Administrative Tribunals – Abolition of State Administrative Tribunal – Section 74(1) of M.P. Reorganisation Act – Constitutionality Upheld – Petitioners challenged the abolition of the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal and questioned the vires of Section 74(1) of the M.P. Reorganisation Act, 2000 – Held: Parliament was competent to enact the provision empowering successor States to mutually decide on the continuation or abolition of tribunals established under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 – Such provision is conditional legislation and not excessive delegation – No violation of Article 323A or basic structure of the Constitution [Paras 34-38, 45-51].

Delegated Legislation – Excessive Delegation – Conditional Legislation Validated – The power given to State Governments to decide whether or not to continue a tribunal was held to be conditional legislation, not an abdication of essential legislative functions – The Court reaffirmed distinction between delegated and conditional legislation – Held: No excessive or unconstitutional delegation was made by Parliament [Paras 45-50].

Judicial Review – Implications of L. Chandra Kumar Judgment – State Justified in Abolishing Tribunal – Petitioners argued that the tribunal should not have been abolished due to continued need and workload – Held: After L. Chandra Kumar restored High Court jurisdiction under Articles 226/227, tribunals became an additional tier – State policy decision to abolish the tribunal on that ground was valid and not arbitrary or mala fide [Paras 37, 55-57].

Mala Fides – Abolition Alleged Due to Adverse Judicial Orders – Allegations Rejected – Petitioners relied on press reports to allege that tribunal was abolished due to unfavourable decisions against the government – Held: No evidence to prove mala fides – Cabinet decision pre-dated alleged adverse orders – Abolition was a policy decision based on relevant considerations including financial burden and judicial efficiency [Paras 69-71].

Ultra Vires – Sections 74(2) and (3) – Provisions Struck Down – The Court upheld the High Court's decision declaring Sections 74(2) and 74(3) of the M.P. Reorganisation Act as unconstitutional – Held: Provisions violated Articles 14, 16, and 21 by denying compensation and remedy to affected tribunal members and staff [Para 20].

Executive Interference in Judiciary – No Violation of Judicial Independence – P. Sambamurthy Distinguished – Petitioners invoked precedent to allege interference with judicial functioning – Held: The decision did not interfere with specific judicial orders but was a structural change in tribunal system – No breach of judicial independence or rule of law [Paras 63-64].

Central Government Notification – Procedural Requirements – Role Clarified – The Court clarified that while Central Government must issue notification under the Administrative Tribunals Act for abolition, it has no discretion once mutual decision of both States is made – Section 74(4) does not override or control Section 74(1) [Paras 67-68].

Final Decision – Abolition of M.P. State Administrative Tribunal Upheld – Constitutional challenge to Section 74(1) dismissed – Appeals and writ petitions rejected – Held: Decision of State to abolish tribunal is lawful, rational, and within power conferred by Parliament [Paras 74-75].

Land Acquisition – Section 17(4) – Dispensation of Section 5A inquiry – Non-application of mind – Invalid – Section 5A inquiry embodies a valuable right to object and persuade authorities against acquisition – Power to exclude it under urgency clause must be exercised with conscious application of mind – Mere existence of urgency under Section 17(1) or unforeseen emergency under Section 17(2) does not automatically justify dispensing with inquiry under Section 5A – Lt. Governor’s order showed no independent consideration; relevant facts like prior lapse of acquisition proceedings were not placed before him – Held: Decision to exclude Section 5A inquiry vitiated [Paras 32–37].

Land Acquisition – Scheme of Act – Interplay of Sections 4, 5A, 6, 9, 11, 16 and 17 – Section 17 operates as an exception allowing urgent possession before award – But Section 17(4) requires a separate satisfaction that urgency cannot brook even minimal delay of Section 5A inquiry – Absence of material showing such consideration invalidates dispensation of inquiry [Paras 28–33].

Right of Hearing – Section 5A – Scope – Limited statutory right to object is substantive, not illusory – Can be taken away only for good and valid reasons – Application of mind is mandatory before excluding it – Courts must ensure this safeguard is respected [Paras 35–36].

Judicial Review – Subjective satisfaction – Limited scope – Courts will not substitute their opinion on urgency but will examine whether authority applied mind to need for exclusion of Section 5A – In present case, High Court rightly held exclusion invalid – Appeals dismissed [Paras 31–37].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – Findings of High Court upholding invalidity of dispensation of Section 5A inquiry confirmed – Acquisition proceedings to continue afresh from stage of Section 4(1) notification with due inquiry [Paras 37].

