Acid Attack and Subsequent Evidence Admission – Petitioner indicted for offences under IPC Sections 308, 326A, 120B with 34 – Alleged acid attack causing victim’s blindness – Prosecution sought to introduce victim’s disability certificate post trial completion – Dismissal of petitioner’s contention against late evidence admission – [Paras 2, 4, 12-13]

Introduction of Evidence Post-Trial – Criminal Procedure Code 1973, Sections 311, 308, 326A, 120B, 34 – Application to introduce a post-trial document and witness in an acid attack case – High Court upholds the trial court’s decision to allow the introduction of new evidence – Emphasizes the importance of a just decision and the broad scope of Section 311 CrPC. [Paras 1-13]

Relevance and Essentiality of Evidence – Held – The prosecution’s right to introduce new evidence is not limited strictly to evidence gathered during investigation or submitted in the final report. Stresses the need for courts to be flexible in admitting relevant and essential evidence, even if it emerges post-trial, to ensure a fair and just trial. References made to Supreme Court decisions supporting the admissibility of late evidence. [Paras 8-11, 13]

Scope of Section 311 CrPC – Analysis – The provision is for aiding the objective of a criminal trial, which is to render justice. The section empowers courts to summon any witness or document deemed essential for a just decision, without being confined to the materials initially produced. The introduction of new evidence is thus not restricted solely on the basis that it was not part of the original investigation or final report. [Paras 12-13]

Decision – Dismissal of Criminal Miscellaneous Case – The High Court finds no error in the trial court’s decision to allow the introduction of a disability certificate and examination of the issuing doctor after trial completion. Asserts that this decision aligns with the principle of justice and the effective application of Section 311 CrPC. [Para 13]

Matrimonial Dispute and Counterclaim - The petitioner sought return of stridhan in her written statement in a matrimonial case against the respondent - Counterclaim dismissed by the Family Court - Petitioner appeals under Article 227 [Para 2].

Misapplication of Procedural Law - Petitioner's counsel argued that Family Court misconstrued Order VIII Rules 6A to 6D of the Code of Civil Procedure - Asserted that counterclaim in written statement should have been treated as a plaint, as per procedural law [Para 3].

Counter-Claim in Written Statement – Evaluation of Legal Framework – Civil Miscellaneous Petition challenging dismissal of counter-claim made in written statement in matrimonial case – Petitioner contends Family Court erred in not recognizing her counter-claim for return of stridhan in matrimonial proceedings – High Court examines Order VIII Rule 6A of CPC and Section 23A of Hindu Marriage Act (HMA) – Held, specific format and contents for counter-claim under CPC and HMA necessary – Mere assertions in written statement do not constitute valid counter-claim – Petitioner's claim not conforming to required legal format – Dismissal of counter-claim by Family Court upheld. [Paras 3-14, 17]

Jurisdiction of Family Courts – Property Disputes in Matrimonial Cases – Court observes that property disputes can be adjudicated under Family Courts Act, but counter-claims in HMA limited to specific reliefs under Sections 9 to 13 – Petitioner's counter-claim for return of gift articles not maintainable under HMA – Petitioner advised to seek legal recourse in competent court for property dispute. [Paras 15-16, 19]

Limitation of Counterclaims in Family Law - Held that under Section 23A of the Hindu Marriage Act, counterclaims are limited to specific reliefs under Sections 9 to 13 of the Act - Return of gift articles not permissible as a counterclaim in matrimonial proceedings [Paras 16-17].

Decision – Dismissal of Civil Miscellaneous Petition – High Court upholds Family Court’s dismissal of petitioner's counter-claim – Counter-claim found non-compliant with legal format and content requirements – Petition dismissed, but petitioner granted liberty to assert her rights in appropriate legal forum. [Paras 17-19]

Bail Application under Section 439 CrPC - Petitioner seeking bail in connection with FIR under Sections 22(C) and 27-A/61/85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) - Petitioner not found in possession of contraband, implicated based on disclosure statement of co-accused - Interim bail previously granted by Coordinate Bench - Prosecution relying on disclosure statements and recovery of contraband - Petitioner's counsel argues lack of recovery from petitioner and absence of misuse of interim bail - Referring to precedent, counsel asserts petitioner's entitlement to bail - Prosecution opposes bail citing disclosure statements and involvement of petitioner - Court notes prima facie evidence linking petitioner to offense but considers duration of custody and lack of grounds to dismiss petition - Bail granted with conditions - Petitioner directed to surrender weapons, firearms, ammunition, and restrict mobile phone usage to one prepaid SIM - Compliance mandated within specified timeframe - Precedent cited for imposition of similar condition - Petition allowed.

Decision: Bail granted to petitioner under Section 439 CrPC in connection with NDPS Act case - Petitioner directed to comply with specified conditions including surrendering weapons and restricting mobile phone usage.

