Order 08/11/2024 Instant criminal revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 22.02.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (WA Act Cases) Bikaner by which the trial court took cognizance against the petitioner for offence under Sections 498A, 406, 304B/302 IPC.

Brief facts of the case are that the complainant respondent no.2 lodged a FIR against the accused persons including the petitioner for demand of dowry and cruelty for offence under Sections 498A, 406, 304B and 302 IPC. The police after investigation submitted chargesheeted only against the husband and other accused persons were not arrayed as an accused. The investigation against the present petition was kept pending under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. but later on investigation was completed and a closure report was submitted before the trial court.

Date : 11.11.2024

1. Heard Mr. B. D. Konwar, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. H. Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. R. Kaushik, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. This application under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Mohammad Tahzeeb, impugning the order dated 27.09.2024 as well as 04.10.2024 whereby 308.14 tons of coal, which is claimed to be the property of the petitioner, has been given in custody of the respondent No. 2 and the prayer for giving zimma of the same to the petitioner has been rejected.

3. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is the proprietor of Lalpahar Coal Depot, Tinsukia, Assam and operates a lawful business of coal processing and distribution with requisite statutory licenses and authorization including GST registration and NOC from local authorities.

Date : 11.11.2024 Heard Mr. P Borthakur, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam appearing for the State Respondent. Also heard Mr. A Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. The other respondents are not represented, though notices are duly served.

The present petition is filed under section 378(3) of the Cr.P.C., 1973 praying for leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 29.05.2012, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC), Bongaigaon in Sessions Case No.25(J)/2000, acquitting the accused respondent from the charges under section 304/149 IPC.

Perused the grounds of preferring the appeal against acquittal.

11.11.2024 Herd Mr. A. B. Dey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D. P. Gowami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

This is an application under Section 442/438 of BNSS against the judgment and order date 30.07.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Cachar, Silchar in Criminal Appeal No. 14/2020 affirming the judgment of the trial court and modifying the sentence whereby the accused was convicted under Section 147/323/325/149 IPC.

As Mr. D. P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has entered Page No.# 3/3 appearance on behalf of the State respondent No.1, a copy of the petition along with the documents annexed thereto be furnished to him during the course of the day.

BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK 11/11/2024 Heard Ms. B Devi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State respondent.

2. This application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. (New Section 483 BNSS) has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Jashim Uddin Laskar, son of Late Jalal Uddin Laskar, resident of Village- Barnagad, P.O. Kalibaribazar, P.S. Algapur, District-Hailakandi, seeking bail in Silchar P.S. Case No. Page No.# 2/3 1935/2023 registered under Sections 379 IPC (Section New 303 BNS) corresponding to G.R. No. 3650/2023, wherein he was arrested on 11.09.2024 and is in custody since then.

11.11.2024 Heard Shri A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the applicant, namely, Jiarul Haque, who has filed this anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) praying for granting pre-arrest bail in connection with Bhuragaon PS Case No.78/2024, under Sections 447/376/503/34 of IPC.

Also heard Shri K. K. Das, learned Addl. PP, Assam.

Page No.# 2/2 Call for the Case Diary, fixing 29.11.2024.

The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that though the offences involved are serious in nature a bare reading of the allegations which has been registered in the form of a complaint would show that the same are concocted. He has highlighted the aspect that though the alleged incident is on 04.06.2024, the complaint has been lodged on 27.08.2024.

11-11-2024 Heard Mr. L. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. S. H. Borah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the respondent No.1. Also heard Mr. R. N. Das, learned Standing Counsel, Water Resource Department, for the respondent No.2.

2. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner, namely, Shri Abir Dutta, son of Late Jagat Chandra Dutta, resident of Village/Town- Ward No.7, South Amolapatty, Mohanghat, Near Borah Hyundai, District- Dibrugarh has filed this application under Section 482 of the BNS, 2023 seeking pre-arrest bail in C.I.D. P.S. Case No.11/2024 (C.R. Case No. 4427/204) registered under Sections 120B/420/468/471 IPC.

3. The matter relates to alleged illegal claim of land acquisition compensation of land relating to Dag Nos. 8 and 9 under Jhapora Gaon of Dibrugarh Town Protection (DTP) Dyke/Mathauri that was constructed in the year 1954-56, which is Government land and allegedly purchased by father of the petitioner late Jagat Chandra Dutta during his lifetime in the year 1971.

11.11.2024 Mr. A. B. Dey, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. D. P. Gowami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

This is an application under Section 442/438 of BNSS against the judgment and order date 30.07.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Cachar, Silchar in Criminal Appeal No. 14/2020 affirming the Page No.# 3/3 judgment of the trial court and modifying the sentence whereby the accused was convicted under Section 147/323/325/149 IPC.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was on bail during trial and appeal as such the petitioner may be allowed to remain on previous bail or to go on bail.

The instant appeal has been preferred from jail against a judgment dated 17.02.2020 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge-2 (FTC), Tinsukia in Sessions Case No. 52(T)/18 convicting the appellant and sentencing him to undergo with Life Imprisonment u/s 302 IPC and a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only), in default the accused shall have to undergo another rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one) year.

