Service Law – Time-Bound Promotion – Appellant received a time-bound promotion in 1998, which was canceled in 2009 on grounds of non-fulfillment of the required promotional examination – Single Judge set aside the cancellation, noting the promotion was not obtained through fraud or misrepresentation – Division Bench reversed the Single Judge’s decision – Supreme Court restored the Single Judge’s order, emphasizing no fault on the part of the appellant [Paras 1-11].

Administrative Law – Non-Retroactive Application – Court highlighted that the appellant passed the required examination in 2007, two years before the cancellation of his promotion – Reiterated principles from earlier judgments restricting recovery or cancellation of benefits unless obtained through fraudulent means [Paras 7-10].

Judicial Precedent – Applicability – Relied on Bihar State Electricity Board and Anr. v. Bijay Bahadur and Anr. and Purshottam Lal Das and Others v. State of Bihar and Others – Distinguished from Chandi Prasad Uniyal and Others v. State of Uttarakhand and Others due to lack of mutual mistake or fault on the appellant's part [Paras 7-10].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Division Bench judgment set aside – Single Judge’s order reinstating the appellant’s promotion upheld – Parties to bear their own costs [Para 11].

Criminal Law – Conviction Based on Eyewitness Testimony – Appellant convicted for firing a shot that killed Bharat Mondal – High Court upheld conviction based on testimony of Avik Mondal (PW-1), brother of the deceased – Supreme Court found inconsistencies in the evidence and lack of corroboration from other witnesses [Paras 1-13].

Eyewitness Credibility – Discrepancies in Testimony – Testimony of Avik Mondal (PW-1) not corroborated by another brother, Badal Mondal (PW-3), whose evidence was found unreliable – Court emphasized the need for credible and corroborated eyewitness testimony in serious criminal cases [Paras 8-10].

Lack of Recovery and Forensic Evidence – No recovery of weapon or ballistic evidence linking the appellant to the crime – Absence of physical evidence weakened the prosecution’s case [Paras 11-12].

Benefit of Doubt – Acquittal of Co-Accused – Court noted that the trial and High Court acquitted 13 out of 14 accused – Similar evidence used against all accused should have led to appellant's acquittal as well [Paras 6-10].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant to be released forthwith if not required in any other case [Para 13].

Criminal Procedure – Right to Fair Trial – Appeal disposed of without hearing appellant’s counsel – Supreme Court reiterated that a criminal case should not be decided in the absence of the accused’s counsel – If counsel is absent, the court must appoint an amicus curiae to defend the accused to ensure a fair trial [Paras 6-7].

Duty of Appellate Court – Evaluation of Evidence – Emphasized the appellate court’s duty to independently evaluate the evidence to determine the reliability and whether the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt – High Court failed to analyze the evidence adequately [Paras 7-8].

Remand for Fresh Hearing – Inadequate Consideration by High Court – Supreme Court set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the High Court for fresh disposal on merits, ensuring the appellant is given a fair opportunity to be heard [Paras 9-10].

Decision: Impugned order set aside – Matter remitted to High Court for fresh disposal on merits – Appellant granted bail pending appeal, subject to conditions imposed by Special Judge [Paras 9-12].

Extradition and Principle of Speciality – The Supreme Court addressed whether the appellant could be tried for additional charges beyond those for which he was extradited – Portugal's courts found such charges violated the Principle of Speciality – India and Portugal differ on this interpretation [Paras 1-7].

Diplomatic and Judicial Comity – Recognizing the importance of maintaining international relations and cooperation against global terrorism, the Supreme Court allowed withdrawal of additional charges deemed in violation of the extradition terms by Portuguese courts – Emphasized the need for judicial and diplomatic harmony [Paras 8-14].

Modification of Previous Judgment – Supreme Court modified its earlier judgment to permit the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to withdraw certain additional charges – Acknowledged ongoing diplomatic efforts between India and Portugal regarding the extradition issues [Paras 11-16].

Continuation of Trial – Despite the withdrawal of specific charges, the trial for the remaining charges to proceed – Supreme Court vacated the stay order and directed the continuation of the trial process [Paras 18-19].

Decision: Appeals allowed in part – CBI permitted to withdraw additional charges – Stay on trial vacated – Trial to continue for remaining charges – Diplomatic efforts to be pursued for resolving extradition issues [Paras 18-19].

Criminal Law – Common Intention – The appellants were convicted for murder and other offenses based on the principle of common intention – Supreme Court found the evidence insufficient to infer common intention for murder for all appellants except Kamal Kumar, who inflicted fatal injuries [Paras 1-9].

Eyewitness Testimony – Injured eyewitnesses (PW-2, PW-4, and PW-5) consistently narrated the sequence of events, corroborated by medical evidence – Court relied on their testimonies to establish the assault and the roles of the accused [Paras 4-5].

