Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.Civil Procedure –Interim Injunction - Revision Petition – Challenge to orders dismissing application for interim injunction – Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against defendants from interfering with their possession of a residential house – Application for interim injunction filed – Trial Court dismissed the application – First Appellate Court upheld the decision – Revision petition filed challenging the orders – Prima facie evidence of possession not established – Reliance on photographs as proof of possession deemed misplaced – Plaintiffs admitted to occupying another house in the village – Vacant land encroached upon, action taken by Gram Panchayat – Plaintiffs failed to establish prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss – Revision petition dismissed. (Para No. 5-7)

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 319 - Summoning of Additional Accused - Prima facie evidence - Invocation of jurisdiction - Test to be applied - Parameters laid down by Supreme Court - Whether evidence, if un-rebutted, would lead to conviction - Held, the application of Section 319 Cr.P.C. requires evidence that, if un-rebutted, would lead to conviction - A mere prima facie case, as exercised at the time of framing of charges, is insufficient - Specific role or attribution must be disclosed - Allegations of lalkara alone do not suffice - Failure to consider legal specifications while passing order - Error of law - Order summoning petitioner as additional accused set aside.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 363 - Kidnapping - POCSO Act, 2012 - Section 6 - Aggravated penetrative sexual assault - Prosecution failed to prove that the age of the victim was less than 18 years when the alleged offence was committed - Margin of error has to be reckoned with in case of ascertainment of age by radiological examination - Benefit of doubt should always go to the accused - Relationship between the appellant and the victim was consensual - Accused entitled to get the benefit of doubt - Conviction and sentence of the present appellant under section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and under section 363 of the Indian Penal Code set aside - Order to set the accused appellant at liberty forthwith unless he is required to be detained in connection with some other case. Para Number: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31

Constitutional Law – Writ of Mandamus – Change of Category During Recruitment Process – Writ petition seeking direction to consider the petitioner’s candidature for the post of staff nurse under the Ex-Servicemen (ESM) general category. The petitioner applied in the general category and acquired the ESM certificate after the last date for application submission. Held, a candidate cannot change their category during or after the recruitment process. The petitioner’s request for change of category two years after applying and acquiring the ESM certificate was not permissible. The petitioner scored 40 marks in the written examination, while the last selected candidate in the general category scored 57 marks. Petition dismissed. [Paras 1-14]

Recruitment Process – Change of Category – Permissibility – It is well established that if a candidate applies under a specific category, they cannot change their category during the selection process. Held, changes in category are not allowed once the recruitment process has started. The petitioner, who initially applied under the general category and later acquired an ESM certificate, cannot claim the benefit of reservation for ESM. [Paras 6-12]

Termination of services during probation period – Appeal and revision – Maintainability – The petitioner’s services as a constable were terminated while on probation. The appellate authority dismissed the petitioner’s appeal on a technical ground, and the respondents contended that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of filing a revision petition. The court examined the relevant rules and held that the petitioner was not treated as an enrolled member of the force, and therefore, the alternative remedy of filing a revision petition was not available to the petitioner. (Para 8-10)

Jurisdiction – Cause of action – The respondents objected to the jurisdiction of the court, arguing that no cause of action or part cause of action had arisen in the State of Rajasthan. The court examined the concept of cause of action and its relevance to jurisdiction, emphasizing that the cause of action must have a nexus with the court’s jurisdiction. Considering the facts that the petitioner’s service termination and relevant proceedings took place in the State of Maharashtra, the court held that it did not have jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. (Para 11-27)

Dismissal of writ petition – Liberty to seek remedy – The court dismissed the writ petition but granted the petitioner the liberty to seek an appropriate remedy before the appropriate forum. (Para 27)

 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 468 and 469 – Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963 – Sections 6, 7A and 12 – Quashing of FIR, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and subsequent proceedings – Limitation for taking cognizance of offence – Maximum sentence prescribed under Section 12 – Knowledge of offence – Sanction for prosecution – Delay in filing report and obtaining sanction – Cognizance barred.

petition sought quashing of FIR registered under Sections 6, 7A and 12 of the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963, the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. - ground -  cognizance barred by limitation – held - that the complainant-Department had the knowledge of the alleged commission of the offence on a certain date, and thus, the Court could have taken cognizance only within a period of 03 years from the said date - report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.  presented after almost 07 years from the date of knowledge of the offence - sanction was granted later - Court could not have taken cognizance - Court quashed the FIR, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and subsequent proceedings.

Criminal Law – Appeal against Conviction – Delay in Filing – Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the dismissal of an appeal against conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, on the grounds of delay. The appeal was dismissed without considering the exclusion of the time taken to prepare the certified copy of the judgment. Held, the period consumed in preparing the certified copy should be excluded while computing the period of limitation as per Section 12 of the Limitation Act. The appeal was filed within the permissible period if this period is excluded. Courts should not deny statutory rights to appeal on hyper-technical grounds. Appeal restored to be decided on merits. [Paras 1-17]

Procedure – Exclusion of Time – Certified Copy Preparation – The petitioner applied for the certified copy of the judgment on the day of its pronouncement, but it was prepared after more than two months. Held, the delay was due to the time taken to prepare the certified copy, and this period should be excluded in computing the limitation period. The Appellate Court should have allowed the petitioner to seek condonation of any perceived delay rather than dismissing the appeal outright. [Paras 10-14]

Regular Bail - Section 22(C) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- NDPS case – Regular bail – Commercial quantity – Recovery of 4800 tablets of RLAM-0.5 from petitioner - Co-accused already granted bail - Petitioner a first time offender - Violation of mandatory provisions of NDPS Act alleged - Held, provisions of Section 37 of NDPS Act can be diluted in view of Article 21 of the Constitution of India providing for a right to speedy trial .

 Right to speedy trial - Salutary provision - Consideration for grant of bail - Bail can be granted to accused even in cases under NDPS Act if there is delay in the trial proceedings. Bail Allowed. (Para 7, 8)

Framing of charges under Sections 304 and 427 IPC - Extreme negligence and rashness - Petitioner challenges order, arguing that the case should be treated as rash and negligent driving under Section 304A IPC as there is no allegation of him being under the influence of liquor - Court holds that material on record indicates allegations against the petitioner show extreme negligence and rashness while driving the oil tanker, leading to the death of three persons - Charge under Section 304 IPC can be framed even on the basis of strong suspicion, if supported with material on record - Charge framed by the trial Court may not be properly worded, but error can be corrected by invoking the provisions of Section 216 Cr.P.C., which allows for amendment of the charge at any stage of the trial - Petition dismissed.