Air Force Act, 1950 - Sections 39(a) and 161(1) - Court Martial - Detention: The period of imprisonment is to commence from the day the original proceedings were signed by the Presiding Officer. Pre-trial detention cannot be set off against the sentence of imprisonment passed by the court-martial and affirmed under Section 161(1) of the Act. Thus, there is no illegal detention warranting the issue of a writ of habeas corpus. The Union of India is directed to consider amending the Act to alleviate the hardships faced by those convicted by court-martial [Paras 10, 12, 16].

Commencement of Sentence: Section 164 of the Air Force Act specifies that the term of imprisonment starts on the day the original proceedings are signed by the Presiding Officer, not from the day of pre-trial custody [Para 9-10].

Comparison with Army Act and Navy Act: The Army Act, 1950, and the Navy Act, 1957, have provisions allowing the set-off of pre-trial detention against imprisonment terms. Similar provisions should be considered for the Air Force Act to prevent hardship to convicted individuals [Paras 14-16].

Decision: Writ petition disposed of with a recommendation to the Union of India to consider amending the Air Force Act, 1950, to address the issue of pre-trial detention being set off against imprisonment terms.

Madhya Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 - Section 53(1) - Supersession of Board of Directors: The order of supersession dated 30.9.2011 was in clear violation of the second proviso to Section 53(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. The allegations in the show-cause notice related mostly to deficiencies in systems and procedures and were not severe enough to justify superseding a democratically elected Board of Directors. Both NABARD and RBI opined that the charges did not warrant such action. The High Court rightly exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution [Paras 2, 22, 27].

Consultation with RBI: The second proviso to Section 53(1) mandates previous consultation with the Reserve Bank of India before superseding the Board of Directors of a Cooperative Bank. Merely forwarding the show-cause notice and related materials is insufficient. Effective consultation requires sharing the Board’s response to the allegations and the intended action of the Registrar [Paras 14-17].

Decision: Appeals dismissed. The High Court’s judgment setting aside the supersession order is upheld. The Board of Directors is to be reinstated to complete the period they were out of office. The State of Madhya Pradesh is directed to pay Rs. 100,000 to the Madhya Pradesh Legal Services Authority, and Rs. 10,000 is to be deducted from the salary of the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Sagar, and deposited in the Panna DCB [Paras 24, 34].

Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 18 and 50 - Seizure of Opium - Conviction: There is no absolute rule that police officers cannot be witnesses, and their testimony should not always be treated with suspicion. Public reluctance to testify does not inherently undermine the prosecution's case. The seizure from the tool box of the scooter means Section 50, concerning the right to be searched in presence of a Magistrate or gazetted officer, is not applicable. The 2001 amendment, defining commercial quantity, does not apply retroactively to cases pending in 1996. The non-production of the scooter does not affect the case when other evidence clearly establishes ownership and seizure [Paras 9, 10, 14, 15, 16].

Decision: Appeal dismissed. Conviction and sentence upheld. The appellate court confirmed the 10-year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 100,000, with an additional one-year imprisonment in default of payment [Para 16].

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 190, 319 - Taking Cognizance and Framing Charges: The Magistrate has the power to take cognizance under Section 190(1)(b) independently of the police report, based on the material on record. The High Court's quashing of charges based on the setting aside of the cognizance order was unjustified, especially since the accused suppressed the fact that charges had already been framed. The principle of suppression of truth being equivalent to expression of falsehood applies [Paras 17, 18].

Constitution of India - Article 142 - Complete Justice: The Supreme Court invoked Article 142 to ensure complete justice, restoring the order framing charges and directing the trial to proceed, recognizing the right of the victim to justice [Para 18].

Decision: Appeal allowed. The orders of the High Court and the Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur, are set aside. The trial before the Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 3, Jodhpur, is to proceed in accordance with law [Para 19].

Criminal Law - Sentence - Sentencing Principles: Sentencing for any offence has a social goal. The nature and manner of the offence, its impact on society, and its repercussions on the victim must be considered. The goal of just punishment is deterrence, proportionality, and addressing the collective societal impact of the crime. In cases of heinous crimes such as rape, especially of minors, the sentence must reflect societal abhorrence and serve as a deterrent. [Paras 11, 22, 23].

Penal Code, 1860 - Section 376(2)(f) - Rape of Minor Girl - Life Sentence: The unimpeachable evidence of the victim, testimony of treating physicians, and medical evidence confirm that the accused raped the minor in a cruel and brutal manner. The sentence of life imprisonment is upheld, considering the crime's heinous nature and its devastating impact on the victim and society. The appeal is dismissed, affirming the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life. [Paras 9, 16, 22, 23].

