TNPID Act – Default in repayment – Financial establishment – Accused induced public to deposit money through false computer job scheme promising monthly returns and repayment – Failure to repay matured deposits to 39 depositors established through consistent oral and documentary evidence – Conviction upheld [Paras 9–12]

Cheating and conspiracy – Sections 420 and 120B IPC – False promise and inducement – Accused issued advertisements and pamphlets to attract deposits with no intention to honour commitments – Common design established – Ingredients of cheating and conspiracy proved beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 9–11]

Evidence – Depositors as witnesses – Prosecution examined large number of depositors (PW1–PW39) and marked receipts, agreements and cheques – Evidence found cogent and trustworthy – Cross-examination did not discredit prosecution case [Paras 9–11]

Mens rea under TNPID Act – Requirement – Offence under Section 5 does not require strict proof of mens rea – Mere default in repayment of deposits sufficient to attract liability under the Act [Para 12]

Repayment – Partial repayment – Effect – Accused repaid part amount but substantial balance remained unpaid – Partial repayment does not absolve criminal liability [Paras 6, 12]

Sentence – Modification – Considering partial repayment and facts of case, sentence of 10 years under Section 5 TNPID Act reduced to 5 years – Fine amount maintained – Direction issued to deposit further sum towards dues [Para 13]

Conditional direction – Deposit of amount – Court directed appellants to deposit specified amount within stipulated time failing which original sentence to revive automatically [Para 13]

Appellate interference – Scope – No interference warranted in conviction where prosecution proved case beyond reasonable doubt – Interference limited to modification of sentence [Paras 12–13]

Decision: Criminal Appeals partly allowed – Conviction under Sections 120B, 420 IPC and Section 5 TNPID Act confirmed – Sentence under Section 5 TNPID Act reduced from 10 years to 5 years simple imprisonment – Fine confirmed – Direction to deposit ₹37,50,000/- each within stipulated time, failing which original sentence to revive.

Civil Law – Substitution of Legal Representatives – Order 22 Rule 3 CPC – Will Under Adjudication – Plaintiff Smt. Preeto Devi filed a suit for vacant possession against her son Balwinder Singh – During pendency of the suit, plaintiff expired on 22.10.2024 – Application filed under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC seeking substitution of Babhishan Singh, his wife Urmila Devi and two grandsons on the basis of a Will dated 05.03.2020 – Validity of the said Will already under challenge by the defendant before the same court in separate proceedings – Trial Court partly allowed the application directing substitution of Babhishan Singh as legal representative but rejected substitution of Urmila Devi, Udey Pathania and Nahar Pathania – Held: All sons of the deceased are necessary and proper parties and are required to be arrayed in the proceedings – Validity of the Will cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC – No infirmity in the order of the Trial Court – Petition dismissed [Paras 11-15].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Order of the learned Civil Judge, Indora, dated 19.09.2025 upheld.

Criminal Trial – Chemical Analyst Reports – DNA Reports – Scientific Experts Examination – Fair Trial – Accused No.1 convicted for brutal sexual assault and murder of 6-year-old girl and sentenced to death based on circumstantial evidence including CA reports and DNA profiles – 12 CA reports marked as Exhibit-166 collectively during examination-in-chief of investigating officer without summoning chemical analysers – No copies provided to accused, no opportunity for cross-examination – Trial Court relied heavily on CA reports in paragraphs 143 onwards to hold against accused – Trial Court observed that since accused did not move requisition for examining chemical analysers, reports admitted directly without examining analysers – Accused filed application invoking Sections 408 and 432 read with Section 329 BNSS seeking summoning of chemical analysers for cross-examination – Held: Sessions Court committed grave error in admitting CA reports without examining chemical analysers – Such witnesses ought to be court witnesses even if prosecution fails in duty to summon crucial witnesses – Whole purpose of trial is to ascertain truth and all steps to unearth truth must be taken by Court even if prosecution remiss in duty – Failure to summon scientific experts led to failure of justice vitiating trial – Fair opportunity to accused to defend absolutely imperative and non-negotiable in capital punishment case – Impugned judgment set aside and matter remanded to Sessions Court for limited purpose of examining chemical analysers with ancillary directions [Paras 1-25].

