Service Law – Disciplinary Proceedings – Summary Force Court – ITBPF – Judicial Review – Petitioner, a Constable in ITBPF, was dismissed from service on 08.01.2002 after being tried by Summary Force Court (SFC) on charges of disobedience of lawful command and involvement in illegal gratification during a recruitment drive at Murshidabad – Statutory petition under Rule 168 rejected on 20.06.2002 – Writ petition filed before Calcutta High Court dismissed for lack of territorial jurisdiction – Present petition filed before Punjab and Haryana High Court – Held: Scope of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings is limited to jurisdictional error, violation of statutory provisions or principles of natural justice, or perversity of findings; no such infirmity demonstrated – Petition dismissed [Paras 30, 40, 42–43].

Charges – Vagueness – Section 23(2)(b) ITBPF Act – Disobedience of Lawful Command – Specific directions were issued to the recruitment team on multiple occasions by the Commandant and the Presiding Officer to maintain distance from candidates and not to interact with them – Petitioner was specifically removed from recruitment duties and assigned mess duties with instruction not to leave without permission – Despite this, petitioner appeared in uniform at the examination ground and functioned as invigilator without authority – Held: Plea that there was no specific command is belied by the record; ingredients of Section 23(2)(b) clearly attracted – Charges were clear and not vague [Paras 33–34].

Charges – Section 44(e) ITBPF Act – Illegal Gratification – Recruitment Racket – Petitioner found involved in a racket along with one Prakash Kumar Das for collecting Rs. 40,000/- per candidate, of which Rs. 15,000/- per candidate was to be received by petitioner – Confessional statement of petitioner recorded – Written admission made during Record of Evidence – Held: Charges were specific, supported by inquiry and petitioner's own confession; contention of insufficiency of particulars without merit [Paras 33, 35].

Procedural Fairness – Opportunity to Defend – Rule 157 ITBPF Rules – Friend of the Accused – Petitioner was informed of his rights and was afforded the assistance of a "friend of the accused," namely Shri Shyam Singh, Assistant Commandant (T) – Petitioner was given opportunity to produce defence witnesses both prior to and during SFC proceedings, which he declined – Charges explained in a language understood by him; petitioner cross-examined witnesses – Held: No violation of principles of natural justice; denial of fair hearing not established [Paras 36, 38].

Constitution of SFC – Section 82 ITBPF Act – Section 116 Army Act – Attending Officers – Proceedings attended by Shri Ashwani Kumar, Deputy Commandant, and Inspector/HT Lok Ram Negi – Attempt to import requirements of Section 116 of the Army Act regarding two attending witnesses held misconceived, as the ITBPF Act is a self-contained statute – Mere similarity of provisions does not warrant importation of interpretative notes from the Army Act – Held: Section 82 duly complied with; no jurisdictional infirmity [Paras 37, 39(ii)].

Non-Speaking Orders – Statutory Petition – Rule 168 ITBPF Rules – Rejection of statutory petition was brief and did not elaborate detailed reasons – Held: In departmental appellate proceedings, non-speaking or brief orders do not vitiate the decision when original proceedings are valid and reasons are discernible from the record as a whole; no prejudice demonstrated – Order of rejection does not warrant interference [Para 41].

Judicial Review – Article 226 Constitution – Scope – High Court under Article 226 is not an appellate authority and cannot reappreciate evidence or re-evaluate factual findings of the competent authority – Challenge essentially seeks re-evaluation of factual aspects, which is impermissible in writ jurisdiction – Reliance placed on State of Andhra Pradesh v. S. Sree Rama Rao, 1963 INSC 67, and B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, 1995 INSC 661 [Para 42].

Relied-upon Authorities Distinguished – Randhir Singh v. Union of India: interference premised on material procedural irregularities and denial of fair opportunity, absent in present case – Griver Singh v. Union of India: deficiencies in evidentiary foundation and procedural lapses under Section 82 found inapplicable as petitioner made written admission and Section 82 duly complied with – Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India: interference on ground of disproportionality of punishment and likelihood of bias; neither substantiated in present case – Union of India v. Som Dutt, Ranjeet Singh v. Union of India (Raj. HC), and Bharosi Lal v. Union of India (J&K HC): all turned on facts where procedural safeguards were compromised; distinguishable as no such infirmity found in present case [Para 39].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Pending miscellaneous applications also disposed of.

