Marriage and Divorce – Desertion – Appeal against dismissal of divorce petition – Appellant claims wife deserted him and was in an adulterous relationship – Trial court dismissed suit finding no evidence of desertion or adultery – Appellant failed to prove allegations with substantive evidence – Desertion requires animus deserendi and absence of reasonable cause – Allegations of dowry demand and ill-treatment beyond pleading – No criminal complaint or substantive evidence provided – Findings of trial court affirmed [Paras 1-16].

Cruelty – Mental and Physical Torture – Appellant alleged mental and physical cruelty – No substantial evidence to support claims – Respondent denied allegations and stated she was sent away by appellant – No proof of continuous and willful conduct constituting cruelty – Trial court’s findings upheld [Paras 6-9].

Adultery – Allegation and Evidence – Appellant’s claim of wife’s adultery with co-respondent – Trial court found no proof of adultery – Appellant conceded ground of adultery during appeal – Court found no evidence to support claims – Findings of trial court affirmed [Paras 7-9].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Held – No interference with trial court’s judgment – Appellant failed to prove grounds of divorce – Allegations of desertion, cruelty, and adultery not substantiated with evidence – Judgment and decree of trial court affirmed [Paras 13-16].

Criminal Law – Conviction under Sections 420, 323, 341 IPC affirmed – Challenge in High Court against appellate court’s decision maintaining trial court’s conviction of the accused for cheating, causing hurt, and wrongful restraint – The court examined the credibility of the evidence, including the accused’s role in inducing the complainant to invest in a fraudulent scheme – Despite contentions of innocence and claims of being a victim himself, the court found the petitioner guilty based on concurrent findings by lower courts – Sentence modified in light of prolonged legal proceedings and partial imprisonment already served [Paras 1-16].

Evidence Evaluation – The High Court found substantial corroboration in the complainant’s allegations and documentary evidence despite the petitioner’s claims – Concurrent findings by trial and appellate courts upheld, demonstrating the credibility of prosecution’s case and confirming the petitioner’s guilt [Paras 3-10].

Sentence Modification – Considering the time elapsed since the incident (22 years) and partial imprisonment already served by the petitioner, the High Court modified the sentence to imprisonment already undergone – The petitioner’s appeal on merits dismissed but granted relief in terms of sentence modification due to prolonged litigation and substantial punishment served [Paras 11-14].

Decision – Dismissal of Revision – Held – The criminal revision is dismissed on merits but the sentence is modified to the period of imprisonment already undergone by the petitioner, acknowledging the extended duration of the trial and appeal process – The petitioner is discharged from the liability of bail bond [Paras 14-16].
 

Non-Bailable Warrant – Issuance Without Execution Report – Petitioners challenged the orders issuing non-bailable warrants without the execution report of previously issued bailable warrants – High Court held that the Magistrate should have insisted on the execution report before issuing non-bailable warrants – Orders set aside [Paras 1-8].

Proclamation Under Section 82 Cr.P.C. – Mandatory Requirements – Petitioners contended the proclamation was issued without satisfying the statutory requirements – High Court emphasized the need for recording satisfaction that accused are absconding or concealing to evade arrest and fixing the time and place for appearance – Orders quashed [Paras 9-11].

Decision – Criminal Miscellaneous Petition Allowed – Orders for issuance of non-bailable warrants and proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. quashed – Directed fresh orders in accordance with law [Paras 12-13].

Criminal Procedure – Restoration of Complaint – Petitioners challenged restoration of complaint dismissed for non-appearance of the respondent – High Court ruled that once a complaint is dismissed for non-prosecution, the trial court becomes functus officio and cannot restore the complaint – No provision in Cr.P.C. allows such restoration – Reference made to Supreme Court’s decision in A.S. Gauraya v. S.N. Thakur – Orders of restoration and summoning set aside [Paras 1-19].

Inherent Powers – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – High Court has inherent powers to prevent abuse of process and to ensure justice – Subordinate courts do not possess such inherent powers – Orders restoring dismissed complaints by trial courts without jurisdiction are nullities – Inherent powers do not extend to such restorations by trial courts [Paras 18-19].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Orders dated 13.08.2019 and 16.04.2022 set aside – Restoration and summoning deemed without jurisdiction – Liberty granted to respondent to seek appropriate remedy under law [Paras 19-20].

Wildlife Protection – Conviction for Hunting and Unauthorized Entry – Revisionist convicted under multiple sections of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 – Trial and appellate courts’ decisions affirmed conviction based on recovery of a weapon and intent to hunt tigers – High Court finds lack of substantial evidence to prove the charges – Prosecution failed to establish that the place of incident fell within a declared sanctuary or buffer zone [Paras 1-20].

Evidence under Section 244 Cr.P.C. – Examination of Witnesses – Prosecution examined six witnesses, including arresting officers and site plan preparers – High Court notes inconsistencies in testimonies and lack of concrete evidence linking revisionist’s actions to defined statutory offenses [Paras 4-7].

Legal Definitions and Applicability – Sections 2(16) and 9 of the Act – Definition of ‘hunting’ under Section 2(16) found inapplicable to revisionist’s actions – No direct evidence of hunting or attempt to hunt presented – Section 27 regarding restriction on entry into sanctuary also not proven due to unclear demarcation of sanctuary boundaries at the incident site [Paras 10-17].

