Regular Bail – NDPS Act – Denial of regular bail in case involving the recovery of ganja – Petitioner involved in illegal sale of ganja, caught in the act of filling pouches with ganja – Recovery of 30 Kg ganja and 1384 empty pouches from the petitioner – Bail denied due to the gravity of the offence and petitioner's criminal history in NDPS-related cases. [Para 1, 2.1, 2.2, 12, 15]

NDPS Act Compliance – Contention of non-compliance of Section 42 of the NDPS Act by the petitioner – Petitioner's argument of the recovered material not falling within the definition of 'ganja' under the NDPS Act – Court's interpretation that seeds accompanied by flowering tops fall within the definition of ‘ganja’ – FSL report indicating the presence of Tetrahydrocannabinol in the recovered material – Petitioner's contention found without merit. [Para 3.1, 6, 7, 9, 11]

Case Law References – Reliance on various judgments by both parties – Discussion of cases relevant to the definition and recovery quantity of ganja under the NDPS Act – Court distinguishes the present case based on the nature of recovered material and precedents. [Para 3.2, 10, 12, 13, 14]

Decision – Considering the petitioner's involvement in multiple NDPS cases and previous convictions – Court finds the petitioner to be a habitual offender in drug trafficking – Bail petition dismissed based on the seriousness of the offence and the petitioner's criminal history. [Para 15, 16]

Cheque Dishonour - Inquiry Prior to Issuance of Process – Discrepancy in judicial opinions regarding whether the amendment in Section 202, sub clause (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is mandatory or directory – Larger Bench constituted for resolution – Reference to earlier divergent views of Justices V.M. Kanade and S.C. Dharmadhikari – The amendment concerns inquiry before issuance of process by the Magistrate when the accused resides outside the court’s jurisdiction. [Para 1]

Deferment of Reference and Evolution of Law – Reference to the larger Bench deferred due to pending appeal in Apex Court – The evolution of law and relevant Apex Court judgments, particularly focusing on Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and its intersection with Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure – Apex Court’s Constitution Bench decision in suo motu Writ Petition (CRL) No.2 of 2020 provided clarity. [Paras 2-3]

Constitution Bench Clarification – The Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in suo motu Writ Petition (CRL) No.2 of 2020 clarified the mandatory nature of inquiry under Section 202 for complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Emphasized the need for the Magistrate to conduct an inquiry and establish sufficient grounds before issuing summons to the accused residing outside jurisdiction. [Para 4]

Evidence on Affidavit Permissible – Section 202(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure interpretation by Apex Court – In cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, evidence of witnesses for the complainant can be on affidavit, without insistence on evidence on oath – Magistrate may examine documents to decide sufficiency of grounds for proceeding. [Para 4]

Application in Present Case – The issue in the present case, relating to whether an inquiry under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C is mandatory or directory, was settled by the Apex Court – Magistrates given discretion in pending complaints where accused reside outside their territorial jurisdiction – Reference to the implementation of the Constitution Bench’s orders by the Bombay High Court. [Paras 5-6]

Principles for Magistrate’s Inquiry – Magistrate’s duty to scrutinize allegations and separate unfounded claims before issuing process, especially when the accused is outside jurisdiction – The inquiry should aim at ascertaining the truth of allegations based on the material presented by the complainant. [Para 7]

Avoidance of Frivolous Claims and Vindication of Justice – Summoning of an accused is a serious matter requiring careful examination of allegations and evidence – The Magistrate must ensure the complaint establishes the charge before issuing process, to avoid harassment and uphold justice. [Para 8]

Criminal Law  – Conviction under Section 304-A IPC – Sentence Modified – Appellant convicted for causing death by rash and negligent driving and sentenced to two years’ rigorous imprisonment – Appellant did not contest conviction but sought benefit of probation due to mitigating circumstances – Held: Trial Court rightly appreciated evidence for conviction – However, considering clean antecedents, prolonged litigation since 1997, and personal hardships, sentence modified to probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 [Paras 1–10, 18–19].

Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 – Section 4 – Applicability in Negligent Driving Case – Mens rea absent – Appellant a first-time offender, divorcee, with no support system and clean record since the incident – Held: Object of probation law is reformation, not retribution – In cases involving accidental death and no criminal intent, reformative approach should be preferred – Probation for one year granted under strict conditions [Paras 11–13, 18–19].

