Criminal Procedure – Section 319 CrPC – Power to summon additional accused – Object is to ensure that real culprits do not escape trial and entire offence is tried together – Court may summon any person not shown as accused if evidence indicates involvement – Power is extraordinary and to be used sparingly and only on compelling reasons – Safeguards under Section 319(4) protect rights of newly added accused, as proceedings against him commence afresh and witnesses are reheard [Paras 26-33, 60].

Section 319 CrPC – Stage of Exercise – Conflict of judicial opinion – In Rakesh v. State of Haryana (2001), held that even examination-in-chief without cross-examination constitutes "evidence" enabling court to summon accused – In Mohd. Shafi v. Mohd. Rafiq (2007), held that power can be exercised only after completion of cross-examination and upon satisfaction that accused so summoned is likely to be convicted – Court noted conflict and referred matter to larger Bench [Paras 45-58, 73-79].

Investigation – Section 173 CrPC – Role of Investigating Officer – Final report under Section 173 must be factual and not contain findings of innocence or guilt – In present case, SP’s report giving clean chit to Vijay Preet Singh and Jagtar Singh held beyond permissible scope of Section 173 – Such satisfaction of IO cannot override evidence before court under Section 319 [Paras 66-72].

Case against Discharged Accused – Vijay Preet Singh – Name found in FIR, arrested from scene of offence with weapon – Deleted from charge-sheet allegedly due to influence of father, Chairman of Panchayat Samiti – Witnesses at trial deposed to his active participation – Court held prima facie case made out and application under Section 319 ought to have been allowed [Paras 65, 73].

Case against Jagtar Singh and Kashmir Singh – Jagtar Singh’s name not in FIR, no role disclosed during investigation; Kashmir Singh found innocent in police report accepted by courts – Evidence against them emerged only at trial – Trial and High Court orders rejecting Section 319 application against them not interfered with [Paras 63-64].

Guidelines – Section 319 CrPC – Court must reach reasonable satisfaction from evidence that person committed offence – Discretion to be exercised judicially keeping stage of trial and available evidence in view – No need to await conclusion of trial of existing accused – Larger Bench reference made to settle scope of “evidence” and test of satisfaction under Section 319 [Paras 73-79].

Decision: Appeals partly allowed – Matter concerning scope of Section 319 CrPC and requirement of cross-examination referred to larger Bench of three judges – Orders rejecting summoning of Jagtar Singh and Kashmir Singh upheld – Orders deleting Vijay Preet Singh from charge-sheet found unsustainable – Registry directed to place matter before Hon’ble Chief Justice for constitution of Bench [Paras 79-81].

Municipal Law – Illegal Construction – Demolition – Respondent constructed marriage hall on sanctioned plan – Municipal Corporation issued demolition order alleging unauthorised construction without proper notice or hearing – Notices were vague, issued in name of deceased owner, and lacked property description – Despite pendency of civil suit and interim injunction, demolition carried out – Held: Corporation acted arbitrarily and in violation of Section 269 of Punjab Municipal Corporation Act – Demolition order invalid for failure to follow mandatory requirement of prior notice and opportunity to respond – Directions to restore sanctioned portion of structure upheld [Paras 3–17]

Natural Justice – Violation – Demolition without Show Cause – No opportunity given to respondent before demolition as required under proviso to Section 269 – Notice dated 14.12.2001, though styled as show cause, was in substance a final demolition order – No evidence of prejudice required where violation of mandatory natural justice provision is established – Held: Non-compliance with principles of natural justice renders action invalid [Paras 12–16]

Administrative Law – Judicial Review – Scope – High Court rightly exercised jurisdiction under Article 226 to set aside illegal demolition order – Aligarh Muslim University principle on prejudice inapplicable where statutory notice requirement itself violated – Appellate court under Section 269 rightly set aside demolition order and directed restoration of sanctioned structure – Interference with findings not warranted [Paras 15–17]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Direction to restore sanctioned portion of construction upheld – Appellant to pay costs of ₹2,00,000 to Respondent No. 1

PIL - Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Independence of Judiciary – Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21, 50, 323B – Validity of provisions on Adjudicating Authorities and Appellate Tribunal – Petition partly allowed – PIL challenged provisions of PMLA and Rules of 2007 alleging executive dominance in selection/removal of adjudicatory members – Held: Judicial independence must be safeguarded – Amendments ensuring CJI’s role in appointments, qualifications, and removal protection approved – Union directed to implement within six months [Paras 1-10].

Tribunals – Judicial Review – Principle in L. Chandra Kumar applied – Tribunals exercising judicial powers must be free from executive control – Separation of powers cannot be diluted – Safeguards are necessary to protect citizens’ rights and public confidence [Paras 8-9].

Appointment and Qualification of Members – Rule 3(3) amended to specify qualifications for finance/accountancy members – Rule 4 amended requiring Chairperson’s appointment on CJI’s recommendation – Rule 6(1) amended to include a Supreme Court Judge nominated by CJI in the Selection Committee – Held valid [Para 9, Issues 1-3].

