Criminal Law - Perjury and False Affidavits – Criminal Appeal challenging High Court's dismissal of application under Section 340 CrPC – Appellant claims respondent misled court by stating investigation was complete when further witnesses were later examined – High Court found no deliberate falsehood or intent to mislead – Supreme Court affirms High Court's decision, highlighting the need for evidence of deliberate and conscious falsehood to initiate perjury proceedings – Appeal dismissed. [Paras 1-15]

Criminal Procedure - Initiation of Perjury Proceedings – Analysis – Supreme Court reiterates principles for invoking Section 340 CrPC – Emphasizes necessity of prima facie evidence of deliberate falsehood and expediency in the interest of justice – Reviews procedural requirements under CBI manual and judicial precedents – Concludes that further investigation based on superior officer's directions does not constitute misleading the court – No grounds to interfere with High Court's findings. [Paras 7-14]

Decision – Dismissal of Perjury Allegations – Court dismisses appeal, upholds High Court's order – Finds no evidence of intentional misleading by respondent – Affirms need for careful judicial scrutiny before initiating perjury proceedings – Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs. [Paras 14-15]

Constitutional Law - Article 14 - Public Land Allotment – Special Leave Petition against State Government’s decision to allot land for IFSC – Appellant bases challenge on CAG report citing inconsistencies and lack of uniform policy in land allotment – High Court dismissed writ petition, upholding government’s decision – Supreme Court finds no merit in claims of arbitrariness or malafide intentions – Holds that policy decisions taken in public interest with transparency cannot be questioned solely based on CAG report – Appeal dismissed. [Paras 1-12]

Public Policy - Land Allotment and Public-Private Partnership – Analysis – Supreme Court emphasizes that CAG reports are advisory and must be balanced with government’s explanations – Recognizes State's authority to make economic decisions and enter public-private partnerships – Affirms that absence of tender or auction does not inherently imply arbitrariness – Examines procedural integrity and public interest benefits of the IFSC project – No violation of constitutional principles found. [Paras 7-12]

Decision – Policy Decisions and Judicial Review – Court dismisses appeal, affirms High Court's order – Endorses government’s transparent process and public interest considerations in land allotment for IFSC – Confirms that judicial scrutiny of economic policies should not impede administrative functions unless clear evidence of malafide or statutory violations exists – SLP dismissed with no order as to costs. [Paras 12-13]

Criminal Law - Validity of Sanction for Prosecution – Criminal Appeal challenging High Court's decision to set aside Special Judge's order – Respondent contested validity of sanction alleging non-placement of relevant material before sanctioning authority – High Court remanded case to trial court for re-examination – Supreme Court affirms High Court’s decision, emphasizing need for comprehensive scrutiny of material by sanctioning authority – Appeal dismissed. [Paras 1-50]

Sanction for Prosecution - Requirement of Material Disclosure – Analysis – Supreme Court reiterates principles for valid sanction under Prevention of Corruption Act – Highlights obligation of sanctioning authority to review all relevant material – Affirms High Court’s findings of incomplete material presentation – Emphasizes importance of strict adherence to procedural guidelines to ensure fair prosecution – Directive for trial court to re-examine sanctioning authority's scrutiny. [Paras 7-15]

Decision – Remand for Re-examination of Sanction – Court dismisses appeal, upholds High Court's order remanding case to trial court – Directions to trial court to assess validity of sanction with complete material – Emphasizes procedural integrity and necessity of comprehensive review by sanctioning authority – Case remanded for fresh consideration without influencing trial proceedings. [Paras 45-50]

Criminal Law - Grant of Pardon and Approver Testimony – Criminal Appeal challenging High Court's decision remanding Special Judge's order granting pardon – Respondent No. 2 sought pardon, supported by CBI, implicating Respondent No. 1 in forgery – High Court quashed pardon, requiring fresh consideration post charge sheet – Supreme Court upholds High Court's order emphasizing judicial discretion and thorough examination of material before granting pardon – Highlights need for assessing public policy and relative culpability among accused – Appeal dismissed. [Paras 1-28]

Evidence - Testimony of Accomplices – Analysis – Supreme Court reaffirms principles on accepting accomplice testimony – Evidence Act Sections 114, 133: Accomplice testimony requires careful scrutiny and substantial corroboration – Emphasizes role of judiciary in ensuring fairness and justice in criminal trials – Approver’s testimony critical but must meet standards of reliability and corroboration – Supports revisional jurisdiction to ensure correctness and propriety of lower court orders. [Paras 7-20]

Decision – Remand for Fresh Consideration of Pardon Application – Court dismisses appeal, affirms High Court’s remand order – Directions to trial court for fresh consideration of pardon application in light of charge sheet and complete material – Emphasizes judicial duty to balance prosecutorial needs and rights of accused – No interference with High Court’s directive for revisiting pardon grant – Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs. [Paras 27-28]

Civil Services - Suspension of Government Servant – Appeal challenging Tribunal’s order quashing suspension of IRS officer – Respondent suspended for 14 years due to pending criminal investigations and disproportionate assets – Tribunal quashed suspension due to non-compliance with previous directions and prolonged suspension without trial – High Court affirmed Tribunal’s decision – Supreme Court upholds High Court’s order, emphasizing compliance with procedural fairness and necessity of timely trial – Appeal dismissed. [Paras 1-42]

Suspension - Review and Judicial Scrutiny – Analysis – Supreme Court reiterates principles for suspension under Central Civil Services Rules – Emphasizes need for periodic review and consideration of gravity of misconduct – Highlights judicial duty to ensure compliance with administrative orders and tribunal directions – Affirms limited scope of judicial review in administrative suspension unless clear procedural impropriety or malafide intent established. [Paras 6-25]