Section 313 CrPC – Statement of Accused – Joint Recording Vitiated – Separate Statements Required – Trial Court recorded statement under Section 313 CrPC of both accused persons jointly putting questions and eliciting responses together – Only fact of receiving 12 CA reports marked as Exhibit-166 put as incriminating circumstance without details of reports – Accused sought direction for recording fresh statement under Section 313 CrPC after additional evidence – Held: Entire statement under Section 313 CrPC vitiated as questions put jointly to both accused which could not have been done – Matter being remanded for examining chemical analysers, entire statement under Section 313 CrPC to be recorded afresh with separate statements for two accused – Will include further material coming on record pursuant to examination of chemical analysers [Paras 2, 10, 13, 22-25].

Remand – Limited Purpose – Evidence Already Recorded Not Wiped Out – Court set aside trial court judgment remanding matter for examining scientific experts connected with CA reports and DNA reports – Examined scope of remand – Held: Following Supreme Court in Irfan alias Bhayu Mevati vs State of Madhya Pradesh, remand only to limited extent of examining witnesses concerning CA reports and DNA reports with ancillary directions – Trial not to be conducted de novo by wiping out evidence already on record – Remaining evidence that came on record shall remain as it is – Sessions Court to proceed without being influenced by observations in High Court order – Complete process within four months [Paras 16-18, 25].

Bail – Accused Convicted for Bailable Offences – Substantial Period Undergone – Matter Remanded – Accused No.2 convicted under Section 201 IPC and Section 21 POCSO Act, both bailable offences – Sentenced to 7 years imprisonment under Section 201 IPC and 6 months under Section 21 POCSO Act – Already suffered incarceration for 3 years 7 months indicating substantial period of sentence undergone – Matter remanded to Sessions Court would consume time – Continued custody would mean further incarceration – Held: Accused No.2 released on bail pending remanded proceedings – PR Bond of Rs.25,000 with surety – Remain present on all dates before Sessions Court – Communicate contact numbers and residential address – Cooperate with proceedings for expeditious completion [Paras 14-15, 23-25].

Duty of Court – Ascertaining Truth – Court Witnesses – Scientific Experts – Prosecution relied on CA reports including serology and DNA profiles – Chemical analysers not summoned by prosecution – Trial Court admitted reports without examining analysers observing accused did not move requisition – Held: Duty of all persons in authority from investigation stage to ensure every bit of material brought on record to assist Court in ascertaining truth – Anything short of that vitiates entire process – Scientific experts ought to be court witnesses even if prosecution fails in duty to summon crucial witnesses – Court must take all steps in direction of unearthing truth even if prosecution remiss and accused not shown awareness at relevant time – Remand to Sessions Court to summon scientific experts as court witnesses with proper opportunity of examination to prosecution and defence in that order [Paras 20-21, 25].

Supreme Court Directions – Application to Remanded Trial – Sessions Court directed to summon scientific experts associated with preparation and issuance of CA reports and DNA reports with entire supporting material – Complete laboratory documentation to be called and supplied to accused including case acceptance forms, registers, worksheets, bench notes, chain of custody, test results, equipment logbooks, calibration records, electropherograms, electronic raw data, procedure manuals, kit details, validation studies, quality control documentation – Accused to be given sufficient opportunity to cross-examine summoned witnesses – After testimony recorded, accused to be questioned under Section 313 CrPC afresh in context of fresh evidence – Fair opportunity of leading defence evidence – Sessions Court to re-hear arguments and decide case afresh as per law – Entire process to be completed expeditiously preferably within four months [Paras 7, 16, 25].

