Criminal Law – Summoning Additional Accused – Complainant lodged FIR naming seven accused – Investigating Officer (I.O.) charged only five – Trial court rejected complainant's application to summon remaining two accused under Section 319 CrPC – High Court set aside trial court’s order – Supreme Court examined procedural compliance and the sufficiency of evidence against the accused [Paras 1-22].Procedural Validity – Revisional Jurisdiction and Inherent Powers – Court held that revision petition should have been filed against the trial court’s order instead of invoking inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC – Noted procedural error by the High Court in bypassing revision route [Paras 20-23].Opportunity of Hearing – Essential for Revisional Orders – Emphasized necessity of providing notice and hearing to affected parties in revisional proceedings – High Court’s failure to hear appellants before passing the impugned order found to be a violation of procedural rights [Paras 28-34].Judicial Review – Order of Summoning – Discussed conditions under which non-accused can be summoned during trial – Highlighted importance of clear prima facie evidence for exercising discretion under Section 319 CrPC [Paras 4-18].Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s order set aside – Matter remanded for fresh consideration with an opportunity for appellants to be heard [Para 34].

Criminal Law – Conviction for Murder – Appellant convicted under Sections 302, 307, and 332 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act – Conviction based on testimony of police officers and forensic evidence – Supreme Court upheld conviction, dismissing defense claims of accidental shooting by a police officer [Paras 1-14].

Police Testimony – Reliance and Credibility – Court examined credibility of police witnesses, dismissing defense argument of unreliability due to lack of independent witnesses – Affirmed that police testimony, if reliable, can be sole basis for conviction [Paras 10-11].

Forensic Evidence – Weapon Identification – FSL report confirmed bullet fired from appellant’s country-made pistol – Rejected defense claim of accidental shooting by police officer – Detailed examination of weapon and injury confirmed appellant’s culpability [Paras 12-13].

Judicial Review – Evaluation of Evidence – Upheld lower courts’ findings on the sequence of events and credibility of prosecution witnesses – Rejected defense's narrative of self-defense and accidental shooting as implausible [Paras 7-14].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Conviction and sentences upheld – Appellant’s claims found to be without merit [Para 14].

Consumer Protection – Jurisdiction – Complaints under Consumer Protection Act – Respondents filed complaints before Consumer Forums against final assessment orders under Section 126 of the Electricity Act – Supreme Court held Consumer Forums do not have jurisdiction over disputes arising from assessment orders under Section 126 or actions under Sections 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act [Paras 1-48].

Electricity Act – Unauthorized Use and Offences – Assessment orders under Section 126 deal with unauthorized use of electricity – Offences under Sections 135 to 140 involve theft and tampering – These are not related to service deficiencies or unfair trade practices covered under Consumer Protection Act [Paras 29-36].

Jurisdiction Bar – Civil Court and Consumer Forums – Section 145 of Electricity Act bars civil courts from jurisdiction over matters determined by Assessing Officers under Section 126 – Consumer Forums cannot adjudicate such disputes or related criminal proceedings [Paras 37-46].

Decision: Appeals allowed – National Commission’s orders set aside – Complaints before Consumer Forums against assessment orders under Section 126 and offences under Sections 135 to 140 of Electricity Act held not maintainable [Para 48].

Mortgage vs. Absolute Sale – Legal Interpretation – The appellant, the legal heir of the original plaintiff, contended that the transaction involving the suit property was a mortgage by conditional sale, requiring the respondent to reconvey the property upon repayment within five years. The trial court supported this view, deeming it a mortgage. However, the first appellate court and the High Court found it to be an absolute sale with a condition of repurchase. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of interpreting the document's terms and the absence of a debtor-creditor relationship to determine the nature of the transaction [Paras 1-21].

Findings of Fact – Lower Courts' Role – The Supreme Court upheld the findings of the first appellate court, which scrutinized the transaction details and determined it to be an absolute sale. The Court highlighted that the High Court rightly refused to interfere with these findings under Section 100 CPC, which restricts interference to substantial questions of law [Paras 10-12, 20-21].

