Criminal Law – Conviction – Eyewitness Testimonies – Appellant convicted under Sections 148 and 302/149 IPC – Prosecution's case based on testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2 – Material contradictions and improvements in testimonies – Cross-examination revealed inconsistencies and doubts about presence at the scene – Conviction cannot be sustained on such doubtful evidence [Paras 14-18].

Medical Evidence – Postmortem Report – Only one firearm injury found despite multiple accused allegedly firing – Injury pattern inconsistent with prosecution's narrative – Testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2 regarding multiple attacks by different accused on neck not corroborated by medical evidence [Paras 16-17].

Benefit of Doubt – Inconsistencies and Doubts – Presence of key witnesses at crime scene in doubt – Prosecution failed to examine crucial witness (Chetram) – Accused entitled to benefit of doubt due to inconsistencies in prosecution's case and lack of credible evidence [Paras 18-19].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court judgment set aside – Appellants acquitted of charges – Ordered to be released from custody unless required in any other case [Para 19].

Criminal Law – Dying Declarations – Conviction based on dying declarations – If the Court is satisfied that the dying declaration is true and voluntary, it can base its conviction on it without corroboration – Case involved two dying declarations, one recorded by a police officer and another by a Magistrate – Trial Court convicted based on Magistrate's dying declaration, while High Court acquitted based on inconsistencies – Supreme Court reinstates Trial Court conviction, upholding the reliability of Magistrate's dying declaration [Paras 1-12].

Evidentiary Value – Magistrate's Dying Declaration – Higher credibility due to impartiality and responsibility – No allegations of bias against the Magistrate – High Court's reasoning for disregarding Magistrate's declaration not accepted – Declarations made under distress have higher trustworthiness [Paras 9-11].

Medical Evidence – Consistency with Dying Declarations – Injuries on the deceased corroborated with the dying declaration made to the Magistrate – Discrepancies in police officer's recorded statement not aligning with medical evidence, supporting the Magistrate's record [Para 10].

Multiple Dying Declarations – Acceptance Criteria – No absolute rule rejecting multiple dying declarations – Courts must examine facts and circumstances to determine reliability – Consistent incriminatory statements in multiple declarations increase reliability – Conviction can be based on reliable dying declarations without corroboration [Paras 9.1.2, 10.2].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court judgment set aside – Trial Court's conviction restored – Respondents to surrender to serve life imprisonment as ordered by the Trial Court [Paras 11-12].

Constitutional Law – Legislative Competence – Manipur Parliamentary Secretary Act, 2012 (2012 Act) – The 2012 Act provided for the appointment, salary, and allowances of Parliamentary Secretaries in Manipur – The Act was challenged in the High Court of Manipur for lack of legislative competence – The 2012 Act was repealed by the Manipur Parliamentary Secretary (Appointment, Salary, and Allowances and Miscellaneous Provisions) Repealing Act, 2018 (Repealing Act 2018) – The High Court declared both the 2012 Act and the Repealing Act 2018 as unconstitutional [Paras 1-4].

Repeal and Saving Clauses – The Repealing Act 2018 contained a saving clause to protect acts done under the 2012 Act – The High Court held the saving clause invalid as the State Legislature lacked competence to enact the 2012 Act – The Supreme Court evaluated the validity of the saving clause and the legislative competence to enact such provisions [Paras 5-7, 14-24].

Judicial Review and Prospective Overruling – Bimolangshu Roy Case – The Assam Parliamentary Secretary Act, 2004, which was similar to the 2012 Act, was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Bimolangshu Roy v. State of Assam – The Manipur Legislature repealed the 2012 Act in light of the Bimolangshu Roy judgment – The Supreme Court considered whether the Repealing Act 2018 could save past actions under the 2012 Act [Paras 10-14, 24-26].

Legislative Competence and Saving Clauses – The Supreme Court held that the Manipur Legislature could not use a saving clause to revive an unconstitutional statute – Acts done under the 2012 Act required saving to avoid confusion and protect third parties' interests [Paras 24-26].

Decision – Appeals disposed of – Manipur Legislature was competent to enact the Repealing Act 2018 – Saving clause in the Repealing Act 2018 struck down – Acts, deeds, and decisions taken under the 2012 Act during the tenure of Parliamentary Secretaries are saved under Article 142 of the Constitution [Paras 25-27].

