Contempt of Court – Allegation of willful disobedience of an order granting anticipatory bail – Addition of further offenses during investigation – Arrest of the petitioner – Violation of a previous judgment – Petitioner’s bail applications subsequently dismissed – Respondents contending proper procedure was followed – Petitioner’s counsel arguing arrest in violation of a previous judgment – Court examining the sequence of events – Petitioner initially filing bail applications later withdrawn or rendered infructuous – Court finding no willful disobedience on the part of the respondents – Court opining arrest made for completing the investigation – Court concluding no intentional or willful disobedience – Petition dismissed.

Service Law - Personnel - Adverse remarks in APAR - Justification based on unserved memos - Allegations of bias - Expungement of adverse remarks - Review DPC for promotion - Warning against biased actions - Compliance with natural justice - Judgment allowing the petition, directing expungement of adverse remarks, conducting a review DPC, and warning against biased actions. [Para 78-81]

Importance of objective assessment - Relevance of specific instances - Need for communication and opportunity to explain - Observance of natural justice principles - Adverse remarks not supported by record - Bias of reporting officer - Prejudice in recording APAR - Denial of promotion based on unjustified adverse remarks. [Para 67, 70-71]

Service of memos - Lack of communication to the officer - Absence of warning or explanation sought - Inadequate justification for adverse remarks - Subsequent creation of memos to support adverse report - Clandestine preparation of record by biased reporting officer. [Para 45-46, 51-53, 55-56, 59-60, 62-65, 78]

Significance of APAR in career progression - Seriousness of writing appraisal reports - Career prospects dependent on accurate and fair assessment - Requirement of prior opportunity to improve and correct alleged misconduct - Adverse remarks based on vague and unexplained grounds not consistent with law. [Para 48-50, 67, 70-71]

Prejudice and animosity affecting objectivity - Over-exaggeration of petitioner's actions due to personal animosity - Unjust downgrading of APAR without valid grounds - Previous and subsequent outstanding gradings contradicting adverse remarks - Bias and vindictiveness of reporting officer detrimental to entire force. [Para 40-44, 51-53, 57-58, 61, 66, 69, 74]

Court's duty to ensure proper assessment - Intervention when adverse remarks lack justification - Review DPC to exclude expunged APAR - Consideration of suitability for promotion - Consequential benefits of seniority and pay fixation. [Para 75-76, 80]

Warning against biased actions - Reminder that no one is above the law - Court's readiness to take action against erring officers - Importance of fair and unbiased evaluations in disciplined forces - Leadership responsibility to guide and mentor subordinate officers. [Para 79]

Stamp Duty – Proceedings under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 – Limitation period for initiating proceedings – Whether proceedings initiated after a period of more than 9 years from the execution of the sale deed are time-barred – Held, proceedings clearly barred by limitation as per Section 47-A(3) of the Indian Stamp Act, which provides a three-year limitation period from the date of execution of the sale deed – Petition allowed – Impugned order set aside. (Para 10 and 11)

Promotion of government servant – Clearance regarding pending disciplinary proceedings required before confirmation – Failure to provide complete particulars of pending criminal case – “Sealed cover procedure” not followed – Fault of the respondents – Review DPC constituted to rectify the mistake – Petitioner entitled to ad-hoc promotion. [Para 32-50]

Rule 17.2 of the Guidelines mandates clearance regarding pending disciplinary proceedings before confirming promotion of a government servant – Incomplete information provided to DPC regarding petitioner’s pending criminal case. [Para 32]

“Sealed cover procedure” as provided in Rule 13.2 of the CCS Rules, 1965, should have been followed, but not possible due to incomplete information provided to the DPC. [Para 34]

Rule 17.8.1 of the DPC Guidelines and Office Memorandum dated September 14, 1992 provide a procedure for granting ad-hoc promotion to government servants with pending criminal charges – Factors to consider: gravity of charges, public interest, likelihood of case conclusion, absence of delay attributable to the government servant, likelihood of misuse of official position. [Para 35]

Previous judgments emphasize that employees should not suffer for administrative lapses – Notional promotion granted due to administrative exigencies and delay not attributable to the petitioner. [Para 38-39]

Petitioner should have been given the opportunity for ad-hoc promotion or the sealed cover procedure – Review DPC rightly constituted to rectify the mistake – Court cannot determine petitioner’s suitability for ad-hoc promotion. [Para 46-48]

