Criminal Procedure - Section 313 Examination - Proper Examination Required - High Court remanding case for retrial due to alleged defective Section 313 CrPC examination - Supreme Court finds High Court's decision erroneous as accused were fully apprised of circumstances - No substantial prejudice caused to accused - Remand by High Court set aside, matter directed to be decided on merits by High Court. [Paras 16-19, 27-32]

Defective Examination under Section 313 CrPC - Analysis - Held - Defective examination under Section 313 does not automatically vitiate the trial - Accused must prove substantial prejudice caused by such defect - Appellate court can address omitted questions if no substantial prejudice shown - Supreme Court finds no substantial prejudice caused in present case - No miscarriage of justice identified. [Paras 26-29]

Remand for Retrial - Principles - Held - Remand for retrial should be rare and exceptional - Appellate courts should avoid remands unless essential to prevent miscarriage of justice - Supreme Court finds High Court's remand for retrial unnecessary - Orders High Court to decide appeal on merits. [Paras 13, 16, 17, 31-32]

Decision - Setting aside High Court’s Remand - Court sets aside High Court's order remanding case for retrial - Directs High Court to decide the appeal on merits - Accused to remain on bail till High Court's further orders. [Para 32]

Referred Cases:

Ajay Singh Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2007 SC 2188 : (2007) 8 JT 638 : (2007) 8 SCALE 461 : (2007) 7 SCR 983 : (2007) 2 UJ 756 : (2007) AIRSCW 3845 : (2007) 5 Supreme 1

Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2013 SC 3802 : (2012) CriLJ 1160 : (2012) 1 Crimes 76 : (2012) 1 JCC 641 : (2012) 1 JT 100 : (2012) 1 RCR(Criminal) 524 : (2012) 1 SCALE 189 : (2012) 2 SCC 648 : (2012) AIRSCW 930 : (2012) 1 Supreme 34

Paramjeet Singh @ Pamma Vs. State of Uttarakhand, AIR 2011 SC 200 : (2011) CriLJ 663 : (2010) 4 Crimes 165 : (2010) 10 JT 260 : (2010) 10 SCALE 258 : (2010) 10 SCC 439 : (2011) 1 SCC(Cri) 98 : (2010) AIRSCW 6616 : (2010) 7 Supreme 26

State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Bhooraji and Others, (2001) 6 AD 624 : AIR 2001 SC 3372 : (2001) CriLJ 4228 : (2001) 4 Crimes 190 : (2001) 7 JT 55 : (2001) 5 SCALE 423 : (2001) 7 SCC 679 : (2001) AIRSCW 3313 : (2001) 6 Supreme 311

Basavaraj R. Patil and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others, AIR 2000 SC 3214 : (2000) CriLJ 4604 : (2000) 1 JT 422 Supp : (2000) 6 SCALE 697 : (2000) 8 SCC 740 : (2000) 3 SCR 658 Supp : (2000) AIRSCW 3692 : (2000) 6 Supreme 586

Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622 : (1984) CriLJ 1738 : (1984) 2 SCALE 445 : (1984) 4 SCC 116 : (1985) 1 SCR 88

Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1973 SC 2622 : (1973) CriLJ 1783 : (1973) 2 SCC 793 : (1973) SCC(Cri) 1033 : (1974) 1 SCR 489

S. Harnam Singh Vs. The State (Delhi Admn.), AIR 1976 SC 2140 : (1976) CriLJ 913 : (1976) 2 SCC 819 : (1976) SCC(Cri) 324

Ganesha Vs. Sharanappa and Another, AIR 2014 SC 1198 : (2014) 1 CCR 121 : (2014) CriLJ 1146 : (2013) 15 JT 163 : (2013) 14 SCALE 59 : (2014) 1 SCC 87 : (2014) 2 SCJ 725

Asraf Ali Vs. State of Assam, (2008) CLT 1053 : (2008) CriLJ 4338 : (2008) 13 JT 598 : (2008) 10 SCALE 278

Final Result : Disposed Off

Criminal Law - Conviction for Abetment of Suicide and Cruelty – Criminal Appeal challenging High Court's reversal of trial court's acquittal - Sessions court had disposed of the case within nine days, acquitting all accused except husband convicted under Section 498A IPC – High Court re-evaluated evidence, convicted husband and in-laws under Sections 306, 498A read with Section 114 IPC, enhancing husband's sentence - Appellants contended improper trial and insufficient evidence – Supreme Court upheld High Court's judgment, emphasizing the prosecution's role and proper judicial conduct in trial. [Paras 1-16]

