(A) Criminal P. C. (2 of 1974), S.439 - Prevention of Money-Laundering Act (15 of 2003), S. 45, S.19 - Bail - Prayer for - Offences of cheating, bribery and misappropriation of public funds in furtherance of criminal conspiracy - There was five-day delay in forwarding arrest order and supporting material to Adjudicating Authority - Term 'immediate transmission' u/S. 19(2), implies expeditious and simultaneous transfer rather than rigid 24-hour deadline - Compile time for voluminous records running into thousands of pages does not invalidate arrest - However, accused had undergone over 20 months of incarceration for offence carrying maximum seven-year sentence - Trial involved thousands of pages of documents and 98 witnesses, making speedy trial impossible - Criminal procedure must not become a punishment in itself - Bail was granted. (Para 9, 10, 11, 12, 13)

(A) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (31 of 2016), S.62 - Appeal to Supreme Court - Bar of limitation - NCLAT pronounced judgment on 02.08.2023 - Appellant applied for certified copy after 35 days and filed appeal 41 days after receiving copy - Period of inaction before applying for certified copy could not be excluded while computing limitation - Total delay of 76 days exceeded the statutory limit of 45 days and further condonable period of 15 days - Plea that limitation commenced from date of receipt of certified copy was rejected, as it would render the limitation period indefinite and fluctuating - Appeal was barred by limitation. (Para 15, 16)

(A) Civil P. C. (5 of 1908), O. 21, R. 58, O. 21, R. 97, O. 21, R. 101 - Execution proceedings - Decree for specific performance of Agreement to Sell - Respondent filed execution petition seeking delivery of physical possession of suit property - Wakf, represented by its Managing Trustee/Appellant filed application resisting execution of decree - Claim petition was rejected - In matter, decisive factor was not claim of DHR or appellant, but identity of property in old and contemporaneous revenue or municipal records - Documents relied on by DHR were sketchy and did not establish title, let alone defeat title in favour of appellant recognised in earlier rounds of litigation with third party and others up to Supreme Court - Burden was wrongly fastened on third party/appellant - Boundaries in sale deed of 1943 and decree schedule were distinct - In suit, identity of property was not issue - Identity of agreement of sale, as reflected in anterior documents and decree schedule, was established by DHR - DHR had no evidence to contrary - Still, on ground that appellant failed to discharge burden, claim petition was rejected - Such procedure is impermissible and illegal - Court observed that impugned judgment did not conform to well established principles of law - Accordingly, impugned judgment was set aside and matter was referred to executing court for disposal afresh in accordance with law. (Para 10.1, 12)

(A) Maharashtra Universities Act (35 of 1994), S. 79(4) - Constitution of India, Art. 226 - Order of absorption - Challenge against - Respondent had filed writ petition before High Court challenging his termination from service - High Court had set aside the termination and directed "Joint Director" to include name of respondent in list of surplus lecturers/ teachers for his absorption in any other college - Said direction fastens a direct and continuous financial and administrative liability upon State - 15 years after institution of writ petition, respondent had filed an application seeking impleadment of "Joint Director" - State, necessary party, was not impleaded in writ proceedings - High Court had erred in fastening liability for absorption upon State without its formal impleadment as a necessary party. (Para 7, 8, 9, 12, 13)

(B) Maharashtra Universities Act (35 of 1994), S. 79(4) - Constitution of India, Art. 226 - Absorption - Challenge against - G.R. Dt. 24th March, 1994 and corrigendum Dt. 21st March, 1997, provides that policy for absorption of surplus lecturers/teachers was applicable exclusively to grant-in-aid colleges - College in which respondent, employee was appointed being functioned on a "no grant-in-aid" basis - Employee did not challenge corrigendum - Without any challenge, reference to Universities Act that S. 79(4) provides mandate to absorb surplus lecturers/teachers applies to all "affiliated colleges" without distinguishing between aided and unaided institutions, rendering 1997 G.R. non-est in law cannot aid the employee - Order of High Court directing to include name of employee in list of surplus lecturers/teachers and to absorb him in any other college was set aside - Considering fact that employee was superannuated and he may not be left without any succour at twilight of his life, direction was issued to State to pay a consolidated sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- to employee. (Para 13, 18)

