Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, S.22–Bail–Narcotics—Commercial Quantity—Intoxicant Powder recovered from the petitioner is marginally higher than the non-commercial quantity–The petitioner is behind the bars for 08 months–Out of total 13 PWs, only 02 PWs have been examined so far–The trial is not likely to be concluded in the near future–Bail granted–Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.439.
Gurdeep Singh @ Deepa v. State of Punjab
2016(4) Law Herald (P&H) 3395 : 2016 LawHerald.Org 1957
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.439 & S.437–Bail– Immoral Traffic—Role attributed to the female petitioner is that she used to nude photographs of the minor girls and had abetted the offences of rape/gang-rape etc “The prosecution has so far examined only 55 witnesses out of 185 witnesses and one does not know when all the witnesses would be examined and the prosecution case would be closed—The petitioner does have a right to speedy trial, but then, it is not happening in her case–Being a woman, the petitioner is entitled to benefit of proviso to Section 437 Cr.P.C. for the purpose of grant of bail—Bail granted– Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, S.3–Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, S.23.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.439-–Bail—Difficulty in tracing prosecution witnesses–The prosecution may continue to examine the witnesses for number of years but then it cannot lie in the mouth of the prosecution that even in that event the liberty of the petitioner should be curtailed.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.439–Bail–Delay in trial–Apex Court had held mere delay in trial is no ground to grant bail–Held; that was held in case where Pappu Yadav of Bihar who was involved in large number of criminal cases– In present case, petitioner is a woman of 26 years of age having no criminal antecedents and has undergone almost half of the sentence–Bail granted.
Sushma @ Simmi v. Central Bureau of Investigation
2016(4) Law Herald (P&H) 3392 : 2016 LawHerald.Org 1970
Right to Information Act, 2005,–Exemption Clause-Answer Sheets- Candidate are entitled with regard to the scanned copies of the answer sheet, tabulation-sheet containing interview marks—However, the name of the examiner was not to be revealed.
Right to Information Act, 2005, S.8–Exemption Clause- Pendency of second appeal before the commission would not be sufficient ground to deny necessary relief to the petitioner-Directions issued to provide necessary information sought.
Kuldeep Singh v.Central Information Commission & Ors.
2016(4) Law Herald (P&H) 3389 : 2016 LawHerald.Org 1956
Right to Information Act, 2005, S.2(h)–Public Authority-Commission has to firstly decide the issue whether petitioner is a public authority or not and then issue direction for providing of information as the matter is of jurisdiction and goes to root of the matter-Not done in present case-Matter remanded to commission to decide afresh.
Rail Coach Factory Employes Primary Coof, Consumer Store Ltd. v. State Information Commission Punjab & Ors.
2016(4) Law Herald (P&H) 3386 : 2016 LawHerald.Org 1955
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.617–Amendment of Plaint–The mere fact that High Court framed an additional issue qua question of limitation is not sufficient to give a right to the petitioner/plaintiff to seek amendment of the plaint–There is no
explanation by the petitioner as to why the facts now sought to be added were not pleaded in the original plaint.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908,0.6 R.17–Amendment of Plaint—Additional facts- In absence of any satisfactory explanation as to why the additional facts were not pleaded in the plaint originally filed on the basis whereof the parties have already adduced their evidence and bought the case to the stage of final arguments, amendment cannot be allowed.
Amar Singh s/o Boor Singh now deceased through his Lrs. v. Pritam Singh & Ors.
2016(4) Law Herald (P&H) 3384 : 2016 LawHerald.Org 1954
Service Law-Medical Reimbursement-Retired employees of Haryana Housing Board are entitled to medical reimbursement at par with the Haryana State Government employees in terms of Rule applicable to the Haryana State Government employees until and unless separate regulations regarding medical reimbursement are framed by the Haryana Housing Board even though board is a statutory body.
