Criminal Revision – Discharge – BNSS Ss. 438 & 442 – PC Act S. 13(1)(c), (d) r/w 13(2) – IPC Ss. 409, 420, 120B – Refusal to Discharge Upheld – Allegation that Board-level approval enabled supply of limestone at ₹689.87/MT against an earlier ₹621/MT with inferior quality/quantity, causing loss to Malabar Cements Ltd – Held: On materials placed, a prima facie case exists and issues raised by A6 & A7 (price parity with earlier supplier, royalty/diesel escalation, and purported profit) require trial – Special Court’s order disallowing discharge calls for no interference – Revision dismissed [Paras 1-3, 11, 14-16].

Public Servants – Board Decisions & Criminal Misconduct – Scope at Discharge Stage – Accused contended they merely participated in Board meetings and acted bona fide; prosecution pointed to creation of artificial demand, advance of ₹32 lakhs, and rate escalation with poorer quality/quantity – Principle reiterated that where materials disclose more than mere suspicion regarding abuse of position conferring pecuniary advantage, the matter must proceed to trial – Discharge declined [Paras 3-8, 11, 14-16].

Comparative Pricing – Contractual Clauses – Earlier purchase order’s “₹621/MT inclusive of levies/diesel” and provisions for revision relied upon by defence – Court noted the prosecution case that prior price did not rise to ₹689/MT and flagged contemporaneous mining/quantity constraints in Crescent Mines’ Modified Mining Plan – Whether escalations would equate to or justify ₹689/MT is a matter of evidence – Not a ground for discharge [Paras 12-15].

Discharge Threshold – Application of Supreme Court Precedents – Century Spinning (AIR 1972 SC 545), Muniswamy ((1977) 2 SCC 699) and Prafulla Kumar Samal (AIR 1979 SC 366) discussed – Court emphasized that at the stage of discharge, if materials raise a grave suspicion warranting trial, the Court should not weigh defence documents conclusively – Special Court recorded reasons and correctly refused discharge – High Court declined to interfere under revisional jurisdiction [Paras 9-11, 16].

Decision – Criminal Revision Petition dismissed – Interim stay vacated – Special Court directed to proceed – No interference with the refusal to discharge Accused Nos. 6 and 7 [Para 16].

Criminal Procedure – Section 311/91 CrPC – Recall of witness / production of documents – Victims challenged rejection of prosecution request to recall PW-14 to mark two 2007 “appreciation letters” allegedly issued by A-1 – Held: Letters concerning a prosecution witness (not victim/informant/accused) 17 years earlier are not essential to the just decision of POCSO/rape charges – Application filed “for the asking” would only fill lacuna and delay a trial under Supreme Court timeline – No interference warranted – Petitions dismissed [Paras 9–13].

Criminal Procedure – Section 311 CrPC – Scope and test – Court reiterates that recall is discretionary (first limb “may”) and mandatory only when essential to a just decision (second limb “shall”) – Wide power must be exercised judiciously; cannot be used to fill prosecution gaps or cause prejudice/delay – Principles culled from recent Supreme Court in Sovaran Singh Prajapati v. State of U.P. and prior line incl. Zahira (Best Bakery) etc. applied [Paras 12; 30.1 factors reproduced].

Evidence – Relevancy/Materiality – Proposed documents were “encomiums”/appreciation letters from A-1 to PW-14 (2007) and sought to rebut a defence slur of misappropriation by PW-14 – Trial court found and High Court affirms: the case turns on victim testimony about sexual assault in Mutt; PW-14’s role limited to facilitating counselling; the letters bear no nexus to core charges and are not essential – Hence, recall refused [Paras 10–11, 14].

Trial Management – Delay and Prejudice – With 54 witnesses already examined and accused statements recorded under Section 313 CrPC, and the Supreme Court’s direction to conclude trial within one year (extension pending), allowing recall would prejudice accused and protract proceedings – Application amounts to filling lacuna; rejection upheld [Paras 8, 14].

Appellate Review under S. 482 CrPC – Victim’s challenge to interlocutory rejection of S.311/91 application – No perversity or tenability error shown; High Court declines to interfere – Petitions rejected; interim orders, if any, dissolved [Paras 10, 13; Order].

Decision: Petitions dismissed – Impugned order dated 19/07/2025 rejecting S.311/91 application affirmed – Interim order, if any, dissolved.

Criminal Writ - Criminal Investigation – Transfer of Probe – SIT Constitution – Writ Allowed – In Crime No.1025/2024, Court directed reinvestigation by SIT headed by DGP Pranab Mohanty with senior IPS officers – Mandamus issued to State to hand over probe and transmit records – SIT to submit report within 3 months – Apex Court declined to interfere – Directions continued under doctrine of continuing mandamus [Paras Order dated 25.04.2025, amended 02.05.2025].

Cyber Crimes – Establishment of Cyber Command Centre (CCC) – Paradigm Shift – Court underscored existential threat of cybercrime and directed State to operationalize CCC headed by DGP – Government issued orders dated 09.04.2025 and 02.09.2025 establishing Cyber Command Unit, Cyber Crime Police Stations, and Cyber Crime Laboratory – Held: Establishment must not remain on paper; CCC to be insulated from political/external interference; officers including head not to be transferred arbitrarily; CCC to integrate cybercrime helpline 1930 and police IT system [Paras 3–7, 9–11].

