Facts:

The victim, a widow, had developed an intimate relationship with the first accused (A-1). On the day of the incident, she was last seen alive in the company of A-1. However, the next day, her body was discovered in a jungle, 25 km away from her residence. A trial ensued, leading to the conviction of A-1 to A-3 under various sections of the IPC and sentencing them accordingly. A-4 was also convicted under a specific section, although the High Court later modified the sentences.

Issues:

The sufficiency of evidence to convict the accused, particularly in a case relying on circumstantial evidence.

The court needed to determine whether the circumstantial evidence against each accused was substantial enough to uphold their convictions.

Held:

The court upheld the conviction of A-1 based on various incriminating circumstances. These included being last seen with the deceased, failure to explain his separation from her, subsequent threatening behavior, and the recovery of the crime weapon.

The absence of a clear motive did not invalidate the case against A-1, as other incriminating circumstances were well-established.

However, the evidence against A-2 to A-4 was deemed insufficient. The prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of events linking them to the crime. There was no evidence regarding their presence at the crime scene or their subsequent conduct. Thus, their convictions under Section 302 IPC read with Section 120B IPC were set aside.

Decision: The appeal resulted in the conviction of A-1 being upheld while A-2 to A-4 were acquitted due to insufficient evidence. The court emphasized the necessity of a thorough evidentiary chain in establishing guilt in cases based on circumstantial evidence.

Facts:

IVRCL Infrastructure and Projects Ltd. entered into a Joint Venture Agreement with M/s. Shapoorji Pallonji and Company Limited for road construction in Andhra Pradesh.

A contract was awarded by the National Highways Authority of India for the construction of roads under the Golden Quadrilateral, Phase-2 Project in Andhra Pradesh.

IVRCL imported equipment from Germany, claiming exemption from customs duty under a notification dated 1.3.2001 for a hot mix plant.

Customs Authorities contended that only parts of the plant were imported, not the complete plant, and therefore, the exemption did not apply.

Issues:

Whether the imported goods constituted a complete hot mix plant eligible for exemption from customs duty.

The interpretation of the exemption notification under the Customs Act, 1962.

Held:

The Court held that the exemption applied only if a complete hot mix plant, as described in the notification, was imported. Despite IVRCL's arguments and documentary evidence, the Court agreed with the findings of both the Commissioner of Customs and CESTAT that what was imported did not constitute a complete hot mix plant. The Court emphasized strict construction of exemption notifications and upheld the decisions of the lower authorities.

The appeal was dismissed, and costs were imposed on IVRCL. The Court noted that CESTAT had already provided some relief to IVRCL by reducing fines imposed by the Commissioner.

Facts:

A complaint was lodged against the respondents, who were working as Sub-Registrars in various offices in Andhra Pradesh.

They were accused of conspiring with stamp vendors and document writers to manipulate registers and register documents with old property values, resulting in wrongful gain to themselves and loss to the Government.

An FIR was registered against the respondents, and after investigation, a report was submitted to the magistrate.

Issues:

Whether sanction under Section 197 of CrPC is required to initiate criminal proceedings for offenses under specific sections of IPC against public servants.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that public servants are indeed given special protection under Section 197 to prevent malicious prosecution but this protection should not shield corrupt officials.

Acts of cheating, fabrication of records, or misappropriation cannot be considered as part of their official duties.

The court set aside the High Court's decision and allowed the appeals, directing the trial court to expedite the proceedings and dispose of the cases by the end of the year.

Facts:

The case involved allegations of fraudulent execution of a power of attorney for the sale of land. The complainant alleged that the appellant, Ganga Dhar Kalita, had forged signatures to execute the power of attorney. The police registered a case under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Issues:

• The appellant challenged the FIR, arguing that the dispute was civil in nature and citing ongoing civil suits related to the matter.

• Whether the criminal proceedings should be quashed given the pendency of civil suits.

Held:

No doubt, where the criminal complaints are filed in respect of property disputes of civil in nature only to harass the accused, and to pressurize him in the civil litigation pending, and there is prima facie abuse of process of law, it is well within the jurisdiction of the High Court to exercise its powers Under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings. However, the powers under the section are required to be exercised sparingly.

Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the High Court dismissing the petition Under Section 482 of the Code. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. However, we clarify that the observations made in our order would not be read to influence the civil or criminal proceedings pending between the parties.

Facts:

The case involved a dispute regarding the valuation of goods for the purpose of customs duty assessment under the Customs Act, 1962.

Issues:

Whether the consideration for technical services provided by a foreign company could be added to the value of imported equipment for setting up a plant in India, as per Rule 9(1)(e) of the Customs Valuation Rules.

Held:

The fundamental principles of customs duty assessment, emphasizing the exclusion of amounts related to imported goods post-importation and the interpretation of Customs Valuation Rules.

The Court analyzed the technical services agreement and observed that the services provided by the foreign company were primarily aimed at post-importation activities such as coordination, advice, and operation of the plant in India.

The Court concluded that the technical services agreement did not constitute a precondition for the sale of the plant itself but rather focused on activities post-importation. Therefore, Rule 9(1)(e) was not applicable in this case, and the consideration for technical services could not be added to the value of the imported equipment.