Respondents directed to constitute Review DPC within 30 days to consider ad-hoc promotion of petitioner – Entire procedure to be completed within one month – Petitioner entitled to all consequential benefits from the date of assuming the position of Inspector, General Duty. [Para 49-50]

Bail application – Money laundering case – Involvement in fraudulent activities of a company – Application seeking bail in a case related to money laundering and fraudulent increase of inventory in a company – Applicant alleged to have aided in the diversion of loan funds and fraudulent activities – Charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC – Applicant in custody since a specified date – Application for bail filed – Contentions of the parties considered. [Para 1-2]

Allegations against the applicant – Role in the company – Alleged involvement in money laundering – Applicant’s role in the company and alleged fraudulent activities – SBFL involved in manufacturing and selling food items – Applicant an employee of the company – Allegations of aiding fraudulent increase of inventory and diversion of loan funds – Applicant’s position as a shareholder and director in group entities – Alleged proceeds of crime attributed to the applicant – Arrest and subsequent investigation – Statements, emails, and documents indicating the applicant’s involvement – Arguments and submissions of the parties. [Para 3-20]

Examination of evidence – Inference of guilt – Analysis of evidence and arguments – Court’s assessment of the evidence presented – Statements, emails, and documents indicating the applicant’s involvement in fraudulent activities and money laundering – Applicant’s role in procuring fake invoices, verifying letter of credit documents, and coordinating with entry operators – Emails and documents marked to the applicant indicating his active participation – Statements of employees and other evidence supporting the respondent’s arguments – Court’s evaluation of the evidence and assessment of the applicant’s involvement. [Para 21-41]

Reasonable grounds for belief – Standard for granting bail – Interpretation of “reasonable grounds” – Court’s interpretation of the requirement for granting bail – “Reasonable grounds” meaning something more than prima facie evidence – Reference to previous judgments clarifying the interpretation of the standard – Importance of section 50 statements recorded under the PMLA as evidence. [Para 42-44]

Court’s decision – Dismissal of bail application – Conclusion of the court’s evaluation – Court’s finding that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant is guilty of the offense of money laundering – Dismissal of the bail application – Clarification that the judgment does not express an opinion on the merits of the case, but is made solely for the purpose of deciding the bail application. [Para 45-51]

Intra-Court Appeal – Delay Condonation – Sufficiency of Cause – Dismissal of Appeal – Interpretation of “Sufficient Cause” – Principles for Considering Delay Condonation – Importance of Bona Fide Motive – Application for Delay Condonation Not Merely a Formality – Excerpts from the Hon’ble Apex Court Judgments Emphasizing Rigour of Limitation Laws – Negligence, Inaction, or Lack of Bona Fides as Vital Factors – Appellant Fails to Establish “Sufficient Cause” for 156-day Delay – Delay Condonation Application and Appeal Dismissed – Co-ordinate Bench Orders and Supreme Court Dismissals on Similar Grounds Cited.

Criminal Appeal - Conviction and Sentencing - Rape and Murder of a Minor - Commutation of Death Penalty to Life Imprisonment - Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances - Applicability of Death Penalty - Principles Governing Imposition of Death Sentence - Reference to Previous Cases - Proportionality Principle. [Para 1-58]

Conviction - Multiple Offences - Sections 363, 302, 201 of IPC, Section 5(M)/6 of POCSO Act, Section 376(AB) of IPC, and Section 84 of JJ Act, 2015 - Accused convicted for the rape and murder of a minor - Accused's presence at the scene, recovery of evidence, confessions, and DNA evidence presented as incriminating circumstances - Conviction upheld. [Para 7-10]

Death Penalty - Commutation to Life Imprisonment - Balance between Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances - Accused's age, lack of criminal antecedents, lack of premeditation, and behavior in custody considered as mitigating factors - Age of the victim and brutality of the crime considered as aggravating factors - Death penalty commuted to life imprisonment. [Para 53-56]

Principles Governing Death Penalty - Constitutional Validity - Balancing Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances - Death penalty to be imposed only in "rarest of rare cases" - Life imprisonment as the rule, death sentence as the exception - Need for a just balance between crime and criminal - Previous judgments and guidelines cited. [Para 41-42]

References to Previous Cases - Analysis of Death Penalty Decisions - Comparison of Similar Cases - Age of Victim, Heinousness of Crime, and Mitigating Factors - Death penalty cases compared, where death sentences were commuted to life imprisonment based on similar factors - Guidelines and principles established in previous cases followed. [Para 53-56]

