Criminal Appeals – Quashing of Complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act – Vicarious liability of directors – Compliance with the requirements of Section 141(1) – Allegations lacking in complaints – Appeals allowed.

Criminal Appeal – Quashing of Complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act – Vicarious liability of directors – Scope of Section 141(1) – Requirement of being "in charge of" and "responsible to" the company for conducting business – Distinction between managing day-to-day affairs and assuming charge of business – Averments in complaints not meeting legal standard – Appeals allowed.

Vicarious Liability – Interpretation of Section 141(1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act – Directors' liability for company's offences – Requirement of being in charge of and responsible for company's business – Conjunctive reading of "in charge of" and "responsible to" – Mere management insufficient for establishing liability – Compliance with legal standards necessary.

Service of Notice – Impact on Complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act – Proper service of notice of demand – Prerequisite for filing complaint – Notice of demand as condition precedent – Effect of non-service of notice on complaints – Consideration of procedural requirements.

Legal Standard – Sufficiency of Averments – Vicarious liability of directors under Section 141(1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act – Importance of properly alleging being "in charge of" and "responsible to" company for business – Necessity of distinguishing management from responsibility – Averments in complaints falling short of legal standard – Consequences for complaints. Quashing of complaints against directors – No order as to costs.

Sections 333, 353, and 451 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Appellant convicted by the Sessions Court - High Court upheld conviction but reduced the sentences - Appeal before the Supreme Court confined to the sentencing part - Appellant claimed benefit of probation under Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) and/or the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 - Arguments based on appellant's age (62 years) and the passage of thirty years since the incident occurred - Court considering factors like the nature of the offence and appellant's conduct during the trial and appeal period - Court decides to show leniency in sentencing - Appellant to undergo simple imprisonment and pay fines for each offence - Appeal partly allowed - Sentences to run concurrently - Fine amount to be partially paid as compensation to injured witness - Appellant granted one month to surrender for punishment.(Para No.4,5,8,9,10)

Quashing of proceedings - Alleged altercation between the appellant and respondent no. 2 in the office - Cross complaints filed by both parties - Chargesheet filed against the appellant for offenses under Sections 323, 504, and 506 IPC - Proceedings pending since 2015 - Trivial nature of allegations - Lack of progress in the case - Continuing proceedings leading to persecution and harassment - Petty incident not resolved amicably - Proceedings quashed and set aside - Appeal allowed. (Para No. 2 to 7)

Criminal Appeal - Validity of Sanction - Discharge of Accused - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) - Challenge to the validity of sanction granted by the Government to prosecute the accused - Accused raising objections at various stages of trial - Trial court framing charges and examining witnesses - Accused filing interlocutory application seeking discharge - Trial court dismissing the application - High Court allowing the accused's petition and discharging him from the offences charged - Appeal against High Court's judgment. (Para 1)

Section 19(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Prohibition against higher court's interference - Interlocutory application for discharge not maintainable after framing of charges and examination of witnesses - Accused entitled to raise the issue of validity of sanction during the final stage of trial - Special Judge has the authority to decide on the validity of sanction during the trial - Failure of justice as a prerequisite for higher court's interference. (Para 12)

Proper stage for challenging the validity of sanction - Preferably during the framing of charges - Issue can also be raised during the final stage of arguments in the trial. (Para 15)

Special Judge's findings on the validity of sanction - Reversal or alteration by the higher court - Prohibited under Section 19(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Interference only if a failure of justice is established. Appeal Allowed. (Para 16-17)

Stay of Conviction - Provisions of Section 499 IPC - Appeal challenging the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Judge - Petitioner granted Special Leave to Appeal - Trial Judge imposed the maximum sentence of two years without providing reasons - Subsection (3) of Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 triggered due to the maximum sentence - Offence non-cognizable, bailable, and compoundable - Appeal raises issues regarding disqualification from public office - Court stays the order of conviction during the pendency of the appeal - Appellate Court free to proceed with the appeal on its merits - Parties allowed to approach the Appellate Court for expedited disposal of the appeal.(Para No. 2-13)

Criminal Appeal – Defamation – Challenge to the order of issue of process for the offence of defamation under Section 500 of IPC – High Court declining to entertain the petition on the ground of delay – Allegations made in the complaint addressed to SDM – Appellant contending that the alleged defamatory words were made in good faith and constitute an accusation preferred to an authorized person – Analysis of Section 499 IPC and Eighth Exception – Examination of the concept of "good faith" – Absence of defamation as per the statutory provisions – Appeal allowed, impugned orders set aside, and the criminal proceedings terminated.

