Civil Writ - Service Law - Retiral Benefits – Withholding Due to Pending Criminal Proceedings – Criminal Case Abated – No Disciplinary Action Initiated – Held Arbitrary - The deceased teacher was accused of misappropriating ₹4,00,000 but no disciplinary proceeding was initiated and the criminal case abated due to his death – Held: Retiral benefits cannot be withheld in absence of proven misconduct – Pension is a vested right of the deceased [Paras 1, 4, 8-9].

No-Liability Certificate – Refusal by School on Grounds of Unproven Allegation – Unwarranted - The school declined to issue the certificate citing lack of evidence on fund usage – Held: In absence of disciplinary proceedings or conviction, denial of certificate unjustified – Court directed school to issue certificate within three weeks [Paras 3, 5, 9].

DCRB Scheme – Applicability of Para 19(5) – Not Attracted – No Pending Proceedings - Paragraph 19(5) bars disbursal of final pension if judicial/departmental proceedings are pending – Since no such proceedings were in place, the provision inapplicable – Retiral dues must be released [Para 8-9].

Direction to State – Duty to Disburse Pension Benefits – Petition Allowed - Court ordered issuance of 'No-Liability Certificate' and directed State to disburse arrear retiral benefits and initiate family pension – Held: State may initiate recovery as per law, but cannot deny pension without proof of liability [Final Para].
 

Criminal Law - Possession of Muddamal – Income Tax Proceedings vs. Criminal Jurisdiction – I-T Department Authorized to Retain Seized Cash – The department sought custody of ₹35,28,000 seized in a theft case, invoking Section 132A(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act – Trial court initially directed fixed deposit in complainant’s name, but later denied department’s application – Held: Income Tax Department entitled to custody and to deposit the cash in PD Account for proceedings under tax law [Paras 1-3, 10, 15].

Jurisdiction – Power of Magistrate under CrPC vs. Powers under Income Tax Act – Distinguished – The court clarified that the powers under Section 132A override general CrPC provisions on muddamal – Income Tax authority has jurisdiction to requisition unaccounted assets under statutory mandate; Magistrate cannot override this by directing deposit in complainant’s name [Paras 10-12].

Unexplained Cash – Prima Facie Grounds for Requisition – The complainant failed to explain the source of ₹35,28,000 satisfactorily during Income Tax inquiry, triggering legal requisition – Held: Department has legitimate basis to retain and investigate under the Income Tax Act [Paras 3.7, 13].

Final Decision – Magistrate's Orders Quashed – Petitioner Permitted to Act Under Income Tax Law – High Court quashed both lower court orders and allowed the department to take possession of the cash and deposit it in PD Account within four weeks, with procedural safeguards like panchnama and videography [Para 15].
 

Service Law - Seniority – Promotees vs Direct Recruits – Rule 8(e) CRPF Rules Applied – Promotees Placed Below – Petitioners challenged revised seniority list dated 24 April 2020 that placed direct recruits en bloc below promotee Assistant Commandants (ACs) – Court held that Rule 8(e) mandates seniority to be determined by date of appointment – Promotees appointed in 2017 cannot claim seniority from vacancy years 2013–2016 – Held: Administrative instructions and DoPT OMs cannot override statutory rules – Revised seniority list quashed [Paras 1-5, 17-21, 32].

Delayed Promotions – No Benefit of Retrospective Seniority – CRPF Rules Prevail – Respondents contended that DPCs were delayed due to litigation and that promotees were placed against earlier year vacancies – Court held such retrospective assignment impermissible under Rule 8(e) – Appointees acquire seniority only from date of joining, not from date of vacancy – Held: Promotees not entitled to leapfrog seniority over earlier-appointed direct recruits [Paras 6-16, 22-24].

Precedents – Meghachandra Singh and Sunaina Sharma – Applicable – Court relied on Supreme Court rulings clarifying that inter se seniority must be based on date of appointment – Rejected reliance on Asis Kumar Samanta and U.D. Lama as distinguishable on facts – Emphasized statutory rules override executive OMs and equity-based arguments [Paras 13, 25-30].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Impugned seniority list dated 24 April 2020 quashed to the extent it placed petitioners below promotees – Direction issued to ITBP to redraw seniority list strictly based on actual dates of appointment – Compliance to be completed within three months [Paras 32-34].

Criminal Law - Discharge Petition – Absence of FIR Mention Not Ground to Discharge – Petition Dismissed – Petitioner sought discharge citing non-mention of name in FIR and acquittal of co-accused in original trial – Court held that FIR is not an encyclopedia and acquittal of co-accused irrelevant as evidence was not recorded in presence of present petitioner – Charge sheet disclosed prima facie case based on investment inducement and petitioner’s role as company Director – Discharge rightly denied [Paras 2-4, 8-11].

