Cheque Dishonour – Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act – Appeal against acquittal of the first respondent for dishonour of a cheque worth Rs. 50,000 due to alleged insufficiency of funds – Trial court acquitted the respondent, leading to this appeal. [Paras 1, 4]

Evidence and Witness Testimonies – Appellant, examined as PW1, submitted evidence including the dishonoured cheque (Ext.P1), cheque return memo (Ext.P2), and demand notice (Ext.P5) – First respondent did not produce any evidence, relying on total denial during examination under Section 313(1)(b) of the Code. [Paras 4-5]

Findings of the Trial Court – Trial court found insufficient evidence to prove cheque dishonour due to insufficient funds in the respondent's account – The return memo indicated 'referred to drawer' as the reason for dishonour, not explicitly stating insufficiency of funds. [Paras 5-6]

Reliance on Apex Court Decisions – Cited Laxmi Dyechem v. State of Gujarat and Rajan v. Sharafudheen to argue that prosecution under Section 138 NI Act is possible even if the cheque return reason is not explicitly insufficiency of funds – However, these cases also emphasize the necessity to prove insufficiency of funds as a fact. [Para 7]

Lack of Sufficient Evidence – Appellant's failure to prove that the cheque was dishonoured due to insufficient funds – No bank official was examined, nor were bank documents evidencing insufficiency of funds presented. [Para 8]

Appellate Court’s Powers in Acquittal Appeals – While appellate court’s powers are extensive, it should not disturb the trial court’s verdict if it is reasonable and supported by evidence – Referencing Chandrappa and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and other cases. [Para 10]

Decision – Appeal dismissed due to lack of evidence to contradict the trial court's reasonable findings – The acquittal of the first respondent by the trial court upheld. [Paras 9-10]

Matrimonial Law - Maintenance Petition for Children – Filed by Keerthana against her father, R. Ochappan, under Section 125 Cr.P.C. – Seeking maintenance for herself and her minor brother after their parents' divorce – Maintenance initially denied by trial court, later granted by revisional court under Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. [Paras 2, 3.1, 3.3]

Dismissal by Trial Court – Petition dismissed due to the minor brother being represented by his sister, Keerthana, who was not considered a natural guardian – Trial court’s decision based on procedural grounds, not addressing maintenance merits. [Para 3.2]

Revisional Court’s Decision – Allowed the petition recognizing the right of Keerthana to file for maintenance on behalf of her minor brother – Granted monthly maintenance of Rs.7,500 to Keerthana (until her marriage) and Rs.5,000 to her brother (till he attained majority). [Para 3.3]

High Court’s Analysis – Upheld the revisional court’s decision – Emphasized the social welfare nature of Section 125 Cr.P.C., aiming to prevent vagrancy and destitution – Cited various Supreme Court decisions to support the interpretation of Section 125 Cr.P.C. as a tool for social justice. [Paras 4, 5, 5.1-5.7]

Right to Maintenance for Minor Brother – High Court found no legal barrier for Keerthana to file the maintenance petition on behalf of her minor brother – Supported the proactive approach of the revisional court in granting maintenance. [Para 6]

Challenge on Salary Grounds – Petitioner’s claim of lower salary (Rs.43,000) as a ground to reduce maintenance rejected, considering the current cost of living. [Para 7]

Decision: The criminal revision case dismissed, confirming the maintenance order passed by the revisional court. [Para 8]

Quashing of Complaint and Summoning Order – Section 482 of Cr.P.C. – Petitioners, former employees of financial institutions, sought quashing of complaint and summoning order for charges under Section 58A(10) of the Companies Act, 1956, related to non-repayment of deposits by Euro Cotspin Limited. [Para 1]

Facts and Background – Euro Cotspin Limited failed to repay deposits as per Company Law Board's order. Petitioners, as nominee directors, argued non-liability for the company's failure and non-involvement in day-to-day affairs. A similar case (Lok Manya Negi) referenced for parity in relief. [Paras 2-4]

