Criminal Law – Admissibility of Confessions – Confessional statements made by accused in a separate case (Special Case No. 4 of 2009) sought to be introduced in the present case (Special Case No. 21 of 2006) – Court held that such statements are inadmissible as they do not form part of the same transaction and are not spontaneous reactions to the fact in issue – Statements made two years after the incident lack immediacy and live link to the bomb blasts [Paras 25-31].

Evidence Law – Hearsay Rule and Res Gestae – Statements made by accused to police officers two years post-incident do not qualify as "res gestae" – Not contemporaneous with the fact in issue and hence inadmissible under Section 6 of the Evidence Act – Confessional statements are also inadmissible as they do not satisfy the requirements under Sections 24, 25, 26, and 30 of the Evidence Act [Paras 17-21, 29].

Admissibility under Section 11 of Evidence Act – Facts inconsistent with the prosecution case can be relevant but require primary evidence – Oral evidence must be direct – Confessional statements made to police officers and not by direct witnesses are inadmissible as they are hearsay and fail the primary evidence test under Section 60 of the Evidence Act [Paras 32-34].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court’s order allowing summoning of witnesses to prove confessional statements set aside – Confessional statements recorded in Special Case No. 4 of 2009 are inadmissible in Special Case No. 21 of 2006 [Para 8, 34].

Lokayukta Appointment – Review of Judgment – Review petitions filed against Supreme Court judgment on appointment of Lokayukta under Gujarat Lokayukta Act, 1986 – Petitioners cited a subsequent Supreme Court judgment interpreting the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 – Court distinguished between provisions of Gujarat and Karnataka Acts – Held that the Chief Justice's primacy in the consultation process under Gujarat Act was correctly interpreted in the original judgment [Paras 2-16].

Consultation Process – Distinction between State Acts – Gujarat Act requires consultation with Chief Justice and Leader of Opposition, giving primacy to Chief Justice's opinion – Karnataka Act involves broader consultation with multiple dignitaries, but Chief Minister’s advice is primary – Court upheld the interpretation of respective statutes based on their distinct legislative frameworks [Paras 5-10].

No Ground for Review – Court found no apparent error in the original judgment – Review petitions dismissed as the grounds raised were already considered and addressed in the original judgment – Difference in statutory language and context between Gujarat and Karnataka Acts was emphasized [Paras 16].

Decision – Review petitions dismissed – Original judgment upheld – Distinctive statutory provisions of Gujarat and Karnataka Acts recognized, affirming the primacy of the Chief Justice's opinion under the Gujarat Act [Para 16].

Criminal Law – Dowry Death – Appellant convicted under Sections 304B and 498A IPC – FIR alleged physical and mental torture by appellant and his relatives for dowry – Demand of Rs. 50,000/- claimed to be for purchasing a computer and starting a business – Court held such demand not connected with marriage and not a dowry demand within the meaning of Section 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – Conviction set aside [Paras 6-7].

Evidence Law – Suicide Note – Appellant produced a suicide note allegedly written by the deceased, absolving him and blaming her parents – Trial Court and High Court disbelieved note without comparing handwriting or seeking expert opinion – Court held failure to properly evaluate the note created reasonable doubt on prosecution’s case – Appeal allowed [Paras 8-9].

Demand of Dowry – Definition and Scope – Demand for money six months after marriage for setting up business held not to be in connection with marriage – Penal provisions to be strictly construed – Demand for computer purchase not covered under dowry [Paras 6-7].

Burden of Proof – Harassment and Cruelty – Prosecution failed to prove specific acts of cruelty or harassment beyond reasonable doubt – Evidence of general harassment insufficient to convict under Sections 304B and 498A IPC – Presumption under Section 113B of Evidence Act not applicable without proving harassment or cruelty soon before death [Paras 9-10].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 304B and 498A IPC set aside – Bail bond discharged [Para 10].

Criminal Law – Dowry Death – Appellant acquitted by trial court – High Court reversed acquittal based on evidence of fresh dowry demands and harassment – Demand for television, fridge, and cooler found to be dowry demands as per Section 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act – Conviction under Sections 304B and 498A IPC upheld by High Court – Appeal dismissed [Paras 6-9].

Evidence Law – Delay in FIR – Trial Court questioned the credibility of prosecution due to 51-hour delay in lodging FIR – High Court did not find delay sufficient to reject prosecution case – Presumption under Section 113B of Evidence Act applied due to proven demand and harassment soon before death [Paras 6-9].

Assessment of Evidence – Contradictions and Omissions – Trial Court disbelieved witnesses due to improvements in their statements – High Court found discrepancies not significant enough to discredit entire testimony – Evidence showed consistent demand for dowry and related harassment [Paras 7-8].

Rebuttal of Presumption – Section 113B Evidence Act – Appellant claimed natural death due to rheumatic pain – Failed to produce treating doctor as witness – Presumption of dowry death not rebutted – Conviction under Section 304B IPC upheld [Para 9].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – High Court’s judgment of conviction under Sections 304B and 498A IPC upheld – Appellant directed to be taken into custody to serve remaining sentence [Para 10].

Arbitration Law – Enforcement of Foreign Award – Respondent obtained arbitral award in U.S. against subsidiary of petitioner – Respondent sought execution of award in India – Petitioner contended award needed confirmation by U.S. court under Federal Arbitration Act before execution – Court held that confirmation not required due to provisions of New York Convention and Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Petition dismissed [Paras 2-10].

Double Exequatur – Requirement Abolished – Court noted the elimination of double exequatur requirement under New York Convention – Observed that additional procedural steps for enforcing foreign awards are unnecessary and cause delays – Upheld enforceability of award without U.S. court confirmation [Paras 7-10].

