Banking Law – Sanction for Prosecution – Petitioners, officers of Punjab National Bank, were prosecuted based on allegations of sanctioning loans in violation of bank norms – Earlier, the competent authority refused to grant sanction for prosecution due to lack of malafides and minor procedural lapses – Sanction was later granted under pressure from the CVC and DoPT without any new material or circumstances – Held: The subsequent sanction orders were illegal as they were not based on fresh material and violated service regulations – Prosecution cannot be based on mechanical approval influenced by external bodies [Paras 1, 10, 16, 40, 54].

Probationary Officer – Liability for Loan Processing – Petitioners were probationary officers with less than two years of service, processing loans as part of their training – The Ministry of Finance guidelines prohibited assigning such officers the responsibility of recommending loans unless as part of their learning process – Held: Petitioners, being probationers, should not bear criminal liability for any lapses – Blame should lie with the supervising officers [Paras 9, 54].

Sanction Orders – Invalidity of Reviewed Sanction – Initially, sanction for prosecution was denied after disciplinary proceedings against petitioners resulted in penalties – Sanction was later granted without any new material, under pressure from CVC and DoPT – Held: Review of the sanction without new material or failure to consider relevant facts was improper – The subsequent grant of sanction was quashed [Paras 10, 16, 40, 50, 54].

Judicial Review – Role of Vigilance Commission – CVC's advice was not binding on the disciplinary authority – The competent authority must independently assess the facts before granting sanction – External pressure cannot justify sanction orders [Paras 38, 40, 54].

Decision: Writ petitions allowed – Sanction orders for prosecution quashed – Petitioners absolved of criminal prosecution based on invalid sanction orders [Paras 55].

Criminal Procedure – Section 125 CrPC – Second Maintenance Application – Res Judicata – The applicant sought to quash the order of the Family Court entertaining a second application under Section 125 CrPC by the respondent wife despite the first application being dismissed without liberty to file a fresh case – The applicant contended that the second application was barred by res judicata – The Court, while referring to various judgments including Sanjeev Kapoor vs. Chandana Kapoor and Sarguja Transport Service vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, held that proceedings under Section 125 CrPC aim at providing social justice and preventing vagrancy and destitution – Since these are summary proceedings and the duty to provide maintenance is continuous, the principle of res judicata does not apply [Paras 23-24].

Continuing Duty – Refusal to Maintain Wife – The Court emphasized that the obligation to maintain a wife is a continuous one – It reiterated that refusal by a husband to maintain his wife creates a recurring wrong – Even if the first application was dismissed, a fresh cause of action arises due to the ongoing obligation under law, and the second application is maintainable [Paras 5, 23, 38].

Decision: Application dismissed – The Court held that the second application under Section 125 CrPC was maintainable despite the earlier case being dismissed without permission to refile – The ongoing duty of the husband to maintain his wife under Section 125 CrPC is not extinguished by the dismissal of an earlier application [Paras 38-40].

Dowry Death – Section 304-B IPC – The petitioner alleged that his sister, Gulshan, was harassed and killed by her in-laws, including her husband, over unmet dowry demands and her inability to conceive – The trial court acquitted all nine accused, leading to this revision petition – Held: The court found that the demand for dowry was sufficiently proven against Gulshan’s husband, Mehfuj Ali, but not against the other accused – Acquittal of Mehfuj Ali quashed, while the acquittal of other respondents affirmed [Paras 12, 25, Conclusion].

Presumption under Section 113-B, Evidence Act – The court emphasized the presumption of dowry death under Section 113-B when cruelty or harassment is shown to have occurred "soon before" the victim's death – Gulshan died within seven years of marriage under unnatural circumstances due to poisoning – The court held that the husband failed to rebut the presumption of dowry-related harassment and cruelty [Paras 12, 26, 28].

Acquittal of Other Accused – Insufficient Evidence – The court upheld the acquittal of the other accused, including Gulshan’s in-laws and extended family, due to the lack of direct evidence linking them to dowry demands or harassment – No sufficient proof of their involvement in the alleged conspiracy or cruelty was presented by the prosecution [Paras 11, 36].

Cause of Death – Suicide or Homicide – The post-mortem and forensic reports indicated that Gulshan died due to poisoning, but no external injuries suggesting force or violence were found – The defence argued that Gulshan committed suicide due to depression over childlessness, which the court found probable in light of the evidence, though not sufficient to exonerate the husband’s role [Paras 12, 28, 36].

Decision: The appeal is partly allowed – Acquittal of respondent Mehfuj Ali is quashed, and he is convicted under Section 304-B IPC for dowry death – Acquittal of the remaining respondents is affirmed – All pending applications are disposed of [Paras 36, Conclusion].

