Service Law – Reinstatement – Notional Increment – Tribunal directed refixation of pay with notional increment for period when employee was out of service – Respondent reinstated without back wages pursuant to Labour Court order upheld by High Court – Held: In absence of specific direction for consequential benefits or notional increments, such benefits cannot be claimed for the period of absence – Reinstatement without back wages does not automatically confer right to notional increment [Paras 1, 7, 10] –

Continuity of Service – Scope and Limitation – Respondent claimed full pay fixation from date of initial ad hoc appointment in 1985 – Terminated in 1997, reinstated in 2012 without back wages – CAT granted benefit of one notional increment for intervening period – Held: Continuity of service in such reinstatement is only for limited purpose (e.g., pension/seniority), not for monetary or incremental benefits unless specifically directed – [Paras 2, 6, 10] –

Binding Precedents – Applicability of Supreme Court Rulings – Court relied on Andhra Pradesh SRTC v. Abdul Kareem, (2005) 6 SCC 36 and V.V.G. Reddy v. A.P. SRTC, (2009) 2 SCC 668 – Held: Supreme Court has consistently ruled that increments are not earned during periods of absence from duty unless explicitly granted as consequential benefit – Deepali Gundu’s case does not overrule Abdul Kareem and is distinguishable [Paras 5-7] –

Increment – Not Earned in Absence – Increment can only be earned when employee is actually in service with good conduct – It is not automatic upon reinstatement unless backed by specific order or rule – Held: CAT erred in granting notional increment retrospectively for period of non-service – [Paras 9-10] –

Decision: Petition allowed – CAT’s order set aside – Original Application filed by respondent before CAT dismissed [Final Para].

Succession Law – Probate – Will – Appeal – Probate petition filed by appellant (son of deceased Testatrix) seeking Letters of Administration based on unregistered Will dated 10.05.1989 – Learned Single Judge dismissed probate petition and allowed partition suit filed by other legal heirs – Held: Will proved through attesting witnesses and scribe – Suspicious circumstances found by Single Judge were neither pleaded nor put to witnesses in cross-examination – Suspicion unfounded – Will upheld – Probate granted – Partition suit dismissed [Paras 1, 2(i)-(ii), 4, 35, 38-40]

Execution of Will – Attestation and Proof – Section 68, Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 63, Indian Succession Act, 1925 – Will was attested by two witnesses (PW2 and PW6) and scribed by daughter-in-law (PW5) – All deposed consistently affirming execution of Will in presence of Testatrix – No cross-examination on alleged suspicious circumstances – Held: Due execution proved as per law – No rebuttal by objectors – Testatrix’s second signature not explained as no opportunity was given to witnesses – Burden was on objectors [Paras 10, 21-22, 23-24, 35]

Suspicious Circumstances – Grounds raised suo motu by Court – No foundation laid by objectors – Single Judge doubted Will based on folding of document, lack of prior draft, venue of execution, absence of photographs, and exclusion of daughters – Held: Such grounds not pleaded or proved – Exclusion of daughters not unusual given social context of 1989 – Testatrix had right to bequeath property to any heir – Folding of Will and storage by Class VIII educated scribe (daughter-in-law) not suspicious – Signature mutilation due to folds explained – Absence of birthday photos immaterial in pre-mobile era [Paras 6(i)-(ix), 25-30, 32-34]

Testatrix’s Capacity – Educational Background – Testatrix studied up to Class II – Held: Mere limited formal education not a bar to executing a Will – Document was in Hindi, contained no legal jargon – Scribed by Class VIII educated daughter-in-law – Recitals in Will explained reasons for bequest – Objectors failed to disprove stated reasons [Paras 20, 27-28]

Comparison with Earlier Unproved Will – Will dated 06.02.1989 withdrawn by husband of Testatrix – Single Judge compared signatures of subject Will with that unproved Will – Held: Improper to compare with document not proved in accordance with law – No handwriting expert examined by objectors – Signatures on subject Will not disproved [Paras 5, 26, 36]

