Look Out Circular – Nature and Scope – Coercive Measure – LOC is a coercive measure intended to secure presence of an accused who is deliberately evading arrest or judicial process and where there is likelihood of fleeing the country – Mere pendency of investigation or seriousness of allegations is not sufficient to justify continuation of LOC [Paras 44–45].

Criminal Investigation – Cooperation by Accused – Effect on LOC – Petitioners had consistently joined investigation, complied with summons, furnished documents, and cooperated in search and seizure proceedings – No material to show evasion of process of law or non-cooperation – Held: Continuation of LOC unjustified [Paras 43, 46].

Non-Bailable Warrants – Absence – Relevance – No NBWs or coercive processes issued by any Court against Petitioners – Absence of NBWs is a significant factor against issuance or continuation of LOC – LOC cannot be sustained when statutory preconditions are absent [Paras 47, 49].

Right to Travel Abroad – Article 21 – Reasonable Restrictions – Right to travel abroad is part of personal liberty under Article 21 – Restrictions must satisfy test of fairness, reasonableness and proportionality – In absence of flight risk or evasion, indefinite restraint on travel violates constitutional safeguards [Paras 19, 38, 49].

Economic Offences – Public Interest – Balancing Test – Allegations relate to period 2007–2014 and investigation ongoing for several years – Petitioners’ professional expertise crucial for national interest in fertilizer procurement – Public interest does not warrant mechanical curtailment of liberty when investigation is not prejudiced [Paras 12–16, 23–24, 48].

Precedent – Sumer Singh Salkan Case – Principles governing LOC reiterated – LOC permissible only where accused is absconding, evading arrest or trial, or likely to flee – None of the conditions satisfied in present case – LOC liable to be quashed [Paras 44–46, 49].

Safeguards Imposed by Court – While quashing LOC, Court directed Petitioners to keep Trial Court informed of residence and contact details – Prior intimation to be given for foreign travel along with itinerary and place of stay – Balance struck between liberty and investigation [Para 50].

Decision: Writ Petitions allowed – Look Out Circulars quashed – Petitioners permitted to travel subject to conditions imposed – Pending applications disposed of.

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR and Cognizance Order – Article 226 Constitution of India – Maintainability – Petitioner sought quashing of FIR, charge-sheet and cognizance order alleging dispute to be purely civil arising out of partnership agreements – During pendency of writ petition, investigation completed, charge-sheet filed and cognizance taken by Magistrate – Held: Once cognizance is taken, judicial order intervenes and writ petition under Article 226 simpliciter is not maintainable to challenge cognizance/summoning order – Remedy lies under Section 528 BNSS (Section 482 Cr.P.C.) before appropriate forum [Paras 13–15, 19, 24].

Civil Dispute vs Criminal Offence – Allegations of Cheating and Forgery in Business Transactions – Petitioner contended allegations disclose only breach of contract and civil liability governed by arbitration clause – Court declined to examine merits of allegations in view of non-maintainability of writ petition post cognizance – Held: Merits of criminal allegations to be examined by appropriate court under proper jurisdiction [Paras 5–8, 24].

Jurisdiction and Roster – High Court Rules – Master of Roster Principle – Criminal writ petitions under Article 226 lie before Division Bench, whereas petitions under Section 528 BNSS (482 Cr.P.C.) lie before Single Judge – Division Bench hearing writ petition under Article 226 cannot assume jurisdiction under Article 227/Section 528 BNSS unless specifically assigned by Chief Justice – Held: Roster cannot be overstepped; jurisdiction strictly governed by High Court Rules and constitutional convention [Paras 16–18, 21–23].

Judicial Orders – Amenability to Writ Jurisdiction – Judicial orders of Magistrate taking cognizance not ordinarily amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 – Challenge must be by statutory remedy or supervisory/inherent jurisdiction – Reliance placed on Radhey Shyam, Neeta Singh and Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni cases – Held: Article 226 cannot be invoked to quash cognizance order in absence of twin jurisdiction and roster permission [Paras 15, 19–21].

Decision: Criminal Misc. Writ Petition dismissed as not maintainable – Liberty granted to petitioner to approach appropriate court under Section 528 BNSS (482 Cr.P.C.) for quashing of cognizance order.

