The game will take place behind closed doors in Turin, as it was scheduled to do so before the coronavirus pandemic forced the suspension of football in Europe.

Both Barcelona and Real Madrid are planning to slash their first-team wages by 30 per cent ahead of the 2020-21 La Liga season, according to Spanish newspaper Diario AS. 

The 24-year-old has been one of the standout players in the Premier League this season despite playing in a struggling Villa side who sit 19th, leading to interest from Manchester United.

Cenk Tosun has cut short his loan to Crystal Palace and returned to Everton amid concerns he is facing six months out with an injury after rupturing knee ligaments during training.

The Manchester United striker, 22, was subject to a barrage of abuse after missing a penalty in a 2-1 defeat to Crystal Palace last year.

Footy Headlines have leaked the apparent new strip, but it hasn't been received warmly by many Blues fans - who are already comparing it to Crystal Palace's home kit.

Crystal Palace chairman Steve Parish has posted a tongue-in-cheek comment about how the Premier League season should be decided. The Premier League confirmed all games will be suspended.

The Palace chairman has said employees who are affected by coronavirus will still receive full pay, while insisting matchday staff who have lost work due to the league's suspension will not be out of pocket.

The Eagles have also called season-ticket holders and offered to help them with their shopping. @LiamWalker_7 on Twitter described how a member of staff from the London club contacted his dad.

Aaron Wan-Bissaka insists pitting himself against Manchester United team-mate Marcus Rashford everyday in training has massively helped him develop as a defender.

The 21-year-old right-back joined the club from Porto in 2018 for around £18m.but he has had few opportunities this season due to sensational form of Aaron Wan-Bissaka.

Steve Parish has defended attempts to get the season back up and running amid the coronavirus pandemic, stressing not doing so would be a major financial blow to taxpayers and the football community.

Premier League clubs could be hit with a financial crisis similar to those faced by airlines across the world if football doesn't return by August, Crystal Palace chief Steve Parish has claimed.

2. The petitioners were appointed as Associate professors in the Department of Surgery of the 2nd respondent. They have completed their Masters degree in their respective subjects and were recruited by the 2nd respondent in the year 2005. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent issued a notification on 10.07.2008 calling for applications for appointment of Associate Professors. The educational qualification for the said post as per notification are as under :

"5. EDUCATION QUALIFICATION :- For the post of Associate Professor :-

1.He/She must possess requisite recognized :4: Post graduate qualification in the respective subject.

2. One Mr.Ganapati had filed a complaint, which was registered by Gokarna P.S. Crime No.27/2010, upon investigation the Investigating Officer of Kumata P.S. had presented a charge sheet on 25.07.2011. Thereafter, the :4: investigation was continued and an additional charge sheet was filed on 28.07.2012 for the aforesaid offences.

3. Accused Nos.1 to 12, who stood trial before JMFC Court had filed an application under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. seeking for discharge in the said proceedings. The application was opposed by the prosecution. The JMFC after hearing both parties by order dated 28.11.2014 dismissed the application filed by the accused.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned HCGP.

2. The case of the prosecution is that while the first informant/Police Officer attached to the respondent-police station along with other officials were on patrolling duty near a ware house situated close to Pratibha School at about 3.00 a.m., on 13.03.2020, they found these petitioners along with four others preparing to commit decoity. The petitioners were apprehended and a case was registered in Crime No.18/2020 of Roza police station for the offence punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of IPC.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a false case has been foisted against the petitioners and 3 they are not involved in any such offence much less the one now alleged against them. He submits that the petitioners are eking out their livelihood by driving the auto and also by doing coolie work. He submits that the petitioners are arrested on 13.03.2020 and since then they are in judicial custody and by imposing any conditions, they may be enlarged on bail.

2. The petitioner in Crl.P.NO.101035/2019 is accused No.1 in C.C.No.796/2018. The petitioner is :4: represented in this court as the Branch Manager, ICICI Bank Limited.

3. The petitioner in Crl.P.No.100295/2019 is accused No.1 and accused No.3 and 5 in Crl.P.No.101035/2019 in C.C.No.796/2018.

4. The facts of the matter as per the petitioners in both the matters are as under:

4.1. It is stated that respondent No.1 Sri. Shashikant S. Timmapur had availed a loan of Rs.18,50,000/- in the year 2006 from ICICI Bank Limited ( 'the Bank' for short) by pledging various shares which he held in certain listed companies.

