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.

Bail – Unlawful Assembly – Attack on Police Station – Long Abscondence – Petitioner, arrayed as the 41st accused, allegedly part of an unlawful assembly of approximately three hundred persons that pelted granite stones at police officers and caused damage of Rs. 75,000/- to the Police Station building on 01.08.2012 – Petitioner absconded after the incident and remained abroad for a substantial period – Case included in Long Pending Cases Register as LPC No. 5/2021 – Petitioner arrested pursuant to a non-bailable warrant only on 02.02.2026, approximately fourteen years after registration of the crime – In judicial custody since arrest – Investigation completed and case ripe for trial – Held: Continued incarceration would serve no useful purpose at this stage; apprehension of absconding can be addressed through stringent conditions – Bail granted subject to conditions including surrender of passport [Paras 4–8].

Decision: Bail application allowed – Petitioner directed to execute a bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like sum – Petitioner to deposit Rs. 1,000/- before the jurisdictional Magistrate simultaneously with execution of bond, refundable upon acquittal – Petitioner to surrender passport before the jurisdictional Court within one week of release, or file an affidavit of non-possession within said period – Petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail – Liberty to investigating officer to seek cancellation of bail upon violation of conditions.

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.

Essential Commodities Act, 1955 — Sections 3 and 7 — Conviction Set Aside — Acquittal — Appellant (in-charge of wheat procurement centre of U.P. Food Corporation) convicted by Special Judge for storing 12 quintals of excess wheat allegedly for illegal purposes — On appeal, High Court finds that prosecution failed to refer to any control order allegedly violated by the appellant, and no violation of Section 3 of the Act was established — Appellant being merely in-charge of the centre and not a dealer, no question of violation of any control order arises — Held: Prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt — Conviction and sentence set aside — Appeal allowed [Paras 4–31].

Section 3 — Enabling Provision — Prerequisite of Control Order — Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act is an enabling provision empowering the Central Government to regulate or prohibit production, supply, and distribution of essential commodities — Prosecution under Section 7 is maintainable only upon violation of a control order issued under Section 3 — Where no such control order is referred to or proved, the foundational basis for prosecution under Section 7 is absent — Prosecution neither referred to any control order nor proved its violation [Paras 4–8, 30].

Section 7(1)(b) — Forfeiture — Non-Compliance — Section 7 is attracted only upon contravention of a control order made under Section 3 — In the absence of proof of such contravention, invocation of Section 7 is impermissible — Prosecution further failed to demonstrate compliance with Section 7(1)(b) requiring forfeiture of the property in respect of which the order was contravened — Mandatory nature of forfeiture clause distinguished from discretionary clause under Section 7(1)(c) [Paras 7–8, 29–30].

Mens Rea — Essential Commodities Act — Section 7 — Offence under Section 3 read with Section 7 requires mens rea as an essential ingredient — Prosecution failed to establish intentional or knowing contravention of any provision — Nathulal v. State of Madhya Pradesh referred to [Paras 26–28].

Appreciation of Evidence — Contradictions and Lacunae — Prosecution witnesses P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 gave materially contradictory accounts regarding inspection and verification — P.W.-2's presence during inspection on 30.05.1984 rendered doubtful — P.W.-1 admittedly did not examine pages 40 and 41 of the stock register — Investigating Officer (P.W.-5) did not personally verify FCI records and had no knowledge of wheat grading — Investigation found to suffer from serious lapses — No evidence as to the nature, grade, or illegality of the alleged excess wheat — Prosecution story found inconsistent and non-corroborative [Paras 17–23, 30].

Decision: Criminal appeal allowed — Impugned judgment and order dated 20.05.1988 passed by Special Judge, E.C. Act, Budaun set aside — Appellant acquitted of charges under Sections 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 — Bail bonds and sureties discharged.

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.

