Criminal Law - Criminal Conspiracy – Circumstantial Proof – IPC Ss.120-A, 120-B – Agreement sufficient – Conspiracy can be inferred from conduct and surrounding circumstances – Secrecy and routing of MUL funds through BRs and pay orders while masking them as MUL-UCO transactions established concert between A-1, A-3 and A-5 – Held: conspiracy proved, though A-2 not shown to be part of it [Paras 62–76, 98–101].

Bank Receipts (BRs) – Misuse – “Market practice” no defence – BRs were issued/used without UCO Bank being real counter-party – MUL funds moved only through A-5’s accounts – Issuance of BRs without underlying securities cannot be justified by market practice – Such misuse vitiates transactions [Paras 37–41, 97–98, 157, 194].

Public Servants – Banking Regulation Act, 1949 S.46-A – PC Act S.13 – Bank officer and PSU employees are public servants – Abuse of official position by A-1 (MUL officer) and A-3 (UCO Bank officer) in facilitating diversion of funds to A-5 – Convictions under PC Act sustained [Paras 33–41, 98–101].

Criminal Breach of Trust – Entrustment of MUL funds – IPC S.409 – Entrustment arises from dominion over funds – A-1 procured pay orders in favour of Grindlays Bank but handed to A-5’s men – Violation of Sub-Committee mandate – Dishonest use established – Conviction upheld [Paras 79–86, 98–101].

Forgery & Use of Forged Documents – IPC Ss.467, 468, 471 – UCO Bank letters and BRs authored by A-3 falsely represented UCO as counter-party – MUL induced to part with funds – UCO never received consideration – Conviction of A-3 upheld [Paras 15–24, 34–41].

Banking Practice – Account-Payee Cheques – RBI Circular 9-9-1992 – Some foreign banks credited account-payee bankers’ cheques of other banks to high net-worth clients – RBI circular clarified such credit is unauthorised – Grindlays’ practice of crediting MUL pay orders to A-5’s accounts held irregular and cannot justify diversion [Paras 187–194].

Routing Facility / Switch Transactions – Banks cannot act as brokers – UCO Bank acted as routing agent for brokers, issuing BRs and receiving pay orders on commission – Use of bank’s name to legitimise private transactions of A-5 amounted to irregularity and supported charges [Paras 175–186].

Effect of Repayment / No Loss – Defence that MUL suffered no loss as funds were repaid with yield – Rejected – Absence of loss does not negate dishonest intention – Relevant only for reducing sentence [Paras 78, 104].

Approver Evidence – PW-23 Mohan Khandelwal – Caution – Testimony of approver about 1989 meeting criticised, but corroborated by documentary trail in 1991 transactions – Found reliable for proving conspiracy of A-1, A-3, A-5 – A-2 remained uninvolved [Paras 57–67, 159–173, 195–236].

Economic Offences – Sentencing – White-collar crime undermines economy – Stern approach needed – However, lapse of time, repayment and length of trial justified reduction of custodial sentence of A-1 and A-3 to period already undergone – Fines maintained [Paras 100–104].

Decision – Appeals partly allowed – A-2 acquitted; State appeal dismissed – A-4 acquitted – Convictions of A-1 and A-3 sustained with reduced sentence to period undergone, fines maintained – Conviction of A-5 sustained (noting death) [Paras 104, 110].

Civil Law - Consolidation Proceedings – Claim of Encumbrancer – Sections 19 and 20, East Punjab Holdings Act – Trespasser Not an Encumbrancer – Appellant claimed possession of 5 biswas land on basis of his predecessor’s alleged trespass – Contended that presence in list of unauthorized occupants entitled him to allotment – Held: Encumbrancer under consolidation scheme means legal encumbrance like lease/mortgage – A mere trespasser cannot be treated as encumbrancer – Claim rightly rejected [Paras 1-2].

Delay and Laches – Consolidation Concluded in 1982 – Application Made in 1993 – Not Maintainable – Appellant sought possession after 11 years – Tried to explain delay on basis of other proceedings – Held: Each party must act within time – Delay fatal – Consolidation Officer justified in rejecting claim [Paras 3-4].

False Case – Very Small Area – 5 biswas (250 sq. yards) – Not Land Meant for Cultivation – Court found appellant’s case lacked bona fides – Claim appeared to be false and devoid of merit – Appeal dismissed [Paras 5-6].

Decision – Both Appeals Dismissed – No merit found in claim – Orders of consolidation authorities and High Court upheld [Paras 6-7].

