(A) Consumer Protection Act (68 of 1986), S. 14, S. 2(1)(o), S. 2(1)(g) - Consumer dispute - Housing construction - Deficiency of service - Respondents booked residential flats and paid substantial consideration - Appellant-developer failed to complete construction within stipulated time and did not obtain Occupancy Certificate - NCDRC directed completion, delivery of possession after obtaining Occupancy Certificate, and payment of interest @ 8% p.a. from cut-off date till possession, along with litigation costs, rebate and stamp duty differential - Developer contended that a clause of Flat Buyer Agreement capped delay compensation at Rs.10 per sq. ft. per month and that NCDRC exceeded jurisdiction under S.14 - Housing construction constitutes "service" under S.2(1)(o) and delay in handing over possession amounts to "deficiency" under S.2(1)(g) - Contractual stipulations cannot curtail statutory jurisdiction of the consumer fora - Delay in completion and handing over of possession constituted deficiency in service - There was persistent non-compliance despite repeated undertakings before Court - Failure to obtain Occupancy Certificate before offering possession constituted continuing deficiency in service - Possession without Occupancy Certificate cannot be forced - Order of NCDRC was affirmed - Direction issued to obtain Occupancy Certificate and deliver possession within stipulated time. (Para 13, 15, 17, 18, 24, 25, 26, 28, 28.1, 29)

Consumer Protection Act (35 of 2019), S. 2(11) - Deficiency in service - Delay in delivery of possession of flats - Liability to compensate - Delay pertained to flats falling to share of developer and construction was exclusively within domain of developer - No material to show delay was attributable to landowners - For lapse on part of developer, landowners, who were no way concerned with construction, could not be held liable for deficiency in service, particularly when developer has indemnified them against acts of commission or omission in construction - Mere principal-agent relationship did not fasten liability - Liability to pay delay compensation was rightly fastened solely on developer, though both parties were directed to execute sale deeds and transfer title. (Para 14, 15)

(A) Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act (24 of 1997), S.14(1)(a) - Licence for 2G Band Spectrum - Reserve price for conducting auction - Commencement date for levy of liability - Supreme Court earlier had quashed allotment of 2G Band Spectrum to various parties, including respondent on 02.02.2012 and ordered fresh auction - Fresh auction could not be concluded within time frame - On 15.02.2013 Supreme Court directed that licensees, who continued operation after 2.2.2012, whether or not they gave bid in auction conducted on 12.11.2012 and 14.11.2012, shall pay reserve price fixed by Government for purpose of conducting auction in November 2012 - As respondent had continued with its services up to 02.10.2013, DoT had demanded reserve price including interest - TDSAT had ordered to pay reserve price from 15.02.2013 - Supreme Court had referred to date '02.02.2012' in context of licensees who continued with their operations, clearly demonstrated that 02.02.2012 was commencement date for levy of liability in terms of that order - Respondent was held liable to pay reserve price from 15.02.2013 - Respondent was liable to pay interest from date of expiry of 21 days stipulated in show-cause notice. (Para 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17)

(A) Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S. 3, S. 27, S. 8 - Penal Code (45 of 1860), S. 302, S. 201 - Murder - Circumstantial evidence - Accused had allegedly hatched a conspiracy with his friend, abducted deceased, demanded ransom, committed her murder and her body was thrown into a well - Delay in lodging a missing report, by itself, did not vitiate prosecution's case - Ransom calls were made from her mobile phone - Accused came into possession of deceased's mobile phone and sold it - Recovery of body from precise location could only have been made on basis of information furnished by someone who had personal knowledge of its disposal - Dead body was recovered from a well at disclosure of accused - This information was not within public domain or capable of discovery through routine investigation - Absence of DNA testing did not vitiate identification of dead body when credible and consistent testimonies of witnesses who knew deceased personally was on record that body recovered was that of deceased - Recovery of Scooty of deceased at disclosure of accused had established his exclusive knowledge about whereabouts of deceased's belongings after she went missing - Medical evidence established that death was homicidal in nature - Motive of financial gain through extortion had strengthened prosecution's case - Prosecution had established a complete chain of circumstances pointing towards guilt of accused - Conviction was proper - However, considering fact that accused had undergone more than 15 years of imprisonment, liberty was granted to him to apply for remission. (Para 15, 16, 17, 18, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30)