Decision: The appeal was dismissed, affirming that the consideration for technical services provided by the foreign company could not be added to the value of the imported equipment for customs duty assessment.

Facts:

Respondent, G.C. Pandya, was a Deputy Engineer (civil) with the Appellant, Gujarat Maritime Board.

Pandya was charge-sheeted for irregularities during 1982-1984, resulting in losses for the Board.

He was found guilty in the departmental inquiry and was punished with "censure" on 26.6.2002, after which he retired on 30.6.2002 as a Superintending Engineer.

Pandya filed a civil suit seeking a declaration that the departmental inquiry and the punishment were illegal, and also sought promotion with effect from 1.1.2002.

The trial court ruled in favor of Pandya, declaring him promoted to Chief Engineer with effect from 1.1.2002, without considering his service record.

The appellant did not file a written statement, and no issues were framed as per Order VIII Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.

Issues:

Whether the departmental inquiry and punishment against Pandya were illegal.

Whether Pandya was entitled to promotion with effect from 1.1.2002.

Whether the trial court's decree declaring Pandya promoted without considering his service record was valid.

Held:

The trial court did not act mechanically but properly considered the evidence and arguments.

However, it erred in declaring Pandya promoted without considering his service record.

The appellate courts also overlooked this error.

The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal, modifying the decree to direct the appellant to consider Pandya's promotion to Chief Engineer with effect from 1.1.2002 within three months, taking into account the findings of the suit (Para 15).

Facts:

The case involved a petition filed by Laxmi concerning acid attacks in India.

A meeting was held by the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare with all Chief Secretaries/their counterparts in the States/Union Territories on 14.03.2015.

Provisional figures for 2014 indicated 282 acid attacks across various states and territories, with Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, and Gujarat having the highest numbers.

The meeting noted the existence of a Victim Compensation Scheme in almost all states and union territories.

Issues:

Compliance with compensation norms for acid attack victims.

Ensuring proper medical treatment, aftercare, and rehabilitation for acid attack victims.

Banning over-the-counter sale of acid.

Setting up a separate board for criminal injuries compensation.

Held:The court observed that despite its directions, some states/union territories hadn't fixed the minimum compensation of Rs. 3,00,000 per acid attack victim. It directed the Member Secretary of the State Legal Services Authority to take up the issue with the state governments for compliance.

The court directed the Member Secretary to obtain and publicize the Victim Compensation Scheme for the benefit of acid attack victims.The court emphasized that victims should receive full medical assistance, including reconstructive surgeries, and private hospitals should provide free treatment. It instructed state governments to ensure compliance and take action against hospitals refusing treatment

The court directed the Ministries of Home Affairs and Health and Family Welfare to ensure all states and union territories issue notifications banning over-the-counter sale of acid within three months.

Instead of setting up a separate board, the court decided that claims for compensation would be handled by the District Legal Services Authority, functioning as the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board.

Facts:

M/S UTC FIRE AND SECURITY INDIA LTD. was involved in the manufacturing of smoke detectors and parts thereof. These goods were sold both in loose condition and as part of turnkey projects. The Assessing Officer proposed to value the goods used in turnkey projects based on the price of similar goods sold in loose condition. The appellant contested this, arguing for the application of Section 4(1)(b) of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, and the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975.

Issues:

The appropriate rule under the Valuation Rules, 1975, for the valuation of goods used in turnkey projects. The appellant argued for Rule 7, while the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) upheld the application of Rule 4 without providing detailed reasons.

Held:

The Supreme Court clarified that Section 4(1)(a) of the Act, dealing with the normal price of goods sold by the assessee to a buyer, was not applicable. It was agreed that the case fell under Section 4(1)(b), where the normal price of goods was not ascertainable.

The court emphasized that Rule 4 would only apply if the goods sold were the same as those used in turnkey projects, which was not the case here. The court concluded that Rule 7, which allows for the determination of value according to the best judgment assessment, should have been applied by the Commissioner (Appeals) instead of Rule 6. However, it noted that the Commissioner's acceptance of the costing method provided by the appellant amounted to a best judgment assessment.

Therefore, the Supreme Court set aside the CESTAT's order and restored the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision, modifying it to apply Rule 7 instead of Rule 6. The appeals were allowed with no orders as to costs.

Facts:

The appellant, a minor at the time, alleged rape by the respondent.

Despite identification of the accused in court, the trial court acquitted him due to the absence of a prior test identification parade.

High Court affirmed this decision, citing the lack of a test identification parade.

Issues:

Whether the identification in court, without a test identification parade, could be relied upon.

Whether the evidence presented was sufficient to prove the guilt of the respondent.

Held:

The Supreme Court found the appellant's testimony and evidence credible, despite the absence of a test identification parade. The immediate reporting of the incident, medical examination, and identification of the accused's clothing supported her claims. The Court emphasized that the identification in court could be relied upon under certain circumstances, especially when the witness is found trustworthy and reliable. Therefore, the appeal was allowed, and the respondent was convicted under Section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code, sentenced to seven years' imprisonment, and fined Rs. 5,000, with the entire amount to be given to the appellant. If the fine is not paid, the respondent faces an additional six months' imprisonment. However, the acquittal under Section 3(2)(V) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was confirmed.