Securities Law – Public Offer Withdrawal –

Appeal against SEBI's decision to reject the request for withdrawal of a public offer under Regulation 27 of the SEBI Takeover Code. The Supreme Court held that SEBI correctly interpreted Regulation 27, which allows withdrawal only in exceptional circumstances, like impossibility to perform the offer. The appellants' situation, driven by financial losses, did not meet this criterion [Paras 42-50].

Regulation 27 Interpretation – Ejusdem Generis –

The Court applied the principle of ejusdem generis, confirming that Regulation 27(1)(d) should be read in the context of Regulation 27(1)(b) and (c), which pertain to impossibility in carrying out the public offer. This restricts SEBI's discretion to permit withdrawal only in cases of impossibility and not for financial inconvenience [Paras 42-50].

Natural Justice – No Personal Hearing Required –

The Court dismissed the appellants' argument on the violation of natural justice, noting that all relevant material had been presented to SEBI, and no request for a personal hearing was made. The written submissions provided were sufficient for SEBI to make an informed decision [Paras 31-32].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed –

The Supreme Court upheld the SEBI and SAT's decisions, affirming that the appellants could not withdraw the public offer. SEBI's order did not cause adverse civil consequences warranting an oral hearing. The regulations aimed to ensure transparency and protect investors' interests [Paras 50-51].

Corporate Law – Joint Venture Agreement – Settlement of Dispute –

Disputes arising out of a joint venture agreement were settled by the Company Law Board (CLB) and affirmed by the High Court. The CLB directed the return of the appellant’s investment with interest and specified measures for the smooth exit of the appellant from the joint venture. Criminal proceedings initiated by the respondent after the settlement were considered abuse of process [Paras 1-21, 43-50].

Abuse of Process – Continuation of Criminal Proceedings –

The Supreme Court noted that allowing criminal proceedings to continue after the settlement of the dispute by the CLB and the High Court would be an abuse of the process of the court. It emphasized that criminal proceedings should not be used as a tool for harassment, especially when the underlying dispute is civil and has been adjudicated by competent authorities [Paras 27-38].

Judicial Review – Power to Quash Proceedings –

The court reaffirmed its inherent power to quash proceedings that constitute an abuse of process or are initiated with mala fide intent. It highlighted that such powers should be exercised to prevent harassment and to ensure justice is served [Paras 28-38].

Decision – Appeal Allowed –

The Supreme Court quashed the criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No. 7 of 2007, recognizing them as malicious and an attempt to re-litigate settled matters. It emphasized that the continuation of these proceedings would not serve the ends of justice [Paras 43-50].

Criminal Law – Gang Rape and Dacoity with Murder –

The appellant was convicted under Sections 396 and 376(2)(g) IPC for dacoity with murder and gang rape. The evidence included the prosecutrix's consistent testimony, medical reports, forensic evidence, and proper identification of the accused. The appellant's conviction was upheld despite the acquittal of other co-accused due to insufficient evidence against them [Paras 1-17].

Identification and Credibility –

The prosecutrix identified the appellant and provided consistent details of the crime. Her delayed disclosure of the gang rape was found credible considering the trauma and circumstances. The presence of semen on the clothes of both the prosecutrix and the appellant corroborated her testimony [Paras 12-17].

Section 396 IPC – Conviction with Acquittal of Co-Accused –

The conviction of the appellant under Section 396 IPC was upheld despite the acquittal of other accused due to the lack of sufficient evidence against them. The Supreme Court referenced prior rulings, affirming that the conviction of fewer than five persons for dacoity with murder is valid if the conjoint commission of dacoity and murder is established [Paras 14-16].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed –

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, confirming the appellant's conviction and sentences. The evidence, including forensic reports and identification parades, justified the conviction for gang rape, dacoity, and murder [Para 17].

Criminal Law – Conviction and Sentence –

The trial court convicted the appellant and co-accused for murder and robbery based on the evidence of the prosecution, including eyewitness accounts and medical reports. The High Court upheld the conviction and sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed the findings, emphasizing the reliability of eyewitness testimony and corroborating medical evidence [Paras 1-20].

Eyewitness Testimony – Reliability –

The presence and testimony of PW-3, an eyewitness, were crucial. Despite inconsistencies regarding other accused, PW-3's identification of the appellant was consistent and supported by PW-4's corroboration. The Court found no reason to doubt the credibility of PW-3, whose account was considered reliable [Paras 12-17].

Medical and Forensic Evidence –

The postmortem report confirmed multiple grievous injuries on the deceased, supporting the prosecution's case of a violent assault leading to death. The forensic evidence, including the recovery of weapons and stolen items, further substantiated the involvement of the appellant in the crime [Paras 15-16].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed –

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and sentences imposed by the trial court and affirmed by the High Court. The evidence presented by the prosecution, including eyewitness testimony, medical reports, and forensic findings, was deemed sufficient to establish the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt [Paras 20].