Defamation – Ingredients of Section 499 IPC – Analysis of the definition of defamation involving the intention to harm the reputation of an individual – Examination of the Eighth Exception to Section 499, which excludes certain accusations made in good faith – Definition of "good faith" as per Section 52 of the IPC – Conclusion that the allegations in the complaint do not amount to defamation and are protected by the Eighth Exception. [Para 12-16]

Appellant's appeal allowed – Impugned order of High Court set aside – Original order of the Magistrate issuing summons quashed – Criminal proceedings terminated – Pending applications disposed of. [Para 17-18]

Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 - Coverage of establishment - Applicability of Act to pathological laboratory - Dispute over the date of coverage of respondent establishment under the Act - Challenge to High Court's order allowing the respondent's appeal - Notification dated 27.05.1976 issued by the Government of Kerala - Circular dated 22.11.2002 issued by E.S.I. Corporation - Notification dated 06.09.2007 issued by the Government of Kerala - Interpretation of relevant provisions of the Act and notifications - Whether respondent establishment falls within the term "shop" as per the 1976 notification and Corporation's circular - Whether respondent establishment was covered under the Act from 22.11.2002 or 06.09.2007 - Court's determination of coverage.(Para No.1, 2)

Section 1(4) and Section 1(5) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 - Definitions and applicability of Act - Interpretation of the term "factory" - Establishment of respondent being a pathological laboratory - Whether the respondent's establishment falls within the definition of "factory" under Section 1(4) - Power of appropriate Government to extend provisions of the Act to other establishments under Section 1(5) - Scope of the term "shop" as per the Act - Application of 1976 notification and Corporation's circular - Court's finding on the date of coverage of the respondent establishment. (Para No.6, 7, 8, 9)

Government Notifications - Interpretation of - Notification dated 27.05.1976 and Notification dated 06.09.2007 issued by the Government of Kerala - Inclusion of establishments under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 - Specific mention of pathological laboratories in 2007 notification - Whether respondent establishment was covered under the Act in 2002 or 2007 - Court's analysis and ruling on the scope and applicability of the notifications. (Para No. 11, 12, 13, 14, 15)

Supreme Court's Decision - Dismissal of appeal - Upholding of High Court's order - Date of coverage of respondent establishment under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 - Determination based on 2007 notification - Rejection of appellant's contentions based on the 1976 notification and Corporation's circular - Finding that respondent establishment was covered under the Act from September 6, 2007 - No order as to costs.

Criminal Appeal No. 1050 of 2013 – Acquittal of appellants – Lack of evidence connecting them to the crime – Discrepancies in prosecution’s version – Chain of events broken by earlier acquittal of one accused – No external/internal injury on prosecutrix’s body – Medical examination discredits her version – Appellants’ alibi claim disregarded without reason – No scientific evidence linking semen stains on clothes to accused – Material discrepancies in statements – Trial court’s findings found to be completely perverse.

Prosecutrix’s version of events – Alleged rape by Avtar Singh, Sohan Lal, and Gian Singh – Lack of evidence connecting appellants to the crime – Chain of events broken by Gian Singh’s earlier acquittal – No external/internal injury on prosecutrix’s body – Medical examination discredits her version.

Appellants’ alibi claim disregarded without reason – No scientific evidence linking semen stains on clothes to accused – Discrepancies in handing over the clothes to police – Material discrepancies in mother’s statement – Trial court’s findings found to be completely perverse - Appeal allowed – Convictions set aside – Appellants acquitted of all charges.

Service Tax - Works Contract Service - Valuation - Option to pay service tax at reduced rate - Whether the assessee providing works contract service is entitled to take the total contract value, including goods and services, for remittance of service tax and claim CENVAT credit on the entire amount - Determination of value under Rule 2A of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006 and the option of Composition Scheme under Notification 32/2007-ST - Construction of relevant provisions - Held, the assessee is not entitled to remit service tax on the entire value as works contract service and claim CENVAT credit on the entire amount (Para 9).

Composition Scheme - Option for service tax payment at a reduced rate - Whether the assessee can choose to pay service tax on the entire contract value, including goods and services, and claim CENVAT credit - Held, the Composition Scheme is optional, and the assessee must follow Rule 2A of the Valuation Rules for determination of value and payment of service tax (Para 8.8).

Valuation of works contract - Rule 2A of the Valuation Rules, 2006 - Whether Rule 2A is mandatory or subject to the provisions of Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994 - Construction of Rule 2A - Held, Rule 2A is mandatory, and its application is not subject to Section 67; the assessee must determine the value of the service portion in accordance with Rule 2A (Para 8.6).

 CENVAT Credit - Whether the assessee is entitled to claim CENVAT credit on the entire contract value, including goods and services - Held, CENVAT credit is admissible only on the service portion of the works contract and not on the value of goods transferred; the assessee cannot claim CENVAT credit on the entire amount (Para 8.9).

Extended period of limitation - Whether the issue of limitation was correctly decided by the CESTAT - Remand to CESTAT for reconsideration of the limitation issue (Para 10.1).

Decision - Appeal allowed - Impugned judgment and order set aside - Assessee not entitled to claim CENVAT credit on the entire contract value - Matter remitted to CESTAT for re-computation of demands as per Rule 2A - CESTAT to decide the issue of limitation - CESTAT to complete the exercise within three months. (Para No. 10)