Criminal Law - Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2), and Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Corruption Charges – Demand and Acceptance of Bribe – Proof Required – Acquittal Upheld – Respondent was accused of demanding and receiving ₹1,500 as bribe for submitting a spot inspection report – Trial Court convicted him based on recovery of tainted money – High Court acquitted him citing lack of credible evidence of demand – Supreme Court upheld acquittal, holding demand was not proven beyond reasonable doubt, and testimony of complainant lacked reliability [Paras 1, 6–7, 23–26].

Presumption under Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act – Applicability Conditional on Proof of Demand – Rebuttable Presumption Not Triggered – The Court clarified that presumption under Section 20 arises only upon proof of demand – In absence of credible evidence on demand, recovery alone does not sustain conviction – Cited decisions in Paritala Sudhakar and Om Parkash for proposition that presumption cannot substitute proof of demand [Paras 10, 24–25].

Credibility of Complainant – Contradictions and Admissions – Testimony Deemed Unreliable – Complainant denied prior spot inspection, then admitted the same upon confrontation with signed report – Such conduct considered sufficient to reject his testimony as unreliable – Benefit of doubt extended to accused [Paras 24–26].

Final Relief – Acquittal Not Interfered – Appeal Dismissed – Though High Court gave limited reasons for overturning conviction, Supreme Court independently examined the material and found no perversity in acquittal – Held: Chain of demand, acceptance, and recovery was incomplete – Appeal dismissed [Paras 27–29].

Criminal Law – Dishonour of Cheques – Quashing of Proceedings – Appellant filed complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against a Partnership Firm and its partners, including Respondent, for dishonour of cheques aggregating ₹6 crores – High Court quashed proceedings against Respondent under Section 482 CrPC on ground that he had retired from partnership before issuance of cheques – Held: Retirement not duly notified under Sections 32, 62, 63, and 72 of Partnership Act – No public notice published – Respondent continued to be liable as partner – Order of High Court set aside – Trial to proceed [Paras 1–6, 9–14].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 141 – Vicarious Liability – Cheques signed by another partner (Accused No.2), but complaint contained specific averments of involvement of Respondent in day-to-day affairs and assurance of repayment – Held: Sufficient prima facie material to attract Section 141 NI Act – Signing of cheques by one partner does not absolve others where firm liability is pleaded and substantiated [Paras 11–12].

Criminal Procedure – Section 482 CrPC – Scope and Limits – High Court quashed criminal proceedings without trial based on disputed factual claims of retirement – Held: Disputed questions of fact and law cannot be adjudicated under Section 482 CrPC – Requires trial and evidence – High Court exceeded jurisdiction [Paras 13–14].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's quashing order dated 23.09.2023 set aside – Criminal complaint proceedings restored for trial – No observation to affect merits of trial [Paras 14–15].

Criminal Procedure – Transfer and Clubbing of FIRs – Multiple FIRs lodged against petitioner across 10 States for offences under IPC and local deposit protection laws – Petitioner initially sought transfer of all FIRs to Panchkula, Haryana – Court noted similar relief was denied in 2020 – Alternative prayer for consolidation within respective States allowed due to non-objection by respondent States – Held: Clubbing of FIRs within each State directed, with the earliest FIR to act as the principal FIR and subsequent FIRs to be treated as statements under Section 161 CrPC – Supplementary charge-sheets may be filed accordingly [Paras 1-3, 9-13, 19-22]

Criminal Law – Offences under IPC and Special Laws – FIRs allege offences under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 IPC read with Sections 120B, 34, 263, 114 IPC and various State Acts such as the Gujarat Police Act, Haryana Depositors Act, and others – Petitioner accused of collecting deposits fraudulently via land allotment schemes – SEBI declined registration as Collective Investment Scheme citing pre-launch requirement – CBI preliminary inquiry reported KIDL lacked capacity to repay investors – Held: Trials must be held under Special Acts if any clubbed FIR invokes such legislation, even if principal FIR was under general law [Paras 4-8, 10]

Criminal Procedure – Bail Implications on Clubbed FIRs – Petitioner in custody since 11.10.2018 – Court directed that bail granted in the principal FIR would extend to clubbed FIRs unless they relate to special enactments or distinct IPC offences – In such cases, fresh bail applications must be moved and considered on merits – Direction issued under Article 32 read with Article 142 of the Constitution [Paras 20-21]

