Penal Code – Murder by Poisoning – Appellant convicted for murdering wife of informant by mixing poison in milk – Chemical Examiner reports and investigation revealed procedural lapses – Evidence indicated potential tampering with samples and lack of direct proof linking appellant to possession and administration of poison – Supreme Court found prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Appellant acquitted [Paras 1-49].

Circumstantial Evidence – Chain of Evidence – Inconsistent and missing links in evidence chain – Established principles for circumstantial evidence not met – Guilt must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and must not merely rest on suspicion [Paras 35-39, 41-49].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court and Trial Court judgments set aside – Appellant acquitted of all charges – Bail bonds cancelled and sureties discharged [Paras 49].

Criminal Law – Discharge – Appeal against dismissal of discharge application – Allegations of corruption and fraud against an Executive Engineer (EE) in Jharkhand State Electricity Board (JSEB) – No prima facie evidence of entrustment of funds, fraudulent or dishonest intent, or illegal gratification – Appellant's actions were based on instructions and approvals from senior officials and the Advocate General – High Court erred in dismissing the revision petition – Appellant discharged [Paras 1-19].

Prima Facie Case – At the stage of framing charges, the court must apply its judicial mind to the material on record and determine if there is sufficient ground to proceed – Limited scope of inquiry – Ingredients of alleged offences must be prima facie established – No evidence of misappropriation or disproportionate assets found against the appellant [Paras 18-19].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's order set aside – Appellant discharged from criminal proceedings – No prima facie case made out against the appellant [Para 19].

Service Law – Assured Career Progression Scheme – Applicability – Appellants sought application of ACP Scheme retrospectively from August 9, 1999, as was done for State Government employees – BSEB adapted ACP Scheme effective from April 5, 2005 – Scheme not applicable to public undertakings or autonomous institutions unless specifically adapted – No malafide or ulterior motive in BSEB's choice of date for adaptation – High Court’s decision upheld, appellants’ appeal dismissed [Paras 1-16].

Retrospective Application – Judicial Review – Choice of date for applicability of the scheme – Judicial review limited to examining malafide or ulterior motive – No such finding in present case – Adaptation of scheme with effect from April 5, 2005, considered valid – Appellants retired before adaptation date cannot claim benefit [Paras 13-14].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court’s judgment upheld – No merit in appellants’ claim for retrospective application of ACP Scheme [Paras 16-17].

Land Acquisition – Lapse of Proceedings – Section 24(2) of Act 2013 – High Court wrongly declared acquisition proceedings lapsed – Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal (2020) overruled Pune Municipal Corporation (2014) and Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association (2015) – Possession taken in 1987, utilized for park – No lapse when possession taken or compensation paid – High Court judgment set aside – Compensation per Land Acquisition Act, 1894 applicable [Paras 1-3].

Compensation – Continuation of Vested Land – Land vested in State not divested under Section 24(2) of Act 2013 – No new compensation claims under Act 2013 for completed acquisitions – Original writ petitioners entitled to compensation under 1894 Act [Para 3.2].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's judgment declaring acquisition proceedings lapsed quashed – Compensation to be as per Award No.102/1986-87 under 1894 Act or any lawful enhancement – No costs [Para 3.3].

Service Law – MACP Scheme – Applicability and Implementation Date – MACP Scheme implemented with effect from 1st September 2008, not 1st January 2006 – MACP Scheme provides financial upgradation to the immediate next grade pay in the hierarchy of the pay bands, not the next promotional post – Decision based on Sixth Central Pay Commission recommendations and government policy – No hostile discrimination or irrationality in MACP Scheme [Paras 1-12].

Financial Upgradation – Administrative and Pre-promotional Course Norms – Personnel in Central Armed Police Forces eligible for MACP benefits with relaxation on pre-promotional norms if administrative or other reasons prevented their participation – Government agreed to pragmatic approach for genuine grievances [Para 11].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – High Court’s judgment modified – MACP Scheme applicable from 1st September 2008 – Financial upgradation limited to immediate next grade pay – Relaxation of pre-promotional norms for Central Armed Forces personnel upheld [Para 12].

Arbitration – Appointment of Arbitrator – Lease Disputes – Renewal – Division Bench of High Court erred in rejecting application under Section 11(6) of the 1996 Act for appointment of Arbitrator – Disputes concerning renewal or non-renewal of lease, period of renewal, and rent quantum are arbitrable – Lease deed read as a whole indicates disputes to be resolved by arbitration if mutual agreement on renewal terms fails [Paras 1-20].

Interpretation of Lease Deed – Clauses to be read together – Clause 4(xiii) requiring renewal offer to be accepted and disputes on terms referred to arbitration – Policy decisions for local employment do not override existing lease agreements with renewal clauses [Para 15-19].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court's judgment set aside – Arbitrator appointed to adjudicate disputes – Justice Bhaskar Bhattacharya appointed as Arbitrator – Status quo order extended until further orders from Arbitral Tribunal [Paras 20-21].

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 405, 415, 420 – Breach of Contractual Terms – Alleged breach of contract does not constitute criminal breach of trust without clear entrustment – Offence of criminal breach of trust requires (i) entrustment with property, (ii) dishonest misappropriation or conversion – No entrustment shown – Cheating requires (i) deception, (ii) induced delivery or retention of property, or omission causing damage – No prima facie case of deception or dishonest intention – Complaint lacks ingredients of offences – Appeal allowed, High Court order set aside, and Additional Sessions Judge order restored [Paras 1-27].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s judgment and order dated 12 July 2019 set aside – Order of IVth Additional Sessions Judge dated 15 December 2015 restored – Pending applications disposed of [Para 25-27].

Review Jurisdiction – Civil Procedure Code – Scope – Review of judgment permissible only on discovery of new and important evidence, mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or any other sufficient reason – Successive review petitions not maintainable on same grounds – No new evidence or error apparent demonstrated by respondents – High Court erred in entertaining second review petitions – Impugned judgment set aside, original order of Appellate Authority restored [Paras 1-36].

Review vs. Appeal – Clear distinction between appellate and review jurisdiction – Review cannot substitute an appeal or correct an erroneous decision unless error is apparent on the face of the record – Review jurisdiction strictly confined to limits prescribed under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC [Para 26-27].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court’s judgment dated 29th April 2022 set aside – Common judgment and order dated 9th July 2013 restored – No costs [Para 36-37].

Review Jurisdiction – Civil Procedure Code – Scope – Review of judgment permissible on discovery of new evidence, mistake, or error apparent on the face of the record – Second set of review petitions by respondents after first set was dismissed – No new evidence or error apparent shown – High Court erred in entertaining second review petitions – Order set aside, Appellate Authority's original decision restored [Paras 1-36].

Limitation and Due Diligence – New Evidence – Respondents failed to demonstrate new evidence discovered after due diligence – Documents claimed as new were already available during previous proceedings – No sufficient reason for second review – [Para 27-35].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court’s judgment dated 29th April 2022 set aside – Common judgment and order dated 9th July 2013 restored – No costs [Para 36-37].