(A) Constitution of India, Art.226 - Tender - Rejection of technical bid - Tender for Engineering Procurement and Construction (EPC) railway project - Bid rejected for non-submission of physical original Bid Security - Bidder had paid bid Security online via e-payment gateway and uploaded digital receipt on e-procurement portal - Clause permitted bid security via Bank Guarantee, Demand Draft, Fixed Deposit, Banker's Cheque, or e-payment - While instruments like Demand Drafts or Bank Guarantees must be physically delivered to establish lien/control, e-payment directly transfers funds into respondent's bank account, giving them full control immediately - Requiring a physical original document for electronic transfer is impossibility - Rigid adherence to letter of document cannot be countenanced, especially when there is clear impossibility in compliance of same - Rejection of bid was set aside and authority was directed to award the contract to bidder - Since bid security amount was refunded following initial rejection, authorities must facilitate e-payment redeposit within stipulated time. (Para 8, 10)

(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act (26 of 1996), S. 7, S. 11 - Arbitration agreement - Veritable Party - Determination - Admittedly, asset was acquired by partnership firm, in which, appellants and R1 and R2 were partners, along with original partners - Retirement of original partners led to eventual constitution of another partnership by R1 and R2 - Subsequently with retirement of R2, firm continued as proprietorship with R1 , who inducted R3 and R4 and then retired from firm - If deed of retirement of 03.07.1995 was found to be invalid on allegations raised, then necessarily parties revert to partnership of 09.12.1985 - In which event, it would affect rights of R3 and R4, who were inducted by R1, as partners who obtained rights over 'subject asset' by that partnership deed, in which neither appellants nor R1 and R2 were partners - Dispute raised for arbitration revolved around ownership of 'subject asset'; whether it be by virtue of deed of 09.12.1985 or by deed of 04.11.2009 - Therefore respondents were veritable parties to dispute, since it would substantially affect their rights also as per partnership deed of 30.11.2009 which can be valid only if deed of retirement of appellants was valid. (Para 14, 15, 16)

(A) Constitution of India, Art. 142, Art. 133 - Clarification of judgment - Application for - Seeking clarification of common judgment - By common judgment, Union of India Through Its Secretary and Ors. v. SGT Girish Kumar and Ors. (AIROnline 2026 SC 173) ex-servicemen were held entitled to disability pension, including benefit of broad banding w.e.f. 01.01.1996 or 01.01.2006, as the case may be, along with interest at rate of 6 % p.a. - As per settled law, observations made in judgment are not to be read as provisions of a statute, nor are they to be read divorced from context of facts in which they were made - A difference in facts may make a material difference to precedential value of a decision - Considering established legal principles, common judgment passed in civil appeals cannot be construed to mean that on basis of said judgment grant of disability pension with arrears can be claimed in every case - Each claim should be decided on its own merits. (Para 7, 8)

(A) Civil P. C. (5 of 1908), O.6, R.17 Proviso - Amendment of pleadings - Due diligence - Amendment sought after commencement of trial to incorporate pleadings challenging compromise decree affecting portion of suit property - Subsequent discovery of decree, coupled with assertion that original plaintiff was not party to compromise proceedings and source of title of vendors had not been disclosed, sufficiently explained delay and satisfied requirement of due diligence - Proposed amendment having direct nexus with existing controversy and not fundamentally altering nature and character of suit, rejection of amendment application was not justified - Order rejecting amendment set aside and amendment permitted subject to costs, leaving questions of limitation and maintainability open for adjudication by trial Court. (Para 12, 13, 13.1, 13.2, 14, 18, 22, 24)