Commuted Sentence - Life Imprisonment - Commutation of Death Sentence - Subject to Remission or Commutation by Government - Death penalty commuted to life imprisonment extending to the full natural life of the accused, subject to potential remission or commutation by the government for valid reasons. [Para 56]

Proportionality Principle - Commutation Based on Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances - Decision aligned with the principles of proportionality - Just balance struck between the aggravating circumstances of the crime and the mitigating factors relating to the accused. [Para 56]

Decision - Conviction Upheld, Death Penalty Commuted - Conviction for multiple offences upheld, including rape and murder - Death penalty commuted to life imprisonment considering the age of the accused, lack of criminal antecedents, and other mitigating factors, following established principles of law. [Para 57-58]

Probate – Grant of probate of registered Will – Validity and execution of Will – Petitioner filed a petition seeking probate of the registered Will executed by her deceased husband – Two sons of the deceased filed objections, one raised no objections – No objections from the public – Petitioner claimed that the deceased executed the Will with respect to all his assets – List of assets provided – Will registered on March 22, 2012 – Petitioner examined an attesting witness who confirmed the execution of the Will – Cross-examination did not challenge the genuineness or execution of the Will – Court referred to Section 68 of the Evidence Act, which allows the proof of a Will by examining one attesting witness – Court cited Supreme Court precedent supporting this position – Respondents did not raise doubts about the genuineness or validity of the Will – Court found that the petitioner had proved the Will to be the last and final testament of the deceased – Grant of probate allowed subject to payment of necessary fees and completion of formalities. (Para 1-16)

Jurisdiction – Testamentary jurisdiction – Scope – Court exercising testamentary jurisdiction does not interpret the Will or decide the title of the deceased to the properties bequeathed – Court’s role is limited to determining the validity and execution of the Will – Objections outside the purview of testamentary jurisdiction are not to be adjudicated upon – Reference made to relevant legal precedents. (Para 8-9)

Res Judicata – Principle of res judicata – Applicability – The principle of res judicata applies not only to separate proceedings but also to subsequent stages of the same proceedings – Court is precluded from re-examining a question that has been decided or deemed to have been decided earlier in the proceedings – Reference made to relevant legal precedent. (Para 12)

Evidence Act, Section 68 – Proof of Will – Section 68 of the Evidence Act provides that if a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until at least one attesting witness has been called to prove its execution – A Will is a document that requires attestation by two witnesses, and it can be proved by examining only one of them – Reference made to Supreme Court precedent clarifying the nature of proof required for a Will. (Para 10-11)

Grant of Probate – Conditions for grant of probate – The grant of probate requires meeting the conditions prescribed by law, such as proving the execution and validity of the Will – In the absence of any allegations challenging the testator’s soundness of mind or other suspicious circumstances, the court examines whether the Will has been validly executed – Reference made to relevant legal provisions and Supreme Court precedent. (Para 12-13)

Bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. – Applicant seeking regular bail in FIR No. 136/2012 registered at PS Economic Offences Wing (EOW) – Allegations of fraud and misappropriation of funds against the accused – Accused not named in the FIR - Applicant arrested based on his association with the financial company M/s. B.P. Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. And M/s. Money Bhandar – Applicant released on interim bail and subsequently surrendered. [Para 1]

Applicant’s contentions – Applicant claims to be a non-executive director of M/s. B.P. Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. For a short period with no involvement in M/s. Money Bhandar – Resigned before the registration of the FIR – No transactions with the complainants – Prosecution treating M/s. B.P. Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. And M/s. Money Bhandar as the same entity – Applicant’s liability disputed based on Section 149(12) of the Companies Act, 2013. [Para 4]

Prosecution’s opposition – Total alleged misappropriation amounting to approximately Rs. 8.5 crores – Applicant an authorized signatory of M/s. B.P. Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. Bank account – Accused registered as a director of M/s. B.P. Jewellers Pvt. Ltd./M/s. Money Bhandar – No details of resignation in Registrar of Companies (ROC) records – Non-Banking Financial Company (NBFC) status not authorized by RBI – Another FIR registered against the applicant in Bareilly (U.P.) – Non-Bailable Warrants issued against the applicant. [Para 6]

Court’s findings and decision – Applicant not named in the FIR, role not clear from records – Alleged nexus between M/s. Money Bhandar and M/s. B.P. Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. Yet to be established – Chargesheet filed, but charges not framed – Trial likely to be lengthy – Applicant’s clean record during incarceration – Prolonged detention unnecessary as guilt not proven – Regular bail granted subject to conditions. [Para 7-9]