Societies Registration Act – Power of Registrar to cancel registration – Conflict over control of a school between Chinese tannery owners in Kolkata – Registrar's authority to cancel registration questioned – Appellant claims no connection between Chinese Tannery Owners’ Association and Pei May Chinese High School – Allegations of forgery and fabrication – Civil suit and criminal proceedings initiated – Order of Registrar challenged – Difference of opinion in High Court – Reference to third Judge. [Para 3-13]

Procedural Review vs. Substantive Review – Referee Judge’s analysis – Power of Registrar to cancel order – Section 22 of Bengal General Clauses Act, 1899 – Requirement to prove suppression of material fact – Lack of information on the record – Referee Judge finds Registrar’s exercise of power incorrect – Dispute to be decided by civil court – Previous judgments not appealed against – No constructive res judicata. [Para 10-13]

Land Ownership – Chinese Tannery Owners’ Association ownership of school's land – Factor to be considered for cancellation of registration – Subject to final adjudication by civil court if necessary. Appeal dismissed [Para 16-19]

Criminal Appeal – Conviction based on a Single Witness – Appeal by Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi against his conviction and sentence – Appellant convicted based on the testimony of PW-2 Gitaben, who identified him as the person who snatched her gold chain during a mob event – Questions raised about the reliability of a single witness's testimony. [Para 1-3]

Identification of Accused – Sole Testimony of Witness – PW-2, the only witness to identify the appellant, points to him in court approximately two years after the incident – Lack of previous acquaintance and the presence of a large mob at the time of the incident call into question the reliability of the identification. [Para 6]

Testimony of Single Witness – Conviction based on a single eyewitness permitted under the law – However, the testimony must be wholly reliable and unimpeachable to stand alone as sufficient proof of guilt – Reference made to Vadivelu Thevar & Anr. v. State of Madras. [Para 7]

Quality of Evidence – Court’s duty to weigh the quality of evidence over the quantity – Classifies the testimony of witnesses into wholly reliable, wholly unreliable, and neither – Explains that in the case of 'neither,' corroboration is necessary for conviction. [Para 7-8]

Lack of Corroboration – No corroborative evidence to support the sole testimony of PW-2 – Due to the lack of corroboration and the questionable reliability of PW-2’s testimony, the conviction of the appellant deemed unsafe and unsustainable. [Para 8]

 Identification Parade – Testimony Reliability – Accused identified by two prosecution witnesses, PW-25 and PW-26, without a test identification parade for some. Court questions the reliability of these witnesses’ identification given the complexities of identifying individuals in a large mob. [Para 9-11]

Evidence – Rejection of Testimony – Court rejects the testimony of PW-25 and PW-26 in its entirety, holding that their evidence does not inspire confidence. [Para 12]

Section 149 IPC – Unlawful Assembly – Court discusses the theory of prosecution based on accused being part of a mob. Reference to past case law to emphasize that mere presence in a mob does not indicate sharing a common unlawful object. [Para 13-15]

Principle of Parity – Identical Evidence for Different Accused – When the evidence against two or more accused is identical or similar, the Court cannot convict one and acquit the other. It discusses the principle of parity and its applicability to the case. [Para 15, 17, 19]

Article 136 and Article 21 of the Constitution – Suo Motu Powers and Personal Liberty – Court highlights its suo motu powers under Article 136 in rarest of rare cases and mentions that failure to extend relief to similarly placed accused would violate Article 21 of the Constitution. [Para 16, 17]

Doctrine of Merger – Non-speaking Orders – Discusses that an order refusing special leave to appeal by a non-speaking order does not attract the doctrine of merger. Principle from case law cited to emphasize the importance of parity in sentences for co-accused. [Para 18, 19]

Decision – Acquittal and Setting Aside Convictions – Court acquits various accused based on unreliable testimony and the principle of parity. [Para 20-21]

Criminal Appeal – Conviction based on events of 7^th November 2003 – Appellant, accused no.6, convicted for various offenses – Sole eyewitness testimony of PW­2 Gitaben questioned – Test identification parade not held – Identification after two years of the incident and in a large mob raises doubts – Evidence not wholly reliable – Conviction of appellant set aside. [Para 6-8]

