Mining Law – Dead Rent – Non-operational Quarry Lease – Petitioners challenged demand of dead rent for the period during which mining operations could not commence allegedly due to non-handover of possession and absence of environmental clearance – Held: Dead rent is payable irrespective of actual mining operations so long as lease subsists [Paras 4–5, 25–28].

MMDR Act, 1957 – Section 9-A – Nature and Scope – Dead rent is an independent statutory liability and not merely an enabling or ancillary provision to Section 9 (royalty) – It operates as a minimum guaranteed payment during the subsistence of lease, even if no mineral is extracted [Paras 21, 27].

Royalty vs. Dead Rent – Distinction – Royalty depends on quantity/value of minerals extracted – Dead rent is a fixed minimum annual payment based on leased area, payable whether mine is worked or not – Dead rent serves as minimum guarantee to the lessor – Lessee liable to pay whichever is higher between royalty and dead rent [Paras 19–20, 25].

Quarry Lease – Renewal – Deemed Renewal – Petitioners’ leases were cases of renewal and not fresh grants – Failure to obtain environmental clearance or commence mining does not absolve lessee from liability to pay dead rent during renewed lease period [Paras 3, 13–14].

Environmental Clearance – Effect on Liability – Mere inability to operate lease due to lack of statutory or environmental clearances does not discharge lessee from obligation to pay dead rent – Responsibility to obtain clearances lies upon lessee – Suspension or non-operation does not suspend liability under Section 9-A [Paras 14, 22].

M.P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 – Rule 30 – Non-commencement of Mining – Lessee entitled to apply for declaration of lapse or extension where mining could not commence for reasons beyond control – Failure to invoke Rule 30(7)–(10) results in continuation of lease and corresponding liability to pay dead rent [Paras 23–24].

Central Government Circular dated 09.10.2001 – Applicability – Circular relied upon by petitioners does not override statutory provisions post amendment of Section 9-A and framing of State Rules – Held not applicable to present cases governed by amended law [Paras 7–8].

Precedents – D.K. Trivedi & Sons v. State of Gujarat – Supreme Court affirmed power of State Governments under Section 15(1) MMDR Act to levy dead rent and royalty – Law no longer res integra [Paras 10–17].

Decision – All writ petitions dismissed – Demand and recovery of dead rent upheld – Interim protection vacated – Directions issued to place copy of judgment in all connected matters [Paras 29–31].

Service Law – Recruitment – Reservation for Ex-Servicemen – Horizontal vs Vertical Reservation – Illegality in Applying Vertical Reservation – Recruitment notice dated 19.02.2014 issued by MCL for 303 posts of Security Guard – 24.5% reservation for Ex-Servicemen applied as a separate vertical category – Cut-off marks for ESM-General fixed substantially lower than General category – Resulted in total reservation exceeding 50% – Held: Reservation for Ex-Servicemen is a special reservation under Article 16(1) and must operate horizontally cutting across vertical categories – Application of ESM reservation as vertical held contrary to constitutional principles and settled law [Paras 2, 4, 7, 11].

Reservation Law – Horizontal Reservation – Principles Reiterated – Horizontal reservation intended to be interlocking in nature and to be adjusted within respective vertical categories without disturbing overall reservation percentages – Reliance placed on Constitution Bench decision in Indira Sawhney v. Union of India and subsequent judgments – Held: ESM candidates must be adjusted against their respective social categories unless selected on merit in open category [Paras 7–11].

Selection Process – Participation Without Protest – Estoppel – Not Applicable in Case of Patent Illegality – Appellants contended that writ petitioners participated in selection with knowledge of ESM reservation – Held: Participation does not bar challenge when selection process itself is contrary to constitutional mandate and statutory rules – Illegality in reservation structure goes to the root of the matter [Paras 3–4, 7].

