Criminal Law – Murder and Common Intention – Sections 341, 302, 34 IPC – Appeal against conviction – Prosecution’s case that accused, in furtherance of their common intention, committed the murder of Baiju due to a prior altercation – Trial court convicted A1, A2, and A3 while A4 was acquitted – High Court finds evidence insufficient to prove common intention by A2 and A3 – Conviction of A1 under Section 302 IPC confirmed – Conviction of A2 and A3 set aside, they are acquitted. [Paras 1-25]

Criminal Law – Evidence – Eye-Witness Testimony – Consistency – PWs 1, 2, and 3 consistently identified A1 as the assailant who inflicted the fatal stab wound – Minor discrepancies in their testimonies regarding ancillary details do not discredit core allegations – Held, evidence credible and reliable in implicating A1 – Insufficient evidence to prove that A2 and A3 shared the common intention to commit the murder. [Paras 10-13, 18-23]

Criminal Law – Motive – Evaluation – Motive for the crime established as an altercation between A1 and the deceased over the former’s conduct of making PW1 consume liquor – Evidence shows A1 had motive – Insufficient evidence to suggest motive or participation of A2 and A3 in the common intention. [Paras 16-17]

Criminal Procedure – Juvenile Claim – Evaluation – A3’s claim of being a juvenile at the time of the crime found unnecessary to probe further as he was acquitted on grounds of insufficient evidence regarding common intention. [Para 25]

Decision – Conviction and Sentence – Court upholds conviction and life sentence of A1 under Section 302 IPC – A2 and A3 acquitted due to lack of evidence of shared common intention – Prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that A2 and A3 shared a common intention with A1 to murder Baiju – Appeals by A2 and A3 allowed, conviction and sentence set aside. [Paras 24-25]

Delay in Deciding Bail Application – Applicant argued undue delay in deciding bail application, alleging 40 listings without decision – Court found majority of delays due to multiple interim applications filed by the applicant for medical relief and treatment – No merit in argument attributing delay to court proceedings [Paras 20-31].

Principles Governing Grant of Bail – Reviewed legal principles for grant of bail, including factors such as nature of accusations, severity of punishment, risk of absconding, potential for evidence tampering, and threat to witnesses – Noted seriousness of economic offences and their impact on society [Paras 32-35].

Role of Applicant – Applicant was named in FIR and alleged to be part of criminal conspiracy involving framing and implementation of Excise Policy – Played key role in meetings and transactions facilitating the conspiracy – Issued additional credit notes without manufacturer's authorization, generating illicit funds [Paras 36-52].

Recovery of Incriminating Documents – Confidential documents related to policy formulation found in applicant’s possession during searches – Indicative of involvement in conspiracy [Paras 53-55].

Whistleblower Argument – Applicant claimed to be whistleblower – Court found no evidence supporting this claim – Statements of other witnesses and actions contradict the whistleblower narrative [Paras 56-60].

Triple Test for Bail – Considered flight risk, potential for evidence tampering, and influence on witnesses – Applicant involved in bribery case to influence investigation – Seriousness of allegations and potential impact on investigation justified denial of bail [Paras 61-67].

Decision:Bail application dismissed – Court found sufficient prima facie evidence supporting applicant’s involvement in conspiracy – Concerns over influencing witnesses and tampering with evidence reinforced decision – No grounds for bail at this stage [Paras 69-71].

Negotiable Instruments – Dishonor of Cheque – Petitioner accused of issuing a cheque for Rs.2,00,000/- which was dishonored due to insufficient funds – Conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act confirmed by both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court – Revision petition filed on grounds of misappreciation of evidence and excessive fine imposed [Paras 1-13].

Legal Presumption – Burden of Proof – Initial burden of proof under Section 138 discharged by the complainant – Accused failed to provide rebuttal evidence to counter the presumption of debt or liability – Defence of misuse of cheque unsupported by evidence or actions like filing a complaint [Paras 14-20].

