Pension Dispute – Excess Payment Recovery – Challenged through Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus – Petitioner challenged government order demanding recovery of excess pension payments alleging no opportunity for representation was given and asserting recovery as arbitrary due to lack of any misrepresentation or fault on part of the pensioner – High Court set aside recovery order for being unjust, arbitrary, and violating principles of natural justice – Directed reinstatement of full pension benefits to the petitioner’s wife and refund of any amounts wrongly deducted. [Paras 1-19]

Due Process Violation – Principles of Natural Justice – Recovery order issued without prior notice to the petitioner – No opportunity provided for the petitioner to explain or contest the alleged overpayment – Recovery actions against retired employees, especially after long periods, deemed unjust and arbitrary – Court applied precedent from Rafiq Masih case to hold recovery impermissible in the absence of misrepresentation or fraud by the pensioner [Paras 10, 12-15].

Retrospective Pension Recovery – Held, impermissible under law after significant lapse of time post-retirement and without any fault on the pensioner’s part – Referenced Hon’ble Apex Court decision in Rafiq Masih (White Washer) – Recovery attempt post ten years of retirement termed unjustified and recovery order quashed. [Paras 14-17]

Decision – Writ Petitions Allowed - Relief Granted – Impugned order set aside – Directions issued to respondents to resume payment of family pension to petitioner and return any recovered amounts within six weeks – Court’s decision reinforces protection of retired employees from undue financial recovery actions [Paras 19-20].

Criminal Law - Kidnapping and wrongful confinement - Appeal against acquittal - State challenges the acquittal of respondents charged under Section 364 IPC for allegedly abducting and confining the complainant by tying him with ropes - Trial court acquitted based on discrepancies and inconsistencies in witness testimonies and lack of corroborative evidence - High Court reviewed the entire evidence, upheld trial court's judgment of acquittal, noting significant variations in witnesses' accounts, including the medical evidence which did not corroborate the alleged severity of confinement or assault - Medical evidence presented only showed minor abrasions, inconsistent with the claims of being tied and assaulted - No other independent witness from a busy thoroughfare area corroborated the incident - Appeals Court held that minor discrepancies in witness accounts, and the unconvincing nature of the evidence presented, do not meet the standard of proof required to overturn an acquittal [Paras 1-19].

Departmental Action - Forfeiture of Approved Service – Regular Second Appeal against lower court's decree upholding cancellation of one year’s approved service permanently – Original action initiated due to alleged negligence in duty by the respondent, then a Head Constable in Punjab Armed Police – Inquiry conducted, respondent found guilty, punishment imposed without considering respondent's reply – Both trial and appellate courts decreed against the appellants, holding that permanent forfeiture not provided under Punjab Police Rules, 1934, Rule 16.5, affecting pension and seniority rights adversely - Held, permanent forfeiture of service not permissible under the Rules – Concurrent findings by lower courts not perverse or illegal – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-14].

Interpretation of Rules – Rule 16.5 of Punjab Police Rules scrutinized – Specifies withholding increments and temporary or permanent stoppage of approved service but does not expressly permit permanent forfeiture affecting seniority and pension benefits – Reliance placed on Harminder Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others: 2014(1) S.C.T. 16 and earlier precedents to conclude lack of provision for such permanent penalty under the rules [Para 10].

Decision: Appeal dismissed - No substantial question of law arises - Permanent forfeiture of approved service not permissible under Punjab Police Rules.

Review Jurisdiction – Maintainability – Application filed against remand order which had already been executed by the trial court – Held, review application maintainable despite execution of remand order and subsequent appeal, as procedural status does not negate the intrinsic right to seek review – The court disagrees with objections to maintainability raised by the respondent [Paras 5-12].

Review Jurisdiction – Merits – Claim of error apparent on record relating to misinterpretation of “prior user” and claims of material concealment by respondent – Court finds no such error apparent on the record justifying a review – Reiterates that review is not an appeal in disguise and is meant for patent errors only – Review application dismissed on merits [Paras 13-24]

Order: The application for review is held to be maintainable but dismissed on the merits, with all contentions left open for argument in the connected appeal (First Appeal From Order No. 411 of 2024).

