Criminal Law - Preventive Detention – Pre-execution challenge – Alka Subhash Gadia exceptions – Articles 226/32; COFEPOSA Sections 3 & 7 – Appellant sought quashing of detention order before execution citing delay and inaction, alleging order passed for a wrong purpose – Held: At pre-arrest stage, interference lies only in the five limited situations in Alka Subhash Gadia; those exceptions are exhaustive as reaffirmed in Sayed Taher Bawamiya – Case does not fall within any exception; writ not maintainable at pre-execution stage [Paras 9-13].

Delay in Passing/Executing Detention Order – Effect at Pre-arrest Stage – Mere delay in issuing or executing detention order is not a ground for quashment at pre-execution stage unless it fits an Alka exception – Such delay can be examined post-arrest when live link and proximate purpose are assessed; pre-arrest interference on this ground is impermissible [Paras 5, 8, 12].

Preventive Detention – Nature and Objective – Court reiterates that detention is preventive, not punitive; authorities must act vigilantly to secure detenue; unexplained inordinate delay may snap the live link, but that issue can be raised after arrest; observations on delay here are prima facie and not conclusive [Paras 8, 5].

“Wrong Purpose” Plea – Rejected – On facts, order aimed to prevent smuggling/abetment; allegations of collateral or wrong purpose not made out to fit within the third Alka exception; High Court rightly declined interference at pre-execution stage [Para 13].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – High Court’s refusal to quash detention at pre-execution stage affirmed – Parties left to remedies available after arrest; scope of pre-execution interference confined to the five Alka exceptions [Para 14].

Criminal Law – Murder by Conspiracy – Sections 302/120B/34 IPC – Arms Act Section 27 – Evidence Act Sections 10 & 30 – Confession under Section 164 CrPC – Mixed Result – Conspiracy to kill a student proved through voluntary judicial confession of shooter (Arnit Das) corroborated by medical and independent evidence – Sidharth’s role as conspirator/abettor established and conviction sustained with aid of Section 114 IPC – Rohan Prakash’s conduct suspicious but lacking independent corroboration and thus entitled to benefit of doubt – Held: Convictions of Sidharth and Arnit Das upheld; Rohan Prakash acquitted [Paras 1-5, 14, 20-25, 27].

Confession under Section 164 CrPC – Voluntariness, Retraction and Corroboration – Confession Upheld – Magistrate complied with Section 164 safeguards including caution and time for reflection – Two hours’ reflection not per se inadequate and no proof of police coercion – Retraction not fatal where confession is detailed, coherent and amply corroborated by post-mortem, recoveries and PW-8’s extra-judicial confession – Held: Judicial confession voluntary and reliable [Paras 10-15].

Co-accused Confession – Sections 10 & 30 Evidence Act – Limited Use – Statements made after the conspiracy had ended not admissible under Section 10 – Confession of co-accused is not substantive evidence and cannot be sole basis for conviction – May be used only to lend assurance to otherwise acceptable evidence – Principles reaffirmed from Kashmira Singh and Hari Charan Kurmi [Paras 16-19].

Conspiracy, Abetment and Presence – Sections 120B, 114 IPC – Conviction Sustained – Independent evidence (PW-6 eye account of presence and flight; PW-18 corroboration) placed Sidharth at scene and proved arrangements to execute the plan – His presence when the offence was committed attracts Section 114 deeming provision – Confessional narrative of Arnit Das further corroborates Sidharth’s role – Held: Conviction under Sections 302/120B/34 IPC affirmed [Paras 20-22, 25].

Benefit of Doubt – Co-accused Without Independent Corroboration – Acquittal – Rohan Prakash’s suspicious conduct and misleading FIR insufficient absent reliable independent evidence of participation in conspiracy – Co-accused confession cannot supply the deficiency – Held: Acquittal on benefit of doubt [Para 23, 27].

Juvenile Justice – Age Determination – JJ Act 1986 & 2000 – No Relief – Findings by Juvenile Court, Sessions Court, High Court and Supreme Court (in prior SLP/review) concluded that Arnit Das was above 16 years on date of occurrence – He could not invoke JJ Act 2000 to claim juvenility – Held: Plea rejected [Paras 6-8].

CrPC Section 172 – Case Diary – Confidentiality Emphasised – Accused not entitled to entire case diary – It may be used by court only as an aid and by IO to refresh memory; misuse may prejudice investigation and witness safety – Trial court cautioned for allowing full access and expansive cross-examination on diary contents [Para 26].

