Criminal Procedure – Appeal against Conviction – Appellant convicted under Sections 302 and 120B IPC and Section 27(1) of Arms Act – Appeal admitted for final hearing – High Court dismissed appeal for non-prosecution as appellant was absconding – Supreme Court set aside dismissal, holding appeal cannot be dismissed for non-prosecution once admitted for hearing – Appeal remanded to High Court for decision on merits [Paras 1-8].

Absconding Appellant – Impact on Appeal – High Court expressed frustration with appellant's absconding, seeing it as defiance of justice – Supreme Court noted absconding is not ground to dismiss appeal already admitted – Emphasized need to decide appeal on merits, ensuring proper administration of justice [Paras 6-8].

High Court Rules – Applicability – Patna High Court Rule requiring surrender of appellant before hearing appeal not applicable post-admission – Appeal admitted in 2009; rule not applicable to post-admission stage – Supreme Court clarified this distinction [Para 7].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's order dismissing appeal for non-prosecution set aside – Case remanded for hearing on merits – High Court directed to prioritize disposal of appeal, aiming for decision within six months – Appellant allowed to apply for suspension of sentence if appeal not heard within six months [Paras 8-14].

Assam Rifles – Discharge from Service – Appellant discharged based on four Red Ink entries during service – Regulations 107(c) and 108 of Assam Rifles Regulation 2016 not applicable as discharge order issued in 2004 – Supreme Court held discharge order unjustified due to lack of application of mind and failure to consider severity and nature of misconduct – Directed reinstatement for purpose of completing qualifying service for pension [Paras 1-41].

Administrative Law – Exercise of Discretion – Discharge not automatic on four Red Ink entries – Commandant must exercise discretion considering severity of misconduct and provide reasoning – Discharge order invalidated due to failure to record reasons and improper application of mind [Paras 8-12, 27-36].

Judicial Review – Scope and Grounds – Court can review administrative action for lack of evidence, improper purpose, irrelevant grounds, and failure to consider relevant factors – Supreme Court quashed discharge order for failing these standards [Paras 27-37].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Discharge order set aside – Appellant treated as in service till completion of qualifying period for pension – No back wages awarded, but continuity of service for pension and other benefits granted – Monetary benefits to be released within four months [Paras 39-41].

Evidence Act – Section 27 – Discovery of Weapon – Mere discovery cannot infer authorship of concealment by the person who discovered the weapon – Supreme Court emphasized the conditions under Section 27, including that the information must cause discovery and relate distinctly to the discovered fact [Paras A, C-D, 35-42].

Evidence Act – Sections 8 and 27 – Discovery of Weapon and Disclosure Statement – Evidence of discovery is admissible as conduct under Section 8, irrespective of admissibility under Section 27 – Court highlighted the necessity of establishing a direct connection between the information provided and the fact discovered [Paras B, 48-49].

Eyewitness Testimony – Assessment – Supreme Court outlined principles for assessing the value of eyewitness evidence, emphasizing the importance of determining the possibility of their presence at the scene and the reliability of their testimonies – Inconsistencies in minor details should not overshadow the core truth of their statements [Paras E, 25-33].

Judicial Review – Scope under Article 136 – Supreme Court reiterated its limited interference in concurrent findings of fact unless there are exceptional circumstances or manifest errors – Court emphasized the need for a thorough evaluation of the entire evidence to ensure just conclusions [Paras 20-24].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Supreme Court upheld the conviction, finding the evidence of the eyewitnesses reliable and corroborated by medical and forensic evidence – Emphasized the need for careful evaluation of evidence in criminal cases [Paras 51-52].

Sugarcane Control Order – Extension of Time – Appellant sought extension of time for setting up a sugar factory under Clause 6C of the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 – High Court dismissed the writ petitions challenging the IEM issued to the appellant – Supreme Court held that time extensions were justified due to litigation and environmental compliance issues – Emphasized that ultimate beneficiary is the farmer due to competitive service options [Paras 1-15, 50-51].

Environmental Compliance – High Court directed compliance with anti-pollution and ecological laws before setting up the factory – Supreme Court upheld this directive but emphasized that aerial distance certificate should not be reopened, adhering to previous High Court judgment – Extension granted due to unforeseen circumstances including litigation and environmental issues [Paras 10-14, 23-29].

Judicial Review – Scope of Interference – Supreme Court reiterated principles of judicial review, emphasizing restraint and non-interference in administrative decisions unless shown to be arbitrary, irrational, or unjust – High Court's order overturned as it failed to consider justified extensions and recommendations by State and Central Government [Paras 30-41].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court's order set aside – Writ petitions dismissed – Supreme Court directed exclusion of litigation period while determining compliance timeline for setting up the sugar factory – Emphasized competitive benefits for farmers [Paras 42-51].

Civil Procedure – Amendment of Plaint – Appellants challenged the High Court's decision to permit amendment of plaints to declare void ab initio mortgages created by the defendant hotel – Supreme Court held that allowing such amendments would change the nature of the suit and result in misjoinder of causes of action – Amendment not permissible as it alters the original cause of action from revocation of licenses to challenging mortgages [Paras 1-15, 8-10].

