Review Jurisdiction – Grounds for Review – Review petition filed by Kamlesh Verma challenging the quashing of the FIR against Ms. Mayawati – Supreme Court reiterated the narrow scope of review jurisdiction – Review is maintainable only on grounds of discovery of new evidence, error apparent on the face of the record, or other sufficient reasons analogous to those specified – Review dismissed as the petitioner failed to demonstrate any error apparent or new evidence [Paras 1-25].

Review Principles – Error Apparent on the Face of Record – Court emphasized that an error must be self-evident and not require elaborate argument to establish – Reiteration of existing arguments and disagreement with the view taken in the original judgment does not constitute grounds for review [Paras 7-12].

FIR Quashing – Jurisdiction and Directions – The original judgment correctly interpreted the scope of directions regarding the Taj Corridor case – No specific direction to investigate disproportionate assets of Ms. Mayawati – FIR quashed as the CBI exceeded its jurisdiction [Paras 20-24].

Decision: Review petition dismissed – No sufficient grounds for review established – Court upheld its original decision quashing the FIR against Ms. Mayawati [Para 25].

Stamp Duty – Deficient Stamp Duty – Agreements for sale executed by the appellant impounded for deficient stamp duty – Deputy Registrar referred the matter for adjudication – Assistant Commissioner (Stamps) directed payment of deficit stamp duty, penalty, and interest – High Court modified the amount of deficit stamp duty and penalty but upheld the requirement for payment of deficient stamp duty – Supreme Court upheld High Court’s decision [Paras 2-18].

Stamp Act – Applicability of Provisions – Conjoint reading of Section 28 and Article 5 (b-1) of Schedule 1B of the Indian Stamp Act as applicable to Uttarakhand mandates payment of stamp duty on 50% of the value of consideration of the sale agreement – Appellant’s argument based on Sections 2, 3, and 10 rejected due to state amendment – Section 33 invoked correctly for impounding documents [Paras 10-14].

Cancellation of Agreements – No Relief – Subsequent cancellation of agreements within two months does not nullify action taken under Sections 33/38 of the Stamp Act for deficient stamp duty at the time of presentation for registration [Para 17].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – No further relief granted – High Court’s decision regarding deficit stamp duty and reduced penalty affirmed [Para 18].

Environment Law – Coastal Regulation Zone – Vembanad Lake identified as a Critically Vulnerable Coastal Area (CVCA) under CRZ Notification 2011 – Appellant's property classified as Filtration Pond (FP) and included in CRZ-I – Appellant challenged the inclusion and classification as ultra vires CRZ Notification 1991 and 2011 – Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision maintaining the classification and inclusion under CRZ-I based on scientific evidence and larger public interest [Paras 1-25].

CRZ Notifications – Validity and Application – CZMP prepared based on guidelines issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) – CZMP 1995 classified Vettilla Thuruthu as FP and included it in CRZ-I – High Court and Supreme Court found no illegality in the map and techniques used for classification – Satellite imagery and expert reports supported the classification [Paras 6-21].

Construction Regulations – Demolition Orders – Appellant's constructions found in violation of CRZ Notification 1991 and 2011 – High Court directed demolition of illegal constructions to protect Vembanad Lake's ecological sensitivity – Supreme Court upheld demolition orders [Paras 22-24].

Decision: Special Leave Petitions dismissed – High Court's judgment upheld – Directions for demolition of illegal constructions in CRZ-I maintained [Para 25].

Criminal Law – Acquittal – Appeal against the acquittal of the accused previously convicted of murder – High Court reversed the conviction on the grounds of non-mentioning of the accused’s name in the FIR, non-disclosure of the accused’s name by the deceased, and the non-examination of certain witnesses – Supreme Court held the High Court’s reasoning as flawed and restored the trial court’s conviction [Paras 1-34].

FIR and Witness Testimony – Non-Mentioning of Accused’s Name – The Supreme Court reiterated that non-mentioning of the accused’s name in the FIR is not fatal if the name surfaces at the earliest opportunity during investigation – Emphasized the importance of corroborative evidence over minor discrepancies [Paras 19-24].

Evidence – Minor Discrepancies – Minor inconsistencies in witness testimonies should not undermine the overall credibility if the testimonies are trustworthy – The Court stressed that evidence should be read as a whole, and undue emphasis on minor contradictions is unwarranted [Paras 28-29].

Non-Examination of Witnesses – Non-examination of certain witnesses, including a treating doctor, does not necessarily affect the prosecution’s case if the available evidence is credible and sufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 30-31].

Non-Recovery of Weapon – The non-recovery of the weapon used in the crime is not detrimental to the prosecution’s case if there is ample ocular and corroborative evidence establishing the accused’s guilt [Paras 31-33].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s judgment of acquittal set aside – Trial court’s conviction restored – Respondent directed to surrender to custody to serve out the sentence [Para 34].

Criminal Procedure – Anticipatory Bail – Grant of anticipatory bail by Additional Sessions Judge based on opinion that no case under Section 326 IPC was made out due to the simple nature of injuries – Supreme Court held it was premature to form such an opinion as the investigation was still ongoing and the weapon had not been recovered – The Court emphasized the need for custodial interrogation to uncover the source of the weapon and bullets used in the offence [Paras 2-12].

