Consumer Protection – Frivolous Litigation – The appeal by the bank involved a small monetary dispute over Rs. 15,000 for the insurance claim of a buffalo. The bank's actions were deemed frivolous and unnecessary, as multiple consumer dispute forums had already adjudicated the matter in favor of the respondent. The Supreme Court criticized the bank for escalating the dispute to the apex court despite clear findings by lower courts​​.

Judicial Efficiency – Small Claims – The Court emphasized that small and trivial matters should not be brought to higher courts unless they raise significant legal questions or affect a large number of persons. The bank was advised to resolve such disputes at their end to avoid burdening the judicial system​​.

Bank's Responsibility – Supporting Farmers – The judgment highlighted the role of Gramin Banks in supporting rural borrowers, particularly in situations of crop failure or cattle loss. It condemned the bank's practice of driving poor farmers to litigation, stressing the need for a more empathetic and supportive approach towards resolving disputes​​.

Decision: Appeal dismissed with costs – The appeal was dismissed, and the bank was directed to pay Rs. 10,000 in costs to the respondent within one month. The bank's total expenditure on litigation was noted to be disproportionate to the original claim amount​​.

Land Revenue – Mutation Application – The appellant’s application for mutation was initially allowed by the Naib Tehsildar. The Sub Divisional Officer, upon appeal, remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The Additional Commissioner subsequently dismissed the appellant’s revision, prompting a further revision to the Board of Revenue which restored the Naib Tehsildar's order. The High Court set aside the Board's order, deeming the second revision under Section 219 not maintainable​​.

Legal Interpretation – Section 219 of UP Land Revenue Act – The Supreme Court held that the second revision filed under Section 219 was maintainable. The Court emphasized that the amended provision of Section 219(2), which precludes further applications, was introduced in 1997 and does not apply to revisions filed before the amendment. Therefore, the appellant’s revision filed in 1994 was valid under the unamended provision​​.

Judicial Precedents – The Court referred to the procedural rules for the exercise of revisional powers and emphasized that the revision authority must adhere to statutory requirements for reference to the Board of Revenue. The judgment underscores that procedural amendments cannot retroactively affect pending cases​​.

Decision: Appeal allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order, reinstating the Board of Revenue's decision. The writ petition was restored to the file of the Allahabad High Court for hearing and consideration on merits​​.

Securities Law – Jurisdiction of SEBI – Issue of OFCDs: SEBI's authority to regulate the issuance of OFCDs by unlisted public companies examined – Supreme Court affirms SEBI's jurisdiction under Section 55A(b) of the Companies Act to administer provisions related to the issue and transfer of securities when the offer is made to fifty or more persons – Issue of OFCDs deemed to be public issues requiring compliance with mandatory listing provisions [Paras 21-24].

Corporate Autonomy – Compulsory Listing – Section 73 of Companies Act: Court addresses the balance between corporate autonomy and regulatory oversight – Reaffirms that public offers of securities to fifty or more persons necessitate listing on a recognized stock exchange under Section 73(1) of the Companies Act – Highlights the protective intent of listing provisions for investors [Paras 31-33].

Regulatory Compliance – DIP Guidelines and ICDR 2009: Saharas' issuance of OFCDs found in violation of SEBI (Disclosure and Investor Protection) Guidelines and SEBI (Issue of Capital and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations – Court upholds SEBI's directive to refund the collected amount with interest to investors for non-compliance with statutory requirements [Paras 38-40].

Section 67(3) of Companies Act – Definition of Public Offer: Court interprets the proviso to Section 67(3) – Offer to fifty or more persons qualifies as a public offer, attracting regulatory compliance obligations – Reiterates that even if securities are offered through private placement, the number of offerees triggers public issue regulations [Paras 42-43].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – SEBI's orders upheld – Saharas directed to refund the amount collected from investors with interest – SEBI empowered to ensure compliance with investor protection norms and securities market regulations [Para 48].