Relief – Protection of Appointed Ex-Servicemen – Creation of Supernumerary Posts – Long lapse of time and continued service of appointed ESM candidates considered – Held: Appointments of ESM candidates already appointed should not be disturbed – Directions of Single Bench to regularize such appointments by creating supernumerary posts upheld – Writ petitioners to be considered afresh against available vacancies and granted seniority over supernumerary appointees [Paras 4–6, 12–13].

Judicial Review – No Interference in Well-Reasoned Single Bench Judgment – Appellants conceded error in applying vertical reservation to Ex-Servicemen – No infirmity or illegality found in directions issued by Single Bench – Appeals found devoid of merit – Writ appeals dismissed [Paras 5, 13–14].

Decision: Writ Appeals dismissed – Judgment of Single Bench dated 17.12.2024 upheld – Directions for fresh consideration of writ petitioners and protection of Ex-Servicemen appointments affirmed – No costs.

POCSO Act, 2012 – Cross-Examination of Child Victim – Forfeiture of Right – Appellants repeatedly sought adjournments on personal grounds of counsel despite presence of child victim on several dates – Trial Court closed further cross-examination after sufficient opportunity – Held: No illegality or violation of fair trial; forfeiture justified to protect child from repeated trauma [Paras 6–7, 11–12].

Criminal Trial – Right of Cross-Examination – Not Absolute – While cross-examination is a valuable right of the accused, it is subject to statutory safeguards under special enactments – In POCSO cases, right must yield to child-friendly procedure and mandate against repeated summoning of child witnesses [Paras 9–11].

POCSO Act – Sections 33 & 35 – Duty of Special Court – Child Not to Be Repeatedly Called – Trial Court bound to ensure dignity of child, prevent aggressive questioning, and complete trial expeditiously – Repeated adjournments sought by defence contrary to statutory scheme – Held: Trial Court acted strictly in accordance with law [Paras 9–11].

SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 – Section 14(3) – Day-to-Day Trial – Expeditious Disposal – Argument that case was “only three years old” rejected – Statutory mandate requires completion of trial at the earliest – Delay attributable to defence cannot be a ground to recall child victim [Para 11].

Recall of Witness – Relevance of Proposed Questions – Appellants furnished 11 proposed questions at appellate stage – Questions not shown to be exclusively answerable by child victim and could be proved through other evidence – Held: No prejudice caused to defence [Para 12].

Transfer of Case – Irrelevance – Subsequent transfer of trial by Sessions Judge cannot invalidate earlier procedural order closing cross-examination – Appellate Court not concerned with transfer order [Para 12].

Intersectionality – Child Victim Belonging to Scheduled Caste – Special Sensitivity Required – Court noted victim was a minor girl belonging to Scheduled Caste community – Enhanced duty on courts to avoid repeated exposure and secondary victimisation [Para 11].

Decision – Criminal Appeal Dismissed – Order forfeiting further cross-examination upheld – Trial Court found to have acted within jurisdiction and statutory mandate [Final Order].

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Demand and Acceptance of Bribe – Proof – Conviction Sustained – Accused, District Officer, Ground Water Department, demanded and accepted illegal gratification from PW1 and PW2 for providing employment as casual labourers and from another person for appointment as driver – Evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW3 consistently proved demand and acceptance – Held: Proof of demand and acceptance, being sine qua non for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d), stood established beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 13–14, 25–27, 42].

Corruption Offences – Mode of Proof – Circumstantial and Oral Evidence – Absence of Trap – Demand proved through consistent testimony of complainant witnesses supported by surrounding circumstances and corroborative evidence – Held: Conviction can be sustained even without trap proceedings when demand and acceptance are otherwise proved [Paras 13–17, 26–27].

Sanction for Prosecution – Section 19 PC Act – Non-examination of Sanctioning Authority – Effect – Sanction order produced through Investigating Officer – No objection raised at trial stage – Held: When sanction order shows application of mind, non-examination of sanctioning authority is not fatal unless failure of justice is demonstrated [Paras 33–40].

Sanction – Defect or Irregularity – Appellate Interference – Saving Clause – Section 19(3) PC Act – Mere omission or irregularity in sanction does not vitiate proceedings – Interference permissible only on proof of failure of justice – Held: No failure of justice established in present case [Paras 34–40].

