Context of Bail Applications – Bail sought in Case No. VIII/13,13A/DZU/2020 under NDPS Act for possession of psychotropic substances – Applications of Kashmir @ Mausam and Somdutt Singh @ Shivam heard together due to common FIR. [Para 1]

Case History and Arrest Details – Kashmir @ Mausam in custody since October 30, 2020, and Somdutt Singh @ Shivam since April 15, 2021 – Arrests followed seizure of psychotropic substances from a courier service and an apartment. [Para 2]

Prosecution’s Case – Seizure of Alprazolam, Lorazepam, Tramadol tablets from courier parcels – Recovery of additional tablets and incriminating materials from Kingsbury Apartment – Accused connected through mobile records and admissions under Section 67 of NDPS Act. [Paras 3.1-3.8]

Defence Submissions – Kashmir @ Mausam claimed to be an employee, not a partner in the alleged drug operation – Somdutt Singh denied involvement, no direct recovery from him – Emphasis on inadmissibility of co-accused statements under NDPS Act. [Paras 4-5]

Prosecution's Counterarguments – Commercial quantities of drugs recovered implicating both applicants – Rigours of Section 37 of NDPS Act highlighted due to commercial quantities involved – Emphasis on involvement in psychotropic substance business. [Para 6]

Court’s Analysis and Decision – Differentiated roles of applicants assessed – Lack of direct evidence against Somdutt Singh noted – Reliance on Supreme Court judgment regarding inadmissibility of confession under NDPS Act – Principles of parity with co-accused considered. [Paras 7-12]

Bail Granted with Conditions – Bail granted to both applicants subject to several conditions, including personal bond, appearance before court, cooperation with investigation, and non-tampering with evidence. [Paras 13-14]

Disclaimer on Merits of Case – Observations made solely for bail consideration, not reflecting on the merits of the case. [Para 15]

Pension Benefits – Family Pension – Eligibility of a widowed daughter of a deceased teacher of a Non-Government College – Dispute regarding the entitlement to family pension – Petitioner’s mother, a lecturer in a Non-Government College, received pension until her demise – After the petitioner’s husband’s death, she sought family pension – Director of Public Instruction denied the claim, citing specific guidelines – Petitioner challenged the denial through a writ petition. [Para 1-8]

Constitutional Validity – Classification between teachers of Government and Non-Government Colleges for pension benefits – Previous court rulings emphasized parity between the two groups – Exclusion of a widowed daughter from the definition of ‘family’ for family pension – Constitutional validity of the classification questioned – Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution invoked – Court finds the classification arbitrary and violative of constitutional provisions – Orders the release of family pension if the petitioner fulfills the dependency criterion and suggests framing rules to include widowed daughters in the definition of ‘family’ for family pension purposes. [Para 20-28]

Final Disposition – The Director of Public Instruction’s order denying family pension set aside – Direction to release family pension if the petitioner qualifies – Suggests rule framing for inclusion of widowed daughters in family pension eligibility – Writ petition disposed of. [Para 28-35]

Conspiracy and Forgery in Revival of Defunct Societies – Allegations against petitioners for fraudulent revival of Arvind Cooperative Group Housing Society, forgery of documents, and cheating Government of NCT Delhi and DDA for land allotment – Petitioners allegedly involved in conspiracy with government officials and other co-accused. [Paras 2.1-2.12]

Role of Petitioners and Bank Transactions – Petitioners accused of financing the conspiracy, manipulating bank accounts, and making their employees, Rajeev Khanna and Yogender Mohan Duggal, office bearers of the society to control it – Allegations of arranging funds and returning them through manipulated bank transactions. [Paras 9-11, 23-26]

Legal Principles for Framing of Charges – Court’s consideration of 'grave suspicion' based on prosecution's material at the stage of framing charges, without conducting a mini trial – Examination of conspiracy's nature and petitioners' involvement. [Paras 8, 18-29]

Jurisdiction of Special Judge under PC Act – Jurisdiction upheld for trying IPC offenses in conjunction with PC Act offenses, as per Supreme Court guidelines in Essar Teleholdings. [Paras 28-29]

Decision:

Petition dismissed – Charges against petitioners upheld due to grave suspicion and intricate involvement in the larger conspiracy. [Paras 27, 30]

Arbitration and Interest Award – Challenge of interest awarded by Arbitral Tribunal (AT) – Original award of 18% interest from 08 March 2004 modified by learned Single Judge to 12% from 06 July 2008 during pendency of Section 34 petition. [Paras 2, 18]

Modification of Arbitral Award – Learned Single Judge's order modifying interest rate set aside – High Court finds modification outside the permissible scope under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, as per Supreme Court's interpretation. [Paras 11, 12, 13]

Restoration of Section 34 Petition – High Court orders restoration of Section 34 petition for fresh consideration in line with legal principles laid down by the Supreme Court, particularly regarding the scope of modification under Section 34. [Paras 14]

Maninder Sharma Vs. State Tax Officer, State, Mobile Wing, Jalandhar, Punjab, CRM-M-24033-2021(O&M) Decided on 31.08.2022

Representing Advocates:

Mr. R.S. Rai, Sr. Advocate, with Ms. Eknoor Kaur Sara, Advocate, and Mr. Nimish Chib, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Ms. Ramta K Chaudhary, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. A.P.S. Deol, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. S.S. Deol, Advocate, for the complainant.

