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 13/03/2020 passed by Sessions Judge, Guna, whereby applicant has been convicted under Sections 452 and 323 of IPC to undergo six months and three months alongwith fine of Rs. 500/-, 00/- respectively with default stipulation.

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R-1601-2020 (LALARAM Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) Also heard on I.A. No.2869/2020, an application under Section 397(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence on behalf of the applicant.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he has been falsely implicated in the matter. Applicant was on bail during trial and he has not misused the said liberty of bail. Hearing of this revision will take sometime, and therefore, the suspension of the jail sentence be suspended and he be released on bail by way of suspension of sentence.

In the wake of unprecedented and uncertain situations due to the outbreak of Novel Corona Virus COVID-19 and considering the advisories issued by the Government of India, this application is being heard and decided through video conferencing to maintain social distancing. The parties are being represented through their respective counsels through VC and therefore, norms of social distancing/physical distancing were followed in letter and spirit.

Present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter would be referred as "the Act") against the order dated 16.3.2020 passed by Special Judge (Atrocities Act) Gwalior whereby the application of the appellant under Section 439 of Cr.P.C seeking bail has been rejected. Appellant is in custody since 7.3.2020 in connection with Crime No. 14 of 2020 registered at Police Station Hastinapur district Gwalior for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376 and 34 of IPC and 3 (1) (w) (ii), 3 (2) (va) of the Atrocities Act.

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 3 and recorded that outgoing in Rojnamcha Sanha (Ex.P/31).

The petition is being filed by the petitioner and challenge is being made to the order dated 04.03.2020, whereby the petitioner is directed to retire on completion of 62 years of age. It is submitted that the petitioner is a Physical Instructor and is equivalent to Teacher as has been held by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of State of M.P. & Others Vs. Yugal Kishore Sharma, in W.A.No.613/2016. Petitioner has placed reliance upon the Clause F of Regulation 8 of Ministry of Human Resources and Development Department as under :-

"(f) Age of Superannuation :- (i) In order to meet the situation arising out of

shortage of teachers in universities and other teaching institutions and the consequent vacant positions therein, the age of superannuation for teacher in Central Education Institution has already 2 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP.No.7385/2020 (Gopal Prasad Shivhare Vs. Union of India & Others) been enhanced to sixty five years, vide the Department of Higher Education letter No. F.No.1- 19/2006-U.II dated 23.03.2007, for those involved in class room teaching in order to attract eligible persons to the teaching career and to retain teachers in service for a longer period. Consequent on upward revision of the age of superannuation of teachers, the Central Government has already authorized the Central Universities, vide Department of Higher Education D.O. Letter No.F.1-24/2006-Desk(U) dated 30-03-2007 to enhance the age of superannuation of vice- Chancellors of Central Universities from 65 years to 70 years, subject to amendments in the respective statutes, with the approval of the competent authority (Visitor in the case of Central Universities).

2. The facts of the case of prosecution, in short, is that the applicant-Shobharam, at the relevant point of time, was posted as Secretary of Village Panchayat, Jainabad and applicant-Suresh was Panch of Village Panchayat, Jainabad. 200 quintal wheat and 100 quintal rice was allotted to Village Panchayat, Jainabad for distributing among labour workers engaged under Village Employment Scheme. Rice was entrusted to the applicants to distribute the same, however, instead of distributing the rice to the labour worker, both applicants conspired with other co-accused and tried to sell out that wheat and rice to one Dilip Jain. Concerned authority after receiving the information, seized the truck and registered FIR for the offence under Section 406, 409, 420 of IPC and after investigation, charge sheet was filed. Learned trial Court i.e. the Court of JMFC, Burhanpur in Criminal Case No.592/2005 framed charges against the 3 applicants for the offence punishable under Sections 409, 420, 414 read with Section 511 of IPC.

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.

For Respondent/University: Shri Samresh Katare, Advocate.

Law laid down Significant Para Nos.

