Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 167(2) - Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Section 19 - Applicability of Section 167(2) CrPC to proceedings under PMLA Act - Interpretation of statutes - Custody during investigation - The Supreme Court held that the provisions of Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) are applicable to proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA Act). The Court rejected the argument that custody can only be given to an investigating agency within the first 15 days of remand, and held that the custody can span over the entire period of investigation (60 or 90 days) as long as it does not exceed a total period of 15 days. The Court emphasized the importance of a literal and natural interpretation of statutes, and clarified that an investigating agency is entitled to custody as per Section 167(2) CrPC beyond the initial 15 days, subject to a maximum of 15 days in total. (Para 40)

Writ of Habeas Corpus - Maintainability - When an arrestee is forwarded to the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 19(3) of the PMLA Act, no writ of Habeas Corpus would lie. Any plea of illegal arrest is to be made before such Magistrate since custody becomes judicial. (Para 59)

Compliance of Section 19 of PMLA Act - Any non-compliance of the mandate of Section 19 of the PMLA Act would benefit the person arrested, and the Competent Court has the power to initiate action under Section 62 of the PMLA Act. (Para 62)

Challenge to Order of Remand - An order of remand has to be challenged before a higher forum as provided under the CrPC when it depicts a due application of mind both on merit and compliance of Section 167(2) CrPC read with Section 19 of the PMLA Act. (Para 67)

Section 41A CrPC - Inapplicability to PMLA Act - Section 41A CrPC has no application to an arrest made under the PMLA Act. (Para 69)

Actual Custody - The word "custody" under Section 167(2) CrPC shall mean actual custody. (Para 73)

Doctrine of Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit - Any curtailment of the 15 days of police custody by extraneous circumstances, acts of God, or court orders not being the handiwork of the investigating agency would not act as a restriction. (Para 74)

Larger Issue for Reference - The Supreme Court referred the larger issue of the actual import of Section 167(2) CrPC, i.e., whether the 15 days period of custody in favor of the police should be only within the first 15 days of remand or spanning over the entire period of investigation (60 or 90 days) as a whole, to a larger bench for authoritative pronouncement. (Para 82)

Disposal of Appeals - The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals upholding the views expressed in the impugned judgments, and granted custody of the appellant to the respondents until 12.08.2023. The Court also disposed of pending applications. (Para 84)

Civil Appeal – Pension Entitlement of Contractual Employees – Appellant challenges High Court’s judgment granting pensionary benefits to contractual employees – Interpretation of Rule 2 and Rule 17 of the CCS Pension Rules, 1972 – Rule 2’s opening phrase “Save as otherwise provided in these rules” permits the application of other provisions – Rule 17 intended to address regularization of contractual employees and counting of their past service for pension – Voluntariness of entering into contractual services not applicable post-regularization – Appellant’s argument of exclusion under Rule 2(g) not persuasive – Appeal dismissed, directions issued for exercise of pension option and processing within specific timeframe. [Para 1 – Para 11]

Criminal Appeal – Bail Application – Appellant, a retired police officer, accused in various offenses under IPC, Arms Act, and UAPA – Initially denied bail by Special Court and High Court – Appeals to Supreme Court. [Para 1-3]

Charges and Allegations – Accused of involvement in planting gelatin sticks and a murder conspiracy – High Court found a “feeble attempt” to connect appellant to gelatin sticks case – UAPA charges deemed “insignificant” at this stage by High Court. [Para 6-7]

Role of Appellant – Alleged involvement with co-accused Sachin Waze and others in the murder of Mansukh Hiren – High Court observed these to be matters of trial, requiring evidence and circumstantial proof. [Para 8-9]

Appellant’s Custody – Held in custody since June 17, 2021 – High Court’s concern about interference in the trial weighed against his long service as a police officer and family conditions – Court deemed it unnecessary to continue appellant’s custody. [Para 10-12]

Decision – High Court and Special Court’s decisions set aside – Appellant granted bail subject to conditions imposed by the trial court. [Para 13]

Criminal Appeals – Quashing of Complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act – Vicarious liability of directors – Compliance with the requirements of Section 141(1) – Allegations lacking in complaints – Appeals allowed.

Criminal Appeal – Quashing of Complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act – Vicarious liability of directors – Scope of Section 141(1) – Requirement of being "in charge of" and "responsible to" the company for conducting business – Distinction between managing day-to-day affairs and assuming charge of business – Averments in complaints not meeting legal standard – Appeals allowed.

