Criminal Law – Murder - Conviction for lesser/different offence – Sections 222 & 464 CrPC – Validity of convicting under Section 306 IPC when charged under Section 302 IPC – The High Court altered conviction to Section 306 though the charge was under Section 302 – Held: Permissible under Sections 222(2) and 464 CrPC where facts proved reduce the offence to a “minor” one and no failure of justice is shown – Accused was aware of ingredients, incriminating facts were put in Section 313 examination – Followed: Dalbir Singh v. State of U.P.; Sangaraboina Sreenu held not correctly decided on this point [Paras 6, 9-11].

Evidence Act – Section 113A (abetment of suicide by married woman) – Temporal applicability and necessity – Offence (1982) pre-dated Section 113A – Prosecution did not invoke presumption – Conviction under Section 306 sustained on direct/circumstantial evidence of cruelty, harassment for dowry and beating, and medical findings; presumption under Section 113A not required [Paras 7, 12-13].

Dowry-related cruelty and abetment – Proof – Neighbours (PWs) heard cries and were turned away; consistent testimony of harassment for inadequate dowry/dark complexion; post-mortem showed multiple injuries including neck mark – Chain of circumstances established abetment of suicide [Paras 3-4, 12-13].

Section 313 CrPC – Fair opportunity – Incriminating circumstances on torture/harassment/demand of dowry specifically put to the accused (Q. Nos. 4, 7, 8, 9, 16, 22) – No prejudice shown – Supports application of Section 464 CrPC to sustain conviction under Section 306 despite no charge [Para 11].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Conviction under Section 306 IPC and sentence upheld; reliance on Section 113A unnecessary; alteration of charge sustained under Sections 222 & 464 CrPC [Paras 9-13].

Dishonour of Cheque – Section 138 NI Act – Ingredients of Offence – The Court reiterated that to constitute an offence under Section 138 NI Act, the complainant must establish issuance of cheque, its presentation, dishonour, statutory notice to the drawer, and failure to pay within 15 days – These conditions are mandatory [Para 7].

Vicarious Liability of Directors – Section 141 NI Act – Strict Construction – The provision creates constructive liability for company officers only if specific averments show that the accused was in charge of and responsible for conduct of business of the company at the time of offence – Mere designation as “Director” is insufficient – Liability depends on role and responsibility, not status [Paras 8, 12].

Complaint Requirements – Necessary Averments – The complaint must contain clear allegations spelling out how and in what manner the director was responsible for the company’s conduct – General allegations that directors are “in charge of the company” without particulars are inadequate – Absence of such averments renders proceedings unsustainable [Paras 9-11, 13].

Resignation of Director – Effect – Where the accused director had resigned before issuance and presentation of the cheques, and the complaint did not specify his role in company affairs at the relevant time, he could not be prosecuted under Section 141 NI Act – Date of acceptance of resignation is immaterial when complaint lacks basic statutory averments [Paras 4, 10-11].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – The allegations in the complaint, even if accepted in entirety, did not disclose any offence against the appellant – High Court erred in refusing to quash proceedings – Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment and quashed criminal proceedings against the appellant [Para 14].

Maintainability – Writ Petition under Article 32 – Not a Review or Curative Petition – Petitioners challenged ratio decidendi of Subhash Chandra Dixit case, not its final order – Held: A petition under Article 32 is maintainable to seek reconsideration of earlier ratio if violation of fundamental rights is alleged – Bar under Rupa Ashok Hurra inapplicable [Paras 8-10].

Judicial Service Recruitment – Rules Interpretation – Rules 20(3) & Appendix-II of UP Judicial Service Rules, 2001 – Prevail over PSC Procedure Rules – Scaling not contemplated – “Marks finally awarded” means marks after proper moderation, not artificially scaled marks – Scaling contrary to Judicial Service Rules [Paras 11-22].

Moderation vs. Scaling – Examiner Variability – Moderation Recognised, Scaling Unsuitable – Moderation corrects strict/liberal examiners through Head Examiner’s review – Scaling, based on assumed mean and standard deviation, equalised unequals, inflated zero marks, and distorted merit list – Scaling method arbitrary and irrational when applied to descriptive papers with multiple examiners [Paras 23-36].

Precedent – Subhash Chandra Dixit Case Distinguished – Approval of scaling therein no longer valid – Assumptions in Dixit (that scaling eliminated examiner variability and was based on expert study) found incorrect – Scaling suited only where candidates opt for different subjects, not where multiple examiners assess same subject [Para 37].