FIR – Preliminary Enquiry – Vigilance Cases – Non-holding of preliminary enquiry – Effect – FIR registered based on vigilance enquiry report – Held: Preliminary enquiry is not mandatory; FIR does not suffer from illegality [Paras 29–32].

Recovery of Part Amount – Defence Plea – Agreement Showing Repayment – PW1 and PW2 admitted receipt of partial amounts but denied contents of agreement – Held: Disputed defence plea cannot negate prosecution case at stage of framing charge or conviction when demand and acceptance are otherwise proved [Paras 14, 41].

Section 420 IPC – Cheating – Acquittal – Trial Court acquitted accused of offence under Section 420 IPC – Said finding not interfered with [Para 6].

Sentence – Appellate Power – Modification – Considering long lapse of time and circumstances, sentence reduced while maintaining conviction – Rigorous imprisonment reduced from two years to six months (Section 7) and one year (Section 13) – Fine maintained – Substantive sentences to run concurrently [Paras 43–44].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) PC Act confirmed – Sentence modified – Accused directed to surrender to undergo remaining sentence [Paras 44–45].

Criminal Law – Bail – Murder by Poisoning – Grant of Bail on Change in Circumstances – Petitioner (A-2) sought regular bail in a case alleging conspiracy and murder by mixing cyanide poison in alcohol of the deceased – Earlier bail application dismissed on the ground that investigation was at a crucial stage – Subsequent completion of investigation and filing of charge sheet constitutes a change in circumstances – Bail granted [Paras 1, 4, 6].

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 103(1), 61(2), 238 r/w 3(5) – Allegation of Conspiracy and Homicide – Prosecution case based on alleged extra-judicial confession made before Village Revenue Officer – Allegation that deceased misbehaved with wife of A-1 and conspiracy hatched by A-1 and A-2 – Court held that at bail stage, detailed appreciation of evidence is not warranted [Paras 3, 6].

Parity – Co-Accused Granted Bail – Relevant Consideration – Accused No.1, the prime accused, already enlarged on regular bail by the Trial Court – Principle of parity applicable in favour of petitioner – Continued incarceration of A-2 held unwarranted once investigation concluded [Paras 4–6].

Investigation Completed – Filing of Charge Sheet – No Apprehension of Tampering – Once charge sheet is filed and material witnesses examined during investigation, apprehension of tampering with evidence substantially reduces – Bail can be granted subject to stringent conditions [Para 6].

Conditions for Bail – Safeguards Imposed – Bail granted subject to execution of bond and sureties – Weekly appearance before Station House Officer till cognizance – Deposit of passport – Prohibition on leaving country and on influencing witnesses or making statements on social media – Conditions imposed to ensure fair trial [Para 7].

Decision: Criminal Petition allowed – Petitioner/Accused No.2 enlarged on regular bail subject to conditions imposed by the Court.

Partition Suit – Grandchild’s Claim – Oral Family Settlement – Proof and Effect – Plaintiff, granddaughter of original owner, sought partition of residential property alleging joint ownership and illegal exclusion – Defendants pleaded oral family arrangement whereby suit property fell to their share and another property to plaintiff’s branch – Evidence showed execution of reciprocal release deeds and receipt of consideration – Conduct of parties, including sale of property allotted to plaintiff’s branch, corroborated family settlement – Held: Oral partition/family arrangement duly proved – Suit property ceased to be joint [Paras 29–33, 38–39].

Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act – Section 8 – Transaction by Guardian Without Court Permission – Void or Voidable – Plaintiff contended that oral partition effected during her minority was void for want of court permission – Held: Section 8(3) HMGA renders such transactions voidable, not void – Transaction remains valid unless set aside by minor within limitation – Reliance placed on Vishwambhar v. Laxminarayan – Plaintiff failed to seek setting aside within prescribed period [Paras 34–37].

