Criminal Law - Sentencing - Reduction of Sentence - Petitioner convicted under Section 14(1A) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 - Sentenced to 8 months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 6,000/- by Chief Judicial Magistrate - Sentence reduced to 6 months on appeal - Revision petition seeks further reduction due to protracted trial and personal circumstances - Revision petition dismissed, sentence reduced to period already undergone, subject to payment of fine. [Para 20]

Provident Fund Contributions - Payment Default - Sentencing Considerations - Analysis - Petitioner paid full provident fund dues during trial - Trial lasted 10 years - Petitioner sole breadwinner with family responsibilities - Court finds mitigating circumstances justifying reduction of sentence to period already served - Fine imposed in lieu of remaining imprisonment. [Para 19]

Judicial Review - Scope of Section 14(1A) and 14(1B) of EPF Act - Held - Provisions allow for lesser sentence than prescribed under special circumstances - Court references similar cases where fine imposed instead of imprisonment due to mitigating factors - Petitioner's case warrants similar treatment. [Paras 13-18]

Decision - Sentence Reduction Upheld - Revision petitions dismissed, sentence reduced to period already undergone - Fine of Rs. 5,000/- imposed in each case to be paid to Provident Fund Authorities within two months - Failure to pay results in dismissal of revision petitions. [Para 20]

Court Fees Act - Specific Claim for Damages - Quantum - Revision petition against order dismissing application for rejection of plaint due to insufficient court fee - Suit claimed specific damages of Rs. 20 lakhs, but court fee of only Rs. 50/- affixed - Held, court fee must be affixed on the specified amount claimed as per Section 7(i) of the Court Fees Act - Order of trial court set aside - Respondent granted two months to make good the deficiency in court fee. [Paras 8-10, 12-14]

Specific Claim and Affixation of Court Fee - Analysis - Held, once the amount of damages claimed is specified, court fee must be affixed on that specified amount - Affixing nominal court fee contrary to mandate of Section 7(i) - Specific quantification in the plaint necessitates full ad valorem court fee. [Paras 8-9]

Decision - Setting Aside of Impugned Order - High Court sets aside trial court’s order dismissing application under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC - Respondent directed to make good deficiency in court fee within two months - Petition allowed. [Paras 12-14]

Criminal Law – Extension of Investigation Period – Default Bail – The petitioners challenged the trial court’s order granting a two-month extension for the completion of the investigation and filing of the final report under Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act, 1985, without issuing notice to the accused. The court held that even though the proviso to Section 36A(4) does not specifically mandate the issuance of notice, such issuance must be read into the provision to ensure compliance with the principles of natural justice. The sole ground for seeking the extension was the pending FSL report, which does not conform to the mandate of the law. Consequently, the petitioners' application for default bail should have been granted. [Paras 1-21]

Natural Justice – Requirement of Notice – The court emphasized that issuing notice to the accused when seeking an extension for the investigation period is in line with the principles of natural justice. This requirement ensures that the accused are not detained arbitrarily beyond the stipulated period without being heard. [Paras 13-16]

Deficiency in Prosecutor's Report – The court observed that the Public Prosecutor's report must indicate the progress of the investigation and provide specific and compelling reasons for further detention of the accused. The report in the present case failed to meet these requirements, as it only mentioned the pending FSL report. [Paras 17-19]

Decision – Orders Set Aside, Default Bail Granted – The court set aside the orders of the Additional Sessions Judge granting the extension and rejecting the default bail. The petitioners were ordered to be released on default bail, subject to conditions ensuring they do not tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses. [Paras 20-23]

Prisoners' Rights - Temporary Release - Furlough - Petition denied furlough due to being labeled a "hard-core prisoner" and potential crime risk - Court held that mere likelihood of committing a crime is insufficient to deny furlough - Authorities can impose stringent conditions to prevent such events. [Para 17]

Legal Rights of Prisoners - Fundamental Rights and Rehabilitation - Analysis - Convicts retain fundamental rights; furlough allows continuity with family life and societal reintegration - Petitioner's furlough denied for undue reasons undermines statutory purposes - Furlough aids in maintaining constructive hope and active interest in life. [Paras 17-18]

Statutory Provisions and Amendments - Eligibility for Furlough - Held - Petitioner's past conduct and classification as "hard-core prisoner" misinterpreted under amended provisions - Petitioner showed good conduct and no misuse of previous concessions - Denial of furlough based on unfounded apprehensions not justified. [Paras 11-12]

Decision - Furlough Granted - Impugned order denying furlough set aside - 21 days furlough granted - Petitioner to surrender after furlough period - Ensuring balance of law and equity. [Paras 19-20]

Anticipatory Bail - Repeated Petitions - Clear Role in Grievous Injury - Second petition for anticipatory bail dismissed - Petitioner caused grievous injury with a Kirpan - CCTV footage not conclusive - Number of persons collectively caused injuries - Injury punishable under Section 326 IPC - Petitioner does not deserve anticipatory bail. [Paras 9-10]

