Revision Petition against Summoning Order – Accused challenging summoning order in a drug-related case – Accused claiming valid drug license at the time of supply –– Petition filed under CrPC Section 482 and Article 227 –– Accused declared proclaimed offender for non-appearance. [Para 1-18]

Criminal Offense - Section 27 (b) (ii) of the Drug and Cosmetics Acts Act - Offense related to drugs without a valid license - Maximum punishment under this section is imprisonment extending to three years and a fine not less than 5,000 rupees. - Section 468 CrPC imposes a limitation on taking cognizance after the expiry of the period of limitation based on the punishment prescribed. - The complaint in this case was filed on 3rd June 1999, and the offense alleged falls under Section 27 (b) (ii) of the Act. As per Section 468 CrPC, the limitation period for such an offense is three years from the date of the offense. - Section 469 CrPC defines the commencement of the period of limitation, which starts from the date of the offense, knowledge of the offense, or when the identity of the offender is known. - In this case, the complainant alleged the offense occurred in March 1997. However, the offense was already known to the authorities due to the registration of FIR No. 2/91 in a related matter. The complainant's attempt to bring the complaint within the limitation period was seen as an effort to avoid the bar under Section 468 CrPC. - The complainant selectively produced documents, and the court considered the documents provided by the accused, which were beyond suspicion or doubt, including a certified copy of an order related to a similar matter. This order revealed discrepancies in the complainant's claims. - The court concluded that the complainant's allegations did not bring the complaint within the prescribed period of limitation, and the attempt to manipulate facts was evident. Therefore, the complaint was not sustainable. [Paragraphs 27-49]

- Corporate Liability - Section 34 of the Act - Offense committed by a company - Liability of persons in charge of the company's conduct - Section 34 imposes liability on individuals who were in charge of and responsible for the company's business conduct when the offense was committed. - The complaint in this case did not specifically aver that the accused, Prithi Pal Singh, as the Managing Director, was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company's business. - The court cited previous judgments to emphasize the necessity of specific averments in the complaint to establish that the accused was in charge of and responsible for the company's business. - Since the complaint lacked these essential averments, the accused was entitled to relief on this ground. [Paragraphs 46-50]

Decision - The accused was able to make a case for the exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC. Therefore, the petition was allowed, and the impugned summoning order and complaint were quashed. The accused was not compelled to appear before the trial court. - No other points were argued, and pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of accordingly. [Paragraphs 51-54]

Certainly, I can help you create headnotes for the given judgment. Here is the headnote summary:

Compassionate Appointment – Dependency Clause – Biological son eligible for compassionate benefits but question of daughter-in-law’s eligibility under dispute.

The original writ petition was filed by Amandeep Singh, son of a deceased government employee, for the grant of compassionate benefits which were earlier denied. The Court set aside the impugned order and directed the respondents to reconsider his application, recognizing him as a dependent of the deceased. [Para 16-17, 19-20]

Clarification – Policy Prevalence Date – Case to be considered as per the policy prevalent at the time of father’s death.

A clarification order was issued that specified Amandeep Singh's case would be considered based on the policy applicable at the time of his father's death. [Para related to order dated 06.07.2021]

Subsequent Developments – Death of Original Petitioner – Widow files for contempt, arguing for entitlement under the original order.

After the death of Amandeep Singh, his widow, Sarabjit Kaur, filed for contempt and argued that she should be entitled to benefits per the original order. An application was disposed of, stating that she, being the widow, is entitled to the benefit as per the original order. [Para related to order dated 27.10.2022]

State Policy Update – New Scheme for Compassionate Appointments – Inclusion of PSEB wards who died before a specific date.

Counsel for the petitioner highlighted a new scheme framed by the State Government, which also covers wards of deceased PSEB employees who died before 16.04.2010. [Discussion about the scheme dated 06.12.2022]

Dismissal – Contempt Petition – No willful disobedience found, issue of daughter-in-law's eligibility not suitable for contempt proceedings.

The Court dismissed the contempt petition, stating there was no willful disobedience of the order dated 14.08.2019, as it's a disputed fact whether the petitioner, being the daughter-in-law of the deceased, is covered under the policy or not. Liberty granted to avail alternative remedies. [Final Para]

Hope this helps.

Matrimonial Dispute – Transfer of Petition – Petitioner-wife seeks transfer of the case filed under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act due to distance and inconvenience.

Legal Precedents – Judgments like Sumita Singh Vs. Kumar Sanjay, Rajani Kishor Pardeshi Vs. Kishor Babulal Pardeshi, and N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha cited to emphasize the convenience of female litigants.

Factors for Consideration – Importance of various factors such as family condition, minor child custody, economic status, and physical health of the petitioner-wife in the decision for transfer.

Decision – Court allows the transfer of the case to Faridkot under certain conditions, including an obligation to appear before the Family Court at Faridkot and possible mediation.

Conditions for Revival – Respondent granted the liberty to contest the decision under specified conditions like clearing maintenance arrears and providing litigation expenses.