2. The subject matter of the suit was property bearing CTS No.4601/B Ward No.1 of J.C.Nagar, Hubballi measuring 431 square yards with an old building thereon.

3. The plaintiff's case in a nutshell is as follows: The defendant is the absolute owner and in possession of the suit property. For her legal necessity, she agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs.25,00,000/-. On 22.11.2007, receiving advance R.F.A.No.100209/2015 4 consideration of Rs.14,00,000/- under three cheques drawn on UTI Bank, Hubballi, she executed a registered agreement of sale. Her daughter and grandchildren were also signatories to the said document. As per the schedule of payment agreed under the said document a further sum of Rs.6,00,000/- was to be paid within two months and balance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was to be paid at the time of execution of registered sale deed.

2. By the impugned judgment and decree, the trial Court has decreed the suit of the plaintiff for specific performance of an agreement of sale.

3. Appellant was the defendant and the respondent was the plaintiff before the trial Court. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be henceforth referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

4. The subject matter of the suit was land bearing R.S.No.22 (Old R.S.No.22/3) measuring 3 acres 10 guntas situated within the limits of Waghawade village, Taluka District, Belagavi.

R.F.A.No.100230/2017 -3-

MR. SOEB R. BHOHARIA for the PETITIONER(s) No. for the RESPONDENT(s) No. MR MITESH AMIN, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR with MR MANAN MEHTA, APP for the RESPONDENT(s) No. ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA and HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI Date : 08/05/2020 IA ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA)

1. Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent State.

2. Present application is preferred by the convict to release him on temporary bail for a period of 60 days on the grounds mentioned in the application.

2. This application is filed seeking bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code which FIR came to be registered at C.R. No.I-11209016200088 of 2020 with Himmatnagar A -Division Police Station.

3. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicants on instructions submits that the applicants are ready and willing to abide by all the conditions, including the condition with regard to the powers of Investigating Agency to seek remand of the petitioners; subject to the petitioner's right to oppose it.

4. On the other hand, the learned APP appearing for the respondent-State has opposed this application.

2. This application is filed seeking bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 65(e), 65(f) and 64(a) of the Prohibition Act for which FIR came to be registered at Prohibition C.R. No.11205035200180 of 2020 with Nakhtrana Police Station, Kutch-Bhuj.

3. Considering the quantity of contraband involved in the offence, as also the number of antecedents and the age of the accused and considering the nature of accusation against the petitioner and in absence of an apprehension against the petitioner tampering with the evidence or threating the witnesses or fleeing from trial, the case for admitting the petitioner to bail is made out.

2. This application is filed seeking bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 324, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 135(1) of the Gujarat Police Act for which FIR came to be registered at C.R. No.I-193 of 2019 with Dindoli Police Station, Dist: Surat.

3. Considering the nature of accusation against the petitioner and in absence of an apprehension against the petitioner tampering with the evidence or threating the witnesses or fleeing from trial, the case for admitting the petitioner to bail is made out.

4. Hence, this application is allowed and applicant is ordered to be released on bail in connection with C.R. No.I-193 of 2019 with Dindoli Police Station, Dist: Surat on executing a bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the conditions that he shall;

2. This application is filed seeking bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 65(A)(E), 116 and 81 of the Prohibition Act which FIR came to be registered at FIR Part-C C.R. No.11191038200118 of 2020 with Vatva Police Station.

3. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicants on instructions submits that the applicants are ready and willing to abide by all the conditions, including the condition with regard to the powers of Investigating Agency to seek remand of the petitioner; subject to the petitioner's right to oppose it.

4. On the other hand, the learned APP appearing for the respondent-State has opposed this application.

2. This application is filed seeking bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 65(A), 65(E) and 116(B) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act for which FIR came to be registered at Prohibition C.R. No.I-11207079200033 of 2019 with Halol Rural Police Station, Panchmahal.

3. Considering the fact the muddamal was recovered from the house of father of the applicant in absence of conscious possession with the petitioner and considering the nature of accusation against the petitioner and in absence of an apprehension against the petitioner tampering with the evidence or threating the witnesses or fleeing from trial, the case for admitting the petitioner to bail is made out.

2. This application is filed seeking bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 376(2), 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4, 6, 17 and 18 of the POCSO Act for which FIR came to be registered at C.R. No.I -25 of 2019 with Mehlav Police Station, District Anand.

