Property Dispute - Alleged Sale of Portion of Inherited Property - Appellant and Respondent, brothers, in dispute over land inherited from their father - Allegation that one brother sold a portion of his share to the other - Possession of the sold land forcibly taken by Appellant - Suit for possession filed by Respondent - Lower courts returned findings in favor of Appellant - High Court set aside concurrent findings and ruled in favor of Respondent - Instant appeals against High Court judgment. [Para 1]

Scope of Second Appeal - Applicability of Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 - Court's jurisdiction to frame substantial questions of law - Held, in appeals arising from Punjab or Haryana, courts are not required to frame substantial questions of law as per Section 100 of CPC - Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act applies. [Para 7, 8]

Rights of Co-Share Purchaser - Right to possession - Applicability of precedent - Appellant's contention that purchaser of co-share does not have a right to possession - Reference to judgments in Ramdas v. Sitabai and Gurmej Singh v. Jai Singh - Court finds judgments inapplicable to the present case due to the existence of evidence showing partition by the father of the Appellant - No effort made by Appellant to substitute himself in place of Respondent in the property transaction. [Para 12, 13]

Interference with Findings of Fact in Second Appeal - Conditions for disturbing lower courts' findings - Court may interfere if lower courts ignored material evidence, drew wrong inferences, or wrongly cast the burden of proof - Analysis of witness statements shows lower courts ignored evidence of property partition - Contradictions in Appellant's statements add weight to Respondent's claim - High Court's findings valid. [Para 14, 15]

Criminal Law - Bail - Grant of Bail - Factors to be considered - Seriousness of the offense - Likelihood of accused fleeing from justice - Impact on prosecution witnesses - Possibility of tampering with evidence - Criminal antecedents of the accused - Prima facie satisfaction of the court on the charges - Need for recording reasons while granting bail.

Judgments - Contents of - Requirement of adequate reasoning - Order granting bail without proper reasoning - Vice of non-application of mind - Illegality of such order - Need for considering material aspects of the case.

Bail Application - Merits of the case - Elaborate discussion not required - Consideration of vital facts of the case - Prima facie conclusion supported by reasons - Balancing liberty of an individual with seriousness of allegations against the accused.

High Court's Discretion - Exercise of - Importance of considering material aspects of the case - Failure to do so in passing impugned judgments - Order granting bail in a casual manner - Error of law.

Prima Facie Case - Nature of allegations - Seriousness of charges - Prima facie satisfaction of guilt - Presence of adequate material supporting the charges - Consideration of the accused's role in the alleged crime - Not treating allegations as wholly false, frivolous, or vexatious.

High Court's Orders - Inadequate reasoning - Merely referring to testimony of a hostile witness - Failure to consider material aspects of the case - Grant of bail based on a single factor - Orders deemed erroneous and unjust.

Conclusion - Setting aside impugned judgments - Cancellation of bail bonds - Directed surrender of accused before jail authorities - Appeals allowed.

(Para No. 20, 23 – 27)

Writ of Mandamus - Jurisdiction - Appellants challenged the High Court's order and judgment - Contentions based on a previous order in Praveen Kumar v. Delhi Cantonment Board & Ors. - Court found the contentions baseless as the said order did not confer any indefeasible right on the appellant and did not pertain to the pending Civil Suit - Issue Deletion - Trial Court deleted certain issues in Civil Suit No.759 of 2018, which were upheld by the High Court - Deletion of issues justified as the appellant had accepted jurisdiction and no notice or order was issued by the Cantonment Board against the first respondent - Writ Petition - Prayer for de-sealing property denied as it was contingent on the approval of the building plan, which was not sanctioned - De-sealing issue intertwined with the pending Civil Suit - Appellant had no legal right to seek a writ of mandamus at this stage - Result - Civil Appeals and Writ Petition dismissed. (Paragraphs 1-16)

Election Petition - Non-disclosure of Criminal Cases - The appellant, a candidate in an election, faces allegations of not disclosing pending criminal cases against him [Para 16] - Contention that disclosure was not required under Section 33A of the relevant Act [Para 16] - Appellant argues that the non-disclosed cases do not fall within specified categories - Election petitioner alleges non-disclosure of past convictions under the Minimum Wages Act and the Payment of Wages Act [Para 17].

