Criminal Contempt – Scandalising the Court – Repeated Allegations of Case Fixing and Corruption – Accused made reckless, false and unsubstantiated allegations against Members of Central Administrative Tribunal and Judges of the High Court in pleadings, affidavits, representations and oral submissions – Allegations included “case-fixing-deal-crime”, corruption, illicit relationships and criminal conspiracy – Held: Such allegations are scurrilous, scandalous and intended to lower the authority of courts and squarely fall within Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act [Paras 1–4, 11–12, 18].

Criminal Contempt – Abuse of Judicial Process – Conduct of Party-in-Person – Accused persisted with contemptuous pleadings even during contempt proceedings – No denial of imputations made – Evidence led by accused did not rebut charges but reiterated allegations – Held: Conduct amounts to aggravated contempt in the face of the Court and interference with administration of justice [Paras 10, 14–15, 18–19].

Criminal Contempt – Freedom of Speech – Limits – Defence of Fair Criticism Not Available – Accused sought to justify allegations as whistleblowing and criticism – Held: Freedom under Article 19(1)(a) does not extend to unfounded, malicious and scandalous attacks on Judges and judicial institutions – Fair criticism permissible, but imputing motives, corruption and collusion without basis constitutes contempt [Paras 7, 17].

Criminal Contempt – Proof of Charges – Documentary and Oral Evidence – Complainant examined and 18 documents marked establishing repeated scandalous statements – Accused admitted authorship of statements during cross-examination – Held: Charges proved beyond doubt; accused failed to discredit prosecution evidence or show mitigating circumstances [Paras 15, 18].

Sentence – Criminal Contempt – Determination of Punishment – Accused showed no remorse and continued adamant stance – Gravity of contempt, repetitive nature of allegations and impact on public confidence in judiciary considered – Held: Deterrent punishment necessary to uphold majesty of law [Paras 19–23].

Decision: Accused convicted for Criminal Contempt under Section 12(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Sentenced to simple imprisonment for four months and fine of Rs.2,000/- – Conviction warrant directed to be issued – Accused taken into custody forthwith – Petition disposed of.

Arbitration – Objection to Award – Limitation – Delay in Filing – Section 30 of Arbitration Act, 1940 – Petition for setting aside arbitral award filed beyond 30-day period from deemed date of knowledge – Supreme Court clarified that limitation began from Court's direction to clear arbitrator's fee, not from notice of filing – Trial court rightly rejected application for condonation of delay – Held: Objection was time-barred – Delay not condonable under Section 5 of Limitation Act in context of Section 30 of Arbitration Act, 1940 [Paras 9–10, 35–38].

Arbitration – Maintainability of Claim – Locus Standi – Legal Representative – Claims raised by respondent after death of original contractor – Alleged power of attorney holder failed to furnish succession certificate or prove legal status – Appellants contended arbitration proceedings were invalid for want of standing – Arbitrator failed to consider preliminary objection on maintainability – Matter requires judicial scrutiny on appeal [Paras 13–14].

Arbitration Award – Departmental Delay – Claim of Delay in Payment – Award of ₹5.5 Lakhs challenged by appellants – Department argued delay was due to contractor’s fault and extensions were granted – Award based on out-of-contract claims and not supported by contract terms – Arbitrator awarded ₹1 crore with interest without detailing basis – Held: Grounds raised by appellants require consideration – Appeal admitted for final disposal [Paras 15–23].

Limitation – Condonation of Delay – Section 5 of Limitation Act – Inapplicability – Court reaffirmed that delay in filing objection under Section 30 of Arbitration Act cannot be condoned under Section 5 of Limitation Act – Relying on precedents including Madan Lal v. Sunder Lal, AIR 1967 SC 1233, and Indian Rayon Corpn. Ltd v. Raunaq, AIR 1988 SC 2054 – Held: Procedural bar on filing delayed objections absolute under Arbitration Act, 1940 [Paras 28–33, 38].