Limitation – Declaration – Article 58 Limitation Act – Plaintiff sought declaration that mutation and conveyance deed were null and void – Documentary evidence showed plaintiff had knowledge of impugned mutation much prior to alleged date – Limitation of three years under Article 58 runs from date when right to sue first accrues – Held: Prayer for declaration barred by limitation [Paras 21–25, 27].

Limitation – Partition – No Prescribed Period – While declaration relief was time-barred, suit for partition per se not barred by limitation – Partition is a continuing right of co-sharers – However, once oral partition proved and not set aside, no subsisting jointness survives – Reliance placed on Vidya Devi v. Prem Prakash [Paras 26–27, 38].

Registration Act – Unregistered Release Deeds – Collateral Purpose – Objection raised that unregistered release deed could not be read in evidence – Held: Under proviso to Section 49 of Registration Act, such document admissible to prove collateral transaction, namely existence of oral partition – Document not relied upon to effect transfer but to evidence family arrangement [Para 30].

Evidence – Admission by Conduct – Silence and Subsequent Acts – Signature of plaintiff’s mother on release deed not denied – Sale of property allotted to plaintiff’s branch pursuant to oral partition remained undisputed – Held: Conduct amounts to admission supporting defendants’ case – Plaintiff failed to rebut inference of prior partition [Paras 32–33, 39].

Cause of Action – Partition After Valid Family Settlement – Once oral partition stood proved and not avoided within limitation, plaintiff had no subsisting right, title or interest in suit property – Held: Suit for partition devoid of cause of action [Paras 38–40].

Decision: Suit dismissed – Prayer for declaration barred by limitation – Oral family settlement upheld – Plaintiff not entitled to partition or any other relief – No order as to costs.

NDPS Act – Regular Bail – Commercial Quantity – Section 37 – Rigours of Statute – Petitioner sought regular bail in FIR involving recovery of 195 intoxicant tablets (Etizolam) amounting to commercial quantity – Court held that once commercial quantity is involved, bail can be granted only on satisfaction of twin conditions under Section 37 NDPS Act – Mere completion of investigation or prolonged custody not sufficient ground for bail [Paras 1, 8].

NDPS Act – Conscious Possession – Prima Facie Satisfaction – Recovery allegedly effected from polythene bag thrown by petitioner at the spot – Contentions of false implication, planted recovery and lack of conscious possession held to be matters of trial – At bail stage, Court not required to conduct meticulous examination of evidence – Prima facie material sufficient to attract statutory embargo under Section 37 NDPS Act [Paras 2, 4, 8–9].

NDPS Act – Non-compliance of Sections 42 and 50 – Effect at Bail Stage – Plea of violation of mandatory provisions raised by petitioner – Held: Alleged non-compliance of Sections 42 and 50 NDPS Act is a mixed question of law and fact – Cannot be conclusively adjudicated at stage of regular bail – Such issues to be examined during trial [Paras 3, 8].

Criminal Antecedents – Impact on Bail – Petitioner found involved in other NDPS cases – Criminal antecedents weighed against grant of bail – Court held that antecedents coupled with nature of recovery indicate prima facie involvement and disentitle petitioner from discretionary relief [Paras 4, 8].

Bail Jurisprudence – Discretion of Court – NDPS Offences – Court reiterated that discretion in granting bail must be exercised judiciously keeping in view gravity of offence, severity of punishment and societal interest – In serious NDPS offences, liberty of individual must be balanced against societal interest and statutory mandate [Paras 7–9].

Decision: Petition for regular bail dismissed – Court held that no reasonable grounds exist to believe that petitioner is not guilty or that he would not commit offence while on bail – Observations made confined to bail proceedings and not to influence trial [Paras 10–11].

POCSO Act – Sexual Assault on Minor – Conviction – Prosecutrix kidnapped while going for nature’s call during marriage ceremony – Confined in accused’s house and subjected to repeated sexual intercourse – Victim recovered from accused’s house on third day – Trial Court convicted accused under IPC and POCSO provisions – High Court upheld conviction – Held: Prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 25–35].

