Criminal Law – Cheating and Criminal Conspiracy – Multiple Victims – Same Transaction – Allegations of inducement and cheating of 1,852 investors pursuant to a single conspiracy to dupe public by false representation of divine powers to multiply money – One FIR registered and remaining complaints treated as statements under Section 161 CrPC – Held, where allegations disclose a single conspiracy with unity of purpose and design, multiple acts of cheating may form part of the same transaction – Registration of a single FIR in such circumstances is legally permissible [Paras 9–11, 18–21].

Criminal Procedure – FIRs – Multiplicity vs Consolidation – High Court held that each deposit constitutes a separate transaction requiring separate FIRs – Supreme Court disagreed – Law does not mandate registration of separate FIRs where subsequent information relates to same cognizable offence or same transaction – Subsequent complaints can be treated as statements under Section 161 CrPC – Multiple FIRs in such cases would lead to unnecessary multiplicity of proceedings [Paras 13–16, 21].

Criminal Procedure – Premature Reference under Section 395(2) CrPC – Reference made by Additional Sessions Judge during pendency of investigation – Held, reference was premature as it was not possible at that stage to determine whether offences formed part of same transaction – Question of consolidation of FIRs or charges arises only after investigation, at the stage of framing of charges [Paras 8, 20–21].

Same Transaction – Tests – Reaffirmation of settled principles – Unity of purpose or design, proximity of time and place, and continuity of action are relevant tests – Tests not required to be cumulatively satisfied – Determination depends on facts of each case – Magistrate to apply these tests on basis of material collected during investigation [Paras 11, 19–20].

Charges and Trial – Sections 218 to 223 CrPC – General rule under Section 218 CrPC mandates separate trial for distinct offences – Sections 219 to 223 CrPC are exceptions permitting joint trial – Where offences form part of same transaction, joint charges and trial permissible under Sections 220(1) and 223(a) & (d) CrPC – If not, separate trials required, subject to statutory limits on joinder of offences [Paras 19–20].

Sentencing – Multiple Offences – Sentencing to be governed by Section 71 IPC read with Sections 31 and 325 CrPC – If offences tried together as part of same transaction, punishment to follow accordingly – Issue of proportionality and concurrency of sentences to be considered by Trial Court on established facts [Paras 3, 22].

Rights of Complainants – Protest Petitions – Even where multiple complainants are treated as witnesses in a single FIR, their right to file protest petitions is preserved – Magistrate duty-bound to consider such protest petitions if closure report is filed or discharge is contemplated [Paras 13, 22].

High Court Judgment – Interference Warranted – Answers given by Delhi High Court to Questions (a) and (b) holding that separate FIRs and charge sheets were mandatory held erroneous – Set aside – Matter left to Magistrate to decide applicability of “same transaction” doctrine at appropriate stage [Paras 21–23].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment dated 08.07.2019 of the Delhi High Court in Criminal Reference No. 1 of 2014 set aside insofar as it answered Questions (a) and (b) – Registration of single FIR upheld – Issue of consolidation of charges/trial to be decided by Magistrate in accordance with law.

Customs Law – Classification – Aluminium Shelving – CTI 76109010 vs. CTI 84369900 – Appeal Allowed – The Supreme Court held that aluminium shelving imported for mushroom cultivation is classifiable as 'Aluminium Structures' under CTI 76109010, not as 'Parts of Agricultural Machinery' under CTI 84369900 – The CESTAT's classification under CTI 84369900, relying on the goods being "parts" of agricultural machinery and known in "trade parlance" as "mushroom growing apparatus," was set aside – The Court found that the goods are structures made of aluminium and do not qualify as 'machinery' or 'parts' of machinery, as individual machines in the mushroom cultivation process are self-contained and the shelves merely serve as a supporting surface – The Court emphasized that classification must adhere to the objective characteristics and properties of the goods at the time of import, and the common parlance test is applicable only in the absence of explicit statutory guidance – The non-sequential application of General Rules for Interpretation (GRIs) by CESTAT was deemed an error [Paras 1, 116, 121, 130, 136, 137, 140, 145, 146, 147, 152, 156, 157, 158].