2. The criminal law was set into motion by lodging of an FIR on 18.02.2018 by one Ashok Chik (PW2), who is the brother of the deceased Sankar Chik. In the said FIR, the informant did not name anybody as accused and the allegation was that some unknown miscreant had left his younger brother near the Kali Mandir after killing him. On the basis of the FIR, the investigation was done whereafter the charge sheet was submitted. On framing of the charges and denial thereof, the formal trial had begun in which 15 numbers of prosecution witnesses were examined and certain documents were also exhibited including the sketch map. Apart from the statements made before the police under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., the statements of 3 nos. of witnesses were also recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. After completion of the evidence, the appellant - accused was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. where he had denied the evidence against him.

Date : 11.11. 2024 Heard Mr. K. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam, appearing for the State respondent.

It is submitted by Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor that charge sheet vide C.S. No. 11/24, dated 31.03.2024 has already been submitted Page No.# 2/2 in connection with Kazigaon P.S. Case No. 87/2023 under Sections 120B/ 273/ 379/ 418/ 420/411 IPC read with Section 59(II) of Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006.

In view of the above, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to approach before the trial court with an appropriate application seeking zimma of 125 bags of local areca nuts.

Date : 08.11.2024 Heard Mr. H.R.A.Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D.P.Goswami, learned Addl.P.P. for the State respondent No.1. Also heard Mr. J.Islam, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

By filing this petition under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Surakshya Sanhita, 2023, the petitioner, namely, Sheikh Faruque Al Bash has prayed for granting pre-arrest bail, apprehending arrest in connection with Abhayapuri P.S. Case No. 158/2024 under Section 365/511/354/352/323 IPC r/w Section 12 of POCSO Act, 2012 r/w Section 75 of JJ Act.

Case diary is received.

The allegation in the FIR reveals that the daughter of the informant was dragged by the petitioner to an unknown place on his bike and sexually assaulted her.

Date : 08.11.2024 Heard Mr. H.R.A.Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. D.P.Goswami, learned Addl.P.P. for the State respondent No.1. Also heard Mr. J.Islam, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

By filing this petition under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Surakshya Sanhita, 2023, the petitioners, namely, 1. Sheikh Abdur Rezzaque Ahmed,

2. Rukia Khatun and 3. Sheikh Junayed Ahmed have prayed for granting pre-arrest bail, apprehending arrest in connection with Abhayapuri P.S. Case No. 158/2024 under Section 365/511/354/352/323 IPC r/w Section 12 of POCSO Act, 2012 r/w Section 75 of JJ Act.

The Case diary, as called for, is placed before the Court. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that by order, dated 28.06.2024, this Court granted interim pre-arrest bail to the petitioners and they have appeared before the I.O. and gave their statements.

Date : 11.11.2024

1. Heard Mr. M. A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. R. Kaushik, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State Respondent.

2. This application under Section 483 of the BNSS, has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Jamir Uddin, who has been detained behind the bars since Page No.# 2/8 19.12.2022 (for more than 1 year 10 months) in connection with Special (NDPS) Case No. 170/2022, which is pending in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Karimganj.

3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 19.12.2022 about 739 grams of heroin was seized from the possession of 4 (four) accused persons including the present petitioner and on 19.12.2022, one Nilov Jyoti Nath, S.I. of Police had lodged an FIR to that affect before the Officer-In-Charge of Ramkrishna Nagar Police Station. On receipt of the said FIR, Ramkrishna Nagar P.S. Case No. 165/2022 was registered under Section 21(c)/25/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985, and investigation was initiated. Ultimately, on completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was laid against four numbers of accused persons, including the present petitioner on 30.04.2023 under Sections 21(c)/25/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985.

BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA Advocates for the petitioner : Mr. A. I. Uddin, Advocate For the respondents :

Dates of hearing : 08.11.2024 Date of Judgment : 12.11.2024 JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV)

1. Heard Mr. A. I. Uddin, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that the petitioner submitted his bid in respect of the E-Tender Notice No.06/2023- 2024 issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry Division, Pune, Government of Maharashtra, for supply of minimum 4 months old bamboo seedlings from certified seed source in around 4"x5" size polybags.

...

19. It is clear from the above narrative that none of the documents Page No.# 10/14 produced during the trial answered the description of "the date of birth certificate from the school" or "the matriculation or equivalent certificate"

from the concerned examination board or certificate by a corporation, municipal authority or a Panchayat. In these circumstances, it was incumbent for the prosecution to prove through acceptable medical tests/examination that the victim's age was below 18 years as per Section 94(2)(iii) of the JJ Act. PW-9, Dr. Thenmozhi, Chief Civil Doctor and Radiologist at the General Hospital at Vellore, produced the X-ray reports and deposed that in terms of the examination of M, a certificate was issued stating "that the age of the said girl would be more than 18 years and less than 20 years". In the cross-examination, she admitted that M's age could be taken as 19 years. However, the High Court rejected this evidence, saying that "when the precise date of birth is available from out of the school records, the approximate age estimated by the medical expert cannot be the determining factor". This finding is, in this court's considered view, incorrect and erroneous. As held earlier, the documents produced, i.e., a transfer certificate and extracts of the admission register, are not what Section 94 (2) (i) mandates; nor are they in accord with Section 94 (2)(ii) because DW-1 clearly deposed that there were no records relating to the birth of the victim, M. In these circumstances, the only piece of evidence, accorded with Section 94 of the JJ Act was the medical ossification test, based on several X-Rays of the victim, and on the basis of which PW-9 made her statement. She explained the details regarding examination of the victim's bones, stage of their development and opined that she was between 18-20 years; in cross-examination she said that the age might be 19 years. Given all these circumstances, this court is of the opinion that the result of the ossification or bone test was the most authentic evidence, corroborated by the examining doctor, PW-

11.11.2024 Heard Mr. N. J. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Ms. P. Page No.# 2/6 Agarwal, learned counsel representing the respondent No. 2.