Criminal Procedure – Anticipatory Bail – Section 438 CrPC: Appellant, declared a proclaimed offender, seeks anticipatory bail – Supreme Court upholds rejection by lower courts – Emphasizes that absconding and being declared a proclaimed offender are significant factors against the grant of anticipatory bail – Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedents, and possibility of the applicant fleeing from justice – Appeal dismissed [Paras 7-12].

Dowry Death – Cruelty and Demand for Dowry: Allegations of cruelty and dowry demand against the appellant and other family members – Deceased committed suicide after one year and eight months of marriage while pregnant – FIR registered and supplementary statements corroborate the involvement of the appellant – Court notes the serious nature of accusations and the need for thorough investigation [Paras 8-11].

Conduct of Appellant – Cooperation with Investigation: Despite interim protection, appellant failed to cooperate with police investigation – Claims of visiting police station disputed – Court underscores the importance of cooperation with investigative authorities and the impact of non-cooperation on bail decisions [Paras 12-13].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Rejection of anticipatory bail upheld – Appellant directed to surrender within one week – Clarifies that no opinion on the merits of the case has been expressed and the appellant may move for regular bail after surrender [Paras 14-16].

Representing Advocates:

Sarbjit Sharma, Sumit Sharma, S.K. Verma for the Appellant

Sidharth Luthra (ASG), Ranjana Narain, Gargi Khanna, Shiv Pandey, Aditya Singla, B.V. Balaram Das for the Respondent

Criminal Law – Repeal and Saving Provisions – Section 30 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: Conviction under repealed Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 – Applicability of Section 30 of the 1988 Act and Section 6 of the General Clauses Act – Repeal does not affect the right of the investigating agency to investigate and prosecute offences under the repealed Act – Proceedings initiated under the 1947 Act are valid and deemed to be under the 1988 Act [Paras 9-13].

Constitutional Law – Article 20(1) – Protection Against Ex Post Facto Laws: Appellants charged for offences committed under the 1947 Act before its repeal – Constitution prohibits conviction under laws not in force at the time of offence – Appellants rightly charged and convicted under the 1947 Act – No prejudice caused as the 1988 Act is more stringent [Paras 14].

Quantum of Sentence – Mitigating Factors – Reduction of Sentence: Considering age and health of appellant M.C. Gupta (70 years old) and time elapsed (24 years since offence) – Sentence reduced to one year rigorous imprisonment for offence under the 1947 Act – Sentence of fine confirmed – No reduction for appellant Mohan Lal Gupta, the beneficiary of misappropriation [Paras 18].

Decision: Appeals disposed of – Sentence of M.C. Gupta reduced to one year's rigorous imprisonment – Sentence for Mohan Lal Gupta upheld – Fine imposed on both appellants confirmed [Para 18].

Criminal Law – Exoneration in Departmental Proceedings – Continuation of Criminal Proceedings: High Court quashed criminal proceedings on the ground of exoneration in departmental proceedings – Supreme Court held that disciplinary authority is not bound by the conclusion of the inquiry officer – Criminal prosecution may continue despite departmental exoneration – Criminal and departmental proceedings are independent, and different standards of proof apply – Appeal allowed, High Court order set aside [Paras 16-18, 30-31].

Procedural Law – Section 482 CrPC – Quashing of Proceedings: Application under Section 482 CrPC for quashing criminal proceedings – High Court erred in quashing proceedings based on exoneration in departmental proceedings – Quashing of prosecution should not be based solely on departmental inquiry findings – Standard of proof in criminal trial is higher than in departmental proceedings [Paras 19-24, 32].

Judicial Precedents – Interpretation of P.S. Rajya Case: P.S. Rajya v. State of Bihar interpreted – Supreme Court clarifies that exoneration in departmental proceedings does not ipso facto result in quashing of criminal prosecution – Precedents affirm that departmental and criminal proceedings are distinct and must be decided based on evidence adduced in each [Paras 21, 24-25, 28-30].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court order quashing criminal proceedings set aside – Respondent directed to appear before the trial court within four weeks – Trial court to expedite proceedings and avoid unnecessary adjournments [Paras 32-34].

