Murder Conviction Upheld – Appellant convicted under Section 302 IPC – High Court upholds conviction – Daylight murder witnessed by victim's sister-in-law – Reliable eyewitness account of appellant stabbing deceased – Forensic evidence corroborates eyewitness testimony – Accused apprehended shortly after incident with blood-stained knife and shirt – Blood on recovered knife matches deceased's blood – Conviction upheld by Trial Court and High Court. [Paras 1-4]

Motive Not Essential in Eyewitness Cases – Defence argues absence of motive for crime – Court cites precedent establishing motive not crucial in cases with reliable eyewitness testimony – Shivaji Genu Mohite v. State of Maharashtra referenced – Lack of motive inconsequential when direct evidence establishes guilt – Principle reiterated in subsequent cases – Bikau Pandey v. State of Bihar, Rajagopal v. Muthupandi, Yogesh Singh v. Mahabeer Singh cited. [Para 5]

Dismissal of Appeal – No grounds for interference with lower court decisions – Appeal dismissed, interim bail revoked – Appellant directed to surrender within four weeks to serve remaining sentence – Judgment to be forwarded to Trial Court for enforcement. [Para 6]

Criminal Appeal – Bail – Long Incarceration and Health Conditions – Appellant, a senior citizen, implicated in offenses under UAPA and IPC – Supreme Court grants bail considering her prolonged detention of nearly six years without charge framing, age, and health issues, notwithstanding the serious allegations – Held, long incarceration, in this case, justifies bail despite stringent bail provisions under UAPA. [Paras 37-41]

Bail Restriction under UAPA – Analysis – Court examines the nature of allegations and evidence against the appellant under Sections 13, 16, 17, 18, 18B, 20, 38, 39, 40 of the UAPA – Finds no prima facie case under the stringent bail restrictions of UAPA – Emphasizes that mere association or meetings with accused individuals don’t constitute proof of involvement in terrorist activities. [Paras 31-35, 39]

Bail Conditions – Strict Compliance Required – While granting bail, the Court imposes conditions like not leaving Maharashtra without court permission, surrendering passport, informing NIA of residence, maintaining active phone contact, and regular reporting to the local police station – Warns that any violation may lead to bail cancellation. [Paras 42-43]

Judgment – Supreme Court – Appellant granted bail, setting aside High Court’s judgment, based on long period of incarceration, her age, and health condition, despite serious charges under UAPA and IPC – Observes that each case’s facts and circumstances determine the applicability of bail provisions. [Para 44]

Quashing of FIR and Criminal Proceedings – Criminal Appeal in Supreme Court – Supreme Court allows appeal of State of Madhya Pradesh, setting aside the High Court’s order quashing the FIR and criminal proceedings in relation to a property dispute. High Court had previously quashed the FIR under Section 482 of CrPC, involving allegations of fraudulent transactions concerning nazul land. Supreme Court finds that the High Court erred in its assumption that the State failed to prove its title over the disputed property and holds that allegations in FIR do not strictly fall within civil dispute domain, warranting criminal proceedings. [Paras 1-14]

Civil vs. Criminal Proceedings – Distinction and Overlap – Supreme Court observes that while the origin of the dispute relates to civil proceedings concerning property possession, the nature of allegations in FIR transcends into the criminal domain, involving potential offences under IPC. It emphasizes that criminal proceedings should not be quashed at the threshold when serious allegations of fraud and criminal conduct are involved, notwithstanding underlying civil disputes. [Paras 10-11]

Revenue Records and Property Title – Clarification – Supreme Court clarifies that revenue records do not confer title and are not conclusive proof of ownership. Asserts that civil courts are the appropriate forum for determining questions of title and disputes involving property ownership. Notes that findings in revenue proceedings cannot override criminal allegations involving fraud and falsification in property transactions. [Para 7]

Decision nd Directions – FIR bearing number 551 of 2015 registered at PS Khategaon, Dewas, to be reopened and proceeded with in accordance with the law. Supreme Court’s observations aimed solely at assessing the correctness of the High Court’s order, with no bearing on subsequent criminal proceedings. [Para 12-14]

Freezing of Accounts under FCRA – Interim Relief – Supreme Court permits petitioners to utilize frozen accounts for salary and institutional expenses, subject to conditions – Orders proper maintenance and auditing of accounts, with quarterly statements to investigating agency or Trial Court – Proceedings to continue in other forums – No findings on contempt allegations recorded. [Paras 1-8]

Interim Order Made Absolute – Court directs continuation of interim relief granted in previous order – Petitioners permitted to use frozen accounts for operational expenses of educational and health institutions – Requirement for proper accounting and auditing emphasized – Observations restricted to smooth functioning of institutions, with no findings on merits made. [Paras 7-8]

Quashing of Bail Orders – Murder Case – High Court granted bail to the respondents (Abdullah, Nasir, and Muzammil) accused of murder – Appellant challenged the bail orders – Alleged involvement of respondents in the murder of Khursheed Ahmad – Appellant, an eyewitness, opposed the grant of bail – High Court granted bail without considering relevant material – Post-mortem report indicated severe assault leading to the death of the deceased – Cancellation of bail granted to co-accused Neyaz Ahmad by Supreme Court also relevant – Impugned bail orders set aside – Respondents directed to surrender within 10 days – Liberty granted to move fresh bail application – Observations made for decision purpose only, not on merits of the case. [Paras 2-10]

Consumer Law- Partnership Dispute – Consumer Complaint – Jurisdiction – Alleged deficiency in service – Complaint filed by respondent No.1 before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (DCDRF), alleging non-repayment of investment in partnership firm – Appellants, heirs of deceased partner, contesting liability – Appellants contend respondent No.1 was partner in firm as per registered partnership deed dated 27.05.1996 – No dissolution of registered deed proved – Status of complainant as partner deemed to continue until death of managing partner – Consumer complaint not maintainable for commercial dispute – Commercial transactions outside purview of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Appropriate remedy lies before Civil Court – Lack of evidence for appellants inheriting firm's liabilities upon death of partner – National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) erred in upholding complaint – Orders of lower forums set aside – Complaint dismissed – Respondent No.1 may pursue alternative legal remedies.

