Narcotics – Possession and Search – Appellant convicted for possession of opium – Appellant argued false implication, non-compliance with Section 50 NDPS Act, and delay in sending sample for chemical examination – Supreme Court upheld conviction – Evidence supported police version of events, procedural safeguards complied with, and delay in sending sample not sufficient to vitiate conviction [Paras 1-15].

Section 50 NDPS Act – Compliance – Appellant claimed non-compliance with mandatory provision for search before Gazetted Officer or Magistrate – Supreme Court found compliance based on testimonies of police officers – Signed consent statement by appellant further supported compliance – Recovery from bag (thaili) and not body search, hence Section 50 not applicable [Paras 12-13].

Delay in Sending Sample – Chain of Custody – Appellant highlighted 12-day delay in sending sample for chemical examination – Supreme Court dismissed argument – Sufficient evidence of chain of custody, no tampering of sample – Chemical Examiner's report corroborated integrity of seals [Para 14].

Judicial Review – Concurrent Findings – Supreme Court reiterated limited scope of interference under Article 136 – No perversity or miscarriage of justice found in concurrent findings of trial court and High Court [Para 15].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence of ten years rigorous imprisonment and Rs. one lakh fine upheld – Supreme Court found no merit in appellant's contentions [Para 15].

Consumer Protection – Increased Excise Duty – Appellant booked a Maruti Car-800 and paid the full amount – Delivery delayed due to reasons not attributable to the appellant – Price of vehicle increased due to hike in excise duty – National Consumer Commission held appellant liable to pay increased price – Supreme Court upheld National Commission's decision [Paras 1-15].

Sales Contract – Terms and Conditions – Proforma invoice and payment receipts indicated prices applicable at the time of billing would apply – Billing done after the increase in excise duty – Appellant bound by terms agreed at the time of booking and payment [Paras 10-13].

Legal Principles – Section 64 of Sales of Goods Act – Increase in price due to statutory imposition of additional taxes borne by buyer unless contract specifies otherwise – Appellant’s reliance on previous judgments not applicable as no deficiency in service or mala fide intention by respondents established [Paras 9, 12].

Decision: Special Leave Petitions dismissed – Appellant liable to bear increased excise duty – No order as to costs [Paras 14-16].

Service Law – Seniority – Inter Se Seniority – Appellants appointed as Deputy Jailors in 1991 through the Selection Commission – Respondents appointed in 1994 through UPPSC based on selection process initiated in 1987 – High Court held respondents senior – Supreme Court reversed – Held 1991 appointees senior to 1994 appointees based on date of substantive appointment [Paras 1-33].

Rules and Regulations – Interpretation – Rule 5 and Rule 8 of the 1991 Rules – Rule 5 inapplicable where service rules provide for appointment by promotion and direct recruitment – Rule 8 applicable – Seniority determined from date of substantive appointment – Appellants’ appointments in 1991 substantively earlier than respondents in 1994 [Paras 18-19].

Seniority Principles – No Retrospective Seniority – Seniority cannot relate back to vacancy occurrence date unless expressly provided by rules – Principle reaffirmed that seniority is determined from date of entry into service – Reiterated that notional seniority not granted without valid statutory basis [Paras 27, 30-31, 44].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court judgment set aside – Seniority of 1991 appointees upheld over 1994 appointees – No costs awarded [Paras 33, 46-47].

Excise Duty – Limitation – Show cause notice issued to respondent on 15.05.2000 for excise duty evasion – Tribunal held demand time-barred – Supreme Court reversed – Found intention to evade excise duty, invoking proviso to Section 11A of the Act – Cause of action date attributed to 1997; notice within five-year limitation period [Paras 1-24].

Immovable vs. Movable Property – Items fabricated by respondent at customer's site – Tribunal found items affixed to ground immovable – Supreme Court disagreed – Referenced decision in Craft Interiors Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise Bangalore – Held items such as furniture are movable – Restored Commissioner’s order identifying furniture items subject to excise duty [Paras 25-28].

Judicial Scrutiny – Tribunal’s Findings – Tribunal’s decision rejected for lack of detailed reasoning – Commissioner’s thorough examination and classification of items upheld [Paras 27-29].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Tribunal's order set aside – Commissioner’s order demanding excise duty restored – No order as to costs [Para 29].

Criminal Law – Conspiracy and Breach of Trust – High Court acquitted accused citing insufficient evidence – Supreme Court found ample material showing criminal conspiracy to award contract at exorbitant rates causing loss to the Board – Evidence established accused’s involvement in manipulation of tender process and acceptance of special conditions favoring contractor [Paras 1-24, 46-48].

