Constitutional Law - Article 226 - Recovery of Pension – Petitioner, an old pensioner retired 30 years ago, faced monthly pension recovery without prior notice – Held, recovery of excess pension after 30 years illegal – No evidence petitioner gave an undertaking for recovery of excess payments – Applying principles from Rafiq Masih and Jagdev Singh, court held recovery iniquitous and arbitrary – Recovery order quashed and bank directed to refund recovered amount with interest. [Paras 7-8, 11]

Pension Law - Undertaking for Recovery of Overpayments – Respondents failed to prove petitioner signed any undertaking allowing recovery of excess payments – General condition in para 3 of letter dated 15.03.2017 not applicable to petitioner’s case – Court found no basis for recovery under cited judgments – Arbitrary recovery violated petitioner’s rights. [Paras 6-7]

Limitation Law - Article 112 - Bar on Recovery after 30 Years – Recovery after 30 years barred by Article 112 of the Limitation Act – Court held it inequitable and harsh to sustain recovery after such a long period – Precedents affirming recovery limits applied – Respondents' action found violative of legal and constitutional rights. [Para 8]

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Letter dated 15.03.2017 quashed to the extent adverse to petitioner – Respondent-bank directed to return recovered money within one week from receipt of order – Future pension entitlements to remain unchanged – Costs of Rs. 50,000 awarded to petitioner against Punjab National Bank. [Paras 10-11]

Civil Procedure - Amendment of Written Statement - Proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 – Tenant-petitioner sought amendment of written statement after issues were framed and witnesses examined – Rent Controller dismissed application for lack of due diligence – Held, amendment not permissible post-commencement of trial unless due diligence shown – Petitioner failed to establish inability to raise issues earlier – Application for amendment dismissed. [Paras 2-3, 10]

Legal Principles - Amendment of Pleadings - Due Diligence Requirement – Proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC mandates no amendments after trial commencement without due diligence – Amendments sought included new pleas about legal notice, property requirements, and concealed facts – Rent Controller correctly applied law in dismissing amendment application – No bona fide or legitimate grounds for amendments shown. [Paras 6-8, 10-12]

Judicial Discretion - Consistency in Rulings – Petitioner's counsel argued inconsistency in Rent Controller’s orders on similar amendment applications – Court held circumstances of each case different – Consistency maintained with legal precedents disallowing post-trial commencement amendments without due diligence – Reliance on Apex Court judgments in Vidyabai and J. Samuel cases justified. [Paras 3, 6, 10]

Decision: Revision petition dismissed – Rent Controller's order dated 12.05.2016 upheld – Application for amendment of written statement rightly dismissed for lack of due diligence and bona fide grounds. [Para 13]

Criminal Law - Murder vs. Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder - Medical Evidence – Appellants/accused attacked deceased with blunt side of a sword and fisticuffs – Injuries on non-vital parts – Medical evidence indicated death due to pulmonary embolism, pneumonia, and kidney failure leading to cardio-pulmonary arrest – Injuries not sufficient to cause death in ordinary course – Modified conviction from Section 302 to Section 304-I IPC – Intention to cause bodily injury likely to cause death, but not definite to cause death – Conviction under Part I of Section 304 IPC. [Paras 35-37, 39-40]

Evidence - Medical Testimony and Causation of Death – Deceased did not suffer serious injury on vital organs – Injuries not individually or collectively sufficient to cause death – Cause of death attributed to supervening factors like pulmonary embolism and pneumonia – Medical evidence ruled out direct causation from injuries – Injuries led to conditions contributing to death but not the immediate cause. [Paras 35, 38]

Judicial Precedents - Interpretation of Evidence and Intention – Reference to case law distinguishing intention to cause death vs. intention to cause injury likely to cause death – Courts must evaluate medical evidence and actual injuries – Misapplication of intention results in modification of conviction to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. [Paras 37, 40]