(A) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (32 of 2012), S. 6 - Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S. 3, S.11, S.45 - Sexual assault on minor - Testimony of minor - Reliability - Victim was minor girl suffering from intellectual disability, who was allegedly subjected to forcible sexual assault by accused at her residence - Mother of victim lodged FIR after delay of 10 days following alleged disclosure about incident by school teacher of victim - FIR omitted key facts, including mother of victim seeing accused near her house and her niece informing her of incident - Cousin of victim admitted she could not identify accused and mother of victim supplied his name - Medical experts were not available for cross-examination, rendering their medical findings unverified in evidence - Victim herself failed to identify accused, admitted she had forgotten his face, stated her mother provided his name and conceded she was instructed by Special Public Prosecutor prior to testifying - Prosecution further withheld teacher of victim, whose testimony was pivotal to explain FIR delay and disclosure genesis, warranting adverse inference - Accused presented credible documentary and oral evidence establishing alibi regarding a property transaction in another village - Guilt of accused was not established - Accused was entitled to acquittal. (Para 33, 38, 41, 42, 46, 47, 54, 55, 56, 57, 59, 60, 61, 62)

(A) Constitution of India, Art. 226 - Technical bid - Rejection - Ground that Bidder was not found to meet BQC criteria - BPCL invited bids prescribing specific BQC, which were required to be satisfied by every bidder - BQC, prescribed requisite past experience by a bidder with reference to annualized basic value - Under BQC, one Purchase Order/Work required annualized basic value of at least 17.58 crores, two Purchase Orders/Works required an annualized basic value of at least Rs. 14.65 crores and three Purchase Orders/Works required an annualized basic value of at least Rs. 11.72 crores - Even though as per BQC, petitioner submitted three references i.e. Purchase Orders, considering BQC Cls. 1.2, 1.4 as MSE annualized basic value as applicable, MSE threshold as per BQC stood at Rs. 11.72 crores - Out of three two other years did not meet annualized threshold Purchase Order value as per BQC, and therefore, technical bid of petitioner was rightly rejected. (Para 33, 40)

(A) Criminal P. C. (2 of 1974), S. 386, S.100(7) - Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S. 3 - Penal Code (45 of 1860), S. 409 - Criminal breach of trust - Reversal of acquittal - Challenge against - Accused, Cashier-cum-Counter Clerk with Telephone Department had collected telephone charges from customers - Non-production of original cashbook, audit report and other documents indicating collection of amounts - Trial Court had drawn an adverse inference against prosecution for its failure to produce material that was in custody of Telephone Department, complainant - Seizure of articles was not supported by witnesses - Evidence of police officer was not sufficient to prove seizure of documents from house of accused - There was no evidence to indicate any dishonest intention on part of accused that would have resulted in commission of an offence punishable under S. 409 of IPC - Trial Court had acquitted the accused - Ignoring the absence of material documents and failure of complainant to produce relevant records despite being required to do so by I.O., High Court had accepted the insufficient material to overturn acquittal of accused - High Court had erred in relying upon seizure of articles - Order of High Court reversing acquittal was erroneous - Order of trial Court acquitting the accused was restored. (Para 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25)

(A) Constitution of India, Art. 21, Art. 32, Art. 142 - Right to health - Absence of enforceable legal framework regulating unethical marketing practices by pharmaceutical companies - Petitioners highlighted the widespread prevalence of unethical marketing, promotional gifts, and financial inducements by pharmaceutical companies to healthcare professionals in the absence of an enforceable regulatory regime - Right to Health under Art. 21 encompasses protection against inflated drug prices and distorted medical prescriptions driven by commercial inducements - In exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Arts. 32 and 142, Supreme Court issued binding directions to secure effective implementation of existing guidelines and streamline the ongoing policy exercise of Union of India to frame an effective regulatory mechanism.

