Criminal Law – Common Intention – High Court acquitted respondents (Accused No.1 and 3) citing discrepancies between ocular and medical evidence – Supreme Court found no material contradictions – Presence and participation of all accused established, and common intention to kill the deceased proved – High Court erred in reversing Trial Court's conviction based on benefit of doubt [Paras 4-4.3].

Evidence Assessment – Ocular vs. Medical Evidence – Eye witnesses corroborated the presence and actions of accused No.1 and 3 – Minor discrepancies between ocular and medical evidence do not undermine the established common intention and participation in the crime – Trial Court's conviction reinstated [Paras 4.1-4.2].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court's judgment acquitting respondents set aside – Trial Court's conviction and sentence of life imprisonment for offences under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC restored – Respondents to surrender within four weeks to serve remaining sentence [Paras 5].

Criminal Procedure – Bond for Good Behavior – Appellant found guilty of violating bond conditions executed under Sections 110 and 117 Cr.P.C. – Involved in a subsequent murder case – Violation led to punishment under Section 122(1)(b) Cr.P.C. – High Court affirmed order of arrest and custody – Appellant challenged procedural compliance and fairness of administrative action [Paras 3-7].

Procedural Compliance – Executive Magistrates' powers under Chapter VIII Cr.P.C. to take bonds for maintaining peace and security – Procedures under Sections 107, 108, 109, and 110 Cr.P.C. followed – Proper notice and opportunity given to the appellant before punishment – Execution of bond not contested [Paras 7-8].

Legal Precedents and Personal Liberty – References to judgments emphasizing the significance of Article 21 and procedural fairness – No evidence of procedural lapses in this case – Courts must follow established legal procedures to deal with personal liberty issues [Paras 8-9].

Decision – High Court and respondent's orders upheld – Appeal dismissed [Para 9].

Service Law – ACP and MACP Benefits – DDA employees claimed ACP benefits upon completing 24 years of service before MACP introduction – High Court applied MACP from 01-01-2006 – Supreme Court ruled MACP effective from 01-09-2008 as per executive decision, not 01-01-2006 – Eligibility for ACP benefits before MACP introduction does not create vested rights [Paras 1-37].

Policy and Judicial Review – Executive decisions on pay structures and career progression schemes involve complex considerations – Courts should refrain from altering policy decisions unless facially arbitrary – Administrative expediency and consistency in policy implementation highlighted [Paras 20-38].

Decision – Appeals by DDA allowed – High Court judgment set aside – Appeals by employees dismissed – DDA to reverse interim ACP benefits if granted under interim orders, MACP benefits granted by DDA not to be disturbed [Paras 38].

Service Law – Promotion and Vacancies – Mere existence of a vacancy does not create a right to retrospective promotion – Promotions must follow the selection process as prescribed by rules – High Court's decision to grant retrospective promotions to respondents erroneous – Clear and specific rules govern promotions, which must be adhered to strictly [Paras 1-20].

Judicial Interpretation of Service Rules – JAG-I is a promotional post from JAG-II, not merely an upgradation – Differentiation between pay scales and eligibility criteria signifies separate cadre posts – CAT and High Court misinterpreted the rules, leading to an incorrect grant of retrospective promotion [Paras 11-13].

Cessation of Rights upon Retirement – Voluntary retirement severs the jural relationship between employee and employer – A retired employee cannot claim promotions or benefits not granted before retirement – High Court erred in applying circulars meant for upgradation to cases of promotion [Paras 16-18].

Decision – Appeals by Union of India allowed – High Court's orders set aside – No costs [Para 21].

Criminal Law – Conviction for Murder – Accused Nos. 1 to 3 convicted by trial court under Sections 148 and 302 IPC, sentenced to life imprisonment – High Court acquitted Accused Nos. 1 to 3 and confirmed the acquittal of Accused Nos. 4 to 11 – Supreme Court re-examined the evidence and testimonies of eye-witnesses and injured witnesses, found High Court erred in acquitting Accused Nos. 1 to 3 [Paras 1-14].

Evaluation of Evidence – Eyewitness Testimonies – Supreme Court held that testimonies of relatives and interested witnesses cannot be discarded solely based on their relationship with the deceased – Eye-witnesses (PW1, PW3) and injured witnesses (PW6, PW7) provided consistent testimonies identifying Accused Nos. 1 to 3 as the main assailants [Paras 9-10].

