Category Archives: Blog

This Court is of the considered view that it is for the prosecution to prove the seizure. Such an opinion was held by The Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand before The Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary in the matter of Bhushan Mahto S/o Arjun Mahto and Anr Vs. The State of Jharkhand [Cr. Rev. No. 979 of 2012]. 

The facts of the case were associated with a criminal revision petition against a judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro Camp at Tenughat dated 15.09.2012, wherein the petitioners were convicted for the charges under Section 47(a) of Excise Act. The counsel representing the petitioners contended that the impugned judgments were irrational and were unsustainable under the eyes of the law. It was also stated that five witnesses had deposed before the court out of 11 charge-sheeted witnesses. The counsel contended that the whole case rested upon the evidence of two police officers. The counsel submitted that during such situations conviction of the petitioners must be set-aside. 

The counsel representing the State opposed the prayer and contended that the seizure witnesses who turned hostile, have not disputed their signature on the seizure list. The counsel stated that the impugned judgements did not call for any interference in revisional jurisdiction in the absence of any perversity and material irregularity. It was reported that upon checking a Maruti Van, the officers found a total of 10 cartons of wine. After investigation, a charge sheet was submitted against the petitioners for an offence under Section 414 IPC and 47(a) of the Excise Act. There was no material on record to show that the seized wine was stolen material as found out by the Trial Court, therefore offence under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code was not made out. 

Considering all submissions and facts The Hon’ble Court ruled out that “In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned judgements call for interference in revisional jurisdiction of this court in order to secure the ends of justice as the impugned judgements are perverse and suffer from material irregularity. Accordingly, the petitioners are entitled to benefit of doubt… This Criminal revision petition is accordingly allowed… The bailors are discharged of their liability under the bail bond.”

Click here to read the Judgment

Judgment reviewed by- Bipasha Kundu

Ordinarily, the grounds of attack of legislation are whether the legislature has the legislative competence and whether the legislation is ultra vires the provisions of the Constitution. This was held in the judgment passed by a two – judge bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur, in the matter of Suhail Maqbool Dar V. State of J&K & ors  [CM no.3588/2019], dealt with an issue where the petitioner filed a petition seeking to ive effect to his regularization as Junior Assistant from the date he was initially appointed on ad hoc basis vide High Court, and to declare him entitled to consequential service benefits.

his initial appointment on ad hoc basis, without any doubt, was dehors the Rules and a backdoor appointment; therefore, in terms of the law as it existed, he was not entitled to, and could not have dreamt of, regularisation on the post. However, the then State of Jammu and Kashmir passed a legislative enactment, namely, the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010 [Act No.XIV of 2010], which came into force with effect from 28.04.2010, providing for regularization of the employees appointed on ad hoc, contractual or consolidated basis, subject to the conditions prescribed therein, especially in Section 5 thereof. Notwithstanding the law, as it existed, the petitioner in this petition, apart from seeking other reliefs, has challenged the very provision contained in the aforesaid enactment, i.e. the first proviso to Section 5 thereof, as enabled the competent authority to regularize him. Thus, the petitioner is seeking to sever the very perch he has been given a legal right to securely settle on.

Counsel for the petitioner also sought to refer to Regulation 177-A of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service Regulations to contend that the impugned proviso was dehors, rather ultra vires the said Regulation. It is unfortunate, the learned counsel seems to be labouring under a misconception that the Special Provisions Act has been enacted by the State Legislature under the aforesaid Regulations. Regulation 177-A relates to a different class of employees whose regularization is governed by a different set of Rules providing for, inter alia, a minimum of seven years continuous service.

After hearing both sides, the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir dismissed the petition and held that that the State Legislature had the competence to pass the enactment and that it is not ultra vires the provisions 13 of the Constitution; it rather is intra vires thereto. Therefore, there is no merit in the claims of the writ petitioner and, consequently, in this writ petition.

Click here to view judgement

Judgement reviewed by – Vaishnavi Raman

The petitioner filed a writ petition pleading the court to direct a writ petition in the form of mandamus in order to get consumed by the concerned department for the opportunity. the court after considering all facts and circumstances passed the order in favor of the petitioner thereby directing the authorities to take the required steps. The Hon’ble High Court of Patna before Mr. Justice P. B. Bajanthri in the Md. Sahroj Alam and Ors v. The State of Bihar and Ors[Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.35 of 2021]. 

The facts of the case were that the petitioner filed a writ petition and plead for the issuance of an order in the form of mandamus to the authorities as per the employment of the State Government as the petitioner was an exinstructors of non-formal education. He further asked for considering him as equals and giving treatment similar to the other cases of similar nature and passing other necessary orders that the court may find deemed to be fit in the current case.

