Criminal Revision – Conviction Under Sections 465, 471, 409, 120-B IPC – Conviction Upheld - Petitioners convicted by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ferozepur, for offences involving criminal breach of trust and forgery – Appeals dismissed by Sessions Judge – Revision petitions filed and kept pending for over 16 years – Held: Conviction well-founded based on material on record – No interference warranted with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts [Paras 2–4, 12].

Sentence – Reduction on Ground of Delay and Mitigating Factors – Sentence Reduced to Period Already Undergone - FIR registered in 1997; conviction in 2007; appeal dismissed in 2009; revision petitions heard in 2025 – Petitioners Nanak Singh and Darshan Singh had undergone only about two and a half months in custody – Held: Considering age, time lapse of over 28 years since FIR, and partial incarceration, sentence reduced to period already undergone on condition of paying ₹50,000 each to Gram Panchayat – Sentence of fine and default term unchanged [Paras 9, 13–14].

Death of Co-Accused – Abatement of Proceedings – Proceedings Abated - During pendency of revision petitions, petitioners Gura Singh and Dharam Singh passed away – Proceedings abated in respect of the deceased accused as per order dated 14.05.2025 [Para 8].

Decision – Conviction Upheld, Sentence Modified – Revision Petitions Disposed - Court found no merit to disturb conviction – However, in exercise of discretion under revisional jurisdiction, modified sentence considering long passage of time and limited custody – Revision petitions disposed of on these terms [Paras 12–14].

Criminal Law – Sections 323, 325, 341 IPC – Conviction Upheld – Sentence Reduced - Petitioners were convicted for causing hurt and wrongful restraint – Sentenced to 2 years’ rigorous imprisonment with fines – Revision petitions filed after dismissal of appeals – Held: Findings of conviction not perverse – However, considering that petitioners underwent over 3 months in custody and faced trial for more than 7 years, sentence reduced to period already undergone [Paras 3, 7, 10–11].

Sentencing – Discretion in Non-Mandatory Sentences – Period Already Undergone Considered Sufficient - No minimum sentence prescribed for the offences under Sections 323/325/341 IPC – Court exercised discretion guided by principles laid down in Deo Narain Mandal v. State of U.P. and Ravada Sasikala v. State of A.P. – Held: When sentence is discretionary, it must be proportionate, mindful of rehabilitation and passage of time – Petitioners' conduct since conviction considered [Paras 8–9].

Multiple Petitioners – Parity in Sentencing – No Distinction Made Despite Prior Cases - Though State opposed relief citing prior involvement of two petitioners – Court found no basis to deny relief as sentence was not mandatory and time factor weighed heavily – Sentence reduced for all petitioners [Paras 6–7].

Decision – Conviction Maintained – Sentence Modified - Trial Court’s conviction findings affirmed – Sentence of two years modified to period already undergone (3 months and 16 days) – Petitioners to be released if not wanted in any other case – All pending applications also disposed [Paras 11–13].

Civil Writ - Society Membership – Balija Community – Eligible Applicants Denied Consideration – Appeals Allowed - Petitioners seeking membership in a community society were denied consideration despite eligibility – District Registrar directed the society to consider requests, but the society failed to act – Held: Petition maintainable, registrar’s directive valid, and existing Governing Council is legally functional and bound to consider applications – Learned Single Judge's dismissal on ground of expired term of council set aside [Paras 1–6, 13–26].

Maintainability – Article 226 – Statutory Public Duty – Writ Lies Against Society - Though respondent No.3 is a registered society, its activities are governed by the Act and overseen by state authorities – Held: Writ petition maintainable under Article 226 as petitioners sought enforcement of a statutory public duty – Court relied on Supreme Court precedent in U.P. State Cooperative Land Development Bank Ltd. v. Chandra Bhan Dubey [(1999) 1 SCC 741] [Paras 10–13].

Governance – Continuation of Governing Council – Powers Not Suspended – Membership Duty Remains - Society’s governing body, though past its term, continued under bye-laws and was not under suppression or restricted – Held: Governing Council retains authority to act and must consider membership applications – Single Judge erred in holding otherwise [Paras 14–18, 22–25].

Final Decision – Writ Appeals Allowed – Directions to Admit Members and Hold Elections - Appeals allowed and writ petition restored – Society directed to consider membership applications within 4 weeks and conduct elections within 3 months thereafter [Paras 27–28].

Bail - Prevention of Corruption Act – Demand for Bribe – Prima Facie Allegations Based on Trap and DVR Evidence – Bail Granted – Petitioner alleged to have demanded and partially accepted bribe to help fabricate documents in a drug case – Trap failed as petitioner fled the spot, destroyed DVR, and allegedly threatened complainant – Court held that gravity of offence alone is not ground to deny bail when statutory conditions are met – Bail granted with conditions [Paras 1–4, 17].