Decision – Appeals Partly Allowed – Criminal Appeal No. 736/2003 (Rohan Prakash) allowed – he be released if not required in any other case – Criminal Appeal Nos. 688/2003 (Sidharth) and 689/2003 (Arnit Das) dismissed – Convictions and sentences of Sidharth and Arnit Das affirmed [Paras 24-27].

Criminal Law - Mass Murder – Conviction under Section 302 IPC – Death Sentence Upheld – Appellant convicted for murdering 13 close family members including children, along with co-accused Lakha Singh – Motive traced to alleged illicit relationship between appellant’s wife and co-accused – Trial court awarded death sentence – High Court confirmed the same by majority judgment after a split view – Supreme Court upheld conviction based on consistent eyewitness accounts and corroborating medical evidence – Held: Crime was heinous, cold-blooded, and deliberate – No mitigating circumstance warranted interference with death penalty [Paras 1-7].

Eyewitness Testimony – Related Witnesses and Child Witnesses – Testimony Accepted – Challenge to credibility of P.W.1 (13-year-old girl), P.W.2 (14-year-old boy), and P.W.3 (brother of appellant) on ground of relationship and timing of incident rejected – Held: Witnesses were natural inhabitants of house and their presence at the scene was expected – Moonlit night and familiarity with accused ensured clear identification – No contradictions in their statements – Medical evidence corroborated use of swords and nature of fatal injuries [Paras 5-7].

Delay in Execution – Not a Ground for Commutation – Article 21 – Appellant sought commutation of death sentence citing delay since 1996 – Held: As per Triveniben v. State of Gujarat, only post-final judgment delay attributable to executive action can be considered – In this case, delay occurred prior to final judicial determination and due to administrative lapses in High Court – Therefore, not a valid ground to invoke Article 21 for commutation [Paras 8-12].

Death Penalty – Rare and Exceptional Circumstance – Justified – Appellant’s conduct showed complete disregard for human life – Victims included children and elderly – Act committed during sleep hours and without provocation – Held: This was among the rarest of rare cases – Death sentence justified and proportionate to the gravity of the offence [Paras 1, 7-8].

Final Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Death Sentence Confirmed – Supreme Court found no merit in the appeal – Delay in execution insufficient for commuting sentence – Conviction and death penalty affirmed – Appeal dismissed [Paras 7, 12].

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 141 – Vicarious Liability – Complaint Requirements – Held: It is necessary to specifically aver in a complaint that the accused, at the time of the offence, was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company – Mere designation as a Director is not sufficient to make one liable – Managing Directors or Joint Managing Directors, by virtue of their position, are presumed to be in charge and responsible for conduct of business and thus liable – Signatory of a dishonoured cheque is directly responsible under Section 141(2) – Absence of such averments in complaint renders it defective and process cannot be issued [Paras 8–10, 15–16].

Criminal Liability – Directors and Officers – Presumption of Responsibility – A Director cannot be deemed to be in charge of or responsible for conduct of business merely by holding office – Liability depends upon factual role and responsibility, not upon title or position – No deemed or automatic criminal liability of directors – Managing Directors and Joint Managing Directors stand on different footing, being presumed in charge of business [Paras 9, 16(b)].

Complaint – Issuance of Process – Magistrate’s Duty – Magistrate must apply his mind to the complaint under Sections 200–204 CrPC – Process can be issued only if prima facie averments disclose the essential ingredients of the offence under Sections 138 and 141 NI Act – Vague or general allegations insufficient [Paras 6–7, 15].

Corporate Offences – Vicarious Liability – Rule of Strict Construction – Since Section 141 creates criminal liability by legal fiction, its conditions must be strictly satisfied – Only those in charge of and responsible for conduct of business of company at relevant time can be proceeded against – Liability cannot arise merely from being a Director or officer – Complaint must spell out role and responsibility of each accused [Paras 5, 10, 15].

Decision: Questions answered – (a) Specific averment of responsibility is mandatory – (b) Mere directorship not sufficient to create liability – (c) Managing Directors, Joint Managing Directors and signatories of dishonoured cheques are deemed liable under Section 141 – Reference answered accordingly – Individual cases to be disposed of in light of these findings [Para 16–17].

Taxation Law - Excise Exemption – North East Industrial Policy – Notification No. 32/99-CE dated 08.07.1999 – Retrospective withdrawal of benefit for cigarettes by Section 154, Finance Act 2003 – Upheld – Parliament has plenary competence to amend or withdraw exemptions prospectively or retrospectively – Exemption suspends liability; no vested right accrues – Promissory estoppel cannot fetter legislative power – Retrospectivity of less than two years not arbitrary, discriminatory, or confiscatory – Valid exercise of legislative power [Paras 15–22].

