Quashing of Conviction and Acquittal – Criminal Appeal against High Court and Trial Court's decision – Supreme Court acquits appellant convicted of robbery under Section 394 read with Section 397 IPC – No tangible or reliable evidence linking appellant to the crime – Recovery and identification of stolen items not proven to legal standards – Appeal allowed, and convictions quashed. [Paras 1-18]

Role of Accused in Robbery – Examination of evidence – Prosecution fails to prove the appellant's confession and recovery of stolen items – Testimony and evidence regarding recovery and identification of stolen items found legally insufficient – Supreme Court finds that identification of appellant in court and by the complainant lacks credibility due to procedural flaws. [Paras 8-14, 18]

Evidence and Identification – Analysis of legal admissibility – Supreme Court holds that the prosecution did not follow legal requirements in proving the confession or recovery of stolen items – Test identification and seizure of items not corroborated by independent or reliable witness evidence – Identification of stolen items by complainant influenced by police, undermining its validity. [Paras 9-14]

Identification of Accused and Recovery of Stolen Items - Initial non-identification of the assailant by the victim, subsequent flawed identification during trial noted – Prosecution relied solely on the recovery of items post-disclosure statement which was not properly authenticated – Ineffectual cross-examination revealed police led identification of stolen items, undermining credibility [Paras 3-5, 9-10].

Procedural Lapses in Evidence Handling - Investigating Officer failed to narrate contents of disclosure statement properly, nor proved it legally – Items recovered were not shown to be securely handled or authenticated post-recovery [Paras 11-13].

Decision – Acquittal of Accused – Supreme Court sets aside lower court judgments convicting the appellant – Finds that prosecution's evidence is insufficient to sustain conviction – Orders immediate release of appellant if not required in another case. [Paras 15-18]

Acquittal and Conviction History – Initial trial acquitted all accused (A-1 to A-6) due to inconsistent witness testimony and lack of credible evidence - High Court reversed acquittal for A-1, A-2, and A-3 based on re-evaluation of witness accounts and convicted them under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC - Supreme Court examined the High Court’s deviation from principles governing the appellate interference in acquittals [Paras 1-5, 14-16, 36-43].

Eyewitness Credibility and Police Procedure – Testimonies of key prosecution witnesses, namely PW-1 to PW-6, showed substantial inconsistencies regarding the assailants’ identities and actions at the time of the incident - The eyewitnesses’ credibility was further diminished by their contradictory statements about the events leading up to and following the crime - Notably, the handling of the FIR (Exhibit P-10) by the police was critically evaluated; significant delays and procedural discrepancies in recording the FIR raised questions about its authenticity and the overall integrity of police procedures - This casts doubt on the foundational elements of the prosecution's case, leading to questions about the reliability of the witness accounts and the legitimacy of the criminal charges [Paras 22-27, 44-52].

Medical Evidence – Medical testimony conflicted with eyewitness accounts regarding the time of the incident, suggesting earlier death than reported [Para 30, 51].

Recovery of Weapons – Recovery claims unsubstantiated by credible witness or procedural evidence - No corroboration such as blood group analysis on alleged weapons to link them to the crime [Paras 56-71].

Decision - Acquittal – High Court improperly re-assessed witness credibility and evidence without due regard to the strictures on appellate interference in acquittal cases - Supreme Court found no perversity or exclusive guilt conclusion warranting a reversal of the trial court’s acquittal [Paras 36-43, 73-74].

Jurisdiction of Special Courts – Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) – Legislative intent – Held – Offences under the IBC should be tried by Special Courts established under Chapter XXVIII of the Companies Act, despite subsequent amendments to the Companies Act not affecting this provision. It is a case of legislation by incorporation, not legislation by reference. The Special Court at the time of the Code's enactment included Sessions Judges or Additional Sessions Judges, not affected by later amendments. [Para 43-44]

Legislative Interpretation – Interpretation of Section 236 of the IBC and Section 435 of the Companies Act regarding jurisdiction of offences – High Court's error in interpreting jurisdiction based on amendments to Companies Act corrected – Held – Special Courts as defined at the enactment of the IBC retain jurisdiction for IBC offences, not affected by later legislative changes. [Para 25, 44-45]

Direction to High Court – Matter remanded to High Court – In view of jurisdiction being appropriately placed with Special Courts, High Court to re-assess the petition on merits – Appeal allowed, impugned order set aside. [Para 48]

Direction on Remand – Case remanded back to High Court for consideration on merits, as the merits of the respondents' writ petition were not addressed in the quashing order [Para 48].

