2. The prosecution allegations, which led to the conviction of the appellant, are as follows:-

On 29.08.2005, PW3; the Sub Inspector of Kanjar Police Station, while on patrol duty, got information that the accused was selling liquor from her house. Thereupon, PW3 proceeded to the spot along with police party, including women police constables. On reaching near the house of Crl.A.No.474 of 2008 3 the accused, the police party found the accused pouring some liquid from a bottle into a glass, adding water to it and handing over the glass to a person who was standing outside the veranda of the house. That person drank the contents of the glass and give it back to the accused along with some money, which she kept inside her purse. By the time, the police party reached the house of the accused, the person who drank from the glass ran away. On examination of the bottle in the possession of the accused, it was found to be a bottle of 1.5 litres capacity containing 1.350 litres of Indian Made Foreign liquor. An amount of Rs.50/- was found inside the purse. From out of the bottle, sample was drawn and sealed. The bottle containing the liquor, the glass, the bottle containing water and the purse containing five ten rupee notes were seized and the accused Crl.A.No.474 of 2008 4 arrested. The sample, when subjected to chemical analysis, was found to contain 42.17% by volume of ethyl alcohol.

On 28-02-2019, Sri. K.P. Mathaikunju and 3 others filed a contempt of court case before this court against the respondents herein, alleging that the respondents have committed civil contempt by publishing a face book post in a face book page to which the respondents are the admins and also published a similar news in the website www.ovsonline.in on 27-02-2019, to the effect that the cases, O.P (C) No.65/2019 & Tr.P (C) No.76/2019, which pertains to the dispute regarding the 'Vadavukod Church' were dismissed by the High Court on 27-02- 2019, which in fact were only reserved for judgment on that day. It is alleged that the act of the respondents in this regard would amount to interference with the administration of justice and therefore they have committed contempt of court punishable under provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The Registry of this court expressed doubt with respect to maintainability of CON.Case (Crl. ) No.1/2019 (Suo motu) -4- the above said contempt of court petition. Therefore the case was posted before the learned Single Judge who as dealing with OP (C) No.65/2019 and Tr.P (C) No.76/2019, as unnumbered contempt petition. Initially, the learned Judge appointed an 'amicus curiae' in the matter, through order dated 01-03-2019. But subsequently, on 31-05-2019, the Single Judge directed the Registry of this court to place the petition before Hon'ble Chief justice for appropriate further action on the administrative side, in the light of the decision of the Full Bench in Rehim P. V. M.V. Jayarajan and others (2010 (4) KLT 286). When the matter was placed for consideration before the Hon'ble Chief Justice on 25-06-2019, it was ordered to place the matter as a suo motu criminal contempt case, for preliminary hearing, before the appropriate Bench. When the matter came on the judicial side, this court ordered notice to the respondents. Personal appearance of the respondents were dispensed with for the time being. The respondents appeared and each of them had filed separate affidavits. Now the case is coming up for consideration as to whether there exists prima facie contempt and to decide whether further proceedings need to be pursued in the case by framing charge against the respondents. CON.Case (Crl. ) No.1/2019 (Suo motu) -5-

The above appeal was originally filed as a 'Motor Accident Claim Appeal', ('MACA'). The appeal memorandum reflected that the appeal was filed under Section 341 of the Code of Criminal Procedure(Cr.P.C.), read with Section 169(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. When the Registry of this court noted defect, the appeal was sought to be be filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Registry has not yet accepted the same for the reason that the order impugned is not an Award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, as required under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Unnumbered Crl. Appeal 16 of 2020 -:4:- Registry noted that, probably an original petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India alone may lie against the order impugned. However, the matter was posted before the Bench for hearing on the question of maintainability. On 05.09.2016, learned counsel appearing for the appellants conceded that the Registry is correct in holding that an appeal will not lie under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. He sought time for curing the defect, which was allowed. Thereafter the case was re-presented with correction made in the 'Docket Sheet' in the cause title portion, styling it as an 'appeal', instead of "MACA". But the memorandum of appeal in all other respects remained as such. On the request of the counsel for the appellants, the matter was posted before this Bench, for hearing on the question of maintainability. Senior Advocate Sri. P. Vijayabhanu has consented to assist the court as Amicus Curiae. Hence the question of maintainability was heard in detail.