Speedy Disposal of Sessions Case - Evaluation - Supreme Court criticized the swift disposal of the case by Sessions Judge within nine days - Found such expedited trial deprived fair opportunity for a thorough investigation and evidence presentation, thereby jeopardizing justice. [Para 1]

Dying Declaration - Admissibility and Sufficiency – Analysis – Deceased's dying declaration recorded by ASI (PW4), though without Executive Magistrate, deemed credible and consistent with evidence - Held, sufficient to establish cruelty and abetment to suicide by husband and in-laws. [Para 7-9]

Role of Prosecuting Agency - Critique - Supreme Court highlighted prosecutorial and judicial negligence in the initial trial - Emphasized on courts' duty to ensure comprehensive evidence presentation and fair prosecution to prevent miscarriage of justice. [Paras 13-14]

Decision - Dismissal of Appeals - Upheld High Court’s decision convicting appellants for abetment of suicide and cruelty - Directed appellants to surrender for serving remaining sentence. [Paras 15-16]

Referred Cases:

Surinder Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2012) CriLJ 1043

Govindaraju @ Govinda v. State by Sriramapuram P.S., AIR 2012 SC 1292

Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2004 SC 346

Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, AIR 2001 SC 3837

Education Law – Medical Colleges – Clarification of Order – Supreme Court clarifies its order dated 18th September 2014 – Applicable to colleges/institutions seeking increase in intake capacity or denied permission for student admissions after inspections in the current academic year – Fees to be at government medical college rates – Applies to similarly situated institutions irrespective of litigation status – Not applicable to disqualified institutions. [Paras 1-6]

Fee Structure – Uniform Application – Fees for students admitted under the order dated 18th September 2014 to be at the same rate as in government medical colleges, maintained for the duration of their course in private institutions. [Para 2]

Institutional Scope – Applicability – Order applies to all similar institutions, regardless of pending petitions or lack of court approach – Excludes disqualified institutions. [Paras 3-4]

Quota Lists – Management and State Quotas – For academic year 2014-15, only the State quota list to be used – Management quota admissions to follow State quota fee structure. [Para 5]

Minority and Deemed Universities – Inclusion – Private institutions benefiting from the order, including minority institutions and deemed universities, to follow State agency admissions and government college fee structures. [Para 6]

Decision – Withdrawal of Petition – Permission granted for withdrawal of Writ Petition (Civil) No. 836/2014 – Petition dismissed as withdrawn. [Para 7]

Reservation - Creamy Layer Determination - Applicability of Personal Income – Civil Appeal against High Court’s order interpreting "creamy layer" status – High Court considered appellant’s personal income for determining "creamy layer" status – Supreme Court examines Office Memorandum dated 8.9.1993 and subsequent clarifications – Supreme Court holds that only parents’ income is relevant for "creamy layer" determination, not individual’s personal income – High Court’s decision set aside – Appeal allowed, restoring appellant’s appointment. [Paras 1-13]

Reservation Law - Interpretation of Office Memorandum - Scope of High Court’s Authority – Analysis – Held – Supreme Court finds High Court misread the criteria for identifying "creamy layer" under Office Memorandum dated 8.9.1993 – Clarifies that inclusion of individual’s income is contrary to established guidelines and judicial pronouncements – Relies on precedent and governmental clarifications confirming that parents' income alone determines "creamy layer" status. [Para 7-11]

Decision – Reinstatement of Appointment – Court restores appellant Surinder Singh's appointment as Accounts Officer – Special Leave Petition disposed of in terms of the appeal’s decision. [Para 12-13]

Referred Cases:Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) 3 SCC 217 SuppAshoka Kumar Thakur v. State of Bihar (1996) 1 SCC 403Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India (2008) 6 SCC 1

Priority of Claims - Stock Exchange Rules vs. Income Tax Dues - Lien and Statutory Preference: The Supreme Court examined the priority of claims between the Income Tax Department and the Stock Exchange regarding the assets of a defaulting member. It was held that the Stock Exchange, by virtue of Rule 43, possesses a first and paramount lien over the securities provided by a member, making it a secured creditor. Consequently, the Stock Exchange's claim had priority over the Government's claim for income tax dues. [Paras 19-25]

