Criminal Law – Quashing - Prevention of Corruption Act – Disproportionate Assets – Quashing Set Aside – Prima Facie Case Found – Respondent charged for possessing assets disproportionate to known sources of income (Rs. 26.88 lakhs) during 2001–2008 – Discharge and revision applications dismissed on merits – Supreme Court held quashing petition under Section 482 CrPC impermissible after trial court and High Court found prima facie case exists – Quashing order reversed [Paras 1–7, 14–16].

Section 482 CrPC – Abuse of Process – Not Substitute for Discharge – Jurisdiction Misused – High Court’s order held to contravene settled principles from Krishnan v. Krishnaveni, Renu Kumari, and Amit Kapoor – Petition filed on same grounds as earlier discharge – No change in facts – Held: Inherent power under Section 482 must be exercised sparingly, not to override discharge findings [Paras 6–10, 14].

Sanction to Prosecute – Delay and Validity – To Be Considered at Trial – High Court’s findings on sanction rejected – Alleged “backdated” sanction based on typographical error – Supreme Court reiterated that sanction validity (bias, non-application of mind, delay) is trial matter, not to be adjudicated under Section 482 CrPC – Followed Dinesh Kumar v. AAI and Ashok Kumar Aswal [Paras 11–14].

Framing of Charges – Limited Judicial Review – Mini-Trial Impermissible – Supreme Court reiterated that at charge stage, court only examines whether material prima facie discloses offence – Questions of probative value or reliability reserved for trial – Interference at preliminary stage deprecated [Paras 4, 9].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s judgment quashing C.C. No. 30/2013 set aside – Trial to resume before Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Chennai – Court urged to complete trial expeditiously in light of delay (check period 2001–2008) [Paras 15–16].

Criminal Law – Quashing - Cheque Dishonour – Section 138 NI Act - Suppression of Material Facts by Complainant – Complaint Quashed – Respondent filed complaint without disclosing crucial letters from accused requesting documents to respond to statutory notice – SC held: Suppression of relevant facts amounts to abuse of legal process – Complaint and cognizance quashed [Paras 11, 18–22].

NI Act – Dishonour of Security Cheque – Presumption Under Section

139 – Rebuttable Only in Trial – However, Court Held Complaint Itself Vitiated – Appellant had challenged liability and demanded documents before reply – Complainant’s omission to acknowledge such demand in complaint fatal to maintainability [Paras 6–7, 13–14, 21].

Complaint Procedure – Duty of Magistrate Under Section 200 CrPC – Application of Judicial Mind Required – Magistrate failed to consider suppressed correspondence – Supreme Court emphasized importance of truthful disclosures when invoking criminal law [Paras 9–10, 19].

Clean Hands Doctrine – Litigant Suppressing Truth Can’t Seek Relief – Citing S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath, SC reiterated: Complaint founded on concealment of key facts deserves to be thrown out at threshold [Paras 11, 21].

Statutory Notice – Reasonable Opportunity to Respond – Non-Supply of Documents – Accused Cannot Be Penalized – Appellant explicitly reserved right to reply pending receipt of documents – Filing of complaint without fulfilling this obligation unjustified [Paras 14–17, 20].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court order dated 18.12.2023 set aside – Criminal Case No. 648/2016 and cognizance order dated 02.03.2017 quashed – Liberty granted to complainant to seek civil remedy for recovery, if any [Paras 22–24].

Civil Writ - Enforcement of The Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act - Definition of Advertisement – Wide and Inclusive Scope – Section 2 of 1954 Act – The Court emphasized that the definition of ‘advertisement’ under Section 2 of the 1954 Act is wide, covering not only printed or broadcast media but also oral announcements, notices, wrappers, labels, and even messages conveyed via light, sound, or smoke – Such advertisements aimed at promoting drugs or magic remedies are brought within the regulatory framework.

Prohibition on Advertisements – Total Bar on Specific Categories – Sections 3, 4, and 5 of 1954 Act – The Court reiterated that there is an absolute prohibition on advertisements relating to drugs and magic remedies for treatment of diseases mentioned under the Schedule or Rules – Misleading advertisements and those creating false impressions are strictly prohibited – The prohibition applies not only to advertisers but also to those involved in publication or preparation of such advertisements.

Implementation Failure – States’ Non-Compliance – The Court observed that despite being in force for over 70 years, the 1954 Act is not being implemented in letter and spirit – Directed the States and Union Territories to appoint sufficient Gazetted Officers and scrutinizing officers as required under Sections 8 and Rule 3 of the 1955 Rules within one month – Emphasized that enforcement machinery is lacking and needs urgent attention.

Creation of Grievance Redressal Mechanism – Mandatory Directions – The Court directed all States/UTs to set up a public Grievance Redressal Mechanism for reporting objectionable advertisements within two months – Mechanism should include toll-free numbers and email facilities – The complaints must be forwarded to the authorized officers who are required to take prompt action and initiate criminal proceedings under the 1954 Act and BNSS.

