Pension – Part-time/Daily Wage Service – Counting Towards Qualifying Service – Petitioner appointed as part-time Sweeper on 01.10.1989 and regularized w.e.f. 10.04.2006 – Retired on 30.06.2023 – Pension denied under Old Pension Scheme on ground of regularization after 01.01.2004 – Held: Initial entry into service prior to cut-off date and continuity of service entitles employee to benefit of Old Pension Scheme – Part-time service followed by regular service liable to be counted for qualifying service – Impugned order unsustainable [Paras 5-7].

Old Pension Scheme vs New Pension Scheme – Cut-off Date 01.01.2004 – Respondents relied solely on date of regularization – Held: Issue no longer res integra – Consistent view of Court that part-time/daily wage service preceding regularization must be reckoned for pensionary benefits – Denial of OPS merely on basis of post-2004 regularization illegal [Paras 3, 5].

Regularization – Effect on Pension Rights – Petitioner sought regularization much prior to retirement – Services regularized in terms of Division Bench judgment – Held: Regularization relates back to continuous service rendered – Long and uninterrupted service of 33 years cannot be ignored for pensionary computation [Paras 2-3, 5].

Rule 3.17-A – Work-charged/Contingency Service – Reliance placed on Zile Singh – Held: Service rendered on work charge/part-time basis prior to regularization countable for pension – Technical plea regarding part-time nature rejected where engagement was continuous and not purely contingent [Para 6].

Relief – Impugned order dated 01.08.2025 and memo dated 23.10.2024 set aside – Respondents directed to count entire part-time service for qualifying service and grant benefits under Old Pension Scheme within three months – Any CPF amount received to be refunded/adjusted by petitioner [Para 7].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Impugned orders quashed – Direction issued to extend benefit of Old Pension Scheme by counting part-time service towards qualifying service –Compliance within three months.

Criminal Law – Cheating – Business Transaction – Memorandum of Understanding – Petitioner induced de facto complainant to invest Rs.1,09,95,000/- for supply of computers to educational institutions promising 12% interest and 50% profit share – Amount transferred through bank – Petitioner failed to show actual purchase or supply of computers – Payment of advance Income Tax and Service Tax used to gain confidence – Held: Intention to deceive established from conduct and surrounding circumstances – Conviction under Section 420 IPC justified – No perversity in concurrent findings [Paras 11–16].

Evidence – Photostat Copies – Admissibility – Ex.P1 to Ex.P12 marked subject to objection – MOU (Ex.P1) retained and destroyed by accused – Bank statements and tax documents corroborated transactions – Similarity in font between MOU and complaint not sufficient to discard document – Court invoked Section 73 of Evidence Act to compare signatures – Held: Secondary evidence acceptable in facts of case and objection not fatal [Paras 15–16].

Distinction between Civil Dispute and Criminal Offence – Mere breach of contract not cheating – However, from inception accused projected false business prospects, received huge sums, failed to account for funds or produce proof of business activity – Held: Case not a mere civil dispute but criminal deception attracting Section 420 IPC [Paras 4, 16].

Concurrent Findings – Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope of Interference – Two Courts below rendered well-reasoned findings based on oral and documentary evidence – No perversity or illegality warranting interference in conviction – However, sentence modified considering facts and circumstances [Paras 16–17].

Decision: Criminal Revision partly allowed – Conviction under Section 420 IPC confirmed – Sentence modified from three years rigorous imprisonment to two years rigorous imprisonment – Compensation as ordered by Trial Court maintained.

Murder – Dowry Harassment – Strangulation Followed by Burning – Young married woman found 90% burnt inside matrimonial home – Post-mortem revealed fracture of hyoid bone, laceration of carotid arteries, absence of soot particles in trachea and bronchus and smell of kerosene – Medical evidence proved death by asphyxia due to strangulation prior to burning – Burning held post-mortem to give colour of suicide – Conviction under Sections 302/34 and 498-A IPC upheld [Paras 16-18, 21-23].

Circumstantial Evidence – Five Golden Principles – Presence of accused in house at relevant time admitted in initial information – Subsequent plea of alibi by husband and mother-in-law disbelieved – Defence evidence contrary to earlier admission and not worthy of credence – Chain of circumstances complete and consistent only with guilt of accused – Principles in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda applied and satisfied [Paras 14-15, 24-26].

Dowry Demand – Cruelty Soon Before Death – Evidence of father (P.W.1) and brother (P.W.2) established persistent demand of Rs.1000/- and harassment including denial of food – Deceased not permitted to attend brother’s marriage due to non-payment – Threat extended that life would be in danger – Cruelty proved though charge under Section 304-B IPC not sustained – Conviction under Section 498-A IPC affirmed [Paras 19-22].

