Criminal Procedure – First Information Report (FIR) – A cryptic telephonic information cannot be treated as an FIR – The telephonic message received from an unknown person about an unknown person's murder lacks the formal requirements under Section 154 of the CrPC – The complaint made by PW-1 Susanta Sarkar treated as FIR [Paras 35-42].

Witness Testimony – Examination Delay – Delay in examination of a witness does not necessarily make the prosecution's version suspect – The testimony of PW-7 Sanatan Sarkar rejected due to delayed examination without explanation – PW-8 Achintya Sarkar's testimony accepted despite the delay as he successfully withstood cross-examination [Paras 43-62].

Murder vs. Culpable Homicide – Distinction between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder under IPC – Despite the severe injuries inflicted, the intention to murder was not proven beyond doubt – Conviction altered from murder under Section 302 IPC to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 IPC [Paras 70-72].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – Conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside – Appellant convicted under Section 304 IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years – Fine and default sentence awarded by the Trial Court maintained [Para 72-73].

Agricultural Land Ceiling – Determination of Excess Land – The State of Gujarat contended that the respondent held lands in excess of the ceiling limit under the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960. The respondent argued that the lands were covered under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. The Single Judge of the High Court accepted the respondent's stand, which was upheld by the Division Bench [Paras 2-4].

Constitutional and Statutory Interpretation – Interaction of Land Ceiling Laws – The case explores the constitutional validity and interaction between the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960, and the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, particularly in light of amendments and legislative intent [Paras 6-12].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the High Court, confirming that the lands in question were governed by the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, and not the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960. The proceedings initiated under the latter were deemed null and void [Paras 13-14].

Criminal Procedure – Plea Bargaining – High Court's acceptance of the concession by counsel regarding non-challenge to conviction without evaluating the merits is impermissible – Courts must satisfy themselves of the correctness of the conviction even if the counsel concedes – A plea bargain cannot dictate the outcome of a criminal case as it undermines the judicial process [Paras 15-22].

Legitimate Expectation – Right to Appeal – A convicted person has the legitimate expectation of a full hearing on the merits of the case – It is the duty of the courts to ensure justice by thoroughly examining the evidence and the conviction, regardless of concessions made by the defense counsel – Fundamental rights under Article 21 necessitate this due process [Paras 16, 21].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s decision and remitted the case to the High Court to be decided on merits – The appellants were to be released on bail pending the final decision of the High Court [Para 22].

Murder – Circumstantial Evidence – Even with a hostile eyewitness, circumstantial evidence can lead to a conviction if all facts and circumstances point to a single conclusion – The appellant's conduct and recovery of a bloodstained cloth were significant – The conviction was modified to culpable homicide not amounting to murder due to lack of intent to kill [Paras 22-40].

Hostile Witness – Credibility and Corroboration – The testimony of a hostile witness need not be rejected outright – The court should assess the credibility and look for corroboration – The eyewitness's partial testimony was accepted and corroborated by medical evidence and other facts [Paras 23-33].

Intention to Kill – Evaluation of Evidence – The court determined that the appellant did not have the intent to kill but had knowledge that his actions could likely cause death – Thus, the conviction was altered from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 IPC, Part II [Paras 35-40].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside – Appellant convicted under Section 304 IPC, Part II – Sentenced to the period already undergone, which was over eight years [Paras 41-43].

Criminal Procedure – Sentence Reduction – The appellants were convicted under Section 8(1) read with Section 8(2) of the Kerala Abkari Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment and fine – The High Court reduced the sentence from three years to 18 months – The Supreme Court further reduced the sentence to one year and reduced the default sentence for failure to pay the fine to fifteen days – The Court noted that the appellants were small-time operators and not the masterminds behind the illicit trade [Paras 10-12].

Judicial Discretion – Fine Imposition – Section 8(2) of the Kerala Abkari Act prescribes a minimum fine of Rs. 100,000 without an upper limit, leading to discrimination against poor offenders who cannot pay the fine and thus face extended imprisonment – The Court suggested the desirability of judicial discretion in fine imposition to avoid such discrimination [Paras 13-14].

