Maintenance Awarded by Family Court – Challenged by Husband – Family Court ordered husband to pay Rs. 40,000/- monthly for wife and daughter maintenance – Husband’s revision application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. claiming inability to pay and contesting wife’s ability to earn – [Para 1, 2, 4]

Assessment of Maintenance – Husband’s Income and Wife’s Earning Capacity – Contention of underreported income by husband and wife’s potential to earn – Court examined factors including status, income, property, and liabilities of parties for maintenance determination – [Para 9-11, 13]

Evidence and Legal Principles – Husband’s duty under Section 106 of the Evidence Act to disclose income – Court relied on precedents for assessing underreported income and deciding maintenance, emphasizing holistic evidence assessment – [Para 11-13]

Decision – Revision Application Dismissed – High Court upheld Family Court’s maintenance order – No merit found in husband’s revision application under limited revisional jurisdiction – [Para 13]

Issue of Interpretation of Section 148 of N.I. Act – Concerns appellate court’s discretion in ordering payments pending appeal against conviction under Section 138 of N.I. Act – Requirement for reasons supporting appellate court’s order [Para 1].

Section 148 of Negotiable Instruments Act – Interpretation and Application – Held – Appellate Court possesses discretion to demand or waive deposit of a portion of fine or compensation awarded by trial court while appeal against cheque dishonour conviction is pending. Minimum deposit, if ordered, cannot be less than 20% of the awarded amount. Appellate Court mandated to furnish reasons for its decision, ensuring alignment with the statutory provision's objectives. [Paras 8-9]

Decision – Remanding Cases for Fresh Orders – The High Court, in light of the absence of reasons in the Appellate Court’s orders, sets aside these orders, instructing the Appellate Court to issue new orders considering the guidance provided. The cases are remanded for fresh adjudication in accordance with the observations made. [Paras 9]

Appeal Against Tribunal's Award – Appeal filed by ICICI Lombard Motor Insurance against award dated 22.7.2009 by Third Additional Judge to First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior in Claim Case No. 50/2009 – Challenge to compensation amount awarded for death in a road accident. [Para 1]

Factual Background – Respondents/claimants sought compensation for the death of Sonu @ Shankar Pratap Singh Jadoun in an accident involving a loading auto – Vehicle's driver and owner (Respondents No. 3 and 4) proceeded ex-parte. [Paras 2-3]

Insurance Company's Denial of Liability – Appellant (Insurance Company) denied liability citing breach of policy terms – Offending vehicle allegedly plied in violation of policy conditions. [Para 4]

Tribunal's Decision – Claims Tribunal partly allowed the claim, granting Rs. 1,96,912/- with 7% interest per annum – Directed driver, owner of the vehicle, and insurance company to pay jointly and severely. [Para 5]

Appellant's Arguments – Insurance company contested tribunal's decision, arguing breach of driving license terms and incorrect dependency calculation, as the deceased was unmarried. [Para 6]

Respondents/Claimants' Counter-Arguments – Claimed inadequate compensation, overlooked evidence on the deceased's income, and sought additional compensation for "pain and suffering" and "future prospects". [Para 7]

Judicial Analysis and Rulings:

License Validity Ruling – Apex Court precedent (Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Company Limited) upholds validity of LMV license for driving transport vehicle – Tribunal's finding on driver's valid license affirmed. [Para 8-9]

Dependency Calculation – Deceased being unmarried, dependency calculated at 1/2 as per Sarla Verma Vs. DTC precedent. [Para 10]

Income Estimation – Tribunal's estimation of deceased's annual income as Rs.15,000/- upheld due to lack of documentary evidence. [Para 11]

Compensation Calculation – Calculation includes Rs. 27412/- for medical expenses, 40% for future prospects, Multiplier of 18, and Rs.70,000/- in other heads – Total compensation enhanced to Rs.2,86,412/-. [Paras 12-13]

Decision – Award to respondents/claimants enhanced from Rs.1,96,912/- to Rs.2,86,412/- – Enhanced amount, with interest, to be paid by insurance company – Appeal allowed to this extent. [Para 14]

Court Fee Adjustment – Direction to claimants to deposit the difference in court fee, if applicable. [Para 15]

