Criminal Law – Conviction under Sections 305, 506-B & 195-A IPC – Partial Acquittal – Appeal post-death of accused – Consequential relief to heirs – Appellant (widow and children of deceased convict Akhtar) pursued appeal to claim terminal benefits due to wrongful conviction – Sessions Court convicted Akhtar under Sections 305 and 506-B IPC and sentenced him to 10 and 2 years RI respectively – High Court set aside Section 305 conviction but convicted him under newly inserted Section 195-A IPC (post-facto) while affirming Section 506-B conviction – Supreme Court held that Section 195-A IPC could not apply retrospectively to an offence committed in 1999, as it was introduced in 2006 – High Court erred in invoking Section 195-A IPC violating Article 20(1) of the Constitution – Conviction under Section 195-A set aside – Conviction under Section 506-B IPC affirmed based on consistent testimony of PWs 2, 3, and 4, despite minor inconsistencies and absence of Akhtar's name in testimonies of PWs 5 to 7 – Defence evidence (DWs 3 and 4) showing Akhtar’s presence in court the whole day was not accepted by trial court and rightly not interfered with – Appeal dismissed partially with liberty to State to reconsider terminal benefits in humanitarian terms [Paras 1 to 34].

Witness Testimony – Consistency of Threat Allegations – PWs 3 and 4 (victim’s sister and mother) deposed consistently about threats from Akhtar and co-accused on 19.02.1999 which caused the victim to commit suicide – PW-2 recorded the victim’s dying declaration supporting the same – Minor inconsistency in PW-4’s account (mentioning a second threat only later) not considered fatal – FIR not expected to contain exhaustive account – Omission not significant enough to discredit their testimony [Paras 9-15].

Dying Declaration – Reliability – Although not formally exhibited, the version narrated by PW-2 (Deputy Tehsildar) of the victim’s dying declaration was consistent with PWs 3 and 4 – Even if other PWs (5, 6, 7) didn’t name Akhtar, the Court upheld the credibility of the dying declaration corroborated by close family members [Paras 13, 16-17].

Conviction under Section 195-A IPC – Retrospective Application Barred – Incident took place in 1999 – Section 195-A IPC inserted only in 2006 – Supreme Court held High Court gravely erred in convicting Akhtar under a law not in force at the time of the offence – Violation of Article 20(1) – Conviction under Section 195-A IPC set aside [Paras 18-20, 29].

Conviction under Section 506-B IPC – Sustained – Despite no separate reasoning by High Court, Supreme Court reviewed evidence and found consistent and credible testimony proving threats issued by Akhtar – Defence evidence rightly disbelieved by Sessions Court – No error in affirming Section 506-B conviction [Paras 21-28, 30].

Posthumous Appeal – Terminal Benefits – Humanitarian Approach – Supreme Court acknowledged Akhtar’s termination from service was based on now-partly quashed conviction under Section 305 IPC – Only Section 506-B conviction survives – Directed State of Madhya Pradesh to reconsider termination and eligibility for terminal benefits afresh, considering widow’s financial condition and adopting a humanitarian view – Decision to be taken within 3 months [Paras 31-33].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Conviction under Section 195-A IPC set aside – Conviction under Section 506-B IPC upheld – State to reconsider terminal benefits due to deceased appellant’s family in light of reduced conviction.

Banking Law - SARFAESI Proceedings – Loan Default and Auction – Challenge to Sale Notice – Stay and Set Aside – Respondent defaulted on loan repayment after mortgaging properties – After compromise failed, sale notices were issued and challenged – DRT initially granted stay, later refused extension – Ultimately, auction held, but set aside by DRT due to procedural lapses – Fresh auctions challenged again, but without final adjudication [Paras 2, 5, 9, 13-14].

One-Time Settlement (OTS) – SBI OTS 2020 Scheme – Eligibility Criteria – Upfront Payment Mandatory – Application Incomplete – Application by borrower under OTS 2020 Scheme was not accompanied by 5% of proposed settlement amount as required by Clause 4(i) of Scheme – Held: Failure to deposit upfront rendered application invalid and not liable to be processed [Paras 25-27, 39-40].

Judicial Review – Grounds of Rejection – Validity of Administrative Orders – Additional Grounds Permissible if Fairness Ensured – Though SBI’s rejection letter did not cite failure to pay upfront amount as a reason, the Court held that where alternative valid grounds appear from record and parties are put to notice, orders may be upheld on such grounds in the interest of justice – Principles in Mohinder Singh Gill case harmonized with fairness doctrine [Paras 34-38, 42].

