Criminal Law – Attempt to Murder – Section 307 IPC – Acquittal – Appellant Keshav Singh @ Kallu convicted by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Mainpuri for firing a gunshot at informant Rajendra Singh on 04.12.1980, which caused gun shot injuries to Shiv Kumar Singh who was standing nearby – Role of exhortation attributed to deceased co-accused Brijbasi Lal – Sentence of 3 years rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 5,000/- fine imposed – On appeal, High Court finds the testimonies of the three witnesses of fact (PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3) to be mutually inconsistent and in material conflict with each other and with the site plan – Prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant acquitted [Paras 3, 27-31].

Chance Witnesses – PW-2 (Shiv Kumar Singh, Injured) and PW-3 (Sughar Singh) – Reliability – Inconsistent and Conflicting Statements – Both witnesses were residents of villages other than the place of occurrence and were chance witnesses whose presence at the scene was not satisfactorily explained by the prosecution – Testimony of PW-2 found entirely in contrast with PW-1 on material aspects including the time of the incident, the person levelling the disputed foundation, the role of exhortation, and whether one or two shots were fired – PW-2 exaggerated his role as the primary target of the assault, which was inconsistent with the FIR and PW-1's deposition – Testimony of PW-3 also at variance with PW-1 on the target of exhortation – Held: Evidence of a chance witness requires very cautious and close scrutiny; if presence at the place of occurrence remains doubtful, the testimony must be discarded [Paras 17-20].

Site Plan – Inconsistency with Oral Evidence – The site plan prepared by the Investigating Officer (PW-7) showed the disputed foundation to the east of the informant's house with no wall between the two houses, whereas PW-1 stated that firing took place behind a wall – The site plan showed Mulaim Singh at a distance of 40 paces from the informant and injured, whereas witnesses stated he was sitting adjacent to them – Two separate firing positions were shown in the site plan, inconsistent with witnesses' accounts – These contradictions between ocular evidence and the site plan undermined the prosecution's version [Paras 20-21].

Faulty Investigation – Non-Recovery of Weapon, Blood-Stained Material and Ballistic Report – The licensed gun allegedly used by the appellant was not seized and no FSL or ballistic report was obtained – Blood-stained earth, clothes and mattress used to transport the injured were not recovered – Injury report of Mulaim Singh was not placed on record and he was not produced as a witness despite allegedly suffering gunshot injuries – Statement of PW-2 was not recorded by the Investigating Officer during investigation – Held: While faulty investigation does not by itself entitle an accused to acquittal, the cumulative effect of multiple investigative lapses, coupled with inconsistent and unreliable eye-witness testimony, creates reasonable doubt that must benefit the accused [Paras 24-26].

Appellate Court – Power to Interfere with Conviction – Benefit of Doubt – Held: An appellate court should be slow to interfere with conviction recorded by the trial court, but where evidence on record indicates that prosecution has failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and a plausible different view can be taken, the appellate court should not shy away from giving benefit of doubt to the accused [Para 28].

Decision: Criminal appeal allowed – Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 26.06.1987 passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Mainpuri in Sessions Trial No. 165 of 1986 under Section 307 IPC set aside – Appellant Keshav Singh @ Kallu acquitted – Bail bonds discharged – Criminal appeal against appellant no. 1 Brijbasi Lal abated on account of his death during pendency of appeal.

Criminal Law — Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. — Direction for Registration of FIR — Interlocutory Order — Revisability — Magistrate's Discretion — Complaint under Sections 376, 420, 506 IPC filed alleging rape on false promise of marriage — Judicial Magistrate declined to direct registration of FIR under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and instead directed complainant to lead preliminary evidence treating it as a private complaint — Additional Sessions Judge, in revision, relying on Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. (2014) 2 SCC 1, set aside the order and directed registration of FIR — Petitioner challenged the revisional order under Section 482 Cr.P.C. — Held: Order passed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is not an interlocutory order and is amenable to revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. — However, Additional Sessions Judge erred in mechanically applying Lalita Kumari without considering nine-month delay in filing complaint, prior extortion FIR registered against the complainant, absence of need for complex police investigation, and the Magistrate's duly considered police station report — Impugned order of Additional Sessions Judge set aside — Order of Judicial Magistrate restored — JMIC directed to proceed with the matter as a private complaint in accordance with law [Paras 1–22].

Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. — Magistrate's Discretion — Not Mandatory to Direct FIR Registration — A Magistrate is not bound to mechanically direct police investigation in every complaint case — Direction under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is warranted only where the information reveals commission of a cognizable offence and police investigation is necessary to dig out evidence not available with the complainant nor procurable without State assistance — Where the complainant is in possession of complete details of the accused and no complex or scientific investigation is required, the complaint case procedure ought to be adopted — Powers under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. must be used sparingly to prevent miscarriage of justice and not as a matter of course [Paras 17–18, 21] — Relied upon: Om Prakash Ambadkar v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC Online SC 238.

Interlocutory Order — Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. — Bar on Revision — An order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. allowing or rejecting a prayer for registration of FIR is not an interlocutory order within the meaning of Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. — Such an order adjudicates a valuable right of the complainant as well as the accused and, upon issuance of directions, the Magistrate becomes functus officio — Where directions for registration of FIR are issued, the fundamental right of liberty of the person named is directly affected — Revision petition against such an order is, therefore, maintainable [Paras 11–15] — Relied upon: Amarnath v. State of Haryana, AIR 1977 SC 215.

Lalita Kumari — Mandatory FIR Registration — Exception for Abnormal Delay — While Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. (2014) 2 SCC 1 mandates registration of FIR where disclosed information reveals a cognizable offence, it expressly carves out an exception for cases involving abnormal delay or laches in criminal prosecution without satisfactory explanation — In the present case, the complaint was filed nine months after the alleged incident and seven days after the complainant's release in an extortion case registered against her — Additional Sessions Judge failed to consider these material circumstances — Application of Lalita Kumari was, therefore, erroneous [Paras 19–20].

Decision: Petition allowed — Order of Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat dated 09.07.2021 and all subsequent proceedings set aside — Order of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panipat dated 10.12.2020 treating the matter as a private complaint restored — JMIC directed to proceed in accordance with law — Nothing observed shall be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case.

Service Law – Regularization – Posthumous – Adhoc Employee – 21 Years of Continuous Service – Empowered Committee Recommendation – Arbitrary Exclusion – The deceased employee was engaged as Junior Assistant on stop-gap/adhoc basis in 1993 and rendered uninterrupted service until his death in 2014 – His case was duly recommended by the Empowered Committee under the J&K Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010 – Yet, he was excluded from the regularization order dated 11.01.2013 while his juniors, including one Farooq Ahmed Zargar, were regularized – Held: Such exclusion is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution – Deceased entitled to regularization from the date his juniors were regularized along with all consequential benefits [Paras 6, 7, 13].

Constitutional Law – Article 14 – Hostile Discrimination – Equally Situated Employees – State as Model Employer – Once the Empowered Committee recommended the deceased alongside similarly situated juniors who were subsequently regularized, the State cannot justify differential treatment on the ground that the deceased was initially engaged on adhoc or temporary basis – The State being a model employer cannot follow a hire-and-fire policy after extracting more than two decades of work – Such conduct amounts to exploitative engagement and violates the guarantee of equality [Paras 7, 8, 10].

Service Law – Adhoc Engagement – Character of Permanency – Long and Continuous Service – Continuity in service for a period exceeding 21 years, performing permanent and perennial duties, cannot be characterized as adhoc or temporary – With the passage of time, such engagement acquires the character of permanency and the State cannot disavow its obligations on technical grounds [Paras 9, 11].

Repeal of Statute – Accrued Rights – Vested Rights Not Extinguished – The contention that the Act of 2010 stands repealed and that the J&K Casual Workers Rules, 2017 also stand repealed post the Reorganization Act, 2019, was rejected – A right that had already accrued to the deceased employee prior to repeal cannot be taken away by the mere fact of repeal of the enabling legislation [Para 9].

