In the light of the eye witness account and the post mortem report it is quite clear that the respondents were present when Tikaram was burning alive. The sequence of narration certainly shows that they were waiting in ambush. It may be that only two of them set Tikaram afire but the others definitely ensured by surrounding Tikaram that he would not be allowed to escape. Further, throwing of burning tyre and the sword would also indicate the active role played by them. Even if one of them was ready with a sword, that is clearly indicative of the level of preparedness on their part and we see no reason how they could not be said to be members of unlawful assembly. It was a crime which was committed by all of them guided by same purpose, acting in concert achieving the result that was desired. The intent of the entire assembly was clear, eloquently established by their presence, preparedness and participation. Though we are conscious that while considering an appeal against acquittal we should be extremely slow in interfering, in our considered view the assessment made by the High Court in the present case is completely unsustainable and against the record.

                                                                  REPORTABLE
                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                    CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.2096-2098 of 2009


State of M.P.                                    …. Appellant

                                   Versus

Ashok & Others etc.                                      …. Respondents


                               J U D G M E N T


Uday Umesh Lalit, J.


1.    These appeals by special leave challenge the Judgment and Order  dated
11.01.2007 passed by  the  High  Court  of  Judicature  of  Madhya  Pradesh,
Jabalpur bench at Jabalpur in Criminal Appeals Nos.  170  of  1995,  841  of
1995 and 369 of 1996 by which respondents Ashok s/o Banshilal  Vedehi,  Raju
@ Rajendra s/o Banshilal Vedehi, Gullu @ Rajesh s/o Banshilal Vedehi,  Gouri
Shankar s/o Banshilal Vedehi, Vidhna @ Ramdas s/o Lallulal  Kewat,  Surendra
s/o Harilal Vedehi were acquitted by the  High  Court  of  all  the  charges
leveled against them.

2.    According to the prosecution one  Tikaram  son  of  Chote  Lal  Pandey
after finishing his duty was returning home at 8:00 p.m. on  11.04.1989.  On
the way he met his younger brother PW13 Sheetal Prasad. Both were coming  on
bicycles, PW13 being 10-15 feet behind said Tikaram.  When  Tikaram  reached
Tilwaraghat he was stopped in front of the house of Hari Maharaj by Dibbu  @
Devendra by catching his bicycle. Said Dibbu then  poured  petrol  over  him
and Jittu @ Jitendra burnt him by igniting a match  stick.  Tikaram  started
burning and ran from the spot. He was surrounded by present respondents  and
two others namely Harilal and Banshilal. All of them exhorted  to  beat  him
and to burn him and that he should not be allowed  to  run  from  the  spot.
Respondent Vidhna @ Ramdas threw a burning tyre upon him. While Tikaram  was
running helter-skelter,  Harilal threw a sword at him. Tikaram  ran  to  the
house of PW3 Vinod and fell there. PW3 extinguished the fire.  The  incident
was witnessed by PW13 who ran to the house and conveyed the fact of  Tikaram
having been set afire to  the  inmates  of  the  house.  As  a  result,  PW4
Ravindra Kumar Pandey son of said  Tikaram  and  PW15  Laxmi  Prasad  Pandey
rushed to the scene of occurrence. Tikaram disclosed to both PWs  4  and  15
that he was set afire in the aforesaid manner and by the  persons  mentioned
above. Tikaram was then removed to Medical College Hospital, Jabalpur.

3.    On receiving information,  PW16  inspector  R.P.  Singh  went  to  the
casualty ward and enquired about the condition of Tikaram with letter Ext.P-
30.  PW18 Dr. A.C. Nagpal gave certificate that Tikaram  was  conscious  and
in a position to speak.  PW16  inspector  R.P.  Singh  thereafter  took  the
statement of said Tikaram, translation of which is to the following  effect:

      “Sir, I am residing at Ramnagra. Today I was going to  Ramnagra  after
performing my duty on Petrol Pump. This  incident  occurred  at  Tilwaraghat
opposite the house of Hari Maharaj. I was going  by  my  cycle.  My  brother
Sheetal Prasad was following me. Dibbu caught hold my cycle and  stopped  me
and poured petrol on me from a Jug and Jeetu set fire on me by a Match  Box.
My body started burning. Hari, Surendra, Bigna, Ashok, Bansi, Raju  and  the
son of sister of Bansi Maharaj who lives in Kamla Nagar who has  beard,  the
younger son of Bansi Gullu and 2-3 other persons from city their names I  do
not know, surrounded me. I ran away and entered into  a  room  of  house  of
Vinod Kumar situated nearest and they all were crying “Maaro Maaro Sale  Ko,
Bachne Na Paye” and I fell down there. There were so  many  persons  present
who have seen this incident. There is an old enmity and  quarrel  was  going
on between us and Dibbu etc. For taking revenge from the said  enmity  today
they poured petrol on me and set on fire, in order  to  kill  me.  My  whole
body has been burnt. My clothes also have been burnt. Report has  been  read
over and the same has been written as stated by me. Please  investigate  the
matter.”


4.    Pursuant to the aforesaid  statement  recorded  at  8:30  p.m.  Dehati
Nalishi Ext. P-20 was lodged and crime was registered. Tikaram  was  shifted
to ward no. 11 for further  treatment.  On  the  same  night  panchnama  was
prepared by said PW16.  In  the  night  of  11.04.1989  and  12.04.1989  PW5
Executive Magistrate S.P. Meshram  recorded  statement  Ext.  P-17  of  said
Tikaram. The statement was recorded  after  due  certification  from  doctor
about consciousness and fitness of said  Tikaram.  The  translation  of  the
statement Ext. P-17 is as under:-

“On 11.04.1989 at about 8 O’clock in the evening I was going to my  home  in
Ramnagra from Jabalpur. Near Tilwaraghat Dibbu alias Devendra poured  petrol
on my body and Jittu alias Jitendra burnt me by igniting the matchstick.  At
that time I was going on a bicycle on the road.  They  stopped  me  and  did
this act. My younger brothers Sheetal and Manohar were about 15  Ft.  behind
me. I had enmity with Dibbu and Jittu from before. So they did this  to  me.
Hari, Banshi, Ashok, Raju, Gaurishankar, Gullu,  Surendra  and  Vidhna  were
the persons who assaulted me.”


5.    On 12.04.1989 at about 8:15 p.m. Tikaram succumbed  to  his  injuries.
On 13.04.1989 at 10:30 a.m. post mortem on the  body  of  said  Tikaram  was
conducted by PW17 Dr. D.K. Sakalle. According to the post  mortem  following
facts were noticed:
      “There were third degree burns on the body  of  the  deceased  on  the
scalp, all around neck, face, ears, lips, all  over  the  trunk  except  the
upper joint of the thighs, over scrotum and  penis  all  around  both  upper
limbs except tips and nails of fingers on right  side.  Third  degree  burns
present all around left thigh, on right thigh all  around  except  the  back
part and over upper part of the left leg and the middle part  of  the  right
leg. There were blisters in some  parts  of  the  left  leg  due  to  burns.
Similarly there were some blisters on the back of the right leg.  There  was
inflammation around the burn injuries. The deceased  was  burnt  about  90%.
Apart from the burn injuries the following injuries were also there  on  the
body of the deceased. Incised wound obliquely on back of chest.  It  was  4”
long, 1” broad and maximum depth was 3/4". It contained a clot of blood  and
there was an abrasion on its left side. There was no injury in any  internal
organ of the deceased.”

6.    After due investigation charge sheet was filed and 10 accused  persons
were sent for trial. The prosecution examined twenty witnesses  while  three
witnesses were examined in defence.  Dying  declarations  namely  statements
Exts.P-20 and P-17, so also oral declarations as deposed by  PWs  4  and  15
and the eye-witness account through PW13 were  principally  relied  upon  by
the  prosecution.  Accepting  the  case  of  prosecution,  the  trial  court
convicted all the accused. Accused Dibbu @  Devendra  and  accused  Jittu  @
Jitendra were found guilty under section 302 I.P.C. and section  148  I.P.C.
while  others  namely  the  present  respondents  along  with  Harilal   and
Banshilal were found guilty under section 302 read with section  149  I.P.C.
Accused Dibbu @ Devendra and accused Jittu  @  Jitendra  were  sentenced  to
life imprisonment under section 302 I.P.C. and to rigorous  imprisonment  of
one year under section 148 I.P.C. All the other accused  were  sentenced  to
life imprisonment under section 302 read with  section  149  I.P.C.  and  to
rigorous imprisonment for 6 month under section 147 I.P.C.

7.     All  convicted  accused  persons  challenged  their  conviction   and
sentence by filing Criminal Appeal Nos. 170 of 1995, 841 of 1995 and 369  of
1996. During the pendency of said  appeals  it  was  reported  that  accused
Harilal and Banshilal had died and as such their appeals  were  declared  to
have abated. The High Court after going through the record  found  that  the
case of the prosecution was fully established as  against  accused  Dibbu  @
Devendra and accused Jittu @ Jitendra. The High Court however  gave  benefit
of doubt to the respondents on the premise that they had  reached  the  spot
after the commission of offence and as  such  the  charge  of  formation  of
unlawful assembly by them was not established. The observations by the  High
Court in that behalf were as under:
      “Considering the over-all evidence on  record,  it  is  proved  beyond
reasonable doubt that Dibbu alias Devendra and  Jittu  alias  Jitendra  have
committed the offence. The case of Dibbu and Jittu  is  established  by  the
prosecution beyond reasonable doubt in commission  of  offence.  As  regards
other appellants in all  the  connected  appeals  are  concerned,  they  are
entitled for the benefit of doubt. It is narrated in the  dying  declaration
and Dehati Nalishi that they  reached  the  spot  after  the  commission  of
offence.  Therefore,  formation  of  unlawful  assembly  by  them   is   not
established.”

