Criminal Law – Conviction and Sentencing – Appeal against conviction under Sections 323, 324, 325, 326, 307 read with Section 34 IPC – Incident involved mutual injuries between complainant and accused parties – Injured Baldev Singh hospitalized for 23 days, injuries declared grievous – High Court upholds conviction based on evidence of participation by both parties in the occurrence – Considering two decades since occurrence, sentence reduced to 1½ years RI for each appellant – Appeal partly accepted. [Paras 1-33]

Evidence Law – Mutual Injury – Presence of Both Parties – Injuries Sustained – Both parties actively involved and sustained injuries – Injured Baldev Singh's MLR confirmed grievous injuries – Medical evidence corroborated injuries on both sides – High Court emphasizes equitable treatment considering mutual harm. [Para 28]

Decision – Sentence Reduction – High Court maintains conviction but reduces sentence – Original sentences reduced from 4 and 3 years RI to 1½ years RI each – Fine maintained – Emphasizes significant time lapse and mutual injuries as factors for sentence reduction – Directs compliance and surrender within 15 days. [Paras 33-34]

Criminal Law – Harboring Offenders – Section 212 IPC – Petition against conviction for harboring terrorists and dismissal from BSF – Petitioner convicted by General Security Force Court – Alleged confessional statement denied by petitioner – High Court held that no knowledge or reason to believe the harbored persons were terrorists – Offense under Section 212 IPC not made out – Orders of conviction and dismissal set aside. [Paras 1-14]

Evidence Law – Confessional Statements – Admissibility and Reliability – Petitioner denied alleged confessional statement – No evidence of knowledge that harbored individuals committed any offense – High Court emphasizes importance of mens rea and knowledge under Section 212 IPC – Confessional statement cannot be sole basis for conviction without corroborative evidence. [Paras 11-12]

Decision – Quashing of Conviction and Dismissal – High Court quashes conviction and dismissal of petitioner – Finds serious miscarriage of justice due to lack of evidence and non-speaking orders by authorities – Orders reinstatement with all consequential benefits. [Para 18]

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act – Evidence – Acquittal on Grounds of Insufficient Evidence – Appeal challenging conviction under Section 15(c) of NDPS Act – Appellant not apprehended at the spot, identified solely by a police witness – No independent corroboration or ownership link to the vehicle – Prosecution’s case had discrepancies in witness statements – No connection established between appellant and recovered contraband – High Court acquits appellant giving benefit of doubt. [Paras 1-23]

Identification and Independent Witnesses – Importance of Reliable Identification – Appellant identified by a single police witness with no prior acquaintance – Independent witness not examined, raising doubt on prosecution’s case – High Court holds lack of reliable identification and independent corroboration as crucial in acquitting the appellant. [Paras 18-22]

Evidence Law – Discrepancies in Prosecution Evidence – Material contradictions in statements of prosecution witnesses – Inconsistent testimonies regarding the location and manner of search and recovery – High Court emphasizes need for clear, corroborative evidence in NDPS cases – Benefit of doubt extended to appellant due to these discrepancies. [Paras 21-22]

Decision – Acquittal of Appellant – High Court sets aside conviction and sentence under Section 15(c) of NDPS Act – Orders immediate release of appellant if not required in any other case – Emphasizes strict adherence to evidence standards in criminal cases, especially under NDPS Act. [Para 23]

Service Law – Selection Process – Essential Qualifications – Petition against Tribunal's order setting aside selection of petitioner for Tutor (Bio-Informatics) – Petitioner selected despite not meeting essential qualifications as per advertisement – Tribunal found petitioner did not have required qualifications and set aside selection – High Court held PGIMER erred by considering petitioner's qualification without amending recruitment rules – Essential qualifications must be strictly adhered to – Selection process vitiated due to non-compliance with advertised qualifications – Petition dismissed, selection set aside. [Paras 1-22]

Recruitment Rules – Adherence to Qualifications – Importance of Strict Compliance – PGIMER considered M.Sc. in Bio-Informatics equivalent to advertised qualifications without amending recruitment rules – High Court emphasizes strict adherence to recruitment rules and qualifications mentioned in advertisement – Selecting authority cannot modify or relax qualifications during selection process – Selection of petitioner declared invalid for lacking essential qualifications. [Para 12]

Judicial Review – Arbitrary Selection Process – Tribunal's Jurisdiction – High Court upholds Tribunal's decision – Affirms that unsuccessful candidate can challenge selection if fundamental rules are violated – Tribunal justified in setting aside selection due to non-compliance with essential qualifications – Orders PGIMER to re-conduct selection process within two months. [Para 19]

Decision – Dismissal of Petition – High Court dismisses petition challenging Tribunal's order – Directs PGIMER to re-conduct selection process adhering to prescribed qualifications – Ensures compliance with recruitment rules and fair selection process. [Para 22]

Service Law – Adverse Remarks in ACR – Quashing of Adverse Remarks – Petitioner, a judicial officer, challenged adverse remarks in ACR for 2010-11 and compulsory retirement – Adverse remarks included issues of integrity and conduct – Petitioner argued no material evidence or complaints to support adverse remarks – High Court found adverse remarks inconsistent with positive remarks on judgment quality and work quantity – No complaints substantiating integrity doubts – Adverse remarks quashed – High Court directed to reconsider representation on ACR. [Paras 1-46]

