(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)