Taxation Law - Central Excise – Manufacture – Containerized Gensets – Transformation and marketability test applied – Held: Process amounts to “manufacture” under Section 2(f) – Excise duty payable – Appeals dismissed [Paras 21, 33, 50-53].

Central Excise – Manufacture – Section 2(f), Central Excise Act, 1944 – Process of containerizing imported Gensets with additional components – Held to amount to “manufacture” – The appellant imported complete Gensets and placed them into steel containers with added components for portability and functionality, resulting in a distinct product known as Power Pack – Supreme Court applied the transformation and marketability test – Held: Power Pack is a new, distinct commodity, marketable as such, and excise duty is leviable – Appeals dismissed [Paras 21, 33, 50-53].

Manufacture – Transformation and Marketability Tests – Reiterated – Both tests must be satisfied – Transformation into a distinct product and its marketability are essential – Containerized Gensets and Power Packs distinct from imported Gensets – Essential character and utility altered, imparting portability and structural change – Thus, “manufacture” established [Paras 27, 30-33, 41-49].

Parts vs. Accessories – Distinction – Radiator, ventilation fan, air filter, etc., not mere accessories but essential parts for functioning of Power Pack inside the container – Without them, the Genset could not function in containerized form – Thus, transformation substantive and not superficial [Paras 44-47].

Excise – Extended Limitation, Penalty, Confiscation – Tribunal rightly set aside extended limitation, penalty, and confiscation, but upheld normal duty demand with interest – No suppression or intent to evade duty – Bona fide belief of assessee accepted [Paras 14, 17-20].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – Order of CESTAT upheld to the extent it sustained demand of duty with interest for the normal period – No interference warranted [Para 53].

Sports Governance – AIFF Constitution – Supreme Court directions – Draft Constitution prepared by CoA and modified by Justice L. Nageswara Rao examined alongside objections of stakeholders and provisions of NSC 2011 and FIFA Statutes – Court held that sports bodies though autonomous must function within framework of transparency, democratic representation and accountability – AIFF directed to adopt Constitution with modifications within 4 weeks – Held: Constitution to serve as structural foundation of Indian football in line with NSGA 2025 [Paras 23, 122-125].

Eminent Players – Representation in AIFF General Body – Article 20.2 providing for 15 eminent players with voting rights (5 women) challenged by State associations – NSC 2011, Clause 3.20 envisages minimum 25% representation of sportspersons of outstanding merit with voting rights – FIFA Statutes 2022 and Standard Statutes 2005 contemplate membership for players, referees, coaches – Justice L N Rao finalised provision after consultation with FIFA – Held: Inclusion valid, enhances fairness and transparency, no violation of NSC or FIFA norms [Paras 25-36].

Eminent Players – Eligibility Criteria – Dispute whether 15 matches (earlier CoA draft) or 7/3 matches (Justice L N Rao draft) should be minimum – AIFF sought inclusion of domestic matches – Court noted insufficient pool of international players, directed reduction of threshold to 5 matches for men, 2 matches for women – Domestic matches not considered, as Constitution seeks to promote international competitiveness – Wider base of retired players secured for governance [Paras 37-40].

Office-Bearers – Definition – Article 1.43 read with Article 25 defines office-bearers as President, Vice-Presidents, Treasurer and 10 members (including 5 eminent players) – State associations contended “office-bearers” restricted to President, Treasurer, Secretary under NSC 2011 – Court rejected reliance on 1975 Govt. letter, held inclusive definition necessary for applying age/tenure/cooling-off – Aligned with reform intent and BCCI principles – No modification warranted [Paras 41-42].

Vice-Presidents – Number of posts – State associations sought 5 zonal VPs; AIFF sought 3 (with 1 woman) – Court noted NSGA 2025 caps EC members at 15 – Held: Increasing to 5 would violate statutory scheme – Accepted AIFF’s plea for 3 VPs including one woman, ensuring gender balance and statutory compliance [Paras 43-47].

Disqualification – Criminal Charges – Draft provided disqualification on framing of charges for offences with ≥2 years punishment – Ministry argued charges not equivalent to conviction; Law Commission 244th Report and RPA provisions considered – Court held only conviction with ≥2 years sentence warrants disqualification, not mere charges – Provision aligned with BCCI precedent and safeguards against misuse [Paras 53-55].

Disqualification – Public Servants – Draft excluded all public servants – State associations sought restriction only to Ministers and Govt. servants – Court relied on BCCI-I and subsequent modification approved in BCCI-II restricting disqualification – Held: Provision modified to “Minister or Government Servant” – MPs/MLAs not barred; Govt. servants may contest if approval taken under NSGA 2025 [Paras 56-59].