Mandamus – Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 – No Positive Right to OTS – Direction Limited to Reconsideration – Courts below erred in issuing directions to reconsider respondent’s OTS application without examining eligibility under Clause 4(i) – Courts should not compel grant or reconsideration unless statutory duty exists – High Court’s interference unjustified [Paras 21, 23-24, 29, 43].

Final Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court’s direction for reconsideration of OTS application set aside – Respondent permitted to submit fresh proposal not under 2020 Scheme – Appellants may proceed to enforce security interest as per law [Paras 44-47].

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – FIR for Cheating and Criminal Conspiracy – Civil Dispute Given Criminal Colour – FIR Quashed – FIR was filed nearly five years after a failed commercial transaction involving alleged defective machinery supplied under a sale agreement – Supreme Court found that allegations, even if taken at face value, did not disclose any fraudulent or dishonest intention at inception – No ingredients of cheating under Section 420 IPC or conspiracy under Section 120B IPC made out – FIR, chargesheet, and proceedings quashed [Paras 1, 5-10, 15-17, 21, 23].

Quashing of Proceedings – Section 482 CrPC – Allegations Vague and Mala Fide – Continuation of Proceedings an Abuse of Process – High Court erred in dismissing application under Section 482 CrPC despite absence of mens rea and presence of mala fide intent in filing FIR – Criminal process cannot be used as substitute for civil remedies or personal vendetta – Parameters of Bhajan Lal case applied – FIR quashed [Paras 10, 16-21].

Mens Rea – Fraudulent Intention at Inception – Essential for Offence of Cheating – Breach of Contract Not Cheating – Failure to perform contractual obligations or deliver goods of agreed specification, without more, does not amount to criminal offence – Culpable intention must exist at the inception – Such intention not established from FIR or chargesheet – Allegations held to be civil in nature [Paras 14-18].

Delay in Filing FIR – Impact on Credibility – FIR Filed Five Years After Transaction – Complainant failed to justify delay – Supreme Court viewed delay as a factor casting doubt on bonafides of prosecution – Held: Delay further supports inference of civil dispute being dressed as criminal complaint [Para 17].

Misuse of Criminal Law – Courts Must Be Vigilant – Observations in Vishal Noble Singh Case Followed – Supreme Court cautioned against use of criminal justice system to achieve oblique motives or settle personal scores – Judicial system must not be burdened with mala fide criminal complaints [Para 22].

Final Decision – Appeal and Writ Petition Allowed – High Court’s Order Set Aside – FIR No. 11/2023 dated 14.02.2023, Chargesheet dated 27.07.2023, and all consequential proceedings quashed – No prima facie case made out for cheating or conspiracy – Criminal law not a tool for enforcement of private contracts [Paras 23-24].

Legal Metrology – Search and Seizure – Procedural Violations – Quashing of Notices – Appeal Allowed.

Search and Seizure – Legal Metrology Act, 2009 – Appellant (ITC Limited) challenged seizure of 7,600 pre-packed notebooks from its warehouse by Legal Metrology officials for alleged violation of Rule 24(a) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 – Seizure conducted under Section 15 of the 2009 Act without obtaining warrant or recording “reasons to believe” – High Court’s Division Bench upheld seizure, reversing Single Judge’s quashing order – Held: Seizure was illegal – Officials failed to comply with mandatory safeguards under Section 15 of the 2009 Act and Sections 100(4), 165 of the Cr.P.C – No warrant obtained – No reasons to believe recorded – Single witness (driver) not independent – No urgency or exigency pleaded – Procedural violations vitiated entire action [Paras 11-23].

Criminal Procedure – Application of Cr.P.C to Special Acts – Section 15(4) of the Legal Metrology Act mandates compliance with Cr.P.C for search and seizure – Search requires “reasons to believe” and warrant unless exigency shown – Presence of two independent witnesses mandatory under Section 100(4) Cr.P.C – Held: Procedural safeguards under Cr.P.C applicable unless explicitly excluded – Respondent’s claim of “inspection” without warrant unsustainable – Premises, though commercial, not “public” for warrant exemption – CFC packages stored in warehouse do not constitute “wholesale packages” merely due to bulk [Paras 14-20].

Natural Justice – Violation of Principles – Simultaneous issuance of seizure and compounding notices deprived appellant of opportunity to be heard – No hearing granted – No opportunity for objections – Held: Violation of natural justice evident – Division Bench erred in not appreciating legal necessity of procedural compliance [Paras 7.5, 20.1].

