Criminal Law - Dowry Death – Cruelty – Section 304-B, 498-A IPC – Acquittal – Suicide of wife – Husband and in-laws charged of continuous torture and harassment on demands of dowry – Trial court acquitted accused under Section 304-B IPC for absence of dowry demand but convicted under Section 498-A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act relying on oral testimony of PW2 to PW5 and letters (Exts. 6 & 7) allegedly written by deceased – High Court affirmed conviction under Section 498-A but set aside conviction under Section 4 of the DP Act and modified sentence – Held: Evidence both oral and documentary falls short of establishing the charge under Section 498-A IPC; appellant acquitted [Paras 2–12].

Conviction – Inconsistency – Section 498-A IPC – General and Omnibus Allegations – Trial court convicted under Section 498-A IPC despite its own finding that no specific or definite instances, particular day or time of torture were pointed out by witnesses – High Court similarly affirmed conviction while finding absence of specific particulars – Held: Conviction on general and omnibus allegations without specific substantiation is unsustainable; the very basis of conviction was inherently contradictory [Paras 3, 5, 11].

Conviction under Dowry Prohibition Act – Inconsistency with Acquittal under Section 304-B IPC – Trial court having found no demand of dowry established, proceeded to convict accused under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act – Held: Such conviction is plainly inconsistent with the trial court's own finding of no dowry demand; rightly set aside by the High Court [Para 3].

Oral Testimony – Credibility – Omnibus Nature – PW2, PW3, PW4 and PW5 (brother and cousin brothers of deceased) deposed regarding demands of dowry and mediation (Samaj) – PW5 named PW6 as a participant in the mediation but the Investigating Officer (PW10) stated PW6 had made no such statement before police – PW4, an independent witness, was not among the six persons named by PW5 – Held: Testimony of witnesses was general and omnibus; neither specific demands nor persons making such demands nor specific instances were pointed out [Paras 7–9].

Documentary Evidence – Letters Written by Deceased – Proof of Handwriting – Exts. 6 and 7 alleged to be letters written by deceased to her father and brother – Discrepancy as to who produced the letters before police; PW3 stated letters were received by post and covers handed to the I.O., which the I.O. denied – Letters bore no date – I.O. took no steps to verify handwriting as that of the deceased – Contents vague, indicating only discord between families without establishing harassment or torture – Held: In absence of proof of handwriting, no reliance can be placed on the alleged letters [Para 10].

Section 498-A IPC – Scope – Unlawful Demand and Cruelty – Court reiterated that Section 498-A does not require a dowry demand, as any unlawful demand by husband or his family is covered under Explanation (b), and any willful conduct driving wife to commit suicide constitutes cruelty under Explanation (a) – However, on facts, oral testimony failed to establish any unlawful demand or acts of physical or mental torture [Para 11].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgments of trial court and High Court reversed – Appellant acquitted under Section 498-A IPC – Appellant to be released forthwith if not required in any other case [Paras 12–13].

Environmental Law – Illegal Sand Mining – National Chambal Gharial Sanctuary – Suo Motu Proceedings – Continuing Judicial Supervision – Court examining compliance with directions issued vide orders dated 2nd April, 17th April and 14th May, 2026 – States of Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh found to have initiated measures at nascent stage only – State of Rajasthan specifically found to have demonstrated administrative apathy, with surveillance systems, GPS integration, inter-State coordination and enforcement infrastructure yet to be operationalised – Adequate surveillance mechanisms, live monitoring systems and enforcement infrastructure absent despite identification of vulnerable locations – Court issuing sixteen comprehensive operative directions under Article 142 of the Constitution of India [Paras 1-45].

Enforcement – Unregistered and Unidentified Vehicles – Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Inadequacy of Challans – Compliance affidavits of all three States found to not satisfactorily address the issue of vehicles operating without registration particulars or number plates – State of Madhya Pradesh data revealed that over 250 vehicles were merely released upon payment of nominal fines of approximately Rs. 5,000/- without prosecution, seizure, ownership investigation or confiscation proceedings – Court holding that permitting vehicles to operate upon payment of nominal penalties creates an atmosphere of complete impunity and treats penal consequences as insignificant operational costs – Directed immediate interception, seizure, confiscation proceedings, criminal prosecution and digital record maintenance against all such vehicles and their owners, financiers and operators [Paras 24-27].

