Criminal Revision – Challenging conviction for selling adulterated milk under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 – Petitioner convicted by trial court and appellate court – Allegations of procedural lapses and improper evaluation of evidence. [Paras 1-6]

Evidence and Procedure – Challenge against non-consideration of petitioner’s statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. – Argument of reliance on photocopy documents under Section 78 of Evidence Act – Issues of inordinate delay in filing complaint and non-compliance with Section 13(2) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. [Paras 4-6]

Legal Analysis – Reference to Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander & Ors. for principles guiding revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C. – Assessment of evidence and no perversity found in lower courts' decisions – Rejection of arguments related to sanctioning authority, service of notice, and compliance issues. [Paras 9-16]

Sentence Modification – Application of beneficial amendments under Article 20 of the Constitution – Citing T. Barai Vs. Henry Ah Hoe and other cases for lesser punishment under amended laws – Conviction upheld, but sentence modified to fine based on the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. [Paras 17-24]

Decision – Petitioner’s conviction under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act maintained – Sentence modified to a fine of Rs. 50,000 in light of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. [Para 25]a

Criminal Procedure – Appeal Against Acquittal – Section 378(4) CrPC –challenge against the acquittal of the respondent in a case under Section 138, 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and Section 420 IPC. The application sought to reverse the order of acquittal by the Judicial Magistrate on the grounds of misuse of cheque and insufficiency of funds. [Para 1, 2]

Evidence and Proof – Financial Capacity to Lend – The appellant's financial capacity to lend Rs. 2,00,000 was critically analyzed. Income tax returns and personal financial obligations were examined, leading to the conclusion that the appellant lacked the financial capacity to lend the alleged sum. This finding cast doubt on the credibility of the appellant's claim. [Para 3]

Cheque Dishonour – Negotiable Instruments Act – Examination of circumstances surrounding the dishonoured cheque. Discrepancies in the completion of the cheque, such as differences in handwriting, suggested manipulation by the appellant, thereby undermining the accusation against the respondent. [Para 3]

Appellate Review – Scope and Limitation – The High Court reiterated the established principles governing appellate interference in cases of acquittal. It emphasized the respect for the trial court's assessment of witness credibility and the need to uphold the trial court's decision when two plausible views exist, especially when one favors the accused's innocence. [Para 4]

Judicial Discretion – Denial of Leave to Appeal – The Court found no perversity or illegality in the trial court's findings that would warrant appellate interference. The application for leave to appeal against the acquittal was thus denied, upholding the trial court's judgment. [Para 5]

Criminal Procedure – Revision of Order – Section 311 Cr.P.C. – Court examined the petitioner's application under Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code for the recall and examination of defense witnesses in a case involving Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner sought to set aside the orders of lower courts, which dismissed his application for the recall of a defense witness and summoning of his advocate. [Para 1-3]

Application for Recall and Examination of Defense Witnesses – Dismissed – The Court found no merit in the petitioner's argument for recalling the defense witness and summoning his advocate. It was observed that the petitioner failed to establish how the examination of these witnesses was essential for a just decision of the case. Furthermore, the conversation between an advocate and a client is protected, and using it to the disadvantage of the complainant was deemed inappropriate. [Para 5]

Scope and Exercise of Power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. – Analyzed – The High Court analyzed the scope of Section 311 of the Cr.P.C., emphasizing that the court's power to summon or recall witnesses must be used judiciously and only when such evidence is deemed essential for a just adjudication of the case. The Court referred to precedents set by the Supreme Court in its deliberation. [Para 6-11]

Decision – Application for Recall and Examination of Witnesses Rejected – The High Court upheld the orders of the lower courts, concluding that the petitioner's application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was an attempt to fill lacunae in his case and delay the trial. It was held that the necessary conditions for invoking Section 311 Cr.P.C. were not met in this instance. [Para 13-14]

Judgement – Petition Dismissed – The petition was dismissed by the High Court, affirming the decisions of the lower courts and highlighting the importance of the prudent exercise of judicial discretion in matters involving the recall and examination of witnesses. [Para 14]

Quashing of Conviction and Sentence - Criminal Revision against Judgment of Lower Courts - Petitioner convicted under Sections 498A IPC and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act - Allegations of demand for Rs. 10,000/- for maintenance of child - Complainant alleged harassment by petitioner and matrimonial relations for non-fulfillment of demand - Evidence of four witnesses examined, including complainant and independent witness - Allegation of general and omnibus nature - Failure to disclose incident to close relatives questioned - Complaint filed subsequent to criminal complaint by petitioner against complainant - Examination of whether demand for maintenance of child constitutes dowry - Definition of dowry under Dowry Prohibition Act considered - Prevalent cultural practice of maintenance of pregnant woman and newborn child by parental home discussed - Court finds demand for maintenance of child does not amount to dowry - Charge under Section 498A IPC not established - Charge under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act not sustainable due to absence of demand from bride's family - Revision allowed, judgment and conviction set aside, petitioner acquitted.

