Motor Accident Claim – Compensation – Liability of Insurer – Driver of the tractor admitted he never held a driving licence – Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dismissed claim, holding insurer not liable due to breach of policy condition – High Court affirmed non-liability of insurer but awarded compensation against driver and owner – Held: Insurance company cannot be made liable where driver never held any licence and owner permitted such person to drive – No interference warranted [Paras 2–3, 6]

Insurance Law – Breach of Policy Conditions – Absence of Driving Licence – Clear and admitted breach of insurance policy conditions where driver was entirely unlicensed – Insurer entitled to avoid liability under Section 149(2) of Motor Vehicles Act – Owner has statutory obligation to ensure driver holds valid and effective licence – Distinction drawn between expired, fake, and non-existent licences – In case of no licence at all, no liability on insurer [Paras 5–6]

Judicial Precedent – Applicability of Swaran Singh Case – Swaran Singh clarified that insurer may be liable even in cases of breach unless willful or conscious – However, where driver never held any licence and owner consciously allowed him to drive, insurer is not liable – Case falls squarely within exception noted in Swaran Singh [Paras 6, 7]

Doctrine of Social Justice – Scope – Though Motor Vehicles Act is welfare legislation, it also permits insurers to avoid liability where statutory breaches are established – Social justice considerations do not override express statutory defences under insurance law [Para 5]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – No liability on insurance company where driver had never held a valid licence – Appellants may pursue recovery against driver and owner – No order as to costs [Para 8]

Rent Control – Subletting – Exclusive Possession – Tenant Subletting Portion of Premises to Relatives Without Written Consent of Landlord – Held: Subletting Proved – Eviction Under Section 14(1)(b) of Delhi Rent Control Act Justified – Appellant No. 1 inducted as tenant in 1956 – Rent receipts in name of M/s Mitra Book Depot – Subsequent businesses run under M/s Mitra Stores and M/s Lucky Confectioners by appellant Nos. 2 to 4 in separate portion – Rent Controller, Tribunal and High Court concurrently held that exclusive possession was parted without written consent – Held: Subletting made out – Eviction justified [Paras 3, 6–11].

Landlord-Tenant – Subletting by Tenant to Family Members – Legal Control and Possession Absent – Subletting Inferred – Relationship Alone Not Sufficient to Avoid Eviction – Appellant Nos. 2 to 4 not spouse, children or immediate family – No evidence of co-residence or joint business – Tenant admitted no control over businesses run by others – Held: Mere relationship does not exempt from subletting liability unless joint residence and business control proved [Paras 7–8, 10].

Rent Control – Waiver of Eviction Right – No Conscious Relinquishment of Statutory Right to Evict – Mere Knowledge of Subletting Not Equivalent to Waiver – Right to Evict Not Lost by Delay – No written consent by either original landlord or subsequent purchaser – No evidence of waiver by conduct or acquiescence – Sale deed did not mention possession by appellant Nos. 2 to 4 – Held: No conscious waiver established – Landlord's right to evict subsisted [Paras 5, 7, 12].

Burden of Proof – Subletting – Initial Burden on Landlord – Onus Shifts to Tenant Upon Proof of Exclusive Possession by Sub-Tenant – Tenant Failed to Discharge Onus – Respondent proved exclusive possession of appellant Nos. 2 to 4 – Tenant failed to show that they were assisting him or had no independent business – Held: Subletting established [Paras 10–11].

Precedents Distinguished – United Bank of India Case Not Applicable – Tenant Retained No Legal Control in Present Case Unlike in Earlier Decision – Unlike prior case where tenant retained control over premises shared with union, here appellant No. 1 admitted no involvement with business or supervision – Held: Decision in United Bank of India v. Cooks and Kelvey not applicable [Para 13–14].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Eviction order upheld – Appellants granted time to vacate till 30th June, 2008 on filing usual undertaking within four weeks – No order as to costs [Final Para].

