Criminal Law – Kidnapping for Ransom – Identification – Conviction set aside – Accused-appellants convicted under Sections 364A and 120B IPC for alleged abduction of victim Anwar Khan and demand of ransom – Trial court sentenced all appellants to life imprisonment – On appeal, High Court found that prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt – Held: Identification of accused solely in court without prior Test Identification Parade (TIP) inadmissible – All accused allegedly unknown were seen at police station before identification – No material corroboration of in-court identification [Paras 34, 31.1, 31.2]

Electronic Evidence – Admissibility under Section 65B – Call Detail Records (CDRs) and mobile evidence – CDRs and CAFs relied upon by prosecution were unaccompanied by Section 65B certificate – Investigating Officer’s oral assertions on electronic data inadmissible – Held: Mandatory non-compliance with Section 65B renders CDRs and related electronic evidence legally inadmissible [Paras 30.6, 35]

Criminal Procedure – Violation of Section 313 CrPC – Accused not confronted with incriminating material during examination under Section 313 – High Court found this to be fatal – Serious prejudice caused to accused – Conviction based on evidence not properly put to accused is unsustainable in law [Paras 32.2, 32.3]

Circumstantial Evidence – Flaws in Investigation – No recovery of cot or rope – FIR not exhibited – Witness testimonies inconsistent and mostly hearsay – No independent public witness examined – Doctor (PW-8) found no visible injuries – Witnesses admitted to seeing accused at police station prior to trial – Allegations of ransom based on uncorroborated statements – Held: Prosecution failed to prove ingredients of Section 364A IPC or conspiracy under Section 120B IPC beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 30.1–30.9, 33–36]

Judgment – Appeals Allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 364A and 120B IPC set aside – Appellants in custody ordered to be released – Others already on bail – Held: Trial Court’s conviction unsustainable in law and facts – Failure of prosecution to establish guilt – Appreciation of evidence flawed [Paras 36–40]

Decision: Conviction and sentence set aside – All appeals allowed – Accused in custody to be released unless wanted in any other case – Bail bonds of appellants on bail discharged – Acknowledgement of pro bono service by Amicus Curiae Ms. Vaishnavi Singh [Paras 38–42]

Arbitration – Enforcement of Domestic Award in International Commercial Arbitration – Jurisdiction – Special Appeal challenging Single Judge’s order rejecting objection to maintainability of execution application before High Court – Held: Award in question is domestic though arising from international commercial arbitration with seat in India – As per Section 2(1)(e)(ii) of the Arbitration Act, in absence of original civil jurisdiction, High Court having appellate jurisdiction over subordinate courts is competent to execute such award – District Commercial Court lacks jurisdiction in such cases [Paras 6–8, 22–28, 33–34, 44]

Arbitration – Definition of “Court” under Arbitration Act – Applicability of Section 2(1)(e) – High Court clarified that Section 2(1)(e)(ii) governs jurisdiction in international commercial arbitrations seated in India – Even if High Court lacks original civil jurisdiction, it qualifies as "Court" if it hears appeals from subordinate courts – Commercial Division of such High Court is appropriate forum for enforcement under Section 36 [Paras 24–26, 31–32]

Commercial Courts Act – Section 10 – Applicability – Section 10(1) provides that all applications arising from international commercial arbitration are to be heard by the Commercial Division of the High Court – Sections 10(2) and 10(3) relate only to domestic arbitration – No distinction based on whether arbitration is party-centric or place-centric – Statutory scheme supports exclusive jurisdiction of High Court for enforcement of such awards [Paras 13, 41–43]

Interpretation – No Overlap Between Parts I and II of Arbitration Act – Court rejects appellant’s contention that amendment in Section 47 (Part II) implying High Court jurisdiction for foreign awards would conversely imply District Court jurisdiction for domestic awards in international commercial arbitration – Part I (which includes Section 36) and Part II operate independently – High Court jurisdiction flows from Section 2(1)(e)(ii), not by exclusion from Section 47 [Paras 34–39]