2. By filing this application u/s 482 Cr.PC, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the FIR dated 25/07/2023 vide Mankachar PS case No. 308/2023 u/s 376 AB/511 IPC read with Section 8/10 of POCSO Act and section 67 of IT Act.

3. The allegation as per FIR is that on the date of incident when the minor daughter of the informant while visited the house of her father-in-law, the present petitioner along with other co-accused No. 3 and 4 handed over the victim to accused no. 1. The accused no. 1 had kissed the victim girl on her face and different parts of her body and tried to commit rape on her. They also took the photographs of the said incident and made them viral through mobiles.

Date : 11.11.2024 Heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. A. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sharma, learned Additional PP for the State.

2. By filing this petition u/s 483 BNSS, 2023, the petitioner, Sunu Ali @ Md.

Page No.# 2/8 Nur Hussain has prayed for granting regular bail in connection with NDPS case No. 187/2024 u/s 21©/29 of NDPS Act (arising out of STF PS case no. 20/23) pending in the court of learned District and Sessions Judge No.5, Kamrup (M), Guwahati.

3. The instant case relates to recovery of commercial quantity of heroine from the hidden chamber of Tata Yodha vehicle bearing no. AS-25EC-4464 and the present petitioner was found inside the vehicle along with the alleged contraband. Accordingly, the recovered items were seized and the present accused/ petitioner was arrested.

1. Heard on I.A.No.20559/2024, an application under Section 301(2) of Cr.P.C. seeking permission to assist the Public Prosecutor.

2. On due consideration and the reasons contained in the application, the same is allowed. Shri Vijay Kumar Agrawal, Advocate and his associates are permitted to assist the Public Prosecutor at the time of hearing of this case.

3. The applicant has filed this second repeat application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. The applicant has been arrested on 01.03.2024 by Police Station Morar, District Gwalior, M.P. relating to Crime No.66/2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 120B of IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act. First application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 16.07.2024 passed in M.Cr.C.No.27396/2024.

This is first application filed under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. (S.439 of Cr.P.C.) for grant of bail to the applicants in connection with Crime No. 190 of 2024 registered at Police Station - Sirol, District Gwalior for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 296, 54 and 3(5) of the BNS and sections 25/27 of the Arms Act.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant/accused argued that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated. There is no evidence on record to connect them with the crime. Further submission is that the FIR does not indicate that the applicants were present in the Car. Applicants were arraigned in this case only on account of statement of memorandum. Further submission is that order-sheet of learned trial Court dated 13/9/2024 (Annexure A/2) indicates that until 13/9/2024 no allegations were made against the applicants/accused persons. Even Creta Car does not belong to NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:19418 2 MCRC-45016-2024 the applicants. They are under custody since 21/9/2024. Their custodial interrogation is not required anymore as material investigation has already been concluded. Applicant Aakash is permanent resident of Village Girgaon, Maharajpura, Gwalior, while applicant Rahul is permanent resident of Noorabad, District Morena and there is no likelihood of their absconsion or tampering with the prosecution evdience. They shall abide by all the terms and conditions as may be imposed by this Court. Hence, learned counsel prays for grant of bail to the applicants

Petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to quash all proceedings against them.

2. Petitioners are accused 1 to 8 in S.C.No.1346/2019 on the files of the Assistant Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram, arising out of Crime No.1593/2018 of Poojappura Police Station, registered for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 201, 202, 294(b), 506(ii), 326 and 308 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Respondents 2 and 3 are the defacto complainant and the injured witness.

3. According to the prosecution, the accused had, on 03.09.2018, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly after abusing the defacto complainant and the third respondent, assaulted them, inflicted grievous injuries, and thereby committed the offences alleged.

The application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ('BNSS', for short) by the first accused in Crime No. 690/2024 of the Chingavanam Police Station, Kottayam, which is registered against the accused for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 366A, 376, 376(3), 376(2)(n), 354 A, 354 B and 506(1) r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 66(E) of the Information Technology Act, and Sections 3(a), 4(1), 6, 5(1), 11(ii) and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (in short, 'the POCSO Act'), 2012. The petitioner was remanded to judicial custody on 04.07.2024.

The Court: As a last chance, the time to file affidavit-in-opposition to the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is extended upto 30th November, 2024. Affidavit-in-reply, if any, be filed within 8th December, 2024. Let this matter appear in the list on 11th December, 2024.

The time mentioned is peremptory.

(SHAMPA SARKAR, J.) B.Pal

The Court: We have heard learned counsel for the parties. On 25th April, 2023, the appeal was admitted and all further proceedings in the suit including the hearing of the application under Sections 5 and 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act pending before the learned Trial Court was initially stayed for eight weeks and thereafter the said interim order was extended from time to time.

2

We feel that the appeal is required to be heard and we do not find any reason to vacate the interim order at this stage.