Section 34 IPC – Vicarious Liability – Court reiterated the need for clear evidence of a prearranged plan or meeting of minds to invoke Section 34 IPC – Found such evidence lacking for appellants Raghbir Chand, Varinder Kumar, and Vijay Kumar concerning the murder charge [Paras 8-9].

Conviction Modification – Kamal Kumar's act of inflicting multiple knife blows on the deceased’s abdomen was found intentional and beyond the scope of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC – Conviction under Section 302 IPC upheld for Kamal Kumar, while others’ convictions under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC were set aside but upheld under Sections 324 and 323 IPC [Paras 9-13].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Conviction of appellants Raghbir Chand, Varinder Kumar, and Vijay Kumar under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC set aside – Convictions under Sections 324 and 323 IPC maintained – Kamal Kumar’s conviction under Section 302 IPC affirmed – Other sentences for Kamal Kumar also maintained [Paras 12-13].

Constitutional Law – Validity of Statute – Petition filed under Article 32 challenging the constitutional validity of provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 – Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 12, stating that it does not infringe upon Articles 14, 21, and 22(4) of the Constitution [Paras 1-47].

Right to Speedy Trial – Section 12 provides that trials under the Act shall have precedence over other cases and shall be concluded in preference to such other trials – Petitioner's contention that it violates the right to a speedy trial and fair trial under Article 21 was rejected – Court emphasized that Section 12 aims at ensuring speedy trial under the Act and does not delay other trials unduly [Paras 6-36].

Liberty and Preventive Detention – Petitioner's argument that the provision results in illegal detention was rejected – The Act provides for trial and not preventive detention – Adequate safeguards for bail are in place [Paras 37-41].

Equal Protection and Classification – Differentiation between accused under this Act and those under other laws was held reasonable – Court found that the classification is rational and does not violate Article 14 [Paras 43-46].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Section 12 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 upheld as constitutionally valid [Para 47].

Motor Vehicles Act – Compensation – Cleaner injured in road accident – Tribunal awarded compensation under Motor Vehicles Act – High Court restricted compensation to Workmen's Compensation Act – Supreme Court held compensation under Motor Vehicles Act not limited to Workmen's Compensation Act if policy covers higher liability [Paras 1-27].

Insurance Policy – Liability and Premium – Liability of insurer under Motor Vehicles Act not confined to Workmen's Compensation Act – Higher liability depends on premium paid and policy terms – Insurer to indemnify as per policy [Paras 15-20].

Procedure – Owner's Non-appearance – Insurance companies should ensure owner's appearance before tribunal – Insurer's burden to provide evidence when owner is absent – Tribunal should avoid subsequent proceedings [Paras 22-25].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court's judgment set aside – Insurer directed to pay full compensation as determined by Tribunal – Clarification of insurer's liability to pay balance amount beyond Rs. 32,091/- with interest [Paras 26-27].

Income Tax – Incentive Bonus – Development Officers of LIC – Incentive bonus received by Development Officers prior to April 1, 1989 – Whether forming part of salary and subject to income tax – Assistant Income Tax Officer rejected claim for deduction of 40% incentive bonus – Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld decision – Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ruled in favor of Assessee – High Court ruled in favor of Revenue – Supreme Court held that incentive bonus constitutes salary and no deduction beyond standard deduction under Section 16 is permissible [Paras 1-9].

Income Tax Act – Sections 10(14) and 17 – Interpretation – Section 10(14) excludes certain allowances from salary – Section 17 includes incentive bonus in salary – Expenditure incurred for generating business not deductible from salary – Income Tax Act as a self-contained code – Taxability to be determined as per definitions in Act – High Court of Gujarat's contrary view inapplicable – Appeal dismissed [Paras 3-8].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Incentive bonus received by Development Officers prior to April 1, 1989, to be treated as salary – No additional deductions permitted beyond those in Section 16 – Expenses incurred in generating business not deductible – No costs [Para 9].

Land Acquisition – Market Value – Determination – Reference court awarded compensation at Rs. 5 per sq. foot based on sale instances – High Court set aside reference court’s award, reinstating Special Land Acquisition Officer’s award of Rs. 50,000 per hectare – Supreme Court held reference court correctly assessed market value considering land’s potentiality for industrial use – High Court erred in disregarding sale instances – Compensation award by reference court restored [Paras 1-27].

Land Acquisition – Potentiality – Industrial Development – Acquired land’s potential for industrial development crucial in determining market value – Reference court’s reliance on sale instances of nearby plots justified – High Court’s contrary view unsupported by evidence and legal principles [Paras 9-15].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Reference court’s award restored – Respondent to pay compensation to appellants within six weeks – No order as to costs [Paras 24-26].