Criminal Law – Abetment of Suicide – Section 306 IPC – Quashing of Charge – Appellant charged under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC for allegedly abetting the suicide of deceased Komal Sahu, who was found hanging from a tree – Charge framed by Sessions Court on 16.12.2024 – High Court dismissed revision application holding prima facie ingredients of Section 306/34 IPC were satisfied – On further appeal, Supreme Court examined the entire material on record and held that no proximate act of instigation or incitement by the appellant was made out – Charge quashed and appellant discharged – Held: Where the material forming part of the charge sheet, even taken at face value, does not satisfy the ingredients of the offence, continuation of criminal proceedings amounts to abuse of process of law [Paras 2–15].

Abetment of Suicide – Essential Ingredients – Section 306 read with Section 107 IPC – For sustaining a charge under Section 306, it must be shown that the accused contributed to the suicide through a direct or indirect act amounting to instigation or incitement – Such instigation must reveal a clear mens rea to abet the commission of suicide and must be in close proximity to the act of suicide so as to form a nexus – Mere existence of alleged illicit relations between the appellant and the wife of the deceased, without any positive act of instigation attributable to the appellant, is insufficient – Held: Mens rea cannot be presumed or inferred; it must be evident and explicitly discernible from the record [Paras 9–13].

Instigation – Proximity to Act of Suicide – Charge Sheet Material – Statements of family members and neighbours disclosed only that the deceased was addicted to liquor, that the appellant and the deceased used to drink together, and that the appellant allegedly had illicit relations with the wife of the deceased – No material whatsoever indicating any act of instigation or incitement by the appellant proximate to the suicide on 07.05.2024 – Last meeting of appellant and deceased was on 05.05.2024 with no adverse incident recorded – Absence of suicide note – Held: Ingredients of Section 107 IPC not satisfied; criminal proceedings liable to be quashed [Paras 12–14].

Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Scope of High Court's Power – Inherent Jurisdiction – Reiterating the law in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab and State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, the Court held that where allegations in the FIR or charge sheet, even if accepted entirely at face value, do not prima facie constitute the offence alleged, quashing of proceedings is warranted to secure ends of justice and prevent abuse of process – High Court erred in not quashing the proceedings despite absence of sufficient material [Paras 9, 14].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Order dated 08.04.2025 in CRR No. 450 of 2025 set aside – Charge framed in Sessions Case No. 80 of 2024 under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC quashed – Appellant discharged – Trial against Accused No. 2 to proceed uninfluenced by observations herein.

Preventive Detention – COFEPOSA Act – Gold Smuggling – Dismissal of SLPs – Detenus alleged to have facilitated disposal of foreign-marked gold bars on multiple occasions – Detention Orders passed under Section 3(1) of COFEPOSA Act on 22.04.2025 – Division Bench of Karnataka High Court upheld the Detention Orders – Supreme Court finds adequate procedural compliance by detaining authority in passing the Detention Orders – Held: Both Special Leave Petitions dismissed [Paras 1, 35-36].

Legal Assistance Before Advisory Board – Section 8(e) of COFEPOSA Act – Article 22(3)(b) of Constitution – Detenu has no right to be represented by legal practitioner before Advisory Board as a matter of right – Right to legal assistance arises only when Detaining Authority itself participates through a legal practitioner or legal adviser before the Advisory Board – Officers merely producing records and assisting the Advisory Board do not trigger this right – Request of detenu for legal assistance before Advisory Board rightly rejected – Held: Rejection of legal assistance does not vitiate the detention proceedings [Paras 19, 21].

Supply of Relied Upon Documents – Pen Drive Containing CCTV Footage – Substantial Compliance – Contents of pen drive displayed to detenus on a laptop inside prison before making representations – Pen drive offered to representatives of detenus – Prison rules do not permit electronic gadgets to detenues – Detenus did not renew request for further display after initial viewing – Held: Non-supply of pen drive does not amount to non-furnishing of relied upon documents; contention rejected as afterthought – Distinguished: Smitha Gireesh v. Union of India & Ors., 2016 SCC OnLine Del 3697 [Paras 26, 28-29].

