Cyber Crime – Bank Account Freezing – Educational Institution – Disproportionate Action – Sections 41A CrPC, 420 IPC, 66(D) IT Act – Writ Petition Allowed – Petitioner-school's entire bank account frozen by respondent-bank acting on notice issued by Cyber Crime Police, Varanasi, in Crime No.50/2024, on the ground that a parent of a student was allegedly involved in cyber offences and had remitted school fees of Rs.5,00,000/- as part of alleged crime proceeds – School had, upon receipt of Section 41A notice, promptly and bona fide reversed the said amount to the source account – Held: Freezing of the entire account of an educational institution solely because it received a legitimate fee payment from an allegedly accused parent constitutes a wholly arbitrary, unreasonable and disproportionate measure – Petitioner cannot be penalised for receiving bona fide fee payments in the ordinary course of its functioning – Notice dated 11.03.2026 quashed – Bank directed to mark lien to the extent of Rs.5,00,000/- only, subject to outcome of Crime No.50/2024, while permitting the institution to freely operate the account for amounts exceeding Rs.5,00,000/- [Paras 4–9].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Notice dated 11.03.2026 quashed – First respondent-bank directed to mark lien on petitioner's account to the extent of Rs.5,00,000/- only – Petitioner permitted to operate account freely for amounts exceeding Rs.5,00,000/- – Lien subject to outcome of proceedings in Crime No.50/2024.

Murder and Robbery – Circumstantial Evidence – Conviction Affirmed – Sections 302/394/34 IPC – Both appellants convicted by the Trial Court for murder and robbery of the deceased Dooja Devi on 09.05.1997 – Prosecution relied on a chain of circumstances comprising last seen together, recovery of stolen articles and blood-stained clothes at the instance of accused, and medical evidence – Held: When all the circumstances are taken cumulatively, they form a complete and unbroken chain leading only to the guilt of the appellants – Prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction and sentence affirmed [Paras 31, 47].

Circumstantial Evidence – Principles Governing – For conviction based on circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances must be complete, each link must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, and the chain collectively must exclude every hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused – Each witness's testimony must be meticulously analysed and reasonable inferences explicitly delineated – Finding of guilt must be reached after proper evaluation of all circumstances to determine whether they are compatible with any other reasonable hypothesis [Para 32].

Last Seen Together – Evidentiary Value – Appellants were seen by PW-2 at about 12 noon at the rear door of the house in the company of the deceased and by PW-7 leaving the vicinity shortly thereafter with a grey briefcase – Time gap between last seen and discovery of body was so narrow as to exclude the possibility of intervention by a third person – Appellants admitted presence at the spot in statement under Section 313 CrPC – Absence of any suggestion of prior enmity or false implication renders testimony of PW-2 and PW-7 reliable and creditworthy – Conviction cannot be sustained on last seen evidence alone; prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances [Paras 34, 35, 36].

Recovery of Stolen Property – Presumption under Section 114 Illustration (a) Evidence Act – Recovery of stolen jewellery, suitcase, wristwatch, and camera from both appellants within 4-5 days of the incident at their respective instances – Articles duly identified by PW-1 in Test Identification Parade and in court – Possession of stolen articles of the deceased soon after murder raises a presumption of guilt under Section 114 Illustration (a) of the Evidence Act; such presumption weakens if considerable time has elapsed – Appellants failed to offer any explanation for such possession [Paras 38, 41, 45].

Recovery of Blood-Stained Clothes – Section 27 Evidence Act – Section 106 Evidence Act – Blood-stained clothes of both accused recovered from the house of appellant Surya Narain pursuant to disclosure statement of appellant Anil Kumar – FSL report confirmed presence of human blood – Though blood grouping could not be determined due to degradation over time, such inability does not diminish evidentiary value – Failure to explain the presence of blood on clothes is a fact especially within the knowledge of the accused under Section 106 of the Evidence Act and constitutes a strong incriminating circumstance [Paras 38, 39].

