Penal Code (45 of 1860) , S.394, S.397— Evidence Act (1 of 1872) , S.3, S.27— Robbery with attempt to cause grievous hurt - Appreciation of evidence - Accused allegedly assaulted complainant with knife and snatched her ornaments - Prosecution failed to prove disclosure made by accused to IO leading to recovery of ornaments allegedly looted by accused from complainant - Prosecution did not lead any evidence to show that recovered articles were sealed at time of recovery or that they were kept secure in malkhana of Police Station till same were subjected to identification before Executive Magistrate - Executive Magistrate was not examined - Complainant admitted in her cross examination that she could recognise ornaments in test identification proceedings upon being pointed out by police officials - Recovery of ornaments at instance of accused and identification thereof could not be relied upon - No other evidence was led by prosecution to connect accused with crime - Conviction was set aside.

AIROnline 2022 MP 1185-ReversedAIR 2022 SC 5273-Relied on(Paras141516)

(Para 14 15 16)

(A) Constitution of India , Art.226, Art.21, Art.48A— Andhra Pradesh Forest Act (1 of 1967) , S.15, S.16— Review - Legality of order passed in - In exercise of review jurisdiction High Court reversed its earlier finding that land was reserved forest land - High Court gifted the forest land to a private person who could not prove his title - High Court erred in allowing the review by setting aside the well merited judgment in the appeal by replacing its views in all material aspects - High Court erred in considering evidence which was produced at subsequent stage by officers having no jurisdiction under Ss. 15, 16 - Costs of Rs. 5,00,000/- each imposed on State and private respondent

Civil P.C. (5 of 1908) , O.41 R.22, O.47 R.1, S.114— IA No. 3/2019 in Appeal Suit No.145/1994 dated 19.03.2021 (TEL)-Reversed(Para56)

(Para 56)

(B) Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963) , S.34, S.38— Andhra Pradesh Forest Act (1 of 1967) , S.15, S.16— Suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction - Maintainability - Land was declared as forest land but plaintiff failed to challenge those proceedings, which became final - Despite plaintiff's application for de-notification being rejected, neither State Govt. nor Forest Settlement Officer, who concluded proceedings, were made defendants in suit - Without challenging concluded proceedings under the A. P. Forest Act, Plaintiff had merely asked for declaration of title and permanent injunction - Suit was not maintainable

(Para 57 58)

(A) Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (37 of 1967) , S.20, S.38, S.43D(2)— Criminal P.C. (2 of 1974) , S.48— Offences under UAPA - Powers of sessions court - Addition of charges - Admittedly, case involved investigation by State police - Special Court is constituted by Central Govt. in exercise of power u/S. 11 (1) of NIA Act - Also, State Govt. has been given exclusive power delegated by virtue of S. 22(1) of NIA Act to constitute one or more Special Court for trial of offences under any or all enactments specified in Schedule - State had so far not exercised power conferred upon it by S. 22 of NIA Act for constituting a Special Court for trial of offences set out in Schedule to NIA Act - Therefore, Sessions Court within whose jurisdiction offence took place, would have power and jurisdiction to deal with case by virtue of S. 22 (3) of the NIA Act - Order whereby Sessions Court permitted addition of offences under UAPA was legal

National Investigation Agency Act (34 of 2008) , S.11(1), S.22(1)— AIROnline 2023 CAL 1880-Reversed(Paras 27282930)

(Para 27 28 29 30)

(B) Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (37 of 1967) , S.2(1)(d), S.20, S.38, S.43D(2)— Criminal P.C. (2 of 1974) , S.167(2)— Extension of detention period - Powers of court - U/S. 43D(2) of UAPA Court has power to extend and authorise detention of accused beyond a period of 90 days as provided u/S. 167(2) of CrPC - S. 2(1)(d) of UAPA admits to jurisdiction of a normal criminal Court and also includes Special Court constituted u/S.. 11 or 22 of NIA Act - Sessions Court thus had jurisdiction to pass order extending detention period - Jurisdictional Magistrate would also have jurisdiction to deal with the remand of the accused but for a period of 90 days only because an express order of the Sessions Court or the Special Court, as the case may be, authorising remand beyond such period would be required - To the extent the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate extended the remand of the accused beyond the period of 90 days, the proceedings were grossly illegal - However, Charge-sheet was filed not only beyond period of 90 days but also beyond a period of 180 days and accused never claimed default bail - Therefore only question left for Court to examine , if raised , would be the effect of evidence collected, if any, during this period of so called illegal remand, after 90 days had lapsed from the date of initial remand and the right of the accused to seek any other legal remedy against such illegal remand.

National Investigation Agency Act (34 of 2008) , S.11(1), S.22(1)— (Paras 33353637)

(Para 33 35 36 37)

Assam Municipal Act (15 of 1957) , S.26— Village Employment Council - Direction for approval of - Petitioner was elected as Secretary of new Council - However, after elections, no approval to new Council was granted by respondent - Court observed that objections for approval of Council, as on today no longer exists, as in inquiry report furnished by Ombudsperson, and also amended Rules of 2010, it has been provided that there shall be three elected members from each Council including traditional headman and female member to represent Council at AEC" will be replaced with "Each Council will have Programme Executive/Implementation Committee to implement scheme in village - Nothing remained for further consideration.

(Para 6 7)

Constitution of India , Art.226— Arrears of salary - Claim for - By treating petitioner as senior - He was appointed as Peon on contractual basis - He was admittedly senior to concerned persons - When all the staff were decided to be disengaged on ground of disclosure of project, his juniors could not have been allowed to continue - Order of re-engagement was passed - However, in his case, same was complied after inordinate delay of 3 years - Hence, adherence to Principle of 'last come first go' is a sine qua non in order to avoid arbitrariness in State action - He was prevented from doing work by authorities for no justified reason - Hence, principle of no work no pay cannot be applied - He was entitled to salary for the period he was kept out of employment - His right of re-engagement arose from the date of passing of order by Court - Hence, entitled to arrears of salary from the date of decision of court and not from date on which his juniors were reengaged.

(Para 7 8 9 10)