Forest Department – Vacancies – Frontline Enforcement Personnel – Administrative Lethargy – Forest Guards and field-level personnel found to be substantially deficient in all three States – State of Rajasthan conceded that last recruitment to Forest Guard posts was approximately four years ago and recruitment process proceeding at unduly slow pace – Court holding that technological infrastructure such as CCTV surveillance systems cannot substitute for adequately staffed field enforcement mechanism – Frontline personnel constitute the first and most critical layer of protection against illegal mining – Directed Chief Secretaries of all three States to file affidavits detailing concrete recruitment measures and ensuring vacant posts filled within one year [Paras 28-32, Direction A].

Public Infrastructure – NH-44 Bridge – Morena-Dholpur Border – NHAI Obligations – Illegal excavation and mining activities in dangerous proximity to bridge pillars and supporting structures verified by Central Empowered Committee – NHAI sought to confine its obligation to maintenance within Right of Way – Court holding that NHAI cannot adopt a passive approach and its duty to maintain safe transportation infrastructure includes anticipating and addressing external threats capable of compromising such infrastructure – Directed NHAI to install high-resolution CCTV cameras with night vision on high-mast structures covering 1 kilometre upstream and 500 metres downstream of bridge, with live feed shared with Police and Forest Departments for coordinated enforcement [Paras 33-37, Directions G-I].

Environmental Governance – Constitutional Obligations – Articles 21, 48A and 51A(g) – Reactive Administration – Court observing that several crucial enforcement decisions by States were initiated only after judicial intervention assumed a more coercive and supervisory character – Environmental governance cannot be reduced to a reactive exercise undertaken only after repeated judicial intervention or upon threat of personal accountability before constitutional Courts – Constitutional obligations cast a continuing duty upon the State to anticipate environmental harm, prevent ecological degradation and ensure preservation of fragile ecosystems through proactive governance and enforcement [Paras 22-23].

River Ecology – Environmental Flows – Chambal River – Central Empowered Committee Report – Scientific assessment indicating significant reduction in lean-season and summer flows over last three decades, resulting in habitat fragmentation, reduction in dissolved oxygen levels and severe restrictions upon movement of aquatic fauna – Major hydraulic structures and dams significantly affecting downstream flows – Court directing States of Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Ministry of Jal Shakti and Central Water Commission to file affidavits indicating measures for maintenance, preservation and augmentation of environmental flows – Ministry of Jal Shakti and Central Water Commission impleaded as party respondents [Paras 39-41, Directions M-P].

Wildlife Sanctuary – De-notification – Rajasthan – Stay Confirmed – State of Rajasthan had issued notification dated 23rd December, 2025 seeking de-notification of approximately 732 hectares of land falling within the National Chambal Gharial Sanctuary under Section 18 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 – MoEF&CC placed on record that Supreme Court's order dated 13th November, 2000 in W.P. (Civil) No. 337 of 1995 directed that no de-reservation of forests, sanctuaries or national parks shall be effected pending further orders – Guidelines dated 15th March, 2011 require prior approval of this Court before any de-notification – Stay of notification continued – Issue to be considered on next date [Paras 42-44].

Waste Dumping – Chambal River – Bridge – Aquatic Wildlife – Central Empowered Committee having recorded during site visit that substantial quantities of waste were being discarded into the Chambal River through gaps in protective railings of bridge, with photographic evidence showing accumulation of waste near bridge piers and presence of crocodiles and muggers in proximity to such waste – Court directing NHAI to install tamper-proof fencing and protective mesh and seal all gaps – Strict enforcement action including penalties directed against persons found dumping waste [Para 38, Direction J].

Forest Personnel – Welfare – Madhya Pradesh Forest Employees Association – Interlocutory Application – Frontline forest personnel including Forest Guards and Rangers functioning in hazardous conditions involving illegal mining operations and attacks by organized groups – Application highlighting absence of comprehensive and uniform policy for compensation, compassionate appointment and insurance for families of personnel dying in line of duty – Court holding issues not confined to Madhya Pradesh alone but pervasive in nature – Notice issued to all three States to file replies indicating existing policy framework and measures for strengthening welfare of such personnel [Paras 50-53].