Quantum of Sentence – Excessive Fine – Trial Court imposed a fine exceeding the permissible limit under the Act – Both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court misdirected on the quantum of fine – Fine reduced from Rs.4,30,000/- to Rs.3,25,000/- – Order to pay Rs.30,000/- as defraying expenses to the State set aside [Paras 23-30].

Decision – Revision Petition Partly Allowed – Conviction maintained but fine amount reduced – Fine to be paid by 10.07.2024, with failure resulting in six months’ simple imprisonment – Entire fine amount to be paid as compensation to the complainant [Para 31].

Juvenile Justice – Bail Application – Applicant was a juvenile at the time of the incident – Challenged denial of bail by the Juvenile Justice Board and appellate court – Court highlighted that the gravity of the offense is not a ground to refuse bail under Section 12(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act – Bail granted [Paras 6-10].

Conditions for Bail under Juvenile Justice Act – Court must ensure that the release of the juvenile does not bring them into association with criminals, expose them to danger, or defeat the ends of justice – Observations from the DPO report and the lack of criminal history supported bail – Court emphasized the need for a reasoned decision aligned with the statutory requirements [Paras 7-9].

Decision – Criminal Revision Allowed – Orders denying bail set aside – Applicant to be released on bail with conditions to ensure compliance and attendance in court [Para 10-11].

Discrepancies in Examination Results – Petitioner alleged that the NTA uploaded two different response sheets and scorecards for her JEE (Mains) exam, with significant differences in scores – High Court examined the validity of the claim and the procedural integrity of NTA's system [Paras 1-2, 14].

Validity of Scorecards – Petitioner claimed the first response sheet and scorecard, showing a 99.8493935 percentile score, were correct – NTA asserted these were fabricated, and the second set, showing a 74.5733907 percentile score, was accurate – High Court scrutinized the consistency and procedural integrity of the examination records [Paras 3-6, 16-19].

Disputed Facts in Writ Jurisdiction – High Court reiterated the principle that disputed questions of fact typically require evidence and are not suitable for adjudication under Article 226 – Found no prima facie case to support the petitioner's claim and deemed the issue too factually dense for writ jurisdiction [Paras 22-36].

Conclusion – Court found the petitioner’s first scorecard and response sheet inconsistent with NTA’s records and procedures – Dismissed the petition, stating further investigation would necessitate a detailed factual inquiry inappropriate for writ proceedings [Paras 35-37].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – High Court did not find sufficient grounds to accept the petitioner’s assertion of two sets of response sheets and scorecards being issued by NTA – No orders as to costs [Para 37].

Disciplinary Proceedings – Compulsory Retirement – Appellant bank challenged the decision of the Single Judge, which had set aside the disciplinary proceedings against the respondent – Charges included tardy action and unauthorized loan sanctioning – Inquiry officer found most charges proved except charge no. 23 – Single Judge remanded the proceedings for reconsideration, noting procedural and substantive deficiencies in the assessment by the disciplinary and appellate authorities [Paras 7-13, 23-24].

Appellate Review – Procedural Fairness – High Court emphasized the need for a fair and thorough appraisal of evidence in disciplinary matters – Criticized the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority for not adequately addressing the respondent’s defense and for procedural lapses – Court upheld the Single Judge’s findings, asserting the importance of addressing both procedural and substantive aspects in disciplinary reviews [Paras 12, 22-24, 26].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Held – Single Judge’s order remanding the disciplinary proceedings for a fair reappraisal of evidence upheld – No merit found in the appellant’s arguments against the detailed reasoning of the Single Judge – Directions issued for expeditious reconsideration of the disciplinary proceedings [Paras 25-27, 30].

Criminal Law – Summoning and Cognizance Orders – Quashing of summoning and cognizance orders along with consequential orders due to lack of application of judicial mind and procedural irregularities – No evidence indicating the applicants intended to cause death or had knowledge their actions would result in death – Demolition leading to accidental death does not meet criteria for culpable homicide [Paras 1-20, 23-26].

