Revision Petition – Legality and Regularity of Judgments Below: Revision petition filed challenging the legality, propriety, and regularity of the judgments in Crl.A. No.126/2003 by the Appellate Court and S.T.C.No.474/1997 by the Trial Court, which found the revision petitioner guilty under specified provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. [Para 1]

Prosecution Case – Sale of Adulterated Food: The case of the prosecution revolves around the sale of adulterated banana chips by the revision petitioner, where the adulteration was established through the analysis report of the Public Analyst. [Para 2]

Trial Court Verdict – Conviction of Revision Petitioner: The Trial Court, upon analysis of evidence, found the revision petitioner guilty of the offense, convicting and sentencing him to simple imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs.1,000/-. [Para 4]

Appellate Court Judgment – Confirmation of Conviction: The Appellate Court, after re-evaluating the evidence, confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court. [Para 6]

Central Government Recognized Laboratory – Requirement for Analysis: The Counsel for the revision petitioner emphasized on the Supreme Court judgments which mandated the analysis to be conducted in a laboratory recognized by the Central Government under Section 23(1-A)(ee) of the Act, without which the prosecution would fail. [Para 9]

Disagreement with Previous Supreme Court Ruling – Public Prosecutor's Argument: The Public Prosecutor argued for reconsideration of the reliance on the Supreme Court judgment, citing that Public Analysts have been appointed as per Section 8 of the Act, making the cited Supreme Court judgment inapplicable to the present case. [Para 10]

Supreme Court and Division Bench Rulings – Mandatory Laboratory Analysis: The Court discussed the Supreme Court and Division Bench judgments which clarified the necessity of analysis in a laboratory defined under Section 23(1-A)(ee) of the Act for launching a successful prosecution. [Para 15-16]

Acquittal of Revision Petitioner – Non-compliance with Mandatory Laboratory Analysis: Due to the non-compliance with the mandatory requirement of analysis in a recognized laboratory, the prosecution fails, leading to the acquittal of the revision petitioner, thereby allowing the revision petition and setting aside the impugned judgments below. [Para 17-18]

Land Acquisition – Rehabilitation Allotment – Cancellation of Allotment – Petitioner's appeal against the cancellation of allotment of land No.82, admeasuring 2500 sq.ft., due to non-compliance with condition of constructing house within one year from the date of allotment as per order dated 6th February 1976. [Para 1, 3, 9]

Maharashtra Resettlement of Project Displaced Persons Act, 1976 – Rehabilitation Act – Entitlement to Alternate Land – Petitioner entitled to 8000 sq.ft. of land under the Resettlement Act due to acquisition of his land for Ujjani Dam Project, challenges the non-allotment of balance 1500 sq.ft. of land. [Para 2]

Condition of Construction – Arbitrary Condition – Petitioner contends Condition No.4 of order dated 6th February 1976, requiring construction of house within one year of allotment, is arbitrary, unconstitutional and without jurisdiction as per the Rehabilitation Act. [Para 5]

Violation of Condition – Non-construction of House – Respondent No.5's complaint leading to cancellation of allotment of Plot No.82, admeasuring 2500 sq.ft., on ground of non-construction of house within stipulated time, challenged by Petitioner. [Para 6, 7]

Legitimate Expectation – Balance Allotment – Petitioner's entitlement to balance 1500 sq.ft. of land based on doctrine of legitimate expectation as Respondent-State admits entitlement but fails to provide justification for withholding balance allotment. [Para 14]

Order – Quashing of Cancellation – Direction for Balance Allotment – High Court quashes the impugned order dated 17th December 2019 cancelling the allotment of Plot No.82, admeasuring 2500 sq.ft., and directs the State-Respondent to allot the balance 1500 sq.ft. plot area to the Petitioner within 12 weeks. [Para 15]

Pro Rata Pension – Eligibility for “pro rata pension” – Petitioners, former Indian Air Force personnel, discharged under Rule 15(2)(g)(ii) of Indian Air Force Rules, 1969 – Petitioners claim entitlement to “pro rata pension” after completing 10 years of service – Discrepancy regarding the grant of “pro rata pension” to PBOR/NCO compared to commissioned officers – Legal precedents considered in Govind Kumar Srivastava Vs. Union of India & Ors. And Brij Lal Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors. [Para 1-18]

Regular Pension vs. Pro Rata Pension – Distinction between “regular pension” and “pro rata pension” – Regulation 121 of Pension Regulations 1961 requires a minimum of 15 years of service for “regular pension” – Pro rata pension granted to those permanently absorbed or appointed in Central Government Enterprises/PSUs after 10 years of service – Precondition for pro rata pension not met by the petitioners, as they were discharged for being unsuitable for retention in the Air Force, not absorbed elsewhere. [Para 19-26]

Equality Doctrine – Application of the doctrine of equality under Articles 14 and 16 of the Indian Constitution – Reasonable classification permitted – Pro rata pension designed for those continuing to serve governmental organizations – Discrimination not applicable to those discharged on the grounds of unsuitability – Pro rata denotes proportionality, meant for a specific class of individuals. [Para 27-29]

Outcome – Petitioners not entitled to “pro rata pension” – No discrimination or unequal treatment found – Petition dismissed. [Para 30-32]

Anticipatory Bail – Application for anticipatory bail filed, covering multiple Sections of the Indian Penal Code including 354, 354A(1)(i), 354B, 376, 376(2)(n), 376(2)(h), and 506. [Para 2]

Counsel’s Argument – Defence argues allegations are false, highlighting the petitioner’s young age and the victim’s marital status. [Para 4]

Prosecution’s Stand – Opposition to the grant of bail by Public Prosecutor, emphasizing allegations of false promise of marriage and impregnation by the petitioner. [Para 5]

