Criminal Law - Criminal Conspiracy – Banking Fraud – Telegraphic Transfer Scam – Sections 120B, 403, 409, 420 IPC – Acquittal of Bank Officials – Conviction of Accused No. 3 Set Aside – The case involved fraudulent remittance of Rs. 6.7 crores through fake TTs and subsequent withdrawals – Accused No. 1 (Branch Manager) and Accused No. 2 (Officer) were initially convicted but later acquitted by the High Court – Accused No. 3 (Nandkumar Babulal Soni) was convicted under Sections 120B and 411 IPC for allegedly receiving stolen property – Held: No sufficient evidence to link Accused No. 3 with the original conspiracy of fraudulent remittance – Prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that seized gold bars were the same as those obtained through fraud – Conviction of Accused No. 3 set aside [Paras 25-30].

Possession of Stolen Property – Burden of Proof – Section 411 IPC – Prosecution Failed to Prove Stolen Nature of Seized Gold – Appellant Entitled to Return of Property – The Trial Court and High Court relied on circumstantial evidence and applied Section 106 of the Evidence Act to hold that Accused No. 3 failed to prove lawful acquisition of gold bars – However, prosecution could not establish that the seized gold bars were the same as those fraudulently obtained from Vijaya Bank – Held: Mere possession of gold does not establish guilt under Section 411 IPC unless knowledge of stolen nature is proven – Seized gold bars ordered to be returned to Accused No. 3 [Paras 31-35].

Application of Presumptions – Section 106 of Evidence Act – Burden of Proof Misapplied – The High Court relied on Section 106 of the Evidence Act to shift the burden on Accused No. 3 to explain the source of gold bars – However, legal principles dictate that prosecution must first establish theft before requiring the accused to prove lawful acquisition – Held: Since prosecution failed to prove that seized gold bars were stolen, Section 106 could not be applied against the accused – Prosecution failed to close the chain of circumstantial evidence beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 36-37].

Return of Gold Bars – Vijaya Bank’s Claim Rejected – Bank Not Entitled to Possession – Vijaya Bank sought possession of the seized gold bars on the ground that they were acquired through fraudulent transactions – However, since the prosecution failed to establish that the specific gold bars were the proceeds of crime, Vijaya Bank’s claim was rejected – Held: In absence of proof of stolen nature, the seized gold bars must be returned to Accused No. 3 – Appeals by Vijaya Bank and co-appellant for gold bars dismissed [Paras 38-39].

Decision: Criminal Appeal Nos. 581-583 of 2012 filed by Accused No. 3 (Nandkumar Babulal Soni) allowed – Conviction under Sections 120B and 411 IPC set aside – Seized gold bars ordered to be returned to Accused No. 3 – Criminal Appeal No. 584 of 2012 filed by Vijaya Bank dismissed – Vijaya Bank not entitled to possession of the seized gold bars – Criminal Appeal Nos. 579-580 of 2012 filed by Hiralal Babulal Soni seeking return of gold bars dismissed – Findings are for the purpose of criminal proceedings and do not affect other legal remedies available to the parties [Para 39].
 

Criminal Law - Criminal Proceedings – Quashing of Summoning Order – Section 482 CrPC – Lack of Sanction for Prosecution – The appellant, a government officer, was accused of wrongful representation and intimidation in a workplace sexual harassment case – She was neither named in the initial FIR nor part of the original complaint – Sanction for prosecution was sought but denied by the competent authority (Bureau of Indian Standards - BIS) – Held: The Magistrate erred in taking cognizance without prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC – Absence of valid sanction vitiates criminal proceedings – Summoning order and chargesheet quashed [Paras 32-33].

Public Servant – Requirement of Sanction – Section 197 CrPC – Protection from Prosecution – The appellant, as a public servant, was performing her official duties as Presiding Officer of an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) – Held: Since her actions were connected to official duties, prior sanction from BIS was mandatory before prosecution – BIS explicitly refused sanction – Proceedings against the appellant unsustainable without proper sanction [Paras 23-25].

