Environmental Law – Aravalli Hills – Illegal Mining – Complete Ban – Despite multiple orders since 2002 prohibiting unregulated mining in the Aravalli hill range, mining continued in blatant disregard of statutory provisions – Mining conducted without environmental clearance, mining plan or rehabilitation efforts – Resulted in irreversible environmental degradation and destruction of groundwater table – Held: Court imposes complete ban on all mining of major minerals in the 448 sq. km. Aravalli range in Haryana (Faridabad, Gurgaon, Mewat) until comprehensive Reclamation Plan is prepared and certified by authorities [Paras 1–21].

Sustainable Development – Precautionary Principle – Inter-generational Equity – Court finds that principle of sustainable development has been breached due to extensive illegal mining – Despite latitude given to lessees in earlier orders, there was no compliance with statutory safeguards – Held: Balancing principle has failed – Time to invoke banning aspect of sustainable development – Environment and ecology treated as national assets governed by inter-generational equity [Paras 19–21].

Mining Law – Non-compliance with Statutory Requirements – Mining conducted without obtaining mandatory clearances under Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and EIA Notification of 1994 under Environment (Protection) Act – Environmental Management Plans and Rehabilitation Plans not submitted or implemented – Rule 22(5), Rule 27(1)(s)(i) of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 and Rule 34 of Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 1988 violated – Court holds that breach of these mandatory obligations justifies suspension of mining [Paras 9–11, 19–21].

Environmental Impact – Devastation in Aravalli Range – Satellite images and field reports show massive ecological destruction, formation of deep pits, destruction of groundwater table, absence of afforestation – Mining undertaken even below water table without clearance – Court observes that such environmental loss is irreversible and undermines regional sustainability, especially in desert-prone areas like Aravalli [Paras 4–7].

Judicial Powers – Article 142 – Ban Justified – Argument that only Central Government can order ban or cancellation of leases rejected – Held: Where the law is breached and authorities have failed to enforce compliance, Supreme Court can act under Article 142 to protect environment – Banning part of sustainable development is within Court’s jurisdiction in extraordinary environmental situations [Paras 19–20].

Pending Applications – Mining of Minor Minerals – Court adjourns the decision on whether 600 hectares out of the 448 sq. km. can be used for extraction of minor minerals post-summer vacation – Applications related to major minerals dismissed – Matter kept open for hearing on minor mineral extraction [Para 22].

Decision: All mining operations of major minerals in the Aravalli Hill Range within Haryana (approx. 448 sq. km. area in Faridabad, Gurgaon and Mewat) are suspended with immediate effect – Ban will remain until a Reclamation Plan is prepared and certified by the State Government, MoEF, and CEC – Minor mineral-related IAs adjourned for post-summer vacation hearing – All other IAs opposing the ban dismissed.

Income Tax – Section 43B – Deduction Disallowed – Bottling Fee – Actual Payment Required – Held that furnishing of bank guarantee does not amount to “actual payment” under Section 43B – Requirement is for actual outflow of funds to the exchequer – Bottling fees are not tax, duty, cess or fee but consideration for exclusive privilege under excise rules – Such payments do not fall within the purview of Section 43B – Deductions rightly disallowed by Assessing Officer – High Court’s contrary view set aside [Paras 1, 13-24]

Taxation – Nature of Bottling Fees – Not Fee or Tax – Bottling fee under Rajasthan Excise Rules is consideration for contractual grant of exclusive privilege in liquor trade – Does not qualify as tax, duty, cess or fee under Section 43B – Held: Exaction is not in exercise of sovereign taxing power but under contractual privilege – Rule of ejusdem generis applied to restrict scope of Section 43B to statutory levies of tax-like nature [Paras 17-23]

Income Tax – Research & Development – Depreciation on Assets – Business Closure – R&D equipment related to fast food unit claimed for depreciation – Matter remitted to Assessing Officer to determine whether assets were also used for ongoing liquor business – If so, depreciation allowable proportionally – Factual adjudication required [Paras 41-43]

Income Tax – Technical Service Charges – Business Expenditure – Allowability – New royalty agreement entered with McDowell for technical services – Revenue argued against allowability due to lack of novation and commercial benefit – Tribunal and High Court found new agreement based on business expediency and actually beneficial in later years – Findings affirmed as based on evidence – No interference warranted [Paras 35, 48]

