Criminal Law - Sentencing in Rape Cases – Reduction of Sentence – Section 376(2)(f) IPC – High Court reduced sentence from 10 years to 5 years citing young age and tribal background of the accused – Held: These are not “adequate and special reasons” as required under law – Reduction of sentence without satisfying statutory conditions is legally unsustainable – Trial court's original sentence restored [Paras 2, 12-13].

Proportionality in Sentencing – Rape of Minor – Importance of Deterrence – Rape of a 6-year-old girl constitutes a heinous crime that causes lasting trauma and violates societal conscience – Courts must balance individual mitigating factors with societal impact – Inadequate sentencing weakens public faith in justice system and encourages impunity – Deterrence and public interest require stringent punishment [Paras 3-11].

Judicial Discretion – Adequate and Special Reasons – Mandatory Recording – Section 376 IPC permits sentence below minimum only with clear and recorded justification – High Court’s reasoning based on caste and age of accused held to be fanciful and insufficient – Statutory requirement is cumulative and must be strictly followed [Para 12].

Final Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court judgment set aside – Sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 376(2)(f) IPC and 3 months under Section 342 IPC as imposed by trial court restored – No adequate or special reasons found to justify reduction in sentence [Para 13].

Civil Law – Cooperative Society – Dispute regarding Variable Dearness Allowance (VDA) – Suit filed by Workers Union claiming entitlement to VDA on basic wages plus fixed allowance as per para 317(ii) of Third Wage Board Report – Trial Court decreed suit in favour of Union – Held that withdrawal of VDA required opportunity of hearing and clarification from Wage Board – Suit held maintainable – First Appellate Court reversed decision, holding dispute did not “touch the business” of the society – High Court upheld appellate court’s finding – Second Appeal filed by Sugar Mills dismissed [Paras 1-4, 11] –

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 100 – Scope of Second Appeal – High Court found no substantial question of law – Dismissed appeal on merits – Held: Dispute over VDA was not within ambit of business or management of the society under Section 55 or Section 79 of Punjab Co-operative Societies Act – Decision does not warrant interference under Section 100 CPC [Paras 1, 4, 11] –

Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 – Section 55 and 79 – Applicability – Appellant argued that notice under Section 79 was mandatory and dispute was arbitrable under Section 55 – Supreme Court disagreed – Held: Employment-related issues like service conditions or VDA payment not covered under “disputes touching the business of the society” – Notice not required – Arbitration not mandatory [Paras 5-7, 10] –

Interpretation – “Business of the Society” – Narrow Construction – Supreme Court reaffirmed principles from Deccan Merchants Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Dalichand Jugraj Jain, O.N. Bhatnagar v. Rukibai Narsindas, and Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. v. Additional Industrial Tribunal – Held: Business means actual trading/commercial activity – Not inclusive of employee service conditions – Alteration of service terms not arbitrable under Section 55 nor requiring notice under Section 79 [Paras 8-10] –

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Findings of First Appellate Court and High Court affirmed – Dispute over VDA does not attract provisions of Section 55 or 79 of the Act – No costs [Para 11].

Criminal Law - Homicide – Single Blow – Exception 4 to Section 300 – Conviction Converted – Appellant dealt one lathi blow on deceased’s head during a sudden altercation at a marriage feast – No premeditation and no prior arming shown – High Court altered co-accused outcomes but maintained appellant’s conviction under Section 302 – Held: Ingredients of Exception 4 satisfied – sudden fight in heat of passion, without undue advantage or cruel/unusual manner – nature of weapon, single blow, and circumstances warrant conversion to Section 304 Part II – Sentence reduced to RI 8 years [Paras 3, 6-9].

Section 300 Exception 4 – Tests Restated – For application: (a) absence of premeditation – (b) sudden fight – (c) heat of passion – (d) no undue advantage or cruel/unusual manner – “Undue advantage” means unfair advantage – One-blow cases are not per se excluded from Section 302, assessment depends on weapon, force, and body part targeted [Para 8].