Criminal Procedure – Maintenance – Ex Parte Order – Non-Compliance with Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. – The petitioner-husband sought to set aside the ex parte order of maintenance passed against him, arguing that the Family Court did not provide him with an opportunity to be heard and no proper notice of hearing was served – Held: The Family Court failed to establish that the petitioner wilfully avoided service or neglected to attend the court as required under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. – The court must be satisfied that the person against whom an order for maintenance is made was wilfully avoiding service or neglecting to attend the proceedings – Since no such satisfaction was recorded by the Family Court, the ex parte order is liable to be set aside [Paras 10-13].

Service of Notice – Essential for Ex Parte Proceedings – The Family Court did not make any observation or provide evidence that the petitioner was informed of the specific dates of the proceedings, nor was it proven that the petitioner wilfully neglected to attend the court – Knowledge of the maintenance case alone is insufficient; the petitioner must be informed of the actual hearing dates – The absence of proper service of notice resulted in a violation of the petitioner’s rights, necessitating the quashing of the ex parte order [Paras 12-13].

Decision:
The revision petition is allowed – The ex parte order dated 06/07/2023 passed by the Family Court is set aside – The matter is remitted to the Family Court, Begusarai, for fresh consideration, and both parties are directed to appear before the Family Court on 12/11/2024 [Paras 13-14].
 

Civil Writ – Labour Law - Principles of Natural Justice – Failure to Supply Interim Reports – The petitioner challenged the impugned order, arguing that it was passed without providing copies of interim reports prepared by the Social Security Officer, which were relied upon by the respondent – Held: The failure to supply the interim reports and not providing an opportunity to respond to them amounted to a clear violation of the principles of natural justice. The impugned order was set aside on this ground [Paras 4, 10, 11].

Maintainability of Writ Petition – Alternate Remedies – The respondent argued that the petitioner should have availed statutory remedies under Sections 45AA and 75 of the ESI Act – Held: While alternate remedies exist, the violation of principles of natural justice permits the High Court to entertain the writ petition under Article 226, as established in Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks (1998) 8 SCC 1 [Paras 5, 14].

Remand for Fresh Consideration – The Court remanded the matter to the respondent for fresh disposal, directing that copies of the interim reports be provided to the petitioner and an opportunity to respond be given before passing a fresh order [Paras 15, 16].

Decision: The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 29th December 2023 is quashed, and the matter is remanded to the ESIC for fresh adjudication after providing the petitioner with copies of the interim reports and an opportunity to present their case [Paras 15, 16].

Income Tax – Reassessment – Writ petition challenging reassessment based on an admitted error in filing – Petitioner made a mistake in the tax declaration under the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme, which led to a reassessment notice – The mistake was flagged to the authorities, including the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT), but the mistake was not corrected, and reassessment proceedings were initiated – Court finds no escaped income warranting reassessment – Held: Reassessment order set aside and quashed as it was based on a mistake [Paras 1-6].

Writ Jurisdiction – Maintainability – Respondent’s counsel contended that the order was appealable under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and hence, the writ petition was not maintainable – Without prejudice, it was argued that the writ petition did not warrant interference – Court exercised extraordinary writ jurisdiction to quash the reassessment order due to clear error in assessment [Paras 4, 6].

Voluntary Disclosure Scheme – Erroneous Tax Declaration – Petitioner-assessee had mistakenly shown a tax installment paid under the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme as tax paid under regular return filing – Court finds that the mistake was acknowledged by the Assessing Officer (AO), yet it was not properly addressed in the reassessment order – Held: The reassessment order failed to recognize the error and the corresponding communication, warranting quashing [Paras 2, 5-6].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Reassessment order for AY 2017-18 quashed – Petitioner discharged from liability arising from the mistaken reassessment [Paras 6-7].

Service Law – Seniority List – Promotion – Writ petition challenging the revised seniority list dated 14.3.2022, which placed the petitioner at a lower rank and affected his promotion prospects – Petitioner contended that his service should be reckoned from his date of regularization in 1998, not from his initial appointment in 1997, which was on a consolidated pay during the training period – Held: The seniority list based on the petitioner's 1997 appointment is valid, as the training period is considered a prerequisite for regularization – No illegality found in the seniority list or subsequent promotion of private respondents – Petitioner's claim for seniority from 1998 is unsustainable [Paras 9-19].

Date of Appointment – Regularization – Training Period – Petitioner argued that his initial appointment in 1997 was adhoc and his regular service began in 1998 – Court observed that regularization involves a prior period of service, and the training period in 1997 was a prerequisite for regularization in 1998 – The initial appointment in 1997 cannot be disregarded for seniority purposes – Held: Seniority should be calculated from the date of initial appointment in 1997, not from regularization in 1998 [Paras 13-16].

