Land Acquisition - Application of Amended Provisions - Appeal against the decision of the Bombay High Court rejecting the writ petition challenging acquisition under MRTP Act - Supreme Court examines whether amendments introduced by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, particularly Section 11A, apply to acquisitions under Chapter VII of the MRTP Act - Held that while MRTP Act is a self-contained code, certain amended provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, including those related to acquisition procedures and compensation, are applicable to MRTP Act acquisitions, except for provisions like Section 11A which prescribe time limits and consequences of lapsing acquisition proceedings - Reference answered accordingly, limiting applicability of amended Land Acquisition Act provisions to compensation and legal remedies​​.

Principle of Legislation by Reference - Analysis - Held - When specific provisions from an existing Act are incorporated into another Act, amendments to the original Act do not automatically apply to the incorporating Act unless expressly provided or necessary for the function of the latter - Supreme Court reiterates that procedural and substantive provisions must be distinguished and applied accordingly - Reference answered by holding that the MRTP Act does not incorporate procedural amendments like Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act​​.

Decision - Limitation on Application of Section 11A - Court holds that Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, which mandates the completion of acquisition proceedings within a specified period, does not apply to acquisitions under the MRTP Act - Ensures that the planned development under MRTP Act is not hindered by procedural constraints of the Land Acquisition Act - Matter remitted to appropriate Bench for disposal in accordance with the law​​.

Criminal Law - Transfer of Case - Reasonable Apprehension - Petition filed under Section 406 CrPC for transfer of a murder trial from Haridwar, Uttarakhand to Delhi - Petitioner, son of the deceased and eye-witness, alleged threats to witnesses and failure of local authorities to provide adequate protection - Supreme Court, considering the seriousness of the threats and the potential for miscarriage of justice, held that the apprehensions of the petitioner were reasonable - Ordered transfer of the case to Delhi to ensure a fair trial. [Paras 1-18]

Witness Protection - Importance in Criminal Justice System - Emphasized the role of witnesses as critical to the administration of justice - Cited the failure of local authorities to protect witnesses and the resulting risk of witnesses turning hostile - Reinforced the need for proactive measures by the judiciary to safeguard witnesses in sensitive cases to prevent miscarriage of justice. [Para 14-15]

Fair Trial - Judicial Role - Highlighted the necessity for the trial judge to actively use powers under Section 311 CrPC and Section 165 of the Evidence Act to ensure a fair trial - Criticized the passive role of the trial judge in the case - Reiterated the duty of the judiciary to ensure that justice is not only done but is seen to be done, particularly in cases involving influential accused. [Para 15-16]

Decision - Transfer of Case - Considering the threats to the petitioner and other witnesses, and the failure of local authorities to provide adequate protection, the Supreme Court transferred the trial from Haridwar to a competent court in Delhi - Directed both state authorities to ensure witness protection and expedited trial - The petition is allowed. [Paras 17-18]

Criminal Law - Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC - Enhancement of maintenance - Appeal against High Court's order enhancing maintenance from Rs. 1,500 to Rs. 4,000 per month - High Court's jurisdiction to fix maintenance not limited by State amendment specifying upper limits.

Section 125 CrPC - Amendment by Madhya Pradesh Act - Validity - Held - Central amendment to Section 125 CrPC in 2001 removing the ceiling of Rs. 500 renders State amendments setting upper limits invalid. The discretion of the magistrate in determining the amount of maintenance is upheld post the Central amendment.

Criminal Appeal - Validity of State Amendment Post Central Amendment - Analysis - The Central amendment to Section 125 CrPC overrides State amendments that impose a ceiling on maintenance amounts. As a result, the appellant's argument based on the Madhya Pradesh Act's limitations is without merit.

Decision - Appeal Dismissed - The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to enhance the maintenance amount to Rs. 4,000 per month. The appeal was found to have no merit and was dismissed.