Public Administration – Accountability & Transparency – Court stressed CCC must ensure transparency, record helpline complaints, draw zero FIRs, integrate all IT Act offences across CEN and jurisdictional police stations under CCC – Without such steps, investigations risk collapse in faceless digital crime environment – Statistics from 2021 (8,396 cases) to 2025 (30,000 cases) show exponential growth, necessitating robust CCC [Paras 7–10, 13–14].

Decision – Court found SIT investigation progressing appropriately; report to be placed once complete – Matter adjourned to 24.09.2025 for further hearing – Continuing mandamus retained to oversee CCC implementation [Paras 11–12].

Civil Writ - Municipal Permissions – Building Permission – GVMC Authority – Jurisdiction – Petitioners claimed ownership of 1743 sq. yards and challenged permission to Respondent No.6 based on Development Agreement with Respondent No.5 – Petitioners relied on earlier orders holding Respondent No.5 had no valid title – Court held GVMC cannot decide title; permission granted on prima facie satisfaction of documents – Held: Impugned order dated 29.05.2024 is a speaking order pursuant to prior writ directions; no jurisdictional error – Writ dismissed [Paras 20–27, 29–31].

Property Law – Title Dispute – Competence of Municipal Authorities – Authorities cannot adjudicate civil title disputes – Disputes regarding validity of Respondent No.5’s title and Development Agreement with Respondent No.6 to be decided by competent Civil Court – Civil suit (O.S. No.121 of 2025) already pending – Hence, writ remedy not available to adjudicate title [Paras 22–23, 25, 29].

Contempt – Alleged Violation of Interim Order – Interim direction dated 26.11.2024 restrained interference with petitioners’ possession – Respondent No.6 had already undertaken construction pursuant to building permission dated 14.07.2020 – Court held no wilful disobedience; contempt petition dismissed as consequence of dismissal of writ [Paras 2, 28, 31].

Decision – Court found no grounds to interfere with GVMC’s order – Writ petition dismissed without costs – Contempt case dismissed – Miscellaneous petitions closed [Para 31].

Theft – Conviction under Section 379 IPC – Sentence Modified – Petitioner, a woman and first-time offender, convicted of theft of a gold chain using a blade in a public hospital – Trial Court sentenced her to six months’ simple imprisonment – Conviction upheld by appellate court – In revision, High Court upheld conviction but modified sentence under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 considering absence of prior record, partial custody period, age, and lapse of 17 years – Directed release on probation with bond and undertaking [Paras 1-30].

Probation of Offenders Act – Applicability and Mandatory Consideration – Failure to Apply Sections 3 and 4 – Held: Both trial court and appellate court failed to discharge mandatory duty to consider benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act – High Court observed that the court is bound to consider applicability and record reasons if benefits are denied – Non-consideration vitiates sentencing process [Paras 22-28].

Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction – Limited Interference – Legal Error in Sentencing – While revisional court does not reappreciate evidence unless findings are perverse, it may intervene in sentencing where statutory provisions like Probation of Offenders Act are overlooked – Conviction affirmed but imprisonment substituted with probation due to legal infirmity in sentencing approach [Paras 10-14].

Sentencing Principles – Proportionality – Age, Custodial Duration, Delay Considered – Court noted that incarceration after 17 years from date of offence would serve no penal purpose – Held: Sentence must reflect proportionality and rehabilitative potential, especially for economically dependent first-time offenders [Paras 17-21, 28-30].

Final Order – Conviction Maintained – Imprisonment Set Aside – Accused Released on Probation – Petitioner directed to furnish bond of ₹10,000 and undertake to maintain peace and good behaviour for one year – Failure to comply to invite further action – Copy forwarded to District Probation Officer for guidance [Para 30].

Criminal Procedure – Dismissal of Complaint – Lack of Prima Facie Case – Trial court dismissed complaint under Section 203 CrPC for want of cogent evidence – Revisionist alleged assault and snatching of mangalsutra at gunpoint by opposite party No. 2 – However, other witnesses did not corroborate her statement – Medical report showed only simple injuries – Held: Complaint lacked sufficient corroborative material and was rightly dismissed [Paras 4–9].

Appreciation of Evidence – Inconsistencies – Statement of Complainant Not Supported – PW-1 (complainant) claimed assault and theft but PW-2 and PW-3 did not support her version – Court found lack of coherence and continuity in testimonies – Mere allegations not enough to summon accused without supporting evidence [Paras 7–8].

Judicial Conduct – Use of Abusive Language – Statement of PW-1 and judicial order recorded abusive language – Court deprecated such language in pleadings and orders – Directed all judicial officers to use decent, restrained language in judicial functions – Issued general instructions for compliance by district judiciary in U.P. [Paras 11–12].

Decision: Criminal revision dismissed – Complaint found devoid of merits – Directions issued to judicial officers to avoid abusive language in orders and witness statements.

