Forfeiture of Properties under SAFEMA – Challenging the High Court's order upholding forfeiture under The Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (SAFEMA) – Appeals in Civil Appeal No.5500 of 2011 and Criminal Appeal No.730 of 2014 dismissed – Provisions of SAFEMA applicable despite revocation of detention order under COFEPOSA. [Para 1, 2, 15, 23]

COFEPOSA Detention and Revocation – Relevance of revocation of detention order under Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA) in SAFEMA proceedings – Revocation of COFEPOSA detention not falling under specified exceptions in SAFEMA, hence forfeiture upheld. [Para 16, 21-23]

Legal Interpretation of SAFEMA – Applicability of SAFEMA provisions in cases where COFEPOSA detention orders are revoked – Exclusion clauses under Section 2(2)(b) of SAFEMA not applicable to the present case – SAFEMA proceedings independent of COFEPOSA detention order's subsequent revocation. [Para 17, 18, 21-23]

Dismissal of Criminal Complaint and Penalty Withdrawal – Irrelevance of dismissal of criminal complaint under Customs Act, 1962 and withdrawal of penalty in determining applicability of SAFEMA – Such proceedings independent of SAFEMA. [Para 13, 20]

High Court's Judgment – High Court's dismissal of appeals against forfeiture under SAFEMA upheld – Supreme Court finds no infirmity in the High Court's judgment – Appeals lack merit and are dismissed. [Para 23, 24]

Civil Appeal – Pay Scale Parity – Appeal by Union of India against High Court order granting pay scale parity to Ordnance Factory Board (OFB) employees with Central Secretariat Service (CSS) employees – High Court’s decision based on recommendations of VIth Central Pay Commission and historical parity. [Para 1-3, 11]

Judicial Review – Limited scope in matters of pay scale fixation – Intervention permissible in cases of arbitrariness or palpable discrimination – High Court's intervention based on historical parity and Pay Commission’s recommendations. [Para 5, 10, 15]

Equal Pay for Equal Work – Historical parity of pay scales among similar posts – High Court recognized parity between OFB headquarters employees and CSS/CSSS employees – Consideration of Pay Commission's recommendations to maintain parity. [Para 6, 14]

Decision – Dismissal of appeal by Supreme Court – High Court's order upheld for maintaining pay scale parity among similarly placed employees – Recognition of historical parity and adherence to Pay Commission's recommendations. [Para 15-16]

Criminal Appeal – Challenge to judgment of High Court – Dismissal of appeal and confirmation of trial court's judgment – Conviction of appellant for offences under Sections 148, 302 read with Section 149, and Section 307 of the IPC – Appellant's co-accused Rameshwar deceased – Appeal of the appellant against his conviction – Rameshwar's appeal abated due to his death. [Para 1-5]

Witness Testimony – Evaluation of witness testimony – Categorization of witnesses as wholly reliable, wholly unreliable, or neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable – Need to separate the truth from falsehood in cases involving partly reliable witnesses – Importance of corroborative evidence. [Para 10-12]

Witnesses – Ocular testimony of PW.5-Ramkali and PW.6-Mulchand – Inconsistencies in their testimonies – Attribution of gunshot injuries to the appellant-Balaram – Discrepancy in their accounts – Conviction based on their unreliable testimony not sustainable. [Para 13-16]

Motive – Alleged motive of previous enmity – Doubtful nature of the motive – Previous enmity as a double-edged weapon – Possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out. [Para 17-19]

Decision – Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence of the appellant quashed and set aside – Appellant acquitted of the charges – Directed to be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case. [Para 20]

Extra-Judicial Confession – Doubt over Confession’s Credibility – Extra-judicial confession to the brother and acquaintance of the deceased, raising questions on its believability, leading to its rejection. The improbability of an accused making a confession to close associates of the deceased. [Paras 6-7]

Inconsistency in Prosecution's Case – Mismatch in Weapons and Blood Group Evidence – Discrepancy between the weapon mentioned in the confession (stick) and the weapon recovered (axe). Blood group on appellant's clothes not matching the deceased's blood group, contradicting prosecution's claim. [Paras 8-9]

Acquittal of Appellant – Failure to Establish Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt – The prosecution's inability to conclusively prove the appellant's guilt, leading to acquittal and cancellation of bail bonds. [Paras 10-11]

Decision – Appeal allowed, impugned judgments set aside, appellant acquitted of the alleged offence, and bail bonds cancelled. [Para 12]

Criminal Appeal – Review Petition – Delay in filing the review petition condoned due to petitioner’s confinement – Review petition allowed, order dated 31.08.2018 recalled, and SLP(Crl.) no. 7528/2018 restored to its original number and file. Leave granted in SLP(Crl.) no. 7528/2018.

Criminal Procedure – Examination of trial Court records and evidence – Appellant’s conviction under Section 304B and Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 upheld – However, appellant’s punishment reduced from life imprisonment to imprisonment already undergone (ten years and nine months as of 03.10.2023) – Appellant fined Rs. 10,000, with three months of simple imprisonment in default. On payment of fine/default sentence, appellant to be released immediately, if not required in any other case.