Service Law - Promotion Dispute - Validity of Diploma - Writ Petition under Article 226 - Promotion to the post of Junior Engineer sought by petitioner based on Diploma in Civil Engineering obtained from 'Institute of Advanced Studies in Education Deemed University, Gandhi Vidya Mandir, Sardarshahr, Rajasthan' - Respondents withheld promotion citing non-recognition of University for distance education by All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) - Petitioner contends diploma is valid as per precedents - Respondents argue diploma obtained through distance education from unrecognized institution - Court examines precedents including Kartar Singh case and Jasvir Singh case - Upholds respondents' decision, dismisses petitions, finds no merit in petitioner's claim for promotion. [Paras 1-16]

Validity of Diploma - Precedents - Court refers to Division Bench judgments in Kartar Singh case and Jasvir Singh case - Kartar Singh case held degrees awarded by deemed universities through distance education mode illegal, relied on by Supreme Court for validity of engineering degrees - Jasvir Singh case denied promotion based on diploma obtained through distance learning from non-recognized institution - Court distinguishes Swaran Singh case cited by petitioner, holds no merit in petitioner's claim. [Paras 9-13]

Dismissal of Petitions - Court dismisses petitions, finds no merit in petitioner's claim for promotion, upholds respondents' decision citing non-recognition of diploma obtained through distance education from unrecognized institution - Precedents including Kartar Singh and Jasvir Singh cases considered - No document provided proving approval of Diploma certificate by State of Punjab. [Paras 14-16]

Specific Performance Suit - Court Fee Requirement - Dismissal of Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC - Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution - Challenge to the order directing the plaintiff to make good the deficiency in court fees - Plaintiff filed suit for specific performance of agreement/affidavit executed by defendant regarding property - Allegation that defendant agreed to execute transfer deed in favor of plaintiff - Defendant contended that ad valorem court fees not affixed - Plaint categorically stated no consideration amount passed - Court fees to be affixed according to consideration amount - No illegality or infirmity found in impugned order - Revision petition devoid of merit - Dismissed. [Paras 1-6]

Decision: Revision Petition Dismissed - Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order directing plaintiff to make good the deficiency in court fees - Revision petition devoid of merit - Dismissed. [Para 6]

Declaration of Ownership - Validity of Sale Certificate - Challenge against Financial Commissioner's Order - Appellant's suit seeking declaration of ownership of land dismissed by lower courts - Appeal filed against concurrent findings - Plaintiff claimed ownership based on sale certificate dated 03.01.2005 - Allegations of illegalities in auction process and subsequent procedures - Financial Commissioner's order setting aside auction challenged - Courts below relied on previous judgments dismissing appellant's claims - Appellant argued lack of independent assessment of evidence by lower courts - Allegations of minor status of appellant at time of auction disputed - Voter list presented as evidence of age - Appellant's claim of clerical error in sale certificate rejected by authorities - Previous court orders highlighting defects in auction process upheld - Lack of substantial question of law raised in appeal - Appeal dismissed.

Motor Vehicle Accident - Compensation - Appeal against quantum of compensation awarded by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) - Deceased, a 1.5-year-old child, fatally injured in a road accident caused by rash and negligent driving of the respondent - Award of compensation of ₹8,00,000/- granted by MACT - Insurance company, the appellant, sought reduction in compensation amount - Tribunal assessed notional income of deceased at ₹50,000/- per annum and applied multiplier of 15 - Appellant contended for reduction of notional income to ₹25,000/- per annum - Held, losing a child in an accident is an incomprehensible tragedy for parents - No amount of money can adequately compensate for such a loss - Compensation should be assessed based on the potential happiness and support the deceased child would have provided to the claimants - Tribunal's determination of notional income at ₹50,000/- per annum upheld - Appeal dismissed.

Decision: The appeal against the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) is dismissed. The Tribunal's assessment of the notional income of the deceased child at ₹50,000/- per annum and the consequent grant of compensation are upheld.

Quashing of Bye-Election Notification – Writ Petition – Challenging validity of Election Commission’s notification for bye-election in Karnal Assembly Constituency – Held: Notification valid – Court finds no infringement of Representation of People’s Act or the Constitution – Writ petition dismissed. [Paras 1-36]

Constitutionality of Bye-Election Notification – Analysis – Considering proviso (a) to Section 151A of Representation of People’s Act, 1951 and Article 164(4) of the Constitution – Court holds that Election Commission can conduct bye-elections even if the remainder of the vacancy is less than one year. [Paras 14, 24, 30]

Interpretation of Section 151A – Held: The non-obstante clause in Section 151A does not bar bye-elections for vacancies with less than a year’s tenure remaining. Bye-elections serve the democratic principle of representation despite short tenures. [Para 20, 23, 25]

Application of Article 164(4) – Constitutional Provision – Mandate for a Minister/Chief Minister to become a legislative member within six months of appointment upheld. Validity of bye-election in Karnal Constituency affirmed, facilitating adherence to Constitutional mandate. [Paras 26-29]

Allegation of Discrimination by Election Commission – Dismissed – Court finds no discrimination in EC’s decision to proceed with bye-election in Karnal, distinguishing it from the situation in Akola West Assembly Constituency. [Para 31]

Public Expenditure and Representational Democracy – Held: Concerns about expenditure and short tenure not sufficient to invalidate the election process. The essence of a representative democracy upheld. [Para 33]

Decision – Writ petition challenging the notification for bye-election in Karnal Assembly Constituency dismissed. The Election Commission’s decision found to be in compliance with statutory and constitutional provisions. [Para 35]

Order VII Rule 11 CPC - Application for rejection of plaint - Limitation - Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell - Plaintiffs alleged extension of time for execution of sale deed and payment of additional consideration - Defendants contended suit barred by limitation - Plaint discloses extension of time and payment of consideration - Whether suit barred by limitation is a debatable question - Merits and demerits of matter not to be gone into at this stage - Averments in plaint to be considered - Suit not barred by limitation on a bare perusal of plaint - Application for rejection of plaint dismissed. [Paras 1-9]

Decision: Revision petition challenging the order dismissing the application for rejection of plaint is devoid of merits and accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. [Para 9]