1. The appeal is directed against judgment dated 15.02.2017 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Janjgir, Distt. Janjgir Champa, (CG) in Special Session Trial No.02/2016 wherein the said Court convicted appellant for commission of offence under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short 'the Act 2012') and under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.8000/- and RI for 2 02 years and to pay fine of 2000/- respectively with default stipulation.

2. In the present case prosecutrix is PW-5. As per the version of the prosecution, the prosecutrix is minor and the appellant committed sexual intercourse with her on the promise of marriage and thereafter refused to marry her. Again the appellant threatened the prosecutrix and her parents to kill. The matter was reported, investigated and the appellant was charge sheeted and convicted as mentioned above.

1. This appeal is preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against judgment dated 31.10.2014 passed by Special Judge under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act 1985'), Raipur (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No. 240/2014, wherein the said court convicted the appellant for commission of offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Act, 1985 and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- with default stipulations.

2

2. As per case of the prosecution, on 12.01.2014, Police Officer- Shankar Chandrakar, In-charge of Government Railway Police, Raipur received information that two persons carrying contraband article ganja are traveling in train Ahmedabad Express. On the basis of said information, the Police Officer with other staff reached to the spot and recovered ganja to the tune of 38 Kg. from the appellant. After complying with all the legal formalities, the matter was investigated, appellant was charge- sheeted and after completion of trial, the trial court convicted as mentioned above.

1. The appeal is directed against judgment dated 06.4.2010 passed by Sessions Judge Raipur in Session Trial No.161/2008 wherein the said Court convicted appellant for commission of offence under Section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 05 years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- with default stipulation.

2. In the present case, name of the deceased is Kalu @ Tarun Bagh. As per the version of the prosecution, on 11.6.2008 at 2 noon, the appellant and the deceased were drinking liquor in the house of the appellant. During the course of drinking, a dispute arose regarding daughter of the appellant namely Suman. On this dispute, the appellant and other persons assaulted the deceased and the appellant sat on the chest of the deceased and pressed his neck due to which the deceased become unconscious. He was taken to hospital but succumbed to the injuries. The matter was reported, investigated and the appellant was charge sheeted and convicted as mentioned above.

1. The appeal is directed against judgment dated 30.8.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bemetara Distt. Durg in Session Trial No.14/2010 wherein the said Court convicted appellant for commission of offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 05 years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation.

2

2. In the present case, name of the victim is Ramji Yadav. As per the version of the prosecution, on 31.12.2009 at about 9.00 pm when victim Ramji Yadav along with other persons doing the work of decorating the road by writing "Happy New Year" for celebrating new year, the appellant came there and used filthy words and asked what he is writing. Quarrel took place between the appellant and the victim and the appellant hit the victim on his stomach by knife resulting which he fell down. The victim was admitted to Sector 9 Hospital, Bhilai. The matter was reported and the appellant was charge sheeted. After completion of trial, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as mentioned above.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma CAV JUDGMENT

1. This appeal is preferred under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against judgment dated 05.02.2015 passed by Special Judge [under Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short "the Act, 1985")], Bilaspur (C.G.) in Special NDPS Case No. 126/2014, wherein the said court convicted the appellant for commission of offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Act, 1985 and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years and fine of Rs. 15,000/- with further default stipulations for having possession of contraband article ganja to the tune of 10 kg. on 27.03.2014 at 10:50 p.m. at railway platform No. 1 of Railway Station Bilaspur (C.G.)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma CAV JUDGMENT

1. This appeal is preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against judgment dated 03.01.2017 passed by Additional Session Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Session Trial No. 17/2015, wherein the said court convicted the appellant for commission of offence under Sections 307 & 323 of IPC, 1860 and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs. 20,000/- & R.I. for 6 months and fine of Rs. 500/- respectively with further default stipulations.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma CAV JUDGMENT

1. This appeal is preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against judgment dated 11.02.2011 passed by Special Judge (NDPS Act), Durg (C.G.) in NDPS Special Case No. 03/2006, wherein the said court convicted the appellant for commission of offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short "the Act, 1985") and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 4 years and fine of Rs. 5000/- with further default stipulations for having possession of contraband article ganja to the tune of 8 kg. on 27.01.2006 at 20:30 O'clock at Bus Stand- Dondi Lohara.

For State/respondent : Mrs. Smita Jha, Panel Lawyer.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma CAV JUDGMENT

1. This appeal is preferred under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against judgment dated 11.12.2012 passed by Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988) & First Additional Session Judge, Raipur (C.G.) in Special Session Trial No. 01/2007, wherein the said court convicted the appellant for commission of offence under Section 7 & 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short "the Act, 1988") and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 year and fine of Rs. 5000/- & R.I. for 2 years and fine of Rs. 10,000/- respectively with further default stipulations.

1. "Whether Mr. Maghesh Kumar Singh was posted by NTPC Ltd to Meja Urja Nigam Pvt. Ltd at Corporate office, Allahabad and site office Meja.

2. Whether he suffered a finger crush injury on 26-10-2013 while living in Meja Srijan Vihar Township. If yes, name of the hospital he was admitted to and surgery performed may be furnished.

3. Whether he filed a personal accident claim form in this regard. If yes; the amount for which it was sanctioned and the payment transaction details may kindly be furnished.