(A) Constitution of India, Art. 226 - Termination of service - Challenge against - Appellant studied from University of Technology and Science which was set up under Chhattisgarh Niji Kshetra Vishwavidyalaya Act of 2002 enacted by State Legislature - Subsequently said Act was declared to be ultra vires by Supreme Court - Till such time, students were studying and passing out - At time of declaration of Act to be ultra vires, Supreme Court had protected students who were studying and they were directed to be transferred to alternative institutions recognised by State - Services of appellants were terminated only for reason that institution in which they had studied was declared as unrecognised - Appellants cannot be said to be at fault as they had studied in University set up under 2002 Act - Hence, they should not be deprived of benefits of degree obtained by them while studying in University - It was not case of State that University in which appellants studied was bogus or no study was actually imparted - Termination of service of appellants was declared as illegal - Directions were issued to reinstate appellants back in service, with continuity without any back wages. (Para 16, 17, 18)

(A) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (31 of 2016), S.7 - Initiation of insolvency proceedings - Viability of Corporate debtor as ongoing concern - Determination - Common loan agreement between Corporate debtor and respondent for setting up thermal power plant and Corporate debtor entered into PPA with Electricity Distribution Company - Later, respondent classified assets as NPA due to alleged default by Corporate debtor in making due payments - Appellant/ financial creditor claimed that Corporate Debtor is ongoing concern running viable power project and it did not lack ability to repay debt - Code prescribes that insolvency process may be initiated whenever corporate debtor defaults on debt that is due and payable - Code further provides that when financial creditor initiates insolvency process for purposes of admission, Adjudicating Authority is only to ascertain existence of default from records of information utility or evidence furnished by financial creditor within fourteen days from receipt of such application - Neither corporate debtor nor Adjudicating Authority is required to examine any dispute regarding existence of such debt - Similarly, Adjudicating Authority is not required to go into inability of corporate debtor to pay its debt - Code restricts scope of enquiry for admission of insolvency process by financial creditor merely to existence of default of debt due and payable and nothing more - Though Corporate Debtor strenuously demonstrated its commercial viability, NCLAT had noted that outstanding liability of corporate debtor far exceeded bills raised on Electricity Distribution company and EBITDA during CIRP - Therefore, admission of insolvency proceedings under S.7 was justified and lawful. (Para 29, 30, 32, 34, 39, 40)

(B) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (31 of 2016), S.10A - Suspension of initiation of insolvency process - Bar under S.10A - Applicability - S.10A bars initiation of CIRP against corporate debtor in the event the default arose on or after 25.03.2020, for period of 6 months or such period not exceeding one year as may be notified - Explanation of Section however, clarified that the bar would not apply to any default committed before 25.03.2020 - Restructuring proposals between parties had not fructified into valid agreements novating original contract - Pre-conditions in restructuring proposals had not been complied with and even subsequent tariff order dated 31.05.2021 did not provide adequate leverage to persuade lenders to accept restructuring proposals in their meeting convened on 11.11.2021 pursuant to High Court's direction - Further, common loan agreement had been novated by 1st restructuring agreement dated 21.02.2020, which was followed by 2nd restructuring agreement dated 29.09.2020, whereby first installment fell due on 31.03.2021, which was beyond S.10A period which operated from 25.03.2020 to 24.03.2021 - Therefore, date of default would relate to 31.03.2018 as per S. 7 application, and proceedings cannot be held as barred in light of Explanation to S.10A. (Para 25, 26, 27)

(C) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (31 of 2016), S.12A - Stay on CIRP application - Legality - Appellant/ financial creditor prayed that settlement proposal offered by them was more viable than that of successful Resolution Applicant and on such score requested for stay of CIRP as per S.12A - It is trite law that commercial wisdom of CoC to accept one resolution plan over another cannot be second-guessed by Court - Also, any further direction to stall CIRP on plea of further settlement proposals at behest of Appellant would be prejudicial to interest of swift and timely resolution of insolvency process - Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process application cannot be stayed - Stay on CIRP was vacated. (Para 42, 44, 45)