Investigation – Lapses – Effect – Non-examination of the unknown caller, son of the deceased, and SI Atul Kumar Mishra does not create a dent in the prosecution case as nothing turns on their testimonies – Defective investigation by itself cannot be a ground for acquittal when substantive evidence otherwise proves the guilt of the accused – No independent public witness at recovery does not render police witnesses unreliable; there is a presumption that public officials would depose truthfully [Paras 41, 43].

Silence under Section 313 CrPC – In the face of strong incriminating circumstances, failure of the accused to offer any explanation consistent with their innocence in their statement under Section 313 CrPC further reinforces the prosecution case and constitutes a significant circumstance against them [Para 43].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Conviction and sentence of both appellants under Sections 302/394/34 IPC affirmed – Appellants directed to surrender before the Jail Superintendent within one week.

Service Law – Pension – Delayed Release of Retiral Benefits – Interest – Fundamental Right – Petitioner retired on 31.03.2009 after 34 years of service; retiral benefits including GPF, leave encashment, GIS and salary arrears were released with delays ranging from six to nine months; pension papers were not processed in time despite Petitioner having submitted all documents in advance and after retirement – Respondents attributed delay to non-availability of Service Book and procedural challenges – Held: Procedural challenges cannot justify delay in release of pension and retiral benefits; it was the responsibility of the Respondents to initiate the process at least three months before the date of retirement; delay in release of terminal benefits amounts to deprivation of the right to life and liberty under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India – Petitioner entitled to interest on delayed payments beyond 30.06.2009 till actual date of payment [Paras 37–40].

Rate of Interest – Article 65 – GPF Rate – Article 65(1) of Central Service (Pension) Rules, 2021 provides for payment of interest at GPF rate on delayed payment of pension and gratuity attributable to administrative lapses – GPF rate of interest from 2008 to 2023 varied between 8.8% to 7.1% – On an equitable basis, interest awarded at 8% p.a. simple interest [Paras 42–45].

Commuted Pension – Restoration After Fifteen Years – Second relief claimed by Petitioner that fifteen-year period of commuted pension ended on 31.03.2024 entitling him to full restoration of pension – Held: For restoration of full pension, Petitioner is required to file an application and follow prescribed procedure; no directions can be issued in this petition, however if application has been or is filed, the same shall be processed expeditiously and preferably within three months [Paras 46–47].

Decision: Petition partly allowed – Respondents directed to compute and pay interest at 8% p.a. simple interest for the delayed period in release of pension beyond 30.06.2009 till date of payment, within eight weeks – Relief of full restoration of pension to be pursued by Petitioner through separate application – Petition disposed of accordingly.

Education Law – Review Jurisdiction – SSLC Examination – Grading System – Draft Rules – The State of Karnataka filed a Review Petition against the order directing it to conduct valuation for SSLC 2025-2026 as per the Revised Circular dated 28.10.2025 – State sought review on the ground that a Draft Notification dated 10.04.2026 for introduction of a grading system under the Karnataka School Examination and Assessment Board Act, 1966 had not been placed before the Court at the time of disposal of the Writ Petition – Held: The SSLC examination had already been conducted from 18.03.2026 to 02.04.2026 before the Draft Rules were notified on 10.04.2026; the Draft Rules being yet to be promulgated in accordance with law, there is no error apparent on the face of the record – Review Petition disposed of [Paras 6, 8, 10].

Review Jurisdiction – Error Apparent on Face of Record – Scope – A Draft Notification yet to be published by the competent authority and not having attained the force of law cannot constitute an error apparent on the face of the record for the purposes of review under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC – It is always open to the State Government to take decisions in accordance with law in future, which lies within its domain, unless challenged before the Court [Para 8].

Judicial Review – Article 226 – Scope – Power of judicial review under Article 226 is to interfere with the decision-making process and not with the decision itself – The court's order should not curtail the power of the State Government to take lawful decisions in future – The second part of paragraph 8 of the impugned order clarified accordingly [Para 9].

