Central Excise – Valuation of Goods – Section 4 of Central Excises and Salt Act: Assessment of excisable goods based on "normal price" – Supreme Court held that the price at which goods are sold below cost of production to penetrate market cannot be considered "normal price" under Section 4(1)(a) – "Normal price" should reflect fair and reasonable value in ordinary course of trade – Revenue justified in determining assessable value based on cost of production and reasonable profit [Paras 30-31, 43-44, 50-51].

Commercial Consideration – Market Penetration Pricing: Selling goods at loss over extended period to compete in market and capture market share considered extra-commercial consideration – Price not reflecting true value – Transactions not at arm’s length – Section 4(1)(b) invoked for valuation based on nearest ascertainable equivalent price [Paras 43, 52].

Fiscal Legislation – Interpretation – Statutory Provisions: Emphasis on interpreting fiscal statutes strictly – Assessable value determined by legal fiction created under Section 4(1) – Economic rationale for pricing not a ground to deviate from statutory provisions for determining value [Paras 22, 29].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Tribunal's order set aside – Assessable value to be determined based on cost of production plus reasonable profit – Price at which cars were sold by Fiat India Pvt. Ltd. not accepted as normal price for excise duty purposes [Paras 23, 43, 50-51].

Constitutional Law – Article 21 – Right to Free Legal Aid: Supreme Court underscores the right to free legal aid as fundamental – Accused must be provided a lawyer even if they do not request one – Presence of a lawyer cannot be insisted upon during police interrogation to maintain the balance between individual rights and national security [Paras 5, 11].

Criminal Law – Confessional Statement – Sections 164 and 161 CrPC: Detailed procedure followed for recording Kasab's confessional statement under Section 164 CrPC – Ensuring voluntariness and insulation from external influence – Confession corroborated by substantial evidence, including eyewitness accounts and forensic reports – Confession admissible and pivotal in establishing guilt [Paras 10-16, 80-84].

Terrorism – Planning and Execution of Mumbai Attacks: Comprehensive narrative of the planning, training, and execution of the attacks – Involvement of Lashkar-e-Toiba operatives – Use of sophisticated techniques and detailed planning – Confession reveals deep-rooted conspiracy and training received in Pakistan – Attack intended to destabilize India’s economic and social fabric [Paras 17-30, 72-84].

Judicial Review – Evaluation of Evidence: Supreme Court re-evaluates evidence independently in death penalty cases – Confirms findings of lower courts while ensuring adherence to due process – Upholds conviction and sentences, affirming the gravity of the offences and the meticulous planning involved [Paras 6, 23].

Decision: Appeals by Kasab dismissed – Conviction and death sentence upheld – Appeal by the State of Maharashtra against acquittal of Fahim Ansari and Sabauddin Ahmed also dismissed – High Court's order maintained in all material aspects [Para 23].

Constitutional Law – Reservation in Promotions – Article 16(4A): Supreme Court reiterates the enabling nature of Article 16(4A) which permits reservations in promotions for SC/ST candidates subject to the collection of quantifiable data on backwardness, inadequacy of representation, and maintenance of administrative efficiency – Compliance with M. Nagaraj judgment necessary – Notifications dated 28th December 2002 and 25th April 2008 quashed due to non-compliance with the requirements set out in M. Nagaraj [Paras 7, 37].

Contempt of Court – Compliance with Judicial Orders: High Court found State authorities guilty of contempt for non-compliance with its order to implement the "catch-up" principle – Supreme Court acknowledges delay but finds no willful disobedience – Appointment of Bhatnagar Committee for collecting quantifiable data as per M. Nagaraj indicates intention to comply – Contempt findings set aside [Paras 36, 43-44].

Seniority – "Catch-up" Principle – Retrospective Application: Examination of the seniority principle where general category candidates regain seniority upon promotion after reserved category candidates – Notifications attempting to alter this retrospectively without proper compliance with judicial directives invalidated – Protection of vested rights emphasized [Paras 3, 32-33].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Contempt findings by the High Court set aside – Directions issued to the State and its authorities to act in accordance with the Bhatnagar Committee report and M. Nagaraj judgment within two months [Paras 45-46].

Criminal Law – Causing Death by Negligence – Sections 279, 304A IPC: Conviction for causing death and injury due to negligent driving upheld – Accident occurred due to detachment of trailer from tractor driven recklessly at high speed – Mechanical failure defense rejected – Conviction based on independent witnesses and Motor Vehicle Inspector's testimony – Appeal against conviction dismissed [Paras 12-13].

Sentencing – Considerations for Leniency – Mitigating Factors: Appellant's age (22 years at the time of accident) and subsequent marriage not deemed sufficient to reduce substantive sentence – Emphasis on deterrence and societal impact of negligent driving – Court affirms High Court's sentence, emphasizing the need for adequate punishment to maintain public confidence in legal system [Paras 14-30].

Judicial Precedents – Proportionality in Sentencing: Reiterates principles of adequate sentencing for offences involving death by negligence – Courts must balance individual circumstances against societal interests and the need for deterrence – References cases emphasizing serious treatment of rash and negligent driving causing death/injury [Paras 16-24].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence by the High Court upheld – No interference with substantive sentence imposed by the High Court [Paras 30-31].

Arms Act – Mandatory Minimum Sentence – Section 25(1)(a): Possession of a gun, bullets, and explosives without a license – High Court confined the sentence to the period already served (seven days) – Supreme Court held that the courts below committed serious error by not awarding the minimum mandatory sentence – Statutory minimum of three years' imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000 imposed – Appeal allowed [Paras 8-12].

Criminal Law – Sentencing – Statutory Requirements: Emphasis on adherence to statutory minimum sentences for possession of unauthorized arms and ammunition – Judicial discretion must align with legislative intent to impose stringent penalties for such offences – High Court’s reduction of sentence to time already served found erroneous [Paras 10-11].

