2. This writ petition, preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Article 226 of the Constitution of W.P. (Crl.) 787/2020 Page 1 of 8 India, seeks quashing of FIR 319/2020, dated 20th April, 2020, registered against the petitioners at PS Moti Nagar. The FIR alleges that the petitioners have committed offences under Sections 188/269/186/353/332/506 read with Section 34 IPC.

3. The recital of the facts in the FIR may be summarized thus. At 5 PM on 20th April, 2020, one Rahul (Petitioner No.2 herein), who was known to the complainant Head Constable (HC) Rishi Kumar, and was a "bad character" of the area, was seen loitering in the area without wearing a mask, in violation of the Compliance Advisory issued by the Central Government in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. On the complainant intercepting Rahul and querying him in that regard, Rahul retorted that the complainant had no right to stop him from walking in the area without a mask. On the complainant attempting to control Rahul, with the assistance of Const. Pravin, Rahul caught hold of the collar of the shirt being worn by the complainant and tore the shirt. Rahul is also alleged to have assaulted Constable Pravin, by kicking him. During the melee, Rahul's brother Sundar (Petitioner No.1 herein) arrived at the spot, and joined Rahul in assaulting the complainant, by administering kicks and blows. It is further alleged that they also bit the complainant on his wrist, resulting in his bleeding profusely. Thereafter, it is stated that Rahul and Sunder were taken into custody and FIR was lodged as noted above.

CS(COMM) 336/2019 Page 1 of 21

2. Case of the plaintiff in the suit is that the plaintiff is dealing in the medicinal and pharmaceutical product under the mark AMADAY which is used for treatment of high blood pressure, heart disease and the defendant is selling its drug under the name ANADAY which is deceptively similar to the plaintiff's well-known registered trademark and amounts to infringement of the plaintiff's rights in its trademark; even though the drug produced and sold by the defendant under the trademark ANADAY is used for treatment of breast cancer.

3. As per the plaintiff, plaintiff first obtained the title in the trademark AMADAY by its first application bearing No. 747783 on 10th July, 1997 and thereafter started using the said trademark AMADAY from 2001. On 4th February, 2008 defendant filed its application bearing No. 1649587 for the impugned mark ANADAY which was duly opposed by the plaintiff and the defendant did not pursue the said application and vide order dated 15 th March, 2016 of the Trade Mark Registry, the same was declared abandoned. On 8th October, 2016 defendant filed another trademark application for registration of the trademark ANADAY vide application No. 3384539 in Class 5 which is currently pending. In the third week of June, 2019 the representative of the plaintiff came across defendant's medicinal preparation AMADAY at Delhi, and hence the suit.

2. This petition has been moved by the State under Section 439(2) read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for cancellation of bail granted vide order dated 30.04.2020 by the learned ASJ, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi to the respondent/accused in FIR No.111/2000 dated 06.04.2000 under Sections 420/120B of the IPC, registered at Police Station Chanakya Puri, New Delhi, which has been investigated by the Crime Branch. According to the petitioner/State, during investigations of an extortion case relating to FIR No.249/1999 dated 13.11.1999 under Sections 387/506 of the IPC registered at Police Station DBG Road Delhi, the Crime Branch came to know that some persons were conspiring to fix the India-South Africa Cricket Test CRL. M.C. 1468/2020 Page 1 of 26 Series to be played in the months of February to March, 2000 whereunder five One-Day matches and three Test matches were to be played at various places in India. The accused/respondent is alleged to have played a major role in fixing these matches, as it is alleged by the petitioner/State that he was the main link between the players and an alleged Syndicate which was running betting on these matches and had profited hugely from these match fixings as they controlled the outcome of each of these matches.

2. It is the case of the plaintiff that on 5 th November, 2016, defendant No. 1 went to her parents' place along with her belongings and valuables and despite the best efforts of the plaintiff and her husband to try to settle the disputes between the defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2 to save their marriage, due to adamant behaviour of defendant No. 1, no result was forthcoming. Defendant No. 2 thus filed the divorce petition on the ground of fraud and cruelty against defendant No. 1 which proceedings are pending before the Family Courts, Rohini. Since defendant No. 2 is also not residing in the suit property and has filed the divorce petition, defendant No. 1 has no right to come to the suit property. The suit premises is neither the matrimonial home of the defendant No. 1 nor a shared household.