Decision: Conviction modified from Section 302 IPC to Section 304-I IPC – Appellants sentenced to period already undergone in custody – Additional fine of Rs. 1 lakh each imposed, with compensation to legal heirs of deceased – Sentence modification considers long period already served. [Paras 42-43]

Criminal Law - Conviction for Murder - Direct Evidence vs. Motive – Appellant convicted for murdering his wife by inflicting injuries with a sharp-edged weapon – Appellant argued lack of motive – Court held motive insignificant in the presence of direct evidence – Conviction based on eyewitness testimony and forensic evidence upheld – Appellant’s contention regarding lack of motive dismissed as irrelevant. [Paras 44-45]

Evidence - Eyewitness Testimony and Forensic Corroboration – Prosecution's case supported by testimonies of eyewitnesses and the recovery of the weapon – Medical evidence confirmed the cause of death due to injuries inflicted by the appellant – Forensic examination of the weapon found human blood – Court found overwhelming evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. [Paras 44-45]

Judicial Principles - Role of Motive in Presence of Direct Evidence – Court reiterated that motive is hidden in the heart and mind of the offender and is often difficult to ascertain – When direct evidence is available, the role of motive diminishes – Courts rely on direct and circumstantial evidence to establish guilt. [Paras 44]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC upheld – Overwhelming evidence and lack of credible defense led to dismissal of the appeal. [Paras 46]

Criminal Law - Conviction for Murder - Evidentiary Basis and Delay in Forensic Examination – Accused-appellants convicted under Sections 302/34 and 506 IPC for attacking the deceased with knives – Delay of 6 months in forensic examination of knives – Held, delay not beneficial to the accused given doctor's opinion that injuries matched knives – Inordinate delay potentially affecting blood detection on knives – Conviction upheld as intention inferred from weapon used, body parts targeted, and force applied. [Paras 26, 31]

Evidence - Medical and Forensic Testimonies – Blood not detected on knives due to delay in examination – Doctor’s opinion confirmed injuries on deceased matched recovered knives – Injuries declared sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature – Medical and forensic evidence corroborated prosecution’s case. [Paras 26, 31]

Judicial Principles - Inference of Intention from Circumstances – Intention inferred from weapon type, targeted body parts, applied force, and circumstantial factors – Injuries on vital body parts indicated deliberate intention to cause death – Supreme Court precedents affirming inference based on weapon and injury analysis followed. [Paras 26, 31]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 302/34 and 506 IPC upheld – Accused-appellants’ arguments regarding forensic delay and lack of intention rejected. [Paras 32-33]

Constitutional Law - Eligibility for Public Service Appointments – Petitioners, employees of Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL), claimed eligibility for PCS (Executive Branch) via Register C – Held, employees of statutory Boards/Corporations do not hold civil posts under the State or Union – Boards/Corporations are distinct entities, even if state-owned and controlled – Petitioners’ service not under the government, thus ineligible for PCS (Executive Branch) through Register C. [Paras 26-28]

Service Law - Civil Posts under the State - Distinction and Criteria – Detailed criteria for determining civil posts under the State – Corporations, though state-controlled, have independent existence – Service conditions not regulated by rules framed under Article 309 – Petitioners appointed by a Board and not a government department – Previous state department work transferred to Boards/Corporations does not affect current status. [Paras 26-28]

Judicial Precedents - Separate Entities and Service Rules – Employees of Punjab Vidhan Sabha and High Court treated differently due to constitutional creation and agreed applicability of Punjab Civil Services Rules – Petitioners’ reliance on past administrative functions of electricity supply department unavailing – Petitioners do not meet criteria for civil posts under Articles 309 or 311. [Paras 27-28]

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Petitioners not eligible for appointment to PCS (Executive Branch) through Register C as they do not hold civil posts under the State. [Para 29]

Civil Procedure - Amendment of Pleadings - Bona Fide Intention – Petition for amendment of eviction petition and impleadment of Praveen Prakash Kanwal as petitioner No.2 claiming independent landlord status – Held, amendment permissible as long as material pleadings are not altered or substituted and the amendment is bona fide – No mala fide intention found, and amendment necessary for proper adjudication – Application allowed subject to costs. [Paras 17, 20]