Triple Test for Bail – Flight Risk, Tampering, and Reoffending – Conditions Not Attracted – Though petitioner absconded for a month post-incident, he later surrendered voluntarily – No allegation of misuse during interim bail – Charge sheet filed and evidence safeguarded – Court found no ongoing threat to trial – Bail granted on satisfaction of triple test [Paras 13–15].

Past Conduct – Previous CBI Case Not a Bar – Petitioner Chargesheeted in Prior CBI Case Without Arrest – Court held mere pendency of another case does not justify denial of bail if present case circumstances support release – Separate FIR for abduction does not warrant arrest – Bail allowed subject to safeguards [Para 16].

Right to Speedy Trial – Delay in Conclusion of Trial Favours Bail – Petitioner in custody for over nine months – Trial likely to take time – Court reaffirms right to personal liberty and speedy trial as fundamental under Article 21 – Detention extended without trial held unjustified [Para 17].

Bail Conditions – Stringent Directions Imposed – Bail allowed on personal bond of ₹50,000 with one surety – Travel restrictions, contact prohibition, and appearance before court mandated – Petitioner to keep mobile phone active and notify change of address [Para 17].

Criminal Law – Murder – Section 302 of the IPC - Acquittal – Appeal against conviction allowed after 23 years of FIR registration – Trial court had convicted appellant Gajender @ Lambu under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment – High Court finds that the case is based entirely on circumstantial evidence, with key prosecution witnesses turning hostile and motive alone found insufficient for conviction – Held: Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 2, 18, 19]

Witness Testimony – Hostile Witnesses – P.W. 4 (Shiva) and P.W. 5 (Pawan Kumar) initially claimed to have seen accused and co-accused leaving deceased’s premises around the time of the murder – Both witnesses turned hostile during trial and denied making any such observations or knowing about any relationship between deceased and accused’s daughter – Their statements thus failed to corroborate prosecution's version [Paras 4, 18]

Circumstantial Evidence – Insufficient Chain – Recovery of letter (Ex.P-1) and diary (Ex.P-3) indicating alleged relationship between deceased and accused’s daughter – Diary recovered based on disclosure statement of accused – FSL confirmed handwriting belonged to deceased – Court held that even if motive was established, absence of complete and cogent chain of circumstances failed to conclusively prove guilt – Cited Supreme Court precedents emphasizing that motive alone or suspicion cannot substitute legal proof [Paras 12, 18]

Motive – Relationship of Deceased with Accused’s Daughter – Motive alleged was accused's anger upon seeing his daughter with the deceased – Court reaffirmed that motive, even if strong, cannot solely lead to conviction without a full chain of corroborative circumstances pointing exclusively to the accused’s guilt – Reference made to Sharad Birdhichand Sarda and other landmark rulings [Paras 12–17]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC set aside – Appellant Gajender @ Lambu acquitted – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 19, 20]

Family Law - Hindu Marriage Act – Section 27 – Independent Application for Return of Stree Dhan – Not Maintainable – Impugned Judgment Set Aside – Family Court passed order under Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act independently, without pendency of any matrimonial proceeding under Sections 9 to 13B – Held: Section 27 does not create an independent cause of action – Application not maintainable – Judgment rendered without jurisdiction is a nullity and liable to be set aside [Paras 3–4, 8–9].

Evidence Law – Admissibility of Secondary Evidence – Photocopy of Jewellery Receipts – Improper Reliance – Respondent relied solely on photocopies of jewellery bills as proof of stree dhan – No explanation offered for admitting secondary evidence – Appellant's failure to object not equivalent to admission – Held: Family Court erred in treating unproved photocopies as conclusive proof – Possession and ownership of stree dhan remained unestablished [Paras 6–7].

Criminal Allegations – Cross-Examination Admission Ignored – Perverse Finding – Respondent alleged that appellant forcibly snatched jewellery and threw her out on 24.11.2014 – Admitted in cross-examination that appellant was in Bombay on the date of incident – Family Court ignored this crucial admission – Held: Finding of possession of stree dhan by appellant is perverse and unsupported [Paras 6–7].

Appeal vs. Review – Maintainability – No Estoppel – Respondent contended that appellant's failure in review and non-challenge to execution barred appeal – Rejected – Held: Right to appeal is statutory under Section 96 CPC – Review failure does not bar appeal – Execution must fail where judgment is without jurisdiction [Para 11].