Judicial Review – Procedural Fairness – Recording of Reasons – High Court emphasized need for detailed reasons when rejecting representations against adverse ACR remarks – Noted absence of complaints or material evidence against petitioner – Ordered fresh decision on petitioner’s representation ensuring reasons are recorded – Reaffirmed importance of procedural fairness in administrative decisions affecting service careers. [Paras 39-45]

Decision – Reconsideration of Representation and Compulsory Retirement – High Court quashed adverse remarks in ACR and ordered fresh consideration of representation – Directed to reconsider order of compulsory retirement post ACR decision – Emphasized adherence to principles of natural justice and procedural fairness – Both writ petitions disposed of with directions for timely reconsideration. [Para 46]

Service Law – Disability – Entitlement to Salary and Allowances – Petition challenging order directing payment of salary and allowances to disabled employee – Respondent employee met with accident and became 100% disabled – Petitioner bank declared him disentitled for salary and allowances on “no work, no pay” principle – High Court held that under Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, it is enough that disability was suffered during service, not necessarily during the course of duties – Court emphasized that beneficial legislation cannot be restrictively interpreted – Commissioner under the Act had jurisdiction to try the complaint – Petition dismissed. [Paras 1-11]

Interpretation of Statute – Persons with Disabilities Act – Sections 47 and 62 – Section 47 prohibits dispensation or reduction in rank of an employee acquiring disability during service – Commissioner empowered under Section 62 to address complaints regarding deprivation of rights of disabled persons – High Court clarifies “during service” to include any disability suffered while employed, irrespective of whether it occurred during the performance of duties. [Paras 3-7]

Decision – Dismissal of Petition – Court dismisses petition challenging the order of the Commissioner – Upholds entitlement of the respondent to salary and allowances under Section 47 of the Act – Reiterates the jurisdiction of the Commissioner to adjudicate such matters – Affirms the principles of beneficial interpretation and protection of rights of persons with disabilities. [Paras 10-11]

Service Law – Departmental Actions – Multiple Writ Petitions – Petitioner ASI challenges multiple adverse departmental actions including stoppage of increments, adverse ACR entries, non-promotion, and compulsory retirement – Departmental inquiry exonerated petitioner of bribery charges, but punishing authority disagreed and imposed penalties – High Court finds procedural irregularities and mala fides in actions against petitioner – Orders of punishment and compulsory retirement set aside – Petitioner entitled to consequential benefits and arrears. [Paras 1-25]

Service Law – Punishing Authority’s Powers – Disagreement with Inquiry Officer – Held, punishing authority can differ with inquiry report but cannot collect independent evidence to disagree with findings – Such procedure found illegal and indicative of vindictive motives – Actions based on such disagreement without fair opportunity to petitioner quashed. [Para 15]

Service Law – Adverse ACR Entries – Challenge and Review – Petitioner’s ACR downgraded without notice or hearing – Integrity doubted based on uncorroborated complaints – High Court emphasizes independent assessment and unbiased review of ACR – Orders recording adverse remarks without proper procedure quashed. [Paras 17-19]

Decision – Quashing of Departmental Orders – High Court sets aside orders of punishment, adverse ACR entries, and compulsory retirement – Orders respondents to provide consequential benefits and arrears to petitioner – Emphasizes fairness in departmental proceedings and protection of employees from vindictive actions. [Paras 25-26]

Criminal Procedure – Recalling Witness – Section 311 Cr.P.C. – Petition challenging dismissal of application to recall witness – Trial court dismissed application citing delay – High Court held delay not attributable to petitioner due to later issuance of crucial bank communication – Clarification from Branch Manager essential to resolve material discrepancy – Dismissal of application found to be erroneous – High Court exercises inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to allow recall of witness – Orders of lower courts set aside. [Paras 1-14]

Evidence Law – Essential Witnesses – Application to Recall – High Court emphasizes importance of recalling witness to clarify critical financial error – Branch Manager’s testimony crucial for just decision – Courts must ensure fair trial by permitting rectification of such discrepancies – Exercise of Section 311 Cr.P.C. must be judicious and aimed at discovering truth. [Paras 6-10]

Decision – Quashing of Lower Courts' Orders – High Court quashes orders of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate and Additional Sessions Judge – Allows application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling Branch Manager – Directs trial court to permit re-examination and cross-examination of witness – Reaffirms commitment to fair trial and just resolution. [Para 13-14]

Criminal Law – Pre-arrest Bail – Summoning as Additional Accused – Petition for anticipatory bail by additional accused summoned under Section 193 Cr.P.C. – Petitioners' names figured in FIR but were exonerated in the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. – Trial court found active role and summoned them – High Court held trial court justified in summoning – For anticipatory bail, principles from Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia's case applied – Petitioners summoned for serious offence under Section 302 IPC – Reasonable apprehension of arrest on appearance – Plea for anticipatory bail within available parameters granted. [Paras 1-8]

Criminal Procedure – Summoning of Additional Accused – Section 193 Cr.P.C. empowers court to summon additional accused based on material accompanying Section 173 Cr.P.C. report – Summoning under Section 319 Cr.P.C. requires deposition of prosecution witness – High Court emphasizes no right to anticipatory bail but considers cooperation and non-defiance of law by accused – If additional accused willing to face trial, anticipatory bail can be granted subject to conditions. [Paras 7-8]

Decision – Grant of Anticipatory Bail – Court allows petition for anticipatory bail – Interim bail granted on 29.5.2015 made absolute – Petitioners to comply with conditions under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. – Ensures balance between right to liberty and need for compliance with legal process. [Para 8]