Sensitization and Public Awareness – Role of Legal Services Authorities – The Court directed the National, State, and District Legal Services Authorities to conduct sensitization programmes to educate the public on the dangers of objectionable advertisements and their adverse health consequences – Highlighted the need for awareness among the masses.

Development of Dashboard – Compliance Monitoring – The Court reaffirmed its earlier direction (Order dated 30th July 2024) that the Union of India, through the Ministry of Ayush, must create a dashboard for recording complaints and actions taken – Granted three months to implement the same – Dashboard to ensure transparency and facilitate prosecution under the 1954 Act.

Non-Compliance by States – Specific Directions to Defaulting States – Court noted non-compliance by 17 States/UTs, including Himachal Pradesh, Maharashtra, and Uttar Pradesh, among others – Ordered these States to file compliance affidavits by 30th April 2025 and to cooperate in setting up grievance redressal systems and enforcement mechanisms.

Final Decision – Writ Petition Disposed of with Directions – The Court issued binding directions to all States, UTs, and the Union of India to implement the provisions of the 1954 Act effectively – Compliance reports to be filed by end of June 2025 – Petition to be listed for compliance monitoring on 14th May 2025.
 

NDPS Act – Non-compliance with Sections 42 and 52A – Conviction Set Aside – The appellants were convicted for possession of 600 kg of ganja under Section 8© read with Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act – The Court found serious procedural lapses, including improper sealing, storage, and delay in producing contraband before the court – Investigating officer failed to comply with Standing Order No. 1/89 – Held: Substantial compliance with mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act was absent – Benefit of doubt extended to the appellants leading to acquittal [Paras 11-15].

Appellate Duty – High Court failed to reappreciate evidence – Cryptic judgment set aside – The Supreme Court held that the High Court failed to discharge its duty as a first appellate court by not properly analyzing the evidence and overlooking procedural violations which were pivotal to the case – The omission rendered the appellate order unsustainable [Paras 5, 9, 15].

Principle of Parity – Acquittal of similarly placed co-accused (A-2 and A-8) ignored – The Supreme Court observed that the High Court’s refusal to extend benefit of doubt to remaining appellants despite acquittal of A-2 and A-8 on the same evidence was unjustified – Held: All accused deserved parity in benefit of doubt [Para 6].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Conviction and sentences set aside – The Supreme Court found that prosecution failed to prove that non-compliance with Section 52A and Standing Order No. 1/89 did not prejudice the accused – Appellants ordered to be released unless required in other cases [Paras 15-17].

Murder vs. Culpable Homicide – Sudden Provocation – Conviction Modified – Altercation Led to Single Blow – Appellant, involved in a road rage incident, delivered a single blow with an iron rod to the deceased during a spontaneous altercation – Supreme Court held there was no premeditation or intention to kill – Conviction modified from Section 302 to Section 304 Part I IPC – Sentence reduced to 7 years’ RI [Paras 2–8].

Nature of Injury – Vital Part Hit – Death Resulted – Still Not Murder – Although the injury was inflicted on the head, the vital part, the act was held to be under sudden provocation during an unarmed confrontation – Intention to cause bodily injury likely to cause death attracted, but not intention to kill – Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC applied [Paras 6–8].

Aggression by Deceased Party – Right to Self-Control Lost – Exception to Murder Attracted – Deceased and his companions had chased and confronted the accused after a traffic incident – Appellant’s reaction was spontaneous under provocation – Held: Case falls under culpable homicide not amounting to murder [Paras 6–7].

Evidence – Confessional Recovery – Admitted – Iron rod recovered based on Section 27 confession – Postmortem confirmed homicide – Factual conviction upheld; only legal classification altered [Paras 5–6].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Conviction under Section 302 IPC modified to Section 304 Part I – Sentence reduced to 7 years rigorous imprisonment – Fine and default sentence upheld – Appellant to surrender within 2 months if not already served sentence [Para 8].

Service Jurisprudence – Transfer on Medical Grounds – Nature of Request – Not Public Interest – The respondent sought change of cadre from Staff Nurse to First Division Assistant due to bronchitis, and consented to be placed junior-most in the new cadre – Held: The transfer was at the employee’s request and not in public interest; seniority to be reckoned from the date of transfer and not original appointment – Change of cadre does not alter this rule [Paras 5-7, 2224].

Interpretation of Service Rules – Rule 16(a)(iii), 1977 Rules – Voluntary Consent to Lower Post – Valid – Rule 16 permits appointment of a permanently incapacitated employee to a lower post only with consent – Such consent was expressly given by the respondent – No violation of rules in fixing her seniority accordingly [Paras 9-13].

Seniority Principles – Rule 6, 1957 Rules – Effect of Transfer at Employee's Request – Seniority Not Carried – Transfer made on request places employee below all existing employees in the new cadre – Respondent not entitled to claim seniority from original post of Staff Nurse [Paras 14-20, 23.2].