Appeal – Admission – Procedural Fairness – Delay Alone Not Sufficient to Defeat Substantive Challenge – Although delay in objection was not condoned, appellants raised substantial legal grounds including jurisdictional error, maintainability, and irregular award – Held: Appeal admitted for final hearing – Delay must not defeat justice [Paras 39–41].

Decision: Appeal admitted for hearing – Delay in filing objection against arbitral award held uncondonable – Application under Section 30 dismissed as time-barred – However, considering merits raised regarding validity and scope of arbitral award, appeal admitted for final adjudication – Matter to be listed on 08.01.2026.

Criminal Contempt – Forgery and Impersonation – Fabricated Court Filings – Conviction – Accused filed a statement of objections purportedly on behalf of Union of India by forging the signature and affidavit of the Central Government Standing Counsel – Counsel categorically denied preparing or filing the objections and disowned the affidavit – Held: Filing forged pleadings and impersonating counsel amounts to interference with due course of judicial proceedings and constitutes criminal contempt [Paras 1–2, 11–14].

Contempt of Courts Act – Section 2(c) – Interference with Administration of Justice – Accused personally served forged statement of objections on opposite counsel and filed the same before the Court – Evidence of Assistant Registrar, Oath Commissioner and Advocate witnesses corroborated fabrication – Held: Conduct squarely falls within definition of criminal contempt [Paras 6–7, 12–14].

Suo Motu Contempt – Procedure – Framing of Charges – Charges framed after detailed consideration by coordinate Bench – Accused given full opportunity to contest proceedings and lead evidence – Principles of natural justice complied with [Paras 2–4, 6].

Evidence – Oath Commissioner and Witness Testimony – Signature Mismatch – Oath Commissioner testified that signatures in oath register did not tally with genuine signature of the Central Government Counsel – Advocate witness identified accused as person who attempted service of forged objections – Held: Prosecution case proved beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 7, 12–14].

Defence of Accused – Plea of Assistance to Counsel – Rejected – Accused claimed he merely assisted counsel in filing objections – No documentary or electronic evidence supporting authorisation – Counsel entered appearance only later and expressly denied preparation or filing – Defence found false and untenable [Paras 10–13].

Sentencing – Criminal Contempt – Lack of Remorse – Accused showed no regret and persisted in allegations against Judges and counsel – Gravity of offence and impact on judicial process considered – Held: Custodial sentence warranted [Paras 16–18].

Decision: Accused convicted for Criminal Contempt of Court under Section 12(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Sentenced to simple imprisonment for four months and fine of Rs.2,000/- – Accused directed to be taken into custody forthwith – Conviction warrant ordered to be issued – Pending interlocutory applications disposed of.

Default Bail – NDPS Act – Section 36A(4) – Extension of Investigation Period – Petitioner arrested on 15.05.2025 – Statutory period of 180 days expired on 11.11.2025 – Special Court granted extension of 120 days on 31.10.2025 on report of SPP – Accused neither produced physically nor virtually and no notice given at the time of consideration of extension – Held: Non-production and absence of notice is a gross illegality affecting personal liberty under Article 21 – Extension order unsustainable – Indefeasible right to default bail accrued to the petitioner [Paras 30–32, 45–48, 54–58].

Criminal Procedure – Default Bail – Section 187 BNSS – Nature of Right – Default bail is a constitutional safeguard flowing from Article 21 and not a mere procedural formality – Continued detention beyond statutory period without a valid extension is illegal [Paras 36–41].

NDPS Act – Section 36A(4) – Extension of Time – Mandatory Compliance – Public Prosecutor’s report must indicate progress of investigation and specific reasons for continued detention – Compliance also requires affording the accused an opportunity to oppose the extension – Failure vitiates the extension order [Paras 35, 45–46].

Notice to Accused – Extension of Custody – Physical or Virtual Production Mandatory – Accused must be informed that application for extension is being considered – Mere production for judicial remand on the same day does not amount to valid notice – Absence of accused is not a curable irregularity but a violation of fair procedure under Article 21 [Paras 46–48, 51–53].

