Criminal Law - Attempt to Murder – Intention and Knowledge Sufficient – Conviction under Section 307 Restored - Respondent, a constable, fired multiple shots from an AK-47 rifle at fellow jawans after a mess dispute on Diwali night – One constable sustained four grievous bullet wounds – Supreme Court held that intention and knowledge to cause death can be inferred from weapon used and manner of attack – Reinstated conviction under Section 307 IPC and Section 27 of Arms Act [Paras 5–13]. 
 
Weapon and Position – Use of AK-47 by Trained Officer – Intention Presumed - Court observed that respondent was fully aware of lethality of his service weapon – His role as trained personnel of a disciplined force makes his conduct graver – Held: No need for actual life-threatening injury; intention and knowledge alone attract Section 307 IPC [Paras 10, 13]. 
 
High Court Error – Overemphasis on Injury Severity – Legal Misapplication - High Court downgraded conviction to Section 326 IPC on ground that injuries were not life-threatening – Supreme Court criticized this view, reiterating that Section 307 only requires intention/knowledge and not actual grievous/life-endangering harm [Paras 11–14]. 
 
Sentencing – No Minimum for Section 307 – Sentence Reduced to Time Already Undergone - Although conviction under Section 307 IPC restored, Supreme Court noted incident occurred in 2010 during a moment of rage and the respondent had already served about 1 year and 5 months – In interest of justice, sentence reduced from 7 years to “already undergone” [Para 15]. 
 
Final Decision – High Court Judgment Set Aside – Trial Court Conviction Restored – Sentence Reduced - Supreme Court set aside High Court’s judgment and restored trial court conviction under Section 307 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act – However, punishment modified to imprisonment already undergone [Paras 14–16]. 
 

Misuse of Court Process – Filing Second SLP After Dismissal of First – Abuse of Process – The petitioner filed a second Special Leave Petition against the same judgment already challenged and dismissed in the first SLP, without disclosure – The Court held it was a fraudulent misuse of judicial process and a deliberate concealment of facts by the petitioner and his counsel [Paras 1-5, 6].

Advocate-on-Record’s Responsibility – Failure to Disclose Material Facts – Name Removed from AOR Register – The AOR, Mr. P. Soma Sundaram, was found guilty of filing the second SLP knowingly after dismissal of the first, without proper disclosure – His conduct was held to be grossly irresponsible and unbecoming of an AOR – His name was directed to be removed from the AOR register for one month under Order IV Rule 10 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 [Paras 6-7, 20].

Professional Ethics – Role of Advocates – Duty Towards Court – The Court emphasized that lawyers, especially AORs, are officers of the court and should uphold high ethical standards – Filing misleading petitions and affidavits is tantamount to fraud on court and obstructs justice – Court referred to precedents including Mohit Chaudhary, In Re and Vinay Chandra Mishra, In Re to reiterate standards of advocacy [Paras 7-11].

Contempt of Court – Obstruction of Justice – Serious Misconduct – The Court held the petitioner, AOR, and assisting advocate guilty of committing contempt under Section 2(c)(iii) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for obstructing administration of justice and filing false/misleading affidavits and applications [Paras 15-16].

Differing Judicial Opinion – Apology vs Punishment – Matter Referred to CJI – Justice Bela Trivedi declined to accept the apology and imposed punishment; Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, while agreeing on misconduct, felt punishment was too harsh – Directed the matter be placed before the Chief Justice of India for appropriate directions [Paras 1, 4-8].

Decision – SLP Dismissed – NBW Issued – Costs and Penalties Imposed – The SLP was dismissed; non-bailable warrant issued against the petitioner – AOR suspended for 1 month and assisting advocate directed to deposit ₹1 lakh with SCAORA for advocate welfare – With diverging views on punishment, matter referred to Hon'ble CJI [Paras 20-21].

Anticipatory Bail – Criminal History and Threat Allegations – Bail Upheld – Respondent No. 2, a person with multiple past FIRs, was granted anticipatory bail by the High Court in a case involving threats and abuses to the complainant – Appellant contended risk of repeat offences – Held: Offences were not heinous and were triable by Judicial Magistrate – No legal error in the High Court's discretion – Appeal dismissed [Paras 2–4, 9–10].

