Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant, finding that the conviction based solely on the "Last seen together" theory and the extra judicial confession of a co-accused was insufficient. The Court emphasized that the time gap between the accused last being seen with the deceased and the discovery of the deceased's body was too large to conclusively link the appellant to the crime [Paras 1-19]. Circumstantial Evidence – Homicidal Death – The Court noted that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the deaths were homicidal, given that the postmortem report suggested the possibility of suicide. Without establishing homicidal death, the conviction under Section 302 IPC could not be sustained [Paras 8-10]. Last Seen Together Theory – Insufficient for Conviction – The Court reiterated that the "Last seen together" theory alone cannot be the basis for conviction unless the time gap is minimal and other corroborative evidence is present. In this case, the significant time gap weakened the prosecution's case [Paras 13-18]. Extra Judicial Confession – Weak Evidence – The Court held that extra judicial confessions are inherently weak and must be corroborated by other strong evidence to sustain a conviction. In this case, the extra judicial confession did not meet this standard [Paras 11-12].

Decision: Appeal allowed – The conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC are set aside – The appellant is acquitted of all charges and ordered to be released forthwith.

Securities Law – Manipulative Trading – The Supreme Court upheld the SEBI order barring the appellant from proprietary trading for four years. The Court found that the appellant engaged in manipulative self-trades to inflate share prices, causing detriment to investors. The penalty was deemed proportionate to the gravity of the offense [Paras 1-15].

Penalty and Proportionality – The Court noted that penalties under SEBI regulations aim to preserve market integrity and prevent abuse. The imposition of a trading ban, despite being harsh, was not disproportionate considering the appellant's manipulative actions [Paras 10-14].

Investor Protection – Emphasized the importance of protecting investors' wealth and maintaining confidence in the securities market. The Court highlighted that manipulative trading practices harm market integrity and investor trust [Paras 12-14].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – The SEBI order restraining the appellant from proprietary trading for four years is upheld.

Bail Cancellation – High Court's Error – The Supreme Court canceled the bail granted to the second respondent, noting that the High Court failed to consider crucial aspects such as the pending examination of important witnesses and the risk of witness tampering. The Court emphasized the nature and gravity of the offense and the role attributed to the second respondent [Paras 10-11].

Fair Trial – Witness Examination – The Court highlighted that the release of the second respondent on bail could impede a fair trial, especially given the apprehension of witness tampering. The ongoing trial's completion was directed to be expedited [Para 10].

Discretionary Power – Improper Exercise – The Supreme Court found the High Court's exercise of discretion in granting bail to be improper, given the circumstances of the case and the material evidence against the second respondent [Para 11].

Decision: Appeal allowed – The High Court's order dated 2 March 2022 granting bail is set aside – The second respondent is to surrender forthwith – The trial court is directed to conduct and conclude the trial expeditiously within one year [Paras 12-13].

Service Law – Civil Judges Selection – The Supreme Court held that the rejection of candidates on the technical ground of non-production of original certificates at the time of the interview was improper, unjustified, and not warranted. The Court noted that there were vacancies available, which, if filled by meritorious candidates, would benefit the institution by helping in the disposal of cases pending in large numbers [Paras 16-17].

Adjustment of Candidates – The Court directed that the eight appellants, who had secured higher marks than the last selected candidates in their respective categories, be allowed to join forthwith. They would be entitled to seniority as per their merit but not to any arrears of salary for the intervening period. The State was directed to adjust three candidates from reserved categories against future vacancies or borrow posts from future vacancies [Paras 17-19].

Non-Production of Original Certificates – The Court observed that non-production of original certificates at the time of the interview, despite later submission, should not result in the cancellation of candidatures, especially when the candidates were duly qualified and had scored higher marks than the last selected candidates [Paras 9-14].

Decision: Appeals allowed – The rejection of candidatures and the impugned judgments of the High Court are set aside. The appellants are to be allowed to join immediately with seniority as per merit but without arrears of salary for the intervening period [Paras 19-20].

