Constitutional Law - Power of Judicial Review - Article 32 and 226 of the Constitution - Held that judicial review is a basic feature of the Constitution, and the superior courts have the power to direct the transfer of investigation from State Police to CBI to protect fundamental rights. The Court emphasized that this power should be exercised sparingly and in exceptional situations where it is necessary to ensure a fair and impartial investigation. [Paras 1-3, 31-33]

Criminal Law - Transfer of Investigation - Investigation of financial scams - CBI directed to take over investigations in West Bengal and Odisha involving the Saradha Group of Companies and other similar cases due to the inter-state ramifications, complexity, and involvement of influential personalities. The Court noted that the State Police had done commendable work but the magnitude and nature of the scam warranted an independent investigation by the CBI to maintain public confidence. [Paras 10-13, 30-35]

Regulatory Authorities - Role and Responsibility - Investigation into the role of regulatory authorities like SEBI, Registrar of Companies, and RBI is essential. The Court noted possible connivance or negligence of these authorities in preventing the scam, which necessitates a thorough investigation to ensure accountability and prevent future occurrences. [Paras 20-22]

Decision - Transfer of Investigation to CBI - Directed transfer of all cases related to the Saradha Group of Companies and other companies involved in similar scams from the State Police to the CBI in West Bengal and Odisha. The CBI was also permitted to conduct further investigations under Section 173(8) CrPC in cases where charge sheets had already been filed. This transfer does not affect the proceedings of State Commissions of Enquiry or the legal recovery actions for repayment to depositors. The writ petitions and transfer petition were disposed of with these directions, and the State Police were directed to provide full cooperation to the CBI. [Paras 34-40]

Referred Cases:

Advocates Association, Bangalore v. Union of India (2013) 10 SCC 611

State of West Bengal v. The Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal (2010) 3 SCC 571

Inder Singh v. State of Punjab (1994) 6 SCC 275

Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984) 3 SCC 161

R.S. Sodhi v. State of U.P. (1994) 1 SCC 143 Supp

Civil Procedure - Order 2 Rule 2 - Bar on subsequent suit - Appeal against High Court judgment partly decreeing original suit - Respondent (plaintiff) filed two suits for damages against appellant (Coffee Board) based on failure to provide ICO stamps for coffee export - First suit (O.S. No. 3150 of 1985) sought losses for delayed shipment; second suit (O.S. No. 4763 of 1986) sought costs for re-import due to lack of ICO stamps - Supreme Court examines whether the subsequent suit is barred by Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC for splitting claims arising from the same cause of action - Held, second suit is barred by Order 2 Rule 2 as both suits were based on the same cause of action and could have been combined in one suit - High Court misappreciated facts, trial court's judgment restored, and respondent's suit dismissed. [Paras 6-21]

Interpretation of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC - Analysis - Held - Order 2 Rule 2 requires a plaintiff to include the whole claim arising from a cause of action in one suit to prevent multiple litigations on the same cause - The rule's intent is to avoid vexing a defendant twice for the same cause and to prevent the splitting of claims - Supreme Court finds that the cause of action in both suits was identical and arose from the appellant's failure to provide ICO stamps - Claims for different reliefs based on the same cause of action should have been included in one suit. [Para 10-13, 18-20]

Decision - Appeal allowed, High Court judgment set aside - Original suit (O.S. No. 4763 of 1986) dismissed as barred by Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC - Supreme Court reinstates trial court's judgment. [Para 22]

Referred Cases:

Deva Ram and Another v. Ishwar Chand and Another, AIR 1996 SC 378

Gurbux Singh v. Bhooralal, AIR 1964 SC 1810

Alka Gupta v. Narender Kumar Gupta, AIR 2011 SC 9

S. Nazeer Ahmed v. State Bank of Mysore and Others, AIR 2007 SC 989

Criminal Law – Conviction based on circumstantial evidence – Criminal Appeal against the High Court order convicting the appellant – Evaluation of circumstantial evidence required to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Supreme Court finds material discrepancies and lack of independent corroboration in the evidence presented – Held that the circumstantial evidence does not conclusively prove the appellant's involvement in the murder and robbery – Conviction set aside, appellant acquitted. [Paras 1-18]

Circumstantial Evidence – Principles – Held – Each circumstance must be proved beyond reasonable doubt by independent evidence – Circumstances must form a complete chain consistent only with the guilt of the accused – In absence of such a chain, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused. [Para 17]

