Acquittal – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS) – Criminal Appeal against Special Court, Bathinda's judgment convicting under Sections 21 and 22 NDPS Act – High Court sets aside conviction – Finds prosecution's case unconvincing and lacking substantial proof – Highlights flaws in prosecution’s presentation and handling of evidence – Noted discrepancies in recovery process and involvement of independent witness – Held, stringent punishment demands stricter proof – Accused acquitted of all charges. [Paras 9-20]

Recovery of Contraband – Analysis – Prosecution alleged recovery of Methamphetamine and Codeine from appellants – Independent witness negates prosecution’s claim of recovery in his presence – Doubts raised over the credibility of police's version and handling of evidence – High Court finds prosecution's story implausible, particularly with regard to two persons carrying a bag of minor weight jointly – Appellants acquitted due to lack of convincing evidence. [Paras 14, 17-18]

Decision – Acquittal of Appellants – High Court observes that prosecution failed to establish a convincing case beyond reasonable doubt – Noted discrepancies in recovery process and inconsistencies in testimonies – Emphasizes the need for stricter proof in cases involving stringent penalties – Conviction under Sections 21 and 22 of NDPS Act set aside – Appellants acquitted of all charges. [Para 19-20]

Delay in filing written statement - Strike off of defence - Civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India - Petition filed by defendants seeking to set aside order striking off their defence for failure to file written statement within 90 days - Plaintiff filed suit for recovery of Rs.15,96,501/- along with interest @ 12% p.a. - Defendants alleged to have good family and business relations with plaintiff - Plaintiff issued cheque of Rs.1,25,000/- to defendants for expansion of their business - Defendants failed to file written statement within stipulated period, resulting in ex parte proceedings - Defendants sought setting aside of ex parte order, which was allowed - However, defendants again failed to file written statement within extended period, leading to striking off of their defence - Defendants challenged said order in revision petition - Held, provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 CPC regarding filing of written statement are directory, not mandatory - Court possesses discretion to condone delay in filing written statement, particularly in non-commercial disputes - Ends of justice served by condoning delay subject to payment of costs - Defendants granted one more opportunity to file written statement - Revision petition allowed, impugned order set aside subject to payment of costs - Defendants directed to file written statement within specified time frame, failing which no further opportunity shall be granted - Plaintiff entitled to seek recalling of order if valid grounds presented - Petition disposed accordingly.

Civil Procedure – Rejection of Plaint – Application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC – Trial Court dismissed application to reject plaint filed by children of the donor challenging gift deed executed by their father – High Court holds that once the donor had withdrawn his suit challenging the gift deed, his children could not subsequently challenge the same deed – High Court emphasizes that validity of gift deed rests between donor and donee – Rejection of application by Trial Court overturned – Plaint rejected. [Paras 1-10]

Gift Deed – Validity and Legal Challenge – Donor’s suit for cancellation of gift deed and subsequent withdrawal – Children of the donor cannot challenge gift deed after donor's withdrawal of suit – High Court underscores that acceptance of gift by donor and withdrawal of suit precludes further challenge by donor’s heirs – Trial Court’s order set aside, plaint rejected. [Paras 7-10]

Decision: Held: Revision petition allowed – Order of the Trial Court set aside – Plaint rejected. [Para 10]

Quashing of Proceedings – Application of Section 482 Cr.P.C. – The petition was filed to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner under the charges of kidnapping and under POCSO Act after the minor girl eloped and married the petitioner – Both the victim girl and her mother turned hostile during trial – The court considered the marriage, birth of a child, and the couple living together as factors for quashing – The court recognized the need to prevent further vulnerability and exploitation of the girl by quashing the case [Paras 1-4].

Hostile Witnesses – Victim and Defacto Complainant – The victim, now living with the accused as husband and wife, and her mother, both declared hostile – The court acknowledged their current situation and relationship dynamics as reasons to avoid further prosecution [Paras 1-2].

Marriage and Birth of Child – Consideration of Humanitarian Reasons – The court took into account the marriage and the birth of a child as significant humanitarian grounds for quashing the prosecution – Emphasized the importance of protecting the minor girl's welfare rather than enforcing strict legal provisions in this unique context [Paras 2-3].

POCSO Act – Silence on Post-Marriage Scenario – The court noted the absence of provisions in POCSO Act to address situations where the accused and victim are married and living as a family – Highlighted the need for judicial discretion in such cases to prevent further harm to the victim [Para 2].

Inherent Powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Application to Quash Proceedings – The court invoked its inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in the interest of justice – Aimed at preventing further harm and ensuring the welfare of the minor girl now turned major and her family [Para 3].

Decision: The Criminal Original Petition is allowed, and the proceedings in Spl.S.C. No. 50 of 2022 on the file of the Mahila Court, Allikulam, Chennai, are quashed.
 

