Criminal Law - Contempt of Court - Conviction and Sentence: The appellant, a practicing advocate, was convicted by the Allahabad High Court for criminal contempt under Sections 12, 12(1), 12(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The appellant made serious and scandalous allegations against three High Court judges without any basis, undermining the majesty of law and dignity of the court. The appellant's plea that he was misguided by other advocates was considered an afterthought. The court held that an apology could not be used as a defense or a means to escape punishment unless it was sincere and showed genuine contrition. The High Court did not err in rejecting the appellant's apology as it was not bona fide. The conviction and sentence of simple imprisonment for one month and a fine of Rs. 20,000 were upheld, though the fine was reduced to Rs. 2,000. [Paras 1-25]

Role of Accused in Contempt - Analysis - Held: The appellant's allegations were found to be baseless, made without any substantial evidence, and aimed at scandalizing the judiciary. The appellant's claim of being under mental stress and misguided by other advocates was dismissed as an afterthought, emphasizing the responsibility of a practicing advocate to uphold the dignity of the court. [Para 8, 18]

Decision - Conviction and Sentence for Contempt Upheld: The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, emphasizing that the appellant's conduct was inexcusable and undermined the judiciary's integrity. The fine was reduced from Rs. 20,000 to Rs. 2,000, but the sentence of simple imprisonment for one month was affirmed. [Paras 21-24]

Referred Cases:

H.G. Rangangoud vs. State Trading Corporation of India Limited and Others, AIR 2012 SC 490

T.C. Gupta and Another vs. Hari Om Prakash and Others, (2013) 10 SCC 658

Asharam M. Jain vs. A.T. Gupta and Others, AIR 1983 SC 1151

Vishram Singh Raghubanshi vs. State of U.P., AIR 2011 SC 2275

C. Elumalai and Others vs. A.G.L. Irudayaraj and Another, AIR 2009 SC 2214

The Secretary, Hailkandi Bar Association vs. State of Assam and Another, AIR 1996 SC 1925

Debabrata Bandopadhyay and Others vs. The State of West Bengal and Another, AIR 1969 SC 189

Mohd. Zahir Khan vs. Vijai Singh and others, AIR 1992 SC 642

The Bar Council of Maharashtra vs. M.V. Dabholkar and Others, AIR 1976 SC 242

Shri Baradakanta Mishra vs. The Registrar of Orissa High Court and Another, (1974) CriLJ 631

In Re: S. Mulgaokar, AIR 1978 SC 727

Mulkh Raj vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1972 SC 1197

L.D. Jaikwal vs. State of U.P., AIR 1984 SC 1374

Ranveer Yadav vs. State of Bihar, (2010) CriLJ 3431

M.B. Sanghi, Adv. vs. High Court of Punjab and Haryana and others, AIR 1991 SC 1834

T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad through the Amicus Curiae vs. Ashok Khot and Another, AIR 2006 SC 2007

Arun Kumar Yadav vs. State of U.P. Thru Dist. Judge, (2013) 14 SCC 127

In Re: Sanjiv Datta and Others, (1995) CriLJ 2910

Maninderjit Singh Bitta vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, (2012) 1 SCC 273

Patel Rajnikant Dhulabhai and Another vs. Patel Chandrakant Dhulabhai and Others, AIR 2008 SC 3016

Constitutional Law - Violation of Articles 14 and 16 - The Supreme Court considered the fairness of the termination of services of PCS Executive Branch and Allied Services Branch officers based on the entire selection process being tainted by corruption and manipulation. It emphasized the need to segregate tainted candidates from non-tainted ones and to ensure that honest and meritorious candidates are not unfairly penalized.

Administrative Law - Termination of Services - The Supreme Court addressed the State's decision to terminate the services of all candidates selected during Mr. Sidhu's tenure as Chairman of the PSC, citing the taint in the selection process. The Court scrutinized the validity of en masse termination without distinguishing between tainted and non-tainted candidates.

Criminal Law - Investigation and Evidence - The Court examined the investigation by the Vigilance Bureau, which uncovered manipulations and irregularities in the selection process, including statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC. It highlighted the need for a thorough and fair investigation to distinguish between honest candidates and those involved in corrupt practices.