Judicial Discipline – Binding Precedents – Multiple appeals disposed of based on legal findings from companion cases – Legal principles regarding Section 43B and depreciation claims consistently applied across assessment years 1988-89 to 1995-96 – Consistency in tax treatment upheld [Paras 3, 29, 35, 48]

Decision:

Appeals partly allowed and partly remitted –

• Deduction under Section 43B disallowed for unpaid bottling fees secured by bank guarantees

• Depreciation claims on R&D assets remitted to Assessing Officer for factual determination

• Royalty payments under revised agreement held to be valid business expenditure

Criminal Law – Dowry Death – Presumption under Section 113B Evidence Act – Marriage Date Dispute – Appellant convicted under Sections 304B and 498A IPC for causing death of wife by burns – Trial Court held marriage occurred in 1987 and drew presumption of dowry death – Supreme Court held marriage likely occurred in 1983 as per voter list evidence, making Section 304B inapplicable due to lapse of more than seven years – Held: Presumption under Section 113B not attracted and conviction under Section 304B unsustainable [Paras 2, 13, 19–23]

Criminal Law – Cruelty to Wife – Independent Charge under Section 498A IPC – Court upheld conviction under Section 498A for subjecting deceased to cruelty and harassment for dowry – Evidence supported claims of demand for ring and chain and prior burn incident – Held: Conviction under Section 498A justified even though offence under Section 304B not made out [Paras 17, 24]

Evidence Act – Presumptions – Standard of Proof – Voter list showing appellant's spouse’s name in 1988 considered reliable public document – Prosecution failed to establish exact date of marriage or cruelty “soon before death” – Held: No basis to draw statutory presumptions under Sections 113A and 113B – Courts must apply proximity test while determining "soon before death" under Section 304B [Paras 13, 18, 22–23]

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 304B IPC set aside – Conviction under Section 498A IPC affirmed – Sentence of three years’ rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 2000 fine maintained [Paras 24–25]

Army Service – Discharge – Rule 13(3) of the Army Rules, 1954 – Validity of discharge for inefficiency – Respondent, a recruit, was discharged from service for having failed twice in the clerks’ proficiency and aptitude tests – Learned Single Judge upheld the discharge under Rule 13(3) holding that the competent authority was entitled to discharge a recruit considered unlikely to become an efficient soldier and that the cause of action arose outside Calcutta High Court’s territorial jurisdiction – Division Bench, however, reversed the order, directing that the respondent be considered for appointment against a vacancy, but stated that its order would not operate as a precedent – Held: The Division Bench erred – Rule 13(3) clearly authorized discharge of recruits failing proficiency tests – The High Court’s judgment was unsupportable both on merits and for want of jurisdiction – Writ petition dismissed – Appeal allowed [Paras 1–5].

Administrative Law – Judicial Review – Scope – Courts cannot interfere with discharge orders passed under valid statutory rules unless mala fides or violation of procedure is proved – Division Bench exceeded jurisdiction in granting relief contrary to Army Rules [Paras 3–5].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of Calcutta High Court set aside – Writ petition dismissed – No costs.

Service Law – Regularization – Home Guards – Phased Absorption Scheme Quashed – Respondents worked continuously for 12 to 23 years under the A&N Home Guards, performing duties of regular nature under police supervision – Tribunal and High Court had directed formulation of a Scheme for their regularization in accordance with Pantha Chatterjee – Authorities framed a Scheme reserving only 20% of vacancies per year for absorption – Held: Scheme violated principles laid down in Pantha Chatterjee and was contrary to judicial directions – Absorption should be simultaneous and not in phases [Paras 3–9, 22].

Equal Pay for Equal Work – Discriminatory Treatment – Court held that denial of equal benefits to similarly placed Home Guards created unjustified distinctions – Absorbing some now and others later resulted in differential pay and retirement benefits – Such inequality violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution [Paras 3, 21–23].

Judicial Directions – Binding Nature – Scheme must reflect specific judicial mandates – Court held that both the Tribunal and the High Court had clearly required the Scheme to follow the precedent in Pantha Chatterjee – Authorities’ deviation undermined judicial authority under Article 141 [Paras 16–22].

