Suspension of Sentence – NDPS Act – Stringent Bail Conditions – High Court erred in suspending sentence without complying with Section 37 NDPS Act requirements – Respondent convicted for offences involving commercial quantities of narcotics – Trial Court’s findings indicate respondent’s guilt – Appeal allowed, suspension of sentence set aside, respondent to surrender forthwith [Paras 1-12].

Judicial Review – Section 37 NDPS Act – Bail Conditions – Post-conviction bail requires satisfaction of innocence and non-recidivism – High Court failed to apply Section 37 principles – Court must record strong and compelling reasons for bail in post-conviction cases [Paras 7, 9-10].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Held – High Court's order suspending sentence set aside – Respondent to surrender – High Court requested to expedite appeal hearing [Para 12].

Penal Code – Murder – Circumstantial Evidence – Absence of Motive – Lack of evidence suggesting violence or struggle – Medical expert did not rule out suicidal death – Post-Mortem report indicated death due to asphyxia by hanging – Absence of motive weighs in favor of the accused – Benefit of doubt given – Appellant acquitted [Paras 1-34].

Criminal Procedure – Section 313 CrPC – False Explanation – Non-explanation by the accused used as additional circumstance only when prosecution proves chain of events leading to guilt – Cannot be used to complete the chain of evidence – Appellant's non-explanation not sufficient for conviction [Paras 24].

Evidence – Section 106 Indian Evidence Act – Burden of Proof – Does not directly operate against husband or wife staying together and being last seen with deceased – Prosecution must first discharge its primary burden – Section 106 only considered when prosecution's evidence sustains a conviction [Paras 22-23].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Held – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant acquitted of all charges – Directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case [Para 34].

Land Acquisition – Compensation – Section 28(A) Land Acquisition Act – Entitlement to enhanced compensation – Appellant entitled to compensation re-determined in accordance with enhanced compensation awarded to his father and brother by the same notification – Reference Court’s denial of relief on grounds of delay held erroneous – Appeal allowed, compensation awarded at Rs. 8500 per Are, with Solatium @ 30% and other benefits under Sections 23(1A) and 28 of the Act, and interest [Paras 1-17].

Judicial Review – Delay in Filing Reference Petitions – Not a ground to deny relief when similarly situated landowners have been granted enhanced compensation – Uniformity in compensation ensured for lands acquired under the same notification [Paras 13-16].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Held – Reference Court and High Court judgments set aside – Compensation re-determined at Rs. 8500 per Are with additional benefits – No order as to costs [Para 17].

Taxation – UP VAT Act – Classification of Goods – Embroidered ladies suits considered as "textile made ups" – Respondent's process includes cutting, embroidery, and partial stitching – Product does not remain 'textile' under Entry 21 of Schedule I, nor does it qualify as 'other textile made ups' under Entry 16 of Schedule II – Product falls under residuary Entry 1 of Schedule V taxed at 12.5% – Appeal allowed, lower court's decision set aside [Paras 1-17].

Legal Interpretation – Ejusdem Generis Rule – Interpretation of "other textile made ups" in conjunction with bed sheets and pillow covers – General term takes color from specific items preceding it – Ensures uniform classification and taxation [Para 14].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Held – High Court's order set aside – Tribunal and first appellate authority's decisions also set aside – Order of Assessing Authority restored – No order as to costs [Paras 17-18].

National Green Tribunal Act – Condonation of Delay – Environmental Clearance – NGT's rejection of application for condonation of delay was erroneous – Communication of order includes dissemination to affected parties, not just publication on the website – Delay explained due to voluminous documents and need for expert legal advice – Appeal allowed, delay condoned, case remanded to NGT for merit hearing [Paras 1-30].

Condonation of Delay – General Clauses Act – Section 10 – Last date for filing appeal falling on a Sunday – Appeal filed on the next working day deemed within time – NGT's narrow interpretation rejected – Sufficient cause shown for delay [Paras 19-21].

