Criminal Law - Customs Act – Section 135(1)(b)(i) – Smuggling of Foreign Watches – Conviction – Large quantity of foreign wrist watches and straps recovered pursuant to secret information – Accused held guilty for knowingly dealing with goods liable to confiscation – Concurrent findings of Trial Court, Appellate Court and High Court affirmed – Held: No perversity or illegality warranting interference under Article 136 of the Constitution [Paras 23, 28].

Evidence – Section 108 of Customs Act – Admissibility of Statement – Contention that conviction based solely on confessional statement recorded under Section 108 – High Court relying on K.I. Pavunny held that statement recorded by authorized Customs Officer is admissible and substantive evidence if voluntary – Bar under Sections 24, 30 and 34 of Evidence Act not attracted – Accused failed to prove coercion or inducement – Statements led to recovery of incriminating material and were corroborated by independent evidence – Held: Conviction not based merely on confession but supported by tangible corroborative material [Paras 20–22].

Criminal Jurisprudence – Concurrent Findings – Scope of Interference under Article 136 – Supreme Court held that findings of guilt recorded by three courts did not suffer from perversity, illegality or manifest error – No ground made out for interference with conviction [Para 23].

Sentence – Reduction of Sentence – Old Matter of 1985 – Appellants of Advanced Age – Incident nearly four decades old – Goods recovered in abandoned condition – Conscious possession not directly attributed – Appellants undergone about one year incarceration which exceeded statutory minimum of six months under proviso to Section 135(1)(b)(i) as it then stood – Considering prolonged litigation and age of surviving appellants – Held: Sentence reduced to period already undergone to meet ends of justice [Paras 24–28].

Decision: Appeals partly allowed – Conviction under Section 135(1)(b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 affirmed – Sentence reduced to period already undergone – Appellants on bail need not surrender – Bail bonds discharged – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 28–31].

Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 – Section 4A(3)(b) – Penalty for Default – Deceased driver died during course of employment – Commissioner awarded compensation with 12% interest and imposed 35% penalty for delay in payment – High Court fastened liability of compensation, interest and penalty on insurer – Held: Penalty under Section 4A(3)(b) arises from personal fault and default of employer in not paying compensation within one month – Insurer not liable to indemnify employer in respect of penalty component – Liability confined to compensation and interest under Section 4A(3)(a) [Paras 17, 21–25].

Statutory Interpretation – Legislative History – Amendment of Section 4A – Comparison of 1959 and 1995 amendments reveals conscious severance of penalty component from compensation and interest – Penalty under clause (b) distinct and independent from compensation and interest under clause (a) – Legislative intent to ensure deterrence against employer’s default and to prevent shifting of penalty burden to indemnifier [Paras 18–21].

Insurance Law – Indemnity – Contractual Liability vis-à-vis Statutory Obligation – Statutory obligation under Section 4A(1) to pay compensation within one month cannot be diluted by contractual terms – Penalty imposed for employer’s unjustified delay cannot be transferred to insurer – Obligation to pay penalty remains personal to employer [Paras 22–23].

Precedent – Binding Authority – Ved Prakash Garg v. Premi Devi – Reiterated that insurer is liable to satisfy compensation and interest but not penalty imposed under Section 4A(3)(b) – Followed in Sheela Devi v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and L.R. Ferro Alloys Ltd. v. Mahavir Mahto – High Court erred in ignoring settled law [Paras 23–24].

Social Welfare Legislation – Beneficial Interpretation – Though Employees’ Compensation Act is a welfare statute requiring liberal interpretation in favour of employee, such interpretation cannot extend to fastening statutory penalty on insurer contrary to express legislative scheme and binding precedent [Paras 16–17, 23–24].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment of Delhi High Court set aside to the extent it fastened liability of penalty under Section 4A(3)(b) on Insurance Company – Employer held liable to pay penalty of Rs. 2,57,838/- within eight weeks – Findings regarding compensation and interest undisturbed.

Criminal Law – Murder vs Culpable Homicide – Section 300 Clause (3) IPC – Deceased sustained 29 ante-mortem injuries including four bone-deep lacerated wounds on parietal and temporal regions – Linear fracture of parietal bone with extradural and subarachnoid haemorrhage – Cause of death coma due to head injury – Repeated blows on vital part with lathis – Injury sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death – Case squarely covered under Section 300 Clause (3) IPC – High Court erred in treating it as single fatal injury and altering conviction to Section 304 Part II IPC [Paras 51–63, 68–70].

