Servioce Law - Writ Petition – Delhi High Court – Group-D to Group-C Upgradation in Delhi Police – Petition challenging Central Administrative Tribunal’s decision dismissing the Original Application for parity in grade pay with Central Paramilitary Forces (CPMFs) – Dismissed as non-combatised roles in Delhi Police do not equate with combatised roles in CPMFs. [Paras 1, 2, 15-24]

Training and Upgradation – Comparison of Training and Duties – Distinct nature of training and roles between erstwhile Group-D employees in Delhi Police and ‘Followers’ in CPMFs – Lack of rigorous Arms and Ammunition Training and law enforcement duties for Delhi Police Group-D staff, unlike CPMFs – Tribunal’s rejection of parity in grade pay upheld. [Paras 28-34]

Pay Commission Recommendations – 6th Central Pay Commission – Implementation and interpretation – 6th CPC’s specific recommendations for CPMFs not applicable to Delhi Police’s non-combatised roles – Tribunal’s interpretation upheld in distinguishing between roles in Delhi Police and CPMFs. [Paras 20-21]

Equal Pay for Equal Work – Legal Principles – Supreme Court guidelines on equal pay for equal work – Necessity of examining duties, responsibilities, training, and nature of posts for determining pay parity – Tribunal’s decision in line with Supreme Court’s principles on job evaluation and pay determination. [Paras 22]

Decision – Dismissal of Writ Petition – Tribunal’s decision to reject OA for grade pay parity upheld – Distinction between duties and nature of employment in Delhi Police and CPMFs justifies different pay scales – Petitioners’ claim for grade pay of ₹2000/- dismissed, maintaining their grade pay at ₹1800/-. [Para 24]

Validity of Wills – Dispute over the last will of M.N. Ranganathan. The trial court’s dismissal of the suit contesting the will dated 27-01-1996 (Ex.D1) was challenged. The appellants asserted that the will dated 30-12-1992 (Ex.P11) was the valid last will of Ranganathan. [Paras 1, 3, 33-34, 43, 61-62]

Health Condition of Testator – Consideration of the testator’s health at the time of executing the wills. Evidence of medical treatment and mental state indicating he might not have been in a condition to execute the will dated 27-01-1996 (Ex.D1). [Paras 48, 50, 56, 58]

Suspicious Circumstances – Multiple suspicious circumstances surrounding Ex.D1, including inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses, the physical and mental state of the testator, and the manner in which Ex.D1 was found and registered. [Paras 43-44, 47-50, 52, 56-58]

Failure to Dispel Suspicions – Defendants failed to dispel the suspicions surrounding Ex.D1. The court found inconsistencies and unreliability in the evidence presented. [Paras 56, 59]

Admission of Earlier Will (Ex.P11) – Defendants’ admission of the will dated 30-12-1992 (Ex.P11) in their pleadings and the court’s finding that Ex.P11 was the last valid will of the testator. [Paras 61, 64]

Duties of Court Receiver – Directions regarding the duties of the Court Receiver, including handing over possession and documents to the plaintiffs and conducting an enquiry into the handling of the testator’s estate. [Paras 66-72]

Decision: Appeal allowed. The judgment of the trial court is set aside. The will dated 27-01-1996 (Ex.D1) declared null and void, and the will dated 30-12-1992 (Ex.P11) declared as the last valid will of M.N. Ranganathan. Directions issued to the Court Receiver.

Anticipatory Bail – Denial of anticipatory bail in a case involving economic offences and corruption – Petitioner, a revenue official (Patwari) involved in a land compensation fraud under the National Highway Act 1956 – Custodial interrogation necessary to uncover the extent of the conspiracy and financial implications – Bail denied due to the gravity of the offences and the need for a thorough investigation. [Paras 1, 3, 5, 9]

Economic Offences – Seriousness of economic offences and their impact on public interest and national economy – Economic offences involving deliberate and calculated actions for personal gain, considered grave and detrimental to societal and national interests – Importance of rigorous investigation in such cases emphasized. [Paras 11, 14]

Judicial Precedents – Reference to various Supreme Court rulings underscoring the importance of custodial interrogation in serious offences, especially economic crimes – Emphasis on balancing individual liberty with societal interests and the integrity of investigations – Precedents highlight the need for discretion in granting anticipatory bail based on the nature of the accusation, evidence, and severity of punishment. [Paras 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16]

