Facts:

The appellant, Revenue-Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai, filed an appeal against the High Court's dismissal of their appeal under Section 260A.

The dispute pertains to the assessment year 2008-09, involving the respondent, M/S A.A. Estate Pvt. Ltd., a company engaged in property development.

Issues:

Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the appeal without framing substantial questions of law as required under Section 260A.

Held:

The High Court failed to formulate any substantial question of law as mandated by Section 260-A of the Act.

The questions urged by the appellant were not framed by the High Court, creating a distinction between proposed questions and those framed by the Court.

The High Court did not follow the mandatory procedure under Section 260-A, leading to a lack of proper decision on the appeal.

The Court remanded the case to the High Court for a fresh decision, emphasizing the need for framing substantial questions of law and addressing specific issues related to the notice under Section 148, escaped assessment, and the presumption based on seized documents.

Facts:

The National Green Tribunal (NGT) passed an order on 5 December 2018 regarding a proposal for the exchange of land with forest land.

The order was challenged before the Supreme Court.

On 8 February 2019, the Supreme Court observed that the proceedings were still pending before the NGT and disposed of the appeal, stating that the earlier orders were interlocutory.

The NGT, on 11 February 2019, disposed of the Original Application (OA) and directed further steps to be taken.

Issues:

Whether the NGT's order on 11 February 2019 aligns with the Supreme Court's observations on 8 February 2019.

Whether the NGT allowed the appellant to address objections to the proposed land exchange.

Held:

The NGT's action of effectively shutting out the appellant from addressing objections is indefensible.

The NGT should have allowed the process initiated before the State and MOEF&CC to continue and permitted the appellant to address its objections in the pending proceedings.

Decision: The Supreme Court allows the appeal, sets aside the NGT's order of 11 February 2019, and restores OA 124 of 2017 to the file of the NGT. The NGT is expected to abide by the Supreme Court's order on 8 February 2019. The appeal is disposed of with no costs.

Facts:

Appellant No. 1 (Ashok Kumar Mehra) and Appellant No. 2 (Kushwant@Sukhwant Kumar Mehra) were prosecuted for the murder of Inderjit Dhiman.

The Sessions Judge acquitted both appellants in Sessions Case No. 10/1998.

The State and the Complainant appealed in the High Court, resulting in the conviction of both appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

Appellant No. 1 (father) passed away during the pendency of the appeals.

Appellant No. 2 claimed juvenility on the date of the offense.

Issues:

Whether appellant No. 2 is entitled to the benefit of the Juvenile Justice Act if his age is determined to be below 18 years on the date of the offense.

Whether the plea of juvenility can be raised even if not raised before the Trial Court.

Held:

The appeal of appellant No. 1 stands abated due to his death.

Appellant No. 2, being a juvenile on the date of the offense, is entitled to the benefit of the Juvenile Justice Act.

The genuineness of the date of birth was not disputed, and appellant No. 2 had filed a birth certificate in the Sessions Court.

The appeal of appellant No. 2 is allowed, setting aside the impugned order.

Facts:

Respondent appointed as a Chowkidar on daily wages by the Appellant - Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority on 01-12-1995.

Government of Punjab revised the Policy for regularization on 23-01-2001.

Respondent's services regularized on 26-12-2001, but irregularities alleged.

High Court directed Appellant to pass a speaking order on irregularities.

Respondent's services annulled on 22-05-2003 due to insufficient service prior to 22-01-2001.

Legal proceedings initiated by Respondent challenging annulment.

Issues:

Validity of Respondent's regularization.

Legality of annulment of Respondent's services.

Applicability of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Held:

Respondent sought regularization without fulfilling the mandatory 3 years' continuous service requirement.

Respondent's name interpolated in the final list for regularization, making the appointment illegal and void.

Order of regularization obtained by misrepresentation cannot be sustained.

Annulment of services justified due to fraudulent means of appointment.

Respondent not entitled to benefits under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

High Court erred in applying regulations for regular employees to an illegal appointment.

Appointment declared void ab initio; annulment upheld.

Civil Appeal allowed, and High Court's decision set aside.

FACTS:

Dispute over a shop premises between the complainant and respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

The complainant alleges that the respondents committed offenses under IPC.

Pendency of civil suits - Eviction Suit and Title Suit.

High Court quashed the complaint based on the perception that it's a civil dispute and witness contradictions.

ISSUES:

Whether the mere pendency of a civil suit justifies quashing criminal proceedings.

Whether the High Court had the jurisdiction to assess witness statements at the Section 482 stage.

HELD:

The High Court erred in not examining whether the allegations in the complaint make out offenses under Sections 323, 379 read with Section 34 IPC. Mere pendency of a civil suit doesn't negate a criminal case. The focus should be on the specific allegations in the complaint.( Para 10-15)

The High Court lacked jurisdiction to assess witness statements at the Section 482 stage. Witness contradictions are issues for trial, not pre-trial. The errors in the High Court's approach render its decision legally unsustainable.( Para 16-17)

The reasoning and conclusion of the High Court are set aside. The order of the Judicial Magistrate, which found a prima facie case, is restored. The trial should proceed unbiased by the High Court's observations.( Para 18-19)

REFERRED CASES:

State of Haryana and Others vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors., AIR 1992 SC604

Facts:

Respondent Nos. 2, 3, and 4 facing prosecution for various offenses.

Argument by defense that no offense under Section 307 IPC against them based on medical reports.

Additional Sessions Judge discharged respondent Nos. 2 to 4 from Section 307 IPC.

