Service Law – Reservation – Cadre Allocation – Indian Forest Service Examination Rules, 2013 – A reserved category candidate who avails relaxation in the Preliminary Examination, an integral stage of the selection process, cannot be considered against unreserved vacancies for cadre allocation, even if they secure higher marks in the Main Examination and Interview than a general category candidate – The High Court erred in holding that the Preliminary Examination is merely a screening test and marks obtained therein are not to be considered for final merit, thereby treating the reserved category candidate as a General category candidate for cadre allocation – The Supreme Court held that availing any relaxation at any stage of the examination, including the Preliminary Examination, disqualifies a candidate from being considered against unreserved vacancies as per Rule 14(ii) proviso and Paragraph 9 of the Cadre Allocation Policy – The allocation of the General Insider vacancy to Respondent No. 3 (General category candidate) was upheld as correct – The allocation of Tamil Nadu Cadre to Respondent No. 1 (reserved category candidate) was also upheld – The judgments of the Tribunal and High Court were set aside [Paras 21, 22, 26, 28, 29, 36, 37, 39].

Service Law – Reservation – Relaxed Standards – Eligibility and Selection Criteria – The term 'any' in the context of relaxations or concessions in eligibility or selection criteria at 'any stage of examination' under Rule 14(ii) proviso of the Exam Rules, 2013, is broad and includes relaxation availed in the Preliminary Examination – A candidate availing such relaxation is not eligible to be adjusted against unreserved vacancies – This interpretation aligns with the Cadre Allocation Policy, which mandates selection on 'General Standard' without availing any 'Relaxed Standard' for allocation to unreserved vacancies – The Court emphasized that the Preliminary Examination, though a screening test, is an integral stage of the examination, and any relaxation availed therein has consequences for final cadre allocation – The High Court's view that initial relaxation fades into insignificance if a candidate performs on merit in subsequent stages was rejected – The Supreme Court reiterated that once a relaxation is taken, the candidate cannot claim a general category vacancy [Paras 22, 24, 28, 29, 36].

Decision: Appeal allowed – The impugned final judgment and order dated 06.08.2019 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Writ Petition No. 54254 of 2016 (S-CAT) connected with Writ Petition No. 18947 of 2016 (S-CAT), affirming the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench dated 15.03.2016 in O.A. No. 170/00239/2015, are hereby set aside – The notification dated 13.03.2015 issued by the MoEFCC insofar allocating the Karnataka Cadre to Respondent No. 3 and Tamil Nadu Cadre to Respondent No. 1 is upheld as correct in eyes of law and without any alteration [Paras 40, 41].

Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 – Section 45A – Jurisdiction – Preconditions – Determination of contribution – Corporation invoked Section 45A to assess contribution for period 1988–1992 – Employer had produced ledgers, cash books, vouchers, contractor records and returns and had participated in multiple personal hearings – Held: Section 45A can be invoked only when there is complete non-production of records under Section 44 or obstruction to inspection under Section 45 – Mere inadequacy or dissatisfaction with records does not amount to non-production – Invocation of Section 45A in such circumstances is without jurisdiction [Paras 24–27, 30–31].

Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 – Section 45A vs Section 75 – Distinct statutory fields – Section 45A is a special and exceptional provision providing for best-judgment determination in cases of default or obstruction – Where records are produced and cooperation is forthcoming, assessment must be undertaken through adjudicatory mechanism under Section 75 – Section 45A is not an alternative assessment mechanism available at the discretion of the Corporation [Paras 20–22, 24–26].

Limitation – Section 77(1A)(b) – Five-year bar – Applicability – Proviso to Section 77(1A)(b) applies to claims initiated by the Corporation before the Employees’ Insurance Court – Though Section 45A per se does not prescribe limitation, its invocation is conditioned on jurisdictional facts – Corporation cannot bypass limitation under Section 77 by wrongly resorting to Section 45A when statutory conditions are absent [Paras 22–24, 28–29].

Appellate Review – Error of jurisdiction – Employees’ Insurance Court and High Court failed to examine whether conditions precedent for invoking Section 45A existed – Acceptance of production of records and cooperation by employer rendered Section 45A proceedings unsustainable – Orders passed by Corporation, Employees’ Insurance Court and High Court vitiated by jurisdictional error [Paras 25, 29–31].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Order dated 17.04.2000 passed by ESI Corporation under Section 45A set aside – Order dated 06.07.2015 of Employees’ Insurance Court and judgment dated 12.10.2023 of Madras High Court set aside – No order as to costs.

