Criminal Procedure – Appeal against Conviction – Appellant convicted under Sections 302 and 120B IPC and Section 27(1) of Arms Act – Appeal admitted for final hearing – High Court dismissed appeal for non-prosecution as appellant was absconding – Supreme Court set aside dismissal, holding appeal cannot be dismissed for non-prosecution once admitted for hearing – Appeal remanded to High Court for decision on merits [Paras 1-8].

Absconding Appellant – Impact on Appeal – High Court expressed frustration with appellant's absconding, seeing it as defiance of justice – Supreme Court noted absconding is not ground to dismiss appeal already admitted – Emphasized need to decide appeal on merits, ensuring proper administration of justice [Paras 6-8].

High Court Rules – Applicability – Patna High Court Rule requiring surrender of appellant before hearing appeal not applicable post-admission – Appeal admitted in 2009; rule not applicable to post-admission stage – Supreme Court clarified this distinction [Para 7].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's order dismissing appeal for non-prosecution set aside – Case remanded for hearing on merits – High Court directed to prioritize disposal of appeal, aiming for decision within six months – Appellant allowed to apply for suspension of sentence if appeal not heard within six months [Paras 8-14].

Constitutional Law – Habeas Corpus – Custody of Minor Children – Petitioner-mother filed writ seeking custody of minor children taken to India by respondent-father against US court orders – High Court issued notice and deferred hearing multiple times to explore amicable settlement – Supreme Court reiterated paramount importance of child's welfare and upheld inherent jurisdiction of Habeas Corpus writ for child custody cases – Directed return of children to USA [Paras 1-98].

Child Custody – Welfare Principle – Supreme Court emphasized that welfare of minor children is paramount in custody disputes – Natural guardianship rights of parents secondary to child's best interests – Custody to be determined by considering stability, security, and child's overall well-being [Paras 70-94].

International Custody Disputes – Comity of Courts – Supreme Court acknowledged principle of comity but stressed welfare of child over international jurisdiction conflicts – Directed adherence to US court custody orders while considering child's acclimatization and best interests [Paras 95-98].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Supreme Court directed respondent-father to return minor children to the USA – Emphasized compliance with US court custody orders – Ensured welfare and best interests of children were paramount [Paras 98-100].

Evidence Act – Section 27 – Discovery of Weapon – Mere discovery cannot infer authorship of concealment by the person who discovered the weapon – Supreme Court emphasized the conditions under Section 27, including that the information must cause discovery and relate distinctly to the discovered fact [Paras A, C-D, 35-42].

Evidence Act – Sections 8 and 27 – Discovery of Weapon and Disclosure Statement – Evidence of discovery is admissible as conduct under Section 8, irrespective of admissibility under Section 27 – Court highlighted the necessity of establishing a direct connection between the information provided and the fact discovered [Paras B, 48-49].

Eyewitness Testimony – Assessment – Supreme Court outlined principles for assessing the value of eyewitness evidence, emphasizing the importance of determining the possibility of their presence at the scene and the reliability of their testimonies – Inconsistencies in minor details should not overshadow the core truth of their statements [Paras E, 25-33].

Judicial Review – Scope under Article 136 – Supreme Court reiterated its limited interference in concurrent findings of fact unless there are exceptional circumstances or manifest errors – Court emphasized the need for a thorough evaluation of the entire evidence to ensure just conclusions [Paras 20-24].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Supreme Court upheld the conviction, finding the evidence of the eyewitnesses reliable and corroborated by medical and forensic evidence – Emphasized the need for careful evaluation of evidence in criminal cases [Paras 51-52].

Sugarcane Control Order – Extension of Time – Appellant sought extension of time for setting up a sugar factory under Clause 6C of the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 – High Court dismissed the writ petitions challenging the IEM issued to the appellant – Supreme Court held that time extensions were justified due to litigation and environmental compliance issues – Emphasized that ultimate beneficiary is the farmer due to competitive service options [Paras 1-15, 50-51].

Environmental Compliance – High Court directed compliance with anti-pollution and ecological laws before setting up the factory – Supreme Court upheld this directive but emphasized that aerial distance certificate should not be reopened, adhering to previous High Court judgment – Extension granted due to unforeseen circumstances including litigation and environmental issues [Paras 10-14, 23-29].

Judicial Review – Scope of Interference – Supreme Court reiterated principles of judicial review, emphasizing restraint and non-interference in administrative decisions unless shown to be arbitrary, irrational, or unjust – High Court's order overturned as it failed to consider justified extensions and recommendations by State and Central Government [Paras 30-41].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court's order set aside – Writ petitions dismissed – Supreme Court directed exclusion of litigation period while determining compliance timeline for setting up the sugar factory – Emphasized competitive benefits for farmers [Paras 42-51].