Customs Law – General Rules for Interpretation (GRIs) – Sequential Application – The Supreme Court reiterated that GRIs 1-4 must be applied sequentially – GRI 1 establishes the primacy of headings and notes – GRI 2 extends headings to incomplete/unassembled goods – GRI 3 is a tie-breaker for goods classifiable under two or more headings – GRI 4 is a last resort – The Court criticized the CESTAT for non-sequential application of GRIs, specifically invoking GRI 3(a) without first determining prima facie classification under GRI 1, and for failing to consider Section Notes that exclude goods classifiable under Section XVI from Section XV [Paras 28, 36, 146].

Customs Law – Common Parlance Test – Applicability – The Supreme Court clarified that the common or trade parlance test must be applied restrictively, only when the statute (including tariff headings, Section Notes, Chapter Notes, or HSN Explanatory Notes) does not provide explicit definitions or clear criteria, or when terms are not used in a specialized, technical context – The test cannot contradict the statutory framework or override clear statutory mandates – It is used to determine the scope and meaning of terms in the absence of statutory guidance, not to reclassify goods that clearly fall under a statutory heading based on marketing or trade names – Evidence is required to support claims of specialized commercial identity, which must involve substantial transformation, not mere incidental modification [Paras 40, 41, 48, 54, 56, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 144, 145, 149].

Customs Law – Consideration of 'Use' in Classification – The Supreme Court held that 'use' can be a relevant classification factor only if the tariff heading explicitly or inherently refers to 'use' or 'adaptation' – This includes cases where the language of the heading or supporting notes indicates use (e.g., 'refrigerating equipment') or where the common/commercial meaning of an eo nomine term inherently includes use as a defining aspect – Actual use is generally irrelevant; only intended use, discernible from objective characteristics (function, design, composition), is considered – The importer must demonstrate that the intended use aligns with the standard of use (e.g., 'principal use', 'sole use') stipulated or implied by the statute – The Court noted that the Indian approach is a hybrid of US and EU methods, focusing on inherent characteristics and properties [Paras 69, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 103, 150].

Customs Law – HSN Explanatory Notes – Binding Guidance – The Supreme Court affirmed that HSN Explanatory Notes provide binding guidance for interpreting the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, provided there is alignment between the domestic tariff entry and the corresponding HSN heading, and no explicit contrary legislative intent is found in the Act – In the present case, such alignment was found, making the Explanatory Notes binding [Paras 37, 38, 39].

Decision: Appeal allowed – The impugned Judgment and Final Order No. 55604/2024 dated 19.04.2024 passed by the CESTAT in Customs Appeal No. 50542 of 2021 is hereby set aside [Para 159].

Criminal Law – Quashing - Multiple FIRs – Civil Dispute Given Criminal Colour – Petitioners accused of misappropriation of refund amount – Three separate proceedings initiated on identical facts – Two proceedings either stayed or withdrawn – Final report in FIR No. 396/2025 concluded no evidence against petitioners – Held: Initiation of multiple criminal cases on same cause of action impermissible – Proceedings except Tajganj FIR closed [Paras 1-7].

Quashing of FIR – Final Report Filed – No Arrest – Chargesheet in Agra case (FIR 396/2025) concluded allegations not substantiated – Petitioners not to be arrested – Directed to appear before jurisdictional court and be granted bail on same day – Recognized that continuation of prosecution cannot result in custodial harassment in absence of incriminating material [Paras 5-8].

Corporate Insolvency – Complainant Representation – Complainant company undergoing insolvency – Interim Resolution Professional impleaded – IRP permitted to represent complainant and summon former officials for trial if required [Paras 4, 9].

Judicial Comity – Proceedings in Different Jurisdictions – Parallel complaints in Delhi and Agra – Delhi proceedings stayed or treated as not pressed – Court directed closure of Karkardooma proceedings and disposal of pending criminal revision as not pressed – Upheld principle that litigants should not harass opponents through multiple jurisdictions [Paras 6-7].

Decision: Special Leave Petition disposed of – Petitioners granted protection from arrest – Directed to appear before jurisdictional court and be granted bail – All other criminal proceedings on same facts closed – IRP allowed to participate in proceedings [Paras 7-10].