Policy Matters – Judicial Review – Courts generally defer to expert opinion – But arbitrariness and irrationality are exceptions – Scaling by UPPSC produced absurd results (e.g., candidates with “0” marks receiving up to 67 scaled marks) – Held: Judicial interference justified [Paras 33-35, 39].

Relief – Prospective Operation – Selections already made under 2003 examination not disturbed – Commission directed to adopt moderation system until a proper expert-devised alternative is evolved – Petitioners whose raw marks plus interview exceeded last selected candidate in category to be appointed against future vacancies – Relief confined to petitioners who approached Court before 31.08.2005 [Paras 41-43].

Decision – Writ Petitions allowed in part – Scaling declared unsuited and invalid for UP Judicial Service Examination – Moderation system directed for future – Appointments of already selected candidates protected [Para 43].

Public Interest Litigation – Service Matters – Writ of Quo Warranto – Not Maintainable - PIL filed to challenge appointment of Audit Inspector on ground of invalid Scheduled Caste certificate obtained through marriage – Held: PILs are not maintainable in service matters, particularly where allegations stem from personal vendetta – High Court erred in entertaining such petition – Appeal allowed to extent that writ petition is held not maintainable, leaving it open for authorities to examine caste certificate issue independently [Paras 2-4, 10].

Scope of PIL – Locus Standi – Abuse of Process – Court reiterated that frivolous PILs masquerading as public interest but driven by personal animosity must be weeded out – Courts must scrutinize credentials, correctness of information, and bona fides of petitioner – Judicial time should not be wasted on luxury litigations filed by busybodies or publicity seekers [Paras 4-8].

Judicial Caution – PIL as Weapon – PIL is meant for redressal of genuine public wrongs, not private vendetta – Courts must ensure that behind the façade of public interest, no private malice or oblique motive lurks – Frivolous PILs deserve dismissal with exemplary costs to deter misuse [Paras 7-9].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – High Court’s order quashing appointment set aside on ground of non-maintainability of PIL in service matters – Authorities free to proceed independently regarding validity of caste certificate – No costs awarded [Para 10].

Public Trusts – Shri Rikhabdevji Temple – Applicability of Rajasthan Public Trusts Act, 1959 – Once notification under Section 52 is issued, Section 53 becomes mandatory – Held: State Government is under statutory duty to constitute a Committee of Management; discretion does not exist – Use of "shall" in Section 53 is imperative, creating a power coupled with duty – Division Bench judgment modifying Single Judge’s directions unsustainable – Directions of Single Judge restored [Paras 17-19, 33].

Interpretation of Statutes – “Shall” vs. “May” – Where statute confers power coupled with duty, “may” to be read as “shall” – Principle reaffirmed from State of U.P. v. Jogendra Singh and State (Delhi Admn.) v. I.K. Nangia – Applied to Sections 52 and 53 of Rajasthan Public Trusts Act – Held: Constitution of Management Committee is obligatory, not discretionary [Paras 20-22].

Exemption under Section 77 – Scope – Devasthan Commissioner not an “agency” under control of State – Commissioner is a statutory authority, not a State agency – Strict construction of exemption provision required – Literal interpretation leading to absurdity avoided – Harmonious construction applied – State cannot deny applicability of Chapter X after having acted upon it through notifications [Paras 23-28].

Estoppel and Res Judicata – State earlier contended temple was Hindu – Supreme Court had held it to be Jain temple – State estopped from reopening issue – Principles of estoppel by conduct and res judicata applied – Only issue left for State is whether temple is Swetamber or Digamber, to be decided per law while constituting Committee [Paras 29-32].

Decision – Appeals by Swetamber and Digamber sects allowed; Appeals by State dismissed – Division Bench modifications set aside – Single Judge’s judgment restored – State directed to comply and constitute Committee of Management within four months – Costs imposed; Counsel’s fee Rs. 50,000/- for each set of appeals [Para 33].

Prevention of Corruption Act – Sanction for Prosecution – Section 19 PC Act – Former Public Servants – No Sanction Required – Held: Cognizance requires sanction only if the accused continues to hold the office alleged to have been misused – If ceased to be public servant at the time of cognizance, no sanction needed – Doctrine settled in S.A. Venkataraman, C.R. Bansi, and affirmed in R.S. Nayak v. Antulay – Section 19(1) is time and office related – Appeals dismissed [Paras 8-12, 14-16, 25].

