Criminal Offenses - Conviction and Sentence - Appeal against - Appellant charged and convicted under Sections 376, 452, and 506 of IPC - Appellant filed present appeal to overturn convictions - Prosecution alleged appellant entered prosecutrix's residence and committed offense under Section 376 IPC - Appellant's counsel raised various submissions challenging prosecution's case - Non-recovery of alleged weapon, non-examination of key witness, absence of external injuries, delay in filing complaint, and possibility of sour relationship - High Court's cursory analysis and non-examination of material witness criticized - Subsequent compromise between parties also mentioned - Respondent's counsel supported reliance on evidence of PW4 and PW6 - Concurrent findings of lower courts without perversity mentioned - Court discussed submissions and analyzed evidence - Delay in filing complaint, absence of key witness, and absence of recovery of weapon considered - Incorrect factual findings by High Court noted - Plausibility of appellant's submission regarding motive considered - Court referred to previous decisions on non-examination of material witnesses - Conviction and sentence set aside - Appeal allowed - Appellant acquitted of all charges - Bail bond discharged. (Para No. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13)

Service Law - Appointment on compassionate basis - Eligibility criteria - Financial status and income of the family - Fulfillment of scheme requirements - Exception to general rule of recruitment. Scheme for compassionate appointment - Consideration based on prevailing scheme - No vested right to compassionate appointment.

Suit for declaration and mandatory injunction - Direction to consider cases for compassionate appointment dehors the terms of the policy impermissible - Court cannot rewrite the terms of the policy. Family income exceeding 60% of deceased father's emoluments - Disqualification for compassionate appointment - Ineligibility for any compassionate appointment based on scheme.

High Court's failure to consider factual details - Reliance solely on judgments - Error in setting aside First Appellate Court's judgment and restoring Trial Court's judgment. Appeal allowed - High Court judgment set aside - Suit dismissed - Each party to bear its own costs.

Criminal Appeal - Acquittal - Interference with - Circumstantial evidence - Principles - When the High Court has used a legally erroneous and perverse approach to the facts, resulting in a grave miscarriage of justice, the Supreme Court may exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India to interfere with an order of acquittal. (Para 13)

Circumstantial evidence - Proof beyond reasonable doubt - In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish beyond reasonable doubt each of the incriminating circumstances it relies upon - The circumstances must have a definite tendency pointing towards the accused's guilt and must form a complete chain, excluding all hypotheses consistent with innocence - Shivaji Chintappa Patil v. State of Maharashtra (2021) 5 SCC 626 referred. (Para 17)

Last seen circumstance - Inconclusiveness - The last seen circumstance was found inconclusive as the witness's disclosure of suspicion regarding the accused's involvement in the crime came after a significant time gap, casting doubt on the reliability of the witness - The time gap between the deceased being last seen alive and the discovery of the body raised the possibility of other intervening circumstances - The High Court justified in doubting the testimony of the witness and finding the last seen circumstance inconclusive. (Para 18)

Recovery of weapon - Doubt regarding date of arrest and absence of serologist report - The recovery of a knife as the weapon used in the crime was doubted due to uncertainties regarding the date of arrest and the absence of a serologist report to establish a connection between the knife and the crime - The High Court's view in this regard not perverse. (Para 19)

Extra-judicial confession - Weak type of evidence - An extra-judicial confession, made to a person without a significant relationship with the accused and without any apparent motive, is a weak type of evidence - The High Court justified in doubting the extra-judicial confession based on lack of evidence and the possibility of an earlier arrest date - No error in discarding the circumstance of the accused's confession. (Para 20)

Burden of proof - Section 106 of the Evidence Act - Section 106 does not absolve the prosecution of its primary burden of proving the case beyond reasonable doubt - In this case, the incriminating circumstances were not proved beyond reasonable doubt, and the accused was not required to discharge the burden of proof under Section 106 as the evidence did not establish a prima facie case against him. (Para 22)

Interference with order of acquittal - Plausible view taken by the High Court - The Supreme Court is reluctant to interfere with an order of acquittal unless there is a perverse appreciation of evidence resulting in a serious miscarriage of justice - If the High Court has taken a plausible and reasonable view, the Supreme Court should refrain from interfering - No justification to interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the High Court. Acquittal Upheld – Appeal Dismissed. (Para 23, 24)

Criminal Law - Conviction and Acquittal - Quashing of conviction and acquittal of appellants in corruption case - Challenge to - Accused appellants convicted for various offenses under Indian Penal Code and Prevention of Corruption Act - High Court confirmed the convictions - Appeals filed before Supreme Court - Examination of evidence and legal provisions - No specific allegations or findings against appellants A-1, A-3, and A-4 under Section 193 IPC (false evidence in judicial proceeding) - Violation of Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure - Trial Court and High Court erred in convicting A-4 under Section 193 IPC without proper application of mind - Conviction of A-4 set aside (para 105-108) - Appellants A-3 and A-7 charged with forgery and cheating - Failure of prosecution to establish handwriting and signatures of A-7 on demand draft applications - Conviction of A-7 based on flawed reasoning - High Court's adoption of an improper procedure under Section 73 of the Evidence Act - Conviction of A-7 set aside (para 116-138) - All appeals allowed - Convictions quashed - Appellants acquitted of all charges - Bail bonds discharged (para 139).

