Civil Procedure – Rejection of Plaint – Application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC – Trial Court dismissed application to reject plaint filed by children of the donor challenging gift deed executed by their father – High Court holds that once the donor had withdrawn his suit challenging the gift deed, his children could not subsequently challenge the same deed – High Court emphasizes that validity of gift deed rests between donor and donee – Rejection of application by Trial Court overturned – Plaint rejected. [Paras 1-10]

Gift Deed – Validity and Legal Challenge – Donor’s suit for cancellation of gift deed and subsequent withdrawal – Children of the donor cannot challenge gift deed after donor's withdrawal of suit – High Court underscores that acceptance of gift by donor and withdrawal of suit precludes further challenge by donor’s heirs – Trial Court’s order set aside, plaint rejected. [Paras 7-10]

Decision: Held: Revision petition allowed – Order of the Trial Court set aside – Plaint rejected. [Para 10]

Extradition Proceedings – Appointment of Advocate for Prosecution – Petition by Samsung Gulf Electronics, FZE seeking the appointment of an advocate for prosecuting the extradition request of Sukhmeet Singh Anand in Spain – Respondent authorities directed to appoint an advocate to assist in extradition proceedings. [Paras 1-18]

Representation in Foreign Legal Proceedings – Analysis – Court considers the necessity of effective legal representation in extradition proceedings in Spain – Emphasizes on the right of the petitioner to assist the prosecution, as permitted by the Indian trial court – Highlights the duty of respondent authorities to ensure effective legal pursuit of the extradition request, noting previous denial due to alleged inadequate representation. [Paras 13-16]

Decision – Directs Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 (Delhi Police) to seek the appointment of an advocate for extradition proceedings – Consideration for appointment at the petitioner's expense – Ministry of External Affairs to communicate the decision to Spanish authorities – Ensures compliance with established legal rights and international legal norms. [Para 17]

Acquittal - Charge under Section 395 of IPC – Conviction – Challenge to – Accusation of dacoity – Four appellants faced trial for committing dacoity in respect of cash, mobiles, and other belongings of the informant – Framing of charge without indication of participation of five or more persons – Essential ingredient of dacoity not satisfied – Charge not sustainable – Case records and informant’s testimony indicating participation of only four persons – Charge and conviction under Section 395 IPC set aside.

Identification of appellants – Test Identification Parade (T.I. Parade) – Legal sanctity – T.I. parade conducted by police and later by Magistrate – Non-examination of Magistrate who conducted the parade – Prosecution’s duty to establish legality of T.I. parade – Failure to examine Magistrate a severe blow to prosecution – Defence unable to challenge irregularities without Magistrate’s testimony – No material against two appellants except confessional statement – No T.I. parade conducted for these appellants – No identification of seized articles by informant in court – Recovery of articles cannot establish guilt – T.I. parade conducted after appellants were previously known to informant – Test Identification Parade of accused known to witnesses holds no value.

Decision – Acquittal of Appellants: Court set aside the trial court’s order of conviction due to insufficient evidence and procedural lapses in the T.I. Parade – All appellants acquitted under Section 395 IPC – Bail bonds of appellants discharged [Para 9].

Land Transaction & Dispute – Appellant’s acquisition of land through unregistered sale deed followed by regularization under Section 5-A of ROR Act – Subsequent cancellation of pattadar passbook and title deed by RDO and Joint Collector on appeal by the 5^th respondent claiming forgery and fraud. [Para 3]

Jurisdictional Error in Appeal – Revenue Divisional Officer and Joint Collector’s orders challenged – Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad held no appeal against issuance of pattadar passbook and title deed under Section 6-A of ROR Act – Appeal before the 3^rd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer against issuance of pattadar passbook under Section 6-A found not maintainable. [Paras 6-7]

Decision – Writ Appeal allowed – Orders of Revenue Divisional Officer and Joint Collector set aside due to lack of jurisdiction – Parties left to seek appropriate remedies before the appropriate forum in accordance with law – No order as to costs. [Para 8]

Acquittal – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS) – Criminal Appeal against Special Court, Bathinda's judgment convicting under Sections 21 and 22 NDPS Act – High Court sets aside conviction – Finds prosecution's case unconvincing and lacking substantial proof – Highlights flaws in prosecution’s presentation and handling of evidence – Noted discrepancies in recovery process and involvement of independent witness – Held, stringent punishment demands stricter proof – Accused acquitted of all charges. [Paras 9-20]

Recovery of Contraband – Analysis – Prosecution alleged recovery of Methamphetamine and Codeine from appellants – Independent witness negates prosecution’s claim of recovery in his presence – Doubts raised over the credibility of police's version and handling of evidence – High Court finds prosecution's story implausible, particularly with regard to two persons carrying a bag of minor weight jointly – Appellants acquitted due to lack of convincing evidence. [Paras 14, 17-18]

Decision – Acquittal of Appellants – High Court observes that prosecution failed to establish a convincing case beyond reasonable doubt – Noted discrepancies in recovery process and inconsistencies in testimonies – Emphasizes the need for stricter proof in cases involving stringent penalties – Conviction under Sections 21 and 22 of NDPS Act set aside – Appellants acquitted of all charges. [Para 19-20]

Petitioner’s Claim for Re-investigation – Petitioner, belonging to SC community, alleges wrongful implication of her family in the murder of her husband and others due to media and public pressure on Delhi Police – Seeks transfer of case to CBI or an independent agency – Highlights lapses in police investigation, including delay in FIR registration, failure to examine local witnesses, and overlooking the property dispute angle – Asserts the improbability of family members committing the crime [Paras 2-4, 7].

