Criminal Revision – Conviction under Section 411 IPC – Sentence Modified – Petitioner convicted for offence under Section 411 IPC and sentenced to 1-year rigorous imprisonment with fine – Having undergone 3 months and 12 days of imprisonment, he sought modification of sentence – High Court upheld conviction but reduced sentence to already undergone period – Held: No minimum sentence prescribed under Section 411 IPC; sentence modified considering proportionality, length of trial (22 years), and scope for reformation [Paras 1–2, 5, 10].

Sentencing Principles – Discretion and Proportionality – No Minimum Punishment under Section 411 IPC – The Court emphasized that sentencing is not a mechanical exercise but requires judicial discretion based on circumstances – Referred to Deo Narain Mandal v. State of UP, (2004) 7 SCC 257 – Held: Discretion must be exercised keeping gravity of offence, age, and reformation prospects in view [Para 6].

Reformation and Deterrence – Balanced Sentencing – Citing Ravada Sasikala v. State of AP, AIR 2017 SC 1166, the Court stressed that sentencing should strike a balance between deterrence and reformation – The petitioner, having faced trial for over two decades and shown good conduct, merited leniency – Sentence of 1 year reduced to 3 months and 12 days already undergone [Paras 7, 9–10].

Conviction Unchallenged – Only Sentence Disputed – Counsel for the petitioner did not challenge conviction on merits – Judgment of conviction upheld as well-reasoned and based on correct appreciation of evidence – Only sentence was modified [Paras 3, 8].

Employment Law - Reservation for Persons with Disabilities – Identification of Posts – RPWD Act Sections 33 & 34 – Writ Petition Dismissed – Petitioners challenged recruitment panels under CEN 01/2019 alleging wrongful exclusion of 100% visually impaired candidates from posts reserved under Section 34 – Held: Section 34 provides for reservation based on vacancies, while Section 33 empowers identification of posts suitable for specific disabilities – Distinction between reservation (vacancy-based) and identification (post-based) is legally valid – Exercise of identifying certain posts as suitable only for persons with low vision but not for total blindness is permissible under Section 33 – Decision based on public interest as posts excluded involve operational safety – No violation of petitioners’ rights as no less meritorious candidate was appointed against posts suitable for blindness – Tribunal’s decision upheld [Paras 26.1-26.4, 27].

Estoppel – Challenge to Selection Process – Not Maintainable – Petitioners participated in the recruitment process with full knowledge of post-wise identification under Annexure A to CEN 01/2019 – Having failed selection, they are estopped from challenging the process – No mala fides or illegality shown in identification of posts – Courts cannot relax eligibility criteria based on functional requirements and safety concerns in railway operations [Paras 28].

Railway Recruitment – Applicability of Later Circular – Circular dated 16.12.2024 regarding diversion of vacancies not examined on merits as Tribunal had no occasion to consider it – Liberty granted to petitioners to approach the Railways for consideration under said circular without being prejudiced by this judgment [Para 30.2].

Decision – Writ Petitions Dismissed – Tribunal’s decision upheld – No order as to costs [Paras 31-33].

Suo Moto Appeal – Tenancy Law – Applicability of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 vs. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Eviction Decree Granted – The dispute centered around whether the respondent was a premises tenant under the 1997 Act or a lessee under the Transfer of Property Act – The key issue was whether AC charges, being an essential component for enjoyment of the premises, formed part of the “rent” to determine if the tenancy exceeded the Rs. 10,000/- ceiling under Section 3(f) of the 1997 Act – Held: AC charges are an integral part of rent based on undertakings before the Supreme Court, the consistent course of conduct, and the essential nature of AC to the tenancy – Consequently, the tenancy is governed by the Transfer of Property Act, not the 1997 Act – Trial court's dismissal of the eviction suit reversed – Decree of eviction granted – Respondent’s cross-objection on technical grounds also dismissed [Paras 1-86].

Order 2 Rule 2 CPC – Bar on Second Suit – Not Applicable – The court held that the second eviction suit was not barred despite pendency and withdrawal of the earlier suit – The cause of action in the second suit was based on the rent exceeding the ceiling limit of the 1997 Act, triggering applicability of the Transfer of Property Act, which was distinct from the earlier suit based on the 1956 Tenancy Act – Hence, Order II Rule 2 and res judicata did not apply [Paras 27-39].

Order XXIX Rule 1 CPC – Company Representation – No Bar – The objection that the suit was not maintainable for lack of proper authorization of the person signing the plaint was rejected – The court held that any director able to depose to the facts could sign and verify pleadings – The absence of an authorization resolution was a curable defect that was not raised before the trial court and could not be entertained at the appellate stage [Paras 40-47].