Criminal Law – Rash and Negligent Driving – Ingredients of Offence under Section 304-A IPC – Respondent accused of driving a Gramin Sewa van rashly and negligently, resulting in the death of two scooter riders and injury to a child – Prosecution relied primarily on testimony of sole eyewitness (PW1) – PW1’s statements contradictory regarding position of vehicles, manner of impact, and presence at the scene – Delay of three hours in FIR registration unexplained – No independent witnesses or passengers examined – Mechanical inspection found vehicle fit for road use – Held: Mere assertion of “high speed” without proof of rashness or negligence insufficient to establish guilt – Essential ingredient of rash and negligent driving not proved beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 3–5, 13–14].

Evidence – Sole Eyewitness – Contradictions and Reliability – PW1’s presence at the accident site doubtful – His version inconsistent with site plan and investigating officer’s testimony – Failure to inform police or participate in spot proceedings undermines credibility – Trial Court rightly disbelieved PW1’s account – No corroboration from independent or scientific evidence [Paras 4, 10, 13].

Criminal Jurisprudence – Appeal Against Acquittal – Double Presumption of Innocence – High Court reaffirmed settled principle that appellate interference with acquittal must be cautious – Once acquitted, accused enjoys reinforced presumption of innocence – Reference made to Ravi Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2022) 8 SCC 536 and Anwar Ali v. State of H.P., (2020) 10 SCC 166 – Held: Trial Court’s view plausible and supported by evidence; no perversity or illegality found [Paras 11–12, 15].

Negligence – Rule of Res Ipsa Loquitur – Applicability – Court reiterated that negligence cannot be presumed from mere occurrence of accident – Principle of res ipsa loquitur applies only when accident circumstances exclude any cause other than negligence – Supported by Mohd. Aynuddin v. State of A.P., (2000) 7 SCC 72 and State of Karnataka v. Satish, (1998) 8 SCC 493 [Paras 7–8, 10].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal affirmed – No evidence of rash or negligent driving – Trial Court’s findings upheld – Double presumption of innocence operates in favour of respondent.

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings of NDPS – Section 482 CrPC – Accused Named Only in Co-accused Statement – No Recovery – Delay of 14 Years – Proceedings Quashed – Petitioner implicated in Jalangi P.S. Case No.308/2010 based solely on confession of co-accused; no recovery made from him, no evidence collected despite warrant issued in 2010 – Police inactive for 14 years citing bifurcation of police stations – Held: Statement of co-accused alone inadmissible; failure to collect material despite long lapse renders continuation abuse of process – Entire proceedings including FIR, chargesheet and orders quashed; petitioner released [Paras 7–15].

Evidence – Statement of Co-accused – Confession to Police Officer – Inadmissibility – Court reiterated law from Haricharan Kurmi v. State of Bihar (AIR 1964 SC 1184) and Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat (2019) 16 SCC 547 – Confession to police inadmissible under Sections 25–26 Evidence Act & Section 162 CrPC – At best a “lead” requiring verification – No independent corroboration found against petitioner [Paras 9–12, 14].

Police Inaction – Non-execution of Warrant – Liberty of Accused – Court criticized unconscionable failure of police to execute warrant for 14 years; bifurcation of police stations no ground for inaction – Duty of police to act upon warrant; failure cannot prejudice accused’s liberty [Paras 13–14].

Decision – Petition allowed – Proceedings in NDPS Case No.35/2024 quashed – Petitioner to be released immediately unless required in any other case – No order as to costs [Paras 15–16].

Service Law - Recruitment – Fresh Written Test – WBMSC Notices dated 05.08.2024 & 09.08.2024 – Validity – Original 2011 exam covered 26,445 candidates; later, 73,978 found wrongly excluded due to answer key error – WBMSC held fresh written test in 2024 – Appellants (2011 candidates) argued second test barred by earlier Division Bench orders; Respondents contended correction necessary – Held: Commission empowered to rectify error; subsequent writ petitions cannot bar equitable relief to wrongly excluded candidates – Fresh written test upheld [Paras 90-100, 118-119].

Res Judicata vs. Precedent – Application – Earlier Division Bench orders (2020, 2023, 2024) dealt only with extension of time to complete process; no categorical prohibition on fresh test – Observations therein were not ratio decidendi but obiter; cannot operate as res judicata against Commission – Appellants’ plea rejected [Paras 37-40, 63-67].

Natural Justice – Inclusion of Left-Out Candidates – Screening error wrongly excluded 73,978 otherwise eligible candidates – Denial of opportunity after 14 years would cause grave prejudice – Allowing them a fresh written test ensured level playing field – Commission acted fairly; no mala fides established [Paras 71-79].

Recruitment Rules, 2010 – Compliance – Written exam and personality test structure under Rules 16-19 maintained; Commission excluded 24,577 already successful candidates from re-test to avoid prejudice – Process not arbitrary or discriminatory – Findings of Single Judge affirmed [Paras 43-44, 70].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – WBMSC notices of 05.08.2024 & 09.08.2024 and subsequent recruitment process including fresh written exam and merit list upheld – No interference warranted – Pending applications disposed [Paras 100-103, 119].