Criminal Law – Bail – Distinction between cancellation of bail and reversal of bail order – Cancellation under Section 439(2) CrPC based on misuse of liberty – Reversal permissible where bail order ignores relevant material or is based on extraneous considerations – Present case falls in second category – High Court’s order granting bail liable to be set aside [Paras 20–21].

Bail in Serious Offences – Murder coupled with SC/ST Act offences – Parameters for grant of bail require due consideration of nature and gravity of accusation, role attributed, impact on society and likelihood of tampering – Superficial appreciation of material impermissible – High Court failed to properly evaluate gravity of allegations involving caste-based assault and homicidal death [Paras 21–22, 31].

Unlawful Assembly – Sections 143, 147, 148, 149 IPC – At bail stage, prosecution not required to attribute specific overt act to each accused where common object alleged – Once FIR alleges concerted attack by unlawful assembly, individual identification of weapon causing specific injury not decisive – High Court erred in insisting on proof of specific injury attributable to each accused [Paras 26–27, 30].

Medical Evidence – Multiple Injuries – Post-mortem reflecting eight injuries including contusion on parietal region of scalp with cerebral damage – Observation that six accused caused only eight injuries irrelevant at bail stage – Question of intention, knowledge and causal nexus between injuries and death to be assessed at trial – Not a ground for grant of bail in grave offence [Paras 28–31].

SC/ST Act – Caste-based Insults and Assault – FIR contained clear allegations of abusive caste remarks and obscene acts – High Court erred in segregating offences under Atrocities Act from homicidal assault while granting bail – Allegations disclose prima facie commission of offences under SC/ST Act [Paras 24–26].

Prior Civil Litigation – Motive – Pendency of land dispute could equally furnish motive for accused to launch attack – High Court’s inference that civil litigation justified bail held unsustainable – Prior enmity cannot be treated solely as ground for false implication at bail stage [Para 25].

Appellate Interference – Perverse Bail Order – Where bail granted ignoring gravity of offence, role attributed and statutory provisions invoked, superior court justified in setting aside order even absent misuse of liberty by accused [Paras 20–23, 32].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned order dated 01.03.2023 granting bail set aside – Bail granted to respondents-accused cancelled – Accused directed to surrender within four weeks – Trial Court directed to conclude trial within one year – Liberty granted to renew bail after recording of eye-witness and medical evidence [Paras 32–34].

Electricity Law – Power Purchase Agreement – Captive Coal Block – Change in Law – Cancellation of coal block pursuant to Supreme Court decision in Manohar Lal Sharma and enactment of Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Act, 2015 – Whether constitutes Change in Law under Article 10 of PPA/PSA – Interpretation of indemnity clause under Article 2.5 – Held: Though PPA/PSA did not expressly name Ganeshpur coal block, surrounding circumstances including Minutes of Meeting dated 03.01.2011 and letter dated 30.04.2012 established that Ganeshpur captive coal block was the designated source – Cancellation of coal block pursuant to judicial interpretation of CMN Act and MMDR Act and subsequent legislation amounted to Change in Law under Articles 10.1.1(b) and 10.1.1(f) – Such Change in Law materially affected seller’s right to procure coal and perform obligations – Compensation payable from 25.08.2014 along with carrying costs – However, prior to cancellation, Article 2.5 indemnified purchaser against escalation due to procurement from alternate sources – Compensation for e-auction/import coal to meet shortfall in tapering linkage before 25.08.2014 not permissible – Appeals partly allowed [Paras 19-26].

Contract Law – Interpretation of Written Contract – Reference to Surrounding Circumstances – Whether prior and subsequent correspondence can be relied upon to identify “captive source” – Scope of Sections 91 and 92 of Evidence Act – Held: Though terms of written contract must ordinarily be gathered from document itself, extrinsic evidence permissible to relate language to existing facts or to clarify ambiguity – Article 2.5’s reference to “captive source” clarified by Minutes of Meeting and subsequent correspondence – Purchaser, being party to such correspondence, estopped from denying identity of captive coal block – Reliance placed on Anglo American Metallurgical Coal Pty. Ltd. v. MMTC Ltd. – Interpretation adopted by APTEL and CERC affirmed on this aspect [Paras 21-23].

Electricity Tariff – Indemnity Clause vs Change in Law Clause – Distinct Fields of Operation – Article 2.5 indemnifies purchaser against escalation when coal sourced from alternate sources during subsistence of captive block – Article 10 triggered when Change in Law materially affects rights and obligations under PPA/PSA – Once coal block cancelled by judicial pronouncement and new statutory regime introduced, Article 10 attracted – Immunity under Article 2.5 not available in case of Change in Law event – APTEL rightly awarded compensation from date of cancellation [Paras 24, 25].

