Consumer Law – Interim Orders – Conditional Stay –Civil appeals challenging the interim order of the National Commission requiring appellants to deposit 50% of the awarded amount for stay of State Commission's orders – Appellants contended the order contravenes Section 19's second proviso regarding pre-deposit limits – Supreme Court upheld the National Commission's discretion to impose such conditions for stay, distinct from pre-deposit requirements for entertaining appeals – Appeal dismissed. [Paras 1-13]

Pre-Deposit vs. Conditional Stay – Analysis – Held:The second proviso to Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act pertains to pre-deposit requirements for entertaining appeals, not to conditions for granting stay orders – National Commission within its rights to impose conditions for stay based on judicial discretion – Pre-deposit and stay orders serve different legal purposes. [Para 11-12]

Decision – Appeals Dismissed –Appeals against the National Commission's conditional interim order dismissed – National Commission's discretion in imposing conditions for stay upheld – No costs awarded. [Para 13]

Pension Regulations – Voluntary Retirement – Eligibility – Civil Appeal against High Court order directing release of pensions under State Bank of Patiala Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2000 – High Court held that employees who completed more than 19 years and 6 months of service were entitled to pensions under the Regulations – Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the High Court's decision – Held that broken period of service exceeding six months should be treated as one year, making employees eligible for pension. [Paras 1-26]

Voluntary Retirement Scheme – Application of Pension Regulations – Analysis – Supreme Court held that the regulations applicable for superannuation and premature retirement should also be considered for voluntary retirement under the Scheme – Employees completing 19 years and 6 months of service are to be deemed as having completed 20 years, thereby qualifying for pension benefits. [Paras 24-25]

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Supreme Court dismissed the Bank's appeals, affirming that the employees who retired under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme are entitled to pensions as they completed the requisite qualifying service as per the Pension Regulations – No costs. [Para 26]

Criminal Law - Framing of Charge - Opportunity to be Heard - Scope of Sections 226, 227, and 228 CrPC - Criminal Appeal against High Court Order - Framing of Charge under Section 302 IPC - Supreme Court dismisses appeal challenging the framing of charge under Section 302 IPC. The appellant contended he was not given an opportunity to be heard before framing the charge and that no charge sheet was submitted against him for the offence under Section 302 IPC. The court held that the framing of a charge is within the jurisdiction of the trial court under Section 228 CrPC and does not require separate hearing if the accused is not discharged under Section 227 CrPC. The trial court has the authority to frame a charge even if it was not mentioned in the charge sheet, provided there is sufficient ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence. [Paras 1-11]

Relative Scope of Sections 227 and 228 CrPC - Analysis - Held - The Court noted the distinction between Sections 227 and 228 CrPC. Section 227 involves the court forming a definite opinion about discharging the accused, while Section 228 involves a tentative opinion about framing charges. The framing of charge requires a strong suspicion that the accused has committed an offence, and the standard of proof is not as stringent as at the stage of conviction. [Para 10]

Decision - Dismissal of Appeal - Framing of Charge Under Section 302 IPC Upheld - The Supreme Court upheld the order of the Additional Sessions Judge framing charges against the appellant under Section 302 IPC, dismissing the appeal. The court found no merit in the appellant’s contentions and emphasized that the trial court had followed the due process under Sections 226 and 227 CrPC before framing the charge. [Para 11]

Criminal Law - Conviction and Sentence - Probation of Offenders Act – Criminal Appeal challenging the High Court's decision to release the accused on probation despite conviction for conspiracy and cheating – High Court released the accused on probation citing mental agony and partial imprisonment during trial – Supreme Court noted that only one accused was convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act – Release on probation under the Probation of Offenders Act was justified considering the facts and time elapsed – Appeal dismissed, emphasizing rehabilitation and just sentencing principles. [Paras 1-32]