Quashing of Order under Section 207 Cr.P.C. - Petitioner sought quashing of order that denied supply of documents listed as 'unrelied upon' by CBI in the seizure memo (D/5) - Supreme Court earlier ordered the provision of materials supplied to the deceased's family to the petitioner - Court findings highlighted that materials provided to the petitioner included all 'relied upon' documents, and those supplied to the family of the deceased as per Supreme Court’s direction - Documents sought by petitioner, listed under Sr. No. 6(a) and 6(b) of the seizure memo, not relied upon by prosecution nor included in materials provided to the family of the deceased - Petitioner's entitlement under Section 207 limited to 'relied upon' documents - Petition for unfettered access to case diaries denied due to statutory restrictions under Section 172(3) Cr.P.C. - Court concluded no prejudice to the petitioner as all relied upon documents were provided - Petition dismissed. [Paras 1-12]

Criminal Law - Bail Application - Petitioner seeks bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for FIR No. 417 registered under IPC Sections 302 and 34 after deletion of IPC Sections 147, 148, 149 - Petitioner implicated based on a confessional statement and not named initially in the FIR - Key witnesses, including the complainant and deceased's son, turned hostile and did not support the prosecution's case - Circumstantial evidence with no motive demonstrated against petitioner - Bail granted considering the petitioner’s clean antecedents, absence of criminal history, and the improbability of influencing remaining witnesses - Hostility of key witnesses and absence of direct evidence highlighted - Court emphasizes that observations are not an opinion on the merits of the case. Bail Allowed. [Paras 1-5]

Delay in Filing Revision – Criminal Revision filed 275 days late due to reasons stated in an affidavit and condoned based on mutual consent of parties – Crl. Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 01 of 2024 allowed. [Para 3]

Bigamy Allegations – Revisionist, accused of solemnizing a second marriage without divorce from the first spouse, presents evidence of long separation and subsequent divorce from the first husband prior to the second marriage – Contests the validity of the second marriage and absence of essential rites like ‘Saptapadi’ as required under Hindu Marriage Act. [Paras 4-6, 11-12]

Legal Assessment – Court finds no evidence of ‘Saptapadi’ or valid solemnization in the second marriage – Essential elements to establish a valid marriage under Section 494 IPC missing, thus no prima facie case against the revisionist. [Para 12]

Application of Legal Precedents – References to Supreme Court rulings on quashing proceedings when the chances of conviction are bleak or the prosecution appears to be malafide – The inherent power of the court highlighted to prevent misuse of legal process and to ensure justice. [Paras 14, 15, 18-19]

Decision – Quashing of Summoning Order – Court quashes the summoning order relating to bigamy charges under Section 494 IPC against the revisionist due to lack of evidence on valid marriage solemnization, though proceedings for other charges under Sections 504, 506 IPC to continue. [Paras 20-21]

Abetment of Suicide – Revision against charges under Section 305 IPC – Analysis of the legal and factual circumstances surrounding the alleged abetment of suicide by a teacher accused of harassing a student leading to the latter’s suicide – Held – No evidence of specific acts of harassment or intentional inducement by the teacher that could have led the student to commit suicide – Order and charge-sheet quashed based on lack of evidence of abetment. [Paras 2-17]

Role of Teacher and Student Interaction – Scrutiny of interactions between the accused teacher and the deceased student – Examination of school committee findings and absence of specific allegations of harassment in suicide note – Held – Actions of the teacher within normal disciplinary bounds; no direct or indirect acts to support claims of abetment to suicide. [Paras 5-14, 16]

Judicial Precedents on Abetment of Suicide – Discussion of case law concerning abetment of suicide and its applicability to the case at hand – Reference to Supreme Court and High Court rulings that delineate the boundaries of abetment under IPC sections – Held – Current allegations and evidence do not meet the required legal threshold for abetment of suicide. [Paras 10-13, 17]

Order – Quashing of Charge and Discharge of Petitioner – Court sets aside the impugned order and charge-sheet against the petitioner, discharging him from the accusations based on insufficiency of evidence pointing to abetment of suicide. [Para 17]

Criminal Procedure - Section 207 Cr.P.C. - Access to Documents - Petitioner, accused in a criminal matter, contests the non-disclosure of certain documents listed in the seizure memo which the CBI has classified as ‘unrelied upon’ and hence not provided to her - Court clarifies that Section 207 Cr.P.C. mandates the supply to the accused only those documents/materials 'relied upon' by the prosecution - Documents classified as ‘unrelied upon’ can be sought under Section 91 Cr.P.C. during trial but not at the stage of framing of charges [Paras 6, 8-10].

Investigation Documents - Section 172(3) Cr.P.C. prohibits disclosure of police case diaries to the accused - Court upholds statutory restriction, denying petitioner’s request for access to case diaries from the initial police investigation and supervision notes, emphasizing the safeguarding of informants and integrity of the investigation process - Right to inspect such documents under specific sections of the Evidence Act recognized but restricted by Cr.P.C. [Paras 11-12].

Fair Trial - Supreme Court’s directive interpreted to ensure fair trial rights by requiring disclosure of 'relied upon' materials and a list of 'unrelied upon' materials to the accused, enhancing transparency but not mandating provision of all seized items at the pre-trial stage [Para 7].

Decision: The Court dismissed the petition, confirming the order of the CBI Court which ruled that only documents 'relied upon' by the prosecution need to be furnished to the accused under Section 207 Cr.P.C. - Unrelied upon documents remain undisclosed at this stage [Para 12].