Public Gambling Act – Section 13 – Cognizable or Non-Cognizable Offence – FIR registered alleging applicant and co-accused found gambling in public place – Charge-sheet filed under Section 13 – Applicant sought quashing contending offence is non-cognizable and investigation barred under Section 155(2) CrPC – Held: Section 13 expressly authorises police officer to apprehend without warrant – Hence offence squarely falls within definition of “cognizable offence” under Section 2(c) CrPC – Police competent to register FIR, investigate and submit charge-sheet [Paras 2–3, 9–10].

Criminal Procedure – Section 155(2) CrPC – Applicability – Prior permission of Magistrate required only for non-cognizable offences – Since Section 13 of Gambling Act is cognizable, embargo under Section 155(2) CrPC not attracted – Investigation not vitiated [Paras 9–10].

Distinction between Sections 3/4 and Section 13 of Gambling Act – Coordinate Bench decisions quashing proceedings under Sections 3/4 relied upon by applicant – Held: Said judgments inapplicable as they relate to non-cognizable offences under Sections 3/4 – Present case concerns Section 13 which stands on different statutory footing – No parity on facts or law [Paras 6–7, 11].

Cognizance on Police Report – Magistrate’s Power – Cognizance taken on charge-sheet under Section 13 upheld – No illegality or irregularity found in summoning order dated 24.02.2020 [Paras 6, 11].

Inherent Jurisdiction – Section 528 BNSS – Scope – No abuse of process or miscarriage of justice demonstrated – Mere plea of non-cognizability untenable – Quashing refused [Paras 11–12].

Expeditious Trial – Minor Offence – Considering limited punishment prescribed under Section 13 as amended in Uttar Pradesh – Trial court directed to conclude trial expeditiously, preferably within three months [Para 14].

Decision: Application dismissed – FIR, charge-sheet dated 21.12.2019 and summoning order dated 24.02.2020 sustained – Trial court directed to conclude trial expeditiously.

Custodial Violence – Suo Motu PIL on letter alleging illegal arrest and torture – Prima facie inference of custodial beating supported by contemporaneous complaints, photographs and Magistrate’s injury observations – State directed to pay interim compensation of Rs.1,50,000 with recovery from erring officials – Inquiry ordered against medical officer issuing “fit for custody” certificate despite serious injuries – Non-installation of CCTV in police station held as blatant non-compliance of Supreme Court directions [Paras 2-3, 6, 8-9, 26-33].

Public Interest Litigation – Suo Motu Cognizance by High Court – Letter by victim’s wife alleging illegal arrest, torture and threats treated as PIL – Notice issued – SP directed to appear with records and CCTV DVR footage [Paras 2].

Police Accountability – Production of CCTV Footage – Police claim CCTV not installed at concerned police station – Court records the statement and notes systemic human rights concern – DGP interacted and expected to take corrective steps given recurring instances within 48 hours [Paras 3].

Custodial Torture – Prima Facie Assessment – State version that injuries caused in clash with villagers not accepted prima facie – Court relies on detailed complaint addressed to President of India, repeated complaints to authorities, and photographs indicating injuries consistent with custody violence – Held: case prima facie of custodial torture/beating [Paras 6, 8-9].

Arrest/Detention – Medical Treatment Duty – Primary investigation report noted injured accused should have been sent for treatment immediately but were not – Delay/omission treated as gross negligence and unprofessional conduct – Officer-in-charge suspended based on inquiry material [Paras 4-5].

Judicial Scrutiny of Injuries – Magistrate’s Observations Prevail Over Police Certificate – ACGM, Chandil recorded multiple injuries including fracture of both legs and sought explanation from Officer-in-Charge – Court notes mismatch between Magistrate’s observations and hospital certificate describing only bruises and declaring “fit for custody” – Held: certificate appears “managed” – medical officer cannot be exonerated [Paras 26-27].

Medical Negligence/Complicity – Departmental Inquiry Directed – Director, Health Services ordered to hold inquiry into issuance of medical certificate showing minor bruises and fitness for custody despite serious injuries including fractures – Report to be submitted before next hearing [Paras 27, 35-36].

Human Rights – Constitutional Safeguards – Court reiterates Article 21/22 protections and condemns any custodial violence regardless of duration or degree – Relies on Supreme Court jurisprudence including D.K. Basu guidelines and principles against third-degree methods – Emphasizes transparency and accountability in arrests and detention [Paras 14-17, 24-25].