Criminal Law – Culpable Homicide – Section 304 Part II IPC – Hostile Eyewitnesses – Conviction Affirmed – Circumstantial Evidence – Res Gestae – Conduct of Accused – PW-1 (real brother of accused and FIR lodger) and PW-2 (injured witness, mother of accused) turned hostile – PW-3 and PW-6 saw accused fleeing from place of occurrence with blood-stained spade at the very moment PW-1 was raising alarm naming accused – FIR lodged promptly by real brother with no enmity – Injury reports of deceased and PW-2 admitted under Section 294 CrPC – Accused gave general denial in Section 313 statement and failed to explain death of deceased inside his own house at night – Held: Contemporaneous alarm raised by PW-1 naming accused forms part of same transaction and admissible as res gestae under Section 6 of Evidence Act – Conduct of accused in fleeing with blood-stained weapon relevant under Section 8 of Evidence Act – Burden under Section 106 of Evidence Act lies on accused to explain peculiar circumstances of death occurring inside his house – Prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction affirmed [Paras 16, 20-27, 35].

Criminal Law – Section 294 CrPC – Admission of Documents – Substantive Evidence – Injury report of deceased Chhotey Lal and injured witness PW-2 Shanti Devi admitted by accused under Section 294 CrPC – Trial court failed to properly appreciate the injury reports and post-mortem report – Held: Where genuineness of a document is admitted under Section 294 CrPC, the same becomes substantive evidence – Expression "read in evidence" implies such document can be relied upon for proving facts in issue – Following Full Bench of Allahabad High Court in Saddiq and Others v. State [Para 22].

Criminal Law – Sentencing – Section 307 IPC – Fine Mandatory – Omission by Trial Court – Trial court failed to impose fine while convicting accused under Section 307 IPC – Held: Imposition of fine under Section 307 IPC is mandatory and trial court does not possess discretion to waive the same – Though in an appeal against conviction the court cannot enhance substantive sentence, it is well within jurisdiction to modify or alter the sentence – Fine constitutes an integral part of the sentence under Section 307 IPC – Fine of Rs.10,000/- imposed in addition to sentence of three years RI already awarded – In default, simple imprisonment for three months [Paras 28-30, 36-37].

Criminal Law – Conviction – Conversion from Section 302 to Section 304 Part II – No Cogent Reasons – Trial Court Error – Trial court converted conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part II IPC without assigning specific and cogent reasons for the absence of intention so as to exclude Section 302 – Held: Such conversion is not supported by any cogent reasoning and is difficult to accept having accepted testimonies of PW-3 and PW-6 – However, in absence of State's appeal or enhancement proceedings, this Court cannot alter conviction to Section 302 IPC under Section 386 CrPC [Paras 20-21, 28].

Decision: Criminal appeal dismissed – Conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC and Section 307 IPC affirmed – Sentence under Section 304 Part II IPC of three years RI confirmed – Sentence under Section 307 IPC of three years RI confirmed with modification: fine of Rs.10,000/- additionally imposed; in default, three months' simple imprisonment – Accused directed to appear before trial court forthwith to serve sentence – Trial court to take coercive steps if accused fails to appear.

MSME Act – Writ Jurisdiction – Maintainability – Arbitral Award – Statutory Remedy – Petitioner challenged ex parte award of the MSME Facilitation Council, Kanpur directing payment of Rs. 24,15,835/- including interest, on grounds of improper service and bar of limitation – Held: Writ petition not maintainable where a specific statutory remedy under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is available – Acceptance of petitioner's submission would render the statutory mechanism redundant [Paras 9, 17–19].

Natural Justice – Ex Parte Award – Mixed Questions of Fact and Law – Petitioner contended that the MSME Council proceeded ex parte without proper service, in violation of principles of natural justice – Held: Determination of proper service requires examination of mode of service, acknowledgment, and addresses, which are disputed questions of fact and cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction – Issues are required to be examined by the forum competent under the statute [Paras 8–9].

Limitation – MSME Proceedings – Bar of Limitation – Petitioner contended that the claim was barred by limitation, the last supply having been made on 18.02.2017 and reference filed on 03.09.2020 – Held: Whether a claim is barred by limitation is a factual determination depending upon invoices, acknowledgments, and course of dealings, and does not justify bypass of statutory remedy under Section 34 – Reliance on Sonali Power Equipments (supra) does not permit such bypass [Paras 8, 12].

Writ Jurisdiction – Arbitral Matters – Scope of Interference – Scope of interference under Articles 226 and 227 in arbitral matters is extremely limited and confined to cases of patent perversity or exceptional circumstances – No manifest perversity demonstrated on the face of the record in the present case – Reliance on Serosoft Solutions (supra) misplaced [Paras 11, 18].

