IA No. 23672 of 2024, an application under Section 301(2) of CrPC moved on behalf of complainant seeking permission of this Court to assist the prosecution in the matter is taken up, considered and allowed for the reasons mentioned therein. Shri Aditya Ghuraiya, learned counsel appearing for complainant along with his associates is permitted to assist the prosecution in the matter.

This is first application filed by the applicants under Section 482 of BNSS 2023, for grant of anticipatory bail relating to Crime No.146 of 2024 registered at Police Station Pathariya, District Vidisha (M.P.) for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 34 IPC.

This petition, under Section 482 of CrPC, has been filed for quashing the FIR on the ground of compromise in connection with Crime No.458/2023 registered at Police Station- Kampoo, District Gwalior for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 34 of IPC, and all consequential proceedings arising out of it.

2 . Allegation against the petitioners is that on account of old enmity, they came together and petitioner Daulat fired a gunshot with pistol on the complainant while he was drinking beer in his car but the bullet hit the back gate of the car.

This petition, under Section 482 of CrPC, has been filed for quashing the FIR on the ground of compromise in connection with Crime No.416/2011 registered at Police Station- Bahodapur, District Gwalior for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC, and all consequential proceedings arising out of it.

2 . Allegation against the petitioner is that he along-with other co- accused on the basis of forged power of attorney sold the plot to the complainant.

3. I.A.No.21627/2024 and I.A. No.21628/2024, applications for compromise have been filed by the petitioners as well as respondent No.2 duly supported by their affidavits.

With the consent of the parties, heard finally.

The applicant has filed the present M.Cr.C. under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashment of F.I.R. No.55/2020 registered at Police Station - Sanyogitaganj, District - Indore for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 of the Indian Penal Code & Section 3(2)(V) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and final report dated 21.04.2020 and all the consequential proceedings arising out of the said F.I.R.

APPEARANCE:

Shri S.P. Jain - Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Subodh Pradhan - Advocate for the respondent.

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

{Passed on 8th the Day of November, 2024}

1. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is preferred by the petitioner being crestfallen by the award dated 24-

03-2018 (pronounced on 02-05-2018) passed by the Labour Court No.2, Gwalior in case No.02/A/I.D. Act/2015 (Reference) whereby the respondent has been directed to be reinstated with 50% back wages.

2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that petitioners and respondent were having workman employer relationship and the respondent was appointed as daily rated Nakedar on Collector rate in the establishment of petitioner No.1 Samiti. The dates and events having material bearing over the case and necessary for disposal of the case are as under:

This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs :-

"7.1. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-

aside the impugned order dated 18-09-2024 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Narmadapuram, Division Narmadapuram, in Case No. 132/Appeal/2024-2025.

7.2. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to get mutate the name of petitioner in the revenue records on the basis of registered will dated 02-05-2011. 7.3. Any other writ/direction deem fit and proper and fact and circumstance of the case.

This application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by the second accused in Crime No. 751/2014 of the Perumbavoor Police Station, which is registered against two accused persons for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 202, and 212 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was originally arrested on 03.03.2014 and he was enlarged on bail on 14.03.2014. However, during the committal stage, the petitioner had absconded. Thereafter, the petitioner was re-arrested on 08.08.2024, and remanded to judicial custody.

2. The essence of the prosecution case is that: on 20.02.2014, at around 2:30 hours, the first accused committed the murder of one Mukesh. Thereafter, the first accused caused the disappearance of evidence by 2024:KER:83235 throwing his clothes into the river. The second accused, who is also a native of Bihar like the first accused, who had the knowledge that the first accused had committed the above crime, intentionally omitted to give the information regarding the commission of the offences to the police, and he harboured the first accused. Thus, the second accused has committed the offences under Sections 202 and 212 of the IPC.

[WP(C) Nos.26883/2024, 38022/2024, 38213/2024, 38235/2024 & 38427/2024] The issue raised in these writ petitions are covered against the petitioners by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Chandra Sekhar Jha v. Union of India and others; (2022) 14 SCC 152. It is clear from a reading of the judgment of the Supreme Court that after the amendment of Section 129 E of Customs Act, 1962 with effect from 06-08-2014 it is a provision beneficial to the persons who propose to file an appeal (like the petitioners herein) and only requires deposit of a portion of the demand. On a consideration of the provision is substituted with effect from 06-08-2024 and on considering the question as to whether such provision will cause undue hardship, it was held as follows;

Dated this the 8th day of November, 2024 The petitioner, an Inspector attached to the Parassala Police Station, at the time of filing the Writ Petition, was the sole accused in V.C.No.2/2015 of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (V.A.C.B.), Thiruvananthapuram. He is aggrieved by Ext.P6 order, which accepted the refer report preferred in the Vigilance Case above-referred, but directed an enquiry by the Vigilance Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram.

