Narcotics Law – Search and Seizure – Appellant convicted for possessing 3.5 kgs of opium under Section 18 of the NDPS Act – Prosecution supported by evidence from police witnesses – Sole independent witness declared hostile but did not deny signing the seizure list – FSL report confirmed the sample was intact and sealed correctly – Court held conscious possession of contraband was presumed under Section 54 of NDPS Act and no contrary evidence was presented by the appellant – Search conducted by DSP resulted in recovery from the appellant’s tin – Appeal dismissed [Paras 7-14].

Procedural Compliance – Section 50 NDPS Act – Appellant contended the investigation was defective and not in accordance with Section 50 – Court found compliance with mandatory provisions, recovery was made by DSP on the scene – No prejudice due to delay in sending samples to FSL as the seal was intact – Weight discrepancy accounted for by inclusion of container in FSL report [Paras 4-12].

Sentencing – Minimum Imprisonment for Commercial Quantity – Appellant sentenced to 10 years RI and fine of Rs. 1 lakh – Court noted commercial quantity mandates minimum 10-year sentence under Section 18(b) of NDPS Act – No provision in the Act allows for reduction of sentence for special or adequate reasons – Appeal for sentence reduction rejected [Para 13].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s and trial court’s decisions, finding no infirmity in the prosecution’s case or procedural compliance – Conviction and sentence confirmed [Para 14].

Consumer Protection – Medical Negligence and Unfair Trade Practice – Respondent falsely advertised and administered allopathic medicines as Ayurvedic treatments to appellant’s child, resulting in deterioration of the child's condition – NCDRC awarded Rs. 5 lakhs, directing Rs. 2.5 lakhs to be paid to the appellant and Rs. 2.5 lakhs to be deposited in Consumer Legal Aid account – Supreme Court enhanced compensation to Rs. 15 lakhs, payable entirely to the appellant – Respondent found guilty of deceptive practices and negligence [Paras 14-16].

Professional Misconduct – Authority to Prescribe Allopathic Medicines – Respondent claimed entitlement under U.P. Indian Medicine Act, 1939 to prescribe allopathic medicines – Court found no registration with the Medical Council or enrollment in State Medical Register – Letter dated 24th February 2003, relied upon by respondent, was not applicable retrospectively to the period of treatment (1994-1997) – National Commission erred in accepting respondent’s claim without proper registration proof [Paras 12-14].

Quantum of Compensation – Justification and Enhancement – Supreme Court criticized NCDRC for deducting part of the compensation for Consumer Legal Aid without clear reasons – Full compensation awarded to appellant considering physical and mental injury suffered due to respondent’s malpractice – Compensation enhanced to ensure just relief to the appellant [Para 16].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Enhanced compensation to Rs. 15 lakhs payable to the appellant within three months – No separate order as to costs [Para 16].

Criminal Law – Common Intention and Constructive Liability – Appellant convicted of accepting illegal gratification along with another accused – High Court upheld conviction under Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC – Supreme Court reviewed evidence, establishing that both accused shared common intention and were present during the bribery transaction – Appellant’s role in demanding and accepting bribe affirmed by corroborative testimonies and circumstantial evidence [Paras 8-16].

Legal Principles – Application of Section 34 IPC – To attract Section 34 IPC, prosecution must prove that the act was done by more than one person with shared common intention – Common intention can develop at the crime scene and does not require each accused to perform a separate act – Evidence showed appellant’s active participation and presence, justifying application of Section 34 IPC [Paras 9-15].

Presumption and Burden of Proof – Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act – Prosecution established prima facie case with direct evidence of bribery and possession of tainted money – Burden shifted to appellant to disprove the allegations, which was not satisfactorily done – Conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act upheld [Paras 5-7, 12].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the trial court and High Court, concluding no error in convicting the appellant – Sentence reduction by High Court maintained – Appellant’s conviction and sentence upheld [Para 16].

Civil Procedure — Stay of Suit — Basic purpose and underlying object of Section 10 CPC — To prevent courts of concurrent jurisdiction from simultaneously entertaining and adjudicating upon two parallel litigations in respect of the same cause of action, same subject matter, and same relief — For Section 10 to apply, the court where the previous suit is pending must be competent to grant the relief claimed in the subsequent suit — Provisions of Section 10 not attracted when only a few matters in issue are common but the entire subject matter in controversy is not the same [Paras 1-14].

Concurrent Jurisdiction — Res Judicata — Test for applicability of Section 10 CPC — Whether the final decision in the previously instituted suit would operate as res judicata in the subsequent suit — If yes, Section 10 applies, and the subsequent suit is stayed — If no, Section 10 is not attracted — Appeal allowed [Paras 9-13].