Decision - Reinstatement of Non-Tainted Candidates - The Supreme Court set aside the en masse termination of services for non-tainted candidates and directed their reinstatement. It held that these candidates should not suffer due to the misdeeds of others and mandated their separation from those found guilty of corruption.

Referred Cases:

Inderpreet Singh Kahlon and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Others, AIR 2006 SC 2571

Criminal Law - Last Seen Theory - Application and Gaps - Criminal Appeal against the conviction for murder based on last seen theory - Appellant contended the significant time gap between last being seen with the deceased and recovery of the body negated the theory - Court held the time gap sufficiently proximate, supporting conviction - No explanation provided by the accused for the period following the last seen, leading to inference of guilt - Appeal dismissed. [Paras 7-10]

Evidentiary Issues - Recovery and Corroboration - Analysis - Appellant argued discrepancies in the recovery process and lack of independent witnesses undermined the prosecution’s case - Court found the recovery of incriminating materials, including blood-stained clothes, properly corroborated by witness testimonies and forensic evidence - Minor discrepancies deemed insufficient to affect the core prosecution case - Appeal dismissed. [Paras 9-11]

Judicial Process - Cross-Examination and Witness Credibility - Legal Principle - Appellant failed to cross-examine key witnesses on specific discrepancies - Established legal principle that unchallenged testimonies and unexamined discrepancies do not negate the prosecution’s case - Defence’s failure to raise issues during cross-examination results in accepting prosecution’s evidence as credible - Appeal dismissed. [Paras 12-14]

Decision - Dismissal of Appeal - Conviction Upheld - The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, finding no merit in the appellant’s arguments regarding the application of last seen theory and evidentiary issues - The chain of circumstantial evidence was complete, supporting the guilt of the appellant - Appeal dismissed. [Para 15]

Referred Cases:

State rep. by Inspector of Police Vs. Saravanan and Another, AIR 2009 SC 152

State of Rajasthan Vs. Rajendra Singh, AIR 1998 SC 2554

Atluri Brahmanandam (d), Thr. LRs. Vs. Anne Sai Bapuji, AIR 2011 SC 545

Brahm Swaroop and Another Vs. State of U.P., AIR 2011 SC 280

Mahendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2009) 3 JT 120

Laxmibai (Dead) thr. L.Rs. and Another Vs. Bhagwantbuva (Dead) thr. L.Rs. and Others, AIR 2013 SC 1204

Vijay @ Chinee Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 7 JT 576

State of U.P. Vs. Naresh and Others, (2011) CriLJ 2162

A. Shankar Vs. State of Karnataka, AIR 2011 SC 2302

Dr. Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2011) CriLJ 705

Arumugam Vs. State rep. by Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu, AIR 2009 SC 331

Criminal Law – Conviction and Sentencing – Appeal against High Court's affirmation of conviction under Section 302 IPC – Conviction based on eyewitness testimony and medical evidence – Appellants challenged the conviction on grounds of discrepancies in evidence and wrongful identification – High Court upheld trial court’s findings, citing consistency in key witness testimony and corroborative medical evidence – Supreme Court found no merit in the appeal, dismissed. [Paras 1-23]

Evidence – Hostile Witness – Analysis of Testimony – Held: Testimony of hostile witnesses partially reliable where consistent with prosecution's case – Court evaluated evidence of hostile witness Paulmeli (PW.2) to the extent it supported the prosecution – Other testimonies, including that of the deceased's wife (PW.1), were found credible – Application of legal principles regarding hostile witnesses upheld. [Paras 15-17]

Delay in FIR – Consideration – Prompt lodging of FIR established – High Court and trial court findings confirmed the absence of delay in FIR registration – Evidence showed immediate action by police and proper communication to magistrate – FIR deemed promptly lodged, lending credibility to prosecution’s timeline. [Para 14]

Discrepancies in Evidence – Minor Discrepancies – Examination – Minor discrepancies in witness testimony did not undermine the core prosecution case – Court emphasized the need to differentiate between significant inconsistencies and minor inaccuracies – Legal precedent affirmed that minor discrepancies do not discredit overall witness reliability. [Paras 18-22]

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Supreme Court found concurrent findings of lower courts to be consistent and well-supported by evidence – Appellants’ arguments regarding discrepancies and wrongful identification were rejected – Conviction and sentence of life imprisonment for murder under Section 302 IPC upheld. [Paras 23]

Referred Cases:

Atluri Brahmanandam (d), Thr. LRs. Vs. Anne Sai Bapuji, AIR 2011 SC 545

Subbu Singh Vs. State by Public Prosecutor, (2009) 6 SCC 462

State of U.P. Vs. Ramesh Prasad Misra and another, (1996) 10 SCC 360

C. Muniappan and Others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2010) 9 SCC 567

Ramesh Harijan Vs. State of U.P., (2012) 5 SCC 777

Khujji alias Surendra Tiwari Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1991) 3 SCC 627

Zwinglee Ariel Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 15

Laxmibai (Dead) thr. L.Rs. and Another Vs. Bhagwantbuva (Dead) thr. L.Rs. and Others, (2013) 4 SCC 97

Himanshu @ Chintu Vs. State of NCT of Delhi, (2011) 2 SCC 36

Appabhai and Another Vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1988 SC 696

Balaka Singh and Others Vs. The State of Punjab, (1975) 4 SCC 511

Bhagwan Singh Vs. The State of Haryana, (1976) 1 SCC 389

Syad Akbar Vs. State of Karnataka, (1980) 1 SCC 30

Shri Rabindra Kumar Dey Vs. State of Orissa, (1976) 4 SCC 233

Sucha Singh and Another Vs. State of Punjab, (2003) 7 SCC 643

Sukhdev Yadav and Others Vs. State of Bihar, (2001) 8 SCC 86

Sarvesh Narain Shukla Vs. Daroga Singh and Others, (2007) 13 SCC 360

Criminal Law - FIR and Ante-timing - Benefit of Doubt – Criminal Appeal against High Court judgment upholding conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC – FIR alleged to be ante-timed – Complainant’s conduct of approaching an Advocate instead of police, and lodging FIR at a different police station raised suspicion – Supreme Court finds FIR ante-timed and not recorded promptly – Held, appellants entitled to benefit of doubt – Conviction and sentence set aside. [Paras 1-24]

Procedural Lapses in FIR - Impact on Conviction – Analysis – Held – FIR not dispatched to the Magistrate within the required time – Names of accused not disclosed to investigating officer at the scene – Inquest report did not mention names of assailants – These procedural lapses indicated manipulation and delay in recording FIR – Evidence raised significant doubt about the involvement of appellants. [Para 12-22]

Decision – Acquittal of Appellants – Court allows appeal – Conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC set aside – Appellants to be released forthwith unless required in another case. [Para 23-24]

Referred Cases:

Meharaj Singh (L/Nk.) v. State of U.P. (1994) 5 SCC 188

Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Supply of UPSC Advice - Requirement - Natural Justice - Rule 32, CCS Rules - Interpretation - Appeal against High Court judgment holding that non-supply of UPSC advice before finalizing disciplinary action violated principles of natural justice. Supreme Court affirmed High Court’s view, emphasizing the need for procedural fairness and opportunity for representation. The Office Memoranda dated 06.01.2014 and 05.03.2014 were noted to be in consonance with the judicial pronouncements, thus ensuring adherence to natural justice. [Paras 1-29]

Natural Justice - Opportunity to Represent - Disciplinary Action - Supreme Court reiterated that the advice from UPSC, if relied upon for disciplinary action, must be supplied to the delinquent officer in advance to enable a fair opportunity for representation. This aligns with principles of natural justice as elaborated in B. Karunakar’s case. [Para 23-24]

Decision - Appeal Dismissed - The appeal by the Union of India was dismissed, with the Supreme Court upholding the High Court’s judgment that mandated the supply of UPSC’s advice to the delinquent officer before the imposition of any penalty. [Para 29]

Referred Cases:

Union of India (UOI) and Another Vs. T.V. Patel, (2007) 4 SCC 785

Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad, Vs. Karunakar, (1994) 1 SCC 727

Union of India (UOI) and Others Vs. S.K. Kapoor, (2011) 4 SCC 589

S.N. Narula Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, (2011) 4 SCC 591

State of U.P. Vs. Manbodhan Lal Srivastava, AIR 1957 SC 912

Union of India (UOI) and Another Vs. Raghubir Singh (Dead) by Lrs., (1989) 2 SCC 754

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. Municipal Corporation and Another, (1995) 4 SCC 96

Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2011) 1 SCC 694

A.R. Antulay Vs. R.S. Nayak and Another, (1988) 2 SCC 602

Disciplinary Proceedings – Necessity of Written Opinion – Regulation 60 Interpretation – The respondent, a District Manager at FCI, faced disciplinary proceedings under Regulation 60 for alleged dereliction of duty causing financial loss to FCI. The disciplinary authority imposed a penalty without forming a written opinion on whether a full inquiry was necessary. The High Court quashed the penalty, emphasizing the requirement for a written opinion as mandated by Regulation 60(1)(b).