Appellant filed criminal revision in High Court, which was dismissed.

Appellant challenges High Court decision in the Supreme Court.

Issues:

Whether lower courts justified in discharging respondent Nos. 2 to 4 from the charge under Section 307 IPC?

Held:

Mere perusal of medical reports prima facie establishes a case under Section 307 IPC against respondent Nos. 2 to 4.

Error by both lower courts in discharging accused based on premature appreciation of evidence.

The stage to find fault in medical reports arises when prosecution presents evidence; not at the discharge stage.

Directions to Additional Sessions Judge to frame charges under Section 307 IPC against respondent Nos. 2 to 4.

Clarification that accused can argue against the charge after evidence is presented.

Decision: Appeal allowed, impugned order set aside, and Additional Sessions Judge directed to frame the charge under Section 307 IPC against respondent Nos. 2 to 4.

Facts:

The case revolves around the transfer of idol theft cases in Tamil Nadu from the Idol Wing of the Crime Investigation Department to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The Commissioner of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR & CE) Department raised concerns through a letter, citing complaints against the Idol Wing. Subsequently, the State of Tamil Nadu swiftly decided to transfer all cases under investigation to the CBI.

Issues:

Validity of the decision to transfer cases to the CBI based on complaints without proper inquiry.

Appropriate investigating agency for idol theft cases.

Jurisdiction of constitutional courts under Article 226 in directing the continuation of a police officer after superannuation.

Held:

The decision to transfer cases to the CBI was deemed hasty, as it was based on complaints without conducting a thorough inquiry. The High Court's decision to quash the government order transferring cases to the CBI was upheld.

Article 226 empowers the High Courts with wide-ranging powers, including issuing writs and directions. The Court emphasized the need for informed decisions and due process, asserting that jurisdiction under Article 226 should align with legal principles.

The High Court's direction to appoint a retired police officer to head a Special Investigation Team (SIT) after superannuation was deemed sustainable. The Court highlighted the flexibility of Article 226 in forging new methodologies to achieve constitutional objectives.

Retired officers can be entrusted with investigations for sufficient reasons, and such appointments do not violate service rules. The High Court's direction to continue the retired officer in the Idol Wing after superannuation was found appropriate.

The High Court's decision to direct the retired officer to head the SIT after superannuation was deemed legally sound.

The High Court thoroughly examined the credentials of the retired officer and found no allegations that would disqualify him from continuing in the Idol Wing. The decision to continue him was justified based on his past performance.

Complaints raised after the High Court's judgment were deemed irrelevant, and the Court upheld its decision to continue the retired officer.

The High Court's directions regarding the retired officer's role, pay, and benefits were reviewed. Direction No. 3 was modified to allow the State to fix an honorarium in addition to pension.

The government order upgrading the post of Inspector General of Police to Additional Director General of Police was acknowledged. The High Court's observation that the order became redundant was disapproved.

The Court emphasized the importance of following statutory procedures in filing reports, cautioning against the routine appointment of retired officers.

Facts:

Appellant, a watch showroom, had insured its stock with the respondent (insurance company).

Theft occurred in the premises, and a claim was made under the insurance policy.

Surveyor's reports indicated loss due to theft but without forcible entry.

Claim was repudiated, and the appellant filed a consumer complaint.

Issues:

Interpretation of exclusionary clauses in the insurance policy.

Whether exclusionary conditions were communicated to the insured?

Held:

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) reversed the decisions based on the exclusionary clause.

NCDRC relied on a prior Supreme Court decision regarding theft without forcible and violent entry.

Appellant contended exclusionary conditions were not communicated, making them not binding.

District Forum and State Commission both found exclusion terms were not made known to the insured.

NCDRC erred in reversing decisions without considering the factual finding that exclusion terms were not communicated.

Decision: Appeal allowed, impugned judgment set aside, and the order passed by the District Forum restored. No order as to costs.

Facts:

The case involves a review petition in a criminal matter where the accused, referred to as 'X,' was convicted. The judgment explores the procedural aspects, legal provisions, and considerations related to sentencing, including the assessment of post-conviction mental illness.

Issues:

Whether the pre-sentencing hearing conducted on the date of conviction violates Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure?

The need for reasons in the imposition of a sentence.

The discretion exercised in sentencing and its principled application.

The relevance of post-conviction mental illness as a mitigating factor in death penalty cases.

Held:

Section 235(2) mandates a pre-sentence hearing to provide the accused with an opportunity to present mitigating circumstances. The hearing can occur on the same day as conviction, as long as the accused has a real and effective chance to plead their case.( Para 15, 16, 32)

Any procedural irregularity in the trial court's handling of the sentencing hearing can be remedied by the appellate court, ensuring the accused is afforded an adequate opportunity. Section 465 emphasizes that reversals or alterations are only justified if there is a failure of justice.( Para 35)

Sentencing discretion must be exercised in a principled manner, rejecting a strict fixed punishment approach.( Para 50)

The right to life and dignity, especially for mentally ill prisoners, is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution and the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017.( Para 56, 60)

Section 84 of the IPC deals with legal insanity as a defense at the time of the crime, distinct from post-conviction mental illness.( Para 63)

Post-conviction severe mental illness is a mitigating factor in death penalty cases. A multidisciplinary team must assess the disability, with the burden on the accused to prove it.( Para 69)

The accused's death sentence is commuted to life imprisonment without the right to remission.( Para 73)

The State is directed to consider the case of the accused under the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017.( Para 76)