Constitutional Validity - Challenge to Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Ordinance 2023 [“NCT Ordinance”] - Scope of Legislative and Executive Powers - The petitioner, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD), challenges the NCT Ordinance, promulgated under Article 123 of the Constitution, which amends the GNCTD Act 1991. The NCT Ordinance introduces Section 3A, excluding Entry 41 of List II from GNCTD's legislative competence, and establishes a new scheme for executive power distribution between Union of India and GNCTD.

Grounds of Challenge - The petitioner raises several grounds of challenge, including the amendment of a constitutional provision (Article 239-AA(3)(a)), abrogation of principles of governance for NCTD, and validity of Parliament's power exercised under Article 239-AA(7).

Substantial Questions of Law Referred - The Court refers two substantial questions of law to a Constitution Bench: (i) The extent of Parliament's power to enact a law under Article 239-AA(7); and (ii) Whether Parliament, under Article 239-AA(7), can abrogate the constitutional principles of governance for NCTD.

Constitution Bench Direction - The Constitution Bench is directed to dispose of the writ petition and answer the questions mentioned above. The Court also dismisses IA No. 130505 of 2023 seeking a stay of the NCT Ordinance.

Anticipatory Bail – FIR registered under Sections 406, 498-A, 423 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Appellant’s plea for anticipatory bail – Complainant’s year of birth mentioned in FIR as 1967, while appellant much younger and not previously married – Complainant’s second marriage with the appellant – Complainant claims appellant has adopted her child from the first marriage – Appellant filed Summary Suit/Petition for recovery of money against the complainant before the registration of FIR – Grant of anticipatory bail considered – No firm opinion on conflicting assertions and claims given – Appellant’s case for anticipatory bail accepted – Appellant directed to be released on bail by arresting/investigating officer/trial court on terms and conditions to be fixed by trial court – Appellant to comply with conditions mentioned in Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Appellant to appear before the Investigating Officer on a specified date – Failure to comply may lead to cancellation of anticipatory bail – Directions clarified not to be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits – Impugned order set aside – Appeal allowed accordingly.

CRIMINAL APPEAL – Murder – Acquittal -Benefit of Doubt – Credibility of Prosecution Case – Sufficiency of Evidence – Examination of Witnesses – Discrepancies in Witness Statements – Absence of Key Witnesses – Lack of Weapon Recovery – False Implication – Indian Penal Code – Murder – Assault – Criminal Conspiracy – Principles of Justice and Fairness – Relatives of the deceased accused of the crime – Dispute over land ownership – Failure to examine crucial witnesses mentioned in the FIR – No recovery of weapons used in the crime – Accused’s assertion of false implication – Conduct of witnesses during the assault – Failure of other residents to support the prosecution – Delay in lodging FIR – Appeal allowed – Appellants acquitted – Conviction and sentence set aside.

Evacuee Property Act, 1950 – Declaration of Evacuee Property – Admitted Position – Adverse Consequence of Non-Evacuation – Clarification: The appellant-State of Himachal Pradesh claimed that the property held by Sultan Mohammad, the predecessor-in-title of the respondents, fell under the purview of Section 2(f) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 (“the 1950 Act”), asserting that Sultan Mohammad was an evacuee under Section 2(d) of the same Act. However, the Court noted that it was an admitted position, as observed by the learned Single Judge, that Sultan Mohammad never left India and was not an evacuee within the meaning of the 1950 Act. [Para 3, 4]

High Court Appeal – Inconclusive Grounds – Disapprobation of State’s Action: Despite the unequivocal admission by the State and a concession made by the learned Additional Advocate General regarding Sultan Mohammad’s non-evacuation, the appellant-State chose to appeal against the orders of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court. The Court expressed disapproval of the State’s decision to contest the matter further, even in light of the clear facts. [Para 5]

Evacuee Property Status – Upholding Lower Court Findings: In dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court upheld the findings of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court, affirming that the property held by Sultan Mohammad was not an evacuee property under the 1950 Act due to his continued residence in India until his demise. [Para 6]

Costs Imposed: As a consequence of the State’s unwarranted appeal, the appellant-State of Himachal Pradesh was directed to pay costs amounting to Rs. 25,000/- to the Writ Petitioners before the High Court within two months from the date of the judgment. [Para 7]

Evacuee Property Act, 1950 – Declaration of Evacuee Property – Admitted Position – Adverse Consequence of Non-Evacuation – Clarification: The appellant-State of Himachal Pradesh claimed that the property held by Sultan Mohammad, the predecessor-in-title of the respondents, fell under the purview of Section 2(f) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 (“the 1950 Act”), asserting that Sultan Mohammad was an evacuee under Section 2(d) of the same Act. However, the Court noted that it was an admitted position, as observed by the learned Single Judge, that Sultan Mohammad never left India and was not an evacuee within the meaning of the 1950 Act. [Para 3, 4]

