Criminal Procedure – Territorial Jurisdiction – Foreign Nationals – Offences involving foreign nationals – Appellants challenged the criminal proceedings initiated in India on the grounds of territorial jurisdiction – Supreme Court held that the physical presence of the accused in India is not necessary for launching criminal prosecution if the offence involves effects within India – Territorial jurisdiction under Sections 179, 181, 182, and 482 CrPC includes any act or consequence of the offence within India – Complaint cannot be quashed merely because a civil suit is pending [Paras 16-22].

International Law – Jurisdiction over Foreign Nationals – Application of Indian Penal Code – Supreme Court referenced principles of international law and prior judgments, affirming that foreign nationals can be prosecuted in India for acts that have an impact within Indian territory – Physical absence from India does not preclude criminal liability for acts committed outside but having consequences within India [Paras 17, 24-32].

Fraud and Cheating – Contractual Obligations – Criminal Complaint – Allegations of dishonesty and fraudulent breach of contract in an international commercial transaction – Court emphasized that contractual disputes with elements of fraud or cheating can attract criminal prosecution independently of civil proceedings – Proper inquiry and trial essential to uphold the rule of law [Paras 7-16, 22].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Criminal proceedings to continue in the competent court in Ghaziabad – Supreme Court reaffirmed jurisdiction and necessity of addressing criminal elements in commercial disputes, ensuring compliance with legal processes and international norms [Para 22].

Criminal Law – Evidence – Benefit of Doubt – Respondent, a constable, accused of firing upon Deputy Commandant and B.H.M. resulting in the death of the latter – Prosecution alleged the respondent fired 20 rounds, injuring and killing the officers – High Court found discrepancies in the prosecution’s evidence, including inconsistencies in witness testimonies and recovery of evidence – Supreme Court upheld High Court’s decision, emphasizing the need for credible and consistent evidence in criminal convictions [Paras 1-8].

Constitutional Law – Validity of Statutory Provisions – Section 27(3) of Arms Act – Question of mandatory death penalty’s constitutionality – Provision challenged as violative of Articles 14 and 21 for being excessively wide and harsh – Supreme Court declared Section 27(3) unconstitutional, relying on precedents that reject mandatory death penalties without judicial discretion – Emphasized principles of due process and proportionality in sentencing [Paras 9-104].

Judicial Review – Mandatory Death Penalty – Comparison with IPC Section 302 – Court compared the discretionary nature of death penalty under IPC Section 302 with the mandatory provision in Section 27(3) of the Arms Act – Affirmed that judicial discretion is essential in sentencing to ensure justice and fairness – Court held that mandatory death penalty provisions are arbitrary and violate fundamental rights [Paras 24-28].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – High Court’s acquittal upheld – Section 27(3) of the Arms Act declared unconstitutional and void – Court directed compliance with constitutional norms and protections in sentencing [Paras 103-104].

Sanction for Prosecution – Locus Standi of Citizen – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – The Appellant, Dr. Subramanian Swamy, sought to prosecute a public servant (A. Raja) for corruption without receiving sanction from the competent authority – Supreme Court affirmed that any citizen has the right to file such a complaint – Previous judgments cited confirmed this position [Paras 18-19, 28-32].

Competent Authority's Role – Examination of Material – The competent authority must decide on sanction based solely on prima facie evidence provided, without delving into the truth of allegations – Emphasized that detailed inquiries by the sanctioning authority are not required, upholding guidelines set by the CVC [Paras 27, 30-31].

Timeframe for Sanction – Supreme Court’s Directive in Vineet Narain Case – Reinforced the necessity of a three-month period for deciding on the grant of sanction, with an additional month if consultation with the Attorney General is required – Highlighted to ensure prompt and effective prosecution [Para 29].

Sanction Post-Resignation – Continued Requirement – Discussed whether sanction is needed if the public servant resigns – Concluded that sanction is necessary even if the individual no longer holds the office in question, to prevent evasion of prosecution [Paras 15-17].

Judicial Review – Procedural Adherence – High Court's dismissal of writ petition deemed erroneous as it failed to acknowledge the mandatory nature of the timeframe for sanction and the procedural requirements – Supreme Court emphasized judicial oversight in ensuring adherence to established procedures [Para 32].

Decision:

Appeal Allowed – High Court’s order set aside – Supreme Court mandated the competent authority to decide on the sanction within the specified timeframe, adhering to the principles outlined [Para 33].

Election Law – Eligibility to Contest – Proof of Age – Appellant's election as Sarpanch challenged on grounds of ineligibility due to age – Trial court and subsequent appeals dismissed appellant’s election citing failure to meet age requirement – Supreme Court found that the burden of proof regarding appellant’s age was not discharged by the respondent – Admissibility and probative value of school records questioned [Paras 3-19].

Admissibility of Evidence – Sections 35 and 101 of Evidence Act – School records (Ext. 5, 5A, 7) and transfer certificate presented as evidence without objection at trial court – Supreme Court emphasized that mere admission of documents does not prove the content – Reiterated need for clear and unambiguous evidence to establish age as required by law [Paras 6-14].

