Criminal Law – Evidence in Absence of Accused – Criminal Revision against Appellate Court Order – Appeal by State against acquittal of petitioner under Section 406 IPC, followed by the remand of the case by the appellate court. The petitioner was acquitted alongside co-accused on the same set of evidence. Held, evidence led by prosecution during the absence of the accused can be used against the petitioner under Section 299(1) of Cr.P.C. Re-trying the petitioner on the same evidence is abuse of process of law and wastage of court time. Petition allowed, and acquittal upheld. [Paras 1-12]

Use of Prior Evidence – Interpretation – Held, that Section 299(1) Cr.P.C. allows evidence recorded during the absence of an absconding accused to be used upon his reappearance. The trial court's reliance on this provision was correct and does not require re-recording of evidence in the presence of the petitioner. [Para 10]

Decision – Acquittal Upheld – Court sets aside the appellate court's order and upholds the trial court's decision acquitting the petitioner due to lack of proof of entrustment and misappropriation of paddy. [Paras 11-12]

Criminal Law - Anticipatory Bail - Rejection - Petition for pre-arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. - Allegations in FIR grave - Petitioner evading arrest for over two and a half years indicating possibility of fleeing - P.O. proceedings initiated against petitioner - Petitioner's reliance on parity with co-accused granted bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on ground of custody rejected - Petition dismissed. [Paras 7-9]

Seriousness of Allegations - Analysis - Allegations involve robbery at gunpoint, kidnapping, and unlawful confinement - Incident occurred on a highway with use of a pistol - Petitioner has evaded arrest since January 2020 - Proceedings initiated to declare petitioner a Proclaimed Offender - Grant of anticipatory bail not justified due to gravity of offence and potential risk of petitioner absconding. [Paras 7-9]

Decision - Dismissal of Anticipatory Bail Petition - In view of the seriousness of the allegations and potential flight risk, anticipatory bail denied - Strong hand required to curb rising instances of such crimes. [Para 9]

Criminal Procedure - Condonation of Delay - Medical Grounds - Petition against dismissal of revision petition for 54/55-day delay - Petitioner claimed delay due to illness, but no supporting documents were submitted - Trial court dismissed revision on technical grounds without hearing merits - Held, delay condoned - Revision petition restored for disposal on merits - Petition allowed. [Para 12]

Limitation Act - Justifiable Delay - Analysis - Petitioner cited medical treatment as cause for delay - Courts must consider genuine reasons for delay, especially medical issues - Technical rejections without merit consideration unjust - Delay condoned based on peculiar facts and similar precedents. [Paras 7-10]

Judicial Precedent - Madras High Court Decision - Referenced - Similar case where delay due to illness was condoned - Courts must prioritize substantive justice over technicalities - Petitioner's grievance similar to precedent case - Applied principles to allow condonation. [Paras 8-9]

Decision - Delay Condoned - Revision Petition Restored - Dismissal order set aside - Delay of 54/55 days in filing criminal revision condoned - Additional Sessions Judge directed to restore revision petition and dispose of it on merits. [Para 12]

Service Law - Gratuity and Interest - Payment and Refund – LPA challenging Single Bench order allowing interest on gratuity amount from 26.03.2002 to 01.11.2010 – Employee retired in 2001, received gratuity but had to refund it upon opting for the pension scheme – Supreme Court in Allahabad Bank &Anr. vs. All India Allahabad Bank Retired Employees Association ruled employees entitled to both pension and gratuity – Bank refunded gratuity but denied interest – Single Bench directed payment of interest – LPA dismissed, Single Bench order upheld. [Paras 1-7]

Statutory Liability - Gratuity Payment and Refund – Analysis – Employee’s entitlement to gratuity under statutory provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 – Pension scheme’s minimum pension equivalent to gratuity admissible – Refund of gratuity and subsequent ruling by Supreme Court affirming employee’s right – Delay in refund not attributable to employee – Statutory interest on delayed payment due. [Paras 6-7]

Judicial Precedents - Beneficial Legislation - Interpretation – Reference to Supreme Court decisions affirming gratuity as a statutory right and delay in payment attracting interest – H. Gangahanume Gowda vs. Karnataka Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. affirmed mandatory interest on delayed gratuity payment – Allahabad Bank’s appeal against paying interest on refunded gratuity rejected. [Para 8]

Decision - Appeal Dismissed – Single Bench order affirmed – Bank directed to pay interest on delayed gratuity refund within two months – Employee’s right to gratuity and interest upheld. [Para 10]

Service Law - Departmental Proceedings vs. Criminal Proceedings – LPA challenging reinstatement after dismissal of peon despite acquittal in criminal case – Departmental inquiry found employee guilty of misconduct – CCTV evidence showed misuse of ATM card – Criminal court acquitted due to lack of evidence – Held, departmental proceedings based on preponderance of probabilities, not bound by criminal court's acquittal – Appeal allowed, Single Judge’s order set aside.

Departmental Inquiries – Differentiation from Criminal Trials – Analysis – Departmental inquiries operate on preponderance of probabilities – Criminal trials require proof beyond reasonable doubt – Employee’s misconduct established in departmental inquiry – Misuse of post and illegal withdrawal of government funds proved – Acquittal in criminal proceedings does not negate findings of departmental inquiry.

