Daily Judgments of 16 April
Supreme Court of India
W.P.(C) No.-000179 - 2018
Parties: SATISH CHANDER SHARMA VS THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Judge(s): JUSTICE SURYA KANT, JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA, JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
Area of Law: Constitutional Law
The Court held that the present writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the Court's earlier judgment in Rajesh Chander Sood is not maintainable. The Court reiterated the well-settled principle that a judgment of the Supreme Court cannot be collaterally challenged through a writ petition under Article 32. The Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioners' remedy was to file a review petition against the earlier judgment, and not to file a fresh writ petition seeking the same relief. The Court emphasized the principle of finality of judicial decisions and stated that litigation which has reached finality cannot be reopened through a writ petition under Article 32.
Crl.A. No.-000438-000438 - 2018
Parties: S.C. GARG VS THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
Judge(s): JUSTICE PANKAJ MITHAL, JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The Court held that the criminal proceedings against the appellant S.C. Garg, the Managing Director of Ruchira Papers Ltd., deserve to be quashed on two grounds: (i) the principle of res judicata is applicable, as the allegations against Garg were the same as the defense raised by the other party Tyagi in the earlier Section 138 NI Act proceedings, where Tyagi was convicted; and (ii) the company Ruchira Papers Ltd. was not made an accused, and as per the Supreme Court's rulings, criminal proceedings cannot be maintained against the managing director without the company being made an accused. The court concluded that the present criminal case is a fit case for quashing and allowed the appeal.
C.A. No.-005235-005235 - 2025
Parties: IRWAN KOUR VS PUNJAB PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
Judge(s): JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA
Area of Law: Service Law
The Court of India held that personnel from the Indian Military Nursing Service (IMNS) are eligible to claim reservation benefits under the "ex-servicemen" category as per the Punjab Recruitment of Ex-Servicemen Rules, 1982. The court interpreted the definition of "ex-serviceman" under the Punjab Rules, 1982 to include IMNS personnel, as the IMNS is an auxiliary force of the Indian military and part of the armed forces of the Union.
The court directed that respondent no. 4, an IMNS personnel who was found meritorious, must be given an appointment under the "ex-servicemen" category. However, the court clarified that the appointment of respondent no. 4 will not result in the automatic termination of the appellant's service, who was already appointed to the post under the same category.
Crl.A. No.-003862-003862 - 2024
Parties: SURESH C SINGAL VS THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Judge(s): JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA, JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The Court has allowed the appeal and quashed the criminal proceedings against the appellants, holding that the dispute between the appellants and the Bank of Maharashtra was primarily of a civil/commercial nature and the matter stood settled between the parties. The Court observed that the continuation of the criminal proceedings would be oppressive and amount to an abuse of the process of law, as the possibility of conviction of the appellants is remote and bleak. The Supreme Court relied on its previous judgments in cases like Narinder Singh and Gian Singh, which held that criminal cases with an overwhelmingly civil flavor should be quashed if the parties have settled the dispute. The Court has, therefore, set aside the orders of the High Court and the Sessions Judge and quashed the criminal proceedings against the appellants.
C.A. No.-005200-005200 - 2025
Parties: THE CORRESPONDENCE RBANMS EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION VS B GUNASHEKAR
Judge(s): JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA, JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN
Area of Law: Civil Law
The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the orders of the High Court and the trial court. The Court held that the plaint filed by the respondents did not disclose a cause of action and was barred by law, and therefore, should have been rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The key reasons for the Court's decision were:
1. The agreement to sell on which the respondents' claim was based did not create any right or interest in the property in their favor under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. Their remedy, if any, was against the vendors, who were not made parties to the suit.
2. The respondents, as mere agreement holders, lacked the necessary legal standing to maintain a suit against the appellant, who was in settled possession of the property for over a century.
3. The suit for a bare injunction was not maintainable when the title to the property was in dispute, and the respondents had no personal interest in the property.
4. The large cash payment claimed by the respondents raised suspicions of violation of the Income Tax Act, which the court directed the authorities to verify.
Consequently, the Court allowed the appellant's application under Order VII Rule 11 and rejected the respondents' plaint.
C.A. No.-001208-001208 - 2025
Parties: THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS COMBINED TRADERS
Judge(s): JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA, JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
Area of Law: Tax Law
The Court held that sub-rule (20) of Rule 17 of the Central Sales Tax (Rajasthan) Rules, 1957, which provided for the cancellation of declaration forms (Form C) issued under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, is inconsistent with the Central Registration Rules framed by the Central Government under the Act. The court ruled that the State Government does not have the power to make rules for cancelling the declaration forms, as that power is conferred only on the Central Government under the Act. The High Court's decision holding sub-rule (20) as ultra vires the Central Sales Tax Act was upheld.