Widow – Compassionate Consideration – Posthumous Regularization – Family Pension and Retiral Benefits – The respondent is a widow seeking posthumous regularization so that she and her children may receive family pension, retiral benefits and other statutory dues – The State is expected to act with compassion in such cases and not prolong litigation on technicalities [Para 12].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu Bench dated 30.09.2025 directing regularization of the deceased w.e.f. the date his juniors were regularized and grant of all consequential benefits upheld – No error of fact or law found in the Tribunal's order.

Service Law – Disciplinary Proceedings – Superannuation – Initiation of Proceedings – Charge-Sheet Issued After Retirement – Regulation 20(3)(iii), PNB (Officers') Service Regulations, 1979 – Charge-Sheet and Withholding of Retirement Dues Quashed – Petitioner, former General Manager of Punjab National Bank, was served with a show cause notice on 28.02.2017 (his last day of service) in connection with NPAs at PNB's London subsidiary – Charge-sheet under the Discipline and Appeal Regulations, 1977 was issued on 01.03.2017, i.e., after his superannuation – Retirement order directed that disciplinary proceedings would continue as if the petitioner were in service, invoking Regulation 20(3)(iii) – Held: Regulation 20(3)(iii) can be invoked only when disciplinary proceedings have been validly initiated while the officer is in service – Since the charge-sheet was issued after superannuation, proceedings were not initiated while the petitioner was in service – The entire disciplinary proceeding and the consequential withholding of retirement dues are unsustainable in law – Charge-sheet and order withholding retirement dues quashed – Respondent directed to release retirement dues within 12 weeks [Paras 7–23].

Initiation of Disciplinary Proceedings – When Commenced – Show Cause Notice vs. Charge-Sheet – It is settled law that disciplinary proceedings are not initiated merely by issuance of a show cause notice – Proceedings are initiated only upon issuance of a charge-sheet, which requires application of mind by the competent authority to the material on record – In the present case, the show cause notice was issued on 28.02.2017 while the petitioner was still in service, but the charge-sheet was issued on 01.03.2017, after superannuation – Held: Show cause notice does not amount to initiation of disciplinary proceedings – Disciplinary proceedings were thus not initiated while the petitioner was in service [Paras 8–10].

Regulation 20(3)(ii) – Deemed Pendency – Limited Scope – Regulation 20(3)(ii) provides that disciplinary proceedings shall be deemed to be pending against an officer who has been placed under suspension or has been served with a show cause notice – Held: This provision operates only for the limited purpose of Regulation 20(3)(i), which deals with an officer resigning or leaving service during pendency of disciplinary proceedings – The legal fiction of deemed pendency under Clause (ii) cannot be extended to justify continuation of proceedings under Clause (iii) against a superannuated officer – Bank rightly did not invoke Clause (ii) in its retirement order, being aware of this position [Paras 11–17].

Discipline and Appeal Regulations – Not Applicable to Superannuated Officer – Major and minor penalties under the Discipline and Appeal Regulations, 1977 can be imposed only on officers in service – Upon superannuation, the only recourse available to the Bank is to initiate proceedings under Regulation 48 of the Pension Regulations, 1995, for recovery of pecuniary loss from pension – Charge-sheet issued under Discipline and Appeal Regulations cannot be treated as having been issued under the Pension Regulations merely on the ground that an erroneous regulation was quoted – Bank left at liberty to consider initiation of proceedings under Regulation 48 of the Pension Regulations, 1995, subject to fulfillment of requisite criteria [Paras 19–23].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed — Charge-sheet dated 01.03.2017 and order withholding retirement dues dated 01.03.2017 quashed and set aside — Respondent Bank directed to release all retirement dues to the Petitioner within 12 weeks — Bank at liberty to consider initiation of proceedings under Regulation 48 of the Punjab National Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995, subject to fulfillment of requisite criteria.

