Criminal Law – Quashing of Complaint – Section 202 of Cr.PC – The Supreme Court considered whether the summoning order in a criminal complaint could be upheld when the accused resided outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate without adherence to Section 202 of the Cr.PC. The Court delved into the procedural aspects of issuing a summoning order and the mandatory requirements under Section 202 of the Cr.PC when an accused resides outside the jurisdiction. [Para 6, 8-11]

Jurisdiction – Section 202 Cr.PC – Police Investigation Report – Explored whether the absence of a police investigation report under Section 202 of the Cr.PC invalidates the process of summoning when the accused resides outside the jurisdiction of the Court. The Court analyzed the necessity of postponing the issuance of process and the magistrate’s discretion in directing police investigation under Section 202. [Para 6, 10-11]

Commercial Transactions – Nature of Dispute – Assessed whether the dispute in question was criminal or civil in nature. The Court scrutinized the allegations and evidence presented, concluding that the dispute arose from a commercial transaction, thereby not constituting a criminal offense under the IPC. [Para 14-15]

Decision – Quashing of Criminal Complaint – Held that the criminal complaint against the appellants was to be quashed as it constituted an abuse of process of law. The complaint was found to be rooted in a civil dispute, lacking the elements of a criminal offense. The case was allowed in part, with the complaint continuing against other accused. [Para 15-16]

Landlord-Tenant Dispute – Resolution of dispute between petitioners (landlords) and respondent (tenant) concerning the demised premises, with the landlord being a Trust and the tenant occupying under a lease dated 01.10.1972 – Rent initially Rs. 2,000/-, enhanced to Rs. 3,328/- [Para 2].

Settlement Terms Agreed by Parties – Tenant agrees to ejectment order based on grounds in the petition under the Rent Control Act – Tenant, aged 82 and bereaved due to COVID-19, given time till 28th February 2025 to vacate – Must clear all rent arrears and continue paying monthly rent of Rs. 3,328/- till possession is handed over [Paras 4(i)-(v)].

Tenant's Obligations – No damage, encumbrance, transfer of possession, or unauthorized construction on the premises – Ensure compliance with municipal by-laws and clear all statutory dues before vacating [Paras 4(vi)-(viii)].

Legal and Contempt Proceedings – Landlord permitted to initiate proceedings for possession and contempt in case of tenant’s violation of terms – Landlord should not hinder tenant's peaceful occupation [Paras 4(ix)-(x)].

Conclusion of Litigation – All litigation between parties related to the premises to be closed [Para 4(xi)].

Final Disposal – Petition disposed of as per settled terms; all pending applications, if any, also disposed of [Para 5].

Constitutional Law – Right to Food – Scope of Article 21 – The Supreme Court addressed a petition seeking the implementation of Community Kitchens to combat hunger, malnutrition, and starvation. The petitioners invoked Article 21 of the Constitution, asserting the right to live with human dignity, including access to food and basic necessities. [Para 1-2]

National Food Security Act, 2013 – Legal Framework – The Court examined the provisions of the National Food Security Act, 2013 (NFSA), emphasizing its shift towards a rights-based approach to food security. The NFSA mandates access to adequate quality food at affordable prices, particularly targeting vulnerable groups such as pregnant women, lactating mothers, and children. The Act also establishes mechanisms for grievance redressal and monitoring. [Para 6]

Judicial Review – Policy Matters – Limitations – The Court acknowledged the limited scope of judicial review in policy matters, emphasizing that courts do not interfere with the policy's wisdom or appropriateness. Instead, the focus remains on the legality of the policy. [Para 8]

Discretion of States – Alternative Welfare Schemes – The Court declined to direct the implementation of Community Kitchens, leaving it to the discretion of States and Union Territories to explore alternative welfare schemes permissible under the NFSA. [Para 9]

Decision – Disposal of Writ Petition – The Writ Petition was disposed of, with the Court affirming the legal framework provided by the NFSA and respecting the autonomy of States in choosing appropriate welfare measures to ensure food security and dignity for all citizens. [Para 10]

Contempt Proceedings – Non-compliance with court orders – Appellant sought refund of excess amount paid over notified price for coal consignments in e-auction – Orders passed by High Court and Supreme Court directing refund – Contempt proceedings initiated due to non-compliance – Contempt application dismissed by High Court – Appeal against dismissal – High Court's order misconceived – Conclusion of claim for refund by Supreme Court – Justification for refund with interest – Interest rate discrepancy – Failure to comply with court orders – Direction for payment of interest at 12% per annum on refund amount – Deduction of interest already paid – Two-month deadline for payment – Personal liability of officers for non-payment – Appeal disposed of accordingly.

Constitutional Law – Enemy Property – Custodian's Legal Status and Ownership – Court elaborated on the jurisprudential aspects of property ownership, distinguishing between ownership and possession. It critically analyzed the status of the Custodian under the Enemy Property Act, emphasizing that the Custodian, while holding statutory authority, does not acquire real ownership of enemy property. Instead, the role is confined to managing and safeguarding the property without transferring ownership rights. [Para 14-14.13]

Interpretation of Enemy Property Act – Nature and Extent of Custodian's Rights – The Court provided a thorough interpretation of the Enemy Property Act, detailing the scope of rights and interests vested in the Custodian. It was established that the Custodian's role is akin to a trustee, holding enemy property in trust, without actual transfer of ownership. This position is meant to ensure temporary custody and protective management, rather than permanent control or ownership. [Para 15-15.9]

Jurisprudential Aspect of Vesting in Context of Enemy Property – The term 'vesting' was examined within the specific context of the Enemy Property Act. The Court concluded that vesting of enemy property in the Custodian denotes a protective and administrative role rather than an ownership transfer. This interpretation upholds the temporary and managerial nature of the Custodian's position concerning enemy property. [Para 16-16.1]

