Criminal Law – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) – Appeal Against Conviction  – Appellants convicted by trial court under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act for alleged possession and transportation of 80 kg ganja – Conviction affirmed by High Court – Appeals filed by appellants [Paras 1-2, 11-12].

Procedural Irregularities in Seizure and Sampling – Discrepancies in seizure of ganja and non-compliance with NDPS Act provisions – Three bundles of ganja allegedly recovered, but only two samples reached FSL – Lack of independent panch witness testimony and proper documentation of sample handling and storage – FSL report deemed inadmissible due to procedural flaws [Paras 13-21, 22].

Compliance with Section 52A of NDPS Act – Absence – Held – The prosecution failed to comply with Section 52A of the NDPS Act regarding the preparation of inventory and obtaining samples in the presence of a jurisdictional Magistrate, rendering the FSL report ineffectual. [Para 21-22]

Flaws in Prosecution's Case – Absence of concrete evidence against accused A-3 and A-4 – Reliance on inadmissible confession to police – Inconsistencies in police witness testimony – Prosecution failed to prove charges beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 23-24].

Confession to Police – Inadmissibility – Observed – Confessions made to police officers are inadmissible in evidence under Section 25 of the Evidence Act, impacting the prosecution’s case against accused A-3 and A-4, who were implicated based on interrogation notes of co-accused. [Para 23]

Decision – Acquittal of Accused – The Supreme Court acquitted the accused, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt due to procedural lapses and evidentiary inconsistencies. The judgment and conviction by the lower courts were set aside. [Para 24-26]

Arbitration Law – Limitation Period – Applicability to Section 11(6) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – The Supreme Court examined the applicability of the Limitation Act, 1963 to applications for appointment of arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court clarified the distinction between the limitation for filing a Section 11(6) application and for raising substantive claims in arbitration. It held that the limitation for a Section 11(6) application begins only after a valid notice invoking arbitration is issued and the other party fails to comply with the appointment procedure agreed upon. [Paras 43-54]

Arbitration Proceedings – Commencement and Limitation – Petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for the appointment of an arbitrator in a dispute arising from a franchise agreement – Analysis of when the right to apply for arbitration accrues and the applicability of the Limitation Act, 1963 to arbitration proceedings – The present petition not barred by limitation as it was filed within three years from the date of respondent's failure to comply with the notice of invocation of arbitration [Paras 90-91, 94-95].

Cause of Action and Limitation – Determination of the accrual of cause of action on 28.03.2018, when the respondent showed unwillingness to continue discussions on payments related to the ICCR project – The claims not ex-facie dead or time-barred on the date of commencement of arbitration proceedings, considering the extension of limitation due to the Covid-19 pandemic [Paras 75-81, 83-88].

Appointment of Arbitrator – Shri Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Former Judge of the Supreme Court of India, appointed as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties [Para 92].

Decision – The petition under Section 11(6) was allowed, and the appointment of an arbitrator was made. The claims sought to be arbitrated were not found to be ex-facie time-barred on the date of commencement of the arbitration proceedings. [Paras 90-94]

Criminal Procedure Code – Quashing of Proceedings – Section 482 CrPC – The Supreme Court evaluated the High Court's exercise of power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, in quashing criminal proceedings based on a settlement agreement. The case involved the quashing of FIR and subsequent proceedings in a case of serious offences including abduction and assault. [Para 1-8, 12]

Involvement of Original Complainant in Settlement – Noted –  Court observed that the original complainant, who was also an injured victim, was neither a party to the settlement agreement nor consented to it. The importance of the complainant's consent in quashing proceedings involving non-compoundable offences was emphasized. [Para 7, 11-12]

Jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC – Limitation –  Court reiterated the principles governing the exercise of High Court's inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, particularly in cases where the offences are of a serious nature and have a societal impact. The Court clarified that such powers should be exercised judiciously, ensuring justice and preventing abuse of the legal process. [Para 11-12]

Restoration of Criminal Proceedings – Directed –  Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order quashing the FIR and proceedings, restoring the original criminal case to the trial court. The Court instructed the trial court to expedite the trial, considering the long duration since the filing of the FIR. [Para 13]

Decision – Supreme Court, in reversing the High Court's decision, upheld the importance of considering the original complainant's stance in cases involving serious crimes, where settlement agreements do not necessarily lead to quashing of proceedings. [Para 9, 12-14]