DJS Examination 2023 Answer Key Challenge – Preliminary Examination – Answer Key Challenge – The petitioners, aspiring to join the Delhi Judicial Services, challenged the Model Answer Key and the Revised Answer Key of the Delhi Judicial Services Examination 2023, asserting errors and inconsistencies. [Para 1-5]

Multiple Correct Answers in Preliminary Examination – not permissible – The Court held that accepting two correct answers for one question was contrary to the examination's scheme, which was based on each question having only one correct answer, with negative marking for incorrect answers. Consequently, questions with two correct answers were invalidated. [Para 17-32]

Scope of Judicial Review – Restricted – The Court underscored that judicial review of evaluation in examinations is limited. Intervention is warranted only if the answer key is palpably erroneous or the evaluation process is arbitrary or discriminatory. [Para 12-16]

Revised Answer Key – Erroneous Entries – Specific questions in the Revised Answer Key were found to be incorrectly evaluated. The Court directed the rectification of these errors and re-evaluation of the examinees accordingly. [Para 32-71]

Relief Granted – Re-evaluation and Inclusion of Additional Qualified Candidates – The Court ordered the re-evaluation of the examinees based on the amended answer key and the inclusion of additional qualifying candidates for the Delhi Judicial Service Mains (Written) Examination. [Para 72-73]

Decision – Set Aside Parts of Revised Answer Key – The Court set aside parts of the Revised Answer Key that provided for multiple correct answers for the same question and directed the re-evaluation of the examination based on the corrected answer key. [Para 72-73]

NDPS – Acquittal - Arrest and Recovery of Morphine - Appellant Aasha Ram arrested with another individual, Jagram Kewat, by patrolling police party; around 150 grams of morphine allegedly recovered - Police testimonies from Constable Gopal Prasad Rana (PW-1), Makar Dhwaj (PW-2), and S.I. Dhaniram Verma (PW-3) form basis of prosecution case. [Paras 4, 15]

Procedural Compliance under N.D.P.S. Act - Appellant's counsel challenged the trial court's conviction, asserting non-compliance with Sections 50, 55, and 57 of the N.D.P.S. Act - Argued that no Gazetted Officer or Magistrate was involved during the search, and no public witness was present at the time of recovery in a public place - Relied on Supreme Court judgments in Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja v. State of Gujarat and State of Rajasthan v. Parmanand for the argument. [Paras 12, 16-18]

Trial Court Conviction and Sentence - Trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant under Section 8/21 of N.D.P.S. Act for two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine - Appellant pleaded not guilty and appealed the conviction. [Paras 6, 10]

High Court Judgment - High Court found the prosecution's failure to comply with Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act significant - Held the testimony of the police witnesses unreliable and observed serious lacunae in prosecution's case, including the absence of other eyewitnesses from the police party - High Court set aside the trial court's judgment and order, acquitting Aasha Ram. [Paras 20-24]

Criminal Appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. – Challenge against conviction for assault (Section 323/34 I.P.C.) based on an incident from 2000 involving a property dispute and physical assault [Paras 1-3, 11-12].

Investigation and Trial Proceedings – FIR lodged under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)X of S.C./S.T. Act – Charge sheet filed post-investigation – Trial court's conviction for one-year imprisonment [Paras 4-7, 11].

Defense's Argument for Probation – Appellant's plea for probation based on the delay of trial, absence of criminal antecedents, and the incident occurring 24 years ago – Reference to Uttar Pradesh First Offenders Probation Act, 1938, and Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 [Paras 13-14, 29].

Legal Framework on Probation – Discussion of Sections 3 and 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and relevant Supreme Court rulings emphasizing reformative justice and the application of probation in appropriate cases [Paras 17-24, 26-28].

Court's Decision – Conviction maintained, but sentence modified to probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 – Appellants required to submit surety and personal bonds, with an undertaking for maintaining peace and good behavior for one year [Paras 30-32].

Eviction Suit – Rent Arrears and Mesne Profits – Order XV-A CPC Application - Court dismissed the petitioner's appeal against the Trial Court's rejection of an application under Order XV-A CPC for deposit of arrears of rent and user charges by the respondent. The court examined the relationship between landlord and tenant and the applicability of Order XV-A in cases where the tenant denies such relationship. [Paras 1-10, 23-24]

Landlord-Tenant Relationship – Denial by Respondent - The respondent denied any landlord-tenant relationship with the petitioner, making the application of Order XV-A CPC complex. The Court emphasized that mere denial does not exempt a tenant from depositing rent or mesne profits for the use and occupation of the property during litigation. However, in absence of any substantial evidence from the petitioner proving a landlord-tenant relationship, the respondent's denial held weight. [Paras 14-15, 22-23]

Order XV-A CPC – Applicability and Interpretation - Analyzed the scope and application of Order XV-A CPC, noting its purpose is to protect landlords from hardship due to long eviction suit durations by ensuring continued payment of rent or mesne profits. The court clarified that the provision applies even when there's a denial of an admitted landlord-tenant relationship, subject to credible evidence. [Paras 16-21]

Decision - Petition Dismissed – The Court upheld the Trial Court's decision, dismissing the petition due to the lack of evidence supporting the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship and the consequent applicability of Order XV-A CPC. [Para 24]

Service Law - Pension Eligibility – Computation of Service Period – Interpretation of Regulation No.18 of UCO Bank (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995 – Service of respondent (Chaman Singh) treated as 10 years by rounding up the 9 years 10 months & 5 days of service – Held eligible for pension under Regulation No.14 – Judgment of the learned Single Judge affirmed. [Para 1, 3, 3(i), 3(iv)]

Interpretation of Regulation No.14 and No.18 – Regulation No.18 allows rounding off service of more than six months as one complete year for pension eligibility – Proviso to Regulation No.18 cannot override this substantive provision – Applicable in the case of respondent to qualify him for pension. [Para 3(i), 3(ii), 3(iv), 3(v)]

Precedents from Apex Court and Rule 49(3) of CCS (Pension) Rules – Reference to Indian Bank Vs. N. Venkatramani and interpretation of similar provisions in CCS (Pension) Rules – Fraction of a year equal to three months and above treated as a completed half-year for qualifying service. [Para 3(ii), 3(iii)]

Appeal Dismissed – The appeal of UCO Bank challenging the eligibility of the respondent for pension is dismissed – Substantive provisions of the pension regulations affirm the respondent's qualification for pension. [Para 4]