Decision – Acquittal of Appellant – Court sets aside the conviction by the High Court – Finds that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence pointing conclusively to the appellant's guilt – Appellant acquitted and directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. [Para 18]

Referred Cases:

Sahadevan and another v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2012 SC 2435

Munish Mubar v. State of Haryana, AIR 2013 SC 912

Mano v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2007) 13 SCC 795

Pancho v. State of Haryana, AIR 2012 SC 523

Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622

Madhu v. State of Kerala, AIR 2012 SC 664

State of Rajasthan v. Talevar and Another, AIR 2011 SC 2271

Gopal Sah v. State of Bihar, (2008) 16 SCALE 223

Election Law - Non-disclosure of Material Information - Election Petition - Successful candidate's election was set aside by High Court for non-disclosure of material information in nomination form - Issues of non-disclosure included government dues, assets of spouse, and partnership interests - Supreme Court examined whether non-disclosure amounted to substantial non-compliance affecting election result - Held, non-disclosure was significant and materially affected the election result - Appeal dismissed. [Paras 1-39]

Nomination Form - Affidavit - Disclosure Requirements - Analysis - Held - Affidavit filed with nomination form must fully disclose required information, including assets and liabilities - Non-disclosure or misstatement can render nomination invalid - Returning Officer's role in scrutiny discussed - Proper acceptance of nomination forms emphasized for free and fair elections. [Para 30-38]

Substantial Compliance - Legal Standards - Examination - Held - Substantial compliance with disclosure requirements necessary - Bona fide disputes regarding dues may be acceptable, but material non-disclosures affecting election validity cannot be condoned - Each case to be assessed based on specific facts and circumstances. [Para 31-35]

Election Result - Material Effect - Criteria - Legal Principles - Held - Election can be set aside if non-disclosure materially affects election result - Findings of fact by High Court on non-disclosures upheld - Substantial non-compliance and misinformation justify setting aside election. [Para 36-39]

Decision - Appeal Dismissed - Supreme Court upholds High Court's decision setting aside election of Appellant due to substantial non-disclosures in nomination form, materially affecting the election result. [Para 39]

Referred Cases:

Resurgence India Vs. Election Commission of India and Another, AIR 2014 SC 344

Union of India (UOI) Vs. Association for Democratic Reforms and Another, AIR 2002 SC 2112

People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, AIR 2003 SC 2363

Kanhiya Lal Omar Vs. R.K. Trivedi and Others, AIR 1986 SC 111

Azhar Hussain Vs. Rajiv Gandhi, AIR 1986 SC 1253 G.M.

Siddeshwar Vs. Prasanna Kumar, AIR 2013 SC 1549

Common Cause A Registered Society Vs. Union of India and others, (1996) 3 AD 456

Shaligram Shrivastava Vs. Naresh Singh Patel, AIR 2003 SC 2128

Criminal Law – Quashing of Prosecution – Criminal Appeal against High Court order declining to quash proceedings – Appeal seeking quashing of criminal proceedings and charges under Sections 498A, 506 IPC, and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act – Allegations of dowry harassment and intimidation found to be vague and lacking detailed evidence – Appellant's wife had been living separately since April 2011, and earlier complaints did not result in prosecution – Appellants’ application for restitution of conjugal rights withdrawn, and no credible evidence of continued harassment or demands for dowry – Held that the charges against the appellants were unfounded, and continuing prosecution was an abuse of process – Proceedings quashed and appellants discharged. [Paras 1-12]

Role of Accused in Dowry Harassment – Analysis – Held – Finds no substantial evidence of physical or mental harassment or illegal demand for dowry by the appellants – Notes that previous complaints were closed with the conclusion that disputes were family differences to be settled legally – Court finds no grounds to presume appellants committed the offences charged – High Court and Sessions Court overlooked key points in the appellants' favor. [Para 10-11]

Decision – Quashing of Charges – Charges framed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore in Criminal Case No. 10245 of 2012 against the appellants quashed – Appellants discharged – Observations made are solely for the purpose of this judgment and do not affect ongoing matrimonial disputes. [Para 12]

Referred Cases:

none

Criminal Law - Validity of Sanction for Prosecution – Sanction for prosecution under Section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 – Challenge to validity on grounds of non-examination of District Magistrate as a witness and alleged non-application of mind – Court holds that District Magistrate’s consent, based on detailed sanction order and police diary, is valid – Sanction upheld as proper and lawful. [Paras 22-30]

