Criminal Law – Conviction – Appeal against conviction under Section 302 IPC – High Court upheld conviction based on eyewitness testimony of child witness PW-2 and corroborative evidence – Appeal contended inconsistencies in evidence, influence of interested witnesses, and procedural lapses – Supreme Court found no merit in the appeal – Conviction and sentence upheld [Paras 1-11].

Evidence – Child Witness – PW-2, an eight-year-old child, provided a detailed account of the murder – Testimony found credible and corroborated by other witnesses and recovery of the weapon – No evidence of tutoring – Court relied on consistent statements from the time of incident till trial [Paras 7-9].

Procedure – Section 164 CrPC – Appellant argued non-examination of Magistrate who recorded statement under Section 164 CrPC – Court held conviction based on substantive evidence of PW-2 during trial, not solely on Section 164 statement – Procedural lapses did not prejudice the appellant’s case [Paras 10-11].

Judicial Reasoning – Corroborative Evidence – PW-2’s testimony corroborated by PW-1, PW-8, and PW-11 – Recovery of blood-stained daa at appellant’s instance supported prosecution case – Medical evidence consistent with nature of injuries described by PW-2 [Paras 8-10].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence of life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC affirmed – High Court’s judgment upheld [Para 11].

Co-operative Societies – Jurisdiction of Appeals – Appeals under Section 152 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act to be heard by the Minister-in-charge – Minister for Cooperation recused due to allegations of bias – Chief Minister directed to invoke Rule 6-A of the Rules of Business – Appeals to be heard by Chief Minister or another Minister [Paras 2-19].

Rules of Business – Interpretation – Rule 6-A of Rules of Business allows Chief Minister to delegate functions to another Minister in case of inability to discharge duties – High Court’s direction to Chief Minister to appoint a Minister or hear appeals himself upheld – Secretary of Department not competent to hear appeals [Paras 17-18].

Procedural Fairness – Opportunity to be Heard – High Court’s disposal of writ petitions without hearing affected parties was improper – Supreme Court avoided remand to prevent delay in cooperative society elections – Decision to ensure timely elections and uphold procedural fairness [Paras 16-19].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – High Court’s direction affirmed – Chief Minister to ensure appeals are heard and disposed of within two months – No order as to costs [Paras 19-21].

Land Acquisition – Urgency Provisions – Appellant challenged the acquisition of land under Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for the Rohini Residential Scheme – High Court dismissed the writ petitions challenging the acquisition – Supreme Court held that invocation of urgency clause and dispensation of Section 5A inquiry was unjustified – Notification and declaration quashed [Paras 1-22].

Judicial Review – Application of Mind – Satisfaction of Lt. Governor under Section 17(1) and (4) must be based on material evidence – No indication of application of mind to the urgency necessitating dispensation of Section 5A inquiry – Presumption in favor of government not applicable for residential schemes [Paras 15-19].

Procedural Fairness – Right to Object – Enquiry under Section 5A is a valuable right and its elimination must be justified by urgent necessity – Government failed to prove urgency that precluded a Section 5A inquiry – Supreme Court emphasized strict scrutiny of administrative decisions overriding property rights [Paras 17-20].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Notification under Section 17(1) and (4) and declaration under Section 6 quashed – Competent authority to invite objections under Section 5A and proceed in accordance with law – No order as to costs [Paras 21-22].

Property Law – Possession and Ownership – Appellant claimed exclusive ownership and possession of the suit property – Respondent claimed possession based on family arrangement and long-term occupancy – Trial Court granted injunction in favor of the respondent – High Court affirmed the decision – Supreme Court held appellant as the rightful owner and possession by the respondent was as a caretaker, not under legal entitlement [Paras 1-20].

Judicial Review – Truth in Judicial Process – Emphasized the duty of courts to seek the truth in judicial proceedings – Criticized misuse of legal process and suppression of facts by parties to gain undue advantage – Reiterated that possession claims must be supported by detailed pleadings and documentary evidence [Paras 31-45].

Legal Principles – Caretaker’s Rights – Court reaffirmed that caretakers, servants, or agents do not acquire rights or interest in property by long possession – Court directed the respondent’s legal representatives to vacate the property and pay use and occupation charges – Ownership rights of the appellant upheld [Paras 101-105].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court and trial court judgments set aside – Appellant recognized as the rightful owner of the suit property – Respondent's legal representatives directed to vacate and pay Rs. 1,00,000 per month for use and occupation for three months – Costs of Rs. 50,000 imposed on the respondent [Paras 102-105].

Motor Vehicle Accident – Compensation – Appellant suffered 90% permanent disability in right leg, 50-60% disability of mouth, and other injuries due to accident – Claimed compensation of Rs. 21,50,000/- – Tribunal awarded Rs. 4,17,000/- – High Court nominally enhanced to Rs. 7,26,000/- – Supreme Court further enhanced compensation considering appellant's actual income, severity of disabilities, and medical expenses [Paras 1-22].

