Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant, finding that the conviction based solely on the "Last seen together" theory and the extra judicial confession of a co-accused was insufficient. The Court emphasized that the time gap between the accused last being seen with the deceased and the discovery of the deceased's body was too large to conclusively link the appellant to the crime [Paras 1-19]. Circumstantial Evidence – Homicidal Death – The Court noted that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the deaths were homicidal, given that the postmortem report suggested the possibility of suicide. Without establishing homicidal death, the conviction under Section 302 IPC could not be sustained [Paras 8-10]. Last Seen Together Theory – Insufficient for Conviction – The Court reiterated that the "Last seen together" theory alone cannot be the basis for conviction unless the time gap is minimal and other corroborative evidence is present. In this case, the significant time gap weakened the prosecution's case [Paras 13-18]. Extra Judicial Confession – Weak Evidence – The Court held that extra judicial confessions are inherently weak and must be corroborated by other strong evidence to sustain a conviction. In this case, the extra judicial confession did not meet this standard [Paras 11-12].

Decision: Appeal allowed – The conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC are set aside – The appellant is acquitted of all charges and ordered to be released forthwith.

Securities Law – Manipulative Trading – The Supreme Court upheld the SEBI order barring the appellant from proprietary trading for four years. The Court found that the appellant engaged in manipulative self-trades to inflate share prices, causing detriment to investors. The penalty was deemed proportionate to the gravity of the offense [Paras 1-15].

Penalty and Proportionality – The Court noted that penalties under SEBI regulations aim to preserve market integrity and prevent abuse. The imposition of a trading ban, despite being harsh, was not disproportionate considering the appellant's manipulative actions [Paras 10-14].

Investor Protection – Emphasized the importance of protecting investors' wealth and maintaining confidence in the securities market. The Court highlighted that manipulative trading practices harm market integrity and investor trust [Paras 12-14].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – The SEBI order restraining the appellant from proprietary trading for four years is upheld.

Bail Cancellation – High Court's Error – The Supreme Court canceled the bail granted to the second respondent, noting that the High Court failed to consider crucial aspects such as the pending examination of important witnesses and the risk of witness tampering. The Court emphasized the nature and gravity of the offense and the role attributed to the second respondent [Paras 10-11].

Fair Trial – Witness Examination – The Court highlighted that the release of the second respondent on bail could impede a fair trial, especially given the apprehension of witness tampering. The ongoing trial's completion was directed to be expedited [Para 10].

Discretionary Power – Improper Exercise – The Supreme Court found the High Court's exercise of discretion in granting bail to be improper, given the circumstances of the case and the material evidence against the second respondent [Para 11].

Decision: Appeal allowed – The High Court's order dated 2 March 2022 granting bail is set aside – The second respondent is to surrender forthwith – The trial court is directed to conduct and conclude the trial expeditiously within one year [Paras 12-13].

Service Law – Civil Judges Selection – The Supreme Court held that the rejection of candidates on the technical ground of non-production of original certificates at the time of the interview was improper, unjustified, and not warranted. The Court noted that there were vacancies available, which, if filled by meritorious candidates, would benefit the institution by helping in the disposal of cases pending in large numbers [Paras 16-17].

Adjustment of Candidates – The Court directed that the eight appellants, who had secured higher marks than the last selected candidates in their respective categories, be allowed to join forthwith. They would be entitled to seniority as per their merit but not to any arrears of salary for the intervening period. The State was directed to adjust three candidates from reserved categories against future vacancies or borrow posts from future vacancies [Paras 17-19].

Non-Production of Original Certificates – The Court observed that non-production of original certificates at the time of the interview, despite later submission, should not result in the cancellation of candidatures, especially when the candidates were duly qualified and had scored higher marks than the last selected candidates [Paras 9-14].

Decision: Appeals allowed – The rejection of candidatures and the impugned judgments of the High Court are set aside. The appellants are to be allowed to join immediately with seniority as per merit but without arrears of salary for the intervening period [Paras 19-20].

Contempt of Court – Advocate's Conduct – The Supreme Court upheld the conviction and sentencing of the appellant under Sections 2(c)(iii) and 12(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971. The Court found that the appellant's behavior was thoroughly contemptuous and involved a clear attempt to obstruct the process of justice. The appellant's actions included preventing the execution of a non-bailable warrant and obstructing police officials, as recorded in video footage [Paras 2-5].

Disproportionate Sentence – The Court rejected the argument that the sentence was disproportionate, affirming both the two weeks' imprisonment and the one-year debarment from practicing as an advocate. The decision was consistent with the precedent set in R.K. Anand vs Registrar Delhi High Court (2009) 8 SCC 106 [Paras 6-8].

