CRIMINAL APPEAL– ACQUITTAL - Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) as the appellant – Shyam Bihari & Others as the respondents – Appeal against the judgment and order of the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital dated 26.07.2012 – Delay in preferring the appeal condoned – Application seeking leave to appeal rejected – Acquittal of the accused by the trial court in C. No. RC-5/87-SIU.II – Assessment of evidence – Ocular accounts and circumstances – Witness identification – Ballistic expert report – Presence of accused at the scene of the crime – Use of service rifles and recovery of empty cartridges – Cause of death by a gunshot from a .12 bore weapon, not a rifle – Incomplete chain of circumstances – Benefit of doubt given to the accused.

EVIDENCE – Ocular accounts and circumstances – Failure of eyewitnesses to positively identify the accused as the perpetrators – Reliability of witnesses questioned – Delayed disclosure and suspicious circumstances surrounding one witness’s affidavit – Incomplete chain of circumstances to establish the accused’s involvement beyond a reasonable doubt. (Para 28-30)

BALLISTIC EXPERT REPORT – Recovery of empty cartridges from the crime scene – Some cartridges matched the service rifles issued to the accused, while others did not – Discrepancy raises doubts about the involvement of other persons and the exact circumstances of the incident. (Para 31)

CAUSE OF DEATH – Gunshot wound determined to be from a .12 bore weapon, not a rifle – Inconsistency with the use of service rifles by the accused – Failure to establish a direct link between the accused and the cause of death. (Para 32)

ACQUITTAL – Benefit of doubt given to the accused by the trial court – Plausible judgment based on a proper appreciation of the evidence – Lack of a complete chain of circumstances to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt – High Court’s decision to uphold the acquittal affirmed by the Supreme Court. (Para 33)

Section 30 of the Act – Appeal against Commissioner’s order – Substantial question of law – When arises – Permanent disability assessment – Whether a substantial question of law arises in assessing the extent of permanent disability – Held, permanent disability assessment is a question of fact, and in the absence of perversity in the reasoning, a substantial question of law does not arise. (Para 21)

Total disablement – Definition and assessment – Functional disability as the determining factor – The term “total disablement” defined in Section 2(1)(l) of the Act – Incapacity of a workman for all work he was capable of performing at the time of the accident resulting in such disablement – Functional disability, not just physical disability, is the determining factor in assessing whether the claimant has incurred total disablement. (Para 28)

Compensation calculation – Workman’s incapacity for labor – Loading/unloading laborer – Use of both hands required – Workman declared unfit for labor – Compensation assessed at 100% permanent disability – Held, for the purposes of loading/unloading labor, the use of both hands/arms is required, and the appellant’s left hand was rendered useless, making her unfit for labor – Commissioner’s assessment of 100% permanent disability justified. (Para 31)

High Court’s reassessment of disability and reduction of compensation – Error in applying previous judgments – High Court erred in reassessing the disability as 40% instead of 100% - Commissioner’s assessment based on functional disability was supported by the evidence and findings – High Court’s decision to reduce compensation set aside. (Para 32)

Recovery mechanism under the 2003 Act and 2005 Code - Licensees empowered to disconnect electricity supply for non-payment - State Commissions authorized to frame regulations - Outstanding dues constituting a charge on assets - PVVNL considered a secured creditor. [Para 39-43]

Distinction between government dues and dues to secured creditors - Priority of clearance - Dues owed to PVVNL not considered government dues - PVVNL's functions replicable by other entities - PVVNL's dues given higher priority than government dues. [Para 44-50]

Effect of Section 77 of the Companies Act - Duty to register charges - Liquidator's argument regarding non-registration not considered at this stage due to the determination of PVVNL as a secured creditor. [Para 51-56]

Direction to the liquidator - PVVNL's claim to be decided in accordance with the law within 10 weeks. [Para 57-58]

The State of Gujarat issued summons dated 31.10.2018 to the respondents under Section 145 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as made applicable to the service tax vide Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994, and Section 70 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, in connection with an inquiry against M/s. Iyer Enterprise Mundra Kutch for alleged evasion of Goods and Service Tax Liability. The respondents failed to appear for interrogation after receiving the summons, apprehending arrest.

The respondents filed two writ applications before the High Court, seeking protection against arrest in exercise of the power conferred by Section 69(1) of the GST Act, 2017. The High Court directed them to represent their case before the concerned authority, completing the inquiry within 8 weeks.

The State of Gujarat appealed the High Court’s order before the Supreme Court.

Issue:

Whether the respondents can invoke Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for anticipatory bail at the stage of summons issued under Section 69(1) of the CGST Act, 2017?

Ratio:

The power to arrest a person under Section 69(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 is statutory and can be exercised based on reasons to believe that the person committed a cognizable and non-bailable offense specified in Section 132(1) of the Act. The Court emphasized that statutory powers of arrest should be exercised on objective facts of committing the specified offense, as held in the case of Union of India Vs. Padam Narain Aggarwal.