Communal Hatred and Murder Case – Involvement of the applicant, Syed Asim Ali, in a brutal daylight murder, motivated by extreme communal hatred, involving multiple assailants and a larger conspiracy - Applicant accused of providing legal aid to main assailants - Case under Sections 302, 120B IPC and Section 66 of IT Act [Paras 1-3, 5-6, 8-9].

Bail Application Analysis – Bail application considered in light of jurisprudence principles and relevant factors such as the nature of the accusation, severity of punishment, risk of absconding, accused's character, likelihood of reoffending, potential influence on witnesses, and progress of the trial - Reference to various Supreme Court rulings [Para 10].

Denial of Bail – Bail denied based on the brutal nature of the crime, applicant's significant role in the conspiracy, and electronic evidence linking him to the main assailants - Concerns about influencing witnesses and ongoing trial proceedings - Comparisons made with co-accused's bail situations [Paras 10(a)-10(g)].

Direction for Expeditious Trial – Trial Court instructed to expedite the trial, with an observation on the current status of witness examination [Paras 11-12].

Bail Application under Section 439 CrPC - Petitioner seeking bail in connection with FIR under Sections 22(C) and 27-A/61/85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) - Petitioner not found in possession of contraband, implicated based on disclosure statement of co-accused - Interim bail previously granted by Coordinate Bench - Prosecution relying on disclosure statements and recovery of contraband - Petitioner's counsel argues lack of recovery from petitioner and absence of misuse of interim bail - Referring to precedent, counsel asserts petitioner's entitlement to bail - Prosecution opposes bail citing disclosure statements and involvement of petitioner - Court notes prima facie evidence linking petitioner to offense but considers duration of custody and lack of grounds to dismiss petition - Bail granted with conditions - Petitioner directed to surrender weapons, firearms, ammunition, and restrict mobile phone usage to one prepaid SIM - Compliance mandated within specified timeframe - Precedent cited for imposition of similar condition - Petition allowed.

Decision: Bail granted to petitioner under Section 439 CrPC in connection with NDPS Act case - Petitioner directed to comply with specified conditions including surrendering weapons and restricting mobile phone usage.

Service Law - Promotion Dispute - Validity of Diploma - Writ Petition under Article 226 - Promotion to the post of Junior Engineer sought by petitioner based on Diploma in Civil Engineering obtained from 'Institute of Advanced Studies in Education Deemed University, Gandhi Vidya Mandir, Sardarshahr, Rajasthan' - Respondents withheld promotion citing non-recognition of University for distance education by All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) - Petitioner contends diploma is valid as per precedents - Respondents argue diploma obtained through distance education from unrecognized institution - Court examines precedents including Kartar Singh case and Jasvir Singh case - Upholds respondents' decision, dismisses petitions, finds no merit in petitioner's claim for promotion. [Paras 1-16]

Validity of Diploma - Precedents - Court refers to Division Bench judgments in Kartar Singh case and Jasvir Singh case - Kartar Singh case held degrees awarded by deemed universities through distance education mode illegal, relied on by Supreme Court for validity of engineering degrees - Jasvir Singh case denied promotion based on diploma obtained through distance learning from non-recognized institution - Court distinguishes Swaran Singh case cited by petitioner, holds no merit in petitioner's claim. [Paras 9-13]

Dismissal of Petitions - Court dismisses petitions, finds no merit in petitioner's claim for promotion, upholds respondents' decision citing non-recognition of diploma obtained through distance education from unrecognized institution - Precedents including Kartar Singh and Jasvir Singh cases considered - No document provided proving approval of Diploma certificate by State of Punjab. [Paras 14-16]

Specific Performance Suit - Court Fee Requirement - Dismissal of Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC - Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution - Challenge to the order directing the plaintiff to make good the deficiency in court fees - Plaintiff filed suit for specific performance of agreement/affidavit executed by defendant regarding property - Allegation that defendant agreed to execute transfer deed in favor of plaintiff - Defendant contended that ad valorem court fees not affixed - Plaint categorically stated no consideration amount passed - Court fees to be affixed according to consideration amount - No illegality or infirmity found in impugned order - Revision petition devoid of merit - Dismissed. [Paras 1-6]

Decision: Revision Petition Dismissed - Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order directing plaintiff to make good the deficiency in court fees - Revision petition devoid of merit - Dismissed. [Para 6]

Declaration of Ownership - Validity of Sale Certificate - Challenge against Financial Commissioner's Order - Appellant's suit seeking declaration of ownership of land dismissed by lower courts - Appeal filed against concurrent findings - Plaintiff claimed ownership based on sale certificate dated 03.01.2005 - Allegations of illegalities in auction process and subsequent procedures - Financial Commissioner's order setting aside auction challenged - Courts below relied on previous judgments dismissing appellant's claims - Appellant argued lack of independent assessment of evidence by lower courts - Allegations of minor status of appellant at time of auction disputed - Voter list presented as evidence of age - Appellant's claim of clerical error in sale certificate rejected by authorities - Previous court orders highlighting defects in auction process upheld - Lack of substantial question of law raised in appeal - Appeal dismissed.