SLP(Crl) No.-012926 - 2024
Parties: R. BAIJU VS THE STATE OF KERALA
Judge(s): JUSTICE SUDHANSHU DHULIA, JUSTICE K. VINOD CHANDRAN
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The Court dismissed the appeal of the sixth accused (A6), upholding his conviction under Sections 323, 324, 427, 450 and 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 120B (criminal conspiracy). The Court found sufficient evidence of A6's involvement in the conspiracy, based on the incidents earlier in the day between A6 and the deceased's family, A6's presence at the crime scene, and his exhortation to the other accused to "kill them".
The Court noted that while the heightened intention to cause death could not be attributed to A6, his knowledge that the attack was likely to cause death was established. The Court relied on the principle that in cases of criminal conspiracy, the conspiracy can be proved largely by inferences from the acts and words of the conspirators. The Court also discussed the biased investigation that initially did not name A6 as an accused, but found that the rest of the evidence could be scrutinized to ensure justice.
SLP(C) No.-024959 - 2019
Parties: RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS SWATI SHARMA
Judge(s): JUSTICE SUDHANSHU DHULIA, JUSTICE K. VINOD CHANDRAN
Area of Law: Insurance Law
The Court held that the evidence of the eyewitness (PW3) was reliable and showed that the truck driver was negligent in driving the vehicle, which caused the fatal accident. The court found the testimony of the truck driver (RW1) and the investigating officer (RW3) to be unreliable and contradictory, and could not be used to establish contributory negligence of the deceased bike rider. The court upheld the High Court's decision to fix the entire liability on the truck driver and the vehicle owner, and directed the insurance company to indemnify the owner.
Crl.A. No.-000773-000773 - 2013
Parties: STATE OF KARNATAKA VS NAGESH
Judge(s): JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI, JUSTICE PRASANNA B. VARALE
Area of Law: Anti-Corruption Law
The Court held that the trial court's conviction of the accused public servant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was valid. The court found that the prosecution had established the demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused beyond reasonable doubt, based on the credible testimonies of the complainant (PW1) and the shadow witness (PW2).
The court observed that the high court had erred in placing undue importance on minor discrepancies in the witnesses' statements, and had failed to appreciate the overall reliable evidence on record. The Supreme Court restored the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court, rejecting the accused's plea for leniency in sentencing due to the passage of time.
Crl.A. No.-002731-002732 - 2024
Parties: K. SHIKHA BARMAN VS THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Judge(s): JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA, JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The Court has acquitted the appellant, K. Shikha Barman, of the charges under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant was the same person as Seema Choudhari, who was arrested on March 4, 2016 in possession of the contraband. The contemporaneous documents only mentioned the name of Seema Choudhari, and the appellant was not given an opportunity to respond to the allegation that she was Seema Choudhari.
C.A. No.-005216-005216 - 2025
Parties: LAKHANI HOUSING CORPORATION PVT. LTD. VS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Judge(s): JUSTICE SUDHANSHU DHULIA, JUSTICE K. VINOD CHANDRAN
Area of Law: Urban Development Law
The Court upheld the decision of the Bombay High Court to dismiss the appellants' writ petition challenging MHADA's e-tender for the redevelopment of the Guru Tegh Bahadur Nagar land. The court found that MHADA has the jurisdiction to undertake the redevelopment project jointly with the land owners/cooperative societies under Regulation 33(9) of the DCPR, even though the land was originally privately owned. The court noted that a majority of the residents and the cooperative societies supported MHADA's intervention, and the appellants did not have valid registered agreements with the residents or comply with the promises made in the initial agreements. The court held that the appellants did not have any vested right to carry out the redevelopment and dismissed the appeal.
Delhi High Court
W.P.(C)-11693/2019
Parties: DEEN BANDHU GARG AND ORS. Vs SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS.
Judge(s): JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR, JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL
Area of Law: Labor Law
The High Court of Delhi held that the applicants, who were appointed as teachers by the Municipal Corporations on contractual/ad hoc basis but had rendered continuous and unblemished service for decades, were entitled to regularization in their posts from the date of their initial appointment.
The Court relied on the Supreme Court decisions in Jaggo v Union of India and Shripal v Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, which had revisited the earlier Supreme Court judgment in State of Karnataka v Uma Devi. The High Court found that the applicants' appointments were made after following due process, including advertisement, selection based on prescribed qualifications, and appointment against sanctioned posts.
