Criminal Law – Quashing - Possession of Knife – Applicability of DAD Notification – Sections 25, 54, and 59 of the Arms Act – Quashing of FIR and Chargesheet - The appellant was charged under the Arms Act for possessing a buttondar knife with dimensions lesser than those specified in the Arms Rules. The prosecution relied on the DAD Notification (1980), which regulates certain knives for “manufacture, sale, or test.” However, no allegations were made that the possession was for any prohibited purpose. The Court held that the absence of essential allegations renders the prosecution’s case untenable, quashing the FIR, chargesheet, and all proceedings [Paras 6-10].

Quashing of Proceedings – Scope of Section 482 CrPC – High Court's Decision Set Aside - The High Court dismissed the appellant’s plea under Section 482 CrPC without addressing substantive flaws in the prosecution’s case. The Supreme Court held that proceeding with prosecution absent foundational allegations constitutes an abuse of process and deserves to be quashed [Paras 13-15].

Abuse of Process – Lack of Specific Allegations – Violation of Due Process - The prosecution failed to specify that the knife was intended for prohibited purposes under the DAD Notification, and such omission cannot be remedied at trial. The evidence presented was insufficient to justify prosecution [Paras 10, 14].

Decision: The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order of the High Court dated 18/04/2023. It quashed FIR No. 477 of 2022, the charge-sheet filed under Sections 25, 54, and 59 of the Arms Act, and all related proceedings. The Court found the prosecution's case lacking in foundational allegations and evidence, deeming it an abuse of legal process. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and no costs were awarded.

Temple Administration – Election of Managing Committee – Functus Officio Doctrine – Orders Modified - The appellants challenged the High Court's decision to remove the elected Executive Committee and appoint an unelected committee. The Supreme Court held that the High Court became functus officio after disposing of the original RFA and lacked jurisdiction to entertain subsequent applications altering prior orders. The High Court's orders were modified, and a new Administrative Head was appointed to oversee elections within four months [Paras 8-16].

Constitution of New Administrative Setup – Directions Issued – For ensuring transparent administration of the temple and its institutions, the Court appointed a retired High Court Judge as an Administrative Head to conduct elections under the Bye-laws. The interim management structure will ensure continuity until the elections are completed [Paras 15-16].

Decision: The Supreme Court modified the impugned orders of the Kerala High Court. A new Administrative Head was appointed to oversee elections within four months. The existing interim arrangement will continue until elections are completed. The appeals and related contempt petitions were disposed of.

Section 138, NI Act – Quashing - Director’s Resignation – Issuance of Cheques Post-Resignation – Section 138 and 141 of the NI Act – Complaint Quashed – The appellant ceased to be a director of the company before the cheques were issued and dishonored – The fact of resignation was undisputed and acknowledged by the Registrar of Companies – Held: The appellant cannot be held liable under Section 138 of the NI Act for dishonored cheques issued after his resignation [Paras 3-7].

Malwa Cotton Case Distinguished – Resignation Timing Relevant – The Court distinguished the case of Malwa Cotton and Spinning Mills Ltd. v. Virsa Singh Sidhu (2008) 17 SCC 147, where disputed resignation timing justified trial – In the present case, the appellant’s resignation was documented and predates cheque issuance, leaving no disputed facts for trial – Complaint quashed [Paras 7-8].

Quashing Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Misuse of Process of Law Prevented – The Court invoked its inherent jurisdiction to quash the complaint, emphasizing that proceeding against the appellant would result in misuse of legal processes as he was not responsible for the company’s affairs when the cheques were issued – Held: Appeals allowed, High Court order set aside [Paras 9-10].
 

Criminal Law – Rape and Murder – Conviction and Acquittal – Appellant convicted of raping and murdering a ten-year-old girl and concealing her body under haystack at a tubewell cabin – Trial Court imposed the death penalty, which was commuted to life imprisonment by the High Court – Supreme Court finds deficiencies in evidence and procedural lapses, including failure to properly examine the appellant under Section 313 CrPC – Held: Evidence insufficient to sustain conviction – Appellant acquitted [Paras 1-24].

Witness Testimony – Credibility of PW-2 – PW-2, the only eyewitness, was seven years old at the time of the incident and ten years old during testimony – His deposition contradicted the version narrated to PW-1, the victim's father – Delay of 21 days in recording his statement under Section 161 CrPC raises doubt about the reliability – Held: Testimony of PW-2 is not of sterling quality and unsafe for conviction [Paras 10-12].

Circumstantial Evidence – Recovery of Items – Recovery of victim's slipper and underwear at the appellant's instance was not substantiated – Recovery memo lacked crucial details like time and place – Prosecution failed to examine independent witnesses to the recovery – Held: Prosecution failed to prove recovery, breaking the chain of circumstances [Para 13].