Decision: Interim Application No.4190 of 2025 allowed - Impugned judgment dated 22.03.2024 of Sessions Court in Special Sessions Case No.176 of 2023 quashed and set aside - Matter remanded to Sessions Court for limited purpose of summoning chemical analysers and assistant chemical analysers for cross-examination - Complete laboratory documentation to be called and supplied to accused - Entire statement under Section 313 CrPC to be recorded afresh with separate statements for both accused - Accused No.2 released on bail on conditions - Sessions Court to complete proceedings expeditiously preferably within four months from 07.04.2026 - Confirmation Case No.3 of 2024 and Criminal Appeal Nos.367 of 2024 and 1262 of 2024 disposed of.

Constitutional Law – Article 371-A – Legislative Competence of State of Nagaland – Petroleum and Natural Gas – Article 131 Jurisdiction – PIL Maintainability – The State of Nagaland enacted the Nagaland Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulations, 2012 and Rules, 2012 pursuant to a resolution dated 26.07.2010 of the Nagaland Legislative Assembly, claiming power under Article 371-A(1)(a)(iv) which provides that no Act of Parliament in respect of ownership and transfer of land and its resources shall apply to the State of Nagaland unless the Legislative Assembly so decides – Union of India contested the legislative competence of the Nagaland Legislature, contending that regulation and development of oilfields and mineral oil is exclusively reserved for Parliament under Entry 53 of List-I – Core question whether Article 371-A confers affirmative legislative competence upon the State or is merely a disabling provision preventing application of Union laws – Held: The dispute between the Union of India and the State of Nagaland on the question of legislative competence falls squarely within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 131(a) of the Constitution – High Court declines to adjudicate the issue [Paras 35-49].

PIL – Maintainability – Article 226 – Limits of PIL Jurisdiction – PIL under Article 226 is maintainable where the petitioner is a public-spirited person raising issues of fundamental rights violations of poor, disadvantaged, or marginalised sections, or environmental and human rights issues – The issue raised in the present PIL relates to legislative competence of the State and does not involve curtailment or deprivation of any fundamental right of a citizen – Union of India is not disabled from approaching an appropriate forum to challenge the validity of the 2012 Regulations and Rules – Ordinarily, High Courts should not entertain PILs questioning the constitutionality or validity of statutes or statutory rules – PIL closed in exercise of self-restraint [Paras 43-50].

Article 131 – Exclusive Jurisdiction of Supreme Court – The real issue of whether the Nagaland Legislature had legislative competence to enact the 2012 Regulations and Rules, as contested by the Union of India, is a dispute between the Union and the State of Nagaland which falls exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Clause (a) of Article 131 – The presence of respondent No. 7, a private company, as a party does not alter this conclusion since respondent No. 7 has no locus to contest the question of legislative competence between the Union and the State [Paras 35-42].

Decision: PIL closed – Liberty granted to the Union of India to assail the Nagaland Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulations, 2012, the Rules, 2012, and the tender/Expression of Interest process in an appropriate manner – No order as to costs.

Tenancy Law – Will by Tenant – Bequeathal of Tenancy Rights – Section 45, H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act – Panchi was recorded as a non-occupancy tenant under Ishru, a widow, as per Jamabandi for 1977-78 – Panchi executed a Will dated 27.11.1984 in favour of the defendant – Defendant contended that Panchi had become the owner upon commencement of the Act – Held: Section 104(8) of the Act expressly excludes operation of Sections 104(1) to (6) in the case of a tenancy under a widow during her lifetime – Panchi could not have acquired proprietary rights during the lifetime of Ishru – Tenancy rights cannot be bequeathed by way of a Will – Section 45 of the Act provides the exclusive rule of succession to tenancy rights – Will held void ab initio [Paras 28-36].

Civil Court Jurisdiction – Tenancy Dispute Between Successors of Tenant – Section 58 Bar – Sections 112 and 115, H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act – Bar under Section 58 applies only where the status of landlord and tenant is not disputed and not to cases where parties are claiming to be successors of the tenant – Dispute between two persons each claiming to be successor of a tenant does not fall within the cognizance of Revenue Courts – Bar of Civil Court jurisdiction under Sections 112 and 115 applies only when validity of orders passed under Chapter X is called in question, and not where no such order is involved – Civil Court jurisdiction held not barred [Paras 21-27, 37-40].

