Criminal Appeal – Director's Liability in Negotiable Instruments Act Case – Appeals against High Court’s order regarding liability of resigned directors for cheque dishonour under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Issues concerning the applicability of Section 141 of the N.I. Act to directors who have resigned at the time of the offence. Appeals allowed, and criminal proceedings quashed. [Para 2, 4, 11]

Resignation of Directors – Impact on Liability – Examination of the impact of directors' resignation, as recorded in Form 32 as per the Companies Act, on their liability for cheques issued after their resignation. Determination of no liability for appellants due to resignation prior to the date of cheque issuance. [Para 3(b), 3(c), 10]

Judicial Precedents – Requirement of Necessary Averments in Complaint – Reference to judgments in Monaben Ketanbhai Shah v. State of Gujarat and S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla, emphasizing the need for specific averments in a complaint to establish vicarious liability of directors. [Para 5, 6]

Inherent Powers Under Section 482 CrPC – Non-interference in Negotiable Instrument Cases – Guidelines for exercising inherent powers under Section 482 of CrPC in cases involving negotiable instruments, emphasizing the need for unimpeachable evidence or circumstances to quash proceedings at the initial stage. [Para 7]

High Court's Analysis – Lack of Discussion on Factual Matrix – Critique of High Court’s approach in not addressing the specific factual circumstances of the appellants' case, leading to the setting aside of the High Court's judgments. [Para 8]

Dismissal of Criminal Proceedings – Resigned Directors Not Liable – Concluding that the appellants, having resigned before the issuance of the cheques, are not liable and thereby quashing all criminal proceedings against them related to the said cheques. [Para 10, 11]

Appeal Outcome – Appeals Allowed – Conclusion with the allowance of the appeals and the disposal of any pending applications. [Para 12]

Criminal Appeal – Conviction and Sentence Modification – Appeal against the High Court order affirming the conviction under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 – Appellant, a doctor, found in possession of allopathic medicines without proper paperwork – Conviction under Section 18(A) read with Section 28 of the Act upheld, but sentence modified to fine only. [Para 2, 7-13]

Possession of Drugs – Unauthorized Possession and Disclosure Requirement – Appellant found possessing allopathic drugs without a license – Conviction for non-disclosure of the manufacturer's name under Section 18(A) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act upheld – Lower appellate court set aside conviction under Section 18(c) for lack of proof of intention to sell/distribute. [Para 3.1-3.7, 11-12]

Sentencing – Consideration of Appellant's Profession and Intent – Appellant, a doctor, without proven intent to sell/distribute – Supreme Court modifies sentence to a fine, considering the appellant's professional background and the small quantity of drugs involved. [Para 7, 11, 13]

Judgment – Modification of Sentence – Supreme Court sets aside the sentence of imprisonment, imposing a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- instead – Appeal allowed in part with exemption from surrendering made absolute. [Para 13-14]

Criminal Procedure – Bail Reform – Monitoring Compliance with Satender Kumar Antil Guidelines – Comprehensive Review and Fresh Directions Issued – Supreme Court examines detailed compliance affidavits submitted by States, UTs, High Courts, CBI, and NALSA – Accepts Amicus Curiae’s report dated 10.02.2024 highlighting inconsistencies and lapses – Issues fresh directions for each jurisdiction to furnish detailed updates within 8 weeks – Non-compliance or contradiction flagged for explanation – Phase-wise monitoring initiated starting 07.05.2024 for first 10 entities [Paras A–H]

Training and Legal Curriculum – Awareness of Judicial and Prosecutorial Stakeholders – Court reiterates the importance of periodic training and legal orientation of prosecutors and inclusion of judgments in judicial curricula – Directions issued for compliance with previous orders dated 03.02.2023 and 21.03.2023 – High Courts directed to ensure that Siddharth v. State of UP and Satender Kumar Antil are included in training programmes – Prosecutors to be instructed to follow accurate legal positions in line with the Supreme Court rulings [Paras D, E, F, G]

