Negotiable Instruments – Dishonour of Cheque – Multiple Presentations – Sections 138 and 142 NI Act – Cause of Action – Every presentation of a cheque within its validity period followed by dishonour and statutory notice provides a fresh cause of action for prosecution under Section 138 – No restriction on presenting a dishonoured cheque multiple times within its validity period – Previous ruling in Sadanandan Bhadran's case overruled [Paras 12-14, 20-22, 31].

Legal Interpretation – Cause of Action – Section 142 NI Act – Expression ‘cause of action’ not limited to the first presentation and dishonour of a cheque – Holder of a cheque has the right to present it multiple times within its validity period – Right to prosecute accrues with every subsequent dishonour if statutory notice requirements are met [Paras 18-22].

Procedural Fairness – Deferred Prosecution – Option to Defer Legal Action – Holder of a cheque can choose to defer prosecution even after issuing a notice upon first dishonour – No legal forfeiture of the right to prosecute upon subsequent dishonour if initial prosecution was deferred [Paras 23-24].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Overruling of the decision in Sadanandan Bhadran's case – Prosecution based on second or subsequent dishonour permissible if statutory requirements of Section 138 are satisfied – Complaints to be examined by lower courts in light of this interpretation [Paras 32-33].

Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act – Prior Approval – Section 20A(1) TADA – Requirement of prior approval by District Superintendent of Police before recording information about the commission of an offence – Absence of such approval vitiates prosecution under TADA – Evidence showed no prior approval was granted by Deputy Commissioner – Conviction set aside [Paras 20-24].

Evidence – Confessional Statements – TADA – Confessional statements recorded under TADA cannot be relied upon if prosecution under TADA is vitiated – Convictions under Arms Act and Explosive Substances Act based on such confessions also cannot stand [Paras 20-21, 41].

Procedure – Curable Defect – Section 465 CrPC – Defect of non-compliance with Section 20A(1) of TADA not curable under Section 465 CrPC – Such defect goes to the root of the matter [Paras 33-34].

Effect of Sanction – Section 20A(2) TADA – Sanction by Commissioner of Police under Section 20A(2) does not cure the defect of absence of prior approval under Section 20A(1) – Both requirements are distinct and mandatory [Paras 37].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Convictions and sentences set aside due to non-compliance with Section 20A(1) of TADA – Appeals by the State against acquittal and inadequacy of sentence dismissed – Accused given benefit of this judgment even if they have not preferred appeals [Paras 46].

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of FIRs and Charge-Sheets – Section 482 CrPC – High Court's jurisdiction – High Court's power to quash FIRs and charge-sheets should be exercised sparingly and with caution – Case involves serious allegations of fraud and conspiracy – Quashing at preliminary stage without sufficient material improper – Detailed examination of allegations and evidence necessary [Paras 13-20].

Fraudulent Sale Deeds – Role of Registrar – Section 34 of Registration Act – Registrar's duty to verify credentials of parties involved in registration – Allegations of procedural irregularities and fraudulent registration – High Court erred in concluding Registrar’s involvement without trial – Evidence necessary to establish conspiracy and abetment [Paras 11-19].

Presumption of Regularity – Section 114 Evidence Act – Official acts presumed to be regular – Onus on prosecution to prove fraud and conspiracy – Respondent’s alleged knowledge and involvement in fraud require thorough investigation and trial [Paras 16-18].

Penalties for Fraudulent Registration – Section 81 Registration Act – Imprisonment and fine for knowingly incorrect registration – High Court prematurely quashed proceedings – Proper course is to allow prosecution to present evidence [Paras 17-18].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court's orders quashing FIRs and charge-sheets set aside – Prosecution to proceed – Prima facie observations not to bind trial court [Para 20].

Criminal Law – Sanction for Prosecution – Section 197 CrPC – Requirement of prior sanction for prosecution of public servants – Protection of police officers under notification extending Section 197(2) to all members of police force – High Court's dismissal of quashing petition for lack of such notification incorrect – Quashing of proceedings against Dy. S.P. upheld; protection extended to all police personnel involved [Paras 8-10, 38-39].

Encounter Killings – Police Accountability – Allegations of fake encounter – Complainant's claim that his son was killed in cold blood – Postmortem indicating close-range firing – Contradictory versions from police and complainant – High Court's failure to address detailed inquiry report and CID findings – Case highlights procedural lapses and necessity for independent inquiries in encounter cases [Paras 9-19, 22-28].

Judicial Review – Powers under Section 482 CrPC – High Court’s power to quash proceedings – High Court should act sparingly, especially in cases involving serious allegations against police – Ensuring fair trial and preventing abuse of process paramount – Case demonstrates balancing act between protecting public servants and upholding rule of law [Paras 39].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court’s orders quashing criminal proceedings against Rajiv Ranjan Singh upheld – Criminal proceedings against other police personnel also quashed – Appeals by Kailashpati Singh dismissed [Para 39].

Service Law – Pay Parity – Article 14 and Article 16 of Constitution – Claim for revised pay scale and promotion on basis of parity with headquarters staff – Tribunal's refusal based on Supreme Court precedent disallowing parity claims without proven discrimination – ICAR's rejection of claim in absence of Ministry of Finance concurrence – Claim dismissed [Paras 1-10, 12].

