Negotiable Instruments – Filing by Power of Attorney – The appeals questioned the legality of complaints under Section 138 of the NI Act filed by power of attorney holders – Supreme Court examined if such filings and verifications were permissible – Held that a power of attorney holder can file a complaint and verify on behalf of the payee or holder in due course, provided they have personal knowledge of the transaction – Verified complaints can rely on affidavits, and the Magistrate may not need to examine the complainant if affidavits suffice [Paras 1-26].

Legal Standards for Representation – Supreme Court emphasized that power of attorney holders must have witnessed the transaction as agents or possess substantial knowledge – Explicit assertions of their knowledge must be included in the complaint – Sub-delegation of functions by a power of attorney holder requires specific authorization in the power of attorney document [Paras 15-26].

Professional Conduct – Distinction between professional misconduct and criminal liability – The court underscored that procedural diligence and good faith are critical in legal representations, highlighting that lapses may lead to professional misconduct but not necessarily criminal liability [Paras 26-27].

Decision:

Appeals allowed – Reference questions answered – Power of attorney holders can file and verify complaints under NI Act if they possess personal knowledge and explicit assertions are made – Cases remitted to appropriate benches for decision on merits.

Criminal Law – Bail Application – Appellants challenged the application of Section 21(2) of the NIA Act, which requires appeals against orders granting or refusing bail to be heard by a Division Bench of the High Court – Supreme Court held that appeals under Section 21(4) of the NIA Act should indeed be heard by a Division Bench, given the gravity of offenses under the Act [Paras 10-14].

Interlocutory Orders – Supreme Court clarified that orders granting or refusing bail are considered interlocutory but made appealable under Section 21(4) of the NIA Act – Appeals against such orders must follow the procedure outlined in Section 21(2) [Paras 13-14].

Jurisdiction – Supreme Court confirmed that bail applications related to Scheduled Offenses under the NIA Act must be filed before the Special Court, and appeals against such orders lie only with a Division Bench of the High Court – The interpretation of Section 21 was consistent with the legislative intent and existing judicial precedents [Paras 12-19].

Decision:

Petitions dismissed – Supreme Court clarified that appeals against bail orders under the NIA Act must be heard by a Division Bench – Bail applications for offenses under the NIA Act are to be made before Special Courts, and appeals are to be directed to a Division Bench of the High Court [Para 20].

Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – Appellant challenged the condition of depositing Rs. 1 crore in fixed deposit for anticipatory bail – Supreme Court held that such a condition was onerous and outside the purview of Section 438 of the CrPC – Emphasized that anticipatory bail conditions must be reasonable and not defeat the purpose of bail [Paras 7-17].

Personal Liberty – Article 21 – The Court reiterated that bail conditions must not infringe upon the personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution – Conditions should ensure fair investigation without being excessively burdensome [Paras 12-14].

Precedents and Judicial Reasoning – Court referenced previous decisions underscoring the principle that conditions for bail must be balanced and not amount to pre-trial punishment – Excessive conditions that make compliance impossible defeat the right to bail [Paras 9-11].

Decision:

Appeal allowed – Condition of depositing Rs. 1 crore set aside – Appellant granted anticipatory bail with conditions to make himself available for interrogation, not to intimidate witnesses, provide address to Investigating Officer, and not leave India without permission [Paras 15-17].

Reservation in Promotions – Constitutionality and Compliance – Appellants sought directions for the State of Himachal Pradesh to decide on reservation in promotions based on data collected and submitted to the Cabinet Sub Committee – Supreme Court mandated data collection and analysis to ensure backwardness and inadequate representation before implementing reservations in promotions [Paras 1-18].

Constitutional Amendments and State Policies – Examination of Himachal Pradesh’s policy on reservations in promotions post 77th and 85th Constitutional Amendments – Court highlighted previous rulings, necessitating compliance with Article 335 and efficiency in administration – Affirmed the need for the State to make policy decisions based on quantifiable data [Paras 7-16].

Mandamus for Policy Implementation – Court noted the distinction between issuing mandamus for adopting new policies and enforcing existing policies – Directed Himachal Pradesh to implement its existing decision on reservations in promotions based on available data, ensuring compliance with constitutional requirements [Paras 28-35].

Decision:

Interlocutory application allowed – State of Himachal Pradesh directed to take final decision on reservation in promotions within three months based on existing data – Restrained State from making any promotions until final decision is taken.

Elections – Candidate Affidavits – Appellant, a non-governmental organization, sought enforcement of the Supreme Court’s judgments requiring candidates to provide full and complete affidavits at the time of filing nomination papers – Supreme Court emphasized the importance of providing complete information to effectuate the right to know under Article 19(1)(a) – Held that affidavits with blank particulars render the affidavit nugatory, and Returning Officers must reject such nominations [Paras 7-22].

Returning Officers – Duties and Powers – Returning Officers directed to ensure affidavits are complete, and candidates must mark columns as 'NIL' or 'Not Applicable' if necessary – Rejection of nomination papers permissible for incomplete affidavits despite procedural leniency highlighted in People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) case – Non-compliance results in prosecution under Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act [Paras 14-26].

Right to Information – Fundamental Right – Reinforced voters' right to know about candidates' criminal antecedents, assets, liabilities, and educational qualifications as integral to Article 19(1)(a) – Ensuring transparency in elections paramount for democracy [Paras 17-19].