Role of Convicts in Criminal Conspiracy and Cheating – Analysis – Held – Conviction of accused for conspiracy and cheating upheld – Noted High Court’s incorrect application of the Prevention of Corruption Act to all accused – Emphasized the necessity of applying the Probation of Offenders Act appropriately based on individual circumstances and the nature of offences. [Paras 7-9]

Sentencing Principles - Rehabilitation and Probation – Detailed examination of sentencing principles including rehabilitation, humanization, and deterrence – Supreme Court highlighted the legislative intent of the Probation of Offenders Act and relevant sections of the CrPC – Necessity for trial courts to balance punishment with potential for rehabilitation. [Paras 12-31]

Decision – Dismissal of Appeals – Supreme Court dismissed the appeals challenging the probation release – Reinforced the importance of fair sentencing, victim compensation, and rehabilitation – Emphasized that the factual circumstances and elapsed time justified the High Court’s leniency in sentencing. [Para 32]

Criminal Law - Alteration of Conviction from Murder to Grievous Hurt – Criminal appeal against the High Court’s decision to alter the conviction of Ghasi and Lala from Section 302 IPC (murder) to Section 325 IPC (voluntarily causing grievous hurt) – Incident involving the appellant’s father, Sunderlal Meena, being fatally injured by blows from a shovel and lathi – Trial Court convicted under Section 302, High Court modified to Section 325 – Supreme Court reinstates conviction under Section 302 IPC, emphasizing the gravity and intention of the injuries inflicted, which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature – Highlights the necessity of examining the nature and intention of injuries in determining culpability – Conviction under Section 302 IPC restored, sentence of life imprisonment imposed. [Paras 1-49]

Homicide Classification and Judicial Approach – Analysis of judicial precedent regarding classification of homicides under IPC – Discussion on the importance of distinguishing between culpable and non-culpable homicide, and the implications on sentencing – Reiterates the jurisprudence that deliberate infliction of fatal injuries generally constitutes culpable homicide amounting to murder – Judicial review of decisions altering murder convictions to lesser offenses for lack of specific intent or common intention to kill – Affirms the necessity of a five-step inquiry to accurately classify homicide cases. [Paras 42-47]

Sentencing Implications – Discussion on sentencing disparities resulting from misclassification of offenses – Emphasizes the need for accurate charge formulation and judicial identification of the committed offense to ensure appropriate sentencing – Notes the risks of excessively lenient or harsh punishments due to improper classification. [Paras 45-46]

Conclusion on Facts – Detailed application of the five-step inquiry to the present case – Establishes the homicidal nature of the injuries inflicted on Sunderlal by Ghasi and Lala, confirming the culpable homicide amounting to murder under Section 300(3) IPC – Restores the Trial Court’s conviction of Ghasi and Lala under Section 302 IPC – Directs the State to enforce life imprisonment sentences. [Paras 48-49]

Civil Procedure - Preliminary Issues - Limitation - Civil Appeal against High Court decision upholding dismissal of suit on the grounds of limitation - Suit seeking declaration of settlement deeds as null and void and recovery of possession of trust property - Single Judge and Division Bench treated the limitation issue as a preliminary issue - Supreme Court examines applicability of Section 10 of the Limitation Act regarding suits against trustees - Held that the issue of limitation involves mixed questions of law and fact and should not have been tried as a preliminary issue - Appeals allowed, judgments set aside, and matter remanded for trial. [Paras 1-21]

Limitation Act - Applicability of Section 10 - Section 10 protects trust property from limitation if vested in trust for a specific purpose - Analysis of Articles 92 and 96 concerning limitation for recovery of trust property and whether settlements were for valuable consideration - Supreme Court finds that facts needed to determine applicability of Section 10 were not established - Remands matter for detailed factual inquiry. [Para 12-19]

Procedure - Order 14 Rule 2 CPC - Mixed questions of law and fact - Precedents examined, including Major S.S. Khanna v. Brig. F.J. Dillon and Ramesh B. Desai v. Bipin Vadilal Mehta - Supreme Court emphasizes that issues requiring factual determination should not be tried as preliminary issues - Reiterates principle that legal issues intertwined with facts must be tried comprehensively. [Para 15-18]