Civil Procedure – Impleadment of Parties – Application to implead mortgagee banks as defendants in the suit was granted by the High Court – Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs, as licensees, had no privity of contract with the mortgagee banks, and their rights were subject to existing mortgages – Impleadment inappropriate as it complicates the original suit on license revocation [Paras 3.3, 3.4, 5.5, 6.2, 9].

Arbitration – Applicability of Section 8 – Appellants argued that the suits should be stayed in view of the arbitration clause in the license agreement – Supreme Court noted that applications under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act were pending and should be decided first before any amendment or impleadment [Paras 5.2, 6.1].

Judicial Review – Scope of Amendment – Supreme Court emphasized that amendments changing the nature of the suit or resulting in misjoinder should not be allowed – Proper parties and causes of action must be maintained to avoid legal complications and ensure fair trial [Paras 8-10, 9.1, 10].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court's orders permitting amendment of plaints and impleadment of mortgagee banks set aside – Emphasized adherence to procedural propriety and original cause of action – No order as to costs [Paras 11].

Civil Procedure – Property Dispute – Suit filed in 1964 concerning possession of land resumed by the State – Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in its approach by relying on inadmissible evidence and not properly considering relevant materials – Directed fresh consideration by the High Court emphasizing correct application of burden of proof and scrutiny of evidence [Paras 1-15, 29].

Evidence Law – Burden of Proof – Supreme Court noted that the burden of proof was wrongly placed on the defendant-appellant – Highlighted the need for the plaintiff to prove resumption of grant and continuous possession, which was not adequately established [Paras 10-16, 22].

Admissibility of Evidence – The Supreme Court criticized reliance on questionable documents like the Muafiat Register with suspicious entries and a letter with disputed signatures – Emphasized the importance of credible and admissible evidence in judicial findings [Paras 15-17, 24-26].

Judicial Review – Scope and Standards – High Court's judgment set aside due to reliance on assumptions and inadmissible evidence – Supreme Court stressed proper judicial review of all evidence before arriving at conclusions [Paras 29-32].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's judgment set aside – Matter remitted back to High Court for fresh consideration – Directed High Court to expedite the hearing and decide the appeal considering all relevant evidence and legal standards [Paras 30-33].

Criminal Law – Cheating and Criminal Breach of Trust – Appellants (bus conductors) convicted under various sections of IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act – Allegations included unauthorized printing and selling of bus tickets – Enquiry report by Inspection Committee not admitted as evidence due to lack of original documents – Recovery of tickets found invalid – Prosecution failed to prove possession and sale of tickets beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 1-8].

Secondary Evidence – Admissibility – Trial Court allowed secondary evidence of enquiry report subject to proof of original's existence and loss – State failed to prove existence and loss of original documents – High Court held enquiry report not a valid piece of evidence – Supreme Court upheld this view, emphasizing proper procedure for secondary evidence [Paras 6-13].

Burden of Proof – Incriminating Evidence – Seized tickets not sealed or connected to specific buses – Witnesses (PW-8 and PW-15) unable to verify tickets' relevance to appellants – Inspection Team's statements failed to validate ticket recovery – Supreme Court ruled evidence insufficient to support conviction [Paras 9-13].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Convictions and sentences set aside – Appellants acquitted of all charges – Bail bonds discharged [Paras 14-17].

Insolvency Resolution Process – Discretionary Power of NCLT – Section 7(5)(a) IBC – Appellant challenged the CIRP initiated by Axis Bank under Section 7 of IBC – NCLT and NCLAT held that once a debt and default were established, admission was mandatory – Supreme Court held that Section 7(5)(a) confers discretionary power on NCLT – NCLT should consider relevant factors including the financial health and viability of the corporate debtor – NCLT’s discretion should not be arbitrary and must be exercised judicially [Paras 56-88].

Award/Decree in Favor of Corporate Debtor – Effect on Admission of Application – Adjudicating Authority must consider the existence of an award or decree in favor of the corporate debtor, especially when the amount exceeds the debt claimed by the financial creditor – Example given where NCLT may keep the admission of the application in abeyance [Paras 88-90].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Orders of NCLT and NCLAT set aside – NCLT directed to reconsider the application for stay of CIRP on merits [Paras 91].

Culpable Homicide – Not Amounting to Murder – Section 304-II IPC – Appellants convicted for culpable homicide not amounting to murder – No premeditation to commit murder – Assault occurred during a sudden verbal altercation – Weapons (sticks and brick) were picked up from the scene – Single blow inflicted by each accused on the deceased – No unlawful assembly formed with a common object – Conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside – Conviction under Section 304-II IPC and other sections maintained [Paras 21-23].

Injury and Weapon – Nature and Impact – Injuries inflicted with sticks and a brick during the altercation – Injuries on the vital parts (head and neck) sufficient in ordinary course to cause death but were unintentional – No repeated assault [Paras 19-21].

Decision: Appeals partly allowed – Conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside – Appellants convicted under Section 304-II IPC – Sentence for the period already undergone – Appellants to be released forthwith unless required in any other case [Paras 24-25].