Criminal Conspiracy and Murder - Conviction for Criminal Conspiracy under Section 120-B and Murder under Section 302 and 302/34 of IPC - Incident involving the murder of Ahsan through shooting after a criminal conspiracy - Accused Kammu @ Kamlesh, Sheju Mewati @ Shahjad Kha, Ansar, Rijwan @ Tinu, and Jafar convicted for their respective roles in the conspiracy and the murder. [Paras 1, 2, 22, 25]

Eye Witness Testimony and Investigation - Key witness Naushad (PW-2)’s testimony established the presence of accused at the scene and their participation in the crime - Independent witness turned hostile, but other evidence supported prosecution's case - Statements of Police Inspector R.D. Mishra (PW-15) and B.L. Charan (PW-27) corroborated the prosecution's case. [Paras 11-13, 17, 20, 21]

Medical Evidence - Postmortem report by Dr. D.K. Sharma (PW-8) confirmed the death of Ahsan was homicidal in nature due to a gunshot wound - The court found no reason to doubt the autopsy report. [Paras 7-9]

Challenges to Conviction - Appellants challenged the trial court’s judgment, citing errors in evaluating evidence and witnesses, contradictions in statements, and wrongful rejection of a Section 311 Cr.P.C application - High Court found these contentions unmeritorious, holding the trial court's judgment as based on credible evidence. [Paras 4, 14-19, 24, 25]

Confirmation of Conviction and Sentence - High Court affirmed the trial court's decision - Convictions and sentences of life imprisonment for all appellants upheld - Directed accused/appellants on bail to surrender within 15 days to serve remaining sentence. [Paras 25-27]

Land Acquisition and Railway Employment Policy – Petitioners claim employment as a right following land acquisition by Railways – Question of policy application in granting jobs for land acquired for railway projects – Monetary compensation deemed primary, employment secondary and conditional – Review of Railway employment policy implications. [Paras 1, 2, 4, 8, 16-17]

Eligibility and Policy Conditions – Jobs post-acquisition offered only under specific conditions – Must fulfil educational qualifications, recruitment criteria, and timing constraints (within two years or first recruitment post-acquisition) – Equal opportunity principles under Article 14 stressed, barring direct appointments. [Para 2]

Policy Differentials and Case Analysis – Variations in Railway employment policies across projects – North side of Ganga Bridge with job provision stipulation, others without – Ineligibility and delay as grounds for rejecting applications – Focus on policy application per individual case, not broadly. [Paras 3, 11, 18-22]

Judicial Precedents and Policy Interpretation – Reference to several Supreme Court judgments including Umesh Kumar Nagpal, Shankar Prasad Deep, and Anil Kumar – Emphasis on consistent policy application, meeting eligibility, and avoiding delay – Compassionate appointment principles extended to land acquisition cases. [Paras 5, 9-10, 13-15]

Judgement and Relief – Appeals allowed, setting aside the Single Judge's orders – Petitioners not qualifying under employment policy for land losers – Directive for individual case analysis and application of current policies – No uniform relief for all appellants, based on specific land acquisition scenarios. [Paras 18-23]

Criminal Revision – Challenging conviction for selling adulterated milk under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 – Petitioner convicted by trial court and appellate court – Allegations of procedural lapses and improper evaluation of evidence. [Paras 1-6]

Evidence and Procedure – Challenge against non-consideration of petitioner’s statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. – Argument of reliance on photocopy documents under Section 78 of Evidence Act – Issues of inordinate delay in filing complaint and non-compliance with Section 13(2) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. [Paras 4-6]

Legal Analysis – Reference to Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander & Ors. for principles guiding revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C. – Assessment of evidence and no perversity found in lower courts' decisions – Rejection of arguments related to sanctioning authority, service of notice, and compliance issues. [Paras 9-16]

Sentence Modification – Application of beneficial amendments under Article 20 of the Constitution – Citing T. Barai Vs. Henry Ah Hoe and other cases for lesser punishment under amended laws – Conviction upheld, but sentence modified to fine based on the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. [Paras 17-24]

Decision – Petitioner’s conviction under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act maintained – Sentence modified to a fine of Rs. 50,000 in light of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. [Para 25]a

Criminal Procedure – Appeal Against Acquittal – Section 378(4) CrPC –challenge against the acquittal of the respondent in a case under Section 138, 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and Section 420 IPC. The application sought to reverse the order of acquittal by the Judicial Magistrate on the grounds of misuse of cheque and insufficiency of funds. [Para 1, 2]

