SARFAESI Act – Constitutional Validity – Sections 13, 15, 17, 34 – Upheld Except Section 17(2) – The Act was challenged as arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 – Held: All provisions valid except Section 17(2), which required 75% pre-deposit and was struck down as arbitrary, onerous and violative of Article 14 – The Act otherwise serves public interest by ensuring expeditious recovery of NPAs and strengthening financial stability [Paras 33, 64, 82-84].

Borrower’s Right – Section 13(2) Notice – Duty of Creditor – Before invoking Section 13(4), creditors must serve 60 days’ notice and meaningfully consider borrower’s objections – Reasons for rejection must be communicated – Ensures transparency and fairness in compliance with principles of natural justice [Paras 45-47, 77-78, 80(1)].

Civil Court Jurisdiction – Section 34 – Bar with Limited Exceptions – Civil courts barred from matters within DRT’s jurisdiction – Exception: civil courts can be approached in cases of fraud, absurd or untenable claims, or where guarantor’s liability itself is denied – Limited scope akin to English mortgage jurisprudence preserved [Paras 50-53, 80(5)].

Proceedings under Section 17 – Not Appellate but Original Remedy – Proceedings under Section 17 are in lieu of a civil suit and amount to initial adjudication – DRT has ancillary powers to grant interim/stay orders – Pre-deposit under Section 17(2) declared unconstitutional as rendering remedy illusory [Paras 55-64, 80(2)-(4)].

Public Interest vs. Private Rights – Legislative Competence – Despite affecting contractual rights, SARFAESI was enacted in public interest to safeguard banking liquidity and national economy – Public interest prevails over individual hardship – Not unconstitutional merely because harsh to some borrowers [Paras 66-68].

Decision – SARFAESI Act upheld as constitutionally valid except Section 17(2), which was struck down – Borrowers entitled to challenge creditor’s measures before DRT without mandatory pre-deposit – Transfer cases partly allowed to this extent, rest dismissed [Paras 82-84].

Criminal Procedure – Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC – Delay in disposal – High Court directed Family Court to expedite proceedings – Petitioner later invoked contempt jurisdiction for non-compliance – High Court summoned Presiding Judge but did not itself grant maintenance – Held: Petitioner has remedy before High Court; appropriate for High Court to exercise Article 227 jurisdiction to secure maintenance in deserving cases [Paras 2, 3, 4].

Constitution – Article 227 – Scope of Superintendence – High Court empowered to issue appropriate directions to subordinate courts and in suitable cases itself grant relief which subordinate court ought to have granted – Jurisdiction to be exercised sparingly but available in cases of hardship and destitution – Reliance placed on Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai, (2003) 6 SCC 675 [Para 3].

Relief – Supreme Court’s Approach – No leave to appeal necessary against High Court order dated 29.10.2003 – Petitioner not aggrieved since High Court already seized of matter – Petitioner directed to appear before High Court on next hearing and seek interim relief – Supreme Court expressed confidence that High Court will pass appropriate orders if case is genuine [Paras 4, 5].

Decision – Special Leave Petition disposed of – Copy of order to be communicated to High Court forthwith [Paras 5, 6].

Criminal Law – Murder – Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 – Conviction Affirmed – Deceased stabbed four times by A-1 while A-2 and A-3 (appellants) held his hands; trial court and High Court relied on related eyewitnesses (PWs 1–3) and sustained conviction – Held: Concurrent findings call for no interference; appeals dismissed [Paras 1-3, 6, 17-18].

Eyewitness Credibility – Statements under Section 164 CrPC – Caution, not rejection – Recording statements under Section 164 by itself is not a ground to discard testimony; such evidence must be assessed with caution and can be relied upon when otherwise credible – Presence of PWs 1–3 natural and proved; testimony consistent on core incident – Ram Charan and Balak Ram followed; Patna view in Emperor v. Manu Chik dissented [Paras 6-7].

Common Intention – Section 34 IPC – Principles and Application – Section 34 embodies joint liability based on common intention; may be inferred from conduct, concert, manner of arrival, nature and situs of injuries, and post-occurrence conduct; earlier fact-specific precedents not mechanically controlling – Noor Mohammad; Pandurang, Tukia & Bhillia reiterated that each case turns on its own facts [Paras 12-13].

