NDPS Act – Regular Bail – Petitioner, accused of possessing 8.25 grams of MDMA, sought bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. – Arrested on 30.3.2024, currently in judicial custody – Petitioner claimed innocence and alleged false implication – No previous criminal antecedents and no apprehension of absconding if granted bail [Paras 2-4].

Considerations for Bail – Court considered the quantity of the substance (intermediate quantity) and the period of custody – Noted that the prosecution raised no concerns of the petitioner absconding or tampering with evidence – Emphasized on the right to liberty and due process while ensuring conditions to prevent misuse of bail [Paras 5-6].

Decision: Bail application allowed – Petitioner granted bail subject to conditions to ensure cooperation with investigation and prevent tampering with evidence [Para 7].

Resignation and Withdrawal – Validity – Appellant, a headmistress, tendered resignation effective from a future date – Withdrawal of resignation submitted before the effective date – Court emphasized the general principle that a prospective resignation can be withdrawn before it becomes effective – Resignation becomes effective only when it terminates the employment – Courts below erred in holding resignation effective upon acceptance by the school authority without considering the timely withdrawal by appellant [Paras 8, 9, 27, 29].

Employment Law – Prospective Resignation – Admitted facts indicated resignation was not given effect immediately and appellant continued duties until the specified future date – Withdrawal of resignation received before the effective date, making the resignation ineffective – Decision by managing committee after receipt of withdrawal letter is legally untenable [Paras 16, 19, 29, 34].

Judicial Precedents – Application – Court referred to established precedents affirming the right to withdraw a prospective resignation before it takes effect – Cited Supreme Court decisions underscoring the principle that a resignation can be rescinded before it affects the tenure of employment [Paras 24-27].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Held – Judgment and decree by trial court and appellate court set aside – Suit dismissed – Appellant deemed to have withdrawn resignation validly before it became effective – Proper application of law required acknowledgment of withdrawal [Paras 34-36].

Criminal Law – Acquittal under Sections 302 and 120-B IPC – Leave to appeal dismissed by High Court – Prosecution failed to establish motive and link in the chain of circumstantial evidence – Alleged harassment for dowry not substantiated by evidence – No eye witnesses, case relied on circumstantial evidence – Last seen theory and recovery of material exhibit (chunni) deemed unreliable – Medical evidence indicated hanging, not strangulation – Delay in FIR registration unexplained [Paras 1-16].

Evidence Evaluation – High Court upheld trial court’s finding of doubt on the testimony of key witnesses – Material improvements and inconsistencies in statements – Medical evidence did not conclusively support prosecution's theory of strangulation – PMR indicated hanging as cause of death – No supporting forensic evidence to link accused with the crime [Paras 9-13].

Decision – Dismissal of Appeal – Held – Application for leave to appeal is dismissed – High Court found no illegality or perversity in trial court’s judgment – Prosecution’s evidence insufficient to overturn acquittal – Appellate court emphasized on limited scope of interference with acquittal unless findings are perverse or wholly unsustainable [Paras 14-16].

Service Law – Acquittal and Departmental Proceedings – Impact of Criminal Acquittal on Disciplinary Actions – Petitioners acquitted in criminal trial seek reinstatement with same rank and benefits – Petition dismissed – Petitioner seeking quashing of the charge-sheet and office order imposing penalties on the petitioners – Petitioners contended that their acquittal by the criminal court should impact the disciplinary proceedings – Court held that acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically affect the outcome of departmental proceedings, as the standard of proof differs between the two [Paras 1-13].

Disciplinary Proceedings – Impact of Criminal Acquittal – Petitioners argued that their acquittal in a criminal case should lead to the setting aside of penalties imposed in departmental proceedings – Court relied on Supreme Court judgments to affirm that disciplinary proceedings can proceed independently of criminal proceedings and an acquittal in the latter does not necessarily lead to nullifying the former – Reiterated that the standard of proof in departmental proceedings is based on the preponderance of probabilities, unlike the criminal standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 7-10].

Decision – Dismissal of Petition – Held – The petition was dismissed on grounds that the disciplinary proceedings were valid despite the criminal acquittal, and the court found no reason to interfere under Articles 226/227 – Confirmed that the penalties imposed during the departmental inquiry were within the legal framework and supported by substantial evidence [Paras 11-13].

Criminal Law – Appeal against Acquittal – Legal Standards and Appellate Review – Criminal Appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kheda, Camp at Anand – Acquittal of respondents under Sections 302, 323, 365, 342, 147, 148, 149 of IPC – Allegation of abduction and murder – Supreme Court emphasizes double presumption of innocence in favor of the acquitted – Reappreciation of evidence by appellate court. [Paras 1-18]

Oral Dying Declaration – Reliability and Corroboration – Evaluation of oral dying declaration made by deceased – Deceased’s fit state of mind questioned – Absence of written record of dying declaration – Medical evidence indicating deceased unable to speak – High Court finds trial court’s skepticism reasonable – No reliance on oral dying declaration without corroboration. [Paras 15-17]

Hostile Witnesses – Impact on Prosecution’s Case – Key witnesses turned hostile – Prosecution’s failure to establish case beyond reasonable doubt due to hostile witnesses – High Court upholds trial court’s decision, emphasizing lack of credible evidence. [Paras 5-16]

Decision – Acquittal Upheld – Appeal dismissed – High Court affirms trial court’s judgment of acquittal – No compelling reasons found to interfere with trial court’s findings – Registry directed to return records and proceedings to trial court – Bail bonds canceled and sureties discharged. [Paras 18-19]

Criminal Law – Conviction under Section 324 IPC – Appellant No. 1 convicted for causing hurt using a weapon – Conviction modified due to lack of evidence proving the use of a dangerous weapon – Sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone and fine [Paras 1-33, 45].

