Para Sors, Unada LexiLegal AI India Private Limited 550, Iscon Emporio, Jodhpur Char Rasta, Ahmedabad (2026)

07/03/2025

The case involves Appellant, who was appointed as a L.D. Assistant and faced issues related to unauthorized absence and pension entitlement. The main issues include whether her absence should be treated as unauthorized and whether she is entitled to pension. The Tribunal and subsequent courts examined whether the absence could be regularized as extraordinary leave and if it affected her pension rights. The Tribunal initially directed a departmental inquiry to ascertain the facts, which was not conducted. Later, her absence was treated as extraordinary leave, and her service was regularized, but she was denied pension on the grounds that the leave did not qualify as service under the relevant rules. The Supreme Court eventually directed that her pension be finalized, acknowledging the regularization of her service and the peculiar facts of the case.

Read more: https://chatpdfenv.s3.amazonaws.com/root/Supreme_Court_of_India/Judgements/Para_f1D97325FF61A3340761

07/03/2025

The case involves the appellant/Accused No. 3, who was convicted under Section 411 of the IPC for allegedly receiving stolen property, specifically gold bars, linked to fraudulent transactions involving forged telegraphic transfers (TTs) and demand drafts (DDs). The case centers around the appellant's alleged connection with Mukesh Shah, an absconding accused, and the transactions with M/s. Globe International.

Issue: The primary issue is whether the appellant/Accused No. 3 was rightfully convicted under Section 411 of the IPC for receiving stolen property, given the evidence presented.

Decision: The High Court upheld the conviction of Accused No. 3 and dismissed the appeal for the return of the seized gold bars, citing insufficient proof of lawful acquisition by the appellant.

Reasoning: The court reasoned that the appellant failed to provide evidence of lawful acquisition of the gold bars and noted the appellant's resistance during the CBI search as inconsistent with innocence. The invocation of Section 106 of the Evidence Act was also considered, placing the burden on the appellant to explain the source of the gold bars.

Findings: The Trial Court and High Court found that the evidence, including the appellant's resistance during the search and the lack of proof of lawful acquisition, supported the conviction under Section 411 IPC. The courts noted the absence of evidence for the first part of the conspiracy but concluded that the appellant's possession of the gold bars, coupled with the circumstances, justified the conviction.

Read more: https://chatpdfenv.s3.amazonaws.com/root/Supreme_Court_of_India/Judgements/Para_f15FBA9D0E8E45B076AC

28/02/2025

Summary of the Judgment

Case Facts:
Md. Bani Alam Mazid was convicted for abducting and murdering Marjina, whom he allegedly had a love affair with. He took her away under the pretense of marriage and later killed her. Marjina’s body was found with injuries, and Rs. 60,000 she had with her was never recovered.

Legal Issues:

The primary legal issues in this case were:

Whether the appellant was guilty of abduction and murder under Sections 366(A), 302, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The admissibility and sufficiency of circumstantial evidence, particularly the 'last seen together' theory.
Arguments from Both Parties:
Prosecution: Argued that the appellant was last seen with the deceased, and his mother and brother-in-law had assured the victim's family of a marriage, which was a ruse. They relied on circumstantial evidence and statements from witnesses to establish guilt.

Defense: Contended that there was no direct evidence linking the appellant to the murder. They argued the absence of motive, given the alleged love affair, and questioned the reliability of the 'last seen together' evidence.

Court's Reasoning:
The court examined the circumstantial evidence, including the 'last seen together' theory and the lack of explanation from the appellant. It noted that while the appellant and the deceased were seen together, this alone was insufficient for conviction without additional evidence linking the appellant to the crime. The court also considered the absence of motive and the lack of recovery of the alleged cash.

Conclusion:
The High Court set aside the conviction under Section 366(A) IPC but upheld the conviction under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. The court emphasized the need for a complete chain of circumstantial evidence to sustain a conviction.

Read more: https://chatpdfenv.s3.amazonaws.com/root/Supreme_Court_of_India/Judgements/Para_f19876A4716E3B337E50

28/02/2025

Summary of the Judgment

Case Facts:
The case involves the State of Madhya Pradesh as the appellant and Balveer Singh as the respondent. The incident in question led to the death of the respondent's wife, who was allegedly cremated secretly at night without informing her family or villagers. The prosecution's case was largely based on the testimony of a child witness, Rani (PW6), who was the daughter of the deceased and the accused.

Arguments:
Prosecution: Asserted the accused’s guilt, citing PW6’s eyewitness account of the assault and circumstantial evidence, including a secretive cremation and the accused’s absconding.

Defense: Challenged PW6’s credibility due to possible tutoring, delayed statement, and bias from a hostile relative. Also pointed out inconsistencies in other witness testimonies.

Court's Reasoning:

Trial Court: Convicted the accused, finding PW6’s testimony credible despite the delay and considering circumstantial evidence.

High Court: Acquitted the accused, citing doubts over PW6’s testimony due to delay and potential tutoring, along with inconsistencies in other witness statements.

