Bail - Money Laundering – Scholarship Scam – Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) – Bail Denied - The applicant, Rajdeep Singh, sought bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, asserting innocence and challenging his continued detention in a case of alleged involvement in misappropriating scholarship funds – The Enforcement Directorate (ED) contended that Singh and accomplices established shell companies, diverted funds using fabricated documents, and violated the Post Matric Scheme meant for economically disadvantaged students – The Court emphasized that the investigation was ongoing, citing the need for custodial interrogation to unearth additional evidence and secure witness statements – Held: Bail denied as the applicant failed to meet the twin conditions of Section 45 PMLA, warranting custody to facilitate investigation [Paras 2-12, 15, 17].

Procedural Compliance – Section 19 PMLA – Validity of Arrest – No Relief on Grounds of Arrest Procedure - The applicant alleged non-compliance with procedural safeguards under Section 19 PMLA, asserting non-receipt of ‘reasons to believe’ prior to arrest – The Court noted that the applicant had not formally challenged his arrest and found the Enforcement Directorate had complied with procedural mandates, dismissing this argument as a basis for bail [Para 18].

Delay in Trial – Supreme Court Rulings on Bail Due to Delay – Not Applicable - The applicant referenced Supreme Court rulings on bail based on trial delays – The Court found no undue delay, noting procedural requirements under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita were being followed, with no excessive delay in framing charges – Held: Delay argument inapplicable given current case status [Paras 19-21].

Decision: The application for bail is dismissed, as the applicant did not satisfy the twin conditions required under Section 45 of the PMLA. Observations made do not reflect a view on the merits of the case and are limited to the present bail application.
 

Murder Trial – Circumstantial Evidence – Acquittal Upheld - The State appealed against the trial court’s acquittal of Kamal Bahadur, contending that circumstantial evidence and witness testimonies supported conviction – The court reviewed the evidence, including alleged bloodstains on the accused's clothing and witness statements, which were found insufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt – Held: In circumstantial evidence cases, proof must exclude all reasonable hypotheses other than the accused’s guilt; strong suspicion alone cannot replace proof [Paras 12-20].

Appellate Review of Acquittal – Standard of Proof – High Threshold for Reversal - The court reiterated that acquittal appeals require a high standard for reversal, especially where the trial court’s view is plausible – Held: The presumption of innocence is reinforced in acquittal cases, and the appellate court will not interfere unless the trial court’s findings are perverse or flawed [Paras 23-25].

Relevance of Witness Non-Examination - The State argued that key witnesses left India, affecting the prosecution case – The court found that the trial court appropriately inferred adversely due to the absence of these witnesses, per established legal standards – Held: An adverse inference against the prosecution is justified if critical witnesses are withheld without valid reason [Para 22].

Decision: The appeal is dismissed as the trial court's acquittal was reasonable and based on a plausible view of the evidence. The court directed the appellant to submit bail bonds of ₹25,000, effective for six months, to ensure presence in case of further appeals.

Service Law - Promotion – Sealed Cover Procedure – Review Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) – Petitioner contended that his promotion was denied due to sealed cover procedure despite being clear from disciplinary proceedings on the initial DPC date – Held: Adoption of sealed cover when juniors were promoted, absent pending disciplinary proceedings on the original DPC date, violates OMs governing DPC procedures, rendering the CAT order untenable [Paras 3.1-3.4].

Vigilance Clearance – Applicability of DoPT Guidelines – The petitioner argued that later disciplinary actions should not prevent promotion when vigilance clearance was clear at the original DPC date – Held: Under OM dated 23.01.2014, only initial DPC circumstances are relevant for clearance; reliance on post-DPC charges is incorrect and violates applicable guidelines [Para 3.2].

Review DPC – Nomination and Delayed Proceedings – Court observed that the DPC deferred petitioner’s case due to unavailable Appraisal Reports (APARs), but later conducted a review on 31.12.2018 under sealed cover due to a charge memo dated 30.10.2018 – Held: Delay in receiving records does not justify denying promotion if juniors are advanced; the review committee erred in naming it a Review DPC while dismissing the original basis for consideration [Paras 3.1, 3.4].

Final Decision – Writ petition allowed – CAT’s decision quashed – Respondents directed to consider petitioner for notional promotion from date of junior’s promotion without back wages but with other consequential benefits [Conclusion].

