Civil Law – Review Petition under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC – Supreme Court reconsidered its own judgment setting aside the High Court’s decision in the context of Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 – Constitution Bench ruling in Pankajakshi (Dead) Through LRs & Ors. v. Chandrika & Ors. clarified the applicable legal standard for second appeals in Punjab and Haryana – Review allowed and appeal dismissed reaffirming the trial court's findings [Paras 1-15, 16-28].

Appellate Jurisdiction – Scope of interference by High Court in second appeals under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act – High Court empowered to decide second appeals without framing substantial questions of law – First Appellate Court’s role in re-evaluating findings of trial court strictly limited – Supreme Court’s earlier judgment set aside for failing to consider these principles [Paras 2, 9-14, 23-24].

Judicial Precedents – Constitution Bench in Pankajakshi upheld the unamended Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act – Relevant case law from Randhir Kaur v. Prithvi Pal Singh & Ors. and Gurbachan Singh (Dead) Through LRs v. Gurcharan Singh (Dead) Through LRs & Ors. reiterated [Paras 5, 10, 12-13, 14].

Decision – Review Petition allowed – Civil Appeal restored to original number and dismissed on merits – Held: The appeal is dismissed due to error apparent on record in applying Section 100 CPC standards instead of Section 41 of Punjab Courts Act – The High Court’s judgment was correctly set aside by the Supreme Court, restoring the trial court’s findings as they were neither perverse nor illegal [Paras 14-15, 25-27].

Land Acquisition - Authority to Hear Objections - Civil Appeal against High Court's dismissal of writ petitions - High Court dismissed the petitions as infructuous after passing of final award - Appellants contended that objections under Section 15 of the Act of 2013 should have been heard by the Collector, not the SDO - Supreme Court held that the Collector cannot delegate the hearing of objections to the SDO without proper designation by the appropriate Government - The non-compliance with Section 15 vitiates the acquisition proceedings - High Court's order set aside, and the final award declared illegal 'qua the appellants' lands' - Directions issued to reconsider objections as per law. [Paras 1-32]

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Interpretation of Section 15(2) - Hearing of Objections - Supreme Court reiterates the mandatory nature of Section 15(2) which requires the Collector to hear objections personally - Delegation of this function to the SDO without proper authorization from the appropriate Government is invalid - Acquisition proceedings conducted in violation of this requirement are illegal. [Paras 12-20, 27]

Role of the Appropriate Government and Collector - Analysis - Provisions under Section 3(e) and 3(g) of the Act of 2013 - Supreme Court clarifies that the Collector acts as the appropriate Government only when specifically notified by the State Government for a particular area within the district - In the absence of such notification, the Collector cannot delegate powers to the SDO - The Collector must forward objections and his recommendations to the State Government for a final decision. [Paras 14, 20, 23, 24]

Decision: Land Acquisition Proceedings - Compliance with Section 15 of the Act of 2013 - Supreme Court quashes the High Court's dismissal of the writ petitions and the final award dated 3rd October 2023 'qua the appellants' lands' - Orders the respondent authorities to reconsider and decide the objections filed by the appellants in accordance with the law - Appeals allowed, no order as to costs. [Paras 29-32]

Criminal Law – Section 494 IPC and Section 34 IPC – Quashing of Proceedings – High Court of Kerala’s decision rejecting quashing of proceedings against accused for bigamy upheld by Supreme Court – Challenge in Supreme Court against High Court’s decision maintaining trial court’s decision to frame charges for bigamy against accused – Accused alleged to have common intention in committing bigamy with knowledge of prior marriage – Court examined evidence and found lack of substantial evidence to support charges under Section 494 read with Section 34 IPC for accused other than the spouse in second marriage – Orders against appellants quashed and set aside [Paras 1-24].

Ingredients of Offence – Essential ingredients of offence under Section 494 IPC require proof that accused spouse contracted second marriage while first marriage subsisted and both marriages were valid – Non-spouse accused charged under Section 34 IPC with common intention to commit bigamy must have acted with knowledge of the subsisting first marriage – Insufficient evidence to establish knowledge and common intention against non-spouse accused – Charges and proceedings against non-spouse appellants deemed unwarranted [Paras 15-19].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Held – Appeals allowed, quashing High Court’s order and all proceedings against non-spouse appellants – Evidence insufficient to support charges under Section 494 read with Section 34 IPC against non-spouse accused – Trial against spouse in second marriage to continue – Orders framing charges against non-spouse appellants and rejecting their revision petitions quashed – No order as to costs [Paras 22-24].

