Cheating – Issuance of Process – The CJM, Ahmednagar, issued process against the respondent under Sections 418 and 420 IPC without conducting an inquiry or directing an investigation as mandated by the amended Section 202 CrPC, given the respondent resided outside the magistrate's jurisdiction – The High Court quashed the issuance of process for non-compliance [Paras 3-5].

Section 202 CrPC – Amendment and Obligation – The 2005 amendment to Section 202 CrPC requires a magistrate to conduct an inquiry or direct an investigation before issuing process against an accused residing beyond the magistrate's jurisdiction – The amendment aims to prevent harassment of individuals through false complaints filed in distant jurisdictions [Paras 7-9].

Remand for Fresh Orders – The High Court's quashing of the complaint was inappropriate – Instead, it should have directed the CJM to pass fresh orders complying with Section 202 CrPC – The Supreme Court remitted the matter to the CJM, Ahmednagar, to pass fresh orders within two months, uninfluenced by the High Court's conclusions [Paras 10-11].

Decision – Appeal Disposed of – Matter remitted to the CJM, Ahmednagar, for fresh orders following the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC within two months from the date of receipt of this order [Para 11].

Limitation – Suit Filed in Time – Plaintiffs invoked Section 15(5) of the Limitation Act 1963, claiming exclusion of the period during which the defendant was absent from India – Based on the precedent set in P.C.K. Muthia Chettiar vs. V.E.S. Shanmugham Chettiar, the court held that the period of the defendant’s absence from India must be excluded, making the suit filed by the plaintiffs within time [Paras 13-15].

Readiness and Willingness – Breach of Contract – The plaintiffs were found to be ready and willing to perform their part of the contract – The defendant’s demand for an additional payment not stipulated in the agreement constituted a breach on his part – The High Court’s application of the business efficacy principle to justify the defendant’s demand was deemed inappropriate [Paras 16-25].

Specific Performance – Discretionary Relief – The court emphasized that efflux of time and increased property value alone cannot justify denial of specific performance – Balancing the equities, the plaintiffs were granted specific performance with the sale deed to be executed at the current market value of the property – The trial judge was directed to assess the market value expeditiously [Paras 27-30].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – The findings and conclusions of the High Court were set aside – The plaintiffs’ suit for specific performance was decreed with conditions on the market price assessment to be conducted by the trial judge [Paras 30-31].

Criminal Conspiracy – Evidence of Meeting of Minds – Prosecution established that N.V. Subba Rao (A-1) entered into a conspiracy with Attur Prabhakar Hegde (A-2) to defraud the Central Bank of India – Evidence included correspondence, loan applications, and testimonies proving the disbursement of loans without following proper procedures and without obtaining required security [Paras 5-20].

Misuse of Official Position – Abusing Power for Pecuniary Gain – A-1 abused his position as a Branch Manager to sanction loans and overdrafts fraudulently, causing financial loss to the bank – Prosecution demonstrated that loans were sanctioned based on false documents and without necessary collateral, benefitting A-2 and causing wrongful loss to the bank [Paras 21-30].

Due Process and Conviction – High Court upheld the trial court’s findings but reduced the sentence considering A-1's age – Supreme Court examined the evidence, statements, and procedural compliance, affirming the conviction based on the substantial evidence presented by the prosecution [Paras 31-40].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Convictions under Sections 120B, 420, 468, 471 IPC and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act were upheld – Sentence reduction by the High Court was affirmed – Both appeals were dismissed [Para 40].

Administrative Law – Seniority and Promotion – Appeals concerned the inter se seniority of officers recruited through regular and special batches in the Assam Police Service – Appointments through special recruitment found to be in violation of rules, particularly Rule 5(1)(c) of the Assam Police Service Rules, 1966 – Special batch recruits appointed earlier were treated as senior to regular batch recruits – Tribunal and High Court ruled that regular batch recruits should be senior, leading to the appeals [Paras 1-24].

Administrative Tribunal Act – Limitation and Jurisdiction – Tribunal's jurisdiction to hear appeals regarding seniority upheld – Appeals not barred by limitation as they concerned seniority, not the validity of appointments – Tribunal's decision based on detailed analysis of rules and recruitment process [Paras 25-28].

Police Service Rules – Special Recruitment – Recruitment under Rule 5(1)(c) meant for special cases and limited to 5% of total cadre strength – Selection process violated by exceeding quota and bypassing mandatory procedures – Special batch recruits appointed irregularly and without proper approval – Tribunal and High Court's decision to refix seniority in favor of regular batch upheld [Paras 29-39].

Decision:

Appeals dismissed – Appointments of special batch recruits deemed irregular but not annulled due to long service and subsequent promotions – Seniority refixed in favor of regular batch recruits – Directions for implementing revised seniority list issued [Paras 40-54].

Compassionate Appointment – Eligibility and Vacancy – Appeal concerns rejection of compassionate appointment application due to no available vacancies and non-qualification of the applicant – Appellant's father, Vijay Bahadur Singh, died in service, and the application was made for the appointment of his son, Prabhat Singh – CAT-Allahabad and CAT-Lucknow directed reconsideration of the application – High Court's direction to consider appointment despite non-availability of vacancy challenged [Paras 1-17].

