Criminal Procedure - Jurisdiction of Magistrate - Power to direct registration of FIR - Limits on the Magistrate's discretion - Magistrate's power to take cognizance and postpone process under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. - Distinction between powers of Police to register and investigate an FIR under Section 154(1) read with 157 of the Cr.P.C. and the Magistrate's power to direct registration of an FIR under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. - Procedural distinction between the two powers. (Para 22, 24, 25, 26, 28, 31, 32)

Scope of power of the Magistrate to direct an FIR under Section 156(3) - Discretion to issue directions based on application of mind and credibility of information - Possibility of directing preliminary inquiry - Exercise of discretion guided by interest of justice - Examination of the veracity of the complaint and determination of sufficient grounds for proceeding. (Para 27, 28, 29, 30)

Importance of examining the nature of cases and material available before deciding to direct investigation or proceed under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. - Distinction between pre-cognizance stage power under Section 156(3) and post-cognizance stage power under Section 202 - Purpose and procedure of inquiry and investigation. (Para 25, 26, 30, 32)

Requirement of proper application of mind by the Magistrate - Avoidance of routine issuance of directions for registration of FIR - Need for affidavit support and prevention of false allegations - Vigilance in specific types of cases. (Para 28)

Analysis of power of the Magistrate under Section 156(3) and Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. - Procedure to be followed before taking cognizance or directing investigation - Role of the Police and the Magistrate in different stages of the process. (Para 29, 30, 31)

Consideration of the complainant's conduct and contradictory explanations for delay in lodging the complaint - Allegations of abuse of process of law - Examination of allegations and counter-allegations in the pursuit of truth and justice - Importance of compliance with procedures and rules of evidence. (Para 33, 34, 35)

Role of the Magistrate in deciding whether to take cognizance and issue directions under Section 156(3) or proceed under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. - Examination of the veracity of the complaint and determination of sufficient grounds for proceeding - Discretion guided by interest of justice - Power to direct preliminary inquiry. Appeal Disposed of. (Para 38)

Criminal Appeal - Conviction and Sentence - Murder and Attempt to Commit Suicide - Administration of Poison to Children - Premature Release - Application for Premature Release - Rejection by State - High Court upholds Conviction under Section 302 IPC - Acquittal under Section 309 IPC - Appeal before Supreme Court - Analysis of Facts and Relevant Provisions of IPC - Benefit of Exceptions under Section 300 IPC - Conversion of Conviction - Denied - Validity of Rejection of Premature Release - State Level Committee Recommendation - Undisputed Reflective Conduct and Long Incarceration - Cruel and Brutal Nature of Offense - Court's Observations - Release Ordered. (Para 1-23)

Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC - Sudden Provocation - Extenuating Circumstance - Appellant's Actions not Falling under Exception - Precedents Distinguished. (Para 10-12)

Benefit of Premature Release - Government Order - Minimum Completion of Ten Years Incarceration - State Level Committee's Positive Recommendation - State's Rejection - Cruel and Brutal Nature of Offense as Ground - Court's Observation - No Valid Reason for Rejection - Appellant's Suffering and Undisputed Reflective Conduct - Release Ordered. (Para 16-20)

Judgment and Order of High Court - Conviction under Section 302 IPC - Acquittal under Section 309 IPC - Upheld by Supreme Court. (Para 5-6)

Accused charged with serious offenses under Sections 302, 307, 201, and 120-B of the IPC - High Court granted bail without considering material from investigation - Appeal filed. [Para 1]

Supreme Court holds that High Court's bail order is unsustainable - Material collected during investigation should be considered in cases involving serious offenses under Section 302 of IPC - Accused directed to surrender within ten days - High Court directed to decide bail applications afresh - Consideration of material/evidence from investigation and relevant aspects - Prompt disposal after accused surrender. [Para 2, 3, 4]

Election petition - Non-compliance with the requirement of stating material facts - Dismissal of election petition - In an election petition, it is mandatory to state material facts on which the petitioner relies, constituting a cause of action - Omission of a single material fact leads to an incomplete cause of action and renders the petition liable to be dismissed - Election petition must contain a concise statement of material facts as per Section 83(1)(a) of the RP Act - Failure to state material facts warrants dismissal under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the CPC read with Section 83(1)(a) of the RP Act (para 29, 31, 32, 33, 34).

