Criminal Law – Murder – Appeal Against Acquittal – Standard of Review – Trial court acquitted appellants accused of stabbing deceased following a dispute over money—High Court reversed acquittal and convicted under Sections 302/34 IPC and 4/25 Arms Act—Supreme Court held that the trial court’s view was plausible based on inconsistencies in eyewitness testimony, non-examination of material witness (Rajveer), and doubtful recovery of weapon—High Court failed to apply settled principles governing interference with acquittals—Held: When two views are possible, appellate court should not disturb acquittal unless trial court’s view is perverse or wholly unreasonable [Paras 7–10, 15–19].

Evidence – Interested Witnesses – Reliability – PW-1 (brother of deceased) and PW-2 (co-brother) found to be interested witnesses with inconsistent statements regarding direction of stab wound and presence at scene—Evidence of light from lantern and electric pole unsupported by seizure or record—Non-examination of key witness Rajveer, in whose shop lantern allegedly burned, rendered prosecution version doubtful—Trial court rightly held their presence and version unsafe for reliance—High Court erred in ignoring these material infirmities [Paras 10–13].

Criminal Procedure – Section 378 and 386 CrPC – Appellate Power Against Acquittal – Reiterated that presumption of innocence is strengthened by acquittal—Appellate court must assign “substantial and compelling reasons” to reverse acquittal—High Court failed to demonstrate such reasons—Findings in Ghurey Lal v. State of U.P., K. Prakashan v. P.K. Surenderan, and Kalyan Singh v. State of M.P. applied [Paras 16–19].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s conviction order dated 27/05/2005 set aside – Judgment of acquittal restored – Appellant Mahtab Singh already on bail; bail bonds cancelled – Co-accused Jaipal to be released forthwith unless required in any other case [Para 20].

Civil Law – Collusive Decree – Finding of Fact – Interference by High Court – Appellants (daughters of Bhagwana) sought to set aside decree dated 24.11.1980 in Civil Suit No. 630/1980 alleging it was collusive – Trial Court decreed suit in their favour – First Appellate Court reversed finding, holding decree not collusive – High Court affirmed appellate judgment – Held: Finding that consent decree was not collusive is purely factual and supported by evidence – Bhagwana, original defendant, was alive and had supported the earlier decree; appellants had not asserted rights during trial – No interference warranted [Paras 5–9].

Registration Act – Section 17(2)(vi) – Compromise Decree – Scope of Exception – Exception under Section 17(2)(vi) excludes from registration “any decree or order of a Court except a decree or order expressed to be made on a compromise and comprising immovable property other than that which is the subject-matter of the suit” – Held: On plain reading, if a decree concerns property not forming part of the suit, registration is mandatory – If property dealt with is same as that in suit, no registration required [Para 11–12].

Statutory Interpretation – Conflict between Decisions – Section 17(2)(vi) Registration Act – Court noted inconsistency between Bhoop Singh v. Ram Singh Major (1995) 5 SCC 709, which required examination of “pre-existing right”, and K. Raghunandan v. Ali Hussain Sabir (2008) 13 SCC 102, which confined registration requirement only to property outside the suit – Held: Section 17(2)(vi) does not refer to pre-existing rights – Bhoop Singh does not correctly interpret provision – Matter referred to Larger Bench for authoritative interpretation [Paras 13–17].

Interpretation of Statutes – Plain Meaning Rule – Court cannot add or read into a statute words not used by the legislature – Where statutory language is clear, no judicial modification permissible – Plain reading of Section 17(2)(vi) excludes reference to “pre-existing rights” [Para 15].

Service Law – Pension – Voluntary Retirement – Regulation 29(5) Pension Regulations, 1995 – Employees with 20+ years’ qualifying service who opted under VRS 2000 – Entitlement to notional addition of 5 years of service – Held: VRS 2000 provided pension as per existing Pension Regulations – Regulation 29 only applicable clause for voluntary retirement at relevant time – Contractual nature of VRS 2000 binds banks to grant benefit under Regulation 29(5) – Subsequent amendment to Regulation 28 with retrospective effect does not override vested contractual rights under Regulation 29 [Paras 1–4, 27–38, 53].

Statutory Interpretation – Harmonious Construction – VRS 2000 and Pension Regulations – VRS 2000 must be read in harmony with existing statutory pension regulations – Where scheme is silent or ambiguous, applicable regulation must be applied – Banks cannot deny Regulation 29(5) benefit by invoking later amendment to Regulation 28 meant for employees with 15–20 years of service – Amendment cannot affect employees with 20+ years who acted under pre-amendment law [Paras 33–38].

Contract Law – Interpretation – Contra Proferentem – Where contract terms are ambiguous and drafted by employer (banks), interpretation favouring employees to be adopted – Held: Banks bear risk of unclear drafting and cannot later exclude Regulation 29(5) benefits after inviting applications under pension-linked scheme [Para 32].

