Rape – Conviction under Section 376 IPC – Not Sustainable – Medical evidence showed presence of semen but no signs of forcible intercourse or injuries on victim – No evidence of absence of consent – Prosecution failed to have accused medically examined after recovery – Held: Conviction under Section 376 IPC set aside [Paras 8, 21].

Circumstantial Evidence – Principles – Chain of Evidence – Established – Hostile witnesses did not support prosecution – Case rested on circumstantial evidence – Court reiterated that all links in chain must be established pointing unerringly towards guilt – Accused and victim were alone in house, murder weapon was licensed gun of accused, cartridges matched – Defence plea of unknown assailant rejected – Held: Prosecution proved case of murder beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 9–13, 19–20].

Attempted Suicide – Evidence – Injury Analysis – Defence claim of assault by outsider inconsistent with direction and nature of injuries – Medical evidence showed upward trajectory of shot consistent with self-infliction – Blackening around wound removed by doctor – Held: Attempted suicide charge proved [Paras 16–17].

Burden of Proof – Accused’s Explanation under Section 313 CrPC – Accused admitted being alone with victim at time of incident – Counter-story unsupported by evidence – Held: Burden shifted to accused to explain circumstances – Failure to do so strengthens prosecution case [Paras 18–19].

Sentence – Death Penalty – Unsustainable absent Rape – Trial Court and High Court awarded death sentence based on finding of incestuous rape and murder – Supreme Court held rape charge not proved – Murder established but mitigating circumstances did not warrant death – Death sentence commuted to life imprisonment – Conviction under Sections 302 and 309 IPC maintained [Para 21].

Decision – Conviction under Section 376 IPC set aside – Convictions under Section 302 and 309 IPC upheld – Death penalty commuted to life imprisonment – Appeal dismissed with modification [Para 21].

Land Acquisition – Market Value Determination – Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act – Reassessment of Compensation – High Court assessed market value at ₹1,20,000 per acre based on exemplars but reduced it by one-third due to small plot sizes – Supreme Court held that the deduction was excessive considering the land’s location, use, and industrial potential – Ordered only 10% deduction – Compensation enhanced to ₹1,08,000 per acre [Paras 6–16].

Potentiality of Land – Evidence of Existing and Future Use – Land situated adjacent to Shahabad town and abutting a main road with surrounding development such as shops, rice mills, and factories – Evidence showed land’s potential for commercial, residential, and industrial use – Held: Such factors justify limited deduction when using small plot exemplars [Paras 5, 7, 8].

Small Plot Exemplars – Appropriateness of Deduction – No Uniform Rule – Supreme Court reiterated that deduction from small plot exemplars is not mandatory or fixed – When surrounding area is developed and land has industrial potential, lower deduction or no deduction may be applied – Deduction must be case-specific and fact-dependent [Paras 9–11].

Industrial Use vs. Housing Purpose – Rationale for Minimal Deduction – Supreme Court distinguished between acquisition for industry and housing development – Held: Acquisition for sugar factory yields recurring annual profits unlike housing schemes – Therefore, no justification for high deduction as industrial use offsets conventional development concerns [Paras 12–14].

Decision – Appeals Partly Allowed – Compensation enhanced to ₹1,08,000 per acre – Appellants also entitled to additional benefits under Sections 23(1A), 23(2), and 28 – Costs awarded in favour of appellants [Para 16].

Labour Law - Bus conductor’s Dismissal - Departmental Enquiry – Challenge limited to findings/quantum – Consequence – Workman did not dispute legality or fairness of enquiry – Held: Labour Court could not re-open factual findings or dilute punishment on “misplaced sympathy”; interference with guilt finding and penalty was impermissible [Paras 7, 10].

Misappropriation/Pilferage by Conductor – Proportionality – Loss of confidence doctrine – Even small amounts justify dismissal; quantum of defalcation not determinative – Courts should not reduce penalty on generosity grounds – Applied: Divisional Controller, NEKRTC v. H. Amaresh; followed KSRTC v. B.S. Hullikatti – Dismissal restored [Para 10; see also Para 11].

Evidence – Necessity of examining passengers – Not essential where records and possession of excess fare establish misconduct – Endorsements on way bill and respondent’s signature adequate; absence of explanation adverse to workman [Para 10].

Decision – High Court & Labour Court orders set aside – Punishing Authority’s dismissal/removal order restored – No costs [Para 11].

TADA Offence – Sanction under Section 20A(2) – Cognizance without Sanction Invalid – Conviction Set Aside – FIR originally registered under Explosives Act, 1884 – Supplementary charge-sheet filed invoking TADA without prior sanction from Inspector General or Commissioner of Police as required under Section 20A(2) of TADA – Held: Designated Court had no jurisdiction to try offences under TADA in absence of such sanction – Cognizance taken was void and all proceedings including conviction under Explosive Substances Act are without jurisdiction [Paras 5–7, 12].