The petitioners in the writ petition, W.P (C) No.12189/2007, are the appellants herein, challenging judgment of the Single Judge dismissing the writ petition. The 1 st appellant is the State of Sikkim and the 2nd appellant is the Distributor of the paper lotteries organized by the 1st appellant in the State of Kerala. Constitutional validity of the Kerala Tax on Paper Lotteries Act, 2005 ('the Act' for short) is under challenge in the writ petition. The respondents herein are the respondents in the writ petition, the State of Kerala and its officials.

2. Brief history of the impugned legislation may be worthfull to mention. By virtue of the Finance Act, 2001, introduced with effect from 23-07-2001, the State of Kerala has introduced Section 5BA to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 ('KGST Act' for short) imposing licence fee on the draw of W A No.648/2008 -4- lotteries, in lieu of tax payable under Section 5 (1) of the KGST Act. Validity of Section 5BA was under challenge before this court. In the decision in Commercial Corporation of India Ltd. V. Additional Sales Tax Officer and others (2007 (2) KLT 397) = (2007 (2) KHC 427) this court held that Section 5BA of the KGST Act is ultra vires and unconstitutional. Eventhough the State of Kerala filed appeal before the Division Bench, it was dismissed by relying on the dictum laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunrise Associates V. Govt. of NCT of New Delhi and others (AIR 2006 SC 1908), in which earlier ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in H. Anraj V. Govt. of Tamil Nadu (AIR 1986 SC 63) was reversed and it was held that no tax can be levied, collected or demanded in connection with sale of lottery tickets. A Special Leave Petition filed by the State of Kerala against the Division Bench decision was also dismissed by the hon'ble Supreme Court in the ruling reported in State of Kerala V. Prabhavathy Thankamma and others ((2009) 3 SCC 511).

By around 7:30 PM on 3-8- 2002, the Sub Inspector of Police, Chandera Police Station (PW1) received secret information that a person by name Anil Kumar (appellant) would be reaching the bus waiting shed situated at Matlayi by around 8:30 PM for the purpose of selling the opium in his possession. Immediately, PW1 recorded the information in the General Diary, intimated his Superior Officer, the Circle Inspector of Police, Nileshwaram and proceeded to the spot. The police party lay in wait near the bus waiting shed and by around 8:45 PM, the appellant reached the spot in an autorikshaw and entered the bus waiting shed. Immediately, the Police party rushed to the waiting shed and on the Crl.A.244/06 3 appellant attempting to flee, apprehended him. PW1 thereupon, asked the appellant whether he required the presence of a Gazetted Officer while his body was searched and on the appellant answering in the negative, his body was searched and a plastic packet recovered from the pocket of his pants. On examination, the packet was found to contain opium, for the possession of which the appellant had no licence. The opium was weighed and found to be 350 gms in weight. Two samples of 25 gms each, were collected from the contraband and were packed and sealed separately. The remaining opium was also packed and sealed in the same manner. Ext.P3 seizure mahazar was prepared and the accused was arrested. Exhibit P4 FIR was registered thereafter. Later, Exhibit P8 chemical analysis report was received finding the sample to be opium.

Income Tax Appeal Nos. 135/2019 & 146/2019 are filed challenging a common order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench in ITA Nos.536/Coch/2018 and 537/Coch/2018, dated 12-03-2019. Income Tax Appeal No.313/2019 is filed against the revised order passed by the same Tribunal ITA No.537/Coch/2018, dated 11-10-2019. The assessee was the appellant before the Tribunal, who is the appellant herein. The revenue is the respondent.