Disqualification – Cross-holding in NSFs – Suggestion to disqualify anyone who served as office-bearer in any NSF rejected – Court noted similar BCCI clause was later diluted to avoid barring eminent sportspersons holding posts in multiple sports – Held: Would impose unjust burden, not adopted [Paras 60-61].

Conflict of Interest – Retention of “indirect interest” – AIFF sought deletion claiming duplication with Article 73.5 – Court held 73.1 covers indirect conflicts (through relatives/associates), while 73.5 covers direct role conflicts – Both necessary, consistent with BCCI reforms – Held: Indirect interest must remain to safeguard fairness [Paras 62-63].

State Associations – Applicability of AIFF Constitution – Objection citing federalism, Article 19(1)(c), Damyanti case and Delhi HC’s IOA ruling rejected – Court distinguished cricket (BCCI) from football’s pyramidical structure – Relied on FIFA Statutes 2024 Art. 20 and Delhi HC decision in Rahul Mehra v. UOI – Held: State associations bound to adopt AIFF Constitution to prevent evasion of term/age restrictions and ensure uniform governance [Paras 64-71].

AIFF & Third Parties – Delegation of rights – FSDL opposed restriction on commercial delegation – Court noted Master Rights Agreement (2010) gave FSDL near-total control of ISL – NSC 2011 requires federation to retain primacy – Article 1.21 defining “essential aspects” upheld – Addition of “ownership” in Art. 63.1 unnecessary – FSDL’s plea to allow complete divestment rejected – Held: Private participation permitted but AIFF must remain accountable for core functions [Paras 72-79].

Promotion & Relegation – Article 1.54 defines senior-most league to implement promotion and relegation – FSDL opposed, citing CAS Miami FC v. FIFA – Court noted ISL already committed to principle from 2024-25, and FIFA Statutes mandate sporting merit – Promotion alone insufficient, relegation vital for competitiveness – Held: Principle mandatory, no deletion permitted [Paras 80-87].

BCCI Precedents – Applicability – AIFF argued BCCI not NSF hence principles inapplicable – Court rejected distinction, held BCCI jurisprudence aimed at fairness, transparency, efficiency in sports governance – Principles extend to AIFF as well – NSC 2011 to be read purposively – BCCI reforms applicable mutatis mutandis [Paras 88-90].

Amendments to Constitution – Article 23 allows amendments by 75% majority of GB – Stakeholders sought SC oversight – Following BCCI-II precedent, Court inserted Art. 23.3 requiring Supreme Court leave before amendments take effect – However, continuous monitoring not envisaged – Held: One-time safeguard against dilution [Paras 91-94].

AIFF Administration – Current Executive Committee – Elections held Aug-Sep 2022 under interim orders – Initially treated as temporary, later allowed to continue – Justice L N Rao deleted transitory clause (Art. 84) – Court held current EC to be treated as permanent body till Sept 2026, subject to Constitution and SC orders – Fresh elections thereafter [Paras 95-101].

Other Modifications – Candidate definition clarified: must be Indian citizen + resident + 25 years age + voting member – New clause 25.4A: only eminent sportspersons or experienced administrators eligible for top posts – Immediate family expanded to include siblings – Suspension to require 75% votes both for imposition and revocation – Concurrent membership: national EC members cannot simultaneously hold state posts – Acting President: if President and Senior VP incapacitated, EC may elect one – Quorum: approval required for contracts >4 years or ₹5 crore – Disciplinary/Appeal Committees: only Chair/Deputy Chair need legal background – Dispute resolution: player-related urgent matters to be decided within 30 days – Arbitral Tribunal timeline shortened – Election bye-laws: candidates may nominate agents restored [Paras 103-121].

Decision – Constitution of AIFF finalised with modifications – AIFF directed to convene Special General Body within 4 weeks and adopt Constitution – Court emphasised autonomy with accountability, recorded appreciation for amici and counsels – Held: Constitution marks new era of inclusivity, professionalism and democratic governance in Indian football [Paras 122-125].

NI Act, S.138(b) — Notice must demand the very cheque amount — Any variance renders notice invalid — Typographical error no defence — Complaint rightly quashed — Appeals dismissed

Negotiable Instruments — Section 138(b) — Meaning of “said amount of money” — Notice must demand the cheque amount and none other — Demand for a figure different from the cheque amount invalidates notice — Additional claims like interest/legal charges are permissible only after and in addition to a correct demand of the cheque amount, and are severable — Held, variance between cheque amount and notice demand is fatal [Paras 5.2–5.2.4, 5.3–5.3.1, 8–8.1].

