Pension – High Court Judge – Subsequent Service – Pension for service as a High Court Judge cannot be combined with subsequent service as President of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission unless specifically provided by statute – The High Court Judge is entitled to pension only for the period served in that capacity – Executive orders by the State Government cannot override statutory provisions. [Paras 1-46]

Executive Power – Rule-making Authority – The State Government can issue executive orders to fill gaps where statutory rules are silent – However, executive orders cannot be inconsistent with statutory provisions or rules already in place – The Madhya Pradesh Consumer Protection Rules, 1987, did not provide for pension for the President of the State Commission, thus an executive order granting such pension is not permissible. [Paras 19-39]

Legislative Intent – Interpretation of 'Prescribed' – The term 'prescribed' means as provided by rules framed by the State Government – If the rules are silent, it does not automatically imply authority for the executive to act beyond the statute – The provisions of the statute and the rules must be read as they are, without importing external meanings or intentions. [Paras 35-44]

Decision: Appeal allowed – The High Court’s order granting pension based on the executive order set aside – The Respondent is entitled to pension only for the service rendered as a High Court Judge, and any pension for the period served as President of the State Commission is not permissible without statutory provision. [Paras 45-46, 70-71]

Criminal Law – Summoning Order – Revision – The maintainability of a Criminal Revision Petition against a summoning order is upheld – An order directing issuance of process is not purely interlocutory and thus can be challenged under Section 397 CrPC – Revisional jurisdiction was appropriately exercised in challenging the Magistrate's order. [Paras 9-10]

Prosecution of Public Servant – Requirement of Sanction – No sanction under Section 197 CrPC is required for prosecuting a public servant for offences under Sections 420, 406, and 161 IPC, as these offences are not considered as having been committed while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of official duty – The official status of the public servant only provides an opportunity for committing the offence, not a shield under the necessity of sanction. [Paras 11-14]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Orders of the High Court and Additional Sessions Judge quashing the summoning order set aside – The original summoning order issued by the Judicial Magistrate restored – Trial to proceed as per the summoning order. [Paras 15]

Criminal Law – Common Object – Conviction for Murder – The appellants were convicted for the murder of Ramchandra Singh under Sections 302 read with 149 IPC – The incident was premeditated, arising from existing enmity and previous litigation between the accused and the deceased – The nature of the injuries and the use of deadly weapons indicated a common object to kill – Appeal dismissed, conviction upheld. [Paras 1-3, 13]

Nature of Injuries – Intention to Kill – The deceased sustained 21 injuries, including fractures and ruptured lungs – The injuries inflicted and the exhortation by one of the accused to kill the deceased demonstrated an intention to cause death – Arguments that the injuries indicated no intention to kill were rejected. [Paras 10-13]

Consideration of Enmity – Premeditation – Established enmity and premeditation were critical factors in determining the common object of the assembly – The incident was not a result of sudden provocation – The court concluded that the attack was planned and executed with the intention to kill. [Paras 12-16]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentences by the trial court and the High Court upheld – Offences under Sections 302 read with 149 IPC and Sections 147, 148 IPC affirmed. [Paras 16-18]

Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – Appellant convicted of murdering his wife and three young children due to suspicion of infidelity – High Court confirmed the death sentence – Supreme Court reviews evidence and finds the appellant guilty of murder – However, court commutes death sentence to life imprisonment due to mitigating factors such as lack of premeditation and mental imbalance at the time of the crime [Paras 1-28].

Evidence – Statement under Section 313 CrPC – Appellant’s statement used to support prosecution's case – Court highlights that such statements can be used against the accused when corroborating evidence is present – Emphasizes the necessity of a thorough cross-examination and proper judicial discretion [Paras 10-12].

Sentencing – "Rarest of Rare" Doctrine – Supreme Court considers aggravating and mitigating factors – Finds that the case does not fall within the "rarest of rare" category warranting the death penalty – Appellant’s remorse and mental state at the time of the crime considered significant mitigating factors – Death sentence commuted to life imprisonment [Paras 23-28].

Decision: Appeals partly allowed – Conviction upheld – Death sentence commuted to life imprisonment (21 years).

Criminal Law – Conviction and Sentencing – Appellants convicted for gang rape and murder – High Court confirmed death sentence awarded by trial court – Supreme Court reviews evidence and principles of sentencing – Upholds conviction but commutes death sentence to life imprisonment (21 years), emphasizing mitigating factors such as the age of the appellants and the possibility of reformation [Paras 1-50].

Evidence – Sole Eyewitness Testimony – Appellants challenged credibility of sole eyewitness PW6 – Supreme Court finds testimony reliable and corroborated by medical and circumstantial evidence – Witness threats and hostile environment considered but not deemed to invalidate his testimony [Paras 14-16].