Legal Principle – Testamentary Freedom – Testatrix is free to bequeath property to any heir – No legal obligation to divide equally or include all children – Absence of strained relationship does not invalidate selective bequest – Disinheritance of married daughters not uncommon for era – Will reflects genuine last wish of Testatrix – Must be respected [Paras 31-32]

Partition Suit – Not Maintainable – In light of proved Will bequeathing entire property to appellant, suit for partition by other legal heirs fails – Will operates to exclude them – Partition decree set aside [Paras 2(ii), 39]

Conclusion – Will validly executed and proved – Suspicious circumstances not established – Impugned Judgment set aside – Probate granted – Partition suit dismissed – Appeal allowed [Paras 37-40]

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Dishonour of Cheque – Acquittal – Accused admitted signature on cheque but denied liability – Complainant presented sufficient documents including return memo, legal notice, postal proof, and reply – Trial Court acquitted the accused citing discrepancies and held complainant acted without reasonable cause – Held: Acquittal alone insufficient to invoke Section 250 CrPC – No finding of malicious prosecution – Direction to pay compensation unsustainable [Paras 10–15]

Criminal Law – Compensation to Accused under Section 250 CrPC – Setting Aside – Appellant filed complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 alleging that the respondent issued a cheque for ₹3,00,000/- towards repayment of a hand loan, which was dishonoured for “Insufficient Funds” – Trial Court acquitted the accused but awarded compensation of ₹25,000/- under Section 250 CrPC to the accused, holding that the complaint was filed without reasonable cause – High Court held that although the complainant failed to prove his case, the essential requirements to invoke Section 250 CrPC were not satisfied – No material to show malafide, malicious prosecution, or that the complaint was frivolous – Acquittal alone is insufficient ground for awarding compensation under Section 250 CrPC [Paras 3, 6, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15]

Compensation – Malicious Prosecution – Scope of Section 250 CrPC – High Court analyzed precedents including State of Rajasthan v. Jainudeen Shekh (2016) 1 SCC 514 and Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd. (2006) 6 SCC 736 – Reiterated that compensation under Section 250 CrPC can only be awarded if prosecution was without reasonable cause, was malicious or actuated by ulterior motives – Findings of the Trial Court based on presumption, not on cogent evidence of malice – Held: Procedural lapses or acquittal do not justify invoking Section 250 CrPC unless malicious prosecution is established [Paras 9, 13, 14, 15]

Cheque Dishonour – Existence of Reasonable Grounds – Cheque admitted by accused to bear his signature – Dishonour proven by return memo from SBI – Legal notice issued and duly served – Evidence such as postal acknowledgment, receipts, and reply to notice placed on record – High Court found that these materials constituted reasonable grounds to file complaint under Section 138 NI Act – Absence of memo from payee’s bank or discrepancies in endorsement do not amount to frivolous or malicious prosecution [Paras 10, 11, 12, 13]

Trial Court Findings – Held Perverse – Trial Court placed undue emphasis on evidentiary gaps like lack of bank memo from Nishant Society and endorsement by third-party bank – Found complainant had misused cheque without concrete evidence – High Court noted such findings were based on surmises – Witness from credit society admitted blank cheques are not permitted, contradicting respondent’s defence – No finding of malice or ill-intent against complainant – Invoking Section 250 CrPC unjustified [Paras 11, 13, 14, 15]

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Trial Court’s order dated 16/03/2017 awarding compensation of ₹25,000/- under Section 250 CrPC quashed and set aside – Acquittal of respondent under Section 138 NI Act remains undisturbed – No compensation payable to respondent – Appeal disposed accordingly [Para 15, Final Order]

Banking Law – Classification of Borrower Account as Fraud – Prejudgment in Show Cause Notice – Violation of Natural Justice – Action Set Aside – Petitioner challenged the show cause notice dated 28.02.2024 and the impugned order dated 07.08.2024 whereby respondent Bank of India reclassified the account of M/s Swati Mining Pvt. Ltd. as “Fraud” – Held: From the language and tone of the show cause notice, it is evident that the bank had pre-judged the matter – A show cause must be inquisitive, not conclusive – Use of definitive language rendered the notice invalid and the consequential action void [Paras 3, 16, 25]