Jurisdiction – Power of Designated Court – Section 12 and Section 18 of TADA – Cannot Apply in Absence of Valid TADA Offence – Court clarified that jurisdiction to try other offences is dependent on valid trial for offence under TADA – In absence of jurisdiction under TADA, court cannot try or convict for offences under other laws – Conviction under Section 5 of Explosive Substances Act vitiated [Paras 8–9].

Mandatory Sanction – Procedural Safeguard – Violation Renders Proceedings a Nullity – Reiterated that sanction under Section 20A(2) is a sine qua non for taking cognizance under TADA – Failure to obtain sanction renders entire prosecution void ab initio – Appellant’s conviction unsustainable in law [Paras 10–11].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 5 of Explosive Substances Act set aside – Designated Court lacked jurisdiction to try the case – Appellant directed to be released unless required in another case [Para 13].

Taxation Law - Excise – Refrigerator as a Packaged Commodity – Inclusion under Section 4A – Appellant challenged inclusion of refrigerators in Notification No. 9/2000 under Section 4A of Central Excise Act – Held: Refrigerators are sold in polythene, thermocol, and cardboard cartons – Such packaging satisfies the definition of ‘commodity in packaged form’ under Section 2(b) of SWM Act and Rule 2(l) of SWM (PC) Rules – Hence, inclusion in notification valid [Paras 1-4].

Interpretation – Packaged Commodity – Display or Testing Does Not Alter Legal Status – Argument that packages are opened for display or customer inspection rejected – As per Explanation I to Rule 2(l), such temporary opening does not affect classification as pre-packed commodity – Refrigerator remains covered under SWM (PC) Rules and must bear MRP [Para 4].

MRP Printing – Mandatory Under Rule 6 – Despite variations in regional pricing, manufacturer is bound to print the MRP on the package as per Rule 6 of SWM (PC) Rules – Once sold in retail packaging, statutory compliance is mandatory [Para 5].

Challenge to Notification – Scope of Relief – Appellant did not challenge the validity of the Notification itself, only its applicability to refrigerators – Held: Once refrigerator is deemed a packaged commodity, inclusion in notification is valid and binding – Appeal cannot succeed without invalidating the notification [Paras 5-6].

Precedent – Jayanti Food Processing Ltd. Applied – Supreme Court had earlier held that refrigerators are to be assessed under Section 4A, not Section 4 – Though current argument not raised in that case, ratio supports present decision [Para 7].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – High Court judgment upheld – Refrigerator is a packaged commodity under relevant laws – Manufacturer bound to declare MRP on packaging – Appeal dismissed with costs [Para 8].

Service Law – Retrospective Reservation for Women – Validity of Rule 22A Amendment – Upheld – Appellants challenged the application of G.O. Ms. No. 928 dated 6.10.1995 and G.O. dated 28.5.1996 which enhanced reservation for women to 30% and 33⅓% respectively – Held: Government has power under Article 309 to frame rules with retrospective effect – Rule 22A as amended was constitutionally valid and applicable as selection process had not concluded – No vested rights of candidates taken away; only preferential consideration for women introduced [Paras 11-14].

Recruitment Process – Retrospective Rule Application – Legal Position – Reiterated – Once a rule is validly framed with retrospective operation, it will govern selection unless it is unconstitutional – Tribunal and High Court erred in holding that reservation should be limited to 30% only – Rule as amended applies with full force [Paras 12-14].

Selection Procedure – Validity of Second Screening Test – No Discrimination – Upheld – All candidates were given equal notice and time for the second screening test – Appellants participated without demur – No legal right to additional preparation time – Estoppel applies – Held: No ground to set aside selection process [Paras 15-16].

Decision – APPSC Appeals Allowed – Selection Process Upheld – Candidates' Appeals Dismissed – APPSC directed to finalise selection as per this judgment within three months – Costs of ₹25,000 imposed on appellants [Paras 16-17].

Taxation Law - Revisional Power – Reasonable period where statute silent – Section 21 PGST Act – High Court quashed revision notice issued 5½ years after assessment – Held: Even if no express limitation is provided, revisional jurisdiction must be exercised within a “reasonable period” gathered from the statutory scheme – Ordinarily within 3 years; in any event not beyond 5 years, aligned with Section 11(6) PGST – Notice after 5½ years unsustainable [Paras 16-19].

Limitation Scheme – Guidance from assessment periods – PGST prescribes 3 years (extendable to 5) for assessments and 1 year for review – These limits inform what is “reasonable” for revision – Revisional power cannot remain open-ended [Paras 14-15, 17-18].

Precedents – Orissa Sales Tax – Revisional limits – This Court earlier treated 36 months as limitation for revision under Orissa Sales Tax Act Section 12(6) (State of Orissa v. Debaki/Dabaki Devi) – Halari Store distinguished as it did not decide what is a reasonable period; question not considered there – Gurbaksh Singh noted that suo motu revision must be initiated within reasonable time, fact-dependent [Paras 19-22].