2. Heard Sri.P.Nandakumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri.A.Rajesh, learned Special Public Prosecutor (Vigilance), on behalf of the respondents. Perused the records.

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

and

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

Dated this the 8th day of November, 2024 JUDGMENT/ORDER P.G.Ajithkumar, J.

W.P.(C)No.30142 of 2023: Travancore Devaswom Board has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 1 st respondent Inspector General of Registration to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P8 complaint dated 20.02.2023 made by the Devaswom Commissioner demanding cancellation of registration of deed No.1715/2015 with regard to the property having an extent of 32 cents in Sy.No.200/20 in Karode Village. The petitioner has also sought consequential reliefs.

This application under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking suspension of sentence of the applicant/accused in S.C.No.561 of 2023 on the file of the Court of Session, Manjeri. He has been found guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 341, 354 A (2) read with Section 354 A (1)(i), 363 of IPC, and Section 8 read with Section 7 of the PoCSO Act. He has been sentenced to varying terms of imprisonment for the aforesaid offences. The sentences have been directed to run concurrently. The maximum period of imprisonment he will have to undergo is 4 years.

Crl.M.Appl. No.1 of 2024

in &

2. The application is opposed by the learned public prosecutor.

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.

KOCHUVEETHIL HOUSE, ERANZHIPALAM PO, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673006 2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA - 682031 BY ADVS.

MADHAVANUNNI V T LEO LUKOSE(K/001131/2016) T.M.KHALID(K/000047/2013) K.P.SUSMITHA(K/956/2001) VINOD SINGH CHERIYAN(K/000197/1983) B.G HARINDRANATH(SR.) SRI. RENJIT GEORGE, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ADV.ALEX JOSEPH THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.09.2024, THE COURT ON 08.11.2024 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

2024:KER:83495 CRL.MC NO. 3248 OF 2023 CR ORDE R Dated this the 8th day of November, 2024 This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure-A1 complaint in C.C.No.2/2023 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kozhikode. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 13 in the above case.

It appears that a Sole Arbitrator had been appointed in terms of the arbitration clause contained in the agreement dated December 5, 2018.

An application under section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short "the Act") had been preferred before the learned Arbitrator. Two Officers were appointed as Receivers in respect of the subject asset. The Receivers were directed to take physical possession of the said asset being an equipment being XR 220D, bearing engine no.22293605 along with its accessories, as mentioned in the agreement.

Pleadings disclose that the Receivers were not able to take physical possession of the asset in question as they were resisted by the respondents and the local police authorities also did not cooperate.

The respondent expressed lack of confidence on the learned Arbitrator.

The petitioner has pointed out a letter written by the learned Advocate-on-Record for the respondent which, according to the petitioner, was disrespectful to the learned Arbitrator. The petitioner apprehends that the same conduct will be repeated by the respondent's learned Advocate.

Mr. Kar, learned Senior Advocate for the respondent, submits that the letter written by the Advocate-on-Record for the respondent was in answer to the contents of the letter written by the petitioner's Advocate.

2

It appears that there were allegations and counter allegations with regard to the conduct of the parties before the learned Arbitrator. The situation was very unfortunate.

The Court:- Mr. Mitra, learned senior advocate prays for hearing of this application under section11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) on the ground that the arbitrability of a dispute should not be decided by this Bench. This issue should also be decided by the learned arbitrator. Mr. Mitra further contends that once there is an arbitration clause and arbitration has been invoked under section 21 of the said Act, all that this court is supposed to do is to appoint an independent person to act as an arbitrator.

2

Mr. Sinha, learned advocate for the respondent opposes such prayer and submits that the order passed under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in favour of Mr. Mitra's client, has been challenged before the Hon'ble Division Bench. Mr. Sinha has produced an order dated 15th April, 2024 passed in the appeal preferred by the respondent. The question of jurisdiction of the arbitrator to decide the dispute has been raised. The Hon'ble Division Bench had observed that it would be up to the learned single judge whether to decide the question or to adjourn the proceedings, in order to enable the Division Bench to proceed. Mr. Sinha submits that the erstwhile Single Bench had adjourned this matter, on the basis of the order of the Hon'ble appeal Court.