(A) Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S.27 - Penal Code (45 of 1860), S.302 - Murder - Appreciation of evidence - Accused allegedly killed his six-year-old step-daughter - Based on confession of accused, he allegedly led police party to field where burnt bones and ashes were recovered - From nearby canal, skull and some bones, wrapped in green saree, were also recovered - There was nothing indicated to show that accused, who had accompanied his wife to register missing complaint was even suspected of being responsible for missing of child - Despite family knowing child was missing, FIR was lodged after six days - When accused was arrested, no enquiries were made about missing child - Inconsistencies in testimony of witnesses regarding last seen evidence - Under S.27, information is only admissible if person is in police custody at the time of the making statement - Since accused was not formally in custody, statement was technically inadmissible - While DNA profiles of biological parents matched only with some teeth and piece of vertebrae of child recovered from canal , the skull recovered from the same spot did not match with samples taken from parents - Prosecution failed to prove guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt - Since corpus delicti was not recovered, there was no time of death specified - Conviction and sentence were liable to be set aside. (Para 18, 19)

(A) Criminal P. C. (2 of 1974), S.439 - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (46 of 2023), S.483 - Bail - Grant of - Challenge against - Offences under Ss.406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 506 of the IPC - Allegations of cheating of over Rs.6.5 crores made by complainant in a foodgrain transaction by accused - Complainant alleged that accused, along with others, issued cheques by using forged documents and fake identities which were dishonoured for want of funds - Accused had earlier filed petition seeking quashing of FIR, which was dismissed as withdrawn - He absconded for over 20 months after registration of FIR, was declared absconding with a reward of Rs.51,000, and was arrested with multiple forged Aadhaar and PAN cards bearing different names and even different father's names - Sessions Court had rejected his bail noting suppression of criminal antecedents, including multiple FIRs in Delhi and Uttar Pradesh, and his past conduct of absconding after securing bail - Despite this, High Court granted bail on grounds of parity with co-accused, filing of chargesheet, custody period, and assumption that case was triable by a Magistrate - High Court ignored serious charges under Ss.409 and 467 IPC punishable up to life imprisonment, overlooked his criminal antecedents, habitual use of aliases, abscondence, misuse of earlier bail, and risk to society, and wrongly applied parity principle - Order of High Court granting bail was set aside. (Para 5-14,20-24)

(A) Constitution of India, Art.226 - Haryana Urban Development Authority Act (13 of 1977), S.74 - Allotment of flats - Challenge against - On grounds of ineligibility and favouritism - Allotment of two super deluxe flats to respondents by HEWO, a welfare society of HUDA/HSVP employees - Writ was properly held maintainable under Art.226 in view of society's public character and fiduciary duties of its governing body - As per bye-laws, preferential allotment to a governing body member was permissible only if eligibility conditions, including minimum service and prescribed pay-band, were satisfied, while other allotments were to be made by draw of lots - Respondent, who was neither a HUDA employee nor a governing body member on the last date of application and had not applied or deposited fees in time, secured allotment after assuming office through a self-serving process - Another respondent, his subordinate, did not meet stipulated pay-band requirement and his ineligibility was later irregularly regularised - Allotments were vitiated by favouritism, ineligibility, and procedural manipulation - Holding both allotments illegal and arbitrary, order of High Court validating allotment was set aside, costs were imposed, and directions were issued to refund without interest, ordered vacation of flats, and mandated a fresh draw of lots from originally eligible applicants. (Para 8-17)

(A) Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S.3 - Penal Code (45 of 1860), S.376, S.302 - Rape and murder - Circumstantial evidence - Allegation that accused had committed raped upon 8 year old minor daughter of informant and thereafter murdered her by throttling - Conviction was based primarily on circumstantial evidence including recovery of body of minor from locked house of accused and statements of two witnesses - Critical witnesses such as parents of minor were not examined and forensic evidence was inconclusive - It was found that prosecution failed to prove chain of events beyond reasonable doubt- Conviction rested on mere presumption - Order of conviction was not proper. (Para 25, 26,29)

(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (46 of 2023), S.528 - Quashing of charge-sheet - Allegation that accused, a married man, induced prosecutrix through social media, assured marriage, repeatedly subjected her to sexual intercourse, compelled abortions, blackmailed with intimate videos - Accused, being already married, induced her by promise which he knew from inception to be incapable of performance, element of deceit prima facie made out - Whether she had prior knowledge of his marital status and whether consent was voluntary were matters of trial - Proceedings were not quashed. (Para 17, 19)