Burden of Proof – Section 101 of Evidence Act – Onus on respondent to prove appellant's date of birth – Supreme Court highlighted that respondent failed to provide sufficient evidence to support the claim that appellant was born on 20.6.1986 – Appellant’s evidence deemed inconsistent but did not prove alternative date of birth as 7.7.1985 [Paras 15-18].

Decision:Appeal Allowed – High Court and lower courts’ decisions set aside – Election petition dismissed due to failure to prove appellant’s ineligibility – No declaration in favor of the respondent [Paras 19-20].

Municipal Law – Formation of Post-Electoral Aghadi – Interpretation of Statute – Appeal involves interpretation of second proviso to Section 31(A)(2) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 – Supreme Court held that formation of Aghadi or front after the election results must occur within one month as per statutory requirement – Formation beyond this period is impermissible and illegal [Paras 2-10, 24-26].

Relative Strength – Committee Appointments – Examined the relevance of the relative strength of recognized parties or groups for appointments to municipal committees – Court concluded that changes in relative strength after the stipulated period do not justify forming new Aghadis or fronts for committee representation [Paras 11-15, 27-28].

Disqualification Act – Provisions and Non Obstante Clause – Examined the interaction between Municipal Corporation Act and Maharashtra Local Authority Members Disqualification Act – Non obstante clause in Section 31(A)(2) allows post-election Aghadis but within a strict timeframe – Legislative intent to ensure stability in municipal governance highlighted [Paras 22-23].

Decision:

Appeal Allowed – High Court’s judgment and the impugned order set aside – Forming of Aghadi or front beyond one month from election results is not permitted – Established adherence to statutory timelines for forming post-electoral fronts [Paras 29].

Arbitration – Injunction Against Bank Guarantee – Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Dispute arose over performance of contractual obligations in a construction project – Respondent terminated contract and sought to invoke bank guarantees – Petitioner sought injunction on grounds of fraud and special equity – Supreme Court held that fraud allegations were previously rejected and no special equity existed to justify injunction [Paras 2-10].

Criminal Proceedings – Quashing of Complaint – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Petitioner’s criminal complaint alleging fraud by respondent quashed by High Court – Supreme Court upheld quashing as fraud claims were unsupported – Reaffirmed principles on limited grounds to restrain bank guarantee payments [Paras 6, 9-11].

Arbitration Award – Enforceability – Partial award in favor of respondent not challenged by petitioner – Supreme Court emphasized enforceability of unchallenged arbitral awards and rejected petitioner’s plea for continuation of stay on bank guarantee invocation [Paras 11-12].

Decision:

Special Leave Petition Dismissed – High Court's decision upheld – Petitioner directed to pay Rs. 1 lakh to Supreme Court Legal Services Committee – Interim application disposed [Paras 12].

Representing Advocates:

for appellant: Gagan Gupta

for respondents: Meenakshi Arora

Jurisdiction of Civil Courts – Cooperative Societies – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – High Court held suits challenging society's resolution to sell property were not maintainable as they fell under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Co-operative Court – Supreme Court overturned this, stating disputes involving third parties (non-members) and property alienation are not exclusively covered by Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act – Civil courts have jurisdiction [Paras 16-39].

Interim Relief – Section 9A CPC (Maharashtra Amendment) – High Court examined maintainability of suits during hearing of application for interim relief – Supreme Court upheld this approach but directed High Court to consider interim relief applications afresh based on prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable harm [Paras 40-42].

Decision:Appeals Allowed – High Court’s decision set aside – Suits maintainable in civil court – Status quo to be maintained for two weeks pending fresh consideration of interim relief by Bombay High Court [Paras 42-43].

Government Employment – Appointments Beyond Advertised Vacancies – Constitution of India, 1950 – Advertisement for 160 seats for Assam Survey and Settlement Training Institute – Appellants sought appointments beyond advertised vacancies from a select list of 560 candidates – Supreme Court held such appointments as arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 – Reference to Prem Singh case clarified exceptional circumstances for deviation which were not present in this case [Paras 2-13].

Precedent – Consistency with Established Law – Appointment beyond advertised vacancies must comply with established precedents unless extraordinary circumstances justify deviation – Supreme Court emphasized that the exception noted in Prem Singh's case does not apply in absence of emergent or exceptional situations [Paras 10-12].

Decision:

Special Leave Petitions Dismissed – Appeals dismissed, upholding High Court’s decision – Appointments beyond advertised vacancies ruled impermissible – No costs [Paras 13-14].

Motor Accident Compensation – Disbursement of Award – Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – High Court of Karnataka upheld Tribunal's decision to invest part of compensation in long-term deposits – Supreme Court reversed, holding guidelines for long-term deposits inapplicable to educated, literate claimants unless specific circumstances warrant – Tribunal’s rigid application of guidelines led to injustice [Paras 4-7].

Guidelines Clarified – Discretion of Tribunals – Supreme Court emphasized discretion provided to Tribunals in releasing compensation amounts – Stressed individualized consideration of each case rather than mechanical application of guidelines – Tribunal failed to consider appellants' educational background and immediate financial needs [Paras 5-8].

Decision:

Appeal Allowed – Tribunal’s and High Court’s orders set aside – Full compensation amount to be released to appellants without delay – No order as to costs [Paras 8].