Membership Rights and Liabilities - Personal Privilege and Non-attachable Nature: The Court affirmed that a membership card of the Stock Exchange is a personal privilege and does not constitute property of the member. Thus, the proceeds from the sale of the membership card could not be attached by the Income Tax Department for the member's tax liabilities. [Para 16]

Interpretation of 'Lien' under Stock Exchange Rules - Secured Creditor Status: The Stock Exchange's lien under Rule 43 was considered statutory, placing it above unsecured claims, including those of the Income Tax Department. The definition and application of 'lien' were critically analyzed to determine its impact on the hierarchy of claims. [Paras 20-22]

Referred Cases:

Hansraj and Others Vs. Official Liquidators Dehra Dun Mussoorie Electric Tramway Co. Ltd.

Forwarding P. Ltd. and another Vs. Trustees, Port of Vizagapatnam and another (1987) 61 CompCas 513

Isha Valimohamed and Another Vs. Haji Gulam Mohamad and Haji Dada Trust AIR 1974 SC 2061

Triveni Shankar Saxena Vs. State of U.P. and others AIR 1992 SC 496

Vasudev Ramchandra Shelat Vs. Pranlal Jayanand Thakar and Others AIR 1974 SC 1728

The Bank of Bihar Vs. The State of Bihar and Others AIR 1971 SC 1210

Collector of Aurangabad and Another Vs. Central Bank of India and Another AIR 1967 SC 1831

The Stock Exchange, Ahmedabad Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad AIR 2001 SC 1071

Board of Trustees, Port of Mumbai Vs. Indian Oil Corporation and Another AIR 1998 SC 1878

Dena Bank Vs. Bhikhabhai Prabhudas Parekh and Co. and Others AIR 2000 SC 3654

Bombay Stock Exchange Vs. Jaya I. Shah and Another AIR 2004 SC 55

K. Saradambal Vs. Jagannathan and Brothers (Automobile Engineers and Motor Works (P.) Ltd.) (1972) 42 CompCas 359

Criminal Law - Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC - Sudden Provocation - Appeal against conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC - The appellants, husband and wife, were convicted of the murder of Asaram following a scuffle. The defense claimed the deceased had raped the wife (Appellant No. 2) the previous night and the altercation occurred while the couple was proceeding to report the incident to the police. - Held, the act was done in the heat of passion, without premeditation, and the accused did not take undue advantage or act in a cruel manner. - Conviction under Section 302 IPC modified to Section 304 Part II IPC. Sentence reduced to 10 years' imprisonment. [Paras 12-20]

Evidence - Medical Evidence and Eyewitness Testimony - Analysis - The prosecution relied on the testimony of eyewitnesses and the medical evidence from the post-mortem report, which indicated stab wounds sufficient to cause death. However, the defense presented a plausible account of sudden provocation and lack of premeditation. - Held, the prosecution's evidence did not conclusively negate the defense's claim of sudden fight and lack of intent to kill. [Paras 11, 14-15, 17]

Dying Declaration - Admissibility and Weight - The dying declaration of the deceased was recorded and used as evidence by the prosecution. However, the defense challenged its reliability, citing contradictions and lack of corroboration with other evidence. - Held, the dying declaration alone was insufficient to override the defense of sudden provocation, particularly given the consistent testimony of the defense witnesses. [Para 16]

Decision - Conviction and Sentence Modified - The conviction under Section 302 IPC is set aside. The appellants are convicted under Section 304 Part II IPC and sentenced to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment. [Paras 19-21]

Referred Cases:

Satish Narayan Sawant v. State of Goa (2009) 17 SCC 724

Surinder Kumar v. Union Territory, Chandigarh AIR 1989 SC 1094

Arumugam v. State rep. by Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu AIR 2009 SC 331

Constitutional Law - Articles 14, 19(1)(g) - Affiliation of Technical Institutions - Writ petition challenging the denial of affiliation by Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University (CSVTU) to Rungta Engineering College despite AICTE approval. Petitioners argue violation of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g). Held, the denial of affiliation was arbitrary and violated Article 14. University is obligated to grant affiliation if AICTE norms are met. [Paras 25-43]

