Civil Appeal – Promotion – Validity of M.Phil degree obtained through Distance Education – Challenge to promotion on the basis of degree validity – Single Judge of High Court directed for passing appropriate orders – Writ petition dismissed – Division Bench upheld the single judge’s decision – Appellant granted promotion with effect from 23.07.2008 – Appellant retired from service on 31.01.2018 – Question of law left open – Promotion benefits not to be disturbed. [Para 2-3]

Civil Appeal – Unjustified Higher Pay Scale – Appeal against High Court's upholding of Tribunal's decision affirming the grant of higher pay scale to respondent No. 4, an Assistant Scientific Officer (Medicine) at CSTT. Challenge to the legality of respondent No. 4's pay scale upgrade and the rejection of similar benefits to appellants, who were in the same cadre and performing similar duties. [Paras 1, 18, 59]

Recruitment and Promotion Rules – Application of 1980 Rules – Recruitment of appellants and respondent No. 4 as Research Assistants (later Assistant Scientific Officers) under Central Hindi Directorate (Research Assistant) Recruitment Rules, 1980. Analysis of qualifications, duties, and pay scale revisions relevant to appellants and respondent No. 4. [Paras 2-4, 6-8, 37-37.5]

Pay Scale Revision – Misapplication of Commission's Recommendations – Inappropriate application of Pay Commission's recommendations leading to respondent No. 4’s pay scale upgrade from ₹6500-10500 to ₹8000-13500, despite him not practicing as a doctor. The challenge to the legality and rationale behind respondent No. 4's pay scale upgrade, which was not applicable to his non-clinical role. [Paras 12-13, 20, 25, 40-43, 58]

Discrimination in Pay Scale – Equal Pay for Equal Work – Appellants’ claim for the same pay scale as respondent No. 4, based on performing similar duties under the same recruitment rules. Rejection of appellants’ claims by the Tribunal and High Court, leading to the current appeal. [Paras 14, 17, 41, 49-50, 54-55]

Judicial Scrutiny – Illegal Grant of Higher Pay Scale – Court's finding of no justification for granting the same scale to appellants as wrongly given to respondent No. 4. Directive for recovery of excess amount paid to respondent No. 4, holding him and responsible officers liable for reimbursing the exchequer. [Paras 58-60]

Decision – High Court and Tribunal Orders Quashed – Quashing of High Court and Tribunal orders justifying respondent No. 4’s benefits. Setting aside of the order granting respondent No. 4 an upgraded pay scale, without granting appellants the same scale. Directive for recovery of excess payments made to respondent No. 4. [Paras 59-61]

Appellant's Involvement in Money Laundering – Alleged acquisition of tainted properties using proceeds of crime – Question of whether the appellant, not an accused in the predicate offence, can be implicated under PMLA. [Paras 6, 16-17]

Criminal Conspiracy and Predicate Offence – Interpretation of Section 120-B of IPC in the context of PMLA – Held that Section 120-B becomes a scheduled offence only if the conspiracy is to commit an offence already included in the PMLA schedule. [Paras 18-25, 27e]

Property Transactions and Source of Funds – Scrutiny of appellant's acquisition of properties and financial capacity – Determination of whether properties were acquired using proceeds of crime deferred to trial. [Paras 17, 27d]

Schedule to PMLA – Interpretation and applicability – Not all offences generating proceeds of crime are included in the PMLA schedule; strict construction necessary for penal statutes. [Paras 20-25, 27e]

Applicability of PMLA – Conditions precedent for offence under Section 3 of PMLA – Existence of a scheduled offence and proceeds of crime related to that offence. [Paras 11-15]

Benefit of Acquittal in Predicate Offence – Impact on proceedings under PMLA – Accused under PMLA may benefit from acquittal/discharge in predicate offence. [Paras 16, 27b]

Decision:Appeal allowed – Impugned order dated 27th September 2022 quashed and set aside, and the complaint against the appellant under PMLA also quashed.

Admissibility of Unstamped Agreement to Sell – Appellant contends that an unstamped agreement to sell dated 04.02.1988 should be admissible as secondary evidence under Section 65 of the Evidence Act. The key question is whether Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, barring the admissibility of unstamped instruments, applies to this agreement. [Paras 1-7]

Interpretation of Section 35 of the Stamp Act – High Court upheld the review order and the constitutional validity of Section 35. Supreme Court analyzes Section 35 in the context of the agreement’s execution date, determining whether the agreement was chargeable with duty at the time of its execution. [Paras 8-14]

Stamp Duty and Execution Date – Supreme Court notes the significance of the execution date for determining stamp duty. The Court observes that the agreement, executed in 1988, was not subject to stamp duty based on the provisions of the Stamp Act and its Schedules at that time. This finding is crucial for assessing the applicability of Section 35 to the agreement. [Paras 15-28]

Secondary Evidence under Evidence Act – The Court elaborates on the principles governing secondary evidence as per the Evidence Act. It underscores the necessity of primary evidence and delineates the specific conditions under which secondary evidence is permissible, focusing on the importance of proving the unavailability of the original document and ensuring the authenticity of the secondary evidence. [Paras 29-35]

