Service Law – False Caste Claim – Continuation in Service Not Permissible – Milind Not Applicable to Employment Cases – Respondent falsely claimed Scheduled Tribe status to secure reserved employment as Assistant Professor – Scrutiny Committee invalidated his caste claim – High Court, relying on Milind, allowed continuation in service despite falsehood – Held: Milind applies only to admissions in educational institutions where the candidate has completed studies, not to employment obtained through misrepresentation – Continuation in employment based on false caste certificate is impermissible – Judgment of High Court set aside [Paras 1, 4-6].

Reservation in Employment – Misuse by False Declaration – Fraudulent Entry Vitiates Employment – Post Must Be Vacated for Eligible Reserved Category Candidate – A person obtaining public employment by falsely claiming caste-based reservation deprives genuine candidates – Held: Services obtained by fraud must be terminated to restore constitutional reservation benefits – Allowing continuation amounts to perpetuating fraud and injustice [Paras 4-5].

Judicial Review – Misinterpretation of Precedent – Milind Decision Misapplied – No Equivalence Between Admission and Appointment – High Court wrongly extended educational precedent (Milind) to employment scenario – Held: Legal distinction must be drawn between degrees earned and jobs obtained through fraud – Judicial leniency in such employment cases undermines reservation policy and constitutional equality [Para 5].

Final Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court Judgment Set Aside – Respondent Not Entitled to Service or Pension – Supreme Court quashed High Court's direction allowing respondent to continue in service – Held: Resignation submitted by respondent before judgment – Only terminal benefits (excluding pension) to be settled if due [Para 6].

Criminal Law – Kidnapping for Ransom – Section 364-A IPC – Appellant convicted for kidnapping a 9-year-old child and demanding ₹10 lakh ransom – Victim lured on pretext of being called by father – Held in captivity across several locations – Ransom paid through an intermediary, child recovered safely – Prosecution proved abduction, detention, and demand for ransom – Held: All ingredients of Section 364-A made out – Conviction and life sentence upheld [Paras 4–8, 31–32]

Evidence – Victim's Testimony – Sole Eyewitness – Testimony of the child (PW 2) corroborated by father (PW 1) and independent witnesses – Victim identified appellant and narrated sequence of abduction, movement, and ransom delivery – No serious challenge to credibility during trial or appeal – Held: Testimony of child witness reliable and forms basis for conviction [Paras 24–26, 30]

Criminal Procedure – Recovery of Ransom – Currency Notes with Initials – Recovered cash carried initials “M.M.” of victim’s father – Several bundles recovered from appellant and co-accused – Defence plea that notes were not produced at trial found incorrect – Trial court recorded detailed findings on recovery – Held: Recovery of marked currency substantiates prosecution case [Paras 27–29]

Criminal Law – Applicability of Section 364-A IPC – Scope and Ingredients – Abduction followed by threat and demand for ransom proved – Offence under Section 364-A requires (i) abduction or kidnapping, (ii) threat or harm, and (iii) demand for ransom – All three fulfilled in present case – Held: Section 364-A rightly invoked – Argument that provision not applicable rejected [Paras 31–32]

Interpretation – Definition of 'Ransom' and 'Demand' – Court referred to Black’s Law Dictionary – Held: Demand implies an authoritative claim, and ransom implies a coercive payment for release – Evidence established a clear demand and delivery of money for safe return of child [Para 31]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction under Section 364-A IPC and sentence of life imprisonment upheld – No interference warranted with High Court's judgment [Para 32]

Criminal Law – Murder – Reversal of Acquittal – Eyewitnesses supported prosecution version of the accused firing at deceased Rajpal Singh with licensed gun – Trial Court gave benefit of doubt due to delay in FIR entry and possible alternate explanation of injuries – High Court reversed acquittal and convicted under Section 302 IPC – Held: Though eyewitness testimony consistent, forensic evidence raised doubt as the cartridge recovered was not fired from the accused’s gun – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 1–9, 22–23]

Evidence – Ballistic Report – Firearm mismatch – Forensic Science Laboratory report confirmed that cartridge found at scene was not fired from gun recovered from accused – Expert opinion contradicted key prosecution case of use of that weapon – Held: Where scientific evidence creates serious doubt about weapon used, benefit must go to accused [Paras 13, 22–23]