Criminal Law – UAPA – Bail – Section 43D(5) – Indian Mujahideen – Rajasthan Module – Both appellants arrested on 23.03.2014 upon disclosure by Pakistani national Zia-Ur-Rehman alias Waqas; substantial recoveries of explosives, IED material, chemicals, detonators, digital devices, forged identity cards, and jihadi material effected from each appellant in Jaipur and Jodhpur respectively – Appellants convicted by Trial Court, Jaipur in FIR No. 03/2014 under Sections 4, 5, 6 Explosive Substances Act, Sections 16–23 UAPA and Sections 121, 121A, 122, 465, 468, 471 IPC including life imprisonment under Section 121 IPC – Trial in main FIR No. 54/2011, Delhi underway with 68 witnesses already examined – Appellants serving approximately 12 years in custody – Bail previously refused by Trial Court in orders dated 10.01.2025 and 29.01.2025 – Held: Conviction in Jaipur FIR prima facie establishes guilt under Section 43D(5) UAPA; appellants pose a continuing threat to national security; recovery from appellants is materially distinct from co-accused Mohd. Maroof; parity claim not tenable; prolonged incarceration alone insufficient to override statutory embargo; appeals dismissed; Trial Court orders confirmed [Paras 1–79].

UAPA – Section 43D(5) – Twin-Prong Test – Bail is the exception and jail is the rule under Section 43D(5) UAPA, in contrast to the general principle applicable to ordinary penal offences – Court must first examine whether prima facie accusation is true on a perusal of case diary and Section 173 report; if satisfied, bail must be rejected as a rule without entering the second test – Second test i.e., the tripod test of flight risk, witness tampering and evidence interference arises only if first test is not satisfied – Degree of satisfaction required is lighter than that for discharge but heavier than mere suspicion – Evidence must be analysed as a whole and documents relied upon by prosecution taken at face value without testing admissibility at bail stage – Once charges are framed, it may be assumed that a very strong suspicion was founded upon materials before the Court – Relied upon: NIA v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, (2019) 5 SCC 1; Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr., (2024) 5 SCC 403 [Paras 53–61].

UAPA – Prolonged Incarceration – Article 21 – Balancing Liberty and National Security – Prolonged incarceration is a matter of serious constitutional concern but is not the sole determinant for bail in UAPA cases – Delay operates as a trigger for heightened judicial scrutiny, not as a trump card displacing statutory restraint – Court must undertake proportional and contextual balancing of: gravity and statutory character of offence; role attributed to accused within alleged conspiracy; strength of prima facie case; and extent to which continued detention is demonstrably disproportionate offending Article 21 – Where accused are part of terrorist organisations with central or organising roles, need for circumspection before constitutional intervention displacing statutory embargo is correspondingly greater – K.A. Najeeb must be understood as a constitutional safeguard against unconscionable detention and not as a mathematical formula mandating bail on passage of time alone – Relied upon: Gulfisha Fatima v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), 2026 INSC 2; Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713 [Paras 62–67].

Bail – Parity with Co-Accused – Not an Absolute Right – Parity cannot be applied blindly; nature of material recovered, role of each accused, and degree of involvement must be deeply scrutinised – Co-accused Mohd. Maroof granted bail as recovery from him was confined to digital devices only – Appellants materially distinguishable as substantial explosive material, IEDs, chemicals, detonators and bomb-making capability established against them – Parity must focus on position in crime and cannot be claimed as of right merely because another accused in the same FIR was granted bail – Relied upon: Sagar v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2584; Gulfisha Fatima v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), 2026 INSC 2 [Paras 68–70, 76].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Impugned orders dated 10.01.2025 and 29.01.2025 of the Additional Sessions Judge-02, New Delhi, rejecting bail of both appellants, confirmed – Bail denied; appellants to remain in custody.

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.

