Criminal Appeal – Defamation – Challenge to the order of issue of process for the offence of defamation under Section 500 of IPC – High Court declining to entertain the petition on the ground of delay – Allegations made in the complaint addressed to SDM – Appellant contending that the alleged defamatory words were made in good faith and constitute an accusation preferred to an authorized person – Analysis of Section 499 IPC and Eighth Exception – Examination of the concept of "good faith" – Absence of defamation as per the statutory provisions – Appeal allowed, impugned orders set aside, and the criminal proceedings terminated.

Defamation – Ingredients of Section 499 IPC – Analysis of the definition of defamation involving the intention to harm the reputation of an individual – Examination of the Eighth Exception to Section 499, which excludes certain accusations made in good faith – Definition of "good faith" as per Section 52 of the IPC – Conclusion that the allegations in the complaint do not amount to defamation and are protected by the Eighth Exception. [Para 12-16]

Appellant's appeal allowed – Impugned order of High Court set aside – Original order of the Magistrate issuing summons quashed – Criminal proceedings terminated – Pending applications disposed of. [Para 17-18]

Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 - Coverage of establishment - Applicability of Act to pathological laboratory - Dispute over the date of coverage of respondent establishment under the Act - Challenge to High Court's order allowing the respondent's appeal - Notification dated 27.05.1976 issued by the Government of Kerala - Circular dated 22.11.2002 issued by E.S.I. Corporation - Notification dated 06.09.2007 issued by the Government of Kerala - Interpretation of relevant provisions of the Act and notifications - Whether respondent establishment falls within the term "shop" as per the 1976 notification and Corporation's circular - Whether respondent establishment was covered under the Act from 22.11.2002 or 06.09.2007 - Court's determination of coverage.(Para No.1, 2)

Section 1(4) and Section 1(5) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 - Definitions and applicability of Act - Interpretation of the term "factory" - Establishment of respondent being a pathological laboratory - Whether the respondent's establishment falls within the definition of "factory" under Section 1(4) - Power of appropriate Government to extend provisions of the Act to other establishments under Section 1(5) - Scope of the term "shop" as per the Act - Application of 1976 notification and Corporation's circular - Court's finding on the date of coverage of the respondent establishment. (Para No.6, 7, 8, 9)

Government Notifications - Interpretation of - Notification dated 27.05.1976 and Notification dated 06.09.2007 issued by the Government of Kerala - Inclusion of establishments under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 - Specific mention of pathological laboratories in 2007 notification - Whether respondent establishment was covered under the Act in 2002 or 2007 - Court's analysis and ruling on the scope and applicability of the notifications. (Para No. 11, 12, 13, 14, 15)

Supreme Court's Decision - Dismissal of appeal - Upholding of High Court's order - Date of coverage of respondent establishment under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 - Determination based on 2007 notification - Rejection of appellant's contentions based on the 1976 notification and Corporation's circular - Finding that respondent establishment was covered under the Act from September 6, 2007 - No order as to costs.

Criminal Appeal No. 1050 of 2013 – Acquittal of appellants – Lack of evidence connecting them to the crime – Discrepancies in prosecution’s version – Chain of events broken by earlier acquittal of one accused – No external/internal injury on prosecutrix’s body – Medical examination discredits her version – Appellants’ alibi claim disregarded without reason – No scientific evidence linking semen stains on clothes to accused – Material discrepancies in statements – Trial court’s findings found to be completely perverse.

Prosecutrix’s version of events – Alleged rape by Avtar Singh, Sohan Lal, and Gian Singh – Lack of evidence connecting appellants to the crime – Chain of events broken by Gian Singh’s earlier acquittal – No external/internal injury on prosecutrix’s body – Medical examination discredits her version.

Appellants’ alibi claim disregarded without reason – No scientific evidence linking semen stains on clothes to accused – Discrepancies in handing over the clothes to police – Material discrepancies in mother’s statement – Trial court’s findings found to be completely perverse - Appeal allowed – Convictions set aside – Appellants acquitted of all charges.

Service Tax - Works Contract Service - Valuation - Option to pay service tax at reduced rate - Whether the assessee providing works contract service is entitled to take the total contract value, including goods and services, for remittance of service tax and claim CENVAT credit on the entire amount - Determination of value under Rule 2A of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006 and the option of Composition Scheme under Notification 32/2007-ST - Construction of relevant provisions - Held, the assessee is not entitled to remit service tax on the entire value as works contract service and claim CENVAT credit on the entire amount (Para 9).

Composition Scheme - Option for service tax payment at a reduced rate - Whether the assessee can choose to pay service tax on the entire contract value, including goods and services, and claim CENVAT credit - Held, the Composition Scheme is optional, and the assessee must follow Rule 2A of the Valuation Rules for determination of value and payment of service tax (Para 8.8).

Valuation of works contract - Rule 2A of the Valuation Rules, 2006 - Whether Rule 2A is mandatory or subject to the provisions of Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994 - Construction of Rule 2A - Held, Rule 2A is mandatory, and its application is not subject to Section 67; the assessee must determine the value of the service portion in accordance with Rule 2A (Para 8.6).

 CENVAT Credit - Whether the assessee is entitled to claim CENVAT credit on the entire contract value, including goods and services - Held, CENVAT credit is admissible only on the service portion of the works contract and not on the value of goods transferred; the assessee cannot claim CENVAT credit on the entire amount (Para 8.9).

Extended period of limitation - Whether the issue of limitation was correctly decided by the CESTAT - Remand to CESTAT for reconsideration of the limitation issue (Para 10.1).

