Constitutional Law - Equality before Law - Letters Patent Appeal - Appointment of Conductors - Article 14 of the Constitution of India - Petitioners were higher in merit than others who were appointed - Held, it is iniquitous to deny relief to the writ petitioners when similar relief was granted to other candidates lower in merit. The State did not have a license to act in an arbitrary manner. The order of the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any infirmity. Appeal dismissed. [Paras 12-16]

Appointment of Conductors - Merit List - Additional Appointments - Held, the State had operated the waitlist and granted appointments to persons lower in merit. The writ petitioners who were higher in merit are entitled for appointment which was rightly directed by the learned Single Judge. [Paras 16-17]

Decision - Dismissal of Letters Patent Appeal - Court dismisses the appeal, upholding the order of the learned Single Judge directing the appointment of the writ petitioners as Conductors based on their merit in the waitlist. [Para 17]

Civil Procedure – Ex-parte Decree – Service of Summons – Revision Petition – Application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC dismissed – Ex-parte decree in suit for recovery – Service not proved – Reports by Process Server not witnessed by any independent person – Court failed to record satisfaction regarding service – Opportunity to lead evidence should have been given to petitioner – Petition allowed, application restored to be decided afresh. [Para 1-3, 7-9, 13, 15-16, 20-23]

Presumption of Service – Analysis – Doctrine of natural justice requires no person to be condemned unheard – Report of refusal must be witnessed by an independent person – Court must record satisfaction of service before proceeding ex-parte – In absence of such satisfaction, ex-parte proceedings not sustainable – Opportunity to rebut presumption of deemed service must be given. [Para 11, 13-14, 19]

Decision – Application for Setting Aside Ex-parte Decree – Application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to be reconsidered – Trial court to frame issues and provide opportunity to petitioner to lead evidence – Impugned orders set aside – Parties directed to appear before trial court. [Para 22-24]

Criminal Law - Murder - Last Seen Theory - Appeal against conviction - Appellants convicted of murder based on the last seen theory, corroborative evidence from fingerprints, foot track moulds, and DNA matches - Held, last seen theory gains immense vigor when corroborated by credible witness testimony and expert reports - Conviction upheld. [Paras 10-12, 27, 31]

Identification and Corroboration - Analysis - Held, in a circumstantial evidence case, credible witness testimony combined with expert evidence on fingerprints and DNA strongly supports the prosecution's case - No need for a test identification parade if the accused are identified in court and not effectively cross-examined on their identity. [Para 36(1)]

Disclosure Statements and Recoveries - Significance - Analysis - Held, recoveries made pursuant to disclosure statements, when not proven to be false or planted, add significant probative value to the prosecution's case - Expert reports on fingerprints and DNA further corroborate the disclosures. [Paras 16-19, 24-25]

Foot Track Moulds - Expert Matching - Analysis - Held, expert matching of foot track moulds with footwear of the accused establishes their presence at the crime site - Even if moulds do not match for one accused, other corroborative evidence maintains the prosecution's case integrity. [Para 36(2)]

Decision - Affirmation of Conviction and Sentence - High Court dismisses the appeal, upholding the trial court's conviction and sentencing - Orders immediate execution of sentence for convicts on bail. [Paras 37-39]

Criminal Law - Common Object - Group Armed with Weapons - Appeals against conviction under Sections 148, 307, 307/149, 323, 323/149, 324, and 324/149 IPC - Group armed with weapons causing injuries - Medical evidence supported multiple injuries - Common object inferred from prior assembly and armed presence - Conviction upheld, but some appellants given benefit of the doubt due to lack of specific injury attribution. [Paras 28, 41]

Common Object and Weapon Use - Analysis - Held, presence of accused with weapons and causing injuries suggests prior common object - No need for specific injury attribution to each accused if group acted with common intent - Injury caused by individual knife blows attributed to specific accused only. [Paras 24-25]

Compensation to Victims - Analysis - Held, compensation awarded considering injuries suffered by complainant and others - Appellants directed to deposit compensation amounts - Distribution to injured parties after issuance of notices. [Paras 41]

Decision - Conviction and Sentence Upheld with Modifications - Appeals partly allowed - Conviction of main appellants upheld, but sentences modified to time already served - Compensation ordered - Two appellants acquitted due to lack of evidence. [Paras 34-42]

Right to Travel Abroad - Issuance of LOC - Writ petition challenging the LOC issued against the petitioner by the Bureau of Immigration at the instance of UCO Bank - Held, right to travel abroad flows from Article 21 of the Constitution, and a high threshold is required to deny this right - LOC cannot be issued merely on the grounds of being a willful defaulter without any cognizable offence - Petition allowed. [Paras 36, 40-43]