Deemed Sanction – No Concept Under Section 197 CrPC – Respondents contended that failure to grant sanction within the stipulated time amounted to deemed sanction – Held: Section 197 CrPC does not recognize the concept of deemed sanction – Reliance on Vineet Narain v. Union of India and Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh misplaced – Parliament has not incorporated deemed sanction into law, and courts cannot read such a mandate into the statute [Paras 30-31].

Official Duty and Criminal Intent – Filing of Counter Affidavit in Tribunal – Appellant Filed Counter Affidavit Defending ICC’s Report – Complainant Later Alleged It Was Done Without Consent – No Malicious Intent Found – Appellant Respected Complainant’s Wish to Represent Herself and Filed an Application to Amend the Affidavit – Held: No prima facie case of misconduct or wrongful intent – Allegations do not warrant prosecution [Paras 21-22].

Decision: Criminal appeal allowed – Chargesheet, summoning order, and all criminal proceedings against the appellant quashed – Magistrate erred in taking cognizance without prior sanction – Section 197 CrPC prohibits prosecution of public servants for actions connected to official duties without proper sanction – No "deemed sanction" concept applies under CrPC – No case for wrongful representation or intimidation made out against the appellant [Para 32].
 

Tenancy Law - Eviction Suit – Bona Fide Need – Landlord's Right to Choose Property for Use – The appellant-landlord sought eviction of the tenant for the purpose of establishing an ultrasound business for his two unemployed sons – The trial court decreed the suit, holding that the bona fide need was established based on financial capacity and suitability of the premises – However, the First Appellate Court and High Court reversed the decision, citing lack of proof of expertise by the sons – Held: A landlord is the best judge of his needs and cannot be compelled to choose another property – The absence of technical expertise in the sons does not negate the bona fide requirement – Eviction decree restored [Paras 10-12].

Compromise Decree in Earlier Eviction Suit – No Perpetual Bar on Future Eviction – The respondents argued that a previous compromise in 1988 granted them perpetual tenancy rights, making fresh eviction proceedings barred – Held: The compromise only confirmed tenancy over specific rooms but did not prevent future eviction suits for legitimate reasons – No agreement can permanently override statutory eviction rights under rent control laws – Fresh eviction suit maintainable [Paras 13-14].

Landlord’s Need and Tenant’s Objection – No Dictation by Tenant on Property Use – The respondents claimed that the landlord had other properties available and should not seek eviction from the suit premises – Held: The tenant cannot dictate which property the landlord should use – The property’s proximity to a medical clinic and pathology lab made it the most suitable for the ultrasound business – Tenant’s objections cannot override the landlord’s rights [Paras 11-12].

Effect of Past Eviction Proceedings – Prior Use of Evicted Property Does Not Affect Present Claim – The respondents argued that in a previous eviction case, the landlord did not use the vacated premises for the stated purpose but instead rented it out – Held: The need for eviction must be assessed as of the date of the present suit – Past use of other properties is irrelevant to the current bona fide need – Eviction claim stands independently justified [Paras 15-16].

Decision: Civil appeal allowed – First Appellate Court and High Court orders set aside – Eviction suit decreed – Respondents directed to vacate premises within three months – Landlord’s bona fide need recognized – No perpetual right of tenancy arises from past compromise decree [Paras 16-17].
 

Civil Writ – Tender - Public Procurement – Rights of Micro and Small Enterprises – 25% Procurement Mandate – Enforceability of Procurement Policy – The petitioners, an MSE engaged in pharmaceutical manufacturing, challenged government tenders requiring high minimum turnover thresholds, preventing their participation – Contended that the Public Procurement Policy, 2012 mandates 25% procurement from MSEs, and such turnover clauses defeat the policy’s purpose – Held: The Procurement Order, 2012 has the force of law, and government agencies have a statutory duty to implement the 25% procurement mandate – However, this does not create an individual enforceable right for MSEs to demand procurement – Government instrumentalities must ensure compliance through their Review Committees and Grievance Cells [Paras 21-22].