Role of Revenue Officials in Land Compensation Frauds – Specific mention of the petitioner's role as a Patwari in falsifying land nature reports, leading to illegal financial gains and government losses – Illustration of how misuse of official position can facilitate significant economic crimes and corruption. [Paras 5, 7, 8]

Decision – High Court’s decision to deny anticipatory bail based on the seriousness of the allegations, the need for custodial interrogation, and the precedents set by the Supreme Court – Observations made in the judgment not to influence the trial court’s decision on regular bail or the merits of the case. [Para 17, 18]

Anticipatory Bail Application – Petitioner, a Horticulture Development Officer, sought anticipatory bail in FIR for corruption and forgery in land acquisition process – Alleged involvement in assisting in wrongful compensation claims for fruit trees during land acquisition by GMADA – Interim bail granted earlier, subject to conditions, but opposed by the state citing serious allegations and evidence of corruption. [Paras 1-2, 4-5]

Factual Background – FIR based on inquiry into land acquisition for "Aerotropolis Residential Project" – Allegations of corrupt practices in assessing compensation for fruit trees, with petitioner accused of preparing fraudulent reports to facilitate higher compensation – Petitioner's involvement indicated in discrepancies in assessment reports and signatures on official documents. [Paras 3, 7-8, 14-17]

Seriousness of Economic Offences – Court noted the gravity of economic offences and their impact on the state's economy and community trust – Emphasized the need for rigorous scrutiny in cases involving corruption and economic harm. [Paras 12-13, 15]

Considerations for Bail – Analysis of allegations and evidence against the petitioner – The court found substantial evidence linking petitioner to the crime, thus rejecting bail – Emphasized the need for custodial interrogation to uncover the full extent of the conspiracy and involvement of other officials. [Paras 6, 9-11, 16-18]

Supreme Court Precedents – Referenced various Supreme Court judgments outlining principles for granting anticipatory bail, especially in economic offences – Highlighted the importance of considering the nature of the offence, the severity of punishment, and the need for a thorough investigation. [Paras 11-15, 17]

Decision: Petition for anticipatory bail dismissed due to the seriousness of allegations and the need for custodial interrogation – Interim orders vacated.

Dishonor of Cheque – Conviction under Section 138 of N.I. Act – Accused issued a cheque for Rs. 66,000/- towards repayment of borrowed money, which was dishonored due to insufficient funds – Complaint filed under Section 138 of N.I. Act. [Para 3]

Trial Proceedings – Evidence and Verdict – P.W.1 (complainant) examined, and documents Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.10 marked – Trial Court convicted the accused, sentencing to simple imprisonment and fine – Accused's plea of not guilty and claim for trial noted. [Paras 4-6]

Appellate Court's Decision – Dismissal of Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 2008 – Confirmation of conviction and sentence by Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam. [Para 7]

Revision in High Court – Arguments and Analysis – Defense’s argument of insufficient evidence and improper evidence examination – High Court's examination of trial and appellate court's decisions and evidence – Reiteration of the legally enforceable debt and the dishonor of the cheque. [Paras 8-14]

Judgment Confirmation – High Court's Decision – Dismissal of Criminal Revision Case – Confirmation of judgment dated 16.02.2010 in Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 2008 – Conviction and sentence upheld. [Para 17]

Directions for Compliance – Registry directed to certify order to trial court for carrying out the sentence – Record and order to be forwarded to the trial court. [Paras 18-19]

Conviction for Offence under Section 304-A IPC – Petitioner, G. Somasekhar Reddy, driver of Diesel Auto, convicted for causing death by rash and negligent driving – Accident resulted in one fatality and multiple injuries – Conviction and sentence by trial court and confirmed by Additional Sessions Judge upheld. [Paras 1, 3, 7, 17]

Prosecution's Case – Accident on 29.11.2006 with overloaded auto, resulting in it turning turtle due to rash driving – Death of one and injuries to several passengers – Testimonies of injured passengers (LWs) and forensic evidence confirm prosecution's case. [Paras 3, 13, 14, 16, 17]

Evidence and Witness Testimonies – Reliance on testimonies of injured passengers – No dispute over identity of accused as the driver during the accident – Accused's denial of rash driving not accepted by Court. [Paras 14, 17, 18]

Application of Legal Principles – Judgment based on facts established by witness testimonies and forensic evidence – Consideration of accused's overloading of vehicle and consequent rash driving leading to the accident. [Paras 13-17]

Decision – Criminal Revision Case dismissed – Conviction and sentence for offence under Section 304-A IPC confirmed – Directions for execution of remaining sentence. [Para 19, 20]

