Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 307, 506, 148, 149 - Conviction - Complainant party alleged accused of committing murder - Medical evidence indicated a 12 bore shot fired from close range, contradicting the complainant's version of indiscriminate firing from a distance - Held, the medical evidence did not support the ocular version of the complainant and eyewitnesses - Conviction set aside due to lack of corroboration from medical evidence - Appeal allowed. [Paras 39-41]

Evidentiary Standards and Corroboration - Injuries indicated a shot fired from a distance of 2-3 feet, not from 10 feet as claimed by the complainant - Held, injuries caused to the deceased were unlikely from the alleged distance - Blackening and deflection of pellets supported close-range firing - Medical evidence deemed more reliable than inconsistent eyewitness testimony - Conviction based on unreliable ocular evidence overturned. [Paras 22-23]

Role of Motive and Investigation Flaws - Accused allegedly motivated by previous electoral defeat of the accused's relative - Police investigation found the complainant's version unreliable - Held, motive alone insufficient to convict without credible evidence - Flawed investigation and lack of reliable evidence necessitated acquittal - Conviction and sentences of all accused set aside. [Paras 36-38]

Decision: Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentences under Sections 302, 307, 506, 148, 149 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act set aside. Accused acquitted of all charges. [Para 51]

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 13(1)(i.a) - Cruelty and Desertion - Allegations by husband of cruelty and non-cooperation by wife - Prolonged separation and counter-allegations by both parties - Held, allegations not serious enough to constitute cruelty - Matrimonial cruelty must be such that it is dangerous for either spouse to remain in the company of the other - Appeal dismissed - Divorce cannot be granted based on "fault theory" alone - "Breakdown theory" not accepted under Hindu Marriage Act. [Para 12, 16]

Unreasonable Expectations and Matrimonial Cruelty - Allegations included refusal to care for mother-in-law, unreasonable demands, and non-cooperation - Held, allegations indicative of over-sensitivity and unreasonable expectations in a male-dominated society - Not sufficient to prove cruelty warranting divorce - Efforts for mediation recommended but not attempted - Divorce on grounds of cruelty not justified. [Para 12]

Prolonged Separation and Legal Theory - Despite prolonged separation, divorce cannot be granted solely on this ground - Hindu Marriage Act is based on "fault theory" and does not recognize "breakdown theory" as a ground for divorce - Held, appellant's claim based on prolonged separation rejected - Marriage dissolution requires proven fault as per statutory grounds. [Para 16]

Decision: Appeal dismissed. The petition for divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion is not maintainable under the present circumstances. The court emphasizes the necessity of mediation and reasonable expectations within matrimonial relationships. [Para 20]

Service Law – Termination of Judicial Officer – Allegations of Illicit Relationship – Petitioner's service terminated based on allegations by another judicial officer's wife – No evidence supporting allegations – Held, termination based on unsubstantiated allegations is unjust – Petitioner's termination order quashed – Petitioner entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service but without back wages. [Paras 8, 10, 14]

Service Law – Competent Authority – Report by District Judge – Petitioner never worked under the District Judge, Faridkot, who reported against her – District Judge, Kapurthala, under whom petitioner worked, was never asked for a report – Held, report from an unrelated authority not competent for adverse comments – Termination order quashed due to lack of due process. [Paras 9, 10]

Decision – Petition allowed – Impugned termination order quashed – Petitioner reinstated with continuity in service for seniority and service benefits, but without back wages. [Paras 16-17]

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 - Assessment of Provisional Rent - Rent Controller’s duty to assess provisional rent upon tenant's request - Tenant requested provisional rent assessment at the first appearance - Rent Controller failed to assess rent and dismissed the petition on the ground of non-payment - Appellate authority ordered eviction - Held, Rent Controller is obligated to assess provisional rent and provide an opportunity for payment before eviction for non-payment can be ordered - Tenant's intention was bona fide as he requested assessment at the first appearance - Rent Controller directed to assess provisional rent - Petition allowed. [Paras 2, 21-23]

Tenant’s Bona Fides and Court’s Responsibility - Tenant demonstrated bona fide intention by requesting provisional rent assessment immediately - Held, tenant’s bona fide intention proven by timely request for rent assessment - Rent Controller failed in not assessing provisional rent - Supreme Court precedents mandate rent assessment before eviction for non-payment - Appellate authority’s order set aside. [Paras 22-23]

Supreme Court Precedent Compliance - Applicability of Rakesh Wadhawan vs. M/s Jagdamba Industrial Corporation, 2002 (5) SCC 440 - Held, Rent Controller must assess provisional rent and provide a chance to tender it, even if the dispute concerns rent amount or arrear period - Compliance with Supreme Court’s binding declaration is necessary. [Paras 10, 14]

Decision: Revision petition allowed. The Rent Controller is directed to assess the provisional rent and proceed with the case accordingly. The orders of the Rent Controller and the appellate authority are set aside. [Para 27]

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Validity of Driving License for Transport Vehicle - Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) includes transport vehicle - Holder of LMV license is competent to drive transport vehicle with gross weight not exceeding 7500 kg - No need for separate endorsement to drive transport vehicle - Held, the driver, holding a valid LMV license, was authorized to drive the auto-rickshaw, a transport vehicle with a gross weight under 7500 kg - Appeal dismissed. [Paras 2-3]

