Facts:

Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on March 20, 1978.

Land acquired for widening a road.

Possession of the land taken on February 20, 1982.

Respondent land-owners requested withdrawal of acquisition after possession.

Government ordered withdrawal under G.O.M. No.156 dated 25th February, 1982.

Subsequently, withdrawal was canceled under G.O.M. No.714 dated 11th November, 1983.

Multiple legal proceedings, including Writ Petitions and Appeals, ensued.

Issues:

Legality of withdrawal of land acquisition proceedings after possession under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act.

Held:

The Court emphasized that Section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act does not permit withdrawal of acquisition proceedings after possession.

The withdrawal of acquisition proceedings, in this case, was found to be improper and in violation of the Act.

Criticized the sympathetic approach of the Court towards land-owners, leading to prolonged litigation.

Quashed and set aside the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dated 24th January, 2012.

Appeals allowed with no order as to costs.

Facts:

Appellants were initially appointed as District Munsifs in the State Judicial Service and later promoted to Sub-judges.

Their names were recommended for promotion to the post of District and Sessions Judge, Grade II.

Government sanctioned additional posts for Fast Track Courts, and appellants were temporarily posted as District and Sessions Judges Grade II in Fast Track Courts.

Respondents were appointed as District and Sessions Judges Grade II through direct recruitment.

Final seniority list fixed respondents' seniority above that of appellants.

Issues:

The seniority of judicial officers appointed as Fast Track Court judges, with a specific focus on the ad hoc nature of their appointments and the interplay between promotees and direct recruits.

Held:

The appointments in Fast Track Courts are ad hoc, and no right accrues to recruits promoted/posted on an ad hoc basis for regular promotion. Fast Track Court Judges were appointed under separate rules from those governing regular appointments in the State Higher Judicial Services.

The 2001 Rules are specific for ad hoc appointments. The introduction of the Fast Track Court Scheme created promotional avenues on an ad hoc basis, leading to the regularization of appellants in the regular cadre. The distinction between the appellants and respondents is emphasized.

The principle that no distinction can be made between direct recruits and promotees in the seniority list does not apply since the appellants were not appointed to substantive vacancies. The appellants' promotion came through the Fast Track Court Scheme and the 2001 Rules, making them beneficiaries of a scheme.

Decision: The appeal is dismissed, upholding the seniority list prepared by the High Court. The court emphasizes the ad hoc nature of appointments in Fast Track Courts and rejects the appellants' argument based on the words used in the letter of appointment.

Facts:

The appellants and their family were accused of forming an unlawful assembly and causing injuries in their village.

The prosecution alleged assault due to old enmity, leading to charges under various sections of the IPC.

The defense argued denial of the occurrence, presenting an alternative version where the injuries on the accused resulted from an attack on their family members.

The trial court convicted the appellants, but the High Court set aside some convictions and found them guilty under Section 308/34 IPC.

Issues:

Suppression of the genesis of the occurrence and failure to explain injuries on the accused.

Legitimacy of the appellants' claim to the right of private defence.

Adverse inference against the prosecution for not offering a plausible explanation for injuries on the accused.

Held:

The Supreme Court criticized the High Court for not drawing adverse inferences against the prosecution despite the suppression of the genesis of the occurrence and the failure to explain injuries on the accused, including the death of the father. The Court held that the appellants could legitimately claim the right to use force in defense of their parents, especially when the assault led to the death of their father. Adverse inferences must be drawn against the prosecution, and the Court, therefore, allowed the appeal, acquitted the appellants of all charges, and ordered their release from jail custody.

FACTS:

The appellants, Bijender @ Papu and another, along with three co-accused, were convicted under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including Section 325 read with Section 149, Sections 148A, 308/149, and 323/149. The Trial Court imposed a sentence, and the High Court, on appeal, enhanced the punishment for the major offence.

ISSUES:

The appellants claimed parity with three other co-accused who were granted relief on grounds of old age.

The High Court had enhanced the sentence based on the suffering of the injured Budhram with a head injury caused by a lathi.

The appellants sought a reduction in the sentence.

HELD:

The Court observed that the concession granted to the three co-accused on grounds of extreme old age justified special treatment. The enhanced sentence was due to the suffering of Budhram, the injured, with a head injury caused by a lathi. However, as no specific role was assigned to any of the five convicts in causing the head injury, the Court decided to reduce the sentence for the appellants under Section 325 read with Section 149 of the IPC from five years to three years RI. The amount of fine and conviction and sentence for other offences remained intact.( Para 4)

With the modification in the sentence for the appellants, the appeal was disposed of.( Para 5)

Facts:

The case involves a writ petition (criminal) filed by Dr. Rini Johar and another against the State of Madhya Pradesh and others. The petitioners, a doctor and a practicing advocate, faced charges under Section 420 IPC and Section 66-D of the IT Act. They were arrested without following proper arrest procedures and later enlarged on bail. The petitioners alleged a demand for bribe by police officials and violations of Cr.P.C. provisions.

Issues:

Violation of arrest procedures and curtailment of liberty.

Alleged offenses under Section 420 IPC and Section 66-D of the IT Act.

Compliance with Cr.P.C. provisions, specifically Sections 41 and 41-A.

Applicability of public law remedy.

