Criminal Law – NDPS Act – Conviction for Possession of Poppy Husk – Appeal against conviction under Section 15 NDPS Act – Appellant argued improper handling of evidence and lack of primary evidence due to destruction of examined sample cloth parcels – High Court found non-compliance with statutory procedures for certifying and retaining evidence – Inventory and FSL report not sufficient without production of examined samples in court – Conviction set aside. [Paras 1-31]

Evidence Law – Section 52-A NDPS Act – Certified Inventory and Primary Evidence – Interpretation of statutory provisions for disposal and certification of seized narcotics – Court held inventory must be supported by laboratory testing at time of certification by magistrate – Non-compliance with procedures undermines evidentiary value – Certified inventory alone not primary evidence without corroborative examined samples. [Paras 16-25]

Judicial Review – Handling and Production of Evidence – Emphasized need for strict adherence to procedures in narcotics cases – Court directed improvements in storage and handling of evidence – Reiterated necessity of producing examined samples along with FSL reports in trials – Guidelines for proper certification and disposal to ensure integrity of evidence. [Paras 30-31]

Decision: Held: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant acquitted of the charge under Section 15 NDPS Act – Directed immediate release if not required in other cases – Fine amount, if deposited, to be refunded – Directions issued to state authorities for compliance with storage and procedural guidelines. [Paras 32-33]

Civil Procedure – Prohibitory Injunction – Ownership Dispute – Appeal challenging Trial and First Appellate Court judgments dismissing suit for prohibitory injunction – Appellants claimed ownership of disputed site part of Plot No. 212 – Respondent had allegedly opened door and constructed chabutra illegally – Courts found site was shamlat deh (village common land) based on prior judgments and evidence – High Court upheld lower courts' findings – No substantial question of law found – Appeal dismissed. [Paras 1-13]

Land Law – Shamlat Deh – Jurisdiction of Consolidation Authorities – Courts held consolidation authorities cannot partition or declare shamlat deh land as not vesting in Gram Panchayat – Only the Collector has such jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 – Appellants' claim based on mutation entries found invalid – Ownership and title disputes to be decided by civil courts, not revenue entries. [Paras 10-12]

Judicial Review – Scope of Second Appeal – High Court reiterated limited scope of second appeals under Section 100 CPC – Interference warranted only on substantial questions of law – No such question arose in this case – Concurrent findings of fact by lower courts not disturbed. [Para 13]

Decision: Held: Regular second appeal dismissed – Concurrent findings of Trial and First Appellate Court upheld – No substantial question of law – Pending applications, if any, also disposed of. [Paras 13-14]

Abetment of Suicide - Examination of abetment under Section 306 IPC – Suicide allegedly instigated by petitioners due to financial pressures – FIR based on a suicide note naming the petitioners as contributors to the deceased's stress due to monetary transactions – Court concludes lack of substantial evidence of intentional inducement or pressure amounting to abetment to commit suicide by petitioners – Held, allegations and evidence do not substantiate an offence under Section 306 IPC; proceedings are quashed as they constitute an abuse of process of law. [Paras 1-19]

Role of Accused in Alleged Abetment of Suicide – Analysis finds no actionable evidence that petitioners' actions or behavior had instigated or aided the deceased in committing suicide – Court notes absence of a proximate and intense act leading to suicide, stresses that mere naming in a suicide note or demand for loan repayment does not qualify as abetment under IPC – Emphasizes that accusations need to be substantiated with concrete acts of instigation or assistance in suicide, which are not evident in this case. [Paras 8, 14]

Decision – Quashing of FIR and Supplementary Reports – In light of the absence of evidence indicating a direct connection between the petitioners' actions and the suicide of the deceased, and given the findings that the actions complained of do not meet the threshold of abetment under IPC, the FIR and subsequent proceedings are quashed – The court rules that continuing the proceedings would result in miscarriage of justice and misuse of judicial process. [Para 19]

Municipal Employment – Regularization of Temporary Employee – Industrial Court directed the regularization of the respondent as a Tax Inspector – Petitioners challenged on grounds of lack of qualifications and procedural irregularities – High Court dismissed the petition, upheld regularization considering prolonged service and procedural compliance [Paras 1-31].

Unfair Labour Practices – Powers of Industrial Adjudicator – High Court emphasized the statutory powers of Industrial Courts to order regularization in cases of unfair labour practices – Reference to key judgments on regularization and equality in public employment [Paras 13-17].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Held – Respondent No. 1’s appointment had all the trappings of a regular appointment, and his prolonged service justified regularization – Petitioners’ contentions were unsupported and contradicted by evidence on record [Paras 27-30].

Criminal Law – Acquittal of Accused – Appeal against acquittal in a case of alleged murder of Bipin Kumar – Trial Court acquitted the accused based on lack of evidence – High Court upheld the acquittal, finding no compelling reason to interfere with the Trial Court's judgment [Paras 61-63].

Evidence – Sufficiency of Proof – Prosecution failed to establish motive and connection between the accused and the crime – Lack of credible evidence and witnesses – Circumstantial evidence did not form a complete chain leading to the accused [Paras 59-61].

