Criminal Law - Dowry Death - Presumption under Section 113B of Evidence Act - Evidence Analysis

The Supreme Court held that Bhola Ram was wrongly convicted by both the Trial Court and the High Court due to lack of specific evidence implicating him in demanding dowry or treating Janki Devi with cruelty. The Court emphasized the necessity for specific allegations and not merely omnibus statements to uphold a conviction under Sections 304B and 498A of the IPC. The prosecution failed to prove Bhola Ram's active or passive involvement in demanding additional dowry or in any cruel treatment that led to the dowry death​​.

Dowry Prohibition Act - Joint and Several Liability - Burden of Proof

The Court highlighted that while dowry deaths often involve the entire family, the degree of involvement may vary. The presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act cannot be stretched to implicate every family member without specific evidence. The prosecution must provide suggestive evidence to implicate a relative in dowry demands and harassment, which was lacking in this case. The High Court's reliance on the presumption under Section 113B without considering the individual roles was misplaced​​.

Decision - Acquittal - Setting Aside Conviction and Sentence

The appeal was allowed, and Bhola Ram was acquitted of the charges under Sections 304B and 498A of the IPC. The Court found no evidence of his active complicity in the dowry death of Janki Devi. The conviction and sentence were set aside, and Bhola Ram's bail bonds were cancelled​​.

Criminal Law - Dowry Death - Presumption under Section 113B of Evidence Act - Rebuttal of Presumption

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Suresh Kumar under Sections 304B and 498A of the IPC, based on the evidence that he had demanded dowry in the form of a motorcycle and subjected his wife, Sulochana, to cruelty. The presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act was applied, and Suresh Kumar failed to rebut this presumption by not providing adequate evidence to prove that Sulochana's death by electrocution was accidental​​.

Acquittal Reversal - Scope of Appellate Court's Interference - Jurisdictional Error Correction

The High Court's decision to reverse the trial court's acquittal was deemed justified due to the trial court's erroneous exclusion of an accidental death from the purview of Section 304B IPC. The Supreme Court affirmed that an accidental death could still constitute a dowry death if the other ingredients of Section 304B IPC were satisfied. The High Court correctly corrected this jurisdictional error, leading to the conviction of the appellant​​.

Decision - Conviction Affirmed - Appeals Dismissed

The appeals were dismissed, affirming the High Court's conviction of Suresh Kumar under Sections 304B and 498A IPC. The Supreme Court found no merit in the appellant's contention that the conviction was unsustainable. The bail bond of Suresh Kumar was cancelled, and he was directed to be taken into custody to serve out the remainder of his sentence​​.

Criminal Law - Dowry Death - Presumption under Section 113B of Evidence Act - Evidence Analysis

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Bhupendra under Sections 304B and 498A of the IPC, based on the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act. The Court noted that Geeta Bai's death occurred within seven years of marriage and was caused by suspected poisoning following a demand for additional dowry that could not be met. The evidence included testimonies from her father, PW-1 Bhika Ram, and other family members who corroborated the harassment and cruelty faced by Geeta Bai due to dowry demands. The defense's claim of death by food poisoning was dismissed due to lack of supporting evidence​​.

Dying Declaration - Judicial Scrutiny - Witness Credibility

The Court emphasized that while a dying declaration is a significant piece of evidence, its reliability must be scrutinized. In this case, the oral testimonies and the surrounding circumstances provided a coherent narrative that supported the prosecution's case. The High Court found no reason to disbelieve the testimonies of Geeta Bai's family members, despite their familial ties, as their statements were consistent and credible​​.

Mutual Exclusivity of Sections 304B and 306 IPC - Legal Interpretation

The appellant's argument that Sections 304B and 306 IPC are mutually exclusive was rejected. The Court clarified that Section 306 IPC covers the abetment of suicide, while Section 304B IPC addresses dowry deaths under unnatural circumstances within seven years of marriage, making them applicable in different contexts. Therefore, a conviction under both sections is legally sustainable if the evidence supports such findings​​.

