Civil Law - Correction of Date of Birth in Educational Records - Regular Second Appeal against the concurrent findings of fact - Correction of date of birth in matriculation certificate - Held, a student's date of birth can be corrected if proven by valid evidence despite the absence of specific bye-laws allowing such correction - Appeal dismissed - In the present case, the student successfully proved that his correct date of birth was 20.02.2000, contrary to the recorded 13.10.1999. The court held that CBSE's rigid application of its bye-laws without considering valid evidence would cause undue hardship to the student. The CBSE's contention that there was no provision for changing the date of birth once recorded was rejected​​ .

Correction of Records - Absence of Fraud or Misrepresentation - Analysis - Held, in the absence of any allegations of fraud or misrepresentation, the student's date of birth can be corrected to prevent lifelong prejudice - The court emphasized that since there were no claims of fraudulent behavior, the correction was justified to avoid prejudice against the student's future educational and employment opportunities​​ .

Decision - Dismissal of CBSE's Appeal - The court dismissed the second appeal filed by CBSE, affirming the decisions of the trial court and the first appellate court, which had directed the correction of the date of birth in the matriculation certificate. The court found no perversity or illegality in the lower courts' findings​​ .

NDPS Act - Post-Trial Disposal of Confiscated Articles - Sections 60-63 of the NDPS Act - Confiscation of Car - Police took possession of the car without a formal order of confiscation - Notice under Section 60 issued to the registered owner - Mandatory provisions of Sections 60 to 63 not complied with - Special Court erroneously declined to proceed as the trial had concluded - Impugned order set aside - Case remanded for compliance with Sections 60 to 63 - Confiscation order to be passed after hearing the registered owner. [Paras 9-10]

Procedure for Confiscation - Compliance Required - Notice and Hearing - Sections 60-63 mandate procedural steps for confiscation - Special Court failed to issue a formal confiscation order despite notice - Proper procedure involves notice, hearing, and determining the owner’s knowledge or connivance - Remand to trial court for due process. [Para 10]

Decision - Setting Aside Impugned Order - Case Remanded - Special Court's order set aside - Remand with direction for trial court to proceed with confiscation after compliance with Sections 60-63 - Notice to appellant and hearing on knowledge/connivance required - Expedited decision within six months directed. [Paras 10-12]

Criminal Proceedings – Quashing – Cheating and Criminal Breach of Trust – Dispute of non-payment of bills under a contract – Allegations of issuing dishonored cheques – High Court quashes entire criminal proceedings including order taking cognizance, finding the dispute to be primarily civil in nature. [Para 10-11]

Intention to Cheat – Importance of intention in cases of cheating – No cheating if intention to deceive is not present from the beginning – Payment made through RTGS suggests absence of initial intent to cheat – Relevance of subsequent conduct in determining intention. [Para 10]

Negotiable Instruments Act – Dishonored Cheques – Reference to Section 138 for dishonored cheques – Complaint made under IPC sections 406, 420 instead of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act – Inherent power of High Court to quash criminal proceedings when dispute is essentially civil. [Para 10-11]

Judicial Discretion – High Court’s power under Section 482 CrPC – High Court’s discretion to quash proceedings to prevent abuse of legal process and ensure justice – Consideration of overall circumstances and motive behind the initiation of criminal proceedings. [Para 10-11]

Civil Nature of Dispute – Recognition of disputes as civil rather than criminal – Emphasis on the nature of the dispute being related to payment under a contract – High Court’s observation on misuse of criminal justice system for personal vengeance or civil disputes. [Para 13-14]

Decision – Quashing of Entire Criminal Proceeding – High Court exercised its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C – Noted that any civil proceedings may continue unaffected by this order. [Para 11]

VAT Law - Imposition of Penalty - Non-disclosure of Invoices - Appeal Against VAT Tribunal's Decision - Physical Verification of Goods - Requirement of Documentation - Section 51 of the Punjab VAT Act, 2005 - Held: The driver was not required to know the specifics of the supply order but only to provide necessary documents showing the supply order and GRs. Absence of any intent to evade tax was established - VAT appeal allowed, penalty set aside. [Paras 1-16]

Role of the Driver - Held: The driver is not expected to know or furnish detailed information about the supply order. It is sufficient to produce the necessary documents demonstrating the supply order and the issuance of GRs. No attempt to evade tax was found as all documents were eventually produced. [Para 15]

Decision - VAT Appeal Allowed - Imposition of Penalty Set Aside - The penalty imposed under Section 51(7)(c) of the Punjab VAT Act, 2005, is set aside as the driver had produced the required documents at the ICC and there was no attempt to evade tax. The appeal is allowed, and the tribunal's order is overturned. [Para 16]

