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.

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.

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].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Conviction and Sentence – Trial court convicted petitioner for dishonour of cheque and imposed sentence of one year simple imprisonment with compensation of Rs.18,00,000/- – Appellate court suspended sentence subject to deposit of 20% of compensation – Legality of such conditional suspension examined [Paras 1–3].

Criminal Procedure – Suspension of Sentence – Section 389 CrPC read with Section 148 NI Act – Appellate court imposed condition of 20% deposit mechanically – Held: Though Section 148 empowers appellate court to impose such condition, it is not mandatory in every case – Appellate court must examine whether case falls within exception warranting waiver [Paras 4–5].

Natural Justice – Opportunity of Hearing – Exceptional Circumstances – Appellate court failed to afford opportunity to petitioner to make submissions regarding financial hardship or exceptional circumstances before imposing condition – Held: Imposition of deposit without granting such opportunity is unsustainable in law [Paras 6–7].

Precedent – Binding Effect – Reliance on Supreme Court Judgment – Jamboo Bhandari v. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., 2023(4) RCR (Criminal) 296 – Held: Appellate court must record reasons if it chooses to waive or relax deposit of 20% compensation – Failure to follow settled law vitiates the impugned order [Paras 4–5, 9].

Decision: Criminal revision allowed – Condition directing deposit of 20% of compensation amount set aside – Matter remanded to lower appellate court to reconsider the issue afresh after granting opportunity to petitioner – Order of suspension of sentence to remain undisturbed – Petition disposed of accordingly [Paras 7–10].

Criminal Law – Circumstantial Evidence – Murder Case – Acquittal – Appellant convicted by Trial Court for murder of his wife by assault with a gas cylinder – Case admittedly resting on circumstantial evidence with no eye-witness – High Court reiterated settled principles governing appreciation of circumstantial evidence requiring complete and unbroken chain pointing only to guilt of accused – Held: Prosecution failed to establish circumstances conclusively and beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 23–29, 39–43, 46].

Circumstantial Evidence – Presence of Accused at Place of Occurrence – Failure to Prove – Prosecution alleged accused was arrested from spot – Contradicted by Investigating Officer who stated accused was arrested later from Gate No.2, Tronica City – Landlord (P.W.-2) also did not support presence of accused at scene – Held: Presence of accused at relevant time not proved by cogent or reliable evidence [Paras 45–46].

Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 27 – Recovery Evidence – Limited Evidentiary Value – Recovery of gas cylinder allegedly on pointing out of accused – Site plan prepared prior to arrest itself showed cylinder lying openly inside room – Article neither concealed nor discovered from place exclusively within accused’s knowledge – Held: Recovery not admissible as incriminating circumstance and does not form valid link in chain of circumstances [Paras 30–38, 45].

Forensic Evidence – Blood Stains on Clothes – Inconclusive Proof – Lower of accused found stained with human blood – Serological report could not determine origin of blood – Held: Mere presence of human blood without linkage to deceased insufficient to sustain conviction [Paras 6, 21–22, 46].

Motive – Marital Discord and Alleged Second Marriage – Insufficient to Sustain Conviction – Prosecution relied on concealment of first marriage and matrimonial disputes – No prior complaints or independent evidence establishing strong motive – Held: Motive alone cannot justify conviction in absence of complete chain of circumstances [Paras 21–22, 46].

Criminal Jurisprudence – Benefit of Doubt – Prosecution Burden – Suspicion, however strong, cannot take place of proof – In cases of circumstantial evidence each link must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and exclude every hypothesis of innocence – Held: Accused entitled to benefit of doubt [Paras 29, 42, 46].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 302 and 495 IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted – Directed to be released forthwith unless wanted in any other case [Paras 47–48].

Service Law – Gratuity – Conflict between Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and Service Rules – CMD of Government Company – Applicability of MSTC CDA Rules – Appellant-company challenged Single Judge judgment upholding entitlement of respondent (former CMD) to gratuity under the 1972 Act – Held: Where service conditions are governed by CDA Rules permitting continuation of disciplinary proceedings and recovery of pecuniary loss from gratuity, such Rules prevail – Single Judge erred in applying the Payment of Gratuity Act in exclusion of the Rules [Paras 27–38].

Service Jurisprudence – Disciplinary Proceedings after Superannuation – Legal Fiction of Continuation in Service – Rule 30A of MSTC CDA Rules – Disciplinary proceedings initiated prior to retirement and concluded thereafter – Punishment of recovery from gratuity imposed – Held: Rule 30A(i) creates a legal fiction of deemed continuation in service – Authority competent to impose punishment including recovery from gratuity even after superannuation [Paras 28–35].