Additional Evidence – Application Dismissed – Order XLI Rule 27 CPC – Defendant sought to lead additional evidence by producing copy of Pariwar register to prove date of death of Ishru – No pleading in the written statement that Ishru had died and Panchi had consequently become owner – Additional evidence cannot be allowed to prove a plea never taken in pleadings – Further, copy of Pariwar register is not admissible to prove date of birth or death; only entries in the Register of Births and Deaths can be proved – Application dismissed [Paras 15-20].

Decision: Regular Second Appeal dismissed – All three substantial questions of law answered against the appellants – Judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court upheld.

Service Law – Removal from Service – Departmental Proceedings – Acquittal in Criminal Case – Honourable Acquittal versus Benefit of Doubt – Petitioner working as Assistant Sub Inspector removed from service vide order dated 07.08.2012 after departmental enquiry finding charges proved based on evidence of witnesses – Appellate authority rejected appeal vide order dated 20.06.2013 – Criminal case registered for offences under Sections 324, 326, 302, 201, 34 IPC wherein petitioner acquitted vide judgment dated 31.10.2017 – Review petition rejected vide Government Order dated 05.07.2023 – Tribunal re-appreciated evidence and dismissed original application – Petitioner contended acquittal was honourable acquittal not merely benefit of doubt – Relied on Ramlal vs State of Rajasthan – Held: Departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings stand on different footing – Mere acquittal by Criminal Court does not confer right to claim reinstatement – Only if charges, evidence, witnesses and circumstances identical or similar in both proceedings, matter requires different dimension – Acquittal merely on benefit of doubt as prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt cannot be equated with departmental proceedings to give benefit of acquittal – Proof required in criminal trial more onerous than departmental proceedings which requires preponderance of probabilities – Sessions Court acquitted petitioner as circumstantial evidence not proved beyond reasonable doubt without break in chain of circumstances – Acquittal not honourable acquittal – Ramlal and GM Tank distinguished on facts – No interference warranted [Paras 1-18].

Article 227 – Supervisory Jurisdiction – Scope and Ambit – High Court Powers – Petitioner invoked supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 challenging Tribunal order – Court examined scope of Article 227 – Held: Article 227 deals with power of superintendence over all courts and tribunals by High Court – Object is to maintain efficiency, smooth and orderly functioning of entire machinery of justice – Power of interference to be kept to minimum to ensure wheel of justice does not halt and fountain of justice remains pure – High Court cannot exercise power like bull in china shop to correct all errors of judgment of court or tribunal acting within limits of jurisdiction – Correctional jurisdiction exercisable in cases of grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice – High Court cannot sit in appeal over findings recorded by lower court or tribunal – Supervisory jurisdiction cannot be exercised to correct all errors – No interference under Article 227 unless High Court finds manifest error, palpably perverse or patently unreasonable reasoning, decision in direct conflict with settled principles of law, gross and manifest failure of justice or basic principles of natural justice flouted [Paras 9-15].

Evidence – Departmental Enquiry – Standard of Proof – Preponderance of Probabilities versus Beyond Reasonable Doubt – Enquiry Officer conducted detailed enquiry and based on evidence of witnesses found charges against petitioner proved – Sessions Court noted investigation not foolproof contributing to acquittal – Prosecution failed to prove charges due to several failures including non-examination of witness Ajithan examined as PW6 in oral enquiry who proved petitioner was resident of Quarters No.6 – Finger print expert recovered only finger print of second accused from scene – No direct evidence – Scientific evidence not supporting blood, teeth, gum belonged to deceased – Held: Settled legal position that in disciplinary proceedings preponderance of probabilities adequate as against rigorous standard of beyond reasonable doubt required in criminal proceedings – Protection of Rule 10 under KPDIP&A Rules available to accused only when matter sub judice – Criminal case charged before Sessions Court much after disciplinary proceedings finalized – Petitioner cannot get benefit of Rule 10 – Dereliction of duty and misconduct proved in PR Minutes – Petitioner availed all opportunities to defend in disciplinary proceedings, appeal and review petitions [Paras 5-8, 10-12].