W.P.(C) 3062/2020

1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been listed before this Bench by the Registry in view of the urgency expressed therein.

2. The writ petition has been heard by way of video conferencing.

3. Present public interest litigation has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to a mandate that the travellers of Delhi Metro Rail should provide proof of their identities and addresses while purchasing Metro cards from Delhi Metro Rail Corporation.

W.P.(C) 3062/2020 Page 1 of 2

4. Petitioners, who appear in person, state that Delhi Metro Rail Corporation issues digital Metro cards or tokens (digital monies) to its customers, who in turn use it as travel coupons. They state that linking of Metro card and token with the address proof of the travellers would protect the right to property, in the event, the Metro card or token is lost. They further state that in the wake of ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, it is of utmost importance that the respondents should be aware about the details of the passengers travelling by Delhi Metro as it would help in preventing a patient from travelling and would also help in tracing the affected travellers in case a patient had unwillingly travelled in Delhi Metro.

1. The hearing was conducted through video conferencing.

OMP (I) (COMM.) 95 & 96/2020 Page 1 of 4

2. Petitioner, by the present petition, under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the "Arbitration Act"), inter alia seeks a restraint on the respondent from invoking and encashing the performance bank guarantees issued by respondent no. 2 on behalf of the petitioner and further seeks a direction to respondent no. 1 to release the payments due to the petitioner under the relevant contracts.

3. It is submitted that the respondent no. 2 is a Performa party.

4. Several contracts have been executed between petitioner and respondent no. 1 for provision of services, personnel and equipment. The contracts were executed as part of a composite transaction for the performance of services between petitioner and respondent no. 1 and are subject to and governed by Master Services Agreement and Master Supply Agreement.

1. The present public interest litigation under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been listed before this Bench by the Registry in view of the urgency expressed therein.

2. The writ petition has been heard by way of video conferencing.

3. Present public interest litigation has been filed seeking a number of directions. The prayer clause is reproduced hereinbelow:-

W.P.(C) 3068/2020 Page 1 of 8

"a) the respondent no.1 (Union of India) be directed to stop respondent no.2 (Govt. of Haryana) from doing all these restriction activities in violation of their orders dated 15.04.2020;

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

1. This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugns the judgment and decree [dated 3rd February, 2005 in RCA No.98/1997 of the Court of Additional District Judge, Delhi] partly allowing the First Appeal under Section 96 of the CPC filed by the respondents/defendants against the judgment and decree [dated 27th September, 1997 in Suit No.436/1996 of the Court of Civil Judge, Delhi] allowing the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff against the respondents/defendants, for dissolution of partnership, rendition of accounts and recovery of possession of Shop No.47 U.B., Jawahar Nagar, Delhi. The First Appellate Court, while has upheld the decree insofar as of dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts, has set aside the decree for recovery of possession of the shop aforesaid.

In the wake of unprecedented and uncertain situation due to outbreak of the Novel Corona virus (COVID-19) and considering the advisories issued by the Government of India, this application has been heard and decided through video conferencing to maintain social distancing. The parties are being represented by the respective counsels through video conferencing, following the norms of social distancing/ physical distancing in letter and spirit.

Applicant has been arrested on 13.2.2020 by Police Station Crime Branch, Gwalior in connection with Crime No.30 of 2020 registered in relation to the offence punishable u/S.411 and 414 of IPC.

It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that allegation of misappropriation of amount of Rs.2 crore has been levied against the present applicant. It is submitted that the amount was being taken for depositing in the bank and belonged to M/s Gupta Traders which is corroborated from daily cash summary annexure P/2. Dinesh Gupta is the proprietor of the firm. The investigation in the matter is over and the charge sheet has been filed. The offence does not carry punishment for more than three years and the offences alleged against the applicant are 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC.11826.2020.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The applicant has filed this first application u/S 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. The applicant has been arrested by Police Station Maharajpura, District Gwalior in connection with Crime No.162/2020 registered in relation to the offence punishable under Section 49(A) of Excise Act.

It is alleged by the counsel for the applicant that 5 liters of country made liquor is said to have been seized from the present applicant. He was not arrested on the spot. Investigation is over in the matter and charge sheet has been filed on 23.3.2020. He is in custody since 12.03.2020 and prays for grant of bail.