Penal Statutes — Strict construction — Compliance with Proviso (b) to S.138 is mandatory and technical — Court cannot cure or overlook errors on an assumption of “slip” or typographical inadvertence — Even an inadvertent/typographical mistake in the amount demanded defeats the statutory requirement — No scope for elasticity or reading the notice “as a whole” to correct an incorrect amount [Paras 6–6.4, 8.1–8.2, 9].

Purpose of S.138(b) Notice — To afford the drawer a chance to pay the cheque amount within 15 days and thus avoid prosecution — If the notice demands more/less than the cheque amount, the drawer is not put to a clear, lawful demand and the complaint is not maintainable [Paras 5.2.4, 5.4].

Practice & Procedure — “Typographical error” plea — Repeated overstatements (double the cheque amount in two notices) undermine the plea — Mere mention of correct cheque number or other particulars cannot salvage an incorrect monetary demand — Doctrine of severability does not apply where the core cheque amount itself is misstated [Paras 3.3–3.4, 8.1–8.2, 10].

Decision — High Court order quashing complaint upheld — Appeals dismissed — Held, for a valid S.138(b) notice, the “said amount” must be exactly the cheque amount and none other — Typographical error is no defence — Complaint based on an invalid notice is liable to be quashed [Paras 9–11].

Muddamal—Release of Seized Cash—Section 451 CrPC—High Court erred in directing interim release of ₹50 lakhs to a single claimant without conclusive ownership proof—Courts below rightly held ownership disputed among several victims—SC restores Magistrate and Sessions Court orders—Appeal allowed [Paras 10–12].

Muddamal Release – Section 451 CrPC – Though High Court relied on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat (2002) 10 SCC 283, it misapplied ratio – Here, seized money formed part of alleged cheating transactions with multiple victims – Releasing it to one respondent was unjustified – Proper ownership must await trial [Paras 9–11].

Ownership of Seized Cash – Respondent no. 2 produced ledger and audit showing appellant’s firm owed ₹50 lakhs – However, matching figures do not establish exclusive entitlement – Amount may relate to other complainants as well – Direct ownership cannot be determined without trial [Paras 10–11].

Trial Court & Sessions Court Orders – Both courts had refused release observing that seized sum was proceeds of crime, several merchants were cheated, and ownership remained a matter of evidence – Their approach upheld by Supreme Court [Paras 4–5, 11–12].

High Court’s Error – Prematurely allowed release by relying on Sunderbhai—failed to appreciate distinction where seized money itself is subject matter of dispute—risk of prejudicing multiple claimants – Hence set aside [Paras 6, 10].

Custody & Restoration – Since money already withdrawn pursuant to High Court’s order, Supreme Court directed deposit back with Trial Court registry, along with accrued interest – Respondent to return original notes if available; withdrawal only after cross-verification with panchnama [Para 13].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court’s order dated 04/12/2024 quashed – Orders of Magistrate and Sessions Judge restored – Seized money to remain in custody of Trial Court till conclusion of trial – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 12–13].

498-A IPC—Quashing under S. 482 CrPC—FIR lodged a month after foreign divorce and despite prior Austrian custody-return directions—allegations do not disclose ingredients of ‘cruelty’—Bhajan Lal parameter 7 attracted—FIR and HC order quashed.

Quashing of FIR – Section 482 CrPC – Prima facie standard and non-mechanical approach – Though investigation is ordinarily warranted where allegations exist, courts must apply judicial mind to the surrounding matrix – High Court erred in declining to consider background of foreign custody orders and timing of complaint – Quashing warranted in the facts [Paras 7-10].

498-A IPC – Ingredients of “cruelty” – Mere assertions of harassment without showing intention to cause grave injury, drive to suicide, or coerce for unlawful demand are insufficient – Court relied on recent exposition that “cruelty simpliciter” will not suffice – FIR lacked requisite averments to make out offence under S. 498-A [Paras 12, quoting principles; 6, 8].

Mala fides / Counterblast – FIR filed on 07/12/2016 after (i) Austrian courts directed return of child to Australia in 2014 and (ii) Australian divorce decree dated 01/04/2016 (effective 04/04/2016) – Complaint lodged 04/05/2016 and FIR registered later – Timing, coupled with non-compliance of foreign orders, supports inference of retaliatory action; attracts Bhajan Lal parameter 7 (abuse of process) [Paras 2.4–2.7, 2.8–2.9, 9–11, 13].