Binding Nature of Award – Paragraph 7 of consent order specified award as final and binding – No challenge issued by petitioner within stipulated notice period under U.S. law – Submission that confirmation was needed found untenable [Paras 2, 10].

Decision – Special Leave Petition dismissed – Delhi High Court’s order on execution of foreign arbitral award upheld – No error found in rejecting petitioner’s objections based on lack of U.S. court confirmation [Para 10].

Examinations – Errors in Model Answer Key – High Court found 45 out of 100 answers in model key erroneous – Directed fresh examination for Junior Engineers – Appellants, selected based on faulty evaluation, challenged the order – Supreme Court held re-evaluation with correct key preferable to fresh examination [Paras 2-8, 16].

Re-Evaluation – Corrected Answer Key – Supreme Court directed re-evaluation using correct key prepared by experts – Ordered drawing of fresh merit list based on re-evaluation – Appointments to be offered to candidates based on revised merit list [Paras 19].

Relief to Appellants – Continuation in Service – Supreme Court allowed current appointees to retain positions even if they fall below cut-off after re-evaluation – Recognized their long service and lack of fraud/misconduct – Directed their placement at bottom of new merit list if they do not make the grade [Paras 17-18].

Seniority and Appointments – Revised Merit List – Appointments based on re-evaluation to relate back to initial appointment date – No back wages or other benefits for new appointees – Ensured continuity of service and seniority for affected candidates [Paras 19].

Decision – Appeals allowed in part – High Court order modified – Re-evaluation of answer scripts with correct key directed – Fresh merit list to be drawn – Appointments to be adjusted as per revised merit list – Current appointees to continue in service if they fall below cut-off [Para 19].

Criminal Law – Dowry Death – Conviction under Sections 304B and 498A IPC – High Court upheld trial court's conviction – Supreme Court found no evidence of direct cruelty or harassment by Appellant Nos. 2 and 4 – Conviction based on silence and non-involvement in dowry dispute settlement insufficient to establish guilt under Sections 304B and 498A IPC [Paras 5-9].

Harassment and Cruelty – Definition and Proof – Section 304B IPC requires proof of cruelty or harassment soon before death – Section 498A IPC necessitates specific acts of cruelty – Silence and non-participation in dowry settlement not equated with cruelty or harassment – Conviction of Appellant Nos. 2 and 4 set aside due to lack of direct evidence [Paras 6-9].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 304B and 498A IPC set aside for Appellant Nos. 2 and 4 – Bail bonds discharged [Para 9].

Representing Advocates:

Raghenth Basant, Goutam Khanzanchi, and Senthil Jagadeesan for the Appellant

Vibha Datta Makhija for the Respondent

Collective Investment Scheme – Definition and Scope – SEBI determined PGF Limited’s sale and development of agricultural land as a collective investment scheme – High Court upheld SEBI’s order – Supreme Court affirmed, finding scheme met criteria under Section 11AA: pooling of investor contributions, management on behalf of investors, and lack of day-to-day control by investors [Paras 6-7, 35-37].

Legislative Competence – Validity of Section 11AA SEBI Act – PGF Limited challenged validity, arguing agricultural land transactions fall under State List Entry 18 – Supreme Court rejected argument, holding collective investment schemes fall under Parliament’s purview via Entry 97, List I (residuary powers) – Objective is investor protection, not regulation of agricultural land per se [Paras 30-34, 36-40].

Investor Protection – Need for Regulation – Court emphasized importance of regulating schemes to prevent fraud and protect investors – Collective investment schemes must be registered with SEBI to ensure transparency and accountability – Reaffirmed Parliament's intent to curb exploitative schemes and protect vulnerable investors [Paras 38-42].

Constitutional Validity – Upholding SEBI’s Authority – Section 11AA found constitutionally valid – Court held the provision appropriately aimed at safeguarding investor interests and regulating schemes promising high returns under agricultural development pretexts – SEBI’s order directing PGF Limited to refund investors’ money upheld [Paras 43, 53].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Section 11AA of the SEBI Act upheld as constitutionally valid – PGF Limited’s activities classified as collective investment scheme subject to SEBI regulation – Company directed to comply with SEBI’s refund order [Para 53].

Jurisdiction – Company Judge and Recovery Officer – Dispute over jurisdiction of Company Judge under Companies Act, 1956, to set aside auction or sale conducted by Recovery Officer under Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (RDB Act) – Supreme Court held that Company Judge does not have jurisdiction – Recovery Officer’s actions can only be challenged through the appeal process under the RDB Act [Paras 2-11].

Exclusive Jurisdiction of DRT – Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) has exclusive jurisdiction over sale of properties under the RDB Act – Company Court cannot intervene in auction or sale conducted by Recovery Officer – Official Liquidator must follow the appeal process under the RDB Act to challenge Recovery Officer’s decisions [Paras 12-27].

Official Liquidator's Role – Official Liquidator's association with DRT’s auction and sale process – Protects interests of workmen and creditors – Official Liquidator can challenge Recovery Officer’s actions through appeals to DRT – Company Court’s involvement not permitted under RDB Act [Paras 24-27].

Sale Procedures – Proper conduct of auction and sale under DRT’s purview – Official Liquidator’s objections to be addressed within RDB Act’s framework – Appeals to DRT and further appeals provided for under the RDB Act [Paras 25-27].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Official Liquidator directed to file appeal before DRT within four weeks – DRT to decide appeal within two months – Interim order to remain in force until appeal disposal [Para 29].