1. Instant petition has been filed praying for quashing of the FIR No.159, dated 05.07.2017, under Sections 353, 186, 341, 332, 323, 148, 149 of IPC (challan presented under sections 353, 186, 341, 332, 323, 148, 149, 201 IPC), registered at Police Station Patran, District Patiala (Annexure P-1) along with all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 16.07.2024 (Annexure P-3). Further prayer has been made for staying all the consequential proceedings arising out of the present FIR during the pendency of the present petition.

1 of 6 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145330

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. 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

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

1. For issuance of writ/writs, order/orders and direction/directions to the Respondents authorities in the nature of Mandamus/Prohibition for not declaring the land as the forest land of the petitioner of Mauza- Targachha of Khata No. Khesra No. 1 of Thana No. 517 of Area 27 acres 61 decimal of District- Banka which belongs to the petitioner upon which, this petitioner planted the trees and cultivated the land twice a year.

and submitted an inspection report on 11.05.2024.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in paragraph no. 9 of the inspection report dated 11.05.2024, the only allegation, which has been made, is regarding enhancement of charges in respect of hajri form disproportionately and Patna High Court CWJC No.10426 of 2024 dt.12-11-2024 discontinuance of the share of Advocates and Advocate clerks in the same, resulting in resentment in the Bar, apart from some allegations being made in the said report regarding functioning of the Committee during the period 2022 to 2024, for which the petitioner is not responsible, inasmuch as his financial power had been seized vide letter dated 19.07.2023.

, made by the Circle Officer, Baheri, affected families, including the petitioners have though been paid some amount of compensation, however, the same is not in consonance with the guidelines issues by the Principal Patna High Court CWJC No.3081 of 2018 dt.12-11-2024 Secretary, Disaster Management Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, contained in letter dated 26.05.2015, relevant portion whereof is reproduced hereinbelow:-

6. Lastly, it is submitted by the learned counsel Patna High Court CWJC No.3081 of 2018 dt.12-11-2024 appearing for the petitioners that the petitioners are entitled to get compensation @ of Rs. 95,100/- each, in view of the aforesaid guidelines issued by the Disaster Management Department, Government of Bihar, Patna and in light of the report submitted by the Revenue Karmchari dated 12.04.2016.

The applicant is in judicial custody in FIR/Case Crime No.257 of 2023, dated 29.04.2023, under Sections 8/22 of The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ("the Act"), Police Station Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar. He has sought his release on bail. This is the second bail application of the applicant. His first bail application has been dismissed as withdrawn on 09.01.2024.

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

3. According to the FIR, narcotic substances in commercial quantity was allegedly recovered from the applicant on 28.04.2023.

2

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.

BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS AND REASONS FOR THE DECISION

1. Vide this judgement, this court shall dispose of the aforementioned complaint case filed by the complainant namely, Samsher Singh against the accused, namely Vinod Kumar in respect of the dishonour of six cheques bearing no.415029 dated 31.05.2016 for an amount of Rs.45000/-, no. 415028 dated 25.05.2016 for an amount of Rs. 45,000/-, no. 415027 dated 15.05.2016 for an amount of Rs. 45,000/-, no. 415026 dated 01.05.2016 for an amount of Rs. 45,000/-, no. 415031 dated 09.06.2016 for an amount of Rs. 30,000/- and no. 415030 dated 07.06.2016 for an amount of Rs. 30,000/- all drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Sector 9, Rohini, Delhi Branch (2120) Maharaja Aggrasen Shopping Complex, LAX-7, Sector 9, Rohini, Delhi-110085 (hereinafter referred to as the "Cheques in question").

2. The brief facts that have emerged from the DAR are that on 03.04.2017, ASI Usman Ali vide DD no. 3A had received an information regarding the present accident. He also received a call from Trauma Centre that the present accident had occurred. After receiving the call from Trauma Centre, ASI alongwith Ct. Mukesh reached the Trauma Centre and collected MLC no. 214228 of injured Raj Kumar. As per MLC, the doctor opined that the injured was "unfit for statement". IO met with an eye witness in the hospital, whose name was Guddu. IO recorded the statement of eye witness. Witness has stated that Raj Kumar had met with an accident when he was crossing the road on foot near Yamuna River. Eye witness, with the help of the driver of the offending vehicle, sent the injured to the hospital in the offending vehicle itself and went to the hospital by his motorcycle. On the basis of the MLC and statement of the eye witness, the offence under Section 279/337 IPC was found to have been committed.