Grounds for Issuing LOC - Analysis - Held, LOC can be issued for committing cognizable offences where the accused deliberately evades arrest or does not appear before the trial courts despite non-bailable warrants - Mere non-payment of loan dues does not meet the high threshold required to curtail the fundamental right to travel abroad - Petitioner not involved in any criminal case and no FIR registered against him. [Para 36, 41]

Decision - Quashing of LOC - High Court quashes the LOC issued against the petitioner and permits him to travel abroad for two months - Orders the expunging of any remarks/endorsement related to the LOC from the petitioner's passport - Petition allowed with conditions for the petitioner to deposit a FDR/TDR of Rs. 10 lakhs valid for one year. [Paras 45-46]

Criminal Procedure - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act - Amendment and Cognizance - Petition against the summoning order issued by Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act - Held, the amendment to the Act effective from 26.01.2016 confers additional powers to the Special Court to take cognizance directly - Pre-amendment provisions applicable to the complaint since the occurrence pertained to a period before the amendment - Cognizance taken by the Magistrate after the amendment does not vitiate the proceedings - Petition dismissed. [Paras 13, 22, 23]

Application of Pre-Amendment and Post-Amendment Law - Analysis - Held, the amended Act does not have retrospective effect - For offences committed prior to the amendment, pre-amendment provisions apply - The Special Court rightly remitted the case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, who took cognizance correctly as per applicable law. [Para 22]

Decision - Dismissal of Petition - High Court dismisses the petition, upholding the cognizance taken by the Magistrate post-amendment as valid - The proceedings are not vitiated by the amendment's provisions. [Paras 23-24]

Criminal Law - Conviction and Sentencing - Identification Parade - Appeal against conviction under Section 302 IPC - Appellants argued lack of identification parade vitiated the trial - Held, identification in court by eyewitnesses, supported by corroborative evidence (weapon recovery, post-mortem report, FSL report) sufficient - No need for separate identification parade - Appeal dismissed. [Paras 15-17, 27]

Eyewitness Testimony and Corroborative Evidence - Analysis - Held, testimonies of PW-4 and PW-6 consistent and credible - Recovery of weapon and medical evidence aligned with witness accounts - Prosecution's case established beyond reasonable doubt despite absence of test identification parade - Convictions upheld. [Paras 15-17]

Decision - Dismissal of Appeal - High Court finds no merit in the appeal - Convictions and sentences upheld - Appellants to serve remaining sentences - No grounds for interference with trial court's judgment. [Para 28]

Criminal Procedure - Transfer of Case - Convenience of Wife – Held, it is well settled that the convenience of the wife is paramount in considering the transfer of cases. The petitioner, having no independent source of income and a minor school-going daughter, faces difficulty in attending court proceedings at Ropar, 80 km from Ludhiana. The petition is allowed, and the criminal complaint is transferred to Ludhiana. [Paras 1-9]

Consideration of Wife's Convenience – Analysis – Held, the convenience of the wife must be prioritized, especially when she has a minor child and no independent income. The respondent, a serving constable in Punjab Police, filed a criminal complaint in Ropar to harass the petitioner. Transfer of the case to Ludhiana, where the petitioner resides, is justified to ensure she can attend court proceedings without undue hardship. [Para 7]

Decision - Transfer of Criminal Complaint – The court directs the transfer of Criminal Complaint No. 288/5.9.2012 pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ropar to a court of competent jurisdiction in Ludhiana. The trial court at Ropar is instructed to send the complete record to the District Judge, Ludhiana, within two weeks. [Para 9]

Civil Law - Presumption of Truthfulness in Revenue Records – Appeal against the First Appellate Court's judgment – Plaintiff-respondent's suit for permanent injunction was initially dismissed by the Trial Court, but decreed by the First Appellate Court on the basis of presumption attached to jamabandi entries – High Court found that presumption of correctness attached to the revenue entries was rebutted by orders from revenue authorities (Ex.D1 and Ex.D3) – Held, the First Appellate Court erred in law by disbelieving the orders of the revenue authorities – Second appeal allowed, and the suit dismissed. [Paras 1-12]

Correction of Revenue Records – Analysis – Held – Defendants successfully rebutted the presumption attached to revenue records by obtaining orders from revenue authorities correcting the girdawari entries – Revenue authorities' orders indicated that defendants were in possession of the disputed land – First Appellate Court's reliance on the presumption in favor of plaintiff was misplaced as it failed to acknowledge the binding nature of the revenue authorities' orders. [Para 11]

Decision – Restoration of Trial Court’s Judgment – The High Court restored the Trial Court’s judgment dismissing the plaintiff's suit and set aside the First Appellate Court’s judgment – Plaintiff’s claim of possession based on revenue records was effectively rebutted by subsequent administrative orders favoring the defendants – Appeal allowed with costs. [Para 12]