Criminal Procedure Code – Quashing of FIR – Petition under Section 482 CrPC – Kalandra under Section 182 IPC against petitioners (complainant and shadow witness in a bribery case) – Allegation of giving false information and resiling from initial statement – Competent authority denied sanction for prosecution – Kalandra and consequent proceedings quashed. [Paras 1, 6, 7]

Judicial Process – Sanction for Prosecution – Necessity of sanction for prosecution in corruption cases – Competent authority's refusal to grant sanction negates jurisdiction for cognizance of offense – Importance of sanction in determining the course of prosecution and implication of complainant. [Para 6]

Evidence – Phenol Phthalein Test – Use in corruption case to establish receipt of bribe – Change of solution color to light pink indicating accused's contact with currency notes treated with phenanthrene powder – Role in establishing occurrence of bribery despite absence of sanction for prosecution. [Para 6]

Decision – High Court's quashing of proceedings for want of sanction and lack of false information by petitioner – Reiterates importance of sanction in corruption cases and safeguards against wrongful prosecution of complainants. [Para 7]

Bail Application – NDPS Act – Petitioner seeking bail under Section 439 CrPC for alleged violation of NDPS Act – Commercial quantity of contraband involved – Previous criminal history considered. [Para 1-4, 7-8]

Judicial Discretion in Bail – Criminal History Relevance – Criminal history to include only cases with convictions or pending FIRs where accused is arraigned – Acquittals, discharges, quashed FIRs, withdrawn prosecutions, or closed cases not to be included. [Para 6]

Bail Conditions – NDPS Act – Rigorous Section 37 NDPS Act requires satisfaction of twin conditions for bail – Need for substantial probable cause for believing accused is not guilty – Role of the court in assessing the likelihood of the accused not committing the offence while on bail. [Para 11-12]

Disclosure Statements – Reliability and Admissibility – Skepticism over reliance solely on disclosure statements for implicating accused – Reference to Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu regarding inadmissibility of confessional statements under Section 67 of NDPS Act. [Para 10, 14]

Bail Granted – Stringent Conditions Imposed – Petitioner granted bail subject to multiple stringent conditions, including personal bond, surety, restrictions on SIM cards, and surrender of weapons – Conditions tailored to prevent recurrence of offence and ensure trial attendance. [Para 13, 15-26]

Bail Order – Dynamic Applicability – Provisions for adjusting bond amount and modifying bail conditions in case of changed circumstances or hardship to the petitioner – Ensuring balance between individual rights and trial fairness. [Para 28]

Challenge to Order Declining Rejection of Plaint – The petitioner sought rejection of the plaint for recovery of Rs. 19,20,000 due to initial insufficiency of court-fee and alleged delay in making up the deficiency, contending the claim became time-barred – Original plaint filed with Rs. 50 court-fee, with a promise to pay the remaining Rs. 47,550 later – The trial court declined the rejection. [Paras 1-2]

Submission of Court-Fee – The plaintiff filed the required court-fee on 02.08.2023, after the initial insufficiency – This act was in response to the defendant's application for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, arguing the required court-fee was Rs. 1,00,100 and the delay rendered the suit time-barred. [Paras 2, 4]

Application of Section 149 CPC – Even though the plaintiff didn’t specify the legal provision under which the additional court-fee was submitted, the action aligns with Section 149 CPC – The Supreme Court's precedent suggests that non-mentioning of a specific legal provision doesn’t invalidate an action if the jurisdiction to act is established. [Para 5]

Provision of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Clauses (b) and (c) address rejection of plaints for court-fee issues – The plaintiff's submission of the deficit court-fee prior to any court order for correction negates the grounds for plaint rejection under these clauses. [Para 6]

Maintainability of Revision-Petition – The Supreme Court in Sri Rathnavarmaraja vs. Smt. Vimla observed that the issue of proper court-fee is primarily between the plaintiff and the State – The defendant does not have the right to appeal or seek revision against the order regarding court-fee payment. [Para 7]

Precedents' Applicability – Cited judgments (P.K. Palanisamy and K.C. Skaria) don’t support the defendant’s position – The plaintiff did not seek an amendment to increase the claim, nor was such an increase evidenced during the trial, differentiating from the circumstances in K.C. Skaria. [Para 8]

Decision: Revision-petition dismissed due to lack of illegality, irregularity, infirmity, or perversity in the impugned order.