(A) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (31 of 2016), S.31(1), S.3(6) - Arbitration and Conciliation Act (26 of 1996), S.16 - Set-off - Counterclaim in arbitral proceedings - After approval of resolution plan - Operational creditor's claim against corporate debtor arising out of contractual dealings admitted to extent of only 0.72% under approved resolution plan - Successful resolution applicant, being erstwhile promoters of corporate debtor, initiated arbitration proceedings against operational creditor in respect of claims arising out of same contract - Operational creditor permitted to raise counterclaim solely by way of set-off against any amount found payable to successful resolution applicant, to extent of entire claim raised before Resolution Professional, without seeking affirmative relief of recovery. (Para 22, 23, 24, 25)

(A) Land Acquisition Act (1 of 1894), S. 23 - Compensation - Enhancement - Order of Reference Court enhancing compensation was challenged before High Court - High Court had stayed implementation of award provided authority deposits 50% of enhanced amount of compensation awarded by Reference Court in cash, and furnishes security for remaining 50% - High Court had further permitted claimants to receive whole amount deposited in cash, and balance was subject to final decision in pending appeals - In a similar proceedings, order was passed directing release of amount approximately 8.33% of total enhanced amount - Since special leave petitions arise out of appeals pending before High Court, no useful purpose would be served in keeping same pending - However, with a view to maintaining parity with directions issued in said order, authority was directed to deposit entire enhanced sum, as awarded by Reference Court in favour of claimants - Direction was issued to High Court to take present matter on priority basis. (Para 5, 7, 11)

(A) Criminal P. C. (2 of 1974), S. 482 - Quashing of criminal proceedings - Prayer for - On the ground that the allegations of abuse and criminal intimidation arose out of an essentially civil dispute relating to partition of ancestral property and failed to disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged offences - Held, criminal proceedings arising out of a purely civil property dispute can be quashed where the allegations, even if taken at face value, do not disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged offences - Proceedings were quashed. (Para 10, 11)

(A) Representation of the People Act (43 of 1951), S. 81, S. 86, S. 117 - Election petition - Presentation - Personal presentation by petitioner - Proof - Election petitioner asserted that he had personally presented election petition before Registry of High Court - Assertion unsupported by any contemporaneous record evidencing the act of presentation - CISF entry pass established only his entry into High Court premises and did not prove presentation of petition - Receipt evidencing security deposit under S. 117 issued in name of petitioner's counsel - CCTV footage established petitioner's presence in High Court premises but not presentation of election petition by him - Petitioner did not plead that he was present along with counsel at the time of presentation so as to constitute substantial compliance with S. 81 - High Court rightly dismissed election petition as not maintainable. (Para 19, 22)

(A) Land Acquisition Act (1 of 1894), S.54 - Land acquisition - Compensation - Determination - Land acquired for benefit of company and Reference Court enhanced compensation awarded by Land Acquisition Officer - Company challenged enhancement while landowners sought further enhancement in appeals before High Court - Disputed questions regarding possession of acquired land and its effect on compensation required determination by High Court in pending first appeals - Company, having knowledge of gorge and other encumbrances since initiation of acquisition proceedings, was not entitled to raise claim regarding reduction of usable land on that ground - Other issues left open for determination on merits by High Court. (Para 13, 15, 16, 17)

(A) Bihar Panchayat Raj Act (6 of 2006), S. 146 - Bihar Panchayat Elementary Teachers Employment and Service Condition Rules (2006), R. 8 - Appointment - Post of Trained Block Teacher - Respondent appointed on post on strength of certificate issued by one Institution which District Programme Officer found to be issued by unrecognized Institution - On two occasions when case came up for assessing legality and validity of certificates issued by various Institutes including that from where respondent obtained certificate, High Court indulged in self-assessment owing to want of assistance rendered by either party - In absence of any assistance extended by rival parties, High Court did not have cogent material to come to conclusive finding as to whether certificates issued by that Institution were fake or not - Respondent at time of his appointment was though holding certificate but same was not recognized by N.C.T.E. and Rules were invoked when respondent was appointed - Candidature of respondent could not have been considered as eligible under 2006 Rules at time of his appointment in 2007 - Order of High court directing reinstatement of respondent with all consequential benefits was quashed. (Para 3.1,3.4, 3.6, 4.2)