Judicial Review – Ensuring Effective Implementation of Procurement Policy – Role of Review Committees and Grievance Cells – Courts Must Focus on Institutional Integrity – Petitioners sought court intervention to strike down tender conditions as unconstitutional – Held: Judicial review should primarily ensure effective functioning of statutory bodies like the Review Committee and Grievance Cell under the MSMED Act – Court directed authorities to verify whether procurement targets are being met independently of reserved categories – Duty-bearers must be held accountable, and failure to comply can be judicially reviewed [Paras 23-24].

Minimum Turnover Clauses – Discriminatory Impact on MSEs – Proportionality Test – Petitioners argued that high turnover thresholds violate Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution by unfairly excluding smaller enterprises – Government defended the requirement, citing quality control and financial stability concerns – Held: Turnover is not always an accurate indicator of manufacturing capability – Such clauses must be proportionate to the contract value and should not override the statutory procurement mandate – Court directed Review Committee and Grievance Cell to define limits on turnover clauses and issue guidelines within 60 days [Paras 32-34].

Government Accountability – Monitoring Compliance with Procurement Mandate – Role of Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) – Data provided by the Union of India showed that procurement from MSEs exceeded 25% in recent years – However, CAG audit reports revealed lapses in monitoring compliance, with some Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs) failing to justify deviations – Held: The Review Committee must assess whether reserved categories and the general 25% procurement mandate are being treated separately – Government agencies directed to submit compliance reports within 60 days [Paras 26-28].

Decision: Writ petition disposed of with directions – The Public Procurement Policy, 2012 has the force of law and must be implemented – Government authorities directed to: (i) Ensure compliance with the 25% procurement mandate independent of reserved categories, (ii) Review the impact of minimum turnover clauses and issue guidelines to prevent discrimination against MSEs, and (iii) Strengthen the Grievance Cell to address procurement-related complaints – Review Committee and Grievance Cell to submit reports within 60 days [Para 39].
 

Civil Writ - Challenging the expulsion of the Petitioner from the Bihar Legislative Council - Judicial Review – Scope under Article 212 – Legislative Privilege Not Absolute – Maintainability of Writ Petition – The Respondents contended that the proceedings of the Bihar Legislative Council are immune from judicial review under Article 212(1) of the Constitution – Held: The bar under Article 212 applies only to procedural irregularities and does not preclude scrutiny of legislative decisions that impact fundamental rights – The Ethics Committee’s decision, being administrative rather than legislative, is amenable to judicial review – The Writ Petition is maintainable [Paras 10-23].

Doctrine of Proportionality – Expulsion of Legislator – Applicability of Judicial Review – The Court examined whether the punishment imposed was proportionate to the offence – Held: The doctrine of proportionality is a well-established principle in Indian and international jurisprudence, ensuring that punitive measures are rational and balanced – Constitutional Courts have the authority to assess whether the punishment imposed on a legislator is excessive and interferes with democratic representation – Expulsion, being the severest form of disciplinary action, must be reserved for grave misconduct [Paras 24-45].

Legislative Punishment – Expulsion as Disciplinary Action – Alternative Measures Available – The Bihar Legislative Council’s Ethics Committee recommended the Petitioner’s expulsion while only suspending another legislator, Md. Sohaib, for two days for similar conduct – Held: The Ethics Committee failed to adopt a graded approach in awarding penalties, thereby violating the principle of fairness – The House, as a constitutional institution, should exercise restraint and avoid excessive punitive measures that undermine representative democracy – The Petitioner’s expulsion was excessive and required reconsideration [Paras 46-76].