Criminal Procedure – Appeal under Article 136 – New Point – Accused raised ballistic report argument for first time before Supreme Court – Held: Though not raised before lower courts, issue allowed as sufficient material on record and essential for justice – Supreme Court may consider such point in exceptional circumstances [Paras 14–15]

Standard of Proof – Benefit of Doubt – Accused’s conviction rested on circumstantial consistency between eyewitnesses and medical testimony – However, ballistic expert’s finding broke the link between gun and injury – Held: Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Acquittal warranted [Paras 22–24]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted by granting benefit of doubt – Ordered to be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case.

NDPS Act – Section 67 – Confessional Statements – Admissibility – Conviction Upheld – Accused convicted on basis of statement recorded under Section 67 NDPS Act – Held: Officers vested with poNDPS Act – Section 67 – Confessional Statements – Admissibility – Conviction Upheld – Accused convicted on basis of statement recorded under Section 67 NDPS Act – Held: Officers vested with powers under Section 53 NDPS Act are not “police officers” within Section 25 Evidence Act – Statement under Section 67 is admissible and can form sole basis of conviction if voluntary – Retraction not proved on record, hence cannot dilute evidentiary value – High Court rightly relied upon confession and corroborative testimony of officer [Paras 37-40].

Constitution – Article 20(3) – Self-Incrimination – Not Attracted – Statement made under Section 67 NDPS Act prior to accused being formally charged does not fall within Article 20(3) protection – Even if in custody, voluntariness of statement is determinative – No evidence of threat or coercion – Hence bar under Article 20(3) inapplicable [Paras 36, 38-39].

Evidence Act – Sections 24 to 27 – Confessions – Applicability – Rule against police confessions not attracted to NDPS officers – Statement under Section 67 not equivalent to Section 161 CrPC statement – Distinction noted from TADA/POTA where statute expressly excluded Evidence Act protections [Paras 36-38].

Retracted Confession – Need for Corroboration – Court reiterated prudence rule: normally unsafe to convict solely on retracted confession – However, where voluntariness established and retraction unproved, conviction can rest on such confession alone – Here, no proof of retraction application, no cross-examination of officer, confession accepted [Paras 27, 39-40].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Conviction and 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1 lakh confirmed – Sole reliance on voluntary confession under Section 67 NDPS Act sustainable [Para 41].wers under Section 53 NDPS Act are not “police officers” within Section 25 Evidence Act – Statement under Section 67 is admissible and can form sole basis of conviction if voluntary – Retraction not proved on record, hence cannot dilute evidentiary value – High Court rightly relied upon confession and corroborative testimony of officer [Paras 37-40].

Constitution – Article 20(3) – Self-Incrimination – Not Attracted – Statement made under Section 67 NDPS Act prior to accused being formally charged does not fall within Article 20(3) protection – Even if in custody, voluntariness of statement is determinative – No evidence of threat or coercion – Hence bar under Article 20(3) inapplicable [Paras 36, 38-39].

Evidence Act – Sections 24 to 27 – Confessions – Applicability – Rule against police confessions not attracted to NDPS officers – Statement under Section 67 not equivalent to Section 161 CrPC statement – Distinction noted from TADA/POTA where statute expressly excluded Evidence Act protections [Paras 36-38].

Retracted Confession – Need for Corroboration – Court reiterated prudence rule: normally unsafe to convict solely on retracted confession – However, where voluntariness established and retraction unproved, conviction can rest on such confession alone – Here, no proof of retraction application, no cross-examination of officer, confession accepted [Paras 27, 39-40].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Conviction and 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1 lakh confirmed – Sole reliance on voluntary confession under Section 67 NDPS Act sustainable [Para 41].

Service Law – Army Promotion – Judicial Review – Article 226 – Non-promotion to Colonel rank upheld – Appellant Lt. Col. challenged supersession despite allegedly better record than batchmates – Selection Board considered overall profile including ACRs, war reports, honours, courses, appointments, and disciplinary background – Held: Promotion to Colonel is a selection post; courts cannot sit in appeal over merit of assessment absent mala fides or procedural illegality – Non-impleadment of comparators also fatal – Appeal dismissed [Paras 9-15].