Criminal Law – Quashing of Complaint – Allegations of Forgery and False Representation in Property Documents – partially allowed - Application under Section 482 of CrPC – Petition filed by Accused Nos. 1 to 13 to quash the complaint in C.C. No. 2/2023 under Sections 465, 468 IPC and Section 82 of the Registration Act, alleging false documentation to depict public pathways and wells as private properties – High Court reviewed whether allegations justified trial for forgery and related charges – Held: Offenses under Sections 465 and 468 IPC not prima facie made out as the requirements for forgery were not met; however, Section 82 of the Registration Act was sufficiently established, warranting trial on that count – Quashing petition partially allowed; charges under IPC quashed, but proceedings under Section 82 of the Registration Act sustained [Paras 1, 4, 16, 24, 30].

Forgery – Elements of a False Document – IPC Sections 465, 468, and Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) – Requirement of Intent to Defraud or Deceive – Court analyzed conditions for forgery, noting that false documentation alone does not constitute forgery unless it meets specific criteria, such as intent to impersonate another, unauthorized claims, or deception – Reviewed essentials of forgery under IPC Sections 463, 464 and corresponding BNS provisions, emphasizing that the execution of a document with a false ownership claim, without more, does not amount to forgery – Held: Petitioners’ actions did not meet the conditions for a "false document" under IPC Sections 465, 468, but did meet Section 82 of the Registration Act, which prohibits false statements before registration officials [Paras 18, 19, 23, 24].

Scope of Section 82, Registration Act – False Statements During Registration Process – Applicability in Present Case – Petitioners contended that recitals in a deed do not equate to false statements as defined under Section 82 of the Registration Act – Court examined precedent on what constitutes a "statement" under Section 82, including a Karnataka High Court judgment that excluded false recitals from its ambit – High Court distinguished this reasoning, holding that a false statement in a deed presented to a registrar falls within Section 82’s scope, as it qualifies as an "assertion" or "report of facts" – Held: Allegations of false statements in the registration document were sufficient to proceed under Section 82 of the Registration Act, supporting trial continuation on this count [Paras 25-29, 35-37].

Decision: Petition partially allowed – Quashing granted for offenses under IPC Sections 465 and 468 – Proceedings to continue for alleged offense under Section 82 of the Registration Act – Trial court directed to proceed accordingly – Stay order vacated [Para 30].

Service Law – Disability Pension – Entitlement to Service Element – Petitioner, invalided due to disability acquired during military service, was granted only the disability element of pension – Citing Regulation 183, which includes both service and disability elements in disability pensions, petitioner argued entitlement to the service element for life – Held: As per the Pension Regulations, the petitioner is also entitled to the service element from the date of discharge [Paras 2-5, 10].

Rounding-Off of Disability Pension – Applicability of Supreme Court Rulings – Petitioner contended that his disability should be rounded off from 40% to 50% for life starting from 01.01.1996, per the ruling in Ram Avtar and subsequent judgments – Initially granted this benefit from 01.01.2016 only – Held: Entitlement to 50% disability pension for life from 01.01.1996, with arrears payable accordingly, in line with precedents [Paras 6-9].

Decision: The writ petition is allowed. The Armed Forces Tribunal order is modified to grant the petitioner both the service element of his disability pension from 30.07.1978 for life and rounding off of the disability element to 50% for life from 01.01.1996.
 

Taxation Law - Jurisdiction under Section 263 – Erroneous Order and Prejudice to Revenue – Valid Invocation by PCIT - The Revenue’s appeal under Section 263 contested an ITAT ruling that quashed an order by the PCIT, who had revised an AO’s decision accepting the land sale as tax-exempt based on agricultural classification – The court emphasized that an order is erroneous under Section 263 if passed without required inquiries; here, the AO failed to independently verify the land’s distance from municipal limits, relying solely on an ambiguous Tehsildar certificate – Held: The PCIT correctly invoked Section 263 as the AO’s inquiry was absent and the order prejudiced revenue [Paras 24-30, 36].

Certificate by Tehsildar – Insufficiency without Verification – Section 263 Application Supported - The assessee’s reliance on a Tehsildar’s certificate claiming the land as beyond municipal limits lacked corroboration, as the certificate omitted precise distance – The court concluded that the AO’s reliance without further inquiry did not meet the inquiry standards for capital gains exemption – The PCIT’s revision was upheld, highlighting that tax officers must confirm claims with thorough inquiry in line with Section 263 standards [Para 32-36].

