed.

The appellant was directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case, subject to payment of the fine amount. (Paras 26 and 27)