Criminal Law – Unlawful Assembly – Section 149 IPC – Vicarious Liability – Road deliberately blocked with tube-well pipes – Accused lying in wait armed with lathis – Concerted assault causing 63 injuries in total – Once common object established, individual attribution of fatal blow immaterial – Every member liable for offence committed in prosecution of common object – High Court’s reasoning contrary to settled law on Section 149 IPC [Paras 43, 65–67, 69].

Criminal Law – Intention – Determination – To be inferred from cumulative circumstances – Nature of weapon, situs of injuries, number of blows, prior motive, preparation and manner of attack relevant – Retaliatory motive arising from earlier altercation – No grave and sudden provocation – No Exception to Section 300 attracted [Paras 54–60].

Evidence – Post-Mortem Report – Admission under Section 294 CrPC – Doctor not examined as defence admitted genuineness of report – Post-mortem report admissible as substantive evidence – Non-examination of doctor not fatal when document admitted and corroborated by ocular evidence [Paras 52–53, 63–64].

Appellate Interference – Perversity – High Court held death due to single injury ignoring medical evidence showing multiple head injuries – Self-contradictory reasoning while affirming applicability of Section 149 IPC yet insisting on proof of individual fatal blow – Judgment altering conviction held perverse and unsustainable [Paras 68–70].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Judgment of High Court dated 19.07.2010 set aside to the extent it altered conviction – Conviction under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and sentence of life imprisonment as awarded by Trial Court restored – Accused directed to surrender within eight weeks [Paras 71–72].

Electricity Law – Power Purchase Agreement – Captive Coal Block – Change in Law – Cancellation of coal block pursuant to Supreme Court decision in Manohar Lal Sharma and enactment of Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Act, 2015 – Whether constitutes Change in Law under Article 10 of PPA/PSA – Interpretation of indemnity clause under Article 2.5 – Held: Though PPA/PSA did not expressly name Ganeshpur coal block, surrounding circumstances including Minutes of Meeting dated 03.01.2011 and letter dated 30.04.2012 established that Ganeshpur captive coal block was the designated source – Cancellation of coal block pursuant to judicial interpretation of CMN Act and MMDR Act and subsequent legislation amounted to Change in Law under Articles 10.1.1(b) and 10.1.1(f) – Such Change in Law materially affected seller’s right to procure coal and perform obligations – Compensation payable from 25.08.2014 along with carrying costs – However, prior to cancellation, Article 2.5 indemnified purchaser against escalation due to procurement from alternate sources – Compensation for e-auction/import coal to meet shortfall in tapering linkage before 25.08.2014 not permissible – Appeals partly allowed [Paras 19-26].

Contract Law – Interpretation of Written Contract – Reference to Surrounding Circumstances – Whether prior and subsequent correspondence can be relied upon to identify “captive source” – Scope of Sections 91 and 92 of Evidence Act – Held: Though terms of written contract must ordinarily be gathered from document itself, extrinsic evidence permissible to relate language to existing facts or to clarify ambiguity – Article 2.5’s reference to “captive source” clarified by Minutes of Meeting and subsequent correspondence – Purchaser, being party to such correspondence, estopped from denying identity of captive coal block – Reliance placed on Anglo American Metallurgical Coal Pty. Ltd. v. MMTC Ltd. – Interpretation adopted by APTEL and CERC affirmed on this aspect [Paras 21-23].

Electricity Tariff – Indemnity Clause vs Change in Law Clause – Distinct Fields of Operation – Article 2.5 indemnifies purchaser against escalation when coal sourced from alternate sources during subsistence of captive block – Article 10 triggered when Change in Law materially affects rights and obligations under PPA/PSA – Once coal block cancelled by judicial pronouncement and new statutory regime introduced, Article 10 attracted – Immunity under Article 2.5 not available in case of Change in Law event – APTEL rightly awarded compensation from date of cancellation [Paras 24, 25].

Decision: Appeals partly allowed – Impugned order of APTEL set aside to limited extent granting compensation for procurement of coal through e-auction/import to meet shortfall in tapering linkage prior to 25.08.2014 – Award of compensation on account of Change in Law event with effect from 25.08.2014 along with carrying costs upheld – CERC directed to modify consequential order accordingly – No order as to costs [Paras 26-27].

Consumer Protection – Housing Construction – Delay in handing over possession – Compensation – Contractual clause limiting delay compensation to Rs.10 per sq. ft. per month – NCDRC awarded interest @ 8% per annum – Held: Consumer fora derive power from statute, not merely contract – One-sided clauses cannot curtail statutory jurisdiction – Award of 8% interest fair and reasonable – Appeals dismissed [Paras 9-18, 28-30].

Unfair Trade Practice – One-sided Builder-Buyer Agreement – Clause providing nominal compensation for delay while enabling developer to charge high interest from buyer – Held: Such oppressive and unilateral clauses constitute unfair trade practice under Section 2(1)(r) – Consumer fora empowered to depart from such clauses and award just compensation [Paras 15-18].