Criminal Procedure Code 1973 (CrPC) – Section 482 – Quashing of criminal complaint – Unexplained inordinate delay must be taken into consideration as a crucial factor for quashing a criminal complaint – Over four-year gap between initial investigation and complaint filing, with no evidence provided to sustain the claims – High Court must detail cases to prevent miscarriage of justice – Criminal complaint quashed – Appeal allowed [Paras 1-29].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Criminal complaint quashed – High Court order set aside [Para 29

Evidence – Multiple dying declarations – Legal position summarized – If the court concludes a dying declaration is true and reliable, made without tutoring, duress, or prompting, and when the declarant was physically and mentally fit, it can be the sole basis for conviction – In case of inconsistencies, the declaration by a higher officer (e.g., Magistrate) can be relied upon if no circumstances cast doubt on its truthfulness – Scrutiny required when declarations are not voluntary or are unsupported by other evidence [Paras 1-15].

Penal Code 1860 (IPC) – Section 498A – Cruelty – Multiple dying declarations – Second declaration rejected by the High Court – Appellant's conviction examined based on cumulative evidence – First declaration did not name the appellant – Second declaration was the only evidence of cruelty, deemed unreliable by the High Court – Conviction and sentence set aside [Paras 16-21].

Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act – Relevance of dying declarations – Statements concerning the cause of death or related circumstances are relevant – Test of credibility based on overall facts and evidence – Multiple dying declarations require careful assessment of consistency and truthfulness [Paras 11-14].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 498A IPC set aside – Appellant to be released unless required in another case [Para 21].

Criminal Procedure Code 1973 (CrPC) – Section 427 – Sentence on offender already sentenced for another offence – Theft of electricity – Sentences in nine cases – If a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment, such subsequent term of imprisonment would normally commence at the expiration of the imprisonment to which he was previously sentenced – Ordinarily the subsequent sentence would commence at the expiration of the first term of imprisonment unless the court directs the subsequent sentence to run concurrently with the previous sentence – The general rule is that where there are different transactions, different crime numbers and cases decided by different judgments, concurrent sentence cannot be awarded under Section 427 CrPC – Under Section 427(1) of CrPC, the court has the power and discretion to issue a direction that all the subsequent sentences run concurrently with the previous sentence; however, discretion has to be exercised judiciously depending upon the nature of the offence or offences committed and the facts in situation – Specific direction or order by the court is required for the subsequent sentence to run concurrently with the previous sentence – This Court orders and directs that the sentences imposed on the appellant in the nine sessions trials shall run concurrently [Paras 1-16].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court judgment set aside – Sentences in nine cases to run concurrently [Para 14].

Land Acquisition Act 1894 – Section 4 – Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 – Section 24(2) – Lapse of land acquisition proceedings – High Court's declaration of deemed lapse under Section 24(2) due to non-tendering of compensation found unsustainable – Constitution Bench decision in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal [2020 (8) SCC 129] overruled Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors. [2014 (3) SCC 183] relied upon by the High Court – Acquisition proceedings do not lapse if possession has been taken even if compensation has not been tendered [Paras 1-4].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court judgment set aside – Acquisition proceedings with respect to the land in question not deemed to have lapsed [Para 4].

Motor Vehicles Act 1988 – Section 166 – Death in accident – Enhancement of compensation – High Court increased the level of income but did not address the issue in the correct perspective – Documentary evidence showed the deceased was cultivating 66 acres and entitled to a third of the value of produce from income of those agricultural lands – Income computed at Rs. 150000/- per annum – Applying 40% towards future prospects, total annual income (Rs. 150000 + Rs. 60000) amounts to Rs. 210000 – With a 1/4th deduction (4 dependents), annual loss of dependency (Rs. 210000 - Rs. 52500) is Rs. 157500 – Applying a multiplier of 16, total loss of dependency (i.e. Rs. 157500 x 16) is Rs. 2520000 – Filial and parental consortium increased – Each of the children and the mother of the deceased entitled to Rs. 40000/- – Total amount payable towards filial and parental consortium is Rs. 120000/- – Appeal allowed [Paras 9-14].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Compensation enhanced to Rs. 2520000/- for loss of dependency, and Rs. 40000/- each for filial and parental consortium for the three appellants [Para 14].

Insurance contract – Deficiency in service – Home loan sanctioned on pre-condition of life insurance policy – Bank acting as an agent for insurance company – Premium accepted and retained after normal medical test results – Malafide actions by insurance company after death of insured – Ante-dated letter issued post death intimation – Refund of premium followed by repudiation – Clear case of deficiency of service and non-bonafide conduct by respondent – Insurance claim to be processed and payable sum remitted [Paras 1-27].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment set aside – Insurance claim to be processed and payable sum remitted [Para 27].