The grievance was only for the issuance of the directions to the concerned authorities to consider the petitioner’s name for the absorption of the available opportunity by the concerned department.

The Hon’ble High Court Of Patna hence directed them to take a note of the grievance brought up by the petitioner and the same shall be redressed by the authorities concerned in accordance to law to the valid extent hat whether the petitioner was entitled to and for the absorption of the opportunity in the respective department or not. If the required parameters are fulfilled by the petitioner and in the same manner then the necessary action shall be taken in order to absorb the services in the concerned department. Whereas in the event of non-fulfillment necessary speak orders shall be passed and communicated. The Petition was hence disposed of on the terms and conditions given by the court.

Click Here To Read The Judgment

Judgment Reviewed By Nimisha Dublish

Petitioner filed a writ petition pleading for the renewal of VISA and allowing him to go back to his home country. The court put orders that till the case goes on the petitioner shall not leave the Country. In the light of all facts and circumstances, the court now allowed the application with the concerned authority and he is allowed to go back even if the trial goes on. The Hon’ble High Court of Patna before Mr. Justice Ashutosh Kumar in the Wu Chuangyong and Ors v. The State of Bihar and Ors[Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1178 of 2019]. 

The facts of the case were that petitioner No. 2 was dismissed as he was granted permission by the authorities to travel back to his home country. The Petition was only concerned with Petitioner No. 1. The authorities were requested to renew the VISA of the petitioner and it has been pleaded by him to allow him to exit India and go back to his home country by renewing VISA. An application was filed for modification of such bail order which prohibited the petitioner to leave the country before the conclusion of the trial.

The application was allowed and the order was hence modified. no such condition was imposed on petitioner No. 1 when his bail application was disposed of. It is in this background that it requires to be understood that no positive order was passed by the concerned authority with respect to the petitioner either allowing or disallowing him to visit his homeland for renewal of his VISA.

It was submitted that Petitioner No. 1 was ready to execute the bond with the concerned authority and shall be deemed to be appropriate to ensure his return to his country to face the trial in case it went on.

The Hon’ble High Court Of Patna directed,” Under such circumstances, this Court directs that in the event of a fresh on-line application/representation being made by the petitioner No. 1 before the concerned authority within a period of three weeks from today, the same shall be disposed of by the authority concerned within a further period of four weeks…”The Petition was hence disposed of on the mentioned terms.

Click Here to Read The Judgment

Judgment Reviewed By Nimisha Dublish

Once an affidavit is filed and the witness is being cross-examined on the same, the Court or the authority concerned cannot permit the witness to withdraw his affidavit of evidence in any manner as upheld by the High Court of Delhi through the learned bench led by Justice Prathiba M. Singh in the case of M/S Sharat Dass and Associates v. Rameshwar Singh and Anr (W.P.(C) 12292/2021 and CM APPLs. 38585/2021, 38587/2021).

Brief facts of the case are that the present petition challenges the impugned order dated 7^th October, 2021, passed by the Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, by which the witness of the Claimant/ Respondent, who was under cross-examination, has been permitted to withdraw his affidavit of evidence, and file a fresh affidavit of evidence. The case of the Petitioner in the present petition is that once the affidavit of evidence was filed by the Claimant/ Respondent’s witness, and the cross-examination was also taking place, such permission and liberty could not have been granted by the Authority under the Act.

Mr. Manan, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner, submits that in fact the claim of the Claimant/Respondent was earlier even decreed in his favour of 4 the basis of the said affidavit, which is now sought to be withdrawn, and now a fresh affidavit of evidence has been permitted to be tendered, which is contrary to law.

Ms. Richa Sharma, ld. Counsel appearing for the Claimant/ Respondent submits that during cross-examination, some questions were put in respect of certain records and the claimant wished to file certain documents in response to those questions. It is due to the said fact that a further affidavit has been permitted by the Authority under the Act.

After the perusal of facts and arguments by the learned counsel, the Hon’ble Court held, “ If in response to any questions put in cross-examination in respect of any documents, the witness wishes to produce any documents, the witness can say so when the cross-examination commences, on the next date of hearing. This Court has perused the cross-examination conducted before the Authority under the Act, which has been filed before this Court. After perusing the same, it is clear that the cross-examination has not concluded, and various questions relating to various records have in fact been put to the Workman. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside.”

Click here to read the Judgment

Judgment reviewed by Vandana Ragwani