Criminal Law - Murder and Attempted Murder – Appeal against conviction and death sentence – Appellant convicted under Sections 302 and 307 IPC for killing two of his children and injuring the third – Trial Court and High Court confirmed the death sentence – Supreme Court considers whether the case falls under the "rarest of rare" category justifying death penalty – Appellant's young age, inebriated condition during crime, economic and psychological pressures considered – Held that death sentence is not warranted – Sentence commuted to life imprisonment. [Paras 1-5]

Evidence - Eyewitness Testimony – Reliance on eyewitnesses – Prosecution relied on testimonies of PWs 1, 2, and 3, and medical evidence from PW 4 – Defence presented alternate theory through DW 2, wife of appellant – Court finds prosecution witnesses credible and consistent with medical evidence – Defence theory rejected as inconsistent with nature of injuries. [Paras 2-3]

Mitigating Factors - Sentencing in Murder Cases – Consideration of mitigating factors – Appellant's age, state of intoxication, and socio-economic background taken into account – Held that these factors mitigate against death penalty – Sentence reduced to life imprisonment to meet ends of justice. [Paras 4-5]

Decision – Commutation of Death Sentence – Appeals dismissed but death sentence commuted to life imprisonment – Supreme Court holds that the case does not meet criteria for "rarest of rare" warranting death penalty – Life imprisonment deemed sufficient punishment. [Para 5]

Special Appeal - Maintainability - Civil Appeal against High Court's decision dismissing special appeal on maintainability - Special Appeal by the State against single Judge's order quashing termination of police constable - Rule 5, Chapter VIII of Allahabad High Court Rules - High Court dismissed special appeal for being non-maintainable - Supreme Court upheld non-maintainability - [Para 7-8]

Disciplinary Action - Unauthorized Absence - Termination of Service - Whether termination for unauthorized absence constitutes double punishment - Police constable absent for 101 days without leave - Enquiry found charges proved - Disciplinary Authority terminated service - Single Judge quashed termination citing double punishment for same misconduct (absence and leave without pay) - Supreme Court held no double punishment - Only termination imposed as per Rules 4 and 8 of 1991 Rules - Doctrine of double jeopardy inapplicable - [Paras 9-12]

Doctrine of Double Jeopardy - Applicability - Article 20(2) of Constitution - Held - Does not apply to single punishment under disciplinary rules - Cited precedents affirming separation of regularization of unauthorized absence from punitive measures - [Para 10]

Decision - Supreme Court sets aside Single Judge’s order quashing termination - Remits matter back to Single Judge for fresh consideration on merits - Clarifies no opinion on validity of termination itself - Directed expedited disposal within six months - Civil Appeal allowed to the extent of setting aside Single Judge's order - [Paras 12-14]

Special Appeal - Maintainability - Civil Appeal against High Court's decision dismissing special appeal on maintainability - Special Appeal by the State against single Judge's order quashing termination of police constable - Rule 5, Chapter VIII of Allahabad High Court Rules - High Court dismissed special appeal for being non-maintainable - Supreme Court upheld non-maintainability - [Para 7-8]

Disciplinary Action - Unauthorized Absence - Termination of Service - Whether termination for unauthorized absence constitutes double punishment - Police constable absent for 101 days without leave - Enquiry found charges proved - Disciplinary Authority terminated service - Single Judge quashed termination citing double punishment for same misconduct (absence and leave without pay) - Supreme Court held no double punishment - Only termination imposed as per Rules 4 and 8 of 1991 Rules - Doctrine of double jeopardy inapplicable - [Paras 9-12]

Doctrine of Double Jeopardy - Applicability - Article 20(2) of Constitution - Held - Does not apply to single punishment under disciplinary rules - Cited precedents affirming separation of regularization of unauthorized absence from punitive measures - [Para 10]

Decision - Supreme Court sets aside Single Judge’s order quashing termination - Remits matter back to Single Judge for fresh consideration on merits - Clarifies no opinion on validity of termination itself - Directed expedited disposal within six months - Civil Appeal allowed to the extent of setting aside Single Judge's order - [Paras 12-14]