The judgment of the High Court affirming their conviction and  sentence  has
not been challenged by the accused Jittu @ Jitendra and  Dibbu  @  Devendra.
The judgment to the extent it acquitted the present respondents of  all  the
offences is presently under challenge  at  the  instance  of  the  State  of
Madhya Pradesh in these appeals by special leave.

8.     Ms.  Vanshaja  Shukla,  learned  advocate  appearing  for  the  State
submitted that the role of the present  respondents  in  the  commission  of
crime was clearly made out from the dying declarations as well as  from  the
testimony of the eye witness. The Injury as found in the  post  mortem  also
supported the eye witness account, which in turn indicated the  role  played
by accused other than those who stand convicted by the High  Court.  In  her
submission, the view taken by the High Court was  completely  unsustainable.
Mr.  Akshat  Srivastava  learned  advocate  appearing  for  the   respondent
supported the judgment  of  the  High  Court.  It  was  submitted  that  the
principal role as alleged in the dying declarations was not as  regards  the
present respondents and as such they were rightly granted benefit  of  doubt
by the High Court.

      During the course of hearing it was  submitted  that  respondent  no.6
namely Surendra s/o Harilal Vedehi had died during  the  pendency  of  these
appeals. The learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  State  was  directed  to
ascertain the fact. Accordingly death certificate of  said  respondent  no.6
has been  filed  on  record  indicating  that  he  died  on  01.10.2014.  We
therefore  direct  that  the  proceedings  stand  abated  as  against   said
respondent no.6.

9.    Statement Ext. P-20 leading to the registration of crime  as  well  as
statement  Ext.  P-17  recorded  by  the  Executive  Magistrate  are   dying
declarations by Tikaram. Both these statements are consistent and  name  the
present respondents and  state  the  role  played  by  them  in  surrounding
Tikaram and giving cries that he be beaten and should not be  left.  In  the
face of such assertions, it is impossible to accept that  these  respondents
arrived at the scene of occurrence after  the  crime  was  completed.  Their
role is that of participants in the crime  who  did  not  allow  Tikaram  to
escape by encircling him. The finding rendered by the High Court is  against
the record.

10.   Both the statements clearly referred to the presence of PW13.  It  was
PW13 who immediately ran home and intimated the fact that  Tikaram  was  set
afire, to the inmates of the house. Consequently PW4  and  PW15  arrived  at
the scene of occurrence. Tikaram was then removed to the  hospital.  In  his
testimony PW13 stated that while Tikaram was burning,  respondent  Vidhna  @
Ram Das threw a burning tyre upon him and original accused Harilal  threw  a
sword at him. The post mortem clearly shows an incised injury  in  the  back
suffered by said Tikaram, which completely supports such  assertion.  Having
gone through the record  we  find  the  presence  of  said  PW13  completely
established and accept him to be  eye  witness  to  the  occurrence.  It  is
relevant to note that the High Court has also not disbelieved the  testimony
of PW13.

11.   In the light of the eye witness account and the post mortem report  it
is quite clear that the respondents were present when  Tikaram  was  burning
alive. The sequence of narration certainly shows that they were  waiting  in
ambush. It may be that only two of them set Tikaram  afire  but  the  others
definitely ensured by surrounding Tikaram that he would not  be  allowed  to
escape. Further, throwing of burning tyre and the sword would also  indicate
the active role played by them. Even if one of them was ready with a  sword,
that is clearly indicative of the level of preparedness on  their  part  and
we see no reason how they could not  be  said  to  be  members  of  unlawful
assembly. It was a crime which was committed by all of them guided  by  same
purpose, acting in concert  achieving  the  result  that  was  desired.  The
intent of the entire assembly was clear,  eloquently  established  by  their
presence, preparedness and  participation.  Though  we  are  conscious  that
while considering an appeal against acquittal we should  be  extremely  slow
in interfering, in our considered view  the  assessment  made  by  the  High
Court in the present  case  is  completely  unsustainable  and  against  the
record.

12.   We therefore allow these appeals, set-aside the judgment and order  of
acquittal rendered by the High Court and restore the judgment of  conviction
and sentence as recorded by the trial Court  against  the  respondents.  The
respondents shall be taken  in  custody  forthwith  to  serve  the  sentence
awarded to them.


                                                                …………………………J.
                                        (Pinaki Chandra Ghose)



                                                                …………………………J.
                                        (Uday Umesh Lalit)

New Delhi,
July 01, 2015
-----------------------
11

whether the PW1. Siddaramaiah was eye witness to the occurrence, in our opinion, is definitely a possible view. The presence of PW2 Savitha as well as PW13 Parwathamma is also doubtful for the reasons mentioned by the High Court. The testimony of PW15 reveals that a telephone call was received in the police station from PW7 Jagadamba about the incident of assault. Having reached the village by 7.15 a.m., it was logically expected of him to start making inquires about the crime and the identity of alleged assailants. Additionally, if out of two constables present in the village, one of them was injured, this by itself was one good source of information. According to the witness, he had spoken to those two constables and yet no steps were taken to register the crime. The witness further accepted that he had seen Shivarudraiah writhing in pain. In the circumstances, it would also be expected of him either to ask him or accompany him to the hospital, he being primary source of information. The conduct in the matter exhibited by PW15 is completely unexplainable. Similarly, it also does not stand to reason why PW1 Siddaramaiah did not approach the police when they were present in the village soon after the transaction and chose to make a written complaint scribed by PW11 and thereafter lodge it in the police station 10 kms. away. He himself later accepted that in the complaint, he had added two names by mistake. Secondly, the attribution to one of the accused having given blow by a sickle was also not mentioned in the complaint. The injuries found in the post mortem also do not support such assertion about injury by a sickle. In the circumstances, the assessment made by the High Court expressing serious doubts whether the PW1. Siddaramaiah was eye witness to the occurrence, in our opinion, is definitely a possible view. The presence of PW2 Savitha as well as PW13 Parwathamma is also doubtful for the reasons mentioned by the High Court. 11. Having analyzed the facts on record, the reasons stated by the High Court while acquitting the respondent are quite possible from the evidence on record. While considering this appeal against acquittal, the view expressed by the High Court being a possible view, we do not see any reason to interfere in the matter. We, thus, affirm the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the High Court and dismiss the present appeal.

                                                  Non-Reportable




                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA


                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                       CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1611 of 2009




      State of Karnataka                                       …. Appellant


                                   Versus


      Sateesh & Others                                         ....
      Respondents




                               J U D G M E N T


      Uday Umesh Lalit, J.




   1. This appeal by special leave is  directed  against  the  judgment  and
      order dated 22.01.2009 passed  by  the  High  Court  of  Karnataka  at
      Bangalore allowing Criminal Appeal  No.  1696/2005  preferred  by  the
      respondents herein and setting aside their conviction as  recorded  by
      the trial court and acquitting them of all the charges leveled against
      them.


   2. On 06.09.2000, PW15 M.N. Somashekharaih, then working as ASI  in  Kota
      Police Station, reached the  Police  Station  at  6.55  a.m.  and  was
      informed  by  Head  Constable-37  that  PW7   Jagadamba,  daughter  of
      Shivarudraiah of  Mavukere  village had  informed  on  telephone  that
      persons of Nayaka community  had smashed her father  with  stones  and
      were  attacking  the  police  personnel.   PW15  instructed  that   an
      ambulance be sent to Mavukere village and left along with some  police
      personnel for Mavukere.  According to PW15 when he reached the spot at
       about 7.15 a.m. he saw Shivarudraiah having received serious injuries
      on his head, hand and legs and was writhing in pain and shouting  “Ayo
      Ayo”.  He made arrangements to send  said  Shivarudraiah  for  medical
      attention to hospital  at  Tumkur.   According  to  him,  out  of  two
      constables, namely Jayaram and Rajanna, one had received injuries  and
      PW15 made inquiries with them.   His  superior  reached  the  spot  at
      about 9.30 a.m. and therefore said PW15 left for the Police Station.