Distinction in Transfer Types – Public Interest vs. Personal Request – Essential to Determine Seniority Impact – Transfers in public interest retain seniority; those at personal request do not – Respondent’s transfer due to medical reasons, though compassionate, was not administrative exigency – Cannot claim benefit of seniority retention [Paras 15-19].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Orders of Tribunal and High Court Set

Aside – Seniority of respondent to be reckoned from 19.04.1989, date of appointment as First Division Assistant, and not from 05.01.1979 as Staff Nurse [Paras 24-25].

Consumer Protection – Loan Recall Notice – Allegation of Unfair Trade Practice – Settlement Finalized – Borrowers challenged the recall of home loans by the bank before NCDRC which rejected the complaints – Supreme Court facilitated a tripartite settlement between borrowers, builder, and bank involving waiver of charges, pre-EMI concessions, and staggered payments – Held: Settlement recorded and enforced through Court orders, with all parties complying [Paras 1-4].

Pre-EMI Payment Adjustment – Builder’s Liability – Builder Directed to Bear 50% – Borrowers had paid pre-EMI due to builder’s default – Builder agreed to reimburse 50% of the pre-EMI to borrowers, and balance 5% of the sale consideration to be paid by borrowers within stipulated time – Held: Compliance ensured and builder to issue acknowledgment of payment [Paras 3-7].

Banking Record Rectification – Use of Term ‘Settlement’ – Borrowers Requested Modification – Borrowers sought substitution of term ‘settlement’ with ‘repaid’ in loan closure record to avoid impact on creditworthiness – Held: Bank directed to amend records accordingly [Para 6(i)].

Possession and Completion – Builder’s Responsibility – Possession with Completion by Deadline – Builder undertook to complete remaining construction and handover possession by 31.03.2025 – Held: Direction issued to ensure compliance [Para 6(ii)].

Litigation Closure – Proceedings Before RERA and DRT – Directed to be Withdrawn – All pending proceedings initiated by or against the parties including those before RERA and DRT to be withdrawn – Held: Appeals finally disposed with complete quietus to litigation [Paras 8-9].

Motor Accident Claim – Bilateral Amputation – Compensation Enhanced – Appeal Allowed – Appellant, a B.D.O., lost both legs in a road accident while riding pillion – Tribunal awarded ₹7.5 lakhs; High Court upheld the award after attributing contributory negligence to the scooter driver – Supreme Court held that the finding of contributory negligence was erroneous and unsupported by evidence – Full liability of ₹16 lakhs directed to be paid by insurer [Paras 2–14, 17–18].

Negligence – No Contributory Negligence Proven – Learner’s Licence Not Conclusive – Driver’s licence status alone cannot establish negligence – High Court’s finding that scooter driver had better visibility and B.D.O. abused his authority was held speculative and unsubstantiated – Supreme Court found evidence clearly established trailer driver's negligence as sole cause of accident [Paras 8–13].

Compensation – Prosthetics, Attendant, Medical Expenses – Future Cost Recognised – Court accepted that the cost of prosthetics, its wear and tear, medical expenses, and need for a personal attendant justified awarding full claim – ₹16 lakhs compensation granted under composite heads including ₹9 lakhs for medical/prosthetics and ₹5 lakhs for disability and loss of amenities [Paras 15–16].

Legal Principle – Standard of Proof – Preponderance of Probability in Tort – Court reiterated that motor accident claims are not adversarial and rely on preponderance of evidence – Surmises or speculative reasoning not sufficient to deny compensation [Paras 11–12].

Interest – 7% Simple Interest from Date of Award – ₹25,000 under Section 140 to be Adjusted – Insurance company directed to compute and deposit full amount within two months via RTGS/NEFT on receiving bank details from appellant [Paras 17–18].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Finding of contributory negligence set aside – Full compensation of ₹16,00,000 awarded with 7% simple interest from date of award – Amount under Section 140 to be deducted – Directions issued for timely disbursal by insurance company [Paras 17–18].

Anticipatory Bail – Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act – Alleged Caste Slur Not in Public View – Bail Granted – FIR alleged that the appellant insulted the complainant with caste-based remarks and orchestrated an abduction conspiracy – Supreme Court noted absence of public view element necessary to invoke SC/ST Act provisions under Sections 3(1)® and 3(1)(s) – Also observed that the appellant’s involvement was inferential, not direct – Held: Anticipatory bail granted following principles in Prathvi Raj Chauhan and Shajan Skaria [Paras 3-5, 7-8].

Temple Dispute – Longstanding Association Between Parties – Civil Suits Filed – Alleged Abduction Emerged from Property Conflict – FIR indicated that appellant and complainant had been trustees of a temple trust since 2012 and fell into dispute from 2017, leading to multiple civil litigations – Held: Background reinforces inference-based allegations and merits protection from arrest [Paras 6-7].

Bail Direction – No Comment on Merits – Observations Not to Affect Trial – Held: Bail order not to influence trial proceedings – Any opinion herein shall not affect merits or final decision in the criminal case [Para 8].