The High Court rejected the Municipal Corporation's contention that the applicants were not entitled to regularization merely because their initial appointments were termed "contractual" or "ad hoc". The Court held that the nature of work performed by the applicants was perennial and integral to the functions of the Municipal Corporations, and their long and unblemished service should entitle them to regularization, in line with the principles laid down in Jaggo and Shripal.
The High Court quashed the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal that had dismissed the applicants' claims for regularization, and directed the Municipal Corporations to regularize the applicants' services from the dates of their initial appointment, while also entitling them to the same financial benefits and emoluments as regular employees performing the same work.
C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT)-44/2023
Parties: ABBVIE BIOTHERAPEUTICS INC & ANR. Vs ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF PATENTS DESIGNS
Judge(s): JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL
Area of Law: Intellectual Property Law
The High Court upheld the decision of the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs to refuse the patent application of AbbVie Biotherapeutics Inc. and AbbVie Inc. for an "anti-cMet antibody drug conjugates (ADCs) and methods for their use".
The key points are:
1. The original claims filed by the applicants were directed to methods of treating cMet-overexpressing cancers using the anti-cMet ADCs, and did not cover the ADCs as a standalone product.
2. The applicants later sought to amend the claims to cover the ADCs as a product, without any limitations related to the method of treatment.
3. The court held that the proposed amendments were not permissible under Section 59(1) of the Patents Act, 1970, as they sought to enlarge the scope of the claims beyond the originally filed specification and claims.
4. The court also upheld the Controller's finding that the original method of treatment claims were not patentable under Section 3(i) of the Act, as they related to the treatment of the human body.
In conclusion, the court dismissed the appeal, finding no infirmity in the Controller's decision to refuse the patent application.
CS(COMM)-828/2022
Parties: M/S KOHINOOR SEED FIELDS INDIA PVT LTD Vs M/S VEDA SEED SCIENCES PVT LTD
Judge(s): JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL
Area of Law: Civil Law
The High Court held that the plaint filed by the plaintiff, M/s Kohinoor Seed Fields India Pvt Ltd, against the defendant, M/s Veda Seed Sciences Pvt Ltd, for trademark infringement and passing off, cannot be maintained in the Delhi High Court. The court observed that as per the averments in the plaint and the documents filed, the cause of action appears to have arisen at the places where the plaintiff has subordinate offices, and not in Delhi where the plaintiff's registered office is located. The court relied on the principles laid down in the judgments of the Supreme Court in Sanjay Dalia and the Delhi High Court's own judgment in Ultra Home, to hold that the plaintiff cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court solely based on the location of its registered office, when the cause of action has arisen elsewhere. Accordingly, the court ordered the plaint to be returned to the plaintiff to be presented in a court having proper jurisdiction.
CS(OS)-167/2022
Parties: POONAM BATRA Vs ASHWANI KUMAR SHARMA & ORS.
Judge(s): JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
Area of Law: Property Law
The High Court held that the impugned sale deed dated 20.10.2017 in favor of defendant no. 1 was a forged and fabricated document, as the vendor Mr. Pawan Kumar Garg (defendant no. 3) denied executing it. The court granted the plaintiff's request for a declaration that the impugned sale deed and the mortgage created in favor of defendant no. 4 bank based on this deed are illegal and non-est. The court also granted the plaintiff a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's ownership and possession of the suit property.
C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM)-18/2024
Parties: GREY SWIFT PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH MR. SHIVAM SINGLA Vs THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS
Judge(s): JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE
Area of Law: Intellectual Property Law
The High Court allowed the appeal filed by Grey Swift Private Limited against the rejection of its trademark application for "BharatStamp" by the Registrar of Trade Marks. The court held that the mark "BharatStamp" is inherently distinctive and not merely descriptive, as it is a novel and fanciful combination of the words "Bharat" and "Stamp" that does not directly convey the nature of the goods or services. The court emphasized that a trademark must be assessed as a whole and cannot be dissected into its individual components. The court also noted that the mark can acquire distinctiveness through continuous commercial use, even if it was filed on a "proposed to be used" basis. The court set aside the impugned order and directed the Registrar to proceed with the registration of the "BharatStamp" trademark, while clarifying that the registration shall not confer any exclusive right over the individual components "Bharat" or "Stamp".
