Service Law - Departmental Disciplinary Inquiry – Procedural Irregularity – Liberty to Re-initiate Denied – Appellant was a police officer charged with failure to control riots in 1984, later exonerated by the Inquiry Officer – High Court set aside the punishment for procedural violations but permitted a fresh note of disagreement – Held: Considering the advanced age of the appellant, the long passage of time, and the findings of the Inquiry Officer exonerating the appellant, it would be harsh and unnecessary to allow further proceedings – Liberty granted by the High Court to initiate a fresh process was set aside [Paras 14-17, 33-34].

Findings of Inquiry Officer – Evidence-Based Exoneration – Disciplinary Authority’s Disagreement Overruled – The Inquiry Officer found all four charges against the appellant unproved, based on lack of evidence, credible defence, testimony of senior officers, and justification of actions taken during riots – The Disciplinary Authority’s dissent focused on what was not done, without rebutting the core findings of the Inquiry Report – Held: Disciplinary Authority failed to account for key evidence and improperly interpreted the burden of proof [Paras 20-25, 28-32].

Principles of Natural Justice – Disagreement Note Was Prejudiced – The disagreement note issued by the Disciplinary Authority effectively pronounced guilt, rendering the subsequent show-cause notice illusory – Held: This amounted to a post-decisional hearing and violated principles of natural justice – The punishment order was rightly set aside [Paras 9, 18, 25].

Delay and Harshness – Long Delay in Disciplinary Proceedings – No Exceptional Justification – More than four decades had passed since the incident and the appellant had retired long back – Held: Reopening disciplinary proceedings at this stage would amount to persecution rather than prosecution, especially given the absence of compelling reasons or fresh evidence [Paras 17, 33].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Fresh Liberty to Issue Disagreement Note Set Aside – The Court affirmed the High Court’s decision to quash the punishment but set aside the liberty granted to the Disciplinary Authority for fresh action – The appellant shall be entitled to all consequential benefits including pension revision [Paras 33-34].

Criminal Procedural Law - Cognizance – Sufficiency of Reasoning – Recording of Prima Facie Case – Cognizance Restored - The High Court remanded the matter to the Trial Court stating that the cognizance order lacked disclosure of prima facie material – Held: The approach of the High Court was erroneous – It is settled law that a Magistrate is not required to record detailed reasoning while taking cognizance as long as judicial mind has been applied – Cognizance order of 13.06.2019 was valid and required no interference – Bhushan Kumar and other precedents reiterated [Paras 15-17].

Quashing of FIR – Civil Dispute Camouflaged as Criminal – Mala Fide Allegation – Not Entertained - Appellants contended that the FIR was a misuse of criminal law to settle civil disputes relating to property ownership and harassment post-relationship breakdown – Held: Without categorical assertion that no material existed in the chargesheet, such challenge could not be sustained – The matter raised factual questions to be evaluated during trial – The plea to quash proceedings was not accepted [Paras 18-21].

Application of Judicial Mind – Material in Police Papers – Enquiry Scope – Cognizance Upheld - Court reaffirmed that at the stage of taking cognizance, the focus is on presence of prima facie material and not its probative value – Judicial application of mind noted in the cognizance order – Chargesheet corroborated allegations – Court held there was no infirmity warranting High Court interference [Paras 20-21].

Relief Beyond Cross-Appeal – Complete Justice – Impugned Judgment Set Aside – Despite no cross-appeal by Respondent No. 2, the Supreme Court exercised jurisdiction to set aside the High Court's remand order to correct legal error on the need for detailed reasoning in cognizance orders – Held: Cognizance was valid and proceedings must continue from that stage [Para 22].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Cognizance Order Restored – Trial to Proceed - Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court judgment, and restored the cognizance order – Directed the appellants to appear before the Trial Court on next hearing – Liberty granted to appellants to press for discharge or other remedies at the appropriate stage – No costs awarded [Paras 23-25].

Service Law - Civil Services – Promotion to Chief Secretary Grade – Incomplete ACRs and Review Committee Assessment – Denial of Promotion Upheld – The appellant, a 1991-batch IAS officer, was denied promotion to the Chief Secretary grade on the ground of incomplete ACRs and adverse remarks – Held: Though considered as a ‘special case’ with less than 90% ACRs, Screening Committee found his record below noteworthy; Review Committee affirmed the decision based on absenteeism, poor leadership, and disciplinary concerns [Paras 1-10, 20-21].

Review of Promotion Denial – Scope and Legitimacy – No Illegality Found – The Review Committee did not expand beyond the Screening Committee’s reasoning but merely amplified it with supporting material including post-2016 conduct – Held: Prior adverse entries not relating to dishonesty are weak material post-promotion but can be reinforced by subsequent similar behavior – No case for procedural impropriety or mala fide made out [Paras 14-19, 22].