Habitual Offender – Impact on Bail Decision – Not Absolute Bar – Though Respondent No. 2 had prior convictions and FIRs, the Court emphasized that bail should not be routinely denied on this ground alone – Each case must be assessed on current facts and merits – High Court had considered respondent’s background sufficiently [Paras 4–5, 10].

Cancellation of Bail – Applicable Legal Principles – Deepak Yadav Case Reaffirmed – Court reiterated that cancellation of bail requires cogent reasons and cannot be mechanical – Factors include abuse of liberty, tampering with evidence, or serious error in the initial bail grant – None found in present case [Paras 8–10].

Bail Conditions – Safeguard Imposed Despite Bail – Compliance Mandated – Supreme Court directed that respondent must report monthly to the police upon release in other cases – Non-compliance or involvement in further offences would justify moving for cancellation of bail [Para 10].

Decision – Anticipatory Bail Affirmed – Appeal Dismissed – No serious legal infirmity in the High Court’s decision – Order maintained with liberty to seek cancellation if future violations occur [Paras 10–11].

Criminal Law – Murder - Circumstantial Evidence – Death of Son Allegedly Caused by Father – Conviction Upheld – The Court dealt with whether the death of the son was homicidal or suicidal – Held: Gunshot residue found on the right hand of the accused, who was right-handed, and false statements made by him attempting to portray the death as a suicide by screwdriver were strong incriminating circumstances – No alternate hypothesis consistent with innocence could be drawn – Conviction upheld [Paras 5–6, 10–12, 24–26].

Firearm Injury – Differentiation Between Suicide and Homicide – Doctor and Ballistic Expert Evidence Considered – Death Held to Be Homicidal – Though the post-mortem doctor refrained from giving a definitive opinion on suicide vs. homicide, ballistic expert stated firing occurred within 3 feet range – Court noted that suicides by firearm usually involve contact wounds and locations like temple, unlike the chest wound in this case – Homicidal nature confirmed [Paras 9–10, 13–14].

Gunshot Residue – Presence on Accused’s Right Hand – Incriminating – Argument of Fabrication Rejected – Accused claimed residue was planted by police – Court found explanation implausible since only the right hand showed residue – Falsity of defense added to the chain of incriminating circumstances [Paras 11–12, 26].

No Motive Alleged – Not Fatal Where Circumstantial Chain is Complete – Court reaffirmed that motive is not indispensable where there is a strong chain of circumstantial evidence – Absence of motive does not outweigh other compelling evidence establishing guilt [Paras 17–24].

Final Decision – Conviction and Sentence Affirmed – Appeal Dismissed – Court found no reason to interfere with concurrent findings of the Trial Court and High Court – All pending applications also dismissed [Paras 27–29].

NDPS Act – Scope of Section 8 – Buprenorphine Hydrochloride Held to Fall Within Prohibited Substances – Interpretation Upheld – Dealing in psychotropic substances listed under the Schedule to the NDPS Act is prohibited, irrespective of their absence from Schedule I of the NDPS Rules – Sanjeev V. Deshpande clarified the true intent of the legislature and correctly overruled Rajesh Kumar Gupta – Buprenorphine Hydrochloride, though also covered under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, remains punishable under the NDPS Act if dealt with unlawfully [Paras 3-18, 156-157].

Doctrine of Prospective Overruling – Application Rejected – Default Rule of Retrospective Operation Applied – Court declined to apply prospective overruling to Sanjeev V. Deshpande as there existed no exceptional reason to deviate from the default retrospective rule – Noted that Sanjeev V. Deshpande did not contemplate limiting its effect and intentionally omitted reference to prospectivity – Held: All pending cases are to be decided as per the law clarified in Sanjeev V. Deshpande [Paras 119-123, 158-159].

Article 20(1) – No Bar to Retrospective Judicial Interpretation – Overruling Not Equivalent to Ex Post Facto Law – Held: Article 20(1) bars only retrospective penal legislation and not retrospective judicial declarations – Since Sanjeev V. Deshpande merely restored the correct interpretation of Section 8, it did not create a new offence – Overruling Rajesh Kumar Gupta does not violate Article 20(1) – Only those acquittals that have attained finality will remain undisturbed [Paras 124-138, 159-160].