Review Jurisdiction – Scope and Limitations – Error Apparent on Face of Record – Review under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC maintainable only on discovery of new evidence, error apparent on face of record or analogous grounds – Review not an appeal in disguise – Re-appreciation of facts or re-argument on merits impermissible – Settled principles reiterated [Paras 5–6].

Order IX Rule 13 CPC – Limitation – COVID-19 Extension Orders – Plea Raised for First Time in Review – Ex-parte decree dated 11.02.2020 – Application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC filed on 27.01.2022 – Benefit of Supreme Court’s suo motu extension of limitation during COVID-19 not pleaded before Trial Court or in appeal – Ground raised for first time in review – Held: Not an error apparent on face of record – Review cannot be used to introduce new grounds not urged earlier [Paras 7–7.4].

Order IX Rule 13 CPC – Knowledge of Proceedings – False Plea of Lack of Notice – Record showed repeated appearances of police officials even after suit transferred to District Court – Notices issued and appearances recorded post ex-parte order – Petitioners also served with caveat after decree – Plea that knowledge arose only on receipt of execution notice found false – Findings based on admitted and undisputed material – No error apparent [Paras 8–8.6].

Governmental Delay – Public Authorities – Liberal Approach – Not Automatically Applicable – Plea of institutional delay and systemic lapses not raised in appeal – No case of breakdown of communication or administrative delay pleaded earlier – Mere claim of impression that no further steps were required after filing written statement rejected – Reliance on Sheo Raj Singh (2023) SCC misplaced – No ground for review [Paras 9–9.1].

Review vs Appeal – Finality of Judgments – Review cannot be invoked to fill lacunae, improve pleadings or raise entirely new arguments – Findings in impugned appellate judgment based on pleadings and record suffer from no infirmity – No patent error demonstrated [Paras 6.1–6.3, 10].

Decision: Review petition dismissed – No error apparent on face of record – Judgment dated 28.11.2025 dismissing FAO No. 53/2023 upheld – No order as to costs.

Anticipatory Bail – Corruption and Economic Offences – Public Servants – Stringent Scrutiny – Petition under Section 482 BNSS seeking pre-arrest bail in FIR registered under IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act alleging forged work orders, manipulated estimates and illegal release of payments – Petitioners were public servants posted in Municipal Corporation Accounts Branch – Allegations disclose abuse of official position, criminal conspiracy and wrongful loss to public exchequer of more than ₹12 crores – Held: Anticipatory bail in corruption cases can be granted only in exceptional circumstances – No prima facie case of false implication or frivolous prosecution made out [Paras 6–7].

Anticipatory Bail – Custodial Interrogation – Necessity in Economic Offences – Petitioners contended that case rests solely on documentary evidence and custodial interrogation is unnecessary – Held: In cases involving forgery of official records, manipulation of electronic data, audit processes and multi-layered conspiracy, custodial interrogation is often indispensable to ascertain knowledge, intent, trace money trail and identify other beneficiaries – Grant of pre-arrest bail likely to hamper effective investigation [Paras 7–9].

Prevention of Corruption Act – Abuse of Official Position – Societal Impact – Corruption by public servants held to be an offence not merely against an individual but against society at large – Economic offences erode public confidence in public administration – Courts required to exercise greater caution while considering anticipatory bail in such matters [Paras 7–8].

Multiple FIRs – Same Transaction – Plea Not Decidable at Bail Stage – Petitioners argued that multiple FIRs on same set of work orders amounted to abuse of process – Prosecution asserted that each FIR pertained to distinct forged work orders unearthed at different stages of investigation – Held: Whether FIRs arise out of same transaction or constitute distinct offences is a mixed question of law and fact to be examined at trial – Plea cannot be conclusively adjudicated at anticipatory bail stage [Para 8].

Parity in Bail – Earlier Anticipatory Bail Orders – No Automatic Right – Reliance placed on grant of anticipatory bail in earlier FIRs on similar allegations – Held: Each bail application must be decided on its own facts and circumstances – Grant of bail in other FIRs does not ipso facto entitle accused to anticipatory bail in subsequent FIR involving expanding conspiracy [Para 8].

