Legal Representation – Absence of Appellant’s Advocate – The Division Bench appointed an advocate to represent appellant Niranjan Das but failed to give adequate time for preparation. Advocacy impaired due to lack of time to study the case, indicating procedural impropriety. [Para 4, 6-7]

Conviction – Section 302 of IPC – Appellant Niranjan Das convicted for murder under Section 302 of the IPC but not under Section 34 for common intention, rendering the advocate’s arguments regarding common intention moot. [Para 3, 6]

Appeal Process – Hasty Decision – High Court disposed of the appeal on the same day the advocate was appointed for the appellant, violating the principle of fair representation and justice. [Para 7-8]

Remand – Impugned Judgment Set Aside – Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment concerning Niranjan Das and remanded the case for fresh consideration. [Para 9]

Bail – Lengthy Incarceration – Appellant has been in jail for over eight years; directed to be enlarged on bail on terms to be decided by the Trial Court. [Para 11-13]

Case Management – Future Proceedings – Directions given for the appearance of appointed advocates for both parties for the next hearing date. [Para 14-15]

Decision – Partial Allowance of Appeals – Appeals allowed partly; case record to be sent back to the High Court for further proceedings. [Para 15-16]

Criminal Appeal – Recall of Witness – Appellant sought recall for further examination as a witness in the trial – High Court rejected the application – Appeal filed in Supreme Court. [Para 3-4]

Evidence – Central Forensic Sciences Laboratory (CFSL) Report – Appellant’s initial deposition recorded before CFSL report could be examined – CFSL expert’s testimony lacked comparison between stolen data and data found on accused’s hard disk. [Para 4-5]

Legal Procedure – Section 311, CrPC – Court’s discretionary power to recall or re-examine any person already examined – Emphasis on judicial exercise of this power to prevent failure of justice. [Para 9-11]

Delay – Timing of Application – Court finds that delay should be reckoned from the date the cause of action arose, not from the date of the first lodging of the complaint. [Para 6, 13]

Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court and Trial Court orders set aside – Appellant’s application for recall under Section 311, CrPC granted – Trial to conclude within 9 months from the date of this judgment. [Para 14]

Anticipatory Bail – Cancellation of High Court Order – State of Haryana appeals against anticipatory bail granted to the respondent, Dharamraj, by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana – Respondent declared a proclaimed offender and accused under various sections of IPC – Supreme Court finds High Court's grant of anticipatory bail improper. [Para 2-3, 13]

Proclaimed Offender – Legal Implications – Respondent declared a proclaimed offender prior to seeking anticipatory bail – Supreme Court emphasizes that a proclaimed offender is generally not entitled to anticipatory bail, citing precedents like Lavesh v State (NCT of Delhi) and State of Madhya Pradesh v Pradeep Sharma. [Para 16, 17]

Judicial Discretion – Factors for Granting Bail – Court refers to various precedents outlining factors to consider while granting bail, including nature of the offence, severity of punishment, and likelihood of the accused absconding – Notes that each case turns on its own facts and merits. [Para 7-12]

High Court's Reasoning – Critique – Supreme Court criticizes the High Court's reasoning for granting anticipatory bail, including overlooking the respondent's status as a proclaimed offender and misapplication of the Arnesh Kumar v State of Bihar precedent. [Para 14-16]

Order – Cancellation of Anticipatory Bail – Supreme Court sets aside the High Court's order granting anticipatory bail to the respondent – Directs the respondent to surrender before the Court within four weeks and seek regular bail, to be considered on its own merits. [Para 17-18]

Criminal Appeal – Leave Granted – Appeals arise from orders of the High Court in an application filed under Section 482 of the CrPC – Appellant challenges High Court’s decisions to allow amendment of application and to set aside prior orders by the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM). [Para 1-3]