Evidence Law - Admissibility of Approver Testimony – Testimony of approver (Pappu @ Saleem) under Section 133 and Illustration (b) to Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Court emphasizes that approver testimony must be reliable and corroborated by independent evidence – Approver’s evidence found credible, consistent, and corroborated by material facts and recoveries – Court upholds convictions based on approver's testimony. [Paras 35-48]

Criminal Procedure - Delay in Test Identification Parade – Delay of three weeks in conducting the test identification parade – Court holds that the delay per se does not vitiate the identification process – Witnesses identified accused in court, and no infirmity found in the identification parade – Identification evidence upheld. [Paras 31-34]

Criminal Conspiracy - Evidence and Proof – Proof of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B IPC – Court emphasizes that direct evidence of conspiracy is rare, reliance placed on circumstantial evidence – Frequent meetings, coordination, and recoveries establish conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction for conspiracy upheld. [Paras 69-73]

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Convictions and sentences upheld – Court finds no merit in contentions regarding invalidity of sanction, inadmissibility of evidence, or inadequacy of charges – Appeal dismissed, affirming lower court’s judgments. [Paras 76-79]

Referred Cases:

Renuka Bai @ Rinku @ Ratan and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2006 SC 3056 : (2006) 8 JT 282 : (2006) 8 SCALE 604 : (2006) 7 SCC 442 : (2006) 5 SCR 643 Supp : (2006) AIRSCW 4385 : (2006) 6 Supreme 679

Bhagwan Dass Vs. State (NCT) of Delhi, AIR 2011 SC 1863 : (2011) CriLJ 2903 : (2011) 2 Crimes 266 : (2011) 6 JT 345 : (2011) 2 RCR(Criminal) 920 : (2011) 5 SCALE 498 : (2011) 6 SCC 396 : (2011) 2 UJ 1770 : (2011) AIRSCW 2867 : (2011) 3 Supreme 729

Anna Reddy Sambasiva Reddy and Others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2009 SC 2661 : (2009) CLT 969 : (2009) 5 JT 617 : (2009) 6 SCALE 223 : (2009) 12 SCC 546 : (2009) 6 SCR 755 : (2009) 6 UJ 2718 : (2009) AIRSCW 4091 : (2009) 4 Supreme 506

Yogesh @ Sachin Jagdish Joshi Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2008 SC 2991 : (2008) CriLJ 3872 : (2008) 6 JT 299 : (2008) 6 SCALE 469 : (2008) 10 SCC 394 : (2008) AIRSCW 5043

State of U.P. Vs. Deoman Upadhyaya, AIR 1960 SC 1125 : (1960) CriLJ 1504 : (1961) 1 SCR 14

Ramanand Ramnath Vs. State of M.P., (1996) 3 AD 583 : (1996) 2 Crimes 57 : (1996) 6 JT 3 : (1996) 3 SCALE 429 : (1996) 8 SCC 514

Santosh Kumari Vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir and Others, AIR 2011 SC 3402 : (2011) 10 JT 271 : (2011) 4 RCR(Criminal) 360 : (2011) 10 SCALE 379 : (2011) 6 UJ 3606 : (2011) AIRSCW 5313

State of T.N. Vs. Sivarasan alias Raghu alias Sivarasa and Others, (1996) 8 AD 345 : (1997) 1 Crimes 170 : (1996) 10 JT 141 : (1996) 7 SCALE 920 : (1997) 1 SCC 682 : (1996) 8 SCR 243 Supp

State of M.P. Vs. Bhupendra Singh, AIR 2000 SC 679 : (2000) CriLJ 805 : (2000) 1 CTC 554 : (2000) ECR 542 : (2001) 134 ELT 330 : (2000) 1 JT 82 : (2000) 1 SCALE 69 : (2000) 1 SCC 555 : (2000) 1 SCR 104 : (2000) AIRSCW 206 : (2000) 1 Supreme 104

State of U.P. Vs. Paras Nath Singh, (2009) CriLJ 3069 : (2009) 13 JT 625 : (2009) 8 SCALE 553 : (2009) 6 SCC 372 : (2009) 2 SCC(L&S) 200 : (2009) 9 SCR 85

Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq Vs. State of NCT of Delhi, (2011) 3 Crimes 228 : (2011) 9 JT 563 : (2011) 8 SCALE 328 : (2011) 13 SCC 621 : (2011) 10 SCR 56

State of Maharashtra Vs. Suresh, (1999) 9 JT 513 : (1999) 7 SCALE 386 : (2000) 1 SCC 471 : (1999) 5 SCR 215 Supp : (2000) 1 UJ 326