Definition of Rent – Inclusion of AC Charges – Rent Determination under Section 3(f) of the 1997 Act – The court held that AC charges, being mandatory for the use and enjoyment of the tenanted premises and arising from a binding undertaking before the Supreme Court, were an essential part of rent – Since AC was centrally provided and inseparable from the premises' use, the charges were not ancillary but integral – As a result, the total rent exceeded Rs. 10,000/- per month, taking the tenancy outside the purview of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 [Paras 48-79].

Applicability of Transfer of Property Act – Eviction Valid – Once the tenancy was held to be outside the protection of the 1997 Act, it was governed by the Transfer of Property Act – The termination notice under Section 106 of the T.P. Act was valid – Plaintiff entitled to eviction on this basis [Paras 78-80].

Decision – Appeals F.A. 156 of 2022 and F.A.T. 66 of 2017 allowed – Impugned judgment and decrees dated 06.01.2017 set aside – Plaintiff’s eviction suit decreed – Defendant’s declaratory suit dismissed – Cross-objection COT 33 of 2018 dismissed – No order as to costs – Separate decrees directed to be drawn accordingly – Limited assurance granted by the appellant to not execute eviction for one month – No formal stay granted [Paras 80-86].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Cheque Dishonor – Proprietorship Concern – Liability under Section 138 – Acquittal Upheld – A cheque drawn on the account of M/s Udai Continentals was dishonored – Appellant failed to prove that Respondent No. 2 (D.P. Singh) was the proprietor of Udai Continentals – Evidence established that the actual proprietor was Ms. Sarika Singh Kuchhawaha, who was not arraigned as an accused – Held: For proprietorship concerns, only the proprietor can be held liable – No vicarious liability arises under Section 141 of NI Act for proprietorships – Complaint against Respondent No. 2 dismissed [Paras 28-38].

Proprietorship Concern – Distinction from Companies and Firms – Jurisprudence – A proprietorship firm has no separate legal entity from its proprietor – Cited Supreme Court judgment in Raghu Lakshminarayanan vs. Fine Tubes (2007) 5 SCC 103 and Delhi High Court in M.M. Lal vs. State NCT of Delhi 2012 (4) JCC 284 – Held: Only the sole proprietor can be held responsible under Section 138 of NI Act – Vicarious liability does not extend to non-proprietors even if they are related or involved in the business [Paras 30-34].

Cheque Dishonor – Demand Notice – Discrepancy in Amount – The court rejected the appellant’s contention that demand notice claiming Rs. 62,000 (including interest) for a dishonored cheque of Rs. 60,000 was valid – Observed that the cheque liability must match the amount demanded under Section 138 – However, the core reason for acquittal remained the appellant’s failure to establish that the respondent was the drawer or proprietor [Paras 21, 38].

Misrepresentation – Proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. – Allegation that Respondent No.2 misrepresented himself as proprietor – Trial Court rightly dismissed application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. – High Court affirmed that no material supported claim that Respondent No.2 was the proprietor – Observed that evidence from the bank clearly identified Ms. Sarika Singh Kuchhawaha as proprietor – Held: Appellant’s failure to implead the correct person was fatal [Paras 12, 35-37].

Decision – Criminal Appeal Dismissed – Acquittal of Respondent No. 2 under Section 138 NI Act upheld – Appellant failed to establish the basic requirement of the drawer-proprietor relationship – Complaint suffered from fatal defects in impleadment of parties – No interference warranted in the trial court’s acquittal order dated 24.09.2011 [Paras 38-39].

Matrimonial Law - Domestic Violence – Interim Monetary Relief – Section 23 of PWDV Act – Interim Relief Enhanced – The petitioner, wife of the opposite party, challenged the order of the Appellate Court granting interim relief of Rs. 50,000/- per month to her and Rs. 80,000/- per month to her daughter – Considering the opposite party’s annual income of Rs. 7.19 crores (2020-21) and petitioner’s meagre income, the Court held that the interim maintenance awarded was inadequate – Interim maintenance enhanced to Rs. 1,50,000/- per month for the wife and Rs. 2,50,000/- for the minor daughter from the date of filing under Section 23 – Directed the Trial Court to expedite the final disposal of the main application [Paras 24-26].

Maintenance – Standard of Living – Interpretation of “Accustomed” – Section 20(2) of PWDV Act – Held – The term “accustomed” refers to the standard of living the aggrieved person enjoyed during the marriage, not to the current wealth of the husband – The wife is entitled to be maintained in a manner consistent with her marital standard, but not an equalization of wealth – The Court balanced between exaggerated claims of the petitioner and the attempts by the husband to evade fair maintenance [Paras 20-22].

Equalization of Wealth – Not the Objective of Maintenance – Reiterated – Citing Rinku Baheti v. Sandesh Sharda, the Court clarified that monetary relief under PWDV Act cannot be equated with equalization of wealth – Maintenance aims at preventing destitution and securing dignified living, not matching the wealth of the spouse [Para 21].