Factual Background – Appellant alleges attack on his family by respondents, leading to serious injuries – Respondents initially discharged by CJM but subsequently summoned after appellant’s Protest Petition – Appellant challenges High Court’s order allowing amendment of respondent’s Section 482 application and setting aside CJM’s orders. [Para 4-7]

High Court’s Observations – High Court finds Magistrate’s decision to treat the protest petition as a complaint to be erroneous – Points out absence of certain procedural compliances by the Magistrate. [Para 8]

Supreme Court’s Opinion – Supreme Court finds High Court’s observations erroneous – Reiterates Magistrate’s options upon receipt of a police report under Section 173 CrPC, including the discretion to proceed on a Protest Petition. [Para 9-11]

Discretionary Orders of CJM – Supreme Court asserts CJM was within his legal right to reject the Final Report and proceed with the Protest Petition – High Court should not have interfered with CJM’s orders after such a long gap, especially given the proper application of law by the CJM. [Para 12]

Decision – High Court’s erroneous orders quashed – Case to proceed at the level of CJM in accordance with law. [Para 13]

Criminal Appeal – Habeas Corpus Proceeding – The appellant approached the court alleging illegal detention of his wife, Mathithra, by her family – The Court, after facilitating the recording of Mathithra's statement, found that she wishes to reside with the appellant of her own free will – Respondents directed to ensure her joining with the appellant. [Para 1-5]

Hindu Marriage Act, Section 7A – Court notes the erroneous view of the High Court regarding the necessity of public solemnization for marriages under Section 7A – Section 7A of the Hindu Marriage Act does not necessitate public declaration and the court found that imposing such a condition could be violative of rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. [Para 6-8]

Constitutional Law – Right to Life under Article 21 – Court emphasized that the right to exercise free choice in matters of marriage is an intrinsic part of the right to life – High Court's view in narrowing the scope of Section 7A was deemed as inconsistent with Article 21. [Para 8]

Decision – High Court's view set aside – Respondents directed to ensure that Mathithra joins the appellant – Court clarifies the wide import of Section 7A of the Hindu Marriage Act and reiterates that the need for public declaration is not a mandate under the said section. [Para 4, 8]

Civil Appeal – Property Partition and Mesne Profit – Dismissal by Trial Court, First Appellate Court, and High Court - appellants filed a suit for partition and mesne profit in 1988, claiming ancestral rights over certain properties. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, stating that the land in question is agricultural, and the plaintiffs/appellants cannot claim any right over it. This decision was upheld by the First Appellate Court and the High Court. [Para 1, 2]

Community Laws – Thiyyas of Kozhikode – Hindu Mitakshara Law - parties belong to the "Thiyyas" community of Kozhikode, Kerala, governed by Hindu Mitakshara law. According to this law, ancestral property devolves only on male children, while daughters have a right to maintenance until marriage. [Para 2]

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Section 14(1) – Limited Application - appellants argued that the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, specifically Section 14(1), should apply. However, the courts found that the essential ingredient for the application of this section is possession, which the plaintiffs never had. [Para 4, 5, 6]

Agricultural Land – Nature and Use - appellants contested the classification of the land as agricultural, arguing that the presence of coconut trees does not necessarily make it so. However, the courts found that the land was indeed agricultural, based on overwhelming evidence and revenue records. [Para 6, 7]

Adverse Possession – Unchallenged Finding - Trial Court's finding of adverse possession in favor of the defendants was not challenged by the plaintiffs in the First Appellate Court, adding another ground for the dismissal of the appeal. [Para 9]

Final Decision – Dismissal of Appeal - Supreme Court upheld the judgments of the lower courts and dismissed the appeal, stating that no special circumstances exist to warrant interference. [Para 8, 11]

Employment Dispute – Lecturer Appointment – Open Category vs Scheduled Caste Category - The appellant, a lecturer in English, was appointed in the open category by the second respondent-College. The fifth respondent was appointed in the Scheduled Caste category but contended that she should have been appointed in the open category based on the order of merit. [Para 2-9]