11.Date on which Order Announced : 12.11.2024.

SC No. 464/2021 FIR No. 417/2021 U/s. 307 IPC State Vs. Ram @ Himanshu PS : Badarpur Page No.1 of 31 BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION:

1. The prosecution case against accused Ram @ Himanshu in brief is that on 11/07/2021, at about 08:30 PM, at Main Market, Gautam Puri, near Valmiki Mandir, within the jurisdiction of PS Badarpur, he caused injuries on forehead and occipital region exposing bone calvaria of victim Dinesh Kumar, with chopper (meat cutting knife). The FIR was registered on the basis of PCR call through GD No.90A and accused Ram @ Himanshu was arrested on 12/07/2021 and, on completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed for offence U/s. 307 IPC.

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.

1. Sl. No. of the case 10095/2017

2. Date of institution of the case 04.08.2017

3. Name of the Complainant Sh. Narinder Gambhir S/o Kishan Lal Gambhir R/o B-29, Ground Floor, Subhadra Colony, Opposite Shastri Nagar, Delhi-110035.

4. Name of Accused, parentage Sh. Vijay Kumar S/o Manoj Kumar and address R/o D-38, Lalita Block, Shastri Nagar, Delhi.

And Also at:

M/s Maha Vashno Electrical Co.

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.

30.4. Deduction for personal expenses (1/3rd of Rs.1,67,775/-) = (-)Rs. 55,925/-

30.5. Multiplicand ( Rs.1,67,775−Rs.55,925/-) = Rs. 1,11,850/- 30.6. As such, the total loss of dependency is:

Rs. 1,11,850/- ( multiplicand) x 14 (multiplier)= Rs.15,65,900/-

Grant of Loss of Estate, Loss Of Consortium And Funeral Expenses:

31. In this regard in Pranay Sethi (supra) it was held :

''...............46. Another aspect which has created confusion pertains to grant of loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses..... .

CIC/SBIND/A/2023/633692

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 12.05.2023 seeking information on the following points:

Page 1 of 5

(i) Entire file, inter alia, containing Copies of circulars, policies, notes, correspondence, Board resolutions, etc. generated on the issue of engagement of Housing Keeping Contracts, instead of getting such work done from the regular staff of the bank, and polices, circular etc. engagement of Contract labour by the bank. Entire record since last 12 years.

(ii) Copies of tender floated by the Bank for its Corporate Centre office at Wadam Cama Road, for Housekeeping Contract or engagement of contract labour for any activities, during last three calendar years,

:

The Complainant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 20.04.2023 seeking the following information:

"1. Whether exclusion of the undersigned in the list of DRMs posting order issued by Railway Board dated 07.03.2023 was on account of a pending major DAR case? If so, on what basis order of the undersigned on deputation to Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited vide order no. 2022/E(O)II/6/19 dated 12.09.2022 as Chief Engineer (Rolling Stock) was issued despite pending DAR case Whether Railway Board is following different criteria for DAR clearance for deputation posting) (Please furnish name & designation of authority that gave approval for above Major DAR case? Please furnish name & designation of authority who has gone into this DAR case detail and given any recommendation on case file to make it a fit case for major penalty proceeding?)

1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 16.04.2023 seeking information on the following points:

Page 1 of 6

(i) "Please provide me with the action taken report on my complaint filed on 30th March 2023.

(ii) Please provide me with the present status of the above-mentioned complaint.

(iii) Please provide me with the norms for disposal of complaints, including the number of days within which complaints are expected to be disposed of, as per the citizen charter."

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 12.05.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-

"As far as internal Vigilance Section of DoPT under this CPIO is concerned, it may be informed that your complaint dated 30.03.2023 was received electronically from CVC vide Commission's OM No. 10929/2023/vigilance-9 dated 11.04.2023 and the same was forwarded to PESB and Estt.II Division, DoPT, for further necessary action at their end, as the subject matter of your complaint was pertaining to them, vide this Department's OM No. C-13014/1/2021-Vig. dated 09.05.2023 (copy enclosed)."