Krishan Chander v. State of Haryana
2016(4) Law Herald (P&H) 3381 : 2016 LawHerald.Org 1953
Indian Stamp Act, 1899, S.47-A(2)–Conveyance– It includes “conveyance of sale” and includes “instrument of transfer inter vivos” i.e. the transfer by a person during his time of his movable and immovable property, whereas the “settlement” is for distributing the property of the settler amongst his family member—There is different yardstick for charging the duty in the case of “Conveyance” and “settlement”.
Gurjit Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors.
2016(4) Law Herald (P&H) 3377 : 2016 LawHerald.Org 1952
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.102–Freezing of Account–There is a power in the investigating machinery to seize the properties by resorting to power under section 102 P.C.
Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.420–Cheating–Seizing of Property–Officers of managers of the bank have collided and conspired with main accused in siphoning out the amount of the bank–Bank cannot be rewarded giving premium by entrusting the same amount to the Bank which proved itself to be fully responsible for commission of the crime & directions issued to keep such amount in fixed deposit with other bank till final disposal of trial–Criminal Procedure Code, 1973,102.
M/s Ajanta Marketing and Trading Private Ltd. v. Central Bureau of Investigation Decided on 03/10/2016
2016(4) Law Herald (P&H) 3373 : 2016 LawHerald.Org 1951
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, S.22– Bail–Narcotics- Commercial Quantity-Petitioner is in custody from last more than three and half years for offence u/s 302IPC in which he has already been acquitted–No other case under NDPS is pending– In instant case, out of 79 witnesses, statement of only 20 witnesses has been recorded and only 8 have been examined-Quantity being commercial in nature is debatable issue-Since trial would take some time, bail granted-Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.439.
Sukhjit Singh @ Sukha v. State of Punjab
2016(4) Law Herald (P&H) 3371 (DB) : 2016 LawHerald.Org 1950
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.319–Criminal Trespass—Summoning of additional accused-Petitioner named 17 persons as accused-No overt act was specifically attributed to any of the respondents either in the First Information Report lodged by the petitioner or during trial when he appeared in the witness box and made statement-Application held to be rightly dismissed – Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.447-Arms Act, 1959, S.25.
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.319– Summoning of additional accused-Not only prima facie case is to be seen from the evidence led before the trial Court but it is also to be seen as to whether the persons sought to be summoned can be convicted on the basis of said evidence available on record.
Sukhjinder Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors.
2016(4) Law Herald (P&H) 3356 : 2016 LawHerald.Org 1947
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, S.12–Shared Household- -House in question is self acquired property of father in law-Daughter in law cannot claim right to live in the house of the parents in law against their wishes.
Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, S.4–Maintenance to daughter-in-law- -Maintenance of wife is the personal obligation of the husband such an obligation cannot be satisfied from the self-acquired property of the parents of the husband-
During subsistence of marriage maintenance of a married wife is a personal obligation on the part of husband-Such an obligation can be met from the properties of the husband out of joint properties-The properties shown exclusively in the name of parents cannot be subject matter of any attachment or enforcement of any right of maintenance of wife against her husband.
Varinder Kaur v. Jitender Kumar & Anr
2016(4) Law Heraid (P&H) 3360 : 2016 LawHerald.Org 1948
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, S.58(2)-Bail–Narcotics–Prima facie offence established against petitioner is that he guided the main accused in plantation of narcotics and fake currency notes in car of victim-Petitioner is an advocate and respectable member of society-He has been involved on basis of statement of co-accused—Challan has been presented and nothing is to be recovered from him-Bail granted-Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.439.
