Criminal Law – Defence Evidence – DNA Report – Rejection of application to summon Forensic Expert – Trial Court declined request on ground that report admissible under Section 293 Cr.P.C. and case required expeditious disposal – Held: When accused disputes DNA/FSL report and seeks examination of expert, such request cannot be rejected on technical grounds – Fair trial mandates opportunity to test scientific evidence – Impugned orders set aside and matter remitted for recording expert evidence [Paras 5-7, 10-14].

Criminal Trial – Defence Evidence – Summoning of Forensic Expert – Application under Sections 91 & 233 Cr.P.C. rejected by Trial Court on ground that FSL report admissible under Section 293 Cr.P.C. and case being among oldest 100 cases requiring expeditious disposal – Held: When DNA/FSL report is objected to and accused seeks examination of expert, application cannot be rejected on technical grounds such as delay or pendency targets – Fair opportunity of defence is paramount – Order rejecting application set aside [Paras 5-7, 13-14].

Section 293 Cr.P.C. – Admissibility of Expert Report – Though report of Government Scientific Expert may be read in evidence without formal proof – Court retains discretion to summon and examine expert – Where accused disputes report and seeks cross-examination, denial of such opportunity affects fairness of trial – Reliance placed on Criminal Reference No.06/2022 (In Reference vs. Anokhilal) and Rahul vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2023) 1 SCC 83 [Paras 10-12].

Fair Trial – Expeditious Disposal vs. Proper Opportunity – Directions for speedy disposal of POCSO/old cases do not imply hurried trial depriving parties of legitimate opportunity – Justice delayed is justice denied but justice hurried is justice buried – Procedural fairness cannot be sacrificed at altar of timelines [Para 13].

Role of Trial Court – Active Participation – Supreme Court reiterated duty of trial Judge under Section 165 of Evidence Act to elicit truth and not act as passive umpire – DNA evidence must be scrutinized carefully and not mechanically relied upon without testing foundational facts [Para 12].

Decision: Revision allowed – Impugned orders dated 28/08/2024 and 03/09/2024 set aside – Trial Court directed to summon and examine expert and other witnesses as prayed and thereafter decide case in accordance with law.

Service Law – Regularization – Retrospective Effect – Petitioner Appointed on Daily Wages in 1992 – Policy Dated 01.10.2003 Provided Regularization After Three Years – Services Regularized Only w.e.f. 02.01.2014 – Claim for Regularization w.e.f. 01.10.2003 Rejected Solely on Basis of Undertaking – Held: Affidavit Obtained Under Compulsion Cannot Defeat Statutory/Constitutional Rights – Matter Remitted for Fresh Consideration in Light of Binding Precedents [Paras 6, 12–13].

Undue Influence – Public Employment – Undertaking Not to Claim Past Service – Petitioner Made to Furnish Affidavit as Condition for Regularization – Held: Contract/Undertaking Obtained Under Undue Influence or Against Public Policy Void/ Voidable Under Sections 16, 19A and 23 of Indian Contract Act – State Cannot Take Shelter Behind Illegal Undertaking to Deny Lawful Benefits [Para 6].

Continuity of Service – Industrial Award – Labour Court Directed Reinstatement with Continuity and Back Wages – Employer’s Conduct in Ignoring Award Deprecated – Past Service Liable to Be Counted for Service Benefits in Light of Full Bench in Kesar Chand [Paras 7–8].

Constitutional Employer – Long Ad-Hocism – Exploitation of Temporary Employees – State Cannot Perpetuate Precarious Employment or Deny Regularization on Grounds of Financial Constraints or Lack of Sanctioned Posts – Reliance Placed on Jaggo, Vinod Kumar, Shripal and Dharam Singh – Umadevi Not a Shield to Justify Arbitrary Refusal Where Work is Perennial [Paras 9–11].

Judicial Review – Writ Jurisdiction – Impugned Order Passed Mechanically on Basis of Undertaking – Court Directed Respondent to Treat Petition as Representation and Decide Afresh in Light of Kesar Chand, Harbans Lal and Ranjit Singh – Opportunity of Hearing to Be Granted – Time-Bound Direction Issued [Paras 12–16].

Decision: Petition disposed of – Respondent No.3 directed to treat writ petition as comprehensive representation and decide claim for retrospective regularization in light of binding precedents within three months – Liberty granted to initiate contempt proceedings in case of non-compliance.

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].

Criminal Procedure – Second Bail Application – Judicial Propriety – Observations of Supreme Court in separate appeal criticising earlier bail order passed by same Judge – Observations described as “shocking and disappointing” and direction to place order before Chief Justice – Judge records demoralising and chilling effect of remarks – In interest of propriety, declines to hear present bail application and releases matter for reassignment [Paras 4-6].

Judicial Discipline – Impact of Superior Court’s Remarks – While acknowledging that no judicial order is immune from interference, Court notes that tenor of observations in Supreme Court judgment had substantial effect – To maintain institutional propriety and fairness, matter directed to be placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice for assignment to another Bench [Paras 5-7].