Deficiency in Service – Failure to obtain Occupancy Certificate – Offer of possession on “as is where is” basis without statutory approvals – Held: Possession without Occupancy Certificate is legally untenable – Failure to secure OC amounts to deficiency in service – Buyer cannot be compelled to accept incomplete possession [Paras 24-26].

Compensation – Principles governing award – Compensation under Consumer Protection Act is remedial and protective – Must be fair, reasonable and proportionate to delay and hardship – Not confined to strict pecuniary loss – May include mental agony and prolonged deprivation – Detailed mathematical proof not sine qua non [Paras 19-21, 28].

Subsequent Purchaser – Entitlement to Compensation – Subsequent allottee steps into shoes of original allottee – Right to seek compensation for deficiency travels with allotment unless expressly barred [Para 18.1].

Stamp Duty and Ancillary Reliefs – Direction to bear increase in stamp duty and grant rebate – Held: Such directions incidental and ancillary to main relief of compensation – Within scope of Section 14 of the Act – No perversity warranting interference [Para 28.1].

Compliance with Court Directions – Repeated undertakings by developer – Failure to obtain Occupancy Certificate despite multiple opportunities – Persistent non-compliance weighs against developer in determining equitable relief [Paras 22-24].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Orders of NCDRC affirmed – Appellant directed to obtain Occupancy Certificate and hand over possession within six months – Compensation @ 8% per annum to continue till delivery – In C.A. No. 11047 of 2025, interest payable till 14.08.2022 with adjustment of amounts already paid – Liberty granted to approach NCDRC only on limited issue of post-period interest in case of bona fide impediment [Paras 29-30].

Telecom – 2G Spectrum – Quashing of Licences – Continued Operation after 02.02.2012 – Liability to pay Reserve Price – Supreme Court directed that licensees who continued operations after 02.02.2012 shall pay reserve price fixed for November 2012 auction – Held: Liability commenced from 02.02.2012 and not from 15.02.2013 as interpreted by TDSAT – TDSAT’s view factually erroneous – Direction binding and not open to dilution [Paras 13-14, 17].

Interpretation of Judicial Orders – Clear reference to “after 02.02.2012” in order dated 15.02.2013 – Commencement date explicitly indicated – Held: Where language of order is clear, subordinate forum cannot reinterpret to alter commencement of liability – Liability must be given full effect as directed [Paras 13-14].

Spectrum Auction – End Date of Levy – Respondent successful bidder in March 2013 auction – Letter of Intent issued on 30.04.2013 specifying commencement of 20-year term from date of LoI – Held: Liability to pay reserve price in 8 circles continued till 30.04.2013 – In remaining 13 circles till date of cessation of operations i.e. 23.03.2013 – Levy cannot extend beyond LoI date [Paras 15, 17].

Interest – Delay in Raising Demand – DoT issued show-cause notice only on 17.11.2014 – Held: Interest payable only from 08.12.2014, being expiry of 21 days granted in show-cause notice – DoT cannot take advantage of its own delay and claim interest for earlier period [Para 16-17].

Public Interest – Continuation of Operations – Existing licensees permitted to continue post-quashing only to avoid disruption of telecom services to public – Such continuation not for benefit of licensees – Imposition of reserve price was premium for enjoying benefit of quashed licences [Paras 12-13].

Decision: Appeal allowed in part – Respondent liable to pay reserve price from 02.02.2012 till 30.04.2013 (8 circles) and till 23.03.2013 (13 circles) – Interest payable @ SBI Prime Lending Rate from 08.12.2014 – Amount already paid to be adjusted – Balance to be paid within 3 months – Parties to bear own costs [Para 17].

Criminal Law – Murder – Circumstantial Evidence – Recovery under Section 27 Evidence Act – Deceased went missing – Ransom calls made from her mobile – Mobile sold by accused – Dead body recovered from well at accused’s disclosure – Scooty recovered at accused’s instance – Medical evidence proving homicidal death by ligature strangulation – Held: Complete chain of circumstances established – Conviction under Sections 302 and 201 IPC upheld – Appeal dismissed – Liberty granted to apply for remission [Paras 12-14, 19-23, 29-30].

Circumstantial Evidence – Five Golden Principles – Sharad Birdhichand Sarda principles reiterated – Circumstances must be fully established – Must be consistent only with guilt of accused – Must exclude every hypothesis except guilt – Chain must be complete – Court satisfied that cumulative circumstances form unbroken chain pointing only to appellant’s guilt [Paras 13-14, 29].

Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 27 – Scope and Admissibility – Discovery of fact includes object found, place of recovery and knowledge of accused – Recovery of dead body from well pursuant to memorandum statement while in custody – Recovery embodies doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events – Information distinctly related to fact discovered – Held: Recovery valid and constitutes formidable incriminating circumstance [Paras 20-23].

Murder – Medical Evidence – Ligature strangulation – Post-mortem revealed fracture of thyroid cartilage, ligature marks and ante-mortem injury – Body recovered from water in partial decomposition – Scientific reference to slower putrefaction in water – Identification based on recognizable features and clothing upheld – Absence of DNA test not fatal where reliable ocular identification available [Paras 15, 24-25].

Delay in Missing Report – Three-day delay in lodging missing report – Explained as natural conduct of family expecting return of missing member – Held: Not fatal to prosecution case [Para 16].

Motive – Ransom demand of Rs 5 lakh – Financial gain alleged – Held: Though motive strengthens prosecution case, absence or insufficiency of motive not fatal where circumstantial chain is complete [Paras 27-28].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 302 and 201 IPC affirmed – Appellant granted liberty to apply for remission in accordance with applicable policy [Paras 29-30].

Consumer Protection – Deficiency in Service – Delay in handing over possession – Joint Development Agreement – Whether landowners jointly and severally liable with developer for delay compensation – Held: Liability for construction and delivery vested solely with developer under JDA – Landowners not liable for delay compensation – Appeals dismissed [Paras 14-17].

Joint Development Agreement – Allocation of obligations – Clause 7 of JDA and Clauses 2 & 3 of GPA – Developer authorized to construct, enter into sale agreements, receive consideration and convey title in respect of its share – Mutual indemnity clauses – Held: Construction and delay attributable exclusively to developer – Landowners indemnified against consequences of developer’s acts or omissions [Paras 12-14].

Principal and Agent – Scope of liability – Execution of GPA by landowners in favour of developer – Contention that principal liable for acts of agent – Held: No blanket principal-agent liability for construction delay – Relationship governed by specific terms of JDA and GPA – Landowners not concerned with construction activities and not signatories to Sale Agreements – Mere execution of GPA does not fasten liability for deficiency in service arising from construction delay [Paras 9-10, 15].

Consumer Law – Joint and Several Liability – Transfer of Title – Though not liable for delay compensation, landowners jointly responsible with developer to ensure transfer of title and execution of sale deeds – Direction of Commission to execute conveyance upheld [Para 15].

Precedents – Applicability – Decisions relied upon by appellants distinguished – Issue of joint and several liability depends on facts of each case – Earlier decisions directing developer alone to pay delay compensation support respondents’ case [Para 16].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Impugned orders of NCDRC upheld to the extent that landowners are not jointly and severally liable for delay compensation – Direction to transfer title and execute sale deeds affirmed [Para 17].

Criminal Law – Quashing - Drugs and Cosmetics Act – Non-maintenance and manipulation of manufacturing records – Schedules M & U – Allegations of tampering, discrepancies in production, consumption and sale of Pseudoephedrine – Held: Such violations attract Section 18(a)(vi) read with Rule 74 and are punishable under Section 27(d) – Not confined merely to Section 18-B/28-A relating to maintenance of records [Paras 26-27].

Section 27(d) – Scope – Manufacture for sale or distribution in contravention of Chapter IV or Rules – Failure to maintain mandatory batch production and raw material records under Schedule M & U amounts to contravention of statutory requirements governing manufacture – Cognizable under Section 27(d) [Paras 23, 27].

Limitation – Section 468 CrPC – Offence under Section 27(d) punishable with imprisonment up to two years – Limitation period three years – Complaint filed within two years and six months – Held: Not time-barred – Decisions in Miteshbhai J. Patel and Cheminova (India) Ltd. distinguished as complaints there were filed beyond three years [Paras 28-30].

Cognizance Order – Omission to specifically mention Section 27(d) in handwritten order – Complaint title and committal order clearly referred to Section 27(d) – Held: Omission clerical in nature – No prejudice caused – Proceedings not vitiated [Paras 24-25].

Jurisdiction – Sections 32(2), 36-A and 36-AB – Offences under Chapter IV – Save as otherwise provided, no Court inferior to Court of Session shall try such offences – Section 36-A excludes offences triable by Court of Session – Held: JMFC rightly committed case to Special Court – Summary trial under Section 36-A not applicable [Paras 31-32].

Quashing – Section 482 CrPC – Detailed allegations of serious discrepancies, manipulation and misuse of habit-forming drug – Prima facie case disclosed – Held: No ground for quashing at threshold [Paras 26-27, 33].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court order refusing to quash complaint affirmed – Trial to proceed before Special Judge in accordance with law [Paras 33-34].