Compassionate Appointment Eligibility - Supreme Court reverses High Court's direction for reassessment of the respondent's rejection for compassionate appointment in police service, despite acquittals in criminal cases - Acquittal due to compromise or lack of evidence does not conclusively prove suitability for police service - The competent authority's decision to reject based on criminal antecedents upheld, stressing the importance of integrity and clean character for recruitment into police services - Supreme Court emphasizes that even acquitted or discharged individuals might not be suitable if the nature of acquittal raises doubts about character - Reliance placed on several precedents affirming the discretionary power of the competent authorities in matters of recruitment, especially concerning candidates with previous criminal involvements - Held, the dismissal of the respondent's application for compassionate appointment was justified [Paras 3-16].

Definition of 'owner' in MV Act, 1988 discussed in relation to liability in motor accidents - Focus on whether a financier (bank), as part of a hypothecation agreement, could be deemed 'owner' for responsibilities including insurance and third-party risks. [Paras 8-26]

High Court's interpretation linking ownership for insurance purposes under the hypothecation agreement challenged - Supreme Court clarifies that mere financing under hypothecation does not transfer possession or control hence not fitting the statutory definition of 'owner' under MV Act, 1988. [Paras 12, 24-25]

The case emphasized the registered owner's liability when they retain control or when they fail to fulfill the mandatory insurance requirement as stipulated by MV Act. It was found that HDFC Bank as a financier wasn't in possession or control of the vehicle at the time of the accident. [Paras 23-26]

Liability to pay compensation lies with the actual controller of the vehicle at the time of the accident, not necessarily with the financier who lacks possession or control. [Para 26]

Decision: Appeals allowed - The financier (bank) was not in possession or control of the vehicle at the time of the accident and hence, is not considered 'owner' under MV Act, 1988, for the purpose of third-party risks and insurance.

Liability to satisfy the compensation awarded by the tribunal lies with the actual owner who was in control and possession of the vehicle at the time of the accident.

No order as to costs.

Kidnapping and Murder Conviction - Appellants convicted under Sections 302, 34, 364-A, 201, 120-B IPC for their involvement in kidnapping and subsequent murder of victims; subsequent concealment of bodies and evidence highlighted the planned conspiracy - Evidence substantiated by recoveries made at accused's disclosure, affirming high court's sentence of life imprisonment - [Paras 1-4]

Compensation to Victims - State directed to pay Rs. 10 lakhs as interim compensation to the victims' families under Section 357A of the CrPC, addressing inadequacies in victim support through criminal proceedings; significant in light of Section 357A's intent to provide substantial state support to victims irrespective of case outcome - [Para 10-12]

Burden of Proof and Section 106 of Evidence Act - Invoked requiring accused to explain circumstances exclusively within their knowledge; failure to adequately explain considered adverse, supporting convictions based on circumstantial evidence and statutory provisions - [Para 8-9]

Appeal Outcome - Supreme Court dismisses appeal, orders immediate custody of appellants, upholds conviction and life sentences, emphasizes comprehensive state responsibility for victim compensation beyond criminal conviction results - [Para 9, 12-16]

Referred Cases:

Abdul Rashid Vs. State of Odisha, (2014) 1 ILR (Ori) 202

Laxmi Vs. Union of India and Others, (2013) 9 SCALE 291 : (2014) 4 SCC 427

Delhi Domestic Working Women's Forum Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, (1994) 3 Crimes 597 : (1994) 7 JT 183 : (1994) 4 SCALE 608 : (1995) 1 SCC 14 : (1994) 4 SCR 528 Supp

In Re: Indian Woman says gang-raped on orders of Village Court published in Business and Financial News, AIR 2014 SC 2816 : (2014) AIRSCW 3483 : (2014) CriLJ 3135 : (2014) 5 JT 118 : (2014) 4 SCALE 237 : (2014) 4 SCC 786

Mohd. Haroon and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, (2014) AIRSCW 1925 : (2014) CriLJ 2170 : (2014) 4 JT 361 : (2014) 4 SCALE 86

Savitri Rawat Vs. Govind Singh Rawat, AIR 1986 SC 984 : (1986) CriLJ 41 : (1985) 2 SCALE 697 : (1985) 4 SCC 337 : (1985) 3 SCR 615 Supp

The Chairman, Railway Board and Others Vs. Mrs. Chandrima Das and Others, AIR 2000 SC 988 : (2000) CriLJ 1473 : (2000) 1 JT 426 : (2000) 1 SCALE 279 : (2000) 2 SCC 465 : (2000) 1 SCR 480 : (2000) AIRSCW 649 : (2000) 1 Supreme 265

Union Carbide Corporation Vs. Union of India and others, AIR 1990 SC 273 : (1989) 1 JT 296 : (1989) 2 SCALE 768 : (1989) 1 SCC 674 : (1989) 1 SCR 730 : (1989) 1 UJ 589

Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee Vs. State of Bihar and Others, (1991) ACJ 1034 : (1991) 3 SCC 482

Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 4 ABR 648 : (2013) 9 AD 294 : AIR 2013 SC 2454 : (2013) CriLJ 3044 : (2013) 7 JT 26 : (2013) 2 RCR(Criminal) 1036 : (2013) 6 SCALE 778 : (2013) 6 SCC 770

State of Gujarat and Another Vs. Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat, AIR 1998 SC 3164 : (1998) CriLJ 4561 : (1998) 4 Crimes 12 : (1998) 6 JT 530 : (1998) 5 SCALE 410 : (1998) 7 SCC 392 : (1998) 2 SCR 31 Supp : (1999) 1 UJ 714 : (1998) AIRSCW 3075 : (1998) 7 Supreme 511

Smt. Nilabati Behera alieas Lalita Behera Vs. State of Orissa and others, (1993) ACJ 787 : AIR 1993 SC 1960 : (1993) 76 CLT 98 : (1993) CriLJ 2899 : (1993) 2 JT 503 : (1993) 2 SCALE 309 : (1993) 2 SCC 746 : (1993) 2 SCR 581

State of Rajasthan Vs. Jaggu Ram, AIR 2008 SC 982 : (2008) CriLJ 1039 : (2008) 1 DMC 207 : (2008) 1 JT 199 : (2008) 1 SCALE 22 : (2008) 12 SCC 51 : (2008) AIRSCW 521 : (2008) 1 Supreme 180

Shail Kumari Devi and Another Vs. Krishan Bhagwan Pathak @ Kishun B. Pathak, AIR 2008 SC 3006 : (2008) CriLJ 3881 : (2008) 2 DMC 363 : (2008) 8 JT 227 : (2008) 10 SCALE 602 : (2008) 9 SCC 632 : (2008) AIRSCW 5063

Kewal Pati (Smt) Vs. State of U.P. and Others, (1995) ACJ 859 : (1995) CriLJ 2920 : (1995) 2 Crimes 304 : (1995) 2 SCALE 729 : (1995) 3 SCC 600 : (1995) 3 SCR 207 : (1995) 2 UJ 291

Criminal Law – Murder conviction – Appellant convicted under Section 302 IPC for wife’s murder upheld by High Court – Incident stemmed from sudden quarrel without premeditation – Supreme Court reviewed and applied Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, altering conviction to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II IPC - Appellant to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment – Sentences for Section 498A remain unaltered [Paras 1-17]

Sudden Quarrel – Interpretation – Supreme Court emphasized that sudden quarrel occurred without premeditation, resulting in heated exchange leading to the tragic act – Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC applicable when there is no undue advantage or cruelty involved in the act – Altered to culpable homicide [Paras 5-15]

Sentencing – Alteration in conviction due to Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC – No premeditated motive for murder found – Heat of passion and immediate context of quarrel considered for lighter sentencing under Section 304 Part II instead of Section 302 IPC [Paras 14-16]

Referred Cases:

Sukhbir Singh Vs. State of Haryana, AIR 2002 SC 1168

Ghapoo Yadav and Others Vs. State of M.P., AIR 2003 SC 1620

Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2013 SC 2454

Surinder Kumar Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh, AIR 1989 SC 1094

Mahesh Vs. State of M.P., AIR 1996 SC 3513

Civil Service – Promotion – Appellant Inspector's exclusion from Combined Gradation List despite Tribunal's orders for inclusion – Directed by Tribunal in 1998 for timely preparation of Combined Gradation List and consideration for promotion to Deputy Superintendent of Police – High Court upheld Tribunal's later decision which dismissed further claims by appellant post-retirement, citing lack of actionable grievance due to procedural compliance over substantive rights – Supreme Court reversed, noting continued non-compliance with Tribunal's order affected appellant's rights, resulting in his juniors being promoted over him - Held appellant entitled to notional promotion for pension benefits from date junior was promoted till his retirement. [Paras 3, 4, 6-10]

Administrative Law – Judicial Review – High Court's refusal to engage with substantive injustice due to procedural fulfilment criticized – Supreme Court emphasizes the necessity of actual compliance with judicial directions ensuring fair treatment in administrative promotions – Held procedural adherence does not negate the need to address substantive rights violations in administrative decisions. [Para 9]

Retirement Benefits – Adjusted Promotions – Appellant granted notional promotion to Deputy Superintendent of Police effective from date junior was promoted, impacting pension calculations – Supreme Court mandates recalculation of retirement benefits to reflect higher post from effective date till appellant's retirement. [Para 10]

The Supreme Court's decision underscores the importance of both procedural and substantive justice in administrative actions affecting personnel promotions and emphasizes the need to rectify rights violations even if they emerge after an employee's retirement, ensuring fair recalibration of benefits accrued from rightful promotions.

Referred Cases:

None

Urban Land Regulation - Dispute over possession and restoration of land post-repeal of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 - Supreme Court upholds the claim of the State that physical possession was taken on 7th December 1991, and the repeal does not affect the vesting or the validity of the prior acts under the repealed Act - High Court's order for restoration of possession to respondents reversed, possession remains with the State and allotted parties - The absence of a notice under Section 10(5) deemed a procedural irregularity insufficient to affect the validity of possession already taken [Paras 2-18].