Anticipatory Bail – Judicial Discretion – Court reiterated that judicial discretion in granting anticipatory bail must be exercised with caution, especially in serious offences where investigation is incomplete and the accused may not cooperate – Highlighted the necessity of custodial interrogation in such cases [Paras 8-12].

Criminal Investigation – Recovery of Weapon – Emphasized the importance of recovering the weapon used in the commission of the offence to establish the nature of the crime and the involvement of the accused – The Court found fault with the lower court's decision to grant bail without such recovery [Para 12].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Orders of the Additional Sessions Judge and the High Court granting anticipatory bail to the respondents set aside – Respondents given liberty to apply for regular bail before the trial court, to be considered in accordance with law [Para 12].

Compassionate Appointment – Scheme Change – Respondent applied for compassionate appointment after the death of his father, an employee of the appellant bank – During the pendency of the application, a new scheme came into force providing for ex-gratia payment instead of compassionate appointment – Supreme Court held that the case should be considered under the new scheme, not the old one, as the scheme does not create a vested right [Paras 2-15].

Service Jurisprudence – Compassionate Employment – Appointment on compassionate grounds is an exception to the general rule of employment and is intended to alleviate the immediate financial crisis of the deceased's family – It cannot be claimed as a matter of right and is subject to the conditions of the scheme in force at the time of consideration [Paras 5-9].

Change of Policy – Vested Rights – A scheme change does not affect vested rights unless the previous scheme created a vested right – The new scheme must be applied to pending applications unless otherwise specified [Paras 10-12].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's judgments set aside – Respondent directed to apply for consideration under the new scheme – Appellant to consider the application as per the new scheme within three months [Paras 14-15].

Service Law – Regularization of Special Police Officers – Appellants were appointed as SPOs under Section 17 of the Police Act, 1861 during a period of disturbance in Punjab – Supreme Court held that the relationship of master and servant existed between the appellants and the State – Directed the State to regularize their services by creating necessary posts within three months, entitling them to all service benefits of similar posts [Paras 1-38].

Constitutional Law – Articles 14 and 16 – Equal Opportunity and Non-Arbitrariness – Court emphasized that the failure to regularize the services of the SPOs, who had been working for decades, constituted arbitrary action by the State – Regularization cannot be denied merely due to the absence of sanctioned posts, which the State has the authority to create based on need [Paras 13-35].

Public Employment – Compliance with Recruitment Procedures – The initial appointments of the appellants were made following a rational and statutory procedure, thus differentiating their case from those involving irregular appointments as discussed in the Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi [Paras 22-33].

Financial Implications – The State's Argument on Financial Burden – The State's claim that financial implications prevent regularization was rejected as the wages for the SPOs were being paid by public sector banks, which utilized their services – The State can demand the banks to meet any additional financial burden arising from regularization [Para 36].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Judgments under appeal set aside – State directed to regularize the services of the appellants within three months, providing them with benefits similar to regular police officers – Costs of Rs. 10,000 awarded to each appellant [Paras 37-38].

Civil Procedure – Amendment of Written Statement – Defendants sought to amend their written statement to include a claim for a sum of Rs. 4,19,509.43 as an equitable set-off – Plaintiffs opposed, arguing it was an impermissible counterclaim or set-off – Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision allowing the amendment, recognizing the claim as equitable set-off connected to the same transaction [Paras 1-18].

Equitable Set-Off – Requirements and Discretion – Equitable set-off is distinct from legal set-off and is governed by principles of equity, justice, and good conscience – Requires mutual debts and credits or cross-demands arising out of the same transaction or connected in nature and circumstances – Discretionary for the court to allow based on the specifics of each case [Paras 11-16].

Legal Set-Off – Conditions Under CPC – Legal set-off under Order 8 Rule 6 requires an ascertained sum of money legally recoverable, involving the same character of parties in both claims – Equitable set-off, being independent of CPC provisions, does not strictly adhere to these conditions [Paras 11-16].

Decision: Appeal disposed of – High Court's allowance of the amendment affirmed as equitable set-off – Suit to be expedited and disposed of within one year from the date of the judgment [Para 18].

Service Law – Incentive Increment – Respondent-employee, reemployed as a Male Nurse, sought an incentive increment for his wife's pre-reemployment sterilization – Central Administrative Tribunal denied the claim based on a policy excluding re-employed individuals from such incentives for pre-reemployment sterilizations – High Court overturned this, directing the increment – Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, citing the reasonableness and purpose of the policy to control population growth through incentives only for current service period [Paras 3-14].

Government Policy – Judicial Interference – Supreme Court emphasized the need for judicial restraint in interfering with government policies aimed at broader social objectives, like population control – Highlighted the rational connection between the policy and its intended purpose [Para 14].

Precedent – Mistakes in Individual Cases – Court clarified that mistakes in individual cases, like the one cited by the High Court (Vijay Kumar's case), do not set binding precedents, especially when special reasons for such decisions are unspecified [Para 11].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's judgment set aside – Tribunal's decision upheld – No costs awarded [Para 14].