Civil Law - Employment Dispute - Preference in Appointments - Appeals against the High Court's order directing MCL to reappoint candidates from an earlier merit list, affecting the appellants' longstanding employment and subsequent promotions. Supreme Court emphasized the discretionary nature of the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 and the need to consider the appellants' service history and promotions. [Paras 3-11]

Delay and Laches - Employment Challenge - Held - The appellants were not initially impleaded in the writ petitions challenging their appointments, which were filed after a significant delay. Given the appellants' subsequent promotions and long service, the writ petitioners were not entitled to discretionary relief. [Paras 8-10]

Decision - Appeals Allowed - Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, emphasizing the need to consider the equitable interests of the appellants who had been in service for over a decade and had received multiple promotions. [Paras 8-12]

Criminal Law - Identification Evidence - Conviction Appeal - Appellants convicted under Sections 120B, 302 IPC for murder based on eyewitness identification. Supreme Court evaluated the credibility of identification evidence presented for the first time in court long after the incident. Convictions were questioned due to the lack of corroborative evidence and failure to follow procedural safeguards for proper identification. [Paras 1-6]

Identification in Court - Reliability - Held - Identification made for the first time in court without prior identification procedures (like a test identification parade) is generally unreliable, especially when the physical description given is too generic. Sub-Inspector Pyara Singh, who arrested the appellants, was not produced as a witness, weakening the prosecution's case. [Paras 6-7]

Evidence Evaluation - Witness Credibility - Held - The statements of key prosecution witnesses (PW-2 and PW-3) contained significant improvements and lacked corroboration. The behavior of the witnesses post-incident was inconsistent with normal human behavior, further undermining their credibility. [Paras 7-8]

Decision - Appeals Allowed - Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the convictions and sentences of the appellants. The judgments of the trial court and the High Court were overturned. [Paras 7-8]

Civil Law - Public Street Encroachment - Limitation and Representative Suit - Appeal against the concurrent findings of lower courts affirming that the appellant had encroached on a public street. Supreme Court examined the issues of limitation, compliance with Order 1 Rule 8 CPC, and the existence of a public street. Appeal dismissed, confirming the mandatory injunction for removal of the encroachment. [Paras 2-30]

Limitation - Continuing Cause of Action - Held - Encroachment on a public street constitutes a continuing wrong, providing a continuing cause of action. The suit filed by the respondent was not barred by limitation as each day of encroachment created a new cause of action. [Paras 15-19]

Representative Suit - Compliance with Order 1 Rule 8 CPC - Held - The suit filed by an aggrieved individual need not comply with Order 1 Rule 8 CPC if the individual asserts their own right or protection of community property. The respondent, being directly affected, had the standing to file the suit. [Paras 20-23]

Existence of Public Street - Evidence - Held - The existence of the public street was corroborated by multiple witnesses and official reports. The appellant's encroachment on the street was established through consistent and credible evidence. [Paras 24-28]

Decision - Appeal Dismissed - Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower courts' findings and directing the appellant to remove the encroachment within 60 days, failing which the respondent could seek execution of the decree. Costs of Rs. 10,000 were imposed on the appellant. [Paras 29-30]

Criminal Law - NDPS Act - Possession of Opium - Conviction Appeal - Appellants convicted under Sections 8 and 18 NDPS Act for possessing undeclared opium. Supreme Court evaluated the obligations under Rule 13 NDPS Rules, the role of independent witness testimony, and the validity of confessions. Appeal dismissed, upholding the conviction. [Paras 1-7]

Rule 13 NDPS Rules - Daily Declaration - Held - Producers of opium must declare daily quantities to the Lambardar as per Rule 13. The appellants failed to declare the recovered opium, which was hidden underground, indicating intent to sell unlawfully. Compliance with Rule 13 is mandatory, notwithstanding final production quantification. [Paras 2, 4]

Independent Witness Testimony - Significance - Held - Absence of independent witness support does not invalidate the prosecution's case if supported by official witnesses, recovery evidence, and confessions. [Paras 2, 6]

Confessions and Recovery - Evidentiary Value - Held - Confessions made by the appellants corroborated by the recovery of opium substantiate the prosecution's case. Hiding opium underground demonstrated intent to evade legal reporting and engage in unauthorized sale. [Paras 1.2, 4, 6]

Decision - Appeal Dismissed - Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the lower courts' judgments and sentences of 10 years rigorous imprisonment and fines of Rs. 1 lakh for each appellant. [Para 7]

Criminal Law - Admissibility of Confessional Statements - TADA Act - Confessional statements made under Section 15 of TADA Act are admissible against co-accused charged under the same Act. Confession by K.K. Saini and Mange admissible against Babloo despite Babloo not being charged under TADA, as they were tried in the same case. Supreme Court upheld the principle that such confessions, if made voluntarily and recorded by a competent authority, are valid. [Paras 22-49]