Examination of Pending Criminal Case - Court examines the records of a pending criminal case related to offenses under the Indian Forest Act [Para 18] - Finds that the appellant was not charged for the alleged offenses, contrary to the petitioner's assertions [Para 18].

Punishment for Offenses - Court considers the punishment for violating provisions of the Minimum Wages Act and the Payment of Wages Act [Para 20] - Assesses the relevance of past convictions to the non-disclosure allegations [Para 19].

Scope of Rejection - Court discusses the scope of Order VII Rule 11 CPC and Order XII Rule 6 CPC [Para 21] - Emphasizes that partial rejection of the petition based on certain admissions is not permissible [Para 24].

Need for Full Trial - Court asserts that the allegations of non-disclosure and their legal effect require a full trial [Para 28] - Summary proceedings insufficient for examining non-compliance with statutory regulations [Para 28].

Significance of Right to Vote - Court underscores the importance of the right to vote and the voter's right to know a candidate's full background [Para 27].

Dismissal of Appeal - Court concludes that the impugned judgment dismissing the appeal is valid and without fault [Para 29].

Delimitation Act 2002 – Section 10A and Representation of the People Act 1950 – Section 8A – Constitutionality challenged – Deferral of delimitation exercise in a State due to threats to unity, integrity, peace, and public order – Rescission of deferment order and entrusting delimitation exercise to the Election Commission – Challenge to the political inclusivity of the process – Alleged violation of democratic principles and constitutional norms.

Process of Delimitation – Political Representation – Section 8A of RP Act – Delimitation Act provides for inclusion of political representatives – Election Commission entrusted with delimitation exercise in States specified in Section 8A – Constitutional challenge raised on dilution of political process in delimitation exercise.

Power to Rescind Deferment Order – President’s Authority – Notification rescinding deferment issued by Union Ministry of Law and Justice – Election Commission’s actions contrary to the terms of rescission – Challenge to the validity of the President’s notification and Election Commission’s role in the process.

Constitutional Norms – Article 170(2) and Article 81(2) of the Constitution – Density of Population – Draft proposal by Election Commission based on population density – Alleged breach of constitutional norms regarding the ratio between population and seats in constituencies.

Notice Issued – Counter-Affidavits and Rejoinders – Court reserves the constitutional challenge for further deliberation – Parties directed to file counter-affidavits within three weeks, and rejoinders within two weeks thereafter.

Delimitation Process – Interdiction at this Stage – Process already commenced following the rescission of deferment order – Court refrains from interdicting the ongoing delimitation process.

Next Listing – Petitions to be Listed – Petitions to be listed in the first week of October 2023 for further consideration.

Criminal Law – National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 – Section 6 – Exercise of Jurisdiction by the NIA – Validity – High Court directed the investigation of several First Information Reports (FIRs) to be transferred to the National Investigation Agency (NIA) under the Explosive Substances Act – Petitioners challenged the High Court’s order – Supreme Court observed that the Central Government had already exercised its powers under Section 6(5) of the NIA Act and issued a notification for NIA’s investigation – Court held that it was not within its remit to decide the sufficiency or veracity of the allegations at this stage – The Court affirmed the High Court’s judgment, holding that the exercise of jurisdiction by the NIA was valid – Special Leave Petitions disposed of accordingly.

Army Act, 1950 - Sections 39(b), 71, 72, 73, and 120 - Defence Service Regulations, 1987, Regulation 448 - Punishment for absence without leave or overstaying leave - Dismissal from service. (Para 1)

Disciplinary history of the appellant - Habitual defaulter - Analysis of past punishments for unauthorized absence - Court noted several instances of indiscipline prior to the present incident - Appellant had a record of being repeatedly absent without leave. (Para 9)

Discretion of Summary Court Martial (SCM) - Authority to impose appropriate punishment - SCM empowered to pass any legal sentence depending on the nature and degree of the offense - Acknowledgment of sufficient discretion vested in SCM to award a higher punishment. (Para 12)

