Prevention of Corruption Act, 1998 - Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) - Service Matter - Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity - Claim for -

When can be granted - Respondent in appeal was working as Village Extension Officer, in course of his employment Vigilance Department registered a crime alleging that he had received Rs.500 as bribe and he was suspended from service and was later reinstated in service - He retired from service on superannuation while working as General Extension Officer - On conviction in a criminal case for violation of integrity norms in performance of official duties and an appeal pending before High Court, is employee still entitled to release of his Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity is the moot point arising for consideration in the present appeals - In view of there being a divergence of opinion, Division Bench considered it appropriate to refer matter to a larger Bench as two applications before KAT had produced different results.

Court Fees Act, 1870 - Section 7 –Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 96, Order 7 Rule 11, Section 80, Section 151, Section 115 – Dificiency in court fees –

Applicability of Section 7 of Act, 1870 in Money suit - Money suit for compensation/damages filed – High Court allowed the revision petition filed by the respondent Dev Brat Sharma and further proceeded to reject the application of the appellant under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure after setting aside the order dated 10.11.2016 passed by the Trial Court holding that the respondent (plaintiff before the Trial Court) was required to make good deficiency in the Court fees on the amount of Rs. 20 Lakhs claimed by him as compensation

This revisional application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the petitioner principally against Jagannath Dubey, opposite party no. 2 praying for quashing of proceedings and impugned order dated 25.7.2013 passed by Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raghunathpur, District Purulia, in Complaint Case No. 2 of 2013 under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.

By a judgment of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Re: Expeditious Trial of Cases under Section 138 of N.I. Act, 1881 ((2021) SCCOnline SC 325) various directions were issued with respect to the conduct of trials of complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Appellant is accused No.18 in Crime No. 329 of 1991 registered at Sriperumbudur Police Station for assassination of Shri Rajeev Gandhi, former Prime Minister of India, on 21.05.1991. The Appellant was convicted for offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’), the Arms Act, 1951, the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, the Passport Act, 1967, the Foreigners Act, 1946, the Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933 and the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (for short, ‘TADA’). He was sentenced to death by the designated TADA Court. This Court, by a judgment dated 11.05.1999, upheld the conviction and sentence imposed on the Appellant. However, the conviction and sentence under the TADA were set aside. The review petition filed by the Appellant was dismissed by an order dated 08.10.1999. The Appellant, along with three others, filed mercy petitions before the Governor of Tamil Nadu under Article 161 of the Constitution of India, which were rejecte