NDPS Act – Conviction under Section 21 – Seizure of Buprenorphine – Conviction Upheld – The appellant was found in possession of 25 ampoules of 'Tidigestic' (Buprenorphine) and arrested on the spot – Trial Court acquitted the appellant citing discrepancies in prosecution evidence – High Court reversed the acquittal and convicted the appellant – Supreme Court upheld conviction and sentence of 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment with fine – Held: Conviction based on credible and corroborated evidence [Paras 1–4, 14].

Section 42 – Recording and Communication of Information – No Violation Found – Appellant argued non-compliance with Section 42 due to failure to record and forward information – Court held that police officer (PW5) received information while on patrol and acted immediately to apprehend the accused – Held: In such exigent circumstances, strict compliance was not required and immediate action was justified – No violation of Section 42 [Paras 6–7].

Section 50 – Right to be Searched Before Magistrate or Gazetted Officer – Oral Communication Valid – It was argued that appellant was not informed in writing of his right under Section 50 – Evidence showed oral communication of right to be searched before a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer – Held: Oral intimation is sufficient – No violation of Section 50 [Paras 8–11].

Section 57 – Obligation to Send Report to Superior Officer – Substantial Compliance is Sufficient – Although no formal report was filed under Section 57, prosecution had sent FIR and related documents to superior officer – Held: Substantial compliance was achieved – No prejudice caused to the accused – Prosecution case not vitiated [Para 12].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence confirmed – No violation of mandatory provisions of NDPS Act [Para 14].

Criminal Law - Delay in Pronouncement of Judgments – Article 21 of the Constitution – Fundamental Right Violated - Inordinate delay of over two years in pronouncement of judgment after conclusion of arguments by the Patna High Court – Held: Delay violates the right to life and liberty under Article 21 – Supreme Court issued mandatory procedural guidelines for High Courts to prevent such delay and preserve faith in the judiciary [Paras 1-21].

Unlawful Assembly – Common Object – Section 149 IPC – Conviction Partly Set Aside - No sufficient evidence to prove that accused A-3 to A-7 shared common object to commit murder – Held: Conviction under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC not sustainable – Modified to conviction under Sections 148/149 IPC – Conviction under Section 27 Arms Act upheld [Paras 40-43].

Credibility of Inimical Witnesses – Consistent and Corroborated Testimony – Conviction Upheld - Mere enmity not a ground to discard prosecution witnesses – Where testimony is consistent and supported by medical evidence, conviction sustainable – Held: Evidence of PWs 1, 2, 5 and 6 reliable despite prior hostility [Paras 28, 35].

Medical vs Ocular Evidence – Minor Inconsistencies – No Adverse Impact - Discrepancies in firearm description (rifle vs gun) and number of shots found immaterial – Held: Minor inconsistencies cannot override credible eyewitness testimony and medical findings [Paras 32-34].

Delay in Dispatch of FIR – Section 157 CrPC – Not Fatal to Prosecution - FIR filed within 15 minutes of the incident – No extraordinary or unexplained delay in sending FIR to Magistrate – Held: No inference of fabrication or taint – Trial not vitiated [Paras 29-31].

Hostile Witness – Evidence Admissible – Partial Hostility Not Fatal - PW 12 declared hostile for not naming one accused – Held: His evidence remains admissible – Conviction not affected if corroborated by other reliable witnesses [Para 36].

Right to Speedy Trial – Article 21 – Judicial Directions Issued - Supreme Court reiterated that undue delay in judgment delivery amounts to denial of justice – Issued procedural safeguards including timelines and reporting to Chief Justices for accountability – Held: Delay beyond six months gives party right to seek reassignment of case [Paras 6-10, 17-20].

Benefit to Non-Appealing Accused – Parity Principle Applied - Accused A-7 who had not appealed due to dismissal of SLP also given benefit of modified conviction like co-accused – Held: Supreme Court may extend such relief to avoid miscarriage of justice [Paras 44-45].

Final Decision – Appeals of A-1 and A-2 Dismissed – Appeals of A-3 to A-7 Partly Allowed – Conviction under Section 302/149 IPC set aside for A-3 to A-7 – Convicted under Section 148/149 IPC and Section 27 of Arms Act – Sentenced to 3 years RI – Sentences to run concurrently – If already undergone, they are to be released [Para 46].