Age Determination – Minor Victim – School Records vs. Ossification Test – Prosecutrix and parents consistently stated age to be 13–14 years – School admission register from first attended school showed date of birth as 04.07.2006 – Defence relied on doubtful scholar register showing different date of birth – Register found unauthenticated and unreliable – Held: As per Rule 12 of JJ Rules and Section 94 JJ Act, school record has precedence – Victim held to be minor on date of incident [Paras 11–18, 24].

Medical Evidence – Ossification Test – Not Mandatory – Doctor advised X-ray for age determination but ossification test not conducted – Held: Ossification test required only in absence of reliable documentary evidence – Non-conduct does not vitiate prosecution case when school records are available – Reliance placed on Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana and State of M.P. v. Anoop Singh [Paras 19–24].

Evidence Appreciation – Testimony of Prosecutrix – Credibility – Prosecutrix gave consistent and cogent account of forcible sexual intercourse – Supported by testimony of mother, father, friend and grandfather – No material contradiction elicited in cross-examination – Sole testimony of prosecutrix sufficient when found trustworthy [Paras 25–29].

Scientific Evidence – DNA Report – Corroboration – DNA analysis confirmed match between accused and biological samples of prosecutrix – Strong corroborative evidence establishing sexual intercourse by accused – Defence plea of false implication rejected [Paras 33–34].

Consent – Minor Victim – Irrelevant – Defence plea of consensual relationship rejected – Victim below 18 years of age – Consent, even if assumed, legally inconsequential under IPC and POCSO Act [Paras 34–35].

Sentence – Confirmation – Multiple offences including aggravated penetrative sexual assault – Sentence of up to 20 years’ rigorous imprisonment upheld – No mitigating circumstance warranting interference [Paras 1, 35].

Decision: Criminal Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentences imposed by Trial Court affirmed – Records directed to be sent back to Trial Court forthwith [Paras 35–36].

Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – Circumstantial Evidence – Acquittal – Accused convicted under Section 302 IPC based solely on circumstantial evidence – On appeal, High Court finds prosecution failed to establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances pointing exclusively to guilt – Benefit of doubt granted – Conviction set aside [Paras 70–74].

Circumstantial Evidence – Motive – Absence of Proof – Alleged motive that deceased decided to leave accused and return to native place – No witness proved strained relationship or immediate provocation – Evidence indicated cordial relationship between accused and deceased – Held, absence of motive assumes significance in a case resting entirely on circumstantial evidence [Paras 54–59].

Last Seen Together Theory – Reliability of Witnesses – Evidence of PWs 3, 4 and 17 relied on by trial court – High Court found material contradictions, omissions and embellishments in their testimonies – Witnesses lacked close acquaintance and consistency – Held, last seen theory not proved beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 63–66].

Recovery of Weapon – Section 27 Evidence Act – Doubtful Recovery – MO2 chopper allegedly recovered after two years from bushes near scene of occurrence – Weapon found without rust and at a place already inspected by police earlier – Held, recovery highly suspicious and unreliable, incapable of forming a vital link in the chain of circumstances [Paras 69].

Recovery of Mobile Phone – Inconsistent Evidence – Contradictions between PW5 and PW6 regarding sale or free transfer of mobile phone allegedly belonging to accused – Lack of clarity and reliability – Held, circumstance not proved beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 67–68].

Section 106 Evidence Act – Burden of Proof – Prosecution failed to first establish foundational facts – Mere failure of accused to explain circumstances cannot substitute proof of guilt – Section 106 cannot be invoked to fill gaps in prosecution case [Paras 62, 70–71].

Suspicion vs Proof – Criminal Jurisprudence – Strong suspicion cannot replace proof beyond reasonable doubt – Possibility of involvement of third parties not ruled out – Time gap between alleged last seen and death significant – Accused entitled to benefit of doubt [Paras 71–74].

Decision: Criminal Appeal Allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 302, 324 and 326 IPC set aside – Accused acquitted – Directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.