Page 1 of 8

4. If the above mentioned claim remains pending since 2013, reason for the same may be intimated. If any official found negligent, the action taken against him may also be intimated."

1. "The attested copy of the very basis of the seniority list of 594 contractor's workers at BTPS as was published on notice board, the Appendix 'D' of Letter no. BT/DGM(Admn)/2/I-842 dt. 22-05-1998.

2. If there is no basis of preparing the aforesaid seniority list, then why the names of other persons were enlisted in the Appendix 'D' of the aforesaid letter."

2. The CPIO responded on 01-03-2018 & 16-05-2018. The appellant filed the first appeal dated 12-03-2018 which was disposed of by the first appellate authority on 19-04-2018. Thereafter, he filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission requesting to take appropriate legal action against the CPIO u/Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005 and also to direct him to provide the sought for information.

Aggrieved with denial of information, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.11.2018, which was decided by the FAA's order dated 30.11.2018, upholding the PIO's reply. Dissatisfied with denial of information, the appellant filed the instant Second Appeal before the Commission.

Proceedings during hearing:

Due to nation-wide lockdown being observed, to prevent the spread of the pandemic of COVID-19, hearings are being conducted through audio conference.

The Appellant participated in the hearing on being contacted on his telephone number: 98xxxxxx90 and submitted that he had sought the information even through the direct official channel. He claims that he had met the DG twice and had been assured by the DG that information regarding marks will be provided but later the respondent denied information without assigning any reason.

PIO/DIG, CISF denied disclosure of information invoking Section 24 of the RTI Act, vide reply dated 10.05.2019.

Aggrieved with denial of information, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 21.05.2019, which was decided by the FAA vide order dated 04.06.2019, reiterating the stance taken by the PIO. Dissatisfied with denial of information, the appellant filed the instant Second Appeal before the Commission.

Proceedings during hearing:

Due to nation-wide lockdown being observed, to prevent the spread of the pandemic of COVID-19, hearings are being conducted through audio conference.

The Appellant participated in the hearing on being contacted on his telephone number: 89xxxxx145 and reiterated facts of his case. He has sought the information since he wants to join the service and wants to ensure whether the quota-wise benefit was granted. Decision:

PIO/DIG, CISF denied disclosure of information invoking Section 24 of the RTI Act, vide reply dated 10.04.2019.

Aggrieved with denial of information, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 23.04.2019, which was decided by the FAA vide order dated 09.05.2019, upholding the PIO's reply.

Dissatisfied with denial of information, the appellant filed the instant Second Appeal before the Commission.

Proceedings during hearing:

Due to nation-wide lockdown being observed, to prevent the spread of the pandemic of COVID-19, hearings are being conducted through audio conference.

The Appellant participated in the hearing on being contacted on her telephone number: 87xxxxxx25 and submitted that her husband passed away in 1997. Since her son was only few months old at the time of her husband's death, compassionate appointment was sought only when he attained 18 years. But respondent denied the benefit of compassionate appointment since the appellant had approached the respondent after a gap of 20 years. Since the appellant claims she is not in receipt of the proper pension amount and the benefit of compassionate appointment has also been denied by the respondent, the family is facing a financial crisis. Hence, she sought the aforementioned information by filing the instant case. Decision:

(1) Have MHA or DoP&T issued any order to revise Pay Scale of all eligible serving and Pensioners by lmplementing Hon'ble Delhi High Court Order on WP (C) 3549/2018 dated 1/5/19 CAPFs including BSF?

(2) ln this regard, has MHA given any decisions, or guidelines to BSF to Revise the Pay Scale of all eligible Personnel who completed 20 year of services by 2OL2 on the basis of above HC order? (3) Has BSF Challenged above HC Verdict before Hon'ble Supreme Court? lf so what consequence? (4) ls grant of MACP according to above Court Order only limit to Sunil Kumar Tyagi or similarly placed Personnel in BSF? What action is being taken by MHA in this regard?

PIO/DIG(Confd) vide reply dated 20.11.2019 denied disclosure of information citing the exemption under Section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005, whereby the respondent organization did not fall within the purview of the RTI Act, unless the information pertained to allegations of Corruption and Human Rights Violations.

1. Category-wise cut-off marks of the result declared on 16.04.2019;

2. Marks obtained by the appellant in written examination and candidates with what score have been selected from Rajasthan OBC quota;

3. On what basis will be candidates selected from among the 447 candidates finalized for medical examination.

PIO/DIG, CISF denied disclosure of information invoking Section 24 of the RTI Act, vide reply dated 12.06.2019.

Aggrieved with denial of information, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 01.07.2019, which was decided by the FAA vide order dated 04.07.2019, reiterating the stance taken by the PIO.

Dissatisfied with denial of information, the appellant filed the instant Second Appeal before the Commission.

Aggrieved with denial of information, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.08.2019, which was decided by the FAA vide order dated 06.09.2019, upholding the stance taken by the PIO and observing that the information could not be provided under the RTI Act since it did not fulfill the criteria of either human rights violation or of corruption as provided in the Section 24 of the RTI Act.

Dissatisfied with denial of information, the appellant filed the instant Second Appeal before the Commission.

