Haryana Staff Selection Commission - Recruitment for the post of Clerk - Revision of answer key - Challenge to correctness of answer - Expert committee's opinion - Scope of interference by the Court - Timeliness of the petition - High Court dismissed the petition - Appeal filed - Supreme Court precedents considered - Held, once the matter has been examined by experts, the Court is not required to question the correctness of their opinion - In this case, an expert committee examined the correctness of the answer to the disputed question - Answer revised based on their opinion - Single Judge's decision justified - Advertisement issued in 2015, examination held in 2016, result published in 2017, revised result declared in 2018 - Taking up the issue at this stage would not serve any meaningful purpose - Appeal dismissed. (Para No. 6&7)

Invocation of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 – Whether every trivial dispute can be resolved through the extraordinary jurisdiction of the court – Trend of filing writ petitions with imaginary or trivial causes of action should be discouraged.

HSLC Examination 2021 – Evaluation of marks – Guidelines issued for evaluation of theory marks – Petitioner’s daughter shown to have failed – Allegation that evaluation not in accordance with guidelines. Examination assessment in subject MIL (Bengali) – Marks secured in Class-IX and Pre-Board examination – Calculation as per guidelines – Assessment found to be as per guidelines – Discretionary enhancement of marks explained. Poor performance in previous examination – Lack of genuine cause of action – Abuse of process – Writ petition dismissed.

Cost imposed on petitioner – Rs. 10,000/- - Trend of filing writ petitions with trivial causes of action to be discouraged.  

Negotiable Instruments – Material Alteration – Appeal against Acquittal – Cheque of Rs.1,30,000 not encashed due to 'Payment Stopped by Drawer' – Allegation of material alteration by adding '1' before Rs.30,000 – Held, material alteration renders instrument void unless made to carry out common intention of original parties – Appellant admitted figure '1' was added subsequently – Trial court acquittal upheld – Appeal dismissed. [Para 9]

Void Instrument – Analysis – No evidence that alteration carried out with mutual intent – Complainant failed to prove that figure '1' was originally on the cheque or added with drawer's consent – Cheque deemed void due to material alteration without authentication – Trial court's findings correct. [Para 9]

Scope of Interference – Limited in Acquittal Appeals – Appeal Court cannot set aside acquittal unless view taken by Trial Court is impossible or perverse – Interference only warranted if view taken is untenable – Trial court's view reasonable and supported by evidence. [Para 10]

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Judgment of acquittal upheld – No material irregularity or perversity in Trial Court's judgment – Appeal dismissed for lack of merit. [Para 11]

Customs Act, 1962 - Section 130 - Appeal against order - Final order passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) allowing the appeal filed by the respondent-assessee - Duty demanded, penalties imposed, and fine redemption ordered - Loss of imported goods during transit - Replacement of lost quantity by the respondent to fulfill export obligation - Non-claiming of rebate or duty drawback - Discharge of advance authorization - Redemption of bond - Proceedings initiated by Customs Authorities - Violation of conditions of notification - Whether Customs Authorities can initiate proceedings once export obligation is fulfilled and bond is redeemed - Held, once export obligation is discharged and bond is redeemed, Customs Authorities cannot initiate proceedings against the respondent-assessee - No violation of conditions of notification - No illegality or perversity found in impugned order - Appeal dismissed.

Criminal Procedure - Production of additional documents - Permission to produce photocopy of a document - Validity - Para 9, 10: If some mistake is made by the investigating officer by not producing a relevant document at the time of submitting the report or charge sheet, it is open to the investigating officer to produce the same with the permission of the court - The absence of specific prohibition allows for the production of additional documents at a subsequent stage - The genuineness and veracity of the document can be determined during the trial stage - No interference warranted in allowing the document to be received on file, subject to objection - Criminal Miscellaneous Case dismissed.

Objections during evidence stage - Admissibility of material in evidence - Practice of deciding objections immediately during evidence taking stage considered archaic - Procedure of tentatively marking objected document as an exhibit in the case, subject to objections to be decided at the last stage in the final judgment - De-cluttering the record and preventing frivolous objections - Trial courts empowered to decide objections during the course of the proceeding or at the end of the deposition of the witness concerned - Previous practice of deciding objections during evidence taking stage not binding - Practice to be modified to ensure steady and swift progress of trial proceedings - Para 11, 12.