Article 142 – Power of the Supreme Court to Ensure Complete Justice – Reinstatement of Petitioner – The Petitioner had already suffered seven months of expulsion and had missed a legislative session – Held: In light of proportionality and fairness, the Court invoked its powers under Article 142 to substitute the punishment – The period of expulsion shall be deemed as suspension, and the Petitioner is directed to be reinstated as a Member of the Bihar Legislative Council with immediate effect – However, he shall not be entitled to remuneration for the period of expulsion [Paras 77-87].

Bye-Election Notification – Quashed Due to Reinstatement of Petitioner – During the pendency of the petition, the Election Commission announced a bye-election for the Petitioner’s vacant seat – Held: Since the Petitioner’s expulsion has been reversed, the Election Commission’s notification declaring a bye-election is quashed, and all actions taken pursuant to it are annulled [Paras 88-90].

Decision – Expulsion Set Aside – Petitioner Reinstated with Modified Punishment – The Supreme Court quashed the expulsion order, holding it excessive and disproportionate – The Petitioner is reinstated as a Member of the Bihar Legislative Council, but his expulsion period shall be treated as suspension – The Election Commission’s bye-election notification is annulled, and all related proceedings are set aside – However, the Petitioner shall not be entitled to any salary or benefits for the period of expulsion – Held: Writ petition allowed, expulsion set aside, and Petitioner reinstated.

Criminal Law - Sections 366(A), 302, 201, 34 IPC – Appeal against conviction - Circumstantial Evidence – Incomplete Chain of Circumstances – Conviction Set Aside – The case was based purely on circumstantial evidence – The High Court discarded extra-judicial confession but convicted the appellant based on last seen theory and leading to discovery – The Supreme Court held that once a key link in the chain of circumstances was rejected, the conviction could not be sustained – Held: Incomplete chain of circumstances entitles the accused to the benefit of doubt – Conviction set aside [Paras 23-26].

Last Seen Theory – Significant Time Gap Between Last Seen and Recovery of Dead Body – No Presumption of Guilt – The deceased was last seen with the appellant on 22.08.2003, but her dead body was found on 27.08.2003 – The Court held that a long time gap without further corroborative evidence weakens the last seen theory – Held: In the absence of other incriminating evidence, last seen theory alone cannot lead to conviction [Paras 29-33].

Leading to Discovery – Confession Made in Police Custody Not Admissible – Section 27 of Evidence Act Not Attracted – The High Court rejected the extra-judicial confession but relied on statements leading to the discovery of the dead body – The Supreme Court held that leading to discovery was intrinsically linked to the discarded confession and could not be relied upon independently – Held: When the confession itself is inadmissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act, statements made under police custody leading to discovery cannot be admissible under Section 27 [Paras 39-44].

Motive – Absence of Motive Weakens Prosecution Case in Circumstantial Evidence – The prosecution failed to establish a motive for the murder – The appellant and deceased were in a romantic relationship, and the appellant’s family had assured the victim’s father that they would arrange their marriage – The Court held that the absence of motive in a circumstantial evidence case creates reasonable doubt about the prosecution’s theory – Held: Lack of motive reinforces the appellant’s entitlement to acquittal [Paras 48-51].

Final Decision – Appeal Allowed – Appellant Acquitted – The Supreme Court found that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Held: The appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt and acquitted of all charges – Conviction set aside [Paras 52-53].

Criminal Law – Murder - Appeal against acquittal - Circumstantial Evidence – Appellant was accused of murdering his wife - Burden on the Accused – Conviction Restored – When an offence occurs within the four walls of a house where only the accused and the deceased were present, the burden shifts to the accused under Section 106 of the Evidence Act to explain the circumstances leading to the death – In the present case, the accused failed to provide any explanation regarding the unnatural death of his wife and instead fled the scene after clandestinely cremating the body – The Supreme Court held that in cases of custodial deaths, unexplained suspicious circumstances, absconding behavior, and destruction of evidence can form a complete chain of circumstances justifying conviction – Held: The High Court erred in ignoring Section 106 of the Evidence Act, and the acquittal was set aside, restoring the Trial Court’s conviction [Paras 66-80].