Comity / Foreign Orders – India not a signatory to Hague Convention, yet courts may consider foreign judgments for limited contextual appreciation – Austrian courts had jurisdiction and ordered return; non-compliance noted – Indian standard need not be superimposed to disregard competent foreign decrees when assessing abuse of process [Paras 2.4–2.7, 11–12].

Delay and Overbreadth – Alleged cruelty period extends even beyond subsistence of marriage—casts doubt on veracity – Service of Australian divorce papers effected in India undermines respondent’s plea of integration in Austria – Allegation of potential child abduction by appellant was inconsistent with established record of respondent’s unilateral removal—further dents credibility [Paras 10–11].

Mediation Attempts – Court-facilitated mediations on 04/01/2019 and 27/02/2025 failed—Court records concern for adverse impact of protracted parental hostility on the child—however, failure of settlement does not validate a defective criminal process [Para 5].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Impugned High Court judgment and FIR No. 65 of 2016 quashed and set aside – Continuation would be abuse of process under Bhajan Lal parameter 7 – Pending applications closed [Paras 13–14].

Criminal Law – Murder and Kidnapping – Acquittal – Accused (A-1) convicted under Sections 302, 364, and 201 IPC for allegedly abducting and murdering an auto driver – Trial Court and High Court found him guilty based on circumstantial evidence and hostile witness statements – Supreme Court finds no reliable evidence to prove kidnapping or last seen theory – Both key witnesses (PW-5 and PW-6) failed to identify the accused and denied witnessing the abduction – Held: Conviction based on misreading of evidence – No credible proof of A-1's involvement in the murder or abduction [Paras 1–2, 5–9, 13–15].

Witness Testimony – Hostile Witnesses – PW-5 and PW-6 initially stated under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC that they witnessed the abduction of the deceased by A-1 and others – However, during trial, they denied identifying any person involved and merely confirmed witnessing a “galata” under a banyan tree – They did not corroborate the kidnapping or inform PW-1 as alleged – Their statements failed to support the prosecution’s theory of last seen or abduction – Held: Their evidence is insufficient and unreliable for conviction [Paras 7–8, 12–13].

Circumstantial Evidence – Failure to Prove Chain of Events – Prosecution failed to establish that A-1 was last seen with the deceased or had exclusive knowledge of the incident – No direct evidence connecting A-1 to the murder – Motive based on prior animosity between parties was deemed insufficient without corroborative evidence – Supreme Court applied the “panchsheel” test and concluded that the chain of circumstances was not complete – Held: Conviction unsustainable [Paras 10–11, 13–14].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 302, 364, and 201 IPC set aside – Appellant A-1 acquitted – Directed to be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case [Paras 15–16].

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act – Conviction – Acquittal – Appeal Allowed on Parity Grounds – Appellant (Accused No. 2) convicted under Section 8(c) read with Section 18 NDPS Act for possession of 5.5 kg opium – Trial Court imposed minimum sentence of 10 years RI and ₹1 lakh fine – Conviction affirmed by High Court – Co-accused (Accused No. 1) later acquitted by High Court on finding that prosecution failed to establish conscious possession of contraband – Prosecution witnesses, including seizure mediators and Excise Inspector, failed to identify who held the bag containing opium – Held: Evidence and trial being common to both accused, and State not challenging co-accused’s acquittal, appellant entitled to benefit of parity – Acquittal granted – Conviction and sentence set aside [Paras 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10].

Witness Testimony – Contradictions and Uncertainty – Mediator Witness (PW1) unable to identify which accused was holding the bag of contraband – Turned hostile – PW5 (Excise Inspector) also vague in testimony – Did not clarify who transferred bag or who possessed it initially – High Court in co-accused’s case found it unsafe to convict on such weak evidence – Supreme Court noted same evidence applied to appellant – Held: No case of conscious possession made out – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 8, 9].

Principle of Parity – Joint Trial – Common Evidence – Co-accused Acquitted – Appellant convicted under same charge, in same case and on same evidence – Co-accused acquitted by High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1775/2005 – State accepted the acquittal – Held: On principle of parity, appellant also entitled to acquittal – No need to reappreciate evidence – Appeal allowed [Paras 7, 8, 9].

