Criminal Law – Murder – Conviction under Sections 302/149 IPC – Presence of accused at place of occurrence established – Evidence inconsistent and contradictory regarding individual acts – No convincing proof of fatal injuries caused by appellants – Common object of assembly to use force established but not to commit murder – Conviction under Sections 147 and 148 IPC upheld, acquittal under Section 302/149 IPC [Paras 1-23].

Constructive Liability – Section 149 IPC – Principles governing constructive liability discussed – Importance of examining common object of assembly and knowledge of likely commission of offense [Paras 12-19].

Decision: Appeals partly allowed – Conviction under Sections 147 and 148 IPC maintained – Conviction under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC set aside – Appellants to be released if they have served the sentence for Sections 147 and 148 IPC [Para 23].

Criminal Law – Rioting and Mischief by Fire – Conviction under Sections 148 and 436 IPC – Large number of offenders and victims – Conviction sustained based on consistent testimony of at least two or more witnesses – Accused identified and their involvement established beyond reasonable doubt – Reduction of sentence by High Court from 7 years to 3 years not warranted – Appeals dismissed [Paras 1-14].

Witness Testimony – Requirement of Multiple Witnesses – In cases involving large assemblies or group clashes, conviction requires consistent identification and testimony from at least two witnesses – Ensuring no innocent is convicted while holding perpetrators accountable [Paras 7-9].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Conviction and reduced sentence by High Court upheld – Appellants directed to surrender to serve remaining sentence if any [Paras 14-16].

Service Law – Contempt Proceedings – Non-compliance with court orders regarding posting and salary of Sanskrit Pandit – High Court's direction to consider appellant's case in light of similar case ignored by authorities – Continuous delay in implementing court's directions despite clear orders and assurances [Paras 3-10].

Judicial Relief – Compensation for Delay – Instead of holding officials in contempt, court compensates appellant for delay – Appellant entitled to monetary benefits equivalent to proper posting from specified date – Costs awarded [Paras 11-12].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Respondent directed to assign suitable post and corresponding monetary benefits to appellant from 21.07.1999 – Compliance to be completed within three months – Appellant awarded costs of Rs. 25,000 [Paras 11-12].

Representing Advocates:

For the appellant: Ambika Das, Rekha Pandey

For the respondent: Radha Shyam Jena

Criminal Law – Circumstantial Evidence – Conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC – Absence of direct evidence – Conviction based on consistent circumstantial evidence proving beyond reasonable doubt – Demands for dowry and ill-treatment established – Accused's unnatural behavior post-incident – Principles of circumstantial evidence reviewed and applied [Paras 10-15].

Dowry Death – Section 302 IPC – Conviction upheld – Consistent and reliable witness testimony regarding dowry demands and harassment – Recovery of weapon and blood-stained shirt at the instance of the accused – Absence of the accused post-incident not satisfactorily explained [Paras 14-15].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction under Section 302 IPC and sentence of life imprisonment affirmed [Para 15].

Specific Relief – Agreement for Sale – Discretionary relief under Specific Relief Act – Appellant's agreement for sale of flat and possession letter – Trial Court's orders in favor of appellant set aside by High Court – High Court's adverse comments on appellant's conduct deemed unwarranted – Case remanded for decision on merits without influence of prior observations [Paras 6-8].

Procedure – Pending Suits – Main suits pending and transferred to City Civil Court – Directions issued for expeditious disposal of suits – Protection of deposited amount until final decision – Observations on appellant's conduct by High Court expunged [Paras 8(i)-8(v)].

Decision: Appeals disposed of – Suits to be decided within one year – Deposited amount to be maintained – Trial Court to decide issues on merits uninfluenced by prior comments – Status quo maintained until final decision [Paras 8(i)-8(v)].

Representing Advocates:

For the appellant: Ravi Shankar Prasad, Praveen Samdhani, S.K. Katriar, Abhay P. Sahay, Niraj Kumar, Suchita Pokharna, Himansu Shekhar, Anirudha Joshi, Viraj Maniar, Pramod B. Agarwala, Prashant Mehra, Ajay Amritraj, Ashish Prakash, Prabhat Kumar, Md. Shahid Anwar

Criminal Law – Corruption – Conviction under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Conviction under Section 7 of the Act set aside – High Court maintained conviction under Section 13(2) – Section 13(2) provides punishment for criminal misconduct – Conviction under Section 13(1)(a) required for Section 13(2) – In the absence of conviction under Section 7 or Section 13(1)(a), conviction under Section 13(2) cannot be sustained [Paras 7-9].

Evidence – Demand and Acceptance of Bribe – Requirement for conviction under corruption charges – No call records to support the demand for bribe – Witness testimony inconsistent and unreliable – Conviction based on circumstantial evidence without corroboration not sustainable [Paras 10-11].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, set aside – Appellant acquitted of charges – Bail bonds discharged [Paras 13].

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act – Section 50 – Search and Seizure – Appellants not apprised of their right to be searched before a Gazetted officer or Magistrate – Only consent for search was sought – Violation of mandatory requirement under Section 50 – Conviction and sentence based on such search vitiated [Paras 5-11].

Evidence – Right to Inform – Requirement to inform accused of right under Section 50 – Mere asking for consent insufficient – Mandatory strict compliance needed – Recovery of contraband suspect and conviction unsustainable if Section 50 not complied with [Paras 6, 9-10].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellants ordered to be released forthwith if not required in any other case [Paras 13-14].

Negotiable Instruments – Dishonour of Cheque – Complaint without Signature – Maintainability of complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act without the complainant's signature – Complaint verified by complainant and process issued by Magistrate – Requirements of Section 142(a) met as long as complaint is in writing – Signature not a necessary condition – Verified complaint safeguards accused’s interests – Complaint valid if verified by complainant and process issued [Paras 9-15].

Limitation – Period of Limitation – Relevant date for computing limitation is the date of filing of complaint, not the date of cognizance by Magistrate – Complaint filed within limitation period despite verification and signature obtained later [Paras 16-18].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act without signature is maintainable when verified by the complainant and process issued by Magistrate – Prosecution valid [Paras 19].

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of Charges – Section 482 CrPC – Power to quash proceedings after framing of charges is somewhat wider as materials revealed by investigation come on record – Such materials can be looked into not for determining guilt or innocence but for satisfaction that they do not disclose the commission of an offense alleged [Paras 15-16].

Forgery and Fraud – Prima Facie Case – Allegations of forgery and fraud in renewal and encashment of fixed deposits – No positive role of accused bank officials disclosed in materials – Criminal trial not to assume character of fishing and roving enquiry – Charges against bank officials not maintainable [Paras 19].

Evidence – Criminal Jurisprudence – Prosecution cannot continue based on mere hope and expectation – Criminal trial contemplated only on definite allegations prima facie establishing commission of an offense [Paras 18-19].

Decision: Appeals by bank officials allowed – Criminal proceeding not maintainable against accused bank officials – Partial relief granted to another accused challenged and set aside – Criminal appeal arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 569 of 2012 allowed in part [Paras 23].