Section 313 CrPC – Failure to Put Material Circumstances to the Accused – Incriminating evidence from PW-1 and PW-2 not specifically put to the appellant in his examination – Only three generalized questions asked – Supreme Court holds this as a serious procedural irregularity, prejudicing the appellant’s defense – Defect deemed incurable due to lapse of 15 years since the incident – Appellant acquitted on this ground [Paras 14-17].

Right to Legal Aid – Denial and Deficiency – Appellant was unrepresented during crucial stages, including framing of charges and recording of PW-1’s examination-in-chief – Legal aid provided was inadequate, with multiple advocates appearing inconsistently, affecting the quality of defense – Held: Failure to provide effective legal aid violated the appellant’s fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution [Paras 19-22].

Role of Public Prosecutor and Legal Aid Counsel – Supreme Court emphasizes duties of Public Prosecutors and Legal Aid Advocates to ensure fair trials – Directives issued to ensure consistent, competent, and effective legal representation, especially in serious cases involving potential life or death sentences – Legal Services Authorities instructed to monitor and improve the quality of legal aid [Paras 23].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Convictions under Sections 376, 302, and 201 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act set aside – Appellant acquitted – Bail bonds cancelled – Directives issued to Legal Services Authorities for systemic improvements [Paras 24-26].

Criminal Law – Culpable Homicide – Acquittal – Circumstantial Evidence - Appellants were convicted for the culpable homicide of the deceased, initially under Section 302 IPC by the trial court, which was modified by the High Court to Section 304 Part I IPC with a sentence of 7 years rigorous imprisonment – Both courts relied on circumstantial evidence including last seen, motive, recovery of a blood-stained stone, and meat bag, and testimony of key witnesses – Supreme Court held that the chain of circumstances was incomplete and failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Appeal allowed, conviction set aside, and appellants acquitted [Paras 1, 11-13, 23-41].

Circumstantial Evidence – Principles and Chain of Evidence - The Supreme Court reiterated principles for conviction based on circumstantial evidence: (i) Circumstances must be fully established; (ii) They should unerringly point to the guilt of the accused; (iii) They must form a complete chain ruling out other hypotheses; (iv) They must be consistent only with the guilt of the accused – The Court emphasized that suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute proof – Applying these principles, the Court found the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution failed the test of conclusiveness and completeness [Paras 18-22].

Last Seen Evidence – Inadequacy and Lack of Proximity - Prosecution relied on PW-4’s testimony of the deceased being last seen with the appellants on 2.2.1997 at 4:30 PM near Gadhera College – Supreme Court held the time gap between the last seen (4:30 PM) and recovery of the body (next morning at 8:30 AM) was too large to exclude third-party involvement – The Court emphasized that mere walking together on a public path is insufficient to infer culpability without further corroboration – Circumstance was held insufficient and inconclusive [Paras 26-27].

Recovery Evidence – Admissibility and Inconclusiveness - Prosecution relied on the recovery of blood-stained stones at the instance of the appellants on 6.2.1997 – Supreme Court held the disclosure statement (Exb. Ka-18) inadmissible as it did not lead to discovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act – The recovery was made en route to the police station before the disclosure statement was recorded – Furthermore, forensic evidence failed to link the recovered items to the crime – Recovery evidence was deemed inconsequential [Paras 32-38].

Witness Testimony – Credibility and Delayed Disclosure - PW-2 claimed to have seen the appellants walking near the crime scene on 2.2.1997 at night – Supreme Court found his testimony unreliable due to delay in disclosure (statement recorded on 9.2.1997) and prior enmity with the accused – PW-8’s presence during the recovery process was also deemed doubtful due to inconsistencies and distance from the site – Witness testimony failed to inspire confidence [Paras 29-30, 38].

Motive – Insufficiency - Prosecution alleged enmity arising from panchayat elections as the motive – Supreme Court held the motive was weak as it lacked any concrete evidence or recent precipitating incident – Motive alone was insufficient to establish guilt [Paras 25].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 304 Part I IPC set aside – Appellants acquitted – Bail bonds discharged [Paras 39-41].

Service Law - Promotion after Retirement – Rule 54(1)(a) of the West Bengal Service Rules – Financial Benefits Denied The respondent, who retired before receiving final approval for promotion, sought notional financial benefits for the higher post – Held: Rule 54(1)(a) precludes retrospective promotion or associated benefits unless duties of the post were assumed – The Court reversed the High Court's order granting notional benefits, emphasizing that actual service in the promotional post is essential for financial claims. [Paras 4-9, 14-18]​.

Right to Promotion – Articles 14 and 16 – No Fundamental Right to Promotion While an individual has a right to be considered for promotion, there is no absolute right to promotion itself – The Court held that only consideration for promotion is a fundamental right, but promotion becomes effective upon assumption of duties, not from the date of vacancy or recommendation. [Paras 14-16]​.