The Supreme Court held that even if possession was taken without notice, it does not negate the act of possession that occurred, thus not affecting the vested interests under the repealed Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act - The legitimacy of possession gained over time cannot be challenged on procedural grounds related to the notice of possession alone - Dismissal of challenges to the validity of possession by the High Court and affirmation of the government's action to allocate the land to third parties upheld the act of possession [Paras 7-18].

Referred Cases:

State of Gujarat and Another Vs. Gyanaba Dilavarsinh Jadega, (2012) 4 SCALE 580

State of U.P. Vs. Hari Ram, (2013) 6 AD 266: AIR 2013 SC 1793: (2013) 4 JT 275: (2013) 2 RCR(Civil) 499: (2013) 3 SCALE 348: (2013) 4 SCC 280: (2013) AIRSCW 1683

Land Transfer and Protection under Statute – Plaintiffs, being landless poor, purchased assigned land prior to the enactment of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977, which protects such transactions under Section 3(5) – High Court upheld the transaction as protected, reversing trial court's decision – Supreme Court affirms High Court's ruling, noting lack of contradicting evidence from Government – Transactions involving plaintiffs and their predecessors deemed valid and protected under the Act. [Paras 1-15]

Evidence and Burden of Proof – High Court found plaintiffs proved ownership through Exhibit A1 and A2 and continuous possession – Defendants failed to produce evidence supporting their claim of violation of assignment conditions – High Court's findings on evidence upheld by Supreme Court. [Paras 6-14]

Legal Interpretation – Supreme Court discusses the scope and application of Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977, emphasizing protection granted to land transfers made in good faith to landless poor before the Act's commencement – Importance of Sub-section (5) in protecting bona fide transactions highlighted. [Para 10-11, 13]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court judgment upheld, recognizing the validity of the land transactions under the specific protection of Section 3(5) of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977.

Referred Cases:

None

Acquisition Procedure and Legal Rights - Appellant challenges legality of land acquisition process; alleges non-compliance with procedural requirements for taking possession and providing compensation, resulting in lapse of proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act - Court examines whether actual physical possession was taken or compensation paid five years post-award - Held, proceedings lapsed due to non-compliance, acquisition notifications quashed [Paras 15-22].

Interpretation of Possession - Court rejects respondent's claims of possession, clarifies need for actual physical possession rather than symbolic; finds that actions of Land Acquisition Collector did not constitute valid possession taking, especially in light of interim status quo orders - Relies on precedents emphasizing actual possession [Paras 18-19].

Referred Cases:

Raghbir Singh Sehrawat Vs. State of Haryana and Others, AIR 2012 SC 468

Prahlad Singh and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, (2011) 5 SCC 386

Bimla Devi Vs. State of Haryana, (2014) 6 SCC 583

Satendra Prasad Jain and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others, AIR 1993 SC 2517

Sita Ram Bhandar Society, New Delhi Vs. Lt. Governor, Govt. of N.C.T. Delhi and Others, AIR 2010 SC 1143

Pune Municipal Corporation and Another Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Others, AIR 2014 SC 982

Bharat Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and Another, (2014) 6 SCC 586

Punjab Produce and Trading Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal II, Calcutta, AIR 1971 SC 2471

Union of India (UOI) and Others Vs. Shiv Raj and Others, AIR 2014 SC 2242

Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2014) 10 SCALE 388

Senjeevanagar Medical and Health Employees Co-operative Housing Society Vs. Mohd. Abdul Wahab and Others, AIR 1996 SC 3360

Legal Education - Enrollment as Advocate - Appellant, holder of Licentiate of the Court of Examiners in Homoeopathy Medicines (LCEH), sought enrollment as an advocate after completing LL.B. - Bar Council of India refused enrollment stating LCEH not equivalent to a graduation degree - Issue centered on the jurisdiction and authority of Bar Council of India to decide equivalence of qualifications for legal practice - High Court dismissed appellant's writ petition, affirming Bar Council's decision - Supreme Court upheld High Court's judgment, recognizing Bar Council of India’s authority under Advocates Act to set educational standards for legal profession - Appellant's lack of recognized graduate degree, as per legal standards, found justifiably barring her from enrolling as an advocate. [Paras 2-32]

Decision: Appeal dismissed - Bar Council of India's refusal to enroll the appellant as an advocate upheld due to non-equivalence of LCEH qualification to a graduate degree as required for legal practice.

Referred Cases:

Aparna Basu Mallick v. Bar Council of India and Others, AIR 1983 Cal 461 : 87 CWN 936

Bar Council of India and another v. Aparna Basu Mallick and others, AIR 1994 SC 1334 : (1994) 1 JT 141 : (1994) 1 SCALE 194 : (1994) 2 SCC 102 : (1994) 1 UJ 257

Baldev Raj Sharma v. Bar Council of India and Others, AIR 1989 SC 1541 : (1989) 2 JT 251 : (1989) 1 SCALE 1148 : (1989) 2 SCC 91 Supp : (1989) 2 SCR 862 : (1989) 2 UJ 206