Removal of Tribunal Members – Section 32(2) PMLA – Amendment proposed requiring mandatory consultation with CJI before removal – Held essential for tenure security – Draft Bill under preparation [Para 9, Issue 4].

Appointment Procedure – Rule 6(2) Appellate Tribunal Rules – Deletion of phrase “or on recommendations of appropriate authorities” upheld – Ensures transparent selection [Para 9, Issue 5].

Eligibility of Chairperson – Section 28(1) PMLA – Challenge to eligibility of those merely “qualified to be a judge of High Court” rejected – Appointment through CJI ensures independence – Comparable statutes allow similar criteria [Para 9, Issue 6].

Eligibility of Legal Members – Adjudicating Authority – Objection to inclusion of persons “qualified to be District Judge” rejected – Consistent with other statutes and justified given specialized nature of PMLA – Advocates or ILS officers may have equal expertise [Para 9, Issue 7].

Decision – Writ petition disposed – Amendments to 2007 Rules approved – Union directed to implement suggested provisions within six months – No costs [Para 10].

Dowry Death – Sections 304B, 306, 498A IPC – Distinction – Section 304B punishes dowry death occurring within 7 years of marriage; Section 498A punishes cruelty simpliciter – Both sections not mutually inclusive; conviction possible under both if facts established – Acquittal under Section 304B does not preclude conviction under Section 498A [Paras 7].

Evidence Act – Section 113B – Presumption of dowry death – Presumption arises if death of woman occurs within 7 years of marriage and cruelty proved – Here, prosecution failed to establish ingredients of Section 304B; hence presumption not attracted – But cruelty proved independently under Section 498A [Paras 7].

Criminal Law – Husband and Relatives – Evidence of PWs 3, 4, 5 and letters written by deceased established harassment and cruelty on account of dowry demand – Husband (A-2), father-in-law (A-1) and mother-in-law (A-4) held guilty under Section 498A IPC – Brother-in-law (A-3) acquitted for lack of evidence [Paras 8].

Sentence – Considering age of A-1 (father-in-law) and A-4 (mother-in-law), and period already undergone, sentence reduced to period undergone – Conviction of A-2 (husband) under Section 498A upheld with sentence of one year [Para 9].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – A-3 acquitted – Conviction of A-1, A-2, A-4 under Section 498A IPC upheld – Sentence of A-1 and A-4 reduced to period already undergone – Appeal of A-2 dismissed [Paras 8-10].

Criminal Procedure – Legal Aid – Denial of Effective Assistance – High Court dismissed appeal of accused under NDPS Act in absence of legal aid counsel – Counsel appointed by Legal Aid Committee failed to appear – No substitute counsel or Amicus Curiae appointed – Held: Serious procedural lapse – Accused denied meaningful opportunity of defence – High Court should have either sought appointment of new counsel or appointed Amicus Curiae – Impugned order set aside and matter remitted for fresh hearing [Paras 2–5]

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Fair Trial – Right to Legal Representation – Appellants convicted under Sections 8/18(b), 8/21(c), 8/29, sentenced to 20 years’ RI and fine of ₹2 lakhs – Non-representation in appeal proceedings undermined principles of fair trial – High Court’s failure to ensure representation constitutes violation of procedural safeguards – Appeal allowed, case remanded [Paras 2–5]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of High Court set aside – Matter remitted to High Court for fresh hearing.

Rent Control – Bonafide Requirement – Non-Residential Premises – Interpretation of “Own Use” – Section 13(3)(a)(ii) – Landlord sought eviction on grounds of personal use by his son who had become owner via family partition – High Court reversed eviction on ground that personal need was pleaded only for son, not father (original landlord) – Held: Requirement of son who is also owner falls within “own use” under Section 13(3)(a)(ii) – Personal use by close family member like son is sufficient – Liberal and practical interpretation upheld in light of Joginder Pal precedent [Paras 8–13]

Revisional Jurisdiction – Interference with Findings of Fact – Appellate Authority found landlord’s requirement bonafide and eviction justified – High Court interfered with findings in revision without holding them perverse or arbitrary – Held: Revisional court under Rent Act cannot re-appreciate evidence unless findings are perverse or legally unsustainable – High Court erred in interfering with factual conclusions [Paras 8, 14]

Statutory Interpretation – Harmonious Construction – Sections 13(3)(a)(ii) and 13(3)(a)(iv) – Interpretation of “his own use” to include son’s requirement must be read with related provisions regarding alternative accommodation and prior vacating of premises – Pleadings by son as landlord found sufficient – Eviction justified under composite reading of statutory scheme [Paras 11–13]

Distinction in Rent Laws – Applicability of Precedents – Hasmat Rai v. Raghunath Prasad distinguished – Decision under M.P. Act held inapplicable to East Punjab Act due to difference in statutory wording – Premises in question admittedly commercial – Mixed use argument rejected [Para 15]

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s judgment set aside – Order of eviction passed by Appellate Authority restored – Respondents granted 9 months' time to vacate subject to filing undertaking within 2 weeks – No order as to costs.

