Criminal Appeal – Bail under UAPA Act – High Court's rejection of bail – Accused arrested under Explosive Substances Act and Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act – Petitioner challenges the High Court's order denying bail – Interpretation of Section 43D(5) of the UAPA Act – Relevance of co-accused statements – Lack of overt Act of terrorism attributed to the petitioner – Criminal antecedents – Application of precedent from NIA Vs. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali – Burden of proof on the accused – Bail denied based on reasonable grounds for believing the accusations are prima facie true. [Para 2-9]

Decision - Considering the chargesheet details, the petitioner's criminal history, and legal interpretations, the Court finds no merit in the bail application - The Special Leave Petition is dismissed. [Para 8, 9]

Jurisdiction and Justiciability – Quashing of FIR and Chargesheet by High Court – Challenge against High Court order for quashing FIR and chargesheet related to creation of fake documents by a public servant – Supreme Court considering the necessity of sanction under Section 197 Cr.PC for prosecution. [Para 2, 8]

Criminal Conspiracy and Fabrication of Documents – Allegations against a public servant (Village Accountant) for creating fake documents and misappropriating land – Chargesheet filed under various sections of IPC for offences including forgery, cheating, and criminal conspiracy. [Para 3, 6, 7]

Sanction for Prosecution – High Court's decision based on lack of sanction under Section 197 Cr.PC – Supreme Court examining whether acts of creating fake documents fall under 'official duty' of a public servant, and the applicability of Section 197 Cr.PC. [Para 8, 16, 17-19, 23, 25]

Judicial Review – Supreme Court’s analysis of whether High Court was justified in quashing the FIR and chargesheet against a public servant – Consideration of precedents on the requirement of sanction for prosecution of public servants. [Para 12-15, 20-22, 24, 25]

Decision – High Court's order quashing FIR and chargesheet set aside – Supreme Court allows the appeal, stating that fabrication of official documents cannot be considered as an act done in the discharge of official duties by a public servant – All observations made for the purpose of deciding the present challenge and not as an opinion on merit. [Para 26, 27]

Criminal Appeal – Interpretation of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Appeal against the High Court's decision dismissing the petition to quash FIR and remand order – Appellant, a former Chief Minister, implicated in corruption-related offences – Allegations involve siphoning off government funds – Key issue centers around the applicability and interpretation of Section 17A, introduced by the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018. [Para 1-3, 8-10]

Section 17A – Applicability and Interpretation – Differing opinions on whether Section 17A applies retrospectively or prospectively – Section 17A prohibits enquiry, inquiry, or investigation into offences alleged against a public servant without prior approval, where offences relate to decisions or recommendations made in official capacity – Majority opinion suggests Section 17A is substantive, applying prospectively to offences defined post-amendment, and not to repealed offences – Dissenting opinion suggests Section 17A as procedural, potentially applicable retroactively. [Para 11-28]

Jurisdiction of Special Court – Validity of Remand Order – Special Court held jurisdiction to pass remand order against the appellant, charged under IPC offences alongside offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act – No jurisdictional error found in the remand order passed by the Special Court. [Para 29]

Conclusion and Referral to Larger Bench – Contradictory opinions on key legal issues lead to referral to a larger bench for resolution – Matter to be placed before the Chief Justice of India for appropriate action. [Order]

Decision – Appeal dismissed due to lack of merit, subject to further adjudication by a larger bench on specific legal questions. [Para 30, Order]

Execution of Decree and Objection under Section 47 CPC - Trial Court's decree against Samiullah (Defendant No. 2) based on his failure to file a written statement was challenged for lacking inherent jurisdiction and thus inexecutable. The High Court, agreeing with the Executing Court, found the decree void, leading to the current appeal. [Paras 1-7, 12, 32-41, 51]

Adjudication on Jurisdiction and Rule 10 of Order VIII CPC - The Trial Court's failure to adjudicate its own competence to try the suit before decreeing against Samiullah led to a jurisdictional error, rendering the decree void and inexecutable. [Paras 13-22, 40-41]

Requirements for a Judgment and Decree under CPC - The Trial Court's order did not conform to the definition of a judgment as required under Section 2(9) and Rule 4(2) of Order XX CPC, thus invalidating the ensuing decree under Section 2(2) CPC. [Paras 43-50]

Transfer of Property During Pending Litigation - The sale deed in favor of the Purchasers (Respondents 1 to 3), while the suit was pending and in light of an interim injunction, was brought into question but left for determination by a competent forum. [Paras 7-8, 54]

Impact of Decision on Property and Court Receiver - The Court Receiver appointed by the Supreme Court was discharged, and the matter of accounts related to the property was directed to be resolved in accordance with law. [Paras 55-56]

Incident and Initial Trial - Incident on 09.01.1999 led to the death of Akbar and injuries to others - Accused Mohd. Yunus (A1), Mohd. Jamil (A2), Ghasita (A3), and Akhtar Hussain (A4) were tried - A1, A2, and A3 initially convicted for offences under Sections 302 and 323 IPC, A4 acquitted later. [Para 1]

High Court's Judgment - Appeal in High Court - Acquittal of A1 from Section 302 but conviction under Section 323 maintained - A2's conviction under Sections 302 and 323 upheld - A4's acquittal confirmed, A3 deceased during appeal. [Paras 3, 4]

State's Appeal Against Acquittal - State appealed against A1's acquittal under Section 302 - Challenge focused on equal evidence weightage as A2, who was convicted. [Paras 5, 14]

Evidence and Witness Credibility - High Court and Supreme Court found FIR registration timely - However, key witnesses Deenu (PW-7) and Ahmad (PW-8) considered unreliable due to contradictions and improvements in statements - Previous enmity noted, recovery of weapons from A1 and A2 not established. [Paras 16-20]