Gratuity – Forfeiture / Recovery – Section 4(6), Payment of Gratuity Act – Interpretation – Respondent contended forfeiture impermissible absent termination – Court held that Rule 30A(ii) of CDA Rules operates disjunctively – Recovery permissible either for misconduct under Section 4(6) of the Act or for negligence causing pecuniary loss proved in disciplinary proceedings – Compliance with Section 4(6) not mandatory in every case of recovery under CDA Rules [Paras 31, 35–37].

Service Rules – Primacy over Gratuity Act – Effect of Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. v. Rabindranath Choubey – Supreme Court held that Payment of Gratuity Act does not fetter power of employer to continue disciplinary proceedings or impose punishment under applicable service rules – Single Judge relied on overruled decision in Jaswant Singh Gill – Held: Impugned judgment contrary to settled law and unsustainable [Paras 7–8, 32–38].

Judicial Review – Limits – Gratuity Proceedings – Controlling and Appellate Authorities under Gratuity Act cannot examine legality or propriety of disciplinary proceedings – Single Judge erred in traversing into disciplinary findings while adjudicating gratuity claim – Held: Such exercise beyond permissible scope [Paras 38].

Service Law – Finality of Disciplinary Punishment – Respondent did not challenge punishment order dated 30/04/2013 imposing recovery from gratuity – Accepted and allowed to attain finality – Held: Subsequent gratuity claim cannot indirectly unsettle final disciplinary order [Paras 36–37].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of Single Judge dated 25/03/2025 in WPA No. 15908 of 2019 set aside – Order of Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act dated 30/04/2019 set aside – Order of Controlling Authority dated 20/02/2018 upheld – Respondent not entitled to gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

Motor Accident Compensation – Death of Minor Child – Enhancement of Compensation – Tribunal assessed notional income at Rs.30,000 per annum and awarded lump sum compensation – High Court held that a deceased minor cannot be equated with a non-earning person merely due to absence of gainful employment – Minimum wages of skilled workman applicable – Income reassessed at Rs.10,000 per month – Award enhanced substantially [Paras 1, 9–10, 14].

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 166 – Assessment of Income – Minimum Wages – Reliance placed on recent Supreme Court pronouncement holding that minimum wages of skilled workman must be adopted for deceased minor – Tribunal committed manifest error in adopting arbitrary notional income – Corrected by High Court [Paras 9–10].

Future Prospects – Minor Deceased – Addition Mandatory – Considering age of deceased (15 years), future prospects @ 40% added in terms of Pranay Sethi – Tribunal erred in not granting any amount under this head – Rectified in appeal [Paras 11, 14].

Personal and Living Expenses – Deduction – Minor Victim – Deduction of 1/2 towards personal expenditure applicable – Tribunal erred in not making any deduction – Corrected in accordance with Sarla Verma principles [Paras 12, 14].

Multiplier – Selection – Age of Deceased – Tribunal wrongly applied multiplier of 15 – Correct multiplier for age group of 15 years held to be 18 – Compensation recalculated accordingly [Paras 13–14].

Conventional Heads – Loss of Estate – Funeral Expenses – Consortium – Tribunal failed to grant loss of estate and awarded meagre amounts under funeral expenses and consortium – High Court awarded amounts as per Pranay Sethi with applicable escalation – Filial consortium awarded to both parents [Paras 13–14].

Interest on Enhanced Compensation – Rate of Interest – In view of Supreme Court judgments, interest on enhanced compensation awarded @ 9% per annum from date of filing of claim petition till realization – Insurance Company directed to deposit enhanced amount within stipulated time [Paras 15–16].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Award dated 30.03.2017 modified – Total compensation enhanced to Rs.16,45,100/- – Enhanced amount of Rs.11,45,100/- awarded with interest @ 9% per annum – Insurance Company directed to deposit amount within two months – Tribunal to disburse amount to claimants as per ratio fixed earlier [Paras 14–17].

Bail – Financial Fraud – International Transactions – Allegation of misappropriation of USD 1,25,000/- by petitioner while working as Finance and Admin Manager of informant company – FIR alleging opening of fraudulent company in Zambia, diversion of company funds, illegal withdrawals, and transfer of money to Indian bank accounts – Charge-sheet submitted and petitioner in custody since 15.05.2025 – Trial commenced but stayed – Held: Considering length of custody, nature of offences triable by Magistrate, recovery of incriminating articles, and no further custodial interrogation required, petitioner entitled to bail [Paras 1–4, 8].

Territorial Jurisdiction – Offences Committed Outside India – Section 208 BNSS – Indian citizen alleged to have committed offences partly in Zambia – Legal position reiterated that offences committed outside India by an Indian citizen can be tried in India as if committed within India, subject to prior sanction of Central Government – Court refrains from conclusively deciding jurisdiction at bail stage but notes prima facie commission of offences within India [Paras 4–5].