Victim Compensation – Despite the acquittal, the informant, being the victim’s legal heir, is entitled to compensation under Section 357A Cr.PC from Bihar Victim Compensation Scheme, 2014 – State directed to compensate the victim [Para 62-63].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Acquittal upheld – State to provide compensation to the victim’s legal heir.
 

Criminal Law – Common Object and Intention – The appellants were convicted for rioting and causing grievous injuries to police officers. The High Court affirmed that the assembly of appellants, initially lawful, became unlawful when they attacked the police. The testimonies of injured police officers were deemed credible and sufficient for conviction. The Court underscored that for Section 149 IPC, it is unnecessary for every member to have an overt act if the common object is evident from their behavior and context [Paras 12-18].

Section 307 IPC – Attempt to Murder – The Court analyzed the nature of injuries and intent, concluding that while grievous injuries were inflicted, the intent to murder was not established. The conviction under Section 307 IPC was altered to Section 326 IPC, considering the single blow rule and absence of fatal injuries [Paras 33-38].

Grievous Hurt – Section 326 IPC – The appellants were found guilty of causing grievous hurt with a sharp object, satisfying the criteria under Section 326 IPC rather than Section 333 IPC, as the latter is less severe in punishment [Paras 39-41].

Sentence – Reduction and Concurrent Sentencing – Considering the time already served and lack of prior criminal records, the sentence was reduced. The appellants were sentenced to 3 years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 326/149 IPC and fined accordingly, with the stipulation that fines paid be directed as compensation to the injured officers [Paras 42-48].

Decision: Appeals partly allowed. Convictions under Sections 307/149 and 333/149 IPC were modified to Section 326/149 IPC with a sentence of 3 years RI. Convictions under Section 148 IPC and 332/149 IPC (five counts) were affirmed. Compensation was mandated from fines collected [Paras 45-48].
 

Reservation Policy in Public Employment – EWS Category – Petitioner challenges the provisional selection of respondent No.4 for the post of Assistant Professor in Sociology under the EWS category – Court examines the applicability of EWS reservation policies as per J&K Reservation Act, 2004, and the UGC guidelines – University of Jammu found not to have amended its statutes to include EWS reservation – Advertisement for the post under EWS category held unsustainable [Paras 1-54].

Reservation in Universities – Applicability of UGC Guidelines – Universities required to follow UGC guidelines on reservation for SC/ST – No specific provision for EWS in UGC guidelines – University’s statutes provide for reservation only for SC/ST and only at the Assistant Professor level – University’s failure to amend statutes to include EWS reservation – Advertisement and selection process quashed [Paras 27-50].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Advertisement for Assistant Professor in Sociology under EWS category quashed – University directed to re-advertise the post as per existing laws – Court highlights need for statutory amendments to include EWS reservation in university recruitment [Para 54].

Co-operative Societies – Amendment of Rules – Petitioners challenged amendments made by the Registrar acting as an Administrator – Claimed amendments were illegal and contrary to the 1961 Act and 1963 Rules – Court found Registrar's actions to be a colourable exercise of power – Administrator cannot take policy decisions or amend rules unilaterally – Amendments quashed [Paras 1-20].

Registrar's Dual Role – Registrar appointed himself as an Administrator and subsequently approved his own recommendations – Court held this as a conflict of interest and a violation of cooperative principles and legal provisions – Emphasized the necessity of an independent and unbiased procedure for such amendments [Paras 12-19].

Doctrine of Necessities – Doctrine inapplicable in this case – Administrator cannot take policy decisions that fundamentally alter the cooperative structure – Cooperative societies should maintain autonomy in managing their affairs [Para 14].

Relief – Amendments made in the 1970-71 Rules by the Administrator and approved by the Registrar quashed – Petitioners allowed to challenge departmental actions in appropriate forums if necessary [Paras 20-21].

Industrial Law – Wrongful Termination – Compliance with ID Act – The case involved the State of Punjab's challenge to the Industrial Tribunal's award, which found the termination of Kamaljit, a work-woman, to be in violation of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Tribunal had ordered her reinstatement with 50% back-wages from the date of the demand notice, citing non-compliance with Section 25-F of the ID Act [Paras 1-2].

Nature of Employment – Classification as Industry – The petitioners argued that the Forest Department was not an 'Industry' under the ID Act. The Tribunal, however, referred to precedents establishing the Forest Department as an 'Industry' and rejected this contention. The Tribunal's conclusion was based on precedents like Divisional Forest Officer vs. Jagdish and others, 2003(4) RSJ 264 [Para 4].

Inconsistent Testimony and Employment Records – The Tribunal noted inconsistencies in the management's witness statements regarding Kamaljit's employment duration, ultimately determining that she was employed from October 1998 to December 2000. This inconsistency supported the Tribunal's finding of wrongful termination [Paras 5-16].

Modification of Award – Compensation in Lieu of Reinstatement – Citing similar cases where compensation was awarded instead of reinstatement, the court modified the Tribunal’s order. Kamaljit was awarded a lump-sum compensation of ₹3.50 lakhs, considering she had attained superannuation and had rendered over two years of service before termination [Paras 6-8].

Decision: The writ petition was disposed of with a modification of the Tribunal's award. Kamaljit was awarded ₹3.50 lakhs as compensation in lieu of reinstatement, to be paid within three months, failing which interest at 6% per annum would be applicable.