Representations – Disposal by Competent Authority – Communication through Same Official – Representations of detenu Smt. Harshavardhini Ranya dated 05.05.2025 and 08.05.2025 duly considered by Joint Secretary, COFEPOSA and Director General, CEIB respectively – Communications of rejection signed by Director, COFEPOSA held to be a mere ministerial act of conveying the decision of the competent authority – Held: Communication of rejection by same officer does not render the disposal incompetent or illegal [Paras 30-31].

Subjective Satisfaction – Live and Proximate Link – Detenu in Custody – Detention Order clearly records imminent possibility of release on bail – Prior occurrences of disposal of foreign-marked gold bars established with adequate particulars in grounds of detention – Live and proximate link between last transaction on 14.02.2025 and the incident on 03.03.2025 duly established qua detenu Shri Sahil Sarkariya Jain – Held: Subjective satisfaction of Detaining Authority cannot be faulted [Paras 32, 34].

Habeas Corpus – Fresh Grounds – Strict Pleadings Not Applicable – Fresh grounds can be raised before the Supreme Court in a petition challenging detention order – However, such fresh grounds must still withstand factual scrutiny – Held: Even fresh grounds raised before the Supreme Court do not benefit the petitioners in light of substantial compliance by the authorities [Paras 23-25].

Decision: Both Special Leave Petitions dismissed – Pending applications disposed of – No order as to costs.

Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – Section 3 – Offence of Giving Dowry – Section 7(3) – Statutory Immunity – FIR against Wife and Family – Maintainability – Petitioner-husband sought registration of a separate FIR against his wife and her family members on the ground that their statements acknowledging payment of dowry constituted the offence of 'giving' dowry under Section 3 of the DP Act — Application under Section 156(3) CrPC dismissed by Magistrate — Revision dismissed by Sessions Court — High Court upheld the concurrent orders — Held: Section 7(3) of the DP Act, inserted by Act 43 of 1986 with effect from 19.11.1986, expressly provides that a statement made by the person aggrieved by the offence shall not subject such person to prosecution under the Act — Wife and her family members, being persons aggrieved, are fully protected by this statutory shield — Their complaint and Section 161 CrPC statements cannot form the substratum for launching prosecution against them for 'giving' dowry — Petition dismissed [Paras 9, 13, 20–21].

Section 7(3) of the DP Act – Legislative History – Joint Parliamentary Committee Report, 1982 – The Committee had recommended that givers of dowry should not be equated with takers, as parents are compelled to give dowry by societal and customary norms and do not do so out of free will — Further, penalising both giver and taker would deter complainants from coming forward — Pursuant to these recommendations, Act 43 of 1986 inserted Section 7(3) to protect the aggrieved persons from prosecution — 'Person aggrieved' under Section 7(3) includes not only the bride but also her parents and other relatives [Paras 12–13, 17].

Second FIR – Registration – Principles – A second FIR can be registered where it presents a rival version or counter-claim, where the ambit of the two FIRs is different, where investigation reveals the earlier FIR to be part of a larger conspiracy, or where the incident is separate — However, where the sole foundation for the second FIR is the complaint and Section 161 CrPC statements of the wife and her family members, without any independent evidence of 'giving' of dowry, registration of such FIR is not permissible — Had independent evidence been offered, the protection under Section 7(3) of the DP Act would not have been available [Paras 19–20].

Neera Singh vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) — Observations directing registration of FIR for 'giving' dowry whenever wife alleges dowry was given — Held: Observations made in ignorance of Section 7(3) of the DP Act — Not binding precedent — Overruled in substance — Decision in Pooja Saxena vs. State and Another (Delhi HC), confirmed by Supreme Court on dismissal of SLP, represents correct position of law [Paras 14–16, 18].

Decision: Special leave petition dismissed — No grounds to interfere with concurrent orders of the Magistrate, Sessions Court, and High Court — Pending applications stand dismissed [Paras 21–22].