Decision: Review Petition disposed of – Valuation for Academic Year 2025-2026 to be conducted as per Revised Circular dated 28.10.2025 – State Government's power to take future decisions in accordance with law preserved.

Criminal Contempt – Section 2(c) – Scandalising the Court – YouTube Videos – Banners Targeting Judicial Officers – Respondent No. 2 operated a YouTube channel "Fight 4 Judicial Reforms" and uploaded videos with banners naming specific judicial officers, imputing that litigants before them should abandon hope of justice, and using abusive and derogatory language against the Supreme Court and the entire judicial system – Held: While campaign for audio-video recording of court proceedings and generalised criticism of the judicial system would not amount to contempt, personally attacking named judicial officers and imputing absence of justice in their courts – without verifying facts from the judicial record – went beyond fair criticism and was intended to scandalize and lower the authority of the courts; the act constitutes criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – The plea of bona fides and public interest rejected as the intent was mala fide and the content was res ipsa loquitur [Paras 48–52].

Fair Criticism vs. Criminal Contempt – Right Under Article 19(1)(a) – Distinction – Fair and reasonable criticism of judicial acts, made in good faith in public interest without imputing improper motives, is protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India and does not amount to contempt – Criminal contempt is committed when the publication is calculated to lower the authority of the court or to create apprehension in the public mind about the integrity and fairness of the Judge or to deter litigants from relying on the court's administration of justice – Proof of actual interference is not necessary; it is sufficient if the publication is likely or tends in any way to interfere with the proper administration of law – Contempt jurisdiction must be exercised with economy, great care and restraint, and only where silence is no longer an option [Paras 39–47].

Respondent No. 1 in Both Cases – Unconditional Apology – Discharge – Respondent No. 1 in Cont.Cas.(Crl.) 3/2025 (Mr. Shiv Narayan Sharma) and Respondent No. 1 in Cont.Cas.(Crl.) 4/2025 (Mr. Deepak Singh) tendered unconditional and unqualified apologies, appeared in person, and undertook not to repeat such conduct – Court found the apologies genuine and accepted the same – Both respondents No. 1 discharged from their respective contempt cases [Paras 4, 11, 56].

Decision: Respondent No. 2 (Mr. Gulshan Pahuja) found guilty of criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Notice issued to him under Rule 13(1) of the Contempt of Courts (Delhi High Court) Rules, 2025 for submissions on punishment under Section 12 of the Act within two weeks – Respondent No. 2 directed to remain personally present on 12.05.2026 – Respondents No. 1 in both cases discharged – Copy of judgment to be translated into Hindi and supplied to Respondent No. 2.

Criminal Law – Cheating and Criminal Breach of Trust – Section 406/420/120B IPC – Quashing of Complaint – Scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Opposite party/complainant alleged that petitioners induced supply of electrical goods worth Rs. 11,15,297/- by misrepresentation and thereafter denied the transaction refusing payment – Petitioners sought quashing contending absence of business transaction and non-production of authenticated bills – Held: At the stage of Section 482 Cr.P.C., court is not to embark on an enquiry into reliability of evidence or conduct a mini-trial – Defence materials cannot be looked into unless unimpeachable – If prima facie ingredients of the offence are made out from the complaint and accompanying documents, proceeding cannot be quashed [Paras 26-28, 32].

Cheating – Mens Rea – Intent Since Inception – Shifting Stand of Accused – Petitioners initially took the position that there was never any business transaction with the opposite party, and obtained interim stay on that basis – Upon complainant filing affidavit with invoices, delivery challans, bank statements and ledger extracts reflecting commercial transactions, petitioners shifted stand to disputing authenticity of bills – Held: Such shifting of stand from "no transaction" to "transaction not proved" prima facie discloses dishonest intention since inception – Subsequent conduct of denying transactions, returning bills as concocted and failing to pay despite receiving goods constitutes sufficient material for inference of mens rea – Commercial origin of dispute does not preclude criminal prosecution where deception at inception is alleged [Paras 19, 22, 29, 32].

