Criminal Law – Common Intention – Section 34 IPC – Conviction requires proof of a prior meeting of minds – If no overt act is attributed to the accused, Section 34 can be invoked if common intention is established – Without common intention, Section 34 is inapplicable – Appellant convicted based on approver’s testimony, no evidence of common intention to commit murder – Appellant associated with co-accused for smoking ganja – Conviction with aid of Section 34 cannot be sustained – Appeal allowed, conviction set aside [Paras 14-15].

Evidentiary Value – Approver's Testimony – Conviction based solely on the approver’s evidence without corroboration – Sole evidence of approver insufficient to convict – PW-7 (approver) testimony indicated appellant’s minor role – Holding legs of deceased insufficient to prove common intention [Paras 13, 17].

Medical Evidence – Cause of Death – Post mortem report indicated death due to 100% burns, not assault – Evidence showed primary accused poured kerosene and set deceased on fire – Medical evidence contradicted involvement of appellant in the murder – Appellant's actions did not contribute to the cause of death [Paras 16-17].

Decision:

Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence of the appellant under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 IPC set aside – Appellant to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

Criminal Law – Conspiracy and Cheating – The respondent, a panel advocate for Vijaya Bank, was accused of providing false legal opinions in housing loan cases. The High Court quashed the criminal proceedings against him, emphasizing that merely providing an unacceptable legal opinion does not justify criminal prosecution without evidence of a connection with conspirators – Supreme Court upheld this decision [Paras 21-28].

Professional Negligence – Legal Opinion – The role of a panel advocate involves perusal of documents and providing opinions based on available information – The liability for professional negligence arises only when there is evidence of active participation in a conspiracy – Absence of tangible evidence linking the advocate to the conspiracy led to quashing of the proceedings [Paras 16-20, 27].

Inherent Powers of High Court – Section 482 CrPC – The High Court can exercise its inherent powers to quash proceedings if the allegations are inherently improbable – High Court's decision to quash criminal proceedings against the respondent upheld, as no prima facie case was established [Paras 13-14].

Decision:

Appeal dismissed – Criminal proceedings against the respondent quashed – No prima facie case for proceeding with charges under Sections 420 and 109 IPC.

Companies Act – Winding Up – Secured Creditors and Workmen’s Dues – Secured creditors have a right over specific assets of the company offered as security, whereas unsecured creditors have rights over all other assets – The statutory charge in favor of workmen does not extend to properties not offered as security – Appeal allowed, High Court's interpretation incorrect [Paras 5-7].

Preferential Payments – Section 529A – Workmen's dues and secured creditors’ dues ranking pari passu under Clause (c) of the proviso to Section 529(1) are to be paid in priority over all other debts – The non-obstante clause ensures overriding preferential payments [Paras 10-12].

Insolvency Rules – Section 47 of the Provincial Insolvency Act – Rights of secured creditors to realize their security or relinquish it for the general benefit of creditors – Workmen’s dues create a statutory charge pari passu with the secured creditor’s dues [Paras 6, 8-9].

Decision:

Appeal allowed – Impugned order of the Division Bench of the High Court and the order dated 28.11.2008 of the learned Company Judge set aside – Matter remitted to the learned Company Judge for decision in accordance with the law as laid down in this judgment.

Arbitration and Conciliation – Service of Award – The expression "party" in Section 31(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, refers to the party itself and not its agent or advocate – Proper compliance requires delivery of a signed copy of the arbitral award to the party – Service on the advocate does not fulfill the requirement [Paras 15-16].

Application to Set Aside Award – Limitation Period – An application under Section 34(3) must be filed within three months from the date the party receives the signed arbitral award – If the signed copy is not delivered to the party, the period does not commence – Petition filed within three months from the date the party obtained the signed copy is considered timely [Para 17].

Decision:

SLP dismissed – No order as to costs – Division Bench of the Delhi High Court's interpretation upheld – Proper service requires delivery of the signed award to the party, not the advocate [Paras 17-19].

Criminal Law – Bail – Cancellation – The High Court granted bail without adequately considering the gravity of the crime, the accused's criminal history, and the impact on societal security – High Court's order quashed – Bail cancellation justified in view of the accused's involvement in serious crimes and history of threatening and abduction [Paras 28-30, 32-34].

Liberty and Social Security – Individual liberty, while precious, must be balanced against the collective security of society – The court must ensure that liberty does not lead to anarchy or disorder – Bail decisions should reflect a judicious balance between personal freedom and societal safety [Paras 19-21].

Proper Consideration in Bail Orders – Courts must exercise discretion judiciously, keeping in mind the severity of the accusations, criminal history, and potential threat to witnesses and society – Bail granted without proper analysis of these factors can be annulled as perverse [Paras 10-12, 16-18].