Legal Argument and Precedents – Nominee directors' limited role and lack of involvement in daily company operations highlighted. Protection under Section 41-A of the State Financial Corporation Act emphasized, citing precedent (S.K. Sharma Vs. Registrar of Companies) for non-liability of nominee directors. [Paras 4, 6]

Decision – Complaint and summoning order against petitioners quashed. The court held that nominee directors are not liable for company defaults and are protected under Section 41-A of the State Financial Corporation Act. [Paras 6-8]

Cancellation of Appointment Letter Challenged – Petitioner's appointment in ITBP cancelled after disclosing past criminal case involvement, despite acquittal – Ministry of Home Affairs guidelines cited for cancellation – Issue of whether acquittal on benefit of doubt bars appointment in armed forces. [Paras 1-3, 5, 7, 19]

Legal Principles on Acquittal and Employment – Supreme Court precedents (Avtar Singh v. Union of India, Satish Chandra Yadav v. Union of India) considered – Assessment of acquittal nature, especially on benefit of doubt, in public employment – Application of guidelines for appointment in sensitive roles like ITBP. [Paras 8-10, 14-15, 17-18]

Judgment's Analysis of Petitioner's Acquittal – Trial Court's finding that prosecution failed to prove minor age of alleged victim under POCSO Act – Petitioner's acquittal based on lack of evidence and non-supportive testimonies of alleged victim and her mother. [Paras 16-17]

High Court's Decision – Quashing the cancellation of appointment letter – Direction to reconsider petitioner's case for appointment in ITBP – Emphasis on thorough examination of petitioner's case and antecedents, considering his acquittal and honest disclosure. [Paras 21-22]

Common Issue and Petitioners' Background – Consolidation of three petitions with similar issues – Petitioners, former apprentices under the 1961 Act with National Fertilizers Limited, sought regular employment based on their training completion from 1999 to 2001 and a 2018 job advertisement – Petitioners lacked the required B.Sc. or Engineering diploma qualifications for the advertised posts [Para 1-3].

Petitioners' Argument – Cited Supreme Court's judgment, emphasizing the duty of employers to prefer trained apprentices over direct recruits – Alleged intentional exclusion by the respondent in setting qualifications for advertised posts – Petitioners expressed willingness to work in any capacity, including as laborers [Para 4].

Respondents' Counterargument – Pointed to Section 22 of the 1961 Act, highlighting no obligation to employ apprentices post-training – Respondents had relaxed age criteria but maintained educational qualifications due to a policy decision favoring B.Sc./Diploma holders for specific roles [Para 5].

Court's Analysis – Noted a 17-year gap between apprenticeship completion and job advertisement – Acknowledged respondents' policy changes and shifting technological demands – Recognized respondents' decision to prioritize specific qualifications and reduce manual labor roles [Para 6-8].

Applicability of Section 22, 1961 Act – Clarified that employment of apprentices post-training is not mandatory under the Act – No condition in the contract between parties obligated the employer to offer employment post-apprenticeship [Para 9-10].

Petitioners' Delay and Acquiescence – Lack of employment claim from 2001 to 2018 indicated petitioners' acquiescence to their release post-apprenticeship – The Court cannot mandate employers to alter qualification criteria, as it falls within the employer's discretion [Para 11].

Court's Interpretation of Supreme Court Judgment – The Apex Court's judgment does not entail mandatory employment for apprentices in every case – Employers are not required to tailor eligibility criteria to suit apprentices – Section 22 of the 1961 Act is explicit in not obliging employers to provide employment post-apprenticeship [Para 11-12].

Decision:

The petitions were dismissed due to lack of merit, with any pending applications also disposed of – However, the dismissal does not prevent the respondent-organization from considering the petitioners for employment in the future if they meet the required criteria [Paras 12-14].

