Preliminary Enquiry – Pre-FIR Stage – Corruption Allegations – Permissibility – Supreme Court held that a preliminary enquiry at the pre-FIR stage in cases of corruption and disproportionate assets is permissible and desirable – Such enquiry helps ascertain if a cognizable offence is disclosed, protecting against vexatious complaints – If the enquiry finds no substance, FIR is not lodged; if prima facie offence is disclosed, FIR is registered [Paras 1-9].

Scope and Nature of Preliminary Enquiry – Discrete and Open Enquiry – Detailed procedure for conducting open enquiries as per Maharashtra State Anti-Corruption Bureau Manual – Statement and information collected during preliminary enquiry not considered as confessional – Only for assessing if a cognizable offence is disclosed – Cannot be used against the appellant during trial [Paras 10-12].

Protection of Rights – Article 20(3) and 21 of Constitution – Notice and enquiry process does not violate constitutional protections against self-incrimination – Enquiry at pre-FIR stage safeguards the interests of the accused by avoiding unnecessary harassment – Statement and documents provided to clarify assets and income sources, not confessional in nature [Paras 11-13].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – High Court judgment upheld – Preliminary enquiry permitted to determine the existence of a cognizable offence – Clarifications provided regarding the scope and usage of statements and information collected during such enquiry [Para 14].

Service Law – Appointment of Constable – Acquittal on Benefit of Doubt – Respondent acquitted under Sections 302, 323, 341, 34 of IPC due to benefit of reasonable doubt – Trial Court opined prosecution failed to prove charges beyond reasonable doubt – Respondent applied for constable post in Rajasthan Police – Recruitment process included disqualification for those not honourably acquitted – Held, acquittal based on benefit of doubt does not make respondent eligible for appointment [Paras 1-29].

Honourable Acquittal – Defined – Supreme Court emphasized distinction between clean acquittal and acquittal on benefit of doubt – Acquittal due to prosecution's failure to meet burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt does not imply clean antecedents [Paras 12-27].

Circular Application – Recruitment Disqualification – Circular dated 28.03.2017 applied during recruitment – Candidates acquitted on benefit of doubt deemed ineligible – Circular must align with judicial pronouncements that benefit of doubt does not suffice for police service eligibility [Paras 23-27].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Rajasthan Police justified in denying appointment – Impugned orders of Division Bench and Single Judge set aside – Parties to bear own costs [Paras 28-29].

Criminal Law – FIR – First Information Report – Initial telephonic message informing the police about an attack cannot be treated as an FIR – Subsequent detailed complaint recorded at 11:45 PM treated as FIR – Telephonic message lacked details like names of accused and location of the incident [Paras 21-24].

Common Intention – Establishing Common Intention – Participation in a joint criminal venture – Accused were present and facilitated the crime – Consistent testimonies of eyewitnesses indicated appellants' active role in assault – Material objects and bloodstains supported eyewitness accounts – Trial Court erred in giving primacy to medical evidence over eyewitness accounts – High Court correctly reversed acquittal based on overall evidence [Paras 31-35].

Dying Declaration – Reliability – Deceased made statements implicating accused despite critical condition – Eyewitness accounts corroborated the dying declaration – Statements of the deceased considered credible [Paras 13, 28].

Judgment – Appeal Dismissed – High Court's decision to convict appellants upheld – Trial Court's acquittal reversed due to reliance on medical evidence over credible eyewitness accounts – Appellants' involvement and common intention in the murder established beyond reasonable doubt [Para 39].

Arbitration – Appointment of Arbitrator – Respondent invoked arbitration under Clause 12.3 of the Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) with Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board – Dispute over whether Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, or Section 86(1)(f) of the Electricity Act, 2003, applies – High Court appointed an arbitrator under Section 11(6) – Held, Section 86(1)(f) of the 2003 Act provides exclusive jurisdiction to the State Electricity Commission, overriding Section 11 of the 1996 Act [Paras 1-11].

Special vs. General Law – Section 86(1)(f) as Special Provision – Supreme Court emphasized that Section 86(1)(f) of the 2003 Act is a special provision that overrides the general provisions of the 1996 Act – State Electricity Commission has exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes between licensees and generating companies [Paras 10-11].

Jurisdiction – Inherent Lack – Objection to jurisdiction can be raised at any stage – Even if parties previously consented to arbitration, lack of inherent jurisdiction can be challenged at any point – Consent cannot confer jurisdiction where statute does not provide it [Paras 13-14].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court’s order appointing an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the 1996 Act set aside – Respondent may seek remedies available under law – No order as to costs [Para 15].

Land Acquisition – Compensation Enhancement – Market Value Determination – Notification under Section 28 of U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965, equivalent to Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, issued on 26.06.1982 for acquiring land – Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs. 50/- per square yard – Reference Court enhanced to Rs. 120/- per square yard – High Court further enhanced to Rs. 297/- per square yard – Supreme Court set aside High Court’s enhancement – Market value determined on basis of comparable sale instances and judicial precedents [Paras 2-13, 27-34].

Potentiality of Land – Determination – Potentiality refers to possibility for changing or developing into the state of actuality – Factors include existing conditions, proximity to residential/commercial/industrial areas, amenities, and development prospects [Paras 29-30].

