Background & FIR Details – FIR No.227/2017 lodged at Police Station Pasi Ghat, East Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh against several accused for alleged cheating and conspiracy regarding a ₹1 Crore transaction purportedly for a property purchase in Rajasthan – Issues of jurisdiction and nature of the dispute raised – Gauhati High Court upheld FIR while Rajasthan High Court quashed it on jurisdictional grounds [Paras 2-5, 7-9].

Jurisdiction – Lack of Territorial Jurisdiction in Criminal Proceedings – Criminal appeals arising from FIR No. 227/2017 registered in Arunachal Pradesh for alleged cheating and conspiracy in real estate transactions in Rajasthan – Held, the State of Arunachal Pradesh lacks territorial jurisdiction as no part of the alleged offence occurred within its territory, all involved parties and properties located in Rajasthan – Rajasthan High Court's quashing of proceedings upheld, Gauhati High Court's order set aside. [Paras 5.5, 14, 15]

Nature of Dispute – Civil vs. Criminal – Analysis of FIR and subsequent charges for cheating involving financial transactions for land in Rajasthan – Held, the dispute primarily civil concerning transaction details and property transfer – Criminal charges inappropriate for matters that should be resolved via civil litigation – Supreme Court quashes FIR and all related criminal proceedings. [Paras 12, 13]

Criminal Law – Misuse of Legal Process – Examination of the motives and circumstances behind the registration of FIR in Arunachal Pradesh and subsequent legal actions – Held, filing and maintenance of criminal charges constituted a misuse of legal process, addressing issues more apt for civil court resolution – Entire FIR and consequent chargesheet quashed. [Paras 13, 16]

Decision: Appeals by Chandra Mohan Badaya allowed; FIR and subsequent proceedings quashed - Appeals by the State of Arunachal Pradesh dismissed; no grounds to overturn Rajasthan HC’s decision.

Murder and Attempt to Murder – Appeal against Conviction – Criminal Appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana which upheld the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 and Section 307 of the IPC – Supreme Court finds major inconsistencies and lack of credible evidence in the prosecution’s case – Held that the testimony of the main prosecution witnesses, Sharan Kaur (PW-5) and Daljit Singh (PW-6), is unreliable and not corroborated by other evidence – The alleged motive for the murder, based on jealousy over business competition, was not substantiated – The contradictory actions and statements of the key witnesses and the handling of the investigation raised doubts about the authenticity of the prosecution’s story – Acquittal of co-accused in lower courts further weakens the case against the appellant – Convictions quashed, and appellant acquitted of all charges. [Paras 1-32]

Evaluation of Evidence – Analysis of witness credibility and motive – Held – Testimonies of Sharan Kaur (PW-5) and Daljit Singh (PW-6) found to be wholly unreliable due to inconsistencies and improbabilities in their accounts – No corroborative evidence to substantiate their claims – The investigation was criticized for its handling and failure to gather supporting evidence – The motive attributed to the appellant was deemed implausible and not backed by any tangible proof. [Paras 16-31]

Judicial Assessment – Review of lower court decisions – Held – Both courts failed to critically assess the reliability of the key witnesses and overlooked significant gaps in the prosecution’s case – The Supreme Court emphasizes the importance of corroborative evidence when the key witness testimonies are questionable – Reiterates that a conviction cannot stand solely on shaky and uncorroborated witness statements. [Paras 15, 22-31]

Decision – Acquittal of the appellant – The Supreme Court acquits the appellant, Kirpal Singh, due to significant doubts about the prosecution’s version of events and the unreliability of its key witnesses – All previous convictions and sentences related to the appellant are set aside – The appeal is allowed, and any pending applications related to the case are disposed of. [Paras 32-34]

SARFAESI Act - Auction Sale Invalidity – Civil Appeal – Invalidation of auction sale confirmed by the High Court, DRT, and DRAT due to non-compliance with mandatory notice requirements under the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. Appellants' status reverted from owners back to tenants. Directions issued for the return of auction money with enhanced interest due to Bank's failure to follow statutory procedures, causing unnecessary litigation. [Paras 2-13]

Notice Requirements under SARFAESI Act – Legal Analysis – Held – Bank failed to serve mandatory 30-day notice to the borrower before conducting the auction sale, leading to the setting aside of the sale. Sale deemed invalid despite appellants’ claim of bona fide purchase and significant investment in the property. [Paras 4, 12(i)]

Financial Adjustments and Interest Rates – Determination of Compensations – Held – Appellants entitled to a refund of auction money with compound interest at 12% per annum from the date of deposit to the date of actual payment. Bank's admission of non-compliance led to enhanced interest rate as punitive measure against unnecessary litigation initiated due to procedural lapses. [Para 12(iii), 12(iv)]

Status and Possession Rights – Post Auction Sale Setting Aside – Held – With the auction sale set aside, appellants revert to tenant status. Bank not entitled to physical possession of the property; appellants remain in possession as tenants without need to vacate until lawfully evicted by the borrower. [Para 12(ii)]

Restitution and No Dues Certificate – Directions Issued – Bank instructed to return auction money along with specified interest. Obliged to issue No Dues Certificate to the borrower upon settlement of accounts, ensuring all financial transactions are properly reconciled. [Paras 13(c), 13(d)]

Decision: Appeal allowed in part – Auction sale set aside, auction money to be refunded with 12% compounded annual interest, and appellants’ status as tenants restored.

