Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Appellant sought quashing of proceedings initiated under Sections 403 and 406 IPC – High Court dismissed application under Section 482 CrPC – Supreme Court quashed proceedings, emphasizing abuse of process and previous dismissal of similar complaints – Appeals allowed [Paras 1-34].Limitation in Criminal Cases – Section 468 CrPC – Supreme Court emphasized mandatory limitation period under Section 468 CrPC – Limitation period starts from the date of offence as per Section 469 CrPC – Extension under Section 473 CrPC requires recording reasons – Continuation of offence not applicable in the given case [Paras 6-9, 27].Continuing Offence – Legal Definition – Explained distinction between continuing and instantaneous offences – Offence is continuing if wrongful act causes ongoing injury – Instantaneous offence complete when act is committed, despite ongoing damage [Paras 10-16].Second Complaint – Maintainability – Second complaint on same facts permissible only if first complaint dismissed for insufficient material or similar reason – Not maintainable if first complaint decided on merits – Supreme Court emphasized legal prohibition against successive complaints on same facts [Paras 17-18].Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court judgment set aside – Proceedings in Complaint Case No. 628 of 2011 quashed – Supreme Court held initiation of criminal proceedings was an abuse of process given prior dismissals on merits [Para 34].

Lease Termination – Validity – Appellant terminated lease for non-payment of rent – Trial Court and First Appellate Court held termination invalid, lease subsisting – High Court affirmed – Supreme Court reversed, emphasizing clear evidence of termination and dispossession – Appeal allowed [Paras 1-28].Limitation – Article 58 Limitation Act – Supreme Court emphasized right to sue accrues when cause of action arises – Suit for declaration must be filed within 3 years from termination or dispossession – Suit filed 18 years later barred by limitation [Paras 17-21].Possession – Admission by Lessee – Supreme Court highlighted lessee's unequivocal admission of dispossession in communication to Port Trust – Possession taken over pursuant to termination established beyond doubt [Paras 15-16].Doctrine of Res Judicata – Successive Suits – Court reiterated that successive suits on same cause of action barred – Lessee's earlier suits dismissed for non-prosecution; subsequent suit for declaration and injunction unsustainable [Paras 11-12, 27].Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court judgment set aside – Suit filed by Respondents dismissed – Termination of lease by Appellant upheld – No order as to costs [Para 28].

Constitutional Law – Equality Before Law – Reversion of Appellants to parent department contested – Appellants initially posted at Government Medical College Jammu by the Principal, later reverted by an order which was challenged for lack of jurisdiction and procedural propriety – High Court's decision to uphold reversion affirmed – No statutory rule mandating prior consent for deputation – Appellants' continued service at Medical College inferred consent – Reversion found legally sound [Paras 1-26].Service Law – Cadre and Deputation – Appellants selected as Assistant Surgeons under Directorate of Health Services – Posted at Government Medical College Jammu – Contention that posts belonged to cadre of Medical Education rejected – Separate rules for Health Services and Medical Education – No posts of Assistant Surgeons in Medical Education Directorate – Posting at Medical College deemed deputation – Salary drawn from Health Services Directorate, reinforcing deputation status [Paras 18-21].Competent Authority – Jurisdiction of Principal Government Medical College – Principal issued reversion order – Contention of lack of authority rejected – Authority vested in Directorate of Health Services for initial appointments and reversion [Paras 10-11].Judicial Precedent – Articles 14, 141 of the Constitution – Discrepancy in adjudication of similar matters – Letters Patent Appeals disposed of differently – Supreme Court extends binding nature of decision to all similarly situated individuals – Legal consistency maintained [Paras 23-25].Decision: Appeals dismissed – Reversion to parent department upheld – Appellants allowed to continue at present posting until March 31, 2013 – Directed to report to Directorate of Health Services thereafter [Paras 21, 26].

Service Law – Eligibility Criteria – Appellant recommended for Short Service Commission in the Army Medical Corps (AMC) but denied on grounds of medical category SHAPE-II due to 'Amputation Ring Finger Left Hand' – Tribunal failed to consider the Notification under Section 9 of the Army Act, which deems personnel on active service even during non-operational duties – Supreme Court finds appellant’s injury sustained while on active service, thus fulfilling eligibility criteria under SHAPE-II [Paras 1-19].Active Service – Definition and Application – Interpretation of 'active service' under Army Act – Injury sustained while traveling to join duty deemed as sustained on active service by virtue of the Notification dated November 29, 1962 – Supreme Court applies broad definition covering all personnel under active service for purposes of eligibility [Paras 10-15].Tribunal’s Oversight – Non-consideration of Government Notification – Tribunal overlooked critical notification deeming personnel on active service – Order set aside for failure to apply correct legal standards and criteria [Paras 17-18].Decision: Appeals allowed – Order of Tribunal set aside – Authorities directed to consider appellant’s case under Medical Category SHAPE-II and grant commission if otherwise eligible [Paras 19-20].