Judicial Precedents – Relevance – Land acquisition for planned development in Noida and Ghaziabad Development Authority (GDA) not comparable with acquisition by Parishad – Different dates of notifications and development activities considered – Uniform compensation not applicable across different acquisitions [Paras 35-43].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – High Court’s order awarding Rs. 297/- per square yard set aside – Compensation awarded by Reference Court at Rs. 120/- per square yard restored – Statutory benefits upheld [Para 44].

Limitation Act – Exclusion of Time – Application under Section 7 of IBC – Whether time spent in proceedings under the SARFAESI Act can be excluded under Section 14 of Limitation Act – Proceedings under SARFAESI Act are civil proceedings – Applicant entitled to benefit of Section 14 in respect of proceedings under SARFAESI Act – NCLAT's decision in Ishrat Ali case, which held otherwise, found unsustainable – Section 14 applies to application under Section 7 of IBC [Paras 1-11, 96-98].

Civil Proceedings – Definition – SARFAESI Act proceedings classified as civil proceedings – Section 14 of Limitation Act, which provides for exclusion of time spent in proceedings in wrong forum, applies to such proceedings – Section 238A of IBC makes Limitation Act applicable to proceedings before NCLT/NCLAT [Paras 96-98].

Section 5 of Limitation Act – Condonation of Delay – No formal application required – Court/Tribunal has discretion to condone delay if there is sufficient cause – Absence of formal application does not bar relief under Section 5 [Paras 63-64].

Judicial Pronouncements – Precedents – Citing various cases to establish interpretation and applicability of Section 14 to proceedings under different statutes – Interpretation to advance cause of justice and avoid hyper-technical approach [Paras 72-74, 78-84].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Financial Creditor entitled to exclusion of time under Section 14 – Proceedings under SARFAESI Act bona fide – Application under Section 7 of IBC within limitation after excluding period spent in SARFAESI Act proceedings [Paras 87-88].

Criminal Law – Special Leave Petition – Conviction Upheld – Petitioner convicted by Trial Court and High Court – Habitual offender involved in serious crimes – No grounds found to interfere with lower courts' judgments – Petition dismissed [Para 1].

Legal Representation – Article 21 of Constitution – Right to life and liberty includes right to legal representation – Legal aid must ensure no distinction between rich and poor – Effective representation essential for justice [Paras 3-4].

Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 – Objectives – Providing free and competent legal services to weaker sections – Ensuring justice is not denied due to economic or other disabilities – Nationwide network of Legal Services Authorities and Committees [Para 4-5].

Observations – Legal Aid Counsel and Amicus Curiae – Advocates face challenges due to lack of necessary documents – Right to effective legal representation hampered by incomplete records – Promise of competent legal services remains unfulfilled without full access to documents [Paras 8-9].

Directions – Provision of Documents – Legal aid counsel/amicus curiae must be provided with all relevant documents and official translations – Directions to National Legal Services Authority and State Legal Services Authorities for immediate compliance – Ensuring effective legal representation [Paras 10-12].

Decision – Special Leave Petition Dismissed – Conviction upheld – Directions issued to improve provision of documents to legal aid counsel and amicus curiae [Paras 1, 13].

Criminal Law – Common Intention – Conviction – Appellant, along with two others, tried for murder under Sections 302, 323, 324 read with Section 34 of IPC – Ocular testimony of PW1 did not attribute specific overt act or weapon possession to appellant – No evidence of appellant's direct involvement or exhortation in the assault leading to murder – Appellant's presence and collective assault inferred common intention, but lacked evidence for direct liability under Sections 302 and 324 – Convicted under Section 323 read with Section 34 – Other charges not substantiated [Paras 1-16].

Common Intention – Vicarious Liability – Section 34 IPC – Essential for prosecution to establish prior meeting of minds or participation in common intention – Mere presence or minor role without clear evidence does not substantiate common intention for severe charges – Case-specific assessment necessary [Paras 13-15].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Conviction under Sections 302 and 324 read with Section 34 set aside – Conviction under Section 323 read with Section 34 upheld – Appellant to be released if sentence for Section 323 already served, unless required for other cases [Para 17].

Criminal Law – Bail – Murder Accusation – Appeal by the State of Kerala against High Court's bail grant to the respondent accused of murdering a lady doctor – High Court overlooked material evidence indicating the respondent's guilt – High Court did not consider the severity of the offense, the accused's absconding behavior, and potential witness influence – Appeal allowed; bail order set aside [Paras 1-40].

Grant of Bail – Judicial Discretion – Exercise of discretion in granting bail must be judicious – High Court failed to apply mind to the severity of the punishment and absconding nature of the accused – High Court's order flawed for not considering materials on record [Paras 33-34].

Bail Conditions – Influencing Witnesses – High Court's condition to restrict the accused from entering Ollur Police Station jurisdiction inadequate to prevent witness tampering – Most witnesses were from Thrissur and Ernakulam, beyond Ollur Police Station's jurisdiction – Importance of ensuring fair trial emphasized [Paras 35-36].

COVID-19 Pandemic Considerations – High Court misinterpreted Supreme Court directives on releasing prisoners due to COVID-19 – Directions aimed at minor offenses, not heinous crimes like murder – High Court's rationale for bail based on COVID-19 concerns deemed inappropriate [Paras 37-38].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court's bail order set aside – Respondent to be taken into custody – Compliance directed to concerned police station and jurisdictional Chief Judicial Magistrate [Paras 39-40].