Criminal P.C. (2 of 1974) , S.227— Discharge of accused - Legality - Offences of cheating, forgery, criminal conspiracy and under PC Act - Allegation that accused, with object of cheating Bank, granted facilities to Company - Evidence on record showed that proposal had passed through Loan Advisory Committee which recommended same - Respondent's role started with signing the Memorandum after it was approved by the Chief General Manager (Credit) and the Executive Director- Accused's role was confined to signing memorandum prepared by senior officers and participating in Management Committee meeting, which approved proposal - There was no evidence that any of co-accused other than bank officials ever met accused before sanction of proposal by Management Committee - Merely because entire proposal was processed and cleared within short span of time, no offence was made out against accused - Complicity of accused in offence was not made out - Discharge of accused was proper

(Para 14 15)

(A) Civil P.C. (5 of 1908) , O.21 R.99— Execution proceedings - Dispossession by decree-holder - Right of pendente lite transferee - A pendente lite transferee, is entitled to file an application under O.21, R.99 of CPC and raise question of limitation

(B) Civil P.C. (5 of 1908) , O.21 R.99— Execution proceedings - Dispossession by decree-holder -Prayer for re-delivery of possession - Predecessor of respondents was not a party to suit and he was dispossessed from property, in execution of decree passed in suit - Property stood transferred to predecessor of respondents before final decree was passed - Predecessor had successfully resisted claim of a defendant for delivery of possession, in presence of predecessor of appellant -It was incumbent on appellants to have impleaded predecessor of respondents by filing an application under O.21, R.97, when they resisted delivery - Predecessor of respondents who was purported to be a stranger to decree, can adjudicate his claim of independent right, title and interest in decretal property as per O.21, R.99 - Once an application under O.21, R.99 was filed, it was incumbent upon trial Court to consider all rival claims including the right, title and interest of the parties under O.21, R.101 which bars a separate suit by mandating execution court to decide dispute - Order of High Court setting aside order passed in execution petition and remanding matter to trial court for fresh consideration was proper.

AIR 2005 SC 2564-Relied onE.F.A Nos.6 and 7 of 1998, D/- 11.11.2011 (Ker)-Affirmed(Paras14151619)

(Para 14 15 16 19)

Civil P.C. (5 of 1908) , O.7 R.14— Production of documents - Leave of Court - Plaintiff pleaded that documents intended to be produced contained signatures of testator - Handwriting of testator was issue in proceedings - Leave was granted for production and disclosure of additional documents.

AIROnline 2020 SC 807-Followed(Paras710)

(Para 7 10)

Penal Code (45 of 1860) , S.376— Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (32 of 2012) , S.6, S.29, S.30— Evidence Act (1 of 1872) , S.3, S.118— Rape - Benefit of doubt - Allegation that accused committed rape on victim-child - Victim was not tested by Trial Court in view of S.118 of Act of 1872, as to understand that whether she was able to understand nature of questions or not, as she was only three and half year old on date of her deposition - Victim only deposed that occurrence took place in evening, where accused after taking her inside room committed indecent work - Nothing available as to suggest that she was sexually assaulted - Father and mother of victim turned hostile during trial - Independent witness also turned hostile - Doctor did not find anything incriminating upon medical examination of victim, which may suggest that penetrative sexual assault was committed upon her - Also, inordinate of five days caused in lodging FIR - Failure on part of prosecution to prove guilt of accused - Accused was entitled to benefit of doubt - Order of conviction was not proper and set aside.

(Para 15 15.1 17 17.1 18 25)

(A) Criminal P.C. (2 of 1974) , S.397, S.401, S.2(wa)— Revision - Challenging order framing charges - Victim of offence - Who is - Applicant , complainant was father of deceased - Applicant being father of deceased and also the complainant, was to be considered as victim of offence as defined under S.2(wa) of Cr..P.C., who was entitled to challenge any adverse order passed in matter , apart from State - State did not challenge order passed by trial Court - Applicant was entitled to challenge such order .

(Para 8 9)

(B) Criminal P.C. (2 of 1974) , S.397, S.401— Revision - Challenging order framing charges - Condonation of delay - Applicant , complainant was father of deceased - He had challenged order framing charge by filing revision - Trial was posted for arguments before framing of charge and after arguments were heard, order was passed - Order nowhere showed that applicant/ complainant was present before Trial Court while considering arguments or while passing order - Revision was filed somewhere in month of June 2024, without any application for condonation of delay - But, when respondent raised objection, application for condonation of delay was filed - Thus, delay has to be counted from date of expiry of period of limitation till filing of revision - It cannot be stretched upto filing of application for condonation of delay - Actual delay in filing of revision was only 52 days - Plea of applicant that he was not aware of order passed by Trial Court has to be considered as sufficient ground - Delay was condoned.

(Para 10 11 12)