Earning Capacity – Determination – Evidence showed appellant earned Rs. 8,500/- per month prior to accident – Tribunal’s assessment of Rs. 2,000/- per month deemed erroneous – Supreme Court calculated loss of future earning based on actual income and 90% disability, resulting in Rs. 14,68,800/- towards loss of future earning [Paras 15-18].

Medical Expenses – Calculation – Tribunal and High Court under-calculated medical expenses – Supreme Court recognized Rs. 1,86,000/- based on evidence, including transportation and future medical expenses [Paras 20-22].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Compensation enhanced to Rs. 19,75,800/- with 6% interest per annum from date of petition till realization – Respondent directed to pay immediately after deducting amounts already paid [Paras 22-23].

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of Inquiry – High Court quashed preliminary inquiry into allegations of irregularities by respondent – Supreme Court held interference at threshold before registration of FIR unjustified – Preliminary inquiry necessary to test veracity of allegations – High Court’s order set aside [Paras 1-14].

Inherent Powers – Scope of Section 482 CrPC – Emphasized inherent powers under Section 482 are wide but not arbitrary – To be exercised sparingly and with circumspection – Only in extraordinary cases where allegations do not constitute the offense alleged [Paras 7-9].

Judicial Precedents – Investigation Interference – Cited precedents emphasizing non-interference with investigations unless a case of gross abuse of power is made out – Investigation necessary to collect materials for proving offense and bringing offender to book [Paras 8-9].

Judicial Review – Administrative Actions – High Court erred in concluding previous departmental inquiries exonerated respondent – Misinterpreted reports recommending proper action against respondent – Departmental and police inquiries are distinct [Paras 11-13].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s judgment quashing the preliminary inquiry set aside – Vigilance Cell directed to proceed with and complete the investigation expeditiously in accordance with law [Paras 14].

Service Law – Termination of Employment – Respondent, a teacher, was terminated without an inquiry after probation – High Court found termination stigmatic and ordered reinstatement – Division Bench held termination not stigmatic but required inquiry for confirmed employees – Supreme Court held no deemed confirmation as confirmation required explicit act by employer under Rule 4.9 [Paras 1-24].

Statutory Interpretation – Rule 4.9 – Rule required explicit confirmation by employer for an employee to be considered confirmed – Mere passage of time on probation does not imply confirmation – Words “if confirmed” indicated necessity of affirmative act for confirmation [Paras 8-20].

Precedents – Deemed Confirmation – Court distinguished case from precedents where rules did not allow extension beyond maximum period – Deemed confirmation applies only where rules explicitly restrict probation period without need for affirmative confirmation [Paras 10-23].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s judgment set aside to extent of respondent being deemed confirmed – No need for inquiry prior to termination – Parties to bear their own costs [Paras 24].

Civil Procedure – Second Appeal – High Court allowed second appeal without formulating a substantial question of law – Supreme Court held that formulation of substantial question of law is a sine qua non for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC – Judgment of High Court set aside for non-compliance [Paras 8-17].

Substantial Question of Law – Necessity – High Court must formulate substantial question of law before hearing and deciding second appeal – Jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC restricted to such questions – Non-compliance renders judgment unsustainable [Paras 9-11].

Precedents – Jurisdictional Constraints – Reiterated long line of decisions emphasizing mandatory requirement for formulation of substantial question of law – High Court’s decision without such formulation patently illegal [Paras 10-11].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's judgment set aside – Second appeal restored for fresh consideration in accordance with law – No order as to costs [Paras 16-17].

Statutory Interpretation – Advocates' Right to Practice – Advocates Act, 1961 grants statutory and fundamental right to practice law – Section 129(6) of Customs Act imposes restriction on former members of CESTAT from appearing before it – Supreme Court held that such restriction is reasonable and does not violate Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 – Intended to maintain judicial integrity and public confidence in tribunal’s impartiality [Paras 1-20].

Reasonableness of Restrictions – Court analyzed restrictions under Article 19(6) – Found restriction on former CESTAT members' practice reasonable and aimed at preventing potential bias – Emphasized public interest and need for maintaining standards in legal profession – Distinguished between absolute and partial restrictions, deeming Section 129(6) as partial and reasonable [Paras 7-11, 16-20].

Legislative Competence – No challenge to legislative competence of Parliament to amend Customs Act – Emphasis on harmonious construction of statutes – Bar on practicing before CESTAT does not conflict with right to practice law generally – Advocates free to practice in other forums and tribunals [Paras 20-23].

Judicial Precedents – Reference to various cases upholding similar restrictions in different professions and contexts – Reiterated principle that right to practice is subject to reasonable restrictions – Cited judgments illustrating balance between individual rights and public interest [Paras 21-23].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – High Court’s decision upheld – Restriction under Section 129(6) of Customs Act deemed reasonable and valid – No costs awarded [Paras 53].