Held:

Initiation of disciplinary proceedings or criminal prosecution should not impede the determination of the violation of arrest procedures and curtailment of liberty. The State Government's inquiry does not bar adjudication, and the matter is within the scope of judicial review.( Para 11)

The inquiry report reveals the arrest was not conducted following the prescribed procedure under Section 41-A CR.P.C. Several violations in arrest and seizure were noted, justifying the petitioners' claim of mistreatment.( Para 22)

The arrestees, both a doctor and an advocate, were treated with serious disregard for their dignity. Liberty was curtailed unlawfully, causing emotional distress. The court emphasizes the sanctity of individual freedom and the need for proper arrest procedures.( Para 23)

Considering the totality of circumstances, a compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs is granted to each petitioner by the State of Madhya Pradesh for the suffering and humiliation endured. The State is entitled to proceed against the erring officials.( Para 27)

The Magistrate found a prima facie case under Section 420 IPC and Section 66-A(b) of the IT Act, but the latter was struck down. The dispute is deemed of a civil nature, and the attempt to criminalize it is criticized.( Para 28)

No ingredients of Section 420 IPC are established, and the court asserts that even if a wrong occurred, civil action should be pursued. The case doesn't warrant criminal prosecution, and the proceedings against the petitioners are liable to be quashed.( Para 29)

Facts:

The three lady appellants, along with two men, were accused in a case involving various offenses. The trial court convicted all accused, and the High Court affirmed the decision. The appeal contended that contradictions in the victim's statements were not properly considered, and the defense of the appellants was overlooked.

Issues:

Contradictions in the victim's statements regarding the actions of the lady accused.

Applicability of Section 149 of the IPC to the appellants.

Adequacy of medical evidence.

Held:

The Supreme Court emphasized the need for careful scrutiny of an injured witness's testimony, especially when there are circumstances suggesting potential false implication. The Court found errors in the analysis of evidence by both lower courts, particularly in not considering the specific defense raised by the appellants. The medical evidence did not support the specific allegations against the appellants.

Conclusion: The conviction and sentence against the appellants were set aside, and they were acquitted of all charges due to the benefit of doubt. The Court emphasized the need for a more careful consideration of evidence in cases involving potential false implication.

Facts:

The appellants made a payment totaling Rs. 14,89,349.00, taking into account the duty payable under Section 3(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, considering the cum-duty benefit. An additional amount of Rs. 11,19,775.00 was payable if the benefit of a specific notification was applied.

Issues:

The extension of the benefit of cum-duty price, the invocation of a wrong section or rule in the show cause notice, and the eligibility of the appellant for treatment under Section 3(1) of the Act.

Held:

The benefit of cum-duty price was not extended, and the incorrect invocation of a section or rule in the show cause notice did not bar the imposition of a penalty under the correct rule or section. The expression "allowed to be sold in India" in the proviso to Section 3(1) of the Act applied exclusively to sales in the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) of production by 100% Export Oriented Units (EOUs) as per the provisions of the Exim Policy. Consequently, the assessee (appellant) was held liable to pay excise duty as per Section 3(1) of the Act.

Decision: The appeal stands allowed in favor of the appellant.

Facts:

The appellants and their family were accused of forming an unlawful assembly and causing injuries in their village.

The prosecution alleged assault due to old enmity, leading to charges under various sections of the IPC.

The defense argued denial of the occurrence, presenting an alternative version where the injuries on the accused resulted from an attack on their family members.

The trial court convicted the appellants, but the High Court set aside some convictions and found them guilty under Section 308/34 IPC.

Issues:

Suppression of the genesis of the occurrence and failure to explain injuries on the accused.

Legitimacy of the appellants' claim to the right of private defence.

Adverse inference against the prosecution for not offering a plausible explanation for injuries on the accused.

Held:

The Supreme Court criticized the High Court for not drawing adverse inferences against the prosecution despite the suppression of the genesis of the occurrence and the failure to explain injuries on the accused, including the death of the father. The Court held that the appellants could legitimately claim the right to use force in defense of their parents, especially when the assault led to the death of their father. Adverse inferences must be drawn against the prosecution, and the Court, therefore, allowed the appeal, acquitted the appellants of all charges, and ordered their release from jail custody.

FACTS:

The appellants, Bijender @ Papu and another, along with three co-accused, were convicted under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including Section 325 read with Section 149, Sections 148A, 308/149, and 323/149. The Trial Court imposed a sentence, and the High Court, on appeal, enhanced the punishment for the major offence.

ISSUES:

The appellants claimed parity with three other co-accused who were granted relief on grounds of old age.

The High Court had enhanced the sentence based on the suffering of the injured Budhram with a head injury caused by a lathi.

The appellants sought a reduction in the sentence.

HELD:

The Court observed that the concession granted to the three co-accused on grounds of extreme old age justified special treatment. The enhanced sentence was due to the suffering of Budhram, the injured, with a head injury caused by a lathi. However, as no specific role was assigned to any of the five convicts in causing the head injury, the Court decided to reduce the sentence for the appellants under Section 325 read with Section 149 of the IPC from five years to three years RI. The amount of fine and conviction and sentence for other offences remained intact.( Para 4)

With the modification in the sentence for the appellants, the appeal was disposed of.( Para 5)