Criminal Law - Unlawful Assembly — Section 149 IPC — Inapplicability upon Acquittal of Co-Accused — Minimum Membership of Five Persons — Seven persons named in FIR and charge-sheeted for offences under Sections 147, 307/149 and 379 IPC — One accused died during trial — Four accused acquitted of all charges — Two appellants acquitted of charges under Sections 147, 307/149 and 379 IPC but convicted under Section 323/149 IPC — Held: Where both charge and evidence are confined to named persons and acquittal of four reduces the convicted membership below five, Section 149 IPC cannot be invoked — Assembly of only two persons cannot constitute an unlawful assembly under Section 141 IPC — Conviction under Section 323/149 IPC set aside — Appeal allowed [Paras 25–33].

Section 141 IPC — Definition of Unlawful Assembly — Essential Ingredient of Five or More Persons — An assembly of less than five persons is not an unlawful assembly within the meaning of Section 141 IPC — Existence of an unlawful assembly is a necessary postulate for invoking Section 149 IPC — Where prosecution does not allege participation of unnamed or unidentified persons beyond those charge-sheeted, acquittal of named accused reducing membership below five renders Section 149 InapplicableSection 149 creates vicarious or constructive criminal liability and its invocation requires proof of lawful constitution of an unlawful assembly [Paras 27–32].

Section 149 IPC — Categories of Cases — When Applicable Despite Fewer Than Five Convicted — Section 149 may be validly invoked where: (i) five or more persons are charged and evidence proves the charge against all; or (ii) the charge refers to named accused along with others who absconded or remain unidentified, and evidence establishes that total membership exceeded five — Distinction between cases where unnamed or unidentified persons are alleged to be part of the assembly (where Section 149 survives acquittals) and cases where charge and evidence are confined entirely to named persons (where Section 149 fails upon acquittal of majority) — Mohan Singh, Subran and Mahendra relied upon [Paras 30–31].

Abatement of Appeal — Co-Accused — Death During Pendency — Appeal of appellant no. 1 Ram Palat abated vide order dated 13.09.2022 upon his death during pendency of appeal — Appeal survived only for appellant no. 2 Bigranchhu — Acquittal of accused under charges of Sections 147, 307/149 and 379 IPC had attained finality and was not under challenge [Paras 2, 26].

Decision: Appeal allowed — Conviction and sentence of surviving appellant Bigranchhu under Section 323/149 IPC set aside — Appellant acquitted — Bail bond cancelled and sureties discharged.

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138 – Dishonour of Cheque – Presumption under Sections 118(a) and 139 – Rebuttal – Petitioner convicted for dishonour of cheque of Rs.15,00,000/- issued in discharge of a loan – Petitioner's defence that the cheque was given as security in a chit fund transaction rejected as unsupported by cogent evidence – No complaint filed nor stop-payment instructions issued regarding the allegedly misplaced cheque – Held: Petitioner failed to rebut the statutory presumption under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the NI Act by leading credible or cogent evidence [Paras 13, 15, 19–20].

Financial Capacity of Complainant – Proof of Source of Funds – Complainant explained source of Rs.15 lakhs as arranged from his cousin brother, supported by bank passbook entries reflecting withdrawals of Rs.5 lakhs and Rs.10 lakhs in February 2020 – Petitioner neither challenged these entries in cross-examination nor questioned authenticity of the passbook – Inability to recall exact address of cousin brother held immaterial – Held: Complainant sufficiently discharged his obligation to prove financial capacity [Paras 17].

Non-Filing of Income Tax Returns – Not a Defence under Section 138 NI Act – Omission to disclose cash loan in ITR may attract consequences under Income Tax laws but falls entirely outside the purview of proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act [Para 18].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope of Interference – Limited to Illegality, Incorrectness or Impropriety – Revisional court cannot reappreciate evidence or substitute its own view merely because another view is possible unless concurrent findings are wholly unreasonable, perverse or untenable in law – Petitioner failed to demonstrate any such ground [Para 11].

Decision: Revision petition dismissed – Impugned judgment dated 08.11.2023 of Additional Sessions Judge-05, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi upheld – No order as to costs.