Termination of services during probation period – Appeal and revision – Maintainability – The petitioner’s services as a constable were terminated while on probation. The appellate authority dismissed the petitioner’s appeal on a technical ground, and the respondents contended that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of filing a revision petition. The court examined the relevant rules and held that the petitioner was not treated as an enrolled member of the force, and therefore, the alternative remedy of filing a revision petition was not available to the petitioner. (Para 8-10)

Jurisdiction – Cause of action – The respondents objected to the jurisdiction of the court, arguing that no cause of action or part cause of action had arisen in the State of Rajasthan. The court examined the concept of cause of action and its relevance to jurisdiction, emphasizing that the cause of action must have a nexus with the court’s jurisdiction. Considering the facts that the petitioner’s service termination and relevant proceedings took place in the State of Maharashtra, the court held that it did not have jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. (Para 11-27)

Dismissal of writ petition – Liberty to seek remedy – The court dismissed the writ petition but granted the petitioner the liberty to seek an appropriate remedy before the appropriate forum. (Para 27)

 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 468 and 469 – Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963 – Sections 6, 7A and 12 – Quashing of FIR, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and subsequent proceedings – Limitation for taking cognizance of offence – Maximum sentence prescribed under Section 12 – Knowledge of offence – Sanction for prosecution – Delay in filing report and obtaining sanction – Cognizance barred.

petition sought quashing of FIR registered under Sections 6, 7A and 12 of the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963, the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. - ground -  cognizance barred by limitation – held - that the complainant-Department had the knowledge of the alleged commission of the offence on a certain date, and thus, the Court could have taken cognizance only within a period of 03 years from the said date - report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.  presented after almost 07 years from the date of knowledge of the offence - sanction was granted later - Court could not have taken cognizance - Court quashed the FIR, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and subsequent proceedings.

Criminal Law – Appeal against Conviction – Delay in Filing – Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the dismissal of an appeal against conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, on the grounds of delay. The appeal was dismissed without considering the exclusion of the time taken to prepare the certified copy of the judgment. Held, the period consumed in preparing the certified copy should be excluded while computing the period of limitation as per Section 12 of the Limitation Act. The appeal was filed within the permissible period if this period is excluded. Courts should not deny statutory rights to appeal on hyper-technical grounds. Appeal restored to be decided on merits. [Paras 1-17]

Procedure – Exclusion of Time – Certified Copy Preparation – The petitioner applied for the certified copy of the judgment on the day of its pronouncement, but it was prepared after more than two months. Held, the delay was due to the time taken to prepare the certified copy, and this period should be excluded in computing the limitation period. The Appellate Court should have allowed the petitioner to seek condonation of any perceived delay rather than dismissing the appeal outright. [Paras 10-14]

Regular Bail - Section 22(C) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- NDPS case – Regular bail – Commercial quantity – Recovery of 4800 tablets of RLAM-0.5 from petitioner - Co-accused already granted bail - Petitioner a first time offender - Violation of mandatory provisions of NDPS Act alleged - Held, provisions of Section 37 of NDPS Act can be diluted in view of Article 21 of the Constitution of India providing for a right to speedy trial .

 Right to speedy trial - Salutary provision - Consideration for grant of bail - Bail can be granted to accused even in cases under NDPS Act if there is delay in the trial proceedings. Bail Allowed. (Para 7, 8)

Anticipatory Bail - Sections 384, 506, 511, 120-B, 192, 211, 218, 219, 180  IPC - Section 438 Cr.P.C - Prima facie case - petitioner was alleged to be involved in extortion and blackmailing along with his co-accused - Allegations of blackmail and extortion against petitioner - Conduct of petitioner in active connivance with co-accused - Petitioner refused to hand over mobile phone during investigation – Not Cooperating with investigating agency- Seriousness of allegations - custodial interrogation was not the sole criterion for granting anticipatory bail and the prima facie case against the accused should be considered along with other relevant factors – Bail Dismissed.

Framing of charges under Sections 304 and 427 IPC - Extreme negligence and rashness - Petitioner challenges order, arguing that the case should be treated as rash and negligent driving under Section 304A IPC as there is no allegation of him being under the influence of liquor - Court holds that material on record indicates allegations against the petitioner show extreme negligence and rashness while driving the oil tanker, leading to the death of three persons - Charge under Section 304 IPC can be framed even on the basis of strong suspicion, if supported with material on record - Charge framed by the trial Court may not be properly worded, but error can be corrected by invoking the provisions of Section 216 Cr.P.C., which allows for amendment of the charge at any stage of the trial - Petition dismissed.

Criminal Law – Quashing of Charges – Criminal Conspiracy and Breach of Trust – Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging charges framed under Sections 406 and 120B IPC by the Trial Court. The petitioner contended that she cannot be held liable for offences allegedly committed by her late husband. Held, quashing of charges is an exception to the rule and should not be done at the initial stage where there is strong suspicion of the accused’s involvement. The petitioner will have ample opportunity to present her defense during the trial. Petition dismissed. [Paras 1-26]

Legal Principles – Evaluation at Charge Stage – The Court must not evaluate the truthfulness of allegations or the weight of defenses at the stage of framing charges. The standard to be applied is whether there is a ground for presuming the accused committed the offence. Held, the petitioner will not face irreparable consequences if the trial proceeds, as she can defend herself during the trial. [Paras 17-23]

Juvenile Justice - Determination of Age - Trial as Adult – The Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) ordered the petitioner, accused of rape and penetrative sexual assault, to be tried as an adult after a preliminary assessment of his mental and physical capacity. The petitioner challenged this order, contending that he was under 16 years of age at the time of the alleged offence. Held, a combined reading of Sections 15(1) and 18(3) of the Juvenile Justice Act mandates that only a juvenile who has completed or is above 16 years at the time of the offence can be tried as an adult. In cases where two views are possible and the factual situation is ambiguous, the benefit should be given to the juvenile. Petition allowed, impugned orders set aside, and the matter remanded to the JJB for further proceedings. [Paras 1-14]

Criminal Law - Evidence - Age Determination – The exact date of the alleged sexual assault was unclear. Medical evidence indicated the foetus was five to six months old when aborted on 18.12.2017. Thus, the offence could have occurred between 18.06.2017 and 18.07.2017. The petitioner turned 16 on 14.07.2017, making it possible that the offence was committed before he completed 16 years. Held, given the ambiguity, the petitioner should be considered a juvenile at the time of the offence. [Paras 10-13]

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 - Unauthorized occupation of Hadda Rori land - Demarcation of land - Eviction - Delay in demarcation by respondents - Writ petition seeking mandamus for expeditious demarcation and subsequent legal action - Valid demarcation report necessary to establish claim before Competent Authority - Court allows the writ petition and directs empowered Revenue Officer to immediately conduct lawful demarcation. (Para 1)

Upon receipt of certified demarcation report, Block Development and Panchayat Officer (BDPO) to file petition under Section 7 of the Act if encroachments are found on Hadda Rori lands - Eviction proceedings to be initiated against encroachers. (Para 4)

If demarcation report reveals encroachments, BDPO directed to file petition before Collector under Section 7 of the Act - Collector to make lawful decision after hearing all concerned parties within three months of receiving the petition. (Para 5)

Court emphasizes the need to prevent unauthorized occupation of Hadda Rori lands and considers the possibility of delays by the empowered Revenue Officer - Directs prompt action to be taken to ensure lawful demarcation and subsequent legal proceedings. (Para 3)