Proceedings during hearing:

Due to nation-wide lockdown being observed, to prevent the spread of the pandemic of COVID-19, hearings are being conducted through audio conference. The Appellant participated in the hearing on being contacted on his telephone number: 99xxxxxx54 and reiterated the facts of his case and stated that he was working with CISF earlier and is currently with IB. Appellant stated during the course of hearing that he had posed similar queries before the MHA through a separate RTI application, which has been replied and he has received the requisite information. Having thus received the desired information, he does not wish to pursue the instant case.

PIO/BSF communicated rejection of the RTI application invoking Section 24 of the RTI Act, vide online reply dated 17.12.2019. Meanwhile, the appellant had filed a First Appeal dated 16.12.2019, which was not adjudicated.

Aggrieved by denial of information, the appellant filed the instant Second Appeal before the Commission.

Proceedings during hearing:

Due to nation-wide lockdown being observed, to prevent the spread of the pandemic of COVID-19, hearings are being conducted through audio conference.

The Appellant participated in the hearing on being contacted on his telephone number: 96xxxxxx14 and reiterated the facts of the case stating that he is aggrieved on being denied any information about the marks obtained by him.

1. I want to know its next process & medical test date.

2. When will be its medical test

3. I am eagerly waiting its medial test dates many times I tried to know its previous recruitment centre but they have no information, about it please inform me medical test date He summarised his queries as:

(1) What is the reason of being so late in the process of recruitment. (2) I want to know the status of recruitment whether it will be completed or not.

PIO/DIG, CISF denied disclosure of any information invoking Section 24 of the RTI Act, vide reply dated 08.04.2019.

Aggrieved with denial of information, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03.05.2019, which was decided by the FAA vide order dated 14.05.2019, reiterating the stance taken by the PIO.

The Appellant vide her RTI application sought information regarding the copy of the documents of the Department of Personnel and Training (DoP&T) associated with the files related to the appointment of various Attorney Generals of India since 01.01.2010.

Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of any response from the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 09.10.2018 stated that the Appeal had been examined and it was found that the CPIO on 11.09.2018 had sought certain clarifications from the Appellant. Hence, the Appellant was advised to clarify the same to the CPIO to enable him to provide the available information.

Page 1 of 5 RTI - 2 File No. CIC/DOLAF/A/2018/163414-BJ [ Date of RTI application 12.08.2018 CPIO's response Not on Record Date of the First Appeal 11.09.2018 First Appellate Authority's response 09.10.2018 Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 18.10.2018 FACTS:

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

Case RTI PIO First First 2nd Nos. application replied on Appeal Appellate Appeal/complaint filed on filed on Order on received on 644389 11.05.2019 16.05.2019 23.05.2019 10.06.2019 01.07.2019 635814 21.09.2018 08.10.2018 15.10.2018 01.11.2018 21.11.2018 627430 08.07.2018 17.07.2018 28.05.2018 31.07.2018 01.08.2018 CIC/CISFO/A/2019/644389

The Appellant filed RTI application dated 11.05.2019 seeking information through five points pertaining to an incident that took place on 19.04.2014 at around 2330 hrs wherein a truck bearing registration no. WB37 8459 loaded with TMT iron rods was apprehended by the Local Police near CISF Unit NTPC Barh. Subsequently, an inquiry was ordered by the Central Vigilance Page 1 of 8 Commission vide its OM dated January 2015. Since the matter pertains to alleged corruption by CISF officers, the following information was sought:

1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Eastern Railway, DRMO Howrah Division seeking information on two points, including,

a) To provide a copy of S.DPO/HWH Letter No. E/Engg/OC/Policy/Pt.IV/2nd Phase dated 31.07.2015, 07.08.2015, and,

b) To provide a copy of seniority list of Track Maintainer III and IV from 2007 to 2015.

2. The CPIO, vide reply dated 27.04.2020, provided requisite information to the appellant. The appellant filed a first appeal dated 24.04.2018 on the ground of no information furnished by the CPIO. The first appeal was not disposed of by the FAA. Thereafter, the appellant filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission on the ground of non-receipt of information and requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information sought for.

1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Eastern Railway, Sealdah Division, Kolkata seeking information on two points pertaining to his representation dated 31.05.2018, including,

a) Whether his aforesaid representation dated 31.05.2018 addressed to Sr. DOM/SDAH has been considered or disposed of, and

b) If disposed of, please serve a copy of the same at the earliest.

2. Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a first appeal dated 25.07.2018. The first appeal was not disposed of by the FAA. Thereafter, the appellant filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission on the ground that no information has been furnished by the respondent and requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information sought for and take appropriate legal action against the CPIO and the FAA.

1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Eastern Railway, DRMO, Howrah Division seeking information on two points, including,

a) To provide a copy of S.DPO/HWH Letter No. E/Engg/OC/Policy/Pt.IV/2nd Phase dated 31.07.2015, 07.08.2015, and

b) To provide a copy of seniority list of Track Maintainer III and IV from 2006 to 2015.

2. The CPIO did not provide requisite information within stipulated period to the appellant. The appellant filed a first appeal dated 24.04.2018 on the ground of no information furnished by the CPIO. The first appeal was also not disposed of by the FAA. Thereafter, the appellant filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission on the ground of non- receipt of information and requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information sought for.

