Allotment of Paddy – Dispute with MARKFED – Petitioner seeks to set aside an order declining allotment – Legal history of civil suits, appeals, and encashment of bank guarantee – Division Bench's declaration of bank guarantee encashment as illegal – Lack of a crystallized demand against the petitioner – Petitioner's history of paddy allotment from 1995-1996 to 2022-2023 – Impugned order seemingly contrary to court orders and law – No specific policy clause invoked by the respondent to deny allotment – Petition allowed, impugned order set aside, and directed respondents to consider petitioner for the allotment of free paddy for KMS 2023-2024. [Para 1-10]

Essential Pre-requisites under Section 138 of NI Act: Referring to a prior judgment, the Court reiterated the importance of certain dates to be clear in the complaint for making out an offence under Section 138, NI Act. Such dates include the date on the cheque, date of deposit, date of bank’s notice concerning bouncing, date of notice by the drawee/payee to the drawer, date of notice receipt by the drawer, and the date of complaint filing. [Para 7]

Receipt of Demand Notice – Inference from Records: The Court highlighted that while the date of receipt of the demand notice is crucial, it need not be explicitly mentioned in the complaint. It can be inferred from the documents/evidence on record. [Para 8]

Presumption of Service of Notice: Citing Supreme Court judgments, the Court elucidated the presumptions under Section 114 of the Evidence Act and Section 27 of the General Clauses Act concerning service of notice. It’s noted that the presumption of service is deemed effected if sent to the correct address by registered post, unless proved otherwise by the addressee. [Para 9-10]

Affirmation of Summoning Order: The Court found no infirmity, illegality or irregularity in the summoning order dated 19.07.2022 and the order dated 01.06.2023, thereby dismissing the petition. The trial court’s presumption regarding the service of demand notice was deemed justified even in the absence of a track consignment report, given the notice was sent via registered post to the correct address. [Para 10-11]

Bail – Grant of Bail – Conditions Imposed – Petitioner seeks bail under Section 439 CrPC in connection with FIR No. 932 dated 04.06.2023, alleging corruption and other offences – Petitioner agrees to maintain only one mobile number and contends that further pre-trial incarceration would cause irreversible injustice – State opposes bail – Court grants bail subject to several terms and conditions. [Para 1-2, 5]

Criminal Procedure – Bail Conditions – Court imposes conditions including furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000, providing a surety of Rs. 25,000, and not influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence – Petitioner directed to use only one prepaid mobile phone number till the conclusion of the trial – Conditions deemed necessary to ensure fair trial and compliance. [Para 10-15]

Judicial Precedents – Reference to Precedents – Court refers to precedents such as Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) to justify the grant of bail and imposition of conditions – Emphasizes balancing liberty of accused with necessity of fair trial. [Para 6-7, 15]

Decision – Grant of Bail – Court allows petition and grants bail to petitioner subject to specified terms and conditions – Observes that conditions are imposed to ensure desirable behavior from the accused and protection from incarceration. [Para 18-20]

Transfer Petition – Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act – Petition for the transfer of the case filed by the respondent-husband under the Hindu Marriage Act from the Family Court, Bathinda to the competent Court of jurisdiction at Dabwali, District Sirsa – Reliance on previous orders and judgments emphasizing the convenience of female litigants in matrimonial disputes – Transfer allowed subject to conditions.

Convenience of Female Litigants – In matrimonial disputes, the Court should give more weightage and consideration to the convenience of female litigants – Transfer of legal proceedings from one Court to another should be allowed, taking into account their convenience – Courts should avoid putting female litigants under undue hardships.

Factors for Transfer – While considering the transfer of a matrimonial dispute at the instance of the wife, the Court should consider the family condition of the wife, custody of the minor child, economic condition of the wife, her physical health, earning capacity of the husband, and most importantly, the convenience of the wife.

Decision – Transfer of the petition filed under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act from the Family Court, Bathinda to the competent Court of jurisdiction at Dabwali, District Sirsa – Directions given for the transfer of records and appearance of parties – Emphasis on referring the case for mediation and conciliation – Conditions laid down for the respondent in case of revival of the petition.