Decision: Order issued — Sixteen operative directions issued under Article 142 of the Constitution — States of Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh directed to fill Forest Department vacancies within one year, operationalise surveillance infrastructure within six months, and undertake stringent enforcement against illegal mining vehicles including seizure and prosecution of owners and financiers — NHAI directed to install 24-hour CCTV surveillance infrastructure on NH-44 bridge and share live feed with enforcement authorities — Ministry of Jal Shakti and Central Water Commission impleaded and directed to file affidavits on environmental flows — States directed to file fresh compliance reports — Conservation Action Trust's application disposed of with liberty to share material with Amicus Curiae — Notice issued on MP Forest Employees Association application — Matter listed for 22nd July, 2026 [Paras 45-54].

Criminal Law - Quashing of FIR - Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 - Section 7(a) - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 482 - Respondent No. 1 a Police Sub-Inspector was accused of directing a complainant to provide illegal gratification to subordinates by stating do something for those boys - High Court quashed the FIR at the nascent stage of investigation on grounds that no direct demand or acceptance was made by the accused personally - Supreme Court observed that High Court traversed beyond permissible limits of jurisdiction by examining trap results and departmental enquiry findings - Held - High Court essentially conducted a mini-trial which is impermissible under Section 482 CrPC as allegations prima facie disclosed an offence of attempt to obtain undue advantage through subordinates - FIR and proceedings restored - [Paras 13-17].

Criminal Law - Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 - Section 7(a) and Explanation 2 - Scope of demand - Respondent No. 1 allegedly made a veiled demand for his subordinates while releasing a seized vehicle - High Court held that ingredient of demand was absent as no money was sought for himself - Supreme Court clarified that Section 7(a) read with Explanation 2(i) expands the scope to include undue advantages for another person - Explanation 2(ii) makes it immaterial whether the advantage is obtained directly or through a third party - Held - The statute aims to curb indirect corruption where senior officials orchestrate collections through subordinates while maintaining personal deniability - [Paras 18-25].

Criminal Law - Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 - Section 7(a) - Attempt to obtain - Definition of attempt - Court noted that Section 7 punishes the attempt to obtain an undue advantage - Attempt implies no more than a mere solicitation which may be implicit or explicit - Actual exchange of bribe is not an essential requirement for prosecution - Held - Implicit yet unmistakable direction to provide gratification to subordinates falls within the scope of attempt to obtain - [Paras 26-27].

Criminal Law - Quashing of FIR - Pre-trial vs Post-trial standards - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 482 - Respondent relied on judgments such as K. Shanthamma and Neeraj Dutta which were rendered after full trial - Supreme Court held that standards of proof beyond reasonable doubt applicable at the end of trial cannot be transplanted to the pre-trial stage of quashing - Held - At the stage of considering a petition for quashing an FIR the court is only required to determine if allegations taken at face value disclose a cognizable offence - [Paras 28-31].

Criminal Law - Departmental Enquiry - Evidence - Respondent argued that exoneration of subordinates in departmental proceedings should benefit him - Supreme Court held that findings of a departmental enquiry pertain to service law and cannot operate as an automatic exoneration in a criminal investigation - Held - Such findings are matters of evidence for the trial court and cannot be used to sustain an order quashing an FIR - [Paras 31-32].

Criminal Law - Mala Fides - Retaliatory complaint - Accused contended the FIR was motivated by prior hostility - Supreme Court held that existence of prior disputes does not justify quashing if the allegations disclose a prima facie offence - Held - Motive of the complainant is a matter to be tested during cross-examination at trial and not at the threshold of investigation - [Paras 32-34].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and order of the High Court of Karnataka dated 23.01.2024 set aside – FIR bearing Crime No. 04/2023 restored – Trial court directed to proceed in accordance with law.

Trust Law – Registered Societies – Voting Rights in Shareholding – Majority Rule vs. Unanimity – Interlocutory Orders Set Aside – Three societies registered under the West Bengal Societies Registration Act, 1961, each holding shares in Birla Corporation Limited, instituted suits seeking protection of their voting rights at the company's Annual General Meeting – The Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, relying on Section 48 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 and L. Janakirama Iyer v. Nilakanta Iyer, held that trustees must act in consonance and that absence of joinder by even one trustee defeats the decision – The Division Bench also directed that the vote cast first by the plaintiff society, irrespective of whether cast by the Managing Committee or the Board of Trustees, shall be taken into consideration – Held: Impugned judgment set aside on all three issues; appeals allowed [Paras 2-4, 34-39].