Procedural Fairness – Forensic Audit Report Not Supplied – Personal Hearing Denied – Violation of Audi Alteram Partem – Petitioner repeatedly demanded a copy of the forensic audit report forming the basis of the fraud classification – Respondent bank’s claim of sending the report via email not substantiated with proof of delivery – Impugned order did not address petitioner’s objections or explain basis for rejection of reply – Personal hearing not granted despite being mandated in law and upheld by judgments in Rajesh Agarwal and IDBI Bank v. Gaurav Goyal – Held: Entire proceedings vitiated by non-compliance with principles of natural justice [Paras 4-6, 17, 21-24]

Judicial Precedent – Procedure for Fraud Classification – Guidelines in Hemant Kanoria Followed – Court reiterated the procedural safeguards laid down in Hemant Kanoria v. Bank of India, 2024 SCC OnLine Cal 1012 – Held: Respondent bank failed to serve the forensic audit report with the show cause notice, failed to call for further reply or provide hearing – Process adopted contrary to the RBI Master Directions and binding judicial precedent [Paras 20, 24]

Administrative Law – Quasi-Judicial Function – Impugned Order a Replica of Show Cause Notice – No Independent Reasoning – Court noted that the impugned order was a verbatim reproduction of the show cause notice and did not contain any findings dealing with petitioner’s objections – Held: Absence of a reasoned order violates requirement of fairness under Article 14 and RBI Master Directions – Classification order quashed [Paras 18, 24]

Remedy – Fresh Opportunity Granted – Liberty to Bank to Reinitiate Proceedings – While quashing the show cause notice and impugned order, Court granted liberty to the bank to proceed afresh in accordance with law from the stage of issuing a valid show cause notice, ensuring supply of relied documents and following due process [Para 25]

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Show cause notice dated 28.02.2024 and impugned order dated 07.08.2024 quashed – Respondent bank granted liberty to initiate proceedings afresh strictly in accordance with law and RBI Master Directions – No costs [Paras 25-26]

Criminal Law – Road Accident – Identification of Vehicle – Conviction under MV Act Partly Restored – Trial Court acquitted the accused for want of clarity on vehicle identification and ownership – Appellate Court reversed the acquittal under Sections 134(a) & (b) r/w 187 of MV Act based on corroborative circumstantial evidence including repair records, expert opinion, and evasive conduct of car owner and accused – High Court affirmed the conviction and fine – Held: Non-seizure of motorcycle or minor lapses in investigation do not override consistent evidence of hit-and-run and subsequent concealment by the accused [Paras 2–6, 14–17]

Motor Vehicles Act – Section 134(a) and (b) r/w Section 187 – Duty of Driver in Accident – Violation Established – Driver failed to provide medical aid or report the accident to police – Forensic and circumstantial evidence, including service centre documentation and expert opinion, confirmed vehicle's involvement – Vehicle was hurriedly left for service post-incident to evade detection – Conviction under MV Act upheld with lenient sentence of ₹5000 fine in lieu of imprisonment [Paras 15–17]

Criminal Procedure – Appeal against Acquittal – Locus and Scope – Appeal filed not by the State but by victim’s brother—court held that even a private party has standing in such matters—conviction under MV Act justified by evidence overlooked by trial court—High Court refused to interfere in revisional jurisdiction [Paras 6, 12–13, 17–18]

Judgment Correction – Counsel’s Name Rectified – Post-judgment correction made to record correct name of appearing counsel from “Mr. R. Parthaban” to “Mr. R. Prathaban” – Fresh copy directed to be issued accordingly [Order dated 11.12.2025]

Decision: Revision petitions dismissed – Conviction under Section 134(a) and (b) read with Section 187 of Motor Vehicles Act upheld – ₹5000 fine imposed stands – No relief granted to petitioners – Connected miscellaneous petition closed.