Sentencing – Reformative Justice – Section 360 CrPC and Section 4 of Probation Act – Appellate Court can grant probation even after conviction upheld – Reiterated that probation can be extended at appellate or revisional stage where the offence is not grave, accused has suffered long litigation, and has shown repentance – Appellant directed to execute bond of good behaviour with sureties for one year under supervision of probation officer [Paras 13–17, 19–20].

Prolonged Litigation – Humanitarian Grounds – Convict facing criminal proceedings for over 26 years since 1997 – Clean record, no misuse of bail, personal responsibilities highlighted – Held: No useful purpose served by incarceration at this stage – Reform through probation preferable in interest of justice [Paras 7, 18–20].

Criminal Appeal – Acquittal in Abetment to Suicide and Cruelty Case – Appeal against conviction for offenses under Sections 306/34 and 498A IPC – Appellant acquitted due to lack of direct evidence and failure to prove cruelty as defined in Section 498A IPC. Inconsistencies in prosecution witnesses and evidence led to reasonable doubt. [Para 1-12, 14-15, 17-20, 22-24, 26-30]

Marriage and Cruelty – Unusual circumstances surrounding marriage – Victim's pregnancy leading to marriage with appellant – Subsequent loss of child and impact on victim’s mental state considered. Absence of direct evidence of physical or mental torture by appellant. [Para 17, 22]

Evidence and Presumption – Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act – Application of presumption in case of suicide by married woman within 7 years of marriage – Requirement of establishing cruelty as per Section 498A IPC – Presumption is rebuttable and dependent on the circumstances of each case. In this case, lack of direct evidence of cruelty led to acquittal. [Para 23-24, 26]

Investigation and Prosecution – Question over authenticity of initial complaint – Potential for concoction in FIR – Non-production of first information received by police raises doubt about prosecution's case. [Para 29]

Decision – Judgment of Learned Sessions Judge set aside due to reasonable doubt and lack of evidence – Appellant acquitted and released from charges under Sections 306/34 and 498A IPC. [Para 30-31]

Promotion Policy and LDCE Notification Challenge - Petitioner challenges circular dated 13.11.2023 on eligibility criteria for LDCE in DGM (E-4) Grade in Finance Cadre of IRCTC - Questions the arbitrariness of setting the cut-off date as 13.11.2023 instead of 01.07.2022 per IRCTC promotion policy - Argues for retrospective effect on promotion from 01.07.2022. [Paras 1-4, 14-15, 18-20]

Arguments for Retrospective Promotion - Citing delay in promotion notification and examination process - Petitioner contends eligibility for promotion should be from 01.07.2022, making him eligible for LDCE under the impugned circular. [Paras 4, 8-11, 14, 18-20]

Respondent's Counter and Supreme Court Precedents - Respondent counters citing specific rules on promotion, vacancy notification, and examination process - Relies on Supreme Court judgments emphasizing promotion from date of actual grant, not vacancy occurrence. [Paras 5-8, 14-17, 22-25]

Analysis and Findings - Court finds no merit in petitioner’s arguments - Holds that promotions are not to be granted retrospectively unless specifically allowed by rules - Dismisses petition, confirming that petitioner's promotion date does not entitle him to appear for LDCE under the impugned circular. [Paras 12-27]

Decision - Petition dismissed, no order as to costs - Pending application also disposed of. [Para 27]

Mutual Funds as Investment, Not Business – The Tribunal and CIT(A) held that transactions in mutual funds were investments, not stock-in-trade, based on factors like quantum, frequency, holding period, purpose, and disclosure in financial records. Gain on mutual fund redemption deemed as capital gain, not business income. [Paras 11-15]

Capital Contribution and Deemed Dividend – Capital contributions by KPFSE and KICIPL to respondent not deemed as loans or advances, thus not falling under Section 2(22)(e) for deemed dividend taxation. Tribunal upheld this view, citing the nature of the transaction and shareholding details of KPFSE and KICIPL. [Paras 16-21]

Non-Applicability of Section 150(1) Directions – Tribunal correctly decided that CIT(A)'s observations couldn't be treated as a direction under Section 150(1) of the Act for adding deemed dividend to Mr. Pradeep Wig and Mrs. Neera Wig’s income. [Paras 22]

Decision – Tribunal's decision upheld, no substantial question of law for consideration by High Court. Appeal disposed of without interference in Tribunal's order. [Paras 23-25]