Education Law – Issuance of Degree and Marksheets – Clerical Error – MB University Investigation – Appellant completed BA.LLB. (2017–2022) at Manav Bharti University and passed all exams – University failed to issue marksheets for 5th to 10th semesters and degree due to mismatch in admission disclosure list, despite appellant’s name being in internal green register – Disclosure list erroneously carried another student's name against her admission number – Supreme Court held: Appellant was bona fide student – Denial of documents caused grave hardship – Delay of over two years unjustified – Appellant cannot be punished for University's error – High Court erred in relegating her to alternative remedy [Paras 2–21].

University Accountability – Duty to Maintain Accurate Records – University admitted clerical error and submitted affidavit acknowledging mistake – Held: Since facts were undisputed and supported by affidavit and internal records, relegation to civil remedy unnecessary – Supreme Court directed University to issue pending documents within four weeks [Paras 16–22].

Decision: Appeal allowed – MB University directed to issue marksheets for 5th to 10th semesters, degree, and all relevant documents to appellant within four weeks [Para 22].

Criminal Law – Double Murder – Acquittal – Appellant alleged to be driver of vehicle used by shooters in twin murders – Conviction by Trial Court affirmed by High Court – Supreme Court found evidence of key witnesses (PW-7 and PW-10) against appellant to be inconsistent and lacking – No overt act or recovery attributable to appellant – Conviction set aside [Paras 3-8, 11].

Evidence Act – Witness Credibility – PW-7 and PW-10 alleged appellant drove vehicle, but failed to implicate him in original police statements under Section 161 CrPC – Testimony regarding dragging of victim introduced for first time during trial – Court held omissions were fatal to prosecution case against appellant [Paras 7-8].

Criminal Procedure – Section 319 CrPC – Appellant not originally named – Later summoned under Section 319 CrPC – Defense witness DW-1 (DSP) testified appellant was found innocent in initial investigation – DW-2 (owner of vehicle) confirmed vehicle not entrusted to appellant – Absence of link to vehicle or scene of crime [Paras 7, 9-10].

Gang Rivalry – Animosity and Cross-Litigation – Evidence of ongoing gang rivalry and false implications between families of accused and deceased – History of narcotic raids and mutual enmity undermined credibility of prosecution’s narrative – Court declined to uphold conviction based on vague, delayed statements [Para 11].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence of appellant set aside – Appellant acquitted of all charges – If in custody, to be released forthwith – If on bail, bail bonds to stand cancelled – Judgment limited only to appellant [Paras 12-13].

Service Law – Post-Retirement Departmental Proceedings – Jurisdiction – Corporation initiated departmental enquiry and passed recovery order of ₹18,09,809/- against appellant nearly a year after his superannuation – No provision under 1992 Service Regulations permitting such enquiry post-retirement – High Court upheld action relying on Rule 110 of 1992 Regulations and Rule 27 of 1982 Pension Rules – Supreme Court held that Rule 110 is residuary and does not ipso facto adopt State Pension Rules – No conscious decision of Board shown adopting 1982 Rules for departmental action post-retirement – Held: Corporation lacked jurisdiction to initiate or continue disciplinary enquiry against retired employee [Paras 15–24, 26–30].

Pension Law – Withholding of Retiral Benefits – Rule 27(2)(b)(i), 1982 Pension Rules – Sanction Mandatory – No sanction of State Government obtained before initiating departmental proceedings post-retirement – Plea of general sanction due to prior approval of service regulations rejected – Held: Prior sanction for each case is mandatory and safeguard cannot be bypassed on basis of general approval – Recovery and withholding of retiral dues without compliance of Rule 27(2)(b)(i) held illegal [Paras 24, 26–27].

Retirement Benefits – Entitlement – Appellant’s gratuity, PF, and leave encashment withheld – Supreme Court quashed entire disciplinary proceedings and directed refund of recovery already made – Corporation directed to release full retiral dues within 8 weeks [Paras 31].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court judgment and departmental proceedings quashed – Retiral benefits to be released within 8 weeks – Any recovery already effected to be refunded [Para 31].