3. On consideration of the rival submissions, the statement of the victim prima facie appears to be very curious in accompanying the unknown persons; she does not seem to be revealing the full and correct facts in her statement and thus considering the nature of accusation against the petitioner and in absence of an apprehension against the petitioner tampering with the evidence or threating the witnesses or fleeing from trial, the case for admitting the petitioner to bail is made out.

2. Learned advocate Mr. Karia for the applicant submits that the applicant is arrested on the basis of statement of co-accused. Learned Advocate further submits that considering the nature of the offence, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail by imposing suitable conditions.

3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has opposed grant of regular bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence. He further submits that the applicant has two past criminal antecedents.

4. Learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties do Page 1 of 3 Downloaded on : Fri May 08 22:29:40 IST 2020 R/CR.MA/6081/2020 ORDER not press for further reasoned order.

Criminal Misc. Application No.1 of 2020:

1. Rule. Learned APP Mr. Himanshu K. Patel waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent - State.

2. The present application is filed by the applicant seeking extension of temporary bail for a period of 30 days on the ground of his own nasal surgery. The applicant is granted temporary bail by this Court vide order dated 20.04.2020 for a period of 10 days.

Page 1 of 2

Downloaded on : Fri May 08 21:42:37 IST 2020

R/CR.MA/5981/2020 ORDER

3. Heard learned advocate for the applicant as well as learned APP for the respondent State and perused the application.

2. On 06/05/2020, this Court has passed the following order:

"Being bail application in succession of previous application being CR.MA No.24178 of 2019, this application is required to be placed before the same Court (Coram: V M Pancholi, J.) as per settled legal position. Accordingly, needful shall be done."

3. Today, the matter has been placed with this Court again with the following administrative order and accordingly, this Court has taken up the matter:

"In view of the circular dt. 30.4.2020 the matter be again placed before Justice G R Udhwani.

Sd/- (07/05/2020) (R M Chhaya J) Under administrative order of Hon'ble'ble the Chief Justice dt. 7.2.2020"

2. The present application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for regular bail in connection with the First Information Report registered with the Limkheda Police Station, Dahod district vide FIR No.11821035200189 of 2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Mr. Jain, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that considering the nature of the offence, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail by imposing suitable conditions. He has submitted that as per the case of the Page 1 of 6 Downloaded on : Fri May 08 23:18:59 IST 2020 R/CR.MA/6486/2020 ORDER prosecution the present applicant is husband of deceased Kailashben who committed suicide jumping in the well along with son Ravindra and daughter Shital. In that incident, Kailashben and Ravindra died whereas daughter Shital has survived. He has also submitted that the reasons mentioned for suicide are mentioned in FIR that the present applicant does not like the deceased and did not want to bring her back as he wanted to bring new wife. He has further submitted that age of deceased Kailashben as shown in FIR is 24 years whereas age of the applicant is 19 years and they had love marriage and out of the said wedlock they gave birth to two children. He has submitted that Aadhar Card clearly describes that the present applicant is born in the year 2001. Moreover, it is case of the prosecution that earlier about five months ago when the deceased Kailashben had gone to the house of the complainant where she complained the complainant i.e. her brother that present applicant had wish to bring new wife as he did not like her. He has submitted that as per FIR itself there is no recent incident which led the deceased for committing suicide. He has also submitted that deceased Kailashben and present applicant are belonging to different castes and community and they conducted love marriage and there is age difference which the complainant who is the brother of the deceased did not like and, therefore, out of vengeance, the false FIR is lodged. At last he has prayed that considering all these aspects and circumstances, present application may be granted.

[2] Heard learned advocate for the applicant and learned APP for the respondent-State by video conferencing.

[3] By way of the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant - original accused has prayed to release him on anticipatory bail in case of his arrest in connection with C.R.No. 11196027200074 of 2020 registered with Karelibaug Police Station, Vadodara for the offences punishable under Sections 65(A)(E), 98(2) and 81 of the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

[4] Learned advocate for the applicant appearing by video conferencing submits that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in the present offence only on the basis of statement of co- accused and the quantum of liquor is valued at Rs.12,000/- only. He further submits that the nature of allegations are such for which Page 1 of 4 Downloaded on : Fri May 08 23:13:13 IST 2020 R/CR.MA/5228/2020 ORDER custodial interrogation at this stage is not necessary. Besides, the applicant is available during the course of investigation and will not flee from justice. In view of the above, the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail. Learned advocate for the applicant on instructions states that the applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions including imposition of conditions with regard to powers of Investigating Agency to file an application before the competent Court for his remand. He would further submit that upon filing of such application by the Investigating Agency, the right of applicant accused to oppose such application on merits may be kept open.

2. Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent State.

3. By way of the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicants-accused have prayed for anticipatory bail in connection with the FIR being I C. R. No. 11213015200127 registered with Gondal City Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 406, 465, 467, 471, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.

4. Learned advocate for the applicants submits that the nature of allegations are such for which custodial interrogation at this stage is not necessary. He further submits that the applicants will keep themselves available during the course of investigation, trial also and will not flee from justice.

2. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.

3. The present petition is directed against order of detention dated 30.12.2019 passed by the respondent - detaining authority in exercise of powers conferred under section 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 (for short "the Act") by detaining the petitioner - detenue as defined under section 2(c) of the Act.

4. Learned advocate for the detenue submits that the order of detention impugned in this petition deserves to be quashed and set aside on the ground of registration of two offences under Sections 379(A)(3) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code by Page 1 of 8 Downloaded on : Fri May 08 22:33:28 IST 2020 C/SCA/1836/2020 ORDER itself cannot bring the case of the detenue within the purview of definition under section 2(c) of the Act. Further, learned advocate for the detenue submits that illegal activity likely to be carried out or alleged to have been carried out, as alleged, cannot have any nexus or bearing with the maintenance of public order and at the most, it can be said to be breach of law and order. Further, except statement of witnesses, registration of above FIR/s and Panchnama drawn in pursuance of the investigation, no other relevant and cogent material is on record connecting alleged anti-social activity of the detenue with breach of public order. Learned advocate for the petitioner further submits that it is not possible to hold on the basis of the facts of the present case that activity of the detenue with respect to the criminal cases had affected even tempo of the society causing threat to the very existence of normal and routine life of people at large or that on the basis of criminal cases, the detenue had put the entire social apparatus in disorder, making it difficult for whole system to exist as a system governed by rule of law by disturbing public order.

2. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.

3. The present petition is directed against order of detention dated 28.1.2020 passed by the respondent - detaining authority in exercise of powers conferred under section 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 (for short "the Act") by detaining the petitioner - detenue as defined under section 2(c) of the Act.

4. Learned advocate for the detenue submits that the order of detention impugned in this petition deserves to be quashed and set aside on the ground of registration of two offences Page 1 of 8 Downloaded on : Fri May 08 22:34:26 IST 2020 C/SCA/5912/2020 ORDER under Sections 379(A)(3) of the Indian Penal Code by itself cannot bring the case of the detenue within the purview of definition under section 2(c) of the Act. Further, learned advocate for the detenue submits that illegal activity likely to be carried out or alleged to have been carried out, as alleged, cannot have any nexus or bearing with the maintenance of public order and at the most, it can be said to be breach of law and order. Further, except statement of witnesses, registration of above FIR/s and Panchnama drawn in pursuance of the investigation, no other relevant and cogent material is on record connecting alleged anti-social activity of the detenue with breach of public order. Learned advocate for the petitioner further submits that it is not possible to hold on the basis of the facts of the present case that activity of the detenue with respect to the criminal cases had affected even tempo of the society causing threat to the very existence of normal and routine life of people at large or that on the basis of criminal cases, the detenue had put the entire social apparatus in disorder, making it difficult for whole system to exist as a system governed by rule of law by disturbing public order.

Indian and Chinese soldiers were injured during a face-off along the boundary in north Sikkim, sources said.Four Indian soldiers and half a dozen of Chinese troops were injured during the confrontation on Saturday which took place at Naku La sector, ahead of Muguthang, a pass at a height of more than 5,000 metres, the sources added.In total, 150 soldiers were present when the confrontation took place, which was later resolved at the local level.The sources said that temporary and short duration face offs occur as boundaries are not resolved."Incidents of face off article took place. Aggressive behaviour and minor injuries took place from both sides. They were disengaged after dialogue and interaction at local level," they added.Troops resolve such issues mutually as per established protocols.This

Bhopal, May 10 () In a major administrativereshuffle amid the lockdown, the Madhya Pradesh government hastransferred 50 Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officers,including some additional chief secretaries, principalsecretaries and a former chief secretary.This is the first major bureaucratic rejig by theBJP-led state government since Shivraj Singh Chouhan becamechief minister in March this year.As per the order issued on Saturday night, formerchief secretary Gopal Reddy has been posted as chairman of therevenue board at Gwalior, I C P Keshari as vice chairman ofthe Narmada Valley Development Authority, Vinod Kumar asadditional chief secretary (ACS) of the general administrationdepartment and J N Kansotia as ACS of the animal husbandrydepartment, official sources said.Besides, Anupam Rajan