Decision – Appeal Allowed to Limited Extent – Sentence of imprisonment reduced to one year – Default sentence for failure to pay the fine reduced to fifteen days – Relief extended to accused No. 1, who did not appeal, due to similar circumstances [Paras 11-14].

Auction Sale – Deposit of Purchase Money – Compliance with Order 21 Rules 84 and 85 CPC – The auction purchaser deposited 25% of the bid amount on the date of the auction and the remaining 75% within the statutory period – The auction was confirmed by the Executing Court and upheld by the High Court – The appellant's contention of non-compliance was rejected as the deposits were made within the time frame allowed by law [Paras 8-14].

Judicial Interpretation – "Immediately" – The term "immediately" in Order 21 Rule 84 CPC interpreted to mean with all reasonable speed considering the circumstances – The Court held that in high-value auctions, immediate payment in cash is not feasible, and reasonable time is allowed for preparing demand drafts [Para 14].

Application to Set Aside Sale – Order 21 Rule 89 CPC – The appellant's application to set aside the sale was dismissed due to failure to deposit the required amount within the specified time – The deposit under Rule 89 must be unconditional, and the application cannot be entertained without compliance [Paras 19-21].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the decisions of the Executing Court and the High Court – The belated offer to deposit the amount was rejected [Para 22].

Auction Sale – Fairness and Transparency – The High Court set aside the auction sale due to lack of fairness and transparency, directing a re-auction with proper public notification – The Supreme Court conducted further auctions and confirmed the sale for Rs. 5.04 crores, with conditions for the appellants to deposit an additional Rs. 50 lacs [Paras 13-16].

Role of Official Liquidator – The High Court correctly held that the official liquidator must participate in the sale process to ensure the highest price is obtained – The Supreme Court concurred with this finding but confirmed the sale due to the exhaustive auction process conducted [Paras 17-18].

Workmen's Rights – The High Court should address the settlement of workmen's dues, with submissions made by the first and second respondents taken into account – The matter was recommended to be placed before the same Division Bench for consistent adjudication [Paras 19-20].

Decision – Appeal Disposed of – The Supreme Court confirmed the sale subject to the appellants depositing Rs. 50 lacs within three months – All impleadment applications were allowed, and bidders were permitted to withdraw their earnest money deposits [Paras 21-22].

Termination of Probationary Service – Probationers have no inherent right to hold a post – The services of probationers can be terminated during or at the end of the probation period based on general suitability – Bank’s right to punish probationers for defined misconduct, misbehavior, or misdemeanor must be exercised in compliance with natural justice principles [Paras 15-18].

Probation and Confirmation – Distinction between satisfactory completion of probation and successful passing of training/tests – Confirmatory tests for probationers must be fair, transparent, and adhere to the principles of natural justice [Paras 11-19].

Due Process and Natural Justice – Termination on grounds of misconduct requires fair hearing – Allegations of using unfair means in a test necessitate inquiry and opportunity for the accused to respond – Failure to provide such opportunity can render termination punitive and invalid [Paras 12-18].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Court emphasized the need for adherence to due process and natural justice in termination cases involving allegations of misconduct during probation [Paras 20-22].

Parole – Life Convict – Release on Parole – Krishan Lal was sentenced to life imprisonment without premature release based on a specific Supreme Court order due to threats to the complainant's family – Regular parole was denied under Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Prisons (Release on Parole) Rules, 1958, despite previous parole grants before the Supreme Court order – Parole for humanitarian reasons under Rule 10-A(i) remains available subject to stringent conditions to ensure safety of the complainant’s family [Paras 6-12].

Parole Rules – Humanitarian Grounds – Rule 10-A(i) allows parole in emergent cases involving illness, death, natural calamity, or marriage of close relatives for a limited period – Any such parole must impose stringent conditions for security and guarantee return to jail [Paras 11-12].

Decision – Appeals Disposed of – Denial of regular parole affirmed – Temporary parole on humanitarian grounds permitted under strict conditions to ensure safety and adherence to legal requirements [Paras 12-13].