Family Law – Maintenance – Wife seeking enhancement of pendente lite maintenance, husband cross-appealing for reduction and setting aside of penalty – Wife holds a B.Sc. degree but is not working; husband is a practicing Advocate. [Para 4-5, 14]

Divorce – Grounds – Husband initially filed petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. [Para 5]

Financial Status – Wife claimed husband’s annual income to be around Rs.50 lakhs but failed to provide documentary evidence – Husband claims his income is about Rs.25,000/- per month; assertions disputed by court based on discrepancy with stated expenses. [Para 8-9, 15]

Assessment of Income – Principal Judge assessed husband's monthly income at Rs.1 lakh per month – Court finds no reason to interfere with the assessment. [Para 10, 15]

Educational Qualification – Mere possession of a B.Sc. degree by the wife does not obligate her to seek employment – No ground made out for enhancement or reduction of interim maintenance. [Para 16-17]

Penalty – Husband challenges imposition of penalty of Rs.1,000/- per day for delay in payment of interim maintenance and Rs.550/- per day on litigation cost – Court notes the penalty amounts to more than the interim maintenance itself. [Para 18-19]

Decision – Court upholds maintenance amount set by the Principal Judge, Family Courts – No grounds found for either enhancement or reduction – Court questions the exorbitant penalty for delay in payment but does not specifically set it aside. [Para 15, 17, 19]

Appeal against conviction – Appellants convicted for offenses under Sections 306 and 498A of IPC – Revision petitioners challenged the judgment in appeal – Conviction under Section 498A of IPC not sustainable due to absence of valid marital relationship – Ext.P3 agreement not a substitute for a legally valid marriage – Validity of marriage depends on various factors including age, mental status, religion, consanguinity, and spouse living – In this case, no evidence of a valid marriage – Revision petitioners treated as persons in a live-in relationship – Conviction and sentence under Section 498A of IPC set aside. [Para 16-20]

Abetment of Suicide – Section 306 of IPC – Positive act of harassment required to establish abetment – No evidence of harassment by revision petitioners 1 and 4 on the date of the incident – Allegations mainly against revision petitioners 2 and 3 who are no more – Revision petitioners 1 and 4 not charged under Section 34 of IPC – Prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction and sentence under Sections 306 and 498A of IPC set aside – Revision petitioners 1 and 4 acquitted. [Para 28-31]

Bail Application - Petitioner seeking release as an undertrial in a case under the NDPS Act - Original FIR filed against unknown individuals - Petitioner's counsel contends no substantial link between petitioner and the alleged offense, emphasizing innocence and fabricated FIR - Lack of evidence against the petitioner - Trial anticipated to be lengthy - No useful purpose served in detaining petitioner. [Para 2-3.1]

Opposition by State - Concerns about petitioner fleeing trial proceedings if granted bail - Alleged recovery falls within the category of commercial quantity - Petitioner a habitual offender - Charges framed, investigation complete, and trial in progress - No requirement for custodial interrogation. [Para 4-6]

Court's Observation - Continued preventive custody based on unsubstantiated suspicion of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses - Documentary evidence already filed and not accessible to the accused - No probability of tampering with evidence - Witnesses are official and unlikely to be influenced - Non-violent nature of the offense - No threat to society at large - Reasonable ground to believe petitioner may not be guilty - Responsible family man unlikely to pose flight risk or evade trial proceedings. [Para 7-9]

Decision - Bail granted to the petitioner - Ordered to be released on furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court - Prosecution allowed to seek bail cancellation if petitioner gets involved in any offense while on bail - Observations for bail hearing purposes only and should not influence the merits of the case. [Para 10-13]

Criminal Case - Conviction under Section 304(Part-II) of IPC - Appellant convicted for the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder - Sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and a fine of Rs.1,000 imposed - Acquittal from the offence under Sections 498A and 341 of the IPC - Appellant's legal fees and expenses quantified at Rs.20,000 to be paid by the High Court Legal Services Committee - Interim Application No. 3581 of 2022 disposed of. [Para 25-28]

Premature Release Guidelines - Quashing of Order - Classification of Prisoner - Beneficial Guidelines - The petitioner seeks the quashing of an order placing him in a specific category under the premature release guidelines - The incident involved a quarrel between the petitioner and his wife, resulting in her death by fire - Dying declaration by the deceased indicated her husband's involvement in setting her on fire - The Sessions Court's judgment and guidelines from 1992 and 2010 are considered - The court determines that the guidelines beneficial to the convict should be applied - The petitioner should be placed in category 3(a) of the 1992 guidelines, which is more beneficial than the previous classification - The impugned order is quashed, and the petitioner's classification is revised. [Para 3-13]