Child Witness – Testimony of a Minor Can Be Sole Basis for Conviction – Evidence Found Reliable – A child witness is a competent witness under Section 118 of the Evidence Act, and if found credible, his or her testimony requires no corroboration – The Supreme Court observed that PW6, the deceased’s seven-year-old daughter, provided a clear, consistent, and coherent account of the incident, which withstood rigorous cross-examination – The High Court’s rejection of her testimony on the mere assumption of tutoring was erroneous, as no material contradictions were found – Held: The evidence of PW6 was reliable and could be the sole basis for conviction [Paras 45-59].

Tutored Testimony – Mere Presence of Child Witness with an Interested Party Not Enough to Prove Tutoring – The High Court discarded PW6’s testimony on the ground that she was residing with her maternal uncle, an interested witness – The Supreme Court held that in cases where a child witness is abandoned by the accused and left with no other family except relatives, a mere assertion of possible influence does not amount to proof of tutoring – The Court emphasized that the demeanor and consistency of a child witness’s testimony are key factors in determining reliability – Held: The rejection of PW6’s evidence by the High Court was erroneous and contrary to established legal principles [Paras 50-54].

Inconsistent Statements – No Adverse Inference Without Contradictions in Material Particulars – The High Court drew an adverse inference from the fact that PW6 initially stated only that her “mother had died” during the inquest proceedings – The Supreme Court clarified that minor inconsistencies in the statements of child witnesses should be viewed with caution, and the absence of an immediate accusation does not necessarily indicate fabrication – It was further held that procedural technicalities should not override substantive justice in cases involving crime against women and children – Held: The prosecution’s case remained intact despite minor omissions in the initial statement of PW6 [Paras 47-49].

Section 106 of the Evidence Act – Accused Must Explain Circumstances of Death in Custodial Setting – Conviction Justified – The accused was the only person present with the deceased at the time of her death, yet he provided no explanation and fled the scene after cremating the body in secrecy – The Supreme Court held that Section 106 of the Evidence Act applies in such cases, requiring the accused to explain facts exclusively within his knowledge – His failure to offer a reasonable explanation was an additional link in the chain of circumstances proving his guilt – Held: The High Court erred in ignoring Section 106, and the conviction was restored [Paras 67-80].

Appreciation of Circumstantial Evidence – Chain of Circumstances Must Be Complete – Acquittal Erroneous – The Supreme Court reiterated the well-settled principles governing circumstantial evidence: (i) the circumstances must be firmly established, (ii) they must unerringly point towards the guilt of the accused, (iii) they must exclude all other hypotheses except guilt, and (iv) they must form a complete chain – The Court observed that the accused’s conduct, including previous acts of cruelty towards the deceased, his unexplained disappearance, and his involvement in the clandestine cremation, satisfied all these conditions – Held: The High Court erred in acquitting the accused when a complete chain of circumstances established guilt beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 61-65].

Legal Principles on Eyewitness Testimony – Testimony of a Single Reliable Witness Sufficient for Conviction – The Supreme Court restated the settled legal position that a conviction can be based solely on the testimony of a single witness, provided it is found credible and free from material contradictions – The High Court’s insistence on additional corroboration, despite the clear and reliable testimony of PW6, was legally untenable – Held: The testimony of PW6, being trustworthy, was sufficient to convict the accused without requiring further corroboration [Paras 55-59].

High Court’s Approach Criticized – Errors in Discarding Crucial Evidence and Ignoring Settled Legal Principles – The Supreme Court strongly criticized the High Court’s approach in acquitting the accused by discarding the testimony of PW6 and failing to apply Section 106 of the Evidence Act – The Court held that such an approach leads to grave miscarriage of justice in cases of domestic violence and custodial deaths – Held: The High Court committed an egregious error, warranting reversal of its acquittal judgment [Paras 88-90].

