Freedom Fighters' Pension – Eligibility Criteria – Supreme Court held that benefits under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme 1980 should be awarded only to those who meet the eligibility criteria specified in the scheme – Respondent's claim was based on being underground during the freedom struggle without sufficient documentary proof or the required Non-availability of Record Certificate (NARC) – High Court's decision to grant pension was set aside due to non-compliance with the scheme’s requirements [Paras 1-14].

Evidence and Documentation – Importance of Proof – The Court emphasized the necessity of proper documentation, including school certificates and NARC, to substantiate claims under the pension scheme – The absence of NARC and the questionable authenticity of other documents led to the rejection of the respondent's application [Paras 5-13].

Judicial Interpretation – Sympathy vs. Adherence to Scheme – While acknowledging the importance of honoring genuine freedom fighters, the Court stressed that benefits should not be extended based on sympathy alone but on verified eligibility – The Court cited the need to avoid misuse of the scheme by those not genuinely involved in the freedom struggle [Paras 15-16].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s orders dated 14.02.2019 and 17.02.2020 set aside – Respondent's application for pension rejected due to non-fulfillment of eligibility criteria and lack of proper documentation – No order as to costs [Paras 17-18].

Criminal Law – Conviction for Murder – The appellant, along with two others, was convicted for the murder of Rajinder alias Raju – Supreme Court found discrepancies in the prosecution’s case, including unreliable witness identification and lack of test identification parade – Conviction under Section 302 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act was overturned due to insufficient evidence and failure to establish identity beyond a reasonable doubt [Paras 1-3, 17-18].

Witness Credibility – Identification Issues – The Court highlighted that the witnesses, PW-12 and PW-15, were unaware of the assailants' identity initially and later identified them based on rumors – The absence of a test identification parade and inconsistency in witness testimonies regarding the mode of the assailants’ arrival (car vs. motorcycles) undermined the prosecution’s case [Paras 15-17].

Judicial Precedent – Parity in Co-accused’s Treatment – The Court extended the benefit of acquittal to the co-accused, Devender, who had filed a separate SLP that was previously dismissed without a reasoned order – Following the principle in Harbans Singh vs. State of U.P. and Akhil Ali Jehangir Ali Sayyed v. State of Maharashtra, the Court acquitted both the appellant and the co-accused to maintain consistency and fairness [Paras 19-22].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act set aside – Both accused acquitted – Registry directed to inform the concerned Jail authorities for the release of both accused unless required in connection with any other offence [Paras 18, 22-24].

Land Acquisition – Redetermination of Compensation – Supreme Court held that an application under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act cannot be maintained on the basis of an award passed by a Lok Adalat under Section 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act – The Lok Adalat facilitates a settlement but does not have an adjudicatory role, and its awards, based on compromises, cannot be treated as equivalent to an adjudicated award by a court for the purposes of Section 28A [Paras 26-28, 37-38, 44-49].

Legal Services Authorities Act – Lok Adalat – Jurisdiction and Role – The jurisdiction of the Lok Adalat is to facilitate a settlement of disputes and it cannot adjudicate a lis – Awards passed by Lok Adalat are based on compromises and are deemed to be decrees for enforceability purposes but do not carry the same legal weight as court adjudications for the purposes of invoking Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act [Paras 12-14, 19-20, 26-28].

Legal Fiction – Interpretation – The Court emphasized that while legal fictions should be carried to their logical end, they should not be extended beyond their intended purpose – The deeming provision under Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act makes the award executable as a decree but does not convert it into an adjudicated award by a court [Paras 36-37].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court’s judgment set aside – Awards passed by the Lok Adalat under Section 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act cannot be used as a basis for redetermination of compensation under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act [Paras 49-50].

Family Law – Dissolution of Marriage – Cruelty – Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s reversal of the Family Court's decree of dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty – Found no basis for the allegation of cruelty by the respondent, who had faced complications during pregnancy and stayed at her parental home for legitimate reasons – The appellant failed to provide substantial evidence of cruelty [Paras 3-9].

Family Law – Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage – Article 142 – The Court exercised its powers under Article 142 to dissolve the marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown, despite the absence of mutual consent – Emphasized that the consent of both parties is not necessary for dissolution under irretrievable breakdown if the circumstances show no possibility of reconciliation and prolonged separation [Paras 28-34].

Limitation – Appeal Period – The Court clarified that the appeal filed by the respondent within the prescribed period, considering the time taken to obtain a certified copy of the decree, was valid and within limitation – Rejected the appellant’s contention that the appeal was time-barred [Paras 10-26].

Decision: Appeal disposed of – High Court’s judgment affirmed – Marriage dissolved under Article 142 on the ground of irretrievable breakdown, with a direction for the appellant to pay Rs. 20,00,000 as settlement to the respondent – No costs [Paras 34-35].

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Appellants accused of purchasing property alleged to have been attached due to prior financial misconduct by co-accused – Main allegations against co-accused for misappropriation in 1998-1999 – Appellants bona fide purchasers in 2019, with no registered attachment at purchase time – No prima facie case established against appellants under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC – High Court erred in not exercising powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings – Criminal proceedings quashed [Paras 1-7].

Misappropriation Allegations – Evidence and Procedural Requirements – Allegations stemmed from co-accused's earlier financial misconduct – Property in question purchased by appellants years after alleged misconduct – Lack of direct involvement or conspiracy by appellants with co-accused – Emphasis on lack of material evidence against appellants [Paras 2.1-6].

Section 482 CrPC – Abuse of Process – Continuation of criminal proceedings against appellants deemed abuse of process and unnecessary harassment – Supreme Court underscores importance of judicial discretion to prevent misuse of legal processes [Para 7].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Impugned High Court judgment and order quashed – Criminal proceedings and charge sheet under Case Crime No. 48 of 2019 quashed against appellants – High Court's failure to exercise discretion under Section 482 CrPC corrected [Para 7].