Parity Principle – Accused nos. 2, 3, and 4 similarly placed with accused nos. 1, 5, and 13 – All convicted based on testimony of PW­25 and PW­26 – Coordinate Bench of Supreme Court discarded their testimony – Benefit of this finding extended to accused nos. 2, 3, and 4 – Principle of parity applied. [Para 15-16]

Review of Previous Order – Accused no.2’s special leave petition summarily dismissed earlier – His case identical to acquitted accused – Doctrine of merger not applicable to non-speaking orders – Order recalled, and leave granted to accused no.2 – Benefit of acquittal extended to him. [Para 18-19]

Acquittal and Release – Appellant acquitted, bail bonds canceled – Accused nos. 3 and 4 acquitted and to be set at liberty – Accused no.2 acquitted, granted leave, and to be released unless detained for other offenses – Appeal allowed on these terms. [Para 21]

Criminal Appeal – Reversal of Acquittal – The Supreme Court examines the legality of the High Court's decision to reverse the Trial Court's acquittal of the appellant-accused under Section 302 of IPC and sentence him to life imprisonment. The appeal questions whether the reversal is valid given that the Trial Court had acquitted the appellant based on his plea of insanity. [Para 1-4]

Prosecution Case – Homicide of Grandfather – The prosecution alleges that the appellant killed his 81-year-old grandfather, Krishna Bahadur Rai, using a sharp-edged weapon. The FIR was lodged by the deceased's daughter, Reeta Rai (PW-1). [Para 2]

High Court's Rejection of Insanity Plea – The respondent argues that the High Court rightly rejected the plea of insanity, after thoroughly examining medical records and other evidence. [Para 7]

Central Issue – The Supreme Court focuses on whether the case falls within the exceptions laid down under Section 84 of IPC. [Para 8]

Eyewitness Accounts – Testimonies of Reeta Rai (PW-1) and Geeta Chettri (PW-13) confirm the appellant-accused's involvement in the crime. Medical Evidence – Autopsy reports and medical examinations corroborate the violent nature of the crime and the cause of death of the deceased [Para 10-14]

Insanity Defense – Plea of insanity raised by the appellant-accused supported by the testimony of the mother and corroborated by medical evidence – Appellant's abnormal behavior at the time of the incident and thereafter cited. [Para 15-18]

Medical Evidence – Central Referral (Manipal) Hospital records and the testimony of Dr. Netra Thapa confirm the appellant-accused had been treated for acute and transient psychotic disorder and major depressive disorder with psychotic feature – The possibility of relapse acknowledged. [Para 16, 20]

Legal Precedents – Reference to previous Supreme Court judgments outlining the standards for proving insanity under Section 84 of the IPC – Distinction made between legal insanity and medical insanity – Burden of proof lies on the accused to a level of 'reasonable doubt.' [Para 19-23]

Judgment Reversal – High Court reversed the Trial Court’s acquittal without finding perversity – Question on the legality of the High Court's approach in overturning the acquittal based on reappreciation of evidence rather than finding perversity. [Para 24-25]

Section 84 IPC – Scope and interpretation of Section 84 of the IPC which deals with the act of a person of unsound mind – Emphasis on the need for the court to adopt a remedial approach in such cases, as outlined in previous Supreme Court judgments. [Para 19, 23]

Appellate Review – Principles governing the reversal of an acquittal judgment by the Appellate Court outlined – Emphasis on the need for finding perversity rather than reappreciation of evidence for reversing an acquittal. [Para 24-26]

Civil Appeal – Restoration of Miscellaneous Civil Applications – Appellants challenge the High Court's decision allowing the restoration of a dismissed MCA – History of repeated dismissals for non-prosecution in the High Court – Appellants argue against the casual approach of the High Court in allowing the restoration. [Para 1, 6-8]