Criminal Law – Murder - Appeal Against Acquittal – Scope of Interference – Conviction Restored – Trial court acquitted all accused on conjectures (age/incapacity, alleged ante-timed FIR, private defence) – High Court reappreciated clear eye-witness evidence and reversed acquittal – Supreme Court: appellate interference justified where trial court ignores admissible evidence or takes an unreasonable view; presumption of innocence cannot shield perverse appreciation – Conviction of Anil Kumar under Section 302 IPC and 302/34 IPC upheld [Paras 6, 8, 9, 12–13].

Injuries on Accused – Non-Explanation – Legal Effect – Not an Invariable Rule – Failure to explain minor/superficial injuries on accused does not ipso facto vitiate prosecution – Where prosecution evidence is clear, cogent and credible, omission is inconsequential; defence version must competitively probabilise genesis – Applied principles from Mohar Rai; Lakshmi Singh; Vijayee Singh – Injuries on Anil Kumar/Navin Chandra found trivial and belatedly recorded; no dent to prosecution [Paras 10–11].

Private Defence – Section 313 Statement – Burden and Proof – Mere assertion in Section 313 CrPC is insufficient; plea must be established from probabilities/evidence – On facts, claim that accused fired in self-defence rejected; prosecution eye-witnesses proved homicidal firing by Anil Kumar; defence failed to examine material witnesses (driver Navin Chandra/Virendra) [Paras 6–7, 12].

FIR – Allegation of Ante-Timing – Rustic Witness – Minor Variance Not Fatal – Trial court’s inference of ante-timing based on hyper-technical reading of PW-3 (illiterate rustic lady) unsustainable; FIR promptly lodged; minor discrepancies after lapse of time not decisive [Paras 6, 12].

Ocular vs Medical Evidence – Primacy of Credible Ocular Testimony – Medical variance not decisive unless it completely improbabilises the prosecution version; here it did not – Conviction can rest on trustworthy eye-witnesses [Para 12].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – High Court’s conviction of Anil Kumar affirmed; no interference warranted [Para 13].

Criminal Law – Registration of Counter FIR – Appellant’s complaint arising from the same incident as that of respondent’s FIR was not entertained by police – Appellant invoked Section 156(3) CrPC – Magistrate directed registration and investigation – Sessions Court and High Court set aside Magistrate’s order citing T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala and Section 162 CrPC – Held: Magistrate rightly directed registration – T.T. Antony does not bar counter complaints arising from the same incident – Counter FIRs with distinct versions are permissible – Section 162 does not bar registration of such complaints [Paras 1–9, 16–18, 25–26].

FIRs – Second FIR vs. Counter Complaint – T.T. Antony examined – Clarified: a second FIR by the same complainant or others against the same accused on the same facts is barred as an improvement – However, a counter complaint by the accused in the first FIR narrating a different version is legally permissible – Such counter version may form the basis for a valid FIR and investigation [Paras 12–17, 23–24].

Criminal Procedure – Magistrate’s Power under Section 156(3) CrPC – Where police fails to register a counter complaint, the Magistrate can direct registration and investigation – This power is unaffected by prior registration of an FIR – Supported by Kari Choudhary v. Sita Devi, State of Bihar v. J.A.C. Saldanna, and Ram Lal Narang v. State – Counter FIRs aid in bringing full facts before the court [Paras 18–22].

Misinterpretation by Courts Below – High Court and Sessions Court misapplied T.T. Antony – Wrongly held that a second FIR arising from the same incident is barred even if it narrates a different version – Confused FIR registration with statements recorded during investigation under Sections 161–162 CrPC – Those sections address evidentiary use, not registration of FIRs [Paras 25–26].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Orders of High Court and Sessions Court set aside – Magistrate’s direction to register and investigate the counter FIR restored – Filing of counter complaint in the same incident upheld as valid and legal [Para 26].

Criminal Law – Reversal of Acquittal – Conviction Restored – The Trial Court convicted the respondent under Section 302 IPC for murder based on consistent eyewitness testimony, post-mortem findings, and recovery of weapon – High Court reversed the conviction citing irregularities in the firing range test, ballistic report, and credibility of related witnesses – Held: High Court’s reasoning was perverse and based on conjecture – Trial Court’s findings restored – Conviction upheld [Paras 1–3, 13–14].