Retrospective Fiscal Legislation – Test of constitutionality – Mere retrospectivity not per se unreasonable – Must be shown to be unduly harsh, confiscatory, or discriminatory – Context, period of retrospectivity, and foreseeability of financial burden are determinative – Petitioners’ liability foreseeable as refund claims and appeals were sub judice when Parliament enacted Section 154 – No violation of Articles 14 & 19 [Paras 16–18].

Section 11A Central Excise Act – Recovery mechanism – Not applicable to recoveries under Section 154 – Refunds under Notification 32/99 were special, provisional in nature and not “erroneous refunds” under Section 11A – Section 154(4) itself provides independent machinery for recovery within 30 days of Presidential assent to Finance Act, 2003 – Limitation under Section 11A not attracted [Paras 23–26].

Natural Justice – Requirement of notice – Notices of hearing were issued by Assistant Collector before orders of recovery – Orders validated retrospectively by Section 154(1) – Principles of natural justice satisfied [Para 27].

Equality Challenge – Cigarettes as a distinct class – Higher revenue yield and past policy treatment justify differential withdrawal – Presumption of constitutionality of fiscal laws reinforced – Economic legislation afforded greater latitude – No violation of Article 14 [Para 28].

Relief – Financial hardship or equitable considerations cannot override express statutory mandate of retrospective levy – Recovery directed under Section 154(4) must follow – Transferred petitions dismissed; Union’s appeals rendered infructuous [Paras 29–35].

Decision – Constitutional validity of Section 154, Finance Act 2003 upheld – Transferred writ petitions dismissed – Appeals of Union of India dismissed as infructuous – No order as to costs [Paras 35–Order].

NDPS Act – Commercial Quantity – Section 21(c) – Conviction Confirmed – The appellant was found in possession of 920 grams of black liquid containing 2.8% morphine – Held: Substance qualifies as “opium derivative” and therefore a “manufactured drug” under Section 2 – Quantity exceeded 250 grams, the threshold for “commercial quantity” under Notification S.O. 1055(E) dated 19.10.2001 – Conviction and minimum sentence under Section 21(c) upheld [Paras 8–13].

NDPS Act – Section 29 – Conspiracy Not Proved – The High Court erred in applying Section 29 and aggregating quantities recovered from co-accused to reach “commercial quantity” – Held: No evidence of criminal conspiracy or joint possession – Conviction sustainable independently on recovery from appellant alone [Paras 6–7].

Definitions – Interpretation of “Opium” and “Opium Derivative” – The substance did not satisfy the definition of “opium” under Section 2(xv), but qualified as “opium derivative” under Section 2(xvi)(e) due to morphine content above 0.2% – Therefore, it fell within the meaning of “manufactured drug” under Section 2(xi)(a) [Paras 9–11].

Amendment Act – Retrospective Application – Section 41(1) of the NDPS Amendment Act, 2001 – Held: Amended punishment provisions applied to pending cases – Notification of 19.10.2001 specified 250 grams as “commercial quantity” for opium derivatives – Appellant’s possession of 920 grams clearly exceeded that limit [Paras 12–13].

Final Decision – Appeal Dismissed – The Supreme Court upheld the minimum sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of ₹1 lakh under Section 21(c) NDPS Act – No merit found in the appeal – Dismissed [Paras 14–15].

Constitutional challenge to Banking Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984 - Customary Bonus in SBI – Effect of Section 43A SBI Act/Section 12A Undertakings Acts/Section 50A Subsidiary Banks Act – Prohibition upheld – Parliament introduced non obstante provisions barring any bonus to SBI/public sector bank employees except under the Payment of Bonus Act – Held: Customary bonus dehors the Bonus Act is not payable after the Amendment Act – The provisions operate notwithstanding any judgment/award/settlement and any law including the Industrial Disputes Act – High Court rightly held customary bonus not payable [Paras 2-3, 22-24].

Legislative Power – Validating/Curative Legislation – Separation of Powers – Upheld – Legislature may render a judicial decision ineffective by enacting a valid law within competence that changes the legal basis retrospectively/curatively – Not an impermissible appellate override – Objects and Reasons cannot defeat clear statutory text – Amendment did not merely declare award inoperative but altered law prospectively with overriding effect [Paras 8-11, 16-18, 22-23].

Retrospectivity – Vested Rights – Public Interest – Permissible – Retrospective/curative laws may affect accrued benefits if within competence and not violative of Part III – Public interest in uniform treatment across nationalised banks is relevant – Amounts already paid under the award for prior period stood paid; challenge to retrospectivity largely academic on facts [Paras 7, 12-15, 19].

