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 Law – Quashing Of Summoning Order -  Cognizance on Protest Petition – Sections 190, 202 CrPC – FIR alleged kidnapping and murder by petitioner for property grab – Police investigation (U.D. Case No.1/2013, GR Case 165/2014) concluded death was natural, filing Final Report as “mistake of fact” – Complainant filed protest petition implicating petitioner and family – Magistrate took cognizance mechanically under IPC Ss. 302, 364 etc. – Held: Magistrate must apply judicial mind; cognizance based solely on oral allegations without prima facie material is unsustainable – Impugned order quashed [Paras 7-13, 16].

Criminal Jurisprudence – Mistake of Fact – Principle – Closure report based on medical evidence (post-mortem: cardiac arrest) and independent witness statements – No material indicating homicide – Law settled that liability cannot rest on suspicion; “mistake of fact” recognized defence; Magistrate erred in ignoring investigation findings [Paras 8, 13].

Scope of Magistrate’s Role – Protest Petition – While Magistrate not bound by police Final Report, he must evaluate evidence fairly; mechanical reliance on complainant’s version risks miscarriage of justice – Apex Court in Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate (1998) 5 SCC 749 emphasized application of mind while summoning accused; reiterated in Bichitrananda Paramanik v. State of Odisha (CRLMC 1739/2015) – Not followed here [Paras 11-14].

Right to Fair Trial – Article 21 – Investigation must be fair and just; its purpose to prosecute actual offenders and protect innocents – Apex Court in Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya v. State of Gujarat (2019) 17 SCC 1 reiterated Article 21 safeguards at investigation stage – Applied: summoning petitioners without prima facie material violates Article 21 [Paras 15-16].

Decision – Impugned order of cognizance in I.C.C. Case No. 15/2016 set aside – Matter remitted to Magistrate for fresh consideration in accordance with law – CRLMC disposed [Paras 17-18].

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 Law - Suit for Possession - Ownership of Property – Burden of Proof – Sale Deed without signatures – Appeal dismissed – Appellant claimed ownership of property based on Sale Deed dated 27.10.1995 executed by mother – Trial Court dismissed suit holding appellant failed to prove ownership – High Court upheld finding noting last page of Sale Deed lacked mother’s signatures/thumb impression and appellant failed to examine executant, attesting witnesses or produce credible evidence – Mere registration does not validate defective deed [Paras 8-14, 40-42].

Additional Evidence in Appeal – Order XLI Rule 27 CPC – Application rejected – Appellant sought to produce original Sale Deed belatedly during appeal, claiming it was earlier mortgaged – Held: No due diligence shown, unexplained delay of several years, and document produced under suspicious circumstances – Supreme Court precedents in Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin (2012) 8 SCC 148 and H.S. Goutham v. Rama Murthy (2021) 5 SCC 241 applied – Additional evidence cannot be admitted at leisure of party [Paras 15-23].

Suspicious Circumstances – Doubtful authenticity of Sale Deed – Signatures of appellant differed (Hindi in pleadings vs English on deed despite admission of inability to read English) – Discrepancies between copy produced before Trial Court and original later produced in appeal, including presence/absence of executant’s signatures and altered placement of photographs – These anomalies cast serious doubt on genuineness of document [Paras 28-35].

Licensee Claim – Failure to Prove – Appellant alleged respondent was licensee in property – No license agreement or evidence of payment of license fee produced – Claim rejected [Para 36].

Consideration for Sale – Lack of Proof – Alleged cash payment of Rs. 75,000/- for purchase from mother not supported by receipt, bank record or source of funds – Weakens appellant’s case [Para 37].

Decision – Appellant failed to prove ownership of property or validity of Sale Deed – Additional evidence not admissible – Appeal and pending applications dismissed – Trial Court judgment upheld [Paras 41-43].

Civil Writ - Medical Education – Bonded Service – Higher Studies – Government Resolution 2017 – Petitioner signed post-PG bond requiring two years’ service – Clause 1(e) expressly allows bond to pause if candidate gets higher studies opportunity and resume post-study – Held: Subsequent Resolutions of 2021/2024 restricting NOC to NMC-approved courses not applicable – Petitioner governed only by 2017 Resolution signed by him – Rejection on grounds of non-NMC recognition and OMHS cadre unsustainable [Paras 18-19].

Suspension – Effect on Right to Education – Suspension since 10.02.2024 after vigilance case alleging bribe – Departmental proceedings not initiated; investigation pending over 18 months without review – Held: Suspension is interim, not punitive; cannot by itself bar higher studies when bond/resolution permits – Article 21 right to education extends to in-service doctors; denial solely for pendency of suspension unsustainable [Paras 20-23].

Right to Education – Constitutional Dimension – Education integral to dignity under Article 21 – Supreme Court in Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka (1992) 3 SCC 666, Unni Krishnan (1993) 1 SCC 645, and Society for Unaided Private Schools (2012) 6 SCC 1 held right to education as fundamental – Applied to service doctors: pendency of criminal/disciplinary proceedings alone cannot deny NOC for higher studies – State bound to facilitate [Paras 22-23].

Decision – Order dated 16.12.2024 rejecting NOC quashed – Opposite Party No.1 directed to issue NOC for petitioner to join fellowship at Jaslok Hospital within two weeks of verification – Subject to undertaking by petitioner to attend disciplinary/criminal proceedings as required – Writ Petition allowed; no costs [Paras 24-25].

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].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Dishonour of Cheque – Presumption under Section 139 – Effect of signed blank cheque – Accused admitted signature but contended cheque was issued as security and misused – Held: once signature admitted, statutory presumption of legally enforceable debt arises; mere plea of security cheque or filling up of contents by another does not invalidate cheque; burden on accused to rebut presumption by cogent evidence – reliance placed on Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar and Rangappa v. Mohan [Paras 6–8].

Criminal Procedure – Application to send cheque for expert opinion – Rejection – Proper – Petitioner sought expert opinion to compare handwriting on cheque and bank challan – Court held expert opinion unnecessary since signature not disputed and filling of particulars by another does not vitiate cheque; no foundation laid to allege forgery or theft – Trial Court rightly dismissed application [Paras 3, 6, 9].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Sections 438 r/w 442 BNSS, 2023 – Scope of interference – Limited to cases of patent illegality or perversity – No such infirmity found in Trial Court’s order rejecting expert opinion application – Revision Court declined interference [Paras 6, 10].

Decision – Criminal Revision Petition dismissed – Impugned order of Judicial Magistrate, Palani in Crl.M.P.No.5515 of 2023 upheld – Connected miscellaneous petition also closed [Para 10].

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].

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].