Criminal Law – Conviction under Section 324 IPC – Voluntarily causing hurt by knife – Conviction Upheld – The appellant was convicted by the Trial Court for assaulting PW-1 with a knife, causing incised injury on the wrist – Conviction affirmed by High Court in revision – Defence of false implication due to animosity and non-recovery of knife rejected – Held: Testimony of injured witness is trustworthy and corroborated by medical evidence – Knife is a dangerous weapon under Section 324 IPC even if not recovered – Conviction sustained [Paras 2-7, 11-15].

Weapon Recovery – Non-recovery of Knife – Not Fatal – Merely because the knife was not recovered, conviction cannot be set aside – Medical evidence and eye-witness testimony sufficient to prove offence – Doctor’s opinion and injury description corroborate use of sharp-edged weapon [Paras 6, 15].

Dangerous Weapon – Scope of Section 324 IPC – Construed broadly – Section 324 covers any instrument used as weapon of offence likely to cause death – Nature of instrument, not manner of use, determines classification – Knife described by witnesses and corroborated by injury report falls within scope of Section 324 IPC [Paras 12-14].

Sentence – No Leniency – Appellant’s plea to reduce sentence to period undergone rejected – Custody since June 2004 did not justify reduction – Court held that considering gravity of offence, sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment proper – No interference warranted [Para 16].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Section 324 IPC affirmed – No scope for interference [Para 17].

Criminal Contempt of Court – Scandalising the Judiciary – News Report based on Speech – Gross Contempt Made Out – Rajendra Sail in a public rally termed the High Court judgment acquitting accused in Niyogi murder case as “rubbish,” alleged bias, corruption and lack of honesty of judges, and questioned assignment of cases to retiring judges – Held: Statements transgressed limits of fair criticism and had clear tendency to lower the authority of the court, undermine public confidence in judiciary, and embarrass judges in discharge of duties – Publication amounted to gross contempt [Paras 7–9, 43–46].

Fair Criticism v. Scandalisation – Limits Clarified – Judgments are open to fair and even strong criticism, but imputing motives, alleging bias or corruption, or describing judiciary as lacking honesty or courage amounts to scandalizing the court – Such vilification not protected as fair criticism and liable to contempt action [Paras 12–15, 19–20, 44–45].

Media Responsibility – Editors, Publishers and Reporter – Apology Accepted – Newspaper functionaries published apology prominently before notice of contempt – Court held their action was error of judgment without intent to scandalise – Having regard to unconditional apology, conviction maintained but sentence set aside with caution to exercise greater responsibility in future reporting [Paras 31, 39–40].

Apology by Rajendra Sail – Rejected – Court noted Sail was educated, a law graduate, and active in public life with knowledge of judicial process – His remarks were not mere emotional outburst of an uninformed person – Apology not bona fide – Sentence of six months’ simple imprisonment reduced to one week in view of his background, but conviction sustained [Paras 41–49].

Decision – Appeals of newspaper functionaries allowed, apologies accepted and sentences set aside – Appeal of Rajendra Sail partly allowed, sentence reduced from six months to one week simple imprisonment – Impugned High Court order modified accordingly [Paras 49–50].

NDPS Act – Section 50 – Search of Bag Not Equivalent to Personal Search – Non-compliance with Section 50 Not Fatal – Held that a bag, briefcase or container carried by a person is not part of the human body and does not fall within the meaning of “person” under Section 50 – Therefore, the procedural safeguards under Section 50 are not attracted when a bag or attaché is searched, even if carried on the shoulder or by hand – A literal and pragmatic interpretation must be adopted to avoid impractical consequences – Constitution Bench ruling in Baldev Singh followed – Appeal allowed and matter remanded to High Courts for decision on merits [Paras 1, 5, 10–13, 17, 23–24].

Statutory Interpretation – Literal Meaning Preferred – Word “Person” to Be Interpreted in Common Parlance – The term "person" is not defined in NDPS Act or CrPC in a way that includes objects like bags or containers – Based on dictionary definitions and legal usage, the Court held that “person” refers to the human body with its natural coverings and not to items that can be detached from the body with minimal effort – Therefore, such items are excluded from the scope of Section 50 [Paras 6–9].

Search and Seizure – Illegality of Search – Does Not Invalidate Trial – Even if search or seizure is illegal under CrPC, evidence obtained may still be admissible – Courts should assess relevancy, not method of acquisition – Illegality may render recovery suspect but does not automatically make it inadmissible – Reliance placed on Pooran Mal, Radhakishan, and foreign jurisprudence – However, in context of NDPS Act, strict compliance with Section 50 is essential for personal search, not for search of external items [Paras 18–21].