Retrospective Clarification – Judicial Overruling Not a Legislative Fiction – The interpretation given in Sanjeev V. Deshpande reflects what the law always was – A wrong interpretation by the court does not create vested rights in favour of the accused – Therefore, no vested right accrued under Rajesh Kumar Gupta that could block retrospective application [Paras 125-137].

CrPC – Section 216 – Limited Scope – No Power to Discharge or Delete Charges Post Framing – Trial Courts erred by using Section 216 CrPC to discharge the accused or delete NDPS charges – Section 216 permits only alteration or addition of charges and not deletion – Deletion of charges must follow full trial and end in acquittal or conviction – Discharge after framing of charges is impermissible [Paras 141-154].

Interpretation of “Alter” Under Section 216 CrPC – Distinguished from “Delete” – Court clarified that to “alter” a charge means to vary it, not to remove it – Deletion requires express statutory authority which is not present under Section 216 – Held: Trial Courts exceeded their jurisdiction by transferring the case to Magistrate without acquitting the accused under NDPS Act [Paras 147-155].

Final Directions – Trial to Proceed Under NDPS Act – Since the accused were not acquitted, but merely discharged or had charges deleted improperly, the Court directed that they be tried under the NDPS Act by the Special Court – Appeals allowed and impugned High Court orders set aside [Paras 161-163].

Arbitration Law - Arbitral Tribunal Jurisdiction – Non-Signatories – Consent is Key – Tribunal’s Power to Implead Upheld – The Court held that arbitral jurisdiction arises from the arbitration agreement and not procedural omissions – Non-service of Section 21 notice or exclusion from Section 11 application does not preclude impleadment if parties have consented to arbitration – Tribunal erred in refusing jurisdiction based on procedural flaws – Appeal allowed [Paras 2–4, 21–24, 34–41].

Section 21 ACA – Notice Invoking Arbitration – Mandatory but Not Jurisdictional – The Court held that while Section 21 notice is necessary to trigger limitation and initiate arbitration, it is not a condition precedent for impleading a party who is bound by the arbitration agreement – Functional purpose of Section 21 distinguished from jurisdictional inquiry – Respondents’ exclusion from notice not fatal [Paras 8–14, 40(I)].

Section 11 ACA – Appointment of Arbitrator – Referral Court's Role Limited – The Court reaffirmed that the High Court’s function under Section 11 is confined to prima facie examination of existence of an arbitration agreement – Referral order does not limit tribunal’s power to determine its own jurisdiction over non-signatories – Kompetenz-Kompetenz principle upheld [Paras 15–20, 40(II)].

Non-Signatory Parties – Group of Companies Doctrine Applied – Based on Conduct – Respondent LLP and its CEO Held Bound – Though not signatories, respondent no. 2 (LLP) and respondent no. 3 (CEO) actively participated in formation and performance under the LLP Agreement – Their conduct demonstrated intention to be bound by the arbitration clause – Tribunal rightly directed to implead them [Paras 36–39, 40(IV)].

Final Decision – High Court and Tribunal Orders Set Aside – Appeal Allowed – Tribunal directed to proceed with arbitration by impleading respondent nos. 2 and 3 – Matter remanded for continuation from post-Section 16 stage – Tribunal requested to expedite award [Para 41].

ESI Contributions – Principal Employer – Criminal Liability – Conviction Upheld - The appellant was convicted for failure to deposit ESI contributions deducted from employees' wages for the period from 01.02.2010 to 31.12.2010 – The Trial Court and the High Court found that the appellant acted as General Manager and had actual control over the factory – Held: The appellant qualifies as "Principal Employer" under Section 2(17) of the ESI Act and is liable under Section 85(i)(b) – The courts rightly concluded that he was responsible for the supervision and control of the establishment during the relevant period [Paras 18–20].

Mens Rea and Status of Sick Company – Not a Defence – Liability Under Section 85 Maintained - The appellant argued that the company was registered as a sick unit under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, and that this should exempt him from prosecution – Held: Declaration of a company as sick under BIFR does not provide immunity from prosecution under the ESI Act – The Court followed the decision in Pentafour Products Ltd. v. Union of India and upheld the appellant’s conviction under Section 85(i)(b) [Paras 14, 23].