   3. At about 10.00 a.m., PW1 Siddaramaiah came to the Police Station  with
      a written complaint which was registered as First Information  Report,
      on the basis of which Crime No.135 of 2000 came  to  be  lodged.   The
      relevant assertions in the written complaint were as under:
           “About one month ago, there was a quarrel in  our  village  with
           regard to 5 acres land in  Sy.  No.135/1  and  129  between  the
           members  of  Naik  community,  Uppara  community  and   Lingayat
           community.  In respect of the  same,  on  5.8.2000  Shekhar  and
           others belonging to Naik  community  quarreled  with  us.   With
           regard to this enmity has arisen between us and members of  Naik
           community and petty quarrels were  taking  place  from  time  to
           time.    In  these  circumstances  on  06.09.2000   morning   at
           6.00a.m.,  I was standing on his cycle towards his land and came
           on the road opposite the house of Shivaramaiah, s/o  Nanjundaiah
           and at that time residents of our village viz. (1) Sateesh,  s/o
           Siddagangaiah (2) Siddaiah, s/o Sunnarangaiah   (3)  Lakshmaiah,
           s/o  Sunnarangaiah  (4)  Suresh,  s/o  Late  Chikkarangaiah  (5)
           Shekaraiah, s/o  Late  Chikkarangaiah  (6)  Nanjaiah,  s/o  Late
           Chikkarangaiah (7)  Shanakariah,  s/o  Late  Chikkarangaiah  (8)
           Kaluvaiah, s/o Late Chikkarangaiah  (9)  Shankaraiah,  s/o  Late
           Chikkarangaiah (10) Nanjundaih,  s/o  Late  Chikkarangaiah  (11)
           Manjukumar, s/o Kaluvaiah, (12) HMT Shivanna,  s/o   Nanjundaiah
           (13) Ramesh, s/o Nanjundaiah (14) Jagadish,  s/o   Shivananjaiah
           (15)  Manjunath,  s/o  Shivananjaiah   (16)   Jayaramaiah,   s/o
           Ramakrishnaiah   (17)   Shrirangaiah,    s/o     Puttiah    (18)
           Rangandhamaiah,   s/o   Lakshmirangaiah   (19)   Nanjaiah,   s/o
           Nanjundaiah (20) Ishwariah, s/o  Nanjundaiah,   all  had  formed
           unlawful assembly and were  armed  with  clubs  in  their  hands
           passed me on the road and  unlawfully  obstructed  Shivarudraiah
           who was coming on the  cycle.   They  stopped  him  and  Shekhar
           pushed the cycle down and as soon as Shivarudraiah fell  on  the
           ground, Suresh, s/o Late Chikkaraingaiah said that, “one of  the
           two has to happen today, we will finish this fellow”.   As  soon
           as he uttered this, all of them made Shivarudraiah  sit  on  the
           ground, held his hands and  legs  and  made  him  sleep  on  the
           ground.  They placed his legs on a flat stone  and  smashed  his
           legs with size  stones  (boundary  marker  stones)  (Talakuttu).
           Shivarudraiah started screaming.   They did not  leave  him  and
           some of them relentlessly started beating Shivarudraiah with the
           clubs held by them  in  their  hands.   Hearing  the  screaming,
           Shivarudraiah’s wife came  running  and  embraced  her  husband.
           They  pulled  parvatamma  and  pushed  her  aside.   Later  they
           repeatedly kicked him with their legs.  At that time, I screamed
           saying that,  “they are going to kill Shivarudraiah”.   They saw
           people coming from the village side and  threw  away  the  clubs
           which they were holding in their  hands  there  itself  and  ran
           away.  Myself, Parvatamma and  Jagadamma  lifted  Shivarudraiah.
           His left leg was smashed and  was  bleeding.   There  were  open
           wounds on the right side of the head, right hand, forearm,  left
           knee, right feet and left leg and blood was  oozing  out.   This
           incident was witnessed by Chandrashekaraiah,  s/o  Gurulingaiah,
           Nanjegowda,  s/o  Shivanna,   Narasimhaiah,  s/o  Chikkappa   by
           standing in their respective lands.  All of them were afraid  of
           the members of the Naik community and did not  come  forward  to
           help.”




      4.    Shivarudraiah was  admitted  to  Tumkur  district  hospital  for
      treatment and while undergoing treatment,  he died at 10.25  a.m.   on
      06.09.2000.  Post Mortem was conducted by PW19 Dr. K.G. Shivamurthy on
      the dead body of Shivarudraiah at  District  hospital,  Tumkur.   Post
      Mortem revealed following injuries:-
           “1. Lacerated wound of 3”x1” present over the frontal region.


        2. An aberration of 1/½”x1” present over the anterior middle of the
           nose.


        3. Lacerated wound of 1/½”x1” present over the back  of  the  right
           elbow.


        4. Lacerated wound of 3”x1” present in between right  index  finger
           and thumb extending to the palmer aspect with bone deep.


        5. Contusion of 4”x3” present over the left wrist  and  dislocation
           of the proximal phalanx of the index and middle finger.


        6. There is fracture of the  right  upper  1/3  of  the  tibia  and
           fibula.


        7. Contusion of 2½” x1” present over the  anterior  aspect  of  the
           right knee.


        8. Lacerated wound of 4”x5” present over  the  deep  of  the  right
           foot.  In between 4th and 5th tow and there  is  dislocation  of
           the 4th and 5th metatarsal joints.


        9. There is fracture of the lower 1/3 of the left labia and fibula.




       10.  Lacerated wound 6”x2” present over the  middle  border  of  the
           left foot and bone deep.


       11.  Lacerated wound of 3”x2” present over the dorsum  of  the  left
           foot.


       12.  Lacerated wound of 2½”x2” present in between the left  3rd  and
           4th toe.


       13.  Contusion of 1”x3” present over the right zygote of the  acetyl
           region.


       14.  Lacerated wound of 2”x1” and skull bone deep present  over  the
           occipital region.”

                    The cause of death was said to be  hemorrhage resulting
           from aforesaid injuries.


      5.    During investigation  statement  of  PW2  Savitha,  daughter  of
      Shivarudraiah  was  recorded  on  07.09.2000,  while  that   of   PW13
      Parwathamma wife of Shivarudraiah was  recorded  two  days  after  the
      incident.    After due investigation 19 persons were  sent  for  trial
      vide S.C. No. 71/2000 before the Fast Track Court No.III at Tumkur.


      6.    The prosecution principally  relied  on  the  testimony  of  PW1
      Siddaramaiah, PW2 Savitha and PW13 Parwathamma who were stated  to  be
      eye-witnesses to the incident while other daughter  of  Shivarudraiah,
      namely, PW7 Jagadamba, PW3 Nanjegouda and PW4  M.G.  Chandrashekaraiah
      were the witnesses who had arrived at the  scene  of  occurrence  soon
      after  the  incident.  PW1  Siddaramaiah    accepted  that  names   of
      Manjukumar and Shrirangaiah, s/o Puttiah were wrongly mentioned in the
      FIR.    Though it was not so asserted in the  FIR,  PW1  in  his  oral
      testimony stated that accused Manjunath  had  assaulted  Shivarudraiah
      with a sickle.   PW2 Savitha stated  that  she  was  accompanying  her
      father Shivarudraiah on the relevant day  when  they  were  proceeding
      from their house to go to their  farm  land.   According  to  her  she
      started screaming soon  after  the  assault  began.   PW13  Parvatamma
      deposed  that  shouts  and  screams  of  her  daughter  attracted  her
      attention and she came running from the house  and  saw  the  assault.
      According to the witness she had tried to intervene and  as  a  result
      had received simple injuries and  had  tried  to  cover  her  bleeding
      husband.


      7.    The trial court while accepting the case of the prosecution came
      to the conclusion that the case  against  the  respondents  was  fully
      proved.  However, giving benefit of doubt to original  accused  Nos.12
      and 13, it acquitted them of all the offences  alleged  against  them.
      It convicted and sentenced original accused Nos.1  to  11,  14  to  19
      under Sections 148, 341, 302 read with  149  IPC  sentencing  them  to
      undergo sentences including the imprisonment for life. Accused Nos.  4
      to 6 were also additionally convicted and sentenced under Sections 114
      read with 302 IPC while original accused No.16 was  further  convicted
      and sentenced for the offences under Section 324  IPC  read  with  506
      IPC.   Thus, out of 19  persons  who  were  tried,  17  accused  stood
      convicted by the  Trial  Court  vide  its  judgment  and  order  dated
      21.07.2005.


      8.    The convicted accused i.e. the respondents  herein  carried  the
      matter further by filing Criminal Appeal No.1656 of 2005 in  the  High
      Court.  The High Court found the conduct of PW15 unexplainable in that
      he had chosen not to record the statements of  two  police  constables
      who were present at the site and one of them was injured and also  had
      chosen not to ask questions to injured Shivarudraiah.  The High  Court
      further found it completely unexplainable that PW15 had not  made  any
      inquiry in the village itself.  The ultimate registration of crime  on
      the basis of a written FIR which was scribed by PW11  and  brought  to
      the Police Station by PW1 was not found to be  bona  fide.   The  High
      Court observed that there was unexplained  delay  in  registering  the
      crime and it was extremely doubtful whether PW1 was an eye witness  to
      the occurrence.   It further observed that in the  original  FIR,  the
      name of  PW2  Savitha  was  not  mentioned  at  all,  creating  doubts
      regarding her presence.  Furthermore, if PW13 had tried to  cover  her
      bleeding husband, her blood stained sari should have been produced  on
      record.   Her statement was also recorded two days after the incident,
      again creating a situation of doubt.  With  these  reasons,  the  High
      Court observed that the possibility of innocents being  implicated  in
      the matter could not be ruled out.  Giving benefit  of  doubt  to  the
      convicted accused the High Court thus acquitted all  of  them  of  the
      offences  alleged  against  them.   The  State  being  aggrieved   has
      approached this Court by filing this appeal by special leave.


      9.     Appearing in support of the appeal,  Mr. Parikshit  P.  Angadi,
      learned Advocate submitted that  three eye witnesses, namely,  PWs  1,
      2 and 13 were  completely  consistent in their  assertions  about  the
      involvement of  the respondents herein and that the  FIR  having  been
      lodged  at 10.30a.m. there was absolutely no delay in registration  of
      crime and that the reasons which weighed  with  the  High  Court  were
      completely incorrect.   Appearing  for  the  respondents,  Mr.  Rajesh
      Mahale, learned Advocate submitted that if PW15  was  present  in  the
      village immediately after the incident, it does not  stand  to  reason
      why he did not make any  inquiry  and  register  the  crime.   If  two
      constables were present in the village, one  of  them  being  injured,
      that source was a better one to gather information  and  register  the
      crime.   Furthermore, the place  of  occurrence  being  surrounded  by
      various houses in the village, none of the inmates of those houses was
      examined as witness.  In his submission, the reasons given by the High
      Court while acquitting the respondents were absolutely correct and  in
      any case was a possible view in the matter.


