Approver – Revocation of Pardon – Section 308 CrPC – Trial Court revoked pardon without Public Prosecutor’s certificate – Held: Though ordinarily certificate under Section 308 is prerequisite, Court may revoke pardon where approver and prosecution misled Court and where pardon was improperly granted despite overwhelming documentary evidence – Revocation justified; evidence rightly expunged – Summoning under Section 319 CrPC of co-loanee / joint account-holder upheld – All three revisions dismissed [Paras 21, 26–36].

Criminal Procedure – Tender of Pardon – Sections 306–308 CrPC – Legal Framework – Once pardon is granted, approver stands discharged and becomes prosecution witness – Withdrawal of pardon ordinarily requires Public Prosecutor’s certificate certifying violation of conditions of pardon – Evidence of approver thereafter must be ignored in toto – Principles reaffirmed from State of Maharashtra v. Abu Salem Abdul Kayyum Ansari, A.J. Peiris, Hiralal Girdharilal Kothari, and Jagjit Singh [Paras 16–18].

Revocation of Approver Status – Whether Court Can Act Suo Motu – In present case, trial court revoked pardon at stage of final arguments without certificate under Section 308 CrPC – Held: Although certificate is ordinarily mandatory, where both prosecution and approver mislead court and pardon itself was improperly obtained, court may invoke inherent power to revoke pardon – Court found CBI’s claim that approver was not principal beneficiary to be misleading; documentary evidence overwhelmingly proved his involvement – Revocation justified [Paras 21, 29–35].

Approver’s Misconduct – Circumstances Justifying Revocation – Documentary record showed approver (A-3) as principal beneficiary of fraudulent housing loans, illegal gratification to bank officials, and attempted misuse of fraudulent Safe Keeping Receipt (SKR) of ₹100.86 crores – Evidence showed payment of car purchase amounts as bribe; loans credited to his and wife’s joint account; attempts to siphon public money – Trial Court correctly held approver misled Court and was undeserving of pardon – No prejudice caused by revocation [Paras 23–34].

CBI’s Conduct – Misleading the Court – CBI’s application supporting pardon claimed lack of evidence against A-3 despite seizure of incriminating documents – Court held CBI “misled the Trial Court” and improperly facilitated accused’s approver status – Such conduct justified court’s corrective action independent of Section 308 procedure [Paras 28–32].

Summoning Additional Accused – Section 319 CrPC – Summoning of Smt. Kaveri Dutta – Evidence showed she was joint account-holder, co-loanee, signatory to withdrawals, beneficiary of housing loans, aware of transactions – Prosecution witnesses (PW3, PW4, PW12) disclosed her role – Prima facie case established – Trial Court rightly summoned her under Section 319 CrPC – No interference warranted [Para 36].

Documentary Evidence – Prosecution’s Case Not Dependent on Approver – Trial Court rightly held that prosecution case rested substantially on seized bank records, SKR documents, cheques, loan papers, and correspondence – Approver’s testimony had little bearing on merits – Revocation and expunging of deposition caused no impairment to prosecution case – Findings upheld [Paras 26–27, 30].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Interference – Revisional Court will not interfere unless order suffers from illegality, material irregularity or perversity – Impugned order well within jurisdiction; based on correct appreciation of record – No ground for interference in any of the three revision petitions [Paras 35–37].

Decision – All three criminal revision petitions (CRR 516/2020, CRR 2504/2021, CRR 1252/2022) dismissed – Interim orders vacated – Trial Court to proceed in accordance with law [Paras 37–40].

Criminal Law – Speaking to Minutes – Finality of Judgment – Section 362 CrPC bar – No power to modify or alter sentence after appellate and Supreme Court affirmations – Concurrent running of sentences cannot be inserted subsequently – Application for speaking to minutes cannot substitute review or modification – Application rejected [Paras 16–23, 25].

Criminal Procedure – Speaking to Minutes – Scope and Limits – Application seeking insertion of direction that sentences run concurrently – Held: Speaking to minutes is confined to correction of clerical or typographical mistakes and cannot be used to modify, review or alter substantive findings or directions in a judgment – Any such attempt amounts to impermissible review under Section 362 CrPC / Section 528 BNSS – Application not maintainable [Paras 4, 19–23].

