In our opinion, the arguments which have been put forward in the matter by Mr. D.N. Ray, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2, are much more acceptable in the facts and circumstances of this case. The findings recorded by the High Court are plausible, logical and persuasive, reached by the materials on record and command for affirmation. Thus, we do not have any hesitation to hold that the High Court has correctly come to the conclusions with the reasons given therefor. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in these appeals which are hereby dismissed.

We, therefore, set aside the judgment passed by the
Gujarat High Court and answer the appeals arising from the
order of the Bombay High Court; transferred cases and the
writ petitions accordingly. However, we leave it open, so far as
the cellular operators in the Bombay cases are concerned, to
agitate the issue with regard to the retrospective operation of
the assessment/demand of tax and the quantum thereof
before the appropriate forum, if so advised. Consequently,
and in the light of the above all the appeals, writ petitions and
the transferred cases are disposed of.

31. Credit Societies against which there is an ‘interim order’ of winding up are temporarily debarred from dispensing agricultural credit, by virtue of the operation of law. The embargo imposed by such interim order may or may not fructify into a final order of winding up. (We have already discussed this aspect of the matter at para 21 supra). On the face of such possibility of the society resuming its activity of “dispensing agricultural credit” - to debar its managing committee members from discharging their statutory obligation under the MARKETS ACT would be productive of public mischief. Such an interpretation of the statute must be avoided.

32. For the above reasons, we do not see any merit in the appeals. Therefore, the appeals are dismissed.

Moreover, it was also established from the evidence on record that Accused No.1 had inflicted knife injury of such a nature, upon the unarmed deceased, that was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Hence, we are not inclined to grant the benefit of this Exception clause to Accused No.1 in the present case.

Thus, in the light of the above discussion, we are of the view that the present appeals are devoid of merits, and we find no ground to interfere with the judgment passed by the High Court. The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed.

We accordingly allow the Appeals in part. We confirm the judgment of the High Court in so far as it rejects the challenge by the Appellant to the finding of misconduct. However, for the reasons which we have indicated above we direct that the order of dismissal from service shall stand substituted with an order of compulsory retirement which shall take effect from 14 July 2009, the date on which the final order of penalty was imposed upon the Appellant.

For the purpose of the conducting enquiries in accordance with the provisions of this Act, the Governor shall by warrant under his hand and seal, appoint a person to be known as Lokpal.

In the circumstances, we find the assessment made by the Trial Court as well as the High Court in the present case to be completely correct and justified. We do not see any reason to upset the conclusions and findings recorded by the Trial Court and the High Court. Consequently, affirming the conviction and sentence of A2 Jivraj Badha the appellant herein, we dismiss this Criminal Appeal. He shall serve the sentence awarded to him.

To enable the said exercise to be duly performed, we set aside the order of the High Court impugned in each of the aforesaid civil appeals and remit all the matters to the High Court for a fresh consideration in accordance with the observations and principles of law contained in the present order.

The provisions of Section 6A(1) do indicate that for officers of the level of Joint Secretary and above a kind of immunity has been provided for

In view of the above, we set aside the impugned order dated 08/09/2011 passed by the Gujarat High Court in Criminal Misc. Application No. 1757 of 2007 with Criminal Misc. Application No. 9158 of 2007. We direct the Chief Judicial Metropolitan Magistrate, Vadodara to dispose of the Criminal Complaint No.6076 of 2006 as expeditiously as possible and, in any event, within a period of one year from the date of receipt of this order.