Legal Precedents and Jurisdiction – Reliance on Radhey Shyam v. State of Haryana and Abhishek Singh Chauhan v. Union of India – Court reaffirmed that multiplicity of proceedings not in public interest – Clubbing required to avoid conflict and ensure coherent prosecution – Clarified that if special laws are involved in subsequent FIRs, Special Courts shall retain jurisdiction [Para 10]

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – FIRs in Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, and Uttarakhand to be merged within each State respectively – Chhattisgarh and Delhi FIRs to proceed independently as only one FIR is pending in each – Proceedings to continue in line with directions under Article 142 of the Constitution [Paras 19, 22]

Civil Law - Execution of Decree – Successive Execution Petitions – Satisfaction Recorded in Prior EP Not a Bar – Fresh EP Maintainable on Subsequent Interference - Held: Recording of satisfaction in an earlier EP due to absence of decree-holder and written statement by judgment-debtor cannot bar future EP if fresh breach is alleged – Res judicata not attracted where new cause arises [Paras 2–4, 6].

Limitation – No Bar to Execution of Decree Granting Perpetual Injunction – Article 136 of Limitation Act – Perpetual Right of Decree-Holder - Supreme Court held that there is no limitation for execution of a decree granting permanent injunction – Right to seek enforcement survives perpetually against judgment-debtor, their assignees or successors whenever breach occurs [Para 7].

Civil Procedure – Objection under Section 47 CPC – Consideration Deferred to Executing Court – Only Prima Facie Observations Made - Apex Court clarified that its observations regarding objections under Section 47 CPC are prima facie – Objections can be re-agitated before Executing Court which shall decide afresh including claims about cancellation proceedings [Para 8].

Decision – High Court and Lower Courts’ Orders Set Aside – Execution Petition Restored - Supreme Court set aside all impugned orders and restored EP No. 2 of 2012 – Matter remanded to Executing Court for fresh consideration on merits, except on validity of decree which stands untouched [Paras 8–9].

Criminal Procedure – Inherent Powers under Section 482 CrPC – High Court Cannot Recall Quashing Order – Held Without Jurisdiction - The Supreme Court held that once a final judgment quashing an FIR is passed, it cannot be recalled under Section 482 CrPC due to the bar under Section 362 CrPC – High Court exceeded jurisdiction by reviving a quashed FIR on grounds of compromise violation – Review or recall of final orders not permissible except for clerical or arithmetical errors [Paras 9–12, 14].

Criminal Law – Compromise Between Parties – Breach of Terms No Ground for Criminal Revival – Alternate Legal Remedies Available - Breach of compromise terms does not justify revival of quashed criminal proceedings – Held: Remedy for enforcement lies in civil proceedings or appropriate forums, not through recall of a concluded criminal order [Para 12].

Judicial Discipline – Section 362 CrPC – Recall Power Limited to Clerical Corrections – Law Reiterated - Court reiterated that once a final judgment is signed, courts become functus officio – Inherent power cannot override express prohibition in Section 362 CrPC – Exceptions allowed only in cases involving jurisdictional error, natural justice violations, or fraud [Paras 9.3.2–9.3.4, 10.1, 14].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – High Court’s Orders Recalled – Quashing Restored - Held: High Court acted without legal authority in reviving FIR – Supreme Court set aside all impugned orders and restored original quashing – Registry directed to circulate judgment to High Courts to prevent such procedural errors in future [Paras 13–16].

Civil Writ - Judicial Administration – Creation and Role of Court Managers – Thirteenth Finance Commission Recommendation – Approved - The Court Managers were introduced to improve court efficiency by supporting administrative functions, allowing judges to focus on adjudication – The Finance Commission allocated Rs. 300 crore for the scheme – Guidelines were issued by the Ministry of Finance prescribing the roles, qualifications, and functions of Court Managers – Implementation varied widely across States and High Courts, leading to disparity and ad hoc employment practices [Paras 5–12, 28–30].