Judicial Review – Exercise of Discretion – "Sufficient Cause" – Relative and fact-dependent – Bona fide explanation given – NGT's refusal to condone delay based on narrow reading of the law – Exercise of discretion to be fair and just, especially in environmental matters affecting public interest [Paras 22-29].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Held – NGT's order set aside – Delay condoned – Case remanded to NGT for decision on merits [Para 30].

Civil Procedure – Consent Decree – Non-Party Rights – Appellants were not parties to consent orders passed in Suit No. 1335/1988 – Consent orders not binding on non-parties – Appellants' rights to be adjudicated independently in pending Suit No. 3162/2005 – Appeal dismissed with observations to protect appellants' rights [Paras 1-21].

Judicial Review – Scope of Appeal – Section 96 CPC – Legal effect of consent orders cannot be examined for non-parties – Appellants’ substantive suit provides remedy – High Court’s dismissal of appeal affirmed – No error in impugned judgment [Paras 18-20].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Held – High Court’s judgment affirmed – Rights of appellants to be protected and adjudicated in Suit No. 3162/2005 without influence from impugned judgment – High Court directed to expedite hearing of the pending suit [Paras 21-22].

Criminal Law – Rape – Consent and Misconception of Fact- The relationship between the appellant and the second respondent was consensual and lasted for one and a half years. The appellant's subsequent refusal to marry the respondent does not amount to a false promise at inception, which is necessary to establish a "misconception of fact" under Section 375 IPC. The Supreme Court emphasized that to vitiate consent under a promise to marry, the promise must be false and made in bad faith at the time it was given [Paras 1-11].

Quashing of Charges – Section 482 CrPC- The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in dismissing the petition under Section 482 CrPC. The allegations in the FIR did not establish that the promise to marry was false at inception. Therefore, no offence under Section 376 IPC was made out, and the charge sheet should be quashed [Paras 11-12].

Decision- Appeal allowed – The impugned judgment of the High Court was set aside. The charge sheet dated 25 April 2018 and the order of the trial Court dated 3 October 2018 were quashed [Para 12].

Criminal Law – Recall of Witnesses – Section 311 CrPC- Section 311 CrPC provides the court with wide discretionary power to summon or recall witnesses if their evidence appears essential to the just decision of the case. The Supreme Court emphasized that the true test is whether the evidence of such person is crucial for resolving the issues in the trial, irrespective of the case's age or duration [Paras 13-15].

Application of Section 311 CrPC – Judicial Discretion- The Supreme Court held that the applications under Section 311 CrPC should be allowed if the evidence sought to be introduced is essential for a just decision. The trial court's and High Court's rejection of the applications for recalling witnesses to mark the Board's approval document was not justified [Paras 14-16].

Decision - Appeals allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment and directed the recall of PWs 1 and 11 for marking the relevant document. The respondent was given the liberty to cross-examine the recalled witnesses. The trial was ordered to be completed by 31 July 2021 [Paras 16-17].

Abuse of Process – Inherent Powers under Section 482 CrPC – Quashing of FIR- The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution can be invoked to quash criminal proceedings if it is found that the proceedings amount to an abuse of process of law or are intended to harass the accused. The Supreme Court highlighted that criminal proceedings should not be allowed to degenerate into a weapon of harassment [Paras 6-7].

Civil Dispute vs. Criminal Prosecution – Distinction and Jurisdiction- The Court observed that the FIR was lodged to pressure the appellants and convert a civil dispute into a criminal case. The Supreme Court found that the FIR, filed with similar allegations as in the application under Section 156(3) CrPC, was an abuse of process, particularly given the pending complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the unexplained delay in lodging the FIR [Paras 3-4, 7-8].

Decision- Appeal allowed – The Supreme Court quashed the FIR registered as Case Crime No. 790 of 2017 under Sections 420/406 IPC, finding it to be an abuse of process of law. The Court directed that the pending application under Section 156(3) CrPC should proceed on its merits [Paras 9-10].