Criminal Revision - Illegal Transfer and Trial - Disproportionate Assets Case - Administrative Transfer of Case - Acquittal - Violation of Legal Procedures - High Court's Intervention - Powers under Article 227 of the Constitution and Sections 397/401 of Cr.P.C - Setting aside illegal transfer and proceedings - Importance of Maintaining Judicial Integrity and Preventing Miscarriage of Justice. [Para 1]

Procedural Irregularities - Administrative Transfer - Criminal Case - District Transfer via Administrative Note - Lack of Legal Authority - Illegality of Transfer - Powers of Chief Justice - Importance of Transfer Powers by Full Court - Powers of Administrative Judges in Transferring Cases Questioned. [Para 2-3]

Judicial Supervision - Chief Justice's Role - Master of the Roster - Administrative Control - Transfer of Criminal Case - Lack of Authority to Transfer Cases Between Districts - Legal Jurisdiction under Section 407 Cr.P.C and Article 227 - Power Vested in Full Court - Absence of Individual Judge's Authority in Transferring Cases. [Para 4-6]

Role of High Court - Preventing Miscarriage of Justice - Setting Right Illegality - Powers under Article 227 and Sections 397/401 of Cr.P.C - Duty to Maintain Judicial Integrity - Public Confidence in Justice System - Reference to Relevant Judicial Precedents and Legal Principles. [Para 22-23]

Judgment Setting Aside Transfer and Proceedings - Direction to Return Case to Original District - Emphasis on Legal Procedures and Principles - Judicial Integrity and Public Trust in Justice System Highlighted. [Para 24]

Civil Writ Petition – Rejection of candidates in recruitment process – Parameters of Physical Standard Test (PST) – Chest measurement criteria for female candidates – Petitioners challenging rejection – Medical Board constituted to measure chest – Measurements provided for each petitioner – Petitioners failing to meet parameters – Court expressing concern over the parameters set for determining physical standards, particularly for female candidates – Arbitrary and violative of women’s dignity and privacy – Recommendations for reevaluation of criteria. [Para 1-15]

Eviction - Concealment of Facts - Revision Petition - Petitioner challenged eviction order citing non-ownership by respondent - Held, Petitioner concealed filing and withdrawal of SLP before Apex Court - Petitioner's unclean hands disentitled him from relief - Revision Petition dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs.1,00,000 for non-disclosure of material facts [Paras 12, 13].

Judicial Conduct - Analysis - Held, Litigants must fully disclose all relevant facts - Concealment to gain advantage amounts to misleading the court - Petitioner's failure to disclose SLP withdrawal and judgment regarding ownership deemed intentional deception [Para 13].

Decision - Dismissal and Exemplary Costs - Court dismisses the revision petition, imposing exemplary costs for abuse of judicial process and intentional concealment of material facts, to be deposited in the High Court Legal Services Committee [Para 14].

Criminal Law - Framing of Charge - Revision Petition - Challenge to order framing charge under Section 188 IPC - Petitioner accused of violating public order during Covid, granted permission by Assistant Agriculture Engineer for agricultural purposes - Held, Cognizance of offence under Section 188 IPC barred except on a written complaint by a public servant - FIR and subsequent charge framing invalid - Revision Petition Allowed, order framing charge quashed [Paras 11-13].

Jurisdiction of Magistrate - Analysis - Held, Jurisdiction of the Court to take cognizance of offence under Section 188 IPC is barred except on a complaint in writing by the concerned public servant - Non-compliance with this mandatory provision vitiates the prosecution - Magistrate's action deemed improper [Para 11].

Decision - Quashing of Charge - Court quashes the order framing charge against the petitioner under Section 188 IPC, directing compliance with statutory requirements [Para 13].

Criminal Law - Surety’s Liability - Appeal - Appeal against orders imposing a fine of Rs.1 lac on surety due to the non-appearance of the accused - Held, Fine must be proportionate to the circumstances, inconvenience to the court, and expense in re-apprehending the accused - Appellant, who facilitated the re-arrest of the accused, deserves reduction in penalty - Appeal Partly Allowed, fine reduced to 50% of the surety amount [Paras 7-10].

Discretionary Power of Court - Analysis - Held, Section 446(3) Cr.P.C. provides the court discretion to remit part of the penalty for sufficient cause - Appellant’s active role in securing the accused’s re-arrest considered - No allegation of connivance with the accused [Para 7].

Decision - Reduction of Penalty - Court modifies the impugned orders, reducing the penalty to 50% of the surety amount, directing appellant to deposit Rs.50,000/- before the Trial Court [Para 10].

