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.

Land Acquisition - Lapse of Acquisition - Compliance with Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Satisfaction of either of the conditions of taking possession or payment of compensation is sufficient to save the acquisition from lapsing. (Para 8)

Acquisition Proceedings - Payment of Compensation - Deposit with Reference Court - Compensation deposited with the Reference Court under Section 30/31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Valid deposit satisfying the requirement of payment under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. (Para 9)

Possession of Acquired Land - Vested with State - Possession of land acquired under the 1894 Act vests with the State Government, free from all encumbrances - Any person retaining possession thereafter is a trespasser. (Para 10)

Validity of Acquisition - Public Importance - Acquisition for the construction of a road project of great public importance - Project required completion before a specified date in light of national celebrations - Considerations of public interest weigh in favor of upholding the validity of the acquisition. (Para 12)

Writ Petition - Dismissal - High Court order allowing the writ petition and holding acquisition as lapsed set aside - Acquisition proceedings upheld - Writ petition dismissed. (Para 14)

SARFAESI Act, 2002 - Section 13(8) - Challenge to e-auction notice - Availability of alternative statutory remedy - Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Maintainability - Whether Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act shall be applicable in favour of an agreement to sale holder or only in case of the borrower who is ready and willing to pay the entire debt - Applicability of Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act - Benefit of void transaction - Transaction between agreement to sale holder and borrower illegal and behind the back of the Tribunal and Bank - High Court entertaining writ petition challenging e-auction notice issued by Bank under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act - Error committed by High Court - Impugned judgment and order quashed and set aside - Sale certificate issued in favour of the auction purchaser on full payment of auction sale consideration - Heirs of the original agreement to sale holder directed to vacate the flat in question and hand over peaceful and vacant possession of the same to the auction purchaser within three months. Appeal Allowed. (Para No.8)

Civil Appeal – Validity of caste certificate – Appellant challenges High Court judgment – First respondent obtained a job reserved for Scheduled Castes with a caste certificate – Caste certificate invalidated due to marriage – Appellant conducted disciplinary proceedings leading to dismissal – Single Judge directed reconsideration based on outdated precedents – Division Bench dismissed writ appeal – Leave granted to appeal.

Caste Certificate – Importance of caste certificate in reservation posts – First respondent claimed to belong to a Scheduled Caste based on certificate – Certificate invalidated due to high school records and marriage – Tehsildar observed marriage doesn’t grant Scheduled Caste status – Tehsildar’s decision supported by previous Supreme Court rulings – Relevance of acquisition of status by marriage discussed. [Para 15-16]

Disciplinary Proceedings – Disciplinary proceedings initiated against the first respondent – Enquiry conducted, and report submitted – Appellant proposed dismissal and recovery of salary – First respondent challenged dismissal under Article 226 of the Constitution – Single Judge upheld cancellation but directed reconsideration – Direction based on outdated precedents – Larger bench overruled those precedents. [Para 7, 9-10, 11, 17, 18]

Reconsideration of Claim – Single Judge directed reconsideration of first respondent’s claim – Based on decisions overruled by larger bench – Clear principle of law established in Chairman and Managing Director, Food Corporation of India v. Jagdish Balaram Bahira – Reconsideration not warranted. [Para 19-21]

Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment set aside – Caste certificate invalidation upheld – No recovery of salary for period worked – Single Judge’s direction for reconsideration dismissed. [Para 22-23]

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) – Conviction under Section 15 – Appellant's conviction for possession of 54 Kgs of poppy husk confirmed by the High Court, following the Trial Court’s judgment. Issues regarding possession and procedural compliance raised. [Para 2-3, 5-7]

Criminal Procedure – Representation and Conduct of Defence – Appellant's counsel proceeded with the case despite lack of instructions from the appellant, as mandated by the Vakalatnama filed. [Para 4]

Evidence – Role of Independent Witnesses in NDPS Cases – Court held that independent witnesses are not mandatory to prove charges under the NDPS Act. Procedural compliance with arrest, seizure, and recovery affirmed. [Para 7]

Procedural Compliance – Seizure and Recovery under NDPS Act – Non-filling of the CFCL form at the site of arrest and recovery, and delay in sending samples for FSL report, deemed non-fatal to the prosecution's case. [Para 7-8]

Appeal Dismissal – No merit found in the appeal. The conclusion of the High Court upheld. No costs imposed. All pending applications disposed of. [Para 9-11]

Indefeasible right to claim default bail - Filing of chargesheet - Error in filing chargesheet in wrong court - Committal proceedings - Applicability - Whether error in filing chargesheet in the wrong court affects the right of the accused to seek statutory/default bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC - Held, the error in filing the chargesheet in the wrong court does not affect the right of the accused to seek statutory/default bail - Committal proceedings are not warranted in prosecutions under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) as the Special Court acts as one of the original jurisdictions - Appellants failed to file an application for statutory/default bail on the 91st day when the chargesheet had not been filed - Failure to file such an application extinguishes the right to default bail - Sayed Mohd. Ahmad Kazmi v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and Others, (2012) 12 SCC 1, followed. [Para 72, 76, 77]

National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 - Section 16 - Cognizance of offences by Special Court - Filing of chargesheet in wrong court - Effect - Filing of chargesheet in the wrong court does not affect the right of the accused to seek statutory/default bail - Committal proceedings are not warranted in prosecutions under the UAPA by the NIA as the Special Court acts as one of the original jurisdictions. [Para 68, 72]

Filing of final report - Error in filing chargesheet in wrong court - Committal proceedings - Effect - Error in filing the chargesheet in the wrong court does not affect the right of the accused to seek statutory/default bail - Committal proceedings are not warranted in prosecutions under the UAPA by the NIA as the Special Court acts as one of the original jurisdictions. [Para 72, 73]

Indefeasible right to claim bail - Filing of chargesheet - Error in filing chargesheet in wrong court - Committal proceedings - Applicability - Error in filing the chargesheet in the wrong court does not grant the accused an indefeasible right to seek statutory/default bail - The right to default bail remains enforceable if the accused has applied for such bail before the filing of the chargesheet or a report seeking an extension of time by the prosecution - Failure to apply for default bail when the right accrues extinguishes the right to default bail. [Para 72, 77]

Appeal Dismissed.