Specific Performance – Refund of Advance Sale Consideration – Appellant sought specific performance of a sale agreement or, alternatively, refund of the advance paid – Trial Court directed refund of Rs. 18,00,000/- – High Court reduced the amount to Rs. 3,00,000/- – Supreme Court examines the evidence to determine the correctness of the High Court's findings [Paras 1-13].

Evidence – Proof of Payment – Supreme Court finds that the plaintiff failed to provide positive evidence to corroborate the payment of Rs. 15,00,000/- as additional advance – Agreement and endorsement scrutinized – Lack of supporting documents and inconsistencies noted [Paras 10-12].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Supreme Court upholds the High Court's modification of the refund amount – Confirms that the plaintiff proved payment of Rs. 3,00,000/- only, not Rs. 18,00,000/- as claimed [Para 13].

Criminal Law – Quashing of Complaint – Appellants, trustees of a trust, entered into agreements for sale with the respondent and his brother – Subsequent disputes led to civil suits and criminal complaints – Respondent’s complaint alleged conspiracy and fraud by the appellants – Supreme Court examines the validity of the complaint in light of subsequent settlement and withdrawal of the civil suit [Paras 1-18].

Abuse of Process – Settlement and Withdrawal – Court finds that the respondent had withdrawn his claim in the civil suit, acknowledging a settlement – Continuing the criminal complaint was deemed an abuse of the process of law – Complaint quashed [Paras 10-17].

Section 362 CrPC – Scope of Bar – Supreme Court clarifies that while Section 362 bars alteration of judgments in criminal cases, it does not preclude the High Court from entertaining a substantive writ petition under Article 226 to quash a complaint [Paras 15-16].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Criminal complaint quashed – Supreme Court emphasizes the importance of preventing abuse of the judicial process when a settlement has been reached and acknowledged by both parties [Paras 17-18].

Cinematic Speech – Free Expression vs. Dignity – Supreme Court evaluates the conflict between the filmmaker's right to free speech under Article 19(1)(a) and the rights of persons with disabilities to dignity and non-discrimination under Articles 14, 15, and 21, and the RPwD Act – Emphasizes the need for sensitive portrayal of disabilities in films [Paras 1-70].

Derogatory Portrayal – Stereotypes – Court highlights the historically oppressive representation of persons with disabilities in media – Notes that while humour can be a tool for engagement, it must not reinforce harmful stereotypes – Distinguishes between 'disability humour' and 'disabling humour' [Paras 26-66].

Test of Proportionality – Balancing Rights – Court outlines that disparaging portrayals must be justified by the overall message of the film – If the portrayal of persons with disabilities is stereotypical but serves a broader, positive narrative, it may be permissible – Proportionality test applied to balance filmmaker’s free speech and rights of persons with disabilities [Paras 67-74].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Supreme Court upholds the High Court’s dismissal of the writ petition – Emphasizes the importance of considering the overall message of the film and the filmmaker’s intent – Recommends guidelines for sensitive portrayal of disabilities but refrains from judicial interference in certification decisions made by expert bodies [Paras 71-74].

Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – Appellant convicted for the murder of a 14-year-old girl, supported by circumstantial evidence – High Court upheld the conviction based on the identification of the appellant by witnesses – Supreme Court examines the reliability of the identification and the necessity of a Test Identification Parade (TIP) [Paras 1-16].

Eyewitness Testimony – Identification – Supreme Court finds the identification of the appellant by witnesses unreliable due to the absence of a TIP and the witnesses only seeing the appellant wearing a monkey cap, which obscured his facial features – Highlights the importance of TIP in cases involving strangers [Paras 9-13].

Circumstantial Evidence – Recovery of Incriminating Material – Court questions the validity of recoveries made without proper judicial procedures – Finds that the evidence against the appellant does not establish his identity beyond a reasonable doubt [Paras 8-10].

Test Identification Parade (TIP) – Necessity and Conduct – Supreme Court emphasizes the importance of TIP in ensuring the reliability of witness identification in cases involving strangers – Criticizes the prosecution for not conducting a TIP and relying solely on dock identification [Paras 12-15].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant acquitted and directed to be released unless required in connection with any other case [Para 16].

Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – Appellant convicted for the murder of his roommate over a dispute regarding playing music – Trial court’s judgment upheld by the High Court – Supreme Court examines the reliability of the prosecution’s evidence, including hostile witnesses, extra-judicial confessions, and dying declarations [Paras 1-15].

Eyewitness Testimony – Hostile Witnesses – Supreme Court finds that the testimonies of hostile witnesses were insufficient to support the prosecution’s case – Highlights inconsistencies and the lack of direct evidence linking the appellant to the crime [Paras 4-14].

Extra-Judicial Confession – Admissibility and Reliability – Court questions the credibility of the extra-judicial confession made to PW-19, noting the absence of supporting evidence, such as phone records and the non-examination of PSI Mishra, who was allegedly present during the confession [Paras 6-8].

Dying Declaration – Doubtful Credibility – Supreme Court finds the dying declaration made to PW-24 unconvincing due to inconsistencies in witness testimonies and the deceased's condition at the time of the statement [Paras 9-10].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant acquitted and directed to be released unless required in connection with any other case [Para 15].

Service Law – Reservation for Disabled Candidates – The respondent, a 100% visually impaired candidate, appeared in the CSE-2008 but was denied an appointment – Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and the Delhi High Court directed the Union of India to fill backlog vacancies as per the PWD Act, 1995 – Supreme Court upholds CAT and High Court decisions, directs the Union of India to reconsider the backlog vacancies and accommodate the respondent and other similarly placed candidates [Paras 1-5].

Compliance with PWD Act – The Supreme Court observed that the Union of India failed to implement the provisions of the PWD Act, 1995, resulting in unfilled backlog vacancies – It was noted that IRS (IT) and IRS (C&E) services were not exempted from the reservation for the visually impaired as per Section 33 of the PWD Act – Court directed the Union of India to redo the exercise of ascertaining backlog vacancies for visually impaired candidates [Paras 6-11].

Section 36 of the PWD Act – The Court emphasized the need for interchange of vacancies among different categories of disabilities as per Section 36 of the PWD Act to ensure that eligible candidates are accommodated – This was particularly important given the gross default by the Union of India in implementing the PWD Act provisions [Paras 10-15].

Decision – Appeal disposed of with directions – Union of India to consider respondent no.1 and other eligible visually impaired candidates for appointment against backlog vacancies within three months – Appointments to be prospective, with no arrears of salary or seniority benefits – Directions issued as a one-time measure under Article 142 of the Constitution of India [Paras 15-15(e)].

Central Excise – Determination of Valuation – Issue concerning the applicability of Section 4 or Section 4A of the Central Excise Act for the goods sold by the respondent – Tribunal’s decision set aside by the Supreme Court – Section 4A applies when there is a statutory requirement to declare retail sale price on the package – HDPE bags sold by the respondent to distributors containing poly packs were held not intended for retail sale, thus exempt from Section 4A application [Paras 1-19].

Packaging Rules – Retail vs. Wholesale Packages – Analysis of whether the respondent’s packaging constitutes group packages for retail sale or wholesale packages – HDPE bags containing 100 poly packs sold to distributors held as wholesale packages not intended for retail sale – Exemption under Rule 34(b) applied due to the nature and weight of the packages [Paras 11-17].

Details of Allegations – Show Cause Notices – Allegations that the respondent-assessee was packing 33 pouches of 6 gms each of chewing tobacco and one pouch of 15 gms of chewing tobacco in a larger poly pack – Poly packs labeled with MRP considered group packages intended for retail sale – Contention by revenue that such packaging requires duty payment under Section 4A of the Excise Act – Respondent’s defense that HDPE bags containing poly packs were not meant for retail sale, and hence Section 4A was inapplicable [Paras 1-4, 7-9].