Uttarkashi, May 10 () Uttarkashi on Sunday reported its first COVID-19 case, raising Uttarakhand's coronavirus tally to 68.Uttarkashi district falls in the green zone. The red, orange and green zone classification is based on the number of coronavirus cases, doubling rate of coronavirus cases, and the extent of testing and surveillance The man, who tested positive, hails from Dhanaripatti village in Dunda block and had returned recently from Surat in Gujarat, Chief Medical Officer DP Joshi said.Three persons who came along with him in separate two wheelers from Gujarat have been kept in isolation, he said, adding contact tracing is underway.The 32-year-old man's swab sample was tested at AIIMS, Rishikesh, Joshi said. Corr ALM DVDV

Amaravati, May 10 (): The Chennai Koyambedu connectionhad a clear reflection on the number of fresh coronaviruscases in Andhra Pradesh on Sunday as the border districts ofChittoor and SPS Nellore reported 16 and five in the last 24hours as the states overall tally shot up by 50 to 1,980. The official bulletin showed one fresh Covid-19 death inKurnool district and put the overall count at 45, as the onefatality reported in Vizianagaram on Saturday was not added tothe table.Over 160 people with contacts to people who returned fromthe Koyambedu wholesale market in Chennai were traced inChittoor district and tests so far revealed 27 COVID-19positive cases in the last two days, official sources heresaid. With the fresh additions, the number of active cases inChittoor rose to 38.SPS Nellores

(Dhiraj Singh Thakur) Judge Srinagar:

18.03.2020.

"Shameem H."

SHAMEEM HAMID MIR 2020.03.24 12:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Dasti notice is also permitted.

List on 23.03.2020.

(Ali Mohammad Magrey) Judge Srinagar 18.03.2020 Mohammad Yasin Dar MOHAMMAD YASIN DAR 2020.03.18 18:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

2. The petitioner-detenu has challenged the order of detention on the following grounds:

"a) that no compelling reason or circumstance was disclosed in the order or grounds of detention to take the detenu in preventive detention, moreso in view of the fact that as on the date of passing of the aforesaid order of detention, the detenu was already in custody;

b) that the detenu has not been provided the material forming basis of the detention order, to make an effective representation against his detention order;

SWP No. 2648/2018;

CCP(S) No. 402/2019 regarding correct allotment of the GP Fund Computer Code numbers is pending before the respondents and has not been concluded, therefore, the respondents could not have proceeded to withhold the salary of the petitioners since the month of December, 2017, that too, without issuing any formal order to the petitioners. It is contended that the petitioners are continuing to discharge their duties uninterruptedly at their respective places of posting, however, their salary is not being released without there being any rhyme or reason. The petitioners claim that despite they having approached the respondents repeatedly, their salary was not released constraining them to approach this Court through the medium of writ petition bearing SWP No.2648/2018, wherein they prayed for the grant of following relief(s) in their favour:

---------

For the Appellant : Mr. Manoj Kumar Choubey, Advocate.

For the State : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, A.P.P. --------- 04/Dated: 06/05/2020

The appeal has been filed under Section 14A (2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. As per Act, prayer for bail of the accused is to be considered under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act in appeal under Section 14A of the Act.

From perusal of record, it appears that earlier this appellant has moved before this Court in Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 917 of 2019, which was dismissed as withdrawn by Coordinate Bench of this Court (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) on 16.10.2019. Subsequently, the appellant has preferred the present appeal, which is instituted as Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 147 of 2020 on the ground that the appellant is in custody since his surrender on 20.06.2019 and co-accused has been enlarged on bail by the police during investigation of the case.

-----

For the Petitioner : Mr. Suraj Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Hardeo Prasad Singh, A.P.P.

-----

02/07.05.2020. The bail application of Umesh Choudhary has been moved by Mr. Suraj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and opposed by Mr. Hardeo Prasad Singh, learned A.P.P. for the State, which has been conducted through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic.

Mr. Suraj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he will remove the defects when the physical appearance in the High Court will start.

---------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Suraj Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. P. K. Jaiswal, A.P.P.