Distinction between material facts and particulars - Material facts are primary or basic facts necessary to prove the cause of action, while particulars are details supporting material facts - All material facts must be pleaded, and omission of a single material fact results in an incomplete cause of action - Particulars ensure fair trial but should not be confused with material facts (para 55, 56, 57, 58).

Requirement of stating material facts in an election petition - Election petition must state material facts constituting a cause of action under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the RP Act - Material facts refer to the entire bundle of facts constituting a complete cause of action - Mere bald and vague allegations without basis are insufficient - Positive and negative statements of facts must be included in the petition (para 27, 29, 30, 31).

Scrutiny of nomination papers and Form 26 - Affidavit in Form 26 along with the nomination paper must be furnished by the candidate - Returning Officer has the power to reject nominations on various grounds, including non-compliance with Section 33 of the RP Act and Rule 4A of the Rules - If there was a lapse in scrutiny or non-disclosure in Form 26, the election petition must still state material facts constituting a cause of action (para 32).

Dismissal of election petition - Election petition lacking material facts and not complying with Section 83(1)(a) of the RP Act is liable to be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC read with Section 83(1)(a) of the RP Act - Absence of material facts for a cause of action under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the RP Act warrants dismissal - Proper compliance with the requirement of stating material facts is essential (para 34, 35).

Corporate Law - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Whether the resolution plan can dilute, negate, or override the pledge agreement because a resolution plan to this effect has been approved by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) - Whether the Appellant No. 1 can be treated as a financial creditor under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code – Held - Appellant No. 1 - Vistra, a secured creditor, is being denied the rights under Section 52 as well as Section 53 of the Code in respect of the pledged shares, whereas, the intent of the amended Section 30(2) read with Section 31 of the Code is too contrary, as it recognizes and protects the interests of other creditors who are outside the purview of the CoC - Appellant No. 1 to be treated as a secured creditor in terms of Section 52 read with Section 53 of the Code - Appeal disposed of accordingly. (Para 9.1)

Article 32 - Writ Petition - Mercy Petition - Commutation of death sentence - Delay in deciding the Mercy Petition - Petitioner seeks commutation of death sentence into imprisonment for life - Petitioner's involvement in bomb blast resulting in the death of Chief Minister and others - Conviction and death sentence awarded by Trial Court - Conviction confirmed by High Court - Co-accused's appeals pending before Supreme Court - Petitioner's claim of Mercy Petition filed on his behalf - Union of India denies receipt of any Mercy Petition by the petitioner - Allegation of inordinate delay in disposal of Mercy Petition for over 10 years. [Para 1]

Ministry of Home Affairs letter - Proposal for commutation - Remission and release of prisoners - Commemoration of Guru Nanak Dev Ji's birth anniversary - Mercy Petition of the petitioner included in the proposal - Petitioner's counsel relies on the letter for seeking commutation. [Para 6]

Competent authority's decision to defer consideration of Mercy Petition - Pending appeals of co-accused - Concerns regarding security and law and order situation - Ministry of Home Affairs defers decision on the Mercy Petition - Petitioner's counsel objects to the decision - Court upholds the deferment, considering it a decision declining to grant the Mercy Petition at present. [Para 15]

No inordinate delay in disposal of Mercy Petition - Petitioner himself did not file the Mercy Petition - Alleged Mercy Petition filed by SGPC on petitioner's behalf - Ministry of Home Affairs' communication in 2019 initiated the process of considering commutation - Directions of the court to consider the Mercy Petition despite pending appeals of co-accused. [Para 17]

Court declines to issue further directions - Competent authority to consider Mercy Petition when deemed necessary - Disposal of the writ petition - Pending applications disposed of. [Para 22]

Classification of a product - Medicament or cosmetic - Interpretation of provisions - Applicability of Chapter 30 and Chapter 33 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 - Analysis of relevant entries and amendments - Ingredient test and common parlance test - Consideration of labeling and therapeutic uses. (Para 5, 10)

Ingredient test - Examination of the composition and medicinal properties of the product - Application of fundamental principles of Homeopathy - Reference to the analysis in the case of Bakson Homeo Pharmacy - Product found to be a medicament. (Para 22.4, 24)