Criminal Law – Robbery – Doubtful Identification – Nighttime Crime – Conviction Set Aside – Petitioners (A1 & A3) convicted for stabbing and robbing two employees carrying ₹16 lakhs – Conviction confirmed by appellate court – However, eye-witnesses (PW1 & PW2) admitted to contradictions regarding identity, absence of lighting, prior exposure to accused photographs, and conflicting testimonies on sequence of events – Test Identification Parade conducted 45 days post-arrest after exposure to accused undermined its probative value – Held: Identification highly doubtful – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 13-18, 22].

Evidence – Eye-Witness Testimony – Contradictions – Lack of Corroboration – Acquittal Justified – Evidence of PW1 and PW2 contradictory and unsupported by independent witnesses – Medical records silent on crucial aspects such as chilli powder allegedly used – Doctor did not confirm stated injuries or circumstances – PW3 and PW5 claimed to have transported victims to hospital but hospital registers mention different names – Place of occurrence itself in dispute – Held: Trial and appellate courts failed to appreciate contradictions – Evidence insufficient for conviction [Paras 12, 15-16, 18].

Criminal Trial – Parity Principle – Similar Role, Disparate Outcome – Conviction Discriminatory – Co-accused A2 and A4–A8 acquitted despite similar evidence – No weapon recovery traced to petitioners – No specific overt act attributed to them – Conviction based solely on disputed identification – Held: Principle of parity mandates that petitioners be given same benefit of doubt as others – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 23-26].

Investigation – Recovery and Confession – Procedural Irregularities – Witness Credibility Doubtful – Confession and recovery allegedly made in presence of PW7 (VAO) and PW8 (Village Assistant) who admitted to being stock witnesses – No independent witness or house owner (Rajendran) examined – Typed confessions using laptop and mobile printer at scene not supported by evidence – Held: Recovery procedure artificial and unsupported – Evidence unreliable [Paras 19-21].

Decision: Revision allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Petitioners acquitted – Fine, if paid, to be refunded – Petitioners to be released forthwith unless required in any other proceedings.

Criminal Law – Rape and Murder – Conviction Based on Circumstantial Evidence – Death Penalty Commuted – Five-month-old infant abducted by maternal cousin from a marriage function – Later found severely injured and unconscious in a nearby vacant plot – Died during treatment – Convict last seen with victim – Recovery of victim and circumstantial evidence including forensic analysis supported prosecution – Conviction upheld but death sentence commuted to life imprisonment till natural life without remission – Held: Brutality alone cannot justify capital punishment in absence of premeditation or ruling out reform [Paras 1, 4, 35–39, 47–48, 57–58, 62, 63–72].

Evidence Act – Last Seen Theory – Circumstantial Evidence – Forensic Linkage – Accused seen taking child from mother at 7 p.m. – Found hours later with injuries consistent with sexual assault and blunt force trauma – Biological fluid of female origin found on accused’s clothing – No credible alternative hypothesis – Chain of circumstances complete – Theory of enmity rebutted – Held: Conviction sustainable even without DNA match where other links are firmly established [Paras 39, 48–50, 57–58, 60, 62].

Criminal Procedure – Capital Punishment – Rarest of Rare Doctrine – Commutation to Life Imprisonment Without Remission – Though trial court imposed death penalty, High Court held that since conviction was based on circumstantial evidence, and there was no premeditated intent, past criminal record, or evaluation from Probation Officer or psychologists, death penalty not justified – Reformation potential not ruled out – Life imprisonment without remission ordered [Paras 63–72].

Criminal Law – Investigation Lapses – Non-Fatal to Prosecution Case – CCTV footage procured but not produced in original Pen Drive – Compact Disc version unavailable – However, oral testimony of Investigating Officer and other witnesses, along with physical and forensic evidence, sufficient to prove guilt – Held: Investigation lapses alone cannot override substantive evidence [Paras 31–32, 60–61].

Constitutional Law – Sentencing – Consideration of Mitigating Factors Mandatory Before Awarding Death Penalty – Trial court did not obtain reports from Jail Administration, Probation Officer, or psychologist – Convict was 27 years old with no criminal antecedents – Death penalty must only be imposed when reform is unquestionably ruled out – Commutation appropriate in absence of full inquiry [Paras 63–71].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Conviction upheld – Death penalty under Sections 302 and 376(Ka)(Kha) IPC read with Section 6 POCSO Act commuted to life imprisonment for natural life without remission – Sentence under Section 364 IPC and fines confirmed – Reference in Capital Case No. 4 of 2021 not confirmed.

