Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act – Disclosure Statements – Appeal against conviction under Section 20/29 NDPS Act – Appellant No. 1 apprehended with 5.5 Kg charas at railway station – Disclosure by appellant No. 1 implicating appellant No. 2 as supplier – No recovery from appellant No. 2 – Trial Court convicted both appellants – Appeal of appellant No. 1 abated due to her death – Appeal of appellant No. 2 allowed – Held, prosecution cannot base case on disclosure statement of co-accused without corroboration – Section 30 Evidence Act not aiding prosecution in absence of supporting evidence – Conviction of appellant No. 2 set aside, benefit of doubt given. [Paras 1-20]

Evidence Law – Admissibility of Co-Accused's Disclosure – Section 30 of Indian Evidence Act – Disclosure by co-accused not substantive evidence – Can only lend corroboration if other evidence present – No recovery or other evidence against appellant No. 2 – Section 27 not applicable as no fact discovered from disclosure – Appeal allowed, appellant No. 2 acquitted due to lack of evidence. [Paras 15-17]

Decision – Acquittal of Appellant No. 2 – High Court acquits appellant No. 2 Raj Kumar @ Raju Dube – Orders immediate release if not required in any other case – Emphasizes need for independent corroborative evidence for conviction based on disclosure by co-accused. [Para 20]

Land Acquisition – Re-determination of Compensation – Application under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act – Petition challenging rejection of application for re-determination of compensation as time-barred – Original award announced on 30.04.1963 – Reference under Section 18 decided on 25.04.1970 – Application for re-determination filed on 03.11.1987 – Held, limitation period for filing application under Section 28-A is three months from the date of the award of the reference court – Petition dismissed as the application was filed beyond the period of limitation. [Paras 1-14]

Limitation – Computation – Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act – Interpretation – Held, limitation period for application under Section 28-A to be reckoned from the date of the award of the reference court and not from any subsequent appellate order – Applications must be filed within three months from the date of such award. [Paras 5-7]

Decision – Dismissal of Petition – Court dismisses petition challenging the rejection of re-determination application – Confirms that the application was rightly dismissed as time-barred, being filed beyond the statutory period of three months from the date of the reference court’s award. [Para 14]

Public Premises – Eviction – Appeal against order directing the petitioner to seek remedy before civil court – Panchayat Samiti rented out plot to respondent, who defaulted in rent payment – Collector ordered eviction and imposed damages – Subsequent compromise allegedly executed between Panchayat Samiti and respondent – Panchayat Samiti later denied compromise, alleging fraud – High Court holds that eviction proceedings under the Public Premises Act culminated with the Collector's eviction order – Officials of Panchayat Samiti not authorized to enter into compromise with private respondent regarding public premises – Orders passed subsequent to eviction order, including the appellate authority's order, set aside – Writ petition allowed with costs, direction for eviction and initiation of disciplinary and criminal proceedings against delinquent officials. [Paras 1-8]

Landlord-Tenant – Unauthorized Occupant – Eviction proceedings under the Public Premises Act – Tenant declared unauthorized occupant due to rent default – Eviction ordered by Collector – Alleged compromise found fraudulent – High Court emphasizes protection of public property and sets aside orders based on unauthorized compromise. [Paras 6-8]

Decision – Quashing of Subsequent Orders – Court quashes all orders passed subsequent to the eviction order by the Collector – Reiterates that government authorities cannot compromise on public premises without proper authorization – Orders eviction and imposes costs on the private respondent. [Para 8]

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Petition to quash FIR and subsequent proceedings under Sections 376, 120-B IPC, and Section 3 of SC/ST Act – Complainant alleged sexual exploitation and caste-based humiliation by accused Vishal Sharma – Petitioners (accused's family) allegedly involved in caste-based remarks – No evidence that petitioners had any role in initial exploitation – Held, meeting in private house does not constitute 'public view' under SC/ST Act – FIR and proceedings against petitioners quashed. [Paras 1-29]

Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act – Interpretation of 'Public View' – Alleged caste-based remarks made in private house – Held, remarks in private setting do not fulfill 'public view' requirement – Quashing of FIR and proceedings justified. [Para 24]

Decision – Quashing of FIR – High Court quashes FIR and proceedings against petitioners – Lack of evidence of their involvement in alleged offences – Case against accused Vishal Sharma to proceed as per law. [Para 29]

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of Proceedings – Petitions to quash Calendra under Section 145 Cr.P.C. regarding land ownership dispute – Deceased Colonel Gurdev Singh's property claimed by petitioner (his second wife) and respondent No. 5 (his daughter) – Civil suit for declaration of ownership already pending – Ad interim injunction granted to maintain status quo – High Court holds proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. unnecessary and an abuse of court process – Civil court better suited to adjudicate the matter – Petitions allowed, Calendra quashed. [Paras 1-34]