Criminal Law – Cheating and Criminal Breach of Trust – Appellants (bus conductors) convicted under various sections of IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act – Allegations included unauthorized printing and selling of bus tickets – Enquiry report by Inspection Committee not admitted as evidence due to lack of original documents – Recovery of tickets found invalid – Prosecution failed to prove possession and sale of tickets beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 1-8].

Secondary Evidence – Admissibility – Trial Court allowed secondary evidence of enquiry report subject to proof of original's existence and loss – State failed to prove existence and loss of original documents – High Court held enquiry report not a valid piece of evidence – Supreme Court upheld this view, emphasizing proper procedure for secondary evidence [Paras 6-13].

Burden of Proof – Incriminating Evidence – Seized tickets not sealed or connected to specific buses – Witnesses (PW-8 and PW-15) unable to verify tickets' relevance to appellants – Inspection Team's statements failed to validate ticket recovery – Supreme Court ruled evidence insufficient to support conviction [Paras 9-13].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Convictions and sentences set aside – Appellants acquitted of all charges – Bail bonds discharged [Paras 14-17].

Civil Procedure – Property Dispute – Suit filed in 1964 concerning possession of land resumed by the State – Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in its approach by relying on inadmissible evidence and not properly considering relevant materials – Directed fresh consideration by the High Court emphasizing correct application of burden of proof and scrutiny of evidence [Paras 1-15, 29].

Evidence Law – Burden of Proof – Supreme Court noted that the burden of proof was wrongly placed on the defendant-appellant – Highlighted the need for the plaintiff to prove resumption of grant and continuous possession, which was not adequately established [Paras 10-16, 22].

Admissibility of Evidence – The Supreme Court criticized reliance on questionable documents like the Muafiat Register with suspicious entries and a letter with disputed signatures – Emphasized the importance of credible and admissible evidence in judicial findings [Paras 15-17, 24-26].

Judicial Review – Scope and Standards – High Court's judgment set aside due to reliance on assumptions and inadmissible evidence – Supreme Court stressed proper judicial review of all evidence before arriving at conclusions [Paras 29-32].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's judgment set aside – Matter remitted back to High Court for fresh consideration – Directed High Court to expedite the hearing and decide the appeal considering all relevant evidence and legal standards [Paras 30-33].

Environmental Law – Imposition of Damages – Section 33 Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 – Forest Department imposed damages of Rs. 10 Crores on respondents for discharging effluents causing environmental damage to the National Chambal Sanctuary – High Court set aside the order for violation of natural justice and lack of authority under Section 33 to impose damages – Supreme Court upheld High Court’s decision – Forest Department has wide powers under Section 33 to take steps for the security and preservation of wildlife and the sanctuary but cannot impose damages directly – Authority can seek closure of institution and other measures after following principles of natural justice – Appropriate proceedings must be initiated to determine damages [Paras 1-6].

Principles of Natural Justice – No Show Cause Notice – Order imposing damages found in violation of principles of natural justice – No show cause notice issued before imposing damages – High Court’s decision setting aside the damages upheld [Paras 3-4].

Decision: Appeals disposed of with observations – Authority may take necessary steps under Section 33 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 to stop effluent discharge and protect the environment and wildlife in accordance with law and principles of natural justice – No direct imposition of damages allowed [Paras 6-7].

Culpable Homicide – Not Amounting to Murder – Section 304-II IPC – Appellants convicted for culpable homicide not amounting to murder – No premeditation to commit murder – Assault occurred during a sudden verbal altercation – Weapons (sticks and brick) were picked up from the scene – Single blow inflicted by each accused on the deceased – No unlawful assembly formed with a common object – Conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside – Conviction under Section 304-II IPC and other sections maintained [Paras 21-23].

Injury and Weapon – Nature and Impact – Injuries inflicted with sticks and a brick during the altercation – Injuries on the vital parts (head and neck) sufficient in ordinary course to cause death but were unintentional – No repeated assault [Paras 19-21].

Decision: Appeals partly allowed – Conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside – Appellants convicted under Section 304-II IPC – Sentence for the period already undergone – Appellants to be released forthwith unless required in any other case [Paras 24-25].

Insolvency Resolution Process – Discretionary Power of NCLT – Section 7(5)(a) IBC – Appellant challenged the CIRP initiated by Axis Bank under Section 7 of IBC – NCLT and NCLAT held that once a debt and default were established, admission was mandatory – Supreme Court held that Section 7(5)(a) confers discretionary power on NCLT – NCLT should consider relevant factors including the financial health and viability of the corporate debtor – NCLT’s discretion should not be arbitrary and must be exercised judicially [Paras 56-88].

Award/Decree in Favor of Corporate Debtor – Effect on Admission of Application – Adjudicating Authority must consider the existence of an award or decree in favor of the corporate debtor, especially when the amount exceeds the debt claimed by the financial creditor – Example given where NCLT may keep the admission of the application in abeyance [Paras 88-90].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Orders of NCLT and NCLAT set aside – NCLT directed to reconsider the application for stay of CIRP on merits [Paras 91].