Jurisdiction of State vs. Special Court – Jurisdiction of Special Courts under UAPA – Criminal Appeal by the State of West Bengal against High Court's decision – FIR registered for offenses including under Sections 121A, 122, 123, 124A, 120B IPC and subsequently UAPA Sections added. High Court quashed proceedings asserting jurisdiction exclusively with Special Court under NIA Act for UAPA cases. Supreme Court finds that until a Special Court is designated by the State Government, Sessions Court retains jurisdiction under Section 22(3) of NIA Act. High Court's decision reversed, permitting Sessions Court to continue with the trial. [Paras 3-30]

Extension of Remand Period and Filing of Charge Sheet – Accused not applying for default bail post 90 days before charge sheet filing leads to the conclusion that irregularities in remand extension do not affect the validity of continued proceedings against the accused under UAPA. Discussion around proper jurisdiction for remand and extension under Sections 43D and 167 CrPC when Special Court is not designated. [Paras 31-37]

Legality of Orders Extending Detention and Adding UAPA Offenses – Supreme Court holds that City Sessions Court had proper jurisdiction to pass orders for adding UAPA offenses and extending detention beyond 90 days, in absence of a designated Special Court by State Government. High Court's quashing of proceedings on jurisdictional grounds found erroneous; impugned order reversed. [Paras 22-34]

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Supreme Court allows the appeal, reinstates the jurisdiction of the Sessions Court to try the UAPA charges, and sets aside the High Court judgment quashing the proceedings. [Paras 38-40]

Arbitration Law - Reversal of High Court Order – Admissibility of Agreement Post Ex-parte Decree Revocation – Supreme Court Appeal – Civil Appeal where Supreme Court reverses High Court’s order affirming arbitrator’s award. The trial pertained to disputed land owned by the State of Madhya Pradesh, allocated to Bhopal Municipal Corporation (BMC) for bus stand construction, claimed under adverse possession by Satish Jain. The Supreme Court holds that once the ex-parte decree was set aside, the underlying agreement and arbitration based on it lost their legal basis, and the High Court erred in relying on them. [Paras 1-10]

Land Ownership and Adverse Possession – Clarification of Rights – Discussion on the continued relevance of an agreement post setting aside of ex-parte decree. Supreme Court clarifies that an agreement made under the presumption of rights from a set-aside ex-parte decree holds no validity; BMC’s reliance on the invalidated decree to negotiate or enter agreements regarding the land was improper. [Paras 4-6]

Arbitration Award and Legal Error – Misapplication of Legal Principles – Supreme Court decision emphasizing that an arbitration award cannot stand when its basis, an agreement made contingent upon an ex-parte decree, is nullified by judicial review. High Court’s misapplication of legal principles in affirming the award and failing to consider the invalidation of the underlying agreement leads to the reversal of its decision. [Paras 7-8]

Future Proceedings and Legal Directions – Supreme Court directs that the trial must proceed at the Trial Court level, examining the merits based on fresh evidence, disregarding the previous ex-parte decree and the agreement derived from it. The Trial Court is instructed to ignore the invalidated arbitral award and revisit the dispute with no influence from previous flawed legal interpretations. [Para 8]

Decision – Appeal allowed, High Court’s order set aside, no order as to costs, and pending applications disposed of. The case demonstrates the necessity of re-evaluating legal positions when foundational judicial determinations are overturned. [Paras 7-10]

Jurisdiction and Interpretation of Environmental Laws – Role of Courts – Appeal against High Court order – The High Court in review jurisdiction erroneously interfered by relying on evidence produced post-decree, concerning land declared as reserved forest. Held – High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in review by effectively acting as an appellate court and reversing its own well-reasoned judgment on title and possession. [Paras 54, 56, 58]

Sustainability and Environmental Law – Reserved Forest Land – Land declared as reserved forest under Section 15 of the A.P. Forest Act, wrongly attempted to be denotified for private ownership without jurisdiction. Held – The suit for declaration of title and injunction concerning reserved forest land not maintainable as plaintiff failed to prove title and did not challenge the proceedings under the A.P. Forest Act. No jurisdiction for the district collector to deal with reserved forest land post declaration under the A.P. Forest Act. [Paras 41, 47, 57]

Error in Review – Misapplication of Jurisdiction – High Court in review jurisdiction set aside previous judgment based on inadmissible evidence, and without proper jurisdiction. Held – Review improperly granted as it amounted to a re-hearing rather than addressing any error apparent on the face of the record. Restoration of first appellate court judgment necessary to correct the error. [Paras 50, 57, 59]