Administrative Delays – Procedural Lapses – Equitable Relief Denied Procedural -delays by the Department in forwarding documents for promotion were noted; however, the respondent's inability to assume duties prior to superannuation rendered retrospective benefits legally untenable – The principle of effective assumption of duties was upheld over procedural equities. [Paras 5-7, 19]​.

Decision:

The appeal was allowed. The judgments of the High Court and Tribunal granting notional financial benefits were reversed and set aside.

Criminal Procedure – Bail in Serious Offences – Impact on Trial – Ordinarily, courts should not grant bail in serious offences like rape after trial commencement unless undue delay occurs – Supreme Court disapproved of the practice of granting bail based on discrepancies in the victim's statement at preliminary stages of trial [Paras 13–15, 20–21].

Victim Protection – Bail Conditions – Conditions Enhanced – Accused directed not to enter the victim’s village or contact witnesses – High Court's lack of stringent conditions criticized – Supreme Court directed strict adherence to bail conditions to avoid influencing the trial process [Paras 18, 23, 26].

Trial Expeditiousness – Prioritization in Serious Cases – Supreme Court directed trial court to prioritize and dispose of the case within three months, ensuring speedy justice for all parties involved [Paras 24–25].

Judicial Observations – Prima Facie Findings – Held: Observations during bail adjudication are not determinative of guilt or innocence and do not influence the final outcome of the trial [Para 27].

Decision:

Special Leave Petition disposed of with directions – High Court’s order granting bail not interfered with, but bail conditions strengthened – Respondent No. 2 barred from entering the village or contacting witnesses – Trial Court directed to expedite proceedings within three months [Paras 24–27].

Land Acquisition – Urgency Clause – Invocation under Sections 17(1) and 17(4) – Legal and Justified – The Court upheld the legality of the invocation of the urgency clause for acquiring land for the Yamuna Expressway and associated developments – The acquisition, being part of an integrated development plan for industrial, residential, and commercial purposes, was justified under the urgency provisions. The challenge by the landowners that the invocation was arbitrary and lacked material justification was rejected.

Public Purpose – Integration with Expressway Development – Acquisition Validated – The Court ruled that the land acquisition was for a public purpose, forming part of the larger integrated development of the Yamuna Expressway, linking industrial, residential, and recreational development, which would benefit the public at large. The invocation of the urgency clause was in line with the law and precedents.

Judicial Precedents – Distinction between Public and Private Purposes – The judgment in the case of Radhy Shyam was distinguished, as the present acquisition is part of a larger public infrastructure project, unlike the isolated acquisition in the Radhy Shyam case. The Court clarified that the urgency clause is applicable for such integrated public projects, unlike acquisitions for mere commercial purposes.

Previous Court Decisions – Inconsistent Views – The Court addressed the conflicting views of the Allahabad High Court in Kamal Sharma and Shyoraj Singh, asserting that the latter did not lay down good law, as it ignored precedents like Nand Kishore which validated similar acquisitions under urgency provisions. The appeal in Shyoraj Singh was dismissed.

Compensation – Enhancement and Uniformity – The Court upheld the enhanced compensation granted by the Allahabad High Court (64.7% escalation), ensuring uniform benefits to the landowners as per government orders. The issue of further compensation was not entertained, as the enhancement already covered the legal requirements.

Decision:

The appeals filed by the landowners (Batch No. 1) are dismissed. The appeals filed by YEIDA (Batch No. 2) are allowed. The land acquisition proceedings and the invocation of urgency under Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act are upheld. The compensation formula with a 64.7% increase is affirmed.

Matrimonial Offences – Quashment of FIR – Section 482 of CrPC – Allegations Omnibus in Nature – FIR Quashed - The appellant accused No.5, wife of accused No.6, challenged the High Court's refusal to quash the FIR despite quashing it for accused No.6 – The Supreme Court observed that allegations against accused No.5 were vague and unsupported by specific evidence, similar to those quashed against her husband (accused No.6) – Referring to Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, the Court held that such allegations were exaggerated and indicative of over-implication – Held: FIR quashed against accused No.5 [Paras 17-21].

Matrimonial Allegations – Relatives Residing Separately – Abuse of Process – FIR Quashed - Applying principles in Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P. and Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar, the Court held that distant relatives not residing in the same household as the complainant were over-implicated – Lack of material evidence to connect accused Nos.5 and 6 to alleged harassment reinforced this conclusion – Held: FIR and subsequent proceedings quashed [Paras 22-25].

Section 482 CrPC – Inherent Powers of High Court – Scope – The Court emphasized the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice – Filing of the final report or challan does not bar exercising such powers – Held: FIR against accused No.5 quashed to maintain parity with accused No.6.

Decision:

Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3995 of 2022 filed by accused No.5 (Payal Sharma) is allowed, quashing the FIR and subsequent proceedings. Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 13579 of 2023 filed by the complainant is dismissed, upholding the quashment of FIR against accused No.6 (Subhash Chander Kapila).