Alibi – Burden of Proof – Accused claimed absence at time of incident – Plea required strict proof – Defence witnesses contradicted written information lodged by accused himself admitting presence – Plea of alibi held afterthought and rejected [Paras 11-15].

Remission – Article 161 Constitution of India – Effect on Conviction – Appellant No.2 released on remission by Governor after serving substantial sentence – Dismissal of appeal and confirmation of conviction does not affect constitutional power of remission – Conviction upheld but appellant not required to surrender to serve remaining sentence – Reliance placed on Union of India v. Sriharan and Suresh Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh [Paras 31-33].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction under Sections 302/34 and 498-A IPC and sentence of life imprisonment affirmed – Appeal abated qua deceased appellants – Appellant No.2 not required to surrender in view of remission granted under Article 161 of Constitution of India.

Matrimonial Law – Return of Gold Ornaments – Entrustment and Misappropriation – Wife Established Possession of 82¾ Sovereigns at Time of Marriage – Marriage Photographs and Purchase Estimates Accepted – Locker Opened in Names of Husband and Mother-in-law Prior to Marriage – Failure to Examine Material Witnesses – Probabilised Entrustment and Misappropriation – Respondents Held Liable to Return 72¾ Sovereigns after Reasonable Deduction for Personal Retention [Paras 6–12, 15–16].

Evidence – Family Court – Section 14 Family Courts Act – Relaxation of Strict Rules of Evidence – Bank Statements Bearing Seal of Bank Accepted Despite Objection Under Section 65B Evidence Act – Technical Objections Cannot Defeat Substantive Justice in Family Proceedings [Paras 13–14].

Money Claim – Transfer of Funds from Wife’s Irish Bank Account – Documentary Evidence (Ext.A3, A5, X4) Established Transfer of Rs.10,88,529/- to Mother-in-law – Husband’s Meagre Income Disproved Defence That Funds Originated from Him – Decree for Recovery Upheld [Paras 13–14, 16].

Joint Liability – Involvement of Husband and In-laws – Pleadings and Oral Evidence Established Common Benefit and Participation – No Ground to Interfere with Finding of Liability of Appellants [Para 17].

Interest – Modification – Interest Reduced from 12% to 9% per annum till Date of Decree Considering Prevailing Rates – 6% per annum Thereafter Maintained [Para 18].

Decision: Appeal allowed in part – Decree modified – Appellants directed to return 72¾ sovereigns of gold ornaments within one month, failing which value at time of realization recoverable – Decree for Rs.10,88,529/- with interest at 9% p.a. from date of petition till date of decree and 6% p.a. thereafter till realization – Other findings of Family Court confirmed.

Bail – Economic Offences – Alleged Cheating in Land Transactions – Petitioner accused of inducing informants to part with approximately Rs.3.5 crores on promise of registration of sale deeds – Allegations of impersonation, forged documents and non-registration despite receipt of substantial consideration – Investigation resulted in charge-sheet – Held: While allegations serious, offences triable by Magistrate and substantial amount already recovered/frozen – Bail not to be refused as pre-trial punishment [Paras 7-9].

Bail – Parameters for Grant – Discretion under Section 483 BNSS – Court reiterated settled factors governing grant of bail including prima facie case, gravity of accusation, severity of punishment, flight risk, likelihood of tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses – Detailed evaluation of evidence impermissible at bail stage – Prima facie assessment sufficient [Paras 5-6].

Bail – Economic Offences – Recovery/Freezing of Amount – Out of alleged fraud of Rs.3.5 crores, approximately Rs.1.7 crores recovered or frozen including bank accounts and insurance policy – Criminal proceedings not meant for recovery of money and bail court not to act as recovery agent – Consideration relevant while assessing continued custody [Para 7].

Bail – Tripod Test – Flight Risk, Tampering, Influencing Witnesses – Allegations largely based on documentary bank transactions – No material showing likelihood of tampering or influencing witnesses – Apprehension of absconding mitigated by surrender of passport and conditions – Petitioner did not misuse interim bail – Factor weighed in favour of grant of bail [Para 8].

Bail – Medical Grounds – Stage-IV Metastatic Cancer – Petitioner suffering from Metastatic RCC (Stage IV) undergoing immunotherapy and palliative treatment – Medical condition undisputed – Humanitarian consideration coupled with right to personal liberty under Article 21 supports grant of bail [Paras 4, 8-9].