Service Law – Assured Career Progression Scheme – Implementation – Appellant's promotions and pay revisions under ACP scheme and based on seniority-cum-fitness – Proper application of ACP scheme as per statutory rules and DOPT clarifications – Disparity between headquarters and institutional staff justified due to different service rules and promotional hierarchies [Paras 11-16, 19].

Equal Pay for Equal Work – Principle – Non-applicability – Different pay scales justified for headquarters and institutional staff despite identical job titles – Assessment of duties, responsibilities, and quality of work by expert bodies like Pay Commission deemed appropriate – Court's reluctance to interfere in expert assessments [Paras 17-20, 20A].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court's judgment upheld – No discriminatory action found in respondent’s application of service rules and pay scales – Different service conditions and hierarchical structures between headquarters and institutional levels justify pay differences [Paras 22].

Arbitration – Award of Interest – Section 29 Arbitration Act – Validity of award of pendente lite and post-award interest – Contract clauses barring interest payment on delayed payments – Despite bar, interest awarded from the date of award till the date of decree or payment, whichever is earlier, upheld [Paras 1-18].

Contractual Terms – Prohibition of Interest – Clauses 1.2.14 and 1.2.15 – Clauses in contract explicitly barring interest on delayed payments – Overlapping circumstances in clauses noted – Interest for pendente lite period deemed inappropriate due to explicit bar – Post-award interest justified under Section 29 of Arbitration Act [Paras 11-18].

Legal Interpretation – Implied Terms in Agreement – Arbitration clause and implied terms – Presumption of interest as implied term where agreement silent on interest payment – Reference to decisions in GC Roy’s and N.C. Budhraj’s cases confirming arbitrator's power to award interest in absence of prohibition [Paras 13-16].

Decision: Appeals allowed in part – High Court's order modified – Award of pendente lite interest set aside due to contract's explicit prohibition – Award of post-award interest from date of award till date of decree or payment upheld – Interest rate at 12% per annum maintained as determined by arbitration [Para 19].

Service Law – Disciplinary Proceedings – Criminal Acquittal – Distinction between departmental and criminal proceedings – Acquittal in criminal proceedings does not automatically absolve liability in departmental inquiries – Standards of proof differ – Departmental inquiry upheld despite criminal acquittal [Paras 20-22, 32-41].

Service Law – Misconduct – Rule 50(4) SBIOSR – Allegations of fraud and financial irregularities against bank officer – Charges of misconduct proved in departmental inquiry – Departmental findings based on preponderance of probabilities – Acquittal in criminal court due to insufficient evidence does not negate findings of departmental inquiry [Paras 22-26, 33-38].

Judicial Review – Departmental and Criminal Proceedings – Principle of Natural Justice – Adequate opportunity provided to appellant in departmental inquiry – No procedural impropriety found – Fair hearing conducted – Disciplinary authority and appellate authority's orders valid [Paras 41, 46-49].

Decision - Appeal dismissed – High Court's decision upheld – Departmental dismissal of Avinash Sadashiv Bhosale affirmed – Acquittal in criminal court does not affect departmental inquiry findings – No costs awarded [Paras 50].

Income Tax – Penalty – Section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act – Imposition of penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income – Appellant, a reputed Chartered Accountant firm, claimed a deduction inadvertently – Claim based on a provision for payment of gratuity not allowable under Section 40A(7) – Error deemed a 'silly mistake' – Penalty held unjustified due to bona fide and inadvertent error [Paras 2-20].

Human Error – Bona Fide Mistake – Professional Firm – Tax Audit Report filed along with return clearly indicating non-allowable provision – Miscomputation of income in return – Error overlooked by both appellant and Assessing Officer – No willful suppression of facts or deliberate attempt to conceal income found [Paras 18-20].

Judicial Review – Peculiar and Unique Facts – Appellant's reputation and expertise – Mistake attributed to human error irrespective of professional standing – Tribunal and High Court acknowledged error as non-willful – Supreme Court set aside penalty considering it an honest mistake without intent to deceive [Paras 17-21].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Imposition of penalty by High Court set aside – Appellant not guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars or attempting to conceal income – No costs awarded [Paras 21].

Criminal Law – Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Non-Compoundable Offences – Section 320 CrPC and Section 482 CrPC – Whether the High Court can quash criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable offences based on a compromise between the parties – Held: High Court can quash such proceedings to secure the ends of justice under Section 482 CrPC – Power should be exercised with caution and in exceptional cases [Paras 1-22].

Compounding of Offences – Section 320 CrPC – Categories of offences that can be compounded – Non-compoundable offences cannot be compounded under Section 320 CrPC but can be quashed by High Court under Section 482 CrPC if the compromise leads to no evidence against the accused – Court should ensure that quashing is in the interest of justice and not abuse of process [Paras 3-6, 10-12].

Inherent Powers of High Court – Section 482 CrPC – Scope and limitations – High Court's inherent powers to quash proceedings to prevent abuse of process or to secure ends of justice – Such powers not limited by Section 320 CrPC – Power to quash non-compoundable offences should be exercised sparingly and with great caution [Paras 7-9, 20-22].

Judicial Review – Exercise of Discretion – Inherent power of High Court to quash proceedings based on facts and circumstances of each case – Court must balance between the societal interest and rights of individuals – Quashing justified if continuance of proceedings leads to injustice or futility [Paras 16-19].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court's inherent power under Section 482 CrPC upheld – Criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable offences can be quashed based on a compromise if it secures the ends of justice – Directions issued for cautious and sparing exercise of such power [Paras 20-22].