Writ Against Show-Cause Notice – Maintainability – Where jurisdictional bar (time-bar/absence of reasonable period) is apparent, writ is maintainable even at notice stage – Revisional authority, being creature of statute, cannot itself determine reasonableness contrary to binding precedents – High Court rightly exercised Article 226 jurisdiction [Paras 23-24].

Purchase Tax on Milk – Context – Assessee co-operative filed quarterly returns; assessment completed on 20.03.2001; belated revision notice dated 04.09.2006 alleging improprieties – Absence of reasons for delay further vitiated action [Paras 11-13, 22].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – High Court’s order quashing revision notice upheld – No costs [Para 25].

Civil Law - Rejection Of Plaint - Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC – Limitation Plea – Whole Plaint to be Read – Appeal Allowed – Suit Restored – The trial court rejected the plaint at a belated stage under O.7 R.11(d) CPC on limitation and the High Court affirmed holding partial rejection impermissible – Held: For O.7 R.11(a)/(d), only the plaint averments are germane and the plaint must be read as a whole meaningfully – The plaint disclosed specific “date of knowledge” of the alleged fraudulent decrees and steps taken thereafter, attracting Article 59 – Rejection at that stage without considering the entire plaint and reasons under O.7 R.12 was erroneous – Orders set aside and suit restored for decision on merits – Except on limitation, no opinion on merits [Paras 10-12, 15-18, 20-21].

Order 7 Rule 11 – Stage and Scope – Plaint Averments Alone Relevant – The court may exercise O.7 R.11 power at any stage, but adjudication must rest strictly on plaint averments and not on the defence – The inquiry is whether a real cause of action is pleaded or the pleading is illusory – Clever drafting creating an illusion of cause of action may be nipped at the threshold, but only upon a meaningful reading of the plaint as a whole [Paras 11-13, 16].

Partial Rejection of Plaint – Principle – Only a part of the plaint cannot be rejected; rejection must be of the plaint as a whole if no cause of action is disclosed – However, to apply O.7 R.11(d), the court must examine all material averments, especially those explaining limitation, and record reasons as mandated by O.7 R.12 [Paras 14, 17].

Limitation – Article 59 – “Date of Knowledge” of Fraud – Mixed Question – The plaint specifically pleaded discovery of the 1976 declaratory decree in 1986 and further particulars emerging from the 1989 interpleader suit, followed by prompt action – Such pleadings on knowledge suffice at the threshold to resist rejection under O.7 R.11(d) and warrant trial on evidence – The High Court erred in isolating lines and ignoring contextual averments [Paras 17-19].

Evidence Act – Section 116 – Tenant’s Estoppel – Contextual Reference – The plaint invoked S.116 (tenant estoppel against denying landlord’s title) in relation to rent interpleader; while noted, the Supreme Court confined its interference to the limitation/O.7 R.11 issue and left other merits open [Paras 17, 21].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Orders of the Trial Court and High Court rejecting the plaint set aside – Suit restored to file for disposal on merits within six months – No opinion expressed on merits other than limitation [Para 21].

Civil Law - Appeal from decree for possession and injunction – Equity vs. Statute – CPC O.2 R.2, O.2 R.4, O.20 R.12; Specific Relief Act Ss. 21, 38, 41; Constitution Art. 142 – The plaintiff sued only for possession and injunction without seeking damages/mesne profits – The High Court, while affirming possession, directed payment of compensation/interest and permitted a separate suit for damages – Held: Courts cannot grant damages or mould relief in equity contrary to statutory scheme when no such relief was claimed – Equity must yield to law [Paras 14, 16-17, 21-22].

Order 2 Rules 2, 3 and 4 CPC – Whole claim rule and joinder – A plaintiff must include the whole claim arising from the cause of action (O.2 R.2) – Claims for mesne profits/damages related to recovery of immovable property can be joined without leave (O.2 R.4) – If omitted, plaintiff cannot indirectly secure such relief through appellate directions; damages require proper pleading and court fee, and ordinarily a preliminary decree under O.20 R.12 for inquiry [Paras 15-17].

Appellate jurisdiction – Section 96 CPC vs. Articles 226/227 – Moulding relief – In first appeal, the High Court acts within the four corners of the CPC; it cannot exercise a roving “equity” jurisdiction akin to writ review – Any moulding of relief must be anchored in O.7 R.7 CPC and the pleadings; otherwise impermissible [Paras 18-19, 21-22].

Framing of points in first appeal – Order 41 Rule 31 CPC – The High Court ought to formulate points for determination arising from the pleadings and issues; framing new issues not arising from the suit/appeal and granting relief thereon is irregular [Para 23].

Principle – What cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly – Having omitted to claim damages/mesne profits, the plaintiff could not be awarded the same through an appellate “equitable” order; English unjust enrichment cases inapplicable given the statutory framework in India [Paras 17, 20-21].

Decision – Appeal disposed of – High Court’s directions awarding compensation/interest and liberty for damages set aside – No opinion on entitlement to damages otherwise – In exercise of Article 142, costs of ₹50,000 imposed on the appellant under Section 35A CPC, in addition to costs already awarded below [Para 24].