Criminal Law – Rash and Negligent Driving – Ingredients of Offence under Section 304-A IPC – Respondent accused of driving a Gramin Sewa van rashly and negligently, resulting in the death of two scooter riders and injury to a child – Prosecution relied primarily on testimony of sole eyewitness (PW1) – PW1’s statements contradictory regarding position of vehicles, manner of impact, and presence at the scene – Delay of three hours in FIR registration unexplained – No independent witnesses or passengers examined – Mechanical inspection found vehicle fit for road use – Held: Mere assertion of “high speed” without proof of rashness or negligence insufficient to establish guilt – Essential ingredient of rash and negligent driving not proved beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 3–5, 13–14].

Evidence – Sole Eyewitness – Contradictions and Reliability – PW1’s presence at the accident site doubtful – His version inconsistent with site plan and investigating officer’s testimony – Failure to inform police or participate in spot proceedings undermines credibility – Trial Court rightly disbelieved PW1’s account – No corroboration from independent or scientific evidence [Paras 4, 10, 13].

Criminal Jurisprudence – Appeal Against Acquittal – Double Presumption of Innocence – High Court reaffirmed settled principle that appellate interference with acquittal must be cautious – Once acquitted, accused enjoys reinforced presumption of innocence – Reference made to Ravi Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2022) 8 SCC 536 and Anwar Ali v. State of H.P., (2020) 10 SCC 166 – Held: Trial Court’s view plausible and supported by evidence; no perversity or illegality found [Paras 11–12, 15].

Negligence – Rule of Res Ipsa Loquitur – Applicability – Court reiterated that negligence cannot be presumed from mere occurrence of accident – Principle of res ipsa loquitur applies only when accident circumstances exclude any cause other than negligence – Supported by Mohd. Aynuddin v. State of A.P., (2000) 7 SCC 72 and State of Karnataka v. Satish, (1998) 8 SCC 493 [Paras 7–8, 10].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal affirmed – No evidence of rash or negligent driving – Trial Court’s findings upheld – Double presumption of innocence operates in favour of respondent.

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings of NDPS – Section 482 CrPC – Accused Named Only in Co-accused Statement – No Recovery – Delay of 14 Years – Proceedings Quashed – Petitioner implicated in Jalangi P.S. Case No.308/2010 based solely on confession of co-accused; no recovery made from him, no evidence collected despite warrant issued in 2010 – Police inactive for 14 years citing bifurcation of police stations – Held: Statement of co-accused alone inadmissible; failure to collect material despite long lapse renders continuation abuse of process – Entire proceedings including FIR, chargesheet and orders quashed; petitioner released [Paras 7–15].

Evidence – Statement of Co-accused – Confession to Police Officer – Inadmissibility – Court reiterated law from Haricharan Kurmi v. State of Bihar (AIR 1964 SC 1184) and Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat (2019) 16 SCC 547 – Confession to police inadmissible under Sections 25–26 Evidence Act & Section 162 CrPC – At best a “lead” requiring verification – No independent corroboration found against petitioner [Paras 9–12, 14].

Police Inaction – Non-execution of Warrant – Liberty of Accused – Court criticized unconscionable failure of police to execute warrant for 14 years; bifurcation of police stations no ground for inaction – Duty of police to act upon warrant; failure cannot prejudice accused’s liberty [Paras 13–14].

Decision – Petition allowed – Proceedings in NDPS Case No.35/2024 quashed – Petitioner to be released immediately unless required in any other case – No order as to costs [Paras 15–16].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Dishonour of Cheque – Presumption under Section 139 – Effect of signed blank cheque – Accused admitted signature but contended cheque was issued as security and misused – Held: once signature admitted, statutory presumption of legally enforceable debt arises; mere plea of security cheque or filling up of contents by another does not invalidate cheque; burden on accused to rebut presumption by cogent evidence – reliance placed on Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar and Rangappa v. Mohan [Paras 6–8].

Criminal Procedure – Application to send cheque for expert opinion – Rejection – Proper – Petitioner sought expert opinion to compare handwriting on cheque and bank challan – Court held expert opinion unnecessary since signature not disputed and filling of particulars by another does not vitiate cheque; no foundation laid to allege forgery or theft – Trial Court rightly dismissed application [Paras 3, 6, 9].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Sections 438 r/w 442 BNSS, 2023 – Scope of interference – Limited to cases of patent illegality or perversity – No such infirmity found in Trial Court’s order rejecting expert opinion application – Revision Court declined interference [Paras 6, 10].

Decision – Criminal Revision Petition dismissed – Impugned order of Judicial Magistrate, Palani in Crl.M.P.No.5515 of 2023 upheld – Connected miscellaneous petition also closed [Para 10].

Matrimonial Law - Maintenance – Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act – Appeal partly allowed – Family Court granted Rs. 35,000/- per month for child but denied wife’s maintenance – Held: Object of Section 24 HMA is not mere subsistence but to ensure parity of lifestyle between spouses during litigation – Wife earning Rs. 1,25,000/- per month does not disentitle her when husband earns over Rs. 1 crore annually – Maintenance enhanced to Rs. 1,50,000/- per month cumulatively for wife and minor child [Paras 23-24, 29-33].