Pre-Deposit – Section 19, MSME Act – Writ Filed to Avoid Pre-Deposit – Held: A party cannot bypass the statutory remedy and invoke writ jurisdiction to avoid compliance with the requirement of pre-deposit under Section 19 of the 2006 Act – Relied upon: India Glycols Ltd. v. Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, (2018) 1 SCC 143 [Para 10].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed as not maintainable – Executing Court directed to decide pending applications expeditiously – Petitioner at liberty to avail statutory remedies available in law – No order as to costs.

Criminal Law - Bail - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) - Section 483 - Sections 61, 111, 318(4) and 351(2) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) - Organized Crime - Petitioner sought bail in FIR No. 126/2025 involving cheating of Rs. 55.80 lakhs through a criminal syndicate regarding sale of wild garlic - Investigating agency invoked Section 111 BNS alleging continued unlawful activity - Petitioner contended that the ingredients of Section 111 BNS were not met as the mandatory requirement of more than one charge sheet being filed within the preceding ten years was not satisfied - Record revealed one prior charge sheet was from 2005 and another from 2023 - Court noted that the charge sheet in the present case was already filed and investigation regarding the petitioner's role was complete - High Court observed that while the validity of charges under Section 111 BNS was subject to separate quashment proceedings the contention regarding the ten-year window prima facie appeared to have merit - Court emphasized that even for offences carrying life imprisonment there is no statutory bar to grant bail - Held - Investigation being complete and the petitioner having spent over eight months in jail the continued incarceration would amount to pre-trial punishment - bail granted subject to conditions - [Paras 1-24].

Criminal Law - Organized Crime - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) - Section 111 - Continued Unlawful Activity - Statutory Interpretation - Explanation-II to Section 111(1) BNS defines continued unlawful activity as an activity where more than one charge sheet has been filed before a competent court within the preceding period of ten years - Prosecution relied on a 2005 charge sheet and a 2023 charge sheet to invoke organized crime provisions - Held - The charge sheet from 2005 being more than twenty years old cannot be counted towards the statutory requirement of the preceding ten-year period to establish continued unlawful activity - [Paras 13-19].

Criminal Law - Economic Offences - Grant of Bail - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) - Section 483 - Gravity vs Liberty - Respondents opposed bail citing magnitude of the economic offence and accumulation of assets through crime - Court relied on Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI to hold that economic offences cannot be categorized as a standalone class to deny bail - Held - Factors such as gravity of offence must be weighed against the period of sentence and specific facts of the case - mere involvement in an economic offence is not a sufficient reason to deny the concession of bail - [Paras 12-17].

Criminal Law - Bail Jurisprudence - Rule of Liberty - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) - Section 483 - Rule vs Exception - Court reiterated the settled principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception - Reference made to recent Supreme Court precedents in Manish Sisodia and Jalaluddin Khan - Held - Denying bail when the investigation is complete and the trial is ongoing would militate against the principle of personal liberty - further investigation into other co-accused cannot be a ground to deny bail to the petitioner whose investigation is concluded - [Paras 20-22].

Decision: Petition allowed – Petitioner admitted to bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1.00 lac with two sureties of the like amount – Subject to conditions of regular appearance and restriction on leaving the territorial limits of J&K without permission.

Civil Law – Earnest Money – Wrongful Retention – Interest – DDA – Contractual Liability – Respondent-plaintiff was the highest bidder in a DDA auction held on 17.12.2008 for a plot at Defence Colony, New Delhi and deposited earnest money of Rs. 63,12,500/- – A writ petition by residents challenged the auction, in which DDA itself filed an affidavit conceding cancellation of the auction – DDA refunded only the principal earnest money on 29.01.2013, without interest, after retaining it for over four years – Plaintiff filed suit for recovery of interest @ 18% p.a. – Trial Court decreed the suit awarding interest @ 12% p.a. from 07.12.2008 to 29.01.2013 and future interest @ 9% p.a. – Held: DDA's retention of the earnest money for more than four years without payment of interest rendered it liable; appeal dismissed [Paras 2, 3, 7, 20, 42].

Limitation – Section 53B DDA Act – Suit for Interest on Earnest Money – Not Barred – DDA contended that the suit was barred under Section 53B(2) of the DDA Act as it was not instituted within six months from the date the cause of action arose – Held: A suit seeking interest on earnest money wrongfully retained by DDA does not fall within the expression "any act done or purporting to have been done in pursuance of this Act" so as to attract the special six-month limitation under Section 53B(2); DDA cannot take refuge under Section 53B(2) to defeat substantive contractual or restitutionary claims which are otherwise within the general limitation period; the identical plea had already been rejected by this Court in I.A. 24684/2014 [Paras 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33].