The interim order passed on 25th April, 2023 is confirmed. The applications stand disposed of.

The appeal shall be listed on 25th November, 2024.

Affidavit of service is taken on record.

This application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Concilation Act, 1996 has been filed for an injunction restraining the respondent from operating the bank account being No. 5480011001480 maintained with the Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank. The petitioner submits that the dispute arises out of a settlement executed between the parties on January 15, 2021. The settlement contains an arbitration clause. It provides that all disputes and differences relating to any previous, present or future and arising out of the transactions, sale or purchase etc. shall be decided by a sole arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The petitioner submits that pursuant to such settlement, a cheque for an amount of Rs.11,84,856/- dated June 12, 2021 was issued in favour of the petitioner by the respondent. The cheque was dishonoured and the petitioner has already initiated proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

The Court :The affidavit of service is taken on record. This is an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act'). The petitioner was engaged by the respondent to execute some piling work. The petitioner contends that the work could not be completed as NTPC had stopped the petitioner from carrying out the same on account of certain disputes between NTPC and the respondent. It is submitted that non- payments of the amounts due and other disputes between the petitioner and the respondent could not be resolved as a proceeding was before an arbitrator for resolution of a dispute between NTPC and the respondent. The petitioner claims to have also approached NTPC and were allegedly informed that the claim of the petitioner would be liquidated by the respondent as the money awarded by the arbitrator in the arbitration proceedings between the respondent and NTPC, had been paid to the respondents.The petitioner had invoked the arbitration clause and the respondent replied to the notice, thereby denying the claim of the petitioner. The respondent suggested the name of a learned Retired Judge to act as the sole arbitrator, in response to the notice invoking arbitration. In reply to such letter, the petitioner suggested the names of three learned Retired Judges.

By way of this order, I intend to dispose off aforesaid-captioned appeals. These appeals involve similar question of law in the background of identical set of facts.

1 of 9 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145543 other connected cases

2. For brevity, the facts are being culled out from from FAO No.1112 of 1988.

3. Instant appeal is directed against judgment dated 26th of August, 2022 passed by Sub Judge, 1st Class, Phagwara exercising powers as ESI Court under ESI Act, 1948 whereby the petition filed under Section 75-78 of the ESI Act, 1948 by the respondent has been allowed.

4. Recovery certificate under Section 45-A was issued and attachment proceedings were initiated against the respondent through Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Phagwara for recovery of Rs.6690-95 paise. Respondent challenged the demand before ESI Court. It was claimed that the demand raised by the ESI Corporation was based on adhoc assessment without any survey. The demand has been raised w.r.t. 132 KV Sub Station, Phagwara. The same does not fall within the purview of ESI Act as the strength of the staff is only three in number. The staff employed for maintenance like Mali, Sweeper at the Sub Station are on the roles of XEN D/S and not on the roles of KV Sub Station. It was thus claimed that the respondent was not liable to pay any amount towards ESI contribution.

1. Relief Sought The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C., has been invoked for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 07, dated 07.02.2024, under Sections 22, 29 of NDPS Act, 1985, registered at Police Station Talwandi Chaudharian, District Kapurthala.

2. Facts Facts as narrated in the FIR reads as under:-

"Statement of ASI Nirmal Singh 51/Kpt: Hi-tech Naka Bridge Shri Goindwal Sahib P.S. Talwandi Chaudharian District Kapurthala. Stated that I was on duty at Hi-tech Naka Bridge Shri Goindwal Sahib P.S. Talwandi Chaudharian District Kapurthala. Today I alongwith ASI Parvinder Singh 1517/Kpt, ASI Kanwaljit Singh 1539/Kpt were checking vehicles at Hi-tech Naka Bridge Shri Goindwal Sahib P.S. Talwandi Chaudharian District Kapurthala. Then from side of Mundi Maur one motorcycle was seen coming and three persons with cut hair were riding the same. They were signaled to stop on seeing the naka of police they threw the 1 of 7 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:146061 motorcycle and tried to run back. The driver of the motorcycle from the pocket of his pant, the person sitting in the middle from the pocket of his pyjama and the person sitting at the end from the pocket of his pant took out one transparent polythene bag and threw the same on the side of the road and therein orange colored tablets were clearly visible. They were apprehended and their names and address was inquired. The driver of the motorcycle disclosed his name as Balwinder Singh @ Deepa son of Swaran Singh R/o village Hamira P.S. Subhanpur. The person sitting in the middle disclosed his name as Manjit Singh @ Katta son of Vaid Singh Resident of Hamira P.S. Subhanpur. The person sitting at the last disclosed his name as Gurnam Singh @ Gama son of Sewa Singh R/o Phulra P.S. Bhaini Mian Khan District Gurdaspur. I being local rank ASI cannot carry out proceedings under the NDPS Act. Therefore, I had given information at P.S. Talwandi Chaudhrian through phone to send investigating officer. You alongwith police party have reached at the spot. The polythene bags thrown by Balwinder Singh @ Deepa, Manjit Singh @ Katta and Gurnam Singh ® Gama are lying as it is. I have given my statement to you and same is correct."