1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), East Central Railway, DRMO, Dhanbad seeking information on four points, including, inter-alia;

a) Whether rules or instructions issued by Director General, Railway Board in East Central Railway, Dhanbad are valid or not,

b) Whether or not the rules/instructions as per the RBI No. 61/2015, letter no. E(N-G)1-2015/R E-3/2 dated 12.06.2015, is valid in the matter of re-absorption of the medically unfit RPF/RPSF employees into an alternate position? Provide a certified copy of the said rule,

1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), East Central Railway, DRMO, Jharkhand seeking information on three points, including, "(a) What action has been taken on the appellant's application regarding making adjustments to the alternative post in Samastipur division (East Central Railway),

(b) What action was taken by the Screening Committee on the appellant's application, which was received by Electronic Grievance Redressal Arrangement (EGRS) vide no. 24652 on 05.12.2017, regarding the adjustment of the optional post, and

(c) To provide certified copies of all the documents along with the complete file in the name of the appellant, available with the Screening Commissioner, including the written application accepted by the appellant for the clerical post."

1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), East Central Railway, DRMO, Jharkhand seeking information on six points pertaining to technician post, including, inter-alia;

a) Is the proof of validation issued in the railway hospital by the screening committee on the optional post after medical distortion valid,

b) What is the medical category for the post of Technician Grade-III,

c) Does the post of technician grade-III fall in the category of sedentary job. And other related information.

2. The CPIO, vide reply dated 09.05.2018, provided point wise information to the appellant. Being dissatisfied by the information provided on point nos. 3 and 6, the appellant filed a first appeal dated 25.05.2018. FAA, vide order dated 15.06.2018, upheld the CPIO's reply. Thereafter, the appellant filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission on similar grounds and requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information sought for.

1. The appellant filed an online application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Eastern Railway, Kolkata seeking information regarding General Conditions to Contract applicable to the works (contracts) under Eastern Railways for the year 2000, 2003 and 2010-2018.

2. The CPIO, vide letter dated 13.07.2018, offered inspection to the appellant. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a first appeal dated 30.07.2018 requesting to provide the information sought for. FAA, vide order dated 28.08.2018, upheld the reply of CPIO. Thereafter, the appellant filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission on the ground of incomplete information furnished by the CPIO and requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide complete information sought for and take appropriate legal action against the respondent.

1. The appellant filed an online application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Eastern Railway, Kolkata seeking information on seven points regarding reduction of pension of the Pensioner Shri Ganesh Chandra Mishra with PPO No. 02101265992 including,

a) Reason for 75% reduction of Pension,

b) Whether any inquiry was held against the Pensioner due to which pension was reduced,

c) Copy of Notice issued to the pensioner informing him that he is subject to an inquiry,

d) Receipt of confirmation showing Notice received by the Pensioner,

e) Transcript of the inquiry and report of inquiry, if any, held against the pensioner,

1 Learned A.P.P, on instructions, states that the statement of the victim girl has been recorded on 6 th May 2020 and that the police intend to register a C.R pursuant to the said statement. Statement accepted. 2 Stand over to 12th June 2020.

REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

SQ Pathan 1/1

PER COURT :

1. Heard learned advocate for the applicants, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, as well as learned advocate Mr. S. S. Ladda who is intervening and appearing for the original informant.

2. It will not be out of place to mention here that, this Court by order dated 15-04-2020 has directed that no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants for a period of three weeks or till such time the State Government withdraws the lockdown in its entirety, whichever is earlier. Now the lockdown has not yet ended and, therefore, the learned advocate for the applicants seeks extension of the said order. The applications have been mainly objected by the learned advocate for the informant who submits that, the wives of the present applicants had approached this Court also for pre-arrest bail and it was not granted. Then they had approached Hon'ble Supreme Court on 05-02-2020. The said application was rejected and the petitioners therein were directed to surrender within a period of three months. The learned advocate for informant had ::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2020 12:52:45 ::: 3 ABA369-2020 with 370-2020 submitted that, till today there is no compliance of the said order by those petitioners. In fact, the role of those petitioners is lesser than the present applicants yet the protection is granted to the applicants, and now by taking disadvantage of the said order, the applicants are trying to tamper with the evidence of the prosecution as well as trying to drive the informant is under fear.

PER COURT :

1. Heard learned advocate for the applicants, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, as well as learned advocate Mr. S. S. Ladda who is intervening and appearing for the original informant.

2. It will not be out of place to mention here that, this Court by order dated 15-04-2020 has directed that no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants for a period of three weeks or till such time the State Government withdraws the lockdown in its entirety, whichever is earlier. Now the lockdown has not yet ended and, therefore, the learned advocate for the applicants seeks extension of the said order. The applications have been mainly objected by the learned advocate for the informant who submits that, the wives of the present applicants had approached this Court also for pre-arrest bail and it was not granted. Then they had approached Hon'ble Supreme Court on 05-02-2020. The said application was rejected and the petitioners therein were directed to surrender within a period of three months. The learned advocate for informant had ::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2020 12:53:02 ::: 3 ABA369-2020 with 370-2020 submitted that, till today there is no compliance of the said order by those petitioners. In fact, the role of those petitioners is lesser than the present applicants yet the protection is granted to the applicants, and now by taking disadvantage of the said order, the applicants are trying to tamper with the evidence of the prosecution as well as trying to drive the informant is under fear.