Civil Law - Property Dispute – Erroneous Judicial Observations – Correction – Title to property near Ulsoor Lake, Bengaluru disputed among three groups: the Muniswamappa group (Appellants), M/s Casablanca Estate (Respondent No. 1 claiming Sy No. 104), and the Chettiar group (Respondent Nos. 2–11 claiming Sy Nos. 102 and 103) – High Court in CRP No. 131/2022 erroneously recorded that Respondent No. 1 claimed ownership of the suit schedule property (Sy Nos. 102 and 103), when in fact Respondent No. 1 had consistently maintained that it owned a distinct property being Sy No. 104 and had been wrongly impleaded – Application under Section 152 CPC for correction of said observations dismissed by High Court – Supreme Court finds observations in paragraphs 6, 13, 14 and 18 of the impugned judgment to be prima facie erroneous and contrary to material on record – Held: Observations shall not be construed as a finding on title, identity, or location of the suit schedule property and shall not be relied upon by any party in any pending proceedings [Paras 2–3, 15–16, 25–27, 30].

Prior High Court Order – Mischaracterisation – Effect of Order Dated 20.02.2015 in WP No. 14279/2006 – High Court in impugned order recorded that the order dated 20.02.2015 "recognises ownership of Jayamma, predecessor in title of Defendant No. 14, and direction is issued to BBMP to mutate her name as owner of the schedule property" – Held: This characterisation is factually and legally incorrect – The order of 20.02.2015 expressly refrained from determining title, directed all parties to approach the civil court, and the direction to BBMP regarding Jayamma was limited to considering her application for katha in respect of the distinct property Sy No. 104 only [Paras 17, 21, 26, 30].

Identity of Property – Shared PID Number – Confusion Arising from Overlapping Municipal Identifiers – Respondent No. 1 contended that Sy No. 104 bore the same PID No. 81-86-1 as Sy Nos. 102 and 103, creating risk of one party's property being claimed as another's – Court noted this apprehension and directed that disputes regarding the concerned property shall be decided by the competent civil court on the basis of pleadings and evidence led by parties – Operative order rejecting plaint in OS No. 437/2020 not interfered with [Paras 20, 28, 30].

Decision: Appeals disposed of – Observations in paragraphs 6, 13, 14 and 18 of the impugned judgment of the High Court clarified and declared not to constitute a finding on title, identity, or location of the suit schedule property – Parties directed not to rely on said observations in any proceedings – Disputes to be adjudicated by the competent civil court – No order as to costs [Paras 30–32].

Tenancy Law – Eviction – Bonafide Need – Subsequent Events – Remand – Suit for eviction filed by legal heirs of the principal tenant against sub-tenant under Section 28 of the Bombay Rent Act on the ground of bonafide need – Trial Court decreed the suit holding that premises were required for the privacy of the 87-year-old widow of the principal tenant – Appellate Court reversed the decree on the ground that the widow had since expired, thereby extinguishing the bonafide need – High Court dismissed writ petition under Article 227 solely on the ground that plaintiffs failed to file a rejoinder to the defendants' affidavit stating that the plaintiffs' own room was let out to third parties – Held: Dismissal solely on the ground of non-traverse of the defendants' affidavit is erroneous; all material on record including the affidavit ought to have been examined – High Court failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it – Order set aside and proceedings remanded to Trial Court [Paras 6, 7, 8].

Bonafide Need – Date of Determination – Subsequent Events – Adjudication of bonafide need to be done as on the date when the suit for eviction was filed – Subsequent events may be considered only if they are of such nature and dimension as to completely eclipse the landlord's need and make it lose its significance altogether – Landlord cannot be penalised for the slowness of the legal system – Subsequent event brought on record by way of affidavit cannot by itself be the sole basis for concluding that the landlord's bonafide need did not subsist, without examining the entire material on record – Trial Court to consider all material including subsequent events and decide suit on merits, uninfluenced by earlier observations [Paras 7, 8, 9].

Subsequent Events – Power of Court – Three Conditions – Power of Court to take note of subsequent events is well-settled – However, such power is subject to three conditions: firstly, the subsequent event should be brought promptly to the notice of the Court; secondly, it should be brought consistently with rules of procedure affording the opposite party an opportunity to meet or explain such events; and thirdly, the subsequent event must have a material bearing on the right to relief of any party [Para 7].

