Investigation – Transfer to CBI – Seriousness of Incident – The Supreme Court was approached to transfer the investigation of a violent incident involving advocates, police personnel, and media persons at the Bangalore City Civil Court Complex to the CBI. Despite the High Court's order constituting an SIT and subsequent Supreme Court orders modifying the SIT, the investigation had not commenced due to delays in constituting the SIT. The Supreme Court directed the CBI to take over the investigation to ensure a fair and thorough inquiry [Paras 1-13].

Judicial Review – Powers under Article 226 and Article 32 – The court reaffirmed that under Articles 32 and 226, the judiciary has the power and obligation to ensure fundamental rights are protected. In extraordinary situations where local investigations lack credibility or efficiency, the court can transfer cases to the CBI to instill confidence and ensure justice [Paras 10-11].

Constitution Bench Principles – Applicability – Referring to the Constitution Bench decision in State of West Bengal v. The Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, the Supreme Court reiterated the conditions under which it can direct the CBI to investigate a case, emphasizing the need for such an order in exceptional circumstances to maintain credibility and ensure a fair investigation [Paras 11-12].

Decision: Appeal allowed – The investigation into the incident at the City Civil Court Complex was transferred to the CBI. The SIT's composition and previous orders were set aside. The CBI was directed to complete the investigation and submit a report to the appropriate court in Bangalore within six months [Paras 12-13].

Rape – Sentencing – Section 376(2)(g) IPC – The appellants were convicted for gang rape and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years. They sought a reduction of their sentence based on a compromise with the victim, the long duration since the crime, and the victim's subsequent marriage and family life. The Supreme Court emphasized that such crimes warrant stringent punishment and compromise cannot justify a reduced sentence [Paras 1-8, 21-22].

Legislative Intent – Minimum Sentence – The court highlighted the legislative mandate of a minimum sentence for gang rape and stressed that any reduction must be supported by adequate and special reasons, which were not present in this case. The court noted the removal of the proviso allowing for lesser sentences in the 2013 amendment to the IPC [Paras 9-13, 23].

Sentencing Policy – The court reiterated that punishment must be proportionate to the crime, and factors like social status, the passage of time, or the victim's marital status do not qualify as special reasons to reduce the sentence for serious crimes like rape. The power to reduce the sentence must be used sparingly and only in exceptional cases [Paras 14-20, 24-25].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – The Supreme Court upheld the ten-year rigorous imprisonment sentence for each appellant, rejecting the request for a reduced sentence based on the purported compromise and other factors. The court underscored the need for proportional punishment in cases of heinous crimes [Paras 25].

Death Sentence Commutation – Fixed Term Imprisonment – Judicial Power – The petitioner, convicted under Sections 302 read with 34 IPC for multiple murders, sought conversion of his sentence to life imprisonment with the possibility of remission. The Supreme Court addressed whether it is permissible for the court to impose a fixed term of imprisonment without remission when commuting a death sentence [Paras 1-9].

Judicial Review – Clemency Powers – The court emphasized that the clemency powers under Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution or statutory remission rules should not be restricted by judicial orders. It was reiterated that remission and commutation powers are executive functions and judicial interference is limited to exceptional circumstances [Paras 3-9].

Precedents – Consistency in Judicial Approach – The court referred to prior decisions, including Swamy Shraddananda v. State of Karnataka, where it was held that the court can prescribe a specific term of imprisonment exceeding 14 years without remission for heinous crimes. The judgment noted that while Sangeet v. State of Haryana raised doubts about this approach, subsequent decisions affirmed the court's authority to set a minimum term [Paras 4-8].

Decision: Petition dismissed – The Supreme Court upheld the fixed term of 30 years without remission, aligning with the established judicial practice of imposing stringent sentences for grave offenses. The court found no merit in altering the prescribed sentence, confirming the lower court's decision [Para 9].

Conviction – Dowry Death – Appellate Review – The appellants were convicted for dowry death and related offenses. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court had adequately reappraised and analyzed the evidence, emphasizing the duty of appellate courts to provide thorough reasoning when affirming convictions [Paras 7-12].

Duty of Appellate Court – Reassessment of Evidence – The court reiterated that appellate courts must independently reassess and appreciate the evidence to confirm the guilt of the accused. It highlighted that the High Court had failed to provide detailed reasons or a comprehensive analysis of the evidence, thereby not fulfilling its duty as an appellate court [Paras 8-12].

Lack of Adequate Reasons – The court criticized the High Court's judgment for lacking sufficient reasons and merely echoing the trial court's findings without proper scrutiny. It stressed the importance of a detailed and reasoned judgment, particularly in criminal cases where the liberty of individuals is at stake [Paras 7-12].

Decision: The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 531 of 2004 were set aside. The case was remitted back to the High Court for a fresh disposal with directions to reappraise the evidence and provide a reasoned judgment. The appellants, who were on bail, were allowed to continue on bail under the same terms and conditions until the disposal of the appeal by the High Court [Paras 14-15].

Excise Duty – Deemed MODVAT Credit – Notification Compliance – The respondent availed deemed MODVAT credit based on invoices from a supplier who had not fully paid the excise duty. The adjudicating authority disallowed the credit and imposed penalties, which was upheld by the appellate authority but reversed by the tribunal and High Court. The Supreme Court examined whether the respondent met the conditions of the notification and whether the term "appropriate duty" was properly interpreted [Paras 1-26].