Petition Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Quashing of criminal complaint No. 489 dated 25.01.2012 filed against the petitioner involving various charges under IPC, along with the summoning order dated 20.07.2012 and revision order dated 29.10.2015 – Complaint pertains to the alleged forced eviction and theft from a shop in PGIMS, Rohtak. [Para 1]

Allegations and Response – Complainant alleged forced eviction and theft of goods worth Rs.80/90 lacs by the petitioner and others – Petitioner, as Estate Officer, acted under orders of competent authority – Compliance with lawful procedures for eviction emphasized. [Para 2, 4]

Comparison with Co-accused – Petitioner's case paralleled with co-accused whose complaints were previously quashed by the Court in separate petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C., highlighting similar grounds and circumstances. [Para 3]

Need for Sanction Under Section 197 Cr.P.C. – Emphasis on requirement of sanction before prosecuting a public servant – Petitioner's actions considered within official capacity and in good faith – Reference to prior judgments underscoring the necessity of sanction for legal proceedings against public servants. [Para 4, 5]

Quashing of Proceedings – Court finds complaint, summoning order, and revision order against the petitioner to be quashed, aligning with decisions in similar cases involving co-accused – Recognition of petitioner’s compliance with official duties and absence of malice in actions. [Para 6]

Criminal Law - Arrest and Detention - Illegality and Non-Compliance with Statutory Provisions - The High Court of Bombay examined the legality of the arrest and detention of the petitioners, Chanda Deepak Kochhar and Deepak Virendra Kochhar, under the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), in light of the statutory requirements of Sections 41, 41-A, and 60-A, and constitutional protections. The Court scrutinized the arrest memos and the procedure followed by the investigating agency, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), in arresting the petitioners. [Para 8-8.26]

Application of Section 41 and Section 41-A Cr.P.C. - Held - The Court observed a significant departure from the compliance of Sections 41, 41-A, and 60-A of Cr.P.C. in the arrest of the petitioners. The arrest reasons, as stated in the arrest memos, did not satisfy the necessary conditions under these sections, leading to a conclusion that the arrests were not in accordance with the law. [Para 8.11-8.14, 8.18-8.22]

Right to Personal Liberty and Protection from Arbitrary Arrest - Reinforced - The High Court emphasized the importance of personal liberty and the need to protect individuals from arbitrary arrest. It was held that the mere ability to arrest does not justify the act of arrest without proper legal basis and adherence to procedural safeguards. [Para 8.23]

Decision - Grant of Bail - In view of the non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of the Cr.P.C. and the directions of the Supreme Court, the Court held that the petitioners' arrests were illegal. Consequently, the Court ordered the release of the petitioners on interim bail, setting specific conditions for their release. [Para 9]

Bail Application – Allegation of Assault – Petitioner accused of participating in an assault with other co-accused, giving lalkara and kick blows – FIR No.70 under Sections 307, 323, 324, 506, 148, 149 IPC – Co-accused granted bail in related cases. [Paras 1-3]

Legal Principles for Bail – Citing "State of Rajasthan V. Balchand alias Baliay", 1977 AIR 2447, and "Nikesh Tarachand Shah V. Union of India", (2018) 11 SCC 1 – Emphasis on bail as a rule and jail as an exception, presumption of innocence, and the right to speedy trial. [Paras 5-7]

Petitioner's Incarceration – Faced incarceration for 10 months and 3 days – Co-accused who inflicted more serious injuries already granted bail. [Paras 4, 10]

Final Order – Petitioner granted bail based on the principle of parity and the nature of the allegations – Directed to furnish bail and surety bond to the satisfaction of the concerned court. [Para 11]

Conditions and Future Conduct – Warning against involvement in similar offences in the future – State's liberty to seek cancellation of bail in case of repeat offences. [Para 12]

Civil Suit – Grant of conditional leave to defend – Defendant challenges the Trial Court’s order granting conditional leave to defend – Defendant disputes financial transactions and execution of handwritten undertaking – Defendant failed to comply with the Trial Court’s directions and delayed approaching the Court – Defendant’s conduct indicates an intent to protract legal proceedings – Plaintiff relied on dishonored cheques and handwritten undertaking – Defendant’s defense of issuing blank cheques without consideration is weak – Defendant’s admission of signatures on the undertaking while disputing its contents – Trial Court’s discretion to impose conditions for leave to defend – Interference with discretionary order under Article 227 requires a showing of patently erroneous exercise of discretion – Defendant failed to make a case for interference – Petition dismissed.