Criminal Law - Quashing of Charges – High Court's Refusal – Appeal: The Supreme Court addresses the appeals challenging the High Court’s refusal to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal charges framed against the appellants. The appellants, accused of conspiring to execute a sting operation to expose corruption by a Union Minister, sought quashing of the charges, asserting the lack of criminal intent. The High Court's decision to not interfere with the trial court’s framing of charges was upheld, as prima facie evidence supported a fuller investigation into the accused's roles in the alleged conspiracy. [Paras 1-18]

Sting Operation – Legal and Ethical Considerations – Journalistic Intent vs. Criminal Liability: The Court delved into the legitimacy and ethical considerations of sting operations, emphasizing that such operations, even if claimed to be in public interest, do not inherently extinguish criminal liability. The necessity of establishing mens rea (criminal intent) was highlighted, noting that this could only be determined through evidence presented at trial. The potential implications for journalistic integrity and public interest were considered, with the Court noting that where a journalist has no stake in the favour sought in exchange for a bribe, criminal intent might not be imputed. However, a deeper probe is warranted when such a stake is alleged. [Paras 10-16]

Entrapment – Jurisprudence in Different Jurisdictions – Applicability in India: The judgment compared the jurisprudence of entrapment in jurisdictions like the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom, where sting operations are recognized within certain parameters. In India, the legal acceptance of such operations by private individuals, as opposed to state agencies, remains unestablished. The Court refrained from endorsing a blanket principle for sting operations, advocating for a case-specific approach to determine criminal liability. [Paras 11-13]

Prima Facie Evidence – Necessity for Trial – Criminal Intent and Conspiracy: The judgment underscored that the presence of prima facie evidence necessitates a trial to ascertain the true nature of the accused's actions and their intent. The appellants' assertion of a journalistic purpose behind the sting operation requires verification through witness testimonies and material evidence. The gap between the sting operation and its public release, along with potential misuse for ensuring delivery of favours, were noted as relevant aspects for examination during the trial. [Paras 15-17]

Decision – Appeals Dismissed: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the High Court's order dated 30th May 2008, thereby allowing the trial to proceed on the charges framed against the appellants under Section 120B IPC read with Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. [Para 18]

Motor Vehicles Act - Compensation Calculation – Civil Appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the High Court – Deceased, a government employee, died in a road accident – Tribunal and High Court calculated compensation based on 'take home salary' after deducting contributions like GPF, house rent, insurance, and income tax – Supreme Court ruled that only income tax deductions should be considered for net salary calculation – Contributions towards GPF, insurance, etc., are savings and should not reduce compensation – Appellant entitled to higher compensation. [Paras 1-14]

Net Salary Determination - Contributions Exclusion – Held – For calculating net monthly income of the deceased, voluntary contributions towards GPF, insurance, house rent should not be deducted – Only income tax should be deducted from gross salary – Applying this principle, net salary of the deceased was recalculated, enhancing the compensation. [Para 13]

Interest Rate Adjustment – Held – Appellant entitled to an interest rate of 6% p.a. on the enhanced compensation amount from the date of filing the petition till payment. [Para 14]

Decision – Appeal allowed – Judgments of the Tribunal and High Court set aside – Compensation recalculated considering the revised net salary – Enhanced compensation awarded with adjusted interest rate. [Paras 14-15]

Criminal Law – Murder Conviction Based on Circumstantial Evidence – Appeal against High Court judgment affirming death sentence – Appellant convicted of murdering Pushpa Devi and her two children, with their bodies found in a soak-pit near their home – Prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, including appellant’s inconsistent statements and his intimate relationship with the deceased – Sessions Judge and High Court found the circumstantial evidence sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt – Supreme Court reaffirms conviction and modifies death sentence to 30 years of incarceration without remission. [Paras 1-9]

Circumstantial Evidence – Chain of Evidence – Analysis – Supreme Court holds that the chain of circumstantial evidence was complete, indicating the appellant’s guilt – Evidence included appellant’s intimate relationship with the deceased, discovery of bodies in proximity to appellant’s residence, and lack of plausible explanation from the appellant – Considers case law on circumstantial evidence and the burden of proof on the appellant. [Para 7]