Education Law - Post-Graduate Medical Admission – Counselling Procedure – Validity of Rule Restricting Seat Change – Rule Disallowing Change of Subject or College After First Counselling Upheld - Government order provided that no change in allotted subject or college shall be permitted once exercised during counselling – Held: Rule is reasonable and prevents disruption of academic schedule – Permitting seat change after counselling would lead to endless chain reactions and disturb the admission process – Supreme Court affirmed the Division Bench's reasoning and set aside Single Judge's order allowing seat changes [Paras 1-4].

Waitlisted Candidates – Allocation of Vacant Seats – Merit-Based Distribution – Vacant Seats to Go Only to Waitlisted Candidates - Seats falling vacant after counselling due to resignation or reallocation cannot be re-opened for previously admitted candidates – Held: Such seats should only be offered to waitlisted candidates in merit order – Re-opening options for all would prolong counselling, delay commencement of course and potentially affect course duration [Paras 3-4].

Alleged Inequity in Allocation – Fortuitous Circumstances Not a Valid Ground – Apprehension That Lower Ranked Candidate May Get Better Seat - Held: Hypothetical situations like lower-ranked candidate receiving high-demand subject due to resignation by another cannot invalidate otherwise reasonable rules – Fortuitous outcomes do not render the rule arbitrary or irrational [Para 5].

Final Decision – Appeals and SLP Dismissed – Rule Upheld – Held: Rule restricting changes in seat post-first counselling is valid and ensures administrative efficiency – All appeals and SLP dismissed without costs [Paras 6-7].

Criminal Law - Murder – Common Intention – Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC – Conviction Upheld – Deceased Ram Chandra was attacked with sharp-edged weapons by the appellant and co-accused in broad daylight – The act followed an earlier murder case in which the deceased was assisting the accused's opponents – Held: Common intention to kill was proved through motive, simultaneous attack, and coordinated actions – Application of Section 34 IPC proper – Conviction under Section 302/34 justified [Paras 2-9].

Ocular Testimony – Interested Witnesses – Evidence Acceptable – Prosecution relied on eyewitnesses related to the deceased – Held: Relationship of witnesses with victim does not discredit testimony if otherwise trustworthy – PWs 1 and 2 found to be credible and consistent – Courts below rightly relied on their evidence – No interference warranted [Para 10].

Non-Examination of Independent Witness – Not Fatal to Prosecution – Defence raised issue of non-examination of shop owner near place of occurrence – Held: Reasonable explanation accepted due to hostile environment and fear of reprisals – General reluctance of public to depose against known criminal elements noted – Absence of such witness does not vitiate prosecution case [Para 10].

Minor Investigative Lapse – Site Plan Not Indicating Recovery Spot – Not Material – Defence argued that failure to mark spot of blood-stained earth in site plan casts doubt on prosecution – Held: Lapse not significant – Recovery proved through case diary and PW-5's statement – Courts below rightly ignored the omission as immaterial [Para 10].

Section 34 IPC – Principles Reiterated – Common Intention Can Be Inferred from Circumstances – Held: Common intention need not be pre-planned – Can develop on spot – Participation, motive, and coordinated attack sufficient to invoke Section 34 – Each accused liable for acts done in furtherance of common intention [Para 8].

Final Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Conviction and Sentence Affirmed – Supreme Court upheld concurrent findings of Sessions Court and High Court – No merit found in appellant’s defence – Conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC sustained – Appeal dismissed [Para 11].

Removal from Municipal Office – Abuse of Power – Interpretation of Section 22 of Punjab Municipal Act – Order Quashed – The appellant, elected President of Rajpura Municipal Council, was removed from office by State Government under Section 22 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, on the allegation that he obstructed functioning of the Council by withholding payment for a fogging machine – Supreme Court held that the show cause notice did not disclose the actual basis of the removal order, which relied on events that occurred after the notice and were not put to the appellant – Held: This amounted to violation of principles of natural justice and a colourable exercise of power [Paras 1, 4, 5, 12-13].

Scope of “Abuse of Power” – Section 22 of Punjab Municipal Act – Strict Interpretation Required – The term “abuse of powers” must be construed narrowly – It requires wilful misconduct or dishonest intention – Mere error in decision-making or an unpopular instruction, if not dishonest or habitual, cannot amount to abuse – Held: A single act or disagreement over payment decision, even if erroneous, does not constitute abuse of power under Section 22 [Paras 8-11].