Firing Range Test – Local Inspection under Section 310 CrPC – No Mandatory Use of Crime Weapon – High Court held that test firing using a Single Barrel gun instead of the recovered Double Barrel gun invalidated the firing range findings – Held: Both guns were of the same class – No expert evidence to prove significant difference in range – Test firing intended to aid appreciation of evidence, not to establish guilt conclusively – Reasoning of High Court unsustainable [Paras 4–5].

Ballistic Report – Admissibility under Section 293 CrPC – Report of Junior Scientific Officer is Valid – High Court discarded ballistic report on ground that the author was a junior scientific officer and not listed under Section 293(4) – Held: Section 293(1) permits such reports as valid evidence if issued by a government scientific expert – High Court failed to consider sub-section (1) and misapplied the law [Para 6].

Failure to Send Pellets for Ballistic Examination – Not Fatal – High Court drew adverse inference for not sending pellets recovered from the body for matching – Held: No legal requirement to send pellets for such examination – Recovery of pellets from the deceased sufficiently established cause of death as gunshot – Finding of High Court held to be perverse [Para 7].

Credibility of Related Witnesses – Not to be Discarded Solely for Relationship – High Court rejected eyewitness testimony of the deceased’s brother and cousin due to relationship and alleged enmity – Held: Related witnesses’ testimony cannot be mechanically rejected – Their presence was natural and their account was corroborated by medical and forensic evidence – Independent witness also corroborated incident – High Court erred in ignoring this evidence [Paras 10–11].

Independent Eyewitness – Not Considered by High Court – PW-4 Tarsem Lal, unrelated to either party, supported prosecution – His evidence that accused was seen with gun and fled after firing was ignored by High Court – Held: Omission to consider this key evidence amounted to serious error [Para 11].

Medical Evidence – Consistent with Eyewitness Account – Multiple gunshot injuries were found on the body, as confirmed by PW-2 Dr. Sanjay Kumar Mahajan – Injuries were ante-mortem and sufficient to cause death – Medical findings corroborated eyewitness account – Held: High Court overlooked this corroboration [Para 12].

Final Decision – Conviction Restored – High Court’s acquittal was based on fallacious reasoning and disregard of settled legal principles – Trial Court’s conviction based on reliable evidence restored – Appeal allowed – Accused directed to be taken into custody [Paras 13–14].

Criminal Law – Culpable Homicide - Section 304 Part I/34 IPC – State appeal against acquittal – Deceased objected to accused’s camel damaging crops; beaten with lathis on head; died en route to Jaipur – Trial court convicted under Section 304 Part I/34 IPC (10 years); High Court acquitted citing FIR delay – Held: Acquittal unsustainable; conviction under Section 304 Part I/34 IPC restored; sentence reduced to 5 years’ RI with set-off – Eyewitness and medical evidence overwhelming [Paras 1–3, 5–6].

FIR – Delay in Lodging – When not fatal - Section 154 CrPC – Hospital intimation sent; SHO visited but victim unfit to speak; police failed to register promptly – Written complaint filed two days later – Held: Delay due to police negligence; no prejudice to accused; no doubt cast on prosecution case where occurrence and assailants proved – Delay not fatal [Para 4].

Evidence – Eyewitness Credibility & Medical Corroboration – Five neighbours including widow (PWs 1–5) consistently proved lathi blows on head by accused; post-mortem: five head injuries with skull fracture and fatal clotting – Defence of “mad camel” causing injuries unsupported and rejected – Held: Ocular version trustworthy and corroborated by medical findings [Paras 2–5].

Police Procedure – Duty on Hospital Intimation - Section 154 CrPC – SHO could have registered case on bystander information when victim was unfit; failure of police cannot vitiate otherwise proved prosecution case [Para 4].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court acquittal set aside – Conviction under Section 304 Part I/34 IPC restored – Sentence reduced to 5 years’ RI; set-off for period undergone; respondents to surrender within two weeks, failing which coercive steps to secure custody [Para 6].