Section 34 IPC – On Facts – Second visit at 11.45 p.m.; appellants called the deceased out, restrained his hands while A-1 delivered multiple chest stabs; no effort to dissuade; left together – Inference irresistible that appellants shared A-1’s intention; prior concert/knowledge established notwithstanding absence of individual weapons or exhortation – Hamlet @ Sasi; Nandu Rastogi applied; Vencil Pushpraj, Ramashish Yadav, Ajay Sharma distinguished on differing factual matrices [Paras 15-16, 11].

Section 164 CrPC – Use in Investigation – Recording under Section 164 undertaken by IO does not imply witnesses are untrustworthy; it is a cautionary factor only; where presence is proved and narrative is consistent with medical and surrounding circumstances, conviction can rest on such testimony [Paras 6-7].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – Conviction of appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and life sentence upheld; High Court’s affirmation of trial court sustained [Para 18].

Criminal Law – Quashing of Complaint – Section 197 CrPC – Protection to Public Servants – Sanction Mandatory – Acts Related to Discharge of Official Duty – Held: When public servants are accused of committing acts in purported discharge of their official duties, prosecution cannot be initiated without prior sanction under Section 197 – The search, seizure and arrest operations by forest officers had reasonable nexus to their official duties – Sanction under Section 197 was necessary before taking cognizance – Absence of sanction vitiates the complaint – High Court erred in holding otherwise [Paras 1, 4-12, 17-18].

Quashing of Proceedings – Abuse of Process – Section 482 CrPC – Delayed Complaint Filed with Mala Fide Intention – Held: No grievance of ill-treatment was made before the Magistrate at the time of arrest – Medical examination conducted only after 3 days and complaint filed after 13 days – Found to be a retaliatory action against lawful seizure of ivory – Continuation of proceedings amounts to abuse of process – High Court failed to consider vital factual and legal aspects – Proceedings quashed [Paras 4, 5, 20-23].

Scope of Official Duty – Reasonable Connection Test – Excess of Duty vs. Dereliction – Held: Protection under Section 197 applies if act complained of is directly and reasonably connected to official duty – Even if the public servant exceeded his authority, as long as the act was not wholly unrelated to his duty or a mere cloak for misconduct, protection applies – It is the nature and context of the act, not its legality, that determines applicability of Section 197 [Paras 6-12].

Retired Public Servants – Sanction Requirement Still Applies – Interpretation of “is or was” in Section 197 CrPC – Held: Sanction requirement continues to apply post-retirement if the alleged act was committed while in service – The object is to prevent frivolous or vindictive litigation after cessation of service – Amendment to Section 197 intended to prevent evasion of sanction requirement by delaying prosecution [Paras 13, 15-19].

Final Decision – Appeal Allowed – Complaint and Proceedings Quashed – Held: Proceedings initiated against forest officers without prior sanction were unsustainable in law – Complaint was found to be mala fide and retaliatory – Judgment of High Court set aside – Proceedings in ICC No. 45/91 quashed – No opinion expressed on pending cases against the complainant [Paras 20-23].

Criminal Law – TADA Conviction Upheld – Acquittal of Co-accused Maintained – The Court upheld the conviction of Esher Singh under Section 4 of TADA for advocating the Khalistan movement and inciting communal hatred – Confessional statement of deceased co-accused A-5 held inadmissible – Appeals by State and victim’s son against acquittal of other accused for conspiracy and murder were dismissed – Held: No sufficient evidence to establish conspiracy or participation in murder by other accused – All three appeals dismissed [Paras 1–3, 23–27, 33–47].

TADA – Section 4 – Disruptive Activities – Conviction Based on Witness Testimony – Held: Accused Esher Singh’s speeches and activities advocating Khalistan and inciting communal violence constituted “disruptive activity” under Section 4 – Evidence of PWs 16, 21, 24, and 32 was credible and sufficient – Mere ideological expression crossed threshold into unlawful advocacy of secession – Sentence of 5 years’ RI and fine upheld [Paras 23–27].

Confessional Statement – Section 15 of TADA – Inadmissibility Against Co-accused – A-5 Died Before Trial – Held: Confessional statement by A-5 was inadmissible against other accused as he was not “charged and tried” in the same case – Meaning of “charged” under CrPC and its relevance under TADA discussed – Section 30 of Evidence Act also not applicable – Kalpnath Rai overruled in Nalini clarified but facts did not satisfy conditions – Confession excluded [Paras 18–22].