Sentencing – Appropriate Punishment Under Section 304 Part II – Considering single lathi blow, sudden quarrel, and death ensuing next day – custodial sentence of eight years RI meets ends of justice – fine order under Section 302 set aside to that extent [Para 9].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – Conviction altered from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part II IPC – Sentence modified to RI for eight years – Rest as per modification – No interference with acquittal/alterations of co-accused by High Court [Paras 6, 9].

PIL/Environmental Governance – Interlocutory applications challenging/linked to notifications – Infructuous upon issuance of final notification – Liberty reserved – I.A. No. 1874 (in WP 4677/1985) and I.A. No. 3 (in WP 98/2000) dismissed as infructuous with liberty to file substantive petitions against final notification; connected Writ Petition (C) No. 98/2000 also dismissed [Paras 1–2].

Utilities Disconnection/Restoration – Damages not entertainable in IA – Water/electricity restored; claim for damages/compensation to be pursued in appropriate proceedings, not in interlocutory application [Paras 3–4].

Sealing/De-sealing – Conditional relief – Premises to be de-sealed on affidavit/undertaking that only permissible trade will be carried on; compliance before competent authority required [Paras 5–6].

Non-prosecution – IAs dismissed – Multiple interlocutory applications dismissed for non-appearance/non-prosecution [Paras 7–8, 11–12, 13–16, 17–20, 23].

Industrial Plot Allotments – Direction to file replies – In IA alleging non-delivery of possession despite allotment and deposit, respondents directed to file reply within two weeks; rejoinder within one week; matter adjourned three weeks [Paras 9–10].

Contempt – Non-closure of units in Lal Dora/residential areas contrary to judgment dated 07.05.2004 – Affidavits directed – State of NCT of Delhi, MCD and DDA to file affidavits within four weeks; rejoinder within four weeks thereafter; copies to counsel of authorities [Paras 21–22].

Contempt – Non-disconnection of electricity to illegal units – Amicus appointed; reply timeline – Senior Advocate requested to assist; respondent’s counsel to obtain instructions and file reply within four weeks before formal notice is considered [Paras 26–27].

Decision – Batch disposed – Various IAs dismissed/infructuous or given limited relief; directions issued for affidavits/replies; liberty kept open to pursue substantive remedies where applicable [Paras 1–27].

Criminal Appeal – Probation – Section 360 CrPC vis-à-vis Probation of Offenders Act – Application for Probation to be Considered – Appellant originally convicted under Sections 304 Part II, 323/149 and 147 IPC; conviction under Section 304 Part II later set aside; finally convicted under Section 323 IPC – High Court rejected modification application seeking release on probation, holding no provision to modify its judgment – Held: Where Probation Act is in force, Section 360 CrPC is inapplicable by virtue of Section 8(1) General Clauses Act – Section 361 CrPC obliges courts to apply probationary provisions unless special reasons recorded – Probation Act wider in scope than Section 360 CrPC and provides statutory protection against disqualification – In peculiar facts, High Court directed to consider probation plea under Section 4 of the Probation Act or Section 360 CrPC as applicable – Appeal allowed [Paras 5-7].

CrPC – Section 360 – Scope – Limited – Applies only to offenders under 21 years or women, or offences punishable with fine or imprisonment up to 7 years – No provision for probation officer’s role; no immunity from disqualification – Contrasted with Probation Act [Paras 5-6].

Probation of Offenders Act – Section 4 – Wider Applicability – Covers all offences not punishable with death or life imprisonment – Provides supervision mechanism and statutory immunity under Section 12 – Legislature intended Act to prevail over Section 360 CrPC in areas where enforced [Paras 5-6].

CrPC – Section 361 – Mandatory Recording of Reasons – Courts bound to record special reasons when refusing benefit of probation where Act or Section 360 applies – Non-consideration improper [Para 5].

General Clauses Act – Section 8(1) – Effect – Enforcement of Probation Act in a given area impliedly excludes Section 360 CrPC therein – Dual operation not intended [Para 6].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court directed to consider appellant’s probation application afresh under applicable law within three months – No opinion expressed on merits [Para 7].