Issue I – Trustee Decision-Making – Majority Sufficiency – Clause 24 of By-Laws – Section 48 of Indian Trusts Act, 1882 – Clause 24 of the by-laws of all three societies expressly permits delegation of authority by a resolution evidenced in writing under the hands of the majority of trustees, and declares such delegation to be as valid and effectual as a resolution passed at a formal meeting – Section 48 of the Trusts Act itself contains an exception where the instrument of trust otherwise provides – Held: The Division Bench erred in applying Section 48 as an absolute rule requiring unanimous trustee action, thereby reading out the express exception in the statute and rendering Clause 24 of the by-laws otiose – A majority-backed written decision falling within the framework of Clause 24 is valid and cannot be defeated by non-joinder or dissent of any individual trustee [Paras 8-17].

Issue II – Internal Governance – Board of Trustees vs. Managing Committee – Source of Voting Authority – The Memorandum of Association and Rules and Regulations of the societies vest all movable and immovable properties in the trustees and expressly provide that the Managing Committee is entitled to exercise only such powers as are delegated by the trustees from time to time – The words "notwithstanding," "subject to," and "only" in the constitutive documents establish a two-tier structure wherein the Board of Trustees is the source body and the Managing Committee is a body of delegated administration – Shares held by the societies in BCL form part of their assets and properties, and authority to exercise voting rights attached to such shares must be traced to the trustees – Held: The Division Bench erred in treating the Board of Trustees and the Managing Committee as normatively interchangeable for the purpose of authorising the vote; the correct approach was first to identify the body in which authority inhered and thereafter to examine whether it stood delegated [Paras 18-24].

Issue III – Electronic Voting – Section 108 of Companies Act, 2013 – Rule 20 of Companies (Management and Administration) Rules, 2014 – Chronology vs. Authority – The Division Bench directed that the vote cast first by the plaintiff society, irrespective of the source of authority, shall be taken into consideration – The statutory and procedural framework governing remote e-voting requires non-individual shareholders to submit Board Resolutions or authority letters for scrutiniser verification, establishing that authority is anterior to and foundational for the act of voting – Held: The statutory scheme protects the first valid vote of the member against duplication or subsequent alteration; it does not enact that whichever rival claimant acts first must prevail regardless of lawful authority – Priority in point of time cannot substitute for lawful authority; the impugned direction substituting chronology for authority is unsustainable in law [Paras 25-32].

Scope of Adjudication – No Pronouncement on Factual Disputes – The Court clarified that it has not adjudicated upon the factual or ultimate legal validity of any particular resolution, including the resolutions dated 04.03.2021, or of any subsequent authorisation, cessation, removal, nomination or appointment – All such questions, including maintainability of the suits, shall be decided by the competent forum on their own merits – Suits and interlocutory applications restored to the file of the High Court for fresh consideration by the Single Judge [Paras 6, 40-41].

Decision: Civil Appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 1182 of 2023, 1183 of 2023 and 23145 of 2022 preferred by Hindustan Medical Institution, Eastern India Educational Institution and Belle Vue Clinic allowed in full – Civil Appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 1185 of 2023, 1187 of 2023 and 22799 of 2022 preferred by Ms. Anamika Lodha allowed to the limited extent of the challenge to the "first vote prevails" direction – Common judgment and order dated 26.09.2022 of the Division Bench set aside – Orders dated 16.09.2022 of the Single Judge also set aside – No order as to costs.

Service Law - Voluntary Retirement from Service - All India Service Death-cum-Retirement Benefits Rules 1958 - Rule 16(2A) - Rejection of VRS request - Appellant an IPS officer belonging to 1997 Batch Maharashtra cadre applied for VRS under Rule 16(2A) - State Government recommended acceptance stating that three pending complaints were unlikely to result in major penalty - Central Government rejected notice on the ground that the officer was not clear from vigilance angle as disciplinary proceedings were pending or contemplated - CAT and High Court dismissed challenges holding Central Government as the final authority - Supreme Court found that on the date of rejection no chargesheet was served meaning proceedings were not pending - Court observed two complaints were either inconclusive or withdrawn while third was delayed - Held - Central Government is the ultimate authority for VRS acceptance but must exercise discretion with independent application of mind and engagement with State Government views - rejection order set aside due to non-application of mind and remanded for fresh decision considering subsequent developments and unexplained delays - [Paras 1-34].

