Penal Code – Possession of Stolen Property – Conviction – Appeal challenging conviction under Section 412 IPC for possessing stolen property from dacoity – Conviction under Section 412 IPC requires knowledge that property was acquired through dacoity or that the seller belonged to a gang of dacoits – Evidence established appellant's reasonable belief that silver chips were stolen but not that they were acquired through dacoity or sold by a known dacoit – Conviction under Section 411 IPC upheld, but conviction under Section 412 IPC set aside – Sentence reduced to one year rigorous imprisonment and fine [Paras 1-17].

Criminal Law – Knowledge vs. Reasonable Belief – Prosecution failed to prove appellant knew or had reason to believe silver chips were obtained through dacoity – Evidence only supported conviction under Section 411 IPC, which deals with receiving stolen property – Distinction between knowledge of theft and knowledge of theft by dacoity crucial for Section 412 IPC [Paras 11-15].

Decision:

Appeal partly allowed – Conviction under Section 412 IPC set aside – Conviction under Section 411 IPC maintained – Sentence reduced to one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- with an additional one-month simple imprisonment in case of default [Paras 16-17].

Land Acquisition – Enhancement of Compensation – Appeals concern the jurisdiction of the High Court to enhance compensation under the amended provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, by entertaining applications under Sections 151 and 152 of the CPC – High Court's orders granting enhanced solatium and interest were held to be without jurisdiction and thus null and void – Execution petitions based on such orders were dismissed [Paras 1-23].

Legal Precedent – Jurisdiction and Finality – Awards and decrees under the Land Acquisition Act that have attained finality cannot be amended to enhance compensation benefits based on subsequent legislative amendments by filing applications under Sections 151 and 152 of the CPC – High Court lacks jurisdiction to independently pass awards for enhanced compensation under amended provisions if the original awards have become final [Paras 18-23].

Decision:

Appeals allowed – Orders of the High Court and Additional District Judge set aside – Execution petitions for enhanced compensation based on the amended Land Acquisition Act dismissed – Parties to bear their own costs [Paras 23-25].

Service Law – Suspension – Acquittal – Acquittal of an employee does not automatically entitle him to reinstatement or full back wages – Disciplinary authority retains the power to hold a departmental enquiry even after criminal trial acquittal – Entitlement to salary and other allowances upon reinstatement must be examined at various stages/points of time [Paras 1-16].

Judicial Review – Suspension and Disciplinary Proceedings – Supreme Court held that suspension during the period of criminal trial was justified – Continued suspension after acquittal by the trial court but pending appeal was also justified – Suspension during the period of departmental enquiry after dismissal of the criminal appeal was unjustified – Directed reinstatement with full pay and allowances from the date of dismissal of the appeal [Paras 32-46].

Decision:

Appeal partly allowed – Suspension during criminal trial and pending appeal justified – Suspension during departmental enquiry unjustified – Petitioner entitled to full pay and allowances from the date of dismissal of the criminal appeal by the Delhi High Court – Entitled to notional promotion from the date when a junior was promoted – High Court directed to consider and implement promotion within three months – All consequential benefits to be paid with 6% interest from the date of dismissal of the appeal – Awarded Rs. 25,000/- costs to the petitioner [Paras 46-47].

Patents – Revocation of Patent – Appeal against revocation order by Assistant Controller – Revocation challenged on grounds of procedural unfairness due to non-disclosure of Opposition Board's recommendation to the parties – Supreme Court found violation of principles of natural justice as report was not shared – Matter remanded to Controller for fresh consideration after providing report to parties [Paras 1-14].

Opposition Proceedings – Natural Justice – Requirement for Opposition Board's recommendation to be shared with parties – Controller’s reliance on undisclosed report violates natural justice – Report crucial for parties to effectively contest revocation – Order set aside due to procedural lapse [Paras 10-12].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Revocation order by Controller set aside – Case remanded for fresh hearing by Controller with direction to share Opposition Board’s report with parties – High Court orders set aside – Controller to decide afresh within one month [Paras 13-14].

Service Law – Seniority – Direct Recruits vs. Promotees – The dispute involves the inter se seniority of direct recruits and promotees to the post of Income Tax Inspectors. The seniority of direct recruits must be determined based on the year of recruitment initiation, not the actual date of appointment – Appeals by direct recruits and promotees contesting the Central Administrative Tribunal's decision on seniority – High Court upheld the CAT's decision – Supreme Court examined the principles of "quota" and "rota" and concluded that seniority should be assigned from the year in which the recruitment process was initiated [Paras 1-25].