Decision:

Appeal allowed – High Court’s order granting bail set aside – Bail bonds of the accused cancelled – Accused directed to surrender immediately [Paras 33-35].

Transfer of Land – Scheduled Caste – The transfer of land from a member of Scheduled Caste to a juristic person is void under Section 42(b) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 – The term "person" in Section 42(b) refers only to a natural person, not a juristic person – Transfer to a juristic person, followed by a potential transfer to a non-Scheduled Caste person, would defeat the legislative intent of protecting Scheduled Caste members from exploitation [Paras 14-15].

Interpretation of Statutes – Beneficial Legislation – The Act is designed to protect the interests of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe members – Any interpretation that undermines this protection must be avoided – The expression "person" in this context excludes juristic persons to prevent indirect transfers that would bypass the statutory restrictions [Paras 8-14].

Revenue Authorities – Refusal of Mutation – Revenue Authorities correctly refused mutation based on the transfer being void under Section 42(b) – The mutation should be done only in the name of a person who is a member of Scheduled Caste/Tribe, not a firm/company/society where such a person is an office-bearer [Paras 16-17].

Decision:

Appeals allowed – Judgments of the learned single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court set aside – Sale deed dated 26.9.2005 declared void – State entitled to re-possess the land and return it to the original Scheduled Caste owners [Paras 17-19].

Judgment on Admissions – Order 12 Rule 6 CPC – For a decree on admissions in a suit for possession from a tenant, the landlord must establish the existence of the landlord-tenant relationship and the termination of tenancy – Clear admissions on these aspects allow the court to pass a decree without further trial – Appeal allowed, decree for possession granted based on admissions [Paras 6-7, 17].

Tenancy and Termination – Section 106 Transfer of Property Act – The tenancy was month-to-month and could be terminated by notice – The notice for termination was served and not disputed by the tenant – The challenge to the landlord's title based on an order anterior to the commencement of tenancy is estopped by Section 116 of the Evidence Act [Paras 12-14, 16].

Estoppel of Tenant – Section 116 Evidence Act – A tenant cannot deny the title of the landlord at the commencement of the tenancy – The challenge to the landlord’s title based on an order from 1999, before the tenancy began in 2001, is not permissible – Tenant estopped from disputing the landlord's title [Paras 15-16].

Decision:

Appeal allowed – High Court’s judgment set aside – Trial Court’s decree for possession reinstated – Tenant granted time until 31st December 2012 to vacate the premises on furnishing an undertaking – Mesne profits to be paid as determined by the trial court [Paras 18-20].

Judicial Service – Ad-Hoc Appointments – Appointments of ad-hoc ADJs in FTCs not governed by the Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service Rules, 2001 – Rules meant for regular judicial service not applicable to ad-hoc appointments under temporary FTC scheme – High Court's decision to quash appointments upheld [Paras 1-9, 33-34].

Fast Track Courts – Legality of Appointments – FTC Judges appointed from a merit list not meant for such positions – Advertisement did not include FTC posts as vacancies – No provision for future vacancies in advertised posts – Appointments made without proper selection process, violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution [Paras 24-33].

Estoppel – Section 116 Evidence Act – Appointments of certain candidates, including Assistant Public Prosecutors, questioned for not meeting eligibility criteria under Advocates Act – Age relaxation and other irregularities noted in the appointment process [Paras 10-14].

Regularization and Absorption – Irregularly appointed FTC Judges do not have a right to regularization or absorption in regular judicial service – Relief of regularization cannot be granted as appointments were made for a temporary scheme and not under regular rules [Paras 43-44].

Decision:

Appeal dismissed – High Court's decision to quash appointments upheld – State of Jharkhand and High Court of Jharkhand to follow directions laid down in Brij Mohan Lal II for regularization and absorption of FTC Judges in a lawful manner [Paras 35-36, 44-48].

Criminal Procedure – Examination of Accused – Section 313 CrPC – Statement recorded under Section 313 cannot be used against the accused in isolation – It must be considered in conjunction with other prosecution evidence – Conviction cannot be based solely on the statement made under Section 313 CrPC [Paras 6-7].

Evidence – Eye-Witness Testimony – The High Court erred in relying solely on the postmortem report after rejecting the eye-witness testimonies – Conviction based on insufficient corroborative evidence – Postmortem report must corroborate with eye-witness evidence to sustain conviction [Para 9].

Common Intention – Section 34 IPC – The High Court acquitted co-accused but convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC based on a partial acceptance of witness testimony and appellant’s statement – Contradictions in the appellant's Section 313 statement and reliance on it by the High Court were improper – High Court's conviction set aside [Paras 6, 8-9].

Decision:

Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC set aside – Appellant to be released forthwith if not required in any other case [Paras 9-10].