(A) Penal Code (45 of 1860), S.420 - Penal Code (45 of 1860), S.468 - Penal Code (45 of 1860), S.471 - Penal Code (45 of 1860), S.511 - Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S.3 - Forgery and cheating - Proof of - Allegation that accused student had tampered with her mark-sheet and revaluation notification and on that basis attempted to secure admission to BSW-III course - Said documents had passed through several hands and prosecution had failed to prove, that alleged tampering was effected by accused or while documents were in her exclusive custody - No handwriting or forensic expert opinion was obtained - Prosecution had failed to establish required mens rea u/Ss.471 or 420/511 IPC - There was non-compliance with S. 313 CrPC, as compound questions had prevented accused from properly understanding or answering same and caused prejudice to accused - Suspicion, howsoever grave, cannot replace standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt - Since prosecution had not discharged its burden, conviction and sentence under Ss.420/511, 468, and 471 IPC were set aside (Para 8,10-15)

(A) Industrial Disputes Act (14 of 1947), S.11A - Compulsory retirement - Legality of - Workman was allegedly involved in irregularities in loan/bank accounts - Enquiry Officer as well as Disciplinary Authority who were bank officers, had recorded finding that author of disputed entries in bank/loan accounts was workman and other documents were also altered in his handwriting by putting his initials - Orders passed by said authorities were not perverse - Despite concluding that it was highly possible that irregularities were committed by manager at insistence of workman, and he was direct beneficiary of irregular loan sanction, Tribunal had illegally interfered with punishment order - Observation of tribunal that punishment of compulsory retirement was too harsh as it may result in denial of retirement benefits to him was erroneous - High Court confirmed order of tribunal contrary to settled principle of law in matter of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings - Imposition of punishment of compulsory retirement was proper - Workman would be entitled to gratuity and other pensionary benefits in accordance with law (Para 39, 40)

(A) Constitution of India, Art.21 - Right to life - Plea for police protection - Petitioner were in 'Live in Relationship' - Due to some relatives/persons being unhappy with relationship between petitioners, apprehension that they could cause harm to life and liberty of petitioners - Petitioners have right to live his/her life with person of his/her choice subject to laws as possible - Hence, directions were issued to police authority to consider representation of petitioner, assess threat perception and take appropriate action in accordance with law. (Para 14,15)

(A) Civil P. C. (5 of 1908), O. 7, R. 11(d) - East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act (50 of 1948), S. 44 - Rejection of plaint - Suit barred by law - Order of the Consolidation Authorities was assailed in Civil Writ Petition and the said order in writ petition was assailed through SLP and that SLP also declined by the Apex Court - Even on emerging of new facts to be presented before the Court, the correct remedy was to approach the Supreme Court by filing review petition - Filing of suit was certainly barred in view of provisions of S. 44 - Plaint was rejected. (Para 12,13,14)

(A) Constitution of India, Art. 226 - Constitution of India, Art. 21 - Police protection - To protect the life and liberty of petitioners - Petitioners were in a "Live in Relationship" as one petitioner was already married and having husband and three children, while other petitioner was unmarried - Police were directed to assess threat perception to two major individuals in a live-in relationship - Petitioners claimed that they were facing threats from relatives who were unhappy with their relationship - Every major person has right to live with a person of their choice - When it is prima facie satisfied that there is a threat to lives and liberty of petitioners from their relatives, it is required to issue necessary directions for their protection. (Para 11, 14, 15)

(A) Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988), S. 168 - Compensation - Determination - Deceased, a 62-year-old retired SBI pensioner, was receiving a monthly pension - While he also owned agricultural land, it was noted that such income would not be lost to his heirs and his claim of being a practicing advocate was unsubstantiated - Assessment of total monthly income of deceased at Rs.20,800 was on higher side but was accepted - With four major claimants, Court applied a deduction of 1/3rd amount for personal expenses and used a multiplier of 7 considering age of deceased - Award of compensation for conventional heads, including loss of consortium was proper - Compensation was just and proper. (Para 8, 9, 10, 11)

(A) Criminal P. C. (2 of 1974), S. 439 - Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (33 of 1989), S. 14A - Bail - Prayer for - Offences of bigamy and racial abuse of victim belonging to SC/ST community - Allegation that accused hid his marital status and married victim and when she came to know about marital status of accused, he racially abused victim - Prima facie involvement of accused in alleged crime was evident from initial evidence - Victim stated that accused was already married and deceived her about his marital status to enter into a physical relationship and second marriage - While accused claimed that victim was aware of his marital status, in marriage memorandum and affidavit, accused identified himself as "unmarried" - Contents of FIR and other materials presented by prosecution established a prima facie case - Accused was a public servant in Police Department and such act was not expected of him - Bail could not be granted. (Para 10, 11)

(A) Limitation Act (36 of 1963), S.5 - Condonation of delay - Delay of 237 days in filing appeal - Delay occurred on account of movement of file from one authority to another - Applicants were aware that limitation for filing appeal was only 30 days, and they could not take their own time to decide on filing appeal and file it whenever they feel like it ignoring period of limitation for filing same - Also, there was inordinate delay in applying for certified copy of impugned judgment - No explanation was offered for said delay by applicants - No sufficient cause was shown by applicants for condoning inordinate delay of 237 days in filing appeal - Hence, application for condonation of delay was dismissed. (Para 23,25,26)

(A) Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988), S. 168 - Compensation - Enhancement - Compensation awarded by the tribunal under the conventional heads was not as per law - Hence, reworking the amount of compensation under different heads as Rs.18,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.18,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.48,000/- each towards loss of consortium, the total compensation awarded was Rs.25,34,685/- with 7.5% interest p.a. (Para 7)

(A) Constitution of India, Art. 226 - Regularisation - Benefit sought with retrospective effect - Having got benefit of regularization and earlier also having agitated same before Deputy Commissioner on 14.09.2005 by giving instance of one person, appellant had never further projected his case for benefit of regularization from earlier date after being well aware of same - After more than five years, he had filed representation which was decided vide order dated 22.12.2011 which was sought to be challenged by filing writ petition in 2019 - It was apparent that appellant had given up his claim, though being well aware that he was seeking parity at earlier point of time before Deputy Commissioner - Merely filing representation would not revive cause of action - Petitioner was not entitled to benefit of regularisation with retrospective effect. (Para 4, 5, 8, 9)