Undertrial Prisoners – Standard Operating Procedure for Support to Indigent Accused – SOP submitted by Union Government formally adopted – Scheme establishes financial aid via District and State Empowered Committees – Jail authorities, DLSAs, and other stakeholders given strict timelines for identifying eligible prisoners and disbursing funds – Support capped at ₹40,000 for bail and ₹25,000 for fine, with provision for approval of higher amounts by Oversight Committees – Excludes cases under PC Act, PMLA, NDPS, UAPA [Para I]

Coordination Mechanism – Email ID Authorized for Monitoring and Reporting – Court authorizes Amicus Curiae to create and circulate a dedicated email ID for centralized submission of compliance affidavits and inter-party communications – Ensures transparency and procedural efficiency [Para J]

CBI and Union of India – Directed to Report on Arrest Procedures and Bail Law Initiative – CBI required to disclose compliance with investigative and prosecutorial training requirements – Union Government to clarify whether a comprehensive Bail Law is under consideration and provide data on Special CBI Courts in high-pendency districts [Para G, Para 37–38]

Decision: Directions Issued – Compliance Reports to be Filed by All Stakeholders within 8 Weeks – Amicus to Review and Submit Summary – Matter to be Taken Up in Phases Beginning 07.05.2024 with First 10 Entities

Criminal Appeals – Interim Orders by High Court – Appeals against High Court's interim orders staying FIRs and ECIR proceedings against respondents in cases involving IHFL, M3M India Pvt. Ltd., and others – High Court orders based on Supreme Court's earlier order – Appeals heard together due to interconnected nature. [Para 2, 16]

Financial Transactions and FIRs – IHFL Loans to Shipra Group – Allegations of illegal actions by IHFL in recovering dues from Shipra Group, leading to multiple FIRs and an ECIR against IHFL and its officers – FIRs alleging misappropriation and undervaluation in recovery process. [Para 5-10, 12]

Judicial Approach to Staying Investigations – High Court's power to stay investigations under Section 482 of CrPC – Criticism of routine stays on investigations or coercive actions against accused – Importance of allowing police investigations in cognizable offenses – Supreme Court guidelines for High Courts in granting interim stays. [Para 17, 20-22]

Guidelines for High Courts – High Courts must exercise caution in granting interim stays on investigations – Interim orders not to be passed routinely, casually, or mechanically – High Courts to clarify reasons for interim orders, demonstrating application of mind – Interim orders to be specific and not vague, ensuring clear understanding and application. [Para 22]

Judgment – High Court's interim orders set aside – Supreme Court finds High Court orders not in line with settled legal principles – Instructions for High Courts to follow guidelines in issuing interim orders during investigations – Appeals allowed, interim protections for respondents vacated. [Para 23-27]

Defamation Allegation Based on Public Statement - Petitioner, Tejashwi Prasad Yadav, accused of defaming Gujarati community through a public statement - Complaint filed in Ahmedabad court, with petitioner seeking transfer to Delhi [Para 1-2].

Petitioner's Statement and Subsequent Affidavits - Original statement made in the context of a question about Mehul Choksi - Petitioner's affidavits clarify context and withdraw the offending statement, asserting no intention to defame Gujaratis [Paras 3-5, 8].

Quashing of Defamation Case - Court's consideration under Article 142 of the Constitution of India for complete justice - Acknowledgment of petitioner's withdrawal and clarification of statement - Decision to quash the complaint as continuation of prosecution deemed unjust [Paras 9-11].

Disposal of Transfer Petition - With quashing of the complaint, the need for transfer petition becomes irrelevant - Petition disposed of [Para 12].