Criminal Procedure – Protection of Public Servants – Section 197 CrPC – Limited Scope – Protection applies only when act is reasonably connected with discharge of official duty – Offences like cheating, forgery, conspiracy (IPC 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B) not acts in discharge of official duty – Official status merely provides occasion – No sanction required [Paras 20-23, 34-35].

Interpretation – Legislative Intent – Misuse of Office Test – Sanction must be by authority competent to remove from the office alleged to have been abused – Subsequent or unrelated office irrelevant – Prevents evasion through transfer to another office – Statute cannot be construed as rogue’s charter [Paras 23-24, 26].

Public Servants – Coverage under PC Act – Sections 8 and 9 PC Act – Scope – Expression “whoever” includes public servants – Public servant accepting gratification to influence another public servant falls under Ss. 8 and 9 – Not confined to private persons – Separate and distinct from S. 13(1)(d) PC Act – Wider in ambit [Paras 35-36].

Criminal Law – FIR Registration – Section 154 CrPC – Mandatory Duty – Police officer must register FIR on receipt of information disclosing cognizable offence – Cannot test reliability at threshold – Political motivation of informant not ground to quash FIR – Investigation must proceed – Remedy lies in challenge after investigation [Paras 38-42, 44].

Jurisdiction – Special Judge and Police Station – Notifications relating to PS Mohali and Special Judge Ropar – Valid – Continuity from earlier notifications – No fresh appointment – Consultation with High Court already done – Phrase “notwithstanding jurisdiction of other Special Judges” severed as unnecessary – No illegality [Paras 45-49].

Doctrine of Per Incuriam – Not Attracted – Antulay judgment not per incuriam – Correct interpretation adopted to avoid statute becoming shield for corruption – Article 141 binds [Paras 10, 17-18].

Decision – All appeals dismissed – Proceedings under PC Act and IPC validly instituted – Sanction objections, mala fide allegations, and jurisdictional challenges rejected [Para 50].

Criminal Law – Conviction For Kidnapping And Murder - Circumstantial Evidence – Chain of circumstances complete – Conviction Affirmed – The prosecution case rested on circumstantial evidence comprising (i) “last seen” testimony of PW-4 (child witness) and PW-15 (independent taxi driver), (ii) extra-judicial confessions made separately by both appellants to PW-11 (community leader/advocate), (iii) recoveries at the instance of Appellant No.1 (clothes, cello tape, cloth pieces, camera, deck and speakers), (iv) fingerprint evidence matching appellants’ prints lifted from glasses near the recovery site, and (v) ransom letter proved to be in Appellant No.2’s handwriting – Held: taken together, the circumstances formed an unbroken chain pointing only to the guilt of the appellants; conviction under Sections 364/34, 302/34 and 201/34 IPC upheld [Paras 7-8, 12, 16, 20-22, 24].

Evidence – Child Witness – PW-4 partially resiling – Credibility retained for corroboration – The child witness (PW-4), nephew of Appellant No.1 and co-resident, stated he saw the children sit on Appellant No.1’s scooter; minor retraction in cross-examination (attributing the name to PW-11) did not erode the core – Court rejected the defence theory built on Ex.D-1; even a hostile witness can be relied upon to the extent his testimony inspires confidence – “Last seen” account treated as corroborative and reliable [Paras 9-11].

Evidence – “Last Seen” by Independent Witness – Delay explained – No animus – Acceptance – PW-15 saw both children board Appellant No.1’s scooter and explained his four-day delay in statement due to travel – No motive to falsely implicate; testimony detailed and consistent; accepted by the Court [Para 12].

Evidence Act – Sections 6 & 8 – Hearsay regarding victims’ conduct inadmissible – Tutor’s testimony (PW-5) narrating what student Sarita purportedly said about children calling the scooterist “Chacha” was hearsay – Did not form part of the same transaction – Not admissible under Sections 6 or 8 – Court declined reliance [Para 13].

Confession – Extra-Judicial Confession – Can found conviction with corroboration – Accepted – Appellants made separate, detailed extra-judicial confessions to PW-11; testimony stood firm in cross-examination; mere fact PW-11 visited police station and witnessed recoveries did not impair credibility – Court relied on confession with supporting circumstances [Paras 15-18].

CrPC Section 164 – Statement of Accused’s Father – Inadmissible – The purported confession of Appellant No.1 before his father recorded u/s 164 CrPC was not admissible; father was not examined; Court correctly eschewed reliance [Para 18].