Judicial Review – Scope and Power – Appellate Court’s power to review evidence and re-evaluate findings – Supreme Court held High Court erred in dismissing credible evidence without adequate reasoning – Emphasized principle of double presumption favoring accused must be balanced against proven facts [Paras 7-9].

Evidence and Procedure – Special Conditions in Contract – Accepted special conditions involved significant financial implications against Board’s interest – Supreme Court found evidence of undue influence and favoritism – Concluded that High Court overlooked key documentary and testimonial evidence [Paras 23-26].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s judgment set aside – Conviction and sentence of accused by Special Judge restored – Directed accused to surrender for undergoing remaining sentence – No costs awarded [Paras 27-29].

Criminal Law – Confession and Evidence – Appellant convicted under TADA based solely on retracted confession – Confession not corroborated by any material evidence – Supreme Court reiterated that confession to police without corroboration is a weak form of evidence – Conviction based solely on such confession not sustainable [Paras 1-7].

Membership in Banned Organization – Section 3(5) of TADA and Section 10 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act – Mere membership of a banned organization without evidence of active participation in violence or incitement to imminent violence insufficient for conviction – Supreme Court emphasized necessity to prove active involvement in criminal activities [Paras 7-9].

Constitutional Principles – Freedom of Association – Referred to U.S. Supreme Court decisions rejecting 'guilt by association' – Membership in an organization without specific intent to further illegal aims not criminal – Provisions criminalizing mere membership must be read in consonance with Fundamental Rights under Constitution [Paras 9-31].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction under Section 3(5) of TADA set aside – Appellant acquitted – Emphasis on protection of Fundamental Rights and strict interpretation of statutes to avoid unconstitutional outcomes [Paras 31-45].

Consumer Protection – Increased Excise Duty – Appellant booked a Maruti Car-800 and paid the full amount – Delivery delayed due to reasons not attributable to the appellant – Price of vehicle increased due to hike in excise duty – National Consumer Commission held appellant liable to pay increased price – Supreme Court upheld National Commission's decision [Paras 1-15].

Sales Contract – Terms and Conditions – Proforma invoice and payment receipts indicated prices applicable at the time of billing would apply – Billing done after the increase in excise duty – Appellant bound by terms agreed at the time of booking and payment [Paras 10-13].

Legal Principles – Section 64 of Sales of Goods Act – Increase in price due to statutory imposition of additional taxes borne by buyer unless contract specifies otherwise – Appellant’s reliance on previous judgments not applicable as no deficiency in service or mala fide intention by respondents established [Paras 9, 12].

Decision: Special Leave Petitions dismissed – Appellant liable to bear increased excise duty – No order as to costs [Paras 14-16].

Service Law – Seniority – Inter Se Seniority – Appellants appointed as Deputy Jailors in 1991 through the Selection Commission – Respondents appointed in 1994 through UPPSC based on selection process initiated in 1987 – High Court held respondents senior – Supreme Court reversed – Held 1991 appointees senior to 1994 appointees based on date of substantive appointment [Paras 1-33].

Rules and Regulations – Interpretation – Rule 5 and Rule 8 of the 1991 Rules – Rule 5 inapplicable where service rules provide for appointment by promotion and direct recruitment – Rule 8 applicable – Seniority determined from date of substantive appointment – Appellants’ appointments in 1991 substantively earlier than respondents in 1994 [Paras 18-19].

Seniority Principles – No Retrospective Seniority – Seniority cannot relate back to vacancy occurrence date unless expressly provided by rules – Principle reaffirmed that seniority is determined from date of entry into service – Reiterated that notional seniority not granted without valid statutory basis [Paras 27, 30-31, 44].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court judgment set aside – Seniority of 1991 appointees upheld over 1994 appointees – No costs awarded [Paras 33, 46-47].

Excise Duty – Limitation – Show cause notice issued to respondent on 15.05.2000 for excise duty evasion – Tribunal held demand time-barred – Supreme Court reversed – Found intention to evade excise duty, invoking proviso to Section 11A of the Act – Cause of action date attributed to 1997; notice within five-year limitation period [Paras 1-24].

Immovable vs. Movable Property – Items fabricated by respondent at customer's site – Tribunal found items affixed to ground immovable – Supreme Court disagreed – Referenced decision in Craft Interiors Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise Bangalore – Held items such as furniture are movable – Restored Commissioner’s order identifying furniture items subject to excise duty [Paras 25-28].

Judicial Scrutiny – Tribunal’s Findings – Tribunal’s decision rejected for lack of detailed reasoning – Commissioner’s thorough examination and classification of items upheld [Paras 27-29].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Tribunal's order set aside – Commissioner’s order demanding excise duty restored – No order as to costs [Para 29].