Earning Wife – Right to Maintenance – Law settled – An earning wife may still be entitled to maintenance if her income is insufficient to maintain standard of living enjoyed in matrimonial home – Reliance placed on Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai (2008) 2 SCC 316, Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324, and Nidhi Sudan v. Manish Kumar Khanna, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7652 – Financial disparity between parties is key factor [Paras 25-27, 31-32].

Quantum of Maintenance – Factors – Court reiterated principles from Rajnesh v. Neha (supra) – Status of parties, reasonable needs, lifestyle, income disparity, liabilities, and custody of child must be considered – Wife’s employment as Assistant Professor insufficient to meet her and child’s needs given respondent’s vastly higher income – Enhancement justified [Paras 28-30, 33].

Decision – Appeal disposed of with modification – Maintenance enhanced from Rs. 35,000/- to Rs. 1,50,000/- per month cumulatively for wife and child – All other directions of Family Court remain unaltered – No order as to costs [Paras 33-35].

Service Law - Recruitment – Fresh Written Test – WBMSC Notices dated 05.08.2024 & 09.08.2024 – Validity – Original 2011 exam covered 26,445 candidates; later, 73,978 found wrongly excluded due to answer key error – WBMSC held fresh written test in 2024 – Appellants (2011 candidates) argued second test barred by earlier Division Bench orders; Respondents contended correction necessary – Held: Commission empowered to rectify error; subsequent writ petitions cannot bar equitable relief to wrongly excluded candidates – Fresh written test upheld [Paras 90-100, 118-119].

Res Judicata vs. Precedent – Application – Earlier Division Bench orders (2020, 2023, 2024) dealt only with extension of time to complete process; no categorical prohibition on fresh test – Observations therein were not ratio decidendi but obiter; cannot operate as res judicata against Commission – Appellants’ plea rejected [Paras 37-40, 63-67].

Natural Justice – Inclusion of Left-Out Candidates – Screening error wrongly excluded 73,978 otherwise eligible candidates – Denial of opportunity after 14 years would cause grave prejudice – Allowing them a fresh written test ensured level playing field – Commission acted fairly; no mala fides established [Paras 71-79].

Recruitment Rules, 2010 – Compliance – Written exam and personality test structure under Rules 16-19 maintained; Commission excluded 24,577 already successful candidates from re-test to avoid prejudice – Process not arbitrary or discriminatory – Findings of Single Judge affirmed [Paras 43-44, 70].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – WBMSC notices of 05.08.2024 & 09.08.2024 and subsequent recruitment process including fresh written exam and merit list upheld – No interference warranted – Pending applications disposed [Paras 100-103, 119].

Bail in PMLA Case – Twin Conditions under Section 45 – Rigorous Standard Reiterated – Petition for bail under Section 439 CrPC in context of alleged laundering of ₹2.83 crores under PMLA – Held: Bail in PMLA cases governed by twin conditions under Section 45 – Court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail – Petitioner failed to meet this threshold – Bail rightly denied [Paras 6-11].

Proceeds of Crime – Direct Nexus Established – Petitioner’s Account Involved – Investigating agency traced proceeds of crime to bank account of petitioner used in laundering activity – Specific transaction trails established by ED showing petitioner’s complicity – Court found sufficient material to form prima facie belief of guilt [Paras 10-11].

Parity Not Applicable – Distinct Role of Petitioner – Merely Because Co-Accused Was Granted Bail Not Ground for Automatic Enlargement – Petitioner’s role found to be distinct and more direct than co-accused – Parity principle not attracted when material shows individualized involvement in offence [Para 12].

Right to Bail – Liberty under Article 21 – Not Absolute – Preventive Objective of PMLA – Though Article 21 guarantees personal liberty, in PMLA cases involving economic offences with societal impact, rigours of bail under Section 45 override general considerations – Held: Liberty must be balanced with interests of justice and economic order [Paras 13-15].

Final Order – Bail Rejected – No Infirmity in Trial Court’s Decision – Criminal Revision Dismissed – High Court refused to interfere with the lower court’s refusal of bail – Noted gravity of allegations and sufficiency of ED’s investigation – Directed trial to proceed expeditiously [Paras 16-17].

Theft – Conviction under Section 379 IPC – Sentence Modified – Petitioner, a woman and first-time offender, convicted of theft of a gold chain using a blade in a public hospital – Trial Court sentenced her to six months’ simple imprisonment – Conviction upheld by appellate court – In revision, High Court upheld conviction but modified sentence under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 considering absence of prior record, partial custody period, age, and lapse of 17 years – Directed release on probation with bond and undertaking [Paras 1-30].