Decision:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court’s order. The Court clarified that at the stage of summons, the respondents cannot invoke Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for anticipatory bail. The Court granted one more opportunity to the respondents to appear before the authorities for recording their statements. If the respondents fail to appear, the authority can proceed further in accordance with the law.

National Award for Teachers (NAT) Scheme – Revised selection procedure – Petitioners sought revision of selection procedure and accommodation of every candidate – Respondent opposed revision, stating it was based on expert opinion and relevant criteria – Court disposed of the writ petition, granting liberty to make a detailed representation to the respondent for revision of the selection procedure in the future – If representation contains aspects for consideration, respondent may revise and implement accordingly.

Contempt jurisdiction - Filing of a false affidavit - Basis for initiation of action - Persons punished. [Para 49]

Waiver of right to challenge record of rights - Indirect relief sought through alternative means - Not maintainable - No challenge made to record of rights. [Para 50]

Reliance on notings in government file without communication of any order - Inter-departmental communications in process of consideration - Not a basis to claim right - Mere notings in file do not amount to an order - Need for order to be expressed in the name of the Governor and communicated - No formal order modifying decision made - Notings in file can be reviewed/reversed/overruled - No relief based solely on official notings. [Para 51]

Delay in availing appropriate remedy - Constructive res judicata - Concealment of material facts - Mis-statement of facts - Party non-suited. [Para 54]

No order passed by government and conveyed for allotment of land - No entitlement to relief based on official notings. [Para 54]

Constitution of India, 1950 - Appointment of Director of Enforcement - Extension of tenure - Constitutional validity of Central Vigilance Commission (Amendment) Act, 2021 and Delhi Special Police Establishment (Amendment) Act, 2021 - Writ petitions challenging the Acts - Whether amendments violative of Article 14, 21, and 50 of the Constitution - Power of Government to appoint Director of Enforcement - Whether Government has power to extend tenure beyond two years - Scope of Section 25 of Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 - Interpretation of Section 21 of General Clauses Act, 1897 - Principle of separation of powers and judicial review - Effect of subsequent legislative enactment on mandamus issued by the Court - Whether a writ of mandamus can be nullified by legislative act - Retrospective amendment and its reasonableness - Violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution - Smooth transition and public interest - Validity of impugned orders granting extensions - Held, the challenge to the Acts and rules is rejected and writ petitions are dismissed - The impugned orders are held to be illegal - Respondent permitted to hold office till 31st July 2023.(Para 1-121)

Eviction suit - Interpretation of Section 14(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 - Whether the provision creates a complete prohibition on filing a suit for eviction within five years of the tenancy or only affects the consideration of the suit and passing of a decree therein - Objective of Section 14(3) is to protect the tenant from eviction for a specified period - Literal interpretation leading to absurdity - Purposive interpretation required - Passage of time beyond the prescribed period washes away the initial impediment against the suit - Filing of a fresh suit after the prescribed period would lead to unnecessary multiplicity of litigation - Applicability of B. Banerjee v. Smt. Anita Pan judgment - Extraordinary delay in the present case - Quietus should be put to the prolonged dispute - Decree of eviction affirmed - Respondent ordered to hand over vacant possession of the premises - Appeal allowed. (Para 15-23)

The respondent, Ravinder Singh, was a candidate for the Delhi Higher Judicial Main Examination (Written), 2022. He sought re-evaluation of his answer script for question No.9 of Law Paper-I. His request for re-evaluation was rejected by a Committee of six Hon’ble Judges of the High Court. Aggrieved by the rejection, he filed WP(C) No. 434/2023 in the High Court of Delhi seeking quashment of the rejection letter dated 05.01.2023 and direction to re-evaluate the said question.

Issue:

Whether the rejection of the respondent’s request for re-evaluation of his answer script for question No.9 of Law Paper-I was valid, considering the prohibition on re-evaluation under Clause XII, Rule 7C of the Appendix to the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970?

Ratio:

The Court examined the relevant provisions of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules and considered the specific provision under Section 134(2) of the Trademarks Act, 1999, which justified the award of zero marks to the respondent for question No.9 of Law Paper-I. The Court also referred to the decision in Ran Vijay Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2018) 2 SCC 357], which clarified that re-evaluation cannot be ordered when a statutory provision prohibits it. In cases where re-evaluation is not expressly prohibited, it can only be permitted in rare and exceptional instances where a material error has been committed.

Decision:

The Court held that the rejection of the respondent’s request for re-evaluation was valid in the light of the specific prohibition on re-evaluation under Clause XII, Rule 7C of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules and the absence of any ‘material error’ in the evaluation. Consequently, the impugned judgment dated 13.01.2023 in WP(C) No. 434/2023 was set aside, and the Writ Petition was dismissed. The Civil Appeal was allowed in favor of the petitioner (Registrar General, High Court of Delhi).