Criminal Appeal – Jurisdictional Competence for Trial – Discussion on appropriate judicial forum for trial of appellant charged under IPC and other acts – Concerns over trial by Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate with limited sentencing power for offences punishable with life imprisonment or 10 years imprisonment under Section 409 IPC – Analysis of jurisdiction under Cr.PC and IPC provisions. [Para 1, 3, 17, 22]

Right to Speedy Trial – Fair Trial – Emphasis on right to speedy trial as an essential component of fair trial – Reference to Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and other cases highlighting importance of speedy trial for preserving fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. [Para 4-5, 10, 19-20]

Jurisdictional Analysis – Courts under Cr.PC – Examination of Sections 26, 29, 323, 325 of Cr.PC in context of trial jurisdiction – Determination of Court of Session as suitable forum for trial of offences with severe punishment like life imprisonment. [Para 7-9, 11-16, 18, 21, 23-24]

Committal to Court of Session – Directive for committal of appellant’s case to Court of Session under Section 323 Cr.PC – Discussion on necessity of trial before court with competent jurisdiction for ensuring a fair trial. [Para 25-28]

Appellant's Involvement in Money Laundering – Alleged acquisition of tainted properties using proceeds of crime – Question of whether the appellant, not an accused in the predicate offence, can be implicated under PMLA. [Paras 6, 16-17]

Criminal Conspiracy and Predicate Offence – Interpretation of Section 120-B of IPC in the context of PMLA – Held that Section 120-B becomes a scheduled offence only if the conspiracy is to commit an offence already included in the PMLA schedule. [Paras 18-25, 27e]

Property Transactions and Source of Funds – Scrutiny of appellant's acquisition of properties and financial capacity – Determination of whether properties were acquired using proceeds of crime deferred to trial. [Paras 17, 27d]

Schedule to PMLA – Interpretation and applicability – Not all offences generating proceeds of crime are included in the PMLA schedule; strict construction necessary for penal statutes. [Paras 20-25, 27e]

Applicability of PMLA – Conditions precedent for offence under Section 3 of PMLA – Existence of a scheduled offence and proceeds of crime related to that offence. [Paras 11-15]

Benefit of Acquittal in Predicate Offence – Impact on proceedings under PMLA – Accused under PMLA may benefit from acquittal/discharge in predicate offence. [Paras 16, 27b]

Decision:Appeal allowed – Impugned order dated 27th September 2022 quashed and set aside, and the complaint against the appellant under PMLA also quashed.

Admissibility of Unstamped Agreement to Sell – Appellant contends that an unstamped agreement to sell dated 04.02.1988 should be admissible as secondary evidence under Section 65 of the Evidence Act. The key question is whether Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, barring the admissibility of unstamped instruments, applies to this agreement. [Paras 1-7]

Interpretation of Section 35 of the Stamp Act – High Court upheld the review order and the constitutional validity of Section 35. Supreme Court analyzes Section 35 in the context of the agreement’s execution date, determining whether the agreement was chargeable with duty at the time of its execution. [Paras 8-14]

Stamp Duty and Execution Date – Supreme Court notes the significance of the execution date for determining stamp duty. The Court observes that the agreement, executed in 1988, was not subject to stamp duty based on the provisions of the Stamp Act and its Schedules at that time. This finding is crucial for assessing the applicability of Section 35 to the agreement. [Paras 15-28]

Secondary Evidence under Evidence Act – The Court elaborates on the principles governing secondary evidence as per the Evidence Act. It underscores the necessity of primary evidence and delineates the specific conditions under which secondary evidence is permissible, focusing on the importance of proving the unavailability of the original document and ensuring the authenticity of the secondary evidence. [Paras 29-35]

Supreme Court’s Decision – Concluding that the document dated 04.02.1988 was not chargeable with duty, the Supreme Court allows the appeal. The Court rules that the document is not barred under Section 35 of the Stamp Act, permitting the Plaintiff to present secondary evidence of the agreement to sell. The decision underscores the nuanced application of the Stamp Act and the Evidence Act in determining the admissibility of documents in legal proceedings. [Paras 36-44]