Rent Law - Amendment of Eviction Petition - Impleadment of Trustee – Original petition filed by Trust through Managing Trustee, Chhajusing, with general power of attorney, Praveen Kanwal – Application for amendment filed after 7 years to implead Praveen Kanwal as independent landlord – Court allowed amendment considering it necessary to determine real questions in controversy – Delay not a bar for bona fide amendments – Costs imposed for delay. [Paras 6-8, 10-12, 20]

Judicial Precedents - Principles for Allowing Amendments – Apex Court’s principles in Revajeetu Builders & Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and other cases followed – Courts should be liberal in allowing amendments necessary for justice – Amendments should not alter or substitute material pleadings or cause serious prejudice to the opposite party – Ensures adjudication of real issues. [Paras 17, 20]

Decision: Revision petitions allowed – Application for amendment and impleadment as petitioner No. 2 granted – Costs of Rs. 5000/- imposed for each case payable to the tenants. [Para 20]

Criminal Law - Parole - Temporary Release of Prisoners – Petitioner, a life convict for murder, denied parole on grounds of potential criminal activity – Held, likelihood of committing crime while on parole is not sufficient to decline parole – Parole can be denied only if release endangers state security or public order – Petitioner does not fall under 'hardcore prisoner' category, making him eligible for parole – Petition allowed, authorities directed to reconsider parole application. [Paras 11-13]

Statutory Interpretation - Definitions and Conditions – Section 2(aa) defines 'hardcore prisoner' excluding the petitioner – Sections 3 and 4 allow parole and furlough for good conduct, while Section 5A restricts release of certain prisoners – Section 6(2) specifies denial grounds related to state security and public order – Petitioner's parole denial on grounds of potential crime deemed unjustified – Authorities must provide valid reasons aligned with statutory provisions. [Paras 11-12]

Administrative Discretion - Judicial Review – District Magistrate’s recommendation based on general likelihood of crime insufficient – Statutory mandate requires specific threats to state security or public order for parole denial – Arbitrary exercise of administrative discretion rectified through judicial intervention – Authorities directed to reassess parole application with clear reasoning. [Paras 13, 16]

Decision: Petition allowed – District Magistrate's recommendation dated 1.2.2016 set aside – Authorities directed to reconsider parole application and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law – Parole granted subject to petitioner’s compliance with surety and behavioral conditions. [Paras 16-17]

Rent Law - Eviction for Bona Fide Requirement - Personal Necessity – Landlord filed ejectment petition for the bona fide requirement of setting up his son – Concurrent findings by lower courts ordering eviction – Petitioner contended that during pendency of the proceedings, landlord’s son had let out another property – Petitioner's application for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC to raise this point was rejected and never challenged – Held, eviction ordered based on bona fide requirement upheld – Revision petition dismissed. [Paras 1, 5, 8]

Civil Procedure - Amendment of Pleadings - Due Diligence Requirement – Tenant’s application for amendment of written statement under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC rejected by Rent Controller – Application sought to raise new issues about letting out property by landlord’s son – Rejected due to conclusion of evidence and lack of challenge to the rejection order – Amendment not permissible post-commencement of trial without due diligence. [Paras 5-6]

Judicial Review - Concurrent Findings - Revisional Jurisdiction – High Court noted that both lower courts had given concurrent findings regarding the landlord’s bona fide need – No specific grounds in tenant’s reply denying the requirement for personal necessity – Witnesses testified about landlord’s health and son’s need for premises – No new evidence justifying interference in lower courts’ well-reasoned orders – Revision petition dismissed in limine. [Paras 4, 6-9]

Decision: Revision petition dismissed – Eviction order upheld – Petitioner's application for amendment rightly rejected due to lack of challenge and late-stage filing – Landlord’s bona fide requirement for son’s use of premises affirmed. [Para 9]