Erram Santosh Reddy and others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1991 SC 1672 : (1991) CriLJ 2189 : (1991) 2 Crimes 671 : (1991) 1 SCALE 846 : (1991) 3 SCC 206 : (1991) 2 UJ 522

Yakub Abdul Razak Memon Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 5 JT 142 : (2013) 4 SCALE 565

Balwant Kaur Vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh, AIR 1988 SC 139 : (1988) CriLJ 398 : (1987) 4 JT 239 : (1987) 2 SCALE 1019 : (1988) 1 SCC 1 : (1988) 1 SCR 745

Mohammad Usman Mohammad Hussain Maniyar and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1981 SC 1062 : (1981) CriLJ 588 : (1981) 1 SCALE 445 : (1981) 2 SCC 443 : (1981) SCC 17 Supp : (1981) SCC(Cri) 477 : (1981) 3 SCR 68

Mohmed Inayatullah Vs. The State of Maharashtra, AIR 1976 SC 483 : (1976) CriLJ 481 : (1976) 1 SCC 828 : (1976) SCC(Cri) 199 : (1976) 1 SCR 715

Prakash Chand Vs. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1979 SC 400 : (1979) CriLJ 329 : (1979) 3 SCC 90 : (1979) SCC(Cri) 656 : (1979) 2 SCR 330 : (1979) 11 UJ 17

Mohd. Husain Umar Kochra etc. Vs. K.S. Dalipsinghji and Another etc., AIR 1970 SC 45 : (1970) CriLJ 9 : (1969) 3 SCC 429 : (1970) 1 SCC(Cri) 99 : (1970) 1 SCR 130

Major E.G. Barsay Vs. The State of Bombay, AIR 1961 SC 1762 : (1961) CriLJ 828 : (1962) 2 SCR 195

Lennart Schussler and Another Vs. The Director of Enforcement and Another, AIR 1970 SC 549 : (1970) CriLJ 707 : (1970) 1 SCC 152 : (1970) 1 SCC(Cri) 73 : (1970) 2 SCR 760

Anil Kumar Vs. State of U.P., AIR 2003 SC 1596 : (2003) CriLJ 1524 : (2003) 2 JT 175 : (2003) 2 SCALE 74 : (2003) 3 SCC 569 : (2003) 1 SCR 1067 : (2003) AIRSCW 977 : (2003) 2 Supreme 319

Ram Narain Vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1973 SC 1188 : (1973) CriLJ 914 : (1973) 3 SCC 805 : (1973) SCC(Cri) 545 : (1973) 3 SCR 463 : (1973) 5 UJ 598

Tribhuvan Nath Vs. The State of Maharashtra, AIR 1973 SC 451 : AIR 1972 SC 2134 : (1972) CriLJ 1277 : (1972) 3 SCC 511 : (1972) SCC(Cri) 604 : (1972) 4 UJ 826

Vikram Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 2010 SC 1007 : (2010) CLT 560 : (2010) 1 JT 568 : (2010) 1 SCALE 633 : (2010) 3 SCC 56 : (2010) 3 SCR 22 : (2010) AIRSCW 5853 : (2010) AIRSCW 5148

Sarwan Singh Vs. The State of Punjab, AIR 1957 SC 637 : (1957) CriLJ 1014 : (1957) 1 SCR 953

Willie (William) Slaney Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1956 SC 116 : (1956) CriLJ 291 : (1955) 2 SCR 1140

Aftab Ahmad Anasari Vs. State of Uttaranchal, AIR 2010 SC 773 : (2010) CLT 499 : (2010) 1 Crimes 97 : (2010) 1 JT 424 : (2010) 1 SCALE 408 : (2010) 2 SCC 583 : (2010) 1 SCR 1027

Haroon Haji Abdulla Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1968 SC 832 : (1968) 2 SCR 641

Chandan and Another Vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1988 SC 599 : (1988) CriLJ 842 : (1990) 2 SCALE 733 : (1988) 1 SCC 696 : (1988) 2 SCR 599

Anter Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2004) CriLJ 1380 : (2004) 1 CTC 612 : (2004) 2 JT 332 : (2004) 2 SCALE 271 : (2004) 10 SCC 657 : (2004) 2 SCR 123 : (2004) 2 UJ 769 : (2004) AIRSCW 743 : (2004) AIRSCW 3104 : (2004) 1 Supreme 1005 : (2004) 3 Supreme 131