Land Acquisition – Reference under Section 30 – State Not a ‘Person Interested’ – Reference Incompetent – The appellant’s land was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, and compensation was awarded to her – The State subsequently claimed ownership of the land by virtue of land vesting under the Bihar Land Reforms Act and sought a reference under Section 30 – Held: The State is not a “person interested” under Section 3(b) of the Land Acquisition Act and cannot invoke Section 30 to challenge the award based on a pre-existing claim of ownership – Reference made by Collector was without jurisdiction – Proceedings declared a nullity [Paras 10–11, 39].

Scheme of the Land Acquisition Act – Reference under Sections 18 vs. 30 – Distinct Scope – Collector’s Role Defined – Held: Section 18 requires application by a ‘person interested’ within a prescribed limitation, while Section 30 permits the Collector to refer disputes on apportionment or entitlement to compensation without such application – However, disputes under Section 30 must still relate to claims arising post-award or by persons other than the State – Reference by the State challenging pre-award title not permissible [Paras 22–30].

Title Already Vested in State – No Acquisition Possible – Power of Eminent Domain Cannot Be Used to Acquire What State Already Owns – Held: Land owned by the State cannot be acquired under the Land Acquisition Act – Such acquisition is void ab initio – Collector represents the State and cannot make a reference on behalf of the State claiming the land was already vested – Award to appellant, based on long possession, mutation, and rent payment, rightly made [Paras 30–36].

Onus of Proving Public Land – State Failed to Establish Title – Appellant's Status as Raiyat Recognised – Held: Settlement with predecessor-in-title of appellant established – Revenue records, mutation entries, and rent receipts supported appellant’s claim – Previous writs and court findings also upheld her possession – State failed to prove land was public or Gairmajrua Aam – Proceedings under Public Land Encroachment Act were quashed earlier [Paras 2–7].

Finality of Award – Collector’s Award Binding Between Collector and Interested Persons – Cannot Be Challenged by State via Reference – Held: Finality of award under Section 12(1) binds the Collector and interested persons – Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain reference made by Collector on behalf of State challenging entitlement of awardee – Reference under Section 30 by State struck down [Paras 14, 39].

Final Decision – Appeal Allowed – Reference and High Court Judgment Set Aside – Supreme Court restored Single Judge’s decision upholding award in favour of appellant – Reference proceedings under Section 30 held void ab initio – Appeal allowed with costs throughout [Paras 40–41].

Criminal Law – Rajasthan Sati (Prevention) Act – Offences Under Sections 5 and 6(3) Are Distinct – High Court’s View Overruled – Held: Section 5 penalises acts glorifying Sati per se; Section 6(3) penalises violation of prohibitory order issued under Sections 6(1) or 6(2) – Offences under both sections are separate in ingredients, scope, and object – Section 5 targets glorification acts; Section 6(3) targets disobedience of lawful orders – Same act may attract both offences independently [Paras 16–17].

Criminal Procedure – Double Jeopardy – Article 20(2) – General Clauses Act – IPC – CrPC – Applicability Considered – Held: Article 20(2) and Section 26 of the General Clauses Act bar prosecution only for ‘same offence’ – If offences are distinct in law and ingredients, prosecution for both permissible – Section 5 and 6(3) create distinct offences – No violation of Article 20(2) [Paras 8–9, 15–17].

Preventive vs Punitive Provisions – Nature of Sections 5 and 6 Differentiated – Held: Section 5 is penal and applies post-commission of act glorifying Sati; Section 6 is preventive and empowers Collector to prohibit prospective acts and penalise defiance – No merging or redundancy between the provisions – High Court erred in holding otherwise [Paras 16–18].

Publication of Collector’s Order – Requirement of Gazette Notification Not Mandatory – Held: Though the Collector’s order was not gazetted, the Ordinance/Act does not mandate official gazette publication – High Court erred in insisting on gazette publication as a precondition for enforceability – Collector’s prohibitory order valid if duly publicised by other means [Para 5].

Prosecution Valid – High Court Erred in Quashing FIRs and Trials – Held: FIRs registered for contravention of valid prohibitory orders and glorification of Sati disclose cognisable offences under Sections 5 and 6(3) – High Court’s reasoning flawed – Prosecution must proceed if prima facie ingredients satisfied [Paras 5–6, 19].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court Judgment Set Aside – Prosecution to Continue – Held: High Court’s decision quashing proceedings based on overlapping of Sections 5 and 6(3) incorrect – Matter remitted for prosecution to proceed – Trial Court to give precedence and conclude proceedings expeditiously, preferably within six months [Para 19].