Evidence Act – Section 27 – Discovery pursuant to disclosure by Appellant No.1 – Admissible – Recoveries (clothes matching description, cello tape used on victims, cloth pieces, camera, deck, concealed keys) flowed from disclosure statements – Discovery of facts held relevant and used as corroborative evidence; allegation of fabricated investigation rejected [Paras 22-23].

Forensic Evidence – Fingerprints & Handwriting – Corroborative value – Fingerprints lifted from glasses near the site matched appellants’ prints; handwriting expert opined ransom letter was in Appellant No.2’s hand – Circumstances provided strong corroboration to the prosecution narrative [Paras 20-21].

Sentencing – Death Penalty – Not “Rarest of Rare” – High Court’s commutation sustained – Prayer for enhancement to death declined – Life imprisonment maintained [Paras 2, 25].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – Conviction under Sections 364/34, 302/34 and 201/34 IPC affirmed; sentence of life imprisonment sustained; complainant’s plea for enhancement rejected [Paras 24-25].

Criminal Law – Murder – Section 313 CrPC & Section 106 Evidence Act – Death Sentence Set Aside – Appellant convicted for murdering wife on basis of circumstantial evidence, hostile witnesses, and alleged recoveries – Sessions Court and High Court relied on Section 106 Evidence Act and compared probabilities of two versions – Held: Prosecution failed to establish complete chain of circumstances; many incriminating facts not put to accused under Section 313 CrPC; suspicion cannot substitute proof – Conviction and death penalty set aside; appeal allowed and appellant ordered to be released unless wanted in another case [Paras 7-14].

Evidence Act – Section 106 – Scope – Does Not Relieve Prosecution’s Burden – Section 106 applies only after prosecution establishes foundational facts – Burden shifts to accused for facts within special knowledge – Misapplied in this case as prosecution failed to prove case beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 7-8].

Evidence – Hostile Witnesses – Inadmissibility of Split Testimony – Material witnesses supported prosecution in examination-in-chief but turned hostile in cross-examination – Court cannot rely selectively on incriminating parts while ignoring retraction – Entire testimony rendered unreliable [Para 10].

CrPC Section 313 – Duty to Put Circumstances – Mandatory – Circumstances like stopping car, family reaction, disparity in injuries, etc., not put to accused – Omission vitiates reliance on such facts – Prejudiced defence [Paras 9-11].

Evidence Act – Section 8 – Conduct – Must Relate to Accused – Conduct of third parties (brother, informant, in-laws) cannot be attributed to accused – Such evidence irrelevant unless nexus with crime shown [Para 10].

Evidence Act – Section 27 – Recovery of Knife – Insufficient – Knife recovered from scene pursuant to disclosure lacked corroboration – Jewellery recovered from co-accused, not appellant – Recovery did not establish guilt [Para 12].

Principle – Suspicion vs Proof – Where two versions are possible, one favourable to accused must be accepted – Suspicion, however strong, is no substitute for legal proof – Prosecution failed to exclude hypothesis of innocence [Paras 7, 13].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Conviction and death sentence set aside – Appellant directed to be released unless required in another case [Para 14].

Civil Writ - Urban Misuse – Breach of Undertakings – Enforcement of Rule of Law – Commercial Misuse Ordered to Stop – The Court considered applications by traders who had given undertakings to cease commercial use of residential premises but failed to comply – Held: No modification of earlier orders permitted, and misuse must stop immediately – Rule of law must prevail over law and order threats or convenience of violators [Paras 1, 3-5].

Monitoring Committee – Compliance and Implementation – Direction for Co-operation – The Court directed that implementation logistics and property-specific decisions are to be handled by the Monitoring Committee with full assistance from concerned authorities – Weekly sealed reports are to be submitted to the Court for further directions [Paras 7-8].

Constitutional Duty – Article 144 – Government’s Role in Enforcing Supreme Court Orders – The Court emphasized that all authorities are constitutionally obligated to comply with the Court’s directions – No relief to violators who misuse premises or threaten law and order – Rule of law is non-negotiable and foundational to democracy [Paras 5-6].

Relief to Compliant Traders – Conditional Consideration – Traders who have either stopped or are willing to stop the misuse may approach the Monitoring Committee – The Court left open the possibility of future relief depending on changes in law or successful compliance [Para 1].

Final Decision – All Applications Dismissed – The Court dismissed all interlocutory applications reiterating the mandatory enforcement of earlier orders and the non-availability of further time or relief to violators [Para 9].