R.K. Dalmia Vs. Delhi Administration, AIR 1962 SC 1821 : (1962) 32 CompCas 699 : (1963) 1 SCR 253

Himachal Pradesh Administration Vs. Om Prakash, AIR 1972 SC 975 : (1972) CriLJ 606 : (1972) 1 SCC 249 : (1972) SCC(Cri) 88 : (1972) 2 SCR 765

Prabhu Vs. State of U.P., AIR 1963 SC 1113 : (1963) 65 PLR 339 : (1963) 2 SCR 881

A.N. Venkatesh and Another Vs. State of Karnataka, AIR 2005 SC 3809 : (2005) 100 CLT 781 : (2005) CriLJ 3732 : (2005) 7 JT 246 : (2005) 7 SCC 714

Bhiva Doulu Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1963 SC 599 : (1963) 3 SCR 830

Ravinder Singh Vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1975 SC 856 : (1975) 3 SCC 742 : (1975) 3 SCR 453

Shivnarayan Laxminarayan Joshi and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1980 SC 439 : (1980) CriLJ 388 : (1980) 2 SCC 465 : (1980) SCC(Cri) 493

Ramanlal Mohanlal Pandya Vs. The State of Bombay, AIR 1960 SC 961

Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), AIR 2010 SC 2352 : (2010) 4 JT 107 : (2010) 4 SCALE 1 : (2010) 6 SCC 1 : (2010) 4 SCR 103 : (2010) 3 UJ 1650

State of Maharashtra Vs. Damu Shinde and Others, AIR 2000 SC 1691 : (2000) CriLJ 2301 : (2000) 5 JT 575 : (2000) 4 SCALE 8 : (2000) 6 SCC 269 : (2000) AIRSCW 1617

Dalbir Singh Vs. State of U.P., AIR 2004 SC 1990 : (2004) CriLJ 2025 : (2004) 1 DMC 680 : (2004) 4 JT 455 : (2004) 4 SCALE 238 : (2004) 5 SCC 334 : (2004) 3 SCR 941 : (2004) AIRSCW 5377 : (2004) AIRSCW 2119 : (2004) 3 Supreme 506 : (2004) 7 Supreme 200

Ranjeet Singh and Another Vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1988 SC 672 : (1988) CriLJ 845 : (1988) 1 JT 473 : (1988) 1 SCALE 171 : (1988) 1 SCC 633

Munna Kumar Upadhyaya @ Munna Upadhyaya Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh Through Public Prosecutor, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2012 SC 2470 : (2012) CriLJ 3068 : (2012) 2 RCR(Criminal) 962 : (2012) 5 SCALE 501 : (2012) 6 SCC 174 : (2012) AIRSCW 3060

A. Deivendran Vs. State of T.N., AIR 1998 SC 2821 : (1998) CriLJ 814 : (1997) 8 JT 619 : (1997) 6 SCALE 516 : (1997) 11 SCC 720 : (1997) 4 SCR 591 Supp : (1998) AIRSCW 285 : (1997) 9 Supreme 237

Mohd. Aslam Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2000) 8 JT 104 : (2004) 2 SCALE 242 : (2001) 9 SCC 362

Pratapbhai Hamirbhai Solanki Vs. State of Gujarat and Another, (2013) 3 AD 528 : (2012) 10 JT 286 : (2013) 1 RCR(Criminal) 592 : (2012) 10 SCALE 237 : (2013) 1 SCC 613 : (2012) AIRSCW 5567

K. Prema S. Rao and Another Vs. Yadla Srinivasa Rao and Others, AIR 2003 SC 11 : (2003) CriLJ 69 : (2002) 2 DMC 776 : (2002) 8 JT 502 : (2003) 1 SCC 217 : (2002) 3 SCR 339 Supp : (2003) 1 UJ 101

Mrinal Das and Others Vs. The State of Tripura, AIR 2011 SC 3753 : (2011) 4 JCC 2571 : (2012) 1 RCR(Criminal) 247 : (2011) 10 SCALE 55 : (2011) 5 UJ 3364 : (2011) AIRSCW 5566

Final Result : Dismissed

Electricity Law - Distribution Licenses - Jurisdiction of Regulatory Commission - Civil Appeal against Appellate Tribunal's decision upholding MERC's order directing TPC to supply electricity to consumers in South Mumbai either through BEST's network or by extending its own network - Section 42(3) of Electricity Act exempts local authorities from open access obligations - However, this does not negate TPC’s status as a deemed licensee or its obligation under Section 43 to supply electricity using its own network - Appeal dismissed. [Paras 1-29]