Protest Petition – Interpretation and Legal Standing – Criminal Appeal against High Court order dismissing application to quash summoning order – CJM took cognizance of offences based on affidavits in Protest Petition, despite police report recommending closure – Supreme Court holds CJM should have treated Protest Petition as a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C., not as a State case – High Court and CJM's orders set aside, matter remitted back for reconsideration as private complaint. [Paras 1-12]

Role of CJM and High Court in Cognizance of Offences – Discussed – Held – CJM erred by not treating Protest Petition as private complaint, contrary to legal requirements under Sections 190 and 200 Cr.P.C. when additional affidavits were considered – High Court's affirmation of CJM's decision without rectifying this legal error was improper – Legal position clarified with references to precedents establishing when a Protest Petition should be considered a private complaint. [Paras 5-10]

Decision – Setting aside of High Court and CJM Orders – Held – Appeal allowed, impugned orders set aside – Case remanded to CJM to treat Protest Petition as a private complaint and proceed according to law as prescribed under Chapter XV of the Cr.P.C. – Supreme Court refrains from commenting on merits to not influence further proceedings. [Paras 11-12]

Arbitration Law - Reversal of High Court Order – Admissibility of Agreement Post Ex-parte Decree Revocation – Supreme Court Appeal – Civil Appeal where Supreme Court reverses High Court’s order affirming arbitrator’s award. The trial pertained to disputed land owned by the State of Madhya Pradesh, allocated to Bhopal Municipal Corporation (BMC) for bus stand construction, claimed under adverse possession by Satish Jain. The Supreme Court holds that once the ex-parte decree was set aside, the underlying agreement and arbitration based on it lost their legal basis, and the High Court erred in relying on them. [Paras 1-10]

Land Ownership and Adverse Possession – Clarification of Rights – Discussion on the continued relevance of an agreement post setting aside of ex-parte decree. Supreme Court clarifies that an agreement made under the presumption of rights from a set-aside ex-parte decree holds no validity; BMC’s reliance on the invalidated decree to negotiate or enter agreements regarding the land was improper. [Paras 4-6]

Arbitration Award and Legal Error – Misapplication of Legal Principles – Supreme Court decision emphasizing that an arbitration award cannot stand when its basis, an agreement made contingent upon an ex-parte decree, is nullified by judicial review. High Court’s misapplication of legal principles in affirming the award and failing to consider the invalidation of the underlying agreement leads to the reversal of its decision. [Paras 7-8]

Future Proceedings and Legal Directions – Supreme Court directs that the trial must proceed at the Trial Court level, examining the merits based on fresh evidence, disregarding the previous ex-parte decree and the agreement derived from it. The Trial Court is instructed to ignore the invalidated arbitral award and revisit the dispute with no influence from previous flawed legal interpretations. [Para 8]

Decision – Appeal allowed, High Court’s order set aside, no order as to costs, and pending applications disposed of. The case demonstrates the necessity of re-evaluating legal positions when foundational judicial determinations are overturned. [Paras 7-10]

Background & FIR Details – FIR No.227/2017 lodged at Police Station Pasi Ghat, East Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh against several accused for alleged cheating and conspiracy regarding a ₹1 Crore transaction purportedly for a property purchase in Rajasthan – Issues of jurisdiction and nature of the dispute raised – Gauhati High Court upheld FIR while Rajasthan High Court quashed it on jurisdictional grounds [Paras 2-5, 7-9].

Jurisdiction – Lack of Territorial Jurisdiction in Criminal Proceedings – Criminal appeals arising from FIR No. 227/2017 registered in Arunachal Pradesh for alleged cheating and conspiracy in real estate transactions in Rajasthan – Held, the State of Arunachal Pradesh lacks territorial jurisdiction as no part of the alleged offence occurred within its territory, all involved parties and properties located in Rajasthan – Rajasthan High Court's quashing of proceedings upheld, Gauhati High Court's order set aside. [Paras 5.5, 14, 15]

Nature of Dispute – Civil vs. Criminal – Analysis of FIR and subsequent charges for cheating involving financial transactions for land in Rajasthan – Held, the dispute primarily civil concerning transaction details and property transfer – Criminal charges inappropriate for matters that should be resolved via civil litigation – Supreme Court quashes FIR and all related criminal proceedings. [Paras 12, 13]

Criminal Law – Misuse of Legal Process – Examination of the motives and circumstances behind the registration of FIR in Arunachal Pradesh and subsequent legal actions – Held, filing and maintenance of criminal charges constituted a misuse of legal process, addressing issues more apt for civil court resolution – Entire FIR and consequent chargesheet quashed. [Paras 13, 16]

Decision: Appeals by Chandra Mohan Badaya allowed; FIR and subsequent proceedings quashed - Appeals by the State of Arunachal Pradesh dismissed; no grounds to overturn Rajasthan HC’s decision.