INDEX

1. Challenge in the present Para 1 Page 1-2 appeal

2. Background of the case Paras 2-9 Pages 2-6

3. Arguments on behalf of the Paras 10-13 Pages 6-10 appellants

4. Arguments on behalf of Paras 14-15 Pages 10-12 respondent no.1/plaintiff

5. Analysis and Findings Paras 16-38 Pages 12-25 CHALLENGE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL

1. Defendant Nos.2 to 4 have filed the present appeal under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918. Challenge in the present appeal is to the judgment dated 11.09.1992 vide which the Ist Appellate Court had set aside the judgment and decree dated 02.12.1988 passed by the trial Court and had decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent 1 of 25 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145434 RSA-1920-1992 (O&M) [2] No.1 (presently represented by his LRs) for specific performance. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

1 This petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail in case F.I.R. No.0108 dated 19.09.2021 registered under Section 21 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 at Police Station Bhikhiwind, District Tarn Taran.

2. Custody Certificate of the petitioner has been filed today in Court. The same is taken on record.

3. As per the case of the prosecution, the petitioner was found to be in illegal possession of 255 grams of heroin.

4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is behind bars for more than 3 years, 1 month and 17 days. Trial is proceedings at snail's pace as by now only 5 out of 11 witnesses could be examined.

1. Relief Sought This petition has been filed under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in Case FIR No. 69 Dated 02.03.2023 registered under Sections 302, 364, 201, 406, 420, 120-B IPC at Police Station City Kharar District SAS Nagar (Mohali).

2. Prosecution story set up in the present case as per the version in the FIR reads as under :-

'Statement of Gagan Kumar Son of Paramjit Singh Resident of House No.-2213/55 C New Vijay Nagar Street No-3 Tajpur Road, Ludhiana, District Ludhiana aged about 26 years, stated that I am a resident of the aforesaid address and working in a private job at Ludhiana. My brother-in-law Rajinder Singh son of Hardev Singh Village Post Office Mahauli Khurd Police Station Sandour District Malerkotla (aged about 33-34 years) who used to work for car sales and exchange at Kharar who lived on rent at Sri Krishna Dairy Sante Majra Colony Kharar near Swaraj Nagar that on dated 18-2- 2023 my brother-in-law came back from Gurgaon Haryana. With whom I spoke on the phone, who told me that I will come to 1 of 8 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145880 Ludhiana on Monday.

1. Relief Sought The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C., has been invoked for second time seeking the concession of regular bail for the petitioner in FIR no.0608 dated 10.12.2023 under Sections 22(C), 29, 61 and 85 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 at Police Station Naraingarh, District Ambala (Annexure P-1), during the pendency of trial.

2. Prosecution story set up in the present case as per the version in the FIR read as under :-

'Respected Sir, To the Station House Officer, Police Station Naraingarh, District Ambala. Today on 10.12.2023, ASI Matlub Hussain No. 207/AMB HSNCB UNIT AMBALA, ASI SANDEEP KUMAR 75/A, EASI SURENDRA SINGH NO.

1. The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above had come up before this Court under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking regular bail.

2. Per paragraph 16 of the reply dated 14-10-2024, the accused has the following criminal antecedents:

Sr. No. FIR No. Date Offenses Police Station

1. 331 1994 Under section 379 IPC Paschim Vihar, East Delhi

2. 497 1994 Under section 379 IPC Paschim Vihar, East Delhi

3. 715 1998 Under section 379 IPC Paschim Vihar, East Delhi

4. 920 2004 Under section 379 IPC Paschim Vihar, East Delhi

1. Since both the above appeals arise from a common verdict, made by the learned trial Judge concerned, hence both the appeals (supra) are amenable for a common verdict being made thereons.

2. Both the appeals (supra) are directed against the impugned verdict, as made on 20.09.2022, upon Sessions Case No.74 of 15.02.2018, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, wherethrough in 1 of 28 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145851-DB CRA-D-1106-2022 AND CRA-D-62-2023 (O&M) -2- respect of charges drawn against the accused qua offences punishable under Sections 302/34 of the IPC, thus the learned trial Judge concerned, proceeded to record a finding of conviction against appellants-convicts. Moreover, through a separate sentencing order of even date, the learned trial Judge concerned, sentenced the appellants-convicts in the hereinafter extracted manner:

as contained in Memo No. 274 passed by the learned District Magistrate, Nawada to the extent, whereby the claim of the petitioner for his regularization has been turned down.

3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been working as daily wager against Class-IV Patna High Court CWJC No.2171 of 2019 dt.11-11-2024 post since long. Despite his continuous services for a long period, when his claim has not been considered for regularization, he moved before this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 15428 of 2010. The learned Court having considered the grievance of the petitioner has disposed off the writ petition with a direction to the petitioner to file a representation before the respondent no. 2, the District Magistrate, Nawada, to consider the claim of the petitioner and pass a reasoned and speaking order. Pursuant to the aforenoted direction, the petitioner filed a detailed representation. However, the claim of the petitioner has turned down by Annexure-5 to the writ petition, which is put to challenge.

