SUPREME COURT

• CRIMINAL

Vijay Kumar v State by Inspector of Police, Madras & Anr (Decided on 21.4.2009) MANU/SC/0627/2009

Criminal - Appeal filed challenging the judgment of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court allowing the Criminal appeal filed by the State and the Criminal Revision filed by the informant - Whether the prosecution succeeds on the basis of the evidence.

Even assuming that the evidence relating to the arrest and recovery is not to be acted upon, the prosecution succeeds on the basis of the evidence of ocular testimony adduced by PWs. 1 to 3. Out of these three witnesses, it is to be emphatically stated that the evidence PW.3 who is an educated, independent, not related and whose house is situated opposite to the place of occurrence would inspire confidence that what all she stated before the Court is cogent and credible.

• PROPERTY

T.K. Mohammed Abubucker v P.S.M. Ahamed Abdul Khader (Decided on 22.04.2009) MANU/SC/0650/2009

Property -Suit filed for declaration of title and possession dismissed- Appeal filed by first respondent dismissed by the Madras High Court-decision challenged by the first respondent in L.P.A. No. 125 of 2001. Appeal allowed by a Division Bench of Madras High Court.

The plaint and the evidence of plaintiff are wholly silent as to when, that is in which year, the defendants allegedly encroached upon the suit property. The plaint merely stated that during the absence of plaintiff, the defendants had encroached the suit property in entirety. Neither the date, month or year is given. In that context, the trial court also observed that defendants should be taken as having established their adverse possessory title also and consequently, suit should be held to be barred by limitation. But even without the said finding, the suit was liable to be dismissed as neither title of plaintiff, nor previous possession of plaintiff, nor encroachment by defendants was made out. We are therefore of the view that Letters Patent Bench interfered with the well reasoned judgments of the trial court and first appellate court which were based on concurrent finding of facts, without justification, and in the absence of any clear and acceptable evidence. This was unwarranted.

• SERVICE

Paras Nath Singh v State of Bihar (Decided on 21.04.2009) MANU/SC/0631/2009

Appellant appointed on the post of Orderly in the Department of Planning and Development in the State of Bihar-the appellant was given provisional First Time Bound Promotion-After about 10 years the first time bound promotion was cancelled-direction issued by the State/Respondent to recover Rs. 1,01,529.50 from the salary of the appellant at the rate of Rs. 5000/- per month-Whether recovery is justified?

Having considered the fact that the appellant was only a Class IV employee in the State of Bihar and almost an illiterate person and did not know the implications of giving such undertaking and in the absence of any fraud and misrepresentation attributed to the appellant and the amount being not so excessive, in particular Rs. 1,01,529.50, out of which certain amount has already been recovered from the salary of the appellant by the State Authorities, we are of the view that a lenient view should be taken and the amount already paid by the State Authorities to the appellant shall not be recovered.

HIGH COURT

• FAMILY

DELHI HIGH COURT

Shri Narinder Singh & Ors v State (Decided on 02.04.2009) MANU/DE/0318/2009

Petition filed under the Indian Succession Act, 1956-seeking Letters of Administration in respect of two `Wills' and in respect of assets left behind having died interstate.

It was held that the petitioners through their affidavits and through their oral testimonies as well as through the affidavit and oral testimony have been able to prove that S. Sant Singh Dhingra expired on March 23, 2004 leaving behind two `Wills', dated April 30, 1993 and March 28, 2001 and that by virtue of both the `Wills' he had bequeathed two of his properties in favour of his sons and grand-sons, in the manner indicated in the `Wills'. They have also been able to prove through the testimony of Shri Tirath Singh who was an attesting witness to the two `Wills' that at the time of execution of the Will S.Sant Singh Dhingra was in a sound disposing mind. It also stands proved through the affidavits and oral testimonies of the witnesses that Smt. Kaushalaya Kaur died intestate on October 30, 2005 leaving behind the assets as mentioned in their petition, affidavits and as per the details given in the report of the Local Commissioner. Letters of Administration in respect of the assets of Smt. Kaushalaya Kaur with respect to the contents of the lockers and the amount lying in the Saving Bank Accounts who died intestate shall be divided equally among the legal heirs.

• ELECTION

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

Varun Gandhi v State of U.P. and Ors (Decided on 25.03.2009) MANU/UP/0043/2009

Indian Penal Code Section 153 and Representation of Peoples Act 1951 Section 125-F.I.R lodged-petitioner prays for a writ of certiorari for quashment of the petition.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner has not brought forth anything cogent or convincing to manifest that no cognizable offence is disclosed prima facie on the allegations contained in the F.I.R. or that there was any statutory restriction operating on the police to investigate the case. Having scanned the allegations contained in the F.I.R. the Court is of the view that the allegations in the F.I.R. do disclose commission of a cognizable offence and therefore no ground is made out warranting interference by this Court. The petition is accordingly dismissed.

• CRIMINAL

BOMBAY HIGH COURT

Satish S/o Maruti Jawale v The State of Maharashtra (Decided on 04.04.2009) MANU/MH/0236/2009

Appeal filed by appellant challenging his conviction for offence punishable under Section 498A and 304 of the I.P. Code and sentenced of imprisonment for one and fine.

Deceased died due to septisemiac shock caused as a result of 60% burns. The appellant was arrested. He was charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Section 498A and 302 of the I.P. Code on basis of the material collected during course of the investigation.

It was held that the impugned judgement of conviction is legal and proper. Appeal dismissed.

• LABOUR & INDUSTRIAL

KERALA HIGH COURT

State of Kerala, The Agriculture Director and The Principal Agricultural Officer v Mathai Devasia S/o. Mathai (Decided on 27.03.2009) MANU/KE/0068/2009

Petition filed for pensionary benefits for service rendered upto the date of retirement. Petition also claims that service should have been regularised at least in 1994 as vacancies were available. Since claims not acceptable to the appellants, the writ petition filed seeking appropriate reliefs.

Technically, it may be said that when his claim was not considered in 1994, he should have immediately approached this Court. But, it is quite unrealistic to expect such vigilant conduct from a farm worker, working in a remote village. Further, he also cannot afford to come to this Court, even if he is suffering an injustice. So, appellants 2 and 3 are directed to consider the claim of the respondent for regularization in service in the vacancy available in the cadre of Male Farm Worker before his date of superannuation. If he is found eligible for regularization on a date prior to his date of superannuation, his claim for pension shall be considered in the light of the provisions of the Agriculture Departmental Farm Workers' Pension Rules.