Supreme Court's Decision - Conviction of A2 under Section 302 set aside, maintaining conviction under Section 323 - A1's acquittal under Section 302 upheld - A2's sentence for offence under Section 323 sufficient as per custody duration. [Paras 20-22]

Historical and Cultural Significance of Chittorgarh Fort - Recognized under relevant Acts and as a UNESCO World Heritage Site - Importance of preserving the fort from damages due to urbanization and mining activities. [Paras 1-2]

Conflict between Mineral Exploitation and Monument Preservation - Dilemma over limestone mining near Chittorgarh Fort and its potential harm to the monument's structural integrity. [Paras 3-4, 6]

Litigation History and PILs - Filing of PILs against mining activities near Chittorgarh Fort, leading to restrictions on mining operations within a 10 km radius of the fort. [Paras 5, 8, 9]

Environmental and Structural Impact Studies - Reports by CSIR-CBRI, Roorkee, and the Indian Bureau of Mines on the impact of mining activities on Chittorgarh Fort. Findings suggested that vibrations from blasting were within permissible limits but recommended continuous monitoring. [Paras 15-16, 18]

Court's Considerations and Directives - Emphasis on a multidimensional approach to preserve Chittorgarh Fort. Directions for further studies using advanced technology to assess the impact of mining activities, particularly blasting, on the Fort. Implementation of a five-kilometre radius prohibition for mining operations using explosives. [Paras 22-24]

Future Measures and Monitoring - Establishment of a committee for comprehensive study and environmental impact assessment. Directions for the implementation of recommendations and regular reporting to the Court. [Paras 24.1-24.15]

Implementation of MV Act for Compensation in Hit and Run Cases – Examination of Section 161 of the MV Act for compensation to victims of hit and run motor accidents – Central Government to ensure compensation as per the Act and the Scheme made under the Act. [Para 1, 2]

Compensation of Victims of Hit and Run Motor Accidents Scheme, 2022 – Replaced the Solatium Scheme, 1989 – Establishment of Standing Committee and District Level Committees for scheme administration – Procedure for applying for compensation under the Scheme detailed. [Para 3]

Concerns in Scheme Implementation – Analysis of annual reports on road accidents – Inadequate number of claims received under the Scheme compared to the high number of hit and run accidents – Need for public awareness and more effective implementation strategies. [Para 4, 5]

Directions for Improved Implementation and Awareness – Suggestions for identifying hit and run accidents and informing victims about the Scheme – Formation of Monitoring Committees at district level – Quarterly reports on functioning to be submitted. [Para 6, 9]

Consideration of Compensation Amount and Extension of Time Limit – Direction to Central Government to consider enhancement of compensation amounts and extension of time limit for claims under the Solatium Scheme. [Para 10, 11]

Compliance and Reporting – Authorities to provide compliance reports to the Amicus Curiae and counsel representing parties – Listing for considering compliance on 22nd April 2024. [Para 12]

Pollution and Environmental Concerns – Addressing air pollution in Delhi NCR due to heavy traffic at the ICD, Tughlakabad – Initial application by the former Executive Director of Central Warehousing Corporation to the NGT under National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 – Seeking redirection of traffic and adoption of cleaner fuel vehicles. [Paras 1-2]

NGT Orders and Appeal – NGT's interim orders for phased reduction of diesel vehicles at the ICD and shift to cleaner fuel options – Appeal by Container Corporation of India Ltd. against NGT order – Supreme Court's direction to EPCA to report on the issue. [Paras 3-5]

EPCA Report and Recommendations – EPCA's findings on vehicle pollution, utilization of ICDs, and parking congestion – Recommendations for adopting BS-VI vehicles, optimizing use of other ICDs, and improving parking management. [Paras 6-17]

Supreme Court Directions – Acceptance of EPCA recommendations – Phasing out of heavy-duty diesel vehicles, policy formation for BS-VI vehicles by MoRTH, continued exploration of alternative fuels, and optimal utilization of ICDs around Delhi. [Paras 18-22]

Monitoring and Compliance – Supreme Court to monitor implementation of directions – Appeal disposed of with instructions for compliance report by July 31, 2024. [Paras 23-24]

Decision – Supreme Court directs phased reduction of diesel vehicles at ICD, Tughlakabad, adoption of BS-VI vehicles, and exploration of alternative fuels – Orders to optimize utilization of other ICDs and improve parking management – Compliance to be monitored with a report due on July 31, 2024.

Land Allotment Dispute – Appeal by Delhi Development Authority against High Court's judgment affirming land allotment to Hello Home Educational Society for a school in Vasant Kunj – Initial approvals for Jasola area, not Vasant Kunj – Discrepancies in Essentiality Certificate and Sponsorship Letter. [Paras 2-7, 9]

Change in Allotment Policy – High Court's judgment based on the assumption of retrospective application of policy change – Supreme Court clarifies non-retrospective policy application, affecting pending land allotment matters, to be dealt with through auction. [Paras 8, 18.4, 18.9]

Delay in Legal Remedy – Supreme Court notes inordinate delay of 11 years by the Society in approaching the court based on Lieutenant Governor's in-principle approval – Delay undermines the claim. [Paras 18.1, 18.6]

Internal Notings and Rights – Internal office notings and in-principle approvals without formal order and communication do not confer legal rights – Supreme Court emphasizes the necessity of formal decision-making and communication process. [Paras 18.7, 18.8]

Negative Parity in Allotments – Argument of similar allotments to other societies rejected – No negative parity in legal entitlements based on alleged irregularities in other cases. [Para 18.10]

Decision: Appeals allowed; the impugned orders of the Division Bench and Single Judge set aside. Writ petition filed by the Society dismissed.

No order as to costs.