Criminal Law – Murder and Attempt to Murder – Conviction of appellant for planting explosive device in a barber shop – Explosive device resulted in the death of Shankar and injuries to Krishna and Shivaram – Prosecution established common intention to kill Muniraju but Shankar became unintended victim – Conviction under Sections 302, 307, and 427 IPC and Section 3 of Explosive Substances Act upheld [Paras 1-3, 28].Evidence – Approver’s Testimony – Conviction based on testimony of approver Hanif – Appellant argued for lack of corroboration – Court upheld conviction noting substantial corroboration by independent witnesses and forensic evidence – Corroborative evidence included depositions of PWs and forensic analysis of explosive residues [Paras 14-21].Motive – Domestic Dispute – Motive established through evidence of strained relationship between A-1 and PW-8 – Appellant believed PW-14 Muniraju was responsible for his domestic troubles – Threats by A-1 and A-2 to Muniraju corroborated by multiple witnesses – High Court affirmed trial court’s finding on motive [Paras 4-13].Medical and Forensic Evidence – Nature of Injuries and Explosion – Injuries described by medical experts consistent with explosion – Forensic analysis confirmed presence of explosive substances – Medical and forensic evidence supported prosecution’s case of death and injuries caused by bomb blast [Paras 25-27].Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and varying sentences awarded by the trial court and upheld by the High Court affirmed – No interference warranted in the appreciation of evidence by lower courts [Para 28].

Criminal Law – Conviction on Circumstantial Evidence – Appellant convicted for abduction, fraud, and related offences – Conviction for murder by trial court based on circumstantial evidence overturned by High Court – High Court found lack of direct evidence or conclusive proof of homicidal death – Prosecution failed to establish crucial link between appellant and the alleged murder [Paras 1-13, 28].Last Seen Theory – Insufficient to Prove Guilt – Evidence of appellant being last seen with deceased not sufficient for conviction – Proximity of time and place crucial for last seen theory to hold – Mere presence with deceased before disappearance does not conclusively prove guilt without corroborative evidence [Paras 15-18].Absence of Corpus Delicti – Importance in Murder Conviction – No recovery of the deceased’s body – Established law that murder conviction can be based on strong circumstantial evidence even without corpus delicti – In this case, evidence not strong enough to prove murder beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 9-12].Motive – Lack of Strong Motive Weakens Prosecution Case – No evidence of enmity or motive for appellant to murder deceased – Motive critical in cases relying on circumstantial evidence – Weak motive adds to doubt about appellant’s involvement in murder [Para 14].Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court’s acquittal of appellant for murder upheld – Conviction for other offences affirmed – Prosecution’s evidence insufficient to prove murder beyond reasonable doubt – Appellant granted benefit of doubt [Paras 19-20].

Public Service Commission – Supplementary Lists – Kerala Public Service Commission (PSC) challenged High Court's directive to use supplementary list after exhaustion of main list – Supreme Court examined validity of maintaining supplementary list independently – Held that once main list is exhausted, supplementary list loses significance and cannot be operated independently [Paras 3, 9, 12].

Kerala PSC Rules – Interpretation of Supplementary List – Supplementary list intended to ensure adequate representation of reserved categories – Operates only while main list is valid – High Court's directive to operate supplementary list after main list exhausted contrary to established legal principles – Main list and supplementary list are interdependent [Paras 7-8, 10-11].

Legal Precedent – Nair Service Society Case – Reference to Supreme Court's ruling in Nair Service Society v. Kerala Public Service Commission – Court reiterated supplementary list’s lack of statutory backing and dependent status on main list – Supplementary list cannot survive independently once main list is exhausted [Paras 5, 7].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's directive set aside – Supplementary list cannot be operated independently after main list exhaustion – Kerala PSC’s rules and procedures reaffirmed [Paras 12-13].

Civil Procedure – Burden of Proof – Appellants claimed money recovery based on account entries signed by respondent – Respondent denied signatures – Lower courts held signatures genuine; burden on respondent to disprove – High Court reversed, citing appellants' failure to prove signatures via handwriting expert – Supreme Court held High Court erred; burden appropriately placed by lower courts on respondent once initial burden met by appellants [Paras 15-16, 21].

Pleadings and Evidence – Variance and Specific Denial – High Court noted discrepancies between plaint and evidence – Supreme Court held discrepancies minor, did not prejudice respondent – Specific denial of signatures required; mere evasive denial insufficient under Order 8 Rules 3-5 CPC – Evasive responses taken as admissions when specific denial absent [Paras 22-24, 26].

Books of Accounts – Regular Course of Business – Books of accounts regularly maintained considered reliable unless strong reasons indicate unreliability – Respondent’s mere denial of entries insufficient to reject accounts – Supreme Court upheld reliability of accounts in absence of rebuttal evidence from respondent [Paras 28-29].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s judgment set aside – Lower courts' decrees favoring appellants restored – Costs not awarded [Para 30].

Excise Law – Settlement of Licences – Interpretation of Rules – High Court held licence fee liability starts from issuance of licence – Supreme Court reversed, holding liability starts from date of settlement – Respondent delayed advance security payment causing approval delay – Settlement date governs fee liability under Rule 24 [Paras 3, 17-18, 20, 24].

Default in Advance Security – Rule Compliance – Respondent failed to pay advance security timely as per Rule 19 – Licensing Authority recommended approval despite delay; Excise Commissioner approved – High Court erroneously applied condonation of default – Supreme Court held no condonation applicable in excise trade; fee liability begins from settlement date regardless of licence issuance delay [Paras 19-21].

Trade in Liquor – Regulatory Nature – State's control over liquor trade – No fundamental right to trade in liquor – Rules govern licence terms strictly – Judicial latitude limited in interfering with state policy on liquor regulation – Economic and public morality considerations central to regulatory framework [Paras 21-31].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s judgment set aside – Excise Commissioner’s order restored – Respondent liable for licence fee from date of settlement (5th June 2006) to date of licence issuance (5th July 2006) [Paras 31-32].