Tribunal’s Findings – Tribunal relied on the decision in Commissioner of Central Excise, Vapi v. Kraftech Products Inc. to conclude that Section 4A was not applicable – Tribunal's conclusion supported by the Supreme Court, emphasizing that HDPE bags were wholesale packages and not intended for retail sale [Paras 4, 18-19].

Commissioner’s Order – Initial Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner confirming demand for differential duty, interest, and penalty on the poly packs – Commissioner’s findings that poly packs were intended for retail sale based on declarations made on the packages – HDPE bags were considered wholesale packages, not subject to retail sale price declaration requirements under Rule 29 [Paras 3-4, 14-16].

Legal Provisions – Interpretation of Section 4A of the Excise Act in conjunction with the Standards of Weights & Measures (Packaged Commodity) Rules – Definition and differentiation of group packages and wholesale packages under Rules 2(g) and 2(x) – Retail sale defined under Rule 2(q) – Application of Rule 34(b) exemption for packages containing commodities sold by weight with net weight not exceeding 10 gms [Paras 9-11].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Tribunal’s judgment upheld – Section 4A(1) of the Excise Act not applicable to the goods subject matter of the show cause notices – HDPE bags treated as wholesale packages exempt from declaring retail price [Paras 18-19].

Suspension of Sentence – Petitioner’s plea for suspension of sentence rejected by High Court – Petitioner aged seventy and 90% visually impaired – High Court’s failure to consider age, health, and two years already served – Supreme Court emphasizes need for application of correct principles for suspension of fixed-term sentences – Casual and mechanical approach by High Court criticized [Paras 1-6].

Bail Pending Appeal – Petitioner’s health and age significant factors – High Court’s orders lacked reasoning and consideration of exceptional circumstances – Supreme Court orders release on bail pending appeal with conditions as deemed fit by trial court [Paras 7-8].

Decision: Special Leave Petition allowed – Petitioner ordered to be released on bail subject to terms and conditions imposed by the trial court [Para 8].

Arrest under PMLA – Legality – Appeal against the High Court’s rejection of a criminal writ petition challenging the arrest by the Directorate of Enforcement (DoE) – Supreme Court examines compliance with statutory preconditions under Section 19 of the PMLA – Emphasizes mandatory recording and furnishing of ‘reasons to believe’ – Judicial scrutiny of the validity of arrest under Section 19(1) upheld – Arrest found non-compliant with statutory requirements, deemed illegal [Paras 1-40].

Statutory Safeguards – Compliance – DoE’s argument of non-furnishing of ECIR and grounds of arrest distinguished – Court mandates that arrestee must be provided with reasons to believe and grounds of arrest for judicial review – Ensures the balance between investigation requirements and protection of personal liberty [Paras 22-38].

Judicial Review – Scope – Court delineates scope of judicial review in matters of arrest under PMLA – Establishes that judicial scrutiny must confirm compliance with statutory conditions and constitutional rights – Prevents arbitrary exercise of power by enforcing stringent safeguards against pre-trial arrest [Paras 39-43].

Constitutional Mandate – Article 22(1) – Court reiterates the importance of informing the arrested person of the grounds of arrest as per Article 22(1) – Emphasizes that the power to arrest must be exercised with care and accountability to uphold the constitutional rights [Paras 10-12, 15-16].

Preconditions for Arrest – Interpretation of Section 19(1) of PMLA – Court interprets the expressions “reason to believe”, “guilty of an offence punishable under this Act”, and “material” – Highlights the necessity for objective assessment of material before forming ‘reason to believe’ – Specifies that mere suspicion is insufficient for arrest under PMLA [Paras 9, 24-28, 31-36].

Comparison with Cr.P.C. – Distinction between Sections 41 and 167 of Cr.P.C. and Section 19 of PMLA – Court notes stricter safeguards under PMLA – Emphasizes that judicial scrutiny is necessary to ensure compliance with higher standards set by PMLA for arrest [Paras 40-42].

Decision:

Appeal allowed – Arrest declared illegal due to non-compliance with Section 19(1) of PMLA – Orders of arrest and remand set aside – Appellant granted liberty to seek appropriate relief for damages and other consequences arising from the illegal arrest [Para 44-45].