Anticipatory Bail – Balance Between Individual Liberty and Societal Interest – Court reiterated need to balance personal liberty with societal interest in fair and effective investigation – Over-solicitous approach towards liberty in corruption cases may defeat public justice – At this stage, material on record discloses reasonable grounds for accusations – Anticipatory bail declined [Paras 8–9].

Decision – Petition dismissed – Anticipatory bail refused – Observations confined only to bail consideration and not to influence merits of investigation or trial – Pending applications disposed of [Para 10].

Service Law – Pension – No Liability Certificate – Retired Headmaster sought issuance of No Liability Certificate and release of pensionary benefits – School authority withheld certificate alleging defalcation and incomplete accounts during service period – Criminal proceedings pending under Sections 409 and 465 IPC – Held: Non-issuance of No Liability Certificate justified in facts of case [Paras 23–26, 33].

Pension as Property – Article 300A – Not an Absolute Right – Though pension is a constitutionally protected property right, it is not automatic or unconditional – Subject to statutory scheme governing service and retirement benefits – DCRB Scheme, 1981 governs entitlement [Paras 12, 28–31].

DCRB Scheme, 1981 – Scope after Retirement – Scheme 19 – Full pension not a matter of course – Pension can be reduced or withheld where service not thoroughly satisfactory or where charge of corruption/misconduct is proved or reasonably presumed – Scheme applicable even to pensioners – Argument that scheme ceases to apply after retirement rejected [Paras 28–31].

Misconduct and Defalcation – Audit Report – Evidentiary Value – Auditor appointed by Directorate of School Education found defalcation exceeding ₹5.47 lakhs including unaccounted sports grant – Strong presumption of financial misconduct arises – Justifies withholding of final pension and gratuity pending outcome of proceedings [Paras 26, 30–31, 33].

Disciplinary Proceedings – Institution before Retirement – Effect – Though no formal disciplinary proceedings were initiated before superannuation, repeated complaints were made to higher authorities during service tenure – Subsequent criminal proceedings and audit revelations distinguish case from precedents where no action whatsoever was taken [Paras 32–33].

Criminal Proceedings – Pendency – Effect on Pension – Where criminal case relating to misconduct during service is pending, employee may be entitled only to provisional pension – Final pension and gratuity can be withheld till conclusion of proceedings [Paras 25, 34].

Provisional Pension – Entitlement – Scheme 19(5) – Pension sanctioning authority empowered to grant provisional pension pending conclusion of disciplinary/judicial proceedings – Gratuity not payable during such period – Matter directed to be considered by Principal Secretary, School Education Department [Paras 34–36].

Precedents on Withholding Pension – Distinguishability – Judgments relied on by petitioner concerned cases of arbitrary withholding without enquiry or proceedings – Present case involves audit findings, criminal prosecution and strong presumption of misconduct – Held: Said precedents not applicable [Paras 32].

Decision – Writ Petition Disposed of – Prayer for No Liability Certificate and immediate pension rejected – Matter referred to Principal Secretary, School Education Department to consider grant of provisional pension under DCRB Scheme, 1981 by reasoned order within eight weeks – Opportunity of hearing to be afforded [Paras 35–37].

Criminal Law – Rape and Abduction – Consent of Prosecutrix – Acquittal – Appellant convicted by trial court under Sections 366 and 376 IPC while acquitted of offences under Section 363 IPC, POCSO Act and SC/ST Act – High Court found that trial court itself held the prosecutrix to be a major at the time of incident – Once prosecutrix held to be major, consent becomes determinative – Conviction set aside [Paras 26–29, 68–70].

Evidence – Sole Testimony of Prosecutrix – Reliability – Contradictions – Conviction based solely on testimony of victim – Victim made materially inconsistent statements before Trial Court, Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and doctor at time of medical examination – Earlier statements indicated voluntary companionship and love affair – Subsequent version of forcible abduction and rape found unreliable – Held: Testimony failed to inspire confidence [Paras 52–58, 61].

Criminal Trial – Statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. – Evidentiary Value – Though not substantive evidence, statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is a vital corroborative piece – Retraction by victim without plausible explanation casts serious doubt on prosecution case – Magistrate’s recording presumed correct – Trial court erred in ignoring contradictions without proper analysis [Paras 52, 59, 67].