Maintenance Adjustment – Partial Execution Adjusted – Appellant paid ₹7,00,000 voluntarily and ₹2,10,000 recovered by execution – Held: Amounts to be adjusted towards prior maintenance order under Section 125 CrPC – No further liability remains for the same period [Para 10].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Judgment dated 31.03.2022 passed without jurisdiction under Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act is quashed – Execution proceedings dropped – Payments adjusted against earlier maintenance liability – Respondent’s claim under Section 27 held not independently enforceable [Paras 10–12].

Civil Writ - Service Law – Compassionate Appointment – Claim for Higher Rank – No Policy Exists – Petition Dismissed – The petitioner sought appointment as Sub-Inspector or Assistant Sub-Inspector claiming parity with other individuals whose family members served as spies and were imprisoned in Pakistan – Held: There is no express or implied policy of the Punjab Government supporting such appointment to a higher post – Petitioner was already appointed as Constable considering his background and qualifications – Court cannot direct for appointment to a higher post without legal backing – Claim rejected [Paras 6-8].

Compassionate Appointment – No Vested Right – Appointment Beyond Policy – The Court reiterated that compassionate appointments are exceptions to the general recruitment rules and must strictly conform to the applicable policy – In absence of any policy providing for appointment to higher ranks based on the petitioner's circumstances, no direction can be issued to grant appointment beyond what was already given [Paras 7-8].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – The writ petition challenging rejection of representations for appointment to higher post is dismissed – No direction can be issued in absence of any government policy enabling such appointment [Para 9].

Taxation Law - Customs Duty Exemption – Import of Inverter Units – Notification No. 12/2012-CE – Exemption Denied – Assessee imported standalone grid-tied solar inverters and claimed exemption from additional duty under Notification No. 12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 – Department denied exemption on the ground that the imported item did not constitute a complete Solar Power Generating System – First Appellate Authority allowed the claim noting absence of proof of multiple-use and liberal interpretation in favour of assessee – CESTAT reversed the decision, holding that exemption was inapplicable to partial imports like standalone inverters unaccompanied by photovoltaic cells – Held: Since only inverters were imported without solar panels, the imported goods do not satisfy the requirement of being a complete Solar Power Generating System – Notification applies to systems, not components – No infirmity in Tribunal's reasoning – Appeals dismissed [Paras 1-4].

Interpretation of Exemption Notification – Component vs. System – Liberal Construction – Limited Scope – Assessee claimed liberal construction of exemption notification to include inverter as part of system – Held: Exemption applies to full systems, not to partial components when imported alone – Liberal interpretation does not extend exemption beyond the express language of the notification – Component imported must form an integrated unit with others to qualify – Tribunal’s view affirmed [Paras 3-4].

Customs Appeals – Findings of Tribunal – No Interference Warranted – Concurrent Finding on Facts – Held: Tribunal rightly found that the essential photovoltaic component required to form a solar power generating system was absent – As imports did not meet the criteria of the notification, the Tribunal’s decision is well-reasoned – High Court will not interfere with concurrent findings based on admitted facts – Appeals merit no consideration [Para 4].

Decision – Assessee Not Entitled to Exemption – Appeals Dismissed – Held: Import of only inverters does not qualify as import of Solar Power Generating System – Benefit under Notification No. 12/2012-CE rightly denied – CESTAT’s orders upheld – All three appeals dismissed [Para 4].

Criminal Law – Quashing of Charges - Criminal Conspiracy – Framing of Charges – Lack of Evidence – Charges Quashed – Petitioners challenged framing of charges under Sections 120-B, 420, 468, and 471 IPC for alleged forgery of donation receipts – High Court found no prima facie evidence showing any dishonest intention or specific role attributed to petitioners – Held: Participation in a resolution at AGM does not establish conspiracy; charge order set aside [Paras 16–18, 55].

Forgery – False Document – No Mens Rea – No Offence Made Out – Allegation that society office bearers forged receipts to mislead State Commission rejected – CFSL report failed to identify any of the petitioners as forgers – Held: No criminal intention proven; no offence under Sections 468 or 471 IPC made out [Paras 47–52].

Consumer Dispute – Donation Dispute – AGM Resolution Valid – Complaint regarding Rs. 21,000 donation payment contradicted by minutes of meeting showing donation was proposed and accepted at AGM by complainant’s father – Court held the decision to collect donation was society’s internal resolution, not coercion [Paras 42–44].

Criminal Law – Statement of Co-accused – Not Admissible – Supplementary statement of co-accused P.N. Singh implicating petitioners held inadmissible – Petitioners could not be held guilty based solely on uncorroborated statement of an accused – Held: Charges cannot stand without independent evidence [Paras 48–49].

Decision – Revision Allowed – Charges Framed Quashed – High Court allowed the revision petition, quashed order on charge dated 08.11.2011 and charges framed on 06.02.2012 – No evidence to show forgery, cheating or conspiracy by petitioners – Criminal proceedings terminated [Paras 55–56].