Common parlance test - Understanding of the product in its commonly understood manner - Medicinal qualities and intended use - Relevance of availability without prescription - Reference to cases of Sharma Chemical and Meghdoot - Product remains a medicament. (Para 25, 26)

Impact of label and packaging - Hair oil as a medium for application of Homeopathic medicine - Rejection of cosmetic classification based on label alone - Reference to BPL Pharmaceuticals case - Product primarily carries pharmaceutical value. (Para 23, 23.2, 23.3)

Amendments to tariff structure - Chapter 30 and Chapter 33 - Relevance of changes in wording and entries - No justification for re-classification of the product - Reference to principles from BPL Pharmaceuticals and Vicco Laboratories cases. (Para 30, 31, 32)

Conclusion - Product classified as 'medicament' under Chapter 30 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 - Rejection of re-classification attempts - Dismissal of the appeal. (Para 34, 35)

Rule of law - New government not permitted to overturn previous government decisions: The High Court misinterpreted the government orders as overturning decisions of the previous government. The orders were intended to inquire into corruption allegations against the previous government. [Para 5.1]

Executive powers - Government's power of review: The High Court erred in stating that the government, in exercising its executive powers, does not have an inherent power of review. [Para 3.1]

Investigation - Constitution of Sub-Committee/SIT: The Sub-Committee and the Special Investigation Team (SIT) were constituted for the purpose of fact-finding and inquiring into allegations of corruption/misfeasance against the previous government. [Para 3.4]

Interim stay - Premature grant of interim stay: The High Court should not have granted an interim stay at such an early stage of the matter, as the Central Government was yet to decide on referring the matter to the CBI. [Para 5.3]

Impleadment - Union of India: The High Court's dismissal of the State's application to implead the Union of India was criticized, as the Union of India should be a proper and necessary party to the writ petitions. [Para 5.4]

Directions: The appeals were allowed, the orders on impleadment were set aside, and the Union of India was directed to be added as a respondent in the writ petitions. The High Court was directed to decide the pending writ petitions on merits within three months, without being influenced by the observations made by the Supreme Court. [Para 6]

Section 140(5) of the Companies Act, 2013 - Maintainability of proceedings under - Auditor's resignation - Whether proceedings under section 140(5) can be maintained after the resignation of auditors - Held, the intention of the legislature while enacting section 140(5) is clear and the Tribunal is vested with powers under this section to pass a final order against the auditor for acting in a fraudulent manner, irrespective of the resignation - Proceedings under section 140(5) can be maintained and continued even after the resignation of auditors - High Court erred in holding otherwise. (Para 10 and 11)

Section 140(5) of the Companies Act, 2013 - Constitutional validity - Challenge to - Held, section 140(5) is not arbitrary, excessive, or violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution - The provision confers quasi-judicial powers upon the Tribunal, and ample opportunity is provided to the auditors before passing any final order - Auditors play a crucial role in the affairs of the company and section 140(5) is not discriminatory against auditors. (Para 12 and 13)

Section 212(14) of the Companies Act, 2013 - Quashing of direction to prosecute - SFIO report - Whether the direction to prosecute under section 212(14) can be quashed on the ground of non-application of mind and incomplete investigation report - Held, issuance of the direction within a short period does not indicate non-application of mind - Detailed note prepared by the investigating officer was considered by the final authority - The report of about 750 pages and 32000 pages of annexures could have been considered in 30 hours - SFIO report was not incomplete; it was a record of the investigation into the specific company - High Court erred in setting aside the direction on these grounds. (Para 15.1, 15.2, and 15.3)

Section 212(14) of the Companies Act, 2013 - Quashing of prosecution - Held, the direction to prosecute was properly given based on the SFIO report - Accused will have ample opportunity to present their case during the trial - High Court erred in quashing the prosecution. (Para 17)

Criminal Complaint CC No. 20/2019 - Quashing of - Held, the quashing of the criminal complaint filed by SFIO is set aside - The concerned Trial Court should proceed with the criminal complaint in accordance with the law and on its own merits. (Para 18)

Appeals - Allowance and dismissal of appeals - Constitutional validity of section 140(5) upheld - High Court's decision on maintainability of proceedings under section 140(5) quashed - High Court's decision to quash the direction to prosecute and the prosecution itself set aside - Appeals filed by the Union of India allowed - Appeals filed by Deloitte and its partners dismissed.