Criminal Law – Murder, Attempt to Murder, Hurt, Robbery – Sections 302, 307, 324, 394 read with Section 34 IPC – Acquittal Restored – The appellants, along with others, were charged under Sections 148, 302, 307, 324, 394 IPC – The trial court acquitted them giving cogent reasons, doubting prosecution evidence and reliability of witnesses – The High Court reversed acquittal and convicted under Sections 302/34, 307/34, 324/34 and 394 IPC – Held: High Court erred in interfering when trial court’s view was reasonable and not perverse – Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside conviction, and restored acquittal [Paras 1-9].

Criminal Trial – Reversal of Acquittal – Interference by Appellate Court – Principles – Appellate court can interfere only when acquittal is perverse – Trial court’s reasoning based on medical contradictions, unreliable eyewitnesses, hostile witnesses and doubtful motive – High Court exceeded jurisdiction by substituting its view – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 6-8].

Evidence – Eyewitness Testimony – Reliability – Prosecution rested mainly on PW 1 (informant, related to deceased) and PW 2 (servant) – Both had motive to implicate appellants – Contradictions, unnatural presence at spot – PWs 3 and 4 turned hostile – Medical evidence inconsistent with ocular version – Trial court rightly disbelieved – Acquittal justified [Paras 7(a)-(h)].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court conviction set aside – Trial court’s acquittal restored – Appellants discharged from bail bonds [Para 9].

Dowry Death – Sections 304B and 306 IPC – Suicide within 2½ months of marriage – Acquittal – Deceased Geetu committed suicide shortly after marriage – Prosecution alleged persistent dowry demand of a car by husband and in-laws – Letters written by deceased during this period indicated affection from matrimonial family, absence of dowry demand, but difficulty in adjusting to new surroundings – Suicide note exonerated all family members stating act was of her own will – Held: Prosecution failed to establish cruelty or dowry demand beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction under Sections 304B and 306 IPC set aside [Paras 14-26, 28-31].

Documentary Evidence vs Oral Testimony – Letters contemporaneous to events – Greater reliability – Oral testimonies of prosecution witnesses spoke of dowry demand – However, letters written by deceased and her family members at the relevant time revealed no such demand or harassment – Court held letters carried greater evidentiary value as contemporaneous record – High Court erred in ignoring letters – Acquittal justified [Paras 15-24, 28-30].

Suicide Note – Evidentiary Value – Ex.P-4 suicide note categorically stated “no one else is responsible” – Court held note exonerated accused from liability – No material linking suicide to dowry demand or cruelty – Cannot sustain conviction under Sections 304B or 306 IPC [Paras 25-26].

Benefit Extended to Non-Appellant Co-Accused – Husband not preferred appeal having served sentence – Principle that similarly placed accused must be granted same relief even if no appeal filed – Applied – Conviction and sentence of husband also set aside – Stigma of conviction obliterated [Paras 32-33].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence of appellants under Sections 304B and 306 IPC set aside – Acquittal of appellants – Conviction of non-appealing husband also set aside applying parity principle – Bail bonds discharged [Paras 31-33].

Criminal Law - Dowry Death – Section 304B IPC – Conviction Restored – High Court’s Acquittal Reversed – Accused married deceased after original groom failed to appear; marriage took place based on dowry demand of ₹10,000 and 3 sovereigns of gold – Part dowry paid; remaining balance due – Deceased subjected to harassment for balance dowry amount shortly before death – Death occurred within 6 months of marriage – Held: Circumstances satisfied requirements of Section 304B IPC – Presumption under Section 113B Evidence Act applies – No rebuttal offered – Conviction under Section 304B IPC restored – Sentence of 10 years’ RI awarded [Paras 1–6, 13, 16–17, 24–25].

Presumption of Dowry Death – Section 113B Evidence Act – Unrebutted Presumption – Held: Once prosecution proves unnatural death within 7 years of marriage and shows cruelty/harassment for dowry ‘soon before death’, presumption under Section 113B arises – In present case, demand and part-payment of dowry proved through independent witnesses – Harassment continued till 2 days before death – Accused failed to rebut presumption – Conviction warranted [Paras 24–25].

Acquittal under Section 302 IPC – Upheld – Insufficient Circumstantial Evidence – Held: No eye-witness; prosecution’s main witness turned hostile – Chain of circumstantial evidence not complete – High Court rightly disbelieved recovery of axe and blood-stained clothes – No trail of blood from house to well where body found – Acquittal under Section 302 IPC confirmed [Paras 14–15].

