NDPS Act – Possession of Acetic Anhydride – Sections 9A/25A, 29 – Respondent found with 880 litres of Acetic Anhydride concealed in Kotha – Convicted and sentenced by Trial Court to 10 years RI with fine of ₹1,00,000/- on each count – High Court upheld conviction but reduced sentence to 6 ½ years (period undergone) and fine to ₹25,000/- on each count – Held: Reduction of sentence unsustainable – NDPS offences have devastating impact on society – Volume of contraband sufficient to yield nearly 300 kg of heroin – Absence of “habitual offender” status irrelevant – Stringent punishment necessary – Trial Court sentence restored [Paras 3-6, 18, 26].

Sentencing – Discretion of Courts – Scope – Discretion in sentencing must be exercised judicially and in accordance with law, not on irrelevant considerations such as family hardship – For NDPS offences, proportionality principle requires punishment commensurate with enormity of crime and its societal impact – Leniency amounts to misplaced sympathy and undermines deterrence – High Court misdirected itself in exercising discretion [Paras 9-15, 19-24].

Criminal Law – Proportionality – Offence under NDPS Act more heinous than culpable homicide – While homicide affects individual, drug trafficking corrodes society and economy – Exemplary punishment required to reflect public abhorrence and societal interests – Courts must respond to society’s cry for justice and avoid undermining faith in rule of law [Paras 16-18].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court order reducing sentence set aside – Sentence awarded by Trial Court (10 years RI with fine of ₹1,00,000/- on each count and default stipulation) restored – Respondent directed to surrender to custody – No order as to costs [Para 26].

Liquor Trade – Constitutional Validity Of “Import Fee” - Exclusive Privilege – Res Extra Commercium – Article 301 Inapplicable – State Monopoly Upheld – Liquor is res extra commercium and no fundamental right to trade in it – State has absolute privilege to regulate, prohibit or permit trade – Import fee imposed as part of exclusive privilege is valid – Article 301 has no application to liquor trade – Majority view [Paras 104, 208, 241–243, 256–257, 368].

Import Fee – Nature of Levy – Licence Fee versus Tax – Distinction Recognised – Import fee is not excise duty but a regulatory/privilege fee under Entries 8 and 66 of List II – Consideration for parting with State’s exclusive right – Held not to offend Article 304(a) – Majority view [Paras 238–243, 256–257].

Equality Clause – Article 14 – Applicability in Liquor Licensing – Article 14 applies to State action in granting liquor privileges – State must act fairly and reasonably – But equality cannot convert privilege fee into a tax – Majority view [Paras 240–241].

Res Extra Commercium – Minority/Dissent View – Justice S.B. Sinha dissenting – Res extra commercium doctrine has no role in judging constitutionality – Once trade is permitted, Articles 14, 19 and 301–304 apply – Import fee is in substance a tax and not a privilege fee – Levy beyond countervailing duty violates Article 304(a) and Article 265 – Dissent [Paras 119–127, 146–153, 286–294, 366].

Countervailing Duty – Compensatory Tax – Validity of Import Fee – Dissenting view: Only excise duty or countervailing duty can be levied under Entry 51 – Import fee has no statutory sanction – Unless compensatory, levy is unconstitutional – Refund with 15% interest directed – Dissent [Paras 118–127, 151–153, 286–294].

Precedent – Kalyani Stores Binding – No Per Incuriam Disregard – Constitution Bench in Kalyani Stores applied Article 301 to liquor trade – Binding on coordinate benches – Cannot be disregarded as per incuriam or sub silentio – Dissent emphasised judicial discipline [Paras 359–365].

Decision – By majority (Chief Justice, R.C. Lahoti, Dr. A.R. Lakshmanan, B.N. Agrawal, JJ.): Civil Appeal No. 3017 of 1997 (Punjab) allowed; Civil Appeal Nos. 2696–2697 of 2003 (Kerala) dismissed; no order as to costs – By dissent (S.B. Sinha, J.): Punjab appeal dismissed; Kerala appeals allowed with direction to refund imposts with 15% interest within three months [Paras 153–155, 368].