---------

th 06/Dated: 07 May, 2020

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he shall file the requisites of notice under registered cover with A/D as well as under ordinary process, to be served upon O.P. No.02, at the earliest.

2. On prayer of learned counsel for the petitioner, office to list this case on 09.06.2020.

(AMITAV K. GUPTA, J.) Chandan/-

2. Manoj Mahato @ Manoj Kr. Mahato

3. Mantu Mahato @ Mantu Lal Mahato

4. Kirtichand Mahato @ Kiriti Bhushan Mahato

5. Nem Chand Mahato

6. Gopal Mahato --- --- Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand --- --- Opposite Party

---

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh Through: Video Conferencing

---

For the Petitioners : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shiv Kumar Sharma, A.P.P.

-----

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Gouri Shankar Prasad, A.P.P. -----

02/07.05.2020. The bail application of Md. Shamim @ Sotti in connection with Jharia P.S. Case No. 499 of 2014, corresponding to G.R. No. 4917 of 2014 registered for the offences under Sections 25(1)(A)(B)(C) of the Arms Act, has been moved by Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner and opposed by Mr. Gouri Shankar Prasad, learned A.P.P. for the State, which has been conducted through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic.

2. Amit Kumar Paswan @ Amit Kumar --- --- Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand --- --- Opposite Party

---

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh Through: Video Conferencing

---

For the Petitioners: Mr. Sujit Kr. Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Birendra Burman, A.P.P.

----

03/ 07.05.2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P for the State through Video Conferencing.

1.2 Notice to the respondent was dispensed with, as the respondent had not yet been summoned by the Trial Court.

2 A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Ld. Trial Court declined to take cognizance of the complaint primarily for the reason that the complainant despite availing several opportunities had not filed the ECS mandate. Further the account statement filed did not bear any stamp and was not even signed. Therefore, noticing that several opportunities have already been afforded to the complainant, the complaint was dismissed. 3 Sh.Anish Bhola, counsel for the petitioner has assailed the CR No.-94/2020 Page No.-1 of 4 impugned Order on the ground that the Ld. MM committed a grave error in observing that the ECS mandate was not on record. It is pointed out that the petitioner/ complainant along with the complaint had placed on record a ' Debit Authorization Form issued by the customer" i.e. the respondent to the petitioner bank. It is argued that the Debit Authorization Form is akin to ECS mandate. . To link the Debit Authorization Form with the loan agreement involved, an account statement was placed on record. The petitioner/complainant had also placed on record along with the complaint a memorandum issued by the bank, intimating return of the mandate on account of insufficiency of funds. Sh.Bhola has, further, argued that the offence as envisaged u/sec.-25 of the Payments & Settlement Systems Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the PSS Act') was completed, when the respondent, who had taken a loan and had issued authorization to debit the amount each month from his account failed to maintain sufficient balance in his account, thereby, resulting in failure of debit of amount. It is, therefore, argued that the Ld. MM committed a grave error in dismissing the complaint as both the documents constituting the offence were on record.

1.2 Notice to the respondent was dispensed with, as the respondent had not yet been summoned by the Trial Court.

2 A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Ld. Trial Court declined to take cognizance of the complaint primarily for the reason that the complainant despite availing several opportunities had not filed the ECS mandate. Further the account statement filed did not bear any stamp and was not even signed. Therefore, noticing that several opportunities have already been afforded to the complainant, the complaint was dismissed. 3 Sh.Anish Bhola, counsel for the petitioner has assailed the CR No.-86/2020 Page No.-1 of 4 impugned Order on the ground that the Ld. MM committed a grave error in observing that the ECS mandate was not on record. It is pointed out that the petitioner/ complainant along with the complaint had placed on record a ' Debit Authorization Form issued by the customer" i.e. the respondent to the petitioner bank. It is argued that the Debit Authorization Form is akin to ECS mandate. . To link the Debit Authorization Form with the loan agreement involved, an account statement was placed on record. The petitioner/complainant had also placed on record along with the complaint a memorandum issued by the bank, intimating return of the mandate on account of insufficiency of funds. Sh.Bhola has, further, argued that the offence as envisaged u/sec.-25 of the Payments & Settlement Systems Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the PSS Act') was completed, when the respondent, who had taken a loan and had issued authorization to debit the amount each month from his account failed to maintain sufficient balance in his account, thereby, resulting in failure of debit of amount. It is, therefore, argued that the Ld. MM committed a grave error in dismissing the complaint as both the documents constituting the offence were on record.