      10.   We have gone though the  record  carefully  and  considered  the
      submissions.  The testimony of PW15 reveals that a telephone call  was
      received in the police station from PW7 Jagadamba about  the  incident
      of assault.  Having reached the village by 7.15 a.m., it was logically
      expected of him to start making  inquires  about  the  crime  and  the
      identity  of  alleged  assailants.   Additionally,  if  out   of   two
      constables present in the village, one of them was  injured,  this  by
      itself was  one  good  source  of  information.     According  to  the
      witness, he had spoken to those two constables and yet no  steps  were
      taken to register the crime.  The witness further accepted that he had
      seen Shivarudraiah writhing in pain.  In the circumstances,  it  would
      also be expected of him either to ask him  or  accompany  him  to  the
      hospital, he being primary source of information.  The conduct in  the
      matter exhibited by PW15 is completely unexplainable.   Similarly,  it
      also does not stand to reason why PW1 Siddaramaiah  did  not  approach
      the police when they were  present  in  the  village  soon  after  the
      transaction and chose to make a written complaint scribed by PW11  and
      thereafter lodge it in the police station 10 kms.  away.   He  himself
      later accepted that in the  complaint,  he  had  added  two  names  by
      mistake.  Secondly, the attribution to one of the accused having given
      blow by a sickle was  also  not  mentioned  in  the  complaint.    The
      injuries found in the post mortem also do not support  such  assertion
      about injury by a sickle.   In the circumstances, the assessment  made
      by  the  High  Court  expressing  serious  doubts  whether  the   PW1.
      Siddaramaiah was eye witness to the occurrence,  in  our  opinion,  is
      definitely a possible view.   The presence of PW2 Savitha as  well  as
      PW13 Parwathamma is also doubtful for the  reasons  mentioned  by  the
      High Court.

      11.   Having analyzed the facts on record, the reasons stated  by  the
      High Court while acquitting the respondent are quite possible from the
      evidence on record.   While considering this appeal against acquittal,
      the view expressed by the High Court being a possible view, we do  not
      see any reason to interfere  in  the  matter.  We,  thus,  affirm  the
      judgment and order of acquittal passed by the High Court  and  dismiss
      the present appeal.



                                                            ....……………………..J.
                                              (Pinaki Chandra Ghose)





                                   ………………………..J.
                                              (Uday Umesh Lalit)
      New Delhi,
      July 01, 2015

No interference in acquittal=To us, it is doubtful whether PW2 Mewa Ram could be called a natural and truthful witness and could be completely relied upon. The movements of Akash are also not established to show that he was actually there as suggested by the witness. Since PW2 Mewa Ram is the sole witness and the entire case depends on his testimony, we have looked for even minutest detail which could possibly lend corroboration. We have however not been able to locate any such material. In order to evoke confidence and place intrinsic reliance on the testimony of this sole witness, we tried to find some corroboration on material particulars, which unfortunately is lacking. The assessment of the entire material has left many doubts and questions unanswered. Two facts, that the baithak was of ownership of the respondents and that the body of Akash was found there, though very crucial, cannot by themselves be sufficient to fix the liability. The baithak was not part of the house, was across the road and apparently accessible to others. And importantly, presence of respondents--whether some or all of them, has not been fully established. -According to the prosecution the weapon was blood stained and was kept in the folds of dhoti by said Sanjay. However, no such blood stained dhoti of respondent Sanjay was recovered. For that matter no blood stained clothes were recovered from any of the respondents though they were supposed to be authors of the crime which left body of Akash in a pool of blood. Even the blood stains found on the cemented portion from Chamunda Math, though of human origin, were quite disintegrated as per FSL examination.In the circumstances and particularly when we are considering an appeal against acquittal, the interference in the present case would be justified and called for, only if we were to find the testimony of the sole witness of such character that it could be fully relied upon. In the present matter where the accused are being tried for an offence punishable with capital punishment, the scrutiny needs to be stricter. In our view the material on record definitely falls short and the respondents are entitled to benefit of doubt. We, therefore, affirm the view taken by the High Court and dismiss the state appeals. The appeal preferred by the Complainant is also dismissed.

                                                                  Reportable


                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                       CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.623-24/2008


State of U.P.                                          …. Appellant

                                   Versus

Satveer & Ors.                                        …. Respondents

                          With Crl. A. 622 OF 2008


                               J U D G M E N T



Uday Umesh Lalit, J.



1.    These appeals by Special Leave arise out of judgment and  order  dated
24.04.2007 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad  in  Criminal
Appeal  No.7911  of  2006  and  Criminal  Reference  No.15  of  2006.  While
rejecting the Reference, the High Court allowed  the  Appeal  and  acquitted
the respondents of the charges under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.

2.    Pursuant to the statement of PW1 Roop Basant recorded by scribe  Soran
Lal at 12:45 p.m. on 24.02.2006, Crime  No.23  was  registered  with  Police
Station Khurja Dehaat, Bulandshahar against the respondents. It was  alleged
that on that day Akash aged about 8 years, nephew of said  PW1  was  playing
near Ambedkar Park. At about 10 a.m. respondent Subhadra took said Akash  to
her baithak, which was seen by villagers Mewa Ram and Vijay  Pal.   At  that
time three sons of said Subhadra, who along with  Subhadra  are  respondents
herein, were sitting in the Verandah. They went inside  taking  Akash  along
with them and did not come out for about half an hour. It was  alleged  that
the respondents then came  out  with  a  “thaal”  filled  with  articles  of
worship (pooja samagri) and went towards Chamunda Math  for  worship.  Since
Mewa Ram and Vijay Pal did not see Akash coming  out,  they  suspected  some
foul play and soon after the respondents had left  for  Chamunda  Math  they
went inside the baithak. As they entered, they saw dead body of Akash  lying
in a pool of blood with nostrils and ears cut.  They  raised  hue  and  cry,
which attracted    number of villagers.  When  the  villagers  saw  body  of
Akash, the situation took an ugly turn and there  was  complete  chaos.  The
people then went to the Math and assaulted the respondents.

3.     The police thereafter arrived in the village and  Inquest  Panchanama
was conducted  between  2:30  p.m.  to  4:00  p.m.  Around  this  time,  the
respondents were arrested at about 3:30 p.m. After the inquest, the body  of
Akash was sent for post mortem. PW7 Dr. Rajesh Kumar conducted  post  mortem
at 4:30 p.m and found following ante mortem injuries on  the  body  of  said
Akash :-
An incised wound size 1cm X 0.5cm X muscle &  cartilage  deep  present  over
pinna of right ear.
2.     A contusion 5 cms X 3 cms  present  over  right  side  of  face  just
anterior to the right ear.
A braded contusions 5 cms X 3 cms present over left side of face 3 cms  away
from nose.
4.    A contusion 4 cms X 3 cms present over left side of face  3  cms  away
from nose
5.    An incised wound 1 cm X .5 cm X muscle &  cartilage  and  muscle  deep
present over left side of nostril.
6     An incised wound 1 cm X .5 cm X muscle & cartilage deep  present  over
right side of nostril.
7.    An incised wound 1 cm X .5 cm X muscle deep present over tip of chin.
8.    Multiple contusion in the area of 7cms X 5 cms over anterior  &  right
side of neck at the level of Adam’s apple
9.    Abraded contusion 4 cms x 4cms present over anterior  aspect  of  neck
over Adam’s apple and towards left side.

It was found that there was bleeding from the mouth  and  nostrils.  As  per
PW7 Dr. Rajesh Kumar,  the  cause  of  death  was  asphyxia  resulting  from
throttling. The witness stated that injury Nos.1, 5, 6 and 7  were  possible
by a sharp cutting weapon.

While the respondents were arrested, on personal search of  accused  Sanjay,
blood stained dharati or sickle was recovered. Since  the  respondents  were
found to be having injuries, they were referred to PW3  Dr.  A.  Kumar,  who
found seventeen injuries on the body of respondent  Sanjay,  one  injury  on
the  body  of  respondent  Satveer  and  four  injuries  on  the  person  of
respondent Subhadra.  The injuries were fresh and  in  the  opinion  of  the
witness  were  possibly  received  around  11:15  a.m.  on  the  same   day.
Investigating Officer  prepared  Site  plan  Ext.Ka-15  according  to  which
baithak in question was about 12’ x 12’  with  one  door  and  an  adjoining
verandah in front and the  baithak  was  bounded  by  a  boundary  wall.  He
recovered blood stained earth from the baithak and  blood  stained  cemented
portion from Chamunda Math, which blood was  later  found  to  be  of  human
origin.