2. Appellant is a company registered under the Companies Act, engaged in wholesale and retail trade of beaverages within the State of Kerala, and is a 'State Government Undertaking' falling within the 'Explanation' provided under Section 40 (a) (iib) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). With respect to I.T. Appeal Nos. 135, 146 & 313/2019 -5- the assessment year 2014-2015, the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2 (1), Thiruvananthapuram finalized the assessment of income tax against the appellant, under Section 143 (3) of the Act, through the order of assessment dated 14- 12-2016. But, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Thiruvananthapuram initiated proceedings under Section 263 of the Act and set aside the order of assessment, on holding that the same is erroneous and is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, to the extent it failed to disallow the debits made in the Profit and Loss Account of the assessee with respect to the amount of surcharge on sales tax and turn over tax paid to the State Government, which ought to have been disallowed under Section 40 (a) (iib) of the Act. Against order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, issued under Section 263 of the Act, dated 25-09-2018, the appellant approached the Tribunal in ITA No.536/Coch/2018.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the learned Public Prosecutor.

3. The registration of the first information report is the process in terms of which the criminal law is set in a cognizable case. True, the first information report and all further proceedings thereto can be quashed by this court either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise, to secure the ends of justice where the allegations made in the first information report, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not, prima facie, constitute any cognizable offence, or where the criminal proceedings is manifestly attended with malafide and/or where the proceedings is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to Crl.M.C.No.4440 of 2018 5 private and personal grudge. It is, however, settled that the power to quash the first information report is a power that must be exercised sparingly and with circumspection in rarest of rare cases. It is also settled that the court would not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry in such cases as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the first information report. The court cannot also enquire whether the allegations in the first information report are likely to be established [See M.Narayandas v. State of Karnataka, (2003)11 SCC 251].

2. Petitioner is the first respondent in M.C. No.11 of 2016. Respondents 1 and 2 herein are the wife and son of the petitioner respectively. The respondents instituted the said proceedings under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, seeking, among others, an order restraining the petitioner and his parents from committing any act of domestic violence. The respondents have also sought in the proceedings orders for their maintenance and for the return O.P.(Crl) No.727 of 2017 3 of money, gold ornaments, documents etc. In the course of the proceedings, the parties were referred for mediation. After the mediation, the mediator reported to the court that mediation was successful and forwarded Exhibit P2 mediation agreement entered into between the parties and signed by their respective counsel to the court. As per Exhibit P2 mediation agreement, the petitioner has agreed to pay a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- to the first respondent and Rs.20,000/- per year to the second respondent. Provision was also made in the mediation agreement for the custody of the second respondent during his minority. In terms of the mediation agreement, the petitioner and the first respondent have also agreed to prefer an application for divorce on mutual consent. The Jurisdictional Magistrate disposed of the proceedings in terms of the mediation agreement. Exhibit R1(a) is the order passed by the Jurisdictional Magistrate in this connection. The case set out by the petitioner in the original petition is that Exhibit P2 mediation agreement is one obtained from him by the mediator under the threat that he would, otherwise, be put behind bars O.P.(Crl) No.727 of 2017 4 along with his parents. It is also the case of the petitioner that Exhibit P2 mediation agreement was the result of a conspiracy between the first respondent, the mediator as also the counsel for both the petitioner and the first respondent. It is pleaded by the petitioner in the original petition that he never wanted to live separately from the respondents.

2. The petitioner is the sole accused in the crime which is registered for the offences punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 5(l) and 5(n) read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The victim involved in the case is a girl aged 16 years. The accused is the husband of the younger sister of the mother of the victim. The accusation in the case is that on 08.08.2016, and on several days thereafter, the accused has raped and committed penetrative sexual assault on the victim. The final report in the case is sought to be quashed on the Crl.M.C.No.463 of 2020 3 ground that the grievance of the victim has been redressed, and she does not intend any more to pursue this matter. An affidavit to that effect by the victim is also part of the records.