Interpretation of Army Act provisions - Section 39(b), 71, 72, 73, and 120 - Section 39(b) deals with offenses related to absence without leave - Section 71 lists punishments on conviction by Court Martial in a sliding scale - Section 72 and 73 allow Court Martial discretion to determine appropriate punishment for a specific offense. (Para 13)

Compliance with procedure - Appellant's contention on the Court of Inquiry's conduct - Absence of prescribed procedure for reporting directly to the higher authority refuted - No merit in appellant's plea of unfair procedure. (Para 6)

Proportionality of punishment - Court Martial's right to award a suitable sentence - Dismissal from service held to be an acceptable punishment, considering appellant's history of indiscipline and repeated unauthorized absence. (Para 10)

Dismissal upheld - Appeal dismissed - The punishment of dismissal from service affirmed as reasonable and proportionate considering the appellant's conduct and disciplinary record. (Para 17)

Section 302 IPC - Appeal against conviction – Murder – Evidence based on circumstantial and hearsay evidence – Failure to establish motive – Inconsistent testimony of witnesses – Medical evidence not supporting prosecution’s case – Possibility of false implication – Acquittal ordered. [Para 37]

Eye-witness testimony – No direct evidence of the accused assaulting the deceased – Testimony of witnesses inconsistent and unreliable – Lack of credibility in the prosecution’s case. [Para 32]

Motive – Prosecution fails to establish a motive for the accused to commit the crime – No enmity or dispute between the appellant and the deceased – Motive plays an important role in the absence of direct eyewitnesses. [Para 34]

Influence of Sarpanch – Allegations of false implication due to the influence of Sarpanch – Sarpanch had a grudge against the accused – Possibility of the appellant being falsely implicated. [Para 34]

Medical evidence – Weapon of assault does not match the injury observed in the post-mortem report – Suggestion that the injury could have been caused by the deceased falling on a sharp object – Probability of the deceased being heavily drunk. [Para 34]

Delayed lodging of FIR – Unsatisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the FIR. [Para 35]

Prosecution fails to establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt – Appellant entitled to acquittal – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant to be released if not wanted in any other case. [Para 37]

Criminal Law – Distinction between Culpable Homicide and Murder – Elements of Intention and Knowledge – Determination of Guilty Intention – Single Injury Resulting in Death – Inference of Guilty Knowledge – Application of Statutory Exceptions – Assessment of Factual Circumstances – Intent to Cause Bodily Injury Likely to Cause Death – Inference of Absence of Intention to Cause Injury Sufficient to Cause Death. (Para 62)

Criminal Law – Interpretation of Statutory Provisions – Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Sections 299, 300, 302, and 304 – Scope and Application – Requirements for Establishing Murder and Exceptions – Offense under Section 304 Part I and Part II – Failure to Establish Clauses of Section 300 – Charge of Murder Not Sustained – Consideration of Four Clauses of Section 300 for Murder Conviction. (Para 63)

Criminal Law – Assessment of Guilty Intention or Knowledge – Factors to Consider – Nature of Weapon Used – Part of Body Injured – Extent of Injury – Degree of Force Applied – Manner of Attack – Circumstances Preceding and Attending the Attack – Inference of Guilty Knowledge from Proven Circumstances. (Para 8)

Criminal Law – Intent to Cause Death or Injury Sufficient to Cause Death – Distinction in Establishing Murder – Intention Not Limited to Killing – Intent to Cause Injury Sufficient in Ordinary Course of Nature to Cause Death – Inference of Intent from Act or Acts Resulting in Injury or Injuries – Determination Based on Factual Findings of Each Case. (Para 9, 10, 11)

Criminal Law – Single Injury Resulting in Death – Evaluation of Intent – Absence of Premeditation or Intentional Killing – Consideration of Sudden Fight, Quarrel, or Accidental Circumstances – Inference of Guilty Knowledge – Offense Under Section 304 Part II IPC – Application of Section 304 Rather than Section 300. (Para 12)

Criminal Law – Head Injury Causing Death – Assessment of Intent – Common Agricultural Tool as Weapon – Knowledge of Likelihood of Causing Injury Likely to Cause Death – Inference of Absence of Intention to Cause Injury Sufficient to Cause Death – Reliance on Post Mortem Report – Inference of Intent to Cause Injury Likely to Cause Death. (Para 62)