Amalgamation and Property Transfer – Lease Clause Interpretation – Transferor company’s perpetual lease plots transferred to transferee company – Issue: whether amalgamation under Company Court order amounts to ‘transfer’ under perpetual lease clauses, obligating payment of unearned increase in value to the lessor (DDA). [Paras 1-2, 6-8]

Lease Deeds – Interpretation – Embargo on transfer – Clause II(4)(a) of the perpetual lease deeds prohibits lessee from selling, transferring, assigning, or parting with possession of plots without prior written consent of lessor – Provision entitles lessor to impose conditions and recover portion of unearned increase in value upon transfer – Such consent not granted for amalgamation of lessee with another company – Transfer of plots pursuant to amalgamation – Held, amalgamation constitutes transfer within ambit of clause II(4)(a) – Provisions of lease deeds enforceable. [Paras 6-12]

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Applicability – Wide scope of clause II(4)(a) of lease deeds – Extends beyond definition of transfer under Section 5 of Transfer of Property Act – Provision covers transfers and parting with possession – Not affected by Section 5 – Lease provisions upheld. [Para 11]

Interim Stay – Conditions – Appellant granted interim stay subject to deposit of specified amount – Amount deposited with court – Respondent entitled to withdraw principal amount with accrued interest – Interim stay lifted. [Para 13]

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Held: Amalgamation constitutes ‘transfer’ under lease agreement, requiring payment of unearned increase to DDA – Appellant to pay the amount as per interim order of the Court. [Para 12]

Quashing of Conviction – Criminal Appeal against High Court order confirming the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC – Appellants convicted for the murder of the deceased – Prosecution case based on eyewitness accounts of closely related witnesses – Witnesses allegedly tutored by police a day before recording evidence – Material contradictions and omissions in evidence – Lack of examination of independent witnesses – Defense of accused centered on absence from the scene of the incident – Allegation of gross misuse of power by police in tutoring witnesses – Substantial doubt cast on genuineness of prosecution case – Benefit of doubt given to appellants – Appeals allowed, convictions set aside, and appellants acquitted of all charges – Bail bonds cancelled. [Paras 1-10]

Misconduct by Police – Inquiry directed into the conduct of police officials for tutoring prosecution witnesses at the concerned Police Station – Direction for appropriate action against erring officials in accordance with the law. [Para 10]

Selection Process and Bias – Relationship of candidates with selection committee members – Appointment of appellants as Shiksha Karmi Grade-III set aside due to close familial relationships with committee members, indicating reasonable likelihood of bias – Found not in compliance with Sections 40 and 100 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 [Paras 2, 36, 37].

Collector's Order and Appeal – Collector's order quashing selection was challenged before Commissioner and later in Writ Petition – Arguments centered on violation of principles of natural justice due to non-joinder of appellants in initial appeal before Collector – Revisional authority and High Court, after detailed examination, found no prejudice caused to appellants [Paras 5-11].

Principles of Natural Justice – Doctrine not applied rigidly – Focus on prejudice caused – Test of reasonable likelihood of bias – Court upheld findings of lower authorities and observed non-joinder at initial stage before Collector did not vitiate principles of natural justice in this case [Paras 13-15, 34, 35, 44-49].

Decision – Affirming lower courts' findings – Selections vitiated by bias – Non-joinder before Collector, while procedural, did not result in prejudice – Dismissal of appeals as no interference warranted under Article 136 of the Constitution of India [Paras 38-49].

Resolution for Recusal during Interview - Committee members with close relatives as candidates recused from the selection process - Chief Executive Officer assigned to allot their marks during interviews - [Paras 11-12]

Appointment of Appellants and Subsequent Challenges - Appellants' appointments as Shiksha Karmis-Grade III were contested by R-4 (Archana Mishra), who was not selected - R-4's appeal led to the setting aside of appellants' appointments by the Collector, followed by the Commissioner's dismissal of the revision - Appellants' plea of violation of natural justice in these proceedings - [Paras 13-21, 32-34]

Judicial Scrutiny of Violation of Natural Justice - High Court's dismissal of writ petitions - Division Bench upheld Single Judge's order - Issue of whether appellants received an adequate opportunity of hearing at appellate/revisional stages examined - [Paras 22-34, 47-51, 61]

Remand for Fresh Enquiry at Original Stage Not Feasible - Given the significant lapse of time (over 25 years) and continuous service by appellants, remanding the case deemed inappropriate - [Paras 75-76]

Decision - Appeals allowed, High Court's judgment set aside - Appellants to continue in service with all benefits - [Para 77]

Order:

In view of divergent views, the matter is to be placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for constitution of a larger Bench. Interim order to remain in operation.