Section 406 IPC vs. Section 420 IPC – Coexistence – Petitioner argued that offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC cannot coexist on the same facts – Held: Question of coexistence of offences is itself a triable issue and cannot be decided at the stage of quashing – Court noted the argument but declined to resolve it at pre-trial stage [Para 7].

Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Inherent Power – Civil vs. Criminal Dispute – Petitioners contended the dispute was purely civil – Held: The fact that allegations arise from commercial transactions does not render the criminal complaint non-maintainable – Civil remedy and criminal prosecution may coexist where dishonest intention is alleged – Following Lal Moni Devi vs. State of Bihar, Rajest Bajaj vs. State of NCT Delhi and Shivanarayan Kabra vs. State of Madras – Criminal proceeding cannot be quashed at this stage [Paras 29-34].

Section 340 Cr.P.C. / Section 379 BNSS – Application for Preliminary Enquiry for Prosecution for False Statement on Oath (CRAN 10 of 2025) – Allegation of suppression of material facts and false statements on affidavit by petitioners – Held: Allegations are at a premature stage and it would be too early to initiate proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. at this juncture – Kept open for future consideration after adjudication of substantive issues, if situation demands [Para 36].

Decision: CRR 2107 of 2018 dismissed – Criminal proceeding before learned Judicial Magistrate, 8th Court, Calcutta to continue – CRAN 10 of 2025 kept open for future consideration – No opinion expressed on merits of the case.

Service Law – Selection and Appointment – Validity – Qualifying Written Test – Petitioner selected as Assistant Registrar after qualifying written test at 60% cut-off and performing well in interview – Post-appointment complaints led to constitution of successive committees which questioned the selection on grounds of low written test marks and alleged defects in selection committee constitution – Held: Written test was expressly a qualifying test; selection on the basis of interview performance of those who cleared the qualifying benchmark is not illegal – Respondents estopped from cancelling appointment after petitioner left secure employment in SBI and materially altered his position [Paras 28-35, 39-41].

Selection Process – Defect in Constitution of Selection Committee – Ratification by Board of Governors – Committee noted that Director delegated chairmanship of selection committee to in-charge Director and that matter was not placed before BoG before appointment – Held: Delegation at best an irregularity; selection was duly ratified by BoG in its 43rd meeting held on 10.07.2019; ratification relates back to the date of the act ratified and cures any prior defect of authority – Challenge by management itself after lapse of time and in absence of any complaint by unsuccessful candidates not sustainable [Paras 36-38, 41].

Pay Protection – Competence of Appointing Authority – BoG is the competent appointing authority for the post of Assistant Registrar under the Act and Statute – No final order on pay protection passed by BoG or any competent authority – Note-sheets not constituting conscious institutional decision – Held: Matter to be placed before competent authority for decision after petitioner submits reply to show cause notice – No order by Court at this stage [Para 43].

Probation – Extension Till Further Orders – Non-Speaking Order – Respondents directed to consider confirmation of petitioner based on fair appraisal of his performance, without being influenced by the committee findings discussed in the judgment – No order on this issue at present stage [Para 44].

Decision: Petitions disposed of with directions – Respondents restrained from re-examining validity of petitioner's selection and appointment – Petitioner granted liberty to submit reply to show cause notice dated 17.03.2026 on pay protection; competent authority to pass speaking order thereafter – Respondents directed to consider probation matter based on impartial appraisal of petitioner's performance.