Judicial Custody – Same Day Production – Distinction – Order recording that accused was “in JC” does not establish presence at the time of hearing of extension application – Record must reflect production or participation of accused when extension is considered [Paras 51–53].

Default Bail Application – Erroneous Rejection – Trial Court rejected default bail on ground that extension had already been granted – Held: Since extension itself was illegal, rejection of default bail could not be sustained – Right to default bail revived automatically on expiry of 180 days [Paras 55–57].

Relief – Orders Set Aside – Extension order dated 31.10.2025 and order dated 13.11.2025 rejecting default bail quashed – Petitioner held entitled to default/statutory bail – Bail granted on conditions including furnishing of bond and surety – Petition allowed [Paras 58–60].

Decision: Petition allowed – Order dated 31.10.2025 granting extension of investigation and order dated 13.11.2025 rejecting default bail set aside – Petitioner granted default/statutory bail subject to conditions.

Income Tax – Reassessment – Assumption of Jurisdiction under Section 147 – Reopening upheld – Original assessment under Section 143(3) was wholly silent on the assessee’s claim for deduction under Section 80HHC – There was no evidence of any query raised or discussion held by the Assessing Officer on this issue – Held: In the absence of any application of mind or conscious consideration, reopening could not be termed a mere change of opinion – Assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 was valid [Paras 3–5, 17–22]

Income Tax – Change of Opinion – Applicability – Assessee’s argument rejected – The principle of “change of opinion” held inapplicable where no opinion was formed in the first place – Original assessment was non-speaking and devoid of any reference to Section 80HHC – Reassessment justified under Explanation 2(c)(iii) to Section 147 as it involved grant of excessive relief [Paras 17–22]

Reassessment – Excess Relief under Section 80HHC – Formula misapplied – Assessing Officer reopened the assessment on the ground that the assessee had wrongly computed deduction under Section 80HHC by omitting a negative factor from the prescribed formula – Excess deduction of ₹17,33,542 claimed – This amounted to income escaping assessment – Tribunal and First Appellate Authority upheld reassessment – High Court found no legal error in their reasoning [Paras 8, 22]

Distinction from Precedents – TechSpan and Hareshkumar Panchani cases not applicable – Unlike the present case, the cited judgments involved prior discussions and specific queries raised during original assessment – Here, complete absence of engagement on the deduction issue meant those decisions were distinguishable [Paras 23–26]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Substantial question of law answered in favour of the Revenue – Reassessment under Section 147 upheld – No costs.

Criminal Law – Unlawful Assembly – House Trespass – Rioting – Trial Court Conviction – High Court Reappreciation – Appellants convicted for offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 427 and 452 r/w 149 IPC – Revision by de facto complainant against acquittal for offences under Sections 354, 395 and 511 r/w 376 IPC – Held: Prosecution failed to prove case beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 5, 47].

Criminal Trial – Delay in FIR – Effect – Alleged incident on 15.01.2001 – FIR recorded only on 16.01.2001 evening – Evidence showed complainant visited hospital and police station earlier but complaint lodged after discussions with relatives and political leaders – Held: Delay unexplained – Possibility of embellishment and coloured version could not be ruled out [Paras 25–27, 46].

Evidence – Ocular Testimony – Reliability – Sole reliance on evidence of PW1 (victim), PW2 (son) and PW5 (minor daughter) – Testimony riddled with contradictions, inconsistencies and improvements – Independent neighbour witness turned hostile – Held: Evidence not trustworthy for sustaining conviction [Paras 27, 39, 47].

Evidence – Medical and Scientific Evidence – Absence – Medical examination revealed no external injuries on PW1 or PW5 – No semen or spermatozoa detected – Allegations of sexual assault and attempt to rape not corroborated by medical evidence – Held: Prosecution version weakened [Paras 18–19, 47].