After  completing  investigation,  charge  sheet  was  filed   against   the
respondents and they were tried in the court of  Additional  Sessions  Judge
(Fast Track Court), Bulandshahar  in  Sessions  Trial  No.516  of  2006  for
having committed the offences under Section 302 read  with  Section  34  IPC
and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act. The prosecution in  support  of
its case examined seven witnesses including two Doctors namely  PWs3  and  7
and Informant Roop Basant as PW1. Mewa Ram  was  examined  as  PW2.  In  his
testimony PW2 stated that on 21.02.2006 at about 10:00  a.m.  while  he  was
sitting in front of Ambedkar Park on a bench outside the clinic of a  doctor
along with Vijay Pal, he saw respondent Subhadra take Akash to  the  baithak
by holding his arm, where respondents  Satveer,  Sanjay  and  Shishpal  were
already present.  All the respondents then went inside along with Akash  and
did not come out for about half an hour.  Thereafter  the  respondents  came
out with a “thaal” with “pooja samagri”  and  went  towards  Chamunda  Math.
Since Akash was nowhere to be seen, the  witness  and  Vijay  Pal  suspected
foul play. They immediately went inside the baithak and saw  the  dead  body
of Akash lying in a pool of blood. He further stated that in  Chamunda  Math
he could see stains of blood  on  cemented  portion  and  according  to  the
witness the respondents were indulging in Tantrism. The witness stated  that
the injuries on the person of respondents were as a result of beating  given
by the villagers and that the respondents had thereafter fled away.  In  the
cross examination of the witness nothing was suggested to  the  effect  that
said baithak was not of the ownership and control of the respondents.

The Trial Court after considering the  material  on  record  found  the  eye
witness account coming from PW2 Mewa Ram to  be  trustworthy  and  that  the
case was fully established against the respondents.  It  recorded  findings;
a) That on 24.02.2006 at about  10:00  O’clock  accused  Subhadra  took  the
deceased Akash by holding his hand to their baithak.  b)  That  the  accused
Satveer, Sanjay and Shishpal also accompanied Subhadra  while  going  inside
the baithak. c) That all the accused Subhadra, Sanjay, Shishpal and  Satveer
came out of baithak after 20-25 minutes.  d)  That  they  were  holding  the
Pooja Samagiri. e) That all the accused offered prayer at Chamunda Math  and
offered flowers, batasa and lit the lamp there. f) That  PW2  Mewa  Ram  had
seen the dead body of Akash and found that ears and nose of Akash  were  cut
and he was in pool of blood. g) That PW2 Mewa Ram was sitting on  the  bench
near the clinic of a doctor which was 10-12 feet  away  from  the  place  of
incident. h) That the dead body of deceased Akash was found in  the  baithak
of accused persons which proved the death or  human  sacrifice  by  all  the
accused persons.

The Trial Court convicted  the  respondents  under  Section  302  read  with
Section 34 IPC. After considering the submissions advanced on behalf of  the
prosecution and the respondents on the issue of punishment, the Trial  Court
by its further order found the case to be rarest of rare warranting  extreme
punishment  of  death  penalty.  It  thus  imposed  death  penalty  on   the
respondents subject to confirmation by the High Court.

7.    The matter reached the High Court upon Reference so made by the  Trial
Court.  The  respondents  also  preferred  Crl.  Appeal  No.7911   of   2006
challenging their conviction and sentence. By its judgment under appeal  the
High Court rejected the Reference and  allowed  the  Appeal  acquitting  the
respondents of the charges leveled against them.  The  High  Court  accepted
that the prosecution had proved that Akash a boy of eight years was done  to
death at about 10 a.m. on 24.02.2006 in the baithak  owned  by  respondents.
It however took the view that  the  prosecution  had  failed  to  prove  the
complicity of the respondents in the offence. It observed  that  looking  to
its contents and language, the First Information Report did  not  appear  to
be a genuine document and the  scribe  Soran  Lal  was  also  not  examined.
According to the High Court it did not stand to reason that large number  of
villagers had apprehended the respondents and given them thrashing  and  yet
allowed them to escape, that respondent Subhadra, a lady of 58 years,  would
so succeed in running away. It also found force in  the  contention  of  the
respondents that the place of occurrence was an open  place  and  accessible
to all.

8.     The  State  being  aggrieved  has  preferred   the   instant   appeal
challenging the order of acquittal passed by the High Court.  The  informant
Roop Basant also filed Crl.  Appeal  No.622  of  2008.  Mr.  Ratnakar  Dash,
learned Senior Advocate appearing for the State contended that the  evidence
on record clearly established that PW2 Mewa Ram had seen Akash  being  taken
inside the baithak by the respondents, that the respondents came  out  after
about 25 minutes without said Akash and proceeded towards Chamunda Math  and
that being suspicious the witness and Vijay  Pal  entered  the  baithak  and
found the body lying in a pool of blood. It was submitted that  nothing  was
brought in the cross examination of the witness that  the  baithak  was  not
under the control of the respondents accused.  Though  separate  appeal  was
preferred by informant Roop Basant, none appeared in support  thereof.  Mrs.
Rani Chabra appeared for the respondents and supported the  assessment  made
and conclusions drawn by the High Court. It was submitted that there was  no
direct evidence regarding murder by the  respondents  and  that  except  PW2
Mewa Ram none of the villagers was examined by the prosecution.

9.    In the instant case two facts were accepted to  have  been  proved  on
record by the trial court as well as the High Court, namely,  (a)  the  dead
body of Akash was found inside the baithak and (b) said baithak belonged  to
the respondents.  The prosecution has examined only  one  witness  i.e.  PW2
Mewa Ram who can throw some light. The spot panchnama Ext. Ka-15 shows  that
on one side of the road is the house of the respondents  next  to  which  is
Chamunda Math and on the other side of the road is the baithak in  question.
 Thus, according to the sole witness he saw respondent Subhadra coming  from
her house on one side of the  road  and  then  proceeding  across  the  road
towards the baithak  holding  the  arm  of  Akash.   According  to  him  the
respondents were inside the baithak for some 20-25 minutes,  and  when  they
went towards Chamunda Math i.e. to the  other  side  of  the  road,  he  and
Vijaypal could immediately enter the baithak and see the dead body lying  in
a pool of blood, which meant that the baithak was not locked at all.

10.   It is the case of the prosecution that the victim  was  last  seen  in
the company of the respondents.  The “last seen” theory in the present  case
has two facets, (i) in terms of proximity of time and (ii)  as  regards  the
place itself, as the dead body of Ashok was found from the very  same  place
where the victim was seen to have been taken by the  respondents.   The  law
on the point is summed up by this Court in State of  U.P.  v.  Satish[1]  as
under:
“The last seen theory comes into play where the time-gap between  the  point
of time when the accused and the deceased were seen last alive and when  the
deceased is found dead is so small that  possibility  of  any  person  other
than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible.”

11.   The last seen theory in the present case having  dimensions  in  terms
of time as well place, would certainly clinch the matter  if  the  testimony
of PW2 Mewa Ram is accepted.  Everything hinges on his testimony. He is  the
sole witness. It was stated by this Court in Joseph v.  State  of  Kerala[2]
that where there is a sole witness his evidence has to be accepted  with  an
amount of caution and after testing it on the touchstone of  other  material
on record.  Further, in State of Haryana v. Inder Singh[3] it was laid  down
that the testimony of a  sole  witness  must  be  confidence  inspiring  and
beyond suspicion,  thus,  leaving  no  doubt  in  the  mind  of  the  Court.
Noticing  these  two  Judgments  this  Court  in  Ramnaresh  v.   State   of
Chhattisgarh[4] summed up the principles as under:
“The principles stated in these judgments are indisputable.  None  of  these
judgments say that the testimony of the sole  eyewitness  cannot  be  relied
upon or conviction of an accused cannot be based upon the statement  of  the
sole eye-witness to the crime. All that is needed is that the  statement  of
the sole eye-witness should be reliable, should not leave any doubt  in  the
mind of the Court and has to be corroborated by other evidence  produced  by
the prosecution in relation to commission of the crime  and  involvement  of
the accused in committing such a crime.”

          The evidence of the sole witness thus needs to be considered  with
caution and after testing  it  against  other  material  and  further,  such
evidence must inspire confidence and ought to be beyond suspicion.

12.   We now proceed to examine the testimony of the  sole  witness  in  the
context of the material on  record.   According  to  PW2  Mewa  Ram  he  was
sitting on a bench in front of the clinic of a doctor with Vijaypal when  he
saw Akash being led inside the baithak by the respondents.  Apart  from  his
own testimony nothing has been placed on record  by  the  prosecution  which
could lend corroboration  to  his  own  presence  and  the  content  of  his
version.  First, no reason has been given why Mewa  Ram  and  Vijaypal  were
sitting on the bench outside the clinic of the doctor.  Neither  the  doctor
nor Vijaypal were examined.  Beyond the testimony  of  the  witness  himself
there is nothing to indicate whether PW2 Mewa Ram was actually there at  the
relevant  time  or  not.   Secondly,  the  place  from  where  he  allegedly
witnessed the occurrence is not a natural place  where  either  the  witness
resides or carries on any vocation.  The reason for his being there  is  not
placed on record.  Again the reason for his continuing to be there  for  20-
25 minutes is also not spelt out.  Thirdly, none from  the  house  of  Akash
was examined nor did PW1 Roop Basant throw any light as to when  Akash  left
the house and in whose company was he playing.  Neither has the  prosecution
given the names of those children nor has anybody else been examined to  say
that he had seen the children playing at the place in  question.   There  is
nothing on record which could corroborate that Akash  was  actually  present
with other children.  Fourthly, there is nothing to  indicate  how  far  was
the house of Akash and whether that was the normal place where  Akash  would
always be playing. Lastly, if the incident created chaos in the  village  so
much so that the villagers went and thrashed the respondents,  there  is  no
reason why none of them was examined.

