Service Law – Commuted Pension – Respondent retired on 31.5.1990 – Claim for commuted pension amount of Rs. 87,400/- filed in 2007 – CAT directed BSNL to furnish proof of payment within one month or face adverse inference – High Court affirmed CAT’s decision without addressing delay – Supreme Court found the 17-year delay significant and inadequately considered by lower courts – Matter remanded to High Court for detailed consideration [Paras 2, 4].

Limitation and Laches – Service Matters – Delay of 17 years in filing claim – CAT and High Court did not address limitation or laches adequately – Supreme Court directed High Court to consider whether the claim was barred by limitation or delay and laches – Emphasis on detailed evaluation of evidence without legal presumptions due to long passage of time [Paras 2, 4, 5].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court's order set aside – Matter remanded to High Court for fresh adjudication with instructions to consider all evidence and address limitation or delay and laches issues – No views on merits of the case [Para 5].

Criminal Law – Murder and Dowry Harassment – Deceased Sujatha found murdered by her husband in a hotel room – Husband committed suicide shortly after – Parents-in-law (Accused Nos. 2 and 3) charged under Sections 302, 498A r/w 34 IPC – High Court discharged parents-in-law, noting lack of evidence and independent residence of the couple – Supreme Court upheld High Court’s decision, finding no sufficient grounds for trial against parents-in-law [Paras 1-8].

Conspiracy and Common Intention – Insufficient Evidence – High Court and Supreme Court noted lack of direct involvement or evidence of conspiracy by parents-in-law – Statements under Section 161 CrPC did not incriminate them in the murder – Prosecution based on mere allegations without probative evidence not justified [Paras 4, 6-7].

Discharge of Accused – Judicial Duty – Court emphasized its duty to ensure that accused are not subjected to trial based on vague or vindictive accusations – Discharge appropriate where evidence does not establish a prima facie case – Interests of accused must be protected against unfounded prosecutions [Para 7].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – High Court's order discharging parents-in-law upheld – Prosecution against them deemed futile and unjustified – No error found in the High Court's decision [Para 8].

Criminal Procedure – Grant of Bail – High Court granted bail to Respondent No. 1, citing lack of direct evidence of firearm possession and incarceration period – Supreme Court noted sufficient prima facie evidence of involvement, including witness statements indicating Respondent No. 1's role in instigating the fatal shooting – Bail granted by High Court set aside [Paras 2-6].

Prima Facie Case – Involvement in Crime – FIR and witness statements provided sufficient prima facie evidence of Respondent No. 1's involvement in instigating the attack – Injuries caused by blunt weapons and firearms during the incident supported the prosecution’s case – Respondent No. 1’s influential status and potential to tamper with witnesses considered [Paras 4-6].

Public Safety and Witness Protection – Respondent No. 1's influence and severity of the crime posed a threat to public safety and potential for witness tampering – Supreme Court emphasized the importance of protecting witnesses and maintaining public confidence in the justice system [Para 6].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court's order granting bail to Respondent No. 1 set aside – Bail cancelled and Respondent No. 1 directed to surrender to custody forthwith – Trial to proceed on its merits without influence from the present order [Paras 6-7].

Medical Negligence – Compensation – National Commission awarded compensation for medical negligence leading to death of Anuradha Saha – Appeals filed challenging the quantum and apportionment of liability – Supreme Court emphasized "just compensation" principle, balancing interests of claimant and respondents – Detailed analysis of income, prospective loss, and living standards in USA [Paras 1-4, 53-60].

Just Compensation – Prospective Loss – Consideration of future potential and standard of living in determining compensation – National Commission's calculation based on limited evidence, leading to reduced compensation – Supreme Court highlighted need for comprehensive evaluation including scientific assessments from expert testimonies [Paras 5-12, 57-60].

Apportionment of Liability – Cumulative Effect – Liability of doctors and hospital assessed cumulatively – Supreme Court reiterated findings from Malay Kumar Ganguly's case, stressing cumulative negligence led to death – Individual responsibilities evaluated but considered collectively for compensation [Paras 35-44].

Multiplier Method – Consistency in Awards – Supreme Court endorsed multiplier method for calculating compensation to ensure uniformity and avoid arbitrariness – Reference to prior judgments including Sarla Verma, Reshma Kumari, and Patricia Mahajan [Paras 20-26].

Decision – Appeals Partly Allowed – Compensation enhanced considering prospective loss, status, and standards – Apportionment of liability adjusted – Directions issued for detailed reassessment of compensation with emphasis on comprehensive evaluation of evidence and expert testimonies [Paras 50-52, 60].

Service Law – Adverse Remarks in ACRs – Expungement of adverse remarks recorded in ACRs by successor DGP without jurisdiction and contrary to prescribed procedures – Successor DGP reviewed and restored adverse remarks based on government instructions limiting representations against adverse remarks – Supreme Court upheld the restoration of adverse remarks due to improper and belated expungement by the predecessor DGP – Expungement allowed only within six months and based on new facts or evidence, not mere improvement in subsequent performance [Paras 1-17].

Review and Revision Powers – Exercise of Administrative Discretion – Successor DGP’s power to review orders of predecessor when earlier order found to be without jurisdiction, ultra vires, or manifestly unjust – Courts to ensure fairness and reasonableness in administrative actions – Review permissible if initial expungement was based on favoritism or lack of jurisdiction [Paras 17-19].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Orders of High Court upholding the restoration of adverse remarks affirmed – Mercy petitions and subsequent representations beyond prescribed time and without new evidence deemed impermissible – Adverse remarks reinstated – Guidelines for fair and reasonable exercise of administrative powers emphasized [Paras 20-65].