Criminal Law – Identification of Accused – Dock Identification – Mandatory Requirement – Witnesses failed to properly identify accused in dock – Inconsistent identification during testimony – Identification not recorded in accordance with law – Held: Identification evidence unreliable [Paras 30–31].

Criminal Trial – Non-examination of Material Witnesses – Adverse Inference – Elder daughter of PW1 and neighbour’s wife, both crucial witnesses, not examined – No satisfactory explanation for withholding material witnesses – Held: Prosecution case suffers from serious deficiency [Paras 21–22].

Criminal Law – Benefit of Doubt – Group Rivalry – Political Enmity – Evidence disclosed communal riot, political murders and rival group clashes in locality – Defence evidence showed contemporaneous bomb blast incident and hospitalisation of second accused – Prosecution suppressed material facts – Held: Accused entitled to benefit of reasonable doubt [Paras 39–45].

Criminal Revision – Scope – De facto Complainant – Challenge to Acquittal – Revisional court cannot interfere unless findings are perverse – Trial court’s acquittal based on appreciation of evidence – Held: No ground to interfere with acquittal of remaining accused or with acquittal for sexual offences [Paras 5, 47].

Decision: Criminal Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence of appellants under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 427 and 452 r/w 149 IPC set aside – Appellants acquitted of all charges and set at liberty – Criminal Revision Petition dismissed – Acquittal of accused for offences under Sections 354, 395 and 511 r/w 376 IPC confirmed [Paras 47].

Criminal Law – Appeal Against Acquittal – Rash and Negligent Driving – Sections 279, 337, 304-A IPC – State challenged acquittal of respondent in a road accident case resulting in death of one person and simple injuries to another – Trial Court acquitted respondent by granting benefit of doubt – Held: Appellate Court must be slow to interfere unless findings are perverse – Double presumption of innocence operates in favour of the accused – No ground made out for interference [Paras 1, 9, 14–15].

Rash or Negligent Act – Ingredients of Section 304-A IPC – Mere accident or hitting from behind not sufficient – Prosecution must prove that act was rash or negligent and was proximate cause of death – Presumption of negligence cannot automatically be drawn against the driver [Paras 5–6].

Evidence – Sole Eyewitness – Injured Witness – PW-1 failed to depose that vehicle was driven rashly or negligently – No statement regarding high speed, exact speed, lane of driving, or manner of driving – Identification of accused alone insufficient to establish culpable rashness or negligence [Paras 10–11].

Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur – Limited Application – Presumption of negligence arises only where nature of accident and surrounding circumstances unequivocally indicate negligence – Not applicable merely because a vehicle hit another from behind [Paras 6–7].

Contradictions in Prosecution Case – Place of Recording Statement – PW-1 stated his statement was recorded at police station, whereas IO claimed it was recorded at the spot – Serious doubt created regarding reliability of prosecution version [Para 12].

Investigation – Deficiencies – No photographs of spot – No evidence of skid marks or dragging marks – Site plan did not show dragging of motorcycle nor bore signature of eyewitness – Exact point of impact not established – Lapses weaken prosecution case [Paras 11–13].

Appellate Scrutiny – Plausible View – Trial Court’s appreciation of evidence found to be reasonable and well-reasoned – Where two views are possible, appellate court should not substitute its own view merely because it prefers another – Acquittal rightly sustained [Paras 14–15].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal of respondent under Sections 279/337/304-A IPC upheld – Personal bond cancelled and surety discharged.

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Compromise – Rash and Negligent Act Causing Death – FIR registered under Sections 281, 125(a) and 106 BNS – Petitioner sought quashing on the basis of compromise with complainant – Held: Offence under Section 106 BNS is not private in nature but a crime against society – FIR cannot be quashed merely on the basis of compromise [Paras 1–4, 8].

Victimology – Death Due to Negligence – Concept of “Real Victim” – In offences resulting in death, the deceased is the real and primary victim – FIR complainant or legal heirs cannot substitute consent of deceased for purposes of compromise – Compromise with surviving family inconsequential for quashing proceedings under Section 106 BNS [Paras 12–13, 8].