Procedural Compliance - Section 20A of TADA Act - Contention that prior approval from District Superintendent of Police (SP) was not obtained, as mandated by Section 20A(1) of TADA Act. Supreme Court held that the prior approval from SP of CBI sufficed, given the case's transfer to CBI by the state. The Court emphasized that procedural lapses without prejudice to the accused do not vitiate the trial. [Paras 49-57]

Decision - Conviction and Sentence - Convictions under IPC and acquittals under TADA upheld. Confessional statements corroborated by independent evidence deemed sufficient for conviction. Procedural challenges found insubstantial. Appeals dismissed. [Paras 10-14, 57]

Criminal Law - Impleading Co-accused - Section 319 CrPC - Special Leave Petition under Article 136 - Appellant challenged the High Court's decision setting aside the trial court's order to implead respondents as co-accused under Section 319 CrPC. Supreme Court held that while prejudice might not be relevant at the trial stage under Section 319 CrPC, it is relevant under Article 136. The impugned judgment did not prejudice the appellant since no merits of the case were discussed. [Paras 3-7]

Scope of Article 136 - Discretionary Jurisdiction - Supreme Court emphasized that Article 136 is not a regular form of appeal but a residual provision allowing interference in exceptional circumstances. The relevance of prejudice is significant in discretionary jurisdiction. [Paras 6-7]

Decision - Dismissal of Special Leave Petitions - The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, noting that the High Court's judgment did not cause prejudice to the appellant. Trial court directed to complete the trial uninfluenced by the High Court's observations. [Paras 9-10]

Criminal Law - Reversal of Acquittal - High Court Conviction - Appeal under Section 2(a) of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970 - Appellant convicted by the High Court under Sections 147, 148, 302/149 IPC for murder, reversing trial court acquittal. Supreme Court examined the credibility of eyewitness testimony and the adequacy of evidence. High Court's judgment reversed, and trial court's acquittal restored. [Paras 1-17]

Eyewitness Testimony - Credibility - Identification of Accused - Held - Testimony of key eyewitnesses found unreliable. Discrepancies in statements, doubtful identification due to poor lighting conditions, and non-production of critical evidence (lantern and torch lights) raised doubts about their presence and observations. [Paras 8-15]

Motive and Circumstances - Lack of Evidence - Held - Prosecution's motive theory deemed doubtful. No enmity between the deceased and the accused established. No reasonable explanation for why the accused would attack the deceased and spare the primary target (PW 1). [Paras 11-12]

Decision - Acquittal Restored - Supreme Court found the trial court's view plausible and not perverse. High Court's interference deemed unwarranted. Appellant acquitted of all charges, conviction and sentence set aside. [Paras 16-17]

Criminal Law - Bail Pending Appeal - High Court Order - Special Leave Petition under Article 136 - Appellant, wife of the deceased, challenged the High Court's order granting bail to the respondent, a sitting M.L.A. convicted under Sections 147, 326 read with Section 149 IPC. Supreme Court held that the High Court failed to consider all relevant facts and primarily relied on the respondent's status as an M.L.A. High Court's order set aside for fresh consideration. [Paras 2-15]

Judicial Discretion - Suspension of Sentence - Section 389 CrPC - Held - High Court must record reasons for suspending the sentence and granting bail. The decision should consider the nature of allegations, findings of the trial court, and the respondent's involvement in similar cases. The mere status of being a sitting M.L.A. is insufficient for granting bail. [Paras 12-14]

Decision - Order Set Aside and Remitted - Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order granting bail and remitted the matter for fresh consideration, directing the High Court to record reasons and consider all relevant factors. Appeal allowed accordingly. [Paras 15-16]

Criminal Law - Rape - Consent - Conviction Appeal - Appellant convicted under Section 376 IPC for raping the prosecutrix in her home, in the presence of her family members. Trial court sentenced him to seven years rigorous imprisonment, reduced to five years by the High Court, which noted the prosecutrix seemed to be a consenting party. Supreme Court found the High Court's observations on consent warranted acquittal. Appeal allowed, conviction set aside, and appellant acquitted. [Paras 2-5]

Credibility of Prosecution - Evidence Analysis - Held - Supreme Court noted the improbability of rape occurring in a small house with several family members present without resistance. The High Court's findings on the prosecutrix's consent were upheld, leading to the conclusion that the rape allegation was possibly concocted to protect family honor. [Paras 4-5]

Decision - Acquittal Ordered - Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and ordered the appellant's acquittal. The appellant's bail bonds were discharged. [Para 5]