PER COURT :

1. Heard learned advocate for the applicants, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, as well as learned advocate Mr. S. S. Ladda who is intervening and appearing for the original informant.

2. It will not be out of place to mention here that, this Court by order dated 15-04-2020 has directed that no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants for a period of three weeks or till such time the State Government withdraws the lockdown in its entirety, whichever is earlier. Now the lockdown has not yet ended and, therefore, the learned advocate for the applicants seeks extension of the said order. The applications have been mainly objected by the learned advocate for the informant who submits that, the wives of the present applicants had approached this Court also for pre-arrest bail and it was not granted. Then they had approached Hon'ble Supreme Court on 05-02-2020. The said application was rejected and the petitioners therein were directed to surrender within a period of three months. The learned advocate for informant had ::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2020 12:52:40 ::: 3 ABA369-2020 with 370-2020 submitted that, till today there is no compliance of the said order by those petitioners. In fact, the role of those petitioners is lesser than the present applicants yet the protection is granted to the applicants, and now by taking disadvantage of the said order, the applicants are trying to tamper with the evidence of the prosecution as well as trying to drive the informant is under fear.

PER COURT :

1. Heard learned advocate for the applicants, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, as well as learned advocate Mr. S. S. Ladda who is intervening and appearing for the original informant.

2. It will not be out of place to mention here that, this Court by order dated 15-04-2020 has directed that no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants for a period of three weeks or till such time the State Government withdraws the lockdown in its entirety, whichever is earlier. Now the lockdown has not yet ended and, therefore, the learned advocate for the applicants seeks extension of the said order. The applications have been mainly objected by the learned advocate for the informant who submits that, the wives of the present applicants had approached this Court also for pre-arrest bail and it was not granted. Then they had approached Hon'ble Supreme Court on 05-02-2020. The said application was rejected and the petitioners therein were directed to surrender within a period of three months. The learned advocate for informant had ::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2020 12:52:51 ::: 3 ABA369-2020 with 370-2020 submitted that, till today there is no compliance of the said order by those petitioners. In fact, the role of those petitioners is lesser than the present applicants yet the protection is granted to the applicants, and now by taking disadvantage of the said order, the applicants are trying to tamper with the evidence of the prosecution as well as trying to drive the informant is under fear.

2. The present respondents have filed First Appeal No.1909 of 2019 challenging the Judgment and award in land acquisition proceedings i.e. Land Acquisition Reference No.122 of 2011, decided by learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Omerga on 02-08- 2014. The appeal is admitted and it is pending before this Court for its turn for final hearing. They have also filed an application for stay ::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2020 12:49:30 ::: 3 CriApln 90-2020 to the execution of the award and a conditional order was passed by this Court. The appellant therein were directed to deposit the entire decreetal amount awarded by the Reference Court along with interest accrued within six weeks from the date of the order i.e. 22- 06-2018. After the amount was deposited by the appellants therein, the present applicants had filed Application No.7291 of 2019 for withdrawal of the amount. After hearing the parties, this Court passed following order : -

(ii) The applicants to deposit the fine amount in the trial Court within eight weeks from today;

SQ Pathan 2/3 ::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2020 06:03:59 ::: LD.VC.OCR.25.20.doc (iii) The applicants shall report to the trial Court once in six

months, till the aforesaid appeal is finally heard and decided. 6 The Interim Application is accordingly disposed of. 7 All concerned to act on the copy of this order, digitally signed by the Senior Private Secretary.

(ii) The applicant shall attend the concerned Police Station as and when called;

(iii) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or attempt to influence or contact the complainant, witnesses or any person concerned with the case.

SQ Pathan 3/4 ::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2020 06:03:51 ::: Apeal.196.20.doc 8 Stand over to 3rd July 2020. 9 All concerned to act on the copy of this order, digitally signed

1 By the aforesaid interim application and criminal application, the applicant/petitioner, who appears in-person has made several grievances as against the Investigating officer-ACP Ms. Asmita Bhosale, amongst other grievances. In an earlier petition filed by the petitioner i.e. Writ Petition No. 1135/2019, this Court having considered the allegations and counter allegations levelled by the petitioner therein i.e. Sheetal Shah, was of the view that the interest of justice would be served if the petition i.e. Writ Petition No. 1135/2019 is treated as representation to the Commissioner of Police and as such directed the Commissioner of Police to take cognizance of the said writ petition within four weeks from the date SQ Pathan 1/3 wp.3402.19.doc of the order. Since multiple reliefs are sought in the petition, in particular, transfer of investigation of all five FIRs registered with different police stations, this Court directed that the investigation of all the five FIRs be assigned to a responsible high ranking officer, not below the rank of A.C.P and on such officer being designated to investigate, the petitioner was directed to cooperate with the said investigation. The said order was passed on 4th June 2019 and was disposed of with the aforesaid direction. 2 The grievance of the applicant/petitioner in both the aforesaid applications is that there is a threat to her life and to her children and that the Investigating Officer Ms. Asmita Bhosale and other Officers are not investigating the matter in accordance with law. The petitioner has made several allegations of corruption as against some of the officers. According to her, the said investigation in the five FIRs is not being conducted in a fair and impartial manner.