Decision - Preliminary issue of limitation incorrectly tried - Remands case to Single Judge for complete trial - Emphasizes need for expeditious disposal considering the suit's prolonged pendency since 1997. [Para 19-21]

Criminal Procedure - Recall of Witness - Section 311 CrPC - Recall of Investigating Officer to bring on record a statement of the deceased not previously exhibited due to inadvertence - Held, power to recall a witness is broad and must be used judiciously to avoid causing prejudice to the accused or filling up lacunae - Statement of deceased considered essential for the just decision of the case - High Court's order upheld. [Paras 10-15]

Recall of Witness - Essential Evidence - Analysis - Held, recall of the Investigating Officer justified as the statement of the deceased was crucial for the prosecution's case as a dying declaration - No prejudice to the accused as they were aware of the statement and had the opportunity to cross-examine the witness - The recall was not to fill up lacuna but to ensure a just decision. [Para 14]

Decision - Dismissal of Appeal - The appeal against the High Court’s order was dismissed - The trial court directed to proceed with the case expeditiously - Interim orders staying the High Court’s decision vacated. [Paras 20-21]

Criminal Law - Death Penalty - Mitigating Circumstances - Criminal Appeal against High Court order confirming death sentence - Appellant challenged conviction and death sentence on grounds of unfair trial, reliance on witness statements, and lack of "rarest of rare" circumstances - Supreme Court considered mitigating circumstances including appellant's age, absence of criminal antecedents, and possibility of reform - Held, death penalty commuted to life imprisonment, while maintaining conviction and other sentences. [Paras 1-30]

Mitigating Circumstances - Assessment - Held, considering appellant's young age, potential for reform, and lack of prior criminal record, case does not meet criteria for "rarest of rare" - Death sentence commuted to life imprisonment. [Para 29]

Evidence - Reliance on Witness Testimony - Held, statements of injured witnesses and corroborative evidence sufficient to uphold conviction under Sections 302, 307, 394, 397, and 450 IPC - No infirmity in reliance on witness statements and recovery evidence. [Para 19]

Decision - Death Penalty Commuted - Court commutes death sentence to life imprisonment, affirming conviction and other sentences - Appeals partly allowed. [Para 30]

Criminal Law – Summoning of Accused under Section 319 CrPC – Dowry Death – Criminal Appeal against High Court order setting aside trial court’s order to summon respondent under Section 304B IPC – High Court quashed summons on grounds that respondent is not a "relative of the husband" under Section 304B IPC – Supreme Court upholds High Court’s decision – Held that strict interpretation of "relative" necessary under penal statutes – Respondent, being the brother of the husband's aunt (chachi), is not related by blood, marriage, or adoption to the deceased’s husband – Summoning order correctly quashed by the High Court. [Paras 4-9]

Definition of "Relative" in Penal Statutes – Interpretation – Held – Terms not statutorily defined to be understood in their natural, ordinary sense – "Relative" under Section 304B IPC means persons related by blood, marriage, or adoption – Reliance on dictionary definitions and judicial precedents including U. Suvetha v. State by Inspector of Police and Anr. and Vijeta Gajra v. State of NCT of Delhi – Consistent application of "relative" limited to blood or marital relations. [Para 6-8]

Application of Legal Principles – Similarity in language across statutes presumed to imply similar meaning – Held – No deviation from general rule of statutory interpretation found necessary – Respondent not qualifying as "relative" under Section 304B IPC – Potential for prosecution under other IPC sections not precluded. [Para 9]

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Supreme Court confirms High Court's decision to quash the trial court’s order summoning respondent under Section 304B IPC – No error in High Court’s application of legal principles – Respondent may be prosecuted under other applicable IPC sections. [Para 10]