Screening Criteria – No Benchmark Required – Clause 7.2 of Guidelines – Appellant’s Argument Rejected – Held: Absence of benchmark does not render assessment arbitrary, especially where candidate was given special consideration despite incomplete ACRs – Screening was not vitiated by this reason [Para 23].

Judicial Interference – Wednesbury Principle – Not Attracted – The Court found that decisions of the Screening and Review Committees were based on objective evaluation, fairness, and relevant material – Held: No irrationality or mala fides – Appeal dismissed [Paras 24-25].

*Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Promotion Denial Upheld – The Supreme Court upheld the Review Committee’s decision rejecting promotion – Held: Screening Committee had rightly considered post-promotion conduct and incomplete ACRs – Appellant permitted by High Court to take steps for future reconsideration upon completion of ACRs, but no grounds for judicial interference presently exist [Paras 24-25].

Criminal Procedure – Power of Court to Review Judgments – Section 362 Cr.P.C – Judgment Modification Not Permissible – High Court’s Correction Order Quashed - The High Court’s modification of its final judgment on grounds of “clerical error” was found to be impermissible under Section 362 Cr.P.C. – The Supreme Court held that once a judgment is signed, it cannot be altered or reviewed except to correct clerical or arithmetical errors – The changes made were substantive in nature and amounted to judicial review, not correction [Paras 9-20].

Appreciation of Evidence – Conviction Based on Eyewitness Testimony – Evidence Supported by Medical Reports – Conviction Under Section 302 IPC Upheld – The original conviction of the accused under Section 302 IPC was sustained by the trial court and affirmed by the High Court in its initial judgment – The SC noted that medical and ocular evidence corroborated each other and supported the conviction beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 11-12].

High Court Procedure – Correction Application Misused – Conversion to Section 304 Part II IPC Invalid – Held: Review of merits not allowed under correction mechanism – The High Court incorrectly treated substantive judicial reassessment as a clerical correction – Such review falls outside the ambit of Section 362 Cr.P.C and is ultra vires [Paras 13-20].

Final Decision – Supreme Court Sets Aside Modified Judgment – Appeals by Complainant Allowed – Original Conviction Restored – The apex court quashed the impugned correction judgment dated 08/02/2019 and restored the original judgment dated 21/05/2018 convicting the accused under Section 302 IPC – Directions issued for surrender and compliance [Paras 20-21].
 

Section 138 NI Act – Personal Criminal Liability of Director – Insolvency of Company No Bar – Appeals Dismissed – Appellant convicted for cheque dishonour and sentenced to two years imprisonment with ₹2.5 crore compensation – He claimed protection due to company liquidation and moratorium under IBC – Supreme Court held director’s criminal liability under NI Act is personal and survives insolvency proceedings of the company [Paras 1–19].

Moratorium Under IBC – Not Applicable to Penal Proceedings – Proceedings Under NI Act Permitted – Court affirmed ruling in Rakesh Bhanot vs. Gurdas Agro (P) Ltd., holding that IBC moratorium under Sections 96 and 101 is limited to debt recovery actions – Penal prosecutions like those under Section 138 NI Act continue unaffected by insolvency process [Paras 16–18].

Failure to Comply with Bail Condition – No Right to Hearing Without Deposit – Deposit Condition Upheld – Appellant failed to deposit 25% of cheque amount as required for suspension of sentence during revision – High Court recalled bail – Supreme Court upheld the condition and denied any protection from consequences [Paras 10–12, 20–22].

Relief – Final Opportunity to Comply – Conditional Protection from Arrest – Court granted final eight-week extension to deposit 25% of cheque amount – Failure to do so would expose appellant to custody; if deposited, High Court to hear revision on merits [Paras 20–24].
 

Civil Law - Gift Deed – Validity under Muslim Law – Deed Upheld – A registered Gift Deed dated 26.04.1958 executed by the plaintiff’s grandfather was found to be valid under Mahomedan Law, where the grandfather transferred land to his grandson who otherwise would not have inherited – Delivery of possession was proven and misdescription of dag numbers held to be immaterial to the identity of the property – Held: Gift Deed valid, delivery of possession accepted through plaintiff’s mother [Paras 4(viii), 4(x), 4(xii), 4(xiii)].

Declaratory Relief – Necessity of Seeking Cancellation of Void Sale Deed – Not Mandatory – The High Court erred in holding that the plaintiff’s failure to seek cancellation of a subsequent sale deed disentitled him from obtaining declaration of title – Supreme Court clarified that a person not party to a void document (like the plaintiff here) need not seek its cancellation under Section 31 – Mere declaration of non-binding nature is sufficient [Paras 24–36].