Tax Law – Constitutional Validity of Retrospective Amendment – Civil appeal questioning the constitutional validity of the Haryana General Sales Tax (Amendment) Act 9 of 1993, substituting Section 15A with retrospective effect from 27th May 1971 – High Court dismissed writ petition on grounds of delay and statutory remedy – Supreme Court upheld constitutional validity based on precedent set in Satnam Overseas (Export) v. State of Haryana, finding retrospective substitution permissible – Held, dealer liable for purchase tax until 15th October 1990 when Section 9 ceased to exist due to ordinance – Appeal partly allowed. [Paras 1-16]

Retrospective Taxation – Validity of Retrospective Effect – The substitution of Section 15A, effective from 27th May 1971, challenged – Supreme Court reiterated that retrospective tax laws valid if aligned with legal provisions and precedents – Constitutional validation of retrospective substitution affirmed based on established jurisprudence. [Para 12]

Exemption Provisions – Applicability – Section 9(1)(b) provided exemption from purchase tax on goods used in the manufacture of other goods for export – Supreme Court clarified exemption applicable only till 15th October 1990, not till 1st April 1991 as earlier presumed – Ordinance deletion of Section 9 effective from 15th October 1990 upheld. [Paras 13-15]

Decision – Partial Relief Granted – Appeal allowed to the extent that purchase tax not applicable on paddy purchases up to 15th October 1990 – Dealer relieved from tax liability for the specified period – No costs awarded. [Paras 16-17]

Customs - Anti-dumping Duty - Quasi-judicial Nature of DA’s Functions - Appeal against CESTAT's affirmation of anti-dumping duty imposition - DA's investigation involves adjudication on the basis of objective criteria and material submitted by interested parties - Held, DA performs quasi-judicial functions and must follow principles of natural justice, including providing opportunity for oral hearing - Failure to grant hearing before final determination by new DA, after predecessor collected evidence, violates audi alteram partem principle - Impugned notification imposing anti-dumping duty quashed. [Paras 48-59, 63-64]

Natural Justice - Audi Alteram Partem - Oral Hearing - Necessity for personal hearing when determining rights and obligations of parties - Written arguments not a substitute for oral hearing - Requirement heightened when decision affects civil consequences - New DA’s failure to grant oral hearing after predecessor conducted hearings renders the process unfair and final findings invalid. [Paras 55-59]

Refund of Anti-dumping Duty - Doctrine of Unjust Enrichment - Anti-dumping duties passed on to third parties - Claim for refund requires proof that duty was not passed on - Sunset review findings of dumping and injury to domestic industry unchallenged - No refund of duties levied and collected during period when impugned notification was operative. [Paras 61-63]

Decision - Appeals allowed to the extent that notification imposing anti-dumping duty is quashed - No order for refund of duty already paid due to doctrine of unjust enrichment and unchallenged findings in sunset review. [Paras 63-64]

Juvenile Justice - Determination of Juvenility - Appeal - Appellant's plea of juvenility raised before Supreme Court - Initial finding of Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Court, Narnaul, that appellant was a juvenile - Sessions Judge, Narnaul, reversed finding based on date of birth in Deaths and Births Register - High Court upheld Sessions Judge's finding - Supreme Court reconsidered in light of amended provisions of Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 and decisions in Hari Ram and other cases. Held, appellant was entitled to benefits of Juvenile Justice Act, 2000. [Paras 6-17]

Juvenile Justice - Application of 2000 Act - Amendments - Effect - Appellant over 16 but below 18 years of age on date of commission of offense - Section 2(k) and 20 of 2000 Act read with amendments applicable - Appellant deemed a juvenile - Appeal allowed - Conviction set aside - Appellant directed to be produced before Juvenile Justice Board for appropriate orders. [Paras 13-16]

Decision - Appeal allowed - Sentence imposed by Additional Sessions Judge and affirmed by High Court set aside - Appellant directed to be released from prison and produced before Juvenile Justice Board, Narnaul, for passing appropriate orders in accordance with Juvenile Justice Act, 2000. [Para 16-17]