Medical Jurisprudence – Medical Evidence in Rape Cases – Medical examination revealed no external injuries, healed old hymenal tear, and absence of spermatozoa – Doctor’s opinion ruled out recent sexual activity – Statement to doctor did not allege forcible rape – Trial court misread date of incident and wrongly discarded medical evidence – Held: Medical evidence materially contradicted prosecution story [Paras 60–62].

Burden of Proof – Rape Cases – Presumption of Innocence – In non-aggravated rape cases under IPC, burden entirely on prosecution to prove lack of consent beyond reasonable doubt – Accused not required to prove innocence – Trial court improperly shifted burden on accused based on failure of cross-examination – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 53, 63–66].

Kidnapping and Abduction – Section 366 IPC – Essential Ingredients – No evidence of inducement, threat, force or compulsion – Victim voluntarily left home and travelled with appellant – Absence of proof of intent to compel marriage or illicit intercourse – Offence under Section 366 IPC not made out [Paras 30–35, 68].

Appreciation of Evidence – Perversity – Trial court ignored foundational contradictions, misread documentary evidence and dates, and failed to consider earliest and most reliable statements – Findings termed perverse and contrary to settled principles of criminal jurisprudence [Paras 62, 68–69].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence dated 05.09.2019 and 06.09.2019 set aside – Appellant acquitted of offences under Sections 366 and 376 IPC – Directed to be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case, subject to bond under Section 481 BNSS [Paras 70–72].

Service Law – Seniority – Foresters – Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme – Petitioners originally appointed as Village Forest Workers (VFWs) and later redesignated and merged into Forester cadre w.e.f. 10.02.2009 under 2009 Amendment Rules – Private opposite parties appointed as Foresters under Odisha Civil Services (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990 and sent for Foresters’ training from 16.06.2008 – Seniority lists prepared by counting training period of RA appointees – Held: Appointment under RA Rules precedes training and is not contingent upon completion of training – Date of joining training constitutes entry into service [Paras 9.6–9.17, 10].

Rehabilitation Assistance – Nature of appointment – RA Rules are a welfare and compassionate measure intended to provide immediate succour to family of deceased Government servant – Appointment under RA Rules is an exception to normal recruitment – Such appointees hold substantive posts subject to training and probation – Held: Training is not sine qua non for appointment as Forester under RA Rules [Paras 9.1–9.9].

Seniority – Rule 13 of RA Rules – Interpretation – Rule 13 mandates that persons appointed under RA Rules shall be placed below persons recruited and appointed in the same year – Private opposite parties treated as appointed in 2008 on joining training – Petitioners merged into cadre only in 2009 – Held: Petitioners cannot claim seniority over RA appointees of earlier year [Paras 8.1–8.2, 10.17].

Training Period – Whether counts for seniority – Evidence showed RA appointees were relieved from divisions, joined training school, and were paid salary and allowances during training – Appointment already made before training – No rule excluding training period from service – Held: Training period rightly counted for seniority [Paras 7.3, 9.14–9.17].

Executive Instructions – Supersession – Effect – Government Letter dated 13.04.2017 fixing seniority from date of joining training later superseded, but subsequently reaffirmed by Letter dated 27.05.2019 in conformity with Rule 13 of RA Rules – Actions taken bona fide on basis of extant instructions and promotions already granted – Held: No ground to unsettle settled seniority [Paras 10.1–10.14].

Delay and laches – Challenge to seniority list – Seniority list dated 08.11.2016 not challenged within reasonable time – Belated challenge after publication of revised list impermissible – Settled seniority should not be reopened after lapse of time – Held: Petitioners disentitled to relief on ground of delay [Paras 10.3–10.8, 12.2].

Judicial Review – Limits – Court will not interfere with fixation of seniority unless contrary to statutory rules or vitiated by arbitrariness – Seniority fixed in consonance with RA Rules having overriding effect under Rule 15 – Held: No illegality or arbitrariness established [Paras 10.16–10.18, 12].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Fixation of seniority of Foresters appointed under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme upheld – Seniority lists dated 08.11.2016 and 24.06.2017 sustained – No order as to costs – Pending applications disposed of.

POCSO Act – Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault – Proof – Conviction under Section 6 of POCSO Act requires proof of penetrative sexual assault of aggravated nature – Prosecution failed to produce medical examination report of the victim though examination was allegedly conducted – No forensic or medical evidence corroborating penetration – Held: Essential ingredients of Section 6 not proved beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 11–13, 21–23].

