LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. v. Rakesh Kumar Singh & Anr.

Criminal Appeal · Neutral citation not assigned (Criminal Appeal No. 717 of 2015)Decided 24 Apr 2015
Criminal Appeal No. 717 of 2015
Justice J.S. Khehar · Justice S.A. Bobde

Background

Ultra Tech Cement had filed a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (cheque dishonour) against Rakesh Kumar Singh before the Metropolitan Magistrate's Court in Calcutta back in 2007. The company filed its pre-summoning affidavit in February 2007, the accused was examined in 2008, and the case had proceeded through several stages of recording evidence over subsequent years. In the meantime, a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod vs. State of Maharashtra (2014) changed the law on where such cheque-bounce complaints could be filed, holding they should ordinarily be filed only where the cheque was dishonoured, but it carved out a protective exception for cases where evidence had already started being recorded at the post-summoning stage before that 2014 ruling. The question in this appeal was whether Ultra Tech's complaint, pending in Calcutta, fell within that protected exception.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court examined the actual procedural history of the complaint and found that the accused had been examined under Section 251 CrPC, pleaded not guilty, and that the complainant had filed its affidavit to be treated as its examination-in-chief (PW-1's statement), with the matter then repeatedly listed for cross-examination of that witness over several years. This meant that recording of evidence at the post-summoning stage, as contemplated by Section 145(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, had indeed commenced before the Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod judgment was delivered on 1 August 2014. Applying the exception carved out in that earlier three-judge ruling, the Court held that the Calcutta Magistrate's Court retained jurisdiction and was not required to return the complaint for refiling at the place of cheque dishonour. The appeal was accordingly allowed, and the Magistrate was directed to proceed with the case.

Lesson Learnt

When a later Supreme Court ruling changes the rules on where a case can be filed, it does not automatically uproot every pending case: proceedings that had already reached a specified procedural stage (here, the start of evidence recording) before the new ruling are protected and can continue where they are; the practical effect depends on exactly how far the case had progressed at the time the law changed.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Criminal Law

Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Charming Rupon v. State of Meghalaya

The Supreme Court acquitted the accused, finding the prosecution's case riddled with serious doubt. Both the victim and her cousin (a key witness) admitted in cross-examination that they could not identify the accused and that his name had been supplied to them by the victim's mother, raising a strong suspicion of tutoring, especially since the victim admitted she had been coached by the public prosecutor before testifying. The mother's own conduct (not reacting urgently despite being told of the assault, and material facts missing from the belated FIR) was found "unnatural." A crucial witness, the school teacher whose disclosure triggered the FIR, was never examined, without explanation, warranting an adverse inference against the prosecution. The Court also noted that two medical witnesses were never meaningfully cross-examined because the defence counsel was absent on the relevant dates, and that the trial court had wrongly brushed aside credible alibi evidence led by the accused.

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Ramkrushna Prahllad Dongardive v. The State of Maharashtra

The Supreme Court restored the trial court's acquittal. It found that the prosecution never produced the original cashbooks, daily registers, or audit reports that would have actually proven the appellant was entrusted with and misappropriated the money: the investigating officer himself admitted these documents were never shown to him despite being asked for. The department also failed to produce records the appellant had specifically sought in his own defence. Separately, the search and seizure of documents from the appellant's house was legally doubtful, since both independent witnesses to the seizure turned hostile and denied knowing its contents, and the mandatory procedural safeguards for such a seizure were not followed. The Court also flagged that the High Court convicted the appellant for the very first time on appeal without ever hearing him on the question of sentence, which the law required it to do.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Gurpreet Singh vs. State (NCT of Delhi)

The Court accepted that the order recalling the proclaimed offender status be placed on record. Noting that the complainant was untraceable and the prosecution itself raised no serious objection to anticipatory bail, the Court found no reason to deny the applicant liberty. It granted anticipatory bail, directing release on a personal bond of Rs. 20,000 with one surety in the event of arrest.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Mukesh Rani vs. Narcotics Control Bureau

The Court noted the investigation was complete, the chargesheet was filed, the co-accused had already been granted bail, and the combined quantity recovered (1.976 kg) still fell short of the "commercial quantity" threshold under the NDPS Act. With ten witnesses yet to be examined and no indication the trial would conclude quickly, the Court found continued detention unnecessary and granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Aakash vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

The Court noted that all prosecution witnesses, including the complainant and the guest house manager, had already been examined, and that a co-accused in the same FIR had already been granted bail. Given the complainant's own testimony about voluntary association with the petitioner and the completed trial evidence, the Court found the overall facts favoured bail. It granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions (reporting to police weekly, not influencing witnesses, providing address/mobile details).

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Kundan Kumar vs. State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

The Court relied on earlier Delhi High Court rulings holding that whether a broken promise of marriage was "false" from the outset (criminal) or a mere "breach" (not criminal) is a question for trial, not something requiring custodial interrogation. Noting the investigation was complete and the applicant had no prior criminal record, the Court granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with conditions, clarifying the order was not an opinion on the merits.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case