2. Pursuant to the decision of the Government of Kerala to apply part of the proceeds of the financial aid received from the World Bank through the Government of India for execution of the work, namely "KSTP-II -Upgrading Punalur to Ponkunnam Road (SH 8) Package 8A: Km 0+000 (Punalur) to KM 29+840 (Konni)"(the Work), the Kerala State Transport Project (KSTP), the Consultant Engineer of the Government of Kerala for the World Bank aided projects, invited bids for construction and completion of the Work. Ext.P1 is the procurement notice issued by KSTP in this connection. It is specified in Ext.P1 notice that the bidding will be conducted in accordance with the Wpc nos.26853 & 31556 of 2019 6 procedures prescribed in the Guidelines issued by the World Bank for procurement under IBRD loans and IDA credits (current edition) and it will be open to all eligible bidders as defined in the said Guidelines to participate in the bidding process. In terms of the Invitation to Bid (ITB) published in this regard by KSTP, the prospective bidders could be individuals or joint ventures and they were to submit technical as also financial bids.

2. The petitioner, his elder brother Mohanan and his elder sister Sarasamma were residing in adjoining houses. Mohanan had a daughter named Arya, aged 13 years. She committed suicide on 2.2.2015 by hanging herself in a tree near W.P.(C) No.30976 of 2018 4 her house. The deceased was studying in 8 th standard at the relevant time. It was Sarasamma who first found Arya hanging in the three. The petitioner went to the spot hearing the hue and cry of Sarasamma. The matter was informed to the Police thereupon by the petitioner. In the autopsy, it was revealed that the deceased was subjected to both vaginal as also anal intercourse. The case which was registered earlier under Section 174 of the Code Of Criminal Procedure (the Code) was consequently amended as one under Sections 305 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code (the IPC) and also under Section 3 read with Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (the POCSO Act). In the investigation conducted thereupon, the Police came to the conclusion that it was the petitioner who has abused the deceased sexually and she committed suicide on account of the said reason. Consequently, final report was filed in the case under Sections 305 and 376 (2) (f) of the IPC and Section 3 read with Section 4 and Section 5(l) read with Section 6 of the POCSO W.P.(C) No.30976 of 2018 5 Act. Exhibit P2 is the final report in the case. The accusation in the case is that the petitioner who was residing alone in the neighbourhood of the house of the deceased has raped and committed penetrative sexual assault on the deceased on 10.1.2015 and on several occasions thereafter at her house and thereby abetted the deceased to commit suicide.

2. Crl.M.C.No.1343 of 2020 is one instituted by the State invoking the power of this Court under Sections 439(2) and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Code), seeking orders setting aside Annexure-B order in terms of which the Court of the First Additional Sessions Judge, Thrissur granted bail to the respondent who is the sole accused in Crime No.47 of 2020 of Chelakkara Police Station. The crime aforesaid is one registered for offences punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code(the IPC), Sections 9(f), 9(k) and 9(m) read Crl.M.C.Nos.1237 & 1343 of 2020 4 with Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (the POCSO Act) and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The accused is a teacher and NCC instructor in the school where the victim girl aged 11 years who is intellectually disabled is pursuing her studies. The accusation is that on 23.01.2020, during lunch break, the accused took the victim girl to the NCC room, locked the room from inside and touched her breast and private parts with sexual intent. As stated, Crl.M.C.No.1237 of 2020 is also one instituted for the same relief by the mother of the victim girl.

