Criminal Procedure – Default Bail – Section 167(2) CrPC – Mere undertaking of further investigation does not mean that an already filed charge-sheet gets abandoned – Fact that CBI recorded a fresh FIR does not make investigation by CBI any less of a fresh investigation – Claim for default bail not tenable when initial charge-sheet filed within stipulated period [Paras 18, 25, 26].

Investigation and Charge-Sheet – Role of CBI – CBI's fresh FIR and investigation were pursuant to the Supreme Court's direction for a thorough investigation – Charge-sheet filed by Gujarat Police remains valid until supplemented by CBI's findings – Further investigation permissible under Section 173(8) CrPC does not negate initial charge-sheet [Paras 6-8, 23-26].

Delay in Trial – Responsibility – Delay not attributed to prosecuting authorities but to actions by co-accused – Appellant cannot claim benefit of delay when not caused by prosecution – No entitlement to bail on grounds of delayed trial caused by co-accused [Para 19].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Appellant not entitled to default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC – Investigation and charge-sheet by Gujarat Police valid pending further CBI investigation – No interference warranted by Supreme Court [Paras 18, 20].

Statutory Interpretation – Proviso – Proviso cannot be interpreted in a manner that nullifies the main provision – Proviso is an exception to the main provision – Statute must be interpreted in its plain and literal sense [Paras 15-21].

Seniority – Officers Training in Different Batches – Appellants and respondent officers selected through the same process but trained in different batches due to administrative reasons – High Court's interpretation of Rule 3 proviso in favor of respondent who trained earlier, thus ranked higher – Proviso meant to cover direct entrants with training commencing on different dates, not to disturb overall seniority determined by selection process [Paras 26-27].

Judicial Review – ContemporaneaExpositio – Long-standing administrative interpretation should be upheld unless clearly erroneous – High Court erred in disturbing established practice [Paras 7-14].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – High Court's order upheld – Proviso to Rule 3 applied correctly – Seniority determined by training commencement date as per BSF Rules 1978 [Paras 30].

Tenancy Law – Occupancy Rights – Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 – Sections 5, 8, and 10 – Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1952 – Section 2(f) – Occupancy rights claim rejected – Appellants and their ancestors were joint owners/co-sharers in shamilat deh since before 1935-36 – Section 10 of the Tenancy Act prohibits joint-owners from claiming occupancy rights – No tenancy agreement existed between appellants and Gram Panchayat – Granting relief would ignore Section 10 – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-19].

Interpretation of Statutes – Proviso – Proviso cannot nullify the main provision – Must be interpreted within the statute's context – Expression 'any person' in Section 8 of the Tenancy Act refers only to tenants – Courts should not give wider meaning contrary to legislative intent [Paras 6-12].

Customs and Income Tax – Statutory provisions examined in light of settled legal principles – 'Any person' interpreted contextually to align with legislative purpose – Precedent cases reaffirmed the principle that words in statutes carry specific meanings consistent with legislative intent [Paras 6-15].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – High Court’s judgment and order affirmed – Appellants, as joint-owners, cannot claim occupancy rights under the Tenancy Act – Section 10 upheld – No interference warranted [Para 19].

Prisoners Act 1900 – Section 29 – Transfer of prisoners – Inspector General of Prisons cannot direct the removal of undertrial prisoners from one prison to another – Section 26 of the Prison Act, 1894 obliges prison authorities to have prisoners medically examined before transfer – No specific power vested in any authority to order removal, including the Inspector General of Prisons – Transfer can only be ordered with the court's permission under whose orders the prisoners are remanded [Paras 19-23].

Judicial vs. Ministerial Function – Transfer of undertrials involves judicial discretion – Court must consider circumstances and objections of prisoners – High Court correctly identified the transfer as void due to lack of a proper judicial order – The process of transferring prisoners must involve a judicial, not administrative, determination [Paras 27-39].

Use of Force – The High Court directed an inquiry into the use of excessive force – The preliminary report by the Sessions Judge revealed use of excessive force and dereliction of duty by jail authorities – High Court’s directive for disciplinary action based on this report was premature – The preliminary report should be treated as a basis for deciding on further inquiry or investigation [Paras 40-43].

Decision: Appeals allowed in part – High Court’s directive to hold an inquiry against officials for using excessive force is set aside – The preliminary report to be used as a basis for the government to decide on further inquiry or investigation – Observations by the High Court regarding the use of force should not prejudice any subsequent proceedings [Para 43].