Criminal Law – Illicit Liquor – Conviction under Punjab Excise Act – Appellants found transporting 18 cartons of whisky from Haryana to Delhi without permit – Samples sealed and sent to Excise Control Laboratory – Report confirmed contents as whisky – Trial court convicted accused under Section 61 – Conviction upheld by appellate and revisional courts – Held: No irregularity in procedure – Sealing and forwarding of samples proved through prosecution witnesses – No contradiction established by defence [Paras 3–6]

Criminal Procedure – Section 293 CrPC – Expert Report – Whether Chemical Examiner must be examined – Held: Not mandatory – Report by government scientific expert admissible in evidence under Section 293(1) – Court has discretion under Section 293(2) to summon expert – Absence of request to summon expert or challenge to contents of report fatal to appellant’s case [Paras 6–9]

Appeal – Sentence – Mitigating Circumstances – Appellants already suffered more than 3 months of imprisonment – Occurrence nearly 13 years old – No minimum sentence prescribed under Section 61 at relevant time – While upholding conviction, sentence reduced to period already undergone [Para 10]

Decision: Conviction under Section 61 of Punjab Excise Act upheld – Sentence reduced to period already undergone – Appeal disposed of accordingly [Para 10]

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 11 – Res Judicata – Four partition suits decided by common judgment in 1944 on issue whether sale deed of 1885 by widow Sirtaji in favour of Mata Badal was for legal necessity – In Suit No. 98 (Kurthuwa lands), sale held invalid; appeal dismissed as time-barred in 1945, decree attained finality – In other suits (Nos. 99, 100), appellate authority in 1966 held sale valid – Appellant contended later decision superseded earlier one – Held: Principle of res judicata applied – Suit No. 98 having attained finality, subsequent decisions in other suits between different parties could not reopen or override it – High Court rightly held decision of 1966 not binding between parties to Suit No. 98 [Paras 2-7, 11-17].

Civil Procedure Code – Order 41 Rule 33 – Benefit to non-appealing party – Provision confined to parties within the same suit – Cannot be extended across separate suits involving different parties and different properties – Hence, appellant cannot derive benefit of appellate decision in suits 99 and 100 [Para 18].

Res Judicata – Doctrine – Not exhaustive under Section 11 CPC – Based on principle of finality of litigation, equity and good conscience – Privy Council and Supreme Court precedents reiterated: Sheoparsan Singh v. Ramnandan Singh (43 IA 91), Lal Chand v. Radha Krishan, AIR 1977 SC 789, and others – Rule to be applied substantively and not technically, but finality of decisions inter partes cannot be unsettled by subsequent rulings in other suits [Paras 12-16].

Consolidation Proceedings – U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 – Section 9 – Settlement Officer and Deputy Director Consolidation erred in holding that later appellate decision (1966) nullified decree in Suit No. 98 – High Court correctly restored order of Consolidation Officer expunging appellant’s name [Paras 5-7].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court judgment affirmed – No order as to costs [Para 18].

Service Law – False Caste Claim – Continuation in Service Not Permissible – Milind Not Applicable to Employment Cases – Respondent falsely claimed Scheduled Tribe status to secure reserved employment as Assistant Professor – Scrutiny Committee invalidated his caste claim – High Court, relying on Milind, allowed continuation in service despite falsehood – Held: Milind applies only to admissions in educational institutions where the candidate has completed studies, not to employment obtained through misrepresentation – Continuation in employment based on false caste certificate is impermissible – Judgment of High Court set aside [Paras 1, 4-6].

Reservation in Employment – Misuse by False Declaration – Fraudulent Entry Vitiates Employment – Post Must Be Vacated for Eligible Reserved Category Candidate – A person obtaining public employment by falsely claiming caste-based reservation deprives genuine candidates – Held: Services obtained by fraud must be terminated to restore constitutional reservation benefits – Allowing continuation amounts to perpetuating fraud and injustice [Paras 4-5].