Municipal Corporation – Regularization of Employees – Appeals against High Court’s decision granting regularization of service from the date of merger – Issue of whether employees of the erstwhile Gram Panchayat, merged with Solapur Municipal Corporation, should be treated as regular employees from the date of merger or from the date of their formal regularization by the Corporation – High Court ruled in favor of employees, treating their service as regular from the merger date based on sanctioned posts and statutory provisions – Supreme Court found new documents, not considered by the High Court, questioning the regularity of appointments – Matter remanded to High Court for fresh consideration with direction to permit additional documentary evidence – Appeals allowed, High Court’s judgment set aside, writ petitions restored for reconsideration. [Paras 1-14]

Employment Status – Statutory Interpretation – Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 – Section 493(5)(c) – Whether employees of merged Gram Panchayats automatically become regular employees of the Corporation – High Court relied on sanctioned posts and statutory provisions deeming prior service as regular – Supreme Court highlighted the need for verification of new documents indicating possible irregularities in initial appointments – Matter requires detailed examination of facts by High Court. [Para 5-10]

Decision – Appeals Allowed – High Court judgment set aside – Matters remanded to High Court for fresh consideration – Directions issued for permitting additional evidence – High Court requested to prioritize and expedite disposal of the case. [Para 13-14]

Criminal Law – Arrest and Remand Procedures – Constitutionality and Legality of Arrest under UAPA – Supreme Court directed release of the appellant – Grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing at the earliest – Arrest and remand order found invalid due to non-communication of grounds of arrest to the appellant – Ratio of Pankaj Bansal case applied – Articles 20, 21, 22 of the Constitution of India reaffirmed – Right to be informed of grounds of arrest is fundamental [Paras 1-56].

Arrest and Detention – Informing Grounds of Arrest – Communication of grounds of arrest in writing required under UAPA – Sections 43A, 43B, UAPA and Section 19 of PMLA interpreted similarly – Fundamental right to be informed of grounds of arrest under Article 22(1) – Non-compliance renders arrest and remand illegal – Remand application sent to counsel post remand order does not cure initial illegality [Paras 15-20, 22, 31-32, 37-50].

Evidence and Documentation – Validity of Arrest Memo – Distinction between 'Reasons for Arrest' and 'Grounds of Arrest' – Arrest memo must specifically detail grounds of arrest – General reasons not sufficient – Requirement for written grounds to ensure proper legal representation and opportunity to oppose remand [Paras 16, 18, 20, 49].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Held – The arrest and subsequent remand of the appellant were invalid due to failure to communicate grounds of arrest in writing – High Court order set aside – Appellant to be released on bail with conditions set by trial court – Observations not to be treated as comments on merits of the case [Paras 51-56].

Criminal Law - Conviction based on dying declaration - Appellant convicted for murder under Section 302 IPC - Rekha, wife of appellant, sustained fatal burn injuries - Prosecution relied on dying declarations (Ex. 59) and witness testimonies - Trial court convicted appellant, acquitted other accused family members - High Court upheld conviction - Appellant argued inconsistencies in testimonies and unproven second dying declaration (Ex. 65) - Supreme Court found Ex. 59 credible and consistent with medical evidence - Minor inconsistencies in witness testimonies did not affect core evidence - Supreme Court reiterated principles from Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay regarding dying declarations - Held: Dying declaration (Ex. 59) reliable, conviction upheld - Appeal dismissed - Appellant directed to surrender within two weeks [Paras 1-37].

Dying Declaration – Acceptance of dying declaration as sole basis for conviction – Supreme Court found the dying declaration credible, voluntary, and consistent – The declaration was corroborated by medical history and testimonies of prosecution witnesses – Minor inconsistencies in witness statements did not undermine the core evidence [Paras 24-35].