Criminal Law – Conviction under Section 325/308/34 IPC – Appellants No. 2-4 convicted for grievous hurt and attempt to commit culpable homicide – Conviction modified to Section 323 IPC due to insufficient evidence proving grievous hurt and intent – Sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone and fine [Paras 1-43, 45].

Medical Evidence – Corroborative Role – Trial court’s reliance on medical evidence questioned due to absence of substantial corroboration – Injuries noted did not align with charges of grievous hurt or use of dangerous weapons [Paras 16-28].

Free Fight – Altercation context – Evidence indicated a free fight between two groups rather than a one-sided assault – Mutual cases filed by both parties [Paras 36-40].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Convictions under Sections 324, 325, 308 IPC modified to Section 323 IPC – Appellants sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone and to pay fines – Failure to comply with fine payment results in further imprisonment [Para 45-47].
 

Companies Act – Appeal under Section 483 against Rejection of Statutory Interest Claim by Workmen – Jharkhand High Court upheld the decision of the Single Judge rejecting the workmen’s claim for statutory interest under Rule 156 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 – The Court found no error in the previous order as the claim for interest was not raised or adjudicated upon at the time of initial proceedings – Reiterated that workmen cannot claim interest on the basis of pari passu principle applicable to arrears of salary and secured creditors – Appeals dismissed. [Paras 1-72]

Interest Claim by Workmen – Applicability of Rule 156 of Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 – Supreme Court’s decision in Vijay Industries vs. NATL Technologies Ltd. did not support workmen’s claim for statutory interest as no specific contract or provision existed for interest payment – Court held that interest claims must be based on a contractual or statutory provision – Workmen’s right to interest not established. [Paras 63-66]

Section 483 of Companies Act – Appellate Court’s Powers – High Court emphasized that appellate court under Section 483 has wide powers to ensure complete justice – Appeals can be dismissed at the admission stage if found without merit – Right of appeal does not automatically entitle the appellant to relief. [Paras 69-70]

Decision – Dismissal of Appeals – Held – Appeals dismissed as no error was found in the Single Judge’s decision – Claims for statutory interest by workmen under Rule 156 were not substantiated – Workmen’s appeal for interest payment rejected due to lack of prior claim and absence of legal basis. [Para 72]

Labour Law - Industrial Dispute - Reference under Section 10(1)(c) and 10(2A) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Pending Miscellaneous Cases - Labour Court Adjudication – High Court upheld the reference made by the State Government to the Labour Court regarding the dismissal of the respondent-workman despite the pendency of Miscellaneous Cases under Section 33(2)(b) and Section 33-A before the Industrial Tribunal. The jurisdiction of the Labour Court under Section 10 and the Industrial Tribunal under Section 33(2)(b) being distinct, the Labour Court proceedings were not required to be stayed. The High Court emphasized the summary nature of proceedings under Section 33(2)(b) and their non-binding effect on the merits of disputes adjudicated under Section 10. [Paras 13-24]

Industrial Dispute – Judicial Precedents - Section 33(2)(b) Proceedings - Summary Enquiry and Non-Binding Nature on Section 10 Proceedings – Referring to precedents, the High Court highlighted that proceedings under Section 33(2)(b) are summary, involving a two-stage scrutiny to determine the prima facie case and compliance with natural justice principles. Findings in such summary proceedings do not bind the Labour Court’s adjudication under Section 10, which provides a comprehensive mechanism for dispute resolution involving the dismissal of workmen. [Paras 17-23]

Decision: Reference to Labour Court Upheld – The reference made by the State Government under Section 10(1)© and Section 10(2A) is maintainable.

Rejection of Stay Application Upheld – The Labour Court was justified in rejecting the application to stay the proceedings in the reference case.

Extension of Time for Filing Written Statement – The time for filing the written statement by the petitioner is extended until 30^th June 2024. [Para 26]

Civil Procedure – Rejection of Plaint – Jurisdiction of Civil Court – Appellants sought permanent prohibitory injunction against interference with possession of suit land declared as evacuee property – Trial court rejected plaint citing lack of jurisdiction under J&K State Evacuees’ (Administration of Property) Act, Svt. 2006 – Rejection upheld by First Appellate Court – High Court examined the applicability of the Act and the maintainability of the suit in light of substantial questions of law framed under Section 100 CPC – Held that civil courts are barred from entertaining suits involving evacuee property, and appellants must seek remedy under relevant jurisdiction as per the Act [Paras 1-16].

Civil Law – Substantial Question of Law – Applicability of Evacuee Property Act – High Court framed substantial question of law regarding trial and appellate court's error in dismissing suit without considering the nature of property and applicability of J&K Agrarian Reforms Act and J&K Evacuees’ (Administration of Property) Act, Svt. 2006 – Concluded that trial court’s reference to evacuee property status of suit land barred jurisdiction – Affirmed dismissal of suit under Section 31 of the Evacuees’ Property Act [Paras 9-16].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Second appeal dismissed – Civil suit barred under Section 31 of J&K State Evacuees’ (Administration of Property) Act, Svt. 2006 – Appellants advised to seek remedy under the Act – Contempt petition also closed [Paras 16-18].