Service Conditions – Contractual Appointments and Disparity in Pay – Non-Uniform Practices – Criticized - Most Court Managers were appointed on a contractual basis with no consistent service rules or benefits – The Supreme Court had earlier directed regularization (2018 judgment) – The SNJPC reiterated this need and recommended uniformity, higher pay, and structured recruitment and promotion avenues – Found that several High Courts and State Governments failed to act on the earlier directions [Paras 12–17, 31–36].

Model Framework – Assam Rules of 2018 – Adopted as Model – Recognized - The Court endorsed the Gauhati High Court’s 2018 Rules as a comprehensive model for adoption across jurisdictions – The Rules include regular appointments, clear duties, promotional avenues, and benefit structures – Other High Courts directed to take these Rules as a base with necessary modifications [Paras 39–42].

Directions Issued – Uniformity, Regularization, and Suitability Test – Mandated - All High Courts directed to frame or amend rules for Court Managers within 3 months based on Assam Rules – State Governments to approve within 3 additional months – Suitability tests to be conducted for existing Court Managers; those qualifying to be regularized with retrospective seniority but without arrears – Registrar Generals and Chief Secretaries made personally responsible for compliance [Paras 43–44].

Decision – Writ Petitions and IAs Disposed – Directions Binding - The Supreme Court disposed of the writ petitions and applications with binding directions to ensure regularization and standardization of the Court Manager system nationwide [Para 44].

Society and Trust Law – Religious Property Ownership Dispute – ISKCON Bangalore vs. ISKCON Mumbai – Long-standing dispute over title and management of ISKCON Bangalore resolved – Supreme Court held that ISKCON Bangalore, a registered Karnataka society, is the absolute titleholder of Schedule ‘A’ land allotted by Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) – Held: No legal basis to the claim of ISKCON Mumbai over said property via an unincorporated branch – High Court’s findings contrary to documentary evidence and thus set aside [Paras 33–51, 55–57].

Documentary Evidence – Land Allotment and Registered Sale Deed – Application for BDA allotment (Exh. P-51) made in name of ISKCON Bangalore, signed by its President – Sale deed dated 3rd August 1988 executed in favour of ISKCON Bangalore – All communications, payments, and ULC exemption corresponded to ISKCON Bangalore – No competing application from ISKCON Mumbai or proof of benami transaction produced – Held: Valid title passed to ISKCON Bangalore [Paras 44–51].

Statutory Interpretation – Section 38B BDA Act – Only societies registered under Karnataka Societies Registration Act or trusts under MPT Act eligible for BDA allotment – ISKCON Bangalore, being a registered society, legally eligible – No evidence of ISKCON Mumbai applying under trust provisions – High Court erred in overlooking statutory eligibility and clear application trail [Paras 52–54].

Branch Status and Legal Entity – No Independent Existence of “ISKCON Mumbai, Bangalore Branch” – ISKCON Mumbai failed to produce incorporation documents or authority letters – Application, sale deed, and ULC exemption made only by ISKCON Bangalore – Held: Mere reference to branch functioning does not confer legal title or ownership – Branch lacked legal personality to hold property [Paras 50–51].

Adverse Inference – Key Witness Withheld – ISKCON Mumbai did not produce Stoka Krishna Dasa, alleged source of manipulation claims – Court held that non-examination of material witness warranted adverse inference – Held: Allegations of fraud and manipulation unsubstantiated in absence of direct testimony [Para 47].

Procedural History – Trial Court Decree in Favour of ISKCON Bangalore Restored – High Court Judgment in RFA No. 421 of 2009 reversed – All related appeals rendered infructuous – Oversight Committee managing temple to be dissolved after one month [Paras 56–58, 73(d)].

Internal Governance Dispute – Governing Body of ISKCON Bangalore – Suit No. 1758 of 2003 by members claiming to be rightful management dismissed – Concurrent findings by Trial Court and High Court accepted – Annual General Meeting of 1 July 1984 validly elected new governing body – Plaintiffs’ evidence found weak, contradictory and largely withdrawn – Held: No interference warranted in findings of fact [Paras 59–70].