Date : 11-11-2024 In the instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s):-

That, this is an application for issuance of an appropriate writ or writs setting aside the order dated 11.08.2017 passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, of 2015-16 (wrongly mentioned as 2005) by which he has allowed the appeal preferred by respondent 2nd set against the order dated 10.04.2015 passed by the Anchal Adhikari, Jehanabad in Misc. Case No. 08 of 2015-16 by which he has allowed the claim of the petitioners for collection of rent after entering their name in Jamabandi to the land in question and/or to grant any other relief/reliefs for which the petitioner is legally entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case.

being done in the light of Bihar Apartment Ownership Act, 2006, it was agreed that the builder shall provide flats of super built up area of 2.25 times of their given land admeasuring area of 2000 sq.ft. i.e. 4500 sq.ft. to each of them along with a parking space for a four-wheeler vehicle with each flat. In view of clause 5 of Development Agreement, a Patna High Court MA No.296 of 2021 dt.12-11-2024 separate supplementary agreement was also executed on the same day between the owners and developers for determination of actual share portion wherein the builder agreed to give three flats each of 1440 sq.ft. as follows:-

The applicant is in judicial custody in S.T. No.32 of 202 in connection with FIR/Case Crime No.139 of 2022, dated 21.07.2022, under Sections 302, 201, 304- B IPC, Police Station Kotwali Pithoragarh, District Pithoragarh. He has sought his release on bail.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. According to the FIR, the deceased was married to the applicant 5 years prior to lodging of the FIR. They were blessed with a daughter. The deceased was staying in her mother's house along with her daughter. The FIR records that on 20.07.2022, at about 01:00 PM, the applicant took the deceased along with her daughter with him. At 02:30 PM on that date he informed the son of the informant that the deceased would return by evening. When the deceased did not return, next morning at 07:00 AM, the applicant was telephoned by the informant, but the applicant told that the deceased had returned on the previous evening. On the same day, the dead body of the deceased was found.

Sh. Anoop Kumar Pandey, Ld. Counsel for petitioners/Lrs of deceased. None for driver and owner.

Sh. V.K. Gupta, Ld. Counsel for insurance company.

Petition under Section 166 & 140 of M.V. Act, 1988 for grant of compensation AWARD

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners U/s 166 & 140 M.V.Act seeking compensation of Rs. 50,00,000/- alongwith interest from the date of filing of the present claim petition till its realization being legal representatives of deceased Sunil Verma (married aged 25 years) on account of death of deceased who died in road traffic accident in question which occurred on 02.09.2018. The petitioners also prayed for compensation MACP No. 754/18; FIR No. 206/18 DOD:12.11.2024 for irreparable monetary loss, mental agony, loss of love and affection and future prospects plus all other heads of compensation as per entitlement, caused due to accidental death of deceased.

Brief statement of reasons for the decision

1. This case has been instituted by the complainant, Mr. Pawan Kumar under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. against the accused, Mr. Ved Prakash Dhuria for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the "NI Act").

Brief Facts:

2. The substance of the allegations and assertion of the complainant is that the complainant had advanced a friendly loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- to the accused on 09.10.2018 for four months with interest at the rate of 2% per month, given the needs of the accused and cordial relations between them. It is alleged that a loan agreement and receipt dated 09.10.2018 were also executed between the parties. It is further alleged that the accused issued two post-dated cheques, cheque No. 000029 dated 06.04.2021 and cheque No. 000030 dated 06.04.2021 both for a sum of Rs. 2,34,000/- each drawn on Bank, Of India, Pitampura Branch, Delhi in favour of the complainant (hereinafter referred to as the by MEENA MEENA CHAUHAN CHAUHAN Date: 2024.11.11 15:18:42 +0530 "impugned cheque"). After an expiry of four months and despite repeated demands, the accused did not repay the loan amount, then, a legal notice dated 14.03.2019 was sent to the accused to discharge his liability. Then, on instructions of the accused, the complainant presented the impugned cheques at his bank. However, both were dishonoured by the bank for the reasons "Funds Insufficient" vide memos dated 07.04.2021. Then, a demand notice dated 13.04.2021 was sent to the accused's address via Speed Post calling upon him to pay the cheque amounts. Despite the service of notice upon the accused, neither the accused paid the cheque amount nor replied to the notice. Hence, it is alleged that the accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act.

8. That attested copy of DAR is Ex. PW-1/1 already on record with the court, attested copy of Charge- sheet is Ex. PW-1/2 already on record with the court, copy of Fir is Ex. PW-1/3 already on record with the court, copy of MLC is Ex. PW-1/4 already on record with the court, copy of post mortem report is Ex. Pw-1/5 already on record with the court, copy of salary certificate is Ex. PW-1/6 already on record with the court, copy of mechanical inspection report of offending vehicle is Ex. PW-1/7 already on record with the court, copy of site plan is Ex. PW-1/8 already on record with the court, copy of Insurance Certificate of offending vehicle is Ex. PW-1/9 already on record with the court, copy fo R/C details of offending vehicle is Ex. PW-1/10 already on record with the court, copy of Driving Licence Verification report of respondent/accused is Ex. PW-1/11 already on record with the court, copy of arrest memo is Ex. PW-1/12 already on record with the court, Copies of Aadhar Cards of legal heirs are Ex. Pw-1/13 (Colly.) already on record with the court. Copy of Funeral receipt issued from Shamshan Ghat is Ex. PW-1/14. Copy of Death Certificate of my deceased father is Ex. PW-1/15.