Decision - Conviction Upheld - Appeal Dismissed

The appeal was dismissed, affirming the High Court's conviction of Bhupendra under Sections 304B and 498A IPC. The Supreme Court found the prosecution's evidence sufficient to establish the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. Bhupendra's bail bond was cancelled, and he was directed to be taken into custody to serve the remainder of his sentence​​.

Service Law - Eligibility for Appointment - Academic Qualifications - Interpretation of Advertisement

The Supreme Court held that the appointment of Ganapath Singh as a Lecturer in MCA at Gulbarga University was invalid because he did not possess a postgraduate degree in MCA. The advertisement for the post clearly stipulated the requirement of a postgraduate degree in the relevant subject, which in this context is MCA. The contention that a Masters in Mathematics qualifies as a relevant subject was rejected, as Mathematics is not interchangeable with MCA. The Court emphasized that the language of the advertisement must be given its clear and explicit meaning, and it should not be interpreted to include degrees in related but distinct subjects​​ .

Judicial Review - Role of Expert Bodies - Limits on Judicial Interference

The Court acknowledged the deference typically given to the decisions of expert academic bodies. However, it clarified that such deference does not extend to allowing appointments that violate clearly stated eligibility criteria. The Court underscored that judicial review is warranted when an expert body’s decision is manifestly arbitrary or in contravention of statutory provisions. The Court highlighted that accepting an expert body's decision without scrutiny could lead to unqualified appointments, which is against the principles of fairness and merit​​ .

Decision - Appointment Quashed - Mandamus Issued for Reconsideration

The appeal by Ganapath Singh was dismissed, and his appointment as Lecturer in MCA was quashed. The Court directed the University to reconsider the appointment process and evaluate eligible candidates, including the respondent Shivanand, who possessed a postgraduate degree in MCA. However, the Court modified the High Court's order mandating the direct appointment of Shivanand, stating that the proper procedure should be followed to ensure fairness to all eligible candidates​​ .

Service Law - Eligibility Criteria for Teaching Posts - Interpretation of Advertisement

The Supreme Court held that the qualifications specified in the advertisement for the post of Assistant Teacher (L.T. Grade) must be strictly followed. The advertisement required a B.Ed. degree simpliciter and not a B.Ed. with Specialisation in Vocational Education. The Court found a marked difference between the two degrees, emphasizing that the specialization in vocational education does not fulfill the criteria intended for teaching general subjects at the school level. The High Court erred in equating the two qualifications and directing the inclusion of candidates with B.Ed. with Specialisation in Vocational Education in the selection process​​.

Educational Qualifications - Relevance of Specialization - Applicability to Teaching Posts

The Court clarified that a higher qualification in a different field cannot be substituted for the prescribed qualification unless it falls within the same channel. The decision to include only a B.Ed. degree simpliciter in the advertisement was justified as it was relevant for the duties of an Assistant Teacher (L.T. Grade), which did not require vocational training specialization. This distinction was critical to ensure that candidates possess the necessary skills and knowledge for teaching primary subjects effectively​​.

Decision - Setting Aside High Court Judgment - Strict Adherence to Prescribed Qualifications

The appeals were allowed, and the judgment of the High Court, which directed the consideration of candidates with B.Ed. with Specialisation in Vocational Education, was set aside. The Court mandated that only candidates with the specified B.Ed. degree simpliciter, as per the advertisement, are eligible for the post of Assistant Teacher (L.T. Grade). There was no order as to costs​​.

Quo Warranto – Legality of Appointment – High Court quashed the appointment of the CEO of CESU and ordered recovery of honorarium – Supreme Court examines the legality of the Chairman holding the additional charge of CEO – High Court's decision found flawed as it misconstrued the Scheme and Regulations – Authority to make temporary arrangements upheld [Paras 1-15, 39-41].

Public Interest Litigation – Quo Warranto – Maintainability – PIL challenging service appointments – Supreme Court reiterates that PILs are not maintainable in service matters except for writ of quo warranto – Emphasizes the limited scope of judicial review in quo warranto proceedings, focusing on eligibility and statutory compliance [Paras 15-29].