Per contra, counsel for the State has opposed the bail application submitting that the report from the FSL has been received and the liqour seized from the present applicant was found to be 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.13147/2020 (Batri Khan vs. State of M.P.) harmful for human consumption. However, factum of completion of investigation and filing of charge sheet could not be disputed. There is no criminal history of the present applicant.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

This criminal appeal under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. assails the judgment of the trial Court dated 16/03/2020 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sheopur, whereby applicant No. 1 has been convicted under Sections 452 and 325, 323/34 of IPC undergo 6 months, 6 months and 1 months and applicant No. 2 and 3 have been convicted under Sections 452 and 325/34, 323 of IPC to THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R-1583-2020 (RAMCHARAN GURJAR AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) undergo 6 months, 6 months and 1 months alongwith fine of Rs.2000/-, Rs. 3000/- and Rs. 1000/- each respectively with default stipulation.

For respondents : Shri Mukesh Kumar Agrawal, Shri Sankalp Kochar and Shri Ajeet Kumar Singh, Advocates in their respective petitions. Law laid down Significant Para Nos. Reserved on : 26.02.2020 Delivered on : 08.05.2020 (O R D E R)

This batch of petitions is involving the similar question and issue, therefore, are being decided concomitantly.

2. For the purpose of convenience, the facts of W.P. No.20394/2012 are being taken-up.

-6-

W.P. No. 20394/2012 & connected petitions

For Respondent No.2/State: Mr. Anvesh Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer.

Law laid down Suit for specific performance of contract- readiness and willingness for a seeking decree of performance of contract, the plaintiff is required to produce strong documentary evidence relating to his financial condition- only oral evidence in respect of financial condition to establish readiness and willingness is not sufficient- The Court cannot assume or presume the financial status of the plaintiff only on the basis of oral evidence- The suit of specific performance of contract cannot be decreed in favour of the plaintiff unless readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract is proved by the plaintiff.

Law laid down Significant Para Nos.

Reserved on : 04.02.2020 Delivered on : 08.05.2020 (O R D E R) With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, since pleadings are complete, the matter is heard finally.

2. Heard on the question of admission.

3. This petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. By the instant petition, the petitioner is claiming that he was working as 2 W. P. No. 1763/2020 Chairman/President of Municipal Council, Khandwa, by virtue of his election and certificate issued by the Returning Officer on 04.12.2014. The tenure of the President in the Municipal Council is over and the respondents/State is inclined to appoint an Administrator who is a Government Officer.

2. The case of prosecution against the appellants, in short, is that Vijay Pratap Singh (PW-9) while posted as S.H.O. of Police Station, Kotwali, Shahdol received information on 10/04/2007 that one Ravi Sharma alias Gudda is dealing with fake Indian currency notes and he is coming at bus stand with fake currency notes. SHO- Vijay Pratap Singh called two Panch witnesses Chandrakant Soni (PW-10) and Md Jakir khan (PW-3). and after informing them recorded the said information in Rojnamcha Sanha (Ex.P/1) and moved to spot along with panch witnesses, ASI Pradeep Dwivedi (PW-8), Constable Arvind Pyasi (PW-7), Swatantra Singh, Arvind Dubey, Mahesh Yadav, Satya Narayan (PW-4), Rahees Khan, Pramod Pandey, Shailendra Chaturvedi and driver Chandra Prakas in Government Vehicle No.M.P.03 5682 and recorded that Ravangi(outgoing) in Rojnamcha Sanha (Ex.P/31).

2. The case of prosecution against the appellant, in short, is that on 28/11/2018 father of the Prosecutrix (PW2) lodged a missing report bearing No.54/2018 (Ex.P/4) at Police Station Industrial Area, Satlapur to the effect that he is residing in a rental house of Jumman, opposite to Tapti School, Satlapur having six daughters, elder one prosecutrix aged about 12 years 10 months is studying in Class-8 th in Megha Vidya Mandir, not found in the house since morning also alleged some jewallary, ATM and money are missing. Placed a doubt on Appellant Neelesh Ahirwar who residing in the same building .