Judicial Review – Misinterpretation of Precedent – Milind Decision Misapplied – No Equivalence Between Admission and Appointment – High Court wrongly extended educational precedent (Milind) to employment scenario – Held: Legal distinction must be drawn between degrees earned and jobs obtained through fraud – Judicial leniency in such employment cases undermines reservation policy and constitutional equality [Para 5].

Final Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court Judgment Set Aside – Respondent Not Entitled to Service or Pension – Supreme Court quashed High Court's direction allowing respondent to continue in service – Held: Resignation submitted by respondent before judgment – Only terminal benefits (excluding pension) to be settled if due [Para 6].

Criminal Law – Kidnapping for Ransom – Section 364-A IPC – Appellant convicted for kidnapping a 9-year-old child and demanding ₹10 lakh ransom – Victim lured on pretext of being called by father – Held in captivity across several locations – Ransom paid through an intermediary, child recovered safely – Prosecution proved abduction, detention, and demand for ransom – Held: All ingredients of Section 364-A made out – Conviction and life sentence upheld [Paras 4–8, 31–32]

Evidence – Victim's Testimony – Sole Eyewitness – Testimony of the child (PW 2) corroborated by father (PW 1) and independent witnesses – Victim identified appellant and narrated sequence of abduction, movement, and ransom delivery – No serious challenge to credibility during trial or appeal – Held: Testimony of child witness reliable and forms basis for conviction [Paras 24–26, 30]

Criminal Procedure – Recovery of Ransom – Currency Notes with Initials – Recovered cash carried initials “M.M.” of victim’s father – Several bundles recovered from appellant and co-accused – Defence plea that notes were not produced at trial found incorrect – Trial court recorded detailed findings on recovery – Held: Recovery of marked currency substantiates prosecution case [Paras 27–29]

Criminal Law – Applicability of Section 364-A IPC – Scope and Ingredients – Abduction followed by threat and demand for ransom proved – Offence under Section 364-A requires (i) abduction or kidnapping, (ii) threat or harm, and (iii) demand for ransom – All three fulfilled in present case – Held: Section 364-A rightly invoked – Argument that provision not applicable rejected [Paras 31–32]

Interpretation – Definition of 'Ransom' and 'Demand' – Court referred to Black’s Law Dictionary – Held: Demand implies an authoritative claim, and ransom implies a coercive payment for release – Evidence established a clear demand and delivery of money for safe return of child [Para 31]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction under Section 364-A IPC and sentence of life imprisonment upheld – No interference warranted with High Court's judgment [Para 32]

Criminal Law – Murder – Reversal of Acquittal – Eyewitnesses supported prosecution version of the accused firing at deceased Rajpal Singh with licensed gun – Trial Court gave benefit of doubt due to delay in FIR entry and possible alternate explanation of injuries – High Court reversed acquittal and convicted under Section 302 IPC – Held: Though eyewitness testimony consistent, forensic evidence raised doubt as the cartridge recovered was not fired from the accused’s gun – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 1–9, 22–23]

Evidence – Ballistic Report – Firearm mismatch – Forensic Science Laboratory report confirmed that cartridge found at scene was not fired from gun recovered from accused – Expert opinion contradicted key prosecution case of use of that weapon – Held: Where scientific evidence creates serious doubt about weapon used, benefit must go to accused [Paras 13, 22–23]

Criminal Procedure – Appeal under Article 136 – New Point – Accused raised ballistic report argument for first time before Supreme Court – Held: Though not raised before lower courts, issue allowed as sufficient material on record and essential for justice – Supreme Court may consider such point in exceptional circumstances [Paras 14–15]

Standard of Proof – Benefit of Doubt – Accused’s conviction rested on circumstantial consistency between eyewitnesses and medical testimony – However, ballistic expert’s finding broke the link between gun and injury – Held: Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Acquittal warranted [Paras 22–24]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted by granting benefit of doubt – Ordered to be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case.