Decision: Appeals partly allowed – Impugned order of APTEL set aside to limited extent granting compensation for procurement of coal through e-auction/import to meet shortfall in tapering linkage prior to 25.08.2014 – Award of compensation on account of Change in Law event with effect from 25.08.2014 along with carrying costs upheld – CERC directed to modify consequential order accordingly – No order as to costs [Paras 26-27].

Telecom – 2G Spectrum – Quashing of Licences – Continued Operation after 02.02.2012 – Liability to pay Reserve Price – Supreme Court directed that licensees who continued operations after 02.02.2012 shall pay reserve price fixed for November 2012 auction – Held: Liability commenced from 02.02.2012 and not from 15.02.2013 as interpreted by TDSAT – TDSAT’s view factually erroneous – Direction binding and not open to dilution [Paras 13-14, 17].

Interpretation of Judicial Orders – Clear reference to “after 02.02.2012” in order dated 15.02.2013 – Commencement date explicitly indicated – Held: Where language of order is clear, subordinate forum cannot reinterpret to alter commencement of liability – Liability must be given full effect as directed [Paras 13-14].

Spectrum Auction – End Date of Levy – Respondent successful bidder in March 2013 auction – Letter of Intent issued on 30.04.2013 specifying commencement of 20-year term from date of LoI – Held: Liability to pay reserve price in 8 circles continued till 30.04.2013 – In remaining 13 circles till date of cessation of operations i.e. 23.03.2013 – Levy cannot extend beyond LoI date [Paras 15, 17].

Interest – Delay in Raising Demand – DoT issued show-cause notice only on 17.11.2014 – Held: Interest payable only from 08.12.2014, being expiry of 21 days granted in show-cause notice – DoT cannot take advantage of its own delay and claim interest for earlier period [Para 16-17].

Public Interest – Continuation of Operations – Existing licensees permitted to continue post-quashing only to avoid disruption of telecom services to public – Such continuation not for benefit of licensees – Imposition of reserve price was premium for enjoying benefit of quashed licences [Paras 12-13].

Decision: Appeal allowed in part – Respondent liable to pay reserve price from 02.02.2012 till 30.04.2013 (8 circles) and till 23.03.2013 (13 circles) – Interest payable @ SBI Prime Lending Rate from 08.12.2014 – Amount already paid to be adjusted – Balance to be paid within 3 months – Parties to bear own costs [Para 17].

Consumer Protection – Deficiency in Service – Delay in handing over possession – Joint Development Agreement – Whether landowners jointly and severally liable with developer for delay compensation – Held: Liability for construction and delivery vested solely with developer under JDA – Landowners not liable for delay compensation – Appeals dismissed [Paras 14-17].

Joint Development Agreement – Allocation of obligations – Clause 7 of JDA and Clauses 2 & 3 of GPA – Developer authorized to construct, enter into sale agreements, receive consideration and convey title in respect of its share – Mutual indemnity clauses – Held: Construction and delay attributable exclusively to developer – Landowners indemnified against consequences of developer’s acts or omissions [Paras 12-14].

Principal and Agent – Scope of liability – Execution of GPA by landowners in favour of developer – Contention that principal liable for acts of agent – Held: No blanket principal-agent liability for construction delay – Relationship governed by specific terms of JDA and GPA – Landowners not concerned with construction activities and not signatories to Sale Agreements – Mere execution of GPA does not fasten liability for deficiency in service arising from construction delay [Paras 9-10, 15].

Consumer Law – Joint and Several Liability – Transfer of Title – Though not liable for delay compensation, landowners jointly responsible with developer to ensure transfer of title and execution of sale deeds – Direction of Commission to execute conveyance upheld [Para 15].

Precedents – Applicability – Decisions relied upon by appellants distinguished – Issue of joint and several liability depends on facts of each case – Earlier decisions directing developer alone to pay delay compensation support respondents’ case [Para 16].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Impugned orders of NCDRC upheld to the extent that landowners are not jointly and severally liable for delay compensation – Direction to transfer title and execute sale deeds affirmed [Para 17].

Consumer Protection – Housing Construction – Delay in handing over possession – Compensation – Contractual clause limiting delay compensation to Rs.10 per sq. ft. per month – NCDRC awarded interest @ 8% per annum – Held: Consumer fora derive power from statute, not merely contract – One-sided clauses cannot curtail statutory jurisdiction – Award of 8% interest fair and reasonable – Appeals dismissed [Paras 9-18, 28-30].