Criminal Law – Forgery – Forwarding of Complaint – Section 175(3) BNSS – Handwriting Expert Report – Sole Basis Insufficient – The second respondent filed a complaint alleging that the petitioners had fabricated and antedated an Agreement of Sale purportedly executed by K.S. Jeganathan (since deceased), with the signature therein found to be forged as per a Forensic Examination Report dated 15.04.2025 – The learned Magistrate forwarded the complaint for police investigation solely on the basis of the said expert opinion – Held: A handwriting expert's opinion is a relevant piece of evidence under Section 45 of the Evidence Act but is not conclusive proof; forwarding of complaint based solely on such opinion is erroneous – Impugned order set aside [Paras 10, 12, 13].

Criminal Proceedings – Parallel Civil Proceedings – Bar Against Prejudice – When the genuineness of the very document forming the basis of the criminal complaint is already under challenge and pending adjudication before a Civil Court, allowing criminal proceedings to run simultaneously based only on a handwriting expert's opinion would prejudice the parties and amount to abuse of process of court – Continuation of such criminal proceedings is unsustainable [Paras 11, 12].

Expert Evidence – Handwriting Comparison – Not Exact Science – Advisory Nature – An opinion rendered by a handwriting expert is advisory and relevant but not determinative – Unlike thumb impression analysis, handwriting comparison is not an exact science – Courts retain the power under Section 73 of the Evidence Act to independently compare admitted and disputed writings – A criminal complaint cannot be set in motion on the exclusive basis of a handwriting expert's report [Paras 12, 13].

Distinguished: Accamma Sam Jacob v. State of Karnataka, 2026 INSC 362 – Distinguished on facts as the forgery allegations therein were supported by other materials and surrounding circumstances beyond the handwriting expert's report, unlike the present case where the entire allegation rested solely on the expert opinion [Para 9].

Decision: Criminal Revision Petition allowed – Order dated 16.02.2026 passed by Judicial Magistrate No. II, Dharmapuri in Crl.M.P. No. 1622 of 2025 set aside – Connected Miscellaneous Petitions closed.

Land Acquisition – Reference Proceedings – Section 64, RFCTLARR Act, 2013 – Setting Aside of Ex-Parte Order – Condonation of Delay in Filing Written Statement – Challenge Dismissed – Petitioner's land of approximately 10 acres at Village Vikhroli, Taluka Kurla, acquired by award dated 15.09.2022 – Petitioner filed reference for enhancement of compensation, which was amended twice to escalate claim from Rs. 572 crores to approximately Rs. 1972 crores – Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (Collector and Deputy Collector) failed to appear before the LARR Authority for nine hearings, leading to ex-parte order dated 15.03.2024 – Over a year later, said respondents filed applications for setting aside the ex-parte order and for permission to file their written statement – LARR Authority allowed the same by impugned order dated 21.08.2025 – Held: Sufficient cause established on account of absence of institutional mechanism for representing the State before the newly constituted LARR Authority and delay in identifying special counsel – Substantial escalation in the petitioner's own claim also a relevant consideration – No prejudice caused to petitioner – Order upheld [Paras 22–25].

Amendment of Written Statement – Plea of Limitation – Jurisdiction of LARR Authority – Liberal Approach to Amendment – Beneficiary corporation (Respondent No. 3 — NHSRCL) had filed its written statement on 05.04.2024 – Nearly two years later, sought amendment to incorporate plea of limitation – LARR Authority allowed the same by impugned order dated 18.02.2026 – Petitioner contended that only the Collector under Section 64 of the Act of 2013 has jurisdiction to decide the question of limitation and that the LARR Authority lacks such jurisdiction – Held: LARR Authority, having replaced the reference court under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, has the jurisdiction to decide whether the reference was filed within limitation – It would be illogical to hold that the LARR Authority can decide the reference on merits but cannot determine whether it has jurisdiction to enter upon the reference in the first place – Issue of limitation can be raised at any stage as it goes to the root of jurisdiction – Allowing the plea does not amount to accepting it; petitioner retains full liberty to contest the same – No prejudice caused – Amendment rightly allowed [Paras 26–32].