Supreme Court’s Decision – Concluding that the document dated 04.02.1988 was not chargeable with duty, the Supreme Court allows the appeal. The Court rules that the document is not barred under Section 35 of the Stamp Act, permitting the Plaintiff to present secondary evidence of the agreement to sell. The decision underscores the nuanced application of the Stamp Act and the Evidence Act in determining the admissibility of documents in legal proceedings. [Paras 36-44]

Criminal Appeal – Jurisdictional Competence for Trial – Discussion on appropriate judicial forum for trial of appellant charged under IPC and other acts – Concerns over trial by Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate with limited sentencing power for offences punishable with life imprisonment or 10 years imprisonment under Section 409 IPC – Analysis of jurisdiction under Cr.PC and IPC provisions. [Para 1, 3, 17, 22]

Right to Speedy Trial – Fair Trial – Emphasis on right to speedy trial as an essential component of fair trial – Reference to Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and other cases highlighting importance of speedy trial for preserving fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. [Para 4-5, 10, 19-20]

Jurisdictional Analysis – Courts under Cr.PC – Examination of Sections 26, 29, 323, 325 of Cr.PC in context of trial jurisdiction – Determination of Court of Session as suitable forum for trial of offences with severe punishment like life imprisonment. [Para 7-9, 11-16, 18, 21, 23-24]

Committal to Court of Session – Directive for committal of appellant’s case to Court of Session under Section 323 Cr.PC – Discussion on necessity of trial before court with competent jurisdiction for ensuring a fair trial. [Para 25-28]

Prolonged Incarceration without Trial Progress – Appellant in custody since 9th April 2021, with minimal trial progress despite High Court's order for completion within six months – Only 5 out of 25 witnesses examined – Issue of prolonged incarceration without trial conclusion highlighted.

High Court's Inconsistent Bail Grant – High Court's recognition of the appellant's entitlement to bail, yet only granting interim bail for 45 days – Illegality of granting bail for limited duration when accused entitled to regular bail – High Court's practice of granting interim/short duration bail despite finding entitlement for regular bail observed in multiple cases.

Right to Liberty and Illegal Bail Orders – Granting bail for limited duration deemed illegal when the accused is entitled to bail – Such orders infringe upon the constitutional right to liberty under Article 21 and impose additional burdens on the litigant.

Supreme Court's Decision – Appeal allowed – Modification of High Court's order to grant regular bail to the appellant till the final disposal of the case, maintaining the same terms and conditions as in the impugned order.

Criminal Appeal – Conviction under Section 307 IPC – Appellants accused of conspiring and attempting to murder Complainant (PW1) – Incident arising from a dispute over land between PW1 and Accused No.1 – Attack in PW1's grocery shop by appellants and other accused – Injuries sustained by PW1 and PW2 (PW1's mother) deemed simple by doctor (PW13). [Paras 3-6]

Evidence and Intent – Contradictions in prosecution's case regarding intent to murder – Appellants armed with knives, but no severe or repeated blows inflicted – Injuries found simple in nature, not indicating an intent to kill. [Paras 6, 9-10]

Legal Interpretation – Application of Section 307 IPC – Supreme Court's analysis referring to cases like State of Madhya Pradesh v Saleem and Jage Ram v State of Haryana – Intention inferred from nature of injuries and circumstances – Simple injuries not conclusive for intent to murder under Section 307 IPC. [Paras 9-10]

Conviction Modified – Supreme Court's intervention – Conviction under Section 307 IPC deemed unsustainable – Conviction modified to Sections 323 and 324 IPC for causing simple injuries – Sentence reduced to period already undergone – Appellants discharged from bail bonds. [Paras 11-12]

Appeal of Pavnesh Kumar against Medical Unfitness Declaration – BSF declared Kumar medically unfit for Sub-Inspector post through LDCE 2018-19 – Challenged in Delhi High Court, which upheld the BSF's decision – Kumar then appealed to Supreme Court. [Paras 1-5]

Medical Fitness for Promotion – Kumar initially declared medically fit as a constable, later declared unfit for Sub-Inspector post – Underwent surgery but still declared unfit in review – BSF's decision based on detailed medical examination specific to Sub-Inspector post, not general fitness. [Paras 6-12]

Distinction in Promotion Standards – Appointment through LDCE considered accelerated promotion, not equivalent to normal promotion – Specific medical standards for LDCE required, separate from general medical fitness for current position. [Paras 13-16]

Supreme Court's Decision – Found no merit in the appeal – Confirmed that Kumar was never declared medically fit for Sub-Inspector post through LDCE process – Upheld High Court's judgment and BSF's decision, dismissing the appeal without costs. [Paras 17-18]

Anticipatory Bail – Denial of anticipatory bail by the High Court – FIR lodged under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (POA) Act, 1989 – Allegation of promise to marry and breach thereof leading to a sexual relationship – Appellant granted interim protection by the Supreme Court – Chargesheet filed – Case for regular bail made out – Appellant directed to surrender within six weeks for applying for regular bail. [Para 1-10]

Personal Liberty – Importance of personal liberty in the context of granting bail – Interim protection granted to the appellant – Emphasis on ensuring the continuation of liberty until the bail application is heard. [Para 9]

Decision: The Supreme Court disposes of the appeal, directing the appellant to apply for regular bail within six weeks after surrendering. Interim protection is to continue until the bail application is moved. [Para 10]