3

3. On the basis of said missing report, case of missing person (Ex.P/5) and first information report (Ex.P/6) for the offence punishable under Section 363 of IPC registered against suspicious Neelesh Ahirwar at Crime No.325/2018. The matter was taken into investigation. After recovering Prosecutrix she was sent for medical examination, report Ex.P/13 had been obtained. Statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. of the prosecutrix were recorded and on her statement, accused were arrested. On the basis of the statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., Sections 376, 506 and 120-B of IPC were added in the case against the accused/appellant and other co accused Bablu. Medical examination report of the appellant is Ex.P/11. Forensic Science Laboratory, Sager report Ex.P/22 received in this regard. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted before the competent Court against the appellant along with co-accused Bablu Ahirwar.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Binay Krishna, SPL PP For the Informant : Mr. Indrajit Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 17-03-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant, who has suo motu appeared.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Satyendra Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 17-03-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Barauni (Refinery) PS Case No. 521 of 2018 dated 06.11.2018 instituted under Sections 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State Of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Vijay Shankar Shrivastava, Advocate For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 17-03-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Kundwa Chainpur PS Case No. 174 of 2019 dated 06.11.2019 instituted under Sections 272/273 of the Indian Penal Code and 30(a)/41(1) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajendra Nath Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Pranav Kumar, APP

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 17-03-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Special Case No. 70 of 2019 arising out of Maner PS Case No. 179 of 2019 dated 09.04.2019 instituted under Sections 341/323/354/504/506/379/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 8/12 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and 54 'D' of the I T Act.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State Of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Parijat Saurav, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Dr. Ajeet Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 19-03-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner is in custody in connection with Imadpur PS Case No. 55 of 2019 dated 06.08.2019 instituted under Sections 341/323/324/325/307/504/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and later on Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was also added.

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 19-03-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Khutauna PS Case No. 116 of 2019 dated 17.11.2019 instituted under Sections 279, 337, 338, 272, 273 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code and 30(a0 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

3. The allegation against the petitioner and three others is that from the Bolero vehicle he was driving, 405 litres of Nepali countrymade wine was recovered.

Late Navi Hasan @ Navi Hasan Miya

2. Jafrani Khatoon @ Zafrin Khatoon, female, aged about 24 years, W/o Md.

Ezaj Kadri Both resident of Nardiganj Bazar, P.S.- Nardiganj, District- Nawadah ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dineshwar Prasad Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 19-03-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

... ... Appellant Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Respondent ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant : Mr. Shiv Shankar Sharma, Adv.

Mr.Pravin Kumar Sinha, Adv.

Amicus Curiae : Mr. Kanhaiya Prasad Singh, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Adv.

For the Respondent : Mr. Anjani Kumar, AAG -IV Mr.Sri Shyed Ashfaque Ahmad, APP.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA C.A.V. JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA) Date : 20 -04 -2020 Judicial system in India has to face two adage one is justice delayed is justice denied and another is justice hurried is justice buried. However, in spite of above two adage, one thing remains i.e. to provide timely justice, which is an essence of rule of law and appreciating the same, clause 40 of Magna Carta provided "To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice." Speedy justice was also mandate and there are Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1827 of 2017 dt.20-04-2020 2/56 catena of judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court of India, which holds it to be a fundamental right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution of India.

Shri Sudeep Verma, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State/respondent. Heard on IA No.01/2020 for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the applicant.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been convicted by the trial Court under Sections 456, 354 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, RI for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and RI for three months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- respectively with default stipulations. Against the order of the trial Court the applicant has preferred an appeal before Additional Sessions Judge, Bemetara. The appellate Court vide its order dated 03.3.2020 dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of the trial Court.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma Order On Board 07.5.2020

1. This is an application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the applicant, who has been arrested in connection with crime No.189/2020 registered at Police Station City Kotwali, Distt. Raigarh Chhattisgarh for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) & 59(A) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that 10 bulk liters of illicit liquor was seized by the police from the present applicant.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is in detention since 17.4.2020 He further submits that applicant has no criminal background and has been falsely implicated in the case, and therefore, the applicant may be released on bail. 2

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma Order On Board 07.5.2020

1. This is an application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the applicant, who has been arrested in connection with crime No.85/2020 registered at Police Station Kotra Road, Distt. Raigarh Chhattisgarh for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) & 59(A) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that 12 bulk liters of illicit liquor was seized by the police from the present applicant.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is in detention since 26.4.2020. He further submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the case, therefore, he may be released on bail. 2

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma CAV Judgment

1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 24 th of June, 2009 passed by Sessions Judge/Special Judge (SC/ ST Act, 1989), Korea (C.G.), in Special Case No. 02/2006 wherein the said Court has convicted the appellant for charge under Sections 450 and 376(1) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 3 years with fine of Rs. 500/-, R.I. for 7 years with fine of Rs. 500/- with default stipulations.