Administrative Direction – Bail Roster – Judge requests that future bail roster not be assigned to him in view of circumstances arising from Supreme Court’s order – Bail application released accordingly [Para 7].

Decision: Bail application not heard on merits – Matter released to be placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice for assignment to another Bench – Request made not to assign bail roster to the concerned Judge in future.

Arbitration – Section 34 & 37 – Patent Illegality – Award Contrary to Express Terms of Contract – Lease Deed Fastened Obligation on Lessor to Insure Premises – Fire Incident Found Accidental by Police, Fire Brigade and Surveyor – Arbitrator Ignored Binding Insurance Settlement and Under-Insurance by Lessor – Held: Award suffered from patent illegality and contravention of Section 28(3) as it rewrote contract and travelled beyond pleadings – Commercial Court erred in refusing to set aside award – Award quashed [Paras 38–46, 58, 74–75, 89].

Insurance Liability – Under-Insurance – Clause 13 of Lease Deed – Lessor Obliged to Adequately Insure Premises – Insurance Claim Settled at Rs.2.52 Crores – Arbitrator Compensated Alleged Shortfall Ignoring Under-Valuation – Held: Any reduction in claim due to under-insurance was to be borne by lessor – Arbitrator could not shift contractual burden to lessee – Award of damages unsustainable [Paras 40–47, 89(i)–(iv)].

Negligence – Fire Incident – Findings Based on No Pleadings and No Evidence – Fire Consistently Reported as Accidental Short Circuit – Arbitrator Discarded Official Reports on Hyper-Technical Grounds and Introduced New Case of Unauthorized Floors – Held: Arbitrator travelled beyond pleadings and denied opportunity to appellant to contest – Findings perverse and in excess of jurisdiction [Paras 35–36, 60–64, 66, 89(v)–(vii)].

Lease Termination – Clause 14 – Unqualified Right of Lessee to Terminate on Three Months’ Notice – Rent for Notice Period Paid – Arbitrator Awarded Rent Till Premises Re-Let – Held: Arbitrator cannot rewrite contract or create rights contrary to express termination clause – Award of post-termination rent patently illegal [Paras 77–81, 85–86, 89(viii)–(ix)].

Scope of Interference – Section 34 – Contravention of Contract and Patent Illegality – Court Can Interfere Where Award Ignores Terms of Contract or Decides Matters Beyond Pleadings – Commercial Court Failed to Exercise Jurisdiction – High Court Corrected Error Under Section 37 [Paras 67–73, 87–90].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Order of Commercial Court dated 22.08.2025 set aside – Objections under Section 34 allowed – Arbitral award dated 23.12.2023 set aside – Parties left to bear their own costs.

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].

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.

Criminal Law – Murder of Minor Child – Parents Administering Poison – Deceased mentally retarded child in exclusive custody of accused parents – Accused purchased “Tafgor” (Dimethoate – organophosphorus insecticide) and administered by mixing in cool drink at temple – Admission made by mother at time of hospital admission recorded in Accident Register – Child died after prolonged treatment – Trial Court convicted under Sections 342 and 302 IPC – Held: Prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused administered poison – Conviction confirmed [Paras 8-14, 21-24, 26].

Evidence – Extra-Judicial Admission – Accident Register – Statement of accused recorded by duty doctor at time of admission that they mixed Tafgor and administered to child – Accident Register (Ex.P2) being earliest contemporaneous document – Held: Statement admissible and carries strong evidentiary value – No suggestion of third-party involvement – Child was in exclusive custody of accused – Burden on accused to explain circumstances of death not discharged [Paras 9-12, 22-23].

Circumstantial Evidence – Purchase of Poison – P.W.13 (fertilizer shop owner) deposed that A1 purchased 500 ml Tafgor on date of occurrence – Bill marked as Ex.P3 – Container sent for analysis confirmed presence of Dimethoate – Chain of circumstances complete and consistent with guilt of accused [Paras 13, 17, 23].

Medical Jurisprudence – Negative Viscera Report – Whether Fatal – Viscera report (Ex.P14) did not detect poison – Post-mortem doctor opined that clinical history, hospital records and findings consistent with death due to poisoning though poison not chemically detected – Held: Absence of poison in viscera not conclusive – In cases of prolonged treatment, poison may be metabolized or eliminated – Reliance placed on Buddhadeb Saha v. State of W.B. and Mahabir Mandal v. State of Bihar – Negative report alone does not demolish prosecution case where other evidence proves poisoning [Paras 15-20].

Hostile Witnesses – Effect – Some eyewitnesses turned hostile – Held: Conviction can be sustained on medical evidence, documentary records and other reliable circumstances – Hostility of witnesses not fatal when core prosecution case established through cogent evidence [Para 24].

Motive – Mental Distress – Evidence showed deceased suffered mental disorder and accused were under distress – Though Court sympathized with difficulties faced by parents, such circumstances cannot justify extinguishing life of child – No person entitled to take law into own hands – Murder conviction justified [Paras 25-26].

Decision: Criminal Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence of life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC and one year RI under Section 342 IPC confirmed – Judgment of Fast Track Mahila Court, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur dated 06.08.2022 upheld.

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].