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 16.05.2023 seeking information on the following points:

"Please provide the specific information / clarification on Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972. (updated as on 19.09.2022)

(i) Please inform who are 'such Government Servant' referred under Rule 63 (2)(a) above

(ii) Please clarify whether Rule 63(2)(a) is applicable to only to those Government servants refereed 63(1)(a) and (b)

(iii) Whether both the actual amount of leave salary (Rule 63(1)) and study leave conversion to regular leave (Rule 63 (2) (a) are applicable to all government servants referred in 63 (1) and 63 (2)

[Judgment of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J.,] Captioned intra-Court appeal i.e., 'Original Side Appeal' {hereinafter 'OSA' for the sake of brevity} is under Section 37 of 'The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act No.26 of 1996)' [hereinafter 'A and C Act' for the sake of convenience and clarity].

2. Short facts (shorn of particulars not imperative for appreciating this order) are that the appellant before this 'Commercial Appellate Division' {'CAD' for the sake of brevity} is engaged in the business of manufacturing, producing and distributing Sugar and its by-products; that the appellant shall hereinafter be referred to as 'SBSL' denoting 'Sree Basaveshwar Sugars Limited'; that the respondent before this CAD is a company which is https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing and supplying / selling plant, machinery and equipment required for sugar plants; that the respondent before CAD shall hereinafter be referred to as 'UIEPL' denoting 'Uttam Industrial Engineering Private Limited'; that short facts / abbreviations are deployed for the sake of brevity and convenience; that fulcrum or in other words nucleus of lis between the parties is a 'contract dated 05.05.2011' {hereinafter 'said contract' for the sake of brevity}; that vide said contract, UIEPL {to be noted, 'UIEPL' shall be referred to as 'contractor' also for the sake of brevity and convenience} was to design and supply Sugar Mill House Equipments for sugar factory of SBSL {to be noted, 'SBSL' shall be referred to as 'employer' also for the sake of brevity and convenience}; that under the said contract, contractor was to supply employer in Karnataka all material and equipments so as to enable erection and commissioning of Mill House equipments including Cane Handling on or before April 2012; that said contract broadly had three aspects included in it namely, (i) Commercial Terms and Condition for supply at site, (ii) Technical Terms and Conditions and (iii) Data Sheet and Annexure; that under the said contract, contractor UIEPL supplied the sugar house https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis equipments till May 2012; that thereafter, said contract ran into rough weather as according to the contractor, employer did not make payments though clause 1.14.6 of the said contract stipulates that employer has to pay as per invoice without making deductions unless the details of such claims have already been communicated to the contractor; that according to the contractor, as per clause 1.14.1(d) of said contract, money should have been settled within 15 days; that this Court is on a legal drill under Section 37 of A and C Act and therefore it is really not necessary to delve into numbers in terms of claims with specificity and exactitude; that it will suffice to say that employer in and by a notice dated 12.02.2012 terminated the said contract; that this lead to eruption of arbitrable disputes and constitution of a three member 'Arbitral Tribunal' {'AT' for the sake of brevity}; that before AT, UIEPL contractor was claimant and SBSL employer was respondent; that contractor as claimant made a claim for a sum of a little over Rs.4.43 Crores stating that the same are monies due from employer SBSL for supply of machinery and equipments supplied during the period of 23.12.2011 to 15.03.2018 under said contract; that this amount of a little over Rs.4.43 Crores (Rs.4,43,56,687/- to be precise) was claimed with interest at 14% per https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis annum; that employer SBSL as respondent before AT resisted the claim and also made a counter claim for Rs.5 Crores saying that the same is towards damages said to have been suffered by SBSL for breach of terms of said contract; that this damages of Rs.5 Crores was claimed by employer SBSL with 18% interest per annum; that AT, after full contest, made an 'award dated 03.08.2019' {hereinafter 'impugned award' for the sake of brevity} inter alia returning a verdict in favour of claimant / contractor / UIEPL in a sum of Rs.4,43,56,687/- together with 12% interest per annum besides costs of Rs.6 Lakhs; that as regards the counter claim of employer SBSL i.e., counter claim of Rs.5 Crores, the entire counter claim was dismissed as a case of no evidence {no pleadings with specificity too}; that the employer SBSL assailed the impugned award under Section 34 of A and C Act vide O.P.No.39 of 2020 and Section 34 Court in and by an 'order dated 30.06.2021' {hereinafter 'impugned order' for the sake of brevity} dismissed the Section 34 petition; that against the impugned order of Section 34 Court, captioned OSA has been filed by SBSL employer; that the captioned appeal was heard out in full;

These two Arbitration Original Petitions have been filed under Section 34(2)(b)(ii) and Section 34 (2-A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 wherein the Impugned Arbitral Awards both dated 22.04.2022 have been challenged.

_____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.)Nos.646 & 647 of 2022

2. The Respondent herein was the claimant before the Arbitral Tribunal and had filed two claims in respect of Chimney No.I and Chimney No.II under Work Order No.AXON/WO/017/2010-2011 (Chimney No.I) dated 09.08.2010 and Work Order No.AXON/WO/019/2010-2011 (Chimney No.II) dated 21.08.2010 respectively.

11.11.2024 Order No.

01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode).

2. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the records.

3. The Petitioner is apprehending arrest for the alleged commission of offence under Sections 341/384/294/506/307/323/ 325/379 of I.P.C. in G.R. Case No.87 of 2018 of the Court of the learned J.M.F.C., Nimapara arising out of Nimapara P.S. Case No.33 of 2018.