13.   As regards his version about the incident,  the  manner  in  which  it
statedly occurred, the involvement of the respondents--whether all  or  some
of them, we have nothing on record which could possibly  allow  us  to  test
the veracity of the version of the sole  witness.  To  us,  it  is  doubtful
whether PW2 Mewa Ram could be called a  natural  and  truthful  witness  and
could be completely relied upon.   The  movements  of  Akash  are  also  not
established to show that he was actually there as suggested by the  witness.
 Since PW2 Mewa Ram is the sole witness and the entire case depends  on  his
testimony, we have looked for even  minutest  detail  which  could  possibly
lend corroboration.  We have however  not  been  able  to  locate  any  such
material. In order to evoke confidence and place intrinsic reliance  on  the
testimony of this sole witness, we  tried  to  find  some  corroboration  on
material particulars, which unfortunately is lacking. The assessment of  the
entire material has left many doubts and questions unanswered.   Two  facts,
that the baithak was of ownership of the respondents and that  the  body  of
Akash was  found  there,  though  very  crucial,  cannot  by  themselves  be
sufficient to fix the liability.  The baithak was not  part  of  the  house,
was across the road and apparently accessible to others.   And  importantly,
presence of respondents--whether some or all of them,  has  not  been  fully
established.

14.   Now the other features on record need consideration.  The  respondents
were apprehended the same day when one of them i.e.  respondent  Sanjay  was
allegedly found to be in possession of  blood  stained  dharati  or  sickle.
According to the prosecution the weapon was blood stained and  was  kept  in
the folds of dhoti by said Sanjay.  However, no such blood stained dhoti  of
respondent Sanjay was recovered. For that matter no  blood  stained  clothes
were recovered from any of the respondents though they were supposed  to  be
authors of the crime which left body of Akash in a pool of blood.  Even  the
blood stains found on the cemented portion from  Chamunda  Math,  though  of
human origin, were quite disintegrated as per FSL examination.

15.   In the circumstances and  particularly  when  we  are  considering  an
appeal against acquittal, the interference in  the  present  case  would  be
justified and called for, only if we were to find the testimony of the  sole
witness of such character that it  could  be  fully  relied  upon.   In  the
present matter where the accused are being tried for an  offence  punishable
with capital punishment, the scrutiny needs to be  stricter.   In  our  view
the material on record  definitely  falls  short  and  the  respondents  are
entitled to benefit of doubt. We, therefore, affirm the view  taken  by  the
High Court and dismiss the  state  appeals.  The  appeal  preferred  by  the
Complainant is also dismissed.



                                  ………………………J.
                                  (Pinaki Chandra Ghose)



                                  ………………………J.
                                  (Uday Umesh Lalit)
New Delhi
July 01, 2015






                           -----------------------
[1]    (2005) 3 SCC 114
[2]    (2003) 1 SCC 465
[3]    (2002) 9 SCC 537
[4]     (2012) 4 SCC 257

-----------------------
15

Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation General Regulations, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Regulations’) had also been referred to by the learned counsel. The said Regulation 22 reads as under : “22. The amounts repayable to the Corporation under sub-section (2) of section 21 of the Act shall be paid from time to time by, - (a) the liquidator as soon as the realisations and other amounts in his hands, after making provision for expenses payable by that time, are sufficient to enable him to declare a dividend of not less than one paisa. in the Rupee to each depositor. (b) the insured bank or the transferee bank, as the case may be, as soon as the realisations and other amounts in its hands, after making provision for expenses payable by that time in respect of such realisations or other amounts in its hands are sufficient to enable it after the date of coming into force of the scheme referred to in section 18 of the Act, to pay or credit in respect of each depositor a sum not less than one paisa in the Rupee.” The aforestated Regulation 22 also provides that the Official Liquidator, after making necessary provision for the expenses in relation to the liquidation proceedings and for declaration of dividend, as prescribed in the Regulations, has to make payment to the Corporation In view of the aforestated statutory legal provision, in our opinion, the High Court should not have given the direction which, if complied with, would run contrary to the statutory provisions incorporated in the Act. Even if one looks at the entire issue from different point of view, one would believe that all the depositors have by and large equal right. If the amount deposited is less than Rs.1 lakh, each depositor gets the amount in full, but if the deposit is exceeding Rs.1 lakh, then only the amount which is in excess of Rs.1 lakh may not be given to the depositor, unless the bank in liquidation is having sufficient funds which can be given to all on pro-rata basis after providing for expenditure in the liquidation proceedings and after repaying the amount to the Corporation as per the provisions of the Act. The Act in a way guarantees repayment of Rs.1 lakh to each depositor. The High Court or any other authority has no power to direct payment in excess of Rs.1 lakh by ignoring statutory provisions of the Act and the Regulations made thereunder.

   Deposit Insurance and  Credit  Guarantee  Corporation (hereinafter referred  to  as  ‘the  Corporation’). = Theni  Cooperative  Urban Bank Ltd., doing its banking business mainly  in  District  Theni  of  Tamil Nadu.  The aforestated Bank, which had been registered as  an  insured  bank with the Corporation on 1st July, 1980, was in  financial  difficulties  and therefore, the Reserve Bank  of  India  had  cancelled  its  licence  to  do banking business under Section 22 of the Banking Regulations  Act,  1949  on 23rd May, 2002.  However, the said order cancelling the licence was kept  in abeyance for a period of six months by an order dated 7th June, 2002.      Ultimately, the said bank could  not  discharge  its  obligations  and therefore, on 24th December, 2002, the Joint Registrar of  the  Co-operative Societies, Theni, was appointed as  an  Official  Liquidator  to  carry  out liquidation proceedings.=As the Corporation had insured the bank, as per the provisions of  the Act, the Corporation settled the  statutory  claims  of  the  depositors  by releasing a sum of Rs.3,26,87,846.12, and thereby maximum amount payable  to each depositor had been paid.   Thus, the amount which the  Corporation  was liable to pay to the depositors under the provisions of Section  16  of  the Act had been paid by the Corporation through the Official Liquidator.=  Though the aforestated amount had been released  by  the  Corporation,
all the depositors could not be paid the entire amount  they  had  deposited
with the bank because the amount insured in respect of  each  depositor  was
only Rs.1 lakh.  So, those who had deposited more than one lakh rupees  with
the bank, were not paid the amount to the extent  to  which  their  deposits
exceeded Rs.1 lakh.=Ultimately, after hearing the learned counsel, the High Court  came  to  the
conclusion that the Corporation had no preferential  right  and  the  amount
which was with the Official Liquidator should have  been  distributed  among
the depositors.  The Official Liquidator as well as the Special Officer  had
been directed to carry out the said instructions within a particular  period
and thus the writ appeal had been disposed of.
  The Corporation was not a party before the High Court, but  the  right
of the  Corporation  to  get  back  the  amount  in  preference  over  other
depositors in pursuance of the provisions of the Act was adversely  affected
by virtue of the impugned judgment and therefore, the Corporation filed  the
Special Leave Petition which  has  now  been  converted  into  this  appeal.
 The Corporation was not represented before the learned  Single  Judge,
but at least before the Division Bench, the learned  counsel  appearing  for
the Official Liquidator had drawn attention of the Bench to the  aforestated
legal provisions of the Act.   Moreover, provisions of Regulation 22 of  the
Deposit Insurance and  Credit  Guarantee  Corporation  General  Regulations,
1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Regulations’) had also  been  referred
to by the learned counsel.
The said Regulation 22 reads as under :

“22. The amounts repayable to  the  Corporation  under  sub-section  (2)  of
section 21 of the Act shall be paid from time to time by, -

(a) the liquidator as soon as the realisations  and  other  amounts  in  his
hands, after making  provision  for  expenses  payable  by  that  time,  are
sufficient to enable him to declare a dividend of not less than  one  paisa.
in the Rupee to each depositor.

(b) the insured bank or the transferee bank, as the case may be, as soon  as
the realisations and other amounts in its hands, after making provision  for
expenses payable by that time in  respect  of  such  realisations  or  other
amounts in its hands are sufficient to enable it after the  date  of  coming
into force of the scheme referred to in section 18 of the  Act,  to  pay  or
credit in respect of each depositor a sum not less than  one  paisa  in  the
Rupee.”



   The  aforestated  Regulation  22  also  provides  that  the  Official
Liquidator, after making necessary provision for the  expenses  in  relation
to  the  liquidation  proceedings  and  for  declaration  of  dividend,   as
prescribed in the Regulations, has to make payment to the Corporation

In view of the aforestated statutory legal provision, in our  opinion,
the High Court should not have given the direction which, if complied  with,
would run contrary to the statutory provisions incorporated in the Act.

 Even if one looks at the entire issue from different  point  of  view,
one would believe that all the depositors have by and large equal right.  If
the amount deposited is less than Rs.1 lakh, each depositor gets the  amount
in full, but if the deposit is exceeding Rs.1 lakh,  then  only  the  amount
which is in excess of Rs.1 lakh may not be given to  the  depositor,  unless
the bank in liquidation is having sufficient funds which  can  be  given  to
all on pro-rata basis after providing for  expenditure  in  the  liquidation
proceedings and after repaying the amount to  the  Corporation  as  per  the
provisions of the Act.   The Act in a way guarantees repayment of Rs.1  lakh
to each depositor.  The High Court or any other authority has  no  power  to
direct payment in excess of Rs.1 lakh by ignoring  statutory  provisions  of
the Act and the Regulations made thereunder.

                                                               REPORTABLE



                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                        CIVIL APPEAL NO.1035 OF 2008


DEPOSIT INSURANCE & CREDIT
GUARANTEE CORPORATION                 ... APPELLANT


                                   VERSUS

RAGUPATHI RAGAVAN & ORS.            ... RESPONDENTS


                                    WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1116, 1923, 1924, 1925,  1926,  1927,  1928,  1929,  1930,
1931, 1932, 1934 AND 1935 OF 2009, CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5333, 5334, 5335,  5336
AND 5337-5339 OF 2012.

