Court Martial – Period of Limitation – Appellant faced trial for financial irregularities committed during 2005-2007 – General Court Martial initially convened in August 2010 – Appellant argued trial was barred by the three-year limitation period under Section 122 of the Army Act – Supreme Court held the trial was indeed barred by limitation as the competent authority had knowledge of the offence and the identity of the offender by May 7, 2007, but the General Court Martial was not convened until August 23/26, 2010 [Paras 1-26].

Competent Authority – Knowledge of Offence – Court emphasized that the limitation period begins when the competent authority is aware of both the commission of the offence and the offender’s identity – GOC-in-C Central Command knew about the offence and the appellant's involvement by May 7, 2007, establishing this date as the start of the limitation period [Paras 13-23].

Application of Limitation – Despite serious charges, legal mandates require adherence to statutory limitation periods – Supreme Court highlighted the necessity of complying with procedural timelines to ensure justice and proper administration of military law [Para 24].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Tribunal’s judgment set aside – Direction for reassembly of the General Court Martial quashed – No costs awarded [Paras 26-27].

Disciplinary Proceedings – Unauthorized Absence – Willfulness – Appellant, a Security Assistant, faced departmental proceedings for unauthorized absence from duty between October 1995 and August 1996 – Inquiry Officer found him guilty of violating Rule 3(1)(ii) and Rule 3(1)(iii) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 – Appellant contended he was prevented from attending duty by his superior – Supreme Court held that unauthorized absence does not necessarily constitute willful absence – Absence due to compelling circumstances does not amount to misconduct [Paras 1-22].

Judicial Review – Departmental Inquiry – Evidence – Inquiry Officer failed to establish willfulness of absence – Evidence provided by appellant regarding his inability to sign the attendance register due to the superior’s interference was not properly considered – Disciplinary authority and appellate authority's findings were based on irrelevant facts and surmises – Supreme Court emphasized need for evidence of willful absence to prove misconduct [Paras 10-23].

Reinstatement and Back Wages – Given the long duration of proceedings and the hardship suffered by the appellant, Supreme Court directed reinstatement with 50% back wages – Recognized that appellant had not worked for an extended period due to the wrongful dismissal [Paras 24-25].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Orders of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority and affirmed by the appellate authority, Central Administrative Tribunal, and High Court set aside – Appellant reinstated with 50% back wages – No costs awarded [Paras 25].

Excise Duty – Assessable Value – Principal-Agent Relationship – Tribunal quashed the demand of additional excise duty and penalties imposed on the respondent by the Adjudicating Authority – Supreme Court held that the Tribunal must examine the relationship between the parties to determine if they are related persons – If the processor and the principal are related, the valuation must be as per Section 4(1)(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, read with the valuation rules [Paras 12-13].

Judicial Precedents – Application – Supreme Court referenced its decisions in Ujagar Prints II and III, Empire Industries, and Pawan Biscuits to emphasize the principles of valuation and the significance of the relationship between the manufacturer and the job worker – The case was remanded to the Tribunal for a detailed examination of the relationship between the respondent and Heinz [Paras 7-11].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Matter remanded to the Tribunal for determining the nature of relationship between the respondent and Heinz – Tribunal to remit the case to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh determination if parties are found to be related – No costs awarded [Paras 12-13].

Wildlife Conservation – Protection of Endangered Species – Amicus Curiae sought directions for the Union of India and State of Chhattisgarh to prepare a rescue plan for the Asiatic Wild Buffalo, an endangered species, including measures to prevent interbreeding with domestic buffalo, ensure genetic purity, and relocate villagers from Udanti Sanctuary – State of Chhattisgarh reported insufficient funds for effective conservation – Supreme Court emphasized the need for immediate and concerted efforts to protect the species [Paras 1-3, 6-7, 11-12].