(A) Criminal P. C. (2 of 1974), S. 228, S. 482, S. 216 - Framing of charges - Quashing of charge and direction to frame other charge - Challenge against - Attempt to murder or attempt to culpable homicide - Spot inspection reports and recoveries made under S. 27 of Evidence Act revealed that accused had aggressively driven a heavy motor vehicle at high speed into agricultural field of complainant and repeatedly steered it towards him and his family members, ultimately hitting his mother thereafter accused along with other co-accused persons, armed with sharp-edged cutting weapons, launched an assault on complainant and his father - Record would reveal that complainant and his father had suffered deep incised wounds - If during trial, it emerged that ingredients of S. 307 of IPC were not established, trial Court was empowered under S. 216 of Cr.P.C. to alter or amend the charge accordingly to S. 308 of IPC or any other appropriate lesser offence - Interference of High Court at the threshold stage by quashing charge under S. 307 of IPC and directing trial Court to frame charge under S. 308 of IPC was erroneous. (Para 11, 12)

(A) Income-Tax Act (43 of 1961), S.143 - Capital or revenue receipt - Determination as to - Electricity subsidy - Assessee received electricity subsidy under Pondicherry Government's Power Subsidy Scheme, quantified as a specified percentage of actual electricity charges for five years from commencement of production - Subsidy was not an independent grant calculated with reference to capital invested in industrial undertaking, rather its quantum moved directly with electricity charges incurred in the course of production - Amount received by appellant was not earmarked for any capital purpose - Very basis of quantification was expenditure on power consumed in production - General objective of fostering industrial growth in the Union Territory is insufficient to confer capital character upon the receipt - Character of subsidy is determined by purpose and operative mechanism of scheme as a whole, and not merely by its nomenclature, source or timing of payment - Subsidy was rightly held to be a revenue receipt taxable under the Act - Concurrent findings of Assessing Officer, appellate authorities and High Court, were affirmed. (Para 16, 18, 21, 23, 24)

(A) Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S.68 - Succession Act (39 of 1925), S.270, S.273 - Grant of probate - Execution of Will - Testator executed Will in which plaintiff, his daughter was named as sole beneficiary but defendant, his son was totally disinherited - Defendant challenged grant of probate in favour of plaintiff raising suspicious circumstance such as shaky signature of testator, total disinheritance, no soundness of mind - However, testator was suffering from Parkinson disease explaining his shaky signature - Evidence on record indicated that relationship of defendant with testator and plaintiff was not cordial - Plaintiff was taking care of her deceased father but defendant had not done anything to support his father or to take his care - Also, testimony of attesting witness found reliable, thus late production of Will by plaintiff did not remain suspicious circumstance - Will was validly executed solely in favour of plaintiff and there were no suspicious circumstances surrounding Will - Grant of probate was proper. (Para 40, 41, 42, 44, 46)

(A) Constitution of India, Art. 226 - Recruitment - Post of Vocational Instructor (Practical) in trade of Plumber - Respondent candidate possessed Secondary School Certificate obtained through NIOS - Recruitment Rules prescribed a specific academic qualification and that words "under 10+2 system of education" formed an integral part thereof - In absence of any provision under Rules treating NIOS Secondary School Certificate as satisfying said requirement, such qualification cannot be treated as fulfilling essential academic qualification prescribed for post - Respondent was not eligible for post due to non-fulfilment of prescribed academic qualification - Order of High Court directing authorities to treat respondent as eligible for post was set aside - Appointment of respondent was also set aside - Temporary appointment of Appellant pursuant to said selection was restored, subject to applicable terms and conditions of service.