Repeated Petitions - Circumstances for Reconsideration - Analysis - Petitioner's first bail petition withdrawn without his knowledge - Petitioner claims presence not shown in CCTV footage - Court found presence of petitioner at incident and clear role in causing injury - No change in facts to justify reconsideration. [Paras 2-4]

Legal Framework - Section 326 IPC - Held - Grievous hurt caused by dangerous weapons punishable with life imprisonment or up to ten years - Petitioner attributed clear role in causing such injury - Anticipatory bail not warranted. [Paras 9-10]

Decision - Petition Dismissed - Second petition for anticipatory bail dismissed due to clear role in grievous injury and lack of new facts - Petitioner directed to approach trial court for regular bail. [Paras 10-11]

Criminal Procedure - Bail Cancellation - Non-Appearance - Bail cancelled and petitioner declared proclaimed offender due to non-appearance - Petitioner claimed non-appearance due to lack of communication - Household lady not conversant with court proceedings - Bail restored with conditions. [Paras 3-5, 12]

Leniency in Bail Matters - Ensuring Presence for Trial - Analysis - While petitioner does not deserve leniency, denying bail would not serve purpose as trial remains pending - Court's paramount consideration is securing presence for trial completion - Petitioner given one opportunity to appear and be released on bail. [Paras 10-11]

Judicial Discretion - Conditions for Bail Restoration - Held - Petitioner directed to appear before trial court, furnish undertaking to not default again, and provide bail/surety bonds - Additional condition to pay costs to District Legal Services Authority - Bail cancellation order to become inoperative upon compliance. [Paras 12-15]

Decision - Petition Allowed - Petitioner's non-appearance excused subject to conditions - Directed to appear in trial court within 10 days and comply with specified conditions - Costs imposed. [Paras 12-15]

Criminal Procedure – Revisional Court Powers – Re-appreciation of Evidence – Petition challenging the revisional court's order which directed the trial court to reconsider the framing of charges. Held, the revisional court does not have the power to re-appreciate existing evidence but can only interfere if there is procedural irregularity or if material evidence was overlooked or misread by the subordinate court. The revisional court's decision to set aside the discharge order lacked such grounds. Discharge order upheld. [Para 22]

Second Complaint – Maintainability – Second complaint filed after the first was withdrawn without liberty to refile. Held, withdrawal of the first complaint is considered as acquittal under Section 257 Cr.P.C. and a second complaint on the same facts is not maintainable under Section 300 Cr.P.C. and Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India. [Para 21]

Decision – Petition Allowed – The petition is allowed, and the impugned order dated 26.5.2017 by the revisional court is set aside. The trial court's order discharging the petitioners is upheld. [Para 25]

Negotiable Instruments Act – Imposition of Compensation – Retrospective Application – Petition challenging the imposition of compensation under Section 148 NI Act for a complaint filed before the amendment. Held, the amendment aimed at addressing undue delay in cheque dishonor cases applies retrospectively to appeals against convictions even if the complaint was filed prior to the amendment. The word "may" in the amended provision is to be construed as "shall." Petition lacks merit; impugned order upheld. [Paras 12-14]

Legal Precedent and Interpretation – The Supreme Court in Surender Singh Deswal held that the amended Section 148 applies to appeals filed before the amendment. The amendment does not affect the substantive right of appeal. The interpretation aligns with the Objects and Reasons of the amendment and Section 138. [Para 12]

Decision – Petition Dismissed – The court finds no merit in the petition and upholds the order requiring the petitioner to deposit part of the compensation. The appellate court is encouraged to expedite the appeal. [Paras 14-17]

Constitutional Law - Powers under Article 226/227 - Judicial Review - Certiorari - Appeal against High Court order quashing termination of dealership - Inspection report recorded tampering of holographic seals - Court's jurisdiction to re-appreciate evidence questioned - Held, the inspection report, duly signed by authorized representative, categorically noted tampered holographic seals - No challenge to inquiry proceedings - Not a fit case for judicial intervention under Article 226/227 - Order of Single Judge set aside - Appeal allowed. [Para 13]

Tampering of Evidence - Dealer's Responsibility - Analysis - Tampered holographic seals found during inspection - Clear evidence supported by inspection report - Seals found replaced during follow-up inspection - Arguments that seals were tampered by officials rejected - Single Judge erred in re-appreciating evidence and substituting own findings - Termination of dealership justified under dealership agreement and MDG-2012. [Paras 8, 13]

Judicial Review - Scope and Limitations - Held - High Court's powers under Article 226/227 limited to supervisory jurisdiction - Not to act as appellate court or re-appreciate evidence - Certiorari to correct errors of jurisdiction, not findings of fact unless no evidence supports them - Single Judge's order of quashing dealership termination found inappropriate. [Paras 6, 12]

Decision - Termination of Dealership Upheld - Court upheld the termination of dealership by IOCL - Found no procedural impropriety or violation of principles of natural justice - Single Judge's order set aside - Writ petition by respondent dismissed. [Para 14]