Criminal Law – Bail – POCSO and JJ Act Offences – Parity with Co-Accused – Petitioner charged under multiple IPC, JJ Act and POCSO provisions for alleged torture and abuse of a 3-year-old foster child – Other co-accused including petitioner’s husband (prime accused) granted bail – Held: On ground of parity and similar footing in charges, petitioner entitled to bail [Paras 5, 35]

Criminal Procedure – Illegal Arrest – Violation of Sections 50, 50A, 41B(b)(i), 46(4) CrPC – Arrest made without furnishing grounds, informing relatives, attesting arrest memo or obtaining prior judicial permission for arrest of woman at night – Held: Cumulative procedural lapses render arrest illegal – Fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 22(1) violated – Arrest unsustainable [Paras 26–32]

Constitutional Law – Article 21 – Prolonged Incarceration – Right to Speedy Trial – Petitioner in custody for over 2½ years, with only 15 of 74 witnesses examined and trial expected to take further considerable time – Held: Long incarceration violates right to liberty under Article 21 – Bail granted to prevent injustice and safeguard constitutional rights [Paras 22–24]

Interpretation of Precedent – Pankaj Bansal and Mihir Rajesh Shah Cases – Mandate to inform arrestee of grounds in writing applicable irrespective of arrest date – Argument that Pankaj Bansal applies only prospectively rejected – Section 50 of CrPC pre-existed and must be followed – Non-compliance affects validity of arrest [Paras 33–34]

Bail Conditions – Stringent Safeguards Imposed – Accused directed to furnish ₹1 lakh bond with two sureties (one government servant), surrender of official documents, non-contact with victim or witnesses, restriction on travel without court permission and cooperation in trial mandatory [Para 36]

Decision: Bail granted – Petitioner Dr. Sangeeta Dutta directed to be released in connection with Sessions (Special) Case No. 112/2023 on furnishing bond and fulfilling strict conditions – Court noted gross procedural violations during arrest and prolonged custody with pending trial – Petition allowed with liberty to State to seek cancellation in case of violation of conditions [Paras 35–37]

Criminal Law – Additional Evidence at Appellate Stage – Section 391 Cr.P.C. – Scope and Object – Appellate Court dismissed application for production of additional documents in appeal against conviction under Section 138 NI Act – Held: Power under Section 391 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised to secure ends of justice and where non-receipt of evidence may result in failure of justice – Additional evidence not confined to cases where judgment cannot be pronounced but where its absence may occasion miscarriage of justice – Impugned order set aside and petitioner permitted to adduce additional evidence [Paras 8, 12-14].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Conviction under Section 138 – Appeal Pending Since 2017 – Application for Production of Ledgers and Cheque Records – Appellate Court rejected plea treating it as dilatory tactic and holding that documents would not conclusively prove unlawful custody of cheques – High Court held that appellate court ought not to draw adverse inference on merits at stage of considering application under Section 391 Cr.P.C. and should examine necessity of evidence for just decision of appeal [Paras 10-11, 14].

Section 391 Cr.P.C. – Parameters for Exercise of Power – Additional evidence permissible where party was prevented from producing evidence despite due diligence or where facts came to light during pendency of appeal – Evidence must be necessary to avoid failure of justice – Reliance placed on Ajitsinh Chehuji Rathod v. State of Gujarat and Brig. Sukhjeet Singh (Retd.) MVC v. State of U.P. – Wide discretion vested in appellate court but to be exercised judiciously [Paras 12-13].

Decision: Criminal Petition allowed – Order dated 25.07.2025 in Crl.M.P. No.22 of 2023 in Crl.A. No.859 of 2017 set aside – Application under Section 391 Cr.P.C. allowed – Petitioner permitted to adduce additional evidence – Miscellaneous petitions closed [Paras 14-15].