Inherent Powers of High Court – Section 528 BNSS – Scope and Limits – Powers analogous to Section 482 CrPC – To be exercised to secure ends of justice and prevent abuse of process – Such powers cannot be used to privatise serious criminal liability or to permit quashing of grave offences having societal impact [Paras 7, 10–11].

Public Interest vs Private Settlement – Section 106 BNS – Fatal Road Accident – Allowing quashing on compromise would erode deterrence and public confidence in criminal justice system – Penal consequences cannot be neutralised by private settlement or pecuniary arrangements [Paras 13.2, 14].

Precedent – Binding Judicial View – Reliance placed on Satnam Singh v. State of Punjab (2025:PHHC:162281) – Daxaben v. State of Gujarat, (2022) AIR SC 3530 – Baldev Singh v. State of Punjab – Consistent view that FIRs under Section 304-A IPC / 106 BNS are not liable to be quashed on compromise alone [Paras 7, 14–15].

Clarification – Quashing on Merits – While compromise-based quashing is impermissible, petition seeking quashing on merits independent of compromise remains maintainable – Present petition confined solely to compromise and hence rejected [Para 14].

Decision: Petition dismissed – FIR No.187 dated 04.09.2025 under Sections 281, 125(a) and 106 BNS and proceedings arising therefrom not quashed – Trial/investigation to proceed in accordance with law – Observations not to influence merits of the case – Pending applications disposed of.

Transfer of Property Act - Mortgage by Conditional Sale vs. Sale with Condition to Repurchase - Interpretation of Document - Intention of Parties - Section 58(c) of TP Act - A transaction is a "sale with a condition to repurchase" rather than a "mortgage by conditional sale" if the document clearly transfers absolute title, grants the purchaser the right to deal with the property, and lacks a debtor-creditor relationship or a clear intention to secure a loan- The intention of the parties must be gathered primarily from the unambiguous language of the document itself.

Property Law - Mortgage by Conditional Sale - Sale with Condition to Repurchase - The appellants challenged the first appellate court's decree for redemption of mortgage, arguing that the document dated 2nd July 1962 was a sale with a condition to repurchase, not a mortgage by conditional sale- The original vendor failed to exercise the repurchase option within the stipulated five-year period- The High Court, in second appeal, examined the terms of the document and the intention of the parties- Held: The document was a sale deed with a condition to repurchase, not a mortgage by conditional sale- The terms clearly indicated an absolute transfer of title to the purchaser, including the right to deal with the property, and there was no debtor-creditor relationship or intention to secure a loan- The consideration amount, though low, was not the sole factor for interpretation- Since the right to repurchase was extinguished after five years (1967) due to non-exercise, the plaintiff, as the vendor's son, was not entitled to seek redemption of a non-existent mortgage 27 years later- The first appellate court erred in misinterpreting the document- Paras [1-30]

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 58(c) - Determining Nature of Transaction - Held: To determine whether a transaction is a mortgage by conditional sale or a sale with a condition to repurchase, the intention of the parties is paramount and must be gathered from the recitals of the document itself- If the language is plain and unambiguous, it must be given its true legal effect- Surrounding circumstances, such as property valuation, are relevant only if the language is ambiguous- Key factors include the existence of a debt, debtor-creditor relationship, and the right to deal with the property- Paras [15, 16, 17, 20, 27, 28]

Limitation Act, 1963 - Redemption of Mortgage - Held: A suit for redemption of mortgage must be filed within the prescribed limitation period- If the transaction is determined to be a sale with a condition to repurchase, and the right to repurchase is extinguished due to non-exercise within the stipulated time, a subsequent suit for redemption of mortgage is not maintainable- Paras [13, 26, 30]

Decision: Second Appeal allowed- The judgment and decree of the first appellate court are quashed and set aside- The trial court's judgment dismissing the suit is confirmed- Paras [31].