Sentencing – "Rarest of Rare" Doctrine – Detailed analysis of aggravating and mitigating factors – Supreme Court balances the brutality of the crime with mitigating factors like the young age of the appellants, lack of criminal history, and possibility of reformation – Commutes death sentence to life imprisonment (21 years) [Paras 25-50].

Decision: Appeals partly allowed – Conviction upheld – Death sentence commuted to life imprisonment (21 years).

Civil Procedure – Execution of Decree – Compromise decree arising from partition suit – Determination of whether the decree was preliminary or final – Supreme Court holds the decree as final based on the compromise application indicating exclusive possession and no further partition required – Execution barred by limitation as no stay was granted during subsequent litigation challenging the compromise decree [Paras 1-36].

Limitation Act – Article 136 – Execution proceedings – Compromise decree held as final and executable immediately – Period of limitation not extended by pending suits or appeals without a stay – Supreme Court reverses High Court's decision, reinstating executing court's dismissal of execution as barred by limitation [Paras 25-35].

Compromise Decree – Definition and Implications – Supreme Court emphasizes that compromise means settlement by mutual consent, putting an end to adversarial claims – Compromise decree considered final if it settles the entire controversy without leaving anything for future determination [Paras 23-24].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Order of High Court set aside – Order of executing court restored, dismissing the execution petition as barred by limitation.

Taxation – Trade Discounts – Appellants claimed deductions for trade discounts given through credit notes issued after sales – Assessing Authority denied deduction as discounts were not shown in invoices – High Court upheld Assessing Authority's decision – Supreme Court reverses High Court, holds discounts allowable under Rule 9(a) if regular practice and reflected in accounts [Paras 2-34].

Evidence – Invoices and Credit Notes – Rule 9(a) requires discounts to be shown in accounts, not necessarily in invoices – Supreme Court finds no basis for restrictive interpretation limiting deductions to invoice-stated discounts only – Trade discounts valid if given as part of regular trade practice and properly accounted [Paras 25-26].

Precedent – Applicability of Past Rulings – Supreme Court relies on past decisions differentiating trade discounts from cash discounts and allowing deductions if shown in accounts – Decision reinforces principle of trade practice and accounting sufficiency over strict invoice stipulation [Paras 29-33].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Orders of Kerala High Court set aside – Cases remanded to Assessing Authority for fresh assessment per Supreme Court guidelines – Deductions for trade discounts through credit notes to be considered in compliance with regular trade practice and proper accounting [Paras 34-35].

Public Service – Recruitment Process – Appellant challenged exclusion from appointment as District and Sessions Judge – High Court found award of grace marks invalid, leading to revision of merit list – Supreme Court upholds decision, finds no right to appointment for appellant based on revised list and subsequent vacancies [Paras 2-21].

Constitutional Law – Equal Opportunity – Vacancies advertised must align with recruitment notifications – Rule 39 K.S. & S.S.R. cannot be invoked to fill unadvertised vacancies, protecting equity and fair competition among eligible candidates – Appellant not entitled to reserved category vacancies without proper notification and process [Paras 13-18].

Judicial Review – Recruitment Litigation – Supreme Court underscores importance of following prescribed rules and ensuring timely resolution of recruitment disputes to avoid delays harmful to public interest – Appellant’s claims on procedural grounds and post-notification vacancies dismissed [Paras 2-21].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court’s decision affirmed – Appellant not entitled to appointment based on invalidated moderation marks and unnotified vacancies – No interference with ongoing fresh selection process [Paras 20-21].

Water Management – Interlinking of Rivers – PIL for nationalization and interlinking of rivers filed citing need for equitable water distribution and flood management – Supreme Court directs formation of Special Committee for Interlinking of Rivers to expedite planning, execution, and implementation – Committee to include government officials, experts, and social activists [Paras 2-21, 64].

Constitutional Law – Article 262 – Supreme Court discusses jurisdiction over interstate river disputes – Central Government has legislative competence to regulate and develop inter-state rivers – Court emphasizes national interest over state objections, promoting cooperative federalism in water management [Paras 53-56].

Public Interest Litigation – National Benefit – Supreme Court underscores urgency and national importance of river interlinking project – Directs Central and State Governments to participate actively and ensure timely implementation – Committee to report bi-annually to Union Cabinet on progress [Paras 47-67].

Decision: Writ Petitions allowed – Supreme Court issues mandamus to Central and State Governments to implement interlinking of rivers – Special Committee for Interlinking of Rivers constituted – Directions for detailed planning, execution, and time-bound implementation provided [Paras 64-67].