Reserved on : 12.02.2020 Delivered on : 08.05.2020 (O R D E R) Since pleadings are complete and learned counsel for the parties agreed to argue the matter finally, therefore, they are heard finally. For the purpose of convenience, facts of W.P. No.1157/2019 are being taken- 2

W. P. No. 1157/ 2019 & W. P. No. 1011/2019 up.

2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is preferred by the petitioners seeking following reliefs:-

8

W. P. No. 6095/2020

12. The Commissioner, vide order dated 28.02.2020, has finally decided the appeal and set-aside the order of the Collector holding that the petitioner is not entitled to get the ten marks of BPL because admittedly, the name of her husband was not there in the BPL list before the date of issuance of the advertisement, but it was added only on the last date of submitting the applications i.e. 20.07.2015, whereas the advertisement was issued on 07.07.2015. The Commissioner, therefore, observed that if the ten marks of BPL card are deleted from the total marks awarded to the petitioner, then her total marks adds up-to 61, whereas respondent No.5 secured 64.50 marks and as such, she secured first position in the list and the Commissioner directed the Project Officer, Integrated Child Development, Sidhi, to issue order of appointment in favour of respondent No.5 cancelling the appointment order of the present petitioner.

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.

2. The facts giving rise to this petition, in short, are that the applicant got married with respondent No.1 as per Muslim rites and rituals. Respondent No.2 is father-in- law, applicant No.3 is mother-in-law , applicant No.4 is sister-in-law of the applicant. The applicant has been living in matrimonial hose along with all the respondents since marriage. Respondent No.1- husband of the applicant and respondent No.3-mother-in-law of the applicant are having joint title and possession of the questioned house (matrimonial house) where the applicant is living. While she was living in matrimonial house, she gave birth to a girl child, but, all the respondents wanted a male child, therefore, harassed her in so many occasions, beat her and did not allow her to go outside and when she got chance to go outside, she immediately filed a report against the respondents and 3 also filed an application under Sections 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22 of the Domestic Violence Act and prayed for maintenance and restriction order not to interfere in the possession of the applicant in her matrimonial house. The applicant also filed an application under Section 23 of Domestic Violence Act for interim order.

Khagaria (Gangaur), Dist.- Khagaria

2. Guddu Poddar Son of Arjun Poddar Resident of Village - Jalkaura, P.S.-

Khagaria (Gangaur), Dist.- Khagaria

3. Rajkishore Poddar Son of Gujo Poddar Resident of Village - Jalkaura, P.S.-

Khagaria (Gangaur), Dist.- Khagaria

4. Bhola Poddar Son of Mulo Poddar Resident of Village - Jalkaura, P.S.-

Khagaria (Gangaur), Dist.- Khagaria ... ... Appellant/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

2. Dr. Amrita Rashmi D/o Dr. Ashok Kumar R/o House No. A1661, Devi Sthan Road, Mahuabagh, ( Near Jagdeo Path), Dhanaut, Sahay Nagar, P.S.- Rupaspur, District Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar Through the Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3. The Under Secretary Department of Health, Government of Bihar, Patna.

4. The Bihar Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board IAS Association Building, Patna through the Chairman.

5. The Controller of Examinations Bihar Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board, Patna.

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

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 applicants, who have been arrested in connection with crime No.16/2020 registered at Police Station Mohgaona, distt. Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that 6.5 bulk liters of illicit liquor was seized by the police from the present applicants.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are in detention since 13.4.2020 He further submits that applicants 2 have no criminal background and have been falsely implicated in the case, and therefore, the applicants may be released on bail.

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.32/2020 registered at Police Station Sariya, 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 19.4.2020. 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 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.38/2020 registered at Police Station Sariya, 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 40 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 22.4.2020. 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 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 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.69/2020 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 13 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 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 27.5.2017 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Bastar at Jagdalpur/ Special Judge under the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short 'the Act 2012'), in Special Session Trial No.02/2017 wherein the said Court convicted appellant for commission of offence under Section 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Section 4 of the Act 2012 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine 2 of Rs.1000/- and RI for 07 years and to pay fine of 1000/- respectively with default stipulation.

2. As per the version of the prosecution, the date of incident is 16.01.2017. Prosecutrix is PW-6 who is aged about 04 years. Said prosecutrix complained of pain to her mother on which her mother examined her private parts and found redness and swelling. On enquiry the prosecutrix intimated her mother that the appellant after putting soap inserted his finger in her private part. The matter was reported and investigated. The appellant was charge sheeted and convicted 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 21.12.2000 passed by the court of Special Judge, Raigarh (C.G.) in Special Case No. 05/1997, wherein the said court convicted the appellant for commission of offence under Section 3 read with Section 7(1)(a)(i) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short "the Act, 1955) and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years and fine of Rs. 5000/- with further default stipulations.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma CAV Judgment

1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 26th June, 2001 passed by Special Judge, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short "N.D.P.S. Act, 1985") Bastar, Jagdalpur (C.G.), in Special Case No. 55/2000 wherein the said Court convicted appellant for charge under Section 20(B)(2)(b) of N.D.P.S. Act and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 3 years with fine Rs.5000/- with default stipulation.

