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].

Criminal Law – Dowry Death – Conviction under Sections 304B and 498A IPC – Appellant convicted based on testimony alleging harassment and dowry demands – Supreme Court found no direct evidence of cruelty or harassment soon before death – Evidence from mother of deceased deemed hearsay and insufficient for conviction [Paras 5-9].

Evidence Law – Admissibility and Sufficiency – Section 60 Evidence Act requires direct evidence – Testimony from mother of deceased based on hearsay not admissible – No corroborative evidence presented by prosecution – Conviction cannot be sustained on uncorroborated hearsay evidence [Paras 6-7, 9].

Definition and Proof of Dowry Death – Section 304B IPC – Essential ingredients: unnatural death within seven years of marriage, cruelty or harassment for dowry soon before death – Prosecution failed to prove harassment soon before death – Conviction under Section 304B IPC not justified [Paras 8-13].

Presumption under Section 113B Evidence Act – Applies only if cruelty or harassment soon before death is proven – Prosecution failed to establish essential ingredients – Presumption of dowry death not applicable [Paras 12-13].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 304B and 498A IPC set aside – Appellant No. 1 already served sentence, no further direction needed – Appellant No. 2's bail bonds discharged [Paras 15].

Rectification of Instruments – Section 26 of Specific Relief Act – Appeal involved rectification of property settlement deeds due to alleged mistake – High Court held that the rectification deed executed by father and appellant was not binding on respondent as she was not a party to it – Supreme Court affirmed limited application of Section 26, requiring fraud or mutual mistake of parties for rectification [Paras 5-7].

Undue Influence – Section 16 of Contract Act – Allegation of undue influence in signing agreement for property exchange – High Court found document clouded with suspicion and unexplained circumstances – Supreme Court upheld finding of undue influence, noting lack of examination of attesting witnesses and failure to prove contents of agreement [Paras 8-13, 20-24].

Admissibility and Proof of Documents – Admissibility of unregistered document (Ex. A-3) considered – Supreme Court emphasized necessity of proving contents of document despite admissibility – Appellant failed to examine attesting witnesses or scribe of document – No fault found in High Court's conclusion [Paras 14-17, 26].

Onus of Proof – Burden on party alleging undue influence – High Court correctly concluded appellant failed to discharge burden – Contract appeared unconscionable given disproportionate value of exchanged properties [Paras 16-19, 27].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – High Court's judgment setting aside trial court decree upheld – Appellant's failure to prove voluntary execution of agreement and existence of undue influence affirmed [Para 28].

Public Employment – Co-terminus Appointments – Respondents appointed as personal staff to Chairman on co-terminus basis – Appointments terminated upon cessation of Chairman’s tenure – Respondents challenged termination, sought regularization based on a resolution passed by Chairman and approved by Lt. Governor – Supreme Court held respondents had no right to continue after Chairman's tenure ended – Absorption and regularization without following proper recruitment procedures violative of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution [Paras 2-11, 17-21].

Recruitment Rules – Adherence to Procedures – Appointments not made through Employment Exchange or competitive process – Proposal for absorption not routed through normal administrative channels – Supreme Court emphasized necessity of following established recruitment rules to prevent backdoor entries and maintain equality in public employment [Paras 15-20].

Judicial Review – Procedural Irregularities – High Court allowed writ petition at admission stage without giving appellants opportunity to present facts – Division Bench upheld Single Judge’s decision without addressing substantive issues – Supreme Court found High Court erred in ordering implementation of irregular appointments [Paras 16-21].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court’s judgments and orders set aside – Writ petitions dismissed – Co-terminus employees not entitled to regularization or continuation in service after Chairman’s tenure ended [Para 22].

Criminal Law – Unlawful Assembly and Murder – Conviction under Sections 148, 302 read with 149, 452, and 325 read with 149 IPC – Incident involving altercation and subsequent assault on the deceased – Appellants armed with lathis and lethal weapons entered deceased's house and inflicted fatal injuries – Prosecution established case beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction upheld [Paras 2-11].

Evidence – Injured Witness Testimony – Prosecution relied on injured eye-witness (mother of deceased) – Her testimony corroborated by medical evidence and other witnesses – Injuries on deceased and eye-witness consistent with prosecution’s version – Supreme Court affirmed credibility and sufficiency of injured witness’s testimony [Paras 6-8].

Medical Evidence – Post Mortem Report – Medical examination confirmed fatal injuries inflicted by appellants – Injuries sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature – Testimony of Dr. S.P. Jain supported prosecution’s case [Paras 9-11].

Sentence and Leniency – Appellants sought reduction in sentence citing age and period already served – Supreme Court rejected plea for leniency – Noted that minimum sentence for conviction under Section 302 IPC cannot be reduced – Appellant No. 2 allowed to seek remission from government based on age [Paras 12-13].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence by trial court and High Court upheld – Appellants' plea for sentence reduction rejected [Para 13].

Representing Advocates:

Lakhan Sing Chauhan and Anil Shrivastav for the Appellant

Vibha Datta Makhija for the Respondent

Defamation – Role of Editor – Appeal against High Court quashing prosecution of Editor of "Sandesh" newspaper – Appellant alleged defamatory news published under instructions of Editor and Resident Editor – High Court quashed prosecution citing lack of specific allegations against Editor – Supreme Court held complaint contained sufficient averments implicating Editor – Presumption under Section 7 of Press and Registration of Books Act applicable – High Court’s order set aside [Paras 12-24].

Presumption under Press and Registration of Books Act – Section 7 – Editor’s name printed in newspaper implies responsibility for content – Rebuttable presumption sufficient for prosecution to proceed – High Court erred in ignoring statutory presumption and quashing complaint [Paras 15-18].

Power to Quash Proceedings – High Court’s jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC – Supreme Court emphasized allegations in complaint must be assumed true at initial stage – Detailed examination of evidence reserved for trial – High Court’s premature quashing of complaint based on factual assumptions improper [Paras 12-24].

Distinction between Editor and Other Roles – Chief Editor, Resident Editor, and other roles not covered by statutory presumption – Specific allegations required for prosecution – Present case involves statutory presumption against named Editor [Paras 20-23].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court’s order quashing prosecution set aside – Trial court to proceed with trial in accordance with law [Paras 24-25].

Criminal Law – Validity of Section 32A NDPS Act – Petitioner's challenge to the denial of remission benefits under Section 32A – Supreme Court upheld the validity of Section 32A, noting that remission does not reduce the sentence but merely wipes out part of the sentence not served – Rejected the argument that Section 32A imposed a heavier penalty retroactively [Paras 1-10].

Constitutional Law – Article 20(1) – Ex Post Facto Laws – Supreme Court held that Section 32A does not increase the penalty for offenses committed prior to its enactment but only affects executive remission powers – No violation of Article 20(1) as it does not alter the punishment prescribed by law at the time of the offense [Paras 9-10].

Constitutional Law – Articles 14 and 21 – Equal Protection and Right to Life – The court referred to Dadu @ Tulsidas vs. State of Maharashtra, confirming that different treatment of NDPS convicts in terms of remission is not arbitrary or discriminatory, and does not violate the right to life [Paras 2-3].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – Held – Section 32A of the NDPS Act does not violate Articles 14, 20(1), or 21 of the Constitution – Supreme Court found no merit in the arguments against the provision [Para 10].