Criminal Law – Conviction and Sentencing – High Court reversed acquittal of Joginder Singh by the trial court and convicted him under Section 302 IPC – Supreme Court examined whether the High Court correctly assessed evidence and justified overturning acquittal – Noted that discrepancies and ballistic evidence did not conclusively prove the accused fired the fatal shots – Appellant’s defense of self-defense and inconsistent prosecution evidence raised reasonable doubt [Paras 1-17, 20-27].

Evidence – Credibility and Contradictions – Trial court doubted credibility of prosecution witnesses due to inconsistencies and absence of key witnesses – Ballistic report did not link bullets to appellant’s firearm – High Court’s rejection of trial court’s findings lacked detailed reassessment – Supreme Court stressed importance of thorough and reasoned evaluation of evidence in appeals against acquittal [Paras 17-19].

Non-examination of Material Witnesses – Adverse Inference – Prosecution’s failure to examine key eyewitnesses like the deceased’s husband and injured witnesses weakened its case – Supreme Court emphasized that non-examination of available and material witnesses can lead to adverse inference against prosecution’s version [Paras 22-25].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court's conviction set aside – Trial court’s acquittal restored – Appellant to be released unless required in another case – Emphasis on need for detailed and reasoned judgment in criminal cases, especially in overturning acquittals [Paras 26-27].

Criminal Law – Summoning Order – Chief Judicial Magistrate issued summons for trial under Sections 323, 354, 389, 452, 458, 500, 506 read with Sections 34 and 120B IPC – Respondent (accused) filed an application to recall the summoning order, which was dismissed – Additional Sessions Judge set aside the summoning order due to lack of sanction under Section 197 CrPC – High Court upheld the Additional Sessions Judge’s order – Supreme Court examined the validity of the recall application and the necessity of sanction under Section 197 CrPC [Paras 1-6].

Sanction for Prosecution – Official Duty – Alleged actions of Respondent (SDM) were not part of official duty – Actions included entering the appellant's house at night, humiliating her and a visitor, and forcing medical examinations – Supreme Court held these actions were not connected to official duty, and thus no sanction under Section 197 CrPC was required [Paras 25-40].

Jurisdiction and Review Powers – Revisional Jurisdiction – Supreme Court clarified that orders issuing summons are intermediate orders and can be challenged under revisional jurisdiction u/s 397 CrPC – Power to review or recall such orders is not inherent in Magistrates and must be exercised within legal frameworks, primarily through Section 482 CrPC [Paras 13-20, 22-23].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Orders of High Court and Additional Sessions Judge set aside – Summons issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate restored – Trial Court directed to proceed expeditiously on day-to-day basis – Supreme Court highlighted the importance of judicial scrutiny in cases involving abuse of power by public servants [Paras 41-42].

Service Law – Departmental Enquiry – Dismissal from Service – Appellant challenged her dismissal on grounds of procedural impropriety in the departmental enquiry and disproportionate punishment – High Court upheld the dismissal – Supreme Court found the enquiry flawed due to non-supply of documents and non-examination of witnesses – Punishment disproportionate to the charges proved – Remanded to State Government for reconsideration of punishment based on review committee’s findings [Paras 1-9, 16-19].

Procedural Fairness – Non-supply of Documents and Witness Examination – Enquiry flawed as essential documents were not supplied to the appellant and no witnesses were examined – Burden of proof improperly shifted to appellant – Department required to prove charges adequately [Paras 6-8, 15].

Proportionality of Punishment – Dismissal Disproportionate – Supreme Court held that dismissal was disproportionate to the charges, particularly given the appellant's clean service record – Review committee’s findings did not support severe punishment – Directed State Government to impose appropriate penalty considering entire service record [Paras 10-14, 18-20].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court's decision set aside – State Government directed to pass fresh penalty order based on review committee's report within two weeks – Appellant to be reinstated immediately as she is nearing superannuation – Penalty to be lesser than dismissal, removal, or compulsory retirement [Paras 20-22].

Contract Law – Doctrine of Frustration – Appellant claimed impossibility to execute the contract due to public resistance against running arrack shops – Supreme Court noted that statutory contracts are bound by their specific terms and consequences for non-performance – Doctrine of frustration (Section 56 of Contract Act) inapplicable when statutory contract explicitly provides for forfeiture of security deposit for non-performance [Paras 1-20].

Statutory Contracts – Forfeiture of Security Deposit – Kerala Abkari Shops (Disposal in Auction) Rules, 1974, Rule 5(15) provides for forfeiture of security deposit if the auction purchaser fails to execute the agreement – Appellant's failure to execute the agreement and perform obligations under the contract justified forfeiture – Supreme Court upheld the statutory provision, dismissing claims of unreasonableness or unfairness [Paras 12-20].

Judicial Review – Fairness in Administrative Actions – Doctrine of fairness and reasonableness in administrative law cannot amend or vary express terms of statutory contracts – Supreme Court emphasized difference between administrative fairness and statutory contract obligations – Reiterated that licensees under statutory schemes assume calculated risks, and terms must be upheld as per statutory framework [Paras 17-20].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Supreme Court upheld the Division Bench’s decision allowing forfeiture of security deposit – Emphasized adherence to statutory contract terms and conditions – No merit found in claims of contract frustration or unfairness in statutory provisions [Para 21].