2. In the present case, as per version of prosecution on 12 th of October, 2000 at about 11.00 am. Sub inspector Bhupendra Singh Mourya of Police Station Nagarnar, received secret information to the effect that one person having one slight blueish coloured suit case and one green coloured bag, is keeping Ganja on barrier of Dhanpunji. The S.I. Bhupendra Singh recorded the same in the roznamcha sanha and also 2 prepared panchnama(Ex.P.2) and sent the same to the senior officer and after that he took the witnesses and police staff and went to Dhanpunji barrier. Said police officer had given a notice to the appellant as per Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act 1985 of his right of being searched by some gazetted offier, any magistrate or by him, on which the accused opted to search by this police officer(Sub Inspector). After search he was found in possession contraband article Ganja, which was seized and matter was investigated, appellant was charge- sheeted and convicted as mentioned above.

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

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma CAV Judgment

1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 25 th of February, 2016 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Gariyaband (C.G.) in Special Case No.12/2015 wherein the said Court has convicted the appellant for charge under Sections 363, 376 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for four years with fine of Rs. 200/-, R.I. for ten years with fine of Rs. 200/-, R.I. for ten years with fine of Rs.200/- with default stipulations.

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 05.02.2015 passed by Special Judge [under Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short "the Act, 1985")], Bilaspur (C.G.) in Special NDPS Case No. 126/2014, wherein the said court convicted the appellant for commission of offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Act, 1985 and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years and fine of Rs. 15,000/- with further default stipulations for having possession of contraband article ganja to the tune of 10 kg. on 27.03.2014 at 10:50 p.m. at railway platform No. 1 of Railway Station Bilaspur (C.G.)

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

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.

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 11.02.2011 passed by Special Judge (NDPS Act), Durg (C.G.) in NDPS Special Case No. 03/2006, wherein the said court convicted the appellant for commission of offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short "the Act, 1985") and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 4 years and fine of Rs. 5000/- with further default stipulations for having possession of contraband article ganja to the tune of 8 kg. on 27.01.2006 at 20:30 O'clock at Bus Stand- Dondi Lohara.

For State/respondent : Mrs. Smita Jha, Panel Lawyer.

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

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 11.12.2012 passed by Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988) & First Additional Session Judge, Raipur (C.G.) in Special Session Trial No. 01/2007, wherein the said court convicted the appellant for commission of offence under Section 7 & 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short "the Act, 1988") and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 year and fine of Rs. 5000/- & R.I. for 2 years and fine of Rs. 10,000/- respectively with further default stipulations.

1. "Whether Mr. Maghesh Kumar Singh was posted by NTPC Ltd to Meja Urja Nigam Pvt. Ltd at Corporate office, Allahabad and site office Meja.

2. Whether he suffered a finger crush injury on 26-10-2013 while living in Meja Srijan Vihar Township. If yes, name of the hospital he was admitted to and surgery performed may be furnished.

3. Whether he filed a personal accident claim form in this regard. If yes; the amount for which it was sanctioned and the payment transaction details may kindly be furnished.

Page 1 of 8

4. If the above mentioned claim remains pending since 2013, reason for the same may be intimated. If any official found negligent, the action taken against him may also be intimated."

1. "The attested copy of the very basis of the seniority list of 594 contractor's workers at BTPS as was published on notice board, the Appendix 'D' of Letter no. BT/DGM(Admn)/2/I-842 dt. 22-05-1998.

2. If there is no basis of preparing the aforesaid seniority list, then why the names of other persons were enlisted in the Appendix 'D' of the aforesaid letter."

2. The CPIO responded on 01-03-2018 & 16-05-2018. The appellant filed the first appeal dated 12-03-2018 which was disposed of by the first appellate authority on 19-04-2018. Thereafter, he filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission requesting to take appropriate legal action against the CPIO u/Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005 and also to direct him to provide the sought for information.

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.

PIO/DIG, CISF denied disclosure of information invoking Section 24 of the RTI Act, vide reply dated 10.05.2019.

Aggrieved with denial of information, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 21.05.2019, which was decided by the FAA vide order dated 04.06.2019, reiterating the stance taken by the PIO. 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: 89xxxxx145 and reiterated facts of his case. He has sought the information since he wants to join the service and wants to ensure whether the quota-wise benefit was granted. Decision:

PIO/DIG, CISF denied disclosure of information invoking Section 24 of the RTI Act, vide reply dated 10.04.2019.