Discharge Procedure – Timely Filing Under BNSS Critical – Application Filed Without Clarifying Timelines – Court noted that under Section 262(2) BNSS, discharge application must be filed within 60 days from supply of documents under Section 230 BNSS – Petitioner failed to clarify filing date or compliance with procedural timelines – Held: Procedural default further undermined challenge [Para 6].

Revisional Scope – Interference With Discharge Order Limited – Principles Reiterated – Court emphasized that revisional powers under Sections 397/401 CrPC should not be used to re-appreciate evidence or substitute views unless there is manifest illegality or jurisdictional error – Trial Court applied correct legal tests; no interference warranted [Paras 7, 10-11].

Decision – Revision Dismissed – Impugned order refusing discharge upheld – Trial to proceed as framed charges disclose grave suspicion – Petition dismissed on contest without costs [Para 12].

Criminal Law - Murder vs. Culpable Homicide – Reclassification to Section 304 Part II IPC – Intent to Kill Not Established – The appellant was convicted for murder under Section 302 for stabbing a police constable during a raid – However, the injury was on the wrist, not a vital part, and occurred during a scuffle when the appellant was trying to escape arrest – Held: No clear intention to kill was established – Conviction under Section 302 altered to Section 304 Part II IPC [Paras 18-19].

Police Testimony – Sole Reliance – Credibility Upheld – All eyewitnesses to the incident were police officers – Court relied on consistent and corroborated testimonies from multiple officers, citing legal precedent that police evidence can be the basis of conviction if found credible – No independent civilian witnesses were available due to the nature of the raid [Paras 11-12].

Medical Evidence – Non-Vital Injury Led to Death – Injury on the deceased’s left arm ruptured brachial vessels and caused death due to shock – PM doctor confirmed the wound could cause death, but not necessarily inflicted with intent to kill – Held: Injury sufficient in ordinary course to cause death, but intent not proven [Para 10].

Final Decision – Conviction Modified – Life Imprisonment Set Aside – Conviction altered to Section 304 Part II IPC – Appellant sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment and ₹5,000 fine – Ordered release if not required in any other offence [Para 20].

Nominee Under Insurance Act – Beneficial Nominee vs. Heir – Nominee Not Absolute Owner – Writ Dismissed – Court held that nomination under Section 39(7) of the Insurance Act, though termed “beneficial”, does not override statutory rights of heirs under Hindu Succession Act – Held: Succession law is a specific statute on devolution of property; Insurance Act is general – Hence, nomination only ensures payment to nominee but not title to proceeds in exclusion of legal heirs [Paras 25–35].

Conflicting Judicial Opinions – Divergent Views Among High Courts – Harmonious Construction Adopted – Allahabad High Court noted conflicting rulings from Delhi, AP, Madras (favoring beneficial nominee) vs. Karnataka and MP (favoring succession) – Applied principle of generalia specialibus non derogant to hold that specific law of succession prevails – Reaffirmed that mere nomination does not exclude lawful heirs [Paras 16–20, 26–35].

Comparison with Banking Regulation Act – Section 39 Insurance Act is Pari Materia with Section 45-ZA – Only Collection Right Conferred – Court compared interpretation of similar nomination provision under Banking Regulation Act – Relied on SC ruling in Ram Chander Talwar to conclude that nominee under insurance policy holds proceeds in trust and not as absolute owner [Paras 10–13, 35(i)].

Supreme Court Precedent – Shakti Yezdani Followed – Nominee Does Not Override Succession Law – SC’s ruling in Shakti Yezdani v. Jayanand Salgaonkar applied – Nomination facilitates transmission but does not create a third mode of succession – Legal heirs can claim title despite nomination [Paras 21–22, 35(ii)].

Interpretation – Special Law Over General – Hindu Succession Act Prevails Over Insurance Act – Held – Succession rights being governed by specific personal law must prevail – Insurance Act is not a succession statute; its purpose is regulatory and administrative – Nomination cannot extinguish heirship rights [Paras 26–35].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Revision Court’s Order Affirmed – Insurance proceeds to be invested in fixed deposit in minor heir’s name – Certificate under Article 134-A granted for appeal to Supreme Court due to public importance and conflicting precedents [Paras 36–38].

Criminal Law – Appeal Against Conviction - Forgery and Cheating – Real Estate Investment Fraud – Conviction Sustained – Petitioner, acting as Director of AVR Green Homes Pvt. Ltd., misrepresented land ownership and induced investment of over ₹3.88 crores – Evidence included undertakings, RTGS records, and depositions – Conviction under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, and 120B IPC upheld – Trial and Appellate Courts found fraudulent inducement and non-return of funds [Paras 5-14, 58-61].