Natural Justice – Show Cause Requirement – Grounds of Removal Must Be Consistent with Notice – Supreme Court emphasized that the ground of removal must be clearly communicated in the show cause notice – Authorities cannot base the final order on different allegations without informing the person concerned – Held: Decision-making without proper notice violates natural justice and renders the order unsustainable [Paras 12-13].

Judicial Review – Perversity in Administrative Action – High Court's Limited Role in Review – Supreme Court found that the High Court erred in treating the matter as beyond the scope of judicial review – Where the administrative order is based on non-existent or irrelevant grounds and shows non-application of mind, such an order is vitiated and liable to be struck down [Paras 13-14].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court judgment set aside – Writ petition allowed – Removal order dated 01.10.1999 quashed – Appellant to be reinstated with costs of Rs. 10,000/- [Para 17].

Criminal Law - Sanction for Prosecution – Section 197 CrPC – Reasonable Connection Test – Prosecution Against Public Servant Without Sanction Permitted – Appellant, a former Secretary in the Government of Sikkim, challenged prosecution under IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act for acts related to award of contracts – Held: At this stage, the prosecution can proceed without sanction under Section 197 CrPC – Whether act was in discharge of official duty must be decided after full trial – Accused can raise plea of protection during trial – Court directed that this issue be considered afresh in final judgment based on evidence [Paras 15-17].

Public Servant – Protection under Section 197 CrPC – Not Absolute – Sanction Required Only When Act Inseparable From Official Duty – Held: Only those acts that have reasonable nexus with official duty are protected – If act is done in capacity of public servant, even in dereliction of duty, sanction may be needed – However, if official status merely provided opportunity to commit offence, no protection under Section 197 applies [Paras 5-9].

Criminal Conspiracy – Not Part of Official Duty – Sanction Not Always Required – Held: Entering into a criminal conspiracy to award contracts in violation of Cabinet policy and causing loss to State is not an act done in discharge of official duty – Commission of such offence not protected by Section 197 CrPC at pre-trial stage – Facts must be established during trial to determine applicability [Paras 4, 15-16].

Trial Procedure – When to Decide Question of Sanction – Held: Determination of whether sanction is needed may not be possible at cognizance stage – Court may decide it at any stage, even post-conviction – Where question depends on facts in dispute, it should be addressed after full trial and considered in final judgment [Paras 15-16].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Prosecution to Continue – Supreme Court dismissed appeal against High Court order – Directed Trial Court to reconsider issue of sanction under Section 197 at conclusion of trial based on full evidence – Observations in present judgment not to prejudice the trial [Para 17].

Judicial Service – Eligibility Criteria – Local Practice Condition Held Unconstitutional – Rules 8(ii) and 15(ii) of Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1969 struck down – These rules required that advocates must have practised for 7 years in Rajasthan High Court or its subordinate courts to be eligible for appointment. Supreme Court held such territorial limitation as unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14 and 16 – Classification not based on intelligible differentia nor having rational nexus to object of ensuring competence – Similar knowledge of law and language can be tested through examination or interview – Held: Denial of opportunity to advocates practising outside Rajasthan is arbitrary and discriminatory. [Paras 14–16, 19]

Doctrine of Prospective Overruling – Applied to Avoid Administrative Chaos – While striking down the impugned rules, Court clarified that the judgment will apply prospectively – Appointments already made under the rules not to be disturbed – Future selections to be conducted afresh in accordance with this judgment. [Paras 20–21, 25]

Relief to Petitioner – Appellant Found Fit for Appointment Entitled to Consideration Against Existing Vacancy – Appellant Ganga Ram Moolchandani was recommended by selection committee but rejected due to ineligibility under now-struck-down rule – Court directed Rajasthan High Court to recommend him for appointment against an existing vacancy. [Para 22]

Service Law – Advocate Working as Government Law Officer on Salary Not Barred from Eligibility – Held: A salaried law officer who acts and pleads in court does not cease to be an advocate – However, no relief granted as appointments already made – High Court directed to consider similar candidates in future selections. [Para 23]