Appeal – Maintainability of Special Appeal – Not barred under Chapter VIII Rule 5 as impugned order was passed in original jurisdiction under the Commercial Courts Act and Arbitration Act – Special Appeal held to be maintainable – However, dismissed on merits [Paras 3–6, 46]

Decision: Special Appeal dismissed – High Court (Commercial Division) held to be the proper forum for enforcement of a domestic arbitral award arising from international commercial arbitration – Objections to maintainability rightly rejected by Single Judge

Criminal Law – Revision – Interlocutory vs Intermediate Orders – Petitioner sought direction for registration of FIR alleging conspiracy and murder of son – Magistrate rejected application under Section 156(3) CrPC holding that court itself could inquire into complaint – Revisional Court dismissed revision on ground that order was interlocutory – Held: Order rejecting application under Section 156(3) CrPC is not purely interlocutory as it affects valuable rights of complainant – Revision maintainable under Section 397 CrPC – Matter remanded for fresh decision [Paras 1-4, 13-23]

Police Investigation – Role of Magistrate – Complaint disclosed cognizable offence and warranted police investigation – Mens rea, conspiracy, and alleged tampering of evidence required custodial interrogation and collection of evidence by police – Magistrate erred in refusing investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC – Observed: In serious matters involving murder, procedural powers must be exercised to advance justice [Paras 7-10]

Inherent Powers – Section 482 CrPC – Sessions Court committed jurisdictional error in dismissing revision mechanically without examining nature of impugned order – High Court exercised inherent powers under Section 482 to set aside the order and restore revision – Clarified that no opinion on merits of complaint was expressed [Paras 21-23]

Decision: Petition allowed – Order of Sessions Judge dated 09.08.2021 set aside – Criminal revision restored for decision on merits – No opinion expressed on merits of complaint [Paras 23-24]

Criminal Law  – Quashing of FIR – Compromise – FIR registered under Sections 118(1), 118(2), 115(2), 191(3), 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Parties settled dispute voluntarily without coercion – Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) found compromise to be genuine and all parties to be part of the settlement – Complainant no longer interested in pursuing the matter – Held: Dispute was personal in nature with no element of moral turpitude or heinousness – Petitioners were mostly young and continuation of proceedings would be oppressive and serve no useful purpose – FIR and consequential proceedings quashed subject to cost [Paras 1, 5, 9–10].

Criminal Law – Inherent Powers – Section 528 BNSS – Principles Governing Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Reiterated that in non-heinous, personal disputes, High Court may quash FIRs where parties have resolved their issues – Referred to Parbatbhai Aahir and Ramgopal v. State of M.P. – Held: Where possibility of conviction is remote and continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process, Court justified in exercising inherent powers [Paras 7–8].

Decision: FIR No. 113 dated 09.08.2024 registered at Police Station Cantonment, Amritsar and all consequential proceedings quashed in view of compromise dated 02.06.2025 – Petition allowed – Petitioners directed to deposit ₹7,500 each with DHFWS, Panchkula within two months from receipt of certified copy of the order.

Employees Provident Fund – Wage Splitting – Artificial Structuring to Evade PF Liability – 7A Determination Upheld – Respondent institutions restructured salary components to cap Basic plus D.A. at ₹6,500 while paying higher gross wages – Provident Fund Authority found deliberate design to avoid statutory contributions – Tribunal erroneously set aside the order on the sole ground that declared basic wages were within the ceiling – Held: Authority rightly applied substance over form test and found long-standing, uniform pattern of artificial wage structuring – Statutory contributions are payable on actual wages and not on labels assigned by employer [Paras 8–14].

Welfare Legislation – Purpose of PF Act – Interpretation in Favour of Beneficiaries – EPF Act is a social welfare legislation to ensure security of employees – Deferred wages cannot be denied through creative salary structuring – Regular allowances shown as exclusions cannot defeat statutory mandate – Employer’s conduct must be judged by effect, not form [Paras 9–11].