Criminal Conspiracy – Section 120B IPC – No Cogent Evidence – Acquittal Proper – Appeals for conviction under Section 120B IPC rejected – Held: Mere association, animosity, or ideological differences with deceased do not constitute conspiracy – No direct or circumstantial evidence of meeting of minds or agreement to murder – Trial Court correctly found absence of essential elements of conspiracy [Paras 33–47].

Appeal by Private Party – Article 136 Constitution – Maintainable – Appeal Filed by Victim’s Son Competent – Held: Article 136 confers plenary appellate power on the Supreme Court – No bar on private individuals seeking special leave – Appeal by Balbir Singh, son of deceased, was maintainable – However, merits of the appeal failed to warrant interference with acquittal [Paras 28–32].

Decision – All Appeals Dismissed – Esher Singh’s conviction under Section 4 of TADA confirmed – Acquittals of co-accused from murder and conspiracy charges upheld – Confession of deceased co-accused excluded – No miscarriage of justice shown – Sentence found proportionate and legally justified [Para 47].

Public Interest Litigation – Abuse of process – Articles 32 & 217 of the Constitution – Petition questioning consideration/appointment of Respondent No. 3 as Judge dismissed with costs – Court held that the petition lacked bona fides, was based on newspaper reports and third-party representations without personal knowledge – Such misuse of PIL is to be discouraged and deserves rejection at threshold [Paras 1, 3-5, 12-17, 21-22].

Locus Standi in PIL – Requirement of bona fides and sufficient interest – Only a person acting bona fide and with genuine concern for public interest has standing – Busy bodies, publicity seekers or interlopers cannot maintain PILs – Courts must scrutinise credentials, correctness of information, and seriousness of allegations before entertaining PILs [Paras 5, 8-11, 15, 18-20].

Evidence – Reliance on newspaper reports – Newspaper cuttings and unverified representations do not constitute evidence – Petitioner lacked personal knowledge of allegations and failed to disclose source of information – Held: Petition based on hearsay and inadmissible material cannot be entertained [Para 4].

Judicial Appointments – Article 217 – Scope of Judicial Review – Appointment of Judges involves consultation with constitutional authorities and collegium – Judicial review limited to want of consultation or lack of eligibility – Allegations of bias or merits excluded – Second Judges’ case and Special Reference No. 1 of 1998 reiterated – Strangers cannot interfere with appointment process through PIL [Para 22].

Service Matters – PIL – Non-maintainability – Despite decision in Dr. Duryodhan Sahu v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra holding that service-related PILs are not maintainable, frivolous petitions continue to be filed – High Courts must dismiss such petitions with costs [Para 17].

Judicial Time and Public Interest – Courts must prevent misuse of PILs by frivolous litigants – Busy bodies and publicity seekers waste valuable court time meant for genuine litigants – Courts should impose exemplary costs and filter out frivolous petitions to protect sanctity of judicial process [Paras 12, 15-17].

Costs – Exemplary Costs – Petition dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000/- payable to Supreme Court Legal Services Authority within six weeks – Recovery through Punjab and Haryana High Court if default occurs [Para 22].

Decision – Petition styled as PIL held to be frivolous, motivated and devoid of genuine public interest – Dismissed with exemplary costs [Para 22].

Criminal Law – Murder & Attempt to Murder – Sections 302/149 & 307/149 IPC – Common Object – Convictions Affirmed in Part – Multiple accused tried for triple homicide following a village dispute; trial court convicted; High Court partly acquitted and treated one accused as juvenile; Supreme Court upheld convictions of five appellants and acquitted Raj Pal for parity with similarly situated acquitted co-accused – Held: Section 149 properly invoked against armed members sharing common object; Raj Pal entitled to acquittal for want of distinguishing material [Paras 1-4, 9, 12-13, 20].

Section 149 IPC – Constructive Liability – Foundation, Scope and Two Limbs – Liability turns on common object, not common intention; mere presence insufficient unless actuated by unlawful common object under Section 141; offence may fall under first limb (in prosecution of common object) or second limb (knew likely to be committed) – Positive knowledge required; common object can develop at the spot; distinctions between limbs must be maintained [Paras 13-15].

Unlawful Assembly – Proof of Common Object – No Need of Overt Act by Each Member – Common object inferred from nature of assembly, arms carried, conduct before/during/after occurrence – Specific part by each assailant not mandatory where large assembly acts in concert; presence with knowledge in such assembly suffices for vicarious liability under Section 149 [Paras 16-18].

Precedents Distinguished – Reliance on Roshan and Mariadasan – Not Applicable – Judicial dicta must be read in factual context; conclusions on evidence appreciation vary with circumstances; Padmasundara Rao applied to caution against treating observations as statutory text [Para 19].

