Service Law – Increase in Punishment – Show-Cause Notice – Writ petition challenging enhancement of punishment by the Appellate Authority – Petitioner, a Veterinary Livestock Development Assistant, punished for absenteeism – Appellate Authority increased punishment without serving show-cause notice – Held, as per Rule 11, Appellate Authority must issue show-cause notice before enhancing penalty – Mandatory statutory requirement overlooked – Impugned order set aside, matter remitted for fresh decision. [Paras 1-7]

Mandatory Provisions – Rule 11 of Haryana Civil Services Rules – Held – Proviso to Rule 11 mandates issuing show-cause notice before increasing punishment – Mere appearance before Appellate Authority does not waive this requirement – Impugned order increasing penalty without show-cause notice unsustainable. [Para 6]

Decision – Order Set Aside – Writ petition allowed – Impugned order of enhanced punishment quashed – Appellate Authority directed to reconsider appeal after issuing show-cause notice and providing opportunity to petitioner – Fresh order to be passed within four months. [Para 7]

Criminal Law - Conviction - Murder - Circumstantial Evidence - Last Seen Theory - Admissibility of Confession

Conviction of Main Accused - Murder - Circumstantial Evidence – Criminal appeal against conviction under Sections 302 and 201 IPC – Held: The trial court rightly convicted Simarjit Singh @ Tinku for the murder of his wife based on circumstantial evidence, including his confession and recovery of the dead body. [Paras 25-27]

Role of Co-Accused - Insufficient Evidence for Murder – Analysis – Held: No material evidence against Sonu Masih regarding his involvement in the murder. His conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC is set aside, but his conviction under Section 201 IPC is upheld for aiding in the disposal of the dead body. [Paras 28-34]

Admissibility of Confession - Police Custody – Consideration – Held: Confession made to a police officer is inadmissible unless it leads to the discovery of a fact. Only the portion of the statement leading to the recovery of the spade (used for burying the body) is admissible against Sonu Masih. [Paras 29-31]

Decision: The appeal by Simarjit Singh @ Tinku is dismissed, upholding his conviction and sentence. The appeal by Sonu Masih is partly allowed; his conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC is set aside, but his conviction under Section 201 IPC is maintained. [Paras 35-37]

Presumption of Truth in Revenue Records – Dismissal of Writ Petition – Writ petition challenging the appellate authority's decision that overturned the Collector's order declaring the petitioner and proforma respondents as owners of disputed land – The appellate authority found no evidence to substantiate the claim of possession prior to 26.01.1950 – Presumption of truth attached to revenue records upheld – Petitioner failed to produce any documentary evidence to rebut the presumption despite multiple opportunities – Held, no illegality or perversity in the appellate authority's order – Writ petition dismissed. [Paras 1-6]

Role of Revenue Records in Establishing Ownership – Analysis – The Court emphasized the importance of revenue records in establishing ownership and possession – The petitioner's inability to produce documents to counter the revenue records led to the dismissal of the petition – Revenue records showed the land was mutated in favor of the Gram Panchayat in 1955 and remained so. [Para 6]

Decision – Dismissal of Writ Petition – The High Court dismissed the writ petition due to the lack of documentary evidence rebutting the presumption of truth attached to the revenue records – The appellate authority's decision was upheld as it was found to be neither illegal nor perverse. [Para 6]

Fiscal Legislation – Constitutional Validity – Sabka Vishwas Scheme – Writ petition challenging Sections 124(2) and 130(2) of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019 as ultra vires and unconstitutional – Provisions precluding refund of excess deposits under the scheme – Scheme aimed at reducing legacy litigation and encouraging voluntary disclosure of evaded taxes – Held, provisions do not violate Article 14 and are aligned with legislative intent to settle disputes without creating new liabilities – Petition dismissed. [Paras 1-17]

Legislative Objective – Settlement of Legacy Disputes – Held – Sabka Vishwas Scheme aimed at liquidating legacy disputes by encouraging voluntary disclosure and reducing litigation – Scheme precludes refund of excess amounts to ensure finality and simplicity – Optional nature of scheme provides no compulsion for taxpayers to opt in – Provisions aligned with legislative intent and not discriminatory. [Para 16]

Judicial Reasoning – Equality in Fiscal Legislation – Held – Fiscal statutes allow for broad classification based on pragmatic and economic considerations – Provisions ensuring no refund of excess deposits do not create hostile discrimination – Legislative intent to end disputes without generating liabilities justified – Optional participation ensures no violation of Article 14. [Para 14-15]

Decision – Petition Dismissed – Constitutional challenge to Sections 124(2) and 130(2) of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019 dismissed – Provisions upheld as valid and consistent with legislative objectives – No merit in the petition. [Para 17]

Taxation Law – Detention of Goods – E-Way Bill Compliance – Petition challenging penalty imposed under Section 129 of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017 – Goods detained due to incomplete Part-B of the E-Way bill – Intention to evade tax immaterial for imposing penalty under Section 129 – Authorities empowered to detain goods and demand tax and penalty if documents are not in compliance – Petition dismissed. [Para 4-6, 9-10]