Binding Precedent – Obiter in Nwazor Not Applicable – The earlier judgment in Namdi Francis Nwazor suggesting bags form part of personal search was distinguished as obiter and contrary to later Constitution Bench ruling – Reaffirmed that Section 50 applies only where body of the person is directly searched – The test is whether the human body comes into physical contact during the search [Para 15].

Remand – High Court Erred in Applying Section 50 to Bag Search – Convictions had been set aside by the High Courts solely on the basis of alleged non-compliance with Section 50 – Supreme Court held Section 50 not applicable to searches of bags carried by the accused – Therefore, High Court judgments set aside and matters remitted for fresh decision on merits [Paras 23–24].

Criminal Law - Murder – Section 302, 34 IPC – Circumstantial Evidence and Last-Seen Theory – Conviction Set Aside – The appellant was convicted for murder based on being last seen with the deceased and an extra-judicial confession – Held: Last-seen circumstance without a complete chain of evidence cannot justify conviction, particularly with time-gap between deceased last seen and discovery of body – Suspicion cannot replace proof .

Extra-Judicial Confession – Reliability of Witness – Section 27, Evidence Act – Confession Disbelieved – P.W. 9, a mere acquaintance with pending cases, gave inconsistent statements before police and court – His testimony lacked credibility and contradicted medical evidence which ruled out alcohol consumption – Held: Unsafe to rely on such doubtful extra-judicial confession.

Benefit of Doubt – Acquittal Ordered – High Court erred in uncritically accepting confession and ignoring gaps in chain of circumstances – Held: Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Appellant entitled to benefit of doubt – Conviction and life sentence set aside – Appellant to be released forthwith .

Condonation of Delay – Section 5 Limitation Act – Leave under Section 378(3) CrPC – Delay of 57 days – Condoned – High Court erred in a technical approach – State showed bona fide reasons including misplacement and later tracing of file, sequential processing, and counsel handling – Liberal, justice-oriented approach preferred over technicalities – Delay condoned and leave to appeal directed to be granted – Appeal to be registered and decided on merits by High Court [Paras 2-5, 9-15, 17-20]

Sufficient Cause – Principles – No hard and fast rule – Length of delay immaterial, diligence and bona fides decisive – Courts to adopt pragmatic, common-sense approach – Mistake of counsel may constitute sufficient cause if bona fide – Discretion under Section 5 to be construed liberally to advance substantial justice [Paras 10-12]

Government as Litigant – Bureaucratic Delay – Latitude without double standards – Government decisions are institutional, file-pushing and red-tape are real, yet mala fides or gross negligence not immune – Public interest suffers if appeals are shut out on technical delay – Courts to avoid injustice-oriented approach; merit preferred over technical defaults – Guidance to establish legal cells and fix officer accountability [Paras 15-18]

Appellate Course – Instead of remand on leave question – Supreme Court, considering time lapse and issues involved, directly directed grant of leave under Section 378(3) CrPC – High Court to register and dispose of the State’s appeal on merits without being influenced by observations on condonation [Para 20]

Criminal Law - Murder – Credibility of Eyewitnesses – Related Witnesses' Testimony Found Doubtful – Four accused were convicted under Section 302 IPC for allegedly stabbing the deceased in a public place – Held: Evidence of PWs 4 and 5, who were closely related to the deceased and chance witnesses, was found unreliable due to inconsistencies, lack of clarity on presence at the scene, and absence of corroboration by independent eyewitness Kapur Singh, whose examination was wrongly withheld – High Court erred in relying solely on related witnesses without addressing these doubts [Paras 2, 7–9, 13].

Non-Examination of Independent Witness – Material Omission – Conviction Not Sustainable – Prosecution failed to examine Kapur Singh, a named eyewitness in the FIR and present at the scene – Held: No valid explanation given for his omission – In a case of this nature occurring in a public place, non-examination of independent witness without justification creates serious doubt about the prosecution version and weakens the reliability of related witnesses [Paras 8–9].

Recovery and Scene Evidence – Knife Recovery Disbelieved – No Blood at Scene – Held: Recovery of knife from accused Kala was rightly rejected as concocted – I.O. found no blood stains at the spot though attack occurred at night on a metal road – High Court’s assumption of blood traces fading due to time gap found unsatisfactory – Circumstances diminish credibility of the prosecution narrative [Paras 10, 12].

FIR Timing – Unexplained Discrepancy – First Information Doubtful – While FIR was recorded at 11.30 p.m., evidence of police constable suggested that information was received at police station around 10.30–10.45 p.m. – Held: Contradictory evidence and absence of explanation on prior information raises doubt on source and timing of FIR – Weakens prosecution story further [Para 11].