Designation and Real Responsibility – Determinative Test under Section 2(17) – The appellant contended he was only a “Technical Coordinator” – Held: Under the ESI Act, designation is not determinative – The real test is whether the person had control and supervision over the affairs of the factory – The appellant did not produce any evidence to show otherwise – Therefore, he was rightly treated as a “managing agent” and held liable under the Act [Paras 18–20].

Sentencing – Plea for Leniency – Denied – Minimum Sentence Upheld – The appellant requested that the sentence be reduced to imprisonment till the rising of the court – Held: Such reduction is not permissible without satisfaction of conditions under the proviso to Section 85 – The sentence of six months’ imprisonment and fine of ₹5,000 is the statutory minimum and cannot be reduced further without sufficient cause – The Court cited A.K. Abdul Samad to reiterate that subsequent payment of dues is no ground for altering the sentence [Paras 23–25].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Conviction and Sentence Affirmed – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal – The appellant was directed to surrender within two weeks – Time already undergone in custody to be set off – Trial Court directed to take necessary steps to ensure the sentence is served [Paras 26–27].

Employment Law - Reservation – Definition of Ex-Serviceman – IMNS Personnel Covered – Eligibility Recognized - The Court interpreted Rule 2(c) of the Punjab Rules, 1982 to include persons who served in the Indian Military Nursing Service (IMNS) – Held: IMNS is part of the Armed Forces of the Union as per the MNS Ordinance, 1943 – Respondent No. 4, having completed her short service commission and received gratuity, is entitled to be treated as an “ex-serviceman” under Clause (iv) of Rule 2(c) [Paras 10–18].

Interpretation of State Rules – Central Rules Inapplicable – Punjab Rules Govern Recruitment - The Court held that Central Rules, 1979 do not apply to state-level recruitment under Article 309 – Eligibility must be assessed under the Punjab Recruitment of Ex-Servicemen Rules, 1982 framed by the State Government [Paras 6–9].

Constitutional Powers – Article 309 – State Entitled to Frame Rules – Valid Exercise of Power - Punjab Rules, 1982 being framed under Article 309 are binding and take precedence in state recruitments – Clarifications issued by the Kendriya Sainik Board cannot override statutory rules [Paras 9, 19].

Equitable Considerations – Existing Appointment Not to be Disturbed – Co-Existence Allowed - Appellant, a validly appointed ex-serviceman, shall continue in service – Respondent No. 4, if otherwise eligible and meritorious, shall also be appointed but without back wages – Appointments to co-exist without disturbing the appellant’s service [Paras 21–22].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – High Court Order Upheld - The Supreme Court upheld the Division Bench’s ruling in favor of respondent No. 4’s eligibility and directed her appointment while protecting the appellant’s current employment status [Paras 23–24].

Criminal Law  –  Res Judicata in Criminal Law – Quashing Allowed - Allegations of cheating under Section 420 IPC were found to be a reiteration of the defence already raised and rejected in earlier proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act – The Court held that the prior adjudication conclusively settled the issue of liability, applying the doctrine of res judicata in criminal matters – Held: Fresh prosecution based on same facts is impermissible [Paras 10–20].

Company Liability – Prosecution Without Arraigning Company – Proceedings Quashed - Appellant, a Managing Director, was prosecuted without making the company an accused – The Court reiterated that a company must be arraigned for offences based on company actions when vicarious liability is alleged – Held: In absence of the company being prosecuted, criminal proceedings against the individual director are not maintainable [Paras 21–30].

Magistrate's Order – Non-Application of Mind – Summoning Order Quashed - The impugned summoning order did not contain reasoning or reference to specific allegations against the appellant individually – Held: Magistrate must record satisfaction after due application of mind before summoning – Mere managerial designation insufficient to attract liability [Paras 7, 23].

Abuse of Process – Vexatious Counterblast to Concluded Proceedings – Quashing Justified - The FIR against the appellant was registered after conclusion of 138 NI Act proceedings and compromise in civil suit – Held: Criminal law cannot be used to settle civil or business disputes already adjudicated – Appeal allowed, proceedings quashed [Paras 5, 24–25].