Conditions for Availing MODVAT Credit – Interpretation of Notification – The court highlighted that Rule 57A(6) and the relevant notification required the manufacturer of final products to ensure that the inputs were received under invoices declaring that the appropriate excise duty had been paid. The respondent met these conditions, and the court found that the obligation did not extend to verifying actual payment with authorities [Paras 18-25].

Reasonable Steps – Manufacturer's Responsibility – The court emphasized that the manufacturer of final products must take reasonable steps to ensure compliance with the notification. This involves ensuring that the inputs are received with proper invoices but does not require further verification from excise authorities. The court concluded that the respondent had taken reasonable steps as required by the notification [Paras 25].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision that the respondent complied with the notification conditions and was entitled to the deemed MODVAT credit. The adjudicating authority's order was overturned [Paras 26].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Limitation Period – Appellant challenged the dismissal of his complaint filed under Section 138 for being time-barred – Contention on computation of limitation period under Section 142(b) of the Act – Supreme Court held the period must exclude the date of cause of action – Emphasized that principles from General Clauses Act and English law support this exclusion for fair opportunity [Paras 1-25].

Arbitration and Conciliation Act – Application of Limitation Act – Discussed in context of Arbitration Act applicability – Supreme Court referred to Section 43, confirming the Limitation Act applies to arbitration proceedings, influencing computation of time limits under special statutes [Paras 12-19].

Customs Act – Computation of Limitation – Interpretation of "within six months of seizure" under Section 110(2) – Clarified that the first day of seizure should be excluded, applying the General Clauses Act and supporting jurisprudence for consistency in statutory interpretation [Paras 20-24].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Held – For computing the period under Section 142(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the date on which the cause of action arises should be excluded – Overruled previous conflicting decisions – Established clear precedent for uniform application across relevant statutes [Para 25].

Motor Vehicles Act – Compensation for Disability – Appellant, a 12-year-old child, suffered permanent disability due to a motor accident – Tribunal awarded Rs. 63,500, later enhanced by the High Court to Rs. 109,500 – Supreme Court emphasized proper assessment of medical evidence and non-pecuniary damages for children – Compensation for child victims should consider long-term impact on life and non-pecuniary damages in addition to treatment costs [Paras 1-25].

Assessment of Compensation – For permanent disability to the whole body, compensation guidelines established as follows:

Disability above 10% and up to 30%: Rs. 3 lakhs

Disability up to 60%: Rs. 4 lakhs

Disability up to 90%: Rs. 5 lakhs

Disability above 90%: Rs. 6 lakhs

For permanent disability up to 10%: Rs. 1 lakh unless exceptional circumstances apply [Paras 12-19].

Precedents – Various precedents considered to establish compensation amounts:

Sapna vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another: Rs. 2,00,000 for 90% disability

Iranna vs. Mohammadali Khadarsab Mulla and Another: Rs. 4,00,000 for 80% disability

Kum. Michael vs. Regl. Manager Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd. and Another: Rs. 3,80,000 for 16% disability [Paras 9-11].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Compensation enhanced to Rs. 3,75,000 with 6% interest from the date of petition – Emphasized the need for compensation to cover non-pecuniary damages and long-term impact on child victim’s life [Paras 13-14].

Motor Vehicles Act – Breach of Conditions – Appellant challenged the absolution of insurer’s liability under Section 149(2) for driver possessing a fake licence – Contention on insurer’s obligation to prove willful breach by insured – Supreme Court held that merely showing licence was fake is insufficient – Insurer must prove insured’s negligence in verifying licence authenticity – Emphasized that insurer remains liable to third parties even if driver’s licence is fake, with potential recovery from insured [Paras 1-10].

Verification of Licence – Owner's Responsibility – Clarified owner's duty is to verify the existence and facial validity of licence, not its authenticity from issuing authority – Exception when owner is made aware of licence’s potential falsity and fails to act – Liability of insurer in absence of owner's willful negligence [Paras 4-9].

Precedents – Considered several precedents to establish insurer's liability:

United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Lehru and Others (2003): Established insurer's inability to avoid liability solely on grounds of invalid licence without proving willful breach by insured.

National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh and Others (2004): Affirmed insurer must establish insured's willful negligence to deny liability.

National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Laxmi Narain Dhut (2007): Reiterated insurer’s burden to prove insured’s failure to exercise reasonable care in verifying licence [Paras 5-8].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Held – Insurer liable to indemnify appellant despite driver possessing fake licence – Rejected insurer’s defence due to lack of proof of insured's willful negligence – Directed insurer to cover compensation already paid to claimants [Paras 10-11].

Motor Vehicles Act – Compensation for Death of Minor – Appellants, parents of a 10-year-old boy, claimed compensation under Section 166 for death caused by rash and negligent driving – Tribunal denied compensation; High Court affirmed – Supreme Court reversed, emphasizing compensation assessment for minors based on potential future earnings and contribution to family – Recognized notional income for non-earning persons, multiplier method applied [Paras 1-19].

Negligence – Driver’s Responsibility – Appellant successfully demonstrated accident occurred due to negligent driving – Court emphasized importance of thorough examination of evidence and the necessity for driver to have valid licence – Absence of rebuttal evidence from insurer highlighted [Paras 5-9].

Assessment of Compensation – Multiplier Method – Applied notional income of Rs. 30,000 per annum for deceased child, applying multiplier of 15 considering parents' age – Additional Rs. 50,000 awarded under conventional heads (loss of love and affection, funeral expenses) – Total compensation fixed at Rs. 5,00,000 with 9% interest from application date [Paras 18-19].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court and Tribunal judgments set aside – Compensation of Rs. 5,00,000 awarded to appellants with 9% interest per annum from date of claim application until payment [Para 19].