Final Decision – High Court Judgment Set Aside – Conviction Restored – The Supreme Court found that the High Court’s reasoning was flawed, particularly in its treatment of child witness testimony and failure to apply Section 106 of the Evidence Act – The accused was directed to surrender and serve the sentence imposed by the Trial Court – Held: Appeal allowed, conviction restored [Paras 91-92].

Right to Education – Medical Admission – Denial of MBBS Admission to a Candidate with Disability – The appellant, diagnosed with 58% disability, was denied admission despite clearing the NEET-UG exam with a qualifying rank – The Disability Assessment Board rejected his eligibility based on existing guidelines, which mandated that candidates must have “both hands intact” – Held: The existing guidelines were arbitrary and failed to assess functional ability – Functional assessment, rather than rigid physical criteria, is the correct approach – Denial of admission solely based on rigid physical criteria violates Articles 14, 21, and 41 of the Constitution [Paras 2-9, 20-21].

Constitutional Law – Equality and Non-Discrimination – Doctrine of Reasonable Accommodation – The Court held that reasonable accommodation under the RPwD Act and international conventions requires assessment of individual capabilities rather than blanket exclusion based on disability percentage – Held: Blanket disqualification without functional assessment is unconstitutional – Regulatory bodies must adapt to technological advancements and inclusive policies in education [Paras 17-19, 22-23].

Judicial Review – Role of Courts in Protecting Disability Rights – The High Court dismissed the petition on the ground that courts cannot interfere with expert medical opinions – Held: While courts are not medical experts, they have the duty to ensure expert opinions comply with constitutional and statutory mandates – Courts can strike down regulations and decisions that violate fundamental rights – The impugned High Court order was set aside [Paras 24-26].

Revised Guidelines – Directive to National Medical Commission (NMC) – The Court noted that recent rulings in Omkar Ramchandra Gond v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2860 and Om Rathod v. DGHS, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3130 mandated functional assessment over rigid physical disability criteria – Held: The National Medical Commission must revise its guidelines in accordance with these judgments and submit a compliance affidavit by 03/03/2025 [Paras 45-47].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Admission Granted – The appellant’s admission to MBBS at Government Medical College, Sirohi, Rajasthan, confirmed – The National Medical Commission directed to revise regulations in line with this judgment – No costs imposed [Paras 47-48].
 

Criminal Law – Forgery and Corruption – Conviction Based on Documentary Evidence – The appellant, a Traffic Superintendent with Indian Airlines, was convicted for tampering with airline tickets, issuing an infant ticket in a fictitious name and converting it into an adult ticket for monetary gain – Held: The evidence, including handwriting expert analysis and witness testimonies, established the appellant’s direct involvement – No interference warranted with concurrent findings of guilt [Paras 2-7].

Admissibility of Handwriting Expert's Opinion – Corroboration by Other Witnesses – The defense contended that there was no admissible evidence to establish that the appellant manipulated the ticket – Held: The handwriting expert (PW-8) confirmed that the fraudulent alterations were made by the appellant – Testimonies of PW-1, PW-2, and PW-5, who were familiar with the appellant’s handwriting, further corroborated the findings – The expert evidence, being supported by other material evidence, was rightly relied upon by the courts below [Paras 5, 8].

Concurrent Findings of Fact – Scope of Interference in Appeal – The Trial Court convicted the appellant, and the High Court upheld the conviction upon reappreciation of evidence – Held: Appellate courts should not interfere with concurrent findings unless there is a clear perversity or illegality – No such defect found in this case – The appeal is devoid of merit [Paras 6-9].

Judicial Precedents – Reliance on Established Principles of Evidence – The appellant relied on precedents emphasizing strict standards for proving forgery, including Sait Tarajee Khimchand v. Yelamarti Satyam, Ram Narain v. State of U.P., and Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra – Held: These cases do not assist the appellant as the prosecution established the charges beyond reasonable doubt – The conviction is based on cogent documentary and expert evidence [Para 8].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – The Supreme Court upheld the conviction and sentence – No ground for interference found – Appeal dismissed [Para 9].