Administrative Law – Scope of Judicial Review – Principle Reaffirmed - Judicial review confined to decision-making process; courts cannot interfere with merits where relevant considerations are applied, irrelevant factors excluded, and decision has nexus with record – Applied to defence service promotions given special requirements of army – No interference warranted [Paras 10, 12-14].

Decision:

Appeal dismissed — No merit in challenge to promotion decision of Selection Board — No mala fides alleged; judicial review limited to process not merits. No order as to costs.

Criminal Procedure – Arrest and Custody – Voluntary Appearance Before Magistrate – Held Amounts to Arrest – Respondents in both appeals had appeared before Magistrate and were released on bail without being taken into formal custody – High Court in Dinesh Kumar's case held no arrest took place – Supreme Court held: surrender before Magistrate amounts to judicial custody and therefore arrest under Section 46 CrPC – Interpretation of "arrest" clarified as including both physical confinement and voluntary submission to custody [Paras 10–13, 24–26]

Service Law – Suppression of Criminal Antecedents – Recruitment Application – Columns 13(A) and 14 – Bona Fide Mistake – Application form asked whether applicant was ever arrested or convicted – Respondents answered “No” relying on lay understanding – Supreme Court held that while technically incorrect, the misunderstanding was bona fide and not wilful – No deliberate suppression – Directed authorities to issue appointment letters subject to other conditions [Paras 3–9, 28–31]

Customs Act – Interpretation of Arrest – Distinction Not Applicable to CrPC Proceedings – Full Bench decision of Madras High Court in Roshan Beevi distinguished – Customs-related inquiry under Sections 107 and 108 held different from criminal court proceedings – Principles of arrest under CrPC not diluted in such contexts [Paras 20–23]

Judicial Interpretation – Conflict of Decisions – Harmonisation – Two co-ordinate benches of the same High Court took contradictory views on meaning of "arrest" – Supreme Court clarified and harmonised by upholding the reasoning in Lalit Kumar and Bhupinder's case but extending the benefit of Dinesh Kumar’s judgment to them as well [Paras 2, 28–30]

Decision:

Civil Appeal No. 84 of 2008 (Dinesh Kumar) dismissed

Civil Appeal No. 85 of 2008 (Lalit Kumar and Bhupinder) allowed

High Court’s order in appeal of Lalit Kumar and Bhupinder set aside

Authorities directed to appoint them as Constable-Drivers with effect from date persons lower in merit were appointed

Notional benefits of service granted, salary to be paid from date of Supreme Court judgment

Service Law – Trade Tax Officers – Limited Departmental Examination, 1987 – 97 posts withdrawn from UPPSC due to delays – Cabinet approved departmental selection – Appointments in 1987 described as ad hoc owing to interim High Court orders – Held: Government intended substantive appointments – 1987 appointees deemed substantively appointed from date of initial appointment, not from 1997 [Paras 68-72, 77-82].

Constitution of India – Article 320(3) – Withdrawal of posts from UPPSC – Governor empowered to exclude posts after consultation – Cabinet decision binding on Governor under Article 163 – Validity of withdrawal upheld – SLP in Zaki Khan’s case dismissed – Findings attained finality [Paras 63-67].

Service Rules – Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Officers (Grade-II) Service Rules, 1983 – Applicability – Once posts withdrawn from UPPSC, direct recruitment procedure under Rules not applicable – State entitled to prescribe executive norms – Amendment of 1997 clarificatory, not constitutive – Appointments always considered substantive [Paras 69-73, 78-80].

Seniority – Counting of Service – General principle: seniority counted from entry into cadre – Exception applied – 1987 appointees part of cadre from initial appointment – Their service from 1987-1997 cannot be ignored – Direct recruits of 1985/1990 batches appointed later cannot claim seniority above them [Paras 76, 81-85].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court judgment set aside – Writ petitions by direct recruits dismissed – Writ petitions by 1987 appointees allowed – 1987 appointees treated as substantively appointed from 1987 – Seniority list to be revised accordingly – No order as to costs.