Right to Seek Declaration – Plaintiff as Non-Executant – Legal Right Recognized – The plaintiff, not being party to the subsequent sale deed, was held entitled to a declaration of title and recovery of possession – Courts below rightly entertained suit without insistence on cancellation relief – Held: Declaration of title includes implicit negation of rights under void sale deed by third parties [Paras 34–37].

High Court Judgment – Improper Reversal – High Court concurred on validity of Gift Deed but reversed decree solely on technical omission – Supreme Court held that such omission did not defeat the suit and trial court findings should be restored – Appeal allowed, decree of trial court restored [Paras 36, 46].

Service Law - Disability Pension – Presumption in Favour of Serviceman – Rules 5, 9 and 14 of 1982 Rules – Orders Set Aside - Supreme Court held that under the entitlement rules, a person entering service is presumed medically fit unless a disability is recorded at the time of joining – Any subsequent disability leading to discharge must be presumed attributable to or aggravated by service unless cogent medical reasoning disproves the same – No such reasoning was provided by the Medical Board – Appellant’s invaliding on medical grounds automatically triggered presumption of service-related disability – Orders of Tribunal not sustainable [Paras 29, 32, 34-36, 43-45].

Disability Pension – Minimum Threshold – Applicability of Instructions dated 31.01.2001 and Letter dated 20.07.2006 – Relief Granted - Supreme Court ruled that the artificial threshold of 20% disability for pension entitlement was abrogated post 01.01.1996 – Persons invalided out with even 1% disability attributable to service are entitled to rounding off and 50% disability pension – Appellant’s disability assessed at 15–19% thus qualifies – Appellant granted 50% disability pension with interest from 01.01.1996 for life [Paras 19.4, 25, 40, 42].

Medical Board – Inadequacy in Reasoning – Failure to Justify Non-Attribution – Decision Reversed - The Invaliding Medical Board did not record any reasons as to why appellant's condition was not attributable to military service, despite clear presumption in favour of attribution – The Board’s conclusion contradicted Rule 14(b) which requires reasons if disease is claimed as non-detectable at induction – Tribunal’s reliance on such an opinion without scrutiny was legally erroneous [Paras 22, 46].

Decision – Impugned Tribunal Orders Set Aside – Disability Pension Allowed - Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside both Tribunal orders dated 26.02.2016 and 22.01.2018 – Directed Respondents to pay appellant disability pension at 50% from 01.01.1996 with 6% annual interest, within three months [Para 47-48].

Criminal Law – Murder – Appeal Against Conviction - Section 313 CrPC – Inadequate Examination of Accused – Prejudice Caused – Conviction Set Aside – Appellant’s examination under Section 313 CrPC merely summarized the prosecution's case rather than presenting specific evidence against him – Supreme Court held this as fatal irregularity causing inherent prejudice – Trial court failed to present material circumstances for the accused to respond meaningfully [Paras 7–13].

Conviction Under Section 302 IPC – Defective Trial – No Effective Defence Opportunity – Acquittal Granted – Appellant’s right to fair trial violated due to non-compliance with mandatory requirements under Section 313(1) CrPC – Court held that prosecution must put each incriminating circumstance specifically to the accused – In absence of such examination, appeal allowed and appellant acquitted [Paras 10–15].

Remand – Not Feasible Due to Passage of Time – 14 Years Elapsed – Acquittal Ordered – Although such procedural defects are curable, Supreme Court declined remand due to long delay since incident (2011) and prolonged custody (14 years served) – Appellant ordered to be released forthwith unless required in another case [Paras 14–17].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted of all charges – Supreme Court directed his immediate release [Paras 15–17].
 

Bail – Long Incarceration without Trial – Bail Granted – The petitioner had been in custody for over four years in a case involving charges under IPC and MCOCA – Only four of 67 prosecution witnesses had been examined – Supreme Court noted prolonged trial and granted bail subject to stringent conditions, without commenting on merits [Paras 6–9].

MCOCA Charges – Premeditated Crime and Alleged Syndicate Membership – Allegation Not Prejudged – State alleged petitioner was a contract killer within a crime syndicate led by co-accused Yogesh Sawant – Court refrained from expressing opinion on evidence while granting bail – Emphasised that framing of charges and partial trial progress warranted conditional release [Paras 3, 6, 9].

Conditions for Bail – Passport Surrender and Police Reporting – Compliance Mandated – Petitioner directed to deposit passport with Trial Court and report fortnightly to local police – Also mandated to attend all trial dates – Misuse of bail to attract cancellation [Paras 10–11].

Final Relief – Special Leave Petition Disposed – Bail Directed – The Court disposed of the SLP by granting conditional bail and warning of strict consequences in case of misuse or witness tampering [Paras 9–12].