Creation of Supernumerary Posts – Judicially Permissible in Special Cases – Though creation of posts is primarily an executive function, Court held that it may direct creation of supernumerary posts in compelling situations like the present one to ensure compliance with judicial orders [Para 24].

Public Employment – No 100% Reservation Issue – Since the absorption was not a fresh recruitment but a regularization of long-serving personnel, the argument that 100% reservation would result was rejected – Held: Regularization of existing Home Guards does not attract reservation-related constitutional restrictions [Para 22].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Scheme dated 5 April 2005 quashed – Division Bench judgment upheld – Authorities directed to frame and implement a new Scheme for absorption of all eligible Home Guards in terms of Pantha Chatterjee within three months.

Criminal Procedure – Further Investigation – Custodial Remand – Bail – Once cognizance taken and accused released on bail, police custody cannot be granted even if new investigating agency constituted – Section 167(2) CrPC inapplicable post-cognizance – Further investigation permissible under Section 173(8) but without custody unless bail cancelled – High Court order remanding accused to SIT custody set aside – Appeal allowed [Paras 16–24, 28–29].

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 167(2), 309(2), 173(8) – Police Custody after Cognizance – Further Investigation – Bail – Question whether after cognizance is taken and the accused released on bail, the court can remand him to police custody on the request of a newly constituted Special Investigation Team (SIT) – Held: No. Once cognizance of the offence has been taken and the accused has been released on bail, the power of remand under Section 167(2) ceases to apply – thereafter, only Section 309(2) governs custody, which applies only to an accused “in custody” – since appellants were on bail, they could not be taken into custody unless bail was cancelled under Sections 437(5) or 439(2) – mere change of investigating agency (SIT) does not revive power to remand – further investigation permissible under Section 173(8), but does not entail automatic custody of accused [Paras 16–24].

Investigation – Further Investigation vs. Reinvestigation – Scope and Power – Distinction drawn between “further investigation” (continuation of earlier investigation) and “reinvestigation” (fresh start annulling earlier probe) – Reinvestigation forbidden in law; further investigation permissible even after charge-sheet, subject to judicial permission – Direction of Supreme Court in National Human Rights Commission v. State of Gujarat, (2009) 6 SCC 342, was for further investigation only – SIT could proceed under Section 173(8) CrPC but not seek police custody contrary to law [Paras 17–20].

Bail – Effect on Remand – Order of bail under Section 167(2) or otherwise remains valid until cancelled under Sections 437(5) or 439(2) CrPC – Filing of charge-sheet or further investigation does not nullify bail – Custodial interrogation impermissible without cancellation of bail – High Court erred in holding otherwise [Paras 23–25].

Investigation – Powers of Court and Investigating Agency – Investigating agency acts only within bounds of CrPC – Subordinate courts have no inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC – Power to remand after cognizance lies only under Section 309(2) and only when accused is in custody – Custody cannot be ordered as a substitute for investigative convenience [Paras 21–22].

Constitution of India – Article 142 – Directions by Supreme Court – In peculiar facts, Supreme Court exercised powers under Article 142 to continue interim protection earlier granted—SIT allowed to interrogate appellants only during daytime without custody—Direction made absolute till further orders or filing of supplementary charge-sheet [Paras 28–29].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of Gujarat High Court directing police custody set aside – Bail of appellants to continue – Interim order of limited interrogation without custody made absolute – SIT permitted to proceed with further investigation as per law [Paras 28–29].

Criminal Law – Conspiracy – Essential Ingredients – Agreement between two or more persons to commit an illegal act or legal act by illegal means is sine qua non – Mere suspicion, knowledge, or discussion not sufficient – Conviction under Section 302 read with 120B IPC cannot be sustained when co-accused were not charged under Section 120B – Offence of conspiracy must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, not by weak or unreliable evidence [Paras 9–12].

Evidence Act – Extra-Judicial Confession – Weak Piece of Evidence – Confession by co-accused to a witness of doubtful credibility (PW 22) held unreliable – Such confession cannot be basis of conviction unless corroborated in material particulars – Section 30 Evidence Act permits limited use of such confession and cannot alone sustain conviction [Paras 10–11].