Criminal Trial – Best Evidence – Adverse Inference – Non-production of medical examination report of the victim, despite victim being taken to hospital immediately after incident – Investigating Officer offered no explanation – Held: Adverse inference drawn against prosecution under Section 114(g) of Evidence Act [Paras 12–13, 22].

Delay and Lapses in Investigation – FIR though registered on date of incident was not promptly forwarded to Court – Statement of victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. recorded after substantial delay – Investigating Officer who registered FIR not examined – Held: Lapses create doubt regarding prosecution version [Paras 10, 13].

Evidence of Victim and Mother – Sexual Assault – Testimony of victim and her mother established removal of undergarments and sexual touching – Evidence insufficient to establish rape or penetrative assault but sufficient to prove sexual assault – Held: Offence under Section 8 of POCSO Act made out [Paras 14–23].

Statutory Presumption – Sections 29 & 30 POCSO Act – Accused failed to rebut presumption with respect to offence of sexual assault – Explanation given to medical officer that he removed undergarment insufficient to displace presumption under Sections 29 and 30 for Section 8 offence [Para 24].

Sentencing – POCSO Act – Modification – Incident occurred in 2015 – Trial Court imposed 20 years’ imprisonment under Section 6 POCSO Act – Held: Conviction under Section 6 unsustainable; conviction modified to Section 8 POCSO Act – Sentence reduced to maximum of five years considering nature of offence and period already undergone [Paras 5, 23–24].

Criminal Intimidation – Section 506 IPC – Evidence sufficient to establish threat extended to victim – Conviction and sentence under Section 506 IPC upheld [Para 25(ii), (vi)].

Set-off – Section 428 Cr.P.C. – Accused already undergone incarceration exceeding maximum sentence under Section 8 POCSO Act – Entitled to set-off – Direction issued for immediate release if not required in any other case [Para 25(viii)–(ix)].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Conviction under Sections 376 IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act set aside – Conviction modified to Section 8 POCSO Act with sentence of five years’ simple imprisonment and fine – Conviction under Section 506 IPC confirmed – Sentences to run concurrently – Accused directed to be released.

Service Law – Family Pension – Claim by Second Wife – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Monogamy as Mandatory Norm – Marriage contracted during subsistence of first marriage void ab initio – Second wife not entitled to family pension [Paras 1, 3.1].

Hindu Law – Bigamy – Void Marriage – Sections 11 and 17, Hindu Marriage Act – Second marriage during lifetime of first spouse illegal and punishable – Such void marriage does not create marital status for pensionary or service benefits [Paras 3.1, 3.5].

Pension Rules – Interpretation – Expression “wife / wives” – Cannot be construed to permit polygamy – Pension rules cannot override or defeat statutory mandate of Hindu Marriage Act and IPC – Widow status presupposes valid marriage [Para 3.3].

Family Pension – Sine Qua Non – Valid Marriage – To qualify as ‘widow’ under pension rules, existence of legally valid marriage essential – Void marriage confers no enforceable rights – Grant of pension to second wife would amount to placing premium on illegality [Paras 3.3, 3.4].

Void Marriage – Effect of Subsequent Events – Death of First Wife – Void marriage does not become valid by subsequent demise of first spouse – Maxim “ex nihilo nihil fit” applies – What is void ab initio remains void [Para 3.5].

Precedents – Applicability – Smt. Sriramabai v. Record Officer – Distinguished – Case relating to presumption of marriage after prolonged cohabitation post death of first wife – Not applicable where marriage itself was contracted during subsistence of first marriage [Para 3.4].

Judicial Discipline – Case Law – Precedent applies only to facts decided – Reliance placed on Quinn v. Letham – Case is authority only for what it decides and not for logical extensions [Para 3.4].

Family Pension – Second Wife – Settled Position of Law – Issue no longer res integra – Supreme Court in Raj Kumari v. Krishna held second wife not entitled to family pension – Karnataka High Court reiterated that recognising such claims encourages illegality [Para 3.5].

Decision – Writ Appeal Dismissed – Order of Single Judge Affirmed – Rejection of claim for family pension upheld – Appeal found devoid of merits [Final Para].