:

The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 06.05.2023 seeking the following information:

"1. प्रार्थी की पत्नि श्रीमति पायल शमाा के ईलाज में बेस हात्पपटल में दी गयी दवाइयो का समपि वववरण उपलब्ध कराये और यह भी अवगि करायें कक दी गयी दवाईयाां ककस बबमारी से सम्बत्धधि है ? जिवरी 2019 से ददसम्बर 2019 का समपि ररकार्ा उपलब्ध करायें।

2. अपीलीय अधधकारी का िाम व पिा अवगि कराये ?"

Page 1 of 5

The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 19.05.2023 stating as under:

"आपके द्वारा उपरोक्ि पत्र के पैरा 1 के अिुसार माांगी गई जािकारी को आरटीआई अधधतियम 2005, धारा ३, ६ (ⅰ), ८ (i) (ई) और धारा ११ के प्रावधािों के िहि िहीां ददया जा सकिा।"

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)

This second appeal is filed against the judgment and decree, dated 04/08/2021 passed in AS No.12 of 2020 by the Subordinate Judge, Theni, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 31/01/2020 passed in OS No.47 of 2012 by the District Munsif, Bodinayakkanur.

2.Plaint averments in brief:-

The plaintiffs are the grandsons of one Mariammal. The suit property belonged to Mariammal absolutely. In the suit property, a shop is situated at Kamarajar Bazar, which is the subject matter of the suit. The plaintiffs are the power agent of the above said Mariammal, by a power of attorney, dated 25/02/1997. Mariammal mortgaged the property to the defendant through a registered mortgage deed, dated 16/07/1982 for a consideration sum of Rs.30,000/-. The mortgage period was five years. The rate of interest was fixed at 12% per annum. On 19/07/1982, another agreement was entered into between the parties, by which it was agreed that the payment of interest for simple mortgage should be adjusted by giving possession of the mortgaged property to the defendant, which is mentioned in the schedule. It is also agreed that the defendant must enjoy the property for five years. The house tax assessment agreed to be paid by the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis mortgagee. But the plaintiffs paid the taxes for the mortgaged property. On 19/07/1982, another sum of Rs.30,000/- was paid. Another mortgage deed was also executed on 19/07/1982. On 20/07/1982, another agreement was entered into. In the earlier mortgage deed, dated 19/07/1982 after the expiry of five years, the plaintiffs approached the defendant for redemption of mortgage on payment of Rs.60,000/-. But the defendant was evading and delaying. So, the suit is laid for delivery of possession after receiving the mortgage amount and for costs.

Heard both sides.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2. The Petitioner is the State Bank of India represented by its Branch Manager at their Zonal Office, Trichirappalli. Aggrieved by the common award passed by the First Respondent Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT) at Chennai made in I.D.No.22 to 25 of 2007 dt. 27.7.2010 these writ petitions were filed by them.

3. The 1st Respondent CGIT by its Common Award granted the following relief to the 2nd Respondent workmen in all the WPs:-

“In the result all the petitioners in ID 22/2007, 23/2007, 24/2007 and ID 25/2007 are entitled to be reinstated into service forthwith with continuity of service and all attendant benefits but they are not entitled to back-wages for the whole period during which they remained out of employment of Respondent. After reinstatement into service the Management may start a process for the regularization of the workmen if and in accordance with the rules in vogue they are entitled to the same.”

This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the first respondent dated 15.03.2024, thereby confirming the order dated 12.06.2019 passed by the second respondent, thereby rejecting the complaint lodged by the petitioner and to direct the third respondent to provide all amenities to the petitioner including food and shelter and also restrain the third respondent from torturing the petitioner and his wife.

2. The petitioner is the father and the third respondent is the son. The petitioner got married one Girija and gave birth to the third respondent and one daughter. While he was in service in the police department, he had purchased a property ad measuring 4½ cents comprised in Survey No.665/1B and 665/2 part situated at Echanari, Near Ammal Temple, Kurichi Village, Madhukarai Taluk, Coimbatore, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis by a registered sale deed dated 29.01.2010, bearing document No.446/2010. Thereafter, he constructed a house and was residing there.