Criminal Conspiracy – Circumstantial Evidence – Principles – Conspiracy generally proved by circumstantial evidence but chain of circumstances must be complete and consistent only with guilt – Test from Yogesh @ Sachin Jagdish Joshi v. State of Maharashtra and K.R. Purushothaman v. State of Kerala reiterated – Meeting of minds essential, mere presence or motive insufficient [Paras 9–12].

Appreciation of Evidence – Witness Credibility – Testimony of taxi driver (PW 26) allegedly overhearing conspiracy held unreliable – Contradictions and improbabilities in his statement, lack of prior acquaintance with accused, and interested association made his evidence untrustworthy – Conviction based on such testimony unsustainable [Paras 7–8].

Criminal Trial – Co-Accused Not Charged under Section 120B IPC – Appellant alone cannot be convicted for conspiracy when alleged co-conspirators were not even charged with the same offence – Conviction under Section 302 read with Section 120B IPC set aside [Paras 6, 9, 12].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 302/120B IPC set aside – Appellant directed to be released unless required in any other case [Para 12].

Civil Procedure – Amendment of Written Statement – Withdrawal of Admission – Application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking deletion of phrase "under different tenancies" in reply – Tenant clarified initial inconsistency regarding nature of tenancy in rent proceedings – Held: Admission in written statement can be explained or withdrawn – Amendment sought only to clarify confusion, not to set up new or inconsistent defence – Rent Controller and High Court erred in refusing amendment [Paras 5, 8–10, 13]

Civil Procedure – Order 6 Rule 17 CPC – Proviso – Commencement of Trial – Objection raised that amendment barred after trial began – Held: Trial includes filing of documents, examination of witnesses and arguments – In present case, issues not framed, documents not filed, trial not commenced – Proviso inapplicable – Amendment allowed [Paras 14–16]

Landlord-Tenant – Ejectment Proceedings – Tenant’s Clarification of Tenancy Terms – Amendment allowed to reflect actual understanding of rent structure and scope of tenancy – No prejudice caused to landlord – Amendment necessary for proper adjudication [Paras 5, 8, 13]

Judicial Discretion – Amendment of Defence – Liberal Approach – Law is settled that courts are more liberal in allowing amendments of written statement than plaint – Inconsistent or additional defences may be allowed – High Court failed to exercise discretion judiciously [Paras 10–11, 13]

Relief – Orders of Rent Controller and High Court Set Aside – Amendment of written statement allowed – Rent Controller directed to proceed with case and dispose of ejectment proceedings within six months [Paras 17–18]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Orders of Rent Controller and High Court set aside – Amendment of written statement permitted – Rent Controller directed to conclude ejectment proceedings within six months – No order as to costs.

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Ingredients – Dishonour of Cheque – Cheque dishonoured with remark “reported lost by drawer” – No allegation of insufficiency of funds – Complainant issued statutory notice and filed complaint – Appellant sought quashing under Section 482 CrPC – Held: Penal liability under Section 138 arises only if dishonour is due to insufficiency of funds or amount exceeding arrangement – Return of cheque due to “reported lost” does not attract Section 138 – Legal fiction in penal provision must be construed strictly [Paras 2, 9–11, 14]

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of Proceedings – Section 482 CrPC – Complaint under Section 138 does not disclose basic ingredients of the offence – High Court erred in refusing to quash the proceedings – Supreme Court held that mere presentation of cheque and its dishonour for reasons other than insufficiency of funds does not amount to offence under Section 138 – Proceedings quashed [Paras 6–7, 14–15]

Penal Provisions – Strict Construction – Section 138 NI Act creates a legal fiction – Being penal in nature, must be interpreted strictly – Legal fiction limited to dishonour for reasons expressly provided in statute – Cannot be extended to cases where cheque is returned on ground of loss or stop-payment instructions unless those are meant to defeat liability [Paras 10–11]

Pleadings – Absence of Allegation – No allegation in complaint that bank returned cheque due to insufficient funds – Absence of essential pleading fatal to complaint under Section 138 – Even if intention to defraud alleged, remedy lies under other provisions, not under Section 138 [Paras 12–13]

Relief – Criminal Complaint Quashed – Supreme Court allowed appeal – Set aside High Court order – Quashed complaint under Section 138 of NI Act – No offence made out [Para 15]

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court judgment set aside – Complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act quashed – No offence disclosed.