Disposition – Appeal partly allowed – Sentences to run concurrently – Pending applications, if any, disposed of.

Criminal Appeal – Conviction and sentencing under Section 302 IPC – Appellant challenged the High Court's affirmation of conviction and life sentence for murder – Primary contention involved delay in FIR and absence of direct evidence linking appellant to administration of poison. [Para 1-5]

Delayed FIR – Examination of whether a one-year delay in FIR registration impacts the prosecution's case – FIR considered corroborative, not substantive evidence – Delay attributed to awaiting FSL report, not seen as fatal to the prosecution's case. [Para 8-18]

Dying Declaration – Reliability of the deceased's statements to family members as dying declarations questioned – The Court cautious about convicting solely based on such evidence without corroboration. [Para 22-24]

Murder by Poisoning – Prosecution’s failure to establish essential criteria for murder by poisoning – No clear motive, unclear if the deceased died of poison, no proof of poison in possession of accused, and no opportunity to administer poison established. [Para 20-26]

Acquittal of Accused – Supreme Court's rare intervention in reappreciating evidence due to significant infirmities in findings of lower courts – Appellant acquitted of all charges, bail bonds cancelled. [Para 27-28]

Criminal Procedure – Protest Petition Against Order Taking Cognizance – Inappropriateness of High Court’s Reference to Nupur Talwar Case – High Court erred in applying the principle of the Nupur Talwar case to the present matter, where the protest petition was against an order taking cognizance. The appellants successfully challenged the High Court’s judgment that incorrectly applied this principle. [Para 7-9]

Judicial Procedure – Cognizance of Offence – Limitation of Magistrate’s Power to Modify Previous Order – Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate exceeded his authority by entertaining a protest petition against his earlier order of taking cognizance, leading to an impermissible modification of that order. This oversight in legal understanding was not recognized by the High Court. [Para 10]

Decision – Setting Aside High Court and Chief Judicial Magistrate’s Orders – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order dated 20^th March, 2023, and the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s order dated 3^rd November, 2009. The Supreme Court maintained the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s order dated 9^th April, 2009, taking cognizance against Gupteshwar Singh. The judgment clarifies that no adjudication was made on the appellants’ involvement in the crime and does not prevent future legal proceedings in accordance with law. [Para 11]

Employees’ Provident Fund Act Interpretation – Applicability of the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, to an establishment engaged in manufacturing, assembling, and selling umbrellas – Central Government’s notification under clause (b) of sub-Section (3) of Section 1 of the 1952 Act includes ‘trading and commercial establishments’ – Establishment of appellant falls within the ambit of the said notification – Appeals dismissed. [Para 1-2, 8]

Applicability of Provident Fund Act – Distinction between clause (a) and (b) of sub-Section (3) of Section 1 of the 1952 Act – Clause (a) applies to factories engaged in industries specified in Schedule I, while clause (b) can extend to other establishments, including factories not covered in Schedule I, upon notification by the Central Government – Purposive interpretation affirms the inclusion of the appellant’s establishment under the Act. [Para 5-7]

Judicial Review – Concurrent findings by respondent, appellate authority, and Kerala High Court upheld – Appellant’s establishment conducting commercial activities falls under the category of ‘trading and commercial establishments’ as per the notification – No merit found in appellant’s contention – Appeals dismissed with no order as to costs. [Para 4, 9]

Time to Pay Liabilities – In consideration of the duration of legal proceedings since 2010, a grace period of three months granted to the appellant to fulfill any monetary liabilities as per the confirmed orders by the High Court. [Para 10]

Criminal Appeal – Rejection of Certificate under Section 65-B of Evidence Act – Appellant-State challenging High Court’s upholding of Trial Court’s decision – Application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to recall witness and produce certificate was rejected due to perceived delay – Appeal allowed, orders set aside, application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. granted. [Paras 1-16]

Terrorist Act – Bangalore serial bomb blasts of 2008 – Investigation and seizure of electronic devices – Certificate under Section 65-B Evidence Act sought for admissibility of electronic evidence – Trial Court’s denial of certificate on grounds of delay found unjust by Supreme Court, reversing lower courts’ decisions. [Paras 2-3, 7]

Evidence – Admissibility of electronic records – Primary evidence in the form of electronic devices already on record – Supreme Court clarifies that non-production of Section 65-B Evidence Act certificate is a curable defect and can be produced at any stage of the trial. [Paras 8-11, 13-15]

Fair Trial – Balance between prosecution and defense – Supreme Court emphasizes that fair trial entails truth-seeking and no prejudice to the accused – Section 311 of Cr.P.C. utilized to subserve justice and public interest without causing irreversible prejudice to the accused. [Para 15]

Judicial Discretion – Application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. – Supreme Court underscores the importance of judicial discretion in the interests of justice – Permits prosecution to recall witness and produce Section 65-B certificate. [Paras 4-6, 12, 16]