Jurisdiction of Single Judge – Limits of Judicial Review – Held, Single Judge exceeded jurisdiction by setting aside departmental findings – Judicial review should respect distinct standards of departmental inquiries – Acquittal in criminal case does not automatically invalidate departmental action based on substantial evidence.

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Single Judge’s order set aside – Dismissal from service upheld – Departmental inquiry findings reinstated – Employee’s reinstatement and consequential benefits withdrawn.

Electricity Law - Entitlement to Electricity Connection - Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 -Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a mandamus directing the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL) to release an electricity connection—Dispute between brothers—Petitioner in occupation of premises but existing connection disconnected due to property dispute—Held that Section 43 of the Electricity Act mandates supply of electricity to any “occupier” of the premises—Term “lawful” is not defined in the Act—Licensee under Indian Easements Act, 1882 is in lawful possession—Petition allowed—PSPCL directed to release electricity connection to petitioner​​.

Real Estate Law - Licensee's Right to Utilities -Petitioner’s contention supported by various documents (Voter I-card, Aadhar Card, Passport) reflecting his long-term residence—PSPCL’s refusal based on petitioner not being a lawful owner—Held that lawful possession under Indian Easements Act includes licensees—Petitioner’s occupancy as licensee not disputed—Interpreting "occupier" to include those in possession through legal agreements—Preventing misuse by disgruntled landlords—Electricity connection to be released as per Section 43, Electricity Act, 2003​​.

Decision:Writ petition allowed—Respondents directed to release the electricity connection within 30 days—PSPCL’s interpretation requiring proof of ownership or legal documentation contrary to legislative intent—Connection to be provided upon compliance with other statutory requirements by the petitioner​​.

Criminal Law - Probation of Offenders – Section 360 CrPC – Sections 4 and 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 – Revision against conviction and sentence – Offenses not heinous or grievous – Petitioner a first-time offender, nearly 50 years old with family responsibilities – Sentence modified to probation for good conduct – Revision partly allowed. [Paras 1-23]

Sentencing Principles – Reformative vs. Punitive Approach – Analysis – Law should extend indulgence to first-time offenders – Purpose of sentencing includes reformative aspect – Not all offenses require punitive confinement – Section 360 CrPC and the Probation of Offenders Act aim to offer a chance for reform without compromising law's deterrent effect. [Paras 15-20]

Eligibility for Probation – Criteria – Person over 21 years convicted of offenses punishable with imprisonment of seven years or less, with no previous convictions, eligible for probation – Petitioner convicted under Sections 323 and 325 IPC meets criteria – Financial hardship for petitioner’s family considered. [Paras 19-20]

Judicial Precedents – Reference to Supreme Court and High Court decisions – Courts emphasize reformation over retribution for first-time offenders – Probation should be granted unless offender is incorrigible and beyond reform. [Para 17]

Decision – Sentence Modified to Probation – Conviction upheld but sentence modified – Petitioner released on probation for good conduct for one year on furnishing bail bonds – Ensures balance between legal deterrence and opportunity for reform. [Para 23]

Negotiable Instruments Act - Limitation for Recovery of Debt - Acknowledgment of Debt – Petition for quashing of complaint and summoning orders under Section 138 of the NI Act – Cheque issued beyond three years of taking loan – Held, acknowledgment of debt can renew the limitation period under Section 18 of the Limitation Act – Complaint need not include finer details and evidence – Petition dismissed.

Distinction between Acknowledgment and Promise – Analysis – Section 18 of the Limitation Act vs. Section 25(3) of the Contract Act – Acknowledgment under Section 18 must be within the limitation period, while a promise under Section 25(3) can renew the limitation even for a time-barred debt – Both sections highlight that the right to receive payment never dies, but the remedy may be renewed under certain circumstances.

Judicial Precedents – Legal Principles – Reliance on various judgments highlighting that an acknowledgment or promise can renew the period of limitation – Court cannot quash complaints at the threshold on grounds requiring evidence – Matters of limitation involve mixed questions of law and facts to be decided at trial.

Decision – Petition Dismissed – Complaint and summoning orders under Section 138 of the NI Act upheld – Cheque issued for an acknowledged debt, even if time-barred, attracts the provisions of Section 138 – No ground for invoking inherent powers of High Court to quash the complaint.

Constitutional Law - Maintainability of Writ Petition - Article 226 -Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of RERA— Petitioner's contention that the delegation of powers by the RERA to the Adjudicating Officer is beyond jurisdiction— Held that Section 81 of the Act empowers the RERA to delegate any of its powers except for framing regulations under Section 85— Such delegation is within jurisdiction— Financial inability to deposit the amount as required under Section 43(5) of the Act cannot be considered genuine hardship for invoking Article 226— Scheme of the Act aims to safeguard home buyers against large developers— Writ petitions dismissed​​.

Real Estate Law - Pre-deposit Requirement for Appeal -Petitioner's argument against the pre-deposit requirement for filing an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal— Held that the mandatory pre-deposit under Section 43(5) is a necessary condition to safeguard home buyers— Financial incapacity not supported by adequate documentation— Argument for waiver of pre-deposit rejected— Petitioners directed to comply with statutory requirements before approaching the Tribunal​​.

Decision:Writ petitions under Article 226 challenging the orders of RERA dismissed— Petitioners directed to comply with the pre-deposit requirement under Section 43(5) of the Haryana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, before filing appeals— Jurisdictional delegation by RERA to Adjudicating Officer upheld as per Section 81 of the Act​​.