Administrative Law – Illegality – Irrelevant Considerations – Memo requiring Assistant Registrar’s recommendation before granting stamp duty exemption under Section 9A – Held: Requirement is unnecessary, superfluous and disruptive of ease of transaction – Executive action based on irrelevant considerations is illegal and liable to be set aside [Paras 2–2.2, 9–12, 15].

Stamp Duty Exemption – Section 9A, Indian Stamp (Bihar Amendment) Act, 1988 – Right of Cooperative Societies – Certificate of registration under Section 5(7) of the Jharkhand Self-Supporting Cooperative Societies Act is conclusive proof of existence – No further verification needed – Additional recommendation adds no value and violates statutory mandate [Paras 2.2, 11–14].

Cooperative Societies – Legal Status – Once registered, society becomes a body corporate under Sections 5–7 of the 1996 Act – Certificate from Registrar is binding on State authorities – Recommendation from Assistant Registrar unnecessary; authorities must accept certificate as conclusive evidence [Paras 13–14].

Judicial Review – Administrative Directions – Courts may strike down actions mandating excessive, redundant requirements as illegal – Memo imposes an unwarranted extra tier unsupported by statute – Violates principles of good governance and simplicity in public transactions [Paras 2, 2.1, 9].

Registration Process – Powers under Registration Act, 1908 – Registering authority may verify execution and stamping but cannot question validity of cooperative society registration – Memo imposing additional verification beyond statutory framework is ultra vires [Para 6].

Decision – Memo dated 20.02.2009 issued by Principal Secretary set aside – Appeal allowed; High Court’s refusal to interfere reversed [Paras 15–16].

Criminal Law – Bail under Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) – Appellant, a former Minister in Tamil Nadu, was arrested for alleged money laundering under Section 3 of the PMLA – Accused of collecting large sums by promising job opportunities in the Transport Department – Bail application rejected by the High Court – On appeal, the Supreme Court considered the appellant's incarceration for over 15 months and the delay in trial – Noted that more than 2000 accused and 600 witnesses in connected scheduled offences made timely completion of the trial unlikely – Held: Continued detention would violate the appellant's right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution – Bail granted with conditions [Paras 1-31].

Witness Tampering – Apprehension of Tampering with Evidence – Solicitor General argued that appellant, holding significant political influence, could tamper with evidence or influence witnesses – Supreme Court observed that most evidence is documentary and already seized, reducing the risk of tampering – Imposed stringent conditions to mitigate concerns, including regular reporting to enforcement authorities and restriction on contacting witnesses [Paras 9-31].

Constitutional Law – Right to Speedy Trial – Appellant's right to a speedy trial under Article 21 emphasized – Noted that while PMLA imposes stringent bail conditions, prolonged pre-trial detention without prospects of timely trial breaches fundamental rights – Cited precedents from K.A. Najeeb and Manish Sisodia cases where constitutional courts allowed bail despite statutory restrictions due to undue trial delay – Held: Bail is the rule, and jail is the exception when a trial cannot be concluded within a reasonable timeframe [Paras 22-31].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Appellant granted bail on furnishing bail bonds and fulfilling specific conditions, including regular attendance before authorities and surrendering passport – Failure to comply with conditions may result in bail cancellation [Paras 31-32].

Criminal Law – Custodial Death – Acquittal – Appellants, police officials, convicted for custodial torture and death of one Shama @ Kalya while in illegal detention – Trial Court convicted appellants under Sections 304 Part II, 330, 331, 348, 387, and 201 IPC, and sentenced to varying terms of imprisonment – High Court upheld convictions except under Section 201 IPC regarding disappearance of the dead body – On appeal, Supreme Court held that prosecution failed to prove the identity of the exhumed body as that of the deceased Shama @ Kalya due to unreliable fingerprint evidence – Appellants granted benefit of doubt and acquitted of charges under Section 304 Part II IPC – Conviction under Sections 330, 348, and 387 IPC confirmed, with one year rigorous imprisonment and fine imposed [Paras 49, 50, 52, 53].