High Court Appeal – Inconclusive Grounds – Disapprobation of State’s Action: Despite the unequivocal admission by the State and a concession made by the learned Additional Advocate General regarding Sultan Mohammad’s non-evacuation, the appellant-State chose to appeal against the orders of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court. The Court expressed disapproval of the State’s decision to contest the matter further, even in light of the clear facts. [Para 5]

Evacuee Property Status – Upholding Lower Court Findings: In dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court upheld the findings of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court, affirming that the property held by Sultan Mohammad was not an evacuee property under the 1950 Act due to his continued residence in India until his demise. [Para 6]

Costs Imposed: As a consequence of the State’s unwarranted appeal, the appellant-State of Himachal Pradesh was directed to pay costs amounting to Rs. 25,000/- to the Writ Petitioners before the High Court within two months from the date of the judgment. [Para 7]

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Anticipatory Bail - Interim Protection - Contradictory Orders - Self-contradictory order passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court - Grant of anticipatory bail rejected while simultaneously providing interim protection to the respondents for two months - Appeal against such order - Held, the High Court erred in granting interim protection after denying anticipatory bail - Interim protection quashed and set aside. [Para 6 to 11]

Bench observed that the order passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court was self-contradictory as it rejected the application for anticipatory bail but granted interim protection to the respondents for a period of two months.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the part of the order that granted interim protection to the respondents for two months.

Service Tax – Video Production Agency – Video-Tape Production – Interpretation of Definitions – Nature of services rendered during Video-Tape Production – Circular dated 09.07.2001 – Expressions “services relating thereto” – Conjoint reading of Sections 65(119) and 65(120) of the Finance Act, 1994 – Correctness of Tribunal’s interpretation – Relevant definitions in operation until 01.07.2000 – Appeal filed by Commissioner of Service Tax-IV against Prime Focus Ltd. – Delay condoned – Arguments presented by the learned ASG for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent – Court examined the definitions and concluded that services like editing, cutting, coloring, etc. Are applicable only after recording of any programme, event, or function on a magnetic tape or any other media or device – Held that Video-Tape Production when done by a professional videographer or a commercial concern engaged in rendering such services falls under the definition of a ‘Video Production Agency’ – Impugned order of the Tribunal upheld – Civil Appeal dismissed.

Criminal Appeal against conviction and sentence - Appellant acquitted of offense under Section 366 IPC - Conviction under Section 6 of the POCSO Act affirmed but sentence reduced - Appeal filed challenging the conviction and sentence. Kidnapping and sexual offenses alleged - Victim's statement contradicts prosecution's case - Victim's statement under Section 164 Cr. PC states that she eloped with the appellant voluntarily and married him as per her wishes - Prosecution failed to establish coercion or force. [Para 1&6]

Burden of proof regarding victim's age - Prosecution's failure to produce necessary documents - Only a transfer certificate presented, which does not meet the requirements of the law - Prosecution did not establish victim's age as under 18 years. [Para 8]

Procedure for age determination under the JJ Act and POCSO Act - Importance of considering school records, birth certificates, or ossification test - Absence of proper documents to determine victim's age - Prosecution's reliance on a transfer certificate, which is insufficient to prove the victim's age. [Para 13]

Lack of evidence of penetrative sexual assault or coercion - Victim's statement found to be truthful - Lack of evidence supporting charges under the POCSO Act - Prosecution's failure to establish the offense. [Para 21]

Appellant's acquittal - Charges under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 10 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act set aside - Insufficient evidence to support the charges - Appellant acquitted of all charges. [Para 22]

Criminal Appeal – Appeal against conviction under Section 302 of IPC – Accused-appellant challenges his conviction for intentional firing resulting in the death of a constable – Accused-appellant claims accidental firing – High Court confirms conviction – Appeal filed in Supreme Court. (Para 1)

Factual Background – Appellant was a guard at a police station – During a scuffle with a constable, appellant’s firearm accidentally fired five rounds, causing the constable’s death – Prosecution alleged intentional firing, appellant claimed accidental firing – Motive alleged but not proved – Eyewitness testimonies support appellant’s defense. (Para 2-4)

Analysis of Evidence – Ballistic expert reports confirm firearm could be accidentally cocked if safety lever not in place – Appellant’s firearm got entangled in a chain during scuffle, leading to accidental firing – Statements attributed to appellant and police officer after the incident do not inspire confidence – Failure to prove appellant’s intention to cause death or bodily harm. (Para 13-18)

Lesser Offense – Appellant’s negligence in not keeping the firearm’s safety lever in place resulted in loss of life – Guilty of offense under Section 304A of IPC (causing death by negligence) – Maximum sentence is two years – Appellant served over eight years in prison – Further detention not required – Bail bonds canceled. (Para 20-21)