2. Before venturing to decide on the questions raised, it would be profitable to state the relevant facts.

The 1st respondent is the K.M.J Public School, represented by its Manager. The 2nd respondent is the Principal of the said school. The petitioners 1 and 2 have been working as drivers for the past 14 and 9 years respectively in the said school whereas the petitioners 3 and 4 have been working as sweepers in the same institution for the past 8 years. They contended that they have been receiving wages at less than the minimum wages prescribed by the State Government by various notifications and also as per the directions issued by this Court in State of Kerala vs Mythri Vidya Bhavan English Medium School and another1. They contended that a person junior to them, 1 [2013 (1) K.L.T short note 36] W.P.(C) No.14087/2019 4 who was a Class-IV grade employee, was drawing a much higher wage as compared to the petitioners. According to them, they are entitled to higher amounts toward salary from 1.7.2013 onwards.

2. Brief facts necessary to be noticed for deciding this petition are that in the above dispute raised under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Labour court was called upon to adjudicate a reference wherein the issue was "whether the denial of employment of Smt.Ramani Amma, Smt.Geetha.G. and Geetha.R, who were employees of Western India Cashew Company, was justifiable and if it was found otherwise, the relief for which they were entitled to."

3. The case of the Union, which espoused the cause of the workers, was that the delinquent workers were employed by the management in their packing centre at Puthentheruvu, Karunagappally. Since 26.10.2012 was a public holiday owing to Bakrid, the factory was closed. On 27.10.2012, when the workers reached the factory, they were denied employment by the Management. The Union raised an industrial dispute and the matter reached the District Labour Officer, who convened a conference. In the meantime, a WP(C) No.12490/2018 3 show cause notice was issued to the workers and consequently on 2.11.2012, the workers were suspended from service pending enquiry. An enquiry officer was appointed who proceeded with the enquiry and submitted a report with the finding that the workers were guilty of all charges. Banking on the said report, the workers were dismissed from service with retrospective effect. According to the Union, the enquiry which was conducted was a farce and is therefore vitiated. The principles of natural justice were violated and the management failed to bring home the charge. They also contended that the punishment imposed was grossly disproportionate to the nature of charges levelled against the workers.

"(i) to issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ, order or direction to the respondents 1 and 2 not to proceed against the properties of the petitioners which is not a secured asset of the 1st respondent bank for the debts due from the third respondent.

(ii) to issue a writ of certiorari or such other writ, order or direction quashing all proceedings pursuant to Exhibit P1 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thriruvananthapuram, finding that the property sought to be taken possession is not a secured asset of the 1st respondent.

"That CISF No.902292498 Constable K. Lakshmanan of CISF Unit, NMPT Mangalore was W.P.(C) No. 28322 of 2015 4 detailed for B' Shift duty on 29.05.2009 from 1300 hrs to 2100 hrs along with No.721370091 HC/GD K. Sreedharan at K.K. Gate-Out. Shri K. Korappan, AC, CISF Unit NMPT Mangalore, while carrying out surprise checking at 2055 hours on 29.05.2009 along with SI/Exe R.R. Singh, In-charge(CIW), Shri K. Korappan directed to SI/Exe R.R. Singh to conduct pocket checking of B' shift duty personnel deployed at K.K. Gate. Accordingly SI/Exe R.R. Singh conducted pocket checking of Constable K.Lakshmanan in presence of No. 753460102 ASI/Exe P.K. Thampy, In-charge, KK Gate and No.773430028 HC/GD Kuttan Pillai K.K., Main Gate-In and found an illegal money of Rs.1573/- (Rupees one thousand five hundred seventy three only) in possession of Constable K. Lakshmanan in various denominations and the amount was seized which was kept hidden between his belt and waist. When asked by Shri K. Korappan as to where the money came from and why he kept such huge amount with him, Constable K. Lakshmanan did not give any satisfactory reply. Immediately a seizure list was prepared wherein signature of witnesses were obtained. In this regard, a GD has been made at Sl. No.1324 at 2117 hours on 29- 05-09 at KK Gate. As per Unit standing instructions, duty personnel are not allowed to keep more than Rs.10/- for refreshment purpose during duty hours.