Administrative Law – Recruitment and Promotion – Examined the DoPT's Office Memoranda dated 7.2.1986 and 3.7.1986, which lay down the principles for determining seniority – Direct recruits to be assigned seniority from the year of the recruitment process initiation, avoiding unfair advantages to promotees with long service – Clarified that delays in recruitment processes should not penalize recruits – Seniority lists must adhere to these principles, and deviations leading to unfair seniority advantages should be corrected [Paras 18-25].

Judicial Review – Scope and Limits – Supreme Court emphasized that clarifications and subsequent instructions from the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) must align with the original principles of seniority determination – Any contradictory instructions or orders lacking legal sanction must be disregarded – Courts must ensure administrative fairness and compliance with established principles [Paras 24-25].

Decision:

Appeals allowed – Seniority lists quashed and directed to be redrafted according to the principles established in the Office Memoranda dated 7.2.1986 and 3.7.1986 – Emphasized that direct recruits should not be disadvantaged due to administrative delays in recruitment processes – Correct interpretation and application of seniority principles directed [Paras 25-26].

Excise Classification – Soft Serve – Issue regarding classification of 'soft serve' served at McDonald's – Revenue contended it should be classified as "ice-cream" under heading 21.05, attracting 16% duty – Assessee argued it should be classified under heading 04.04 or 2108.91, with lower or nil duty – Tribunal classified it under sub-heading 2108.91 – Supreme Court applied common parlance test, held 'soft serve' is commercially understood as "ice-cream" – Rejected reliance on technical definitions from PFA Act and other sources – Classified 'soft serve' under heading 21.05 [Paras 1-47].

Common Parlance Test – Terms in taxing statutes should be construed according to their popular meaning or the meaning attached by those dealing with the product – 'Soft serve' commonly understood by consumers as "ice-cream" – Marketing terminology does not alter the common understanding of the product [Paras 18-34].

Decision:

Appeals allowed – Tribunal's orders set aside – 'Soft serve' classified as "ice-cream" under heading 21.05 – Assessee's argument for exemption under Notification No. 16/2003-CE (NT) rejected as it was not argued before the Tribunal and did not apply in this case [Paras 48-50].

Penal Code – Appreciation of Evidence – Related and Interested Witness – The court should examine evidence of a related and interested witness with greater care and caution than that of a disinterested and unrelated witness – This is a rule of prudence, not law – A related or interested witness may not be hostile, but if he is, his evidence must be scrutinized carefully and all infirmities considered – In this case, the wife of the deceased, being related to the victim, would be interested in seeing the accused punished [Paras 1-42].

Decision:

Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence of the appellants upheld for committing the murder of Veerappan and Marudayi – The court found no reason to disbelieve the testimony of the related and interested witness, PW-5 Srinivasan, despite his enmity with the appellants [Para 43].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Dishonour of Cheque – Signature Mismatch – High Court quashed 40 complaints under Section 138, concluding that dishonour due to signature mismatch does not attract penal provisions of Section 138 – Supreme Court reversed this decision, holding that dishonour due to signature mismatch does fall within the purview of Section 138 – Court emphasized that the provision aims to ensure credibility and reliability of cheques in financial transactions, and a strict interpretation limiting Section 138 to only two contingencies would defeat legislative intent [Paras 1-19].

Legal Interpretation – Purpose and Object – Court reiterated that while interpreting penal provisions with remedial objectives, interpretation should uphold the legislative intent – Legislative intent behind Section 138 is to deter and penalize dishonesty in financial transactions, thus dishonour due to signature mismatch, akin to insufficient funds or exceeding arrangement, must be covered under Section 138 [Paras 7-19].

Decision:

Appeals allowed – High Court's orders quashing the complaints set aside – Complaints to proceed under Section 138 – Reiterated the presumption under Section 139 that the cheque was issued for a valid consideration unless rebutted by the accused during trial [Para 19].

Reservation in Services – Merit and Choice – Reserved category candidates more meritorious than open category candidates – Entitled to service/cadre/post of their choice within reserved category – Cannot be forced to accept lesser positions – Ensuring no disadvantage due to higher merit [Paras 1-20].

Equality – Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution – Literal application of rule leading to discrimination – More meritorious candidates of reserved category deserve higher preference within their quota – Ensuring fair treatment and non-discrimination based on merit [Paras 11-12].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Reserved category candidates securing higher merit allowed to opt for preferred service/cadre/post – Cannot be counted against open category posts – Ensures adherence to Articles 14 and 16 [Paras 19-20].