Criminal Law - Conviction and Acquittal - Set aside by Supreme Court - Lack of specific allegations and findings against appellants - Violation of procedural requirements - Failure of prosecution to establish handwriting and signatures - Improper adoption of procedure by High Court - Convictions and sentences awarded by Trial Court and confirmed by High Court held unsustainable - Convictions quashed - Appellants acquitted of all charges.

Consumer Law - Liability of Railways for theft of passenger's belongings - Whether theft can be considered a deficiency in service - Held, Railways cannot be held responsible for the theft of a passenger's belongings if the passenger fails to protect them.

Negligence - Duty of care - Passenger's responsibility to safeguard personal belongings - Railways not liable for theft of cash carried by the passenger - Passenger failed to protect the cash in his possession - Railways not responsible for the loss suffered by the passenger.

Consumer Dispute - Claim for reimbursement of stolen cash - Railways not liable to reimburse the passenger for the loss suffered due to theft - District Consumer Forum erred in awarding compensation - State and National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commissions correctly dismissed the appeal(s) - Appeals allowed, setting aside the lower court's orders.

COMPETITION ACT, 2002 — Sections 28(1), 32 — Conflict between Section 28 of the Act and Section 32 of the Nationalisation Act — Court held that if Section 28 of the Competition Act is evoked and a direction for division is given, it would be inconsistent with the provisions of the Nationalisation Act — However, the court clarified that Parliament has conferred the power to order division on the Competition Commission of India (CCI) to prevent abuse of dominant position and ensure proper implementation of the Act — Court rejected the contention that the appellants could escape the application of the Act — Appellants have the right to defend their actions under the law. (Para 121-125)

COMPETITION ACT, 2002 — Sections 27, 28(2) — Power of CCI to order division — Court observed that Section 28 of the Competition Act grants the CCI the power to order division of an enterprise enjoying dominant position — The power includes various matters such as transfer or vesting of property, adjustment of contracts, creation or cancellation of shares or securities, and winding up of an enterprise — Court emphasized that this power is intended to prevent abuse of dominant position and must be exercised carefully — The Act grants broad powers to the CCI and does not admit of a narrow interpretation. (Para 122-124)

NATIONALISATION ACT — Monopolies in coal industry — Court held that coal companies are considered monopolies under the Nationalisation Act — The first appellant and its subsidiary enjoy a monopoly over production, distribution, and sale of coal — Court clarified that government companies, even when pursuing goals outlined in the Directive Principles, must act fairly, avoid discrimination, and not act with caprice. (Para 109-111)

COMPETITION ACT, 2002 — Applicability to government companies — Court held that there is no merit in the contention that government companies governed by the Nationalisation Act are exempt from the Competition Act — The Act applies to all enterprises, including government companies, to prevent abuse of dominant position and ensure fair competition — However, appellants have the right to defend their actions under the law. (Para 125)

JUDICIAL REVIEW — Standards of fairness — Court clarified that government companies must adhere to the standard of fairness and duty to avoid discriminatory practices — Judicial review requires holding government companies accountable for their actions — The Act provides a specialized forum, the CCI, which is an expert body and can seek valuable inputs from experts and the report of the Director General of Investigation. (Para 120, 119)

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW — Directive Principles of State Policy — Government companies' obligations — Court emphasized that government companies, even when pursuing the goals of the Directive Principles, cannot act solely as profit-making engines or disregard their obligations under the Constitution — They must balance their objectives with the standards of fairness and non-discrimination. (Para 118, 120)

DISPOSAL OF CASES:

Court disposed of the transferred cases and ordered them to be dealt with on their own merits — The appeal would also be dealt with on its own merits — Interlocutory applications seeking interim relief and the contempt petition were listed for hearing at a later date. (Para 125, 126)

Share Allotment - Increase in Authorized Capital - Oppression and Mismanagement - Allegations of illegality and defect in allotment of shares - Whether the increase in authorized capital and allotment of shares amounted to oppression and mismanagement - Whether the actions of the appellants were defective or unfair - Concurrent findings of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) - Whether the courts below erred in their findings. (Para 46)

Repayment of Money - Allotment of Shares - Allegation of repayment of money to a member of the appellants' group - Whether the repayment was a legitimate transaction or an act of oppression - Whether the transaction had bona fide intentions. (Para 37)

Notice to Shareholders - Complaint of non-receipt of notice - Whether the NCLAT failed to find that the respondents were served with the notice - Contention that the postal covers contained communications other than the notice - Findings of the NCLT and the NCLAT regarding the respondents' claim. (Para 41)