Consent & Subsisting Marriage – Consent in the context of a subsisting marriage examined, relying on a previous judgment. [Para 6]

Decision – Grant of anticipatory bail subject to strict conditions, finding no compelling need for custodial interrogation. [Para 6-7]

Bail Conditions – Various conditions laid down for the grant of anticipatory bail, including the furnishing of a bond and restrictions on contacting the victim. [Para 7]

Revision Petition – Maintenance Allowance – Challenge to Family Court’s order directing the revision petitioner to pay maintenance to the respondents – Revision petitioner was previously the respondent in Family Court proceedings. [Para 1]

Section 125 of CrPC – Respondents seek maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure at varying rates – Claims of abandonment and insufficient financial support by the revision petitioner. [Para 2-3]

Financial Status – Conflicting accounts of financial status for both parties – Revision petitioner claimed a daily income of Rs.350/- as an auto-rickshaw driver, while respondents alleged that he had a previous monthly income of Rs.1,00,000/- in the Gulf. [Para 12-13]

Cohabitation and Abandonment – Revision petitioner’s claim of separation without sufficient cause refuted – No efforts to resume cohabitation or initiate proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights demonstrated. [Para 10]

Quantum of Maintenance – Family Court’s determination of maintenance amounts discussed – Revision petitioner’s past employment and earnings in the Gulf considered in setting the maintenance amounts. [Para 11, 16]

Decision – No error, illegality, or impropriety found in Family Court’s order – Revision petition dismissed – Direction given for adjustment of any interim maintenance amounts deposited. [Para 17-18]

Appeal under Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 and Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – Appeal against the judgment dated 01.03.2021 and the Arbitral Award dated 08.05.2015 – Appellant contending wrongful dismissal of application under Section 34 of the said Act by the learned Single Judge – Prayers for setting aside the impugned judgment and the Arbitral Award. [Para 1]

Arbitration Procedure – Disputes arose between the parties leading to arbitration – Sole Arbitrator appointed – Appellant alleges lack of opportunity to file Statement of Defence and/or counter-claim due to arbitral procedures and communication issues – Respondent filing Statement of Claim belatedly – Directions from Supreme Court to Arbitrator to consider application for filing defence and counter-claim, if filed within specified timeframe – Disregard of Supreme Court’s order by the Arbitrator, closing right to cross-examine witnesses for the appellant and proceeding to arguments and award pronouncement. [Paras 2-14, 27-30]

Supreme Court Order Compliance – Supreme Court providing a specific timeframe to the Appellant for filing an application to the Arbitrator for presenting its case – Arbitrator not adhering to the Supreme Court's direction, taking up the matter and reserving judgment within two days, before the expiry of the said period – Appellant prevented from presenting its case due to non-compliance with Supreme Court's order by the Arbitrator. [Paras 24-27, 30-31]

Judicial Review and Public Policy – Impugned award and order challenged as being against public policy due to defiance of Supreme Court's order – Principle of Judicial discipline emphasized – Non-compliance with Supreme Court's order rendering the appellant unable to present its case – Impugned award and order set aside under Section 34 (2)(iii) of the said Act for being against public policy and for preventing appellant from presenting its case. [Paras 32-40]

Family Court Jurisdiction - Ad Valorem Court Fee - Revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge orders of the Family Court - Order dated 04.11.2019 directing the petitioners to pay ad valorem court fee in a maintenance petition - Order dated 03.02.2020 dismissing the application for recall of the order - Issue of whether the plaintiffs are liable to pay ad valorem court fee on the suit pending before the Family Court - Clarification on the nature of proceedings in Family Courts - Ruling in Balwinder Singh Versus Sinderpal Kaur and another, 2019(4) R.C.R. (Civil) 720 that proceedings initiated before the Family Court for maintenance are petitions and not suits, and ad valorem court fee is not payable - Setting aside of the impugned orders, and petitioners not liable to pay ad valorem court fee on their suit filed in the Family Court. [Para 1-16]

Anticipatory Bail – Petitioner declared 'proclaimed offender' in a non-cognizable offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Petitioner's plea for anticipatory bail – Non-receipt of notice and warrants by the petitioner – Desire to join proceedings and appear before the Court – Request for protection from arrest – Offer to furnish an undertaking – Grant of anticipatory bail with certain conditions. [Para 1-5]

Service of Notice – Dispensation of service of notice upon respondent No.2 due to the monetary nature of the dispute and the petitioner's absence hindering trial proceedings – Paramount consideration of securing the accused's presence – Avoidance of unnecessary wastage of time and energy in running after accused persons – Direction for the petitioner to appear before the Trial Court. [Para 7-10]

Conditions of Bail – Petitioner to appear before Ld. Trial Court on or before 09.11.2023 – Release on bail subject to furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds – Deposit of Rs.20,000/- for the benefit of Poor Patients’ Treatment – Submission of an undertaking to ensure future appearances during trial proceedings. [Para 11-13]

Quashing Petition – The applicant filed M.Cr.C. under Section 482 of the CrPC for quashing prosecution complaint pending before Special Court constituted under PML Act – Court dismisses application. [Para 1, 8]

Factual Background – Applicant involved in transactions with individual accused of financial fraud – Financial fraud primarily connected to sale and purchase of land – Court details the facts and course of investigation. [Para 2]

Legal Framework – Explanation of Section 3 of the PML Act – Court elaborates on what constitutes money laundering under Section 3 and the presumptions under Sections 22 and 24 of the PML Act. [Para 5-7]

Burden of Proof – The Court specifies that under Section 24 of PML Act, the burden is on the applicant to prove his innocence – The Court finds prima facie involvement of the applicant in money laundering. [Para 7]

Decision – The Court dismisses the quashing petition, stating that no clean chit can be given to the applicant under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. [Para 8]