Adhoc Appointment – Applicability of Apex Court Ruling – Petitioner relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Rashi Mani Mishra v. State of U.P., which distinguished between adhoc and regular appointments – Court distinguished the facts, noting that the petitioner's 1997 appointment was not adhoc but part of a regular process leading to his regularization – The judgment cited by the petitioner is inapplicable [Paras 17-19].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – No illegality in the seniority list prepared by the fifth respondent or the promotions granted to private respondents – No costs [Paras 20-21].
 

Criminal Procedure – Anticipatory Bail – Section 438 Cr.P.C. – Application for Anticipatory Bail Post-Cancellation of Bail – Maintainability Challenged – The petitioner sought anticipatory bail after the addition of a graver offence (Section 376 I.P.C.) during investigation. The State challenged the maintainability of the petition, arguing that the petitioner should have either surrendered and sought regular bail under Section 437 Cr.P.C. or filed a revision under Section 401 Cr.P.C. after the bail was cancelled. Held: Once the accused participated in the proceedings, contested the cancellation, and suffered an adverse order, a subsequent application for anticipatory bail is not maintainable. The correct remedy would be to seek revision of the cancellation order [Paras 1, 2, 30, 31]. 

Cancellation of Bail – Addition of Graver Offence – Section 376 I.P.C. – The victim's complaint initially led to registration of a case under Sections 341, 417, 506, and 509 I.P.C. Subsequently, based on her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the prosecution sought to add Section 376 I.P.C. The trial court cancelled the petitioner’s bail after adding this graver non-bailable section – Held: Addition of a graver offence post-grant of bail requires the accused to either surrender and seek bail for the newly added offence or challenge the cancellation in revision. Filing an anticipatory bail application post-cancellation is not permissible [Paras 13, 30, 31]. 

Anticipatory Bail – Liberal Interpretation – Article 21 of the Constitution – The petitioner argued that anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. must be interpreted liberally in light of Article 21 of the Constitution, as held in Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth vs. State of Gujarat and Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia vs. State of Punjab – Held: While anticipatory bail protects personal liberty, it cannot be used as a recourse after bail cancellation following a contested hearing [Paras 9, 10, 26]. 

Procedure Under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. – Compliance with Section 154(1) and 154(3) Cr.P.C. – The Court emphasized that any application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. must comply with the procedure under Section 154(1) and 154(3) Cr.P.C. The magistrate must ensure that the procedure is followed before directing investigation [Paras 7, 8]. 

Decision – The application for anticipatory bail is dismissed as not maintainable, as the petitioner had participated in the cancellation hearing and failed to seek anticipatory bail prior to the cancellation order. The petitioner is at liberty to seek other appropriate remedies in law [Paras 30, 31, 32]. 

Criminal Procedure – Application under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. – Prayer for Further Investigation – Alleged Death by Burn Injuries – Dismissal of Application Challenged – The petitioner sought further investigation into the death of his niece, alleging that her husband (the accused) made a video call to a relative instead of rescuing her while she was ablaze – Investigation was initially directed under Section 304B I.P.C., but the court found Section 304B inapplicable as the death occurred after seven years of marriage – The Investigating Officer did not include charges under Section 302 I.P.C. despite the petitioner’s requests – The Magistrate dismissed the petitioner’s application for further investigation – Held: The Court found that further investigation would not serve any fruitful purpose as the Investigating Officer was already permitted to continue investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. and would file a supplementary charge sheet if necessary [Paras 1, 9]. 

Witness Statements – Conflicting Testimonies – Victim's Statement to Doctor Contradictory – The petitioner alleged that the accused’s conduct during the incident indicated his guilt, while the Investigating Officer relied on statements from doctors and witnesses suggesting the victim set herself ablaze due to marital discord – The attending doctor stated that the victim claimed to have set herself on fire, while other evidence suggested foul play – Held: Discrepancies in witness testimonies do not necessitate further investigation at this stage, but the trial court may consider invoking Section 311 Cr.P.C. to examine witnesses if needed during trial [Paras 6, 7, 8]. 

Consideration of Section 302 I.P.C. during Trial – Although the investigating agency did not add Section 302 I.P.C. in the charge sheet, the trial court is expected to consider all charges, including Section 302 I.P.C., based on the evidence produced during the trial – Held: The trial court shall be at liberty to amend charges if relevant evidence of murder surfaces [Para 10]. 

Decision – Criminal revision application dismissed – Further investigation not required as the Investigating Officer was allowed to continue the investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. – The trial court shall consider the applicability of Section 302 I.P.C. during the trial, and summon additional witnesses under Section 311 Cr.P.C. if necessary [Paras 9, 10, 11].