Electricity Law – Withdrawal of Petition – Appellants-DISCOMS sought to withdraw the petition for the approval of PPA – Decision impacted significant investments by HNPCL – Appellants could not be permitted to change decisions whimsically, especially when contrary to public interest – APTEL held DISCOMS’ withdrawal of the petition as impermissible, upholding the need for stability and commitment in public utility agreements [Paras 1-88].

Legal Malice – Definition and Application – State must act without ill will or malice – Legal malice refers to acts done wrongfully without reasonable cause, not necessarily with spite – State actions impacting third parties must be devoid of oblique motives or indirect objectives – Legal malice applies when statutory power is used for unintended purposes, causing harm to others’ rights [Paras B-60].

Public Interest – Public Utility and Investments – Decisions by State entities should prioritize public good – Sudden withdrawal by DISCOMS would waste HNPCL’s investments and public resources – Court emphasizes State’s duty to maintain contractual commitments in public interest [Paras 3-6].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – APTEL’s decision upheld – Withdrawal of PPA petition not allowed – Directions to Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission to proceed with determining the capital cost and tariff for the project as originally intended [Para 7].

Public Employment – Eligibility Criteria – Advertisement required applicants to possess Rajasthan State Certificate in Information Technology (RSCIT) by the last date of application submission – Respondent did not possess RSCIT by the extended deadline and was subsequently rejected – Acquired RSCIT in 2014, after stipulated period – Recruitment resumed in 2017 under original advertisement terms – Respondent’s application rejected again based on initial eligibility criteria – Court upholds rejection, emphasizing necessity to meet stipulated qualifications by specified deadlines [Paras 1-10].

Rule 266-A of the 1996 Rules – Applicability and Scope – Rule 266-A provides regularization for widows/divorcees appointed as teachers after relaxing qualifications of B.S.T.C/B.Ed – Not applicable to non-teaching posts or qualifications like RSCIT – Court clarifies Rule 266-A does not entitle unqualified candidates for appointments, only allows regularization post-appointment – Respondent not appointed under original terms, making Rule 266-A inapplicable [Paras 9-11].

Article 15 – Constitutional Rights and Sympathetic Consideration – Court acknowledges respondent’s hardship as a widow but emphasizes adherence to legal requirements for public employment – Sympathy cannot override statutory qualifications and rules – Court asserts duty to uphold legal standards in public employment despite individual circumstances [Paras 12-13].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Impugned judgments of Single and Division Bench set aside – Respondent’s writ petition dismissed – No order as to costs [Para 14].

Service Law – Pension Fixation – Respondent retired as a selection grade Lecturer on voluntary retirement w.e.f. 31.7.2006 – Initial pension fixation errors corrected by High Court, confirming pre-revised pension at Rs. 8907 – Revised pension fixed at Rs. 19334 w.e.f. 1.1.2006 following High Court directions – Appellant challenged revised fixation citing leave without allowances period – Court upheld fixation based on average emoluments as if uninterrupted service – Account General's pension fixation upheld [Paras 1-10].

Average Emoluments Calculation – Kerala Service Rules – Circulars G.O.(P) No. 211/2011/Fin dated 7.5.2011 and G.O.(P) No. 230/2012/Fin dated 19.4.2012 – Clarified computation of average emoluments over 10 months preceding retirement, considering notional pay adjustments during leave without allowances – Court emphasized correct application of rule and circulars in pension fixation [Paras 5-9].

Legal Interpretation – Service Rules and Pension – Circulars must be read to provide equitable pension calculations ensuring uninterrupted service emoluments – Employee's pension to reflect potential earnings without penalizing for leave without allowances – Rule interpretation supported by High Court directions [Paras 7-9].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – High Court judgment confirming Accountant General's pension fixation upheld – No costs awarded [Para 10].

Criminal Procedure – Jurisdiction of Court-Martial vs. Criminal Courts – Concurrent jurisdiction exists for court-martial and ordinary criminal courts in cases involving army personnel charged with civil offences – Section 125 of the Army Act grants discretion to the designated officer to decide the trial forum – Designated officer's decision not to exercise this discretion implies default to ordinary criminal court jurisdiction – High Court erred in holding that only court-martial had jurisdiction – Sessions Judge’s competence affirmed, trial to proceed in criminal court [Paras 1-48].

Sections 69 and 125 of the Army Act – Interpretation – Section 69 subjects army personnel to Army Act for civil offences unless Section 70 applies – Section 125 provides discretion to the designated officer to opt for court-martial – No inherent ouster of criminal court jurisdiction without designated officer's decision for court-martial – Conjunctive requirement under Section 125 necessitates an explicit decision for court-martial jurisdiction [Paras 14-45].

Procedural Compliance – Section 475 CrPC and 1978 Rules – Magistrate required to issue notice to commanding officer to decide trial forum – However, established cooperation of army authorities and deferral to criminal court proceedings indicated compliance – High Court’s insistence on certified decision documents misplaced, given factual cooperation and evidence during criminal trial [Paras 46-48].

Punishment under Army Act vs. IPC – Concurrent jurisdiction ensures no preferential treatment in sentencing – Army Act provides for lesser punishment in certain offences, not for serious offences like murder – Interpretation confirms no legislative intent to favor military personnel over ordinary law application for grave crimes [Para 49-50].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court judgment set aside – Sessions Judge’s jurisdiction affirmed – Trial to resume from stage of interruption by jurisdictional decision – Accused transferred from military to civil custody for trial conclusion [Paras 51-52].