Independent Income of Wife – Whether Bar to Maintenance – Held – Even if the wife has some income, it does not disentitle her from claiming maintenance if the income is insufficient to sustain a lifestyle consistent with her status during marriage – The existence of modest earnings does not absolve the husband from his legal and moral obligation of maintenance [Para 22].

Allegation of Adultery – Prima Facie Irrelevant – No Bar to Maintenance – Held – Allegations of adultery based on media reports and public perception cannot be accepted without cogent legal proof – In absence of clear evidence, such allegations cannot be grounds to deny maintenance [Para 23].

Maintenance for Child – Child’s Education and Welfare – The Court held that Rs. 2,50,000/- per month for the child is justified considering the child’s educational needs and standard of living, with liberty to the father to voluntarily contribute more towards educational or special expenses [Para 25].

Decision – Interim Monetary Relief Modified – Interim maintenance enhanced to Rs. 1,50,000/- per month for the petitioner (wife) and Rs. 2,50,000/- per month for the minor daughter – Trial Court directed to dispose of the main application under Section 12 of PWDV Act expeditiously, preferably within 60 days – Petition disposed of [Paras 25-26].

Service Law – Pension Scheme – Applicability of Old Pension Scheme – Writ Petition Allowed – Petitioners appointed against posts advertised before 28.10.2005 challenged the withdrawal of benefits of Old Pension Scheme (OPS) extended via Office Memorandum dated 08.05.2023 – Court held that once the State Government extended one-time option to its employees covered under NPS for reverting to OPS based on advertisement dates, the same must apply to University employees as well since the University implemented NPS under Government directives – Arbitrary withdrawal of benefit without justification declared unsustainable – Impugned memo dated 24.07.2023 set aside – Respondents directed to restore OPS benefits to eligible petitioners [Paras 6-10].

Estoppel – Conduct of Petitioners – Challenge to NPS After Long Delay – Rejected – Petitioners had voluntarily submitted PRAN forms and accepted deductions under NPS without protest since 2012 – Court held they cannot claim OPS benefits on the basis of initial GPF allotments alone – The challenge to Executive Council resolution adopting NPS in 2007 also rejected as being belated and untenable [Paras 7-7.2].

Withdrawal of Benefits – Action Arbitrary – Office Memorandum dated 08.05.2023 granting OPS benefit was forwarded to Universities but withdrawn abruptly without assigning any valid reason – Court censured the State for whimsical withdrawal and held such action violative of rule of law – Memo dated 24.07.2023 declared illegal [Paras 8-8.4].

University Pension Clause – Binding Nature – Clause 15.2.1(iii) of Kurukshetra University NPS mandates that any change in pensionary benefits made applicable to Government employees shall extend to University employees – University’s failure to act on this clause censured – Government also criticized for double standards in denying OPS benefit while having compelled Universities to adopt NPS earlier [Paras 9-9.1].

Decision – Writ Petitions Allowed – Memo dated 24.07.2023 withdrawn – Respondents directed to extend OPS benefits under OM dated 08.05.2023 to petitioners appointed against posts advertised prior to 28.10.2005 – NPS accounts to be closed – Costs of ₹5,00,000 imposed jointly on Government and University – Compliance within eight weeks [Para 10].

Civil Writ - Removal of JJB Member – Validity of Removal – Applicability of Law – Writ Petition allowed – The petitioner, a senior advocate and lecturer, was appointed as a Member of the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 and 2007 Rules – After repeal of the 2000 Act, he was removed by order dated 22/25 September 2017 under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 but before the 2018 Rules came into force – Petitioner challenged the removal on grounds of procedural illegality, violation of natural justice and disproportionality – Held: Though the removal was not governed by the repealed 2000 Act and 2007 Rules, the action was taken by the competent authority under the 2015 Act – However, the charges were minor administrative lapses without any allegations of corruption, abuse of power or serious misconduct – The penalty of removal with stigma was held to be grossly disproportionate – Order of removal set aside – No reinstatement or financial relief sought by petitioner – Relief granted only to remove the stigma attached to the order of removal [Paras 1, 4-6, 17-24, 28-38].

Applicability of Law – Transition between Juvenile Justice Acts – Appointment under 2000 Act – Removal under 2015 Act – Held: 2000 Act and 2007 Rules repealed with effect from 15 January 2016 – Removal in 2017 rightly governed by 2015 Act – Procedure under 2000 Act no longer applicable – Validity of removal not affected merely because inquiry was not referred to the Selection Committee under 2007 Rules – State Government was competent authority under 2015 Act [Paras 17-24].