Benefit of Doubt – Conviction Set Aside – Held: On holistic consideration, reasonable doubt exists regarding actual involvement of all four accused – Two views possible on evidence – In such circumstances, it is unsafe to uphold conviction based solely on related witnesses with no corroboration – Conviction and sentence set aside – Benefit of doubt granted. Acquittal [Paras 13–15].

Juvenile Justice – Applicability of 2000 Act – Age to be Reckoned on Date of Offence – Limited Protection – Respondent was above 16 years but below 18 years on date of offence committed in 1999 and had crossed 18 before the 2000 Act came into force – Held: Age for determining juvenility must be reckoned as on date of commission of offence under the 1986 Act – 2000 Act applies prospectively and offers limited protection only where accused was below 18 on 1.4.2001 and proceedings were pending – Respondent not entitled to benefit under 2000 Act [Paras 2–5, 13, 15–17].

Interpretation of Legal Fiction – Scope of Section 20 of 2000 Act – Legal Fiction Must Be Confined to Its Purpose – Held: Section 20 creates limited legal fiction enabling sentencing under 2000 Act for those treated as juveniles retrospectively – Fiction cannot be extended beyond legislative intent – Respondent not covered under Section 20 as he had attained 18 years prior to 1.4.2001 – Fiction does not apply to persons who were adults under both statutes on relevant dates [Paras 10–12].

Juvenility and Evidence – Proof of Age – Evidence Act Section 35 – Constitutional Bench Precedent Applied – Held: Trial court to assess juvenility using regular evidentiary rules including Section 35 Evidence Act – Horoscopes or model rules have no statutory authority unless backed by documentary proof – Constitution Bench in Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand affirmed age must be proved by admissible documentary evidence – Present case governed accordingly [Paras 6, 16].

Final Decision – Appeal Allowed – Trial Court to Proceed in Accordance with 1986 Act – High Court and Sessions Judge erred in granting benefit of 2000 Act – Respondent to be tried as adult under 1986 Act – Trial to continue as per law [Para 17].

Labour Law - Industrial Tribunal – Jurisdiction to recall award – Tribunal retains jurisdiction until award becomes enforceable (30 days after publication under Section 17A ID Act) – Application for recall made prior to enforceability – Tribunal not functus officio – Correct view taken by High Court relying on Grindlays Bank [Paras 15–16].

Review powers – Distinction – Procedural review permissible to cure defects of procedure (e.g. no notice, ex parte award) – Review on merits impermissible absent express or implied statutory power – Application sought reconsideration of merits (fairness of settlement) already considered – Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to recall – High Court correct in holding recall beyond powers [Paras 17–20].

Conciliation Settlement – Settlement dated 17.05.1983 – Arrived at during conciliation proceedings with assistance and concurrence of Conciliation Officer – Binding on all workmen under Section 18(3) ID Act – Findings of Tribunal (Award 12.06.1987) upheld – Settlement fair, just and covered disputes referred [Paras 21–25].

Decision – Recall of Award by Tribunal (19.02.1990) unsustainable – High Court order quashing recall upheld – Appeal dismissed – No order as to costs [Para 26].

Arbitration – Limitation for Setting Aside Award – Sections 31(5) & 34(3) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act – Effective Delivery to “Party” – Limitation Runs from Chief Engineer’s Receipt – The arbitral award was delivered in the inward office of the General Manager, Southern Railway on 12.03.2001, but the Chief Engineer, who had signed the contract and represented the Union of India in arbitration, received it on 19.03.2001 – Held: For a large organisation like Railways, “party” under Section 2(h) read with Section 34(3) refers to the departmental head directly concerned with the proceedings – Service on General Manager’s inwards office is insufficient – Limitation begins from 19.03.2001 when the Chief Engineer received the award [Paras 6–10].

Government Departments – Impersonal Machinery – Service Must Reach Responsible Officer – Court recognised that in government departments, decisions are taken only after papers reach the concerned departmental head – Hence, delivery of award must be meaningful, i.e., to officer in charge of arbitration, not merely receipt in administrative office [Paras 7, 11].

Condonation of Delay – Application under Section 34(1) filed with 27 Days’ Delay – High Court Rejected, Holding Delay as 34 Days – Supreme Court Held: Delay only 27 Days from 19.03.2001; Condonable within proviso to Section 34(3) – Matter remanded for hearing on merits [Paras 12–13].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court’s rejection set aside – Application under Section 34(1) restored for decision on merits – No order as to costs [Para 13].