Technical Violation – Rule 24 of 2011 Rules – Packages had declarations affixed as labels instead of being printed – Held: Declarations existed – At best, violation was technical – Supported by Supreme Court’s earlier ruling in State of Maharashtra v. Raj Marketing (2011) 15 SCC 525 – Seizure not justified in absence of material inconsistency in declared particulars [Para 22].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Search and seizure held illegal – Orders passed by Division Bench of High Court and impugned notices/quasi-criminal proceedings quashed – Order of Single Judge restored – No costs [Paras 23-24].

PIL - Disability Rights – Constitutional Interpretation – RPwD Act – Judicial Directions – Court Declares Accessibility a Constitutional Mandate – The Court held that disability is not a deficit but a form of diversity – Failure to provide accessible systems is a constitutional violation – Courts must uphold inclusive frameworks to ensure dignity, autonomy, and equality for persons with disabilities [Paras 1–5, 27–35].

Institutional Care – Systemic Reforms – State Failure in Compliance – Directions Issued – The Court noted longstanding non-compliance by several States and UTs with orders concerning implementation of the RPwD Act – Directed nationwide monitoring through National Law Universities under “Project Ability Empowerment” to audit care institutions and recommend systemic reforms [Paras 6–11, 36–47].

Care Institutions – Monitoring Mechanism – Project Ability Empowerment – Eight National Law Universities assigned regional jurisdiction to inspect institutions housing persons with cognitive disabilities – Detailed thematic parameters outlined including resident profiling, health care, rehabilitation, education, infrastructure, and grievance redressal – Directions given for detailed report within six months [Paras 36–38, 47].

International Law – UNCRPD and Other Treaties – Interpretation and Application – The Court relied heavily on the UNCRPD and international human rights conventions to affirm the dignity and autonomy of persons with disabilities – Recognised the obligation of State parties to ensure community-based care, deinstitutionalisation, and accessibility [Paras 25–34].

Reservation Policy – Section 34 RPwD Act – Upward Migration for Meritorious PwD Candidates – Discriminatory Practice Condemned – The Court highlighted denial of “upward migration” to meritorious PwD candidates in employment, calling it hostile discrimination – Directed Union of India to explain if corrective action has been taken – Held: Reservations must reach the genuinely disadvantaged, and merit-based PwD candidates should not be counted against reserved seats [Paras 48–54].

Final Decision – Monitoring Mandated – Central and State Authorities Directed to Cooperate – Court directed constitution of “Project Ability Empowerment” and ordered all stakeholders including District Magistrates, Social Welfare Departments, and Ministry of Social Justice to fully support the monitoring – Directed interim funding of ₹25 lakhs per NLU and fixed deadline for report submission – Matters listed for further monitoring on 13th March, 2026 [Paras 44–47, 55–57].

Advocates Act – Professional Misconduct – Bar Council of India – Suspension for Three Years – Supreme Court dismisses statutory appeal; imposes ₹1,00,000 costs; directs Collector to attach properties for recovery; Bar Council not to renew licence without prior permission; compliance report to Supreme Court upon completion of sentence [Paras 2-6].

Professional Misconduct – Scope of Appellate Interference – Serious, scandalous allegations by advocate – No leniency – Appeal dismissed with costs – The appellant-advocate, found guilty of professional misconduct and suspended for three years by BCI, had made scandalous allegations against the complainant; the Court, noting the serious nature of misconduct and obstinate conduct, refused to interfere or extend leniency; appeal dismissed with cost of ₹1 lakh [Paras 2-3].

Costs – Mode of Recovery – Attachment of Properties – Compensation to Complainant – Direction to Collector – Court directed the Collector, Agra, to attach appellant’s properties to recover ₹1 lakh cost to be paid to respondent within three months – Ensures effective enforcement and compensation to the complainant [Para 4].

Bar Council – Regulatory Consequence – Non-renewal of Licence Without Court’s Permission – To prevent circumvention of disciplinary penalty, the Bar Council was directed not to renew the appellant’s licence without prior permission of the Supreme Court [Para 4].

Post-Sentence Compliance – Reporting Requirement – After the appellant undergoes the sentence already awarded, a report shall be supplied to the Secretary General of the Supreme Court – Ensures oversight and compliance closure [Para 5].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Costs and Directions Affirmed – Statutory appeal dismissed; costs of ₹1 lakh imposed; attachment and non-renewal directions issued; matter disposed of accordingly [Paras 3-6].