NDPS  - Bail - Arrest and Charges – Petitioner arrested under Sections 21, 22, 29 of the NDPS Act for allegedly directing the procurement of drugs and possession of drug money – No criminal antecedents apart from an unrelated pending case under Section 379 IPC. [Para 1-2, 8]

Bail Plea and State's Opposition – Petitioner seeks bail, citing no objection to stringent conditions and arguing against the validity of the evidence, particularly the recovery of alleged drug money – State opposes bail, emphasizing the commercial quantity of contraband and petitioner’s supposed role in the drug trafficking. [Paras 3-8]

Court's Analysis and Reasoning – The Court notes the lack of direct evidence linking the petitioner to the drug sale proceeds and the absence of substantial proof of guilt – Considers parity with co-accused granted bail and deems petitioner's involvement based mainly on co-accused's disclosure. [Paras 9-10]

Application of Section 37 NDPS Act – Detailed discussion on the twin conditions under Section 37 for bail in cases involving commercial quantities of contraband – Court finds the petitioner satisfying these conditions. [Paras 12-13, 20, 21]

Bail Conditions – Detailed and stringent conditions imposed for bail, including financial bonds, personal identification details, restrictions on influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence, limiting possession of prepaid SIMs, and surrendering firearms. [Paras 14-19, 23]

Decision – Petition allowed; the petitioner is granted bail under stringent conditions. [End of Document]

Additional Accused - Summoning Under Section 319 Cr.P.C. - Revision petition against order dated 13.11.2019 for summoning petitioner as additional accused in an FIR dated 28.04.2017 under Sections 308/34 IPC - Petitioner, Davinder Singh @ Kala, challenged his inclusion in the case, arguing improvements in the injured's statements and highlighting inconsistency with medical evidence showing only one injury attributed to another accused - The Court considered whether there were reasonable prospects of the petitioner's conviction [Paras 1, 8, 14].

Inconsistency in Witness Statements - Petitioner's argument based on variations in the injured's statements from FIR, under Section 161 Cr.P.C., and in court deposition - Originally accused of inflicting injuries while the victim was on the ground, later statements added that the petitioner caught the victim's wrist and inflicted blows - Improvements in statements noted by the Court [Paras 2, 3, 5, 6, 14].

Medical Evidence Analysis - Medical evidence (MLR) indicated only one lacerated wound on the victim, specifically attributed to co-accused Ravinder Singh @ Gogi - The Court found this incongruous with the allegations against the petitioner, suggesting possible false implication [Para 14].

Judicial Precedents on Section 319 Cr.P.C. - Reference to Supreme Court judgments including "Michael Machado vs. CBI" and "Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab" for principles governing the exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. - Emphasis on the need for reasonable satisfaction and higher degree of satisfaction for summoning additional accused compared to the original accused [Paras 11, 12, 13].

Decision - High Court quashed the impugned order dated 13.11.2019 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda - The Court found substantial merit in the petitioner's argument about inconsistencies and improvements in witness statements and lack of corroborative medical evidence - The petition was allowed, and the order summoning the petitioner was set aside [Paras 14, 15].

Pensionary Benefits – Counting of Seasonal/Contract Service for Pension – Petitioners seeking inclusion of seasonal/contract service period for qualifying service for pension under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India – Service rendered on an ad-hoc basis by petitioners before their regularization in 2004 not sufficient for pensionary benefits under old pension scheme – Regular appointments post-2004 fall under new pension scheme as per BBMB Regulations and Punjab CSR. [Para 1, 8]

Employment Regularization and Pension Scheme Applicability – Regularization of service and its impact on pension scheme entitlement – Employees regularized after 01.01.2004 not eligible for old pension scheme – Court upholds that sporadic and brief contractual service prior to 2004 does not qualify for old pension scheme benefits. [Para 7, 8]

Judicial Precedents on Pensionary Benefits – Reliance on previous judgments for pension entitlement of contractual employees – Division Bench judgments (Harbans Lal, Karan Singh, and Hari Chand cases) distinguished due to non-continuous service of petitioners before regularization – Regularization post-2004 places petitioners under new pension scheme. [Para 3, 7]

Final Decision – Dismissal of Petition – Petition dismissed for lack of merit – Court holds that petitioners’ service prior to regularization does not count for pensionary benefits under old scheme – Petitioners’ liberty to raise individual regularization cases to the respondent-Board for consideration. [Para 9, 10]