2. The appellant is apprehending the arrest in Crime No.282 of 2019 registered with Ghargaon Police Station, Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 504, 506 of Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va) of the Atrocities Act. The first information report has been lodged by present respondent No.2.

3. Heard learned Advocate Mr. L. S. Mahajan for appellant, learned APP Mr. P. K. Lakhotia for respondent No.1-State and learned Advocate Mr. S. B. Ghatol Patil for respondent No.2. Perused the affidavit-in-reply along with documents.

4. It has been vehemently submitted on behalf of the appellant that the learned Special Judge failed to consider the enmity between the applicant and the informant. A complaint application has been filed by the present appellant in respect of the property dispute. It was contended that there is a Big house (Wada) of the forefathers of the appellant. It is now in dilapidated condition. There was certain space behind the said Wada. When the family -2- ::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2020 12:49:55 ::: 2-Apeal-6-2020.odt of respondent No.2 started levelling the land behind the Wada, it was objected by the appellant so also a written complaint was filed on 08-09- 2015 to the Grampanchayat. However, the Grampanchayat with some political motive had made entries in the name of the family of respondent No.2. Therefore, a complaint application was then made by him to the Collector. The informant got annoyed with the same and, in fact, application under Section 14-G of the Maharashtra Grampanchayat Act was filed by the appellant against the Sarpanch, Deputy Sarpanch and the Gram Sewak of the Grampanchayat. It was stated that all of them together had shown the open space belonging to the appellant in the name of one Maruti Karbhari Mundhe, Suresh Karbhari Mundhe and Pramod Rambhau Mundhe. It is further stated that present respondent No.2 is the near friend of said Mundhe family and by taking advantage of the caste of the informant false complaint has been lodged and those two persons from Mundhe family whose name has been taken in the application before Collector by the appellant are shown to be the eye witnesses to the incident. In fact, these two witnesses by name Mundhe were not even present when the incident had taken place. Therefore, when the FIR is filed with mala fide intention, the learned Special Judge ought not to have considered that there is bar for entertaining pre- arrest bail applications in view of Section 18-A of the Atrocities Act. -3- ::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2020 12:49:55 :::

2. The applicant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand only), in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. -1- ::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2020 12:49:45 :::

2(i)-appln-3675-19.odt

3. Heard learned Advocate Mr. R. C. Bora holding for learned Advocate Mr. M. L. Wankhade for applicant and learned APP Mr. P. G. Borade for respondent-State.

2. Rule is made returnable forthwith with consent of ::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2020 11:34:03 ::: (2) Cr.WP 1611/2016 both the parties and matter is taken for fnal hearing at the stage of admission itself.

3. Present petition has been fled by the original accused, invoking the constitutional powers of this Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India and the inherent powers under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing and setting aside order passed in Criminal Revision Application No. 55 of 2015 dt. 21-09-2016 by learned Sessions Judge, Jalgaon and also to challenge the order passed below Ex.1 in Regular Criminal Case No. 573 of 2006 dt. 26-11-2014 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalgaon.

2. Present appeal has been filed by original accused under Section 14(A) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)Act, 1989 (herein after referred to as the Atrocities Act) with Section 438 of Cr.P.C. in order to challenge the order of rejection of their bail petition No.78/2020 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad (Special Court) on 17.1.2020.

3. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellants that they are apprehending arrest at the hands of M.I.D.C., Waluj Police Station in respect of Crime No.12/2020 dated 07.01.2020, on the basis of the First Information Report lodged by the respondent No.2, for the offences punishable under Section 294, 452, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1)(w)(i)

2. Heard learned Advocate Mr. H. I. Pathan for petitioner and learned Advocate Mr. Y. K. Delmade for respondent No.1.

3. It has been vehemently submitted on behalf of the petitioner ::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2020 12:49:39 ::: 3 WP 1700-2019 husband that, the learned trial Judge failed to consider that, there was nothing on record which would positively show that the wife has been subjected to domestic violence. A cryptic order has been passed only on the basis of contents of the application and by ignoring the say filed by the respondent. There was nothing to show that, the husband had deserted the wife. Further the husband had filed petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act before Family Court at Nanded vide Petition No. A 91 of 2016, it has been decided on 02-02-2018, thereby decreeing the petition and directing the wife to resume cohabitation. Under such circumstance, the wife is not entitled to get maintenance much less interim maintenance. He, therefore, prayed for setting aside the impugned order.

1. Present review application has been filed by original appellants for review of judgment and order dated 1st August, 2019 passed by this Court in aforesaid First Appeal.

2. Present review applicants are the original claimants, who filed MACP No.256/2013 before learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Latur (herein after referred to as the ::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2020 12:49:35 ::: (2) Review Appln.No.199/2019 Tribunal) for getting compensation for the accidental death of one Hanmantrao Manikrao Deshmukh, on whom present review applicants were depending.

2. Admit. With consent of learned Advocates for the respective parties, taken up for final disposal.

3. Present appeal has been filed under Section 14(A)(2) of The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, for challenging the order of rejection of bail application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Criminal Misc. Application (Bail) No.46/2020 on 21.1.2020 by learned Additional Sessions Judge-3, Jalna.