Contract – Auction Terms – Clause 7 – DDA's Own Stipulation – Interest @ 7% Payable Beyond Six Months – Clause 7 of the DDA auction advertisement expressly provided that where DDA withdrew the plot from auction and retained the earnest money beyond six months, it would pay interest @ 7% p.a. – Held: DDA did not exclude the liability to pay interest; on the contrary, Clause 7 acknowledged contractual obligation to pay interest @ 7% p.a. for retention beyond six months; DDA was in breach of its own contractual stipulation by refunding only the principal without interest [Paras 35, 36, 38].

Voluntary Intervention in Writ Proceedings – Effect on Interest Claim – DDA contended that the Plaintiff had voluntarily intervened in W.P.(C) No. 123/2009 and therefore could not claim interest during the pendency of the writ petition – Held: The Plaintiff's participation in the writ proceedings was in its capacity as a successful bidder protecting its legitimate commercial interest and not as a volunteer keeping litigation alive for speculative gain; the cancellation of the auction was consequent upon DDA's own stand taken through an additional affidavit; the Plaintiff cannot be penalised for having been impleaded as a respondent – Contention rejected [Paras 40, 41].

Cross-Objections – Interest Post-Refund of Earnest Money – Not Maintainable – Plaintiff filed cross-objections seeking interest @ 12% p.a. for the period from 29.01.2013 (date of refund of earnest money) to 30.06.2014 (date of filing of suit) – Held: Once the entire earnest money was admittedly refunded on 29.01.2013, there is no further liability to pay interest on the earnest money for the period after its return – Cross-objections dismissed [Paras 43, 44, 45].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Cross-objections dismissed – Decree of the Trial Court awarding interest @ 12% p.a. from 07.12.2008 to 29.01.2013 and future interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of judgment until realisation upheld – Pending applications disposed of.

Anticipatory Bail — Second Petition — Maintainability — No Change in Circumstances — The petitioner filed a second petition for anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS within ten days of dismissal of the first petition on 06.04.2026, without disclosing any substantial or drastic change in circumstances — Held: A successive anticipatory bail petition filed without material change in circumstances is not maintainable [Para 7].

Anticipatory Bail — Person Already on Bail — Addition of Graver Offence — Remedy — The petitioner had been granted regular bail by the trial Court on 05.08.2024 — During trial, charges under Sections 302 and 201 IPC were ordered to be framed on an application for alteration of charge — The petitioner apprehended arrest consequent to addition of Section 302 IPC and sought anticipatory bail — Held: A person already on bail is in constructive custody of law and an application for anticipatory bail apprehending arrest does not lie in such circumstances — The appropriate remedies available are: (i) surrender and apply for bail for newly added offences; (ii) the investigating agency may seek cancellation of bail or arrest order from the Court; (iii) the Court may direct arrest and commit to custody under Sections 437(5) or 439(2) CrPC after cancellation of earlier bail; (iv) the investigating agency may obtain an order of arrest from the Court that granted bail before arresting the accused on addition of a new offence [Paras 7–8].

Decision: Petition dismissed — No ground to allow anticipatory bail.

Criminal Law – Double Jeopardy – Section 300(1) CrPC – Article 20(2) of the Constitution – Petitioner previously tried and convicted by JMFC Vadodara for offences under Sections 419/420 IPC in relation to forged bank drafts – Subsequently charge-sheeted before Trial Court at Dhar for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 120-B IPC in relation to the same bank drafts – Trial Court and Revisional Court rejected the application under Section 300(1) CrPC – Held: Two of the three bank drafts forming the subject matter of the Dhar case were identical to those in the Vadodara case; addition of one more draft at Vadodara does not change the nature of the offence – Subject matter and nature of offence being the same, Section 300(1) CrPC and Article 20(2) of the Constitution are squarely applicable – Proceedings at Dhar quashed [Paras 10–13].

Double Jeopardy – Application under Section 300(1) CrPC – Delay – Limitation – Revisional Court erred in dismissing the application under Section 300(1) CrPC solely on the ground of delay – Held: The protection against being tried for the same offence twice is not merely a statutory right but a constitutional and fundamental right under Article 20(2) – An application invoking the doctrine of double jeopardy cannot be rejected on the ground of delay or on the ground that evidence would be required to be led; such protection can be exercised at any point in the life of a trial [Para 12].