2. Alleging non compliance of the award, the 2nd respondent filed a claim petition before the Labour Court, Ernakulam as C.P. No.9 of 2016 WP(C).No.40468/2018 3 claiming a total sum of Rs.12,39,802.02/- which includes interest of Rs.4,84,600/-. The said claim petition was partly allowed by the Labour Court and the 2nd respondent was awarded a sum of Rs.7,55,202.02/- by excluding the interest which was claimed. Being aggrieved by the quantum of amount awarded and the denial of interest, the 2 nd respondent filed W.P.(C) No.33527 of 2017 which is pending before this Court. The petitioner is stated to have remitted a sum of Rs.7,55,202/- as ordered by the Labour Court.

2. The facts in short, as averred in the writ petition, are that the petitioners, seventeen in number and belonging to District Kathua, came to be engaged as Daily Rated Labourers in Civil as well as Mechanical Divisions of PHE, Kathua between the period October 1994 to January 2000 and since then they have been discharging their duties, which has also been certified and authenticated by the respondents themselves in the year 2005 2 SWP 677/2014 and also in the year 2010. It is averred that the petitioners during all these years made a number of representations to the respondents for regularization of their services and when nothing fruitful came out, they filed SWP No.143/2009. The said writ petition was filed by as many as 26 persons including the petitioners herein, which came to be disposed of on 01.11.2013 with a direction to the respondents to accord consideration to the petitioners case for regularization in the light of averments made in the petition, annexure appended thereto and of course in accordance with rules/scheme in J&K Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010 governing the field. However, instead of regularizing the services of petitioners, respondent No.2 vide Order No.PHEJ/GE/04/E of 2014 dated 04.01.2014, impugned herein, rejected the claim of petitioners. Hence, the present writ petition.

2. Notice issued shall indicate that reply shall be filed within two days of the receipt of notice.

List on 27th April 2020.

(RAJNESH OSWAL) (GITA MITTAL) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Jammu 23.04.2020 Raj Kumar RAJ KUMAR 2020.04.23 15:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Issue notice of this application to the respondents. Mr. Amit Gupta, AAG accepts notice.

2 WP(C) PIL NO. 41/2019 Let a copy of this application be sent to Mr. Amit Gupta, AAG by Mrs. Deepika Mahajan, Advocate, who shall seek instructions that immediate steps are taken to ensure food and all facilities to these survival of natural calamity.

Let a copy of this application be also furnished to Mr. M. K. Sharma, Member Secretary, State Legal Services Authority, Jammu and Ms. Sandeep Kour, Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Udhampur to ensure that these people are given immediate assistance.

Dismissed as withdrawn.

(RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE Jammu 30.04.2020 Paramjeet Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No. Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No PARAMJEET SINGH 2020.04.30 13:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.

Main petition is taken on Board and is permitted to be withdrawn.

(RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE Jammu 30.04.2020 Paramjeet Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No. Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No PARAMJEET SINGH 2020.04.30 13:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Ordered accordingly.

(RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE Jammu 04.05.2020 Paramjeet Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No. Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No PARAMJEET SINGH 2020.05.05 12:20 I am approving this document

Ordered accordingly.

(RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE Jammu 04.05.2020 Paramjeet Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No. Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No PARAMJEET SINGH 2020.05.05 12:19 I am approving this document

Ordered accordingly.

(RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE Jammu 04.05.2020 Paramjeet Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No. Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No PARAMJEET SINGH 2020.05.05 12:20 I am approving this document

Ordered accordingly.

(RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE Jammu 04.05.2020 Paramjeet Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No. Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No PARAMJEET SINGH 2020.05.05 12:19 I am approving this document

Ordered accordingly.

(RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE Jammu 05.05.2020 Paramjeet Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No. Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No.

PARAMJEET SINGH 2020.05.06 14:02 I am approving this document

Ordered accordingly.

(RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE Jammu 05.05.2020 Paramjeet Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No. Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No.