2. Since arguable points are made, the appeals are admitted.

3. By consent the appeals are taken up for final disposal. ::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2020 11:31:54 :::

3 CriAppeal 114-2000 +1

4. Both these appeals have been filed by the original accused in Crime No.03 of 2020 dated 08-01-2020, registered with Mahur Police Station District Nanded for the offences punishable under Section 143, 147, 148, 149, 506 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1)(3), 3(1)(s) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 on the basis of the First Information Report lodged by present respondent No.2. These appeals have been filed as per the provisions of Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

2. Since arguable points are made, the appeals are admitted.

3. By consent the appeals are taken up for final disposal. ::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2020 11:32:00 :::

3 CriAppeal 114-2000 +1

4. Both these appeals have been filed by the original accused in Crime No.03 of 2020 dated 08-01-2020, registered with Mahur Police Station District Nanded for the offences punishable under Section 143, 147, 148, 149, 506 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1)(3), 3(1)(s) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 on the basis of the First Information Report lodged by present respondent No.2. These appeals have been filed as per the provisions of Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

3 Present respondent No.1 is the original complainant, who has filed private complaint bearing R.C.C. No.106/2015 before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khultabad, Dist. Aurangabad. It was filed against five persons contending that they have committed offence punishable under Section 467, 468, 469, 409, 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

4 Brief facts narrated in the complaint are, that the original accused No.3 is the President of institution by name Anjuman Eshat-e-Taleem and accused No.4 is the Secretary. The said institution is registered as Trust under the Maharashtra Public Trust Act. It receives 100% grants from the Government to run college by name Maulana Azad Higher Secondary School at Khultabad. Accused No.1 is serving as Assistant Teacher since 2011 and ::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2020 11:32:24 ::: 4 Cri.WP_932_2019+1_Jd prior to that he was serving as Shikshan Sevak in the subject of Phychology and Sociology. Accused No.2 is the Headmistress of the said school since 2008. Original accused No.5 was then Deputy Director of Education. It is contended that when accused No.1 was in service, he has completed the course of M.A. 1st part in Psychology for the academic year of 2008-09 from Vivekanand College, Aurangabad. His attendance on the Transfer Certificate of said college is said to be 75%. Thereafter, for the year 2010-11 he has completed the M.A. 2nd part in Psychology as a regular student of the said college. The college timing is stated to be 4.00 p.m. to 7.00 p.m. and for 2010-11 it is from 12.00 noon to 5.40 p.m.. The Institution record shows that during the said period, he has taken only 8 days Earned Leave. This shows that accused No. 1, in conspiracy with the accused Nos.1 to 4, was only signing the attendance register and taking the salary/honorarium of Rs.9,000/- per month, amounting to Rs.2,00,000/- for two years. It is stated that in the past also there were instances in the said college run by the accused, in respect of payments made towards salary without candidate putting any work. That amount has been recovered by the Government. All those persons had come to this Court, however, those petitions were rejected and criminal proceedings are pending against two of them. The complainant had given a complaint application on 18.01.2012 to the Deputy Director of Education, Aurangabad. He has passed an order on 11.06.2012. It was ::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2020 11:32:24 ::: 5 Cri.WP_932_2019+1_Jd directed that the accused No.1 should deposit the entire amount, which he has received towards honorarium with the Government. Further directions were given to take action under Rule 28(5) of Maharashtra Private Schools (Terms of Service) Rules, 1981. It was also stated in the said order that since the accused No.1 has derelicted from duty, inquiry be held and after the report is received then only the further action of continuation in his service would be taken. Therefore, the continuation was not done and as the salary was not given, accused No.1 staged agitation from 09.07.2012 in front of the office of Deputy Director of Education. He was advised on 12.07.2012 to file an appeal and he was then prevented from continuing the agitation. The appeal was filed by him and stay was granted to the order passed. In view of the said stay the accused No.1 was given continuation of service. No opportunity was given to the complainant to put forth his say by the Director of Education when stay was granted. The complainant thereafter filed writ petition before this Court bearing Writ Petition No.6756 of 2012. In that petition the Director of Education was directed to file affidavit. Accordingly, affidavit was filed on 24.04.2013. It was specifically stated that on 17.04.2013 further order has been passed that the stay has been vacated and the order passed by Deputy Director of Education Aurangabad on 11.06.2012 is confirmed. In view of the said contentions in the writ petition, the writ petition came to be rejected. In the meantime, accused No.5 took charge as ::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2020 11:32:24 ::: 6 Cri.WP_932_2019+1_Jd Deputy Director of Education, Aurangabad and he gave letter on 24.06.2013, thereby cancelling the confirmation to the service given to accused No.1. Accused Nos.2 to 4 had not taken any steps for inquiry in view of the order dated 11.06.2012. A false report was submitted to the Deputy Director of Education. Accused No.1 has not even deposited the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- which he had taken as honorarium for two years. Yet, after accepting the false report the accused No.5 has continued the services of accused No.1 by letter dated 26.08.2013. It has been submitted that all the accused persons with common intention with each other prepared false report, prepared false attendance register, pay bills and other documents, thereby all of them have cheated the Government as well as the students, and therefore, he says that offence has been committed by all the accused persons. He, therefore, prayed for issuing process and punishing the accused persons.