Decision: Appeal dismissed. Conviction and life sentence upheld. The appellant's actions warrant severe punishment to reflect the gravity of the crime and its impact on the victim and society. The mitigating factors presented do not justify reducing the sentence. [Paras 23].

Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 - Section 3 - NEET Notification: The notification published on 27th December 2010 by the Medical Council of India, introducing the National Eligibility Entrance Test (NEET) for admission to Post-Graduate Medical Courses, was challenged on the grounds of competence and control over entrance examinations and admissions. The court allowed the respective entrance examinations to be conducted, but the results were withheld until further orders. [Paras 1, 2, 3].

Lifting of Bar on Results Declaration: Due to the delay in completing the hearing and the prospect of students losing a year, the court considered it just and equitable to lift the bar on the declaration of results for the current year's entrance examinations. The results of the examinations already conducted were allowed to be declared to enable students to take advantage of them for the current year, safeguarding the interests of both the students and the hospitals. [Paras 5, 6].

Decision: Order modified to allow the declaration of results for the entrance examinations conducted for the current year, enabling students to benefit from their results despite the ongoing legal proceedings. [Para 6].

Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 - Grant of Licence: Until the Central Government has passed an order either granting or refusing approval under Section 5(1) and Section 11(5) of the MM(D&R) Act, 1957, it would not be permissible for any person to file a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Any such petition, if filed, would be premature. The High Court committed a grave error of law in observing that 'special reasons' did not exist under Section 11(5) and that there was no comparison of merits in the record. The State Government had tabulated and evaluated the inter se merits and concluded that POSCO was more meritorious [Paras 24, 25].

Preferential Right and Recommendation: The High Court should have left the matter to the Central Government to pass an appropriate order instead of entertaining a premature writ petition. The State Government by its recommendation, having forwarded the tabulated chart showing the inter se merit of each applicant, it was not for the High Court to sit in appeal to decide who among all is more meritorious and entitled for preferential right [Paras 24, 35].

Decision: Appeals allowed. The impugned judgment dated July 14, 2010, passed by the Division Bench of the Orissa High Court is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Central Government to consider the question of approval under Section 5(1) of the MM(D&R) Act, 1957, taking into consideration the recommendations made by the State Government. It is expected that the decision will be taken on an early date and communicated to the State Government [Para 36].

Election Law - Booth Capturing and Improper Reception of Votes: The court found no evidence to justify allegations of impersonation or double voting. The appeal demonstrated that the first respondent's claims of booth capturing and voter impersonation lacked material support. The High Court's decision to void the appellant's election and declare the respondent elected was thus flawed and untenable. The appeal against the judgment was allowed. The Supreme Court emphasized the need for credible evidence when alleging corrupt practices under the Representation of the People Act [Paras 9, 10, 16, 24, 25].

Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Section 100(1)(d) - Grounds for Declaring Election Void: Even if improper reception of votes were to be considered, the respondent failed to prove that such reception materially affected the election result. The court reiterated that allegations must be substantiated with specific evidence, particularly when involving accusations of electoral misconduct [Paras 23, 25].

Judicial Discipline - Article 141 of the Constitution: The High Court judge's disregard for the Supreme Court's directions and judgments amounted to judicial indiscipline. The Supreme Court stressed the importance of adhering to established legal principles and respecting higher court rulings to maintain judicial propriety and the integrity of the legal system [Paras 26, 27].

Decision: Appeal allowed. The impugned judgment and order of the Gauhati High Court dated November 12, 2012, were set aside. The election petition filed by the respondent was dismissed. The appellant's election was upheld, and the parties were directed to bear their own costs [Para 28].

Penal Code, 1860 - Section 376 - Rape: Rape is a heinous crime violating a woman's dignity and fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The law prescribes a minimum sentence of seven years for rape under Section 376(1) IPC, reducible only with adequate and special reasons stated in the judgment. The High Court’s reduction of the sentences of the respondents to the time already served without providing sufficient reasons was legally unsustainable [Paras 6, 7, 9, 10].

Judicial Approach to Sentencing - Rape Cases: Courts must impose sentences that reflect the severity of the crime, considering societal abhorrence and the need for deterrence. The reduction of sentences below the statutory minimum must be justified with clear and special reasons, especially in crimes involving sexual violence [Paras 8, 9].

Decision: Appeals partly allowed. The High Court's judgment reducing the sentences is set aside. The matter is remanded to the High Court for expeditious disposal of the appeals, providing an opportunity for all parties to be heard. Respondents to remain on bail until the appeals are resolved [Paras 11, 12].