(A) Odisha Superior Judicial Service and Odisha Judicial Service Rules (2007), R.18(1)(a) - Constitution of India, Art.233, Art.309 Proviso - Appointment - Post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) - Eligibility - Bench Clerk in District Judiciary sought computation of service rendered as Bench Clerk towards minimum one year's practice at Bar required for eligibility to appear in Civil Judge (Junior Division) Examination - Practice at Bar constituted independent eligibility requirement intended to ensure exposure to adversarial proceedings, and equivalence granted to Law Clerk experience applied only under transitional scheme - Duties of Bench Clerk were substantially ministerial and distinct from those of Law Clerk involving legal research, analysis and assistance in adjudication - Service as Bench Clerk could not be equated with practice at Bar or service as Law Clerk - Thus, long service as a Bench Clerk cannot be counted towards the requirement of one year of practice, and no occasion arises for an individualized determination of her eligibility - Claim for recognition of such service towards practice requirement was rightly rejected. (Para 9, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17)

(A) Constitution of India, Art. 226 - Benefit of increment - Claim for - Appellants rendered service in Irrigation Dept.of State in excess of 30 years - By G.R.dated 17.10.1988, Govt. decided to accept recommendations made by Committee chaired by Minister of Roads and Buildings Dept. and resolved to grant pay and facilities to daily-wage skilled workers serving in different Depts. of State Govt. - One of the reliefs granted under Resolution to those daily-wage skilled workers who had completed 10 years of service or more as on 01.10.1988, was that such workers were to be considered permanent - As said workers were treated as permanent employees for purpose of pay scale and allowances, pension, retirement benefits, etc., plea before Division Bench of High Court that appellant were not entitled to grant of increment only on ground that they were daily wagers was untenable - Appellants would be entitled to benefit of increment and pension payable, taking into account said increment, in terms of modified clause (d) passed by Supreme Court in another litigation - It was incumbent upon authorities to abide by time stipulations, as per Court's/Tribunal's orders, for disbursing arrears due and payable. (Para 6, 7, 11, 12)

(A) Constitution of India, Art.226 - Writ petition - Delay and laches - Claim for arrears of deceased employee - Claim relating to arrears for period from 1989 to 1994 raised after more than three decades - Alleged representation said to have been submitted in 1996 not supported by any acknowledgment or receipt and no satisfactory explanation offered for prolonged inaction - Deceased employee retired in 2002 and died in 2015 without pursuing alleged claim - Extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Art. 226 could not be invoked for enforcement of such a stale claim after inordinate and unexplained delay - Relief declined on ground of delay and laches. (Para 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)

(A) Constitution of India, Art. 226 - Appointment - Claim for - Post of Constable - Petitioner had disclosed pendency of two criminal cases in Attestation Form - However, stand of authorities that ten criminal cases were pending against him - There was dispute regarding complete criminal antecedents of candidate - While considering suitability of a candidate for appointment to Police Force, employer is entitled to examine character and antecedents of candidate in their entirety, having regard to high degree of discipline, impeccable integrity and probity expected from a person seeking entry into such Force - Disclosure of pendency of criminal proceedings cannot, by itself, compel employer to appoint him - Direction was issued to competent authority to take a decision about claim of candidate for appointment on basis of his selection. (Para 8, 9, 10, 11, 12)

(A) Civil P. C. (5 of 1908), O. 21, R. 46, O. 21, R. 46C - Attachment of debt - Application for - Appellant had received money from respondent but no land was acquired - MOU was an unregistered document - O.21, R.46C of CPC contemplates a trial of disputed questions - Plea by appellant that there was no such clear or admitted debt due from Appellant to the Respondent and only a disputed contractual claim exists - Record indicated that appellant had not offered to lead evidence before trial Court - Having failed to do so, appellant cannot raise a plea in appeal - Order allowing application of judgment creditor for attachment of debt payable to judgment debtor was proper. (Para 6)