Cruelty – Decree of Divorce – Section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act – Divorce Affirmed – The husband filed for divorce on grounds of mental cruelty; the wife filed counter-allegations including domestic violence – Family Court granted divorce which was upheld by the High Court – Supreme Court observed long-standing acrimony and prolonged separation since 2009, holding that false complaints constituted cruelty – Decree of divorce upheld [Paras 3.2–3.7, 7].

Domestic Violence – Compensation – DV Act Proceedings – Wife Entitled – Though initial complaint under DV Act was dismissed, appellate courts found the husband guilty of domestic violence and directed compensation of ₹2,00,000/-, later enhanced to ₹7,00,000/- – SLP against this enhancement was dismissed by Supreme Court – Proceedings under DV Act thus culminated in favour of wife [Paras 3.3–3.5].

Child Marriage Expenses – Contribution by Father – Reasonable Demand – Appellant-wife sought ₹10,00,000/- for daughter’s marriage – Despite husband’s denial of income, Court held he was capable of contributing – Directed to pay ₹10,00,000/- by 15th October 2025 – Held: Contributing to child’s marriage is a natural parental duty irrespective of spousal disputes [Paras 5–10].

Final Decision – Appeals Partly Allowed – Divorce decree affirmed – Supreme Court directed husband to pay ₹10,00,000/- towards daughter’s marriage expenses, failing which the appeals would be revived – Appeals accordingly disposed of [Paras 10–13].

Coal Policy – Interim Pricing Post-Auction – Background and Challenge – Policy Upheld – After the e-auction system was held unconstitutional in Ashoka Smokeless, CIL issued the Interim Coal Policy dated 15.12.2006 imposing a 20% price hike for non-core sector consumers through linkage – Respondents challenged the policy as arbitrary and sought refund of excess payment made – High Court allowed refund – Supreme Court reversed – Held: Interim Policy was a necessary measure to ensure availability of coal and sustain operations, not arbitrary or profit-driven – The increase was temporary and did not violate Article 14 [Paras 11-15, 83-94, 106-107].

Judicial Review of Economic Policy – Scope and Limitations – Courts Cannot Substitute Economic Wisdom – Supreme Court reaffirmed that economic decisions like price fixation and resource allocation fall within executive domain – Unless found to be unconstitutional or manifestly arbitrary, courts must defer – Pricing policy was based on operational requirements and market dynamics – Courts cannot apply proportionality test to price-based classification [Paras 83-85, 95-99].

Classification – Core vs. Non-Core Sector – Linked Consumers Not a Homogeneous Class – Article 14 Not Violated – Respondents argued that once linked, all consumers formed a single class – Rejected – Held: Core and non-core classification continued to serve valid purposes under national policy for equitable distribution of coal – The linkage system was administrative and did not erase original classification – Price differentiation justified [Paras 100-104].

Price Fixation – Executive Authority under Colliery Control Order – Valid Exercise of Power – Coal India Limited was within its authority under the Colliery Control Order to notify revised prices post e-auction quashing – Ashoka Smokeless did not bar such revision – Policy was made in response to court ruling and to stabilize supply – Not violative of statutory scheme [Paras 109-112].

Refund of 20% Price Increase – Unjust Enrichment – Refund Denied – Even assuming invalidity of price hike, refund not automatic – Respondents failed to prove they bore the burden of excess price and did not pass it on – Refund in such context would result in unjust enrichment – Burden lies on claimant to prove actual loss – High Court erred in mechanically granting refund [Paras 114-139].

Reliance on Undertakings in Earlier Cases – No Independent Refund Right Created – Respondents relied on undertaking given in Somal Pipes to claim refund – Held: Undertaking was conditional and contingent on final adjudication of legality of price hike – Since Interim Policy found valid, refund does not follow [Paras 141-143].

Cited Cases Distinguished – Ashoka Smokeless, Tetulia Coke – Not Applicable to Present Facts – Supreme Court clarified that Ashoka Smokeless dealt with discrimination in e-auction prices – Interim Policy involved fixed price hike without auction – Likewise, refund orders in Tetulia Coke and Domco Smokeless were fact-specific and not binding for Interim Policy price hike cases [Paras 104-122].

Constitutional Principles – Article 39(b) and Resource Allocation – Auction Not Mandatory – Respondents argued that auction is the only constitutional means of resource allocation – Rejected – Court reiterated that while auction is desirable, it is not mandatory – State retains discretion in method of allocation provided it ensures fairness and public interest [Paras 83-85].