Murder and Attempt to Murder – Appeal against Conviction – Criminal Appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana which upheld the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 and Section 307 of the IPC – Supreme Court finds major inconsistencies and lack of credible evidence in the prosecution’s case – Held that the testimony of the main prosecution witnesses, Sharan Kaur (PW-5) and Daljit Singh (PW-6), is unreliable and not corroborated by other evidence – The alleged motive for the murder, based on jealousy over business competition, was not substantiated – The contradictory actions and statements of the key witnesses and the handling of the investigation raised doubts about the authenticity of the prosecution’s story – Acquittal of co-accused in lower courts further weakens the case against the appellant – Convictions quashed, and appellant acquitted of all charges. [Paras 1-32]

Evaluation of Evidence – Analysis of witness credibility and motive – Held – Testimonies of Sharan Kaur (PW-5) and Daljit Singh (PW-6) found to be wholly unreliable due to inconsistencies and improbabilities in their accounts – No corroborative evidence to substantiate their claims – The investigation was criticized for its handling and failure to gather supporting evidence – The motive attributed to the appellant was deemed implausible and not backed by any tangible proof. [Paras 16-31]

Judicial Assessment – Review of lower court decisions – Held – Both courts failed to critically assess the reliability of the key witnesses and overlooked significant gaps in the prosecution’s case – The Supreme Court emphasizes the importance of corroborative evidence when the key witness testimonies are questionable – Reiterates that a conviction cannot stand solely on shaky and uncorroborated witness statements. [Paras 15, 22-31]

Decision – Acquittal of the appellant – The Supreme Court acquits the appellant, Kirpal Singh, due to significant doubts about the prosecution’s version of events and the unreliability of its key witnesses – All previous convictions and sentences related to the appellant are set aside – The appeal is allowed, and any pending applications related to the case are disposed of. [Paras 32-34]

Jurisdiction of State vs. Special Court – Jurisdiction of Special Courts under UAPA – Criminal Appeal by the State of West Bengal against High Court's decision – FIR registered for offenses including under Sections 121A, 122, 123, 124A, 120B IPC and subsequently UAPA Sections added. High Court quashed proceedings asserting jurisdiction exclusively with Special Court under NIA Act for UAPA cases. Supreme Court finds that until a Special Court is designated by the State Government, Sessions Court retains jurisdiction under Section 22(3) of NIA Act. High Court's decision reversed, permitting Sessions Court to continue with the trial. [Paras 3-30]

Extension of Remand Period and Filing of Charge Sheet – Accused not applying for default bail post 90 days before charge sheet filing leads to the conclusion that irregularities in remand extension do not affect the validity of continued proceedings against the accused under UAPA. Discussion around proper jurisdiction for remand and extension under Sections 43D and 167 CrPC when Special Court is not designated. [Paras 31-37]

Legality of Orders Extending Detention and Adding UAPA Offenses – Supreme Court holds that City Sessions Court had proper jurisdiction to pass orders for adding UAPA offenses and extending detention beyond 90 days, in absence of a designated Special Court by State Government. High Court's quashing of proceedings on jurisdictional grounds found erroneous; impugned order reversed. [Paras 22-34]

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Supreme Court allows the appeal, reinstates the jurisdiction of the Sessions Court to try the UAPA charges, and sets aside the High Court judgment quashing the proceedings. [Paras 38-40]

SARFAESI Act - Auction Sale Invalidity – Civil Appeal – Invalidation of auction sale confirmed by the High Court, DRT, and DRAT due to non-compliance with mandatory notice requirements under the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. Appellants' status reverted from owners back to tenants. Directions issued for the return of auction money with enhanced interest due to Bank's failure to follow statutory procedures, causing unnecessary litigation. [Paras 2-13]

Notice Requirements under SARFAESI Act – Legal Analysis – Held – Bank failed to serve mandatory 30-day notice to the borrower before conducting the auction sale, leading to the setting aside of the sale. Sale deemed invalid despite appellants’ claim of bona fide purchase and significant investment in the property. [Paras 4, 12(i)]

Financial Adjustments and Interest Rates – Determination of Compensations – Held – Appellants entitled to a refund of auction money with compound interest at 12% per annum from the date of deposit to the date of actual payment. Bank's admission of non-compliance led to enhanced interest rate as punitive measure against unnecessary litigation initiated due to procedural lapses. [Para 12(iii), 12(iv)]

Status and Possession Rights – Post Auction Sale Setting Aside – Held – With the auction sale set aside, appellants revert to tenant status. Bank not entitled to physical possession of the property; appellants remain in possession as tenants without need to vacate until lawfully evicted by the borrower. [Para 12(ii)]

Restitution and No Dues Certificate – Directions Issued – Bank instructed to return auction money along with specified interest. Obliged to issue No Dues Certificate to the borrower upon settlement of accounts, ensuring all financial transactions are properly reconciled. [Paras 13(c), 13(d)]

Decision: Appeal allowed in part – Auction sale set aside, auction money to be refunded with 12% compounded annual interest, and appellants’ status as tenants restored.