Precedent – Distinguishing Cases – Ramlal and GM Tank – Petitioner relied on Ramlal vs State of Rajasthan holding where charge stood disproved by prosecution evidence and charges, evidence, witnesses and circumstances identical, disciplinary proceedings orders cannot stand – Also relied on GM Tank vs State of Gujarat holding where departmental and criminal proceedings based on identical similar set of facts and honourable acquittal, dismissal order liable to be set aside – Court examined applicability – Held: In Ramlal, delinquent altered date of birth in mark list to project majority at recruitment – Initially punished, acquittal in appeal – Charges disproved not merely not proved – In GM Tank, departmental and criminal proceedings based on identical set of facts relating to disproportionate income accumulation – Same witnesses examined in both – Honourable acquittal after regular trial on hot contest – Present case factually different – Acquittal on benefit of doubt as circumstantial evidence not proved beyond reasonable doubt – Not honourable acquittal – Charges in departmental proceedings related to dereliction of duty and misconduct, not criminal case per se – Witness examined in departmental enquiry not arrayed in criminal case – Facts and circumstances different – Precedents not applicable [Paras 16-18].

Decision: Original petition dismissed – Tribunal order dated 28.11.2025 in OA No.2162 of 2023 upheld – No ground to hold Tribunal order perverse or patently illegal warranting interference in supervisory jurisdiction – Acquittal in criminal case not honourable acquittal but benefit of doubt – Departmental and criminal proceedings on different footing – Charges, evidence and circumstances not identical – Standard of proof different – Preponderance of probabilities satisfied in departmental proceedings.

Preventive Detention – Public Safety Act – Law and Order vis-à-vis Public Order – Bovine Smuggling – Petitioner detained under Section 8(1)(a) of the J&K Public Safety Act by order dated 11.07.2025 on the basis of two FIRs and three unverified Daily Diary Entries alleging habitual bovine smuggling – One FIR already disposed of and the other (FIR No. 0049/2025 dated 03.05.2025) pending investigation – Petitioner not directly involved in the pending FIR as admitted by the Detaining Authority – Held: Alleged activities of bovine smuggling constitute infractions of law and order and do not rise to the level of acts prejudicial to public order as defined under Section 8(3) of the Act – Detention order quashed [Paras 10-19].

Public Order – Distinction from Law and Order – Acts affecting individuals or isolated criminal conduct cannot be equated with disturbance of public order – Public order is the even tempo of life of the community – Only where the disturbance subverts the community at large does it amount to a public order problem – Mere infraction of law leads to disorder but not necessarily public disorder [Paras 13-16].

Preventive Detention – Proximity – Live Link – Detention order dated 11.07.2025 passed about two months after the last alleged incident of 03.05.2025 – Three Daily Diary Entries unverified and uncorroborated – No explanation by Detaining Authority for the delay – Undue and unreasonable gap between alleged activities and passing of detention order snaps the live link – Detaining Authority also failed to address why normal criminal law was inadequate and did not challenge the bail granted to the petitioner – Non-application of mind established [Paras 19-24].

Preventive Detention – Subjective Satisfaction – Misuse of Power – Preventive detention is an exception to the fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 – Detention orders must be passed with great care and caution, only in cases of genuine and inevitable necessity – Provisions of Article 22(5) require proper communication of grounds, opportunity to make representation and application of mind – Impugned order is the outcome of non-application of mind and misuse of powers [Paras 25-27].

Decision: Petition allowed – Detention order No. 08-PSA-2025 dated 11.07.2025 passed by the District Magistrate, Udhampur, quashed – Petitioner directed to be released forthwith from preventive detention.

Criminal Procedure – Proclaimed Person vs. Proclaimed Offender – Section 82(4) CrPC – NDPS Offences – Petitioner granted bail in NDPS case, failed to appear on one date due to miscommunication, bail cancelled, non-bailable warrants issued, proclamation effected on 13.02.2025 and petitioner declared proclaimed offender on 17.03.2025 – Held: Declaration as proclaimed offender under Section 82(4) CrPC is permissible only in respect of offences specified therein, which are exclusively certain provisions of the IPC – Offences under Sections 22(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act do not find mention in Section 82(4) CrPC – Petitioner could only have been declared a proclaimed person under Section 82(1) CrPC and not a proclaimed offender – Impugned order set aside to that extent [Paras 10-12].