Labour Law - Contract Labour – Regularisation – Articles 226, 227 of Constitution – Sections 7 & 10, Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 – Dismissal of Appeals – Appellants employed as electricians through contractors for maintaining electricity in Government Medical College and Hospital – Sought regularisation under Chandigarh Administration claiming work is perennial and real control lies with Engineering Department – Tribunal rejected claim holding they are contractor’s employees and not civil post holders – High Court dismissed writs – Held: In absence of notification under Section 10(1) prohibiting contract labour, and without industrial adjudication, no relief can be granted – Contract may be genuine or camouflage, but this is a question of fact to be determined by Industrial Tribunal, not under writ jurisdiction [Paras 3-7, 13-17, 20].

Employer–Employee Relationship – Test of Control – Not Sole Determinant – Court emphasised integrated and pragmatic approach considering multiple factors: power to appoint/dismiss, pay wages, supervision, supply of tools, mutual obligations – “Control” alone not decisive – Relationship is factual issue requiring detailed enquiry by industrial forum [Paras 15-16].

Jurisdiction – Industrial Adjudication Proper Forum – Constitution Bench in Steel Authority of India v. National Union Waterfront Workers governs field – High Court under Article 226 cannot decide factual nature of contract labour engagement – Remedy lies in raising industrial dispute before competent tribunal – Writ petitions and appeals therefore not maintainable [Paras 16-18, 20].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Liberty reserved to employees to seek remedy before industrial adjudicator under Industrial Disputes Act – No order as to costs [Paras 21-22].

Criminal Law – Murder and Attempt to Murder – Right of Private Defence – Sections 302, 304 Part I, 307, 34 IPC – Conviction Modified – Trial Court acquitted A-2 (son) and convicted A-1 (father) under Section 304 Part I IPC for exceeding right of private defence – High Court reversed and convicted both under Section 302 IPC – Held: Trial Court’s findings were reasonable, supported by medical evidence and defence version – High Court not justified in interfering with acquittal – A-2 entitled to acquittal – A-1 guilty of exceeding private defence, conviction under Section 304 Part I restored with reduced sentence of five years RI and fine [Paras 16–32].

Appellate Jurisdiction – Interference with Acquittal – Scope – Section 380 CrPC – Well-settled that if two views are reasonably possible on evidence, the one favouring the accused must prevail – High Court erred in substituting its opinion when Trial Court’s view was plausible and based on appreciation of evidence – Order of acquittal of A-2 restored [Paras 26–30].

Evidence – Medical Evidence vis-à-vis Ocular Testimony – Sections 161, 313 CrPC – Prosecution witnesses changed version at trial to suit medical evidence of upward trajectory of pellets – Contradictions with FIR and Section 161 statements impeached credibility – Defence version consistent with medical findings and injuries on A-1, Suba Singh – Prosecution case doubtful [Paras 16–20, 22–24].

Right of Private Defence – Exceeding Limits – Section 304 Part I IPC – A-1 proved to have fired in self-defence when attacked with brick-bats by deceased – However, use of firearm causing death exceeded lawful right – Conviction altered from Section 302 to Section 304 Part I IPC – Sentence reduced to five years RI with fine of Rs. 10,000 [Paras 31–32].

Decision – Appeals of A-2 (Shingara Singh) allowed – Acquittal restored – Appeals of A-1 (Suba Singh) partly allowed – Conviction under Section 302/34 IPC set aside, conviction under Section 304 Part I IPC affirmed with modified sentence [Para 32].

Service Law – Acquittal in Criminal Case – Reinstatement with Back Wages – Partial Relief Granted – Respondent, a government servant, was dismissed following conviction under Section 302/34 IPC—Upon acquittal by the High Court, he was reinstated with full back wages by writ court—Supreme Court held: Reinstatement proper, but award of back wages unjustified as employer had no role in criminal prosecution—Employer cannot be burdened with liability during period when services could not be utilised due to lawful conviction [Paras 2, 4].