Absence of Sufficient Inquiry versus Inadequate Inquiry – Revisional Power of PCIT - The court distinguished between lack of inquiry and inadequate inquiry, underscoring that an order with no inquiry is revisable under Section 263 – Here, the AO’s lack of assessment rendered the order erroneous, satisfying the twin conditions for PCIT’s jurisdiction under Section 263 [Para 40].

Decision – Order Reinstated – The court set aside the ITAT’s order, reinstating the PCIT’s direction to re-assess the case with proper inquiry, underscoring adherence to inquiry standards for capital gains exemption claims.

Civil Writ -  Temporary Appointments – Procedural Compliance Under MMR Rules – Review applicants argued that their placement in the selection panel, and nomination by the District Registrar, conferred priority for appointment – Held: Appointment of MMR requires adherence to Rule 3(b) of the 1929 Rules, which empowers the IGR to override the District Registrar’s nominee and recommend another candidate, as was done for the writ petitioner, satisfying legal requirements for temporary MMR appointments [Paras 8-12].

Review Grounds – Discovery of New Facts or Error Apparent on the Face of Record – Review applicants claimed new procedural developments warranted review of the court's order favoring the writ petitioner – Held: The facts and materials presented by applicants were available or could not change the outcome; review dismissed on lack of new evidence or apparent error [Paras 15-18].

Nomination Authority – Discretion of Inspector General of Registration (IGR) – Court found that the IGR validly exercised discretion to disapprove the District Registrar’s choice and select the writ petitioner, Mijanur, under Rule 3(b) without requiring further justification; the appointment process was lawfully complied with [Paras 10-12].

Contempt Application – Compliance Verification – Alleged non-compliance with court directions in the original order challenged in contempt proceedings, but court held that procedural due process was duly followed under Rule 3(b); contempt application dismissed, affirming Mijanur’s lawful nomination and appointment [Para 13].

Final Decision – Review applications dismissed – The court affirmed the original order as legally sound and dismissed the review applications, directing issuance of the temporary MMR license to Mijanur per prior court directions [Conclusion].
 

Juvenile Records – Non-Disqualification – Section 24 of Juvenile Justice Act – Appellant, a juvenile at the time of proceedings under Section 109 CrPC, was disqualified for suppression of involvement in security proceedings – Held: As per Section 24 of the Juvenile Justice Act, no disqualification can attach to a juvenile for any offense – Rule 14(b) of TNPSS Rules cannot override statutory protections under the Juvenile Justice Act [Paras 4–6].

Security Proceedings under Section 109 CrPC – Not Criminal Cases – Proceedings under Section 109 CrPC aim to prevent offenses and do not constitute criminal charges – Omissions regarding such proceedings cannot disqualify applicants under Rule 14(b) – Held: The appellant's non-disclosure of these proceedings is not a ground for rejection [Para 5].

Juvenile Protection – Retrospective Prejudice Impermissible – Authorities acted contrary to law by holding juvenile records against the appellant – Maintaining such records and invoking them in adulthood violate legal principles protecting juveniles from prejudicial consequences [Para 4].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Writ petition restored and selection order reinstated – Respondents directed to appoint appellant as Police Constable Grade II, with seniority on par with 2019 batch recruits – Monetary benefits limited to the date of actual appointment [Para 6].

Civil Law - Ex Parte Decree – Setting Aside due to Substituted Service – Opposite parties argued that summons were not personally served, and the substituted service was insufficient – Held: Substituted service is a valid form of notice; however, it may be set aside if circumstances reveal reasonable grounds for lack of knowledge of the suit, as in the current case due to internal issues within the organization [Paras 10.1-10.4].

Condonation of Delay – Application of Limitation Act in Ex Parte Decree – Petitioner contested the delay in the opposite party’s application to set aside the ex parte decree – Held: Delay condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act; delay was justified due to procedural lapses and absence of intentional negligence [Paras 10.4-10.6].

Substituted Service – Legal Standard under Order V, Rule 20 of CPC – Court examined the substituted service procedure in cases of non-response due to unavailable defendants – Held: Courts must exercise discretion and provide relief liberally where summons were unlikely to reach the defendant in a fair and transparent manner, especially where records show an absence of actual knowledge [Para 10.7].

Final Decision – Civil Revision Petitions dismissed – Ex parte decree set aside, and delay condoned to ensure substantial justice between the parties; trial court order upheld [Conclusion].