(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act (26 of 1996), S.34, S.28(3)( prior to 2015 Amendment ) - Arbitral award - Patent illegality - Appellant-builder entered into MOU with authority for construction of market complex - MOU required builder to construct at its own cost and recover expenditure from prospective stall buyers/lessees - Rates under Clause 6 left blank - Tribunal treated MOU as conventional works contract and awarded compensation including loss of expected profit - Tribunal failed to examine material contractual terms - Award based on presumptions in respect of advances and other losses - Loss of expected profit awarded by mechanically applying 15% of unexecuted work without evidence of rates, demand for stalls or profit margin - Body of award and operative portion contained inconsistent figures and directions - Award did not decide dispute in accordance with terms of contract and was not reasoned, intelligible or supported by evidence - Award held patently illegal and perverse - Since award was not separable and re-quantification on merits could not be undertaken by Court, entire award was set aside. (Para 41, 44, 50, 51, 52)

(B) Arbitration and Conciliation Act (26 of 1996), S.37, S.34 - Appeal - Scope of interference - Transfer of appeal to Commercial Appellate Division does not enlarge jurisdiction - Re-appreciation of evidence is impermissible - Possible view of Tribunal on expert evidence cannot be substituted by Court - But legal basis of liability and quantification may be examined on arbitral record - Court setting aside award must identify applicable head of public policy, provision of law contravened or contractual term disregarded. (Para 31, 35, 36)

(A) M. P. Vanijyik Kar Adhiniyam (5 of 1995), Sch 2, Part 4, Entry 20(ii) - Classification of Goods - Based on their form at the Time of Sale Under Taxing Statutes - Appellants challenged classification of 'GRD Powder' and 'GRD Mix' under the residuary entry, attracting 8% tax, rather than as non-alcoholic drinks and beverages under Entry 20(ii), attracting 10% tax - Taxing statutes must be strictly construed according to their plain and unambiguous language, without adding or implying anything beyond statutory provisions - Taxable event is sale or supply of goods, and their classification for taxation must be determined by their nature, physical form, and condition at time of sale, rather than their intended end use or subsequent use by consumer - Since Entry 20(ii) refers to non-alcoholic drinks and beverages, along with syrups, cordials, distilled juices, ark and essences, common characteristic of these items is that they are liquids or liquid preparations - As per rule of ejusdem generis, term 'beverages' must be interpreted in context of associated items and cannot be extended to include goods of a different physical form, such as powders or biscuits - Common parlance, functional character, or basic nature tests cannot override clear language of taxing entry to introduce concept of end use - Since 'GRD Powder' and 'GRD Mix' were sold in powder and biscuit form, respectively, they could not be classified as non-alcoholic drinks and beverages under Entry 20(ii) - Goods not covered by a specific entry must be classified under residuary entry, thereby attracting tax at the rate of 8%. (Para 15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,29)

(A) Criminal P. C. (2 of 1974), S. 482 - Quashing of charge-sheet - Prayer for - Allegation of cruelty, demand of dowry, criminal breach of trust and criminal intimidation - Neither complaint nor investigation would reveal that accused persons had caused grave injury to her life, limb or mental or physical health, nor accused persons had harassed her for any property or valuable security - Allegations did not disclose particulars of demands of dowry made by accused persons, occasions, presence of any independent witnesses, or specific overt acts constituting cruelty under S. 498A of IPC - Investigation had not revealed specifics of property entrusted to accused persons and whether at all such property was misappropriated or converted to their own use - Allegations did not reveal details as to any threats made by accused persons to complainant, her family, their property or their reputation - There was no other evidence except statement to implicate accused regarding allegations of coercion or intimidation at complainant's parental house - Only vague and omnibus allegations were made against accused persons - No material to show that accused persons had committed offences under Ss. 498A, 406, 506, 323 of IPC and Ss. 3 and 4 of DP Act - High Court had only quashed S. 323 of IPC - Order of High Court declining to quash other sections was unsustainable. (Para 20, 21, 23, 25, 26, 28)