Recovery of Honorarium – Principle of Natural Justice – Supreme Court holds that recovery of honorarium for services rendered cannot be directed in a writ of quo warranto – Denial of remuneration for work done amounts to forced labor, violating Article 23 – Orders for recovery quashed [Paras 42-43].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court's judgment set aside – Directions for recovery of honorarium annulled – Clarifies the scope of quo warranto and maintains the legality of temporary additional charge arrangements under the Scheme [Paras 44-45].

Urban Land Ceiling Act – Occupancy Certificate – Challenge to grant of Occupancy Certificate by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai – Appellants alleged illegalities and fraud by the developer in obtaining the certificate – High Court dismissed the writ petition citing delay, laches, and vexatious proceedings – Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal, emphasizing the retention of 37865 sq. ft. of FSI as per the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) [Paras 1-24].

MOU and Development Rights – Terms of MOU – Appellants' predecessor entered into MOU with developers, granting development rights subject to retaining 37865 sq. ft. of FSI – Appellants claimed the developers misrepresented the status of existing structures – Supreme Court held that Appellants are entitled to retain the specified FSI and existing structures – Occupancy certificate valid except for the reserved FSI area [Paras 3-23].

Procedural Fairness – Administrative Authority's Duty – Supreme Court emphasized that while granting Occupancy Certificates, administrative authorities must examine the MOU and other relevant documents to ensure certificates are issued to rightful owners, minimizing litigation [Para 10].

Decision – Special Leave Petition partly allowed – High Court's judgment upheld with modifications – Occupancy certificate and No Objection Certificate valid for the plot except for 37865 sq. ft. reserved for Appellants as per MOU – Directions for authorities to respect reserved FSI and existing structures [Paras 22-24].

Public Interest Litigation – Quo Warranto – Integrity of SEBI Chairman

Petitioner filed for writ of quo warranto challenging the appointment of U.K. Sinha as SEBI Chairman, alleging lack of integrity and manipulations in the selection process. Supreme Court held the Chairman of SEBI must be a person of high integrity as mandated by Section 4(5) of the SEBI Act, given the crucial role SEBI plays in the securities market [Paras 1-31].

Administrative Law – Eligibility Criteria – SEBI Chairman

The Court scrutinized the eligibility criteria under Section 4(5) of the SEBI Act, requiring the Chairman to be a person of ability, integrity, and standing. The Court emphasized that the selection process must ensure the appointment of individuals who meet these stringent requirements [Paras 2-30].

Mala Fide Allegations – Burden of Proof

Supreme Court reiterated that the burden of proving mala fide lies heavily on the petitioner. The Court examined the detailed allegations and found no substantial evidence to prove mala fide intentions in U.K. Sinha’s appointment [Paras 50-49].

Decision:

The writ petition was dismissed, affirming the appointment of U.K. Sinha as Chairman of SEBI. The Court highlighted the paramount importance of SEBI's role and the necessity of appointing a person of high integrity to its leadership [Para 31].

Fixation of Pay – Re-employed Pensioners – Ex-servicemen

Respondent, an ex-serviceman re-employed as a Clerk by the Chandigarh Transport Undertaking, challenged the re-fixation of his pay which was initially fixed incorrectly. The Supreme Court upheld the rectification of the pay fixation under the Central Civil Services (Fixation of Pay of Reemployed Pensioners) Orders, 1986, as the Respondent’s initial pay fixation granted undue benefit from his past military service, contrary to Order 4 of the Orders [Paras 3-12].

High Court's Error – Tribunal's Decision Reinstated

Supreme Court found that the High Court erred in allowing the writ petition, ignoring the relevant provisions and the option exercised by the Respondent, which did not entitle him to include his military service for higher pay fixation. The decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, which upheld the corrected pay fixation, was reinstated [Paras 10-13].

Recovery of Overpaid Salary – Rectification of Mistake

Supreme Court held that any overpaid salary due to incorrect pay fixation must be recovered, and accounts should be settled accordingly. The rectification of errors in pay fixation is necessary to prevent undue benefits [Para 12].

Decision:

Appeal allowed. The High Court's order was quashed, reinstating the Tribunal's order upholding the corrected pay fixation dated 13th October 1998 [Para 13].