                               J U D G M E N T



ANIL R. DAVE, J.



1.    Judgment dated 20th November, 2006 delivered in Writ Appeal No.261  of
2006 by the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has  been  challenged  in
the main appeal.  For the sake of convenience, we have considered  facts  of
the main case for deciding the common  issues  which  are  involved  in  all
these appeals.

2.    The appellant, who has approached this Court, was not a party  to  the
litigations before the High Court, but  has  been  constrained  to  approach
this Court as the direction given by the learned Single Judge as well as  by
the Division Bench of the High Court in the aforestated writ appeal  affects
the appellant adversely  and  therefore,  the  appellant  had  submitted  an
application for permission to file the Special Leave  Petition  against  the
aforestated judgment.  Permission was granted to the present  appellant  and
therefore, this appeal.

3.    The appellant is Deposit Insurance and  Credit  Guarantee  Corporation
(hereinafter referred  to  as  ‘the  Corporation’).   The  function  of  the
Corporation is to insure  deposits  made  by  depositors  with  the  banking
companies  and  the  said  Corporation  has  been  constituted   under   the
provisions of Section 3(1) of the Deposit  Insurance  and  Credit  Guarantee
Corporation Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).  The  Act  had
been enacted with a very laudable purpose.  Normally a person  deposits  his
savings or invests his money by way of a saving  bank  account  or  a  fixed
deposit with banking companies, including cooperative banks, without  taking
much care of ascertaining financial condition of the bank, possibly  because
of the trust reposed by him in the Reserve Bank of  India,  which  regulates
the banking business in the country.

4.    In the  event  of  any  financial  difficulty  faced  by  the  banking
company, the depositors would generally lose  substantial  amount  of  their
deposits, in whichever form  made,  because  normally  at  the  end  of  the
winding-up proceedings, the unsecured creditors get very little amount.   So
as to safeguard the interest of such  small  depositors  or  investors,  who
have parked their funds with banking companies, the Act had been enacted  to
insure the amount deposited by the depositors and to guarantee repayment  of
certain amount to such investors, when the banking company is  in  financial
difficulty and is ultimately wound-up.

5.    In the instant case, we are concerned  with  Theni  Cooperative  Urban
Bank Ltd., doing its banking business mainly  in  District  Theni  of  Tamil
Nadu.  The aforestated Bank, which had been registered as  an  insured  bank
with the Corporation on 1st July, 1980, was in  financial  difficulties  and
therefore, the Reserve Bank  of  India  had  cancelled  its  licence  to  do
banking business under Section 22 of the Banking Regulations  Act,  1949  on
23rd May, 2002.  However, the said order cancelling the licence was kept  in
abeyance for a period of six months by an order dated 7th June, 2002.

6.    Ultimately, the said bank could  not  discharge  its  obligations  and
therefore, on 24th December, 2002, the Joint Registrar of  the  Co-operative
Societies, Theni, was appointed as  an  Official  Liquidator  to  carry  out
liquidation proceedings.

7.    As stated hereinabove,  the  said  bank  had  been  insured  with  the
Corporation and therefore, the Official Liquidator prepared a claim list  of
the depositors etc. as per the provisions of  Section  17  of  the  Act  and
forwarded the same to the Corporation on 21st May, 2003.

8.    As the Corporation had insured the bank, as per the provisions of  the
Act, the Corporation settled the  statutory  claims  of  the  depositors  by
releasing a sum of Rs.3,26,87,846.12, and thereby maximum amount payable  to
each depositor had been paid.   Thus, the amount which the  Corporation  was
liable to pay to the depositors under the provisions of Section  16  of  the
Act had been paid by the Corporation through the Official Liquidator.

9.    It is pertinent to note that  the  Corporation  does  not  insure  the
entire amount paid by all the depositors.  According to  the  provisions  of
Section 16 of the Act, at the relevant time the amount which was insured  in
respect of each depositor of the said bank  was  Rs.1  lakh  and  therefore,
every depositor was paid the amount of  deposit  or  a  sum  of  Rs.1  lakh,
whichever was less.

10.   Though the aforestated amount had been released  by  the  Corporation,
all the depositors could not be paid the entire amount  they  had  deposited
with the bank because the amount insured in respect of  each  depositor  was
only Rs.1 lakh.  So, those who had deposited more than one lakh rupees  with
the bank, were not paid the amount to the extent  to  which  their  deposits
exceeded Rs.1 lakh.

11.   In the aforestated background, Writ  Petition  Nos.6768  and  7372  of
2005 had been filed in the Madurai Bench of the Madras High  Court  by  some
of the depositors praying that the  amount  which  had  remained  unpaid  on
their fixed deposits be directed to be paid to them by the  Joint  Registrar
of the Co-operative Societies,  who  had  been  appointed  as  the  Official
Liquidator.  In the  said  petitions,  the  aforestated  officer,  i.e.  the
Official Liquidator as well  as  the  Special  Officer,  Theni  Co-operative
Urban  Bank  Ltd.  were  impleaded  as  respondents.    After  hearing   the
concerned parties, by an order dated 27th July,  2005,  the  learned  Single
Judge was pleased to direct the Special Officer to pay the amount  deposited
by the depositors with accrued interest thereon  within  8  weeks  from  the
date of receipt of a copy of the said order by the  Special  Officer.   Upon
perusal of the said order, it appears  that  the  said  petitions  had  been
disposed of at an admission stage and even before any  reply  was  filed  on
behalf of the Official Liquidator.

12.   Be that as it may, the said order was challenged  by  the  respondents
by filing Writ Appeal No.261 of  2006.   At  the  time  of  hearing  of  the
appeal, the learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  Official  Liquidator  had
submitted before the High Court  that  the  bank  had  been  ordered  to  be
wound–up on 24th  December,  2002,  and  an  Official  Liquidator  had  been
appointed, who had disbursed the amount received from the  Corporation.   It
had also been submitted before the High Court that upon disbursement of  the
amount received from the Corporation, the balance amount at the disposal  of
the Official Liquidator was to be refunded to the  Corporation  as  per  the
provisions of the Act as the Corporation had a preference over the claim  of
the depositors, who had already received Rs.1  lakh  from  the  Corporation.
Ultimately, after hearing the learned counsel, the High Court  came  to  the
conclusion that the Corporation had no preferential  right  and  the  amount
which was with the Official Liquidator should have  been  distributed  among
the depositors.  The Official Liquidator as well as the Special Officer  had
been directed to carry out the said instructions within a particular  period
and thus the writ appeal had been disposed of.

13.   The Corporation was not a party before the High Court, but  the  right
of the  Corporation  to  get  back  the  amount  in  preference  over  other
depositors in pursuance of the provisions of the Act was adversely  affected
by virtue of the impugned judgment and therefore, the Corporation filed  the
Special Leave Petition which  has  now  been  converted  into  this  appeal.
These are the circumstances in which this appeal has been placed  before  us
for hearing.

14.   According to the learned counsel for the Corporation,  the  directions
given by the learned Single Judge as well as the Division  Bench  in  appeal
by the High Court are contrary to the provisions of the Act.    The  learned
counsel had taken us through the provisions of the Act,  more  particularly,
the provisions of Sections 16, 17, 21 and  22  and  the  provisions  of  the
Banking  Regulations  Act,  1949,  so  as  to  establish  the  case  of  the
Corporation to the effect that after  payment  by  the  Corporation  to  the
depositors to the extent to which the  deposits  had  been  guaranteed,  the
surplus should be put at the disposal of  the  Corporation  subject  to  the
provision of Section 21 of the Act.  Till the said surplus is  paid  to  the
Corporation, subject to the provisions regarding making payment  of  winding
up expenditure, dividend to be paid as per the provisions of Section  21  of
the Act, the depositors could not have been given any further  amount.   Any
payment to depositors at that stage would be contrary to the  provisions  of
the Act and by virtue of the orders passed by the High Court,  the  Official
Liquidator was directed to act contrary to the provisions of the Act.

15.   It had been submitted by the learned counsel that the High  Court  did
not consider any of the provisions of the  Act  or  the  provisions  of  the
Banking Regulations Act, 1949 before passing the impugned order.   According
to him, once each depositor is paid  the  amount  deposited  or  Rs.1  lakh,
whichever is less, the Official Liquidator of the  Bank  should  have  given
the amount to the Corporation as per the provisions of  Section  21  of  the
Act.  In view of the aforestated legal position, the  High  Court  committed
an error by giving a direction to the Official Liquidator  that  the  amount
which he had, should be distributed among the depositors.   Doing  so  would
be absolutely contrary to the Scheme and spirit of  the  Act.   The  learned
counsel had narrated the object with which the Act had been enacted and  the
Corporation had been set-up, which has been narrated hereinabove.

16.   On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing  for  the  depositors
had submitted that it was the duty of the Official Liquidator to  distribute
the amount which he had with him among the  depositors  as  it  is  done  in
insolvency/winding-up  proceedings.    According  to  him,  the  Corporation
having paid the amount which it had guaranteed to pay, had no right  to  get
any amount from the Official Liquidator as the bank had been paying  premium
to the Corporation  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  the  Act  and
therefore, it was the  duty  of  the  Corporation  to  disburse  the  amount
guaranteed among the depositors.  After paying the said amount,
the Corporation had no right of whatsoever type to get any amount  from  the
Official Liquidator or the Special Officer.

