Motor Vehicles Act – Compensation Claim – Appellants, wife and daughters of Nicolau Fernandes, claimed compensation for his death in a motor vehicle accident – Tribunal rejected the claim based on findings of negligence by the deceased – High Court affirmed Tribunal’s decision – Supreme Court reversed the findings, holding accident was due to rash and negligent driving by respondent – Awarded compensation to claimants [Paras 1-10].

Evidence – Negligence and Liability – Supreme Court found Tribunal erred in rejecting evidence of claimants’ witnesses and accepting respondent’s version – Noted that the respondent was charge-sheeted and there was no medical evidence of deceased’s intoxication – Emphasized the Tribunal’s duty to assess claims based on preponderance of probabilities, not proof beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 7-8].

Compensation – Quantum – Tribunal assessed compensation at Rs. 666,041.78, withheld due to adverse findings on negligence – Supreme Court awarded the same amount with 6% interest from date of Tribunal’s award [Paras 9-10].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Orders – Compensation of Rs. 666,041.78 with interest at 6% per annum from 20.07.2004 awarded to claimants – Costs not ordered [Paras 9-10].

Criminal Law – Bail – Appellant reported attack by Kunwar Singh and others, resulting in injuries and death of appellant's son – Kunwar Singh granted bail by High Court despite criminal antecedents – Supreme Court found High Court erred in granting bail without considering past criminal record and potential for witness intimidation [Paras 1-6].

Bail Cancellation – Multiple Criminal Cases – Supreme Court emphasized the need to deny bail to individuals with multiple pending cases and likelihood of tampering with evidence – Cancelled bail of Kunwar Singh and Rafal Singh, both with significant criminal history – Upheld bail for Shashpal and Hanish due to lack of prior cases and specific allegations [Paras 5-10].

Decision – Appeals allowed in part – Orders – Bail of Kunwar Singh and Rafal Singh cancelled, directed to be taken into custody – Bail of Shashpal and Hanish upheld, with condition against witness intimidation – Observations not to affect trial merits [Paras 6, 9-10].

Criminal Law – Murder Investigation – Petitioner, widow of Madan Tamang, alleged improper investigation by state and CBI into husband's murder by Gorkha Jan Mukti Morcha supporters – Sought quashing of charge sheets and re-investigation by Special Investigation Team or further investigation by CBI – Supreme Court directed transfer of trial to Calcutta, monitored by Joint Director CBI, ensuring comprehensive investigation [Paras 1-42].

Evidence – Intercepted Telephonic Conversations – Supreme Court considered authenticity of intercepted conversations and their relevance in investigation – Emphasized importance of admissible evidence in ensuring justice – Directed forensic verification of transcripts to be included in further investigation [Paras 6-25].

Monitoring of Investigation – Role of Courts – Supreme Court highlighted judicial duty in monitoring investigations to prevent miscarriage of justice – Directed CBI to proceed with thorough investigation, ensuring all accused are brought to trial – Issued comprehensive directions for effective prosecution and trial [Paras 30-37].

Decision – Writ petition partly allowed – Orders – Transfer of trial to Calcutta Civil and Sessions Court, continued investigation by CBI under Joint Director’s supervision – CBI to file comprehensive report within three months – Further trial to proceed post-report submission – Regular updates to Supreme Court for further directions [Paras 38-42].

Criminal Law – Framing of Charges – Appellant, former Central Government minister, charged under the Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC – Special Judge directed framing of charges – Appellant, aged 98 and suffering from severe health issues, sought exemption from personal appearance – Medical board's report noted potential senile dementia, impaired memory, and other serious health conditions – Trial Court directed personal appearance despite medical findings [Paras 1-6].

Section 329 CrPC – Mental Fitness – Supreme Court emphasized need for High Court to evaluate appellant's capability to understand proceedings – Application of Section 329 CrPC in context of appellant’s age and medical condition – High Court failed to address appellant's specific medical incapacity claims [Paras 8-9].

Judicial Review – Supreme Court’s Intervention – Supreme Court remitted case to High Court for re-evaluation – Directed High Court to consider medical reports and testimony to determine appellant's fitness to face trial – Ensured fair trial without pre-judging mental fitness [Paras 10-11].

Decision – Appeals allowed in part – Orders – High Court to re-examine appellant’s medical condition and capacity to defend herself – Expedited disposal directed within three months due to delayed trial of co-accused [Paras 10-11].

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act – Confessional Statements – Appellant convicted based on confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act – Contention that such statements are inadmissible as the officer recording them is a "police officer" within the meaning of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act – Supreme Court noted that earlier judgments held NDPS officers as non-police officers, making such statements admissible – However, Court re-examined the matter considering broader interpretation and influence exerted by NDPS officers over accused persons [Paras 1-25].

Legal Interpretation – Section 67 NDPS Act – Scope and Powers – Supreme Court deliberated whether Section 67 empowers officers to record confessions and if such confessions hold evidentiary value – Noted that unlike Sections 108 of the Customs Act or Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, Section 67’s primary intent is to obtain information, not confessions – Court acknowledged conflict in previous judgments on this issue [Paras 26-30].