Section 7A Inquiry – Validity – Record-Based Assessment – Authority relied on statutory documents like Form 11, challans, Form 16, salary registers – Found consistent pattern of wage splitting across years and employees – Detailed, account-wise and employee-wise calculations revealed suppression of PF liability – Held: Tribunal failed to consider this material and adopted a narrow, ceiling-based approach without examining wage structuring [Paras 12–14].

Judicial Review – Writ Jurisdiction – Interference with Reasoned Administrative Orders – High Court held that the Tribunal failed to apply binding precedents including Regional PF Commissioner v. Vivekanand Vidyamandir – Found that employer’s conduct amounted to evasion of statutory obligation – Restored well-reasoned 7A order [Paras 5, 15–18].

Decision: Writ Petitions allowed – Order of PF Appellate Tribunal dated 19.10.2016 set aside – Original order under Section 7A dated 30.10.2014 restored – PF dues of ₹2,91,765 upheld against respondent [Paras 16–18].

Public Procurement – Bid Submission Failure – Display of Incomplete Bids – Rule 19 KTPP Rules – Re-submission Attempt After Corrigendum – Petitioner submitted bids on 25.09.2024 and re-submitted revised bids on 27.09.2024 – Cancelled bids again on 30.09.2024 intending to upload final corrections, but failed to re-submit before deadline (17:30 hrs, 30.09.2024) – Alleged non-compliance with Rule 19 in not showing bids as “DRAFT” – Held: Petitioner’s cancelled bids were correctly shown as “DRAFTS” on the portal – No procedural impropriety found – Incomplete bids rightly excluded from evaluation [Paras 11.1–11.5]

Judicial Review – Procedural Irregularity – Locus After Dismissal of Earlier Petition – Abuse of Process – Petitioner previously challenged corrigendum and failed – Present petitions relate to alleged exclusion of bids due to portal failure – Held: Issue of bid status as DRAFT not considered earlier – Petitioner has locus – However, failure to upload revised bids before deadline is attributable to petitioner’s own conduct – No relief warranted [Paras 10.1–10.4, 11.6]

Tender Law – Onus on Bidder – Last Date and Time Compliance – Rule 15(4)(b) – Statutory obligation lies on tenderers to ensure bid submission within time – System required bid cancellation before corrections, which petitioner failed to re-submit – Held: Bid remained incomplete – Incomplete bid cannot be considered for evaluation [Para 11.6]

Decision: Writ petitions dismissed – No violation of Rule 19 of KTPP Rules found – Petitioner failed to re-submit corrected bids before cut-off – Bids remained incomplete (DRAFT) and were validly excluded – No costs.

Service Law – Departmental Proceedings – Disciplinary Authority – Disagreement with Enquiry Report – Natural Justice – Petitioner constable in Railway Protection Special Force terminated despite exoneration by Enquiry Officer – Disciplinary Authority disagreed with enquiry findings without issuing notice or giving opportunity of hearing – Held: Violation of principles of natural justice – Before recording contrary finding, Disciplinary Authority must give tentative reasons for disagreement and allow employee to represent – Termination order set aside [Paras 6–10].

Service Law – Right to Hearing – Rule 154.5 of RPF Rules – Interpretation – Rule allows Disciplinary Authority to differ from Enquiry Officer but does not exclude requirement of hearing – Subjective satisfaction under Rule 154.5 must be based on reconciliation of enquiry report, disagreement reasons, and employee’s response – Omission to hear employee before differing with report causes prejudice and renders decision unsustainable [Paras 7–9].

Remand – Departmental Inquiry – Scope – Appellate Court finds termination illegal for procedural lapse – Held: Appropriate course is to remand matter to Disciplinary Authority to proceed afresh from stage where process was vitiated – Reference to Supreme Court in Allahabad Bank v. Krishna Narayan Tewari and LIC v. A. Masilamani – Matter remanded to provide hearing and pass fresh order within 3 months [Paras 12–14].

Constitution – Article 309 – Principles of Natural Justice – Applicability – Even where rules are silent, right to hearing must be read into the procedure where Disciplinary Authority proposes to overturn exoneration and impose punishment – Upholds fairness, transparency, and due process in service jurisprudence [Paras 9–10].