Decision - Appeal allowed - Impugned judgment and order set aside - Assessee not entitled to claim CENVAT credit on the entire contract value - Matter remitted to CESTAT for re-computation of demands as per Rule 2A - CESTAT to decide the issue of limitation - CESTAT to complete the exercise within three months. (Para No. 10)

Civil Appeal - Municipal Corporation - Power and authority of Commissioner to impose major penalty - Validity of dismissal order - Lapses and negligence on part of officers - Delegation of power - Ratification of decision - Whether Commissioner had power to take action with respect to lapses other than purchases - Whether dismissal order passed by Commissioner was void ab initio - Whether subsequent ratification of decision could save dismissal order – Held -Commissioner was authorized to take action against erring officers with respect to lapses and carelessness with various works in purchases only as per Resolution No. 51 dated 20.11.1998 (Para 7.1) - Dismissal order passed by Commissioner was not per se void ab initio - General Board had power to pass order of dismissal - Ratification of decision by General Board made an invalid act lawful in conformity with the procedure prescribed under the Act and the Rules (Para 7.2) - Order of dismissal restored and impugned judgment quashed and set aside - Any amount paid to respondent pursuant to order of this Court not to be recovered. (Para 7.3)

Suspension of sentence and grant of bail under Section 389 of the CrPC - Factors to consider - Prima facie satisfaction of fair chances of acquittal - Whether the High Court committed an error in suspending the substantive order of sentence and granting bail to the convicts pending the final disposal of their criminal appeals – Held - the appellate court must record reasons in writing and objectively assess the relevant factors when ordering suspension of sentence and granting bail - Mere absence of misuse of liberty during trial does not warrant suspension of sentence after conviction - In cases involving convictions under Section 302 of the IPC (murder), the benefit of suspension of sentence can only be granted in exceptional cases - The appellate court should not reappreciate evidence at the stage of Section 389 of the CrPC and should not pick minor lacunas in the prosecution's case - The order directing suspension of sentence and grant of bail should not be passed as a matter of routine - The High Court went into issues that should be considered at the time of the final hearing of the appeals - The evidence on record does not support the contention of no case against the convicts or weak evidence - The High Court committed a serious error in suspending the substantive order of sentence and granting bail to the convicts - Impugned order set aside - Convicts ordered to surrender before the Trial Court within three days. Appeal Allowed.                                  Para 29, 30, 31, 33, 34

Constitution of India - Article 32 - Validity of Amendments to Rules - Impugned amendments to the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986, introduced by the State Government, pertaining to the grant of mineral concessions, auction process, and rejection of pending applications - Challenge on grounds of constitutionality.

Para 3, Para 5, Para 10

Jurisdiction - Civil Appellate Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India - Appeal against the decision of the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench - Appellants seeking to overturn the declaration of certain Rules as unconstitutional.

Para 15, Para 22

Mining Laws - Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 - Validity of Sub-Rule (10) of Rule 4 and Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 7 - Introduction of auction process and rejection of pending applications - Power conferred by Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 - No vested right in pending applications - Applicants not having a fundamental right in mining - Legitimate expectation and legal malice - Impugned amendments held valid and constitutional.

Para 30, Para 35, Para 40, Para 42

Criminal Appeal – Anticipatory Bail – Denial of anticipatory bail and direction to surrender before the Court for regular bail – Appellant aggrieved by the High Court’s order – Peculiar nature of the impugned order warranted further consideration – Special leave granted. [Para 1]

Personal Liberty – Importance of personal liberty in the context of applying discretion to grant bail – Emphasis on granting bail ordinarily, with caution in serious cases involving offences carrying long sentences or special offences. [Para 9]

Arrest – Power to arrest not mandatory in every case – Arrest to be made only when essential for custodial investigation, preventing further offences, or avoiding tampering with evidence or witnesses – Courts to consider Section 41A of the CrPC in this regard. [Para 10]

Guidelines for Granting Anticipatory Bail – Reiteration of directions in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Another – Police officers and Magistrates to exercise discretion judiciously while granting anticipatory bail – Checklists to be used, and reasons for arrest to be recorded in writing – Non-compliance may lead to departmental action and contempt of court proceedings. [Para 11]

Importance of Upholding Personal Liberty – History of the Republic and the Freedom Movement highlights the significance of safeguarding personal liberty and preventing arbitrary arrests. [Para 12]

Conclusion – High Court’s casual approach in rejecting anticipatory bail set aside – Appellant granted anticipatory bail subject to terms and conditions imposed by the Trial Court – All courts and police authorities directed to strictly follow the law laid down in Arnesh Kumar and the directions in the judgment within the specified time frame. [Para 13]

Criminal Appeal – Dowry Harassment – Allegations of dowry harassment and cruelty against in-laws by Bhawna – Appellants, Kusum Lata, Abhishek, and Sourabh, accused of subjecting Bhawna to mental and physical harassment – Allegations pertain to the period from 2007 to 2013 – Divorce proceedings initiated by Bhawna’s husband, Nimish. [Para 18-21]

Inconsistencies and Discrepancies – Glaring inconsistencies noted in Bhawna’s allegations, particularly concerning her stridhan jewelry and her animosity towards her brother-in-law, Abhishek. [Para 18]

Timing of Complaint – Complaint filed just before divorce proceedings were initiated by her husband, Nimish. Bhawna parted ways with her in-laws in 2009 but did not file a complaint until 2013. [Para 19-21]

Lack of Specific Instances – Allegations against the appellants were vague and general in nature, lacking specific instances of harassment. [Para 19-21]

Prima Facie Case Not Made Out – The Court concluded that the allegations were insufficient and far-fetched, failing to make out a prima facie case against the appellants. [Para 22]

Decision – Given the totality of the circumstances, the Court exercised its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR and the consequential proceedings against the appellants. [Para 23]