(A) Civil P. C. (5 of 1908), O.18, R.17 - Recalling of witnesses - Application for - Suit for recovery of money based on pronote - Defendant contended that information obtained by him regarding witnesses had vital bearing on case and credibility of promissory notes, and denying further examination of witnesses would be harmful to his interest - However, it was found that applications were belatedly - Defendant had not set out any new facts which had come to light after lengthy cross-examination of witnesses - Rejection of application was proper. (Para 7, 9)

(A) Criminal P. C. (2 of 1974), S.482 - Quashing of FIR - Offence of criminal breach of trust - Allegation that accused persons had misappropriated mustard and sugar stored by depositor who had pledged goods to obtain loan from lender and failed to deliver goods after depositor defaulted - Although FIR was filed after delay of several years and dispute had civil elements, allegations prima facie indicated cognizable offence under S.406 IPC - Powers to quash FIR under Art.226 are to be used sparingly and only in exceptional cases - Ultimate determination of guilt or liability would be decided during trial based on evidence - Mere delay in registration or civil nature of dispute was insufficient to quash FIR at this stage - FIR was not quashed. (Para 18, 19, 20)

Constitution of India, Art. 226 - Appointment - Post of Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Postmaster - Cancellation of recruitment advertisement - A nearly-concluded recruitment process for Gramin Dak Sevaks was cancelled, purportedly to transition from manual to online recruitment - It was revealed that Postal Directorate had already granted a special exemption to continue manual processing in J and K Circle - Justification by Department was further contradicted by their subsequent issuance of a fresh advertisement, which again invited manual applications rather than adopting online mode - State cannot abandon a recruitment process at an advanced stage, especially where one appellant was about to be appointed and the other topped the merit list, for reasons that are factually non-existent and manifest an arbitrary exercise of power - Cancellation orders lacked a rational nexus to any fair objective, hence quashed - Department was directed to accommodate the appellants against existing vacancies. (Para 17, 19, 20, 21, 22)

(A) Constitution of India, Art.226 - Tender - Blacklisting of contractor - Challenge against - Appellant/contractor challenged a five-year blacklisting order, issued on allegations of corruption based on its own ledger entries produced during arbitration - Own ledger entries of appellant, filed along with its statement of claim in arbitration, disclosed payments for gifts, cash, donations, and other expenditures made to Government officials and related entities during execution of contract - These entries were not denied but merely explained as legitimate expenses, which was unsatisfactory - Considering relevant contractual clauses and inherent power of State to debar contractors engaged in corrupt practices, show-cause notice was specific, principles of natural justice were complied with, and action of blacklisting was neither mala fide nor disproportionate - Order of single Judge upholding blacklisting as lawful and proportionate was proper. (Para 34,35,38,41 to 45,50)

(A) National Highways Act (48 of 1956), S.3C - Constitution of India, Art.226 - National Highway - Challenge to alignment - Objections - Petitioner sought to alter proposed alignment of Hajipur-Darbhanga Section (NH-119D) under Bharatmala Pariyojana so as to protect religious structures and residential houses in villages Mahiuddinpur Rajwa and Shahpur Baghauni - Under S.3C(1), objection to use of land must be filed within 21 days from date of publication of notification under S.3A(1) in Official Gazette - Limitation commences from date of Gazette publication and not from publication in newspapers - In present case, limitation period expired and objection was filed beyond statutory period - No interference was warranted in exercise of writ jurisdiction. (Para 14, 15, 16)

(A) Civil P. C. (5 of 1908), O.8, R.9 - Filing of counterclaim - Leave of Court - Commercial Court's order accepting a fresh written statement with counterclaim filed by defendant was challenged after transfer of suit from civil court, where an earlier written statement had already been filed without counterclaim - Plaintiff pleaded that such subsequent pleading was impermissible - Under O.8, Rr.6A, 8 and 9 CPC, a counterclaim may be permitted with leave of Court and subsequent pleadings can be accepted in accordance with law - Since Commercial Court had granted leave under O.8, R. 9 CPC to file counterclaim, impugned order was found to be legal and proper. (Para 26,27,28)