Vicarious Liability – Interpretation of Section 141(1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act – Directors' liability for company's offences – Requirement of being in charge of and responsible for company's business – Conjunctive reading of "in charge of" and "responsible to" – Mere management insufficient for establishing liability – Compliance with legal standards necessary.

Service of Notice – Impact on Complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act – Proper service of notice of demand – Prerequisite for filing complaint – Notice of demand as condition precedent – Effect of non-service of notice on complaints – Consideration of procedural requirements.

Legal Standard – Sufficiency of Averments – Vicarious liability of directors under Section 141(1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act – Importance of properly alleging being "in charge of" and "responsible to" company for business – Necessity of distinguishing management from responsibility – Averments in complaints falling short of legal standard – Consequences for complaints. Quashing of complaints against directors – No order as to costs.

Sections 333, 353, and 451 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Appellant convicted by the Sessions Court - High Court upheld conviction but reduced the sentences - Appeal before the Supreme Court confined to the sentencing part - Appellant claimed benefit of probation under Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) and/or the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 - Arguments based on appellant's age (62 years) and the passage of thirty years since the incident occurred - Court considering factors like the nature of the offence and appellant's conduct during the trial and appeal period - Court decides to show leniency in sentencing - Appellant to undergo simple imprisonment and pay fines for each offence - Appeal partly allowed - Sentences to run concurrently - Fine amount to be partially paid as compensation to injured witness - Appellant granted one month to surrender for punishment.(Para No.4,5,8,9,10)

Quashing of proceedings - Alleged altercation between the appellant and respondent no. 2 in the office - Cross complaints filed by both parties - Chargesheet filed against the appellant for offenses under Sections 323, 504, and 506 IPC - Proceedings pending since 2015 - Trivial nature of allegations - Lack of progress in the case - Continuing proceedings leading to persecution and harassment - Petty incident not resolved amicably - Proceedings quashed and set aside - Appeal allowed. (Para No. 2 to 7)

Criminal Appeal - Validity of Sanction - Discharge of Accused - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) - Challenge to the validity of sanction granted by the Government to prosecute the accused - Accused raising objections at various stages of trial - Trial court framing charges and examining witnesses - Accused filing interlocutory application seeking discharge - Trial court dismissing the application - High Court allowing the accused's petition and discharging him from the offences charged - Appeal against High Court's judgment. (Para 1)

Section 19(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Prohibition against higher court's interference - Interlocutory application for discharge not maintainable after framing of charges and examination of witnesses - Accused entitled to raise the issue of validity of sanction during the final stage of trial - Special Judge has the authority to decide on the validity of sanction during the trial - Failure of justice as a prerequisite for higher court's interference. (Para 12)

Proper stage for challenging the validity of sanction - Preferably during the framing of charges - Issue can also be raised during the final stage of arguments in the trial. (Para 15)

Special Judge's findings on the validity of sanction - Reversal or alteration by the higher court - Prohibited under Section 19(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Interference only if a failure of justice is established. Appeal Allowed. (Para 16-17)

Stay of Conviction - Provisions of Section 499 IPC - Appeal challenging the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Judge - Petitioner granted Special Leave to Appeal - Trial Judge imposed the maximum sentence of two years without providing reasons - Subsection (3) of Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 triggered due to the maximum sentence - Offence non-cognizable, bailable, and compoundable - Appeal raises issues regarding disqualification from public office - Court stays the order of conviction during the pendency of the appeal - Appellate Court free to proceed with the appeal on its merits - Parties allowed to approach the Appellate Court for expedited disposal of the appeal.(Para No. 2-13)

Criminal Appeal – Defamation – Challenge to the order of issue of process for the offence of defamation under Section 500 of IPC – High Court declining to entertain the petition on the ground of delay – Allegations made in the complaint addressed to SDM – Appellant contending that the alleged defamatory words were made in good faith and constitute an accusation preferred to an authorized person – Analysis of Section 499 IPC and Eighth Exception – Examination of the concept of "good faith" – Absence of defamation as per the statutory provisions – Appeal allowed, impugned orders set aside, and the criminal proceedings terminated.

Defamation – Ingredients of Section 499 IPC – Analysis of the definition of defamation involving the intention to harm the reputation of an individual – Examination of the Eighth Exception to Section 499, which excludes certain accusations made in good faith – Definition of "good faith" as per Section 52 of the IPC – Conclusion that the allegations in the complaint do not amount to defamation and are protected by the Eighth Exception. [Para 12-16]

Appellant's appeal allowed – Impugned order of High Court set aside – Original order of the Magistrate issuing summons quashed – Criminal proceedings terminated – Pending applications disposed of. [Para 17-18]