Decision: Civil Appeal allowed – Order dated 04/02/2025 in Writ Petition No. 1458 of 2003 set aside – Proceedings in R.A.E. Suit No. 70 of 1995 remanded to Small Causes Court, Mumbai for fresh adjudication – Parties granted liberty to amend pleadings and lead further evidence – Trial Court directed to endeavour to decide the suit within one year from the date the parties appear before it – Parties to appear before Small Causes Court, Mumbai on 22/04/2026 – No opinion expressed on merits – No order as to costs.

Consumer Law – Banking – Deficiency in Service – Cheque Collection – Stale Cheques – Compensation – Bank received two CTS cheques aggregating Rs. 1,06,10,768 from the respondent for collection, both dated 03.03.2018 and deposited on 29.05.2018 – Cheques were returned on 30.05.2018 due to bank strike – Bank failed to re-present the cheques on 01.06.2018 or 02.06.2018 (both working days), despite the cheques' validity expiring on 02.06.2018 – Cheques were eventually re-presented only on 04.06.2018 and 08.06.2018 by which time they had become stale – National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission held deficiency in service and awarded 10% of total cheque amount with 8% interest p.a. – Supreme Court upheld finding of deficiency but reduced compensation to 6% of total cheque amount with interest at 6% p.a. from date of filing of complaints – Held: A bank receiving cheques for collection acts as agent of the customer and is under an obligation to exercise due diligence in presenting the instruments within the prescribed validity period – Failure to do so, in the absence of reasonable explanation, constitutes negligence and deficiency in service under consumer protection law [Paras 54–62].

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 75A – Delay in Presentment – Strike as Cause – Bank pleaded that delay in presentment was caused by a bank strike on 30.05.2018 and 31.05.2018, attracting the excuse under Section 75A – Held: Once the cause of delay ceases to operate, presentment must be made within a reasonable time – Working days of 01.06.2018 and 02.06.2018 were available to the bank – Bank offered no satisfactory explanation for failure to re-present the cheques on those days – Plea of Section 75A therefore unavailable to the appellant [Paras 33, 55–58].

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138 – Deprivation of Remedy – IBC – Effect – Bank's deficiency in service extinguished the respondent's right to initiate proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act against the directors of the drawer company, Assotech Limited, which was undergoing corporate insolvency resolution – Held: Even if cheques had been dishonoured upon timely presentment, commission of an offence under Section 138 would have depended on service of demand notice and non-payment within 15 days – The ultimate outcome of such proceedings remains speculative, warranting only token compensation – Criminal proceedings under Section 138 are not stayed by Section 14 of the IBC and directors continue to be personally liable [Paras 51–52, 69].

Compensation – Quantum – Consumer Protection – Reasonableness – Commission awarded 10% of total cheque amount as token compensation – Supreme Court found this excessive in the peculiar facts – Held: Since the loss itself is indeterminate despite the finding of deficiency in service, compensation is to be assessed at 6% of total cheque amount to each complainant, with interest at 6% p.a. from date of filing of complaints – Compensation must be fair, reasonable and commensurate to the actual loss or injury – No hard and fast rule can be laid down and computation depends on facts of each case [Paras 63–72].

Decision: Civil appeals partly allowed – Finding of deficiency in service upheld – Compensation reduced from 10% to 6% of total cheque amount of Rs. 1,06,10,768 to each complainant, with interest at 6% p.a. from date of filing of complaints – Rest of impugned order undisturbed – No order as to costs.

Labour Law – Sick Industry – Workmen's Dues – Decades of Non-Payment – Exercise of Power under Article 142 – JUL declared sick under SICA on 17.09.1987 – BIFR sanctioned rehabilitation scheme proposed by GDCL in 1992 – Scheme failed of implementation – BIFR recommended winding up on 24.11.2000 – SICA repealed in 2016 and IBC enacted – JUL did not file application before NCLT within the prescribed period, rendering the BIFR winding-up recommendation final subject to High Court approval – Workmen of cement plant at Sawai Madhopur and Kanpur Jute Mill remained unpaid for over three decades – Dues of approximately ₹115 crores (Rajasthan unit) and ₹48 crores (Kanpur unit) remained outstanding – Court exercised power under Article 142 to give the matter a quietus and ensure payment of dues in a time-bound manner – Held: Power under Article 142 is available where complete justice cannot otherwise be done; revival of the unit being impossible as mining area falls in notified forest area, the only just course is to ensure workmen are paid from the assets of JUL/JAIL [Paras 165–167, 170–176].