Presumption of Innocence – Pre-trial Detention – Bail is rule and jail is exception – Accused presumed innocent until proven guilty – Continued detention must not amount to pre-trial punishment – Constitutional mandate under Article 21 emphasised [Para 8].

Decision: All three bail applications allowed – Petitioner directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.1,00,000/- with two solvent sureties in each case – Subject to conditions including surrender of passport, restriction on travel, cooperation in trial, disclosure of residence details and liberty to trial court to initiate proceedings under Sections 269 BNS, 84 BNSS and 209 BNS in case of violation – Applications disposed of [Paras 10-11].

Criminal Law – Discharge – Section 239 CrPC – Scope of consideration – Magistrate required to examine final report and documents forwarded under Section 173 CrPC – Where documents collected during investigation itself establish full repayment of loan prior to filing of charge sheet – Non-consideration of such material renders charge groundless – Revisional Court justified in setting aside order refusing discharge [Paras 1, 7.1-7.4, 2.12].

Bank Loan – Alleged Cheating – Sections 420, 468, 471 IPC – Allegation of availing credit facilities by use of bogus documents in conspiracy with bank officials – Entire loan amount with interest repaid during investigation – ‘No Due Certificate’ issued before submission of charge sheet – Loan account never declared NPA – Held: In absence of wrongful loss to bank or wrongful gain to accused, essential ingredients of Section 420 IPC not made out – Mere allegation of irregular documentation without resultant loss insufficient to sustain prosecution [Paras 2.14-2.18].

Criminal Conspiracy – Section 120-B IPC – Requirement of unlawful agreement resulting in offence or wrongful loss – Where alleged conspiracy did not culminate in any loss to bank and sanction to prosecute bank officials was refused – Prosecution against borrowers alone unsustainable – Charge sheet held groundless [Paras 2.14-2.18].

Prevention of Corruption Act – Section 13(1)(d) – Charge of obtaining pecuniary advantage by corrupt means – No material showing bank suffered pecuniary loss or accused obtained unlawful gain – Continuation of proceedings unjustified [Paras 2.15-2.18].

Repayment/Settlement – Effect on Criminal Proceedings – Distinction between cases of partial settlement and complete discharge of liability – Where full repayment including interest made prior to charge sheet and reflected in investigation records – Possibility of conviction remote and continuation of proceedings would be futile – Supreme Court precedents in K. Bharati Devi, Suresh C. Singhal and Hemant S. Hathi applied – Decisions in Eluri Srinivasa Chakravarthi and Sarvodaya Highways distinguished on facts [Paras 2.1-2.5, 2.8-2.13].

Decision: Criminal Revision allowed – Order dated 22.06.2012 in Crl.M.P.No.466 of 2012 in C.C.No.812 of 2011 set aside – Petitioners discharged under Section 239 CrPC – Miscellaneous petitions closed [Para 8].

Arbitration – Section 34 – Scope of Interference – Extension of Time – Liquidated Damages – Arbitral Tribunal granted 484 days’ extension on account of adverse geology, law and order issues and inclement weather – Held that findings were based on appreciation of evidence and plausible interpretation of contract – No patent illegality or perversity warranting interference – Court cannot re-appreciate evidence or sit in appeal over arbitral findings [Paras 15-18, 30-34, 55].

Contract – Delay and Extension – Clause 27 – Geological Variations – Tribunal found actual rock mass encountered materially different from tender documents – Delay attributable to unanticipated geology, weather conditions and law and order disturbances – Extension computed on basis of proportional analysis of KD-03 and KD-14 – Held: Grant of 484 days’ extension was reasoned and within contractual framework – Not open to interference under Section 34 [Paras 27-29].

Construction Contracts – Critical Path – Determination by Arbitral Tribunal – Main Tunnel Banihal (KD-14) held to be on ‘critical path’ based on sequencing of key dates – Completion of ADIT followed by main tunnel Banihal affected overall project completion – Other tunnels executed concurrently and subsumed within extended period – Held: Determination of critical path by technically qualified Tribunal was plausible and did not amount to rewriting the contract [Paras 41-42, 49-52].

Liquidated Damages – Pre-condition of Delay Attribution – Tribunal held that Engineer must first determine extension of time and attribute delay before levying LD – Deduction of LD prior to proper delay analysis held prima facie illegal and contrary to Clause 27 – Interpretation of contractual clause found to be plausible – No perversity established [Paras 35-38].