Legal Interpretation and Precedent - Reliance on Supreme Court's ruling in Mukand Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 2016 (4) SCC 298 - Held, LMV as defined under Section 2(21) includes transport vehicle up to specified weight - Separate endorsement not required for LMV license holders to drive transport vehicles - Tribunal’s decision upheld. [Para 2]

Decision: Appeal dismissed. The driver’s LMV license is valid for driving the transport vehicle involved in the accident. [Para 4]

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Liability of Insured on Hiring a Driver - Owner's responsibility to take reasonable care in employing a qualified and competent driver - Not required to verify the genuineness of the driving license before hiring - Insurance company must prove the owner's negligence in hiring the driver with a fake license - Held, the insurer must show that the owner failed to exercise reasonable care in hiring the driver - Mere possession of a fake license by the driver is not sufficient to absolve the insurer from liability - Appeal dismissed. [Para 11]

Reasonable Care and Verification - Owner's obligation limited to checking the validity of the license and competence of the driver - Held, owners are not expected to verify the authenticity of the license with the licensing authority before hiring - The insurer must prove the owner's knowledge or negligence regarding the fake license to avoid liability - Recovery rights granted to the insurance company were justified. [Para 16]

Supreme Court Precedent - Reliance on National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Laxmi Narain Dhut - Fake or invalid license alone not a defense for the insurer against third parties - Insurer must establish owner's failure in exercising reasonable care - Held, liability on the insurer persists unless the owner's negligence is proven - Appeals dismissed based on established precedent. [Para 12]

Decision: Appeal dismissed. The owner’s responsibility to verify the driving license was fulfilled by checking its validity and the competence of the driver. The insurance company’s recovery rights against the owner are upheld. [Paras 19-23]

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Interest on Compensation - Entire compensation deposited with the Land Acquisition Collector - Claimants deprived of withdrawing the compensation due to interim orders - Held, deposit was as good as non-deposit since claimants could not withdraw - Interest under Section 34 payable as rights stem from the statute - Interim orders cannot negate statutory rights - Appeals dismissed. [Para 13]

Doctrine of Actus Curiae NeminemGravabit - No act of the Court should harm any party - Compensation deposited in a non-operative account - Interest on compensation under Section 34 continues to accrue as claimants were deprived of its use - Held, the appellant cannot escape liability for interest by merely depositing the compensation - Claimants entitled to statutory interest for the deprivation period. [Para 15]

Principle of Restitution - Interim orders intended to protect the interests of both parties - Held, the appellant benefitted from interim orders by avoiding higher statutory interest - On dismissal of writ petition, claimants entitled to the difference between interest earned and statutory interest - Appeals devoid of merit. [Para 15]

Decision: Appeals dismissed. Appellant to pay the interest on compensation under Section 34 for the period claimants were deprived of the compensation. [Para 15]

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 - Bona Fide Necessity of Landlord - Petition for eviction based on the need for premises for landlord's unmarried sister to open a boutique - Dependency of the relative on the landlord not required to be proved - Held, non-averment of such requirement in the eviction petition is not fatal if sufficient cogent evidence of necessity is provided. Further held, the basic object under the Act is to test the bona fide requirement of the landlord or his normal emanations, not to adhere to a particular form of pleadings. [Paras 23-24]

Dependency and Requirement Proof - Question of proving dependency of the dependent on the landlord for seeking eviction - Held, no statutory requirement for proving dependency exists - The necessity includes that of normal emanations of the landlord, covering moral, social, or legal responsibilities towards family members. [Para 26]

Tenant's Obligation to Raise Objection - Requirement for tenant to raise objections regarding non-averment at the time of filing a written statement - Held, failure to raise such objections implies waiver of the objections - Tenant must bring to notice if the person for whose necessity eviction is sought is occupying another building or has vacated any such building without sufficient cause. [Para 27]

Decision: Revision petition dismissed. The bona fide necessity of the premises for the landlord's sister to open a boutique was upheld, and the eviction order was affirmed. [Paras 29-30]

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 - Subletting without Landlord's Consent - Petition for eviction filed after 15-17 years of alleged subletting - Appellate Authority inferred acquiescence due to delay - Held, as per Section 13(2)(ii)(a), written consent from the landlord is mandatory for subletting - Long delay in filing eviction does not imply acquiescence. Further held, the Appellate Authority erred in drawing adverse inference against the landlord - Petition filed after significant delay does not negate the requirement for written consent. [Paras 12-13]

Evidentiary Requirements and Burden of Proof - Tenant's inconsistent statements regarding subletting and payment of rent - Held, inconsistent defense by the tenant undermines credibility - Burden of proof on tenant to show valid subletting with landlord's consent - Tenant failed to provide documentary evidence supporting direct tenancy under the original owner. [Paras 2, 6, 8, 12]

Appellate Authority's Reversal of Rent Controller's Decision - Appellate Authority did not critically analyze Rent Controller's detailed reasoning - Held, failure to address specific findings and inconsistencies identified by Rent Controller constitutes a reversible error - Appellate Authority's judgment set aside, Rent Controller's order of eviction restored. [Paras 10-11, 14]

Decision: Revision petition allowed. Appellate Authority's judgment set aside, Rent Controller's eviction order restored. Costs of Rs. 50,000 awarded to the petitioner. [Paras 14-15]