This writ petition has been filed challenging the order, dated 18.02.2000 passed by the Respondent No.2, dismissing the petitioner from service and the order dated 27.06.2003 passed by the Respondent No.1 on an appeal filed by the petitioner, confirming the punishment of dismissal from service in the year 2013 and seeking a consequential relief to reinstate the petitioner into service.

2. The brief facts that are relevant for disposal of this writ petition are as under:-

2.1. The petitioner herein, while working as a 'Peon' in Rasipuram Branch of the respondent Bank, Salem Division, he was subjected to departmental proceedings by issuing a charge-sheet dated 21.06.1997 containing two charges. The said charges reads as under:-

Challenging the order of the Waqf Tribunal partly allowing the application directing the Tamil Nadu Waqf Board to register the T.O.Mohamed Thambi Waqf, Illayangudi Taluk, Sivagangai District as a seperate waqf, prepare a proforma report showing the "Rule of Succession" to the post of mutawalli as "hereditary", conduct a detailed enquiry among the legal representatives of the waqif/founder namely late T.O.Mohamed Thambi and appoint mutatwalli for the said waqf by following the procedures prescribed under the Waqf Act, 1995 (as amended in 2013) as per the intention of the waqif.

This writ petition is filed seeking mandamus to direct the respondents to extend the petitioners an opportunity to exercise option notionally with effect from 1.8.2003 or any subsequent dates based on the date of cession of service, in any event as per the 9th bipartite settlement.

2. The facts in brief in this writ petition are that the petitioners were originally joined their service at the Bank of Madura at various positions on different dates. The Bank of Madura was amalgamated with the 1st respondent Bank under the Scheme of amalgamation sanctioned by the Reserve Bank of India with effect from 10.03.2001. As per the said scheme, all the employees of Bank of Madura stood transferred to the service of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ICICI Bank Limited however, all the service conditions of the employees were protected.

12.11.2024 Order No.

04. 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 147/148/323/325/307/302/ 427/506/149 of I.P.C. in G.R. Case No.170 of 2017 of the Court of the learned J.M.F.C., Salipur arising out of Mahanga P.S. Case No.49 of 2017.

4. Considering the facts of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the Petitioner. However, on the submission of the learned counsel, the Petitioner is given liberty to surrender before the learned court in seisin over the matter in the aforesaid case in the first hour within 21 working days hence and move for bail. On such event, the learned Magistrate shall consider his application for bail in the first hour strictly on the basis of the materials on record. In case of rejection of the bail application, the Petitioner may move for bail before the higher forum in the second hour. On such event, the higher forum shall consider and dispose of the bail application of the Petitioner on the same day strictly on the basis of the materials on record, by maintaining the principles of parity, if applicable.

12.11.2024 Order No.

04. 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 147/148/323/325/307/302/ 427/506/149 of I.P.C. in G.R. Case No.170 of 2017 of the Court of the learned J.M.F.C., Salipur arising out of Mahanga P.S. Case No.49 of 2017.

4. Considering the facts of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the Petitioner. However, on the submission of the learned counsel, the Petitioner is given liberty to surrender before the learned court in seisin over the matter in the aforesaid case in the first hour within 21 working days hence and move for bail. On such event, the learned Magistrate shall consider his application for bail in the first hour strictly on the basis of the materials on record. In case of rejection of the bail application, the Petitioner may move for bail before the higher forum in the second hour. On such event, the higher forum shall consider and dispose of the bail application of the Petitioner on the same day strictly on the basis of the materials on record, by maintaining the principles of parity, if applicable.

arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

This is an application under section 439 of Cr.P.C. in connection with Paikmal P.S. Case No.194 of 2019 corresponding to C.T. Case No.47 of 2019 pending in the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge -cum- Special Court, under POCSO Act, Bargarh for offences punishable under sections 366-A/370/370-A/ 372/376(2)(n)/109/34 of the I.P.C., section 6 of the POCSO Act and section 3/4/5/6 of Immoral Trafficking (Prevention) Act, 1956.

arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

This is an application under section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in connection with Puruna Bazar P.S. Case No.79 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. Case No.765 of 2017 pending in the Court of learned J.M.F.C. (Cog.-I), Bhadrak for alleged commission of offences under sections 147/148/294/454/427/395/436/153-A/506/ 149 of the I.P.C.

Perused the F.I.R.

Considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that first information report was not lodged against the petitioner but subsequently, he has been entangled in this case and similarly situated co-accused, namely, Sk. Bhalu has been directed to be released on anticipatory bail by this Court in ABLAPL No.8038 of 2017 vide order dated 12.07.2017 and on hearing learned counsel for the State, I am inclined to release the petitioner on anticipatory bail and accordingly, this Court directs that in the event of arrest of the petitioner in connection with the aforesaid case, he shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) with two sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer with further conditions that he shall make himself available for interrogation by the I.O. as and when required and he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing any facts to the Courts or to the Investigating Officer.

arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

This is an application under section 439 of Cr.P.C. in connection with S.T. Case No.103 of 2017 arising out of S.T.F. Bhubaneswar P.S. Case No.3 of 2016 pending in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Cuttack for offences punishable under sections 16/17/18/18(B)/20/21/28/40 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and section 124(A) of the I.P.C.

The prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Cuttack vide order dated 03.01.2024.

Date of Hearing :08.11.2024 :: Date of Order :11.11.2024 A.C. Behera, J. This bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 filed by the petitioner arising out of Spl. G.R. Case No.4 of 2024 in connection with Cuttack Sadar P.S. Case No.16 of 2024 pending in the Court of learned Adhoc Addl. Sessions Judge, F.T.S.C.-II, Cuttack is taken up into consideration.

{{ 2 }}

2. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and the learned counsel for the informant.

3. The petitioner is facing trial in the Court of learned Adhoc Addl. Sessions Judge, F.T.S.C.-II, Cuttack in Spl. G.R. Case No.4 of 2024 arising out of Cuttack Sadar P.S. Case No.16 of 2024 remaining in the jail custody since 29.01.2024 as an under trial prisoner having been charged under Section 292-A, 212, 376(2)(n) of the IPC, 1860, Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and Sections 66-E, 67-A & 67-B of the I.T. Act, 2000 along with his other co-accused persons on the allegations alleged against him that, due to the frequent talking between the petitioner and the victim since the month of May, 2022, they loved each other and the petitioner proposed the victim for marriage. Thereafter, in the months of August and November, 2023, the petitioner took the victim by his motorcycle to the OYO Hotel on three different dates and made sexual intercourse with her in a room of that hotel in each occasion and took the naked/nude photographs of the victim inside the room of that hotel through his mobile phone and sent the said nude/naked photographs to the mobile phone of the victim through whatsapp and the said nude photographs of the victim were in her mobile phone, to which, she (victim) had not disclosed before {{ 3 }} any of her family members including her parents. Thereafter, there was disturbance between the victim and the petitioner, for which, the victim stopped her talking with the petitioner. So, the petitioner made the nude photographs of the victim viral. Thereafter, on dated 07.01.2024, she (victim) lodged F.I.R. against the petitioner at Sadar police station, Cuttack, alleging the aforesaid allegations.

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. This is an appeal challenging the judgment and order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Sessions Trial No.39/2018 (State Vs. Kamlesh Dube and Others) thereby questioning the legality of judgment and order of convicting both the appellants under Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the offence punishable under Section 302 2 cr.appeal.128.2022-JF.odt read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentencing both of them for life imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.5000/- in default to suffer 3 months imprisonment.

2. The facts in short are as under :

On 19.09.2017, one Sumit Kamble died at about 1.46 p.m. It is alleged that appellant Kamlesh Dube and Shekhar Dube committed his murder. It is the prosecution case that both accused and the deceased were working as a driver on garbage vehicle at Kanak Resources Company. On the day of incident i.e. on 19.09.2017 at about 1.46 p.m. Sumit along with his friend Rahul and Yogiraj went to the Bhandewadi Dumping Yard by riding on the motorcycle of Sumit. At said place, the sister of informant Rahul and other women were picking the garbage. Kamlesh and Shekhar both accused also went there to unload the garbage by their garbage vehicle. Kamlesh was on driving seat whilst Shekhar was sitting beside him. Kamlesh has married with the sister of deceased Sumit. Kamlesh and sister of Sumit namely Tanu were having love affair, which was not liked by Sumit. Both of them ran away and performed marriage before 15 days. On their return, sister of Sumit was staying with Kamlesh. Because of said marriage, there was dispute between Kamlesh and Sumit. They used to quarrel with each other. On the date of occurrence, when Sumit saw Kamlesh, he went to him and there was hot exchange of words between them. At that time, Shekhar alighted from truck and assaulted Sumit with