Centrally Sponsored Scheme – Integrated Development of Wildlife Habitats – Central Government introduced a scheme during the Eleventh Five Year Plan to provide 100% assistance for non-recurring expenses and 50% for recurring expenses for wildlife sanctuaries, including measures for habitat restoration and community involvement – State of Chhattisgarh directed to fully implement this scheme to conserve the wild buffalo [Paras 4-5, 14-15, 18-19].

Ecocentric Approach – Environmental Justice – Court emphasized the shift from anthropocentric to ecocentric principles, recognizing the intrinsic value of all life forms and the duty of humans to protect wildlife – Highlighted the National Wildlife Action Plan and the necessity of balancing human activities with wildlife conservation [Paras 14, 22].

Decision: Application allowed – State of Chhattisgarh directed to implement the Centrally Sponsored Scheme "Integrated Development of Wildlife Habitats" – Immediate steps to prevent interbreeding and ensure genetic purity of wild buffalo, research and monitoring, wildlife training programs, and submission of an Annual Plan of Operations to the Central Government within three months – No costs awarded [Paras 23-24].

Representing Advocates:

For Appellant: P.S. Narasimha, Gaurav Agarwal, K. Parmeswar, Haris Beeran, P.K. Manohar, D.K. Sinha, Rajesh Srivastava, Atul Jha, Sandeep Jha, Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, C.D. Singh, Tarjit Singh, Manjit Singh, Kamal Mohan Gupta, A. Subhashini, Bina Madhavan

Environmental Law – Protection of Endangered Species – Sandalwood – Court examined the need to declare sandalwood (Santalum album Linn) as a "specified plant" under Section 2(27) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, and include it in Schedule VI – State of Andhra Pradesh requested the inclusion of Red Sanders (Pterocarpus santalinus) in Schedule VI due to its endangered status and high demand leading to smuggling – Supreme Court directed the Central Government to consider the inclusion of Red Sanders in Schedule VI within six months [Paras 1-3, 5-6, 26].

Unlicensed Sandalwood Oil Industries – Closure – Central Empowered Committee (CEC) recommended the closure of unlicensed sandalwood oil industries, which was endorsed by the Supreme Court – 24 unlicensed sandalwood oil factories in Kerala were closed – Court directed states to close all unlicensed sandalwood oil factories and regulate existing licensed ones [Paras 2-3, 28].

International Conventions and National Legislation – Court referenced various international conventions and national legislative measures for the protection of endangered species – Emphasized the need for uniform legislation across states and recommended the Central Government to examine the inclusion of sandalwood in Schedule VI in consultation with the National Board for Wildlife (NBWL) [Paras 17-23, 27-28].

Ecocentric Approach – Court highlighted the shift from anthropocentric to ecocentric principles, recognizing the intrinsic value of all life forms and the duty of humans to protect wildlife – Directed the Central Government to formulate policies and regulations for the conservation and sustainable use of sandalwood [Paras 14, 19-21, 28-29].

Decision: Applications disposed of – Central Government directed to consider the inclusion of Red Sanders in Schedule VI within six months – Central Government to consult with NBWL regarding the inclusion of sandalwood in Schedule VI and formulate conservation policies – States to close unlicensed sandalwood oil factories and regulate licensed ones – No costs awarded [Paras 26-29].

Murder – Common Intention – Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC – Appellant convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of Dharamaraj – Prosecution established the appellant's involvement through reliable ocular and medical evidence – Court dismissed relevance of motive given solid evidence – Ocular evidence corroborated by medical evidence – Common intention formed during occurrence, appellant's first blow on the deceased's head was fatal – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-16].

Legal Precedents – Application of Section 34 IPC – Appellant argued absence of common intention citing various cases – Court distinguished facts from cited cases, emphasizing appellant's active role in the assault – Appellant’s action met criteria for common intention under Section 34 IPC [Paras 7-15].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence upheld – Appellant's bail canceled, ordered to be taken into custody to serve remaining sentence – No costs awarded [Paras 16-17].