Witness Testimony – Credibility of Eye-Witnesses – PW-1 (wife of the deceased) and PW-16 (mother-in-law of the deceased) testified to witnessing injuries on Shama while in custody – PW-1’s claim that Shama’s leg veins were cut, contributing to his death, contradicted by her previous statements and uncorroborated by medical evidence – Trial Court’s reliance on this testimony deemed improper due to material contradictions and absence of medical proof – High Court erred in not considering the omissions as significant [Paras 35, 36, 37].

Custodial Torture – Appellants convicted for custodial torture under Sections 330, 348, and 387 IPC based on multiple witness testimonies, including police personnel (PW-20, PW-22) who corroborated Shama’s illegal detention and injuries – Prosecution established that Shama was subjected to third-degree methods while in police custody, resulting in severe injuries, though the cause of death remained unproved due to failure in identifying the body [Paras 11, 12, 49].

Circumstantial Evidence – False Entry of Escape – Prosecution alleged appellants staged an escape of Shama from custody by using a proxy, PW-8, to impersonate him – PW-8 turned hostile – Defense presented a Railway Court conviction of one Shama for traveling without a ticket to argue Shama was alive, but the Court dismissed it as fabricated – Court emphasized that defense evidence must meet the standard of preponderance of probabilities and ruled that it failed to do so convincingly [Paras 38, 41, 42].

Decision: Appeals partly allowed – Convictions under Section 304 Part II and related sections set aside, acquitting appellants on those charges – Conviction under Sections 330, 348, and 387 IPC upheld – Appellants to serve one year of rigorous imprisonment with fines where applicable [Paras 48, 53].

Criminal Law – Abduction and Murder – Acquittal – The appellants were accused of abducting and murdering Neelam in furtherance of a land dispute – Trial Court convicted five accused under Sections 302/34 and 364/34 IPC and acquitted two (A-6, A-7) – Patna High Court overturned the acquittal of A-6 and A-7, convicting them and sentencing all seven to life imprisonment – Supreme Court reversed the High Court’s decision, holding that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Neelam was abducted by the appellants or that she was residing in the house from which she was allegedly abducted – Held: All appellants acquitted, conviction and sentence set aside [Paras 1, 25, 33, 45, 67].

Witness Testimony – Credibility of Eye-Witnesses – Testimonies of PW18 (informant), PW2, PW4, and PW5 deemed inconsistent and unreliable – Presence of PW5 at the scene was doubted due to his questionable route – Testimonies of PW2 and PW4 lacked a credible explanation for their presence – Key independent witnesses (Doman Tenti, Kumud Ranjan Singh, etc.) were not examined – The alleged threat with a pistol by A-6 was not corroborated, and significant contradictions were found between FIR and trial depositions – Court concluded that the prosecution fabricated witness testimonies to implicate the appellants [Paras 23-25, 40, 46, 59].

Circumstantial Evidence – Residence of the Deceased – Doubts were raised regarding whether Neelam was residing in her father’s house at the time of the abduction – No personal belongings or corroborative evidence from cohabitants were presented – Makeup articles found were insufficient proof, and their connection to the deceased was based on objectionable reasoning by the High Court – Held: Prosecution failed to establish the foundational fact of residence, undermining the entire case [Paras 34-37, 48-51].

Post-Mortem Evidence – Time of Death – Post-mortem report indicated Neelam’s death occurred around 5:00 PM, conflicting with the prosecution's claim that she was abducted around 10:00 PM – Given the unreliable eyewitnesses, the post-mortem findings were accepted as accurate – The inconsistency in time of death added to the doubts surrounding the prosecution's case [Paras 62-63].

Motive – Property Dispute – The alleged motive of abducting and murdering Neelam over a family property dispute was insufficient to establish guilt – Motive could apply to either side of the family conflict, making it a double-edged argument – The Court held that motive alone could not sustain a conviction in the absence of conclusive evidence [Paras 65-67].

Decision: Appeals allowed – All seven appellants acquitted of charges under Sections 302 and 364 IPC – They are to be released immediately if not wanted in any other cases [Para 70].

Criminal Law – Appeal Against Acquittal – Charges under Section 307 IPC – Appellant was assaulted due to a dispute related to Waqf Board – Initial FIR lodged under Sections 294, 323, 506 read with 34 IPC – Additional Sessions Judge framed charges under Section 307 IPC – High Court set aside charges, ruling injuries insufficient for Section 307 – Held: Minor injuries are not a bar for framing charges under Section 307 IPC if intent is present – High Court's judgment set aside, and the accused are to face trial under all relevant sections, including Section 307 IPC [Paras 1, 6, 12-16].