Constitutional Analysis – Applicability of Articles 285 and 289 of the Indian Constitution – The judgment addressed the applicability of Articles 285 and 289, focusing on the doctrine of immunity from taxation in a federal structure. The Court held that enemy properties, vested in the Custodian, do not qualify as Union properties under Article 285 and hence are not exempt from state or local taxation. The Court differentiated between the absolute ban on State taxes on Union property under Article 285 and the qualified immunity for State properties under Article 289, elaborating on the historical and legal context of these provisions. [Para 17-21]

Decision – Tax Obligations of Custodian for Enemy Property – Overturning the High Court's decision, the Supreme Court held that enemy properties are subject to state and local taxation. It was clarified that the Custodian, acting as a trustee of these properties, is responsible for fulfilling relevant tax obligations. [Para 22]

Non-disclosure of Acquittal in Criminal Case – Impact on Employment – The Supreme Court considered the case of Ravindra Kumar, whose selection as a constable was canceled due to non-disclosure of an acquitted criminal case. The case raised questions about the implications of non-disclosure of acquittal in criminal cases for government employment. [Para 1-5, 14]

Character Verification in Government Employment – Examined the requirements of character verification and disclosure of criminal antecedents in the context of government employment, specifically in police services. [Para 6-7, 9-11]

Applicability of Precedents – Discussed the application of principles from prior judgments, including Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and Others (2016), in determining the impact of non-disclosure of criminal cases on employment. [Para 20-24, 27]

Objective Criteria for Employment Eligibility – The Court emphasized the importance of objective criteria in deciding employment eligibility in cases involving non-disclosure of criminal cases, especially those resulting in acquittal. [Para 18-19, 26, 28-29]

Decision – Reinstatement with Notional Benefits – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the previous orders and directing the reinstatement of Ravindra Kumar to the post of Constable with all notional benefits except arrears of salary. [Para 31]

Recruitment Notification Validity - Karnataka Public Service Commission (KPSC) notification for lecturer posts in Home Science without specifying subject specializations held valid - Tribunal and High Court erred in quashing the notification - Supreme Court found no mandate in recruitment rules for subject-wise specification - Set aside judgments, upheld recruitment process. [Paras 2-3, 8, 12, 17-18]

Interpretation of Recruitment Rules - Rules governing lecturer posts in Home Science don’t require subject specialization specification - Qualification for teaching undergraduate students is a master’s degree in Home Science, irrespective of specialization. [Paras 10, 14]

Judicial Review Scope - High Court's error in extending beyond judicial review - Misapplication of rules by assuming the need for subject specialization in Home Science - Supreme Court emphasizes adherence to rule-based recruitment. [Paras 13, 16-17]

UGC Affidavit Reference - UGC affidavit supports non-requirement of subject-wise classification for Home Science lecturer posts - Reinforces Supreme Court’s interpretation of rules. [Para 11]

Error in Tribunal and High Court Judgment - Misinterpretation of Home Science as a stream, not a subject - Incorrect comparison with specialized executive posts - High Court’s logic flawed regarding specialization in undergraduate subjects like History. [Paras 13-15, 16]

Decision - Appeals allowed, judgments of High Court and Tribunal set aside - Recruitment based on the challenged notification affirmed. [Para 18]

Bail Application in Serious Offences – Rejection by High Court and Subsequent Appeal to Supreme Court – Involvement in offences under IPC and Arms Act – FIR No. 77/2019 from Police Station I.P. Estate, Delhi. [Para 1-3]

Duration of Custody and Health Issues – Appellant in custody for over four and a half years and facing health issues – Considered significant in granting bail. [Para 4]

Supreme Court’s Decision – Bail granted considering the duration of custody and appellant's health condition – Appellant directed to be produced before the Trial Court for release on bail, subject to conditions imposed for ensuring presence in trial proceedings and not misusing liberty. [Paras 5-6]

Conditions for Bail – Emphasis on cooperation with trial and prohibition against misuse of liberty – Warning that any violation may lead to cancellation of bail. [Para 6]

Constitutional Law – Fundamental Rights – Right to Fair Trial – Interpretation of Procedural Laws – Court examined the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, in appeals against acquittal under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The Court distinguished between special laws with explicit limitations and procedural laws with inherent flexibility in applying limitation provisions. [Para 1-12]

Interpretation of Limitation Provisions – The Court clarified the scope of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963, in relation to special or local laws prescribing periods of limitation. It highlighted the distinction between special laws expressly excluding the application of Section 5 and procedural laws where Section 5 could be invoked unless expressly excluded. [Para 7-11]

Precedents on Limitation – The Court analyzed precedents such as Kaushalya Rani v. Gopal Singh, Mangu Ram v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Hukumdev Narain Yadav v. Lalit Narain Mishra, and Gopal Sardar v. Karuna Sardar to elucidate the principles governing the application of limitation provisions in various statutory contexts. [Para 5-11]

Applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act – The Court concluded that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, can be invoked in appeals against acquittal under Section 378 of the CrPC unless expressly excluded by the statute. It rejected the contention that special laws prescribing limitation automatically preclude the application of Section 5. [Para 12]

Dismissal of Appeal – The Court dismissed the appellant's challenge against the delay condonation granted by the High Court, affirming the validity of the appeal against acquittal filed by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. It vacated the interim order and directed the matter to continue in the Delhi High Court. [Para 12]

Decision: Court upheld the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, in appeals against acquittal under Section 378 of the CrPC. It dismissed the appellant's challenge, affirming the validity of the appeal filed by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. The interim order was vacated, and the matter was directed to continue in the Delhi High Court.