Constitutional and Statutory Provisions – Article 20(3) of the Constitution – Right against Self-Incrimination – Supreme Court emphasized safeguarding constitutional rights of accused – Referred matter to larger Bench for comprehensive examination on whether NDPS officers qualify as police officers and the admissibility of confessional statements under Section 67 [Paras 31-43].

Decision – Appeals partly allowed – Orders – Matter referred to larger Bench to determine:

Whether officers under NDPS Act are considered police officers.

Whether confessional statements under Section 67 are admissible as evidence.

Appellant granted bail pending larger Bench decision [Paras 42-43].

Income Tax – Duty-Free Import Benefits – Respondent company received benefits through advance licences and DEPB against export obligations – Assessee claimed these benefits were taxable in the year imports were made, not in the year exports were made – Tribunal and High Court ruled in favour of the Assessee – Revenue appealed contending benefits should be taxable in the year exports were made – Supreme Court upheld Tribunal and High Court's decision, ruling benefits accrued only when imports were made [Paras 1-27].

Real Income Theory – Accrual of Income – Supreme Court emphasized income must be real and not hypothetical – Income accrues only when there is a corresponding liability of the other party to pay – For advance licences and DEPB, no liability on customs authorities to allow duty-free imports until actual importation – Benefits contingent upon actual imports, not merely on export obligations being met [Paras 17-27].

Consistency in Tax Treatment – Revenue's Previous Stand – Supreme Court noted consistent decisions in the Assessee’s favor for previous years – Highlighted that Revenue did not pursue appeals in some cases, and in others, appeals were dismissed – Asserted importance of consistency and fairness in tax administration [Paras 28-32].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – Orders – Upheld Tribunal and High Court’s decision that benefits from advance licences and DEPB are taxable in the year of import – Directed Revenue to implement litigation policy practically and seriously to avoid fruitless litigation [Paras 33].

Criminal Procedure – Production of Documents – Petitioners, accused of double murder, sought scientific test reports of former suspects – Trial court and High Court rejected request, deeming it dilatory – Supreme Court upheld decisions, noting repeated delays by petitioners and procedural stage of trial [Paras 1-12].

Right to Fair Trial – Relevance of Scientific Evidence – Petitioners argued reports were essential for defense – Supreme Court referenced fair trial principles under Article 21, but found no breach as documents were deemed non-essential and requests intended to delay proceedings [Paras 10-11].

Section 91 CrPC – Summoning Documents – Court reiterated documents must be necessary and relevant – Petitioners failed to justify urgency and necessity for defense – Requests viewed as attempts to vex proceedings [Paras 5-9].

Decision: Special Leave Petition dismissed – Supreme Court emphasized the necessity of expeditious trials and disallowed further delay tactics by the petitioners.

Constitutional Law – Reservation for Disabled Persons – Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities Act mandates 3% reservation in government establishments – High Court directed reservations to be computed based on total cadre strength, not just identified posts – Supreme Court affirmed, emphasizing legislative intent to ensure adequate representation of disabled persons [Paras 26-53].

Administrative Law – Implementation of Disability Reservations – Union of India contested High Court’s interpretation – Argued reservations should be on identified posts only – Supreme Court dismissed appeal, instructed modification of Office Memoranda to reflect correct computation method [Paras 51-53].

Horizontal Reservations – Relationship with Vertical Reservations – Court clarified distinction between horizontal reservations (for disabled persons) and vertical reservations (for SC/ST/OBC) – Affirmed that horizontal reservations cut across vertical reservations without breaching 50% cap on overall reservations [Paras 41-42].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Supreme Court directed Union of India to modify Office Memoranda in line with the judgment and ensure compliance within three months – Emphasized non-compliance as an act of non-obedience [Para 54].

Criminal Law – Culpable Homicide – Appellant convicted under Section 304 IPC for causing death by firing a gun at a marriage ceremony – Prosecution's evidence mainly relied on FIR and witness testimonies – Supreme Court found insufficient evidence to attribute intent to kill, reduced conviction to Section 304 Part II IPC, highlighting that the act was done with knowledge likely to cause death [Paras 1-13].

Evidence – Witness Testimonies – Key witnesses did not clearly establish that the fatal shot came from the appellant's gun – Investigation was deemed slipshod, no ballistic report obtained – Court emphasized the need for concrete evidence to sustain conviction for culpable homicide [Paras 7-9].

Sentencing – Reduction of Sentence – Original sentence of life imprisonment under Section 304 Part I IPC found inappropriate – Supreme Court reduced sentence to seven years under Section 304 Part II IPC, maintaining the imposed fine [Paras 10-13].

Decision: Appeal allowed in part – Conviction modified to Section 304 Part II IPC – Sentence reduced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment – Fine of Rs. 1000 upheld, in default, further imprisonment for one year.