Criminal Law – Bail – Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) – Section 43D(5) – Prolonged Incarceration – Article 21, Constitution of India – Bail Declined for Sharjeel Imam and Umar Khalid – The Supreme Court held that while prolonged incarceration implicates Article 21, it does not automatically displace the statutory embargo under Section 43D(5) of UAPA. The Court found that the prosecution material, taken at face value, disclosed a prima facie attribution of a central and formative role by Sharjeel Imam and Umar Khalid in the alleged conspiracy, involving planning, mobilisation, and strategic direction beyond episodic or localised acts. The complexity of the prosecution, nature of evidence, and stage of proceedings did not justify their enlargement on bail at this juncture. The Court directed the Trial Court to proceed with the matter expeditiously and ensure timely examination of protected witnesses. The appeals for Sharjeel Imam and Umar Khalid were dismissed, and their prayers for bail rejected [Paras 24, 25, 28, 31, 32, 35, 36, 41, 43, 45, 47, 48, 52, 54, 56, 58, 59, 61, 62, 67, 68, 70, 71, 72, 75, 76, 77, 78, 80, 81, 82, 91, 92, 95, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 108, 109, 110, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 151, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 173, 174, 175, 193, 194, 195, 196, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 430, 431, 432].

Criminal Law – Bail – Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) – Section 43D(5) – Prolonged Incarceration – Article 21, Constitution of India – Bail Granted for Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa-ur-Rehman, Mohd. Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmed – The Supreme Court allowed the appeals for these appellants, holding that their continued incarceration was not indispensable for a fair trial, given their attributed roles, the nature of material relied upon, and the current stage of proceedings. The Court found that their roles were primarily operational or facilitative, distinct from the conceptual and directive roles attributed to the principal conspirators. The Court emphasized that while the gravity of the incidents was serious, it could not eclipse the constitutional demand for individualized assessment of necessity in pre-trial detention. Stringent conditions were imposed to secure their presence, prevent witness interference, and restrain public commentary. The Court clarified that the grant of bail did not reflect any dilution of the seriousness of allegations or amount to a finding on guilt, but represented a calibrated exercise of constitutional discretion. The appeals were allowed, and bail granted subject to conditions [Paras 248, 250, 251, 252, 253, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280, 282, 283, 284, 285, 287, 288, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319, 320, 321, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, 330, 332, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359, 360, 362, 363, 364, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389, 390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 416, 417, 418, 419, 420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 433].

Criminal Law – Bail – Woman Accused – Article 21, Constitution of India – The Court also considered Gulfisha Fatima's status as a woman as a relevant factor in the proportionality assessment under Article 21 [Paras 248, 250, 251, 252, 253, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280, 282, 283, 284, 285, 287, 288, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319, 320, 321, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, 330, 332, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359, 360, 362, 363, 364, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389, 390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 416, 417, 418, 419, 420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 433].

Criminal Law – Bail – Parity – Article 14, Constitution of India – The Court noted that the prosecution's evidentiary foundation against Gulfisha Fatima, including witness statements and electronic evidence, mirrored that against co-accused Natasha Narwal and Devangana Kalita, who were already on bail, thus invoking the principle of parity. The Court found that denying bail to Gulfisha Fatima in the absence of distinguishing material would constitute hostile discrimination, offending Article 14 [Paras 248, 250, 251, 252, 253, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280, 282, 283, 284, 285, 287, 288, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319, 320, 321, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, 330, 332, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359, 360, 362, 363, 364, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389, 390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 416, 417, 418, 419, 420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 433].

Criminal Law – Conspiracy – UAPA – Individualized Assessment – The Court emphasized that in conspiracy cases, particularly under special statutes like UAPA, an individualized assessment of each accused's role, nature of involvement, and necessity of further detention is crucial. Differentiation is intrinsic to criminal adjudication and operates irrespective of the uniformity of charges framed. The Court must distinguish between conspiratorial centrality and mere association or peripheral presence. The law does not demand that every conspirator execute the terminal act; it demands a prima facie nexus between the accused and the unlawful design, inferred from cumulative conduct [Paras 74, 75, 76, 77, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 210, 211, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 262, 266, 267, 268, 270, 271, 272, 273, 277, 278, 280, 290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 301, 302, 304, 306, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 317, 321, 325, 334, 335, 336, 337, 339, 341, 342, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349, 350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 356, 357, 358, 360, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369, 371, 373, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379, 380, 381, 382, 383, 387, 390, 392, 397, 398, 399, 400, 401, 402, 403, 405, 407, 409, 410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 421, 423, 424, 429, 430, 433, 437].