Supreme Court: Reinstated the conviction, ruling that a child witness's testimony can be reliable if credible, and the High Court erred in dismissing PW6’s statement solely due to delay.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's acquittal and reinstating the conviction of the respondent under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

Read more: https://chatpdfenv.s3.amazonaws.com/root/Supreme_Court_of_India/Judgements/Para_f14DA5DDFF9F0A37920A

26/02/2025

PARA/144/SC/2025

ANMOL APPELLANT(s)

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. RESPONDENT(s)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.14333 OF 2024

K.V. Viswanathan, J.

Court's Findings:
The court emphasized the importance of reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities, highlighting that disability should not be a barrier to pursuing education and professional aspirations. The court found that the existing guidelines were inadequate as they did not provide for a functional assessment of candidates with disabilities.

Key Legal Provisions:
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act): The Act mandates inclusive education and recognizes the concept of reasonable accommodation.

Article 41 of the Directive Principles of State Policy: It obligates the State to make effective provisions for securing the right to work and education for persons with disabilities, within its economic capacity.

United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: This international convention influenced the enactment of the RPwD Act.

Arguments:
The appellant argued against the denial of admission based on a rigid application of guidelines that did not consider functional abilities.
The respondents maintained that the appellant did not meet the eligibility criteria due to his disability.

Final Ruling:
The court accepted the report of Dr. Satendra Singh, which advocated for the appellant's admission, and confirmed the admission granted to the appellant in the Government Medical College, Sirohi, Rajasthan. The court directed the National Medical Commission to issue revised guidelines that align with the principles of reasonable accommodation and inclusive education.

To Read More Check The Below Link:

https://chatpdfenv.s3.amazonaws.com/root/Supreme_Court_of_India/Judgements/Para_f1F69D803ED306DFDC56

25/02/2025

PARA/143/SC/2025

SURINDER DOGRA ... APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE THROUGH DIRECTOR CBI ...RESPONDENT

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s). 1020 OF 2022

PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J.

the appellant, who was convicted of forgery and corruption-related offenses. The appellant, who was a Traffic Superintendent at Indian Airlines in Jammu, was accused of manipulating airline tickets for personal gain. On November 19, 1997, he allegedly prepared an infant ticket in the fictitious name of Master Azim and later tampered with it to create an adult ticket for a person named Mr. Vikram, changing the travel sector from Jammu-Srinagar to Jammu-Delhi. This manipulation allowed Mr. Vikram to travel at a reduced fare, causing financial loss to the airline.

The investigation led to the filing of a chargesheet, and during the trial, the prosecution presented nine witnesses. The appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code but did not present any defense evidence. The trial court found the appellant guilty based on evidence, including the testimony of a handwriting expert and other witnesses who confirmed the appellant's involvement in issuing the fraudulent tickets.

The appellant was convicted under Sections 420, 468, and 471 of the Ranbir Penal Code and Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The conviction was upheld by both the Trial Court and the High Court, and the appellant was sentenced to six months of simple imprisonment for each offense, with fines imposed.

Read more:https://chatpdfenv.s3.amazonaws.com/root/Supreme_Court_of_India/Judgements/Para_f1D59FC6BDDC65C681AD

25/02/2025

PARA/142/SC/2025

STATE OF ODISHA & ORS. …APPELLANT(S)
Versus
SUDHANSU SEKHAR JENA …RESPONDENT(S)

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.2146 OF 2024

SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J

Distinction Between Categories: Workcharged employees are typically engaged for specific projects and their wages are charged to the project costs. They are not considered regular employees and do not receive the same benefits as regular government employees. Job contract employees, on the other hand, may have different terms based on their contracts and are not automatically entitled to pension benefits unless specified by the rules.

Government Handling: The government has framed different rules for different classes of employees, which is within its power. This differentiation is not considered arbitrary or discriminatory as long as it is based on the nature of employment and the source of funding.

Court Rulings: Courts have consistently held that workcharged employees form a distinct class and are not entitled to the same benefits as regular employees unless there is a specific provision in the relevant statutes or schemes. The courts have also emphasized that pension is a reward for long service and not a right for all types of employment.

Penalties and Orders: There have been no specific penalties imposed on the government for differentiating between these categories, as the courts have upheld the government's right to frame different rules for different classes of employees. However, courts have directed that if a workcharged employee's service is regularized, they may become eligible for pension benefits from the date of regularization, not retroactively.

Final Court Orders: The courts have generally dismissed claims for pension benefits by workcharged employees unless their services have been regularized and the rules specifically allow for such benefits. The courts have also upheld the validity of rules that exclude workcharged service from counting towards pension eligibility unless explicitly stated otherwise.

Read more: https://chatpdfenv.s3.amazonaws.com/root/Supreme_Court_of_India/Judgements/Para_f1A85DB0B993D2BF8B9E

Para Sors

07/03/2025

07/03/2025

28/02/2025

28/02/2025

26/02/2025

25/02/2025

25/02/2025

Address

Website

Alerts

Shortcuts

Share

Category