Probation of Offenders Act – Applicability and Mandatory Consideration – Failure to Apply Sections 3 and 4 – Held: Both trial court and appellate court failed to discharge mandatory duty to consider benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act – High Court observed that the court is bound to consider applicability and record reasons if benefits are denied – Non-consideration vitiates sentencing process [Paras 22-28].

Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction – Limited Interference – Legal Error in Sentencing – While revisional court does not reappreciate evidence unless findings are perverse, it may intervene in sentencing where statutory provisions like Probation of Offenders Act are overlooked – Conviction affirmed but imprisonment substituted with probation due to legal infirmity in sentencing approach [Paras 10-14].

Sentencing Principles – Proportionality – Age, Custodial Duration, Delay Considered – Court noted that incarceration after 17 years from date of offence would serve no penal purpose – Held: Sentence must reflect proportionality and rehabilitative potential, especially for economically dependent first-time offenders [Paras 17-21, 28-30].

Final Order – Conviction Maintained – Imprisonment Set Aside – Accused Released on Probation – Petitioner directed to furnish bond of ₹10,000 and undertake to maintain peace and good behaviour for one year – Failure to comply to invite further action – Copy forwarded to District Probation Officer for guidance [Para 30].

Criminal Writ - Criminal Investigation – Transfer of Probe – SIT Constitution – Writ Allowed – In Crime No.1025/2024, Court directed reinvestigation by SIT headed by DGP Pranab Mohanty with senior IPS officers – Mandamus issued to State to hand over probe and transmit records – SIT to submit report within 3 months – Apex Court declined to interfere – Directions continued under doctrine of continuing mandamus [Paras Order dated 25.04.2025, amended 02.05.2025].

Cyber Crimes – Establishment of Cyber Command Centre (CCC) – Paradigm Shift – Court underscored existential threat of cybercrime and directed State to operationalize CCC headed by DGP – Government issued orders dated 09.04.2025 and 02.09.2025 establishing Cyber Command Unit, Cyber Crime Police Stations, and Cyber Crime Laboratory – Held: Establishment must not remain on paper; CCC to be insulated from political/external interference; officers including head not to be transferred arbitrarily; CCC to integrate cybercrime helpline 1930 and police IT system [Paras 3–7, 9–11].

Public Administration – Accountability & Transparency – Court stressed CCC must ensure transparency, record helpline complaints, draw zero FIRs, integrate all IT Act offences across CEN and jurisdictional police stations under CCC – Without such steps, investigations risk collapse in faceless digital crime environment – Statistics from 2021 (8,396 cases) to 2025 (30,000 cases) show exponential growth, necessitating robust CCC [Paras 7–10, 13–14].

Decision – Court found SIT investigation progressing appropriately; report to be placed once complete – Matter adjourned to 24.09.2025 for further hearing – Continuing mandamus retained to oversee CCC implementation [Paras 11–12].

Criminal Revision – Discharge – BNSS Ss. 438 & 442 – PC Act S. 13(1)(c), (d) r/w 13(2) – IPC Ss. 409, 420, 120B – Refusal to Discharge Upheld – Allegation that Board-level approval enabled supply of limestone at ₹689.87/MT against an earlier ₹621/MT with inferior quality/quantity, causing loss to Malabar Cements Ltd – Held: On materials placed, a prima facie case exists and issues raised by A6 & A7 (price parity with earlier supplier, royalty/diesel escalation, and purported profit) require trial – Special Court’s order disallowing discharge calls for no interference – Revision dismissed [Paras 1-3, 11, 14-16].

Public Servants – Board Decisions & Criminal Misconduct – Scope at Discharge Stage – Accused contended they merely participated in Board meetings and acted bona fide; prosecution pointed to creation of artificial demand, advance of ₹32 lakhs, and rate escalation with poorer quality/quantity – Principle reiterated that where materials disclose more than mere suspicion regarding abuse of position conferring pecuniary advantage, the matter must proceed to trial – Discharge declined [Paras 3-8, 11, 14-16].

Comparative Pricing – Contractual Clauses – Earlier purchase order’s “₹621/MT inclusive of levies/diesel” and provisions for revision relied upon by defence – Court noted the prosecution case that prior price did not rise to ₹689/MT and flagged contemporaneous mining/quantity constraints in Crescent Mines’ Modified Mining Plan – Whether escalations would equate to or justify ₹689/MT is a matter of evidence – Not a ground for discharge [Paras 12-15].

Discharge Threshold – Application of Supreme Court Precedents – Century Spinning (AIR 1972 SC 545), Muniswamy ((1977) 2 SCC 699) and Prafulla Kumar Samal (AIR 1979 SC 366) discussed – Court emphasized that at the stage of discharge, if materials raise a grave suspicion warranting trial, the Court should not weigh defence documents conclusively – Special Court recorded reasons and correctly refused discharge – High Court declined to interfere under revisional jurisdiction [Paras 9-11, 16].

Decision – Criminal Revision Petition dismissed – Interim stay vacated – Special Court directed to proceed – No interference with the refusal to discharge Accused Nos. 6 and 7 [Para 16].