Criminal Law – Obscenity and Exhibition – Appellants charged with showing obscene films to young men in a video hall – Convicted by trial court under Section 292 IPC and Section 7 of Cinematograph Act – Sentenced to six months simple imprisonment and fined – Appellate court reduced imprisonment to one month but upheld fines – High Court dismissed revision petitions – Supreme Court upheld lower court decisions, denying probation under Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act [Paras 2-12].

Obscenity and Penal Provisions – Application – Court emphasized the legislative intent to protect young, impressionable minds from corrupting influences – Referred to the 1969 amendment to Section 292 IPC, which introduced stricter penalties for first and subsequent offenders – Discussed principles from Uttam Singh v. State (Delhi Administration) and Bharat Bhushan v. State of Punjab cases [Paras 8-10].

Probation of Offenders – Denial of Probation – Rejected appellants’ plea for probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act – Held that leniency in sentencing was inappropriate given the nature of the offence, which involved corrupting young minds by exhibiting obscene material [Paras 7, 11].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Convictions and sentences upheld – Court emphasized the need to protect society from corrupting influences and the appropriateness of penalties to deter such conduct [Para 12].

Criminal Law – Seizure of Vehicle – Appellant’s vehicle seized for transporting 28 buffalo calves – FIR registered under various provisions of IPC, Motor Vehicles Act, Gujarat Animal Preservation Act, and Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act – Lower courts denied release of vehicle citing Section 6B(3) of the Gujarat Animal Preservation (Amendment) Act, which mandates a six-month hold before release – Supreme Court held buffalo calves are not listed under prohibited categories in Section 5(1A) – Lower courts misinterpreted the law – Directed immediate release of vehicle [Paras 3-13].

Animal Preservation Laws – Interpretation – Emphasized that buffalo calves are not included in the prohibited list under Section 5(1A) – Misapplication of Section 6B(3) of the Amendment Act for denial of vehicle release – Highlighted the potential for vehicle decay if held unnecessarily – Advocated for proper legal interpretation and timely judicial intervention to prevent undue hardship [Paras 7-13].

Judicial Review – Procedural Fairness – Critiqued lower courts for failure to apply the correct legal standards – Reinforced the need for judicial vigilance in protecting property rights and ensuring procedural fairness – Affirmed the role of appellate review in correcting judicial errors [Paras 10-13].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Orders of Judicial Magistrate, District and Sessions Judge, and High Court set aside – Directed immediate release of vehicle – Emphasized the importance of legal clarity and protection of property rights against procedural misapplications [Paras 13-14].

Employment Law – Reinstatement and Compensation – Appellants employed as temporary or daily wage workers with the Respondent Corporation – Terminated after 2-5 years of service – Labour Court ordered reinstatement, quashed by Single Judge of the High Court due to delay in raising disputes (8-10 years) and lack of regular appointment – Division Bench affirmed quashing, citing Umadevi's case – Supreme Court upheld quashing of reinstatement but increased compensation from Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 50,000 for those who delayed 8-10 years, and Rs. 1,00,000 for one appellant who approached within 2-3 years [Paras 2-7].

Legal Principles – Delay and Laches – Courts emphasized the significance of timely dispute initiation – Observed that unjustified delays undermine claims and affect procedural fairness – Applied principles from Umadevi regarding regularization and due process in public employment [Paras 4-6].

Compensation – Equitable Relief – Supreme Court balanced denial of reinstatement with enhanced compensation to address prolonged wait and hardship – Emphasized the need for adequate redress while maintaining legal principles against undue regularization [Paras 6-7].

Decision – Appeals disposed of – Orders of learned Single Judge modified to enhance compensation – Rs. 50,000 for appellants who delayed 8-10 years, Rs. 1,00,000 for appellant who approached within 2-3 years – No interference with findings on regularization and reinstatement [Para 7].

Criminal Law – Conviction Based on Dying Declarations – Appellant convicted for the murder of his wife Chandrakala, who suffered 91% burn injuries – Trial court convicted appellant based on two dying declarations – High Court upheld conviction – Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, emphasizing the credibility and consistency of the dying declarations made by the deceased at the earliest opportunity [Paras 1-20].Evidentiary Value of Dying Declarations – Statements recorded by duty doctor and Head Constable shortly after the incident – Deceased consistently named appellant as the perpetrator, citing demands for gold and land as motives – Court highlighted the solemnity and truthfulness expected in dying declarations, as well as their admissibility even if uncorroborated [Paras 4-6, 9-10].Defense Rejected – Appellant’s inconsistent defense of accidental stove burst and later claim of suicide deemed implausible – Defense witnesses' testimonies found unreliable – Absence of credible alternative explanation supported conviction [Paras 2-3, 6, 13-16].Legal Principles – Supreme Court reiterated principles governing the acceptance of dying declarations – Emphasized the special sanctity accorded to such statements under Section 32 of the Evidence Act – Court noted that uncorroborated dying declarations could form the sole basis for conviction if found reliable [Paras 7-8, 11-12].Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence of life imprisonment for the appellant affirmed [Paras 19-20].