Evidence and Proof – Financial Capacity to Lend – The appellant's financial capacity to lend Rs. 2,00,000 was critically analyzed. Income tax returns and personal financial obligations were examined, leading to the conclusion that the appellant lacked the financial capacity to lend the alleged sum. This finding cast doubt on the credibility of the appellant's claim. [Para 3]

Cheque Dishonour – Negotiable Instruments Act – Examination of circumstances surrounding the dishonoured cheque. Discrepancies in the completion of the cheque, such as differences in handwriting, suggested manipulation by the appellant, thereby undermining the accusation against the respondent. [Para 3]

Appellate Review – Scope and Limitation – The High Court reiterated the established principles governing appellate interference in cases of acquittal. It emphasized the respect for the trial court's assessment of witness credibility and the need to uphold the trial court's decision when two plausible views exist, especially when one favors the accused's innocence. [Para 4]

Judicial Discretion – Denial of Leave to Appeal – The Court found no perversity or illegality in the trial court's findings that would warrant appellate interference. The application for leave to appeal against the acquittal was thus denied, upholding the trial court's judgment. [Para 5]

Criminal Procedure – Revision of Order – Section 311 Cr.P.C. – Court examined the petitioner's application under Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code for the recall and examination of defense witnesses in a case involving Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner sought to set aside the orders of lower courts, which dismissed his application for the recall of a defense witness and summoning of his advocate. [Para 1-3]

Application for Recall and Examination of Defense Witnesses – Dismissed – The Court found no merit in the petitioner's argument for recalling the defense witness and summoning his advocate. It was observed that the petitioner failed to establish how the examination of these witnesses was essential for a just decision of the case. Furthermore, the conversation between an advocate and a client is protected, and using it to the disadvantage of the complainant was deemed inappropriate. [Para 5]

Scope and Exercise of Power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. – Analyzed – The High Court analyzed the scope of Section 311 of the Cr.P.C., emphasizing that the court's power to summon or recall witnesses must be used judiciously and only when such evidence is deemed essential for a just adjudication of the case. The Court referred to precedents set by the Supreme Court in its deliberation. [Para 6-11]

Decision – Application for Recall and Examination of Witnesses Rejected – The High Court upheld the orders of the lower courts, concluding that the petitioner's application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was an attempt to fill lacunae in his case and delay the trial. It was held that the necessary conditions for invoking Section 311 Cr.P.C. were not met in this instance. [Para 13-14]

Judgement – Petition Dismissed – The petition was dismissed by the High Court, affirming the decisions of the lower courts and highlighting the importance of the prudent exercise of judicial discretion in matters involving the recall and examination of witnesses. [Para 14]

DJS Examination 2023 Answer Key Challenge – Preliminary Examination – Answer Key Challenge – The petitioners, aspiring to join the Delhi Judicial Services, challenged the Model Answer Key and the Revised Answer Key of the Delhi Judicial Services Examination 2023, asserting errors and inconsistencies. [Para 1-5]

Multiple Correct Answers in Preliminary Examination – not permissible – The Court held that accepting two correct answers for one question was contrary to the examination's scheme, which was based on each question having only one correct answer, with negative marking for incorrect answers. Consequently, questions with two correct answers were invalidated. [Para 17-32]

Scope of Judicial Review – Restricted – The Court underscored that judicial review of evaluation in examinations is limited. Intervention is warranted only if the answer key is palpably erroneous or the evaluation process is arbitrary or discriminatory. [Para 12-16]

Revised Answer Key – Erroneous Entries – Specific questions in the Revised Answer Key were found to be incorrectly evaluated. The Court directed the rectification of these errors and re-evaluation of the examinees accordingly. [Para 32-71]

Relief Granted – Re-evaluation and Inclusion of Additional Qualified Candidates – The Court ordered the re-evaluation of the examinees based on the amended answer key and the inclusion of additional qualifying candidates for the Delhi Judicial Service Mains (Written) Examination. [Para 72-73]

Decision – Set Aside Parts of Revised Answer Key – The Court set aside parts of the Revised Answer Key that provided for multiple correct answers for the same question and directed the re-evaluation of the examination based on the corrected answer key. [Para 72-73]