Decision: Writ appeal allowed – Order of termination dated 29.03.2019 and subsequent departmental and writ court orders set aside – Matter remanded to Disciplinary Authority to provide opportunity of hearing and pass fresh order within 3 months – No undue adjournments to be sought by parties – Proceedings to be concluded independently and expeditiously.

Civil Writ - Natural Resources – Tender-cum-Auction – Quarry Lease for Dunite – Cancellation of Tender – Successful bidders challenged cancellation of tender-cum-auction after being declared highest bidders and payment of EMD – Authorities cancelled tender on finding serious discrepancies in fixation of upset price leading to substantial loss to State revenue – Held: Allocation of natural resources is not a mere commercial transaction but a matter of public trust requiring maximisation of public revenue – State entitled to cancel tender where fixation of upset price was fundamentally flawed and against public interest – No vested right accrues merely by being declared successful bidder [Paras 15–18].

Tender Process – Upset Price – Fixation – Judicial Review – Enquiry revealed that only seigniorage fee was taken as upset price without considering actual market value and net profit of Dunite mineral – Resulted in potential loss of hundreds of crores to State exchequer – Held: When tender conditions or calculations are misapplied resulting in depletion of public revenue, courts must uphold corrective action by the State – Cancellation justified to protect public interest and revenue [Paras 8–10, 15–18].

Public Trust Doctrine – Natural Resources – Revenue Maximisation – State as trustee of mineral wealth obligated to secure best value for public resources – Reliance placed on Natural Resources Allocation, In Re, Special Reference No.1 of 2012 and Subodh Kumar Singh Rathour v. CEO – Tender cancellation upheld in furtherance of constitutional obligation to protect public wealth [Paras 16–18].

Judicial Precedent – Supreme Court Guidance – Shanti Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Odisha – Principle reiterated that misinterpretation of tender conditions diminishing State revenue warrants judicial interference – Applied to uphold cancellation of tender involving mineral resources [Paras 17–18].

Refund – Earnest Money Deposit – Though writ petitions dismissed, petitioners entitled to refund of EMD with interest at 7.5% per annum from date of deposit till repayment – No direction for grant of lease [Para 19].

Environmental Protection – Mining Near Reserved Forest – Court directed that any future tender must strictly comply with Supreme Court directions prohibiting mining within one kilometre from reserved forest boundary as laid down in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India [Para 19].

Decision: Writ petitions dismissed – Cancellation of tender-cum-auction upheld – Respondents directed to refund EMD with interest – Liberty granted to State to issue fresh tender in accordance with law – Petitioners permitted to participate in fresh tender – No costs.

Criminal Law – Negotiable Instruments – Dishonour of Cheques – Legally Enforceable Liability – Appellant convicted under Section 138 NI Act for dishonour of five cheques aggregating Rs.1,41,000/- issued towards commercial dues – Trial Court sentenced appellant to six months RI with fine – Appellant remained untraceable for over two decades – Counsel appointed through DHCLSC and Amicus Curiae for respondent due to non-appearance [Paras 1-4]

Cheque Dishonour – Presumption under Section 139 NI Act – Once cheque issuance and dishonour established, presumption of legal liability arises – Appellant’s defence that cheques were issued blank and no goods were supplied found unsubstantiated – Statement of account and bill proved by complainant – Evidence of bank officials confirmed dishonour due to insufficient funds and stop payment instructions – Appellant’s own Section 313 CrPC statement admitted stop payment and withdrawal of funds – Held: Defence failed to rebut statutory presumption under Section 139 [Paras 5-18]

Sentence – Mitigating Circumstances – Appellant aged over 83 years – Appeal pending for over 20 years – Already undergone 5 months in custody – Held: Conviction under Section 138 NI Act upheld – Sentence modified to period already undergone in light of mitigating factors and Section 138’s allowance of fine or sentence or both – Appeal partly allowed [Paras 20-22]

Decision: Conviction affirmed – Sentence reduced to period already undergone – Bail bonds and sureties discharged – Appeal disposed of [Paras 22-24]