National Security – Deterrence – Proliferation of Arms: Court underscores the importance of stringent sentencing to curb the proliferation of arms and ammunition – Possession of unauthorized arms seen as a serious threat to national security and public safety – Legislative intent to provide stringent punishment highlighted [Para 10].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Sentence imposed by High Court and lower courts set aside – Respondent-accused to undergo a minimum sentence of three years' imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000, with an additional three months' simple imprisonment in default of payment of fine [Para 12].

Representing Advocates:

Sunny Chaudhary and C.D. Singh for the Appellant;

Yogesh Tiwari and Vikrant Singh Bais for the Respondent

Land Acquisition – Delay in Filing Petition – Maintainability: High Court dismissed the appellant's writ petition challenging the land acquisition solely on the ground that it was filed after the passing of the award – Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in not examining the merits of the challenge – Respondents failed to prove that possession of the land was taken and delivered to HUDA – Writ petition maintainable despite being filed post-award [Paras 5, 8, 14].

Misuse of Power – Colourable Exercise of Authority: Acquisition declared illegal due to misuse of power by the state – Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act cited public purpose, but the real objective was to benefit a private developer – Evidence showed acquisition was for handing over to a colonizer, violating legal provisions for land acquisition for companies [Paras 15-16].

Discrimination – Policy Non-Application: Appellant's plea of discrimination upheld – State policy required release of land with constructions prior to Section 4 notification – Appellant's land not released despite qualifying under the policy – Contrasted with release of land for other private entities without justification [Paras 17-19].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's order set aside – Acquisition of appellant's land declared illegal and quashed – Respondents directed to bear their own costs [Paras 20].

Juvenile Justice – Determination of Age – Section 7A of JJ Act: Appellant claimed juvenility for the first time before the Supreme Court – District and Sessions Judge directed to conduct an inquiry and found the appellant was 16 years old at the time of the offence – Appellant's date of birth confirmed as 01.12.1981, making him a juvenile on the date of the incident, 11.03.1998 – Juvenile Justice Act applies retrospectively in such cases [Paras 2-6, 13-14].

Juvenile Justice – Rule 12 – Procedure for Age Determination: Rule 12 prescribes evidence for age determination – School records confirmed appellant’s date of birth – Medical Board’s report corroborated appellant's age – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules 2007 and related provisions from the Juvenile Justice Act applied [Paras 10-12].

Sentencing – Benefit of Juvenility – Precedents: Supreme Court upheld conviction but set aside the sentence due to juvenility – Remitting to Juvenile Justice Board unnecessary given appellant's current age – Followed precedents from similar cases: Jayendra v. State of U.P., Bhoop Ram v. State of U.P., Bhola Bhagat v. State of Bihar, Pradeep Kumar v. State of U.P., Upendra Kumar v. State of Bihar, Vaneet Kumar Gupta v. State of Punjab [Paras 16-23].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Conviction upheld – Sentence set aside – Appellant directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case [Para 23].

Criminal Law – Common Object – Section 149 IPC: Conviction of appellants for offences under Sections 148, 302 read with Sections 149, 341 read with Section 149, 323 read with Section 149 IPC – High Court and Sessions Court found that the prosecution case was corroborated by medical evidence – Common object to commit murder not conclusively proved – Injuries being grievous in nature warranted conviction under Section 326 IPC – Conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside [Paras 19-20].

Evidence – Dying Declaration – Section 32 Evidence Act: Statement made by the deceased considered as dying declaration – Consistent with the evidence provided by eyewitnesses – Medical and forensic evidence supported the assault description – No substantial infirmity in conclusions recorded by lower courts regarding the assault [Paras 14, 17].

Sentencing – Reduction of Sentence – Section 326 IPC: Considering the nature of the weapons used and the injuries inflicted, conviction under Section 302 IPC not sustainable – Offences committed fall within the scope of Section 326 IPC due to grievous nature of injuries – Appellants sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years under Section 326/149 IPC [Paras 20-21].

Decision: Appeals partly allowed – Conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside – Conviction under Section 326/149 IPC imposed with a sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment – Other convictions and sentences maintained [Paras 21-22].

Representing Advocates:

Sudhanshu S. Choudhary, Rajshri Dubey, Sushil Karanjkar, Sudhanshu Choudhari, Naresh Kumar, Manish Chitale, Chinmoy Khaladkar, Sanjay V. Kharde for the Appellant

Asha Gopalan Nair for the Respondent

Property Law – Lease vs. License – Sections 105 and 52: Supreme Court holds that the document of allotment granted to the appellants was a license and not a lease – A license allows use of the property without transferring any interest, whereas a lease transfers an interest in the property – The terms of the document clearly indicate control by the Indore Development Authority (IDA) over the land, supporting the conclusion that it was a license [Paras 16-21].

Land Use – Change of Designation – Sections 23 and 23(A)(2): State Government's notification changing land-use from 'commercial' to 'regional park' upheld – Change made following due process, including inviting objections and hearing the concerned parties – Allegations of malafides not supported by evidence and not involving all necessary parties – Decision to retain land as an open parcel for a regional park considered valid [Paras 7-8, 26].

Administrative Law – Promissory Estoppel: Appellants' claim of promissory estoppel rejected – Legitimate expectations based on alleged promises for renewal of the license not justified – The incomplete development of the land and the intent to use it for purposes other than a children's amusement park violate the terms of the license – Promissory estoppel cannot be invoked in violation of license terms [Paras 25-26].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – The High Court's decision upheld – The appellants' allotment was a license, not a lease – The change of land-use notification and the decision to invite fresh tenders for the land were valid and legal [Para 27].