Service Law – Inter-Collectorate Transfer – Seniority vs. Eligibility – Transferees not entitled to promotion consideration outside zone of seniority – Respondents transferred as LDCs from one Collectorate to another on compassionate grounds in 1992 – As per Government policy (1980), such transferees placed at bottom of seniority in new Collectorate – CAT and High Court wrongly directed their consideration for promotion as UDCs in 1997 based on past service – Supreme Court held: Past service counts only for eligibility, not seniority – Seniority determines zone of consideration – Orders of CAT and High Court set aside [Paras 13–22, 28–29, 44–45].

Promotion – Eligibility vs. Seniority – Distinct Concepts – Court reiterated distinction between “eligibility” (experience or qualification) and “seniority” (position in service list) – Even if employee is eligible for promotion, he must fall within zone of consideration determined by seniority – Transferees placed at bottom cannot bypass others higher in seniority list [Paras 28–29].

Administrative Law – Policy Binding on Transferees – Voluntary Transfer with Condition of Seniority Forfeiture Enforceable – Employees voluntarily transferred with clear understanding they would lose seniority – Such policy accepted through written undertakings – Held: Having accepted condition, transferees estopped from claiming parity in promotion with original cadre members [Paras 17–21, 44].

Judicial Precedents – Misapplication of Law by CAT and High Court – Ponnappan and Renu Mullick clarified – CAT relied on Union of India v. C.N. Ponnappan to treat past service as ground for promotion – Supreme Court held Ponnappan only permits counting past service for eligibility, not for seniority – Similar clarification on Renu Mullick and Scientific Advisor to Raksha Mantri v. V.M. Joseph – CAT and High Court erred in equating eligibility with seniority [Paras 26–36, 42–44].

Relaxation of Rules – Valid Exercise of Rule 7 – High Court erred in interfering – Recruitment Rules empowered Government to relax eligibility criteria for senior employees lacking prescribed experience – High Court erred in questioning such relaxation when sufficient eligible candidates existed within seniority zone [Para 44].

Decision: Appeal allowed – CAT and High Court judgments set aside – Respondents’ original application dismissed – No order as to costs.

Juvenile Justice – Determination of Age – Appellant convicted under Sections 302 and 452 IPC for murder committed on 01.08.1993 – Contended that he was a juvenile (below 18 years) at the time of offence – Held: As per Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, age limit for male juveniles was 16 years – Since appellant was over 16 at time of offence, he was not a juvenile under the then-applicable law – 2000 Act which raised the age limit to 18 years does not apply retrospectively to proceedings where the offence was committed before its commencement – Section 20 of the 2000 Act does not permit such retrospective enlargement of benefit – Appeal dismissed [Paras 2–10]

Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 – Section 20 – Scope – Applies only to pending proceedings of juveniles as defined under 1986 Act – Does not permit re-opening concluded findings or trials based on new age threshold under 2000 Act – Explanation to Section 20 clarifies applicability of 2000 Act only in pending cases where the accused was a juvenile “as per Section 2(1)” of 2000 Act – Held: Where the offence occurred before 2000 Act came into force, and accused was not a juvenile under 1986 Act, benefit of 2000 Act cannot be claimed [Paras 7–8]

Precedent – Applied – Jameel v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 1 SCR 946 – Reiterated that Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 has no retrospective effect for determining juvenility where the age at the time of offence exceeded the threshold under the 1986 Act – Male offender above 16 years on date of offence not entitled to benefit of 2000 Act [Para 9]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Appellant not entitled to claim juvenility under Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000.

Service Law – Pension – Defence Forces – Major Generals Retired Pre-1.1.1996 – Entitlement to Pension Parity – Held: Arbitrary Classification Violates Article 14 – Pension of pre-1996 Major Generals to be refixed notionally at same level as post-1996 counterparts – Differential treatment between officers of same rank struck down – Cut-off date held unconstitutional [Paras 4-7, 22-26, 30-31].

Anomaly in Pay Scales – Fifth Pay Commission – Brigadiers Drawing Higher Pension than Major Generals – Government’s decision to merely “step up” pension of pre-1996 Major Generals to Brigadiers’ level inadequate – Classification within same cadre on basis of retirement date unjustified – Doctrine of equality requires uniform treatment [Paras 6-7, 23-25, 30].

Constitutional Law – Article 14 – Principle from D.S. Nakara Applied – Date of retirement cannot form a valid basis for classification among pensioners of same rank – Any artificial division within one class offends equality – Cut-off date rejected [Paras 16, 25-26, 30].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Order of High Court modified – Pay of all pensioners in rank of Major General (and equivalents in Navy and Air Force) to be notionally fixed at post-1996 level – Pension to be recomputed prospectively from date of filing of writ petition – Difference payable with 10% interest within three months – No costs [Paras 31-33].