Jurisdiction of LARR Authority – Limitation – Precedent Clarified – Petitioner relied upon Deputy Commissioner and Special Land Acquisition Officer v. S. V. Global Mill Limited, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 171, and this Court's order in Hirabai Sonu Wanjari (Kale) v. State of Maharashtra (WP No. 1508 of 2026, dated 10.02.2026) to urge that the Collector's executive function under Section 64 precludes the LARR Authority from examining limitation – Held: The said judgments do not support such a proposition – The position of law in Mohammed Hasnuddin v. State of Maharashtra, (1979) 2 SCC 572, and followed by this Court in Shantaram Ganesh Shenoy v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Ratnagiri, 2006 SCC OnLine Bom 314, that the reference court has jurisdiction to examine whether the reference was made within limitation, applies with equal force to the LARR Authority [Paras 26–28].

Reference Proceedings – Original Proceedings – Writ Interference – Scope – Held: Reference proceedings being original proceedings in which parties lead evidence, once the LARR Authority has exercised its discretion in a reasonable manner, it would not be appropriate for the High Court in writ jurisdiction to interfere – Petitioner's remedy lies in contesting the matter on merits before the LARR Authority [Para 33].

Order – LARR Authority directed to take up and decide the reference proceedings expeditiously, preferably within six months – Interim orders operating in both writ petitions vacated [Para 34].

Decision: Both Writ Petitions dismissed — Impugned orders dated 21.08.2025 and 18.02.2026 of the LARR Authority upheld — LARR Authority at Nashik directed to decide reference proceedings expeditiously, preferably within six months — Interim orders vacated.

Bail Cancellation – Banking Fraud – Fiduciary Relationship – Maintainability – Accused, a Customer Relationship Officer of the petitioner-bank, allegedly processed loans using customer KYC details, created fake savings accounts, misappropriated disbursed funds, and routed money through a fictitious entity, Amrita Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. – Fraud detected involving approximately 65 customers and Rs. 34 lakhs at the time of complaint; charge-sheet subsequently revealed fraud extending to approximately 120 customers exceeding Rs. 56 lakhs – Accused arrested on 31.08.2023; interim bail granted by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Paschim Medinipur on 29.09.2023 – Application for cancellation rejected by Sessions Judge on 19.12.2023 on the ground that accused had not violated bail conditions – Present application filed under Section 439(2) read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Held: High Court and Sessions Court possess concurrent jurisdiction under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C.; order of Sessions Court does not operate as a bar to the present petition, which is accordingly maintainable [Paras as discussed].

Cancellation of Bail – Stage of Proceedings – Supervening Circumstances – Charge-Sheet Submitted – Bail granted on 29.09.2023 remained operative for over two and a half years without any violation of conditions – Charge-sheet submitted on 31.08.2024; case fixed for framing of charge – Accused continued to enjoy presumption of innocence; purpose of bail is to secure presence of accused at trial and not to impose pre-conviction punishment – Seriousness of charge is a relevant consideration but not the sole determinant for denial of bail – State unable to demonstrate relevance of custodial detention after submission of charge-sheet – Case primarily based on documentary evidence with no allegation of witness tampering or post-bail misconduct – Held: No interference warranted at this belated stage with the order granting interim bail; custodial detention at the present stage would serve no useful purpose – Application dismissed.

Public Tender – Judicial Review – Scope and Limits – Article 226 – Courts do not sit as appellate authorities over administrative choices in tender matters and cannot substitute judicial opinion for administrative wisdom — role of court confined to examining decision-making process and not merits of the decision — interference justified only where decision is mala fide, so arbitrary that no reasonable authority would adopt it, or where public interest suffers — general allegations of favouritism unsupported by cogent material cannot convert commercial disappointment into constitutional challenge [Paras 17–18, 21, 38].