Technical Education - Jurisdiction of AICTE and State Universities - AICTE Act empowers AICTE to set norms and standards for technical education institutions. State universities must comply with these norms. Held, state cannot impose additional requirements or deny affiliation if AICTE norms are met. [Paras 30-38]

Administrative Law - Role of Universities in Granting Affiliation - Examination of university’s role in granting or denying affiliation in light of AICTE approval. Held, university's refusal to grant affiliation must be based on grounds outside AICTE’s jurisdiction, such as eligibility of students or admission procedures. [Paras 31-40]

Decision - CSVTU's decision to deny affiliation to Rungta Engineering College set aside. University directed to grant affiliation. Court reaffirms AICTE's primacy in setting standards for technical education institutions. The writ petition stands disposed off accordingly. [Para 43]

Referred Cases:

Jaya Gokul Educational Trust v. Commissioner and Secretary to Government Higher Education Department, Kerala State and Another, AIR 2000 SC 1614

Chairman, Bhartia Education Society and Another v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, (2011) 4 SCC 527

State of T.N. and Another v. Adhiyaman Educational and Research Institute and Others, (1995) 4 SCC 104

Constitutional Law - Classification for Superannuation Age - Validity - Civil Appeals challenging the Armed Forces Tribunal's decision allowing respondents to serve until 57 years for ground duty and 54 years for the flying branch. - Held, classification between Group Captains (Select) and Group Captains (Time Scale) for different retirement ages is arbitrary and violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Both categories perform similar duties, wear the same rank, and receive the same benefits, thus, the distinction lacks rational basis. Classification quashed. [Paras 1-25]

Armed Forces - Promotion and Retirement Age - Analysis - Promotions in the Air Force include merit-based (Select) and time-bound (Time Scale) routes. Both routes lead to the same rank and equivalent responsibilities. - Held, merit-based distinctions cannot justify differential retirement ages within the same rank. Parity in retirement age ensures fairness and maintains morale among officers. [Para 16-25]

Decision - Uniform Retirement Age for Group Captains - Court affirms that both Group Captains (Select) and Group Captains (Time Scale) should have the same retirement age. Differentiation based on selection process violates equality principles enshrined in the Constitution. Appeals dismissed. [Paras 38-39]

Referred Cases:

E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1974 SC 555

Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India, AIR 2014 SC 2140

Mrs. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597

The State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR 1952 SC 75

A.S. Iyer v. V. Balasubramanyam, AIR 1980 SC 452

Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Shri Justice S.R. Tendolkar, AIR 1958 SC 538

Lachhman Das v. State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 222

AIR India v. Nergesh Meerza, AIR 1981 SC 1829

Kamlakar v. Union of India, AIR 1999 SC 2300

Educational Service Law - Statutory Qualifications for Appointments - Private School Teachers - The State of Punjab appeals against the High Court’s decision favoring the private respondents (teachers) appointed by the Doaba Arya Senior Secondary School, Nawanshahr, without adherence to statutory qualifications - Supreme Court finds that appointments were made in violation of the Punjab Privately Managed Recognised Schools Employees (Security of Service) Rules, 1981, which strictly mandate specific qualifications for JBT/ETT teachers - Appointments lacking statutory qualifications cannot be validated. [Paras 6-12]

Appointments and Approvals - Invalid Process - Government Instructions vs. Statutory Rules - Examined whether higher qualifications could substitute statutory requirements - Ruled that government instructions permitting higher qualifications are nullified if they contravene statutory provisions - Affirmed that none of the private respondents possessed the requisite statutory qualifications for the advertised JBT/ETT posts - Government instructions cannot override statutory rules - High Court order set aside. [Paras 13-18]

Compensation for Appointed Teachers - Private School’s Responsibility - Held that management issuing illegal advertisement and appointments should bear financial responsibility - Directed the management of Doaba Arya Senior Secondary School to pay all outstanding emoluments to the private respondents. [Paras 19-20]

Decision - Appeals Allowed - Supreme Court sets aside the High Court’s decision, affirming that appointments made without statutory qualifications are invalid and directing the school management to compensate the appointed teachers. [Paras 19-21]

Referred Cases:

P.M. Latha and Another Vs. State of Kerala and Others, (2003) 3 SCC 541

Yogesh Kumar and Others Vs. Government of NCT, Delhi and Others, (2003) 3 SCC 548

Jyoti K.K. and Others Vs. Kerala Public Service Commission and Others, (2002) 3 SCC 541