Sentencing – Appropriateness of Death Penalty – Analysis – Supreme Court evaluates the appropriateness of the death penalty, considering the brutality of the crime and previous case law – Modifies death sentence to a 30-year term of incarceration without remission – Notes that while the crime was brutal, long-term incarceration is a fitting punishment in line with precedents. [Paras 8-9]

Decision – Modification of Death Sentence – Supreme Court modifies the death sentence to a 30-year incarceration term without remission, in addition to the time already served – Holds that this is appropriate given the nature of the crime and the circumstantial evidence presented. [Para 9]

Criminal Law - Conviction for Rape and Intimidation – Appeal against High Court judgment upholding conviction – Prosecutrix, a minor, alleged rape by appellant, supported by circumstantial evidence and delay in filing FIR explained – Court rejected appellant’s defense of false implication due to previous enmity and examination stress – Importance of victim's consistent testimony and Section 114A of Evidence Act emphasized – Held: Conviction and sentence affirmed. [Paras 1-17]

Credibility of Victim's Testimony – Analysis – Held – Victim's testimony found credible despite medical report indicating intact hymen – Delay in lodging FIR satisfactorily explained by trauma and fear – Section 114A presumption applied to uphold lack of consent. [Paras 12-15]

Circumstantial Evidence – Role in Sexual Assault Cases – Held – Circumstantial evidence and victim's consistent statements support prosecution's case – Delay in FIR and medical inconsistencies do not negate reliability of victim's account. [Paras 13-16]

Decision – Conviction and Sentence Upheld – Appeal dismissed with reaffirmation of trial and High Court judgments – Emphasis on legislative intent behind Section 114A of the Evidence Act to strengthen victim's testimony in rape cases. [Paras 17]

Civil Procedure - Substantial Question of Law - Formulation - Appeal against High Court’s judgment allowing a second appeal by setting aside concurrent findings of lower courts - High Court formulated substantial question of law post-admission but before hearing - Appellants argued error in formulation at a late stage - Held, formulation at a later stage permissible if fair opportunity provided to opposing party - No prejudice caused to appellants by delayed formulation - High Court's judgment upheld. [Paras 5-12]

Property Law - Boundary vs. Area Discrepancy - Dispute over land boundaries and area in conveyance deed - High Court held boundary description prevails over area description - Findings of lower courts on adverse possession and ownership overturned - High Court correctly interpreted conveyance deed dispute in favor of respondents. [Paras 3-4, 7]

Procedure - Rules of Justice - Substantial question of law can be framed at a later stage provided fair notice and opportunity given - High Court’s judgment valid despite late formulation - Over-technical objections to procedure should not override justice. [Paras 8-11]

Decision - Appeal Dismissed - No merit found in appellants' challenge - High Court's judgment upheld - No costs awarded. [Para 13]

Constitutional Law - Public Interest Litigation - Misuse of Public Funds for Political Advertising – Writ petitions filed under Article 32 by registered societies seeking to prevent the misuse of public funds for political advertising – Supreme Court held that such use of public funds is violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution – Court noted the lack of existing guidelines to regulate government advertisements – Directed the formation of a committee to draft appropriate guidelines to regulate government advertising until the legislature enacts a relevant law – Committee to submit guidelines within three months. [Paras 1-26]

Maintainability of Writ Petitions – Objection to maintainability on grounds of res judicata and previous decisions in similar cases – Supreme Court overruled the objections, emphasizing the significant public interest and the need for judicial review in cases of misuse of public funds. [Paras 6-9]

Guidelines for Government Advertising – Examination of existing DAVP guidelines found them inadequate to address the misuse of public funds for political purposes – Comparative analysis of guidelines from other jurisdictions such as Australia and Canada highlighted the need for depoliticizing public advertising – Committee formed to suggest new guidelines based on best practices from other jurisdictions. [Paras 10-25]

Decision – Formation of Committee to draft guidelines – Committee consisting of Prof. (Dr.) N.R. Madhava Menon, Mr. T.K. Viswanathan, and Mr. Ranjit Kumar, with the Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting as Member Secretary – Committee to submit guidelines within three months – Matter to be posted for further directions post submission of guidelines. [Paras 24-26]