Precedents on Conditional Sales and Mortgages – The judgment referred to multiple cases to distinguish between a mortgage by conditional sale and a sale with a right to repurchase, noting the critical factors such as the presence of a debt, the relationship between the parties, and the document's language. Notably, the Court cited cases like Williams v. Owen, Vasudeo Bhikaji Joshi v. Bhau Lakshman Ravut, and Tamboli Ramanlal Motilal v. Ghanchi Chimanlal Keshavlal to support its conclusion that the transaction was an absolute sale with a condition of repurchase [Paras 15-18].

Decision: Appeal dismissed. The findings of the lower appellate court, as affirmed by the High Court, were upheld, confirming the transaction as an absolute sale rather than a mortgage by conditional sale.

Disability and Employment – Age Relaxation – Appellant contested his disqualification for a Group 'D' post on the grounds of age, citing entitlement to age relaxation due to a 60% hearing disability under the Disabilities Act, 1995. Despite consistent employment during litigation, his appeals were dismissed by lower courts. Supreme Court emphasized the non-mandatory language in Section 38 of the Disabilities Act, noting that age relaxation is discretionary and not compulsory. State government orders post-1999 did not extend this relaxation to physically handicapped individuals, focusing only on SC/ST/OBC categories. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the lower courts' decisions [Paras 1-11].

Legislative Interpretation – "May" vs. "Shall" – The Court interpreted the terms "may" and "shall" within the Disabilities Act, concluding that "may" connotes discretion rather than an obligation. It stressed that, despite the Act's intent to promote inclusivity for persons with disabilities, the specific provision for age relaxation remained non-compulsory, affecting the appellant's case negatively [Paras 3-8].

Constitutional and Statutory Compliance – The Court reiterated the principle that all statutes must comply with the Constitution and relevant laws, emphasizing that executive orders contrary to the Disabilities Act would lack legal efficacy. However, since the Disabilities Act's age relaxation provision is discretionary, state orders limiting age relaxation for disabled candidates were upheld [Paras 9-10].

Decision: Appeal dismissed. The appellant was not entitled to age relaxation under the Disabilities Act, 1995, as the relevant state orders did not provide for it post-1999. Costs imposed on the appellant for the benefit of Respondent No. 1.

Criminal Law – Murder Conviction and Acquittal – The respondents were initially convicted by the trial court under Sections 302/34 IPC for the murder of Jagan and sentenced to life imprisonment. On appeal, the High Court acquitted the respondents, leading the State to appeal to the Supreme Court. The key issues revolved around the reliability of the prosecution's evidence, discrepancies in witness testimonies, and failure to explain injuries on the accused [Paras 1-10].

Discrepancies and Contradictions in Evidence – The High Court highlighted multiple inconsistencies in the prosecution's case, including contradictions in the FIR, discrepancies in witness statements, lack of explanation for the accused's injuries, and the absence of empty cartridges at the crime scene. These factors collectively cast doubt on the prosecution's narrative, leading to the acquittal of the respondents [Paras 6-9].

Guidelines for Interference in Acquittal – The Supreme Court reaffirmed that interference with an acquittal should be limited to cases where there are compelling reasons and the judgment is found to be perverse. The appellate court should respect the presumption of innocence and the trial court's judgment unless substantial grounds for interference are demonstrated [Paras 10-11].

Decision: Appeal dismissed. The Supreme Court found no compelling reason to interfere with the High Court's acquittal of the respondents, upholding the decision due to the significant inconsistencies and doubts raised in the prosecution's case.

Mental Disorder – Divorce Grounds – The husband sought divorce under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, claiming the wife was incurably of unsound mind and that her behavior constituted cruelty. The Family Court and High Court found the wife to be suffering from mild to moderate cognitive deficiencies but not of such a kind or extent to warrant divorce. The wife's desire to continue the marital relationship was noted, and the husband's responsibility in her condition was emphasized. The appeals were dismissed, affirming that the wife’s condition did not justify divorce under the alleged grounds [Paras 1-34].

