Arrest Procedure under PMLA – Appellant's arrest by ED challenged – Question of law: legality of ED's practice of not furnishing a copy of arrest grounds to the arrestee at the time of arrest – Appellant contends violation of Section 19 of PMLA and fundamental rights under the Constitution. [Para 3]

Factual Background – Appellant, founder of M/s Supertech Limited, faced multiple FIRs and a PMLA investigation – Arrested without a copy of the arrest grounds provided at the time, which led to the legal challenge. [Paras 4(i)-(vi)]

ED's Compliance Assertion – ED asserts compliance with Section 19 of PMLA – Claimed to have provided the arrest grounds document, which the appellant read and signed. [Para 5]

Appellant's Rejoinder – Appellant argues non-service of arrest grounds at the time of arrest is an illegality, stressing the importance of serving the grounds as per Supreme Court precedents. [Para 6]

Supreme Court's Analysis – Reviewed the constitutionality and interpretation of Section 19 of PMLA – Considered the mandate of informing the arrestee of arrest grounds. [Paras 10-22]

Decision and Rationale – Appeal dismissed – Court held that informing the appellant orally about the arrest grounds and providing a written communication within 24 hours is compliant with Section 19 of PMLA and the Constitution – The practice prior to the Pankaj Bansal judgment was deemed sufficient. [Paras 23-25]

Slum Rehabilitation Scheme – Mumbai Slums – Legal challenge to the allotment process of a Slum Rehabilitation Scheme under the Maharashtra Slum Areas Act, 1971. The appeal contests the High Court’s decision dismissing a writ petition concerning the Slum Rehabilitation Authority’s allotment methods in the redevelopment of slums in Lower Parel Division, Mumbai. [Paras 1-2, 3-5, 7, 8]

Development and Allotment Dispute – A dispute arose over the allotment of residential units in towers D, E, and F, with claims based on a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between a minority group of slum dwellers (Appellants) and a Developer. The High Court found the MoU, which deviated from standard SRA procedures, legally untenable. [Paras 9-14, 16-19, 22]

Legal Provisions for Allotment – The SRA’s guidelines under DCR 1991 and Circular No. 162, dated 23.10.2015, mandate the allotment of rehabilitation tenements through a lottery system, ensuring fairness and compliance with the law. [Paras 21, 25-26]

Court’s Decision – The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, dismissing the appeal. The Court emphasized the statutory authority of the SRA and the non-enforceability of private agreements like the MoU in matters of public policy and welfare. It directed SRA to proceed with the allotment as per legal norms and reprimanded the Developer for bypassing statutory procedures. [Paras 22-26]

Arbitration Clause in Property Agreements – Applicability to Subsequent Development Agreements and Conveyance Deed – Tripartite Agreements dated 31.03.2007 and 25.07.2008 containing arbitration clauses form the basis of subsequent Development Agreements and a Conveyance Deed – Disputes arising out of these agreements referred to arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act. [Paras 2, 5-6]

Judicial Intervention in Arbitration – Limited Role Post 2015 Amendment to Arbitration Act – Courts to minimize interference in arbitration matters, primarily ensuring existence of a valid arbitration agreement. [Paras 7, 17]

Suit for Cancellation of Deed – Action in Personam, not in Rem – Following precedent in Deccan Paper Mills v. Regency Mahavir Properties, dispute related to cancellation of a deed recognized as an action in personam, suitable for arbitration. [Para 19]

Fraud Allegations in Arbitration – Need for Substantiation – Mere allegations of fraud without serious implications in the public domain do not preclude arbitration. [Para 20]

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – No interference warranted by the Supreme Court in the decisions of the Trial Court and High Court to refer the dispute to arbitration. [Para 21]

Suspension of Conviction under Section 389(1) of the CrPC – Requisites for Stay of Conviction – Disqualification of Member of Parliament – Appellant’s conviction under Section 3(1) of the UP Gangsters Act led to disqualification under Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act – High Court refused to stay the conviction – Supreme Court examined parameters for suspension of conviction and effects on parliamentary representation. [Paras 2, 16, 54-55, 61, 66, 80-81]

Impact on Constituency Representation – Loss of Representation in Parliament – Appellant’s claim that Ghazipur constituency would go unrepresented and his inability to contest future elections – Considered in light of legal principles and constituents' interests – Court held that parliamentary disqualification should not be easily circumvented. [Paras 57-59, 68-69, 78-79]

MPLADS Projects – Effect on Developmental Works – Appellant’s claim regarding the impact on projects initiated under the MPLAD Scheme – Considered within the framework of MPLADS Guidelines – Supreme Court found no substantial irreversible consequences for the constituency from appellant’s disqualification. [Paras 73-76]

Decision:

Appeal dismissed – High Court’s decision not to stay the conviction upheld – Emphasis on adherence to rule of law and equality before law in parliamentary representation – High Court directed to decide the appeal on merits at the earliest. [Para 81]

Dissenting Opinion (Justice Dipankar Datta):

Justice Dipankar Datta disagreed with the majority view – He emphasized the need to uphold rule of law and not to provide special treatment to a parliamentarian – Highlighted the absence of exceptional circumstances warranting a stay of conviction – Focused on the sanctity of democratic processes and legal accountability. [Paras 54-55, 80-82]

Equating Party to Suit with a Witness – Analysis Under CPC and Indian Evidence Act – The Supreme Court concluded that there is no fundamental difference between a party to a suit and a witness for the purpose of evidence. Both are treated similarly in the context of producing evidence, either documentary or oral. Emphasized that the party to a suit, when acting as a witness, is subject to the same procedural requirements as any other witness. [Paras 14-16, 22, 26-27, 32]

