Service Law – Disciplinary Proceedings – Criminal Acquittal – Distinction between departmental and criminal proceedings – Acquittal in criminal proceedings does not automatically absolve liability in departmental inquiries – Standards of proof differ – Departmental inquiry upheld despite criminal acquittal [Paras 20-22, 32-41].

Service Law – Misconduct – Rule 50(4) SBIOSR – Allegations of fraud and financial irregularities against bank officer – Charges of misconduct proved in departmental inquiry – Departmental findings based on preponderance of probabilities – Acquittal in criminal court due to insufficient evidence does not negate findings of departmental inquiry [Paras 22-26, 33-38].

Judicial Review – Departmental and Criminal Proceedings – Principle of Natural Justice – Adequate opportunity provided to appellant in departmental inquiry – No procedural impropriety found – Fair hearing conducted – Disciplinary authority and appellate authority's orders valid [Paras 41, 46-49].

Decision - Appeal dismissed – High Court's decision upheld – Departmental dismissal of Avinash Sadashiv Bhosale affirmed – Acquittal in criminal court does not affect departmental inquiry findings – No costs awarded [Paras 50].

Income Tax – Penalty – Section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act – Imposition of penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income – Appellant, a reputed Chartered Accountant firm, claimed a deduction inadvertently – Claim based on a provision for payment of gratuity not allowable under Section 40A(7) – Error deemed a 'silly mistake' – Penalty held unjustified due to bona fide and inadvertent error [Paras 2-20].

Human Error – Bona Fide Mistake – Professional Firm – Tax Audit Report filed along with return clearly indicating non-allowable provision – Miscomputation of income in return – Error overlooked by both appellant and Assessing Officer – No willful suppression of facts or deliberate attempt to conceal income found [Paras 18-20].

Judicial Review – Peculiar and Unique Facts – Appellant's reputation and expertise – Mistake attributed to human error irrespective of professional standing – Tribunal and High Court acknowledged error as non-willful – Supreme Court set aside penalty considering it an honest mistake without intent to deceive [Paras 17-21].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Imposition of penalty by High Court set aside – Appellant not guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars or attempting to conceal income – No costs awarded [Paras 21].

Criminal Law – Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Non-Compoundable Offences – Section 320 CrPC and Section 482 CrPC – Whether the High Court can quash criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable offences based on a compromise between the parties – Held: High Court can quash such proceedings to secure the ends of justice under Section 482 CrPC – Power should be exercised with caution and in exceptional cases [Paras 1-22].

Compounding of Offences – Section 320 CrPC – Categories of offences that can be compounded – Non-compoundable offences cannot be compounded under Section 320 CrPC but can be quashed by High Court under Section 482 CrPC if the compromise leads to no evidence against the accused – Court should ensure that quashing is in the interest of justice and not abuse of process [Paras 3-6, 10-12].

Inherent Powers of High Court – Section 482 CrPC – Scope and limitations – High Court's inherent powers to quash proceedings to prevent abuse of process or to secure ends of justice – Such powers not limited by Section 320 CrPC – Power to quash non-compoundable offences should be exercised sparingly and with great caution [Paras 7-9, 20-22].

Judicial Review – Exercise of Discretion – Inherent power of High Court to quash proceedings based on facts and circumstances of each case – Court must balance between the societal interest and rights of individuals – Quashing justified if continuance of proceedings leads to injustice or futility [Paras 16-19].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court's inherent power under Section 482 CrPC upheld – Criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable offences can be quashed based on a compromise if it secures the ends of justice – Directions issued for cautious and sparing exercise of such power [Paras 20-22].

Criminal Law – Common Intention – Section 34 IPC – Conviction requires proof of a prior meeting of minds – If no overt act is attributed to the accused, Section 34 can be invoked if common intention is established – Without common intention, Section 34 is inapplicable – Appellant convicted based on approver’s testimony, no evidence of common intention to commit murder – Appellant associated with co-accused for smoking ganja – Conviction with aid of Section 34 cannot be sustained – Appeal allowed, conviction set aside [Paras 14-15].

Evidentiary Value – Approver's Testimony – Conviction based solely on the approver’s evidence without corroboration – Sole evidence of approver insufficient to convict – PW-7 (approver) testimony indicated appellant’s minor role – Holding legs of deceased insufficient to prove common intention [Paras 13, 17].

Medical Evidence – Cause of Death – Post mortem report indicated death due to 100% burns, not assault – Evidence showed primary accused poured kerosene and set deceased on fire – Medical evidence contradicted involvement of appellant in the murder – Appellant's actions did not contribute to the cause of death [Paras 16-17].