Employment and Property Rights – Respondent was an employee with the Appellants and claimed irrevocable license over property – Varied judgments through multiple courts, culminating in the Second Appeal No. 84 of 1997 where Appellants were favored. [Para 2-3]

Review Applications – History of multiple review applications filed by the Respondents and dismissed by the High Court for non-prosecution – Contention that High Court's permission was not specific, yet review applications continued to be filed. [Para 4-5, 8]

Judicial Discretion and Misuse of Legal Processes – Critique of High Court's casual and unexplained approach in allowing vexatious applications, despite a series of dismissals – Emphasis on litigants not being permitted to misuse the legal process. [Para 8]

Decision – High Court's order set aside, noting its casual and unjustified approach in allowing the restoration of MCA No. 03 of 2019 – Appeal allowed; respondents directed to deposit cost as previously decided by the High Court. [Para 9]

Criminal Appeal – Conviction under Sections 302 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code – Appellant acquitted by the Trial Court, convicted by the High Court – Eyewitness account of the appellant's involvement in a stabbing incident – Contradictions and discrepancies in witness statements – Importance of eyewitness testimony in criminal cases – Medical evidence and opinion of the autopsy surgeon – Discrepancies in the number of injuries – Corroboration of eyewitness accounts – Inconsistent position of the deceased after collapsing – Principles regarding discrepancies in witness testimonies – Ocular evidence vs. medical expert opinion – Benefit of doubt to accused co-accused persons – Dismissal of the appeal – Cancellation of bail and directive for appellant's surrender within four weeks. [Para 1-

Special Leave Petition – Pre-arrest Bail – Petitioner, a practicing lawyer, seeks pre-arrest bail against FIR No. 19 of 2022 lodged by his wife – Both sides adequately represented by counsel – Special Leave Petition heard and disposed of. [Para 1, 6] 

Dowry Articles – Contested Claims – Respondent No. 2 alleges the dowry articles have not been returned, a claim contested by the petitioner. [Para 3] 

Cooperation with Investigation – The State confirms that the petitioner has joined the investigation – The Court mandates continued cooperation as a condition for bail. [Para 4, 5] 

Bail Conditions – Pre-arrest bail granted under the condition of furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 50,000 – Petitioner must continue cooperating with the investigation and must not misuse the liberty granted. [Para 5] 

Family Circumstances – The Court takes into consideration the family circumstances involving three children (one adopted) in its decision to grant pre-arrest bail. [Para 5] 

Civil Appeal – Termination from service of probationary Judicial Officer – Lack of confirmation in service – Initiation of departmental inquiries – High Court’s decision not to proceed with inquiries and discharge the appellant – No provision for deemed confirmation – Dismissal of Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution upheld. [Para 1-4]

Civil Appeal – Suit for Specific Performance – Limitation – Agreement to sell land – Payment of advance amount – Refusal by the seller to perform the contract – Notice of refusal – Commencement of limitation period – Second part of Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 – Whether notice of refusal given – Suit filed beyond limitation period – Suit for specific performance barred by limitation – Decree set aside. [Para 20-27]

Civil Procedure – Constructive Res Judicata – Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Whether principles of constructive res judicata or Order II Rule 2 applicable – Not decided – Suit barred by limitation – Decision based on limitation – Setting aside of decree for specific performance. [Para 19]

Contract Act – Promise to extend time for performance – Section 63 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 – Refusal and forbearance – Opposites – Refusal to perform contract – Notice of refusal – Commencement of limitation period – Suit filed beyond limitation period – Suit for specific performance barred by limitation – Decree set aside. [Para 24]

Civil Procedure – Specific Performance – Allotment of Trust property eastwards – Bearing on performance of contract – No bearing – Suit for specific performance not conditional on disposal of partition suit – Suit for specific performance not barred. [Para 25-26]

Constitution of India – Article 142 – Exercise of powers to do substantial justice – Settlement between parties – Direction for payment of Rs. 50,00,000 as settlement amount – Directions for payment of interest in case of non-compliance – Exercise of power under Article 142. Appeal Allowed.  [Para 29]