Decision – Quashing of Suspension – Court dismisses appeal, upholds Tribunal’s and High Court’s orders – Directs reinstatement of respondent with consequential benefits – Reiterates principle that prolonged suspension without trial constitutes denial of justice – Orders administrative compliance with tribunal’s previous directions and office memoranda – Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs. [Paras 26-42]

Criminal Law - Protest Complaint and Magistrate's Discretion – Appeal against High Court's dismissal of revision petition upholding Magistrate’s order – Appellant (second accused) contends Magistrate unjustified in proceeding after police refer report – High Court upheld Magistrate’s power to entertain protest complaint – Supreme Court affirms Magistrate’s discretion but highlights necessity of judicial application of mind and assessment of involvement of accused – Appeal allowed for second accused, summons quashed. [Paras 1-12]

Judicial Discretion - Involvement of Accused in Protest Complaint – Analysis – Supreme Court clarifies that Magistrate can take cognizance on a protest petition even after accepting police report – Emphasizes thorough judicial discretion, especially regarding involvement of accused – Highlights complainant’s statement and police investigation showing no involvement of second accused – Affirms divorce and separate residence as significant factors – Magistrate's oversight in considering these aspects noted. [Paras 6-11]

Decision – Quashing of Proceedings Against Second Accused – Court allows appeal, quashes summons against second accused – Finds no evidence of second accused's involvement in alleged offense – Directs Magistrate to proceed only against first accused – Reinforces principle of applying judicial mind to each case's specifics and protecting individuals from unwarranted prosecution. [Paras 10-12]

Labour Law - Definition of Workmen – Appeal against High Court’s decision holding medical doctors in ESIC not as "workmen" – Petitioner Association of medical officers claims entitlement to ESIC allowance based on similar duties performed as other doctors receiving the allowance – Tribunal initially found medical doctors to be "workmen" under Section 2(s) ID Act – High Court reversed this finding – Supreme Court upholds High Court’s decision, emphasizing the professional nature of medical duties and distinguishing between occupation and profession – Appeal dismissed. [Paras 1-11]

Professional Duties - Distinction from Workmen – Analysis – Supreme Court examines duties of medical officers, including diagnosis and treatment of patients – Affirms that these activities constitute professional and intellectual tasks, not manual or supervisory work – Cites legal precedents distinguishing professions from occupations under labour law – Concludes medical professionals cannot be classified as "workmen" within the meaning of the ID Act – Highlights principles from previous judgments on similar issues. [Paras 6-11]

Decision – Dismissal of Claim for Workmen Status – Court dismisses appeal, affirms High Court's judgment – Holds that medical officers’ professional functions exclude them from being categorized as "workmen" under the ID Act – Confirms no entitlement to ESIC allowance on grounds of equal treatment with deputationists – Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs. [Paras 10-11]

Wakf Property - Jurisdiction of Civil Court and Wakf Tribunal – Appeal challenging High Court’s decision returning the plaint to Wakf Tribunal – Petitioner Wakf Board sought possession of property leased to deceased tenant – Respondent contested maintainability, asserting property not Wakf – Trial court decreed suit in favor of Wakf Board – First Appellate Court returned plaint for want of jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 10 CPC – Supreme Court upholds appellate decision, confirming exclusive jurisdiction of Wakf Tribunal in disputes over Wakf property under Section 7 read with Section 85 of Haryana Wakf Act – Appeal dismissed. [Paras 1-11]

Legal Framework - Exclusive Jurisdiction of Wakf Tribunal – Analysis – Supreme Court emphasizes statutory framework barring Civil Courts from deciding disputes over Wakf property – Sections 7 and 85 of Haryana Wakf Act grant exclusive jurisdiction to Wakf Tribunal for determining whether property is Wakf – Tribunal’s decision final and binding – Exceptions limited to suits pending prior to Act's commencement – Confirms established judicial precedents supporting Tribunal’s exclusive jurisdiction in similar cases. [Paras 7-10]

Decision – Affirmation of Tribunal’s Exclusive Jurisdiction – Court dismisses appeal, upholds High Court’s and First Appellate Court’s decisions – Directs presentation of suit before Wakf Tribunal – Reinforces legal principles ensuring proper forum for disputes concerning Wakf property – Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs. [Paras 10-11]

Public Employment - Shortlisting Criteria and Recruitment – Appeal challenging High Court’s quashing of appointments of Junior Assistants – Appellants were shortlisted based on higher educational qualifications despite intermediate qualification being sufficient per recruitment notification – High Court held shortlisting based on degree qualification arbitrary – Supreme Court upholds High Court’s decision, emphasizing adherence to recruitment rules and fair selection process – Directs continuation of appellants in service until fresh selection – Appeal dismissed. [Paras 1-19]

Shortlisting Criteria - Validity and Fairness – Analysis – Supreme Court clarifies permissible shortlisting criteria should align with recruitment rules – Benchmarks must have rational basis and nexus to selection objectives – Distinguishes between valid cut-off marks during selection and arbitrary exclusion based on higher qualification not stated in notification – Affirms High Court’s view that exclusion of candidates with requisite intermediate qualification was unjust – Emphasizes necessity for transparent and fair recruitment processes. [Paras 10-17]

Decision – Quashing of Appointments and Fresh Selection – Court dismisses appeal, upholds High Court’s order quashing appointments – Directs District Judge to initiate fresh selection process within one month and complete within six months – Allows appellants to participate in fresh selection, preserving seniority for those reselected – Ensures minimal disruption in court administration and fair opportunity for all eligible candidates – Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs. [Paras 18-19]