Production of Documents during Cross-Examination – It is permissible under law for parties to produce documents at the stage of cross-examination without prior submission with the plaint or written statement, for both a witness and a party acting as a witness. This ensures effective cross-examination and aligns with the broader objective of uncovering the truth in legal proceedings. [Paras 18-21, 30-31, 33]

Interpretation of CPC Provisions (Order VII Rule 14; Order VIII Rule 1-A; Order XIII Rule 1) – The Court negated the strict interpretation that differentiates between 'party' and 'witness' for the purposes of evidence under the CPC. The judgment interprets these provisions to allow documents' production for cross-examination or refreshing a witness's memory, applicable equally to parties and witnesses. [Paras 19, 22, 32]

Decision – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment of the Bombay High Court. The case is remanded to the High Court for decision on merits based on the principles outlined in the Supreme Court judgment. [Paras 34-36]

Bail Rejection Upheld – High Court of Chhattisgarh's decision to reject bail application upheld – Appellant, Saumya Chaurasia, arrested in connection with crimes under IPC and PMLA, involved in a large-scale extortion racket – No compelling reason for granting bail observed. [Para 30]

Misrepresentation in SLP – Attempt by appellant to misrepresent facts in the Special Leave Petition by presenting incorrect statements to challenge High Court order – Deplored by the Supreme Court. [Paras 12-15, 30]

Scheduled Offences under PMLA – Discussion on the survival of scheduled offences under PMLA – Clarification that chargesheet details do not conclude existence of scheduled offences, dependent on court's decision – Offences under PMLA sustained despite changes in chargesheet. [Paras 27-29]

Women's Bail Under PMLA – Discussion on discretion under Section 45 of PMLA for granting bail to women – Appellant's involvement in serious offences and evidence against her do not warrant bail despite her being a woman. [Paras 22-25]

Chargesheet and Cognizance Order – The non-existence of the chargesheet and cognizance order during the High Court proceedings highlighted – Importance of presenting accurate information in legal proceedings stressed. [Paras 6-10, 27]

Professional Conduct of Advocates – Emphasis on the duty of advocates to verify facts and assist the court in administering justice – Need for high professionalism in legal practice, especially at the Supreme Court level. [Para 14]

Decision – Appeal dismissed with cost of Rs.1 Lakh to be deposited by the Appellant before the Supreme Court Legal Services Authority within two weeks. [Para 30]

Air Commodore NK Sharma’s Appeal – Challenge against non-acceptance of promotion to Air Vice Marshal (AVM) despite being qualified – Promotion Board recommendation not accepted by Ministry of Defence – Filing of statutory appeal under Section 27 of Air Force Act, 1950. [Paras 3-6]

Tribunal’s Direction for Policy Formation – Armed Forces Tribunal directed formulation of a separate policy for filling JAG (Air) post – Tribunal ordered continuation of Air Commodore Sharma’s service beyond superannuation until policy formulation and consideration under the new policy. [Paras 9-9.2, 15]

Supreme Court’s Consideration – Issues of Tribunal’s authority to direct government policy formation and continuation of service post-superannuation analyzed – Tribunal’s directive found beyond its jurisdiction and against established law. [Paras 16-28]

Final Decision – Supreme Court quashes Armed Forces Tribunal’s order, finding no basis for directing policy formulation or extending service beyond superannuation age – Appeal by Union of India allowed, restoring the status quo ante. [Paras 29-30]

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Bail Application – Appellant detained for possession of 45 grams of heroin, below the commercial quantity defined by the Act – No substantial evidence linking appellant to larger quantity seized from co-accused – Continued detention deemed unnecessary. [Para 1-4]

Bail Conditions – Section 37 of the 1985 Act – Conditions specified in Section 37 for refusing bail not applicable to appellant – Directed release on bail with conditions imposed by the Special Court – Restrictions include not entering Kolkata Municipal Corporation limits without Trial Court's permission and maintaining active communication with the Investigating Officer. [Para 5]

Trial Proceedings and Appellant’s Rights – Observations made in this order based on current materials and not to influence the main trial – Appellant granted bail with specific conditions to ensure compliance and enable monitoring by authorities. [Para 6]

Judicial Discretion and Fair Trial – Emphasis on the importance of judicial discretion in bail matters – Observations in the order to not affect the fairness of the trial process – Bail granted with specific conditions to balance the rights of the appellant with the requirements of justice. [Para 7]

Decision – Supreme Court sets aside High Court’s order, grants bail to appellant subject to conditions – Emphasizes non-influence of current observations on the main trial – All pending applications disposed of in the light of the order. [Para 8]

Criminal Appeal – Conviction Under Section 302 IPC and Section 34 IPC – Appeal against conviction by Trial Court and affirmation by High Court – Appellants convicted for murder with common intention and causing grievous hurt – Conviction and sentence to life imprisonment upheld. [Para 1]

Eyewitness Testimony – Reliability and Scrutiny – Testimonies of five eyewitnesses, including close relatives of the deceased, considered credible – Closer scrutiny of relative witnesses’ testimony conducted – Evidence found to be of sterling quality. [Para 9-11]

Common Intention – Section 34 IPC – Applicability in the absence of overt act by appellants – Vicarious liability under Section 34 established through presence, active participation, and shared intention with the main accused at the crime scene. [Para 6-7, 12]

Evidence Evaluation – Non-Examination of Certain Witnesses – Totality of circumstances considered – Quality of eyewitness testimony found more important than quantity, negating the need for adverse inference against prosecution. [Para 8, 10]

Appeal Verdict – Upholding of Conviction – Supreme Court finds no merit in the appeal – Conviction and life imprisonment sentence of appellants upheld – Direction for appellants to surrender for serving remaining sentence. [Para 13-14]