Civil Procedure - Permanent Injunction - Proof of Possession - Specific Relief Act, Section 38 - Regular Second Appeal against concurrent findings - Appellant filed suit for permanent injunction claiming ownership and possession of suit land based on a sale deed. The Court held that recitals in the sale deed alone were insufficient to establish possession. The suit land was mortgaged and sold in auction before the filing of the suit. Appellant failed to provide supportive evidence of physical possession and did not implead the bank or the auction purchaser, raising doubts about the suit's intention. Appeal dismissed. [Paras 1-11]

Proof of Physical Possession - Requirement of Corroborative Evidence - Mere recital in a sale deed is not conclusive proof of possession. Physical possession must be demonstrated through positive and cogent evidence. Concurrent findings of lower courts upheld due to the lack of supporting evidence by the appellant. [Para 7]

Auction Sale and Non-joinder of Necessary Parties - The suit land was auctioned by the Debt Recovery Tribunal before the suit was filed. The appellant’s failure to challenge the auction proceedings or implead the auction purchaser and bank indicated a lack of bona fide intention. [Para 8]

Concurrent Findings of Fact - No Substantial Question of Law - The appeal did not raise any substantial question of law, and the concurrent findings of the lower courts were well-reasoned and based on evidence. The appellant's claims were unsubstantiated. [Para 11]

Decision: Appeal dismissed. Judgments and decrees of the lower courts affirmed. [Para 11]

Motor Vehicles – Scheduled Castes Reservation – Multiple Permits – Permissibility – Held – An applicant holding a stage carriage permit under the scheduled caste reservation category is not disqualified from applying for additional permits on other routes under the same category. The notification dated 13.09.1979 explicitly permits up to five permits for firms or cooperative societies. Any reasoning to the contrary is against the law. Petition partly allowed. [Paras 1-21]

Motor Vehicles – Application of Reservation Policy – Issuance of Permits – Held – The reservation policy of 25% for scheduled castes/scheduled tribes as per government notification dated 13.09.1979 applies to all routes and should be enforced. Non-consideration of this policy by the authorities is incorrect. The State must adhere to the mandated reservation percentage in issuing permits. [Paras 14-18]

Motor Vehicles – Inter se Merit Consideration – Remand – Held – The State Transport Appellate Tribunal is directed to reassess the inter se merits of the petitioner and other candidates who applied under the scheduled castes category, ensuring compliance with the reservation policy. Case remanded for fresh adjudication on this basis. [Paras 19-21]

Contract Law - Stamp Duty on Agreements to Sell – Civil Revision against Arbitrator’s order dismissing application to impound agreement for insufficient stamp duty – Agreement to sell executed without delivery of possession does not attract stamp duty under Entry 5(cc) of Schedule 1-A of the Punjab Stamp Act – Arbitration Act provisions limiting judicial intervention in arbitral orders.

Stamp Duty - Agreement to Sell – Analysis – Held – An agreement to sell not followed by or evidencing delivery of possession does not attract stamp duty as a conveyance. The court emphasized strict interpretation of fiscal statutes, noting the distinction between laws in Punjab and Madhya Pradesh regarding stamp duty on such agreements. [Para 18]

Decision – Dismissal of Revision Petition – The court dismissed the civil revision petition, affirming the Arbitrator’s decision. It highlighted the limited scope of judicial intervention under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, maintaining that the agreement in question did not warrant impounding for insufficient stamp duty as possession was not delivered under it. [Para 10, 11]

Quashing of FIR under Section 482 of the CrPC – Allegations under Section 8, 15 of the NDPS Act, 1985 – Petitioner accused of involvement in transportation of contraband poppy straw – No recovery of contraband from the petitioner – Absence of tangible evidence linking petitioner to the crime – Reliance on disclosure statement of co-accused under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act – No call details or payment evidence implicating petitioner – Recent precedent emphasizing the need for substantive evidence – Quashing of FIR and related proceedings for the petitioner. [Para 1-10]

Insufficient Evidence – Mere reliance on co-accused’s disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act not adequate to establish guilt – Lack of corroborative evidence – Reference to recent precedent, Dilip Kumar Vs. State of M.P., emphasizing the need for concrete evidence to implicate an accused. [Para 2-7]

Criminal Procedure – Section 482 of the CrPC – Principles governing quashing of FIR – Court holds no prima facie case against the petitioner – FIR and subsequent proceedings quashed due to absence of legally admissible evidence. [Para 8-10]

Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution – Right against self-incrimination – Implication of petitioner based only on co-accused's disclosure statement – No evidence to corroborate the statement – Court finds allegations against petitioner bereft of substance. [Para 3, 18]

Decision – FIR and subsequent proceedings against the petitioner quashed due to absence of legally admissible evidence – Petition under Section 482 of the Code stands allowed. [Para 9-10]

Writ Petition - Challenge to constitutional validity of master directions on 'Fraud - Classification and Reporting' - Allegation of manifest arbitrariness and violation of natural justice principles - No show cause notice or hearing provided to the petitioner - Violation of fundamental rights under Article 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution of India. [Para 1-3]

Reference to High Court of Telangana judgment - Principles of audi alteram partem to be applied - Opportunity of hearing and representation to be provided before classifying an account as 'fraudulent' - Violation of natural justice principles - Apex Court judgment in State Bank of India &Ors. vs. Rajesh Agrawal &Ors., (2023) 6 SCC 1, upholds the need for a hearing before classifying an account as 'fraud'. [Para 4-6]

Identification of identical issue to State Bank of India case - Application of conclusions from State Bank of India judgment to the present case - Directions and conclusions from State Bank of India case applied mutatis mutandis to the current case. [Para 7-9]

Disposition of the petition in line with State Bank of India judgment - Quashing of any actions taken against the petitioner, including FIR registration and fraud declaration - Impugned circular to remain in existence - Respondents authorized to proceed in accordance with law and State Bank of India directions. [Para 10-12]

Education Policy - Challenge to eligibility criteria for National Means cum Merit Scholarship Scheme - Petitioner, a recognized unaided private school, challenges the eligibility criteria excluding private school students from the scholarship examination - Petitioner argues the exclusion is arbitrary and unreasonable - Government's policy aims to provide scholarships to economically weaker students to prevent dropouts at Class VIII - The petitioner contends that students in private schools can also be from financially weaker backgrounds - Court's role is limited in reviewing government policies - Court upholds the eligibility criteria and dismisses the petition. [Para 2-33]