Sanction of Central Government – Mandatory Requirement – Proviso to Section 208 BNSS – Trial in respect of acts committed outside India cannot proceed without prior sanction of Central Government – Magistrate can proceed only in respect of offences allegedly committed within India until such sanction is obtained – Principle applied relying upon Supreme Court precedent [Paras 4, 7–8].

Double Jeopardy – Parallel Proceedings in Foreign Jurisdiction – FIR and arrest warrant issued in Zambia for theft by servant – Mere registration of criminal case abroad does not attract bar of double jeopardy – Protection under Article 20(2) of Constitution and Section 337 BNSS applicable only after conviction or acquittal by a competent court – Held: No bar to prosecution in India at present stage [Paras 5–6].

Continuing Offence – Transactions in Multiple Jurisdictions – Alleged acts partly in Zambia and partly in India including deposit of funds in Indian bank accounts and possession of stolen company assets – Held: In case of continuing offences, Indian courts have jurisdiction to proceed for acts committed in India, subject to statutory limitations regarding acts outside India [Paras 5, 7].

Bail Conditions – Safeguards – High bail bond imposed – Monthly police reporting – Restriction on committing similar offences – Obligation to inform residence and contact details – Condition imposed to secure presence of petitioner in view of arrest warrant issued by Zambian court – Bail allowed without expressing opinion on merits [Paras 8–9].

Decision: Bail application allowed – Petitioner released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.5,00,000/- with two solvent sureties – Subject to stringent conditions including monthly police attendance and compliance with legal process in Zambia – Bail application disposed of.

Maintenance – Section 125 Cr.P.C. – Interim Maintenance – Assessment of Income – Dependents – Voluntary Financial Obligations – Professional Qualification of Wife – Modification of Quantum.

Matrimonial Law – Interim Maintenance – Quantum Assessment – Deductions and Dependents – The petitioner-husband challenged the Family Court's order awarding ₹15,000/- each to the respondent-wife and minor child as interim maintenance - The petitioner argued that the wife is an MBA and capable of earning, and that he has liabilities towards his aged parents, divorced sister, and loan EMIs - The High Court upheld the maintenance to the wife but modified the child's maintenance - The Court held that the wife's educational qualification does not absolve the husband of his statutory duty if she has no current independent income - It was further held that the petitioner's father (a pensioner) and divorced sister (having independent legal recourse) are not "dependents" for the purpose of Section 125 Cr.P.C. calculations - Personal loan EMIs were ruled as voluntary obligations not deductible from income - Applying the Anurita Vohra formula to the husband's income of approx. ₹60,000/-, the Court found the wife's share reasonable but reduced the child's share to ₹10,000/- considering her tender age of 3.5 years - Paras 1-16.

Employability of Wife – Section 125 Cr.P.C. – Professional Degree – Held: Mere possession of a professional degree (MBA) cannot substitute for actual employment or income - While qualification is a relevant factor, the primary consideration is whether the wife presently has an independent and sufficient source of income to maintain herself with dignity - The wife's responsibility towards a minor child and her health issues were rightly considered by the Family Court to negate the argument of potential employability - Paras 8, 15.

Definition of Dependents – Moral vs. Statutory Duty – Parents and Siblings – Held: A father receiving a regular pension (₹17,000/- p.m.) cannot be treated as financially dependent on the son for Section 125 Cr.P.C. calculations - Similarly, a divorced sister has legal remedies to claim maintenance from her former husband; assistance to her falls within the realm of moral duty, not legal dependency enforceable under Section 125 Cr.P.C. - Such voluntary/moral obligations cannot dilute the statutory duty towards the wife and child - Paras 10-11.

Deductibility of EMIs – Computation of Income – Held: Monthly installments (EMIs) paid towards personal loans are voluntary financial obligations and cannot be considered mandatory statutory deductions - Maintenance rights of the wife and child cannot be defeated on the account of EMIs paid by the husband towards property or personal loans - Paras 14.

Apportionment of Income – Family Resource Cake – Held: Relying on Anurita Vohra, the income of the earning member is a 'family resource cake' to be distributed equitably - With an income of approx. ₹60,000/-, dividing into four shares (two for husband, one each for dependents) yields approx. ₹15,000/- per share - This calculation was found consistent with law, though the child's share was marginally reduced due to age-specific needs - Paras 12-13.

Decision: Appeal allowed in part - The interim maintenance for the minor child (Respondent No. 2) is reduced from ₹15,000/- to ₹10,000/- per month - The maintenance of ₹15,000/- awarded to the wife (Respondent No. 1) is upheld - Paras 16-17.