(A) Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S.3 - Penal Code (45 of 1860), S.376 - Rape - Appreciation of evidence - Allegations that victim went towards river to collect cow dung and at that time accused had come from behind and caught hold of her, pushed her down and committed rape with her - Victim had stated that her co-villagers rushed to place of occurrence upon hearing her cry, upon seeing them accused fled towards village - Only two villagers were examined by prosecution and they turned hostile - Victim stated that accused had been teasing her for past 2-3 years and was pressurizing her to accompany him - No such allegation was levelled by victim in her evidence before Trial Court - Doctor had not found injury on external or internal parts of victim's body and no evidence of recent sexual intercourse was found - Victim deposed that quarrel took place between her and accused and that she lodged case very next day - This statement suggested mala fide intention on part of victim in lodging the case - Conviction of accused was not proper. (Para 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21)

(A) Criminal P. C. (2 of 1974), S.482 - Quashing of proceedings - Prayer for - Offence of cruelty - Both parties arrived at consensus to withdraw all pending proceedings between them before trial court in petition filed for divorce by mutual consent - Wife was not interested to proceed with criminal case against husband - Proceedings quashed. (Para 4, 6, 7)

(A) Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S.63, S.65 - Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963), S.34 - Admissibility of evidence - Title suit - Refusal to accept photocopies of certified copies of Jamabandi - Photocopies of certified copies are generally inadmissible - However, original record was produced in Court and compared by competent authority on oath - Their photocopies remained on a higher pedestal and could not be rejected as mere secondary evidence - Courts erred in mechanically rejecting the exhibits - Matter remitted for reconsideration. (Para 18, 20)

(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act (26 of 1996), S.34 - Setting aside of arbitral award - Parties had landscape maintenance agreement of 2008 with arbitration clause - Disputes arose over unpaid security money (Rs.3,35,000) and EPF contributions - Respondent sought appointment of arbitrator and after delays due to first arbitrator retiring, fresh arbitrator was appointed and proceedings restarted - Sole Arbitrator partially upheld claim of respondent awarding refund of security money, EPF contributions and disallowing penalties imposed by SGPGI(appellant) - Sole Arbitrator exceeded jurisdiction by entertaining claims under Contract, which was never referred to arbitration and incorrectly allowed refund of security money and EPF contributions - Arbitration clauses must be strictly construed and arbitrators cannot decide disputes outside scope of reference - Agreement clearly made respondent responsible for labor compliance and workers were not employees of SGPGI - Court applied doctrine of severability under S.34, disallowing two claims above but preserving rest of award - Remaining claims under award were upheld - Respondent should pursue claims under later contract separately before appropriate forum. (Para 29, 31, 44, 45, 46, 47,)

(A) Constitution of India, Art.226 - Habeas Corpus - Alleged illegal confinement of daughter by brother-in-law - Corpus produced before Court - Counseling through "Shourya Didi" mechanism - Corpus expressed willingness to reside with parents voluntarily - No element of illegal detention subsisted - Protective and rehabilitative directions issued to secure emotional well-being and reintegration of corpus. (Para 12)

(A) Industrial Disputes Act (14 of 1947), S. 10 - Civil P. C. (5 of 1908), O. 6, R. 17 - Amendment of written statement - Belated application - Petitioner sought to amend the written statement by introducing additional legal obligations at a belated stage - Amendments to the pleadings cannot be permitted at belated filing and disrupting the progress after completion of workmen's evidence - It would inevitably result in reopening of proceedings, leading to undue delay that would be highly prejudicial to the interest of justice for the workmen - Furthermore, industrial adjudication is governed by the principles of fairness and expeditious resolution. (Para 45, 47)

(A) Employee's Compensation Act (8 of 1923), S.30, S.4 - Compensation - Employer's liability - Deceased workman aged 20 years employed as driver died in accident during course of employment - Deceased driver holding LMV licence permitted to drive heavy dumper - HMV licence was unverified/fake - Breach attributable to employer - Insurer absolved - Allowing a 20-year-old LMV licence holder to drive a heavy dumper constituted negligence attributable to employer - Employer liable - Liability to pay the compensation amount of Rs..5,46,560 along with simple interest PROPER. (Para 9, 11, 14)