Criminal Law – Framing of Charges – Criminal Appeal against the decision of the Sessions Court, affirmed by the High Court, quashing charges under Sections 307 and 386 IPC – Appellant assaulted by a group of persons armed with deadly weapons, causing multiple injuries – Supreme Court finds sufficient prima facie evidence of intention to kill – Held that the charges under Section 307 IPC were improperly quashed – Appeal allowed, and the matter remanded for trial on all charges. [Paras 1-18]

Intention to Kill – Prima Facie Evidence – Held – The statements of witnesses and the nature of the injuries support the appellant’s claim that the accused intended to kill – The presence of sharp weapons and the context of the assault indicate knowledge and intention of causing death – Courts below failed to appreciate the prima facie evidence – Charges under Section 307 IPC reinstated for trial. [Para 16-17]

Decision – Reinstatement of Charges under Section 307 IPC – The Supreme Court sets aside the decisions of the Sessions Court and the High Court, reinstating the charges under Section 307 IPC – Matter remanded for trial on all charges including Sections 307 and 386 IPC – The trial court to determine the final outcome based on the evidence presented. [Para 18]

Service Law - Termination and Regularization - Ad-hoc Employees-Civil appeals by the State of Jharkhand challenging the High Court's order setting aside the termination of ad-hoc engineers employed since 1987. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, affirming the regularization of the employees who had served continuously for more than 10 years without any disciplinary proceedings against them. The court noted that the termination of services was arbitrary and violated Articles 14, 16, 19, and 21 of the Constitution, amounting to a deprivation of livelihood. [Paras 1-25]

Doctrine of Regularization - Long Continuous Service - Application of Uma Devi’s Case- The Supreme Court applied the principles from Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi and Others, holding that employees who had served for more than 10 years without court intervention were entitled to regularization. The Court observed that terminating such employees after decades of service without providing an opportunity for regularization was unjust and arbitrary. [Para 20]

Jurisdiction - High Court’s Power - Regularization Orders-The Supreme Court endorsed the High Court's jurisdiction and discretion in ordering regularization, noting that the employees had been performing permanent nature duties and were paid salaries without objection from the CAG. The Court emphasized that interference under Article 136 should be sparing and only in exceptional circumstances, which were not present in this case. [Paras 23-24]

Decision - Dismissal of Appeals-The Court dismissed the appeals filed by the State of Jharkhand, directing the continuation of the respondents in their services and extending all benefits as granted by the High Court. [Para 25]

Constitutional Law - Protection of Property Rights – Articles 226, 300A of the Constitution of India – Property rights of borrowers under the SARFAESI Act – Validity of auction sale challenged – Compliance with mandatory procedural requirements under SARFAESI Act and Rules – Held, borrower’s property rights protected under Article 300A necessitate strict adherence to statutory requirements for auction sale – Auction sale conducted without proper 30 days notice in violation of Rule 8 and Rule 9 of SARFAESI Rules invalid – High Court’s setting aside of the auction sale upheld. [Paras 2-27]

SARFAESI Act - Auction Sale - Procedural Requirements - Compliance – Rules 8 and 9 of the SARFAESI Rules – Requirement of 30 days public notice prior to auction sale – Bank’s failure to provide proper notice – Waiver of mandatory requirement not established by borrower’s conduct – Auction sale conducted in violation of mandatory notice period void – Principle that borrower’s waiver must be clear and unequivocal – High Court’s findings affirmed – Appellant to be reimbursed for amounts paid if borrower settles dues. [Paras 12-27]

Waiver - Doctrine of Waiver – Applicability to statutory procedural requirements – Rule 9 of SARFAESI Rules – Established principle that even mandatory statutory provisions can be waived if the party for whose benefit they exist expressly or impliedly waives them – Facts of the present case indicate no waiver by borrower of the mandatory requirement of 30 days notice for auction sale – Borrower’s consistent challenge to the validity of auction notice supports absence of waiver – High Court’s decision upheld. [Paras 17-25]

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Auction sale conducted by Syndicate Bank in favour of Appellant set aside due to non-compliance with mandatory procedural requirements under SARFAESI Rules – Borrower granted two months to settle dues with the bank – Appellant entitled to reimbursement for payments made towards purchase price, registration fees, stamp duty, and discharge of encumbrances. [Paras 26-28]