Criminal Law – Bail Conditions – UAPA – Safeguards – The Court imposed stringent conditions for the release on bail, including personal bonds, restrictions on leaving Delhi without permission, surrender of passports, furnishing residential and contact details, prohibition on contacting witnesses or participating in related activities, and abstention from public commentary on the case. These conditions were deemed substantive safeguards for national security, public order, and trial integrity [Paras 434, 435].

Decision: Appeal allowed for Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa-ur-Rehman, Mohd. Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmed – Appeal dismissed for Sharjeel Imam and Umar Khalid – [Paras 431, 433].

Arbitration – Section 11(6A) – Arbitrability of Disputes – Leave and License Agreement – Monetary Claims – Arbitrator Appointment – Exclusive Jurisdiction of Small Causes Court under Section 41 of 1882 Act – Valid Arbitration Clause Not Rendered Inoperative by Statutory Bar – Clause 33 of Agreement Held to Exist and Operative – High Court Rightly Appointed Arbitrator – Appeal Dismissed – Dispute arose from a Leave and License Agreement for premises in Malad, Mumbai – Appellant terminated the agreement and claimed refund of security deposit – Respondent claimed arrears of license fees for the lock-in period – Arbitrator appointed under Section 11, Arbitration Act – Appellant objected citing Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882, contending exclusive jurisdiction of Small Causes Court – Held: Court under Section 11(6A) to only examine the existence of arbitration agreement – Clause 33 validly provides for arbitration – Dispute on nature of claim (debt vs. license fee) to be determined by arbitral tribunal under Section 16 – Reliance on Central Warehousing judgment distinguished based on facts – Arbitration clause not rendered non-existent by Section 41 of 1882 Act – Appeal dismissed – Arbitrator to conclude proceedings in 6 months [Paras 1-28].

Arbitration – Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal – Disputes beyond original notice – Tribunal appointed on State’s request to arbitrate only one dispute – Appellant later raised additional disputes (2 to 4) before Tribunal – High Court set aside award holding lack of notice under Section 21 was fatal – Held: Tribunal had jurisdiction – Arbitration clause was wide – Respondent’s conduct amounted to waiver of objections – Tribunal rightly adjudicated all four disputes – Setting aside award on new grounds not urged before Tribunal or District Court improper [Paras 5.17–5.20, 14–15, 18].

Arbitration – Section 21 Notice – Non-issuance not fatal – Section 21 only fixes limitation – Not a bar to raising new or additional claims before tribunal if arbitration clause permits – Respondent’s reference to arbitration and conduct showed acceptance of full reference – Claimant can raise other disputes even if not mentioned in Section 21 notice – Held: High Court erred in treating Section 21 notice as jurisdictional bar [Paras 16, 18].

Arbitration – Conduct of Parties – Waiver – Respondent failed to object before adjudicator regarding limitation – Later sought to challenge all adjudicator findings – Respondent invited constitution of Tribunal and treated all four disputes as open – Held: Having participated and made submissions, respondent estopped from questioning Tribunal’s jurisdiction – Parties cannot take advantage of their own wrong [Paras 15, 28–29].

Arbitration – Finality of Adjudicator’s Decision – Clause requiring 28-day reference to arbitration for adjudicator’s decision to be challenged – Respondent delayed and later challenged decision – High Court itself found 28-day clause contrary to Section 28(b), Contract Act – Tribunal justified in treating disputes as unsettled – Adjudicator’s decision not binding [Paras 5.18, 15, 26].

Arbitration – Widely Worded Clause – Clause 25.3 allowed reference of any dispute arising out of or in connection with contract – Held: No restriction that only disputes raised in Section 21 notice could be decided – Claimant/respondent both entitled to raise/amend claims/counterclaims under Section 23 of Arbitration Act – Tribunal did not exceed jurisdiction [Paras 18, 36–38].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court judgment dated 07.01.2025 in Arbitration Appeal No. 56/2012 set aside – Award of Arbitral Tribunal dated 29.06.2006 upheld in entirety – No order as to costs.