Enhancement of Sentence – Jurisdictional Limit Exceeded – Sentence Reduced – Appellate Court enhanced sentence under Section 467 IPC from 7 to 10 years – Held: Appellate Court exceeded jurisdiction as trial was before Magistrate whose sentencing power is limited to 7 years – Enhancement set aside for being ultra vires Section 386 read with Section 29 CrPC [Paras 54-67].

Compensation under Section 357(3) CrPC – Legally Valid – No Fine Imposed – Petition Dismissed – Informant had filed appeal for compensation which Trial Court had omitted – Appellate Court lawfully substituted fine with compensation of ₹61,47,800 – Held: Denial of compensation also constitutes “inadequate compensation” under Section 372 proviso – Power to impose compensation under Section 357(3) upheld [Paras 22-52].

Revisional Scope – No Reappreciation of Evidence – Conviction Uninterfered – High Court declined to reassess factual findings of lower courts – Emphasized limited scope of revisional jurisdiction to correct jurisdictional error or manifest miscarriage of justice [Paras 59-60].

Decision – Partly Allowed – Conviction under IPC provisions sustained – Sentence under Section 467 IPC restored to 7 years – Order of compensation under Section 357(3) CrPC affirmed – Revisions partly allowed [Para 75].
 

Criminal Law - Motor Vehicle Accident – Rash and Negligent Driving – Sections 279 and 304(A) IPC – Conviction Set Aside – The accused was convicted by the Trial Court and the same was upheld by the First Appellate Court for allegedly causing death by rash and negligent driving – Held: Prosecution failed to establish rashness or negligence beyond reasonable doubt – Sole eyewitness PW-1 found to be unreliable, with contradictory testimony and no corroboration from other witnesses – Postmortem report indicated presence of alcohol in deceased’s body – Benefit of doubt extended to accused – Conviction and sentence quashed [Paras 12–20].

Eyewitness Testimony – Reliability – PW-1's Presence at Scene Disbelieved – PW-1 claimed to be eyewitness but admitted visiting hospital on call from accused and signing documents at police station – Held: Testimony found doubtful and inconsistent – No other eyewitness supported the prosecution version – Spot mahazar not supported by credible firsthand account – Conviction cannot rest solely on untrustworthy evidence [Paras 13–14].

Speed and Rashness – Mere High Speed Not Equivalent to Rash Driving – Reference to Supreme Court Judgment in State of Karnataka v. Satish (1998) 8 SCC 493 – Held: No material on record showing actual speed or driving behaviour of accused to infer rashness – High speed, without context, not enough to establish offence under Section 279 IPC [Paras 15–17].

Foreseeability and Contributory Negligence – Influence of Alcohol on Deceased – Postmortem showed strong traces of alcohol in deceased – Held: Prosecution failed to show foreseeability or breach of duty by accused – In absence of clear proximate cause linking accused’s conduct to the fatal accident, conviction unsustainable [Paras 18–19].

Final Decision – Acquittal Ordered – Revision allowed – Conviction and sentence by Trial and Appellate Courts set aside – Fine, if paid, to be refunded [Para 20].

Quashing Proclamation Proceedings – Non-Compliance with Section 82 Cr.P.C. – Declaration of Proclaimed Person Quashed – The petitioner was declared proclaimed person in proceedings under Section 138 NI Act and consequent FIR under Section 174-A IPC was registered – Held: Trial Court erred in straightaway issuing proclamation without prior steps of summons or bailable warrants, and without recording satisfaction regarding absconding – Proclamation proceedings vitiated due to non-compliance with Section 82 Cr.P.C. – Impugned order and FIR quashed [Paras 1-3, 12].

Cognizance under Section 174-A IPC – Bar under Section 195 Cr.P.C. – Prosecution Unsustainable – The Court held that offences under Section 174-A IPC are governed by the bar under Section 195(1)(a)(i) Cr.P.C. – Cognizance requires a written complaint by the concerned public servant and cannot be initiated by police report – Registration of FIR without a complaint violates mandatory procedural law – Proceedings under Section 174-A IPC quashed [Paras 7-10].

Mandatory Procedure under Law – Adherence to Article 21 – Due Process Violated – The Court emphasized adherence to fair procedure as integral to personal liberty under Article 21 – When law prescribes a manner for action, deviation renders subsequent proceedings void – Directing initiation of criminal action without following the statutorily prescribed complaint procedure under Section 195 Cr.P.C. is illegal [Paras 11].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Order declaring petitioner proclaimed person, consequential FIR and all subsequent proceedings quashed – Trial Court directed to proceed in accordance with law, ensuring procedural compliance under Section 82 Cr.P.C. and Section 195 Cr.P.C. [Paras 14].