2. In the present case, prosecutrix is (PW-1). As per version of the prosecution on 7th of May, 2005 at about 5.00 pm in the evening while the prosecutrix was alone in the house. The appellant/accused entered in the house of the prosecutrix and forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her and thereafter run away. Matter was reported, investigated the appellant was charge-sheeted and convicted as mentioned above. 2

1. The appeal is directed against judgment dated 15.02.2017 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Janjgir, Distt. Janjgir Champa, (CG) in Special Session Trial No.02/2016 wherein the said Court convicted appellant for commission of offence under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short 'the Act 2012') and under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.8000/- and RI for 2 02 years and to pay fine of 2000/- respectively with default stipulation.

2. In the present case prosecutrix is PW-5. As per the version of the prosecution, the prosecutrix is minor and the appellant committed sexual intercourse with her on the promise of marriage and thereafter refused to marry her. Again the appellant threatened the prosecutrix and her parents to kill. The matter was reported, investigated and the appellant was charge sheeted and convicted as mentioned above.

1. This appeal is preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against judgment dated 31.10.2014 passed by Special Judge under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act 1985'), Raipur (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No. 240/2014, wherein the said court convicted the appellant for commission of offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Act, 1985 and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- with default stipulations.

2

2. As per case of the prosecution, on 12.01.2014, Police Officer- Shankar Chandrakar, In-charge of Government Railway Police, Raipur received information that two persons carrying contraband article ganja are traveling in train Ahmedabad Express. On the basis of said information, the Police Officer with other staff reached to the spot and recovered ganja to the tune of 38 Kg. from the appellant. After complying with all the legal formalities, the matter was investigated, appellant was charge- sheeted and after completion of trial, the trial court convicted as mentioned above.

1. The appeal is directed against judgment dated 06.4.2010 passed by Sessions Judge Raipur in Session Trial No.161/2008 wherein the said Court convicted appellant for commission of offence under Section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 05 years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- with default stipulation.

2. In the present case, name of the deceased is Kalu @ Tarun Bagh. As per the version of the prosecution, on 11.6.2008 at 2 noon, the appellant and the deceased were drinking liquor in the house of the appellant. During the course of drinking, a dispute arose regarding daughter of the appellant namely Suman. On this dispute, the appellant and other persons assaulted the deceased and the appellant sat on the chest of the deceased and pressed his neck due to which the deceased become unconscious. He was taken to hospital but succumbed to the injuries. The matter was reported, investigated and the appellant was charge sheeted and convicted as mentioned above.

1. The appeal is directed against judgment dated 30.8.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bemetara Distt. Durg in Session Trial No.14/2010 wherein the said Court convicted appellant for commission of offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 05 years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation.

2

2. In the present case, name of the victim is Ramji Yadav. As per the version of the prosecution, on 31.12.2009 at about 9.00 pm when victim Ramji Yadav along with other persons doing the work of decorating the road by writing "Happy New Year" for celebrating new year, the appellant came there and used filthy words and asked what he is writing. Quarrel took place between the appellant and the victim and the appellant hit the victim on his stomach by knife resulting which he fell down. The victim was admitted to Sector 9 Hospital, Bhilai. The matter was reported and the appellant was charge sheeted. After completion of trial, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as mentioned above.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma CAV JUDGMENT

1. This appeal is preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against judgment dated 03.01.2017 passed by Additional Session Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Session Trial No. 17/2015, wherein the said court convicted the appellant for commission of offence under Sections 307 & 323 of IPC, 1860 and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs. 20,000/- & R.I. for 6 months and fine of Rs. 500/- respectively with further default stipulations.

