Insurance Law - Compensation assessment for permanent disability - Functional disability of appellant due to amputation of right lower limb - Loss of earning capacity - Assessment of compensation based on nature of work performed - Appellant working as a gunman - Unable to discharge duties after amputation - Services terminated - Tribunal assessed loss of earning capacity at 100% - High Court reduced it to 80% - held that loss of earning capacity should be assessed at 100% considering appellant's functional disability - High Court erred in relying on judgment without considering available Supreme Court precedent - Compensation recalculated - Error in High Court's calculation of compensation amount - Appeal allowed, High Court's order set aside, and Tribunal's award restored. (Para No. 8, 9, 10, and 11)

Industrial Dispute - Retrenchment of casual workers - Validity - Reinstatement and regularization - Compensation - Back wages - Award passed by the Tribunal directing reinstatement, regularization, and payment of 75% of back wages to the workers - Management filed a writ petition challenging the Award - High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Award - Division Bench modified the Award by quashing the direction for regularization - Appeals filed by the workers and the management - Supreme Court held that the management cannot raise the issue of reinstatement and back wages since they did not challenge it before the Division Bench - Court considered the conduct of the management in voluntarily implementing the Award and absorbing the workers in regular service - Court held that the management cannot seek to overturn the Award after benefiting from it for over 18 years - Appeal filed by the workers allowed, restoring the Tribunal's Award and the High Court's order - Appeal filed by the management dismissed. (Para 1-17)

Approbate and Reprobate - Principle of - Election - Fair play - A party cannot accept and reject the same thing - Once a party chooses to implement an order voluntarily, it cannot later seek to challenge it - Management of FCI implemented the Award voluntarily and absorbed the workers in regular service - Management cannot now seek to overturn the Award after benefiting from it for over 18 years - Principle of approbate and reprobate applies. (Para 14)

Regularization of Services - Industrial Dispute - Validity - Court's duty to rectify mistakes - Once the Court concludes that a wrong order was passed, it has a sovereign duty to rectify the mistake - Division Bench modified the Award by quashing the direction for regularization - Court held that the Division Bench should have considered the management's voluntary implementation of the Award and the workers' 18 years of regular service - Court held that the factual position should not be altered after two decades - Court allowed the workers' appeal, restoring the Tribunal's Award and the High Court's order. (Para 15-16)

Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – Conditions for Grant – Imposition of onerous and excessive conditions for anticipatory bail – Trend of transforming judicial proceedings for recovery of allegedly cheated money – Reminder to high courts and sessions courts not to be unduly swayed by submissions of the accused’s counsel regarding depositing or repaying any amount as a prerequisite for bail – Importance of balancing personal liberty and the right to fair investigation – Conditions imposed must be reasonable, just, and not excessive – Need to avoid using criminal law to settle civil disputes or recover disputed dues – Dismissal of application for intervention by complainants.

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 21 – Personal liberty – Denial of bail amounts to deprivation of personal liberty – Bail provisions should not be subjected to unnecessary restrictions – Conditions imposed must be fair, just, and reasonable – Bail cannot be made to depend on compliance with unreasonable restrictions.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 438 – Anticipatory bail – Discretion of court in imposing conditions – Conditions must not be onerous or unreasonable – Must facilitate accused’s appearance, completion of investigation/trial, and safety of the community – Exceptional cases where payment/deposit by accused may be considered in larger public interest, but not warranted in cases of private disputes – Condition of payment of money should not be pressed into service to secure bail.

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)