Industrial Disputes Act vs. Banking Amendments – Non obstante Clauses – ID Act does not prevail – Section 43A/12A/50A operate notwithstanding the Industrial Disputes Act or any award/settlement – Section 9A ID Act procedure inapplicable where Parliament has legislated to alter the governing statute on bonus [Paras 3, 5, 22].

Customary Bonus – Elements and Non-Applicability Post-Amendment – Court reiterates four tests for “customary/traditional” bonus (unbroken series, sufficiently long period, paid even in loss years, uniform rate) – Even assuming custom, uniform statutory bar after amendment controls – Nationalised banks to be treated on a common denominator to avoid disharmony/inequality [Paras 6-7].

Service Conditions in SBI – Statutory Governance – Parliament/SBI’s Power to Alter – Employees’ terms are status-based and controlled by statute/statutory rules – SBI Act Sections 7 and 43 empower change in service conditions; no unalterable right to continued payment of customary bonus survives statutory amendment [Paras 12, 20].

Article 14 – No Violation – Legislative change to secure uniformity in public sector banks and channel bonus only through the Payment of Bonus Act is a valid classification grounded in rational public interest – Mere adverse financial impact does not attract Article 14 absent invidious discrimination [Paras 5, 14, 19, 21-22].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Constitutional challenge rejected – High Court judgment affirmed – Customary bonus not payable after the Banking Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984; bonus, if any, only as per the Payment of Bonus Act [Paras 22-24].

Criminal Law - Murder by Poison – Circumstantial Evidence – Chain of Evidence Complete – Appellant, a medical practitioner, was convicted for administering lethal injection of Pavilion to wipe out entire family of his in-laws with intent to grab their property – Circumstantial evidence included purchase of Pavilion, presence at scene, false representation of AIDS, and medical opinion confirming cause of death – Held: Circumstantial evidence proved beyond reasonable doubt, establishing guilt of appellant – Conviction under Section 302 IPC upheld [Paras 3–5].

Principle of Law – Circumstantial Evidence – It must be complete, consistent only with guilt, and inconsistent with innocence – Applied in present case – Both trial court and High Court recorded concurrent findings which did not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference [Para 5].

Nature of Crime – Cold-Blooded Premeditated Murder – Court observed that the gruesome and premeditated killing of five persons including innocent children for property shocked judicial conscience – Crime called for deterrent punishment [Paras 6–7].

Sentence – Rigorous Imprisonment for Life – No Remission – Though notice for enhancement was not issued, Court directed that appellant shall not get benefit of remission under Section 57 IPC either by State or Central Government – Appeal dismissed with directions [Paras 7–8].

Decision:

Appeal dismissed – Conviction and life sentence under Section 302 IPC confirmed – Appellant denied benefit of remission of sentence [Paras 6–8].

Constitutionality of Section 22A of the Registration Act, 1908 - Registration Act – Section 22A – Unconstitutional Amendment – Power Misused – The Rajasthan Amendment to Section 22A of the Registration Act authorized the State to declare by notification that registration of certain documents is opposed to public policy – Held: Such delegation of power is excessive, unguided and violates Articles 14 and 246 of the Constitution – Public policy is a judicial function and cannot be left to the subjective satisfaction of the executive through subordinate legislation – The provision and related notifications are unconstitutional and invalid [Paras 1–4, 12–14, 18–19].

Delegated Legislation – Executive Cannot Define ‘Public Policy’ – The phrase 'opposed to public policy' lacks definite legislative guidance – Held: Determination of public policy is a complex judicial task based on precedent and constitutional values – An executive notification cannot create new heads of public policy without legislative mandate – Legislative policy must be clearly laid down; otherwise, essential legislative function is unlawfully delegated [Paras 10–13, 15].

Powers of Attorney – Valid Execution and Registration – No Blanket Ban Permissible – Held: Execution of power of attorney is a legal and valid transaction under the Indian Contract Act and the Powers of Attorney Act – Unless it involves transfer of title or falls under mandatory registration under Section 17, refusal to register based on arbitrary executive instructions violates the right to property under Article 300A [Paras 8, 16–17].

Separation of Powers – Judicial Domain Infringed – Notifications Held Invalid – Held: The executive cannot assume the role of judiciary by declaring what is or is not opposed to public policy – This violates the doctrine of separation of powers – Essential functions of legislature or judiciary cannot be conferred on executive via vague statutory language [Paras 13–14, 18].

Final Judgment – Appeal Dismissed – Section 22A as amended by the Rajasthan Act and notifications issued thereunder declared unconstitutional – Sub-Registrar directed to register the power of attorney document – Held: Transactions not declared illegal by law cannot be made unregistrable by executive fiat – Appeal dismissed with no costs [Paras 3–4, 19].