Natural Justice – Inquiry Process – Allegation of non-supply of witness statements and no opportunity of cross-examination – Held: Though statements of three persons were not furnished during the inquiry, the petitioner failed to demonstrate any specific prejudice – Inquiry process substantially complied with natural justice – No violation sufficient to invalidate the proceedings on this ground alone [Paras 25-27].

Misconduct – Nature of Charges – Allegations included preparation of private rubber stamp, allowing law students to visit Observation Home without prior permission, and sitting on Chairperson’s chair in absence – Held: Charges were trivial administrative lapses and temperamental issues – No allegation of corruption, harassment, or serious abuse of power – Findings did not justify removal [Paras 28-34].

Proportionality of Punishment – Penalty of Removal Held Grossly Disproportionate – On facts, minor counselling or warning would have sufficed – Extreme penalty of removal with stigma unwarranted – Petitioner being a senior citizen, practicing advocate, and lecturer suffered stigma and litigation for 7-8 years – Held: Removal order set aside solely to remove stigma – No back-wages or reinstatement sought – Petition allowed [Paras 35-39].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Order dated 22/25 September 2017 removing the petitioner from the Juvenile Justice Board set aside – Relief granted only to the extent of removing stigma – No costs [Para 39].

Civil Law – Permanent Injunction Suit – Claim of Possession as Gair Mourusi Tenant – Dismissed – Plaintiff-Appellants claimed tenancy rights based on long possession of 70 years but failed to produce any documentary evidence to prove tenancy or possession – Both Trial Court and First Appellate Court concurrently held that revenue entries in favour of plaintiffs were incorrect and without foundation – Counterclaim of defendants decreed holding them owners in possession – Regular Second Appeal dismissed as devoid of merit [Paras 1-10].

Tenancy Rights – Burden of Proof – Mere oral assertions without documentary evidence not sufficient – Plaintiffs failed to produce any tenancy records, rent receipts, or corroborative evidence showing possession – Admission by plaintiff in cross-examination that they were neither owners nor tenants fatal to their claim – Held: Courts below rightly dismissed the suit for injunction [Paras 9-10].

Revenue Entries – Presumption – Revenue entries in favour of plaintiffs declared incorrect – Presumption attached to revenue entries rebuttable when shown to be incorrect or made without factual basis – Defendants proved possession with construction of boundary walls and gate – Courts directed correction of revenue records in favour of defendants [Paras 6, 9].

Counterclaim – Decreed in Favour of Defendants – Plaintiffs failed to contest the counterclaim either factually or legally during appeal – Defendants successfully established ownership and possession – Courts restrained plaintiffs from interfering in possession of defendants [Paras 6, 9].

Regular Second Appeal – No Substantial Question of Law – Findings based on facts and evidence – No legal infirmity in judgments of courts below – Held: No question of law arises requiring interference under Section 100 CPC – Appeal dismissed [Paras 9-10].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – No merit found in the claim of plaintiffs – Decrees of Trial Court and First Appellate Court upheld – Pending applications also disposed of [Para 10].

Criminal Law – Quashing of Bail Cancellation – Section 528 of BNSS - Cancellation of Bail Due to Non-Appearance – Order Set Aside – Petitioner failed to appear before the trial Court on 08.07.2024 due to noting the wrong date – Trial Court cancelled bail, forfeited bail/surety bonds, and issued non-bailable warrants – Held: Non-appearance was neither deliberate nor intentional – The explanation provided is justified – Extreme action of bail cancellation unjustified in absence of wilful default – Order cancelling bail quashed [Paras 1-7].

Criminal Procedure – Fairness and Liberty – Article 21 of Constitution – While maintaining law and order is essential, any curtailment of personal liberty must align with fair procedure under Article 21 of the Constitution – The issuance of non-bailable warrants is solely to secure presence, not punitive in nature – Once the accused comes forward voluntarily and undertakes to appear, liberty must be balanced with procedural fairness [Para 8].

Non-Bailable Warrants – Objective and Remedy – The purpose of issuing non-bailable warrants is to ensure the appearance of the accused – Where the accused voluntarily approaches the Court and offers a reasonable explanation with an undertaking to appear in future, the extreme remedy of warrant issuance and bail cancellation is unwarranted – Cancellation order set aside with direction to surrender within two weeks [Paras 9-10].

Relief – Bail Restored with Costs – Petition allowed – Impugned order dated 08.07.2024 cancelling bail, forfeiting bonds, and issuing warrants quashed – Petitioner directed to surrender within two weeks and furnish fresh bail/surety bonds – Costs of ₹10,000 imposed to be deposited with PGIMER Poor Patient Welfare Fund, Chandigarh – Bail to be granted only after submission of cost receipt [Paras 10-12].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Interim protection to continue subject to surrender within two weeks – Failure to surrender will result in vacation of protection [Paras 11-13].