C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM)-7/2024
Parties: MANKIND PRIME LABS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS
Judge(s): JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE
Area of Law: Intellectual Property Law
The High Court allowed the appeal by the appellant, Mankind Prime Labs Private Limited, and set aside the impugned order of the Registrar of Trade Marks, which had rejected the registration of the appellant's trademark "CROSSRELIEF" in Class 5.
The court held that the mark "CROSSRELIEF" is a distinctive, arbitrary, and fanciful term when taken as a whole, and is not confusingly similar to the earlier registered trademarks cited by the respondent. Applying the principle of anti-dissection, the court found that the common term "CROSS" in the appellant's mark is generic in the pharmaceutical industry and cannot be monopolized. The court also noted that there are discernible differences between the appellant's mark and the cited earlier marks, and allowing the registration of "CROSSRELIEF" is unlikely to cause confusion among the public.
Accordingly, the court directed the registration of the appellant's "CROSSRELIEF" trademark to proceed, while clarifying that the registration shall not confer any exclusive right over the individual components "CROSS" or "RELIEF".
C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM)-7/2025
Parties: DIAGEO SCOTLAND LIMITED Vs PRACHI VARMA & ANR.
Judge(s): JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE
Area of Law: Intellectual Property Law
The High Court held that the registration of the impugned mark "CAPTAIN BLUE" under application no. 4398295 in Class 33 should be removed from the Trade Marks Register. The court found that the appellant, Diageo Scotland Limited, is the prior registered proprietor of the trademarks "CAPTAIN" and "CAPTAIN MORGAN" in Class 33, and the impugned mark "CAPTAIN BLUE" is deceptively similar and likely to be perceived as a variant of the appellant's well-known "CAPTAIN" family of marks. The court also noted that the respondent no.1 filed the application on a "proposed to be used" basis and did not provide any evidence of actual use, commercial intent, or bona fide adoption of the mark. Accordingly, the High Court set aside the Assistant Registrar's order and directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to remove the entry for the "CAPTAIN BLUE" mark from the Register.
BAIL APPLN.-3755/2024
Parties: GURPREET SINGH @ BAWA @ BABA, Vs STATE GOVT.OF NCT OF DELHI
Judge(s): JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court held that the petitioner, who has been in custody for over 23 months in a case alleging cheating and forgery, is entitled to bail. The court found that the prolonged incarceration before trial would violate the petitioner's fundamental right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, given the slim likelihood of the trial concluding in the near future.
While the allegations against the petitioner are serious, the court noted that the investigation is complete, the chargesheet has been filed, and the petitioner is unlikely to tamper with evidence or abscond if released on bail. The court granted the petitioner bail on stringent conditions, including regular reporting to the investigating officer and restrictions on contacting the complainants or witnesses.
W.P.(C)-8170/2023
Parties: DR. (MRS.) SHARDA ARYA Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Judge(s): JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
Area of Law: Service Law
The High Court of Delhi held that the petitioner, a former faculty member of Daulat Ram College, University of Delhi, is entitled to switch over from the Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) Scheme to the General Provident Fund-cum-Pension Scheme (Pension Scheme). The court analyzed the Office Memorandum (OM) dated May 1, 1987, which provided a default "deemed" changeover from CPF to Pension Scheme for eligible employees, unless they exercised a positive option to continue under CPF.
Referring to its previous judgments and the Supreme Court's decision in Shashi Kiran, the court found that the petitioner did not exercise any option to continue under CPF, and therefore, as per the deeming provision, she is deemed to have "come over" to the Pension Scheme. The court accordingly quashed the impugned letter rejecting the petitioner's request and directed the respondents to release the pensionary benefits to the petitioner upon her refunding the employer's CPF contribution with interest.
FAO-66/2014
Parties: ASHOK KUMAR SHARMA Vs UNION OF INDIA
Judge(s): JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA
Area of Law: Railway Law
The High Court dismissed the appeal of the appellant, Sh. Ashok Kumar Sharma, against the order of the Railway Claims Tribunal. The court held that the appellant failed to prove that he was a bonafide passenger on the train and that the injuries he sustained were due to an 'untoward incident' as defined under the Railways Act, 1989. The tribunal's findings that the appellant was already in an injured condition when he was brought to the station, and the injuries were not caused by a fall from the moving train, were upheld by the High Court. The court concluded that the appellant was not entitled to compensation under Section 124-A of the Railways Act.