Corporate Law – Sick Company – Unauthorised Dealings by Rehabilitation Applicant – GDCL had at best the status of a custodian/trustee under the 1992 rehabilitation scheme – After BIFR recommended winding up on 24.11.2000 and the scheme lost significance, GDCL had no authority to deal with the properties of JUL or its subsidiary JAIL – Despite this, GDCL changed the shareholding pattern of JAIL (a subsidiary of JUL) from 99.9% to 33% by issuing fresh shares to its sister concerns without permission of BIFR or this Court – GDCL also transferred the entire shareholding of JUL to its associate companies in 2017–18, which was reversed only after objection – Held: Any allotment of new shares by GDCL to its group companies declared illegal – Directed accordingly [Paras 122–138, 177].

Asset Management – Sale of Company Assets Without Court Permission – GDCL sold properties of JUL and JAIL without permission of this Court or through any lawful committee – Sales included Kanpur Jute Unit for ₹51 crores (June 2024), agricultural land of JAIL for ₹2.84 crores (September 2022), and another property for ₹21 crores (April 2021), all at undervalued consideration – Court declined to set aside sales of Kanpur Jute Mill and two JAIL properties as buyers' rights require a hearing in compliance with natural justice – However, sale of scrap of Sawai Madhopur Unit was set aside as sale consideration remained with GDCL – GDCL directed to refund sale consideration with interest at 8% p.a. within two months – Held: GDCL was at most a custodian; all contributions made by GDCL to creditors or workmen were from the very assets of JUL over which it had no right [Paras 139–145, 190–195, 196.4–196.6].

Legitimate Expectation – Workmen – Long Pendency – No enforceable legitimate expectation could be said to have accrued to GDCL in continuation of the rehabilitation scheme after the BIFR order of winding up and the abatement of the appeal by repeal of SICA – The workmen, on the other hand, have a legitimate and enforceable claim to their dues which have remained unpaid for over three decades – Held: Legitimate expectation doctrine operates under Article 14; it is not an absolute right and cannot be stretched to defeat the rights of long-suffering workmen [Paras 168–169].

Winding Up – Recommendation of BIFR – Status After Repeal of SICA – Company Petition No.21 of 2001 pending before Rajasthan High Court on BIFR's recommendation for winding up of JUL – After repeal of SICA and enactment of IBC, JUL did not file any application before NCLT within the permitted period of 180 days – BIFR's winding up recommendation thus attained finality subject to High Court approval – However, in view of the fact that as of today all debts of JUL stand cleared, the recommendation for winding up is rendered infructuous – Held: Company Petition No.21 of 2001 stands disposed of as infructuous [Paras 184–189, 196.7].

Court Administrator – Appointment – For the purpose of compliance with directions for payment of workmen's dues, verification of claims, and valuation of assets, Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, former Chief Justice of Madras High Court, appointed as Administrator with power to engage staff, call for records, and avail services of experts – Administrator to be paid monthly honorarium of ₹2 lakhs with ₹2 lakhs per month for staff and expenses – Amount of ₹50 lakhs to be placed at the Administrator's disposal from the ₹1 crore to be retained in escrow – Entire dues of workmen to be cleared by 31.08.2026 [Paras 196, 198–199].

Decision: Writ Petition (Civil) No.392 of 2015 disposed of with the following directions: (i) verification of dues of workmen and clearance thereof within four months, by 31.08.2026; (ii) EPFO to be looped in for calculation of provident fund dues; (iii) inventory of houses/flats in possession of workers to be prepared with conditions for eventual vacation; (iv) inventory and valuation of assets of JUL and JAIL to be prepared; (v) sale of scrap of Sawai Madhopur Unit set aside; GDCL to refund sale consideration with 8% p.a. interest within 2 months; (vi) amounts deposited by GDCL with this Court refunded to it after sale of properties; (vii) Company Petition No.21 of 2001 disposed of as infructuous; (viii) applications by M/s Frost Realty LLP and M/s Dickey Asset Management Pvt. Ltd. rejected; (ix) ₹25 crores deposited by M/s Frost Realty LLP refunded with interest; (x) new share allotments by GDCL declared illegal; (xi) Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava appointed as Court Administrator – Contempt Petition (Civil) Diary No.61491 of 2025 disposed of – No further orders required.