3 Present respondent No.1 is the original complainant, who has filed private complaint bearing R.C.C. No.106/2015 before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khultabad, Dist. Aurangabad. It was filed against five persons contending that they have committed offence punishable under Section 467, 468, 469, 409, 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

4 Brief facts narrated in the complaint are, that the original accused No.3 is the President of institution by name Anjuman Eshat-e-Taleem and accused No.4 is the Secretary. The said institution is registered as Trust under the Maharashtra Public Trust Act. It receives 100% grants from the Government to run college by name Maulana Azad Higher Secondary School at Khultabad. Accused No.1 is serving as Assistant Teacher since 2011 and ::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2020 11:32:08 ::: 4 Cri.WP_932_2019+1_Jd prior to that he was serving as Shikshan Sevak in the subject of Phychology and Sociology. Accused No.2 is the Headmistress of the said school since 2008. Original accused No.5 was then Deputy Director of Education. It is contended that when accused No.1 was in service, he has completed the course of M.A. 1st part in Psychology for the academic year of 2008-09 from Vivekanand College, Aurangabad. His attendance on the Transfer Certificate of said college is said to be 75%. Thereafter, for the year 2010-11 he has completed the M.A. 2nd part in Psychology as a regular student of the said college. The college timing is stated to be 4.00 p.m. to 7.00 p.m. and for 2010-11 it is from 12.00 noon to 5.40 p.m.. The Institution record shows that during the said period, he has taken only 8 days Earned Leave. This shows that accused No. 1, in conspiracy with the accused Nos.1 to 4, was only signing the attendance register and taking the salary/honorarium of Rs.9,000/- per month, amounting to Rs.2,00,000/- for two years. It is stated that in the past also there were instances in the said college run by the accused, in respect of payments made towards salary without candidate putting any work. That amount has been recovered by the Government. All those persons had come to this Court, however, those petitions were rejected and criminal proceedings are pending against two of them. The complainant had given a complaint application on 18.01.2012 to the Deputy Director of Education, Aurangabad. He has passed an order on 11.06.2012. It was ::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2020 11:32:08 ::: 5 Cri.WP_932_2019+1_Jd directed that the accused No.1 should deposit the entire amount, which he has received towards honorarium with the Government. Further directions were given to take action under Rule 28(5) of Maharashtra Private Schools (Terms of Service) Rules, 1981. It was also stated in the said order that since the accused No.1 has derelicted from duty, inquiry be held and after the report is received then only the further action of continuation in his service would be taken. Therefore, the continuation was not done and as the salary was not given, accused No.1 staged agitation from 09.07.2012 in front of the office of Deputy Director of Education. He was advised on 12.07.2012 to file an appeal and he was then prevented from continuing the agitation. The appeal was filed by him and stay was granted to the order passed. In view of the said stay the accused No.1 was given continuation of service. No opportunity was given to the complainant to put forth his say by the Director of Education when stay was granted. The complainant thereafter filed writ petition before this Court bearing Writ Petition No.6756 of 2012. In that petition the Director of Education was directed to file affidavit. Accordingly, affidavit was filed on 24.04.2013. It was specifically stated that on 17.04.2013 further order has been passed that the stay has been vacated and the order passed by Deputy Director of Education Aurangabad on 11.06.2012 is confirmed. In view of the said contentions in the writ petition, the writ petition came to be rejected. In the meantime, accused No.5 took charge as ::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2020 11:32:08 ::: 6 Cri.WP_932_2019+1_Jd Deputy Director of Education, Aurangabad and he gave letter on 24.06.2013, thereby cancelling the confirmation to the service given to accused No.1. Accused Nos.2 to 4 had not taken any steps for inquiry in view of the order dated 11.06.2012. A false report was submitted to the Deputy Director of Education. Accused No.1 has not even deposited the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- which he had taken as honorarium for two years. Yet, after accepting the false report the accused No.5 has continued the services of accused No.1 by letter dated 26.08.2013. It has been submitted that all the accused persons with common intention with each other prepared false report, prepared false attendance register, pay bills and other documents, thereby all of them have cheated the Government as well as the students, and therefore, he says that offence has been committed by all the accused persons. He, therefore, prayed for issuing process and punishing the accused persons.

CRM No. 3354 of 2020 (Via Video Conference) In Re:- An application for bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Jalpaiguri Women Police Station Case No. 144/2019 dated 07.11.2019 registered for investigation into offences punishable under Sections 498A/304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

And In the matter of : Kalpana Roy ... Petitioner Ms. Jeenia Rudra .. for the petitioner Mr. Neguive Ahmed ..for the State The petitioner undertakes to affirm and stamp the petition as per the Rules within 48 hours of resumption of normal functioning of the court. The petition is taken up through video conference on the basis of such undertaking. The petitioner is the mother-in-law of the deceased victim. The prayer for bail of the husband of the victim has been rejected earlier today.

It is the submission of the petitioners that the respondent nos.9 to 12 were the erstwhile tenants who are allegedly occupying the impugned premises and are presently running a quarantine center as per the Memo No. H&FW/132/2020/128 (Annexure-P/6).

Mr. Gaggar, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner led by Mr. Aniruddha Chatterjee, submits that in spite of several representations having been made before the Officer-in-Charge, Karaya Police Station being the respondent no.8 herein and the Chief Secretary, Government of West Bengal being the respondent no.2 herein, no action has been taken by the State authorities.