Employment – Criminal Proceedings Not Initiated by Employer – Impact on Back Wages – Supreme Court distinguished between cases where department initiates prosecution and where employee is prosecuted in personal capacity—Held: In latter case, even upon acquittal, denial of back wages is reasonable if the department acted lawfully on conviction—No fault can be attributed to the employer [Paras 4].

Binding Precedent – SLP Dismissal Without Reason – Not a Declaration of Law – Respondent relied on an earlier case where SLP was summarily dismissed—Supreme Court clarified that such dismissal does not constitute a binding precedent—In contrast, detailed reasoning in Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakore case provides authoritative guidance—Held: Reinstatement without back wages appropriate [Para 4].

Final Relief – Reinstatement with Continuity but Without Back Wages – Service Period Counted – Respondent entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service from date of acquittal—No back wages for period prior to acquittal—Such period will count for notional seniority and service benefits, excluding monetary claim [Para 5].

Final Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – High Court Order Modified – Supreme Court allowed appeal in part—Set aside direction for payment of back wages—Directed reinstatement to be effected within 30 days if not already done—Parties to bear their own costs [Paras 5–6].

Arbitration – Award by Umpire – Challenge on Grounds of Bias – Not Raised in Earlier Proceedings – Not Permitted – Appellant failed to raise any objection regarding alleged bias of the Umpire at any stage before the trial court, during remittal, or in High Court proceedings – Such objection raised for the first time in appeal before Supreme Court – Held: Appellant barred from raising bias at this stage due to waiver and acquiescence – Mere procedural error by Umpire in filing the award through advocate cannot be equated with misconduct or malice – Doctrine of bias must be pleaded and substantiated, which was not done [Paras 15, 16, 20, 24-27].

Arbitration – Requirement of Reasoned Award – Andhra Pradesh Amendment – Retrospective Effect – Valid – The High Court correctly remitted the unreasoned award back to the Umpire following the Andhra Pradesh Amendment to Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, which mandated reasoned awards even in pending cases – The Umpire subsequently passed a reasoned award – Objection to sufficiency of reasons not gone into by Supreme Court due to subsequent events [Paras 4-6, 28].

Procedural Impropriety – Umpire Filing Award Through Advocate – Not Misconduct – Act of Filing Award Through Lawyer Not Indicative of Bias – High Court’s adverse comments on Umpire’s conduct in filing the award himself and appointing a lawyer were not the basis for setting aside the award – Held: Such conduct, even if irregular, did not amount to legal misconduct or bias to vitiate the award under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act [Paras 12, 18-20].

Doctrine of Waiver – Failure to Raise Objection – Appellant Estopped – State Bank of India failed to raise any objection to alleged misconduct or bias despite multiple opportunities, including during filing of objections, remittal, subsequent proceedings, and appeals – Held: Objection cannot be raised for first time before Supreme Court after adverse High Court observations – Participation without protest amounts to waiver [Paras 25-27].

Final Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Liberty to Challenge Subsequent Award – Supreme Court found no merit in appeals challenging earlier proceedings – However, liberty granted to appellant to challenge the new reasoned award passed by the Umpire in 1998 before appropriate forum [Para 29].

Land Acquisition – Challenge to Notification after Delay – Section 4, Section 17, Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Writ Petition Dismissed – Respondents filed a writ petition challenging acquisition 22 years after notification under Section 4 read with Section 17, despite having earlier sought enhancement of compensation under Section 18 – High Court allowed the writ petition holding delay showed bonafides – Held: Mere non-utilization of land or pendency of other litigation not sufficient to justify gross delay and laches – Respondents had no explanation for the delay – High Court’s reasoning unsustainable – Judgment set aside [Paras 5–11].

Grounds of Fraud – Subsequent Allegations – Rejected – Respondents attempted to justify delay on alleged fraud in proposed transfer of land by the State – Held: No ground of fraud pleaded in writ petition, allegations arose only from State’s reply – Cannot justify belated writ petition filed after 22 years [Para 7].