FAO-38/2022
Parties: SMT SAROJ & ORS. Vs UNION OF INDIA
Judge(s): JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA
Area of Law: Railway Law
The High Court upheld the decision of the Railway Claims Tribunal, dismissing the appellants' claim for compensation on the death of Sukhbir Singh. The court found that Sukhbir Singh was not a bona fide passenger of the train at the time of the incident, as no ticket or personal belongings were found on his person, and the location where his decapitated body was found suggested that he was not in the process of deboarding the train. Further, the court held that the incident did not qualify as an "untoward incident" under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, as there was no evidence of any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the railway administration. Accordingly, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision that the appellants were not entitled to any compensation.
W.P.(C)-8305/2017
Parties: DURGA PRASAD YADAV Vs DIRECTOR GENERAL CISF AND ORS
Judge(s): JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR, JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL
Area of Law: Service Law
The High Court upheld the disciplinary proceedings and the minor penalty of deduction of three days' pay imposed on the petitioner, Durga Prasad Yadav, an Inspector in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF). The court found no illegality or perversity in the proceedings, rejecting the petitioner's allegations of bias against the Assistant Commandant who had initiated the disciplinary action. The court noted that the appellate and revisional authorities had also examined the matter on merits and found the petitioner's conduct, including defiance during briefing, repeated argumentative communications, and use of disrespectful language, to amount to clear insubordination. The penalty imposed was found to be minor in nature and proportionate to the misconduct established on record, and the court saw no reason to interfere with the orders passed by the CISF authorities.
Bombay High Court
WP/1872/2023
Parties: LAXMAN SINGH S/O DHANSINGH Vs SUSHMA S/O PRAMOD MAHAJAN AND OTHERS
Judge(s): JUSTICE ANIL LAXMAN PANSARE
Area of Law: Rent Control Law
The High Court held that the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by the respondents (original plaintiffs) against the petitioner (original defendant) for eviction, possession, and mandatory injunction, as the appropriate remedy for the licensor to recover possession from the licensee was to file an application before the Competent Authority under Section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The court quashed and set aside the judgment of the first appellate court and directed the trial court to return the plaint to the respondents to enable them to approach the Competent Authority.
CARBPL/20834/2024
Parties: SJK BUILDCON LLP Vs KUSUM PANDURANG KENI
Judge(s): JUSTICE SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN
Area of Law: Arbitration Law
The High Court held that the Developer cannot invoke the jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act to seek eviction of the Protected Tenants, who are beneficiaries of decrees from the rent courts declaring them as statutorily protected tenants. The court found that the Rent Act provides the exclusive jurisdiction to the Small Causes Court for matters relating to recovery of possession for redevelopment, and this conflicts with the Developer's attempt to bypass the statutory protections. The court declined to grant the interim relief sought by the Developer and directed them to follow the process under the Rent Act. For the tenant Sengupta, the court noted that the Supreme Court has already passed orders for her to vacate, which she has not complied with, and the High Court declined to interfere with the Supreme Court's orders.
CARBP/155/2025
Parties: ELITE HOUSING LLP Vs THE SPECTRUM COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED
Judge(s): JUSTICE SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN
Area of Law: Property Law
The High Court of Bombay held that the redevelopment of the Spectrum Co-operative Housing Society property could proceed despite objections from two dissenting members, Lulla and Haldar. The court directed the court receiver to execute the tripartite agreement for the two disputed flats (Flat No. 6 and Flat No. 12) and take possession of them if the owners failed to vacate within the specified timeline. The court ordered the amounts due to the owners of these flats to be deposited with the court and directed that upon handover of possession, the amounts be paid to the respective occupants, without prejudice to their inter se disputes. The court emphasized that its directions were aimed at facilitating the overall redevelopment, while leaving the parties' other legal disputes to be resolved separately. There was no disagreement among the judges on the key issues.
Calcutta High Court
CRR/4690/2022
Parties: ARDDY ENGINEERING INNOVATIONS PVT. LTD. & ORS. vs HERAEUS TECHNOLOGIES INDIAN PVT. LTD.
Judge(s): JUSTICE DR. AJOY KUMAR MUKHERJEE
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court dismissed the petition by the petitioners to quash the criminal proceedings against them, finding that the allegations in the complaint, if true, disclose the commission of offenses under Sections 420, 406, 461, 471, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court held that while the dispute has some civil elements, the allegations of cheating by the petitioners affixing the complainant's trademark on their own counterfeit product have to be considered independently. The court cannot assess the merits of the case or pronounce the petitioners innocent based on materials not yet tested in trial.
The court noted that the Magistrate had passed the order issuing process after considering the report of the inquiry conducted under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and therefore could not be said to have passed the order mechanically without applying judicial mind.