Service Law – Air Force – Dismissal from Service – Administrative Action After Discharge by Criminal Court – Impermissibility – Appellant, commissioned as Pilot Officer in 1972, was posted as Senior Operations Officer – On the night of 29.03.1987, pursuant to instructions of his superior Wing Commander, he removed a GREF driver from the camp and left him at a secluded location; mortal remains of the driver were recovered on 02.04.1987 – Sessions Court discharged the appellant on 12.01.1990 finding no prima facie case and absence of sanction under Section 197 CrPC – Thereafter, administrative action was initiated on 30.10.1990 under Section 19 of the AF Act read with Rule 16 of the AF Rules – Appellant was dismissed from service on 22.09.1993 – Held: Where the Air Force elects to have the alleged offence tried by a criminal court under Section 124 of the AF Act, it cannot thereafter fall back on either a court martial or any disciplinary action – Once the road is chosen, the traveller must walk it to the end – Initiation of administrative proceedings for disciplinary action against the appellant was bad in law and non-est [Paras 24–28].

Service Law – Discharge vs. Acquittal – Discharge Stands on Higher Pedestal – The authority initiating action reasoned that since the appellant was merely "discharged" and neither acquitted nor convicted, administrative proceedings could still be initiated – Held: This understanding is fallacious – Discharge is a pre-trial termination of proceedings for lack of sufficient material to even frame charges; acquittal is a post-trial outcome – An accused discharged of a criminal offence stands on a better footing than an accused finally acquitted after a full-fledged trial – Once an accused is discharged, he is entitled to all benefits available to an acquitted person and cannot be placed in a less advantageous position – Ratio of Harjeet Singh Sandhu applies equally to cases of discharge [Paras 18–19, 26].

Service Law – Limitation – Section 121 of AF Act – Applicability to Administrative Action – The Single Judge held that administrative dismissal was barred by the three-year limitation under Section 121 of the AF Act – Division Bench reversed, relying on Harjeet Singh Sandhu, holding that Section 121 governs trial by court-martial and not administrative action under Rule 16 – Held: The Division Bench was correct on this point – Section 121 prescribes limitation only for commencement of court-martial and does not extend to administrative action – However, administrative action was independently impermissible for other reasons [Paras 3, 22].

Natural Justice – Disciplinary Proceedings – Absence of Regular Inquiry – Cryptic Rejection of Defence – Proceeding note dated 05.06.1992 recorded only "morally convincing evidence" against the appellant without any discussion on the merits or consideration of the specific contentions raised in the reply to the show cause notice – Held: Such an expression is vague and indeterminate and falls far short of the standard required in disciplinary proceedings – Where no regular inquiry is conducted and the delinquent is deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, the show cause notice, reply thereto and final order assume critical importance as the primary safeguards of natural justice – A cryptic or mechanical rejection that does not advert to specific contentions raised falls foul of natural justice and renders the decision arbitrary and unsustainable [Paras 31–33].

Service Law – Punishment – Arbitrariness – Disparity Between Superior and Subordinate – Appellant was dismissed from service while the Wing Commander, who gave the direct order to remove the driver and later instructed suppression of truth, was awarded only "severe displeasure for 3 years" – Appellant acted pursuant to orders of his superior and there was no material to suggest any motive to harm the driver – Queries were repeatedly raised within the Government as to the rationale of the disparity but no satisfactory answer was forthcoming – The Wing Commander's lenient treatment was justified only by his superannuation – Held: When a comparatively less penalty is imposed upon an officer with a more significant role, such disparity ought to weigh with authorities while determining punishment of the subordinate – The principle of equality is violated when a subordinate officer is meted the harshest punishment for complying with a wrongful order of his superior while the latter who issued it receives lenient treatment – Ratio of Sengara Singh v. State of Punjab applies [Paras 35–37].