Compliance Requirements – Analysis – Goods transported with incomplete E-Way bill – Authorities detained goods under Section 129(1) – Penalty imposed under Section 129 – Appeal against penalty dismissed – Authorities not required to establish intent to evade tax for imposing penalty under Section 129 – Petitioner's claim of no intent to evade tax irrelevant – Petition dismissed for lack of merit. [Para 10]

Decision – Penalty and Tax Payment – Orders imposing penalty upheld – Petitioner's payment under Section 129(3) concluded proceedings – Petition dismissed. [Para 11-12]

Landlord-Tenant Law – Material Impairment – Section 13(2)(iii) of Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 – Petitioner sought eviction for non-payment of rent, impairment in value and utility, and nuisance – Rent Controller allowed eviction for material impairment – Appellate Authority dismissed petition – Tenant admitted to opening door and windows without consent – Mere additions or alterations by tenant not necessarily material impairment – No evidence of actual impairment – Findings of Appellate Authority upheld – Petition dismissed. [Para 11]

Revisional Jurisdiction – Limited Scope – Examination of evidence by High Court in revisional jurisdiction under Rent Act confined to checking legal compliance – Pure findings of fact not interfered with unless perverse or opposed to evidence – Appellate Authority's findings based on proper appreciation of evidence – No procedural irregularity or illegality found – Petition dismissed. [Para 12-13]

Decision – Orders of Appellate Authority Upheld – No evidence of material impairment in value or utility due to tenant's actions – Findings of fact by lower authorities upheld – Revision petition dismissed. [Para 11-13]

Negotiable Instruments Act – Presumption under Section 139 – Acquittal – Special Leave to Appeal – The application sought special leave to appeal against the acquittal judgment, arguing that the presumption under Section 139 should apply once the signature on the cheque is admitted. Held: The complainant failed to prove the contentions in the complaint. Without proving the transaction's basis, the presumption under Section 139 does not arise. Special leave to appeal dismissed. [Paras 1-11]

Evidence – Proof of Transaction – The complainant failed to produce any receipt for the tiles or the carbon copy of the bills mentioned in the complaint. The delivery person, Mithu, who allegedly delivered the tiles, was also not examined. These failures led to the conclusion that the complainant did not prove the transaction, and thus the presumption under Section 139 did not apply. [Paras 4-9]

Application of Precedent – The Court examined the judgment cited by the complainant's counsel, but found it inapplicable to the present case as the complainant did not prove the contentions of the complaint, unlike in the cited case where only the nature of the transaction and source of funds were in question. [Paras 7-9]

Decision – Acquittal Upheld – The impugned judgment was found to be well-reasoned, and there was no illegality in the findings of the trial court. The application for special leave to appeal was dismissed. [Paras 10-11]

Land Law - Eviction - Lawful Title and Cultivating Rights – Held, the petitioner did not hold any lawful title or lawful cultivating rights over the suit land, except as a lessee or gair marusi. Consequently, no valid question of title ever arose, nor was it required to be determined by the statutory authority. Petition dismissed. [Paras 1-6]

Estoppel - Reserved Liberty Unavailed – Held, the liberty reserved in the petitioner through a previous court decision remained unavailed. The petitioner continued to challenge the eviction order without utilizing the reserved liberty. Hence, the petitioner is estopped from contending for further liberty to contest any valid or lawful title over the suit land. [Para 6]

Decision - Dismissal of Petition – The court found no merit in the petition. The impugned orders are affirmed and maintained. [Para 8]

Representing Advocates:

Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner

Raman Sharma, Addl. A.G., Haryana

S.P. Chahar, Advocate, for respondent No. 4

Ashish Yadav, Advocate, for respondent No. 5

Karan Singh, Advocate, for respondents No. 6 to 8

Service Law - Recovery of Excess Payment – Regular Second Appeal against order of lower appellate court setting aside recovery of excess amount paid to employee – Employee’s salary wrongly fixed by the department in 1996, error discovered in 2011, recovery sought – Held that recovery from employee impermissible when no fraud or misrepresentation is involved and when benefits were enjoyed for more than five years – Government instructions dated 05.10.2012 not applicable retrospectively.

Recovery of Excess Payment - Conditions – Analysis – Held – Based on Supreme Court’s precedents, recovery of excess payments is impermissible under specific conditions, including where benefits were drawn for an extended period, and no fault is attributable to the employee. Reiterated that retrospective application of government instructions violates settled legal principles. [Para 10-11, 13]

Decision – Recovery of Excess Payment from Employee – Court dismissed the state’s appeal and upheld the lower appellate court’s decision, preventing the recovery of excess payment from the respondent. It emphasized adherence to equitable principles and the non-retrospective application of new government instructions. [Para 16]