4. It is stated by learned counsel for the Petitioner that earlier the Petitioner approached this Court by filing ABLAPL No.2915 of 2018. The said bail application was disposed of by a coordinate bench of this Court on 30.01.2019 thereby directing the Petitioner to surrender before the court below and move an application for bail with a corresponding direction to the learned court in seisin over the matter to dispose of the bail application on the very same day. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at this juncture submitted that due to communication gap with the conducting counsel, the Petitioner could not take advantage of order dated 30.01.2019.

11.11.2024 Order No.

02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).

2. Heard Senior learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the Informant. Perused the records.

3. This is an application under Section 438, Cr.P.C. filed by the Petitioner for anticipatory bail, involving offence punishable under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 34 of I.P.C. and Sections 66(C), 66(D) of I.T. Act in C.T. Case No.399 of 2024 of the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar arising out of Cyber Crime P.S. Case No.11 of 2024.

08.11.2024 Order No.

01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the Opposite Party-State.

3. The present application has been filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. by the Petitioner seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with Byree P.S. Case No.95 of 2023, corresponding to C.T. Case No.946 of 2023, pending in the court of learned J.M.F.C., Chandikhole, for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 294, 307, 507, 506, 34 of I.P.C.

Heard.

2. At the instance of the petitioner No.2, the F.I.R. in connection with Bari Ramachandrapur P.S. Case No.94 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. Case No.631 of 2017 came to be registered against the petitioner No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A)/323/325/506/34 of the IPC read with Section 4 of the D.P. Act pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Jajpur.

Page 1 of 4

3. The petitioner No.1 is the husband of the petitioner No.2. Their marriage was solemnized in the year 2016. Few days after their marriage, dissention arose in their family for which the petitioner No.2 lodged the F.I.R. being Bari Ramachandrapur P.S. Case No.94 of 2017 for the above alleged offences.

RESERVED ON : 11th NOVEMBER 2024 PRONOUNCED ON: 12th NOVEMBER 2024 _______________________ Judgment (Per Advait M. Sethna, J.)

1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. By consent of the parties, the petition is heard finally.

NOVEMBER 12, 2024 18-WP(L)-17982-2024(J).DOCX

2. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Briefly, the petition challenges an order dated 30 th March 2024 passed by respondent No.1 ("impugned order" for short). By the said order, the application filed by the petitioner dated 9 th November 2022 seeking waiver of interest charged under Section 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("Income Tax Act" for short) for the Assessment Year 2021-22 ("A. Y. Year 2021-22" for short) stood rejected. The reliefs/prayers in the petition are set out at pages 52 to 54 in para 12 thereof. The substantive relief/prayer is to quash and set aside the impugned order passed by respondent No.1 and to grant waiver of interest for an amount of Rs.3,88,59,353/- charged under Section 234C of the Income Tax Act. Such is the limited issue for consideration before us.

1. In both appeals, exception has been taken to the judgment and order dated 29.09.2005 passed by learned Special Judge, Osmanabad in Special Case (AC) No. 4 of 2003 recording guilt of appellants for offence punishable under sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) and Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [PC Act] respectively.

CASE OF PROSECUTION IN BRIEF

2. In brief, case of prosecution is that anti corruption department received complaint from PW1 Chandrakant, who reported that one Regular Criminal Case was on the file of learned JMFC, Kallam against Gorba Sukale and three others, at his instance. In that connection, informant had approached accused no.1, who was Assistant Public Prosecutor [APP] in said court, and appellant accused demanded Rs.1,000/- to put up the case properly before the court and to take further steps of issuing warrant. Unwillingly, PW1 paid part amount and balance of Rs.500/- was decided to be paid later on. As he was not willing to pay illegal gratification, he lodged report Exhibit 54, which was entertained by PW6 Dy.S.P. Gavali, and on the strength of the same, he arranged panchas, planned trap, prepared pre-trap panchanama Exhibit 35, gave necessary instructions to the CriAppeal-704-2005+ complainant and the shadow pancha. On their instructions, both, complainant and shadow pancha, visited court. There, accused no.1 demanded illegal gratification and when informant was paying the same, it was directed to be paid to accused no.2, after which pre- determined signal was relayed by informant, leading to further trap and apprehension of accused persons. Thereafter, PW6 lodged report, carried out investigation, chargesheeted both accused, who were made to face trial before learned Special Judge vide above referred Special Case No. 4 of 2003 and on appreciating prosecution evidence as well as defence witnesses, learned trial Judge, by impugned order dated 29.09.2005, held both accused guilty of offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) and Section 12 of the PC Act, respectively. Said judgment is now subject matter of the appeals before this Court.

1. By order dated 3rd July 2024, the following substantial questions of law were framed for hearing the Second Appeal finally at the admission stage :

(i) Whether the First Appellate Court could have enhanced the quantum of the plaintiff's claim in the absence of any cross-

appeal or cross-objection preferred by the plaintiff ?

(ii) Whether the quantum regarding the claim of the plaintiff decreed by both the Courts is on correct appreciation of the Surveyor's report at Exhibit-59, relied upon by the appellant ?

(iii) Whether the appellant proved that there was any fraud committed by the plaintiff at the time of submitting the claim ?