Juvenile in Conflict with Law – Section 2(4), U.P. Children Act, 1951 – High Court treated accused Shyamu as juvenile; conviction maintained with benefit under the Act – Approach approved in the backdrop of overall findings [Para 1].

Section 313 CrPC – Defence Version Considered – Pleas of alibi/private defence and counter-version placed in statements under Section 313 and through defence witnesses; rejected upon appreciation of prosecution eye-witness and medical evidence [Paras 7-9].

Decision – Appeals partly allowed – Conviction and sentence of Charan Singh, Dev Dutt, Virender, Kunwar Pal and Harkesh under Sections 302/149 and 307/149 IPC affirmed; appeal of Raj Pal allowed and he is to be released unless required in any other case [Para 20].

Criminal Lawl – Conviction under Sections 302/34 IPC – Article 136 of the Constitution – Appellants convicted for murder based on eye-witness testimony of PWs 2 and 3 – Plea of faulty investigation and reliance on inimical witnesses raised – Held: Defective investigation does not by itself vitiate trial if prosecution evidence is credible – Conviction upheld [Paras 1-3, 5, 8-9].

Defective Investigation – Effect – Even if investigation is tainted, court must independently assess ocular and medical evidence – Designed or negligent investigation cannot be allowed to defeat justice – Precedents in Karnel Singh, Paras Yadav, Ram Bihari Yadav and Amar Singh applied – Direct credible testimony outweighs omissions in forensic examination [Paras 5-7].

Evidence – Section 27, Evidence Act – Recovery of firearms – Non-examination of weapons by ballistic expert – Discovery statements not incriminating in nature – Ballistic expert report is only opinion and not conclusive – When ocular testimony corroborated by medical evidence establishes prosecution version, non-sending of weapons to forensic test does not weaken case [Paras 3, 7-8].

Interested Witnesses – Testimony of related or inimical witnesses – Not to be discarded solely on that ground – Evidence must be scrutinised with care; if found credible and consistent with medical evidence, conviction can be sustained – Test applied by trial court and High Court [Paras 3-4, 9].

Appellate Interference – Article 136 – Both trial court and High Court concurrently held evidence of PWs 2 and 3 to be credible – No perversity or error of law – Supreme Court declined to interfere with concurrent findings – Appeal dismissed [Para 9].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and life sentence with fine of Rs. 1,000/- confirmed [Para 9].

Royalty Law - Statutory Obligation vs. Contractual Recovery – Set-Off – Non-Permissibility – Appeal Dismissed – Union of India’s attempt to recover contractual dues (royalty arrears) from statutory payments (stowing assistance) due to the Coal Company – Held impermissible in equity or under CPC – Appeal dismissed – No costs [Paras 1, 3, 6, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 20, 21, 25]

Coal Mines – Stowing Assistance – Statutory Duty – Under Coal Mines (Conservation and Development) Act, 1974, the Central Government is statutorily obligated to release stowing assistance to coal mines for conservation and safety operations – Assistance includes reimbursement of actual royalty paid for sand used in stowing – Held: Statutory obligations under the Act cannot be withheld or adjusted to recover contractual dues like royalty unless permitted by law [Paras 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 20]

Set-Off – Legal and Equitable Set-Off – Conditions – Under Order 8 Rule 6 CPC and equitable principles, set-off is permitted where mutual cross-demands are legally recoverable and arise out of the same transaction – Held: Royalty arrears (contractual) and stowing assistance (statutory) do not arise out of the same transaction – Therefore, adjustment or set-off not permissible – Equitable set-off not allowed where it would violate statutory duty or public interest [Paras 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20]

Judicial Review – Writ of Mandamus – High Court’s Power – High Court quashed Central Government’s letters withholding stowing assistance – Held: Justified, as withholding statutory dues to recover unrelated contractual dues is impermissible in law and equity – High Court rightly intervened to prevent breach of statutory obligations [Paras 10, 16, 22]

Royalty Recovery – Central vs. State Government – Division Bench’s finding that only the State of Bihar could recover royalty was set aside – Supreme Court refrained from deciding the issue due to lack of adequate pleadings and necessity for adjudication – Recovery may proceed under available legal methods by appropriate authority [Paras 3, 23, 24]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court’s quashing of Union’s action upheld – No costs awarded – Liberty granted to recover dues as per law through appropriate means [Para 25]