Service Law - Scope of Acceptance - All India Service Death-cum-Retirement Benefits Rules 1958 - Rule 16(2A) - Authority of Central Government - The word acceptance in Rule 16(2A) cannot be construed as a ministerial act or automatic exercise - Central Government must apply its mind to all relevant materials to arrive at an informed decision - While not bound by State Government recommendations the Central Government must accord them weight as the State has direct supervisory knowledge - Held - The Central Government has the last word on career-terminating decisions but must balance discipline with fairness in action - [Paras 15-22].

Service Law - Pendency and Contemplation - All India Services Discipline and Appeal Rules 1969 - Rule 8 - Initiation of proceedings - Disciplinary proceeding is considered pending only upon the issuance of a formal chargesheet - Contemplation requires a deliberate intention to act on a complaint rather than mere existence of a complaint - Unexplained and abnormal delay in concluding proceedings causes prejudice and mental agony to the employee - Held - Method and manner of conducting proceedings with long unjustified delays is unacceptable and must be considered when evaluating VRS requests - [Paras 23-31].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Order dated 25.10.2019 set aside – Central Government directed to revisit the decision and examine the notice for voluntary retirement afresh within three months.

Land Allotment – Irregular Allotment by CIDCO – Regularisation vs. Demolition – Public Interest – Doctrine of Proportionality – Developer allotted 30,582 sq. metres in Sector 30A, Vashi, Navi Mumbai by CIDCO without competitive tender and at substantially below-market rate of Rs. 10,250/- per sq. metre against market value of Rs. 20,791/- per sq. metre causing estimated loss of Rs. 50 crores – High Court declared allotment illegal and directed restoration of plot to original condition – Developer had by then invested Rs. 450 crores, obtained Occupancy Certificate in 2008, and the complex had been in continuous commercial operation since 2009 generating livelihood for approximately 8,000 persons and annual tax revenue of Rs. 100 crores – Held: Demolition of a fully operational commercial complex after seventeen years of operation would be disproportionate and contrary to public interest – Financial prejudice to CIDCO is entirely remediable through a rigorous financial recovery mechanism – High Court's direction for restoration quashed and regularisation granted subject to payment of fair market value [Paras 22–28, 39].

Doctrine of Proportionality – Remedial Measure – Public Law – A court must weigh not only the wrong committed but also the reality as it stands at the time of adjudication – The doctrine of proportionality demands that the severity of a remedial measure must bear a rational and proportionate relationship to the nature and magnitude of the wrong sought to be remedied – A remedy causing public harm disproportionate to the public benefit it achieves is not one that law ought to countenance – Adjudication cannot occur in a vacuum divorced from subsequent reality – Demolition achieves none of the three objectives of compensating CIDCO, penalising the Developer, and protecting innocent third-party livelihoods, whereas regularisation conditioned on full market value payment achieves all three [Paras 23–27].

Regularisation – Quantum of Payment – Sankaran Committee vs. Banthia Committee Methodology – CIDCO Resolution dated 04.02.2026 adopted Sankaran Committee's methodology computing recoverable amount as interest on Rs. 50 crores differential loss quantified in 2005, arriving at Rs. 262.87 crores – Held: Sankaran Committee methodology is inappropriate as it freezes valuation at a point when land values were far lower and fails to account for dramatic appreciation over subsequent decade – Banthia Committee's approach, adopting the date of the High Court's judgment (November 2014) as the reference date for market valuation, is sound both in principle and in policy – Regularisation is not a continuation of the original transaction but a fresh grant of legal legitimacy for which the Developer must pay what the land was actually worth at the time of the court's judgment [Paras 31–36].

Computation of Regularisation Amount – Ready Reckoner Rate – Market Value – Subject plot measuring 30,582 sq. metres to be valued at ready reckoner rate of Rs. 54,400/- per sq. metre applicable to Sector 30A, Vashi, Navi Mumbai as of 2014 – Market value computed at Rs. 1,66,36,60,800/- – Interest at 8% per annum from 01.12.2014 to 30.04.2026 amounting to Rs. 1,51,94,76,864/- – Total aggregate liability fixed at Rs. 3,18,31,37,664/- – Amount already paid by Developer at original allotment rate to be duly adjusted and deducted – Developer additionally liable to pay Rs. 1 crore in lieu of unfulfilled obligation to develop garden on Plot No. 40 [Paras 35–38].