EOI Process – Presentation Stage – Not Ultra Vires – Introduction of a presentation-based assessment carrying 30 marks after technical evaluation carrying 70 marks held to be within the permissible administrative discretion of the tendering authority — evaluation of operational capacity, infrastructure preparedness and implementation methodology in a large-scale nutrition welfare scheme cannot remain confined to paper credentials alone — all technically qualified participants subjected to the same presentation stage uniformly — no essential eligibility condition altered so as to prejudice any bidder [Paras 24–28, 32–33].

Technical Qualification – No Vested Right to Selection – Qualifying at one stage of a tender process merely entitles participation in the next stage and does not guarantee award of projects — contention that technical qualification alone created a vested right to selection rejected [Para 29].

Transparency – Non-Disclosure of Interim Scores – Not Ipso Facto Fatal – Transparency in State contracting does not necessarily mandate contemporaneous disclosure of individual scoring sheets unless stipulated under tender conditions — non-disclosure of presentation marks cannot invalidate process in absence of showing that evaluation was arbitrary, mala fide or based on extraneous considerations [Paras 34–37].

Tender Timelines – Directory Unless Mandatory Consequence Prescribed – Issuance of selection list beyond 120-day validity period of EOI does not vitiate the process where timeline is not expressly coupled with a mandatory consequence clause — petitioners having participated in subsequent stages without objection are disentitled from raising this ground after non-selection [Paras 42–43].

Quashing of Selection List – Public Welfare Scheme – Courts must be reluctant to quash selection processes affecting implementation of large-scale public nutrition welfare schemes serving a large beneficiary population, unless illegality is clearly established [Para 45].

Decision: Writ petitions dismissed — challenge to Impugned Selection List dated 20.02.2023 fails — pending applications disposed of.

Service Law – Compassionate Appointment – Rejection on Extraneous Grounds – Petitioner's father, a Bank employee with 22 years of service, died in harness on 07/08/2016 – Petitioner, the sole surviving dependent, applied promptly under the Bank's compassionate appointment scheme – Application recommended by the branch and forwarded to higher authority – After an inordinate delay of 28 months, claim rejected vide non-speaking order dated 30/01/2018 on the ground of "unsatisfactory service record" of the deceased – No such exclusionary criterion existed in the prevailing policy – Respondents failed to appear or file reply despite service of notice in February 2019 – Court proceeding ex-parte – Held: Rejection order is arbitrary, legally perverse, and based on alien grounds not traceable to the applicable scheme; order quashed; respondents directed to reconsider claim afresh within 60 days; appointment, if granted, to be prospective – Cost of Rs. 50,000/- imposed on respondents [Paras 1–25].

Compassionate Appointment – Governing Principles – Departure from General Recruitment – Appointment on compassionate grounds is an exception to the general recruitment process and must be confined strictly to mitigating the sudden financial crisis faced by dependents of a deceased employee – It is not a vested right to be claimed after lapse of considerable time – Immediacy of need is the foundation of any such scheme – Authorities must assess overall financial condition, liabilities, terminal benefits, and alternative livelihood of the family – Relied upon: The State of West Bengal v. Debabrata Tiwari & Ors., Civil Appeal Nos. 8842–8855 of 2022, decided on 03/03/2023 [Paras 13–14].

Administrative Law – Speaking Orders – Duty to Act Within Policy – Rejection orders in compassionate appointment cases must be grounded strictly within the four corners of the prevailing policy – Authorities cannot import alien criteria such as past service record of the deceased without express policy backing – Cryptic or mechanical rejections based on extraneous grounds defeat the welfare objective of the scheme and are subject to judicial deprecation – Future orders passed on fabricated or unsupported grounds will be viewed with profound judicial displeasure [Paras 16–17, 23–24].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Impugned rejection order dated 30/01/2018 quashed – Respondents directed to reconsider the petitioner's compassionate appointment claim afresh in accordance with prevailing policy within 60 days from receipt of certified copy – Appointment, if found eligible, to be prospective – Cost of Rs. 50,000/- imposed on respondents, payable within 30 days.