Selection Process – NET Qualification – PhD Exemption - Both the appellant and the fifth respondent lacked NET qualification initially. However, the appellant had a PhD, which exempted her from the NET requirement as per the second advertisement. The fifth respondent did not possess a PhD. [Para 5-6]

Tribunal and High Court Decisions – Reinstatement and Termination - fifth respondent's termination was stayed by the Tribunal, and she was later reinstated. The appellant's appointment was turned into a part-time role due to the fifth respondent's reinstatement. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, leading to the present appeal. [Para 7-9, 14-15]

Seniority and Merit – Order of Appointment - appellant was appointed based on the first and second advertisements in the open category. The fifth respondent did not object to these appointments but later contended her seniority based on the first advertisement. [Para 10-11, 14]

Article 142 – Exercise of Supreme Court's Jurisdiction for ‘Doing Substantial Justice’  - Invoking Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court directed the reinstatement of the appellant as a full-time lecturer without affecting the fifth respondent's post and status. The State Government was directed to release grant-in-aid for the appellant's salary. [Para 15-16]

Decision – Reinstatement of Appellant - Supreme Court modified the impugned order and directed the reinstatement of the appellant as a full-time lecturer in English, effective from January 5, 1995, without disturbing the fifth respondent's status. The State Government was directed to release the necessary grant-in-aid for the appellant's salary. [Para 16]

Applications before the Judicial Magistrate seeking a Hindi translation of the charge sheet - rejected the applications - respondents were educated and could understand English - High Court held that the respondents were entitled to a translation of the charge sheet into Hindi, the official language of the State's Criminal Courts. [Para 2-5, Pages 1-3]

Language of Charge Sheet - there is no specific provision in the CrPC requiring the charge sheet to be filed in the language of the Court - proceedings will not be vitiated if the charge sheet is not in the language of the Court, unless it results in a failure of justice. [Para 15-18]

Obligation of Court - to interpret evidence, examination, and judgment to the accused or his pleader if they do not understand the language - accused must get a fair opportunity to defend himself and must understand the material against him in the charge sheet. [Para 15-19]

Central Agencies like the CBI may not always be able to file the final report in the language of the concerned Court - respondents educated and understood English - absence of a translated charge sheet not result in a failure of justice. Appeals allowed. [Para 20-23]

Civil Appeal – Retirement Age – Medical Faculty

Appellants, members of teaching faculty in Homeopathic Medical Colleges in Kerala, appeal against High Court's denial of extension of retirement age from 55 to 60 years. High Court held the matter as a policy decision not open for judicial review. [Para 1-4]

Government Policy – Exclusion of Homeopathic Faculty

State of Kerala issued a Government Order enhancing retirement age for Medical Doctors but explicitly excluded faculties in Dental, Nursing, Pharmacy, and Homeopathic Medical Colleges. [Para 2-3]

Kerala Service Rules – Retirement Policy

Kerala Service Rules govern retirement age of State employees, including teaching staff, allowing them to continue service until the end of the academic year if they turn 55 during it. [Para 5-7]

Subsequent Government Orders – Prospective Effect

During pendency of appeal, State issued new Government Orders extending retirement age for Dental and Ayurvedic faculties to 60 years. These were not given retrospective effect. [Para 8-10, 14-15]

State's Discretion – Policy Matter

Court emphasized that retirement age is a policy matter within the State's domain. Courts should not interfere in such policy decisions, including whether they should be given retrospective or prospective effect. [Para 11-13, 16-17]

Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation – Inapplicability

Appellants could not claim a vested right to apply the extended age of retirement to them retrospectively based on the doctrine of legitimate expectation. [Para 18]

Judicial Review – Limited Scope

Court should not unduly interfere in matters that are strictly governed by service regulations. Extension of retirement age is a public function. [Para 19]

Final Decision – Appeal Dismissed

Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgement and dismissed the appeal, leaving the parties to bear their own expenses. [Para 20]