Final Judgment – Appeal Allowed – High Court Set Aside – No Refund Payable – The impugned High Court judgment ordering refund of 20% excess price was quashed – Interim Coal Policy held constitutionally valid – Price hike justified – Refund claims denied for failure to establish financial loss and unjust enrichment bar [Paras 144-147].

Civil Law - Limitation – Section 5 – Second Appeal by State Instrumentality – High Court condoned delay of 3966 days – Phrase “within such period” in Section 5 construed – Held: “within such period” covers the entire continuum from the date limitation starts running until the actual date of filing, not merely the period after expiry – Delay must be explained for the whole period – Condonation is an exception, not a right – Appeal allowed – Condonation set aside – Directions issued – Sections 3 & 5 Limitation Act applied [Paras 10–14, 15–21, 25–41, 49–51, 64–71, 83–86, 95–115, 261–266].

Interpretation – Section 5 Limitation Act – Meaning of “within such period” – Textual and contextual reading with “after the prescribed period” and “for not preferring … within such period” – Held: the phrase refers to both the original prescribed period and the period post-expiry till filing – Rewa Coal Fields (AIR 1962 SC 361) view treating it as only the post-expiry period held not the correct position – Ajit Singh Thakur (1981) 1 SCC 495 and State of M.P. v. Ramkumar Choudhary, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3612, followed and explained [Paras 25–41, 50–51, 82–86, 90–94, 98, 113–115].

Condonation Mechanics – “Extension” vs “Exclusion” – Marginal note to Section 5 (“Extension of prescribed period”) – Held: Condonation entails extension of limitation, not exclusion of only the overrun days – Reading “extension” as “exclusion” would distort Section 5 and negate judicial discretion even where sufficient cause is shown – Therefore, sufficient cause must span the entire relevant continuum and not merely the days to be “excluded” [Paras 95–113].

Section 5 – “Sufficient Cause” – Content and Limits – Liberal but disciplined approach – No indulgence where negligence, inaction, want of diligence/bona fides is imputable – “Explanation” vs “Excuse” distinguished – Length of delay is instructive but not determinative – Merits of the underlying case irrelevant at delay stage – Principles in Esha Bhattacharjee summarized and applied [Paras 116–127, 128–134, 135–143, 120–123, 140–143].

Limitation & Public Policy – Section 3 Limitation Act is mandatory – Courts must dismiss time-barred proceedings irrespective of pleas – Law of limitation furthers finality and certainty (interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium; vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt) – Dura lex sed lex – Liberal condonation cannot be used to defeat Section 3 or institutionalise inefficiency [Paras 58–71, 62–66, 228–235].

Appellate Review of Discretion – When can higher court interfere with condonation? – Two-pronged enquiry: (i) whether “sufficient cause” existed in law and on material; (ii) whether discretion was properly exercised – Interference warranted if contrary to law, capricious, ignores relevant facts, lacks evidentiary support, or misdirects on legal tests – Distinction between deciding condonation and appeal against condonation emphasised [Paras 144–170, 151–157, 161–169].

State Lethargy – No Preferential Treatment – Shift post Postmaster General (2012) – Earlier latitude in Chandra Mani, Lipok AO, K.V. Ayisumma etc. explained – Present position: State/public bodies stand on same footing as private litigants – Bureaucratic red-tapism, file-pushing, or “certificate cases” not sufficient cause absent bona fide diligence – Costs may follow for wastage of judicial time [Paras 171–191, 192–201, 210–219, 229–233].

Temporal Application – Exercise of discretion must be tested against governing law at time of decision; Postmaster General (2012) pre-dated the High Court’s order (2017) – Hence condonation could not rest on earlier liberal line – Change in law during pendency: appellate court may interfere where lower order is contrary to then-prevailing law [Paras 220–227].

Application to Facts – KHB’s 11-year delay – No explanation for period within limitation – Scapegoating of Executive Engineer rejected – No prompt corrective steps despite execution notice (28.03.2011) – High Court erred by considering merits and by treating departmental negligence as sufficient cause – Gross delay prejudices decree-holder and mocks finality – Condonation set aside – Costs imposed – Execution expedited [Paras 236–257, 258–260, 261–266].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court’s order condoning delay of 3966 days quashed – Additional cost of ₹25,000 on Respondent No. 1 payable to Karnataka State Legal Services Authority within 4 weeks (over and above ₹25,000 imposed by the High Court) – Principal Judge (Junior Division), Kalaburagi to conclude execution in E.P. No. 2/2011 within 2 months – Registry to circulate judgment to all High Courts [Paras 261–268].