Industrial Disputes – Wrongful Termination – Daily wager engaged for eight months terminated without complying with Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act – Labour Court directed reinstatement with continuity of service and 25% back wages – Supreme Court held reinstatement unjustified due to short duration of service and instead awarded compensation of Rs. 50,000 [Paras 1-32].Judicial Discretion – Relief for Wrongful Termination – Emphasis on judicial discretion in awarding relief – Consideration of nature and duration of employment, manner of termination, and delay in raising industrial dispute – Reinstatement not automatic in cases of wrongful termination of daily wagers – Compensation awarded as just and proper relief [Paras 26-31].Legal Principles – Reinstatement vs. Compensation – Established that reinstatement with back wages is not an automatic relief for wrongful termination – Various factors to be considered by Labour Courts, including mode of appointment, nature of employment, length of service, and other relevant circumstances [Paras 5-8, 16-20, 22-23].Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Reinstatement order set aside – Compensation of Rs. 50,000 awarded to the respondent to be paid within six weeks, failing which interest at 9% per annum will apply [Paras 31-32].

Criminal Procedure – Addition of Accused – Section 319 CrPC – Appellant added as accused during trial based on application by the son of the deceased – Sessions Court allowed application – High Court upheld the addition – Supreme Court considered the legality of adding the appellant as an accused and the right to a speedy trial [Paras 1-19].Right to Speedy Trial – Article 21 of the Constitution – Emphasis on expeditious trial as a fundamental right – Delay in trial due to addition of accused under Section 319 CrPC considered unjust and unfair – Supreme Court directed modification of earlier stay order to allow trial to proceed against other accused while maintaining the stay for the appellant [Paras 16-18].Splitting of Trials – Legal Permissibility – Supreme Court clarified that splitting trials to avoid delays and ensure fairness is permissible – Directed de novo trial for newly added accused to uphold rights under Article 21 – Cited precedents supporting separate trials for newly added accused when original trial is near completion [Paras 12-15].Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Order dated December 17, 2008, modified to limit stay of trial to appellant Babubhai Bhimabhai Bokhiria only – Trial to proceed against other accused [Paras 19].

Adoption – Presumption of Validity – Section 16 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 – Appellant claimed adoption of Raghunath was valid – Registered adoption deed provided a presumption of validity – Respondents failed to rebut this presumption effectively – Appellate courts erred in doubting the validity of the registered adoption deed without sufficient evidence [Paras 3, 10-15, 22-24].

Custom – Proof of Custom – Section 3(a) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 – Respondents claimed a custom prohibiting adoption from outside the family – Only four adoptions over 375 years, each from within the family – Insufficient to establish the existence of a binding custom – Appellate courts' findings on custom not supported by adequate evidence [Paras 6-12, 27].

Evidence – Quality Over Quantity – Section 134 of the Evidence Act, 1872 – Trial court's reliance on evidence of interested witnesses justified – Quality and credibility of evidence, not the number of witnesses, are paramount – Adverse inferences drawn by appellate courts on technical grounds deemed improper [Paras 30-31, 34-37].

Appellate Review – Reappreciation of Evidence – Appellate courts have the jurisdiction to reappreciate evidence, but must do so considering the trial court's findings – Findings of fact based on credibility should generally be respected unless there is a clear error [Paras 35-37].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgments and decrees of the appellate courts set aside – Judgment and decree of the trial court restored – No order as to costs [Paras 40].

Education Law – Leave Encashment – University Teachers – Respondent teachers sought leave encashment upon retirement – Pune University Grievance Committee recommended payment – High Court ordered payment and reimbursement by the State – Supreme Court held that the Maharashtra Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1981, do not apply to university teachers – Statutes of the University entitled teachers to leave encashment but no statutory provision mandated reimbursement by the State [Paras 1-19].

Government Directives – Amendment of Statutes – State directed universities to amend statutes to discontinue leave encashment – Supreme Court upheld the State’s directives – Universities failed to act timely on the State’s directives – Appellate ruling reinforced State's power to issue such directives, emphasizing compliance with financial norms applicable to government employees [Paras 20-21].

Legal Principles – Continuation of Pre-existing Statutes – Section 115(2)(xii) of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 – Statutes under repealed acts continued until superseded or modified – The fact that pre-existing statutes remained in force did not grant entitlement to claim reimbursement from the State as a right [Paras 16-17].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Impugned orders set aside – Writ petition dismissed – No order as to costs [Para 22].

Land Acquisition – Evacuee Property – Title Transfer – Auction purchaser claimed title to land after paying the full purchase price – Provisional possession granted upon highest bid – Central government acquired the property under the Displaced Persons Act – Delhi Administration issued land acquisition notification – Appellant challenged acquisition after 30 years – Supreme Court held that provisional possession created encumbrance – Land could be acquired under the LA Act despite government ownership – Appeal dismissed due to delay and lack of title at the time of acquisition [Paras 1-48].

Encumbrance – Legal Definition and Implications – Provisional possession amounted to encumbrance – Property with encumbrance could be acquired under LA Act – Ownership rights not transferred until full price paid – Sale certificate formalized transfer but did not negate prior acquisition [Paras 34-40].

Delay and Laches – Writ Petition Dismissal – Challenge to acquisition after more than 30 years – Delay on appellant’s part outweighed delay in filing appeal by DDA – Substantial justice prioritized over procedural delays [Paras 14, 47].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Division Bench's decision upheld – No order as to costs – Clarification that appellant's monetary claims shall be considered separately [Paras 48-49].