PARAMJEET SINGH 2020.05.06 14:02 I am approving this document

Ordered accordingly.

(RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE Jammu 05.05.2020 Paramjeet Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No. Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No.

PARAMJEET SINGH 2020.05.06 14:02 I am approving this document

Ordered accordingly.

(RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE Jammu 05.05.2020 Paramjeet Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No. Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No.

PARAMJEET SINGH 2020.05.06 14:02 I am approving this document

Ordered accordingly.

(RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE Jammu 05.05.2020 Paramjeet Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No. Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No.

PARAMJEET SINGH 2020.05.06 14:02 I am approving this document

Ordered accordingly.

(RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE Jammu 05.05.2020 Paramjeet Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No. Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No.

PARAMJEET SINGH 2020.05.06 14:02 I am approving this document

Ordered accordingly.

(RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE Jammu 05.05.2020 Paramjeet Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No. Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No.

PARAMJEET SINGH 2020.05.06 14:02 I am approving this document

Ordered accordingly.

(RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE Jammu 05.05.2020 Paramjeet Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No. Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No.

PARAMJEET SINGH 2020.05.06 14:02 I am approving this document

The prayer is allowed. The date of hearing in the main petition is preponed from 13.08.2020 to 05.05.2020. The same is taken on Board and is permitted to be withdrawn.

(RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE Jammu 05.05.2020 Paramjeet Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No. Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No.

PARAMJEET SINGH 2020.05.06 14:02 I am approving this document

When this case was taken up for consideration, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of these petitions, the petitioner has been retired on superannuation, therefore, these petitions have been Page 2 of 2 SWP No.34/2017 in SWP No. 893/2017 rendered infructuous and may be dismissed as such. His statement is taken on record.

Accordingly, these petitions are dismissed as having been rendered infructuous along with connected CM(s).

Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated.

" CERTIORARI: quashing the letter No.ENT/DCS/2014/2010- 215 dated 17.11.2014 whereby the District Election Officer (Deputy Commissioner), Samba (respondent No.2) has provided respondent No.3, the list of employees of the office of respondent No.3 who have been deployed for election duties and called for training as per the schedule mentioned against each".

2. Since the Legislative Assembly Elections, 2014 in the State of Jammu & Kashmir are already over, therefore, this petition with the afflux of time has been rendered infructuous.

Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.

Learned counsel for the State prays for and is granted two weeks' time to file counter affidavit.

List the matter on 26.05.2020. Exemption applicant stands disposed of.

(R.C. Khulbe, J.) 06.05.2020 Sukhbant

Urgency application and Exemption application, to exempt the applicant from filing the affidavit in support of the urgency application and to exempt the applicant from depositing court fees, are filed by the applicant during COVID-19, pandemic lockdown.

The urgency application and the exemption application are not opposed by the State.

The urgency application is allowed accordingly. The exemption application is accepted with the condition that directions of the Notification No. 86/UHC/Admin.B/2020 dated 11.04.2020 and Notification No. 89/UHC/Admin.B/2020 dated 18.04.2020 of this High Court will be followed by the applicant.

The learned Government Advocate requests two weeks' time to file counter affidavit.

Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.

Learned counsel for the State prays for and is granted three weeks' time to file counter affidavit.

List the matter on 27.05.2020. Exemption applicant stands disposed of.

(R.C. Khulbe, J.) 06.05.2020 Sukhbant

Mr. J.S. Virk, AGA, for the State. Urgency application (IA 4734 of 2020) is allowed.

Let the affidavit of the pairiokar be filed and the court fee be deposited within three days of the opening of the lockdown. Exemption application (CRMA 1160/2020) stands disposed of accordingly.

Heard on the bail application. Having been implicated in the Case Crime/FIR No. 20 of 2019, under Sections 420 and 120-B of the IPC and Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, PS Cyber Crime, District Dehradun, the applicant is in jail.