Decision: Civil Appeal Nos. 3821–3822 of 2023 dismissed – Civil Appeal No. 9313 of 2014 allowed – High Court findings in RFA No. 421 of 2009 set aside – Decree in Suit No. 7934 of 2001 in favour of ISKCON Bangalore restored – Oversight Committee dissolved after one month – All connected appeals disposed of as infructuous – No order as to costs [Paras 73–74].

Criminal Law - Bail – Section 302, 323, 427, 34, 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Grant of Bail in Heinous Crime – Parameters of Judicial Discretion – Bail Cancelled – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order granting bail to the accused in a case involving murder charges under Section 302 IPC – The Court found that the High Court had failed to adequately consider the heinous nature of the offence and the criminal antecedents of the accused, especially when the trial court had rightly refused bail for valid reasons – Held: The cryptic reasoning by the High Court warranted interference, and the Sessions Court’s denial of bail was restored [Paras 13–15, 19–20].

Investigation Stay and Bail – Incompatibility – Prejudice to Trial Process – The accused were granted bail by the High Court even while the trial proceedings remained stayed due to pending proceedings under Section 482 CrPC – The Court found that such simultaneous stay of trial and grant of bail created imbalance and potential prejudice – Held: Continuation of bail in these circumstances was unwarranted and legally untenable [Para 15].

No Reformatio in Peius – Safeguard in Appeal Proceedings – Relevance in Bail Orders – Though not directly reversing an appeal against acquittal or conviction, the Court emphasized that altering status of an accused beneficially without compelling grounds while higher judicial scrutiny is pending undermines fair process – Held: Criminal antecedents and gravity of offence should not have been diluted without detailed justification [Paras 14–15, 19–20].

Appellate Interference – High Court’s Bail Order – Cryptic Reasoning – Supreme Court held that the High Court’s order granting bail lacked reasoned analysis and failed to deal with the gravity of the allegations – The Court reiterated that bail in serious offences must be granted only with due diligence – Held: High Court order set aside and Sessions Court’s order denying bail restored [Paras 19–20].

Final Disposition – Supreme Court Directions – Accused Ordered to Surrender – Supreme Court directed the accused to surrender before the jurisdictional Magistrate or concerned Police Station by 16.06.2025 – Ordered deposit of passports at Police Station Nangal by 19.05.2025 – Held: Appeals allowed and High Court’s order granting bail set aside [Paras 21–23].

Environmental Law – Ex Post Facto Environmental Clearance – Legality of 2017 Notification and 2021 OM – Held Illegal - The 2017 Notification and 2021 Office Memorandum allowing retrospective environmental clearance were held contrary to statutory and constitutional mandates – The Supreme Court reaffirmed that ex post facto ECs are alien to environmental jurisprudence and violate Article 21 rights to pollution-free environment – Orders struck down for being arbitrary, ultra vires, and inconsistent with binding precedent [Paras 15–20, 26–31, 34–36].

Environmental Jurisprudence – Supreme Court Upholds Precautionary and Polluter Pays Principles – EC Must Be Prior and Not Retrospective - Court reiterated that ECs must be granted prior to project commencement after environmental impact assessment and public hearing – Held: Allowing ex post facto clearances undermines environmental protection and incentivises illegality, flouting principles laid down in Common Cause and Alembic Pharmaceuticals [Paras 16, 17, 29].

Fundamental Rights – Article 21 and 51A(g) – Right to Pollution-Free Environment – Infringed by Post-Facto Regularisation - Held: The 2021 OM undermines the right to life and health and fundamental duty to protect the environment – The State is constitutionally obligated to enforce EC norms strictly; any attempt to dilute such standards through retrospective regularisation is violative of fundamental rights [Paras 32–34].

Judicial Undertaking – Central Government Bound by Statement Before Madras High Court – Estoppel Applies - Union’s undertaking in Puducherry Environment Protection Association case that 2017 Notification was a one-time measure was binding – Court deprecated subsequent circulars and extensions in contravention of judicial declarations and government assurances [Paras 21–22].

Decision – 2017 Notification and 2021 OM Struck Down – Government Restrained from Future Ex Post Facto ECs - Held: 2017 Notification and 2021 OM are illegal and void – Supreme Court restrained the Central Government from issuing any future circulars or memoranda providing for ex post facto EC – However, ECs already granted under these instruments till date are not disturbed [Paras 35–36].