Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Section 482 CrPC – Appellant challenged FIR registered in 2000 alleging embezzlement during his tenure as LDC-cum-Cashier – High Court refused to quash FIR despite lack of evidence and prolonged investigation – Supreme Court emphasized constitutional right to speedy trial and investigation – Held, continuation of investigation without evidence violates Article 21 – FIR quashed [Paras 1-34].

Criminal Procedure – Right to Speedy Trial – Article 21 of Constitution – Investigating Agency failed to produce evidence despite repeated requests – Departmental inquiry exonerated appellant – Supreme Court held continuation of FIR proceedings without evidence as abuse of process – Directed quashing of FIR [Paras 30-34].

Criminal Law – Investigation and Evidence – Section 156(3) CrPC – Direction by CJM to reinvestigate with assistance of complainant – Original records not made available – Inquiry report exonerated appellant – Supreme Court noted lack of cooperation by respondent in providing evidence – Directed quashing of FIR [Paras 25-33].

Decision:

Appeal allowed – FIR No. 10/2000 lodged at Police Station Dausa against appellant quashed [Para 34].

Labor Law – Regularization of Daily Wage Workers – Resolution of State Government:

State of Gujarat and its officials directed to regularize services of daily wage workers based on their long-term engagement and nature of work – Resolution dated 17th October 1988 found applicable to all daily wage workers, not limited to those engaged in building maintenance and repairing work – Orders of the High Court affirmed with modifications directing implementation of benefits under the Resolution dated 17th October 1988 [Paras 1-26].

Resolution Scope and Applicability – Interpretation of Government Orders:

Resolution dated 17th October 1988 extended to daily wage workers performing any nature of job, not confined to building maintenance – Full Bench decision of Gujarat High Court and subsequent departmental resolution restricting applicability to building maintenance workers found erroneous – Supreme Court clarifies broader scope of the Resolution for all daily wage workers in various state departments [Paras 20-21].

Judicial Review – Article 226 of Constitution – Limits on Regularization Orders:

Supreme Court emphasizes that High Courts under Article 226 cannot direct regularization of employees unless appointments were made in a regular manner – However, finds the case of daily wage workers in Forest and Environment Department meets criteria for regularization based on long-term engagement and essential services performed [Paras 23-24].

Decision:

Appeals disposed of – High Court's order modified – State of Gujarat directed to grant benefits of the Resolution dated 17th October 1988 to all eligible daily wage workers in the Forest and Environment Department – Benefits to be applied retrospectively from 29th October 2010 within four months from receipt of the order [Para 26].

Criminal Law – Conviction Based on Circumstantial Evidence – Review of Appellate Decision:

Appellants convicted for offences under Sections 364, 302, 379, 201 read with Section 34 IPC based on circumstantial evidence – Trial court's decision upheld by the High Court – Supreme Court sets aside High Court judgment, remitting case for fresh disposal, emphasizing the necessity to address all contentions raised by appellants [Paras 1-8].

Evidence Act – Section 106 – Burden of Proof:

High Court failed to sufficiently address questions on prosecution's evidence, including the recovery of the motorcycle and wristwatch, identification of the deceased, and circumstances of the exhumation – Supreme Court highlights the burden of proof under Section 106 on the accused to explain possession of the stolen motorcycle [Paras 3-7].

Discovery of Evidence – Reliability and Procedural Integrity:

Discrepancies in witness testimonies regarding recovery of motorcycle and wristwatch – Prosecution's theory of exhumation and last seen evidence challenged – Supreme Court remands for thorough examination of the facts and evidentiary inconsistencies [Paras 6-7].

Decision:

Appeal disposed of – High Court's judgment set aside – Case remitted to High Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law – Appellants allowed to raise all contentions, and respondents permitted to defend the trial court’s judgment [Paras 8].

Service Law – Re-evaluation of Examination Scripts – Appointment Cancellation:

Challenge to the re-evaluation of examination scripts and cancellation of appointments based on a revised merit list – Original merit list canceled due to errors in examination questions and answers – Supreme Court upholds the re-evaluation process and revised merit list but provides relief to appellants based on length of service and absence of their fault in the errors [Paras 1-29].

Re-evaluation Procedure – Clause 14 of the Examination Conduct Rules:

Detailed examination of Clause 14 of the Rules, which provides for the deletion of incorrect questions and pro-rata distribution of marks – Re-evaluation of certain questions found incorrect in the original evaluation – Supreme Court finds re-evaluation process valid and within the Board's authority [Paras 13-17].

Equitable Relief – Length of Service and Training Considerations:

Given the appellants' completion of training and more than three years of service, Supreme Court directs their retention at the bottom of the revised merit list – Ensures no unfair advantage to appellants while avoiding undue hardship from termination [Paras 18-28].

Decision:

Appeals disposed of – High Court's order modified – Appellants to be placed at the bottom of the revised merit list with fresh appointments – No entitlement to back wages, seniority, or other benefits from prior appointments [Paras 27-28].

Criminal Law – Conviction Based on Circumstantial Evidence – Review of Appellate Decision:

Appellants convicted for offences under Sections 364, 302, 379, 201 read with Section 34 IPC based on circumstantial evidence – Trial court's decision upheld by the High Court – Supreme Court sets aside High Court judgment, remitting case for fresh disposal, emphasizing the necessity to address all contentions raised by appellants [Paras 1-8].