Proclaimed Person and Proclaimed Offender – Distinction – There is a stark distinction between a proclaimed person under Section 82(1) CrPC and a proclaimed offender under Section 82(4) CrPC – All persons absconding or concealing themselves to evade arrest can be proclaimed persons, but only those accused of specified IPC offences can be declared proclaimed offenders – The difference in punishment under Section 174-A IPC reflects this distinction: up to three years for a proclaimed person and up to seven years for a proclaimed offender – Sections 83 to 86 CrPC dealing with attachment of property apply to proclaimed persons and do not deal with proclaimed offenders [Para 11].

Proclamation – Mandatory Requirements – Section 82(1) CrPC – Proclamation must specify a date and place for appearance of the accused and such date must not be less than 30 clear days from the date of publication – In the present case, proclamation effected on 13.02.2025 and case merely adjourned to 17.03.2025 for recording statement of serving official – Mandatory requirement of fixing date of appearance beyond 30 clear days from date of publication not complied with – Adjournment cannot cure the inherent defect in proclamation proceedings – Fresh proclamation required to be issued in accordance with law – Proclamation proceedings vitiated [Paras 13-18].

Decision: Petition allowed – Impugned order dated 17.03.2025 set aside to the extent of declaring petitioner as proclaimed offender – Petitioner directed to surrender before Trial Court/Duty Magistrate within two weeks subject to payment of Rs. 5,000/- as costs to Poor Patients Welfare Fund, PGIMER, Chandigarh – Petitioner to furnish fresh bail and surety bonds and undertaking to appear regularly – Order to be treated as vacated if petitioner fails to appear within stipulated period [Paras 20-22].

Service Law – Judicial Officer – Adverse Entry in Confidential Report – Integrity – Discreet Enquiry – Petitioner, a Junior Civil Judge, received his ACR for 2009 in November 2011 recording his work as average, integrity as doubtful and judicial approach as erratic – ACR was based on pending disciplinary enquiries and discreet enquiries by a Judge of the High Court – Both disciplinary enquiries were subsequently dropped in 2012 – Review application filed by petitioner was rejected in February 2013 – Petitioner challenged the adverse entry and rejection of review as arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 – Held: Court cannot substitute its view for that of the review committee in matters of integrity – Writ Petition dismissed – However, Court issues caution that adverse remarks on integrity must be based on inputs from diverse sources and not on a single input [Paras 2–11].

"Discreet Enquiry as Basis for Adverse Entry – Scope and Limitations"

Confidential Report – Discreet Enquiry – Integrity of Judicial Officer – Petitioner contended that once disciplinary proceedings were dropped and he was exonerated, adverse entry recording doubtful integrity could not survive – Further contended that discreet enquiry alone cannot form basis for adverse remarks in ACR – Court distinguishes the facts from the Delhi High Court judgment relied upon by petitioner – Held: In matters of integrity, it is extremely difficult to obtain direct evidence or definite material – Court cannot interfere with the view of the review committee on the basis that the entry was founded on discreet enquiries, where direct evidence is inherently difficult to obtain [Paras 7–9].

"Protection of Judicial Officers – Adverse Remarks on Integrity Require Inputs from Diverse Sources"

Judicial Service – Confidential Reports – Integrity – Adverse Remarks – Court observes that disgruntled employees, colleagues or litigants are prone to making allegations against judicial officers on integrity – Held: Adequate precautions must be taken before adverse remarks are placed in Confidential Reports of judicial officers – It would not be safe to record an adverse entry on integrity based on a single input, even if from the Principal District Judge – Allegations must be cross-checked from diverse sources before recording such remarks – Court issues this caution even while declining to interfere with the impugned order [Para 10].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – No order as to costs – Pending miscellaneous petitions stand closed.