Cruelty and Erratic Behavior – The husband's claims of cruelty and erratic behavior by the wife were not substantiated by independent evidence. Testimonies from interested witnesses and the husband's failure to produce available witnesses weakened his case. The Court found no evidence of aggressive or abnormal behavior from the wife, dismissing the claims of cruelty [Paras 34-36].

Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage – The husband’s plea for divorce on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown of marriage was rejected. The Court noted the wife’s consistent desire to maintain the marriage and emphasized that the husband was largely responsible for the marital discord. Citing legal precedents, the Court refused to grant divorce on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown as it is not recognized under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act [Paras 38-39].

Article 142 – Complete Justice – The husband’s plea for invoking Article 142 to dissolve the marriage was also dismissed. The Court stressed the need for justice to be perceived similarly regardless of the parties’ roles and found that dissolving the marriage under Article 142 would not be just given the wife’s willingness to continue the marriage and the husband's responsibility in the situation [Paras 40-42].

Decision: Appeals dismissed. The Court upheld the lower courts' decisions, denying the husband’s petition for divorce and supporting the wife's petition for restitution of conjugal rights. The Court emphasized the husband’s role in the wife’s condition and her continued capacity to fulfill marital obligations.

Land Acquisition – Compensation Assessment – The appellant’s land was acquired for the construction of the Orni-reservoir. The Reference Court awarded compensation based on market value supported by sale transactions. The High Court reduced the compensation and set aside the damages for standing crops. The Supreme Court restored the Reference Court's award, noting errors in the High Court's assessment and improper reliance on evidence [Paras 1-23].

Market Value Determination – The Reference Court based its determination on sale deeds from nearby areas, adjusting for the larger area and increase in land value. The High Court's reduction of compensation to Rs. 100 per decimal was found to be unsupported by evidence and based on erroneous interpretation of the sale deeds as homestead lands. The Supreme Court highlighted that the High Court did not consider the increase in land value or the proper deduction rate, leading to the restoration of the Reference Court's compensation of Rs. 250 per decimal [Paras 7-20].

Standing Crops Damages – The Reference Court awarded Rs. 10,000 for standing crops based on witness testimonies, which the High Court set aside relying on the statement of an official not present at the time of acquisition. The Supreme Court found that the High Court disregarded the consistent evidence provided by multiple witnesses supporting the existence of standing crops and the resulting damage [Paras 21-23].

Decision: Appeal allowed. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and restored the award of the Reference Court. The respondents were directed to pay the appellant compensation as determined by the Reference Court, after adjusting amounts already paid, within three months [Para 23].

Property Ownership – Vesting Under Acquisition Act – The Swadeshi Cotton Mills Company Limited (SCMCL) properties, including Swadeshi House, were taken over by the Central Government and vested in NTC under the Swadeshi Act, 1986. The NTC claimed ownership of Bungalow No. 2 as part of Swadeshi House. However, the High Court and subsequent courts found that Bungalow No. 2 did not vest in the NTC, as it was not included in the properties specified under the Act or judicial decisions [Paras 3-16].

Judicial Interpretation and Previous Litigation – Various courts, including the Supreme Court in the Doypack Systems case, addressed issues of property vesting under the Swadeshi Act. The courts consistently found that Bungalow No. 2 was not vested in NTC, distinguishing it from Bungalow No. 1 and the Administrative Block, which were vested properties. The Supreme Court affirmed these findings, noting the lack of conclusive evidence to support NTC’s claims [Paras 9-12].

Eviction Proceedings and Title Disputes – NTC’s eviction proceedings under the Public Premises Act and a criminal complaint under Section 27 of the Swadeshi Act were dismissed by lower courts, which held that NTC failed to establish clear title over Bungalow No. 2. The courts directed NTC to seek appropriate remedies in civil court, but NTC did not file such a suit. The Supreme Court upheld these decisions, emphasizing the need for clear title and proper legal proceedings to resolve such disputes [Paras 13-16].

Decision: Appeals dismissed. The Supreme Court confirmed the High Court's dismissal of NTC's writ petitions and upheld the findings that Bungalow No. 2 did not vest in NTC under the Swadeshi Act. The Court reiterated the requirement for clear title and appropriate legal action in property disputes [Para 17].