Unfair Trade Practice – One-sided Builder-Buyer Agreement – Clause providing nominal compensation for delay while enabling developer to charge high interest from buyer – Held: Such oppressive and unilateral clauses constitute unfair trade practice under Section 2(1)(r) – Consumer fora empowered to depart from such clauses and award just compensation [Paras 15-18].

Deficiency in Service – Failure to obtain Occupancy Certificate – Offer of possession on “as is where is” basis without statutory approvals – Held: Possession without Occupancy Certificate is legally untenable – Failure to secure OC amounts to deficiency in service – Buyer cannot be compelled to accept incomplete possession [Paras 24-26].

Compensation – Principles governing award – Compensation under Consumer Protection Act is remedial and protective – Must be fair, reasonable and proportionate to delay and hardship – Not confined to strict pecuniary loss – May include mental agony and prolonged deprivation – Detailed mathematical proof not sine qua non [Paras 19-21, 28].

Subsequent Purchaser – Entitlement to Compensation – Subsequent allottee steps into shoes of original allottee – Right to seek compensation for deficiency travels with allotment unless expressly barred [Para 18.1].

Stamp Duty and Ancillary Reliefs – Direction to bear increase in stamp duty and grant rebate – Held: Such directions incidental and ancillary to main relief of compensation – Within scope of Section 14 of the Act – No perversity warranting interference [Para 28.1].

Compliance with Court Directions – Repeated undertakings by developer – Failure to obtain Occupancy Certificate despite multiple opportunities – Persistent non-compliance weighs against developer in determining equitable relief [Paras 22-24].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Orders of NCDRC affirmed – Appellant directed to obtain Occupancy Certificate and hand over possession within six months – Compensation @ 8% per annum to continue till delivery – In C.A. No. 11047 of 2025, interest payable till 14.08.2022 with adjustment of amounts already paid – Liberty granted to approach NCDRC only on limited issue of post-period interest in case of bona fide impediment [Paras 29-30].

Criminal Law – Murder – Circumstantial Evidence – Recovery under Section 27 Evidence Act – Deceased went missing – Ransom calls made from her mobile – Mobile sold by accused – Dead body recovered from well at accused’s disclosure – Scooty recovered at accused’s instance – Medical evidence proving homicidal death by ligature strangulation – Held: Complete chain of circumstances established – Conviction under Sections 302 and 201 IPC upheld – Appeal dismissed – Liberty granted to apply for remission [Paras 12-14, 19-23, 29-30].

Circumstantial Evidence – Five Golden Principles – Sharad Birdhichand Sarda principles reiterated – Circumstances must be fully established – Must be consistent only with guilt of accused – Must exclude every hypothesis except guilt – Chain must be complete – Court satisfied that cumulative circumstances form unbroken chain pointing only to appellant’s guilt [Paras 13-14, 29].

Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 27 – Scope and Admissibility – Discovery of fact includes object found, place of recovery and knowledge of accused – Recovery of dead body from well pursuant to memorandum statement while in custody – Recovery embodies doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events – Information distinctly related to fact discovered – Held: Recovery valid and constitutes formidable incriminating circumstance [Paras 20-23].

Murder – Medical Evidence – Ligature strangulation – Post-mortem revealed fracture of thyroid cartilage, ligature marks and ante-mortem injury – Body recovered from water in partial decomposition – Scientific reference to slower putrefaction in water – Identification based on recognizable features and clothing upheld – Absence of DNA test not fatal where reliable ocular identification available [Paras 15, 24-25].

Delay in Missing Report – Three-day delay in lodging missing report – Explained as natural conduct of family expecting return of missing member – Held: Not fatal to prosecution case [Para 16].

Motive – Ransom demand of Rs 5 lakh – Financial gain alleged – Held: Though motive strengthens prosecution case, absence or insufficiency of motive not fatal where circumstantial chain is complete [Paras 27-28].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 302 and 201 IPC affirmed – Appellant granted liberty to apply for remission in accordance with applicable policy [Paras 29-30].

Criminal Law – Quashing - Drugs and Cosmetics Act – Non-maintenance and manipulation of manufacturing records – Schedules M & U – Allegations of tampering, discrepancies in production, consumption and sale of Pseudoephedrine – Held: Such violations attract Section 18(a)(vi) read with Rule 74 and are punishable under Section 27(d) – Not confined merely to Section 18-B/28-A relating to maintenance of records [Paras 26-27].

Section 27(d) – Scope – Manufacture for sale or distribution in contravention of Chapter IV or Rules – Failure to maintain mandatory batch production and raw material records under Schedule M & U amounts to contravention of statutory requirements governing manufacture – Cognizable under Section 27(d) [Paras 23, 27].

