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].

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].

Criminal Law - Prevention of Corruption Act – Procurement Fraud – Quash Petition – Allegations that petitioner (Assistant Executive Engineer, TWAD Board) colluded with Executive Engineers and private parties (fictitious firms) in procurement of HDPE materials under forged tender documents – Petitioner contended departmental charges on same facts dropped in 2007; co-accused in similar positions had proceedings quashed by HC (2015) and upheld by SC; approver (K. Elango) deceased; no material evidence remains – Held: Proceedings continuation would be futile; quashed [Paras 2-8].

Parity with Co-accused – Principle – Earlier quash orders in respect of similarly placed co-accused (Assistant Executive Engineers, Engineers, Accounts Officers, contractors’ employees) attained finality; departmental proceedings against TWAD Engineers dropped, challenge by Board rejected by SC; petitioner in identical position – High Court applied parity principle – Proceedings quashed [Paras 5-8].

Delay in Prosecution – Violation of Fair Trial – FIR registered 1988; charge sheet filed after 20 years in 2008; case transferred across multiple courts, pending over 35 years – Held: Inordinate delay coupled with absence of substantial evidence renders continuation oppressive and violative of Article 21; abuse of process [Paras 7-8].

Departmental Proceedings – Exoneration – Petitioner earlier proceeded departmentally for identical charges; full-fledged enquiry held; charges not proved; Board resolved to drop charges by order dated 17.12.2007 – Though disciplinary proceedings and criminal trial operate on different standards, where co-accused exonerated in both forums and SC dismissed Board’s challenges, continuation against petitioner unjustified [Paras 3-4, 6-8].

Decision – Crl.O.P. No. 13547 of 2025 allowed – Proceedings in Spl.C.C. No. 27 of 2024 quashed against petitioner – Crl.O.P. No. 7851 of 2025 for early trial disposed as infructuous [Paras 9-10].

Civil Law - Permanent Injunction - Personality/Publicity Rights – Unauthorized commercial exploitation and AI-generated misuse – Ex parte ad-interim injunction granted – Plaintiff alleged sale of merchandise and online content using his name, image, likeness, signature and other attributes, including AI/deepfake content and platform-facilitated listings – Held: Prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury established – Court restrained Defendants from exploiting Plaintiff’s persona and directed wide takedowns and disclosures under a structured set of directions [Paras 32-39].

Exemption from Pre-Institution Mediation – Section 12A CC Act – Urgent interim relief – Exemption granted – In light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Krithi, urgent interim relief warranted exemption from mandatory pre-litigation mediation – Application allowed [Paras 1-3].

Court Fees – Section 149 CPC – Time extended – Considering submissions, two weeks’ time granted to deposit court fees – Application disposed of [Paras 6-8].

Additional Documents – Order XI Rule 1(4) CPC (Commercial Suits) – Leave granted – Plaintiff permitted to file additional documents in accordance with CC Act and Original Side Rules [Paras 9-11].

Electronic Evidence Certificate – Section 63(4)(c), Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 – Time extended – Plaintiff directed to file requisite certificate within four weeks – Application allowed [Paras 12-14].

Notice to Government Authorities – Section 80(2) CPC – Exemption from prior notice – Exemption granted qua Ministry of Electronics & IT and Department of Telecommunications as pro forma parties to facilitate implementation of Court’s orders [Paras 15-17].

Institution, Summons and Pleadings – Registration of suit, issuance of summons/notice – Directions on filing Written Statements with affidavits of admission/denial and timelines for replications and inspection – Joint Registrar date fixed – Platform-defendant (D-15) to provide BSI for D-10 to D-14 and Plaintiff to amend memo accordingly [Paras 18-25].

Discovery Application – Order XI Rules 1, 3, 5 CPC – Notice issued – Timelines set for replies/rejoinders – Service directions reiterated [Paras 26-29].

Scope of Personality Rights & Privacy – Technology-enabled depictions – Court’s articulation – Unauthorized use of a celebrity’s persona including via AI/deepfakes dilutes goodwill, causes confusion as to endorsement, and intrudes upon privacy and dignity—judicial intervention warranted to prevent irreversible harm [Paras 35-38].