Sentence – Concurrent vs. Consecutive – Section 31 CrPC – Trial court did not direct concurrent running of sentences and appellate court also confirmed conviction without such direction – In absence of explicit direction, sentences run consecutively – Principle that sentences in a single transaction must run concurrently is not absolute; depends on nature and gravity of offence – Heinous offence of gang rape, threats, children kept hostage – Trial court rightly refrained from granting concurrency – No ground to alter sentencing mode post-finality [Paras 7, 10–12].

Inherent Powers – Section 482 CrPC / Section 528 BNSS – Limits – High Court cannot invoke inherent powers to modify a concluded judgment when CrPC expressly bars review and alteration – Inherent powers cannot override statutory prohibitions – Only clerical/arithmetical errors may be corrected – Present request is for substantive modification and hence barred [Paras 14–16, 22].

Finality of Criminal Judgments – Section 362 CrPC – Once appellate and Supreme Court have affirmed conviction and sentence, the High Court becomes functus officio – No power to revisit or modify operative portion – Any change to sentencing mode (concurrent vs. consecutive) constitutes substantive alteration and is prohibited – No exception applicable (fraud, lack of jurisdiction, denial of hearing etc.) [Paras 17–21].

Delay and Conduct – Applicant never raised plea of concurrency before Trial Court, Appellate Court, or Supreme Court – Raised for first time after many years – No explanation for delay – Plea barred both on law and conduct [Paras 2.6, 3, 17–18, 24].

Held – Sentences imposed under Sections 376(g) and 506 r/w 34 IPC to run consecutively by default – No jurisdiction to insert concurrency after judgment reached finality – Application for speaking to minutes rejected – No direction for release – No costs [Paras 25].

Writ Petition – Suppression of Material Facts – Abuse of Process – Clean Hands Doctrine – Petitioners challenged 33KV transmission line being laid through residential area citing safety concerns and violations of Indian Electricity Rules – However, petitioners failed to disclose ongoing civil suit on identical subject matter with interim relief already granted by Trial Court – Held: Non-disclosure of parallel litigation amounts to abuse of process and fraudulent misrepresentation; writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked with unclean hands [Paras 14–26, 30].

Electricity Infrastructure – Safety Standards – Petitioners raised concerns regarding insufficient clearance (less than 3.7 meters) from residential buildings in alleged violation of Indian Electricity Rules – Spot inspection confirmed proximity of lines to houses – However, since matter was already under adjudication in civil court, High Court declined to adjudicate merits under Article 226 [Paras 3–11, 22].

Civil Suit Pending – Parallel Proceedings – Interim relief in civil suit already granted to maintain status quo – Petitioners failed to await outcome and instead filed writ – Held: Filing of writ petition despite pendency of civil proceedings on same cause of action is improper and amounts to forum shopping [Paras 16–20, 24–25].

Costs Imposed – Concealment of Facts – Petition dismissed in limine with cost of ₹20,000 to be deposited in Advocates’ Welfare Fund – Exemplary costs imposed to deter litigants from misleading the Court [Paras 34–35].

Decision: Petition dismissed in limine – Petitioners held to have suppressed material facts – Costs of ₹20,000 imposed for abuse of process – Petition to be listed after two weeks for verification of cost deposit compliance.

Service Law – Recovery from Salary – Theft of Stock – Absence of Notice & Enquiry – No Responsibility Fixed – Executive Engineer’s Recommendations Ignored – Principles of Natural Justice – Held: Petitioner cannot be held liable for thefts; unilateral recovery illegal; order quashed; Corporation directed to refund recovered amount with interest [Paras 15–18].

Service Law – Recovery from Employee – Theft of Departmental Materials – Absence of Fixation of Responsibility – Procedural Fairness Mandatory – Petitioner, Junior Engineer in-charge of Central Store, had repeatedly reported thefts, lodged FIRs and pursued investigation – Executive Engineer consistently recommended dropping the outstanding amount and treating stolen items as loss to Corporation – Held, responsibility cannot be fixed merely because thefts occurred during petitioner’s tenure [Paras 9–11, 15].