Decision: Petition allowed – Impugned order dated 02.09.2011 passed by the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Dhar, in Criminal Revision No. 128/2011 set aside – Further proceedings in Criminal Case No. 2626 of 2007 pending before the Trial Court at Dhar quashed.

Income Tax – Prosecution – Section 276CC – Quashing of Proceedings – Lack of Jurisdiction – Petitioner assessed under jurisdiction of ITO, Non Corporate Ward 17(1), Chennai – Show Cause Notice issued by ITO – Petitioner replied, paid tax with interest – Complaint under Section 276CC lodged by Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (respondent) after obtaining sanction from Principal Commissioner – Petitioner contended respondent had no jurisdiction over his case as no transfer order under Section 127 was issued – Held: Only the officer vested with jurisdiction by virtue of directions or orders under Section 120 is the Assessing Officer – No order transferring petitioner's case from ITO to respondent under Section 127 – Respondent did not intimate petitioner that it was continuing proceedings so as to enable petitioner to avail rehearing under Section 129 – Principal Commissioner accorded sanction without application of mind on the question of jurisdiction – Respondent had no jurisdiction to initiate prosecution – Proceedings quashed [Paras 10-13].

Income Tax – Prosecution – Section 276CC – Non-Initiation of Penalty Proceedings – No Regular Assessment – Petitioner contended that respondent failed to initiate penalty proceedings under Section 271(f) before launching prosecution and did not conduct regular assessment to determine tax liability – Held: In absence of any proceedings to make regular assessment, initiation of prosecution is void – Proviso to Section 276CC(ii)(b) provides that prosecution lies only where tax payable after reduction of TDS and advance tax exceeds Rs. 10,000/- – Without regular assessment, such liability cannot be determined – Allowing trial without initiation of penalty proceedings would be an idle and empty formality and amounts to abuse of process of law – Relied upon: K.C. Builders v. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2004) 135 Taxman 461 (SC) [Paras 14-16].

Bonafide Belief – Non-Filing of Return – Petitioner and wife sold property for Rs. 75 lakhs; purchaser deducted TDS; employer also deducted tax at source on salary – Petitioner held bonafide belief that no tax liability arose as sale proceeds were re-invested and TDS covered salary income – Held: Question of intention and bonafide belief is a matter of defence to be examined during trial; however, jurisdiction and penalty proceedings going to the root of the matter are quashable at Section 482 Cr.P.C. stage [Paras 7-8].

Decision: Criminal Original Petition allowed – EOCC No. 42 of 2019 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offences) I, Egmore, Chennai quashed – Connected miscellaneous petition closed.

Minority Educational Institutions – Right to Administer – Appointment of Principal – Article 30(1) of the Constitution – Circulars declared unconstitutional – The appellant, a minority aided institution, challenged the Single Bench's order directing the Regional Additional Director to reconsider the in-charge assignment of Principal in accordance with circulars dated 25/08/2021 (modified 08/09/2021), which mandated assignment of current charge only to the senior-most faculty member – Held: The freedom to choose the person to be appointed as Principal is a vital facet of the right to administer a minority educational institution under Article 30(1) and is absolute in character – The said circulars, to the extent applied to minority institutions, are violative of Article 30(1) and declared unconstitutional – Relied upon: Secy. Malankara Syrian Catholic College v. T. Jose, (2007) 1 SCC 386; Manager, Corporate Educational Agency v. James Mathew, (2017) 15 SCC 595 [Paras 8–15].

Article 30(1) – Scope – Minority Institution – Choice of Principal – Seniority Cannot Be Imposed – Management of a minority aided educational institution is free to appoint a Principal of its own choice and is under no obligation to appoint the senior-most qualified member – The right to choose the Principal, as the head responsible for the tone, temper, discipline, and academic efficiency of the institution, is an important part of the right of administration – Even receipt of State aid does not dilute this right – Once a conscious choice of a qualified person is made by the management, courts cannot examine the merits, rationality, or propriety of such choice [Paras 9–11, 14–15].

Administrative Instructions – Competence of Authority – Statutory Authority – An authority vested with power under the statute alone can exercise its discretion and pass orders – Even a superior authority cannot direct a statutory authority to act in a particular manner without statutory competence – Any decision taken at the behest of a person having no statutory role is patently illegal – Relied upon: Joint Action Committee of Air Line Pilots' Assn. of India v. DG of Civil Aviation, (2011) 5 SCC 435 [Paras 12, 14].

Decision: Writ appeals allowed – Order dated 5.8.2025 of the Single Bench set aside – Order dated 27.02.2025 giving in-charge of Principal to Dr. S.K. Upadhyay upheld – No order as to costs.