Interim Reliefs – Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC – Comprehensive injunctive and takedown regime – Defendants 1–14 & 18 restrained from using Plaintiff’s name “Abhishek Bachchan”/acronym “AB”, voice, image/likeness, performances or any persona attributes via any technology including AI/GenAI/deepfakes/face morphing – Specific takedown obligations imposed on website operators, platforms (including YouTube/Google LLC), marketplace entities, and directions to Government authorities to issue necessary blocking orders – Platforms directed to furnish BSI (names, emails, contact numbers, IP logs, registration details) in sealed cover/password-protected format within stipulated timelines – Liberty to Plaintiff to circulate order and Annexure-A to hosting entities for compliance – Compliance with Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC directed – Next date fixed [Paras 39(i)-(xiii), 40-42].

Decision (Interim): Ex parte ad-interim injunction granted restraining misuse of Plaintiff’s personality/publicity rights and directing extensive takedown/blocking and BSI disclosures—procedural exemptions and timelines granted as above [Paras 1-3, 12-17, 35-42].

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].

Criminal Procedure – Dismissal of Complaint – Lack of Prima Facie Case – Trial court dismissed complaint under Section 203 CrPC for want of cogent evidence – Revisionist alleged assault and snatching of mangalsutra at gunpoint by opposite party No. 2 – However, other witnesses did not corroborate her statement – Medical report showed only simple injuries – Held: Complaint lacked sufficient corroborative material and was rightly dismissed [Paras 4–9].

Appreciation of Evidence – Inconsistencies – Statement of Complainant Not Supported – PW-1 (complainant) claimed assault and theft but PW-2 and PW-3 did not support her version – Court found lack of coherence and continuity in testimonies – Mere allegations not enough to summon accused without supporting evidence [Paras 7–8].

Judicial Conduct – Use of Abusive Language – Statement of PW-1 and judicial order recorded abusive language – Court deprecated such language in pleadings and orders – Directed all judicial officers to use decent, restrained language in judicial functions – Issued general instructions for compliance by district judiciary in U.P. [Paras 11–12].

Decision: Criminal revision dismissed – Complaint found devoid of merits – Directions issued to judicial officers to avoid abusive language in orders and witness statements.

Civil Writ - Service & Labour – Seniority Fixation – CIL Mining Executives – First Class Mines Manager Certificate (FCMMCC) – Horizontal placement vs. DPC cut-off – Direction to Reconsider – Petitioners (2009 direct recruits) sought notional seniority in E-4 from 30/09/2014 at par with 2009 batchmates; respondents argued eligibility depends on timely submission of FCMMCC before 24/07/2014 DPC; Court noted 12/06/2006 CIL policy horizontally places executives who pass 1st Class MMCC in E3/E4/E5 “from the effective date of 1st Class,” and no subsequent notification altering this was produced – Held: Authorities to reconsider petitioners’ representations afresh strictly in law and pass a reasoned order after hearing all parties within two months – Writ disposed, no costs [Paras 14–15, 18–23, 25–27].

Administrative Law – Departmental Committee Recommendations – Normative Effect – Committee proposed methodology to address anomalies in horizontal movement and seniority, including examples, tracking FCMMCC applications, and future guidance – However, no published notification giving binding effect to recommendations placed before Court – Recommendations cannot eclipse express terms of extant 12/06/2006 policy absent due promulgation – Matter remitted for reconsideration accordingly [Paras 16, 18–22, 23, 25–27].

Equality Before Law – Article 14 – Parity in Notional Seniority among Similarly Situated Executives – Petitioners and certain private respondents passed the same FCMMCC examination and were in the same channel/grade; selective grant of notional E-4 seniority from 30/09/2014 to batchmates but not petitioners flagged as contrary to the 2006 policy – Court left all points open but required a speaking reconsideration order addressing parity and policy application [Paras 10–11, 23, 25–27].

Promotion Policy – Vertical vs. Horizontal Movement – Time-bound promotions contrasted with qualification-contingent horizontal placement – Respondents’ reliance on DPC cut-off and petitioners’ delay arguments noted; Court did not adjudicate merits on these disputes and confined relief to reconsideration under governing policy – Writ disposed without costs; interim orders vacated [Paras 5, 14–17, 25, 27, 29].

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].

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].