Constitutional Law - Habeas Corpus – Criminal Appeal against High Court's dismissal of writ petition seeking habeas corpus for minor girl allegedly abducted by forest officials – High Court ruled case as missing person, not illegal confinement – Supreme Court finds High Court ignored eye-witness testimony and appellant’s specific allegations – Held, inadequate investigation by state police warrants CBI investigation to ensure fair and thorough probe – Direction for CBI to investigate issued to uphold fundamental rights under Article 21 – Appeal allowed. [Paras 1-24]

Investigative Standards – Entrustment to CBI – Analysis – Held, investigation by local police found deficient due to failure to interview key eyewitnesses and reliance solely on accused officials’ statements – Supreme Court invokes Article 21 protections, emphasizing duty of state to ensure fair and impartial investigation in safeguarding human rights – Criteria from Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights case applied to justify CBI intervention. [Para 20-23]

Decision – Fresh Investigation by CBI Ordered – Supreme Court directs transfer of all case documents to CBI – CBI to conduct fresh investigation into abduction claims and produce report within six months – Ensures adherence to constitutional rights and instills confidence in investigative processes. [Para 23-24]

Land Acquisition - Limitation for Reference - Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Reference made by the Collector for enhanced compensation after decision under Section 30 regarding apportionment of compensation - High Court held reference time-barred - Supreme Court finds appellants unaware of award until after Section 30 decision - Reference within six weeks of date of knowledge - High Court's finding reversed - Reference not time-barred. [Paras 1-14]

Date of Knowledge - Section 18(2) of the Act - Determination of "date of award" - Supreme Court clarifies "date of award" to be understood as date when award is communicated or known to party - Reference to earlier cases - Finding that appellants knew of award only after Section 30 decision - Reference made within statutory period post-knowledge. [Paras 10-12]

Sections 18 and 30 - Interrelation - Supreme Court clarifies distinct operations - Section 18 deals with objections to award - Section 30 deals with apportionment disputes with no prior allocation by Collector - Entitlement to enhanced compensation arises post-apportionment - Court holds High Court erred in conflating the two provisions. [Paras 12-13]

Decision - Appeal allowed - High Court order dated 09.09.2008 set aside - Reference Court's order dated 29.10.1993 restored - Enhanced compensation affirmed as correct. [Para 14]

Constitutional Law - Retrospective Legislation - Validity of Notification:

The challenge was against the constitutional validity of the Rajasthan Finance Act, 2008, imposing environment and health cess on mineral rights. The High Court held that the notification dated 23.01.2009, amending the earlier notification dated 25.02.2008 with retrospective effect from 01.04.2008, was ultra vires. The Supreme Court concurred, noting that a subordinate legislation can only have retrospective effect if expressly or by necessary implication provided by the statute. The Rajasthan Finance Act, 2008, did not confer such power. Thus, the notification could not apply retrospectively. [Paras 1-47]

Delegated Legislation - Exercise of Power - Section 16 of Rajasthan Finance Act, 2008:

Section 16 of the Act permitted the State Government to levy and collect cess on mineral rights "from time to time." The Court clarified that "from time to time" allows for prospective changes and does not grant the power to make changes retrospectively. The retrospective amendment of the cess rate on Rock Phosphate was thus invalid. [Paras 18-46]

Fiscal Legislation - Interpretation - Strict Construction:

The Court reiterated the principle that taxing statutes must be interpreted strictly. Any ambiguity in fiscal legislation must be resolved in favor of the taxpayer. Unless clearly stated, a provision cannot have retrospective operation. [Paras 12-17]

Decision - Notification Declared Ultra Vires:

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the High Court's decision that the notification dated 23.01.2009 amending the cess rate on Rock Phosphate with retrospective effect was beyond the scope of the powers conferred by the Rajasthan Finance Act, 2008. The notification was declared ultra vires and void for the period prior to its publication. [Paras 47]

Criminal Law - Anticipatory Bail - Grant of Bail - Legal Principles -

Supreme Court examined the legality of anticipatory bail granted to respondents accused of murder under Sections 120B, 302, and 34 IPC. The Court noted that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy intended for exceptional cases where the accused may be falsely implicated or where there's a risk of abuse of power by authorities. [Paras 1-11]

Absconding Accused - Proclamation under Section 82 CrPC -

Respondents were declared absconders under Section 82 CrPC. Supreme Court reiterated that absconding accused are generally not entitled to anticipatory bail, especially when they have failed to cooperate with the investigation and were intentionally evading arrest. [Paras 12-13]

Decision - Cancellation of Anticipatory Bail -

Supreme Court set aside the High Court orders granting anticipatory bail to the respondents, citing improper consideration of the respondents' status as absconders and the gravity of the offenses involved. The subsequent regular bail granted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate based on the High Court's anticipatory bail orders was also set aside. Respondents were directed to surrender within two weeks. [Paras 13-15]

Negotiable Instruments - Dishonor of Cheque - Appeal against Conviction - Criminal appeal against the High Court’s order reversing the trial court's acquittal and convicting the appellant under Section 138 of the NI Act - High Court erred in reversing acquittal - No substantive evidence proving appellant borrowed money or issued the cheque in discharge of debt - Presumption under Sections 118 and 139 NI Act not established - Acquittal restored. [Paras 1-11]

