Parole – Temporary Release – Grounds for Parole – Petition challenging rejection of parole for solemnizing marriage of petitioner's daughters – Petitioner already availed four weeks parole for house repair – High Court holds that parole under Section 3(1)(b) and 3(1)(d) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 are independent and not conjointly restricted to four weeks per year – Petition allowed, order rejecting parole set aside – Authorities directed to reconsider parole application for marriage of daughters. [Paras 1-11]

Parole – Grounds for Temporary Release – Interpretation of Section 3 of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 – Parole for marriage under Section 3(1)(b) and for house repair under Section 3(1)(d) to be counted separately – Periods not to be taken conjointly – Previous parole for house repair does not bar subsequent parole for marriage in the same year. [Para 9]

Decision – Grant of Parole – Court directs reconsideration of parole application for marriage of petitioner's daughters – Reiterates that both grounds for parole under Section 3(1)(b) and 3(1)(d) are separate – Urgency of matter emphasized with direction for immediate reconsideration. [Para 11]

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act – Disclosure Statements – Appeal against conviction under Section 20/29 NDPS Act – Appellant No. 1 apprehended with 5.5 Kg charas at railway station – Disclosure by appellant No. 1 implicating appellant No. 2 as supplier – No recovery from appellant No. 2 – Trial Court convicted both appellants – Appeal of appellant No. 1 abated due to her death – Appeal of appellant No. 2 allowed – Held, prosecution cannot base case on disclosure statement of co-accused without corroboration – Section 30 Evidence Act not aiding prosecution in absence of supporting evidence – Conviction of appellant No. 2 set aside, benefit of doubt given. [Paras 1-20]

Evidence Law – Admissibility of Co-Accused's Disclosure – Section 30 of Indian Evidence Act – Disclosure by co-accused not substantive evidence – Can only lend corroboration if other evidence present – No recovery or other evidence against appellant No. 2 – Section 27 not applicable as no fact discovered from disclosure – Appeal allowed, appellant No. 2 acquitted due to lack of evidence. [Paras 15-17]

Decision – Acquittal of Appellant No. 2 – High Court acquits appellant No. 2 Raj Kumar @ Raju Dube – Orders immediate release if not required in any other case – Emphasizes need for independent corroborative evidence for conviction based on disclosure by co-accused. [Para 20]

Land Acquisition – Re-determination of Compensation – Application under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act – Petition challenging rejection of application for re-determination of compensation as time-barred – Original award announced on 30.04.1963 – Reference under Section 18 decided on 25.04.1970 – Application for re-determination filed on 03.11.1987 – Held, limitation period for filing application under Section 28-A is three months from the date of the award of the reference court – Petition dismissed as the application was filed beyond the period of limitation. [Paras 1-14]

Limitation – Computation – Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act – Interpretation – Held, limitation period for application under Section 28-A to be reckoned from the date of the award of the reference court and not from any subsequent appellate order – Applications must be filed within three months from the date of such award. [Paras 5-7]

Decision – Dismissal of Petition – Court dismisses petition challenging the rejection of re-determination application – Confirms that the application was rightly dismissed as time-barred, being filed beyond the statutory period of three months from the date of the reference court’s award. [Para 14]

Public Premises – Eviction – Appeal against order directing the petitioner to seek remedy before civil court – Panchayat Samiti rented out plot to respondent, who defaulted in rent payment – Collector ordered eviction and imposed damages – Subsequent compromise allegedly executed between Panchayat Samiti and respondent – Panchayat Samiti later denied compromise, alleging fraud – High Court holds that eviction proceedings under the Public Premises Act culminated with the Collector's eviction order – Officials of Panchayat Samiti not authorized to enter into compromise with private respondent regarding public premises – Orders passed subsequent to eviction order, including the appellate authority's order, set aside – Writ petition allowed with costs, direction for eviction and initiation of disciplinary and criminal proceedings against delinquent officials. [Paras 1-8]

Landlord-Tenant – Unauthorized Occupant – Eviction proceedings under the Public Premises Act – Tenant declared unauthorized occupant due to rent default – Eviction ordered by Collector – Alleged compromise found fraudulent – High Court emphasizes protection of public property and sets aside orders based on unauthorized compromise. [Paras 6-8]

Decision – Quashing of Subsequent Orders – Court quashes all orders passed subsequent to the eviction order by the Collector – Reiterates that government authorities cannot compromise on public premises without proper authorization – Orders eviction and imposes costs on the private respondent. [Para 8]

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Petition to quash FIR and subsequent proceedings under Sections 376, 120-B IPC, and Section 3 of SC/ST Act – Complainant alleged sexual exploitation and caste-based humiliation by accused Vishal Sharma – Petitioners (accused's family) allegedly involved in caste-based remarks – No evidence that petitioners had any role in initial exploitation – Held, meeting in private house does not constitute 'public view' under SC/ST Act – FIR and proceedings against petitioners quashed. [Paras 1-29]

Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act – Interpretation of 'Public View' – Alleged caste-based remarks made in private house – Held, remarks in private setting do not fulfill 'public view' requirement – Quashing of FIR and proceedings justified. [Para 24]

Decision – Quashing of FIR – High Court quashes FIR and proceedings against petitioners – Lack of evidence of their involvement in alleged offences – Case against accused Vishal Sharma to proceed as per law. [Para 29]

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of Proceedings – Petitions to quash Calendra under Section 145 Cr.P.C. regarding land ownership dispute – Deceased Colonel Gurdev Singh's property claimed by petitioner (his second wife) and respondent No. 5 (his daughter) – Civil suit for declaration of ownership already pending – Ad interim injunction granted to maintain status quo – High Court holds proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. unnecessary and an abuse of court process – Civil court better suited to adjudicate the matter – Petitions allowed, Calendra quashed. [Paras 1-34]

Land Dispute – Civil vs. Criminal Jurisdiction – Civil suit for declaration of ownership and possession pending – Ad interim injunction for status quo granted – Criminal proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. initiated later – High Court finds criminal proceedings redundant when civil remedies are available and being pursued – Civil court's orders should be binding on criminal court. [Paras 21-30]

Decision – Quashing of Section 145 Proceedings – Court quashes Calendra and proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. – Emphasizes civil court's jurisdiction and ongoing suit for ownership declaration – Maintains that appropriate remedy is before the civil court, not criminal court. [Para 31-34]

Criminal Law – Probation – Release on Probation – Petition challenging conviction and seeking probation under Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and Section 360 Cr.P.C. – Petitioners convicted for constructing roads and setting up unauthorized colony without permission – Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court sentenced petitioners to simple imprisonment for one year – High Court holds offence technical in nature, with no grave magnitude – Petitioners are agriculturists with unblemished character – Sentencing objective should be reformation and rehabilitation – Petitioners to be released on probation upon furnishing bonds. [Paras 1-38]

Probation of Offenders Act – Applicability – Sections 3, 4, 6 – Probation Act aimed at reforming first-time offenders and avoiding exposure to hardened criminals – Trial and appellate courts must consider probation provisions before sentencing – Special emphasis on personal and socio-economic background of offenders – High Court emphasizes duty to consider probation even if not raised by counsel. [Paras 11-27]

Decision – Grant of Probation – Court modifies sentence to release petitioners on probation under Section 4(1) of Probation Act – Petitioners to furnish bonds before trial court, probation period to commence from 01.06.2015 – Petitioners directed to maintain peace and good behavior – Judgment of conviction upheld, sentence order modified for probation. [Paras 37-39]

Land Law – Unauthorized Possession – Allotment Cancellation and Auction – Respondent's father allotted land, failed to pay balance allotment price – Allotment cancelled, fresh auction held, land sold – Respondent's writ petition led to status quo order – Appellants claimed land allotted to them during writ pendency – High Court holds allotment cancellation justified due to non-payment – Respondent surrendered claim to third party, losing locus standi – Appellants' claims on unauthorized possession invalid – Allotment restored to respondent after deposit of balance with interest – Appellants' claims dismissed, transactions declared fraudulent and void. [Paras 1-25]

Illegal Transactions – Public Policy and Fraud – Unauthorized possession transfer to appellants found illegal – Transactions between parties for transferring unauthorized possession void – Government policies allowing such transfers deemed inapplicable – High Court highlights collusion between parties and officials, orders public auction of land if respondent fails compliance. [Paras 19-21]

Decision – Dismissal of Appellants' Claims – Court dismisses appellants' claims over land – Orders financial commissioner to investigate illegal transactions – Directs Deputy Commissioner to take possession of land pending inquiry – Reaffirms restoration of allotment to respondent subject to compliance – Orders public auction if respondent defaults. [Para 25]

Employees’ State Insurance Act – Applicability – Definition of Shop – Appeal against the order quashing ESI demand – Respondent-company engaged in banking-like business, securing deposits and returning with interest on maturity – ESI authorities claimed coverage under definition of shop – High Court held that business of banking and insurance falls within the definition of a commercial establishment, not a shop – ESI Court correctly set aside the demand – Appeal dismissed. [Paras 1-9]

Commercial Establishment vs. Shop – Interpretation of Definitions – Definition of shop under ESI Act not provided – Referenced Punjab Shops and Commercial Establishment Act – Business involving banking, insurance, stocks, and shares classified as commercial establishment – ESI authorities’ interpretation as shop rejected – High Court emphasizes clear distinction in statutory definitions. [Para 6-8]

Decision – Dismissal of Appeals – High Court dismisses both appeals, finding no merit – Upholds ESI Court’s decision that respondent’s business is a commercial establishment and not a shop – Demand raised by ESI authorities deemed inapplicable. [Para 9]