Criminal Law – Murder - Circumstantial Evidence – Conviction reversed – Acquittal -Appellant Mani was convicted for the murder of Sivakumar based entirely on circumstantial evidence – Key circumstances included being last seen with the deceased, alleged discovery of blood-stained clothes and a weapon (koduval), and recovery of blood stains from a house claimed to be in the appellant’s possession – Held: Prosecution failed to conclusively prove that the house belonged to the appellant – No documentary or credible oral evidence linked the house to the accused – Discovery of clothes and weapon occurred in an open field just 300 feet from the crime scene and 10 days after the incident, casting serious doubt on credibility – Panch witnesses turned hostile and the discovery lacked independent corroboration – Courts below erred in relying on such weak and uncorroborated circumstances [Paras 13–22]

Criminal Law – Last Seen Theory – Weak and insufficient – Appellant was allegedly last seen with the deceased at 6:00 p.m., but medical evidence did not conclusively establish time of death – Held: In absence of other corroborative evidence, the last seen theory alone is not sufficient to sustain conviction [Para 22]

Criminal Procedure – Section 313 CrPC – Improper burden-shifting – Appellant denied ownership of the house where blood stains were allegedly found – Prosecution failed to produce any revenue or official records to prove ownership or possession – High Court wrongly presumed the house belonged to appellant and shifted burden on accused without proof – Such presumption is impermissible in law [Paras 15–18]

Evidence – Discovery under Section 27 – Unreliable and inadmissible – Both panch witnesses to the alleged discovery turned hostile – Articles were found in an open, easily accessible area near the crime scene – Held: Such recovery does not meet legal standards for admissible discovery and cannot be relied upon to convict – Investigating agency failed to safeguard the integrity of evidence [Paras 19–20]

Benefit of Doubt – Essential links in the chain of circumstances were missing – Prosecution failed to prove motive, exclusive possession of crime scene, or connection between appellant and recovered items – Delay in lodging FIR and unexplained conduct of key prosecution witnesses further weakened case – Held: Appellant entitled to benefit of doubt – Conviction unsustainable in law [Paras 24–25]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction under Sections 302/34 and 201 IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted – Directed to be released forthwith unless required in any other case [Para 25]

Arbitration – Applicability of Section 8 – Plaintiffs Not Signatories to Arbitration Agreement – Held: Civil Suit Not Referable to Arbitration – Arbitration Clause Cannot Bind Non-Parties – Plaintiffs, heirs of a deceased partner, challenged validity of reconstituted partnership deed dated 17.2.1992 on ground of fraud and lack of consent by predecessor – Neither plaintiffs nor their predecessor were parties to the said deed – Held: Section 8 of the 1996 Act inapplicable where arbitration agreement does not bind parties to the suit [Paras 9–10].

Arbitration – Relief Sought Requires Declaration of Document as Void – Civil Court Alone Competent – Arbitrator Cannot Adjudicate Validity of Deed Not Signed by Claimant – Reference to Arbitration Rejected – Plaintiffs sought declaration that partnership deed dated 17.2.1992 was void to claim benefits under earlier deed – Held: Such relief lies exclusively within jurisdiction of civil court – Arbitration clause in deed cannot be enforced to oust civil jurisdiction [Para 10].

Arbitration – Procedural Compliance Under Section 8(2) Mandatory – Failure to File Original Arbitration Agreement or Certified Copy Fatal to Application – Reference Improper – Respondent filed applications under Section 34 of 1940 Act, later sought to invoke Section 8 of 1996 Act – No original or certified copy of arbitration agreement filed with application – Held: Mandatory condition under Section 8(2) not satisfied – Reference impermissible [Paras 11–12].

Arbitration – Delay in Application – Ex-Parte Proceedings and Delay of Over Five Years – Application Lacks Bona Fides – High Court Order Setting Aside Trial Court Decision Without Reasoning – Set Aside – Respondent-defendant filed arbitration reference application after five years and ex-parte order – High Court allowed revision without detailed reasoning – Held: High Court order legally unsustainable – Trial court's order rightly refused reference [Paras 6, 13].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s order dated 04.08.2005 in Civil Revision No. 1010 of 2005 set aside – Trial court’s rejection of application under Section 8 restored – Matter not referable to arbitration – Costs awarded to appellants [Para 13].