FIR Timing and Interpolation – High Court's emphasis on alleged interpolation in FIR timing and delay in sending FIR to Magistrate found to be minor issues – Supreme Court held delay of seven hours not fatal to prosecution case, considering consistency in testimonies and injuries sustained by PW6, PW7 [Paras 11-12].

Judicial Reasoning – Acquittal of Other Accused – High Court's reasoning that same grounds for acquitting Accused Nos. 4 to 11 applied to Accused Nos. 1 to 3 was incorrect – Different roles and evidence against Accused Nos. 1 to 3 warranted separate consideration [Para 13].

Decision – Appeals against acquittal of Accused Nos. 1 to 3 allowed – High Court's judgment reversed, trial court's conviction and sentence restored – Accused Nos. 1 to 3 directed to surrender within four weeks – Appeal against acquittal of Accused Nos. 4 to 11 dismissed [Para 15].

Criminal Law – Dishonour of Cheque – Appellant convicted under Section 138 of the N.I. Act – Trial Court sentenced appellant to one year simple imprisonment and imposed Rs. 7 Lakhs compensation – High Court affirmed conviction and sentence – Appellant challenged the decision on grounds of financial capacity of complainant and loss of signed cheque [Paras 1-6].

Presumption and Probable Defence – Section 139 of N.I. Act mandates presumption of cheque being for discharge of debt or liability – Presumption rebuttable by the accused on preponderance of probabilities – Appellant's defence relied on disproving complainant's financial capacity to lend Rs. 7 Lakhs [Paras 7-8].

Judicial Reasoning – High Court failed to appreciate defence evidence showing complainant's lack of financial capacity – However, absence of complaint about lost cheque to police or bank, and lack of evidence negated the appellant's defence – Consistent findings by three courts upheld the conviction [Paras 9-12].

Modification of Sentence – Conviction upheld – Imprisonment of one year substituted with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- – Additional compensation of Rs. 15,000/- to be paid to respondent – Amount already deposited in Trial Court to be considered [Paras 12-13].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – Conviction affirmed – Sentence of imprisonment substituted with fine – Additional compensation ordered [Para 13].

Criminal Procedure – Abatement of Appeal – Appellant convicted under Section 302 IPC for murder – High Court confirmed conviction – Appellant died after 12 years in jail – Section 394 CrPC mandates appeal abates on appellant's death unless a near relative applies to continue the appeal within 30 days – No application by near relative filed in this case [Paras 1-2].

Legal Provision Interpretation – Role of Amicus Curiae – Amicus Curiae cannot be treated as near relative – Oral prayer by Amicus Curiae to continue appeal not permissible under Section 394 CrPC – Appeal governed by substantive provisions of law [Paras 3-5].

Decision – Appeal disposed of as having abated due to appellant's death and lack of application by near relative to continue the appeal [Para 5].

Environmental Law – Environmental Clearance and Land Use – Appellant challenged the environmental clearance (EC) and land use modification for a cement grinding unit – NGT dismissed appeal on grounds of limitation and lack of jurisdiction – Supreme Court held challenge to EC barred by limitation but remitted case to NGT for deciding on challenge to land use modification if delay could be condoned [Paras 1-21].

Jurisdiction and Limitation – NGT Act, 2010 – NGT's original and appellate jurisdiction – EC challenged beyond limitation period, barred – Land use modification challenge to be considered by NGT for condoning delay and merits [Paras 10-21].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Case remitted to NGT for considering challenge to land use modification – NGT to decide on condoning delay and merits of the challenge [Paras 20-22].

Civil Law – Interim Injunction – Appellant, Narendra Hirawat and Co., entered into agreements with Sholay Media Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. (SME) for exclusive rights to films – Disputes arose leading to a Deed of Settlement requiring payments by appellant – Non-compliance alleged by SME leading to termination notice – Single Judge granted interim injunction favoring appellant – Division Bench reversed the order – Supreme Court set aside Division Bench's decision, restored Single Judge's order [Paras 1-21].

Balance of Convenience – Supreme Court noted substantial payments already made by appellant – Balance of convenience favored appellant, justifying injunction [Paras 16-21].

Injunction Principles – Appellate court's interference limited to instances of arbitrariness or perversity – Division Bench's interference deemed unjustified – Appeal allowed, Single Judge's injunction order restored [Paras 17-21].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Single Judge's injunction order restored – High Court directed to expedite suit hearing [Paras 21-23].