Public Utility Contracts – Presumption of Loss – IRCON contended loss presumed in infrastructure contracts – Tribunal found no specific loss proved, supervision costs not exclusively attributable to present delay – Held: Finding on absence of loss was factual and plausible – No interference warranted under Section 34 [Paras 53-54].

Patent Illegality – Tests Applied – Court reiterated principles from Associate Builders, Ssangyong, DMRC and OPG Power Generation – Award cannot be set aside merely because another view is possible – Only perverse findings based on no evidence or ignoring vital evidence are amenable to interference – Present award does not suffer from such defects [Paras 15-16, 34].

Decision: Petition under Section 34 dismissed – Impugned Award upheld – Extension of 484 days and setting aside of liquidated damages sustained – All pending applications disposed of [Paras 55-57].

Criminal Law – Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. – Non-Cognizable Offence – Permission for Investigation – Issue whether Magistrate can grant permission on application moved by complainant – Section 155(2) restricts police from investigating without Magistrate’s order but does not specify who may move such application – Held: Provision does not bar complainant or aggrieved person from approaching Magistrate – Object is judicial supervision over investigation and not restriction of access to justice [Paras 8-10, 15, 17].

Conflict of Co-ordinate Bench Decisions – Judicial Discipline – Earlier decision in Navin Chandra Pandey held responsibility lies with police to obtain order – Later decision in Brij Lal Bhar clarified that there is no legal bar for first informant to move application under Section 155(2) – Held: In case of divergence between co-ordinate Benches, later decision to be ordinarily followed unless referred to larger Bench – Certainty and consistency in law emphasized – Court followed Brij Lal Bhar [Paras 10-11].

Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Scope of Interference – Technical Objection – Challenge to investigation on ground that permission under Section 155(2) was sought by complainant and not police – Held: Once Magistrate applied judicial mind and granted permission, investigation not vitiated on such technical ground – No jurisdictional error, abuse of process or miscarriage of justice shown – Interference under Section 482 not warranted [Paras 15-16, 18].

Applicability of Procedural Rules – Karnataka Criminal Rules of Practice – Reliance on Vijesh Pillai rejected – Said rules not applicable in State of Uttar Pradesh – In U.P., only requirement is judicial order under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. – No equivalent statutory rule mandating procedural formalities as in Karnataka [Para 12].

Interpretation of Procedural Provisions – Advancement of Justice – Procedural provisions relating to investigation to be interpreted to advance justice and not frustrate legitimate prosecution – Magistrate has wide powers to ensure proper investigation – Technicalities cannot invalidate proceedings absent prejudice [Paras 13-14].

Decision: Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed – Permission granted under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. on complainant’s application held valid – Charge-sheet and summoning proceedings not vitiated – Interim order, if any, vacated [Paras 17-18].

Customs – Smuggling – Seizure of Foreign-Origin Cigarettes – 25,01,200 cigarette sticks seized from vehicle and godown – Absolute confiscation ordered under Section 111(d) – Penalty imposed under Section 112(b)(i) – Concurrent findings by Adjudicating Authority, Commissioner (Appeals) and CESTAT – Held: Seizure and confiscation based on detailed Panchnama and un-retracted statements under Section 108 – No infirmity in concurrent findings [Paras 11–15, 17–18].

Section 108 Customs Act – Evidentiary Value – Statements recorded under Section 108 not retracted at any stage – Such statements have binding effect and can be relied upon for confiscation and penalty – Right of cross-examination not absolute – In absence of demonstrated prejudice, denial of cross-examination not fatal [Paras 17, 25].

Burden of Proof – Section 123 Customs Act – Goods of foreign origin seized – Once seizure proved, burden shifts on person from whose possession goods recovered to establish licit import – Appellant failed to discharge statutory burden and remained in denial of seizure and valuation – Held: Authorities justified in drawing adverse inference [Paras 13, 21–22].

Valuation – Market Value Determination – Appellant challenged valuation of cigarettes at Rs.14 per stick – Show cause notice disclosed market survey basis and total market value of Rs.3,50,16,800/- – Once valuation disclosed, burden shifted to appellant to rebut with cogent material – Failure to produce contrary evidence renders valuation sustainable – No substantial question of law arises [Paras 20–22, 24–25].

Section 130 Customs Act – Scope of Appeal – High Court’s jurisdiction confined to substantial question of law – Concurrent factual findings by three authorities cannot be re-appreciated in absence of perversity or legal infirmity – Held: No question of law involved in challenge to valuation, seizure, or penalty – Appeal dismissed [Paras 23–26].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – No substantial question of law involved – Pending application disposed of.