Natural Justice – Recovery Order Without Notice or Enquiry – Illegality – Opposite Party No.2 issued common order of recovery dated 26.09.2018 without issuing show-cause notice, conducting enquiry, or providing opportunity of hearing – such decision imposes civil consequences and hence is violative of fair play and natural justice [Paras 5, 7.2, 14, 16].

Administrative Law – Internal Recommendations – Selective Acceptance by Authority – Arbitrary Exercise of Power – Corporation rejected earlier recommendations of Executive Engineer treating loss as non-recoverable but relied selectively on subsequent communication dated 18.09.2018 without reasons or notice to petitioner – Court held such selective adoption arbitrary and unsustainable [Paras 12–13].

Employee Not Responsible for Theft – Evidence on Record – Letters dated 03.10.2007, 21.10.2017 and 30.01.2018 demonstrate: (i) severe staff shortage due to VRS, (ii) store guarded by Home Guard, (iii) thefts despite reasonable precautions, (iv) FIRs lodged promptly – held, petitioner fulfilled all duties; Corporation failed to justify liability [Paras 9–11].

Public Money Argument – Cannot Override Due Process – Corporation’s plea that loss being public money justified recovery rejected; recovery must follow established procedure, enquiry, and opportunity to be heard [Paras 6, 16].

Refund of Amount Unlawfully Recovered – Interest Awarded – As entire amount of Rs.1,24,774.20 had been deducted during pendency of writ petition, Court directed refund with 7% simple interest from date of last deduction; failure to refund within four weeks will attract 12% penal interest [Para 18].

Decision:Writ petition allowed – Order dated 26.09.2018 quashed vis-à-vis petitioner – Corporation directed to refund recovered amount with interest – No costs [Paras 17–19].

Contempt of Court – Civil Contempt – Interim Stay Order – Wilful Disobedience – Despite being served with the High Court’s stay order dated 07.10.2025 restraining action on the cancellation of the No Objection Certificate (NOC), the respondent-contemnor initiated fresh proceedings under Section 34 of the Disaster Management Act and issued an order dated 24.10.2025 for closure of the petrol pump – Held: This amounted to wilful disobedience and circumvention of the Court’s order – Civil contempt established under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Subsequent order quashed [Paras 15, 16, 18, 20, 23, 25, 28, 32, 36, 39, 40, 41, 43, 44, 46, 47, 48].

Disaster Management Act – Section 34 – Jurisdictional Overreach – Action taken under Disaster Management Act was based on the same reports already forming basis of earlier NOC cancellation order, which had been stayed – Held: The respondent-contemnor acted in excess of statutory powers and bypassed the judicial stay order – Such conduct amounts to colourable exercise of power and is legally unsustainable [Paras 20, 28, 33, 36].

Power of High Court – Article 215 – Setting Aside Executive Action Resulting from Contempt – In exercise of contempt jurisdiction, the High Court can nullify an executive order passed in wilful disobedience of its directions – Court not restricted to punishing contempt alone but can undo the resulting harm to uphold rule of law [Paras 41-47].

Precedent – A Party Cannot Benefit From Breach of Court Order – Reiterated that contemnors should not be permitted to enjoy the fruits of contempt – Order passed in breach of a court’s directive cannot be sustained – Relief under contempt jurisdiction includes restoration of status quo ante [Paras 43-45].

Decision: Contempt petition allowed – Respondent found guilty of wilful disobedience of interim order dated 07.10.2025 – Order dated 24.10.2025 passed under Section 34 of Disaster Management Act quashed – Respondent directed to pay Rs. 2,000/- as costs to the petitioner within 15 days.

Criminal Law – Murder – Circumstantial Evidence – Last Seen – Extra-Judicial Confession – Strangulation – Delay/Withholding of Disclosure by Family Witnesses – Motive Absent – Sudden Provocation – Conviction of Ram Avtar Altered to Section 304 Part-II; Co-accused Visharad Acquitted – Last Seen Alone Insufficient [Paras 29–34, 45–51].

Circumstantial Evidence – Last Seen Together – Proof and Reliability – Evidence of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-9 consistently established that appellants were last seen consuming liquor with deceased on the night before death – proximity of time (death discovered next morning) and absence of explanation by accused sustain last-seen theory – immaterial who first discovered body; distinction between ‘last seen’ and ‘first seen’ emphasized [Paras 29–30, 35–38].