Criminal Law - Probation and Sentencing – Co-existence of Probation of Offenders Act and Section 360 CrPC – Paramountcy of Special Law – Held: Where the Probation of Offenders Act is in force, the provisions of Section 360 CrPC do not apply – The Probation Act provides broader scope and additional support mechanisms, including Probation Officers – Section 360 CrPC cannot operate simultaneously in areas covered by the Probation Act – Supreme Court reaffirmed that Section 360 becomes inapplicable by virtue of Section 8(1) of the General Clauses Act – Probation Act has overriding effect [Paras 6-8].

Review of Judgment – Power of High Court to Modify Criminal Judgment – No Inherent Power – Held: High Court was correct in rejecting the application for modification as there is no legal provision for post-judgment modification in criminal matters – However, in light of the peculiar facts, including non-representation of Appellant due to genuine difficulty, Supreme Court directed the High Court to consider the probation application on merits [Paras 3-4, 9].

Probation Application – Sentencing under IPC – Eligibility for Probation – Held: Since the conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC was set aside, the remaining offences under Sections 323 and 147 IPC (later altered) were not punishable with death or life imprisonment – Therefore, Appellant may be considered for release on probation under Section 4 of the Probation Act – Supreme Court left the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration [Paras 2, 4, 9].

Final Direction – Appeal Allowed – Supreme Court directed the High Court to consider the Appellant’s application under the Probation of Offenders Act or Section 360 CrPC, as the case may be – High Court to pass appropriate order within three months – No opinion expressed on merits [Para 9].

Public Premises Act – Sections 3 & 4 – Constitutional Challenge and Appointment of Estate Officer – Dismissed – Writ petitions/appeals assailed (i) Section 3 and its second proviso as violative of Article 14 (“judge in his own cause”), (ii) show cause under Sections 4(1)-(2), and (iii) appointments under Allocation of Business Rules – Held: Section 3 valid; officer of a statutory authority can be appointed as Estate Officer for premises controlled by that authority; “no man a judge in his own cause” triggers only on proof of personal bias/interest or prior decision – not shown on facts; challenge to Section 4 notices fails – appeals/writs dismissed [Paras 7–10, 13–14, 17].

Constitutional Law – Article 14 – Dual Procedure & Speedy Eviction – Validity Upheld – Northern India Caterers’ view explained/overruled by larger Bench in Maganlal Chhaganlal; special, speedier procedure for eviction from public premises is a guided class and not arbitrary; opinion in Special Courts Bill, 1978 affirms Maganlal reasoning – No violation of Article 14 [Paras 8–10].

Repugnancy – Article 254(1)/(2) – Maharashtra Rent Control Act vs. Public Premises Act – Central Law Prevails – Premises of nationalised banks/statutory corporations fall under Public Premises Act; by Article 254(1) and the proviso to Article 254(2), later Parliamentary law prevails even over State law with Presidential assent; Accountant & Secretarial Services applied – Tenant cannot claim protection of State Rent Act against proceedings under Public Premises Act [Paras 5, 11–12].

Bias/Impartiality – Estate Officer from Same Authority – Test – Doctrine of “no man judge in his own cause” attracted only if personal bias/interest or prior participation in the very matter is shown – Mere employment with the statutory authority insufficient – Delhi Financial Corporation v. Rajiv Anand followed – On ASG’s statement, the officer involved in eviction matters would not preside; no bias made out [Paras 13–14, 17].

Administrative Law – Allocation of Business Rules, 1961 & Article 77 – Directory – Decentralization of Appointment Power – Validity – Rules are administrative/directory; breach does not ipso facto vitiate appointment – Power to appoint Estate Officers decentralized by O.M. dated 29.11.1972 authorizing Ministries/Departments to appoint for undertakings under their control; appointment by Finance Ministry valid [Paras 15].

Notifications – 29.07.1988 and 25.01.1993 – No Vitiation – Appointee being a Gazetted Officer (Assistant General Manager, SBI), nothing turns on alleged supersession – proceedings to continue [Para 16].

Decision – Appeals and writ petitions dismissed – Estate Officer to proceed and dispose expeditiously – No costs [Para 17].