Land Dispute – Civil vs. Criminal Jurisdiction – Civil suit for declaration of ownership and possession pending – Ad interim injunction for status quo granted – Criminal proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. initiated later – High Court finds criminal proceedings redundant when civil remedies are available and being pursued – Civil court's orders should be binding on criminal court. [Paras 21-30]

Decision – Quashing of Section 145 Proceedings – Court quashes Calendra and proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. – Emphasizes civil court's jurisdiction and ongoing suit for ownership declaration – Maintains that appropriate remedy is before the civil court, not criminal court. [Para 31-34]

Criminal Law – Probation – Release on Probation – Petition challenging conviction and seeking probation under Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and Section 360 Cr.P.C. – Petitioners convicted for constructing roads and setting up unauthorized colony without permission – Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court sentenced petitioners to simple imprisonment for one year – High Court holds offence technical in nature, with no grave magnitude – Petitioners are agriculturists with unblemished character – Sentencing objective should be reformation and rehabilitation – Petitioners to be released on probation upon furnishing bonds. [Paras 1-38]

Probation of Offenders Act – Applicability – Sections 3, 4, 6 – Probation Act aimed at reforming first-time offenders and avoiding exposure to hardened criminals – Trial and appellate courts must consider probation provisions before sentencing – Special emphasis on personal and socio-economic background of offenders – High Court emphasizes duty to consider probation even if not raised by counsel. [Paras 11-27]

Decision – Grant of Probation – Court modifies sentence to release petitioners on probation under Section 4(1) of Probation Act – Petitioners to furnish bonds before trial court, probation period to commence from 01.06.2015 – Petitioners directed to maintain peace and good behavior – Judgment of conviction upheld, sentence order modified for probation. [Paras 37-39]

Land Law – Unauthorized Possession – Allotment Cancellation and Auction – Respondent's father allotted land, failed to pay balance allotment price – Allotment cancelled, fresh auction held, land sold – Respondent's writ petition led to status quo order – Appellants claimed land allotted to them during writ pendency – High Court holds allotment cancellation justified due to non-payment – Respondent surrendered claim to third party, losing locus standi – Appellants' claims on unauthorized possession invalid – Allotment restored to respondent after deposit of balance with interest – Appellants' claims dismissed, transactions declared fraudulent and void. [Paras 1-25]

Illegal Transactions – Public Policy and Fraud – Unauthorized possession transfer to appellants found illegal – Transactions between parties for transferring unauthorized possession void – Government policies allowing such transfers deemed inapplicable – High Court highlights collusion between parties and officials, orders public auction of land if respondent fails compliance. [Paras 19-21]

Decision – Dismissal of Appellants' Claims – Court dismisses appellants' claims over land – Orders financial commissioner to investigate illegal transactions – Directs Deputy Commissioner to take possession of land pending inquiry – Reaffirms restoration of allotment to respondent subject to compliance – Orders public auction if respondent defaults. [Para 25]

Employees’ State Insurance Act – Applicability – Definition of Shop – Appeal against the order quashing ESI demand – Respondent-company engaged in banking-like business, securing deposits and returning with interest on maturity – ESI authorities claimed coverage under definition of shop – High Court held that business of banking and insurance falls within the definition of a commercial establishment, not a shop – ESI Court correctly set aside the demand – Appeal dismissed. [Paras 1-9]

Commercial Establishment vs. Shop – Interpretation of Definitions – Definition of shop under ESI Act not provided – Referenced Punjab Shops and Commercial Establishment Act – Business involving banking, insurance, stocks, and shares classified as commercial establishment – ESI authorities’ interpretation as shop rejected – High Court emphasizes clear distinction in statutory definitions. [Para 6-8]

Decision – Dismissal of Appeals – High Court dismisses both appeals, finding no merit – Upholds ESI Court’s decision that respondent’s business is a commercial establishment and not a shop – Demand raised by ESI authorities deemed inapplicable. [Para 9]

Civil Procedure – Jurisdiction – SARFAESI Act – Petition challenging civil court's jurisdiction to entertain suit for prohibitory injunction against bank’s actions under SARFAESI Act – Respondent claimed tenancy and sought to prevent bank from taking possession – High Court held that jurisdiction of civil court barred under Section 34 of SARFAESI Act unless action of secured creditor is alleged to be fraudulent or claim is untenable – No allegations of fraud made – Civil court's jurisdiction barred – Plaint rejected. [Paras 1-18]

SARFAESI Act – Remedies and Jurisdiction – Sections 13, 17 & 34 – Remedy for aggrieved persons against actions under Section 13(4) lies with Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) – Civil courts barred from entertaining suits on matters covered by DRT – High Court emphasizes remedies under SARFAESI Act are adequate and expeditious – Civil court’s intervention unnecessary and prohibited unless fraud alleged. [Paras 11-16]

Decision – Rejection of Plaint – Court sets aside lower court's order dismissing application for rejection of plaint – Orders rejection of plaint filed by respondent – Directs respondent to approach DRT within two weeks for redressal of grievances – Ensures respondent not left remediless by permitting delayed appeal before DRT. [Para 18-20]