Delay and Laches – Effect of Participation in Compensation Proceedings – Respondents had filed reference under Section 18 and pursued appeal for enhancement – Having accepted acquisition proceedings, they were estopped from challenging acquisition belatedly – Writ petition not maintainable [Paras 3, 9, 10].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 21st March 2001 set aside – Writ petition filed by Respondents dismissed – Costs of Rs. 5,000 imposed on Respondents [Paras 11–12].

Election Law – Qualification of Candidate – Article 173(b) of the Constitution – Age requirement of 25 years – Election set aside – Appellant challenged election of respondent on ground of being below 25 years at nomination – High Court rejected petition – Supreme Court held: burden of proof partly on petitioner, but facts within special knowledge to be proved by respondent (Sections 103, 106 Evidence Act) – Respondent failed to produce authentic records and relied on forged or unreliable documents – Circumstantial and documentary evidence indicated respondent was below 25 years – Election declared void [Paras 24–33, 53–64, 80–82].

Pleadings – Evasive Denial – Order 8 Rules 3 & 5 CPC – Effect – Respondent failed to specifically deny allegation that his elder brother’s age proved he was below 25 years – Evasive denial deemed admission – Such admission binding under Section 58 Evidence Act – High Court erred in ignoring this principle – Supreme Court applied rule strictly in election petitions [Paras 67–75].

Evidence – School Registers and Transfer Certificates – Sections 35 & 37 Evidence Act – Entries in private school admission registers not reliable unless proved with basis of entry – Alterations and contradictions found – Held: such records had little probative value in absence of primary supporting material – Courts must be cautious as false ages are often given at school admission for future advantage [Paras 34–39, 53–56].

Evidence – Horoscope and Bail Application – Horoscope not proved by maker, considered self-serving and inadmissible – Bail application mentioning respondent’s minority held relevant admission under Sections 17–21 Evidence Act – High Court erred in discarding it summarily – False or contradictory statements in judicial proceedings shift burden on respondent [Paras 61–66].

Official Records – Report of Chief Electoral Officer and Governor’s Order – Admissibility – Though administrative, admitted without objection and relied upon by both parties – Showed respondent was underage when appointed Minister – Respondent’s silence and non-denial amounted to acceptance – Could be considered with other evidence [Paras 48–51].

Constitutional Mandate – Article 173 – Court’s duty – Ensuring disqualified person does not occupy legislative office – While protecting sanctity of elections, courts must enforce constitutional bar rigorously – Respondent being under 25 years, election void [Paras 24–26, 80–82].

Final Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court judgment set aside – Respondent’s election from 181 Parbatta Assembly Constituency declared void – Matter intimated to Election Commission and Speaker of Bihar Legislative Assembly [Para 82].

Criminal Law – Murder – Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC – Conviction upheld – Eyewitness Rajesh (PW5) testified that Sunil caught hold of the deceased while co-accused Dharamvir inflicted knife blows – Testimony clear, cogent and trustworthy – Minor omissions or elaborations in deposition do not discredit prosecution case – Section 34 IPC attracted – Conviction and life sentence confirmed [Paras 2–5, 9–10].

Evidence – Sole Witness – Section 134 Evidence Act – Conviction permissible – Court reiterated rule in Vadivelu Thevar – Testimony of single witness can sustain conviction if wholly reliable – PW5’s evidence accepted as credible and corroborated in part by PW3 – Improvements not material; no contradiction fatal to prosecution [Paras 6–8].

Arms Act – Section 27 – Separate conviction of Dharamvir justified – Use of knife in assault established through eyewitness testimony – Sentence of three years RI with fine affirmed [Para 1, 9].

Appellate Review – Scope – Trial Court and High Court had carefully scrutinised eyewitness evidence and found it trustworthy – No reason for Supreme Court to interfere – Appeals dismissed [Paras 9–11].

Final Decision: Appeals dismissed – Conviction and sentences under Sections 302/34 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act affirmed.