Criminal Law – Conviction Appeal – Eyewitness vs. Medical Evidence – Appeal against conviction under Sections 302, 120-B, 149 IPC – Murder as revenge over property dispute – Eyewitness account given precedence over medical contradictions – Minimal discrepancies in eyewitness statements deemed insignificant – Conviction upheld. [Paras 1-26]

Property Dispute – Motive for Murder – Held – Longstanding property dispute established motive for the murder – Appellants’ threats corroborated by witnesses – Property dispute context considered crucial for establishing motive. [Para 6]

Eyewitness Credibility – Consistency and Corroboration – Held – Eyewitness accounts consistent with material facts – Eyewitnesses' presence at the scene corroborated by circumstances – Slight variations in statements not impacting overall credibility – Conviction based on credible eyewitness testimony. [Para 26]

Medical Evidence – Supporting Eyewitness Testimony – Held – Medical evidence corroborated injuries consistent with eyewitness accounts – Contradictions between medical and eyewitness evidence minor – Priority given to consistent and corroborative eyewitness testimony. [Para 22-24]

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Conviction and sentence of life imprisonment upheld – Acquittal of one accused also upheld – Appellants to surrender for remaining sentence – No merit in appeals, pending applications disposed of. [Paras 27-30]

Land Law - Validity of Notice - Demarcation - Natural Justice-Validity of Notice - Demarcation Requirement – Civil writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 challenging a notice issued under Section 24(1) of the Haryana Gram Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 – Held: For a notice to be valid under Section 24(1), a prior valid demarcation of the concerned site by a competent Revenue Officer is required. The absence of such demarcation renders the notice invalid. [Paras 2, 11]

Natural Justice - Service of Notice – Analysis – Held: The notice must be validly served upon all respondents to ensure compliance with the principles of natural justice. Non-service of the notice to any respondent results in the proceedings being vitiated due to the breach of natural justice principles. [Paras 3, 9]

Summary Proceedings vs. Fully Contested Proceedings – Consideration – Held: Proceedings under Section 24 of the Haryana Gram Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, are summary in nature. In cases requiring extensive evidence regarding the inclusion of land within the Gram Panchayat, recourse should be taken to fully contested proceedings under Sections 7 or 11 of the Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, before the Collector. [Paras 10, 14]

Land Law - Eviction - Evidence of Ownership and Possession – Held, the Gram Panchayat failed to establish through relevant revenue entries that the disputed land belonged to it. The authorities below did not call for cogent evidence of valid possession by the Gram Panchayat, leading to arbitrary and slipshod eviction orders. The impugned orders are quashed, and the petition is accepted. [Paras 1-6]

Interim Injunction - Demarcation Report – Held, the Civil Judge granted interim injunction to the petitioners based on a demarcation report indicating no encroachment by the petitioners. Despite an appeal against this order, the authorities proceeded with eviction without independent demarcation or proving the report per law. [Para 6]

Decision - Quashing of Eviction Orders – The writ petition is accepted, and the concurrent eviction orders by the District Divisional and Panchayat Officer-cum-Collector, Hoshiarpur, and the Director, Rural Development and Panchayat Department, Punjab, are quashed. Future enforcement depends on any adverse binding conclusion by the Civil Court. [Paras 7-8]

Writ Jurisdiction - Availability of Alternative Remedy – Held, where a statutory remedy is provided, the Writ Court should not exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction. The learned Single Judge erred in entertaining the writ petition without relegating the petitioner to the alternative remedy available under the statutory provisions. [Para 10]

Non-impleadment of Necessary Parties - Impact on Proceedings – Held, the appellants were not made parties to the writ petition, yet directions were issued affecting their rights. This procedural lapse is another ground for setting aside the order. [Para 11]

Decision - Appeal Allowed – The appeal is allowed, and the impugned order dated 21.06.2016 is set aside. Respondent No.8 is directed to avail the alternative remedy within three months from the receipt of the certified copy of this order. [Para 13]

Negotiable Instruments Act - Premature Complaint - Section 138, Proviso Clause (c) & Section 142(b) - Complaint filed 12 days after notice - Mandatory 15 days not expired - Complaint not maintainable being premature - Appeal dismissed. [Para 12]

Dishonour of Cheque - Rebuttal of Presumption under Section 139 - Acquittal - Testimony of attesting witness and expert report confirmed signatures of complainant on receipt acknowledging repayment - Complainant failed to prove cheque was issued for legally recoverable debt - No infirmity in acquittal order - Appeal against acquittal dismissed. [Paras 9-11]

Decision - Dismissal of Appeal - Special leave to appeal denied - Court finds no perversity or infirmity in trial court's judgment - Appeal dismissed. [Paras 14-15]