Jatin Salwan v. State of U.T., Chandigarh
2016(4) Law Herald (P&H) 3369 : 2016 LawHerald.Org 1949
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.397(2) & S.482–Revision– Inherent Jurisdiction- -Prabhu Chalwa’s case does not lay down an absolute rule of law that the High Court is required to exercise inherent jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.P.C. in each and every case challenging any order passed by the courts below.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, 8.397(2) & S.482–Revision– Inherent Jurisdiction- -Nothing contained in Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. can limit or affect the exercise of inherent power by the High Court but such cases would be few and far between the High Court must exercise the inherent power very sparingly.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.397(2) &S.482-Revision– Inherent Jurisdiction- -Where an order is intermidiatery order, a revision would lie before the revisional court u/s 397(2) Cr.P.C. instead of invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court u/s 482
P.C. even though both the courts has concurrent jurisdiction.
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, S.138–Dishonour of Cheque- Recalling of Witness–The personal diary, which is sought to be confronted to the complainant by re-summoning him could have easily been shown to the complainant at the relevant stage—Application held to be rightly dismissed—Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.311.
Harbhajan Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr
2016(4) Law Herald (P&H) 3353 : 2016 LawHerald.Org 1944
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, S.20–Bail—Narcotics-Commercial Quantity-Contention that petitioner was not named in FIR and was named by co-accused who has already been granted bail–Bail granted–Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.439.
Naveen @ Babbu v. State of Haryana
2016(4) Law Herald (P&H) 3352 : 2016 LawHerald.Org 1946
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, S.3(1)– Quashing–Compromise–No useful purpose would be served in keeping the proceedings alive; if the settlement reached between the parties is accepted-All consequential proceedings quashed-Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482.
Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab
2016(4) Law Herald (P&H) 3349 : 2016 LawHerald.Org 1945
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.26 R.1–Local Commissioner–Appointment of– Order refusing to appoint Local Commissioner does not decide any issue, nor adjudicates rights of parties for purpose of suit and, therefore, not revisable- -Refusing to appoint Local Commissioner has nothing to do with the rights of the parties.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.26 R.1–Local Commissioner–Appointment of–Local Commissioner cannot be appointed in favour of any party for the purposes of collection of evidence–The process of the court cannot be utilized to collect evidence in favour of either of the party to the litigation.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.26 R.1–Local Commissioner-Appointment of- Revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and under Section 115 CPC against the order dismissing the application for appointment of Local
Commissioner is not maintainable.
Banarsi Pass v Sunita Rani @ Sarita Rani & Ors.
2016(4) Law Herald (P&H) 3347 : 2016 LawHerald.Org 1943
Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, S.176–Recounting of votes-Filing of election petition by defeated candidate in person-Haryana Act does not envisage such mandatory requirement of law–At the time of presentation of the election petition by a defeated candidate, his non-appearance would not be fatal, much less, not mandatory in nature, but curable.
Seema Devi v. Suman & Ors.
2016(4) Law Herald (P&H) 3342 : 2016 LawHerald.Org 1942
(A) Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.38–-Injunction–Co-sharer–Mere raising construction by one of the co-sharer in established/exclusive possession would not amount to ouster of other co-sharer, nor the same would diminish the value and utility of the property.
(B) Specific Reiief Act, 1963, S.38–injunction–Co-sharer–Defendants are in possession of suit premises and have already completed all the necessary formalities in respect of obtaining no objection certificate and other permission for installation of petrol pump on premises-Held; at this juncture grant of interim injunction would cause irreparable loss to the defendants-Only remedy lies with petitioner is to seek partition.
Satnam Singh v. Gursher Singh & Ors.
2016(4) Law Herald (P&H) 3337 : 2016 LawHerald.Org 1941
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, S.13–Eviction–Family Settlement- Tenant cannot challenge the family partition/settlement.
Yash Pal v. Vijay Kumar
2016(4) Law Herald (P&H) 3336 : 2016 LawHerald.Org 1940
Service Law-Medical Reimbursement-Unapproved Hospital-Knee replacement or surgery done in an unapproved hospital in non-emergency situation in a planned manner-Claim rightly rejected.
Chaman Lal Sehgal v. State of Haryana & Ors.
2016(4) Law Herald (P&H) 3333 : 2016 LawHerald.Org 1939