Appeal of Pavnesh Kumar against Medical Unfitness Declaration – BSF declared Kumar medically unfit for Sub-Inspector post through LDCE 2018-19 – Challenged in Delhi High Court, which upheld the BSF's decision – Kumar then appealed to Supreme Court. [Paras 1-5]

Medical Fitness for Promotion – Kumar initially declared medically fit as a constable, later declared unfit for Sub-Inspector post – Underwent surgery but still declared unfit in review – BSF's decision based on detailed medical examination specific to Sub-Inspector post, not general fitness. [Paras 6-12]

Distinction in Promotion Standards – Appointment through LDCE considered accelerated promotion, not equivalent to normal promotion – Specific medical standards for LDCE required, separate from general medical fitness for current position. [Paras 13-16]

Supreme Court's Decision – Found no merit in the appeal – Confirmed that Kumar was never declared medically fit for Sub-Inspector post through LDCE process – Upheld High Court's judgment and BSF's decision, dismissing the appeal without costs. [Paras 17-18]

Criminal Appeal – Conviction under Section 307 IPC – Appellants accused of conspiring and attempting to murder Complainant (PW1) – Incident arising from a dispute over land between PW1 and Accused No.1 – Attack in PW1's grocery shop by appellants and other accused – Injuries sustained by PW1 and PW2 (PW1's mother) deemed simple by doctor (PW13). [Paras 3-6]

Evidence and Intent – Contradictions in prosecution's case regarding intent to murder – Appellants armed with knives, but no severe or repeated blows inflicted – Injuries found simple in nature, not indicating an intent to kill. [Paras 6, 9-10]

Legal Interpretation – Application of Section 307 IPC – Supreme Court's analysis referring to cases like State of Madhya Pradesh v Saleem and Jage Ram v State of Haryana – Intention inferred from nature of injuries and circumstances – Simple injuries not conclusive for intent to murder under Section 307 IPC. [Paras 9-10]

Conviction Modified – Supreme Court's intervention – Conviction under Section 307 IPC deemed unsustainable – Conviction modified to Sections 323 and 324 IPC for causing simple injuries – Sentence reduced to period already undergone – Appellants discharged from bail bonds. [Paras 11-12]

Anticipatory Bail – Denial of anticipatory bail by the High Court – FIR lodged under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (POA) Act, 1989 – Allegation of promise to marry and breach thereof leading to a sexual relationship – Appellant granted interim protection by the Supreme Court – Chargesheet filed – Case for regular bail made out – Appellant directed to surrender within six weeks for applying for regular bail. [Para 1-10]

Personal Liberty – Importance of personal liberty in the context of granting bail – Interim protection granted to the appellant – Emphasis on ensuring the continuation of liberty until the bail application is heard. [Para 9]

Decision: The Supreme Court disposes of the appeal, directing the appellant to apply for regular bail within six weeks after surrendering. Interim protection is to continue until the bail application is moved. [Para 10]

Teacher Qualification – Diploma in Elementary Education – Validity of 18 Months Diploma from NIOS for Assistant Teacher Post in Uttarakhand – High Court Verdict Set Aside – Supreme Court Rules that 18 Months Diploma is Not Equivalent to 2 Years Diploma Prescribed by NCTE. [Para 4.1-4.15, 29, 32, 41]

Recognition of D.El.Ed. through ODL - Challenge to High Court's approval of 18-month D.El.Ed. by NIOS for Assistant Teacher posts. High Court found it equivalent to 2-year regular D.El.Ed. programs. [Paras 2, 15, 29, 41]

NCTE's Role and Notifications - NCTE's authority under RTE Act to prescribe minimum qualifications for teachers. Clarifications regarding the specific intent of the 18-month ODL program for in-service teachers. [Paras 4.2, 4.3, 27, 29]

Statutory Rules and Administrative Instructions – Inconsistency Between Statutory Rules and Administrative Instructions – Supreme Court Clarifies Government Cannot Supersede Statutory Rules by Administrative Instructions – 18 Months Diploma by NIOS Not in Line with Uttarakhand’s 2012 Service Rules. [Para 34, 35, 38]