Distribution Licensees - Deemed Licensee Status - Tata Power Company Limited (TPC) deemed a distribution licensee for South Mumbai under Section 14 first proviso - Specific License Conditions formulated by MERC u/s 16 set term until 15.8.2014 - BEST's claim that TPC's license is only valid for one year under first proviso to Section 14 rejected - Regulatory Commission's authority to issue specific conditions upheld. [Paras 9-17]

Local Authority Exemption - Open Access vs. Universal Service Obligation - Section 42(3) exempts local authorities from providing open access - Does not exempt from Section 43 obligation to supply electricity to any applicant - TPC can supply electricity in BEST's area using its own network - No statutory requirement for TPC to seek BEST’s consent to extend its network. [Paras 18-27]

Decision - Dismissal of Appeal - Appeal by BEST against the Appellate Tribunal's order dismissed - MERC's direction to TPC to supply electricity affirmed - TPC recognized as deemed licensee and obliged to supply electricity in South Mumbai either through its network or by extending it. [Paras 28-29]

Referred Cases:

Sri Chandu Khamaru Vs. Smt. Nayan Malik and Others, AIR 2011 SC 2897

Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission Vs. Reliance Energy Ltd. and Others, AIR 2008 SC 976

MSR Leathers Vs. S. Palaniappan and Another, (2013) 1 SCC 177

Tata Power Company Limited Vs. Reliance Energy Limited and Others, (2008) 10 SCC 321

Preventive Detention - Legality of Continuous Detention - Criminal Appeal - Detention Period Beyond Three Months:The appellant challenged the preventive detention of her husband under the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1986. The initial detention order for three months was extended to a continuous twelve-month period without periodic review, contrary to the Act and Article 22 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that such an extension violates legal provisions and the constitutional mandate for periodic review. The detention order was quashed, and the appellant's husband was ordered to be released. [Paras 1-18]

Preventive Detention - Procedural Requirements - Mandatory Periodic Review:Held, that preventive detention orders must comply with the procedural requirements of periodic review as per Section 3 of the Act and Article 22 of the Constitution. The Act mandates an initial detention period not exceeding three months, extendable only through periodic reviews, each not exceeding three months. The government’s failure to conduct periodic reviews before extending the detention for twelve months straight was deemed illegal. [Paras 11-16]

Decision - Quashing of Detention Order - Liberty of the Individual:The Supreme Court quashed the detention order, ruling that the continuous twelve-month detention without the mandated periodic review constituted a violation of the appellant's husband’s constitutional rights. The court emphasized the necessity of following procedural safeguards in preventive detention to protect individual liberty. [Paras 17-18]

Referred Cases:

Munagala Yadamma v. State of A.P. and Others, (2012) 2 SCC 386

Rekha v. State of T. Nadu, (2011) 5 SCC 244

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 8 - Company Law Board Proceedings – Criminal and Civil Contempt Petitions – Alleged Forgery of Documents – Dispute Resolution via Mediation – Supreme Court emphasizes mediation as an effective tool for dispute resolution, highlighting its potential to save time, cost, and relationships, ultimately contributing to social peace. [Paras 1-25]

Corporate Law - Companies Act, 1956 - Sections 397, 398 - Shareholding and Directorship Disputes - Interim Orders – Company Law Board directed to expedite the adjudication of the main company petition within six months. Status quo to be maintained with respect to shareholding and directorship during pendency. [Para 21-23]

Criminal Law - CrPC Sections 195, 340 - Maintainability of Application under Section 340 CrPC – Allegations of forgery in company records – Application under Section 340 CrPC filed before CLB and High Court – Supreme Court directs that CLB will decide the application, rendering High Court proceedings otiose. [Para 11]

Constitutional Law - Article 142 - Invoking Extraordinary Powers - Equitable Resolution of Dispute - Court refrains from invoking Article 142 to comprehensively resolve all disputes due to the complex nature and multitude of proceedings, urging parties to resort to mediation. [Para 20]

Decision – Direction to Company Law Board for Expeditious Resolution - Maintenance of Status Quo – Interim Arrangement – Supreme Court directs CLB to resolve the main petition within six months, maintaining status quo on shareholding and directorship in the interim. All other pending applications including contempt petitions and applications under Section 340 CrPC disposed of. [Paras 21-24]

Referred Cases:

none