Administrative Law – Compassionate Appointment – The appointment on compassionate grounds is governed by rules and is permissible only if vacancies exist within the quota for direct recruitment – Non-availability of vacancies and the requirement for necessary qualifications are valid grounds for rejection – The court emphasized that sympathy cannot override statutory requirements and prescribed norms [Paras 13-16].

Judicial Review – Scope and Limits – The court reiterated that judicial sympathy should not lead to directions for appointments that contravene established rules and regulations – Directions for reconsideration by CAT and High Court were without adequate consideration of the statutory limitations on appointments [Paras 16-17].

Decision:

Appeal allowed – High Court's order directing the appointment of Prabhat Singh set aside – Emphasized strict adherence to the rules governing compassionate appointments and the importance of maintaining the integrity of statutory requirements [Paras 17-18].

Penal Code – Eve-Teasing – Departmental Disciplinary Action – Police officer accused of eve-teasing a married woman was dismissed from service following a departmental enquiry – High Court directed reinstatement with back wages following acquittal in criminal proceedings – Supreme Court upheld dismissal, emphasizing that acquittal does not automatically impact departmental disciplinary proceedings, especially when not honourably acquitted – Departmental proceedings rely on preponderance of probabilities, not proof beyond reasonable doubt required in criminal trials [Paras 1-25].

Criminal Proceedings – Acquittal Impact – Mere acquittal in a criminal case does not entitle the accused to reinstatement in service – Distinction between acquittal and honourable acquittal is crucial – Departmental actions are independent and based on different standards of proof – Honourable acquittal not achieved when key witnesses turn hostile and not all evidence is considered [Paras 15-23].

Public Interest – Preventing Eve-Teasing – Supreme Court highlighted the importance of measures to curb eve-teasing in public places – Issued directions to state governments and union territories to implement preventive measures including deploying female police officers in plain clothes, installing CCTV, and establishing Women’s Helplines – Emphasized the role of institutions and the public in reporting incidents of eve-teasing [Paras 26-32].

Decision:

Appeal allowed – High Court's order set aside – Directions issued for immediate preventive measures against eve-teasing – Reinforced that departmental disciplinary actions remain valid despite criminal acquittal when based on substantial evidence [Para 33].

Penal Code – Possession of Stolen Property – Conviction – Appeal challenging conviction under Section 412 IPC for possessing stolen property from dacoity – Conviction under Section 412 IPC requires knowledge that property was acquired through dacoity or that the seller belonged to a gang of dacoits – Evidence established appellant's reasonable belief that silver chips were stolen but not that they were acquired through dacoity or sold by a known dacoit – Conviction under Section 411 IPC upheld, but conviction under Section 412 IPC set aside – Sentence reduced to one year rigorous imprisonment and fine [Paras 1-17].

Criminal Law – Knowledge vs. Reasonable Belief – Prosecution failed to prove appellant knew or had reason to believe silver chips were obtained through dacoity – Evidence only supported conviction under Section 411 IPC, which deals with receiving stolen property – Distinction between knowledge of theft and knowledge of theft by dacoity crucial for Section 412 IPC [Paras 11-15].

Decision:

Appeal partly allowed – Conviction under Section 412 IPC set aside – Conviction under Section 411 IPC maintained – Sentence reduced to one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- with an additional one-month simple imprisonment in case of default [Paras 16-17].

Land Acquisition – Enhancement of Compensation – Appeals concern the jurisdiction of the High Court to enhance compensation under the amended provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, by entertaining applications under Sections 151 and 152 of the CPC – High Court's orders granting enhanced solatium and interest were held to be without jurisdiction and thus null and void – Execution petitions based on such orders were dismissed [Paras 1-23].

Legal Precedent – Jurisdiction and Finality – Awards and decrees under the Land Acquisition Act that have attained finality cannot be amended to enhance compensation benefits based on subsequent legislative amendments by filing applications under Sections 151 and 152 of the CPC – High Court lacks jurisdiction to independently pass awards for enhanced compensation under amended provisions if the original awards have become final [Paras 18-23].

Decision:

Appeals allowed – Orders of the High Court and Additional District Judge set aside – Execution petitions for enhanced compensation based on the amended Land Acquisition Act dismissed – Parties to bear their own costs [Paras 23-25].

Service Law – Suspension – Acquittal – Acquittal of an employee does not automatically entitle him to reinstatement or full back wages – Disciplinary authority retains the power to hold a departmental enquiry even after criminal trial acquittal – Entitlement to salary and other allowances upon reinstatement must be examined at various stages/points of time [Paras 1-16].

Judicial Review – Suspension and Disciplinary Proceedings – Supreme Court held that suspension during the period of criminal trial was justified – Continued suspension after acquittal by the trial court but pending appeal was also justified – Suspension during the period of departmental enquiry after dismissal of the criminal appeal was unjustified – Directed reinstatement with full pay and allowances from the date of dismissal of the appeal [Paras 32-46].

Decision:

Appeal partly allowed – Suspension during criminal trial and pending appeal justified – Suspension during departmental enquiry unjustified – Petitioner entitled to full pay and allowances from the date of dismissal of the criminal appeal by the Delhi High Court – Entitled to notional promotion from the date when a junior was promoted – High Court directed to consider and implement promotion within three months – All consequential benefits to be paid with 6% interest from the date of dismissal of the appeal – Awarded Rs. 25,000/- costs to the petitioner [Paras 46-47].