Criminal Revision – Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act – Revisionist's Challenge to Session Judge's Order  The revisionist challenged an order by the Session Judge, Meerut, which set aside an earlier order by the Additional Special Court. The case revolves around a complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. [Para 2-3]

Legal Arguments – Revisionist's Contention 

The revisionist argued that the revisional court's findings were illegal and arbitrary. She contended that the accused's offer to compound the matter by paying the cheque amount with an additional 10% was insufficient, especially given the 14-year duration of the case. [Para 4]

Supreme Court Precedents – Interpretation of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act 

The judgment refers to the Supreme Court's view that offenses under Section 138 are primarily civil wrongs. The Court can close proceedings and discharge the accused if the cheque amount with assessed costs and interest is paid. [Para 5-6]

Punjab and Haryana High Court Precedents – Requirement of Complainant's Consent for Compounding 

The respondent cited a Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment, emphasizing that the consent of the complainant for compounding the offense under Section 138 is a must. [Para 7]

Court's Observation – Discretionary Power of the Court 

The Court observed that while the consent of the complainant is generally required for compounding, the Court can use its discretion to close proceedings under certain circumstances, such as when an appropriate amount has been offered or deposited. [Para 8]

Decision – Dismissal of Criminal Revision -

The Court found no cause for interference with the revisional court's order and dismissed the criminal revision. [Para 9]

Service Law - Promotion - Educational Qualification and ACRs - Petition challenging promotions of respondent No.2 on grounds of lacking requisite educational qualifications and procedural improprieties in ACR considerations - Court finds respondent No.2 lacked qualifications for feeder cadre posts, including Private Secretary and Assistant Registrar - Petitioner's ACRs not communicated as per established legal precedents, rendering DPC decision invalid - Orders for reverting respondent No.2 and reconsideration of petitioner's promotion from the date of wrongful supersession - Petition allowed. [Paras 1-39]

Educational Qualification and Promotion - Requirement - Analysis - Held - Respondent No.2 lacked the requisite educational qualifications for the post of Stenographer, Private Secretary, and subsequently Assistant Registrar - Promotions granted to respondent No.2 were contrary to service rules - ACRs of petitioner not communicated as per Supreme Court precedents in Dev Dutt and Sukhdev Singh cases, necessitating quashing of DPC decision. [Paras 12-36]

Judicial Review - Administrative Powers of Chief Justice - Extent - Analysis - Held - Orders of the Chief Justice regarding appointments are subject to judicial review - Appointments not made in accordance with statutory rules and educational qualifications can be quashed by the court - Precedents from Supreme Court cases Union of India v. G. Ganayutham, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, and others applied. [Paras 21-24, 27-28]

Decision - Promotion and Reversion - Orders - Court directs DPC to reconsider petitioner's promotion from 11/14.08.2016 - Respondent No.2 to be reverted to a post fitting his qualifications - Entire exercise to be completed within 30 days - Petition allowed with no order as to costs. [Paras 37-39]

Default Bail - Grant of - Indefeasible right of accused - In case of default by investigating agency in presenting report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. within stipulated period - Once extension order for presentation of challan is set aside, further detention of accused would be in violation of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. read with Section 36A(4) of NDPS Act - Accused entitled to bail.

Proviso (a) to Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. - Order-on-default - Accused's right to bail - If police fails to complete investigation and put up challan against accused within prescribed period, an indefeasible right to be enlarged on bail accrues in favor of accused - Obligation on court to decline further remand after expiry of maximum custody period and inform accused of right to be released on bail - Merits of case not to be examined at that stage.

Proviso (a) to Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. - Indefeasible right to bail - Bail granted due to default by investigating agency in completing investigation and filing challan within prescribed period - Accused released on bail deemed to be so released under provisions of Chapter XXXIII of Cr.P.C. for purposes of that Chapter.

Section 36A(4) of NDPS Act - Offences triable by Special Courts - Reference to "ninety days" in sub-section (2) of Section 167 Cr.P.C. construed as reference to "one hundred and eighty days" in respect of persons accused of offence punishable under sections 19, 24, 27A, or for offences involving commercial quantity - Special Court empowered to extend period up to one year on report of Public Prosecutor if investigation not completed within one hundred and eighty days.

Compliance with bail conditions - Accused ordered to appear before police station on first Monday of every month and inform in writing that he is not involved in any other crime - FDR of Rs.1,00,000/- to be deposited and liable to be forfeited in case of accused's absence from trial without sufficient cause.

Bail and Surety Bond Forfeiture – Unwarranted Issuance of Non-Bailable Warrants – The trial court's mechanical issuance of non-bailable warrants against the appellant, Major Singh, on account of his single absence on 20.12.2022, challenged – Petitioner contends violation of procedure prescribed under CrPC Sections 73, 82, and 446. [Paras 3, 6-7, 9, 13, 27, 29-30]

Judicial Discretion in Issuing Warrants – Supreme Court’s Guidelines – Non-bailable warrants should not be issued without properly examining facts and applying judicial mind – Importance of personal liberty highlighted by Supreme Court precedents. [Paras 10-11, 17-18]

Requirements for Issuance of Proclamation – Section 82 CrPC – Court must record reasons for belief that the accused has absconded or is concealing himself before issuing proclamation – Such satisfaction not recorded in this case. [Paras 20-21, 23]

Forfeiture of Bonds under Section 446 CrPC – Requirement of showing breach of bail conditions before forfeiture – Merely missing a court appearance insufficient for bail bond forfeiture – Opportunity to show cause essential. [Paras 25-28]

Decision: Petition Allowed – The impugned orders (Annexure P-5 and P-6) dated 20.12.2022 and 03.04.2023 by the trial court set aside – The petitioner directed to appear before the trial court and be admitted to bail upon furnishing fresh bail bonds along with costs. [Para 33]