Medical Evidence – Relevance of Doctor’s Report – The doctor’s report suspected throttling, which could have led to respiratory arrest – Despite the injuries being described as minor, intent to cause death could be inferred from the circumstances – The court held that medical evidence of possible throttling supported the framing of Section 307 IPC charges [Paras 7, 12-13].

Section 307 IPC – Attempt to Murder – Essential ingredients include intent to kill or knowledge that the act was likely to cause death – Court emphasized that even minor injuries could suffice if the intent to kill is present – Injuries, whether simple or grievous, are irrelevant if the intent is clear – The court applied this principle to hold that the High Court erred in refusing to frame charges under Section 307 IPC [Paras 10-14].

Section 34 IPC – Common Intention – Eight accused were involved, and the court examined the applicability of Section 34 IPC – Common intention can be inferred from the actions and circumstances – The court highlighted that common intention need not be pre-arranged and could develop on the spot – The accused acted with a common purpose, making Section 34 applicable [Paras 11.4-11.5].

Decision: Appeal Allowed – High Court's order in Criminal Revision No. 3125 of 2021 set aside – Trial court directed to proceed with trial, including Section 307 IPC, without being influenced by the current judgment – Trial to be expedited [Paras 16-17].

Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – Appeal – Appellants convicted for murder and attempt to murder following an altercation – Trial court convicted the appellants under Sections 148, 302, 307 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment – High Court upheld the convictions – On appeal to the Supreme Court, arguments focused on the lack of evidence regarding brick-batting injuries and claims of private defence – Held: Prosecution's case was corroborated by the testimonies of injured witnesses, and the appellants’ contention of self-defence was unsupported by independent evidence [Paras 3, 18, 33].

Witness Testimony – Credibility of Injured Eye-Witnesses – P.W. 3, P.W. 4, and P.W. 5 were injured witnesses and their testimonies were corroborated by medico-legal evidence – The appellants questioned the absence of independent witnesses – Court held that non-examination of independent witnesses did not affect the case since the testimonies of injured witnesses were reliable and stood cross-examination [Paras 3, 18].

Common Intention – Applicability of Section 34 IPC – Appellants argued that no common intention was proved – Court held that common intention can be formed moments before the act and can be inferred from the conduct of the accused – The appellants acted in concert to retaliate after a previous altercation, establishing their common intention [Paras 18, 26].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Convictions under Sections 148, 302, and 307 IPC read with Section 34 IPC upheld – No evidence of failure of justice or misapplication of law – Appellants to remain in custody [Para 33].

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Appeal against dismissal of petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash FIR and subsequent chargesheet – Appellants accused under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 IPC for alleged cruelty towards the complainant – High Court held that a prima facie case of cruelty was made out and dismissed the petition – Supreme Court examined the allegations, finding them vague and largely civil in nature – Held: Criminal proceedings were an abuse of process, instituted with mala fide intentions linked to a property dispute – FIR and chargesheet quashed [Paras 7.1, 8.1, 10.1, 13.1, 15, 18].

Matrimonial Dispute – Allegations of Dowry Demand – FIR alleged dowry demands and threats to deprive the complainant and her husband of property share – Allegations found vague and lacking material particulars – The same allegations were previously rejected in a Domestic Violence case by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jalna – Complaint appeared to be motivated by a contentious civil dispute over ancestral property, furthering personal interests in the civil suit filed by the complainant’s husband [Paras 7.1, 8.1, 10.1, 15].

Abuse of Legal Process – Civil Dispute Given Criminal Color – Allegations in the FIR were overwhelmingly civil in nature, particularly concerning property rights – Appellants subjected to false and omnibus allegations, creating an undue criminal burden – Supreme Court emphasized the need to prevent abuse of criminal law in cases rooted in civil disputes – Held: Continuing with the criminal trial would amount to a travesty of justice [Paras 8.1, 10.2, 15, 18].

Decision: Appeal allowed – FIR dated 25.03.2013 and chargesheet quashed – Criminal proceedings under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 IPC set aside [Para 18].