Abuse of Judicial Process – The appellant's conduct included leveling wanton allegations against a Single Judge of the Madras High Court and seeking the recusal of a judge on improper grounds. The Court noted the appellant's lack of respect for the administration of justice, as evidenced by his multiple adjournments and improper applications [Paras 8].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – The conviction and sentencing, including the debarment from practicing as an advocate for one year, are upheld [Para 9].

Service Law – Equal Pay for Equal Work – The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision that the appellants, appointed as Shiksha Karmis under the Shiksha Karmis Rules 1998, are not entitled to the same pay-scale as Municipal teachers appointed under the Rules 1968. The Court found that Shiksha Karmis and Municipal teachers are governed by different rules with different methods of selection and recruitment, precluding parity in pay-scales based on the principle of equal pay for equal work [Paras 6-8].

Probation and Regular Pay-Scale – The Court clarified that upon completion of the probation period under Rule 7 of the Shiksha Karmis Rules 1998, Shiksha Karmis are entitled to regular pay-scales as Shiksha Karmis, not as Municipal teachers. The pay-scales for Shiksha Karmis are specified under Rule 4 and Schedule I of the 1998 Rules [Paras 3-7].

General Conditions of Service – The Court noted that Rule 11 of the Shiksha Karmis Rules 1998, which states that conditions of service other than those mentioned will be the same as applicable to other Municipality employees, pertains to aspects like leave, superannuation, and provident fund, not pay-scales [Paras 4.3, 7].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – The appellants are entitled to pay-scales under the Shiksha Karmis Rules 1998 only. The High Court's judgment is upheld, and the appeal is dismissed without any order as to costs [Paras 8-9].

Investigation – Preliminary Enquiry Report – The Supreme Court held that when the State has not claimed any specific privilege that bars the disclosure of material utilized in the preliminary investigation, the High Court should not have kept the report in a sealed cover. The appellant is entitled to the preliminary enquiry report and associated documents, ensuring a fair trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution [Paras 18-29].

Criminal Procedure – Section 207 CrPC – The Court emphasized that the mandate of Section 207 of CrPC, which provides for the supply of documents to the accused after the Magistrate takes cognizance, should not be interpreted rigidly to violate the rights of the accused and principles of natural justice. The initiation of the FIR stemmed from writ proceedings where the State re-examined the issue contrary to its own affidavit and the preliminary report [Paras 24-26].

Prosecution Conduct – Fair Trial – The Court stressed that prosecution by the State must align with the right to a fair trial. The High Court erred by not providing the appellant an opportunity to defend himself based on the material that initially exonerated him [Paras 27-28].

Decision: Appeal allowed – The High Court's order is set aside, and the preliminary enquiry report is to be provided to the appellant. The writ petition and criminal petition are restored for the High Court's consideration on their merits [Paras 29-30].

Mines and Minerals – Sale of Iron Ore – The Supreme Court granted permission to the applicants to sell the already excavated iron ore stock-pile at various mines and stock yards located in the Districts of Bellary, Tumkur, and Chitradurga in the State of Karnataka without having to resort to the process of e-auction. Permission was also granted to the applicants to enter into direct contracts to lift the excavated iron ore through inter-state sales and export the iron ore and pellets manufactured from the iron ore produced from the mines situated in the State of Karnataka to countries abroad, in accordance with the extant policy of the Government of India [Paras 29-30].

Restoration of Normalcy – The Court noted that the situation prevalent in the region prior to the year 2011 had changed for the better, with regeneration post the damage caused to the environment and various steps taken by the Government. As such, the order passed on 23rd September 2011, mandating e-auctions, deserved relaxation [Para 29].

Market Forces – The Court agreed with the Ministries of Steel and Mines that demand, supply, and price of iron ore are best determined by market forces and thus removed the restrictions on the manner of conducting the sale of iron ore and fixation of sale prices [Para 29].

Decision: Applications allowed – The applicants are permitted to sell the already excavated iron ore stock-pile without resorting to e-auction, enter into direct contracts for inter-state sales, and export iron ore and pellets, subject to the extant policy of the Government of India [Paras 30-31].

Criminal Law – Burden of Proof – High Court convicted appellants under Section 304(II) IPC, modifying conviction from Section 302 IPC – Supreme Court upheld High Court's decision – Emphasized Section 106 of the Evidence Act, shifting burden to appellants to explain circumstances leading to death – Chain of events established by prosecution sufficed to uphold conviction [Paras 1-27].

Evidence Act – Section 106 – Special Knowledge – Applied when prosecution establishes a prima facie case – Accused must explain facts within their knowledge – Failure to provide a credible explanation reinforces guilt [Paras 18-24].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – High Court's judgment affirmed – Appellants to surrender before Trial Court within two weeks – Bail bonds cancelled [Paras 26-27].