High Court Remarks and Costs – Strictures Against Petitioner Expunged – In case challenging relaxation of marks in selection, Supreme Court expunged remarks and set aside cost imposed by High Court as excessive and unwarranted. [Para 24]

Final Disposition:

Civil Appeal No. 6469/1998 (Ganga Ram Moolchandani): Allowed – Rules 8(ii) and 15(ii) struck down – Appellant to be recommended for appointment

Civil Appeal No. 2411/1999: Dismissed – No relief, but High Court directed to consider similar candidates in future

Civil Appeal No. 722/1999: Allowed – Remarks and costs imposed by High Court set aside

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Fresh Cause of Action Permitted if Earlier Notice Was Invalid – Appellant sought to quash prosecution under Section 138 NI Act on the ground that a prior notice had already been sent and no complaint was filed within the statutory period – Held: The earlier notice dated 1.12.1995 was not issued within 15 days of dishonour of cheque and thus did not give rise to a valid cause of action – The second presentation of the cheque and fresh notice dated 12.3.1996 created a valid cause of action – Complaint filed thereafter was within limitation. [Paras 8–13]

Companies Act Notice Not Equivalent to NI Act Demand Notice – A notice issued under Sections 433/434 of the Companies Act for the purpose of initiating winding up proceedings cannot be treated as a statutory demand notice under Section 138 of the NI Act – Purpose, content, and legal context are different – For NI Act prosecution, demand must be made within 15 days of dishonour of cheque – Companies Act notice does not suffice. [Paras 5–7]

Cause of Action Under NI Act – Cannot Be Created Twice with Same Cheque – Exception Applied – Referring to Sadanandan Bhadran v. Madhavan Sunil Kumar [(1998) 6 SCC 514], Court reiterated that multiple causes of action cannot be generated for the same dishonour – However, since the first notice was not issued within statutory time, it did not create a valid cause of action – Thus, second presentation and fresh notice validly initiated prosecution. [Paras 9, 12–13]

Limitation – Complaint Within Prescribed Time – Fresh notice issued on 12.3.1996 was within 15 days of second dishonour – Complaint filed on 11.4.1996 was within one month from expiry of 15-day notice period – Hence, prosecution not barred by limitation. [Para 5]

Final Disposition – Appeal Dismissed – Prosecution Valid – Supreme Court upheld concurrent findings of trial court and High Court – No infirmity in treating the complaint as within time – Appeal dismissed. [Para 13]

Murder – Circumstantial Evidence – Section 302/34 IPC – Conviction Upheld – Son of the deceased had entrusted the appellant with the care of his mother before leaving on pilgrimage – Deceased found murdered and robbed – Prosecution proved a complete chain of circumstantial evidence including last seen theory, absconding conduct, recovery of stolen ornaments, and testimonies of witnesses – Sniffer dog tracking evidence was disregarded by the Court as unreliable, but remaining evidence was sufficient for conviction [Paras 1–8, 25].

Sniffer Dog Evidence – Admissibility and Reliability – Held: Evidence based on police sniffer dog tracking has inherent weaknesses and is of little probative value in criminal trial – Cannot be relied upon to establish guilt – May be useful to investigation but not for judicial determination – In the present case, sniffer dog evidence was excluded from consideration without affecting conviction [Paras 9–11, 15–18].

Last Seen Theory – Appellant Last Seen with Deceased Before Murder – Prosecution witness saw appellant in the house of deceased on the night of the murder – Appellant absconded and was later found in possession of stolen ornaments – Cumulative circumstances support guilt – Mere absence of fingerprints does not negate involvement [Paras 7, 20–21].

Recovery of Stolen Property – Section 404 IPC – Ornaments of the deceased recovered from appellant – Identified by sons of the deceased in test identification – Objection to non-examination of daughter rejected – Recovery corroborates motive and involvement in the murder [Paras 7, 24].

Test of Cumulative Circumstances – Chain of Circumstantial Evidence Complete – Supreme Court reiterated that individual circumstances must be assessed collectively, not in isolation – Minor contradictions or non-proof of one circumstance do not dilute the overall strength of the case if the chain is otherwise unbroken and conclusive [Paras 22–23].

Final Decision – Conviction Affirmed – Appeal Dismissed – No infirmity in concurrent findings of the Trial Court and High Court – Appellant rightly convicted under Sections 302 and 404 read with Section 34 IPC [Para 25].