Limitation – Section 468 CrPC – Offence under Section 27(d) punishable with imprisonment up to two years – Limitation period three years – Complaint filed within two years and six months – Held: Not time-barred – Decisions in Miteshbhai J. Patel and Cheminova (India) Ltd. distinguished as complaints there were filed beyond three years [Paras 28-30].

Cognizance Order – Omission to specifically mention Section 27(d) in handwritten order – Complaint title and committal order clearly referred to Section 27(d) – Held: Omission clerical in nature – No prejudice caused – Proceedings not vitiated [Paras 24-25].

Jurisdiction – Sections 32(2), 36-A and 36-AB – Offences under Chapter IV – Save as otherwise provided, no Court inferior to Court of Session shall try such offences – Section 36-A excludes offences triable by Court of Session – Held: JMFC rightly committed case to Special Court – Summary trial under Section 36-A not applicable [Paras 31-32].

Quashing – Section 482 CrPC – Detailed allegations of serious discrepancies, manipulation and misuse of habit-forming drug – Prima facie case disclosed – Held: No ground for quashing at threshold [Paras 26-27, 33].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court order refusing to quash complaint affirmed – Trial to proceed before Special Judge in accordance with law [Paras 33-34].

Education Law – Private University – Act Declared Ultra Vires – Protection of Degrees Already Awarded – Appellants obtained B.Lib degrees in 2004 from University established under Chhattisgarh Niji Kshetra Vishwavidyalaya Act, 2002 – Act declared ultra vires in Prof. Yash Pal v. State of Chhattisgarh – Services terminated on ground that University ceased to exist – Held: Students who had already passed out prior to declaration of Act as ultra vires cannot be penalized when University was validly established at the relevant time and not shown to be bogus – Degrees protected [Paras 13, 16].

Service Law – Termination – Appointment Based on Degree from University Established Under Invalidated Statute – Appellants appointed as librarians in 2010 and worked for over five years – No objection raised at time of appointment despite judgment in Prof. Yash Pal case being in public domain – Termination solely on ground of invalidity of parent Act – Held: Termination illegal as appellants not at fault and had studied in institution validly functioning at relevant time – Orders of termination set aside [Paras 14, 17].

Constitutional Law – Declaration of Statute as Ultra Vires – Effect on Past Transactions – Though Sections 5 and 6 of 2002 Act struck down resulting in cessation of universities, Supreme Court in Prof. Yash Pal protected interests of students studying at that time – In present case, Court extends protection to students who had already completed courses prior to judgment – Principle that innocent students should not suffer for legislative invalidity applied [Paras 11-12, 16].

Relief – Reinstatement – Back Wages – Appellants directed to be reinstated with continuity of service – However, no back wages granted for intervening period as they had not actually worked and matter not solely attributable to State – Balance of equities maintained [Para 18].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Impugned High Court judgments set aside – Termination orders quashed – Appellants to be reinstated with continuity of service but without back wages – Pending applications disposed of.

Sentence – Death Penalty Commuted – Life Imprisonment Without Remission Till Natural Life – Modification by Supreme Court – Appellants convicted for kidnapping, rape and murder of minor victim and destruction of evidence – Trial Court imposed death penalty – High Court commuted death sentence to life imprisonment without possibility of remission till end of natural life – Appeal confined to quantum of sentence – Held: Interest of justice would be served by modifying sentence to life imprisonment for a fixed term of twenty years without remission – Appeal partly allowed [Paras 4-8].

Remission – Scope of Judicial Power – Double Hardship Argument – Appellants contended that life imprisonment till natural life without remission imposed twin hardship of indefinite incarceration and denial of statutory remission – Referred to principles in Union of India v. V. Sriharan and subsequent precedents – Supreme Court balanced brutality of offence with possibility of reformation – Modified sentence to fixed term of twenty years without remission instead of whole natural life – Held: Fixed term sentence without remission appropriate in facts of case [Paras 5-8].

Sentencing Principles – Young Age of Accused – Possibility of Reformation – Appellants aged 22 and 19 years at time of offence and had undergone over eleven years of incarceration – While crime was heinous involving kidnapping, sexual assault and murder of child, High Court itself found no material to conclude that appellants were beyond reformation – Supreme Court held that ends of justice met by imposing life imprisonment for twenty years without remission rather than incarceration till end of natural life [Paras 3, 6-8].

Decision: Appeal allowed in part – Sentence modified to life imprisonment for a period of twenty years without remission – Pending applications disposed of.