CCTV Cameras in Police Stations – Binding Supreme Court Directions – Failure to install CCTV and inability to produce footage criticized – Court holds State has blatantly violated and flouted Supreme Court directions (Shafhi Mohammad / Paramvir Singh Saini line) and cannot justify absence of footage – Time sought by State till 31.12.2025 noted in other proceedings [Para 30].

Compensation – Public Law Remedy for Article 21 Violation – Interim compensation ordered based on prima facie custodial torture and suspension order acknowledging lapses – State to pay Rs.1,50,000 within one week to victim (Tarun Mahto) – Amount to be recovered from erring officials/officers – Clarified that interim compensation will not affect victim’s right to seek additional civil/criminal compensation [Paras 31-32].

Procedure – Further Pleadings and Listing – Counter affidavit directed within four weeks – Matter listed on 07.01.2026 – Copy of order to be sent to Director, Health Services for compliance [Paras 33-36].

Decision: Interim directions issued – State to pay Rs.1,50,000 as interim compensation within one week and recover from erring officials – Director, Health Services to conduct inquiry against concerned medical officer and file report – Counter affidavit to be filed – Matter listed on 07.01.2026 [Paras 32-36].

Contract Law – Breach of Contract – Delay in Performance – Responsibility of Employer – Tender for construction of additional parking facility – Defendants invited tender without obtaining prior permission from Forest Department – Delay caused in handing over workable site – Held: Defendants responsible for delay in execution of work – However, contractor having elected to continue contract without repudiation under Section 55, not entitled to damages [Paras 6].

Contract Law – Supplemental Agreements – Economic Duress – Validity – Contractor compelled to execute multiple supplemental agreements for extension of time and extra works on threat of withholding payments – Trial Court finding that agreements were executed under coercion and not voluntarily – Held: Supplemental agreements vitiated by economic duress and unenforceable [Paras 7–8].

Civil Procedure – First Appeal – Duty of Appellate Court – Trial Court granted decree for multiple monetary claims without proper discussion of evidence – Held: Appellate Court entitled to reappreciate evidence and independently assess each head of claim on merits [Paras 9–10].

Works Contract – Extra Items of Work – Proof and Entitlement – Claim for jungle clearance for second time necessitated due to delay attributable to defendants – Measurement book supported execution – Held: Contractor entitled to payment for second jungle clearance [Paras 11–12].

Works Contract – Approach Road – Excluded Item – Tender conditions expressly excluded liability of department for providing access road – No direction proved for execution as extra item – Held: Contractor not entitled to reimbursement for formation of approach road [Para 13].

Works Contract – Felling and Conveyance of Trees – Rate Determination – Extra item of work – Survey of Forest Department rates showed higher applicable rate – Contractor paid at lower rate – Held: Contractor entitled to differential amount based on prevailing departmental rate [Para 14].

Works Contract – Cutting and Stacking of Timber – Lack of Evidence on Rate – Claim based on bald assertion without supporting material – Held: Claim rightly disallowed [Para 15].

Works Contract – Re-conveyance of Timber – Necessitated by Employer’s Directions – Evidence showed logs required to be shifted from river bed – Rate not specifically fixed – Court adopted reasonable rate – Held: Contractor entitled to proportionate payment [Para 16].

Works Contract – Excavation of Soil / Narikkal – Nature of Soil – Evidence insufficient to prove hard narikkal throughout claimed depth – However, probability of hard soil beyond 30 cm accepted – Held: Contractor entitled to differential rate applicable to hard soil, not hard narikkal [Paras 17–18].

Works Contract – Excess Quantity Claims – Measurement Book Prevails – Claim for additional excavation beyond recorded measurements not substantiated – Held: Claim disallowed where contradicted by measurement records [Para 19].

Works Contract – Slipped Earth – Quantity Dispute – Contractor’s contemporaneous correspondence unrefuted – Held: Total quantity accepted at 10,000 m³, but payable only at admitted rate – Contractor entitled to payment for balance quantity at accepted rate [Paras 20–21].

Works Contract – Blasting of Rock – Extra Item – Commissioner’s report relied upon – Quantity and rate proved – Held: Contractor entitled to amount based on expert assessment [Para 22].

Tender Conditions – Tender Deduction – Applicability to Extra Items – Tender quoted 17.6% below estimated rate – Contract clauses provided application of tender deduction to extra and additional items where rates derivable from schedule – Held: Tender deduction applicable to all allowed claims – Net amount recalculated accordingly [Paras 24–25].