Decision:

Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence of the appellant under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 IPC set aside – Appellant to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

Criminal Law – Conspiracy and Cheating – The respondent, a panel advocate for Vijaya Bank, was accused of providing false legal opinions in housing loan cases. The High Court quashed the criminal proceedings against him, emphasizing that merely providing an unacceptable legal opinion does not justify criminal prosecution without evidence of a connection with conspirators – Supreme Court upheld this decision [Paras 21-28].

Professional Negligence – Legal Opinion – The role of a panel advocate involves perusal of documents and providing opinions based on available information – The liability for professional negligence arises only when there is evidence of active participation in a conspiracy – Absence of tangible evidence linking the advocate to the conspiracy led to quashing of the proceedings [Paras 16-20, 27].

Inherent Powers of High Court – Section 482 CrPC – The High Court can exercise its inherent powers to quash proceedings if the allegations are inherently improbable – High Court's decision to quash criminal proceedings against the respondent upheld, as no prima facie case was established [Paras 13-14].

Decision:

Appeal dismissed – Criminal proceedings against the respondent quashed – No prima facie case for proceeding with charges under Sections 420 and 109 IPC.

Companies Act – Winding Up – Secured Creditors and Workmen’s Dues – Secured creditors have a right over specific assets of the company offered as security, whereas unsecured creditors have rights over all other assets – The statutory charge in favor of workmen does not extend to properties not offered as security – Appeal allowed, High Court's interpretation incorrect [Paras 5-7].

Preferential Payments – Section 529A – Workmen's dues and secured creditors’ dues ranking pari passu under Clause (c) of the proviso to Section 529(1) are to be paid in priority over all other debts – The non-obstante clause ensures overriding preferential payments [Paras 10-12].

Insolvency Rules – Section 47 of the Provincial Insolvency Act – Rights of secured creditors to realize their security or relinquish it for the general benefit of creditors – Workmen’s dues create a statutory charge pari passu with the secured creditor’s dues [Paras 6, 8-9].

Decision:

Appeal allowed – Impugned order of the Division Bench of the High Court and the order dated 28.11.2008 of the learned Company Judge set aside – Matter remitted to the learned Company Judge for decision in accordance with the law as laid down in this judgment.

Arbitration and Conciliation – Service of Award – The expression "party" in Section 31(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, refers to the party itself and not its agent or advocate – Proper compliance requires delivery of a signed copy of the arbitral award to the party – Service on the advocate does not fulfill the requirement [Paras 15-16].

Application to Set Aside Award – Limitation Period – An application under Section 34(3) must be filed within three months from the date the party receives the signed arbitral award – If the signed copy is not delivered to the party, the period does not commence – Petition filed within three months from the date the party obtained the signed copy is considered timely [Para 17].

Decision:

SLP dismissed – No order as to costs – Division Bench of the Delhi High Court's interpretation upheld – Proper service requires delivery of the signed award to the party, not the advocate [Paras 17-19].

Criminal Law – Bail – Cancellation – The High Court granted bail without adequately considering the gravity of the crime, the accused's criminal history, and the impact on societal security – High Court's order quashed – Bail cancellation justified in view of the accused's involvement in serious crimes and history of threatening and abduction [Paras 28-30, 32-34].

Liberty and Social Security – Individual liberty, while precious, must be balanced against the collective security of society – The court must ensure that liberty does not lead to anarchy or disorder – Bail decisions should reflect a judicious balance between personal freedom and societal safety [Paras 19-21].

Proper Consideration in Bail Orders – Courts must exercise discretion judiciously, keeping in mind the severity of the accusations, criminal history, and potential threat to witnesses and society – Bail granted without proper analysis of these factors can be annulled as perverse [Paras 10-12, 16-18].

Decision:

Appeal allowed – High Court’s order granting bail set aside – Bail bonds of the accused cancelled – Accused directed to surrender immediately [Paras 33-35].

Transfer of Land – Scheduled Caste – The transfer of land from a member of Scheduled Caste to a juristic person is void under Section 42(b) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 – The term "person" in Section 42(b) refers only to a natural person, not a juristic person – Transfer to a juristic person, followed by a potential transfer to a non-Scheduled Caste person, would defeat the legislative intent of protecting Scheduled Caste members from exploitation [Paras 14-15].

Interpretation of Statutes – Beneficial Legislation – The Act is designed to protect the interests of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe members – Any interpretation that undermines this protection must be avoided – The expression "person" in this context excludes juristic persons to prevent indirect transfers that would bypass the statutory restrictions [Paras 8-14].

Revenue Authorities – Refusal of Mutation – Revenue Authorities correctly refused mutation based on the transfer being void under Section 42(b) – The mutation should be done only in the name of a person who is a member of Scheduled Caste/Tribe, not a firm/company/society where such a person is an office-bearer [Paras 16-17].

Decision:

Appeals allowed – Judgments of the learned single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court set aside – Sale deed dated 26.9.2005 declared void – State entitled to re-possess the land and return it to the original Scheduled Caste owners [Paras 17-19].