Criminal Procedure – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Exercise of inherent powers to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice – Applicants wrongfully implicated without substantial evidence – Police presence during incident with no preventive measures taken [Paras 27-38].

Legal Principles – Application of Mind – Magistrate’s duty to apply judicial mind and provide reasons in orders – Summoning orders without detailed reasoning or assessment of prima facie case liable to be quashed – Emphasis on careful scrutiny of allegations and evidence before issuing summons [Paras 29-33].

Decision – Application Allowed – Summoning and cognizance orders dated 30.03.2016, orders dated 11.01.2018 and 11.07.2018, and charge sheet dated 13.07.2015 quashed – Entire proceedings in Criminal Case No. 16768 of 2016 set aside – Directions for trial court compliance [Paras 37-41].

Insecticides Act – Prosecution of Employees without Company as Accused – Quashing of Proceedings – High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu quashed proceedings against petitioners, employees of Godrej Consumer Products Ltd., for offences under Sections 29(1)(a)(i) and 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968. – Petitioners challenged trial court’s process issuance without arraying the company as accused, arguing violation of Section 22 and Section 24 of the Act. – Court found the company’s inclusion necessary for proceeding against employees. – Proceedings and order against petitioners quashed. [Paras 1-13]

Legal Representation – Petitioners represented by Mr. Karman Singh Johal, Advocate. – Respondent represented by Mr. Dewakar Sharma, Dy. AG. [Intro]

Issue 1 – Company’s Absence in Complaint – Court observed that under Section 33 of the Insecticides Act, prosecution against employees requires the company to be arraigned as an accused. – Reliance on Supreme Court judgment in Himanshu v. B. Shivamurthy (2019) 3 SCC 797, emphasizing that vicarious liability of employees cannot be invoked without prosecuting the company. [Paras 9-12]

Issue 2 – Violation of Sections 22 and 24 – Not examined as determination of Issue 1 was sufficient to decide the matter. [Para 8]

Decision – Quashing of Proceedings – Held – The complaint proceedings against the petitioners pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kathua, are quashed due to the absence of the company being arraigned as an accused. [Paras 13-14]

Appointment of Non-Teaching Staff – Requirement of Prior Approval – Appellant challenged the decision of the Single Judge which quashed the orders of the DIOS disapproving the appointment of the respondent as an Assistant Clerk – Argument that minority institutions are exempt from seeking prior approval as per Regulation 101 of the Act – Single Judge held Regulation 101 inapplicable to minority institutions, affirming the appointment of the respondent and directing financial sanction and salary payment – High Court held that Regulation 101 applies to all aided institutions, including minority institutions, and mandates prior DIOS approval – Judgment of Single Judge set aside [Paras 1-56].
Minority Educational Institutions – Regulatory Provisions – Applicability of Regulation 101 – Detailed examination of Regulation 101 which mandates prior DIOS approval for filling non-teaching posts in aided institutions – Analysis of Supreme Court rulings affirming the regulation's applicability to both minority and non-minority institutions – Emphasis on the necessity of regulatory oversight for ensuring lawful appointments and proper utilization of state aid [Paras 44-53].
Recruitment Process – Validity of Appointment – The respondent's appointment as Assistant Clerk found invalid due to non-compliance with Regulation 101 – Advertisement for the post lacked essential details and the appointment letter was deficient – High Court concluded that the appointment process was flawed and lacked transparency – Importance of adhering to prescribed procedures for fair and legitimate recruitment [Paras 30-34, 53-54].
Conclusion – Special Appeal Allowed – Single Judge's judgment reversed – Held – Regulation 101 of Chapter III of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, is fully applicable to aided minority institutions – Appointment of the respondent without prior DIOS approval is invalid – Directive issued for compliance with regulatory requirements in future recruitment processes [Paras 55-56].
Decision: Special Appeal Allowed – Judgment and order of Single Judge set aside – Appointment of respondent as Assistant Clerk declared invalid due to non-compliance with Regulation 101 – Emphasis on mandatory prior DIOS approval for filling non-teaching posts in aided institutions, including minority institutions.