Decision:

Writ Petition disposed of with directions – Returning Officers to ensure complete affidavits – Nomination papers with blank particulars to be rejected – Prosecution under Section 125A for false information to be distinguished from incomplete affidavits.

Debt Recovery – Delayed Adjudication – Appellant bank challenged the inordinate delay by the DRT and DRAT in adjudicating the application – Supreme Court criticized the tribunals for delaying proceedings for over four years, emphasizing the need for promptitude in resolving disputes to prevent economic detriment and uphold public interest [Paras 12-21].

Jurisdiction of DRAT – Granting Liberty to Sue Bank – DRAT granted liberty to the auction purchaser to initiate action against the bank for alleged omissions – Supreme Court held that DRAT exceeded its jurisdiction by granting such liberty, as its role is limited to adjudicating disputes within the special legislation and not to confer rights to initiate separate legal actions [Paras 23-30].

Purpose of SARFAESI and RDB Acts – Court reiterated the legislative intent behind the SARFAESI Act and RDB Act to ensure speedy recovery of dues by banks and financial institutions – Highlighted the tribunals’ duty to expedite proceedings and avoid procedural delays that could harm the financial system [Paras 13-20].

Decision:

Appeal allowed – Observation granting liberty to initiate action against the bank set aside – High Court’s decision declining to interfere with the DRAT’s order also set aside – No order as to costs.

Medical Negligence – Criminal Liability – Appellant, a cardiologist, was charged under Section 304A IPC for causing death by negligence during medical treatment – High Court upheld trial court's finding of prima facie evidence of negligence – Supreme Court overturned the conviction, emphasizing the need for gross negligence to be proven for criminal liability under Section 304A IPC [Paras 1-17].

Negligence in Medical Practice – Standards of Proof – Supreme Court reiterated that for criminal negligence, a high degree of negligence amounting to gross negligence must be established – Reference to Jacob Mathew case outlining standards and protection for medical professionals from frivolous and unjust prosecutions [Paras 10-16].

Procedural Guidelines for Prosecuting Doctors – Emphasis on the need for prima facie evidence from a competent medical professional before initiating criminal proceedings against doctors – Importance of obtaining independent medical opinions to support allegations of negligence [Paras 11-12].

Decision:

Appeal allowed – Conviction and proceedings against the appellant set aside – Emphasis on protecting medical professionals from unwarranted criminal prosecution while ensuring accountability through established legal standards [Paras 16-17].

Criminal Law – Murder and Attempted Murder – Conviction – Appellants Manjit Singh and Paramjit Singh convicted for the murder of Jagmohan Singh and attempted murder of Amarjot Singh – Trial court’s judgment upheld by High Court – Supreme Court examined the reliability of witness testimonies, recovery of weapons, and application of Section 34 IPC [Paras 1-42].

Witness Testimony – Non-Examination of Material Witnesses – Didar Singh and Malkiat Singh not examined by prosecution – Court held non-examination did not materially affect the trustworthiness of other witnesses – Emphasized quality of evidence over quantity [Paras 17-25].

Common Intention – Section 34 IPC – Participation and Presence – Appellant Paramjit Singh found to have shared common intention with Manjit Singh – Court held common intention can be inferred from circumstances and conduct of parties – Distinguished from mere association with co-accused [Paras 34-40].

Procedural Aspects – Sections 313 and 319 CrPC – Examination and Summoning of Additional Accused – Jaswinder Kaur summoned as an accused under Section 319 CrPC – Court highlighted importance of detailed examination and summoning process [Paras 5-6].

Decision:

Appeals dismissed – Conviction and sentences of Manjit Singh and Paramjit Singh upheld – Acquittal of Sukhpal Singh, Kamal Kumar, and Jaswinder Kaur affirmed – Court found no interference warranted in the acquittal based on the appreciation of evidence by the lower courts [Paras 41-42].

Land Acquisition – Vesting of Land – Appellant contended that the land in dispute was part of the sugar factory and vested in the State under the Uttar Pradesh Sugar Undertakings (Acquisition) Act, 1971 – Respondent argued that the land was agricultural and should not vest in the State – High Court held the land was agricultural and ordered its return to the Respondent – Supreme Court reversed this finding, holding the land was not used for cultivation and thus vested in the State [Paras 1-21].

Statutory Interpretation – Definition of Scheduled Undertaking – Court examined the definition under Section 2(h) of the Act, highlighting that lands held for purposes other than cultivation or grovelands are considered part of the scheduled undertaking and vest in the Corporation – Emphasized the need to establish a nexus between the asset and the factory [Paras 12-16].

Judicial Review – Reappraisal of Evidence – High Court erred in reappraising evidence and substituting its findings over the concurrent findings of the statutory authorities – Supreme Court reinstated the findings of the authorities that the land was not agricultural [Paras 17-18].

Exemption under Ceiling Act – Land Exempted as Industrial – Land in question had been exempted from the Ceiling Act on the basis it was held for industrial purposes – Court found this further supported the conclusion that the land was part of the sugar factory and not agricultural [Paras 19-20].

Decision:

Appeals allowed – High Court’s order set aside – Land held to vest in the Appellant-Corporation – Writ Petition No. 187 of 2007 dismissed [Para 21].