NDPS Act – Section 67 – Confessional Statements – Admissibility – Conviction Upheld – Accused convicted on basis of statement recorded under Section 67 NDPS Act – Held: Officers vested with poNDPS Act – Section 67 – Confessional Statements – Admissibility – Conviction Upheld – Accused convicted on basis of statement recorded under Section 67 NDPS Act – Held: Officers vested with powers under Section 53 NDPS Act are not “police officers” within Section 25 Evidence Act – Statement under Section 67 is admissible and can form sole basis of conviction if voluntary – Retraction not proved on record, hence cannot dilute evidentiary value – High Court rightly relied upon confession and corroborative testimony of officer [Paras 37-40].

Constitution – Article 20(3) – Self-Incrimination – Not Attracted – Statement made under Section 67 NDPS Act prior to accused being formally charged does not fall within Article 20(3) protection – Even if in custody, voluntariness of statement is determinative – No evidence of threat or coercion – Hence bar under Article 20(3) inapplicable [Paras 36, 38-39].

Evidence Act – Sections 24 to 27 – Confessions – Applicability – Rule against police confessions not attracted to NDPS officers – Statement under Section 67 not equivalent to Section 161 CrPC statement – Distinction noted from TADA/POTA where statute expressly excluded Evidence Act protections [Paras 36-38].

Retracted Confession – Need for Corroboration – Court reiterated prudence rule: normally unsafe to convict solely on retracted confession – However, where voluntariness established and retraction unproved, conviction can rest on such confession alone – Here, no proof of retraction application, no cross-examination of officer, confession accepted [Paras 27, 39-40].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Conviction and 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1 lakh confirmed – Sole reliance on voluntary confession under Section 67 NDPS Act sustainable [Para 41].wers under Section 53 NDPS Act are not “police officers” within Section 25 Evidence Act – Statement under Section 67 is admissible and can form sole basis of conviction if voluntary – Retraction not proved on record, hence cannot dilute evidentiary value – High Court rightly relied upon confession and corroborative testimony of officer [Paras 37-40].

Constitution – Article 20(3) – Self-Incrimination – Not Attracted – Statement made under Section 67 NDPS Act prior to accused being formally charged does not fall within Article 20(3) protection – Even if in custody, voluntariness of statement is determinative – No evidence of threat or coercion – Hence bar under Article 20(3) inapplicable [Paras 36, 38-39].

Evidence Act – Sections 24 to 27 – Confessions – Applicability – Rule against police confessions not attracted to NDPS officers – Statement under Section 67 not equivalent to Section 161 CrPC statement – Distinction noted from TADA/POTA where statute expressly excluded Evidence Act protections [Paras 36-38].

Retracted Confession – Need for Corroboration – Court reiterated prudence rule: normally unsafe to convict solely on retracted confession – However, where voluntariness established and retraction unproved, conviction can rest on such confession alone – Here, no proof of retraction application, no cross-examination of officer, confession accepted [Paras 27, 39-40].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Conviction and 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1 lakh confirmed – Sole reliance on voluntary confession under Section 67 NDPS Act sustainable [Para 41].

Service Law – Army Promotion – Judicial Review – Article 226 – Non-promotion to Colonel rank upheld – Appellant Lt. Col. challenged supersession despite allegedly better record than batchmates – Selection Board considered overall profile including ACRs, war reports, honours, courses, appointments, and disciplinary background – Held: Promotion to Colonel is a selection post; courts cannot sit in appeal over merit of assessment absent mala fides or procedural illegality – Non-impleadment of comparators also fatal – Appeal dismissed [Paras 9-15].

Administrative Law – Scope of Judicial Review – Principle Reaffirmed - Judicial review confined to decision-making process; courts cannot interfere with merits where relevant considerations are applied, irrelevant factors excluded, and decision has nexus with record – Applied to defence service promotions given special requirements of army – No interference warranted [Paras 10, 12-14].

Decision:

Appeal dismissed — No merit in challenge to promotion decision of Selection Board — No mala fides alleged; judicial review limited to process not merits. No order as to costs.