Equalization of Qualifications – High Court’s Error in Equating 18 Months and 2 Years Diplomas – Supreme Court Emphasizes the Role of Expert Bodies in Determining Equivalence – NCTE’s Role in Prescribing Minimum Qualifications Upheld. [Para 40-42]

Decision – Appeals Allowed – High Court's Order Quashing Uttarakhand Government's Refusal to Recognize 18 Months Diploma from NIOS Overturned – Original Writ Petitions Dismissed. [Para 43]

Factual Background and Lower Court's Decision – Nababuddin, along with two co-accused, convicted for possessing 205 kg of poppy straw under Section 15 of NDPS Act – Conviction based on possession of railway receipt and confirmed by High Court. [Para 1]

Prosecution's Case – Accused deemed in conscious possession due to holding railway receipt for parcels containing poppy straw – Contraband intercepted at railway station, and accused arrested following a police operation. [Paras 2, 5]

Appellant's Defense – Nababuddin claimed he was a rickshaw puller and had no involvement with the parcels – Alleged procedural flaws in trial, including insufficient examination under Section 313 of CrPC. [Paras 3, 7-8]

Supreme Court's Detailed Consideration:

Evaluation of Evidence and Witness Testimonies – The court scrutinized testimonies of key witnesses, notably the station supervisor and police officials, finding inconsistencies in attributing possession of the railway receipt to Nababuddin. [Paras 5-6]

Critical Analysis of Section 313 CrPC Examination – Identified a significant procedural lapse; key accusations against Nababuddin were not put forth during his examination under Section 313 of CrPC, violating principles of fair trial and defense rights. [Paras 7-10]

Legal Precedents and Principles – Referenced the judgment of Raj Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), emphasizing the mandatory nature of putting each material circumstance to the accused distinctly and specifically under Section 313 of CrPC. [Para 11]

Impact of Procedural Irregularities – Acknowledged that not putting material circumstances to the accused caused serious prejudice to Nababuddin's defense, leading to the conclusion that these omissions were materially and legally significant. [Paras 12-13]

Final Decision – Supreme Court set aside the conviction of Nababuddin due to noted procedural irregularities in the trial process, leading to his acquittal after serving five and a half years of incarceration. [Paras 13-15]

Insurance Claim Dispute – Fire incident at insured warehouse led to a claim of Rs. 6,57,55,155/- with 9% interest – NCDRC's partial allowance of the claim contested in the Supreme Court – Issues revolved around the cause of the fire, whether the location was covered under the insurance policy, and interpretations of policy terms. [Paras 2-5, 14-17, 30-41, 48-50, 56-59]

Fire Cause – Multiple Investigative Reports – Discrepancies in reports regarding the fire's cause – Majority reports indicated electrical short-circuit, while a few pointed towards negligence due to welding work – Supreme Court favored the majority view of electrical short-circuit, dismissing the notion of insured's negligence. [Paras 38-41, 48-50]

Policy Coverage Affirmed – Analysis of policy documents, agreements, and communications from various authorities confirmed that the fire-affected area was covered under the insurance policy, contrary to the appellant's claim. [Paras 34-35]

Clause 3(a) of Insurance Policy – The repair work on the warehouse roof, intended to prevent water leakage, did not constitute an 'alteration' that increased the risk of fire – Supreme Court upheld NCDRC's view that the repair work was not in violation of policy conditions. [Paras 36-37]

Surveyor's Report and its Value – The surveyor's report, although a prerequisite for claim settlement, is not absolute and may be challenged with other evidence – Supreme Court found the surveyor's report inconclusive and sided with other evidence indicating electrical short-circuit as the fire cause. [Paras 42-47]

Customs Duty and Unjust Enrichment – The argument that compensating for customs duty would lead to unjust enrichment was rejected – Supreme Court directed that the customs duty component of the claim be paid directly to the Customs Department. [Paras 51-55, 58]

Final Decision – The appeal by New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. was dismissed – The Supreme Court upheld the NCDRC's order in favor of the respondent, M/s. Mudit Roadways – The decision affirmed the insurance claim, with the parties bearing their own costs. [Para 59]