Contract – Conditional Tender/Accord & Satisfaction – Section 8, Contract Act – Railway sent cheques with express condition that retention/encashment would be “full and final settlement”; consignee encashed cheques and later wrote protest – Held: Acceptance by conduct; protest must precede encashment to avoid accord; absent proof of timely protest, balance claim barred – Appeals dismissed [Paras 2–8, 15–18, 19].

Acceptance by Conduct – Mode Prescribed by Offer – Where offer stipulates return of cheque if not accepted in full and final terms, encashment without prior reservation constitutes unequivocal acceptance; offeree cannot resile after encashment [Paras 15–17].

Burden of Proof – Timing of Protest – Onus on claimant to plead and prove that protest/non-acceptance was communicated before encashment; in absence of pleadings/evidence of dates, Court presumes acceptance by conduct [Para 18].

Distinction Drawn – Protest Before Encashment vs. After – Gauhati view in “Assam Bengal Cereals” (protest before encashment, delayed encashment) distinguished; principle in “Rameshwarlal Bhagchand” (post-encashment protest ineffective) applied on facts [Paras 9–11].

Precedents Re: “Under Protest” & Section 63 – “Under protest” may negate accord if reservation is contemporaneous (see Amar Nath Chand Prakash); Section 63 cases like Kapur Chand Godha turned on clear “full satisfaction” endorsements—here facts show unconditional acceptance by encashment; MP HC decision in Gangaram Bhagwandas turned on contrary facts (no acceptance in full satisfaction), hence inapplicable [Paras 12–14, 16].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – Orders of Railway Claims Tribunal and High Court upholding full and final settlement by encashment affirmed – No order as to costs [Para 19].

Companies Act – Scheme of Arrangement – Entitlement of Pre-scheme Unsecured Creditors – Payment Directed – The appellants challenged the Calcutta High Court’s decision refusing payments under a Court-sanctioned Scheme on the ground that their claims had not been adjudicated – Held: The appellants were pre-scheme unsecured creditors whose claims had been adjudicated by the Registrar and accepted by the Company Judge – The High Court erred in ordering re-adjudication and withholding disbursement from funds earmarked solely for unsecured creditors – Supreme Court restored the right to receive payments and directed immediate release [Paras 24-27, 36].

Companies Act – Section 529A – Inapplicability to Running Concerns – Workers’ Priority Not Invocable – The respondents argued that workers’ dues must take priority under Section 529A – Held: Since the winding-up was stayed under Section 466 and the company continued as a going concern, Section 529A was not applicable – The protective umbrella of workers’ priority becomes relevant only during actual winding-up proceedings, not under a revived Scheme of Arrangement [Paras 30, 34].

EPF Act – Section 11(2) – No Charge over Court-Earmarked Funds – The workers' unions sought priority for Provident Fund dues relying on Section 11(2) of the EPF Act – Held: The statutory charge under Section 11(2) is over the assets of the establishment, not over funds earmarked by specific court orders for unsecured creditors – Workers’ claims under the EPF Act do not override prior directions of this Court allocating funds for a distinct class of creditors [Paras 29-30, 32].

Company Law – Finality of Registrar’s Adjudication – Re-Adjudication Impermissible – The High Court Division Bench directed fresh adjudication of the appellants’ claims – Held: Such direction was erroneous since the Registrar had already adjudicated the claims, which were accepted in binding orders by both the Single Judge and earlier Division Bench – Principle of finality of adjudication upheld [Paras 25-26, 36].

Evidence – Workers’ Objections Found Unsubstantiated – The workers’ unions objected to payments to the appellants alleging self-serving disbursements – Held: No concrete evidence was provided to substantiate these claims – The Court found that the Registrar had examined the claims with the assistance of a Chartered Accountant and that the process was transparent and fair [Para 35].

Disbursement of Funds – Release of Dues Directed – Supreme Court clarified that the funds with the Registrar were meant exclusively for unsecured creditors under the Scheme – All other similarly placed creditors had been paid – Appellants were wrongfully excluded – Held: Registrar directed to release dues and return the Bank Guarantees furnished by the appellants – Appeals allowed; workers' claims to this fund rejected [Paras 36-37].