Equality – Article 14 – Parity with Other Allottees – Developer sought parity with Multi Co-operative Housing Societies and individual allottees regularised under CIDCO policy dated 06.06.2005 – Held: Principle of equality does not require that unequals be treated as equals – Developer is a large commercial enterprise that developed a major commercial complex of 10,50,000 sq. feet and occupies an entirely different position from housing society allottees in terms of scale, commercial purpose, and financial capacity – Parity of treatment is warranted only among those similarly situated in all material respects [Para 30].

CIDCO Land Disposal – Regulation 4 – Mode of Allotment – Regulation 4 of the New Bombay Disposal of Lands Regulations, 1975 permits disposal of CIDCO plots not only by auction or tender but also by considering individual applications as CIDCO may from time to time determine – Where earlier tender attempts had failed, allotment on individual application was not per se illegal – Infirmity lay in the pricing mechanism and absence of transparent competitive process, not in the mode of allotment [Para 21].

Decision: Civil Appeals disposed of – High Court's direction for restoration of subject plot to original condition and delivery of vacant possession to CIDCO quashed and set aside – Allotment of subject plot to stand regularised subject to Developer paying aggregate sum of Rs. 3,18,31,37,664/- (after adjustment of amounts already paid) within four months from date of judgment – Developer to additionally pay Rs. 1 crore in lieu of unfulfilled garden development obligation – Dispute regarding Plot No. 39/16 (subject matter of W.P. No. 368 of 2015) to be decided by High Court on its own merits – No order as to costs [Paras 38–40].

Criminal Law – Sentencing Procedure – Appellate Court Conviction – Section 235(2) CrPC – Section 386(a) CrPC – Duty to Hear Accused on Sentence – The Sessions Court acquitted the appellant of offences under Sections 376, 312 and 417 IPC – On appeals by the State and the victim, the High Court reversed the acquittal and convicted the appellant under Sections 376 and 312 IPC – However, instead of hearing the convict on sentence itself, the High Court directed the convict to surrender before the Trial Judge and empowered the Trial Judge to impose sentence after hearing – Held: The procedure adopted by the High Court is contrary to Section 386(a) CrPC and settled law; the appellate court which convicts the accused for the first time must itself hear the convict on sentence and impose appropriate sentence – Matter remitted to the High Court for sentencing [Paras 6, 19-22].

Sentencing – Natural Justice – Section 235(2) CrPC – Hearing on Sentence is Mandatory – Section 235(2) CrPC mandates that if the accused is convicted, the judge shall hear the accused on the question of sentence before passing sentence – The requirement is intended to satisfy the rule of natural justice and to enable the accused to place all relevant material before the court on the question of sentence – The provision serves the dual purpose of according the accused an opportunity to be heard and assisting the court in choosing the appropriate sentence – Non-compliance is not a mere irregularity but an illegality vitiating the sentence [Paras 9-10].

Appellate Court – Reversal of Acquittal – Duty to Impose Sentence – Section 386(a) CrPC – Section 386(a) CrPC empowers the appellate court, in an appeal from an order of acquittal, to find the accused guilty and pass sentence on him according to law – The appellate court cannot, after recording conviction, abdicate the judicial function of sentencing by remitting the matter to the trial court – Where the conviction is recorded for the first time by the appellate court, the appellate court must adjourn the matter, hear the convict on sentence, and impose an appropriate sentence itself – Remand solely for sentencing is contrary to law and is the exception, not the rule [Paras 12-16, 19].

Procedure – Error by High Court – Impugned Direction Set Aside – The direction in para 108 of the High Court's judgment directing the convict to surrender before the Trial Judge and empowering the Trial Judge to pronounce and impose sentence is set aside as contrary to Section 386(a) CrPC and the judgments of this Court – The merits of the conviction have not been considered at this stage as the same would be premature – Matter restored to the High Court for fixing a date for hearing the convict on sentence, after which the High Court may impose appropriate sentence in accordance with law – Post sentencing, the appellant shall be at liberty to challenge the conviction and sentence afresh [Paras 20-22].