Constitutional Law – Right to Property – Article 300A of the Constitution – Right to property considered a constitutional, statutory, and human right – Deprivation of property must occur only in accordance with the law – The state cannot take possession of land without following legal procedures – High Court erred in dismissing the appellants' claim on the grounds of delay and non-availability of records [Paras 6-18].

Human Rights – Right to Property – The right to property is not only a constitutional or statutory right but also a human right – The state's actions in depriving the appellants of their land without compensation violate their fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution – The welfare state must ensure rehabilitation and compensation for those whose land is taken for public purposes [Paras 7, 15].

Judicial Discretion – Delay and Laches – Delay and laches are not absolute impediments to seeking judicial relief – Courts must exercise discretion judiciously and reasonably – Substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations – The appellants pursued their claims persistently, and the state's delay should not bar their right to compensation [Paras 9-12].

Decision: Appeal disposed of with directions – The state authorities are to notify the land under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act within four weeks – Section 6 declaration to follow within one week – Notice under Section 9 within four weeks after Section 6 declaration – Award to be made within three months – Compensation to be assessed based on the market value at the date of Section 4 notification – Appellants entitled to all statutory benefits and may pursue further enhancement of compensation through statutory remedies [Paras 20-22].

Land Tenure – Transfer of Land – Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act, 2003, and Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, 2007 – Section 39 and Section 101 – Status of appellant company as a Bhumiswami recorded in revenue records implies grant of fresh lease under these Acts – Conditions in original Patta cannot restrict statutory right of transfer conferred on Bhumiswami – Appeal allowed [Paras 12-13].

Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976 – Repeal – The Urban Land Ceiling Act repealed as of 22.3.1999 – High Court erred in applying the repealed Act to the appellant's case [Para 9].

Statutory Rights – Right of a Bhumiswami to transfer land under Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, Section 165 – The right to transfer is a statutory right and cannot be curtailed by conditions in the original Patta [Paras 13-14].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's judgment and directions set aside – The appellant's right to transfer land upheld as a statutory right not restricted by the original Patta conditions [Para 15].

Substitution of Legal Representatives – Where a respondent was dead when the SLP was filed, the remedy is not substitution but an amendment of the appeal memorandum – Applications for amendment and condonation of delay should be considered – Federal Court and various High Courts have held that appeals against dead persons are incompetent and require fresh applications for inclusion of legal representatives, subject to condonation of delay if justified [Paras 6-7].

Supreme Court Rules – Order XVI Rules 8 and 9 apply to cases where the respondent was alive when the SLP was filed and died thereafter – In cases where the respondent was dead at the time of filing, the appropriate remedy is to amend the SLP and seek condonation of delay [Paras 7-8].

Decision: I.A. No. 2 of 2011 treated as an application for amendment of the SLP – Delay in filing the application satisfactorily explained, hence condoned – I.A. Nos. 2 and 3 of 2011 allowed – I.A. Nos. 4 and 5 for exemption from filing official translation and death certificate of the deceased allowed – I.A. No. 6 for deletion of proforma Respondent No. 2 allowed at the risk of the Petitioner – Interlocutory applications disposed of [Para 8].

Criminal Law – Circumstantial Evidence – Conviction based on circumstantial evidence upheld – Evidence of hostile witness can be relied upon to the extent it supports the prosecution's case – Absence of motive requires closer scrutiny of evidence – Delay in lodging the complaint reasonably explained by the complainant [Paras 10-14, 23].

Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 106 – Burden of proof shifts to the accused to explain facts within their special knowledge when last seen with the deceased – Failure to provide a satisfactory explanation can be an additional link in the chain of circumstantial evidence [Paras 22-24].

Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302/149, 201, and 147 – Appellants convicted of murder and related offenses based on circumstantial evidence – Chain of events and circumstances sufficiently proved to exclude any reasonable hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused [Paras 32-33].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Conviction and sentence of appellants upheld by the Supreme Court – High Court's judgment affirmed [Para 33].

Teacher Education – Recognition – National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 and associated Regulations – Recognition for conducting D.El.Ed. course cannot be granted with retrospective effect – Institution must comply with all norms before formal recognition is granted – Recognition and affiliation required before admitting students [Paras 1-36].

Judicial Review – Retrospective Effect – High Court erred in directing recognition from a retrospective date – Recognition order operates prospectively – No mandamus for retrospective recognition where conditions remain unfulfilled [Paras 13-34].

Statutory Compliance – Institutions must adhere strictly to statutory requirements – Delay in processing does not justify deviation from legal norms – Institutions and students must ensure compliance before admission [Paras 35-37].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's order set aside – NCTE's order restored – No costs [Para 37].