Aggrieved with denial of information, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 23.04.2019, which was decided by the FAA vide order dated 09.05.2019, 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 her telephone number: 87xxxxxx25 and submitted that her husband passed away in 1997. Since her son was only few months old at the time of her husband's death, compassionate appointment was sought only when he attained 18 years. But respondent denied the benefit of compassionate appointment since the appellant had approached the respondent after a gap of 20 years. Since the appellant claims she is not in receipt of the proper pension amount and the benefit of compassionate appointment has also been denied by the respondent, the family is facing a financial crisis. Hence, she sought the aforementioned information by filing the instant case. Decision:

(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.

Aggrieved with denial of information, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.08.2019, which was decided by the FAA vide order dated 06.09.2019, upholding the stance taken by the PIO and observing that the information could not be provided under the RTI Act since it did not fulfill the criteria of either human rights violation or of corruption as provided in the Section 24 of the RTI Act.

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: 99xxxxxx54 and reiterated the facts of his case and stated that he was working with CISF earlier and is currently with IB. Appellant stated during the course of hearing that he had posed similar queries before the MHA through a separate RTI application, which has been replied and he has received the requisite information. Having thus received the desired information, he does not wish to pursue the instant case.

PIO/BSF communicated rejection of the RTI application invoking Section 24 of the RTI Act, vide online reply dated 17.12.2019. Meanwhile, the appellant had filed a First Appeal dated 16.12.2019, which was not adjudicated.

Aggrieved by 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: 96xxxxxx14 and reiterated the facts of the case stating that he is aggrieved on being denied any information about the marks obtained by him.

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:

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

Case RTI PIO First First 2nd Nos. application replied on Appeal Appellate Appeal/complaint filed on filed on Order on received on 644389 11.05.2019 16.05.2019 23.05.2019 10.06.2019 01.07.2019 635814 21.09.2018 08.10.2018 15.10.2018 01.11.2018 21.11.2018 627430 08.07.2018 17.07.2018 28.05.2018 31.07.2018 01.08.2018 CIC/CISFO/A/2019/644389

The Appellant filed RTI application dated 11.05.2019 seeking information through five points pertaining to an incident that took place on 19.04.2014 at around 2330 hrs wherein a truck bearing registration no. WB37 8459 loaded with TMT iron rods was apprehended by the Local Police near CISF Unit NTPC Barh. Subsequently, an inquiry was ordered by the Central Vigilance Page 1 of 8 Commission vide its OM dated January 2015. Since the matter pertains to alleged corruption by CISF officers, the following information was sought:

1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Eastern Railway, DRMO Howrah Division seeking information on two points, including,

a) To provide a copy of S.DPO/HWH Letter No. E/Engg/OC/Policy/Pt.IV/2nd Phase dated 31.07.2015, 07.08.2015, and,

b) To provide a copy of seniority list of Track Maintainer III and IV from 2007 to 2015.

2. The CPIO, vide reply dated 27.04.2020, provided requisite information to the appellant. The appellant filed a first appeal dated 24.04.2018 on the ground of no information furnished by the CPIO. The first appeal was not disposed of by the FAA. Thereafter, the appellant filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission on the ground of non-receipt of information and requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information sought for.

1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Eastern Railway, Sealdah Division, Kolkata seeking information on two points pertaining to his representation dated 31.05.2018, including,

a) Whether his aforesaid representation dated 31.05.2018 addressed to Sr. DOM/SDAH has been considered or disposed of, and

b) If disposed of, please serve a copy of the same at the earliest.

2. Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a first appeal dated 25.07.2018. The first appeal was not disposed of by the FAA. Thereafter, the appellant filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission on the ground that no information has been furnished by the respondent and requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information sought for and take appropriate legal action against the CPIO and the FAA.

1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Eastern Railway, DRMO, Howrah Division seeking information on two points, including,

a) To provide a copy of S.DPO/HWH Letter No. E/Engg/OC/Policy/Pt.IV/2nd Phase dated 31.07.2015, 07.08.2015, and

b) To provide a copy of seniority list of Track Maintainer III and IV from 2006 to 2015.

2. The CPIO did not provide requisite information within stipulated period to the appellant. The appellant filed a first appeal dated 24.04.2018 on the ground of no information furnished by the CPIO. The first appeal was also not disposed of by the FAA. Thereafter, the appellant filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission on the ground of non- receipt of information and requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information sought for.