Learned Counsel for the applicant would contend that the applicant has been falsely implicated merely on the basis of doubt; applicant was not named in the FIR; two FIRs have been registered on the same cause of action and the appellant has been granted bail in the main case and there is no other pending case against the applicant except these two and he is in jail since 23.9.2019.

Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.

At the request of learned counsel for the State, list the matter on 14.05.2020. In the meantime, learned counsel for the State may file objections. (R.C. Khulbe, J.) 06.05.2020 Sukhbant

Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.

Learned counsel for the State prays for and is granted two weeks' time to file counter affidavit.

List the matter on 21.05.2020. Exemption applicant stands disposed of.

(R.C. Khulbe, J.) 06.05.2020 Sukhbant

Mr. G.S. Sandhu, learned Government Advocate for the respondent State.

Exemption Application no. 1143 of 2020 is allowed.

Heard.

Admit the appeal.

Summon the lower court record. Also heard on bail application no. 1114 of 2020.

Applicant-appellant Ankush has been convicted under Section 2/3 of U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act and was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the learned trial court has passed the impugned judgment and order without proper appraisal of evidence and has convicted the appellant on the basis of conjectures and surmises.

List after ten days. (N.S. Dhanik, J.) 06.5.2020 Prabedh

Mr. M.S. Pal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Aamir Malik, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Government Advocate with Mr. J.S. Virk, AGA for the State.

This is an appeal against conviction, where the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 20,000/-(Rupees Twenty Thousand only).

This is a belated appeal. The delay is of 47 days in filing the appeal, however, it is accompanied with a delay condonation application.

The main reason assigned for the delay is that the appellant could not move a proper appeal within time due to present COVID-19 pandemic.

Learned Government Advocate has very fairly stated that he has no objection if the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

Mr. J.S. Virk, AGA, for the State. Urgency application (IA 4709/2020) is allowed.

Let the affidavit of the pairiokar be filed and the court fee be deposited within three days of the opening of the lockdown. Exemption application (CRMA 1111/2020) stands disposed of accordingly.

Heard on the bail application (CRMA 954/2020).

Learned Counsel for the applicants would contend that the maximum sentence awarded to appellants is to undergo imprisonment for five years; appellant no. 2 is seriously ill and on account of prevailing Covid-19 pandemic, there is possibility of the appellants contracting the said disease; appellants were on bail during trial and they did not misuse the liberty and they are in jail since 5.3.2020.

Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand.

Mr. Karan Anand, learned Counsel for the complainant.

Time extension application has been moved on behalf of the accused.

From the perusal of the order dated 07.01.2020, a short term bail for a period of three months commencing from the date of his actual release was granted to the accused by this Court in connection with Crime No.387 of 2019, u/s 420, 406, 504, 506, 323 IPC and Sections 4/5 of the Prize Chits & Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978, Registered at P.S. Kotwal, District Dehradun.

From the perusal of the order dated 07.01.2020, it is clear that three months time has been completed, but the accused did not file any time extension application before the expiry of three months, hence the accused is directed to surrender himself before the Magistrate on 11.05.2020 at 10:30AM.

Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, AGA for the State. This matter is heard through Video Conferencing.

Learned counsel for the State prays for and is granted three weeks' time to file counter affidavit. List thereafter.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 06.05.2020 Jitendra

The applicants Mohd. Shfique and Nadeem, who are in custody, in connection with FIR No. 43 of 2020, under Sections3/5/11(1) of Uttarakhand Protection of Cow Progeny Act, 2007, Police Station Pulbhatta, District Udham Singh Nagar have sought their release on bail.

As per the prosecution, on 07.03.2020, 80 Kg. beef was recovered from the custody of the applicants. Applicants Mohd. Shfique and Nadeem were arrested at the spot.

Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that the FIR is delayed; there is no public witness and no FSL report. It is argued that applicants have no criminal history.

Learned State Counsel also admits that there is no criminal history of the applicants.