Elon Musk says Tesla may leave its Palo Alto headquarters and Fremont, California factory. In a tweet Saturday morning, the chief executive continued his outrage against shelter-in-place orders that have forced most non-essential businesses to close. Last week, Musk likened the rules to fascism, and urged leaders to "give people their goddamn freedom back." Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.After a week of decrying coronavirus shelter-in-place orders that have left Tesla's main factory shuttered and unable to produce vehicles, Elon Musk says the company may move its factory out of the state."Tesla is filing a lawsuit against Alameda County immediately," the chief executive said on Twitter Saturday morning. "The unelected & ignorant 'Interim Health Officer' of Alameda is acting

Aggrieved with denial of information, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.11.2018, which was decided by the FAA's order dated 30.11.2018, upholding the PIO's reply. Dissatisfied with denial of information, the appellant filed the instant Second Appeal before the Commission.

Proceedings during hearing:

Due to nation-wide lockdown being observed, to prevent the spread of the pandemic of COVID-19, hearings are being conducted through audio conference.

The Appellant participated in the hearing on being contacted on his telephone number: 98xxxxxx90 and submitted that he had sought the information even through the direct official channel. He claims that he had met the DG twice and had been assured by the DG that information regarding marks will be provided but later the respondent denied information without assigning any reason.

(1) Have MHA or DoP&T issued any order to revise Pay Scale of all eligible serving and Pensioners by lmplementing Hon'ble Delhi High Court Order on WP (C) 3549/2018 dated 1/5/19 CAPFs including BSF?

(2) ln this regard, has MHA given any decisions, or guidelines to BSF to Revise the Pay Scale of all eligible Personnel who completed 20 year of services by 2OL2 on the basis of above HC order? (3) Has BSF Challenged above HC Verdict before Hon'ble Supreme Court? lf so what consequence? (4) ls grant of MACP according to above Court Order only limit to Sunil Kumar Tyagi or similarly placed Personnel in BSF? What action is being taken by MHA in this regard?

PIO/DIG(Confd) vide reply dated 20.11.2019 denied disclosure of information citing the exemption under Section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005, whereby the respondent organization did not fall within the purview of the RTI Act, unless the information pertained to allegations of Corruption and Human Rights Violations.

1. Category-wise cut-off marks of the result declared on 16.04.2019;

2. Marks obtained by the appellant in written examination and candidates with what score have been selected from Rajasthan OBC quota;

3. On what basis will be candidates selected from among the 447 candidates finalized for medical examination.

PIO/DIG, CISF denied disclosure of information invoking Section 24 of the RTI Act, vide reply dated 12.06.2019.

Aggrieved with denial of information, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 01.07.2019, which was decided by the FAA vide order dated 04.07.2019, reiterating the stance taken by the PIO.

Dissatisfied with denial of information, the appellant filed the instant Second Appeal before the Commission.

1. I want to know its next process & medical test date.

2. When will be its medical test

3. I am eagerly waiting its medial test dates many times I tried to know its previous recruitment centre but they have no information, about it please inform me medical test date He summarised his queries as:

(1) What is the reason of being so late in the process of recruitment. (2) I want to know the status of recruitment whether it will be completed or not.

PIO/DIG, CISF denied disclosure of any information invoking Section 24 of the RTI Act, vide reply dated 08.04.2019.

Aggrieved with denial of information, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03.05.2019, which was decided by the FAA vide order dated 14.05.2019, reiterating the stance taken by the PIO.

The Appellant vide her RTI application sought information regarding the copy of the documents of the Department of Personnel and Training (DoP&T) associated with the files related to the appointment of various Attorney Generals of India since 01.01.2010.

Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of any response from the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 09.10.2018 stated that the Appeal had been examined and it was found that the CPIO on 11.09.2018 had sought certain clarifications from the Appellant. Hence, the Appellant was advised to clarify the same to the CPIO to enable him to provide the available information.