Evidence Act – Section 106 – Burden of Proof:

High Court failed to sufficiently address questions on prosecution's evidence, including the recovery of the motorcycle and wristwatch, identification of the deceased, and circumstances of the exhumation – Supreme Court highlights the burden of proof under Section 106 on the accused to explain possession of the stolen motorcycle [Paras 3-7].

Discovery of Evidence – Reliability and Procedural Integrity:

Discrepancies in witness testimonies regarding recovery of motorcycle and wristwatch – Prosecution's theory of exhumation and last seen evidence challenged – Supreme Court remands for thorough examination of the facts and evidentiary inconsistencies [Paras 6-7].

Decision:

Appeal disposed of – High Court's judgment set aside – Case remitted to High Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law – Appellants allowed to raise all contentions, and respondents permitted to defend the trial court’s judgment [Paras 8].

Motor Vehicles Act – Insurance Policy – Dishonor of Cheque:

Insurance company contested liability to pay compensation for an accident, arguing the insurance policy was invalid due to cheque dishonor prior to the accident – Supreme Court upheld that the insurance company is liable if intimation of dishonor is communicated to the policyholder after the accident date [Paras 1-5].

Insurance Liability – Timing of Dishonor Intimation:

Policyholder's cheque dishonored before the accident – Insurance company notified policyholder after the accident – Based on precedent, the company remains liable for compensation to claimants [Paras 3-4].

Decision:

Appeal dismissed – Insurance company liable to pay compensation as per Tribunal's award – No costs ordered [Para 5].

Criminal Law – Conviction Based on Dying Declaration – Review of Appellate Decision:

Appellants convicted under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC for dowry death based on the dying declaration – Conviction upheld by Sessions Judge and High Court – Supreme Court affirms findings and dismisses appeal, noting the reliability of the dying declaration and absence of mitigating circumstances to reduce the sentence [Paras 1-24].

Dying Declaration – Admissibility and Reliability:

Dying declaration recorded by Dr. Rajinder Rai (PW-4) found reliable – Declaration made voluntarily and truthfully by the deceased – Appellant No. 1 present during recording, corroborating the declaration's validity – Supreme Court references established jurisprudence on the validity of dying declarations [Paras 11-15].

Consideration of Sentence – No Reduction Warranted:

Appellants' request to reduce sentence from 10 to 7 years not entertained – High Court already reduced sentence from life imprisonment to 10 years based on facts and circumstances – Supreme Court finds no further grounds to reduce sentence [Paras 23-24].

Decision:

Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC upheld – Appellants Nos. 2 and 3 to be taken into custody to serve remainder of sentence [Para 24-25].

Subsoil Rights – Ownership and Legal Entitlement – Historical Context:

Appeal addressed the question of whether jenmom landholders in Malabar are proprietors of the soil and the minerals underneath – Supreme Court held that jenmom landholders have rights to subsoil/minerals unless deprived by law – British disclaimed proprietary rights over such lands in 1799 [Paras 1-57].

British Policies and Ryotwari Settlements – Mineral Rights:

Ryotwari settlements in Madras Presidency recognized landholders' rights over subsoil minerals – British policies expressly disclaimed ownership of subsoil rights, maintaining jenmom proprietors' ownership unless legally transferred – Standing orders (BSO No. 10) confirmed no claim to minerals in ryotwari and jenmom lands, only to share in mineral produce [Paras 18-39].

Legal Precedents and Case Analysis – Subsoil Ownership:

Reviewed relevant precedents and legal texts affirming the rights of jenmom landholders – Distinguished cases asserting State ownership of minerals, concluded these did not apply to jenmom or ryotwari lands – Rights to minerals generally follow land ownership unless explicitly transferred by legal process [Paras 45-50].

Decision:

Appeals allowed – Jenmom landholders recognized as proprietors of subsoil/minerals – State of Kerala's claim to minerals not upheld – Judgment of Kerala High Court reversed – Issue of royalty payment referred to larger bench [Paras 57].

Promissory Estoppel – Rights of Landowners – Retail Outlet Dealerships:

Landowners who entered into agreements with oil companies for retail outlets based on promises of dealership challenged the subsequent policy changes suspending such promises – Supreme Court held that the doctrine of promissory estoppel does not apply where landowners entered new lease agreements without any indication that these were temporary until earlier policies were restored [Paras 1-61].

Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel – Applicability:

Claim based on promissory estoppel requires unequivocal promise – Subsequent agreements entered post-policy suspension lack foundation for such claims – Even if initial assurances were given, no entitlement to dealership in absence of formal contract or letter of intent [Paras 17-25].

Legitimate Expectation – Non-application in Policy Change:

Change from grant of dealership to COCO units (Company Owned and Company Operated) was a policy decision – Legitimate expectation doctrine does not apply where public policy or interest dictates otherwise – Landowners cannot claim dealerships post-policy change where clear terms of lease did not support such claims [Paras 58-61].

Decision:

Appeals and petitions dismissed – No relief for landowners claiming dealership based on doctrine of promissory estoppel or legitimate expectation – Oil companies' decision to convert retail outlets into COCO units upheld – Petitioners may seek remedy for damages through appropriate forums [Paras 60-61].