Evidence Evaluation – Supreme Court scrutinized the inconsistencies in witness testimonies and found them non-material – Dying declaration (Ex. 59) was recorded shortly after the incident and deemed reliable – The presence and endorsement of medical officers ensured the credibility of the declaration [Paras 19-25, 35].

Legal Principles – Supreme Court reaffirmed principles regarding the acceptance of dying declarations – Dying declarations can form the sole basis for conviction if found reliable and voluntary – Multiple dying declarations require independent assessment for consistency and reliability [Paras 25-34].

Decision – Dismissal of Appeal – Held – The appeal is dismissed based on the overwhelming evidence against the appellant and the affirmation of findings by the High Court – The judicial scrutiny confirmed the reliability of the dying declarations and medical evidence, establishing the occurrence of the criminal acts as charged – Appellant directed to surrender within two weeks to serve the sentence [Paras 36-37].

Criminal Law – Conviction for Gang Rape – Appeals against High Court's decision to convert acquittal into conviction for gang rape under Section 376(2)(g) IPC – Trial Court initially acquitted the accused for lack of corroborating evidence, citing potential consensual sexual intercourse – High Court, on appeal, set aside acquittal, ordered retrial, and subsequently convicted the accused – Prosecution and defense adopted previous evidence post-remand – High Court's finding based on prosecutrix's consistent testimony and lack of consent – Absence of corroborative injuries on prosecutrix not grounds for inferring consent [Paras 1-12].

Criminal Law – Sentencing Leniency – High Court imposed sentence of three years’ rigorous imprisonment, less than the statutory minimum ten years, citing adequate and special reasons – Incident dated 1989, multiple acquittals and retrials, and considerable passage of time (28 years) considered – High Court's discretion under the proviso to Section 376(2) IPC (pre-2013 amendment) exercised, considering accused’s age and family responsibilities [Paras 13-14].

Judgment and Order – Appeals Dismissed – Supreme Court found no merit in the appeal against leniency – Sentence enhancement unjustified after 35 years – Vijay Kumar ordered to serve remaining sentence – Other respondents likely completed sentences – Vijay Kumar granted one month to surrender [Para 15].

Criminal Law - Quashing of FIR and Charge-sheet – Criminal Appeal against High Court order rejecting petition to quash FIR for criminal trespass, property damage, and threats – FIR filed for offenses under Sections 447, 427, 294, 506 read with Section 34 IPC – Allegations involve trespass and demolition of property – Appellant contends the FIR is false, with significant delay in filing and no substantial evidence – Supreme Court finds FIR lacks clear dates of incidents and substantiated claims of damage – Held that continuing proceedings against appellant is an abuse of process of law, quashing the FIR and charge-sheet. [Paras 1-18]

Role of Accused in Alleged Trespass and Damage – Analysis – Held – Finds no substantial evidence of the appellant’s involvement in the alleged criminal acts – Notes absence of complaints from key witness Sushma Kashyap whose property was allegedly damaged – Observes possible animus and delayed FIR filing as indicative of retaliatory motives. [Paras 13-16]

Decision – Quashing of FIR and Charge-Sheet against Appellant – Court quashes the FIR and charge-sheet against the appellant, citing lack of evidence and procedural lapses – Exercises power under Article 142 of the Constitution to prevent abuse of the legal process. [Paras 17-18]

Criminal Law – Conviction Quashed – Appeal by the accused against High Court’s judgment upholding conviction under Sections 354D and 506-Part I IPC – Appellant and complainant married during the appeal's pendency – Supreme Court invoked Article 142 of the Constitution of India to quash the conviction to preserve matrimonial harmony – Impugned judgments set aside, and appellant acquitted [Paras 1-12].

Marriage and Conviction – During the appeal, appellant and complainant solemnized marriage – Compliance affidavit confirmed the marriage – Supreme Court considered the potential adverse impact of upholding the conviction on the matrimonial relationship – Powers under Article 142 exercised for quashing the conviction [Paras 4-9].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Held – The Supreme Court quashed and set aside the judgments of the High Court and the trial court – Appellant acquitted of the charges under Sections 354D and 506-Part I IPC – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 10-13].