Criminal Law – Witness Credibility – Minor Inconsistencies Not Fatal – Held: Discrepancies in amount of dowry stated by witnesses (₹7000 vs ₹8000) not substantial – Witnesses were rustic villagers deposing after two years – Minor contradictions due to memory lapse cannot override otherwise credible evidence – High Court erred in treating them as fatal [Paras 10–12].

Deterrent Sentencing – Dowry Death – Ten Years’ RI Awarded – Held: Despite enactment of Dowry Prohibition Act, dowry deaths increasing – Section 304B IPC prescribes minimum 7 years’ imprisonment, extendable to life – Considering background, nature of marriage, and motive for dowry, deterrent punishment necessary – Sentence of 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment imposed [Paras 26–27].

Final Decision – Appeals Partly Allowed – Conviction under Section 302 IPC Set Aside – Conviction under Section 304B IPC Restored – Accused directed to surrender or be apprehended – Held: High Court erred in acquitting accused under Section 304B IPC – Judgment modified to convict A-1 under Section 304B IPC and sentence him to 10 years’ RI – Acquittal under Section 302 IPC confirmed [Paras 26–27].

Civil Procedure – Rejection of Plaint – Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Plaintiffs sought declaration that earlier decrees up to Supreme Court were null and void – Defendants filed application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC contending plaint disclosed no cause of action and suit barred by law – Trial court directed defendants to file written statement without deciding the application – High Court affirmed – Held: For Order 7 Rule 11, only plaint averments are relevant – Filing of written statement is unnecessary – Trial court erred in deferring decision – High Court’s order unsustainable [Paras 7-9].

Civil Procedure – Scope of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Court has power to reject plaint at any stage of suit before conclusion of trial – Power can be exercised even before registration of plaint or after summons – Decision must rest only on statements in plaint and not on pleas in written statement [Paras 8-9].

Procedural Irregularity – Non-exercise of Jurisdiction – Trial court failed to decide application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC before insisting on written statement – Such refusal amounted to procedural irregularity and non-exercise of jurisdiction vested in court – High Court failed to correct the error [Paras 9-10].

Decision – Appeals allowed – Orders of High Court and trial court set aside – Matter remitted to trial court to decide application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC solely on plaint averments after hearing parties – No order as to costs [Paras 10-11].

Criminal Law - Murder – Death Penalty Converted to Life – Circumstantial Evidence Corroborated by Confessional Statement – Accused Prakash Patil convicted for murdering six family members including his brother, mother, and nieces over a land dispute – Court relied on motive, recovery of blood-stained clothes and shoes, medical evidence of gun impact injury, and escape from crime scene – Confessional statement of co-accused son (A-2) used to corroborate circumstantial evidence – Death sentence converted to life imprisonment for minimum of 20 years [Paras 1–26].

Circumstantial Evidence – Sufficient for Conviction – Multiple circumstances including recovery of blood-stained shoes, shirt and pants, injury on shoulder consistent with firearm recoil, and accused’s presence at scene shortly after crime – Cumulative effect of these proved guilt of A-1 beyond reasonable doubt – Defence of faulty investigation rejected – Held: Circumstantial evidence legally sufficient for conviction [Paras 8–16].

Confession of Co-Accused – Admissibility and Use – Statement of A-2 recorded under Section 164 CrPC accepted as voluntary and reliable – Though A-2 acquitted of murder charge, confession used to lend assurance to prosecution case against A-1 – Confession disclosed details of night of crime, movements, disposal of evidence – Held: Permissible to use confession for corroboration under Section 30 of Evidence Act [Paras 18–22].

Joint Trial – Section 30 Evidence Act – Confession Can Be Used to Corroborate – Court reaffirmed that confession made by one accused can be considered against co-accused if they are jointly tried – Such confession cannot be sole basis but can support other evidence – In this case, confession corroborated motive, timing, and disposal of evidence [Paras 19–21].

Mitigating Factors – Death Sentence Modified – Court noted that though murders were brutal, they were triggered by land partition dispute and family breakdown – No prior criminal record – A-1 wept after killings, showing remorse – Held: Not a ‘rarest of rare’ case – Life imprisonment with minimum 20 years imposed [Paras 23–25].

Acquittal of Co-Accused – A-2 Acquitted of Murder but Convicted under Section 201 IPC – Confession revealed A-2 saw murders and aided in concealment of evidence – His conduct showed intention to protect father but no active conspiracy – Held: Acquittal under Section 302 justified, conviction under Section 201 affirmed [Paras 21–22, 26].