Anticipatory Bail – Application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in a case involving alleged misappropriation and cheating in a government contract – Petitioners accused of not delivering the agreed quantity of rice, leading to financial loss to the department. [Para 1, 2]

Arbitration Clause – Reliance on an arbitration clause in the contract by petitioners – Clause not applicable in cases of fraud, theft, or misappropriation, as per the agreement terms – Petitioners' failure to invoke arbitration for disputed claims within the specified period. [Para 6, 7]

Criminal Proceedings – Argument by State counsel on non-applicability of arbitration in cases of fraud, theft, or misappropriation – Petitioners' non-delivery of required rice amount prima facie constituting misappropriation. [Para 4, 8]

Arrest and Custodial Interrogation – Consideration of necessity for arrest or custodial interrogation under Sections 41 and 41A Cr.P.C. – Factors such as existing cooperation with the investigation, partial recovery of claimed amount, and attached property for remaining recovery. [Para 9, 14]

Grant of Anticipatory Bail – Application allowed based on circumstances including deposit of a significant amount post-FIR, no prior service of Section 41A notice, and attachment of land for recovery – Conditions for bail and continued cooperation with the investigation stipulated. [Para 16]

Premature Release – Denial of Premature Release – Petitioner’s plea for premature release rejected – Convicted under Sections 302, 323, 34 of IPC and Arms Act – Serving life imprisonment since 2001 – Contention based on Punjab Government policy dated 08.07.1991 regarding sentence remissions. [Paras 1-3]

Policy Interpretation – Punjab Government’s 1991 policy for life convicts – Minimum actual imprisonment of 10 years and total of 14 years including remission for certain categories – Petitioner's claim of fulfilling these criteria for premature release. [Paras 7-9]

Actual Sentence Calculation – Discrepancy between petitioner’s claim and state’s submission on actual sentence served – State’s formula excludes parole period from actual sentence – Reference to Supreme Court’s decision in Avtar Singh Vs. State of Haryana regarding non-inclusion of parole in actual sentence calculation. [Paras 10-12, 14-15]

Legal Precedent – Reliance on Supreme Court’s judgment in Avtar Singh case – Upholding legislative provision excluding parole period from actual sentence calculation – Impact on the petitioner’s claim for premature release. [Paras 13-16]

Decision – Petition Dismissed – Petitioner not meeting the actual sentence requirement as per 1991 policy after excluding parole period – Petitioner ineligible for premature release. [Para 18]

Specific Relief Act – Application under Section 28 to rescind the agreement to sell – Dismissal of application by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) – Suit for specific performance filed by respondent – Ex-parte decree in favor of respondent – Petitioner’s contention that respondent failed to deposit the balance sale consideration within the stipulated period of 3 months – Allegation of illegal permission granted by the Court to deposit the balance sale consideration – Petitioner’s application under Section 28 filed after more than 2 years of the passing of the ex-parte decree – Delay in depositing balance sale consideration condoned by the trial Court – Petitioner’s failure to establish sufficient grounds for rescission of the agreement to sell – Revision petition dismissed for lack of merit. [Para 1-9]

Quashing of Proceedings – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Petition for quashing complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 – Complaint and subsequent summoning order challenged – Petitioner not a signatory to the disputed cheque, issued from a joint account with her husband. [Para 1, 2, 4]

Principal of Liability – Cheque Dishonour – Liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 – Emphasis on prosecution of the drawer of the cheque only – Reference to the Supreme Court rulings in Aparna A Shah Vs. M/s Sheth Developers P. Ltd. and Alka Khandu Avhad Vs. Amar Syamprasad Mishra for guidance on the liability of the signatory. [Para 3, 7, 9, 10]

Judicial Interpretation – Drawer’s Liability – Analysis of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and Supreme Court judgments – Reaffirmation that only the drawer of the cheque can be prosecuted under Section 138 – Joint account holders not automatically culpable unless they are signatories to the cheque. [Para 8, 11, 27, 28]

Decision – Quashing of Proceedings Against Petitioner – Petition accepted – Proceedings against the petitioner quashed based on her non-signatory status to the cheque – Proceedings may continue against her husband, the signatory of the cheque. [Para 11, 12]