Contempt of Court – Matrimonial dispute - Violation of Settlement Agreement – Respondent retracts from settlement agreement due to dissatisfaction with financial settlement, claiming financial constraints – Respondent’s behavior constitutes abuse of legal process as she seeks a more lucrative financial settlement – Respondent’s admission of not intending to resume marital life with petitioner – Court finds that marriage has broken down – Respondent’s refusal to abide by settlement agreement undermines faith in legal proceedings – Court examines past judgments on the sanctity of undertakings and agreements – Court imposes fine and one-month imprisonment on Respondent for contempt – Opportunity for respondent to avoid imprisonment by compliance and apology within two weeks – Application for stay of proceedings disposed as not applicable in other jurisdictions.

Criminal Bail Application – Offences under Section 121-A and 153-A IPC read with Section 66 of the IT Act – Applicant seeking bail – Allegations of forming a WhatsApp group spreading jihadi literature and videos – Applicant charged with being the administrator of the group and promoting anti-India sentiments – Applicant’s association with foreign members and acquisition of arms alleged – Bail application challenged by the State – Whether offences are prima facie made out – Interpretation of Section 121-A IPC – Right to practice religion and propagate – Gravity of allegations – Bail denied. [Para 1]

Conspiracy to Commit Offences – Offence under Section 121-A IPC – Overawing Central or State Government by criminal force – Punishment of imprisonment for life or up to ten years – Applicant alleged to be administrator of two WhatsApp groups with foreign members promoting arms acquisition and religious prejudices – Gravity of allegations indicating potential conspiracy – Bail application rejected due to the seriousness of the charges. [Para 7]

Religious Freedom vs. Criminal Conspiracy – Right to practice and propagate religion under Article 19 – Allegations involving promotion of religious prejudices and acquisition of arms – Balance between religious freedoms and potential threat to public order – Second part of Section 121-A IPC deemed to be made out – Bail denied due to the weight of allegations and potential gravity of the conspiracy. [Para 7]

Conclusion – Bail application rejected – Seriousness of allegations of forming jihadi WhatsApp group with foreign members promoting arms acquisition and religious prejudices – Applicant’s association with the group and potential conspiracy deemed prima facie – Bail denied due to potential threat to public order and gravity of the offence. [Para 8]

Civil Procedure – Execution of Money Decree – Interest on deposited amount – Obligation of judgment-debtor to give notice to the decree-holder about the deposit of the decretal amount – Interest ceases to run on deposit and notice, or on tendering the amount outside the Court – Notice required to inform the decree-holder that the decretal amount is available for withdrawal – Violation of Order 21 Rule 1(2) CPC – Principles established in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Poonam Pahwa applied – Impugned order allowing refund of interest set aside – Revision petition allowed. [Para 8]

Facts – Petitioner and her son filed a claim petition for compensation – Award granted – Respondent No.1-Insurance Company appealed, but appeal dismissed – Insurance Company deposited amounts post dismissal – Petitioner initiated execution for the awarded amount – Respondent No.1-Insurance Company sought refund of interest – Executing Court allowed the refund – Petitioner challenged the order in revision.

Issues – Whether the petitioner's right to interest was affected due to the failure of the judgment-debtor (Insurance Company) to provide notice of deposit to the decree-holder (petitioner) as per Order 21 Rule 1(2) CPC.

Observations – The obligation of providing notice to the decree-holder about the deposit of the decretal amount is vital – Interest ceases upon deposit and notice, or on tendering the amount outside the Court – Notice serves to inform the decree-holder about the availability of the decretal amount for withdrawal – Violation of the principles in Order 21 Rule 1(2) CPC resulted in the delay of releasing the awarded amount and loss of interest to the petitioner.

Decision – The impugned order allowing the refund of interest to respondent No.1-Insurance Company is set aside – The case is allowed, and if the interest amount has been refunded, it shall be deposited with the Tribunal – Notice of deposit shall be given to the petitioner in accordance with Order 21 Rule 1 CPC. [Para 9]

Goods and Services Tax Act – Refund claim – Limitation period for filing refund application – Proper officer rejecting the petitioner's refund claim as barred by limitation – Petitioner assailing the rejection – Challenge to vires of Rule 90(3) of the CGST Rules and paragraph 12 of the impugned Circular – Nature of deficiencies noted – Whether application for refund complete in terms of Rule 89(2) of the CGST Rules – Application for refund accompanied by necessary documentary evidence – Proper officer requiring further documents and clarification – Whether limitation period stops running – Precedent of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Union of India &Ors. relied upon – Petition allowed, impugned order set aside, application for refund restored for consideration on merits. [Para 1-30]

Goods and Services Tax Act – Refund – Application for refund of IGST paid on zero rated supplies – Proper officer issuing deficiency memos pointing out defects and requiring clarifications – Proper officer rejecting refund claim on the ground of limitation – Whether the deficiencies render the application incomplete in terms of Rule 89(2) of the CGST Rules – Nature of deficiencies noted – Whether the application was accompanied by required documentary evidence – Whether proper officer can withhold processing of refund claim based on deficiencies – Precedent of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Union of India &Ors. considered – Refund application restored for consideration on merits. [Para 21-29]