Adoption Law — Intercountry Relocation — HAMA Adoption — NOC by CARA — Adoption (Amendment) Regulations, 2021 — Adoption Regulations, 2022 — Petitioner no. 1 (minor) adopted by petitioners nos. 2 and 3 under HAMA, 1956 by adoption deed dated 08.02.2021 — Petitioners sought relocation of the child to Canada, a Hague Convention signatory — District Magistrate, Ferozepur furnished a Verification Report under Regulation 22B(1) and Schedule XXXIII — CARA, instead of issuing an NOC, issued merely a 'Support Letter' and marked the application as "rejected" on the portal with the remark "matter cannot be taken up as it is related to HAMA" — Held: Chapter IV-A of the 2021 Regulations is expressly titled to govern adoptions concluded under HAMA, 1956 where parents seek to relocate the child abroad — Upon receipt of verification report, CARA is mandated under Regulations 22B(2) and 22E(1) to ensure compliance with Articles 5 and/or 17 of the Hague Convention — The obligation to pursue and facilitate this compliance rests on CARA, not on the adoptive parents — CARA's abdication of its responsibility by issuing a mere support letter is untenable — Petition disposed of with directions [Paras 17–27, 34–35].

Hague Convention — Articles 5 and 17 — Central Authority's Obligation — Cooperation Between States — CARA and Canadian Authorities — Article 7(1) of the Hague Convention mandates cooperation between Central Authorities of the State of origin and the receiving State for the welfare and protection of the child — CARA proceeded on a misconception that the matter could not be taken up as the adoption was under HAMA — No objection by CARA as to the validity of the adoption — Held: CARA is directed to liaise with Canadian authorities, convey the statutory and regulatory position, and thereafter issue an NOC upon conclusion of the exercise under Articles 5 and/or 17 [Paras 28–35].

Best Interest of Child — Paramount Consideration — Adoption Regulations Cannot Be Construed to Leave Validly Adopted Children Without Relief — A construction that precludes parents who have effected a valid HAMA adoption from obtaining relocation approval under the 2021 Regulations would be contrary to the express wording of those Regulations and the paramount principle of the best interest of the child — Such construction is not acceptable [Paras 14, 25, 30].

Decision: Writ petition disposed of — CARA directed to liaise with Canadian authorities and convey the regulatory and statutory position — CARA further directed to issue NOC to petitioners upon conclusion of the exercise under Articles 5 and/or 17 of the Hague Convention — Pending applications disposed of.

GST – Cancellation of Registration – Section 29(2)(a) CGST Act – Input Tax Credit – Fake Invoices – Physical Movement of Goods – Appellant, a proprietorship firm, availed ITC of approximately Rs. 18,62,11,749/- on purchases of goods – During inspection, business premises found insufficient for transactions of such magnitude – Show cause notice issued for non-proof of actual movement of goods – Appellant produced only e-way bill printouts and claimed goods were transported by tricycle/motorcycle – Held: Mere production of e-way bills is not proof of real physical transportation of goods – Proof of freight charges, loading and unloading charges, lorry receipts and way bills necessary to establish physical movement under Section 16(2)(b) – Having failed to produce such documents, cancellation of GST registration under Section 29(2)(a) upheld [Paras 3-5].

GST – Co-location of Premises – Mere Shared Premises Not Sufficient Ground for Cancellation – Appellant contended that sharing premises with M/s Gaurav Metal (a distinct entity which had surrendered GST after dissolving partnership) cannot by itself justify cancellation, absent evidence of overlapping operations, intermingling of stock or common financial nexus – Held: While co-location alone may be insufficient, in the present case cancellation is justified on independent and substantive ground of failure to establish physical movement of goods supporting ITC claims – Constitution guarantees only genuine and honest trade, not illegal and fake trade intended to defraud revenue [Paras 2, 4].

GST – Section 86A – Action Against Fake Suppliers – Consequential proceedings under Section 86A for blocking ITC and action under Section 74 initiated against the suppliers as well – Allegation that no action taken against suppliers found factually incorrect – Appellant's challenge on that score rejected [Para 4].

Writ Jurisdiction – Scope – Concurrent Findings of Fact – Appellant attempted to canvass questions of fact in writ jurisdiction which had been held against it concurrently by both first and second respondents – Held: Learned Single Judge rightly dismissed the writ petition after examining records – Division Bench affirms the order [Para 5].

Decision: Writ Appeal dismissed – Order of cancellation of GST registration affirmed – No costs.