Contempt of Court – Advocate's Conduct – The Supreme Court upheld the conviction and sentencing of the appellant under Sections 2(c)(iii) and 12(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971. The Court found that the appellant's behavior was thoroughly contemptuous and involved a clear attempt to obstruct the process of justice. The appellant's actions included preventing the execution of a non-bailable warrant and obstructing police officials, as recorded in video footage [Paras 2-5].

Disproportionate Sentence – The Court rejected the argument that the sentence was disproportionate, affirming both the two weeks' imprisonment and the one-year debarment from practicing as an advocate. The decision was consistent with the precedent set in R.K. Anand vs Registrar Delhi High Court (2009) 8 SCC 106 [Paras 6-8].

Abuse of Judicial Process – The appellant's conduct included leveling wanton allegations against a Single Judge of the Madras High Court and seeking the recusal of a judge on improper grounds. The Court noted the appellant's lack of respect for the administration of justice, as evidenced by his multiple adjournments and improper applications [Paras 8].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – The conviction and sentencing, including the debarment from practicing as an advocate for one year, are upheld [Para 9].

Retirement Age – Revision of Pension – High Court held that the appellant was wrongfully retired at 58 instead of 60 – High Court denied salary/back wages for extra two years due to delay in approaching – High Court ordered revised pension payable from January 1, 2020 – Supreme Court modified this, holding denial of arrears of pension unjustified – Appellant entitled to revised pension from date of attaining age 60 [Paras 1-4].

Pension Arrears – Continuous Cause of Action – Supreme Court emphasized that pension is a continuous cause of action – Denial of arrears by High Court was without justification – Arrears to be paid from date of appellant attaining 60 years [Paras 3-4].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – High Court’s order denying arrears of pension and setting revised pension payable only from January 1, 2020, quashed – Appellant entitled to revised pension from the date he attained 60 years – Arrears to be paid within four weeks – No order as to costs [Para 4].

Land Acquisition – Deemed Lapse – High Court held acquisition proceedings lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act due to non-payment of compensation – Supreme Court reversed High Court’s decision – Clarified Section 24(2) applies only when authorities fail to take possession and pay compensation for five years or more – Compensation deposited in treasury valid – Exclusion of period covered by interim orders for computing five years – Appeal allowed [Paras 1-5].

Section 24(2) – Proviso to Section 24(2) forms part of the main section – No new cause of action for challenging concluded proceedings – Period of interim orders excluded in computation of five years – Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench decision in Indore Development Authority case applicable – High Court’s reliance on overruled precedent erroneous [Paras 4-4.1].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s judgment and order quashed – Acquisition proceedings valid – No order as to costs [Paras 5].

Pay Fixation – Re-employment – High Court held that respondent, a retired Major, should have his basic pay fixed at par with his last drawn pay in the Armed Forces upon re-appointment in the Central Reserve Police Force – Supreme Court reversed this decision – Clarified that Para 8 of the CCS Order does not grant entitlement to pay protection based on last drawn pay – Pay on re-employment to be fixed with reference to the minimum scale of the civil post, not exceeding last drawn pay in Armed Forces [Paras 1-6].

Central Civil Services Order – Interpretation – Para 8 – Supreme Court emphasized that Para 8 provides for advance increments based on years of service in the Armed Forces, but does not mandate fixing pay at the last drawn rate in the Armed Forces – The reference to last drawn pay is to ensure the computed pay in the civil post does not exceed it [Para 5.3].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s judgment quashed – Writ petition by respondent dismissed – No order as to costs [Para 6].

Pension Scheme – Applicability – High Court held that respondent, the widow of a deceased employee, was entitled to family pension under the Old Pension Rules – Supreme Court reversed this decision – Clarified that employees appointed or absorbed after 31.08.2005 are governed by the New Contributory Pension Scheme, which does not provide for pension/family pension – Absorption in government service does not retroactively apply old pension rules [Paras 1-7].

Family Pension – New Contributory Pension Scheme – The Supreme Court emphasized that the corrigendum issued clarified that prior service before absorption would not be treated as government service – Thus, the respondent's husband, absorbed in government service from 02.03.2009, was subject to the New Contributory Pension Scheme [Para 6].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court’s judgments quashed – Respondent not entitled to family pension under Old Pension Rules – Respondent governed by New Contributory Pension Scheme – No order as to costs [Para 7].