Costs and Consequences – Imposition of Costs – Due to inappropriate actions by state officials and improper legal processes, costs imposed on appellants and respondents to be paid to the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA). Further direction for investigation into state officials' conduct and recovery of costs from responsible officers. [Para 59]

Decision – Environmental Law and Jurisdiction – Supreme Court allows appeal, setting aside the High Court’s review judgment and restoring the appellate judgment. Directed closure of related contempt case and dismissal of pending applications. [Para 59]

Taxation Law - Central Sales Tax – Cancellation of Form C – Rule-Making Power of State – Rule Held Ultra Vires - Rajasthan Rule 17(20) allowed authorities to cancel Form C declarations on grounds of fraud or misrepresentation – Held: State lacked legislative competence under CST Act to frame such a rule – Only Central Government can prescribe and regulate Form C under Section 13(1)(d) – State rule inconsistent with Central rules and therefore ultra vires [Paras 1, 13–16, 18].

Scope of Rule-Making – State vs Central Jurisdiction – Interpretation Clarified - Court clarified distinction between powers under Sections 13(1), 13(3), and 13(4) of CST Act – While State can frame rules under Section 13(3), they must not conflict with Central rules framed under Section 13(1)(d) – Rule 17(20) intruded into Central domain and thus violated legislative scheme [Paras 12–16].

Statutory Interpretation – No Implied Powers to Cancel Declaration – Express Provision Required - Court emphasized that cancellation of declarations like Form C must be expressly provided for by statute or validly delegated authority – Absence of such power in CST Act or Central Rules precludes State from assuming it by implication [Paras 11.1, 14–15].

Precedent – Central Government Alone Can Prescribe Declaration Requirements – Rule Quashed - Relying on State of Madras v. R. Nand Lal & Co. and other precedents, Court reiterated that only Central Government can regulate the format, usage, and cancellation of Form C declarations – Rajasthan’s unilateral rule held invalid [Para 17].

Final Decision – Appeal Dismissed – High Court Judgment Affirmed - Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision declaring Rule 17(20) ultra vires the CST Act – Appeal by State of Rajasthan dismissed with no order as to costs [Para 19].

Acquittal on Grounds of Unreliable Witness Testimony – Criminal Appeal – Supreme Court reverses High Court and trial court conviction of appellant Dharambir @ Dharma under Section 302 IPC – Highlights discrepancies and contradictions in key witness testimonies, including the lack of corroboration and the implausibility of the prosecution's scenario – Acquittal granted due to unreliable evidence and benefit of doubt extended to appellant. [Paras 1-42]

Examination of Motive and Presence at Crime Scene – Criminal Analysis – Finds the alleged motive and presence of the appellant at the crime scene not substantiated beyond reasonable doubt – Notable contradictions in witness statements regarding the seating arrangement and events post-incident – Testimony of Krishan Kumar (PW-5) deemed unreliable when challenged against physical and other testimonial evidence. [Paras 21-31, 33-34]

Judicial Handling of Extra Judicial Confessions – Legal Principle – Reiterates the established principle that extra judicial confessions are weak evidence, requiring careful judicial scrutiny and substantial corroborative evidence – Discredits the confession presented in this case due to contradictions and lack of supportive testimony. [Paras 35-36]

Decision – Acquittal of Dharambir based on unreliable witness testimony and uncorroborated extra-judicial confession - Highlighted the improbability of the prosecution's version of events - The appeal allowed, previous convictions quashed [Paras 36-40].

Service Law - Applicability of Government Orders in Promotion to Assistant Engineers – Jurisdiction and Legal Analysis – Appeals challenging the judgment of the Madras High Court which allowed writ appeals filed by respondents, reversing the earlier decision to restrict appointments of Technical Assistants to Assistant Engineers based on service and qualifications – Held, Executive instructions valid for filling gaps until formal rules are framed, as per historical precedents and existing governmental orders, ensuring promotions from Technical Assistants to Assistant Engineers based on specified conditions are lawful. [Paras 1-3, 15-17]

Regularization of Technical Assistants as Assistant Engineers – Legal Basis and Precedents – Examination of the regularized status of Technical Assistants appointed as Assistant Engineers on a temporary basis – Held, Regularization justified by Rule 48 of Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services, validated by executive orders, aligning with service requirements and not constituting backdoor appointments, thereby upholding service justice and administrative efficiency. [Paras 22-25]

Judicial Discretion in Civil Service Appeals – Equity and Legal Precedents – Discussion on the discretionary power of the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution in adjudicating service-related appeals – Held, No interference warranted with High Court’s judgment given the established practice and regularized appointments under debate, as it would disrupt settled positions and undermine service equity and justice. [Paras 26-27]

Outcome – Civil Appeal Nos. 4886 to 4889, 4892 and 5748 to 5750 of 2023 are dismissed, affirming the Division Bench’s judgment in favor of allowing promotions based on executive instructions and historical precedents, without contravention of constitutional provisions. [Para 28]