NDPS Act – Conscious Possession – Recovery of Contraband – Appellant (A2) convicted under Section 8(c) r/w 18 NDPS Act for alleged possession of 5.5 kgs opium – Trial Court imposed minimum 10 years RI and ₹1 lakh fine – Conviction upheld by High Court – However, co-accused (A1) acquitted by High Court in separate appeal on identical evidence holding prosecution failed to establish conscious possession – Witnesses inconsistent on who carried the bag – Held: On principle of parity, appellant entitled to same relief [Paras 7–9].

NDPS Act – Section 8(c) r/w Section 18 – Commercial Quantity – Strict Compliance – Serious Penal Consequences – Supreme Court reiterated that where minimum sentence is 10 years, strict adherence to evidentiary standards is required – Weak and uncertain evidence cannot form basis of conviction in NDPS cases – Acquittal justified where possession not proved beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 8, 9].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 8(c) read with Section 18(b) NDPS Act set aside – Appellant acquitted – Bail bonds cancelled – Sureties discharged [Paras 10, 11].

Bail – Prolonged Custody – Allegations under BNS, POCSO Act, and JJ Act – Bail Granted – Appellant, a school principal, accused of sexual offences under POCSO and BNS, was in custody for nearly ten months – Only 7 of 22 witnesses examined – Supreme Court observed no serious incriminating material presently on record and held that further delay in trial justifies grant of bail – Conditions imposed to ensure fair trial and prevent misuse of liberty.

Allegations by Colleagues – Motive Imputed – Teacher Accuser's Grudge Over Non-appointment as Principal – Allegations Against Appellant May Be Vitiated – Court noted the argument that another teacher with a grudge may have motivated false complaints, which requires careful consideration during trial, not a ground for prolonged pre-trial detention.

Discretionary Bail – Balance Between Rights of Accused and Fair Trial – Judicial Discretion Applied – Supreme Court used its discretion to grant bail considering delay, weak material, and non-cooperation concerns – Appellant directed to cooperate and not tamper with evidence – Violation of conditions would lead to cancellation of bail.

Final Decision – Criminal Appeal Allowed – Bail Granted – Supreme Court set aside High Court’s denial of bail and directed appellant’s release on conditions as deemed appropriate by the Trial Court – Pending applications also disposed of [Paras 4-5].

Criminal Procedure – Anticipatory Bail – Grant Without Cogent Reasons – High Court granted anticipatory bail to accused in murder case under Section 302 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act – Accused allegedly extorted money from the deceased, a health worker, and hired contract killers upon her failure to pay – Supreme Court held that the High Court failed to record adequate reasons, disregarded gravity of allegations, and did not consider crucial evidence such as CCTV footage and confessional statements – Bail order set aside [Paras 2, 3.5, 5.1–5.4, 7–9].

Bail Jurisprudence – Judicial Discretion – Duty to Balance Liberty and Victim’s Rights – Court emphasized that while protection of individual liberty is important, discretion in granting bail must be exercised judiciously – Courts must consider broader implications including victim’s right to justice and fear-free environment – Grant of anticipatory bail in a case involving broad daylight contract killing without considering these factors held to be a miscarriage of justice [Paras 5.3–5.4, 7].

Abuse of Process – Lending Racket and Extortion Syndicate – Accused allegedly ran a money lending racket charging exorbitant interest (35% per month), coercing borrowers, and threatening victims – Confessional statement indicated organized extortion and murder for non-payment – Supreme Court observed that such systemic abuse required serious judicial scrutiny – Anticipatory bail was wholly unjustified [Paras 3.6, 5.2, 6].

High Court Procedure – Bypass of Concurrent Jurisdiction – Lack of Notice – Supreme Court noted procedural lapses in High Court’s handling of anticipatory bail – High Court granted relief directly without requiring the complainant to be impleaded or allowing opportunity to contest – Court reiterated that High Courts must encourage applicants to exhaust remedy before Sessions Court to allow for judicial layering and safeguard fair process [Para 6].

Parity in Bail – Inapplicability Between Regular and Anticipatory Bail – In second appeal, High Court granted anticipatory bail to accused on the ground of parity with co-accused who had received regular bail – Supreme Court clarified that principles of parity do not apply between anticipatory and regular bail, especially where confessional evidence links accused to murder – Held: High Court erred in applying parity and overlooked seriousness of offence [Paras 4–6 of Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) No. 17569/2024].

Decision: Both anticipatory bail orders passed by the Patna High Court dated 12/03/2024 and 03/09/2024 are set aside – Criminal appeals allowed – Bail bonds cancelled – Respondents directed to surrender within four weeks and apply for regular bail, to be considered on merits.