Extra-Judicial Confession – Subsequent Disclosure by Son of Deceased – Acceptability – PW-9’s testimony explaining delay due to emotional turmoil (brother-in-law being culprit, father deceased) found natural and credible – confession made on morning after incident; later revealed in supplementary statement after postmortem clarified cause of death – remained unimpeached in cross-examination – held satisfactorily proved [Paras 31–34, 39–40].

Family Members as Witnesses – Alleged Interestedness – Credibility Upheld – PW-2, PW-3, PW-9 (sons of deceased) not discredited; their youth, emotional conflict and familial ties explained initial silence; no motive to falsely implicate appellants, especially son-in-law of deceased [Paras 22–23, 31–33].

Investigation – Allegations of IO Connivance – Rejected – Non-detaining of sons, absence of fingerprints on neck, and failure to trace informant ‘Sita’ do not vitiate prosecution – IO’s explanation on multiple women named Sita accepted – fingerprints on neck medically improbable – investigation found fair [Paras 37, 41–43].

Medical Evidence – Cause of Death – Strangulation Established – Post-mortem report and PW-4 conclusively show death due to asphyxia by manual strangulation – argument that open/closed eyes contradict strangulation rejected; common cultural practice explained [Paras 19, 23, 44].

Motive Absent – Consumption of Liquor Together – Possibility of Sudden Provocation – No motive proved; parties were drinking together regularly; death by manual strangulation without weapon – held consistent with sudden fight under intoxication rather than premeditated intent to kill [Paras 46–47].

Alteration of Conviction – Section 302 to Section 304 Part-II – Ram Avtar – Considering absence of motive, sudden provocation, manner of assault and long passage of time (24 years), conviction converted to Section 304 Part-II IPC – reliance placed on Dattatraya v. State of Maharashtra, (2024) 14 SCC 286 – sentence reduced to period undergone (~5 years) [Paras 46–48].

Acquittal – Co-Accused Visharad – Last Seen Alone Insufficient – No confession or incriminating circumstance against co-accused; PW-9’s confession only implicates Ram Avtar – last-seen alone insufficient for conviction under Sections 302/34 or 304 Part-II – conviction set aside and acquittal granted [Paras 49–51].

Decision: Appeals partly allowed – Ram Avtar’s conviction altered to Section 304 Part-II IPC with sentence reduced to period already undergone – Visharad acquitted – Bail bonds discharged [Paras 48, 51–52].

PCPNDT Act – Cognizance only on complaint by “Appropriate Authority” – FIR under Section 154 CrPC impermissible – Complaint filed by unauthorised officer invalid – FIR and complaint quashed [Paras 9–19, 27–31].

PCPNDT Act – FIR Under Section 154 CrPC – Not Permissible – Court held that offences under PCPNDT Act are cognizable (Section 27) but cognizance can be taken only on a complaint filed under Section 28 by Appropriate Authority or duly authorised officer—police cannot register FIR for PCPNDT offences—registration of FIR No. 2/2014 held wholly without jurisdiction [Paras 9–14].

Special Statute Prevails – CrPC Excluded – Section 4 & 5 CrPC make CrPC subject to special statutes—since PCPNDT Act prescribes an exclusive procedure for prosecution, police report cannot substitute complaint—definition of “complaint” in Section 2(d) CrPC excludes police report—thus CrPC mechanism cannot be invoked [Paras 12–14].

Complaint by Unauthorised Officer – Invalid – Complaint No. 7/2014 filed against Dr. Yogesh Kumar was by Madanlal Sharma, who was authorised only for search and seizure under Section 29(2)—not for filing complaint—no State/Central Government notification authorising him under Section 28—complaint held incompetent and without authority [Paras 20–25, 29–31].

Appropriate Authority – Composition and Notification Mandatory – Court emphasised that Appropriate Authority must be notified under Section 17(1)/(2) and must be a three-member body—mere administrative orders or chairperson’s authorisation cannot substitute statutory notification—reliance on improper delegation invalid [Paras 22–24].

Criminal Law – Strict Compliance Required – Court reiterated that where a statute prescribes a specific mode, it must be adhered to strictly—any prosecution not conforming to statutory mode is invalid—continuation of proceedings amounts to abuse of process [Paras 27–31].