Criminal Procedure – Recall of Witnesses –

Section 311 of the CrPC grants the court wide discretionary power to recall and re-examine witnesses at any stage if their evidence appears essential to the just decision of the case. The court must exercise this power judiciously and not arbitrarily, ensuring it does not fill lacunae in the prosecution or defense case or cause undue prejudice to the accused [Paras 7-15].

Fair Trial – Right to Adduce Evidence –

Fair trial principles mandate granting the accused the right to present evidence in their defense. Denial of this right undermines the fairness of the trial, constituting a violation of constitutional and human rights. The court must allow additional evidence if it is necessary to achieve a just outcome [Paras 15-16].

Decision – Appeal Allowed –

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court and Trial Court orders dismissing the application under Section 311 CrPC. The appellant was permitted to examine three witnesses, including a handwriting expert, to rebut prosecution evidence. The trial court was directed to expedite the examination and ensure no further delay [Paras 18-20].

Review Jurisdiction – Supreme Court Rules, 1966 – Part VIII Order 40 – Review – The review jurisdiction cannot be invoked to reopen concluded issues or alter consequential directions that have attained finality – Facts not before the court during the hearing or when the judgment was rendered cannot be the basis for modification – The applications for modification/clarification of the final order are not maintainable [Paras 12-17].

Specific Performance – Market Value – The Court directed the execution of the sale deed at the market value as of the judgment date – Despite subsequent transactions, the direction stands as it was based on the peculiar facts and circumstances – The trial judge will determine the market value after considering all relevant facts and circumstances [Paras 16-20].

Typographical Errors – Corrections in Judgment – The Court acknowledges and corrects the typographical errors pointed out in the judgment dated 3.12.2012 – Clarifications made regarding dates and descriptions of parties [Paras 15].

Decision – Applications dismissed – Orders for execution of sale deed at market price upheld – Typographical errors corrected – All related applications disposed of in the above terms [Paras 20-21].

Scheduled Areas – Applicability of Municipal Law – Petitioners argued the Orissa Municipal Act, 1950 should not apply to Sundargarh, a Scheduled Area – Claimed continuance of municipalities in Sundargarh beyond 1st June 1994 was unconstitutional – Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the application of the Orissa Municipal Act, 1950 to Sundargarh as per the Governor's notification [Paras 1-24].

Constitutional Provisions – Part IX-A – Article 243ZC and 243ZF – Article 243ZC excludes Scheduled Areas from the application of Part IX-A unless extended by Parliament – Article 243ZF allows existing municipal laws to continue until amended or repealed – Court upheld that the Orissa Municipal Act, 1950 remains in force in Sundargarh [Paras 6-21].

Governor's Notification – Authority under Fifth Schedule – Governor's notification repealed Section 1(6) of the Orissa Municipal Act, reapplying the Act to Scheduled Areas effective from 31st May 1994 – Court held this as a valid exercise of power under the Fifth Schedule [Paras 10-14].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – The Orissa Municipal Act, 1950 and amendments apply to Sundargarh – Continuance of municipalities in Scheduled Areas upheld [Paras 24].

Murder Conviction – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302/149, 323/149 – Evidence – The appellants were charged with murder and other offenses – Only five appellants were named in the FIR with specific roles – No reliable evidence showing the remaining appellants' presence or participation – General tendency to implicate numerous individuals without substantial proof – Conviction of these appellants unsupported by evidence – Benefit of doubt extended – Appeals partly allowed [Paras 1-11].

Presence and Participation – Statements under Section 313 CrPC – Appellant Monglu Md. admitted presence and participation – Supported by witness testimonies – Conviction upheld for Monglu – Other unnamed appellants lacked evidence of involvement – Convictions set aside for these appellants [Paras 12-16].

Benefit of Doubt – False Implication – Large number of accused named without clear roles – Courts must cautiously assess such cases – Acquittals based on absence of substantive proof – Only those with proven involvement convicted [Paras 11-17].

Decision – Appeals partly allowed – Conviction and life imprisonment for five appellants upheld – Remaining appellants acquitted and to be released unless required in other cases [Para 17].

Remission and Clemency – NDPS Act – Section 32A – Articles 72, 161 of Constitution – The section prohibits suspension, remission, or commutation of sentences under the NDPS Act – Raises questions on the constitutionality of this provision – Court held that while Section 32A affects the power of the courts to suspend sentences, it does not limit executive clemency under Articles 72 and 161 – Referred substantial questions of law to a larger bench [Paras 3-16].

Judicial Review – Clemency Powers – The scope of judicial review of clemency powers under Articles 72 and 161 is limited – Executive power to grant pardons must be exercised fairly and reasonably – Directions specifying a minimum term of incarceration do not interfere with the sovereign power of the State [Paras 9-10].

Reading Down of Provisions – Court held that reading down of Section 32A to allow remission or commutation would not be appropriate – The language of the provision is absolute, and any modification would require legislative action, not judicial interpretation [Paras 11-12].

Decision – Papers to be placed before Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders – Questions of law regarding the constitutionality of Section 32A NDPS Act to be considered by a larger bench [Para 16].