Decision: Appeals partly allowed – Impugned direction in para 108 of the High Court's judgment delegating sentencing to the Trial Judge set aside – Matter remitted to the High Court; CRA (DB)/6/2024 and CRA (DB)/4/2024 restored to the file of the High Court – High Court directed to fix a date for hearing the convict on sentence and thereafter impose appropriate sentence – Copy of judgment directed to be sent to the Registrar General of the Calcutta High Court for appropriate action.

Civil Law - Arbitration - Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 - Sections 14 and 29A - Subsistence of Arbitral Mandate and Natural Justice - Dispute arose between the Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board and a PVC pipe supplier regarding alleged excess payments - Sole Arbitrator was appointed in 2012 with a six-month mandate which was extended multiple times by consent and later unilaterally by the Arbitrator citing voluminous records and the Board's lack of cooperation - Board continued to participate in proceedings and requested a hearing but failed to attend the final scheduled meeting on 15.10.2015 citing pre-engagements without seeking adjournment - Arbitrator passed the award on 27.10.2015 - Board challenged the award under Section 34 alleging the mandate had expired on 30.09.2015 and that natural justice was violated - Supreme Court noted that Section 29A was not applicable at the relevant time and there was no statutory requirement for mandate extensions to be in writing - Held - Board tacitly agreed to extensions through continued participation and was estopped from challenging the mandate after the award was passed - Board's own dilatoriness caused the delay and no denial of natural justice occurred as adequate opportunities were provided - [Paras 1-25].

Civil Law - Arbitration - Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 - Section 33 - Correction of Award versus Substantive Modification - Arbitrator originally awarded simple interest at 21.675 percent per annum for the pendente lite period and compound interest for the post-award period - Respondent Company applied for correction under Section 33 seeking to replace simple interest with compound interest for the pendente lite period alleging an inadvertent error - Arbitrator declined to adjudicate citing pending Section 34 proceedings - Commercial Court in exercise of review jurisdiction modified the award to grant compound interest for the pendente lite period resulting in an escalation of liability from Rs 30.38 crores to Rs 144.93 crores - Supreme Court held that Section 33(1)(a) is strictly confined to computational- clerical- or typographical errors and cannot serve as a vehicle for substantive modification or review of merits - Characterisation of interest mode is a substantive determination by the Arbitrator - Held - Commercial Court manifestly exceeded its jurisdiction by modifying the award under Section 33 - Power of correction does not permit any material change to the award findings - [Paras 26-32].

Decision: Appeals disposed of – Judgment and decree of the High Court dated 11.11.2022 and Commercial Court order dated 25.09.2018 are set aside to the extent of substituting interest – Substitution of compound interest for simple interest for pendente lite period is quashed – Respondent held entitled to simple interest at 21.675 percent for the pendente lite period – No order as to costs.

Criminal Law - Murder - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 302 - Sentence modification - Appellant convicted for murder and sentenced to life imprisonment by Trial Court - High Court confirmed conviction based on consistent testimony of eye witnesses PW-1 PW-2 and PW-5 corroborated by medical evidence and discovery of weapon - Supreme Court declined to disturb concurrent findings on conviction - Appellant had undergone actual imprisonment of 23 years 6 months and 3 days without remission - Incident occurred in 1998 when appellant was 21 years old - Court examined the power of constitutional courts to modify life sentences to fixed terms - Held - While conviction is maintained the sentence is modified to the period already undergone - Appellant directed to be set at liberty forthwith - [Paras 1-19].

Criminal Law - Sentencing - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 53 and Section 45 - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 433-A - Power of Constitutional Courts - Life imprisonment means imprisonment for the rest of the convict's life subject to the right to claim remission under Articles 72 or 161 of the Constitution or Section 432 CrPC - High Courts and the Supreme Court possess the power to impose a modified or fixed-term sentence as an alternative to the death penalty or life imprisonment - This power can be exercised even where capital punishment is not proposed - Any such fixed-term sentence must not be less than 14 years as per the mandate of Section 433-A CrPC - Such modification does not amount to enhancement of sentence and thus does not require notice under Section 401 CrPC - Held - Imposing a fixed sentence is permissible under the interpretation of the Constitution Bench in Union of India v. V. Sriharan - [Paras 10-16].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Conviction under Section 302 IPC and Section 135 BP Act maintained – Sentence modified to the period already undergone (23 years 6 months and 3 days) – Appellant directed to be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.