Criminal Law – Culpable Homicide – Conviction Restored – Deceased Ram Swaroop was beaten with lathis by accused Gujarmal and his sons Maharaj Singh and Bachan Singh following a dispute over a camel damaging crops – Death resulted from severe head injuries – Trial court convicted under Section 304 Part I read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to 10 years’ RI – High Court acquitted citing delay in FIR – Held: Delay due to police inaction despite timely medical intimation – Evidence of five eyewitnesses including wife and neighbours consistent and reliable – Medical evidence confirms fatal head injuries caused by lathi blows – High Court erred in ignoring weight of evidence – Conviction restored [Paras 1–5].

FIR – Delay – Effect on Prosecution – FIR lodged two days after incident – Ram Swaroop was hospitalized and unfit to speak – Police informed but failed to register FIR – Delay attributable to police negligence, not complainants – No prejudice to accused – Delay immaterial where evidence is trustworthy and consistent [Paras 3–4].

Medical Evidence – Cause of Death – Post-mortem showed five head injuries and skull fracture – Doctor opined injuries caused by blows, not animal attack – Defence theory of camel attack unsubstantiated – No cross-examination of doctors on this point – Injuries clearly consistent with eyewitness accounts [Para 4].

Sentencing – Modification – Considering passage of time since incident (1992) and High Court acquittal in the interim, sentence reduced from 10 years to 5 years’ RI – Accused to surrender within two weeks – Set-off granted for time already served [Para 6].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court acquittal set aside – Conviction under Section 304 Part I r/w Section 34 IPC restored – Sentence reduced to 5 years’ RI – Accused directed to surrender [Paras 6].

Transfer of Matrimonial Proceedings – Section 25 CPC – Transfer Declined – Wife sought transfer of Hindu Marriage Petition from Korba to Kolkata citing financial hardship, custody of minor daughter, and inconvenience – Respondent opposed, pointing to advanced stage of trial and assured cooperation – Held: Transfer not justified, but suitable directions issued to mitigate hardship [Paras 2–4, 7].

Expenses of Appearance – Directions – Husband directed to bear to-and-fro train travel expenses for wife and one attendant (or father if he alone travels) – Additionally, Rs. 500 to be paid towards incidental expenses on each court appearance – Directions issued to ensure wife’s ability to attend proceedings [Para 4].

Maintenance – Payment of Arrears – Respondent husband directed to pay arrears of maintenance as ordered by trial court, unless stayed – Compliance required along with cooperation for early disposal [Paras 5–6].

Decision: Transfer petition disposed of – Prayer for transfer declined – Directions issued regarding travel expenses, incidental costs, and payment of maintenance arrears – No costs awarded [Paras 4–8].

Civil Contempt Jurisdiction – Scope and Limitations – High Court Misapplied Jurisdiction – The appellant challenged the High Court’s refusal to initiate contempt proceedings, where the learned Single Judge re-examined the correctness of an earlier order passed by another judge – Held: In contempt proceedings, the Court is only to consider whether the order has been complied with – It cannot sit in review or examine correctness of the order – Such examination lies only before a higher court in appeal or review – Order of High Court set aside and matter remitted for fresh consideration [Paras 1–5, 8].

Finality of Judicial Orders – Binding Nature – Validity Not to be Reopened in Contempt – Once an order is passed and not challenged by proper legal means, it attains finality – Held: A party aggrieved by the order must seek appellate or review remedy – The rightness or wrongness of the order cannot be debated in contempt proceedings – Non-compliance amounts to contempt if no stay or reversal is obtained [Paras 5, 7, 8].

Impossibility of Compliance – Must Be Pleaded Before Appellate Court – The respondent-State argued that the order could not be implemented – Held: If compliance is impossible, the party must approach the issuing court or the appellate forum – The State failed to do so – The High Court did not find that compliance was impossible – Hence, no ground for refusing to proceed with contempt [Paras 5–6].

Improper Judicial Approach – Exercise of Review Powers in Contempt – High Court Acted Beyond Jurisdiction – The learned Single Judge of the High Court analysed the legality and propriety of the original order while dealing with contempt – Held: This amounts to an impermissible review disguised as contempt jurisdiction – Such an approach undermines the authority and enforceability of judicial orders [Para 8].

Substitution of State Due to Reorganisation – State of Jharkhand Now Party – After bifurcation of Bihar, the State of Jharkhand was substituted in place of original respondent – Held: Appeal allowed to the extent of remitting the contempt matter for reconsideration – No costs awarded [Paras 10–11].