Constitutional Law – Article 21 – Right to Fair Trial: Appellant denied assistance of counsel during trial – Fundamental right to fair trial and legal representation emphasized – Retrial necessary to ensure justice and due process – Appellate court's power to order retrial under Section 386 CrPC highlighted [Paras 11-16, 42].

Criminal Procedure – De Novo Trial – Section 386 CrPC: Retrial should be ordered only in exceptional and rare cases – Appellant's denial of due process warranted de novo trial – Balancing accused's rights with societal interest and gravity of offence – Retrial necessary to avert failure of justice [Paras 42-43].

Speedy Trial – Fair Trial – Article 21: Right to speedy trial is relative and depends on case circumstances – Long delay alone does not justify acquittal or dismissal of indictment – Fair trial rights must be balanced with impact on society and confidence in judicial system – Retrial in serious cases like terrorism essential for justice [Paras 41-43].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Matter remanded for de novo trial – Trial court directed to provide legal aid to appellant if necessary and conclude trial expeditiously within three months from order communication [Paras 45-46].

Medical Education – Admission Process – Regulation Compliance: MBBS admissions conducted by Geetanjali Medical College without following the MCI Regulations and state policies – College issued advertisement and conducted admissions based on 10+2 examination marks instead of the RPMT merit list – High Court declared such admissions illegal and directed compliance with the RPMT merit list for 85% of the seats [Paras 5-7, 16-18].

Private Medical Colleges – Right to Administer Admissions – Constitutional Rights: Private unaided institutions have the right to admit students under Article 19(1)(g) – However, admissions must be fair, transparent, and non-exploitative, adhering to merit-based criteria as mandated by regulatory bodies – No consensual arrangement between the college and the state for filling 85% seats through RPMT [Paras 17-19].

Judicial Review – Article 142 – Equitable Relief: Supreme Court exercises power under Article 142 to do complete justice – Despite procedural violations by the college, admissions of 117 students protected to prevent academic disruption – College directed to surrender equivalent seats in future admissions as a penalty for regulatory violations [Paras 27-29].

Decision: Appeals partly allowed – High Court's direction to admit students from RPMT merit list set aside – College to surrender 107 MBBS seats in a phased manner – Students admitted in violation to pay Rs. 3 lakhs each to state government for infrastructure development in government medical colleges – Results of affected students to be published [Paras 30-31].

Constitutional Law – Article 254 – Conflict Between State and Central Legislation: The Sugarcane Act and the Control Order are special legislations that regulate the supply and purchase of sugarcane and cover all aspects of such transactions including the payment of price to cane growers – These special legislations prevail over the general provisions of the Market Act, which aims to regulate the sale and purchase of agricultural produce in market areas [Paras 14-20].

Market Fee – Levy on Sugarcane Transactions – Special vs. General Law: The Market Act’s general provisions regarding the levy of market fees on agricultural produce do not apply to sugarcane transactions covered by the Sugarcane Act and Control Order – The High Court correctly held that the market committees cannot levy fees on sugarcane purchases within market areas as the transactions are governed by the specific provisions of the Sugarcane Act and Control Order [Paras 17-18].

Judicial Precedents – Belsund Sugar Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar: The case law established that where there is a conflict between general and special legislation, the special law prevails – The Supreme Court reaffirms that the comprehensive mechanism provided by the Sugarcane Act and Control Order for the purchase and payment of sugarcane excludes the applicability of the Market Act’s provisions regarding the levy of market fees [Para 20].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – The provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1958 and the Sugarcane (Control) Order issued under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, govern the transactions involving the purchase of sugarcane by factories, excluding the levy of market fees under the Madhya Pradesh Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972 [Paras 21-22].