Constitutional Law – Article 14 – Public Sector Banks – VRS 2000 as state action – Held: Even in contractual matters, public sector entities must act reasonably and fairly – Interpretation of VRS must meet test of non-arbitrariness – Denial of Regulation 29(5) benefit after inducing employees under VRS violates Article 14 [Paras 33–34].

Precedents – Distinction from Bank of Baroda Case – Bank of Baroda v. Ganpat Singh Deora distinguished – Held: Deora had only 13 years of service and was not eligible for pension – Present appeals concern employees with 20+ years – Hence, precedent not applicable [Paras 42–50].

Estoppel – Not Applicable – Banks’ plea of estoppel rejected – Held: Employees not resiling from VRS but seeking enforcement of promised pension benefits – No estoppel arises from accepting ex-gratia under VRS 2000 [Para 52].

Decision: Appeals by banks dismissed – Employees' appeals allowed – Banks directed to recalculate and pay pension by giving benefit of notional 5 years' service under Regulation 29(5) within one month – No interest payable on unpaid pension due to divergent High Court views and bona fide litigation [Paras 53–56].

Public Employment – Ad hoc Appointments – Legality – Appointments made without advertisement or requisition to Employment Exchange – Held: Such appointments are per se illegal and void being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution – Equality clause mandates opportunity for all eligible candidates to compete – No regularisation or reinstatement can be ordered in such cases [Paras 3, 13–16, 27–33].

Doctrine of Equality – Negative Equality – Claim for similar relief based on illegal orders passed in other cases – Held: Article 14 guarantees positive equality, not negative equality – Courts cannot perpetuate illegality by directing similar benefits merely because wrong orders were passed in other cases – Each case must stand on its own legal footing [Paras 34–35].

Regularisation – Scope – Regularisation of illegal appointees within months of appointment by same officer found to be a sham exercise – No rule or policy empowered such regularisation – Held: The so-called regularisation was void and mere continuation in service does not create a right to permanent appointment [Paras 31–33].

Judicial Review – Scope – High Court erred in granting reinstatement by relying upon earlier orders without examining legality of appointments – Division Bench wrongly refused to interfere merely because similar appeals were dismissed earlier – Such approach unsustainable in law [Paras 28–30, 36].

Administrative Law – Spoils System – Historical analysis of arbitrary appointments and its infiltration into Indian public service – Court deprecated spread of nepotism and backdoor entries undermining equality of opportunity and rule of law [Paras 17–22].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Orders of the Single Judge and Division Bench set aside – Writ petition dismissed – Reinstatement and regularisation of respondents quashed [Para 37].

Criminal Law – Murder – Acquittal – Interference by Appellate Court – Appellant along with four co-accused charged under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for murder – Trial Court acquitted all accused holding prosecution failed to prove case beyond reasonable doubt – State appealed – High Court maintained acquittal of four accused but reversed acquittal of appellant and convicted him under Section 302 IPC – Held: High Court not justified in interfering – Trial Court’s approach proper and findings not perverse – In appeal against acquittal, interference permissible only when findings are manifestly illegal or perverse – FIR lodged against unknown persons as eye-witnesses did not disclose names of accused despite meeting informant before lodging report – Serious infirmity in prosecution case – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 2–3].

Criminal Procedure – Appeal against Acquittal – Scope of Interference – Reappreciation of evidence by High Court cannot justify reversal of well-reasoned acquittal unless findings of Trial Court are wholly unreasonable or perverse – Acquittal restored [Paras 3–4].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s judgment convicting appellant under Section 302 IPC set aside – Trial Court’s acquittal restored – Appellant discharged from bail bonds [Paras 4–5].

Juvenile Justice – Claim of Juvenility – Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice Act – Appellant convicted under Section 302/149 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment – Plea raised for the first time before the Supreme Court that the appellant was below 18 years of age on the date of offence (28.08.2002) – Held: In view of the proviso to Section 7A(1), claim of juvenility can be raised at any stage, even after final disposal of the case – Court competent to entertain the plea and determine the question of age [Paras 4, 7].

Evidence – Age Determination – Inquiry under Section 7A – Report from school showing date of birth as 15.12.1987 – Incident dated 28.08.2002 – Appellant about 15 years old at that time – Report found genuine and unchallenged by State – Held: Appellant was juvenile within meaning of Section 2(k) of the Act [Paras 8-10].

Sentence – Effect of Finding Juvenility – Section 15(1)(g) of the Juvenile Justice Act – Maximum period of confinement in special home limited to three years – Appellant having already undergone imprisonment beyond that period – Conviction sustained but sentence quashed – Appellant directed to be released forthwith unless required in any other case [Paras 10-12].