Relief – Back Wages – 50% Award – Notional Promotion – Pensionary Benefits – Appellant having crossed the age of superannuation, reinstatement not possible – Held: Entitled to (i) arrears of salary and allowances to the extent of 50% from 23.09.1993 till scheduled date of retirement, as no material on record shows appellant did not take up any employment after dismissal; (ii) notional promotion, case to be placed before Review Departmental Promotion Committee; (iii) pensionary benefits admissible in law – Financial benefits to carry interest at 9% p.a. from date of filing of writ petition before High Court till date of payment – Appellant to be "signed off" in the normal manner on a date fixed by Chief of Air Staff, so as to restore his honour [Paras 39–41].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Impugned order of Division Bench of Delhi High Court set aside – Order of dismissal from service dated 22.09.1993 set aside – Directions issued for payment of 50% back wages with 9% interest, consideration for notional promotion, grant of pensionary benefits, and formal signing off – Compliance directed within 3 months from date of service of judgment – Parties to bear their own costs.

Prevention of Corruption – Demand and Acceptance – Hostile Complainant – Creditworthy Portion of Deposition – Accused was Taluk Supply Officer (TSO) who repeatedly refused to countersign the 'Abstract' of ration card register maintained by the complainant (Authorised Ration Dealer) and demanded Rs.500/- as bribe – Trap was laid; marked note recovered from shirt pocket of the accused; left hand of accused tested positive – Trial court convicted under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) with concurrent sentences of two years and fine – High Court acquitted, finding that PW1 turned hostile and demand was not established, the independent witness who accompanied complainant into the cabin was not examined, and there was no proof of any offer by the bribe-giver – Held: High Court erred – The complaint made before the Vigilance Officer, the statements therein affirmed by PW1 before independent witnesses, and the corroboration by PW2 (independent witness) and PW17 (trap officer) are sufficient to establish the demand – Acceptance of the marked note is established and admitted; the false explanation offered by the accused is a further compelling circumstance of guilt – Order of trial court restored [Paras 9–18].

Prevention of Corruption – Proof of Demand – Hostile Witness – Creditworthy Evidence Not to be Discarded in Toto – PW1 prevaricated in cross-examination by affirming every suggestion of the defence, including denial of demand – Held: Evidence of a hostile witness cannot as a matter of law be washed off the record – Court must scrutinise the deposition and act upon the creditworthy portion – PW1 affirmed before Court that the complaint (Ext.P1) recording the demand was read over and confirmed as truthful by him before the independent witnesses – This portion of his evidence, fully corroborated by PW2 and PW17, establishes the demand despite his prevarication – The evasive and inconsistent answers do not efface the creditworthy admissions already made – Ratio of Sat Paul v. Delhi Administration (as approved in Neeraj Dutta) followed [Paras 12–15, 17].

Prevention of Corruption – Section 7 – Ingredients – Demand Sine Qua Non – Per Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi) (Constitution Bench), proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification as a fact in issue is a sine qua non to establish guilt under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) – An offence under Section 7 is also made out if there is an offer to pay by the bribe-giver without a prior demand, provided acceptance is proved, enabling the presumption under Section 20 – In the present case, demand is established from the creditworthy portion of PW1's evidence corroborated by PW2 and PW17; the question of offer therefore does not arise – Distinction drawn from Jayaraj B. v. State of Andhra Pradesh where the complainant had completely disowned the complaint, which is not the position here [Paras 9–11].

Prevention of Corruption – False Explanation – Admission of Acceptance – Compelling Circumstance of Guilt – Accused admitted receipt of the marked Rs.500/- note but offered inconsistent explanations: in cross-examination of PW1 the suggestion was that the amount was a loan repayment through one Swayam Prakash (PW8); under Section 313 the accused stated PW1 had entrusted the money for handing over to Swayam Prakash – PW8 (Swayam Prakash) turned hostile and stated he had borrowed money from PW1, not the other way around – Held: An accused is entitled to take inconsistent stances in defence, however where the suggestion and explanation are contrary and the subject of the alleged loan is spoken otherwise, the false explanation is a compelling circumstance pointing to guilt [Para 16].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Order of acquittal passed by the High Court set aside – Order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court restored – Sentence of two years imprisonment concurrent under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) with fine of Rs.10,000 and default sentence under each provision upheld as the minimum statutory sentence – Pending applications disposed of.