Increase in Authorized Capital - Allotment of Shares - Alleged violation of order of proceedings - Whether the Board of Directors acted within their authority in deciding to issue shares before the authorized capital was increased - Interpretation of relevant provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 - Comparison with the decision in Nanalal Zaver case - Examination of the Board's resolution and its compliance with the law. (Para 48)

Act of Oppression - Change in Shareholding Pattern - Effect of the respondents' refusal to participate in share allotment - Whether the change in shareholding pattern was a result of the appellants' unfair actions or the respondents' voluntary decision - Examination of the facts and circumstances. (Para 46, 52)

Bona Fide Intention - Fresh Funds - Debt-Equity Ratio - Alleged absence of bona fides in increasing authorized capital and allotting shares - Claim that the increase was for infusing fresh funds, but only a smaller amount was brought in - Argument of the appellants regarding the improvement of the debt-equity ratio - Examination of the purpose behind the increase in authorized capital and the impact on the company's financial condition. (Para 47)

Findings of NCLT and NCLAT - Concurrent findings of the NCLT and the NCLAT regarding the awareness of the respondents about the increase in share capital and the compliance with the law - Consideration of the factual findings and their relevance to the determination of oppression and mismanagement. (Para 42)

Compliance with Law - Application for Shares - Entitlement of shareholders to apply for shares in proportion to their existing shares - Whether the allotment of shares in excess of the ratio was permissible only after a shareholder refused to take up their entitled shares - Understanding of the NCLAT's decision on the application process - Examination of the legality of the allotment process. (Para 43)

Allotment of Shares - Defect or Illegality - Examination of the allegations of defect or illegality in the allotment of shares - Whether the actions of the appellants can be considered defective, illegal, or oppressive - Determination based on the facts and circumstances of the case. (Para 45)

Criminal Appeal - Conviction under Section 302 of IPC - Appellants convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment - Appeal against conviction - Benefit of doubt - Interpolation in FIR - Delay in conducting post-mortem - Lack of credible eye-witnesses - Discrepancies in evidence - Presence of accused appellants not well established - Acquittal granted - Judgment and orders of lower courts set aside. (Para 23)

FIR - Ante-timing - Infirmities in FIR - Interpolation of time and conversion of PM to AM - Loss of evidentiary value - Benefit of doubt granted to accused. (Para 12, 13)

Presence of Accused - Doubts raised - Conduct and behavior of son and nephew of deceased unnatural - Failure to intervene or provide medical aid - Failure to produce recovered items allegedly belonging to accused - Lack of credible evidence establishing presence of accused appellants at the scene of the crime. (Para 16, 17, 19)

Failure of Prosecution - Failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt - Lack of independent eye-witnesses - Inconsistencies in witness statements - Non-production of recovered items - Doubts cast on authenticity of prosecution's case - Benefit of doubt accorded to accused appellants. (Para 22, 24)

 Acquittal - Accused appellant No.1 acquitted - Benefit of doubt given - Judgment and orders of lower courts set aside. (Para 25)

Facts : Partition suit - Allegations of fraudulent conduct - High Court declaring preliminary decree to be vitiated by fraud.

Application for intervention - Filed by legal heirs of a defendant - Challenging validity of sale deed and lack of consideration - Alleging impleadment of deceased party after death - Lack of specific information regarding impleadment date.

Application by Asset Reconstruction Company - Equitable mortgage created by deposit of title deeds - Seeking impleadment to protect public money belonging to banks - Previous impleadment applications dismissed - Lack of challenge to dismissal of previous applications.

Application by Cooperative Housing Society - Claiming ownership of land based on sale deed and subsequent assignments - Challenging High Court's declaration of fraud in preliminary decree - Asserting finality of previous proceedings in their favor - Seeking clarification of judgment - Petition for review already filed.

Held: Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Appeals - Partition suit - Preliminary decree - Validity - Fraud - High Court declaring preliminary decree to be vitiated by fraud - Challenge thereto - Held, High Court erred in declaring preliminary decree to be vitiated by fraud without sufficient evidence or pleadings - Observations of fraud confined to specific land - Finding not binding on State Government - Appeals dismissed. (Para 226(i))Sale of Property - Validity - Sale deed executed by power agent after principal's death - Validity questioned - Allegation that principal was not impleaded in suit before his death - Applicability of sale deed - Held, due to lack of specific information on the date of impleadment, final determination on validity cannot be made - Applicant's contention requires further verification - Appeal dismissed. (Para 214)

Intervention - Impleadment - Equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds - Application for intervention by Asset Reconstruction Company - Claiming public money at stake - Bar on jurisdiction of Civil Court - Held, Asset Reconstruction Company's previous impleadment applications dismissed - Cannot piggyback on appeals filed by others - Dismissed. (Para 217)

Cooperative Housing Society - Impleadment - Directions - Application by Cooperative Housing Society seeking impleadment and directions - Claiming ownership rights over land - Challenging High Court's declaration of preliminary decree as vitiated by fraud - Held, High Court's declaration of fraud confined to specific land - Application seeking clarification not permissible - Review petition already filed - Application dismissed. (Para 222)