Police Investigation and Evidence – FIR registered under Section 302 IPC against unknown persons – Later, son and son-in-law of petitioner among others arrested – Recovery of Rs. 1,03,000/- from accused – DNA profiling implicates son and son-in-law in the crime – Analysis of call records, property documents, and other evidence by the police [Paras 6, 16, 17].

Legal Principles Applied – Judgments cited by petitioner regarding principles for fair investigation and intervention by courts in investigation process – Supreme Court’s guidelines on extraordinary power of courts to order re-investigation or transfer of investigation to CBI – Distinction between inquiry under Section 174 and investigation under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. [Paras 5, 11-13, 14].

Court’s Assessment – No substantial evidence presented by petitioner to demonstrate bias or lack of credibility in police investigation – DNA and other scientific evidence considered credible – Property dispute angle explored and found unsubstantiated – FIR registration and investigative process found in order as per legal requirements [Paras 16-18].

Decision: Appeal for re-investigation dismissed – No substantial ground to doubt the credibility or impartiality of the police investigation – Scientific evidence and investigation findings pending evaluation by trial court – Petition and pending applications disposed of accordingly [Para 18].

Service Law - Promotion Dispute - Validity of Diploma - Writ Petition under Article 226 - Promotion to the post of Junior Engineer sought by petitioner based on Diploma in Civil Engineering obtained from 'Institute of Advanced Studies in Education Deemed University, Gandhi Vidya Mandir, Sardarshahr, Rajasthan' - Respondents withheld promotion citing non-recognition of University for distance education by All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) - Petitioner contends diploma is valid as per precedents - Respondents argue diploma obtained through distance education from unrecognized institution - Court examines precedents including Kartar Singh case and Jasvir Singh case - Upholds respondents' decision, dismisses petitions, finds no merit in petitioner's claim for promotion. [Paras 1-16]

Validity of Diploma - Precedents - Court refers to Division Bench judgments in Kartar Singh case and Jasvir Singh case - Kartar Singh case held degrees awarded by deemed universities through distance education mode illegal, relied on by Supreme Court for validity of engineering degrees - Jasvir Singh case denied promotion based on diploma obtained through distance learning from non-recognized institution - Court distinguishes Swaran Singh case cited by petitioner, holds no merit in petitioner's claim. [Paras 9-13]

Dismissal of Petitions - Court dismisses petitions, finds no merit in petitioner's claim for promotion, upholds respondents' decision citing non-recognition of diploma obtained through distance education from unrecognized institution - Precedents including Kartar Singh and Jasvir Singh cases considered - No document provided proving approval of Diploma certificate by State of Punjab. [Paras 14-16]

Specific Performance Suit - Court Fee Requirement - Dismissal of Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC - Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution - Challenge to the order directing the plaintiff to make good the deficiency in court fees - Plaintiff filed suit for specific performance of agreement/affidavit executed by defendant regarding property - Allegation that defendant agreed to execute transfer deed in favor of plaintiff - Defendant contended that ad valorem court fees not affixed - Plaint categorically stated no consideration amount passed - Court fees to be affixed according to consideration amount - No illegality or infirmity found in impugned order - Revision petition devoid of merit - Dismissed. [Paras 1-6]

Decision: Revision Petition Dismissed - Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order directing plaintiff to make good the deficiency in court fees - Revision petition devoid of merit - Dismissed. [Para 6]

Communal Hatred and Murder Case – Involvement of the applicant, Syed Asim Ali, in a brutal daylight murder, motivated by extreme communal hatred, involving multiple assailants and a larger conspiracy - Applicant accused of providing legal aid to main assailants - Case under Sections 302, 120B IPC and Section 66 of IT Act [Paras 1-3, 5-6, 8-9].

Bail Application Analysis – Bail application considered in light of jurisprudence principles and relevant factors such as the nature of the accusation, severity of punishment, risk of absconding, accused's character, likelihood of reoffending, potential influence on witnesses, and progress of the trial - Reference to various Supreme Court rulings [Para 10].

Denial of Bail – Bail denied based on the brutal nature of the crime, applicant's significant role in the conspiracy, and electronic evidence linking him to the main assailants - Concerns about influencing witnesses and ongoing trial proceedings - Comparisons made with co-accused's bail situations [Paras 10(a)-10(g)].

Direction for Expeditious Trial – Trial Court instructed to expedite the trial, with an observation on the current status of witness examination [Paras 11-12].