Formation of Opinion by Disciplinary Authority – Held, the disciplinary authority must form a written opinion regarding the necessity of holding an inquiry before imposing a minor penalty. The opinion must be based on objective criteria and demonstrate application of mind. The discretion under Regulation 60(1)(b) is reviewable and cannot be arbitrary or capricious. Compliance with this requirement is essential to uphold the integrity of the disciplinary process and ensure fairness. [Paras 9-10]

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, ruling that the absence of a written opinion by the disciplinary authority vitiated the proceedings. The appeals were dismissed, affirming the necessity for procedural compliance as per the FCI Staff Regulations. [Paras 10-11]

Referred Cases:

Food Corporation of India Hyderabad And Others v. A. Prahalada Rao And Another, AIR 2001 SC 51

Contempt of Court - Alleged Violation of Supreme Court Order - Contempt Petition against Respondent No. 6 for allegedly violating the Supreme Court's order dated 14th February 2014 - Supreme Court directed that the next meeting of the Board of Trustees be held at Hotel Taj Lands End, Bandra, and a notice be given to all trustees entitled to participate - Respondent No. 6 failed to provide such notice to Petitioner - Supreme Court finds Respondent No. 6 acted under a bona fide belief that certain individuals were not trustees and thus not entitled to notice - Held that no willful disobedience was established - Contempt proceedings dropped. [Paras 1-11]

Trust Governance - Interim Arrangement - Supreme Court recalls the order dated 14th February 2014 and issues notice in SLP to all respondents - Interim arrangement ordered wherein an interim Board of Trustees comprising two undisputed permanent trustees and Mr. Justice J.N. Patel as Chairman - Justice J.N. Patel entitled to a fee of Rs. 1,00,000 per meeting - Interim arrangement to continue until disposal of the Special Leave Petition. [Paras 10-11]

Decision - Recall of Previous Order and Interim Relief - Court recalls the order dated 14th February 2014 in SLP (C) No. 3772 of 2014 - Notice issued to all respondents with interim arrangement in place - Contempt proceedings against Respondent No. 6 dropped. [Paras 9-11]

Referred Cases:

Pritam Pal Vs. High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur through Registrar, AIR 1992 SC 904 : (1992) CriLJ 1269 : (1992) 1 Crimes 1012 : (1992) 2 JT 41 : (1992) 1 SCALE 416 : (1993) 1 SCC 529 Supp : (1992) 1 SCR 864

Constitutional Law – Property Rights – Definition of Forest Land: Civil Appeal against the High Court's conclusion that land notified under Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900 (PLPA, 1900) is 'forest land' under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. Supreme Court holds that inclusion of land under PLPA, 1900 does not automatically classify it as 'forest land.' [Para 15-16]

Administrative Law – Validity of Notifications and Records – Assessment: Analysis of government records showed that land in Village Karoran was recorded as under the control of the Forest Department due to its notification under PLPA, 1900. High Court's reliance on these records without considering the exact legal status of the land at the time of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 enactment was erroneous. [Para 12-13]

Environmental Law – Interpretation of Forest and Forest Land: Interpretation of 'forest land' as per Supreme Court’s judgment in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India. Court reiterates that 'forest land' includes areas recorded as forest in government records irrespective of ownership, but stresses correct legal classification of land based on historical records and statutory definitions. [Para 16]

Decision – Remand for Fresh Hearing: Supreme Court sets aside High Court’s finding that entire land in Village Karoran is 'forest land' under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. Orders fresh hearing to accurately determine the classification of land based on government records as of 25.10.1980. Associated directions from the High Court's judgment are also set aside. Investigation by CBI as directed by the High Court remains intact. [Para 18]

Referred Cases:

T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India, (1997) 2 SCC 267

M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (2004) 12 SCC 118

M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (2008) 1 SCC 407