17.   We have heard the learned counsel at length and have  also  considered
some judgments referred to by them and the provisions of  the  Act  and  the
Banking Regulations Act, 1949.

18.   Upon hearing  the  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  parties  and
looking at the facts of the case, we  are  of  the  view  that  this  appeal
deserves to be allowed.  We note the fact that  Writ  Petition  Nos.6768  of
2005 and 7372 of 2005 had been finally disposed of at  an  admission  stage.
In the said petitions, the present appellant  Corporation  was  not  made  a
party, though it was stated before the learned Single Judge  that  according
to the statutory provisions of the Act, the Official Liquidator had to  make
payment to the Corporation.    In  view  of  the  said  submission,  in  our
opinion, it would have been better if the Corporation had been impleaded  as
one of the respondents.  In that event, the stand  of  the  Corporation  and
the provisions of the Act could have been known in  detail  by  the  learned
Single Judge.

19.   Be that as it may, now we are concerned with a direction given by  the
High Court to the Official Liquidator and the Special Officer of  the  Bank,
which is in liquidation, whereby they have been directed to pay  the  unpaid
amount to the depositors instead of paying the same to the Corporation.

20.   The object with which  the  Act  has  been  enacted  has  been  stated
hereinabove in a nutshell.  The object was to insure the depositors so  that
they may not have to stand in a queue before  the  Official  Liquidator  for
every paisa deposited by them with the concerned bank.  As on today, as  per
the provisions of Section 16(1) of the Act, a sum  of  Rs.1  lakh  is  being
insured or guaranteed in respect of each depositor.  So a depositor is  safe
and he has not to wash his hands off his deposit if the amount deposited  by
him is less than Rs.1 lakh.  The Official Liquidator, as per the  provisions
of the Act, has  to  give  details  about  the  depositors  and  the  amount
deposited by them in a prescribed form within three months from the date  on
which the liquidation order is passed or from the  day  on  which  he  takes
charge, whichever is later and within two months from the date on which  the
details are submitted to the  Corporation,   the  Corporation  has  to  make
payment to the above extent either to the depositors  directly  or  to  them
through the Official Liquidator.

21.   Thus, as per the  above-referred  Scheme,  each  depositor,  including
each original petitioner, must have received Rs.1  lakh  from  the  Official
Liquidator.  Initially, upon the bank being  ordered  to  be  wound-up,  the
original petitioners and other depositors had a right to recover  Rs.1  lakh
or the amount deposited, whichever was less, from  the  Official  Liquidator
and the said amount must had been paid  to  them  when  the  petitions  were
filed.

22.   According to the provisions of the Act, after  payment  to  the  above
extent is made to  each  depositor,  if  any  amount  is  available  at  the
disposal of the Official Liquidator, which he might have recovered from  the
borrowers or from other sources, he has  to  pay  the  said  amount  to  the
extent to which the amount had been paid  by  the  Corporation  as  per  the
provisions of Section 21 of the Act.  Section 21 of the Act reads  as  under
:-

“21. (1) Where any amount has been paid under section 17 or  section  18  or
any provision therefor has been  made  under  section  20,  the  Corporation
shall furnish to the liquidator or to the insured bank or to the  transferee
bank, as the case may be, information as  regards  the  amount  so  paid  or
provided for.

2) On receipt of the  information  under  sub-section  (1),  notwithstanding
anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the  time  being  in
force, -

(a) the liquidator shall, within such time and in  such  manner  as  may  be
prescribed, repay to the Corporation out of the amount, if  any  payable  by
him in respect of any deposit such sum or sums as make up  the  amount  paid
or provided for by the Corporation in respect of that deposit;

(b) the insured bank or, as the case may be,  the  transferee  bank,  shall,
within such time and in such manner as  may  be  prescribed,  repay  to  the
Corporation out of the amount, if any, to be paid or credited in respect  of
any deposit after the date of the coming into force of the  scheme  referred
to in section 18, such sum or sums as make up the amount  paid  or  provided
for by the Corporation in respect of that deposit.”


23.   It is pertinent to note that when the  Corporation  had  paid  to  the
depositors as per the insurance scheme under the Act, the  Corporation  gets
a right under the aforestated Section 21 of the Act to get  money  from  the
Official Liquidator.

24.    One  has  to  look  at  sub-Section  (2)  of  Section  21,  which  in
unequivocal terms, directs the Official Liquidator to make  the  payment  to
the  Corporation  as  it  has  been  stated   in   the   said   sub-section,
notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for  the
time being in force.  Thus, the Official Liquidator, as per clause  2(a)  of
Section 21 of the Act, has to repay the amount to the Corporation.

25.   The aforestated Section 21 not only makes it obligatory  on  the  part
of the Official Liquidator to repay the said amount to the Corporation,  but
it also clarifies that there shall not be any  other  preferential  creditor
who would be getting any  amount  from  the  Official  Liquidator  till  the
amount payable under Section 21 of the Act is paid to the Corporation.

26.   In view of the aforestated clear legal position, in our  opinion,  the
High Court was not  right  when  it  directed  the  Official  Liquidator  to
determine  the  mode  of  payment  by  ignoring  the  aforestated  statutory
provision.

27.   The Corporation was not represented before the learned  Single  Judge,
but at least before the Division Bench, the learned  counsel  appearing  for
the Official Liquidator had drawn attention of the Bench to the  aforestated
legal provisions of the Act.   Moreover, provisions of Regulation 22 of  the
Deposit Insurance and  Credit  Guarantee  Corporation  General  Regulations,
1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Regulations’) had also  been  referred
to by the learned counsel. The said Regulation 22 reads as under :

“22. The amounts repayable to  the  Corporation  under  sub-section  (2)  of
section 21 of the Act shall be paid from time to time by, -

(a) the liquidator as soon as the realisations  and  other  amounts  in  his
hands, after making  provision  for  expenses  payable  by  that  time,  are
sufficient to enable him to declare a dividend of not less than  one  paisa.
in the Rupee to each depositor.

(b) the insured bank or the transferee bank, as the case may be, as soon  as
the realisations and other amounts in its hands, after making provision  for
expenses payable by that time in  respect  of  such  realisations  or  other
amounts in its hands are sufficient to enable it after the  date  of  coming
into force of the scheme referred to in section 18 of the  Act,  to  pay  or
credit in respect of each depositor a sum not less than  one  paisa  in  the
Rupee.”



28.    The  aforestated  Regulation  22  also  provides  that  the  Official
Liquidator, after making necessary provision for the  expenses  in  relation
to  the  liquidation  proceedings  and  for  declaration  of  dividend,   as
prescribed in the Regulations, has to make payment to the Corporation.

29.   In view of the aforestated statutory legal provision, in our  opinion,
the High Court should not have given the direction which, if complied  with,
would run contrary to the statutory provisions incorporated in the Act.

30.   Even if one looks at the entire issue from different  point  of  view,
one would believe that all the depositors have by and large equal right.  If
the amount deposited is less than Rs.1 lakh, each depositor gets the  amount
in full, but if the deposit is exceeding Rs.1 lakh,  then  only  the  amount
which is in excess of Rs.1 lakh may not be given to  the  depositor,  unless
the bank in liquidation is having sufficient funds which  can  be  given  to
all on pro-rata basis after providing for  expenditure  in  the  liquidation
proceedings and after repaying the amount to  the  Corporation  as  per  the
provisions of the Act.   The Act in a way guarantees repayment of Rs.1  lakh
to each depositor.  The High Court or any other authority has  no  power  to
direct payment in excess of Rs.1 lakh by ignoring  statutory  provisions  of
the Act and the Regulations made thereunder.

31.   For the aforestated reason, we are of the view  that  the  High  Court
had exceeded  its  authority  while  giving  a  direction  to  the  Official
Liquidator, which is not in consonance with  the  statutory  provisions  and
therefore, we set aside the judgment and  order  delivered  by  the  learned
Single Judge  as  also  by  the  Division  Bench  and  direct  the  Official
Liquidator and the Special Officer to act in accordance with  the  statutory
provisions.

32.   The appeal is, accordingly, allowed with no order as to costs.

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.1116, 1923, 1924,  1925,  1926,  1927,  1928,  1929,  1930,
1931, 1932, 1934 AND 1935 OF 2009



33.   So far as Appeal No.1116 of 2009 and similar  matters  are  concerned,
we record the fact that they have been filed at an interlocutory  stage  and
therefore, the said appeals are disposed of with a  direction  to  the  High
Court to decide the matters, which are pending before it, in  the  light  of
the law laid down hereinabove.

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.5333, 5334, 5335, 5336 AND 5337-5339 OF 2012


34.   In all the aforestated appeals, some compromise had  been  arrived  at
among the parties before the learned Single Judge, but  the  same  had  been
challenged before the Division Bench.   The Division Bench had  quashed  and
set aside the order, whereby the litigants had  entered  into  a  compromise
and the matters had been remanded to the learned Single Judge.   We  dismiss
the aforestated appeals as the matters have been  remanded  to  the  learned
Single Judge.  However, we  direct  that  the  present  appellant  shall  be
impleaded as a party-respondent before the learned Single Judge so that  all
Writ Petitions can be decided afresh after  considering  the  provisions  of
the Act and after hearing the present appellant.

35.   The appeals are, thus, disposed of with no order as to costs.




                                                      …………………………………………………….J
                                    (ANIL R. DAVE)



                                                      …………………………………………………….J
                                (DIPAK MISRA)
NEW DELHI;
JULY 01, 2015.