(A) Penal Code (45 of 1860), S.307, S.323, S.324 - Attempt to murder and voluntarily causing hurt - Conviction - Incident arose out of dispute regarding drainage - Allegation that accused fired single gunshot by country-made pistol and co-accused caused injury by lathi - Injured and eyewitnesses were examined - Medical evidence disclosed lacerated wound, contusion and metallic shadow with no fracture - Cross-case was registered and injuries were found on accused side - Intention and knowledge to cause death were not established - Single gunshot was not aimed with intention to kill - Offence of attempt to murder was not made out - Conviction u/S. 307 was converted into S. 324 - Conviction u/S. 323 was maintained - Accused were first offenders and had no criminal antecedents - Benefit of release on probation was granted - Accused were directed to be released on probation with conditions - Compensation was directed to be paid to injured. (Para 27-35)

(A) Constitution of India, Art.226 - Assured Career Progression Scheme - Withdrawal of benefit - Challenge against - Petitioner/employee was granted benefits of ACPS as per G.R. of 2001, as promotional post was not vacant at the relevant time - When post subsequently became vacant, employee was not shortlisted for filling up said vacancy although his performance reports showed he was having A and A+ grade during 2005 and 2010 but his performance in interview was not satisfactory and in Departmental Enquiry, he was punished for negligence and dereliction of duty - Merely because employee was not found fit in said selection process, he could not be retrospectively declared ineligible so as to withdraw monetary benefits already granted to him under first ACPS - Respondent authority were directed to release all consequential benefits to petitioner. (Para 8, 9)

(A) Constitution of India, Art.226 - Assured Career Progression Scheme - Withdrawal of benefit - Challenge against - Petitioner/employee was granted benefits of ACPS as per G.R. of 2001, as promotional post was not vacant at the relevant time - When post subsequently became vacant, employee was not shortlisted for filling up said vacancy as his confidential reports was having B or B+ grade consecutively for three years -His performance in interview was not satisfactory and by way of punishment in departmental enquiry, his one increment was temporarily withheld for 1 year - Merely because employee was not found fit in said selection process, he could not be retrospectively declared ineligible so as to withdraw monetary benefits already granted to him under 1st ACPS - Respondent authorities were directed to release all consequential benefits to petitioner. (Para 8, 9)

(A) Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963), S. 20 - Relief of specific performance - Is discretionary - It may be refused where enforcement would cause undue hardship to the defendant or confer unfair advantage on plaintiff, particularly in view of rise in property prices.

(B) Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963), S.20 - Specific performance - Readiness and willingness - Mandatory requirement of pleading and proof - Effect of omission to frame specific issue.

(A) Civil P. C. (5 of 1908), O.9, R.13 - Setting aside ex-parte decree - Rejection of application - Suit for recovery - Case file was found missing in Record of trial - There was confusion in mind of defendant whether suit has started proceeding again - Defendant did not get information when file was reconstructed and when he approached Trial Court, he came to know that there has been ex parte judgment and decree against him - Court did not find any motive of defendant attached to remain wilfully absent before Trial Court - Rejection of application was set aside - Suit was restored to its file. (Para 11, 12, 13)

(A) Criminal P. C. (2 of 1974), S. 204, S. 482, S. 199, S. 202 - Issuance of summons - Quashing of - Accused, a political leader had allegedly conspired with co-accused persons and issued defamatory advertisement by making reckless imputations against complainant, political party - Complainant was a National Political Party - Authorisation of President of State Unit to file complaint cannot be a legal authorisation to represent National Party - Accused was neither President nor Vice President of Political Party as on date of advertisement - A mere photograph on advertisement would not be sufficient to indicate that advertisement was at instance of accused - It was also alleged that accused had tweeted advertisement along with certain additional remarks - Text of tweet was neither marked along with other documents nor S. 65B certificate was produced - Reference made in advertisement was to constitutional functionaries and Government employees being beneficiaries and to irregularities in Government Schemes - None of them were produced before Court - Aggrieved person in advertisement factually cannot be political party - Considering that accused resides outside territorial limits of Court, non-following of S. 202 of Cr.P.C. had prejudiced him - Order issuing summons against accused was quashed. (Para 15, 20, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 31, 32, 34)