Decision:

S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 4985/2019 (Mahendra Singh) allowed – FIR No. 2/2014 and all consequential proceedings quashed.

S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1422/2015 (Dr. Yogesh Kumar) allowed – Complaint No. 7/2014 and all proceedings quashed.

Hindu Law – Private Debuttar – Building Plan Sanction – Shebaits’ Authority – No Statutory Requirement of Prior Court Permission – Municipality Cannot Demand Civil Court Order for Development of Debuttar Property – Impugned Refusal Quashed – Municipality Directed to Process Plan [Paras 29–37].

Hindu Religious Endowments – Private Debuttar – Nature of Shebaitship – Shebait not a “trustee” under the Indian Trusts Act – Savings clause in Section 1 excludes Debuttar properties – Section 34 inapplicable – Shebait possesses inherent managerial authority to develop property for benefit of the deity – No statutory mandate requiring prior permission of Civil Court for development of private Debuttar estate [Paras 28–31].

Municipal Law – Building Plan Sanction – Scope of Municipal Authority – Municipality cannot insist on production of civil court order as condition precedent for sanctioning building plan of Debuttar property – Function of Municipality is administrative and confined to verifying compliance with building regulations – Municipality cannot adjudicate Shebaitship disputes or validity of Arpannama/Rectification Deed [Paras 29–34].

Administrative Law – Mohinder Singh Gill principle – Authority cannot supplement or improve the impugned order with new reasons during litigation – Municipality’s attempt to add new objections during writ proceedings impermissible [Para 14].

Debuttar Property – Development vs. Alienation – Proposed construction held to be an act of preservation and beneficial utilization, not alienation – Consistent judicial view (Shakuntala Devi Dalmia; Kunal Kumar Adhikary; Risabh Ruia) followed – Court distinguishes precedents relied on by Municipality as inapplicable on facts [Paras 31–33, 35–36].

Shebaitship – Validity of Present Shebaits – Arpannama provides for succession by male heirs – Municipality not competent to question authority of Shebaits – No rival claimants shown – Shebaits’ Development Agreement validly executed for benefit of deity [Para 34].

Decision – Impugned notice quashed – Municipality directed to process the building plan strictly under applicable laws and to take a final decision within 8 weeks – Writ petition allowed [Para 36–37].

Service Law – BSF – Disciplinary Proceedings – Extra-marital Conduct – Officer engaged in intimate relationship with a female constable while being married – Compromising photographs leaked and circulated on social media – SCOI and ROE conducted – Disciplinary authority found conduct to be unbecoming of an officer in a disciplined force – Held: Relationship, though consensual, constituted grave misconduct warranting action under Rule 20(2) and 20(4)(c) of BSF Rules – Compulsory retirement upheld [Paras 2–6, 18–19, 38–39].

Judicial Review – Scope under Article 226 – Disciplinary Action – High Court reiterates that Court cannot substitute its views unless the decision is illegal, arbitrary, or perverse – Decision to treat holding of GSFC as "inexpedient" is valid if based on material facts and nature of misconduct – Held: No violation of principles of natural justice as officer was heard at multiple stages – No interference warranted under Article 226 [Paras 21–22, 30–31, 34–40].

Interpretation – Rule 20(2) of BSF Rules – Meaning of "Inexpedient" – Court held term "inexpedient" has wider ambit than "not reasonably practicable" – Covers situations where holding GSFC may not be suitable or appropriate to achieve disciplinary objectives – Rule 20(2) intended to give discretion to competent authority in fit cases without mandatory GSFC – Held: Invocation of Rule 20(2) justified in facts of case [Paras 30–37].

Constitutional Law – Distinction from Article 311(2)(c) – Rule 20(2) BSF Rules operates independently and does not require satisfaction on grounds of “security of the State” unlike Article 311(2)(c) – Full Bench decision in Laishram Sushil Singh not applicable to BSF Rule 20(2) – Held: Provisions not pari materia and operate under different legal tests [Paras 28–29].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Court upheld the disciplinary authority’s decision to compulsorily retire the petitioner under Rule 20(4)(c) of the BSF Rules – Held: Decision to invoke Rule 20(2) based on seriousness of misconduct and nature of evidence was lawful – No ground for judicial interference under Article 226 of Constitution of India [Para 41].