Interest – Rate of Interest – Commercial Transactions – Claim for 18.5% interest declined – Held: Interest @ 12% per annum from date of suit till decree and @ 6% per annum thereafter appropriate [Para 26].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Judgment and decree of trial court set aside – Plaintiff held entitled to recover Rs.2,84,110/- after applying tender deduction, with interest @ 12% per annum from date of suit till decree and @ 6% per annum thereafter till realisation, payable by first defendant [Paras 25–26].

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 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.

Suit for Recovery - Insurance – Bankers Indemnity Policy – Loss Due to Employee Misconduct – Claim Denied for Failure to Prove Actual Loss and Violation of Policy Terms – Suit Dismissed – Plaintiff bank filed suit seeking indemnity under BIPs for losses caused by alleged embezzlement and misappropriation by bank employee between 2003–2008 – Defendant insurer repudiated claims citing breach of "excess clause", failure to report within retroactive period, and non-maintenance of “dual control” – Court held plaintiff failed to prove actual losses during insured period and failed to substantiate audit findings with primary evidence – Mere production of audit summary insufficient to establish loss – Held: Plaintiff not entitled to claim under policy [Paras 28–48].

Contract of Insurance – Burden of Proof – Terms Must Be Proven – Failure to Substantiate Claims with Evidence – Plaintiff’s Reliance on Audit Report Not Enough – Court found no conclusive proof that alleged acts of embezzlement fell within policy coverage – Special audit report relied upon by plaintiff was not supported by underlying documents or primary evidence – Held: Loss not established in accordance with law, claim fails [Paras 46–47].

Insurance Law – Retroactive Period of Cover – Loss Not Discovered Within Permissible Time – Claim Rightly Rejected – Claim for loss under 2003–2004 policy filed after expiry of six-month retroactive discovery period – Court upheld insurer’s repudiation as per policy clause barring claims discovered beyond permissible timeline [Paras 39–41].

Insurance – Excess Clause – Small Claims Below Threshold Not Recoverable – Defendant insurer rightly denied multiple claims on grounds that individual losses were below ₹50,000 threshold under “excess clause” – Such clause held valid and enforceable [Paras 35–37].

Insurance Policy – Alleged Dual Control Breach – No Proven Applicability – Defendant Failed to Prove Clause Formed Part of Contract – Defendant’s claim that loss not indemnifiable due to lack of dual control dismissed – Court held dual control clause not proved to be part of agreed terms – Even if applicable, alleged acts of employee did not fall within scope of clause [Paras 42–44].

Decision: Suit dismissed – Plaintiff failed to prove entitlement to indemnity under the Bankers Indemnity Policies – No order as to costs [Paras 48, 54–55].

Public Interest Litigation – Abuse of Process – Forged Petition – Writ petition filed in the name of Adity Shivcharan Rathod found to be unauthorized and based on forged documents – Police investigation revealed petitioner had no knowledge of the case and disowned the documents – Court held filing of such petition amounts to fraud on the court [Paras 2, 10–13, 17].

Legal Ethics – Misconduct by Advocates – Investigation Ordered – Counsel named in the petition traced and found to have accepted cases through a third-party advocate – Court directed Bar Council of India to investigate professional misconduct of involved advocates – Emphasized lawyers’ duty as officers of the court and custodians of justice [Paras 18–22].

Judicial Process – Fraud on Court – Filing of multiple petitions in different names using identical documents and fabricated claims regarding property ownership – Court relied on Supreme Court judgment in Bhagwan Singh v. State of U.P. (2025) 6 SCC 416 – Held: No court can allow itself to be used as an instrument of fraud – Court must protect its process from abuse [Paras 6–8, 18].

Police Investigation – Aadhaar Misuse and Forged Documents – DCP (South-East) filed status report confirming unauthorized use of petitioner’s identity – FIR directed to be lodged – Investigation to continue against all persons involved, including tracing of advocate named as intermediary [Paras 12–16].

Direction to Statutory Authorities – Bar Council of India directed to trace advocate Mr. Suraj Singh and examine involvement of Ms. Awanitika – Liberty granted to coordinate with police – MCD directed to act as per order of Appellate Tribunal (ATMCD) dated 27/10/2025, staying action on impugned construction [Paras 19–24].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Petition found to be filed fraudulently without authorization – Matter referred to police and Bar Council of India for investigation and appropriate legal action – Directions issued for continued investigation, filing of FIR, and professional misconduct inquiry [Paras 16, 19–22, 25].

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.

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.