Evidentiary Burden - Negotiable Instruments Act - Presumption - Analysis - Held - For presumption under Sections 118 and 139 to apply, complainant must prove existence of debt and issuance of cheque in discharge of that debt - Contradictory statements by complainant regarding transaction details and cheque writing - Complainant’s evidence lacked necessary material particulars - High Court’s reliance on presumption misplaced in absence of substantive evidence. [Paras 7-10]

Decision - Reversal of Conviction and Sentence - Acquittal Restored - Supreme Court sets aside the High Court’s judgment convicting the appellant, restores trial court's acquittal due to lack of credible evidence supporting the complainant’s case under Section 138 NI Act. [Para 11]

Service Law - Appointment of District Judges - Minimum Age Criteria - Appellant’s eligibility challenged for not having attained the age of 35 years at the time of application - High Court's decision based on recommendations by Justice Shetty Commission not incorporated in the statutory recruitment rules - Supreme Court holds that recruitment rules did not specify a minimum age limit for the post - Recommends that appointments be made according to existing statutory rules rather than non-binding recommendations - Appellant directed to be appointed with retrospective effect but without back pay. [Paras 1-31]

Appointment Criteria – Analysis – High Court erroneously relied on Justice Shetty Commission’s recommendations, which were not statutory – Recruitment Rules only prescribed maximum age limit (45 years) and did not stipulate a minimum age – Provisions of Article 233 of the Constitution also silent on minimum age requirement - Recommendations of the Commission not binding until incorporated into the statutory rules. [Para 20-22]

Decision – Appointment Directed with Retrospective Effect – Supreme Court directs that the appellant be appointed with retrospective effect from the date of eligibility but denies back pay for the period not served – Appellant to be placed appropriately in the seniority list considering merit position. [Paras 23, 29-31]

Criminal Law - Recall and Re-examination of Witness - Scope and Powers of the Court - Criminal Appeal challenging High Court's rejection of petition to recall witness - Alleged inconsistency between witness statement and documentary evidence during Test Identification Parade - Court's role in correcting errors in witness testimony - Held that trial court and High Court failed to exercise their powers under Section 311 CrPC to ensure justice - Directions issued to recall witness and permit cross-examination - Appellant allowed to submit written arguments - Trial to be concluded expeditiously. [Paras 16-33]

Role of Victim in Criminal Proceedings - Participation in Trial - Held - Victim's participation, though limited under Section 301(2) CrPC, is essential for ensuring justice - Court's duty to actively rectify errors impacting the case - Prosecution and court should not remain passive in the face of apparent errors. [Paras 18-19, 31]

Decision - Directions to Recall Witness and Permit Cross-Examination - Court sets aside trial court and High Court orders - Directs trial court to recall PW-18 for cross-examination regarding inconsistencies in testimony - Appellant allowed to file written arguments as per Section 301(2) CrPC - Trial court to expedite proceedings within three months. [Para 33]

Land Acquisition - De-notification and Doctrine of Lis Pendens - Applicability - Appeal against the High Court’s dismissal of the writ petition challenging the de-notification of land from acquisition by the Revenue Minister. The Supreme Court held that any alienation of property during the pendency of litigation is bound by the outcome of such litigation under the doctrine of lis pendens. The de-notification order was quashed as possession had been taken, and thus, the land vested in the State free from encumbrances. [Paras 1-15]

Competence of Minister - De-notification of Land Acquisition - Argument regarding the competence of the Revenue Minister to de-notify the land was rendered moot as the de-notification was void due to the prior vesting of the land in the State. [Para 14]

Final Decision - Appeal Dismissed - Compensation - The appeals were dismissed with the clarification that the appellants are entitled to compensation as determined under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. [Para 15]

Civil Procedure - Impleadment of Parties - Civil Appeal against High Court's review order recalling its earlier decision on impleadment of a neighbor in a suit - Suit filed by plaintiff for declaration and injunction against Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation's notice under Section 452 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 - Neighbor sought to be impleaded claimed interference with right to light and air due to plaintiff's construction - Trial court allowed impleadment - High Court initially upheld trial court's decision but later reviewed and recalled the order on reconsideration of merits - Supreme Court held that High Court exceeded its review jurisdiction by reconsidering merits - Review jurisdiction limited to mistakes apparent on face of the record, not for rehearing on merits - High Court's impugned order set aside - Appeals allowed. [Paras 1-12]

Review Jurisdiction - Scope and Limits - Held - Review jurisdiction is limited and cannot be used as an appeal in disguise - Only mistakes apparent on the face of the record can be corrected - High Court's reconsideration of the merits of the case during review was flawed and beyond jurisdiction. [Para 9-11]

Decision - Impleadment of Neighbor in Suit - High Court's order recalling its earlier decision on impleadment set aside - Neighbor deemed necessary and proper party due to potential infringement of right to light and air - Appeals allowed, original impleadment upheld. [Paras 10-12]