Decision – Revision Allowed – Held – Conviction and sentence set aside – High Court mandates release of revisionist, emphasizing need for precise evidence when charging under wildlife protection laws [Paras 18-22].
 

Criminal Law – Attempted Rape and Assault – Appellant convicted under Sections 376/511 and 354 IPC – Allegations of the appellant and others unlawfully entering the premises, assaulting the victim, and attempting to commit rape – Conviction based on the evidence of the victim and other witnesses, seizure of blood-stained items, and medical reports confirming injuries consistent with the victim’s account – Trial court’s conviction affirmed [Paras 1-29].

Evidence – Delay in FIR – No delay in lodging FIR; incident occurred on 28.05.2011 at about 8:30 PM and the case was registered at 2:15 AM on 29.05.2011 – Timely registration of the case considered in evaluating the credibility of the prosecution’s case [Para 29(i)].

Medical Evidence – Injuries Confirming Assault – Medical documents and witness testimonies confirmed severe injuries to the victim’s private parts requiring surgical intervention and blood transfusion – Evidence supported the prosecution’s narrative of a brutal assault [Paras 29(iv)-(v)].

Seizure of Evidence – Blood-stained items and liquor bottles seized from the appellant’s premises – Seizures corroborated the victim’s account of the assault and the presence of the appellant at the crime scene [Paras 29(ii)-(iii)].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Conviction and sentence affirmed – Appellant directed to surrender within 30 days to serve the sentence – Bail bonds canceled [Paras 30-31].

Service Law – Pay Re-fixation and Recovery – Petitioner served on an ad-hoc basis as a Research Officer for over 14 years – Reverted to the original position of Senior Research Assistant – Tribunal upheld reversion and recovery of excess salary paid – High Court observed long service in higher position justifies protection of higher salary for terminal benefits – Recovery of excess salary deemed unfair as there was no misrepresentation by the petitioner – Directed respondents to calculate terminal benefits based on higher salary drawn as a Research Officer – Recovery of excess salary from 13.07.2010 to 06.03.2013 quashed [Paras 1-8].

Administrative Tribunals Act – Challenge to Tribunal’s Order – High Court reviewed Tribunal’s decision, emphasizing fairness in service benefits and protections for long service in higher positions without misrepresentation – Tribunal's order partially set aside – Relief granted based on precedent from Apex Court [Paras 2-7].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Recovery of excess salary quashed – Directed fixation of terminal benefits considering higher salary – No entitlement to pay of Research Officer post-reversion – Ensured fair consideration of long service in higher position for pension and other terminal benefits [Paras 6-8].

Income Tax – Assessment Order – Natural Justice – Petitioner challenged the assessment order dated 7th March 2024 and the demand notice issued under the Income Tax Act – Contended that the assessment was based on evidence from third parties without allowing the petitioner to cross-examine them – Court observed that the petitioner had responded to the notices and participated in proceedings but did not make a specific request for summoning the third party for cross-examination – Held that mere statement in response without formal application for cross-examination does not vitiate the order – Appeal before the appellate authority was considered an adequate remedy despite the delay caused by the writ petition – Directions issued to the appellate authority to consider the appeal and the request for cross-examination based on Supreme Court precedents [Paras 1-16].

Opportunity to Cross-Examine – Principles of Natural Justice – Petitioner claimed violation of natural justice as the authorities did not allow cross-examination of Amit Kumar Agarwal, whose statements were crucial for the assessment – Court noted that petitioner did not specifically request issuance of summons for cross-examination during the assessment proceedings – Held that failure to specifically request cross-examination cannot invalidate the assessment order, but the appellate authority should consider such request in light of Supreme Court guidelines [Paras 10-13].

Alternative Remedy – Appeal – Despite the availability of an appellate remedy, petitioner invoked writ jurisdiction citing denial of natural justice – Court permitted petitioner to approach the appellate authority within 15 days, condoning the delay due to pendency of writ petition – Appellate authority directed to consider the appeal on merits and decide on the cross-examination request [Paras 14-15].

Decision – Writ Petition Disposed of – Petitioner allowed to file appeal with appellate authority – Directions to appellate authority to consider appeal and request for cross-examination in accordance with law and precedents [Paras 14-16].
 

Property Law – Redemption of Mortgage – Appeal challenging the judgment reversing the trial court's decision on the respondents' suit for declaration of ownership and permanent injunction regarding property mortgaged in 1946 – Respondents claimed the property and challenged its mutation as evacuee property – Trial Court dismissed the suit, ruling the property vested in the custodian after the mortgagee's migration – Appellate Court reversed, declaring respondents' ownership due to non-redemption within 30 years and no limitation on redemption – High Court upheld Appellate Court's decision, citing the Supreme Court's interpretation of usufructuary mortgage rights under Section 62 of the Transfer of Property Act [Paras 1-11].

Mortgage Redemption – Limitation – Conflicting judicial views on redemption rights under Section 62 of the Transfer of Property Act – High Court affirmed no limitation period applies for redemption under usufructuary mortgages where possession remains with the mortgagee until mortgage money is recovered – Appellants' right to auction property as per Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act dismissed [Paras 8-10].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – First appellate court's decree upheld – Respondents declared owners in possession of the suit property – Mutations in favor of custodian department invalid [Para 11].