Civil Appeal – Property Dispute – Inheritance Rights – Appeal against High Court’s order in a property dispute involving settlement deeds and inheritance rights. A mother transferred property to her sons and daughter in 1947, leading to legal battles over subsequent settlement deeds and claims of inheritance rights by various family members. [Para 1-14]

Settlement Deeds – Validity and Legal Sanctity – Examination of the validity and legal sanctity of multiple settlement deeds executed by family members over the years, impacting the inheritance rights and distribution of property. [Para 3-7.1]

Limitation Act – Applicability and Interpretation – Analysis of the applicability and interpretation of the Limitation Act in the context of property disputes and inheritance claims, specifically focusing on the time frame for filing suits and claiming rights. [Para 12-17, 22-23, 32]

Adverse Possession – Concept and Legal Requirements – Discussion on the concept of adverse possession, its legal requirements, and its application in property disputes, particularly in the context of long-term possession and inheritance rights. [Para 20-21]

Specific Relief Act – Declaration of Status or Right – Exploration of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, regarding the discretion of courts in declaring status or right, and the necessity of seeking further relief beyond mere declaration of title in property disputes. [Para 24-31]

Decision – Restoration of Trial and First Appellate Court Judgments – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment in Second Appeal No. 1926 of 2004, restoring the decisions of the Learned Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, which dismissed Gopalakrishnan’s suit on the grounds of limitation and non-maintainability. [Para 35-36]

Grant of Anticipatory Bail Challenged – State's appeal against the High Court's decision granting anticipatory bail to the respondent-accused in connection with the seizure of 232.5 kg of ganja, exceeding the commercial quantity as defined in the NDPS Act. [Para 2]

Involvement in Drug Offences – Respondent-accused indicted as a conspirator for procurement/supply of ganja. High Court ignored respondent's previous involvement in similar NDPS Act cases. [Paras 3, 6]

High Court's Approach Criticized – Supreme Court noted the High Court's failure to consider the commercial quantity of the drugs and the respondent's criminal history. Also, the peculiar conditions imposed by the High Court for anticipatory bail, including a financial deposit to an advocate's association, criticized as unrelated to bail jurisprudence. [Paras 5, 6, 13]

Requirements for Bail Under NDPS Act – Section 37 of the NDPS Act requires courts to be satisfied with the accused's non-guilt and non-commitment of any offence while on bail, especially in cases involving commercial quantities of drugs. [Para 9]

Quashing of Anticipatory Bail – Supreme Court found the High Court's order cryptic and perverse, quashing the anticipatory bail and setting aside the order. Respondent-accused directed to surrender within 10 days. [Paras 14, 15, 17]

Right to Legal Representation – Fundamental Rights Violation: Challenge to the resolution of the Mysore Bar Association, dated 16th March 2019, prohibiting its members from filing vakalatnama on behalf of the petitioner – Considered a violation of the petitioner's fundamental right to legal representation and the lawyers' right to practice their profession – Supreme Court quashed the resolution as unconstitutional [Paras 2, 3].

Non-Appearance of Respondent No. 3: Despite repeated notices and orders to be served through the Commissioner of Police, Mysore, respondent no. 3 (Mysore Bar Association) failed to appear before the Court – Proceedings continued ex-parte [Paras 1, 2].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – The impugned resolution of the Mysore Bar Association quashed for being in violation of fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution – Pending application(s), if any, disposed of [Paras 3, 4, 5].

High Court Order Challenged – Accused facing trial under NDPS Act requested call details of Seizure Officer and police officials – High Court directed immediate decision on such applications – Challenged by State of Rajasthan. [Paras 3-4]

Legal Position of Section 91 Cr.P.C. – Established by State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi (2005) 1 SCC 568 – Accused's right to invoke Section 91 typically arises at the defence stage, not at the charge framing stage. [Para 6]

Nitya Dharmananda Case Reference – Emphasizes the court's obligation to justice but maintains that Section 91 cannot be invoked by accused at charge framing stage. [Para 7]

Supreme Court's Decision – Overturned High Court's order – Held that the accused can file application at appropriate stage, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. [Para 8-10]