Precedents – Application – Followed Pawan v. State of Uttaranchal and Bhola Bhagat v. State of Bihar – Affirmed principle that plea of juvenility can be raised at any stage and that upon establishing juvenility, sentence must be set aside though conviction may stand [Paras 7, 11].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Conviction upheld – Sentence set aside – Appellant directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

Criminal Procedure – Warrant Case on Complaint – Framing of Charge – Applicability of Section 245(2) and 246(1) CrPC – Appellant, Director of Indian School of Mines, prosecuted for conspiracy to use forged document in judicial proceedings – Trial Court dismissed discharge application under Section 245(2) and framed charge without recording evidence – Held: In complaint cases, Magistrate must record evidence under Section 244 before framing charge under Section 246(1) – Charge framed without evidence is premature and violates right of accused to seek discharge [Paras 13–27]

Criminal Procedure – Discharge in Warrant Cases – Section 245(2) CrPC – Application for discharge prior to recording of prosecution evidence is maintainable – Magistrate has discretion to discharge accused at any earlier stage if charge appears groundless – However, if discharge is rejected, Magistrate must follow procedure under Section 244 and record evidence before framing charge [Paras 15–19]

Criminal Procedure – Framing of Charge – Section 246(1) CrPC – Phrase “or at any previous stage” – Interpreted to mean any point after some prosecution evidence is recorded under Section 244 – Charge cannot be framed solely on complaint without any supporting evidence – Interpretation upheld to prevent denial of cross-examination and ensure fairness in trial [Paras 22–26]

Judicial Process – Abuse of Process – Proceedings under Section 340 CrPC – Initiated against appellant based on alleged use of forged document in counter affidavit – Appellant denied knowledge of forged letter – Cognizance taken on court complaint – No direct evidence against appellant prior to charge framing – Magistrate and High Court erred in not considering right to discharge and not following proper trial procedure [Paras 2–12]

Relief – Order framing charge quashed – Matter remanded to Trial Court – Prosecution directed to lead evidence under Section 244(1) – Trial Court to decide afresh whether charge is to be framed after considering such evidence [Para 29]

Decision: Appeal allowed in part – Order framing charge quashed – Trial Court directed to record evidence under Section 244(1) CrPC and thereafter decide afresh whether charge should be framed under Section 246(1).

Service Law – Lien – Retention of Lien in Parent Department – Respondent appointed temporarily as Homeopathic Doctor in 1980 under ESI Scheme while retaining lien in Economics & Statistics Department – Continued in said post till retirement in 1994 without confirmation – Held: Lien cannot be terminated unless permanent appointment made in new post – Respondent entitled to service benefits, promotions and pension from parent department [Paras 11-16]

Rajasthan Service Rules – Rule 18 – Interpretation – Rule 18 prohibits termination of lien if it would leave employee without a lien on a permanent post – Lien terminates only upon acquiring a lien in another permanent post – Held: No material to show respondent was permanently appointed in new post – Lien continued in original cadre [Paras 11-12]

Service Law – Deputation and Substantive Appointment – Deputation to another department does not affect lien in parent department unless permanent appointment is made – Temporary service for long duration does not amount to substantive appointment – Respondent never acquired lien in ESI post – Parent department continued to recognise his position and rights [Paras 13-15]

Pension and Promotion – Protection of Service Rights – Respondent entitled to claim promotions and pensionary benefits from parent department based on uninterrupted lien – High Court rightly granted reliefs – State barred from denying benefits after accepting respondent’s option and continued recognition [Paras 15-16]

Decision: Appeals dismissed – High Court’s judgment upheld – Respondent held entitled to service benefits, promotions, and pension from parent department – No order as to costs [Para 17]

NDPS Act – Search and Seizure – Compliance with Mandatory Provisions – Violation of Sections 42(2) and 50(4) – Police officers of Kapurthala conducting raid in Amritsar district without informing local police – Female accused personally searched by male officers – Non-compliance with statutory safeguards renders search illegal and recovery unreliable – Held: Conviction unsustainable [Paras 10, 16–17].

Evidence Act – Section 27 – Discovery Statements – Recovery allegedly based on disclosure by co-accused Gurlal Singh – Statement not recorded in writing and discovery not proved – Held: Discovery inadmissible against respondents – Absence of independent corroboration fatal to prosecution [Paras 13, 15].

Criminal Law – Conscious Possession – Mere presence of accused ladies in house where contraband found beneath bed does not establish conscious possession – Prosecution failed to prove knowledge or control – Failure to record statements of accused or show their involvement – Acquittal justified [Paras 14–15].

Criminal Procedure – Independent Witnesses – None examined though available – No explanation by prosecution – Doubt on fairness of investigation – Contradictory evidence on presence of lady constable (ASI Rajinder Kaur) – Prosecution case doubtful [Paras 15–16].

Constitution of India – Article 136 – Scope of Interference with Acquittal – When two views are reasonably possible, Supreme Court should not interfere with acquittal unless findings are perverse or manifestly illegal – Applied Rangaiah v. State of Karnataka – Appeal dismissed [Paras 12, 18–19].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal upheld – No interference warranted under Article 136 of the Constitution [Para 19].