Page 1 of 5 RTI - 2 File No. CIC/DOLAF/A/2018/163414-BJ [ Date of RTI application 12.08.2018 CPIO's response Not on Record Date of the First Appeal 11.09.2018 First Appellate Authority's response 09.10.2018 Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 18.10.2018 FACTS:

1. The appellant filed an online application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Eastern Railway, Kolkata seeking information on seven points regarding reduction of pension of the Pensioner Shri Ganesh Chandra Mishra with PPO No. 02101265992 including,

a) Reason for 75% reduction of Pension,

b) Whether any inquiry was held against the Pensioner due to which pension was reduced,

c) Copy of Notice issued to the pensioner informing him that he is subject to an inquiry,

d) Receipt of confirmation showing Notice received by the Pensioner,

e) Transcript of the inquiry and report of inquiry, if any, held against the pensioner,

James Maddison put his untamed lockdown hairstyle on display as he thanked Leicester fans on Instagram after winning the ePremier League invitational on Saturday. 

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since no notice for arrest as observed by the learned Sessions Judge, Panipat in the order dated 12.04.2020, (Annexure P-1) has been received, he be permitted to withdraw the present petition at this stage with liberty to approach the Court again, in case, needs so arises.

Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as aforesaid with the clarification that the petitioner will be bound to file notarized affidavit, 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 09-05-2020 20:48:29 ::: CRM-M-12079 of 2020 Vakalatnama and deposit the requisite Court fee within a period of 10 days after the lockdown is over.

Dismissed as withdrawn.

(MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) JUDGE May 08, 2020 J.Ram Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No 1 of 1 ::: Downloaded on - 09-05-2020 20:43:49 :::

The petitioner has already made representation against the impugned order dated 13.12.2019 (Annexure P-1) to the Vice Chancellor, Shree Guru Gobind Singh Tricentenary University, Gurugram. The worthy Vice Chancellor is directed to decide the representation within a period of two weeks from today, strictly as per the University Statues & Ordinance as well as on the basis of compromise arrived at between the petitioner and the 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 09-05-2020 20:40:51 ::: CWP-7284-2020 -2- complainants.

Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

( RAJIV SHARMA ) JUDGE ( HARINDER SINGH SIDHU ) JUDGE May 08, 2020 ndj Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No 2 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 09-05-2020 20:40:51 :::

----

Present: Mr. Naveen Sharma (Bhardwaj), Advocate for the petitioner.

**** Lalit Batra, J.(Oral) Case has been taken up for hearing through Video Conferencing.

Notice of motion.

Mr. Sharad Aggarwal, AAG, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 5.

At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that representation dated 20.04.2020 (Annexure P-5) moved by petitioner is still pending before respondent No.4-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Loharu, District Bhiwani and the said authority may be asked to decide the said representation at the earliest.

Learned State counsel has given concurrence to the above said contention of learned counsel for the petitioner.

The petitioner has already made a representation vide Annexure P-3. The competent authority is directed to decide the representation within a period of one week from today by passing a speaking/detailed order and also by taking into consideration all the pleas raised in the writ petition.

Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

( RAJIV SHARMA ) JUDGE ( HARINDER SINGH SIDHU ) JUDGE May 08, 2020 ndj Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No 1 of 1 ::: Downloaded on - 08-05-2020 20:40:15 :::

The petitioner has already made a representation. The competent authority is directed to decide the representation in accordance with law within a period of one week from today by passing a speaking/detailed order.

Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

( RAJIV SHARMA ) JUDGE ( HARINDER SINGH SIDHU ) JUDGE May 08, 2020 ndj Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No 1 of 1 ::: Downloaded on - 08-05-2020 20:42:29 :::

The petitioner is permitted to make a representation to the General Manager, Food Corporation of India, Chandigarh within a period of one week from today. The General Manager shall decide the representation by passing a speaking/detailed order by referring to the terms and conditions incorporated in the tender document.

Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

( RAJIV SHARMA ) JUDGE ( HARINDER SINGH SIDHU ) JUDGE May 08, 2020 ndj Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No 1 of 1 ::: Downloaded on - 08-05-2020 20:39:14 :::

The petitioner is seeking regular bail in FIR No.219 dated 05.10.2019 under Section 20 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 registered at Police Station Sadar, Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar.

Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the allegation against the petitioner is that 605 grams Charas was recovered from him which he was allegedly carrying in a red colour bag. He submits that the alleged recovery is non-commercial. He further submits that he is in custody since 05.10.2019 and the trial is likely to take sometime to conclude.

1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 09-05-2020 20:52:28 ::: CRM-M-52914 of 2019 {2}