Decision — Appeal Allowed — Orders of the Trial Court and the High Court set aside — Trial court's stay order under Section 10 CPC vacated — Liberty granted to parties to request the trial court to hear all suits together, subject to trial court’s discretion [Para 16].

Criminal Law — Culpable Homicide and Murder — High Court accepted prosecution version of murder due to intentional and brutal nature of the crime — Trial Judge initially convicted appellant under Section 304 Part I IPC but High Court reversed to Section 302 IPC — Evidence of premeditated intent to cause death — Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-20].

Culpable Homicide not Amounting to Murder — Conversion to Murder — Analysis of injuries and conduct of accused leading to conclusion of intentional and brutal murder — High Court justified in converting conviction from Section 304 Part I to Section 302 IPC [Paras 14-19].

Evidence and Witnesses — Acceptance of hostile witness testimony to the extent it supports prosecution — Scientific evidence corroborating prosecution version — Injuries consistent with intentional infliction and dragging of the body [Paras 10-13].

Decision — Appeals dismissed — Conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC affirmed by the Supreme Court [Para 20].

Company Law — Maintainability of Petition — Sections 397, 398, and 399 of the Companies Act, 1956 — Petition filed with consent of shareholders holding 10% shares is maintainable — Withdrawal of petition by original petitioners does not render the petition non-existent or non-maintainable — Consenting shareholders are entitled to be transposed as petitioners [Paras 6-11].

Locus Standi and Limitation — Supreme Court's order allowed appellant to file an independent appeal without objections on locus standi and limitation — High Court's reliance on earlier orders dismissing appeals as withdrawn was erroneous — Appellant entitled to proceed with appeals [Paras 17-22].

Representative Suits — Order XXIII Rule 1(5) CPC — Suit filed in representative capacity cannot be withdrawn without consulting all represented persons — Withdrawal without such consultation renders the order unjustified and without jurisdiction [Paras 19-20].

Decision — Appeals allowed — High Court's order set aside — Matter remanded to High Court for fresh decision in adherence to Supreme Court's judgment — High Court to decide expeditiously within six months [Para 30].

Criminal Law — Murder Conviction — Accused convicted for the murder of his wife based on circumstantial evidence — Deceased found dead in a locked house — Husband absconded and provided no explanation — Suspicion of illicit relationship established as motive — Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-20].

Circumstantial Evidence — Chain of circumstances must be complete and point to guilt of accused — Established that deceased was with the accused, house was locked from outside, and accused absconded — No plausible explanation from accused — Conviction upheld [Paras 14-19].

Motive — Suspicion of wife's fidelity as motive — Testimonies of relatives indicating harassment due to alleged illicit relationship — Motive sufficiently established despite hostile witnesses [Paras 11-13].

Decision — Appeal dismissed — Conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC affirmed by the Supreme Court [Para 20].

Labour Law — Unfair Labour Practice — Sections 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 — Engagement of large number of temporary employees by the company — Employees claimed unfair labour practices under items 5, 6, and 9 of Schedule IV of the Act — Industrial Court found the company indulged in unfair labour practice under item 6 — High Court affirmed the findings — Supreme Court modified the compensation order while affirming the conclusion of unfair labour practice [Paras 1-22].

Evidence — Adoption of Previous Evidence — Evidence from earlier ULP complaint No. 192 of 1997 adopted in current proceedings by consensus of parties — Contention that individual workmen should adduce separate evidence rejected — Such adoption considered valid and not creating any illegality [Paras 12-13].

Mala Fide Intent — Necessary for Unfair Labour Practice — Appellant’s argument on lack of mala fide intent and object to deprive workmen of permanency rejected — Prior Supreme Court finding on similar evidence upheld — Justification of conclusion on unfair labour practice reaffirmed [Paras 16-17].

Compensation — Reasonable Compensation Awarded — Compensation modified from 85 days' salary to 65 days' salary per year worked — No recovery of differential sum already withdrawn by workmen directed [Paras 18-21].

Decision — Appeals disposed of with modifications in compensation order — Industrial Court's order affirmed with modifications [Para 22].

Service Law — Selection Process — Challenge to Selection Procedure — Private Respondents challenged the advertisement and selection process only after failing the test — Held, by participating in the selection process, candidates waived their right to later question the methodology — Appeals allowed, High Court orders set aside [Paras 17-24].

Waiver and Estoppel — Candidates aware of General Rules — Participation in the selection process without objection results in waiver of right to challenge — Doctrine of waiver applies when candidates take a chance and later challenge upon unsuccessful outcome [Paras 18-24].

Direct Recruitment — Application of General Rules — Advertisement and Office Memorandum clearly indicated recruitment under General Rules — Candidates’ knowledge and participation affirmed application of General Rules over Special Rules [Paras 12-17].

Decision — Appeals allowed — High Court and Single Judge orders set aside — Writ petition by private respondents dismissed [Para 26].