Bail – Delay in Trial – Article 21 – Appellant charged with economic offences involving large sums – Despite completion of investigation and filing of charge sheet by CBI, charges have not been framed, leading to prolonged custody – Supreme Court emphasized that undue delay in trial violates Article 21 – Appellant’s continued detention deemed unnecessary for further investigation – Bail granted considering health condition and absence of flight risk [Paras 1-19].

Health Condition – Appellant suffered from various ailments, including hypertension, partial blindness, and obstructive jaundice – Medical certificates from private doctors and Central Jail Dispensary supported claims – Supreme Court found sufficient grounds for bail on medical conditions [Paras 13-15].

Judicial Discretion in Granting Bail – Court underscored that granting bail requires judicial discretion, especially for serious offences – Detailed examination of evidence not required, but reasons for granting bail must be indicated – Emphasized need for courts to ensure accused does not threaten witnesses or tamper with evidence [Paras 6-18].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Appellant granted bail on stringent conditions to ensure compliance and prevent interference with judicial process – Bail bond of Rs. 5 lakhs with two solvent sureties – Surrender of passport required – Liberty to CBI to seek modification of bail order if conditions violated [Paras 19-21].

Electricity Law – Transmission Lines – Authority of Railways – Railways constructed transmission lines from NTPC plants to their sub-station, leading to a dispute with UPSEB – Supreme Court upheld Railways' authority under Sections 11(a) and 11(g) of the Railways Act, 1989, which empowers them to construct and maintain necessary electric supply lines for their operations – Section 26A(1) of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948 exempts generating companies from requiring licenses for such activities – Railways' agreement with NTPC for power supply was legal and within their rights [Paras 1-17].

Jurisdiction and Permissions – Railways obtained necessary permissions from the Central Government and NTPC – Central Government as the competent authority under Section 2(3A) of the 1948 Act permitted the agreement – Section 173 of the Electricity Act, 2003 ensures that the provisions of the Railways Act prevail in case of inconsistencies with the Electricity Act [Paras 8-12].

Notice and Legal Proceedings – UPSEB's notice to Railways to stop constructing transmission lines was quashed – Railways' action of constructing their own transmission lines and drawing power from NTPC was upheld as lawful – Transferred Case No. 37/2001 allowed and Transferred Case No. 38/2001 dismissed [Paras 13-17].

Decision: Transferred Case No. 37/2001 allowed – Notice dated 7.9.1999 issued by UPSEB to Northern Railways quashed – Transferred Case No. 38/2001 dismissed – No order as to costs [Paras 17].

Income Tax – Section 80HHC – DEPB Profits – High Court held that the entire amount received from the sale of DEPB represents profit under Section 28(iiid) – Supreme Court reversed this, holding that only the sale value less the face value of DEPB represents profit – Appeal decided accordingly in favor of the Assessee [Paras 1-2].

Income Tax – Section 80HHC – Interest and Rent Receipts – High Court ruled that 90% of gross interest and rent receipts must be excluded from business profits – Supreme Court held that only 90% of the net amount (gross receipts minus expenses) included in the profits should be excluded – Reference made to Explanation (baa) to Section 80HHC and the Constitution Bench decision in Distributors (Baroda) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India [Paras 3-12].

Judicial Interpretation – Explanation (baa) to Section 80HHC – Explanation mandates excluding 90% of receipts (brokerage, commission, interest, rent, charges) included in profits – Supreme Court interpreted this to mean net receipts included in business profits, not gross receipts [Paras 9-12].

Consistency with Precedents – Court referred to judgments in Distributors (Baroda) Pvt. Ltd. and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Shri Ram Honda Power Equip to support its interpretation – Affirmed Delhi High Court’s consistent view in relevant cases [Paras 13-14].

Decision: Civil Appeal No. 1914 of 2012 allowed – Matter remanded to Assessing Officer to compute deductions from rent and interest as per this judgment – Civil Appeal No. 4534 of 2008 dismissed, upholding the view of the Delhi High Court – No order as to costs [Paras 16-19].