Service Law – Seniority and Promotion –Dispute over seniority between contractual employees regularized retrospectively and another employee appointed through direct recruitment – Regularization of respondents' service was cancelled by the State Government but reinstated by the High Court – Supreme Court upheld respondents' seniority based on initial appointment dates, continuity of service, and promotion in accordance with service rules – Appeal by KTDFCL partially allowed to clarify non-entitlement of arrears of salary for the period out of service [Paras 1-25].

Regularization and Reinstatement –Employees appointed on contract were regularized but later terminated – High Court quashed termination and ordered reinstatement with continuity of service but without monetary benefits for the period out of service – Supreme Court affirmed the continuity of service and upheld seniority and promotion benefits excluding salary arrears [Paras 4-6, 16, 22-24].

Promotion Criteria – Application of Service Rules –Respondents entitled to promotion based on continuity of service despite gaps in actual service due to termination – Promotional post to be filled in accordance with applicable service rules – Supreme Court affirmed High Court's decision with modifications regarding arrears of salary [Paras 17-23].

Decision: Appeals disposed of – Reinstatement with continuity of service upheld – Promotion to Chief Manager to be governed by service rules – No arrears of salary for the period out of service [Paras 24-26].

Limitation Law – Preliminary Issues – Appeal against dismissal of suit based on limitation – Suit filed under Order 37 of the CPC for recovery of a business loan – Trial court and High Court dismissed the suit as time-barred – Supreme Court holds that the issue of limitation intertwined with factual disputes should not be decided on preliminary arguments alone – The determination of limitation requires evidence, thus should be addressed along with other issues at trial [Paras 1-15].

Order XIV Rule 2 CPC – Issues of Law and Fact – Discussion on the applicability of Order XIV Rule 2 CPC – Supreme Court clarifies that issues of limitation can only be decided as a preliminary issue if based on admitted facts – When facts are disputed, the issue of limitation cannot be isolated and decided in preliminary proceedings [Paras 13-14].

Decision- Appeal allowed – Judgment of the trial Judge dated August 16, 2018, and Single Judge of the High Court dated September 4, 2019, set aside – Issue of limitation to be decided along with other issues at trial [Para 15].

Partnership Law – Bar of Section 69(2) – Appeal against High Court's decision rejecting the plaint under Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act – Suit for declaration and injunction by unregistered firm – Supreme Court reiterates that the bar under Section 69(2) applies only to suits for enforcement of rights arising from contracts entered into during the course of business – Suit challenging sale deed on grounds of fraud and seeking statutory rights is not barred – Appeal allowed, High Court judgment set aside, and trial court order restored [Paras 1-22].

Statutory and Common Law Rights – Enforceability by Unregistered Firm –

Unregistered firm’s suit not barred when enforcing statutory or common law rights – Right to seek declaration and injunction on grounds of fraud and misrepresentation does not arise from contract but from statutory and common law rights – Bar under Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act not applicable to such suits [Paras 15-20].

Decision- Appeal allowed – High Court judgment dated February 15, 2018, set aside – Trial Court order dated April 7, 2017, restored – Trial Court to proceed with the trial in accordance with law [Para 22].

Constitutional Law – Article 32 – Premature Release – Petition seeking premature release from prison based on policy at the time of conviction – Petitioner served 22.5 years without remission and almost 28 years with remission – Supreme Court directs consideration under the 2018 policy, as recent changes in 2021 policy imposing age limit are prima facie unsustainable – State Government directed to reconsider the clause prescribing a minimum age of 60 years [Paras 1-14].

Penal Code – Sections 302, 307, 323, 34 – Sentencing and Remission – Petitioner convicted under IPC Sections 302, 307, 323, and 34 – High Court appeal pending for 17 years – Supreme Court notes that the appeal pendency does not preclude State Government from considering remission – Directs State Government to consider petitioner’s case for remission under 2018 policy within three months – State Government also directed to revisit 2021 policy within four months [Paras 2-14].

Decision- Writ Petition allowed – Directions issued for consideration of petitioner’s remission within three months – State Government to re-examine the 2021 policy clause on minimum age within four months – Petitioner granted bail pending consideration [Paras 14-15].

Labour Law – Termination – Reinstatement and Compensation – Appeal against High Court's decision affirming Labour Court's order of reinstatement with back wages – Respondent's termination in breach of Sections 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act – Supreme Court finds that reinstatement and back wages not warranted for a contractual employee on fixed honorarium – Orders lump sum compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- in lieu of reinstatement and back wages [Paras 1-8].

Industrial Disputes Act – Breach of Sections 25-F and 25-G – Respondent worked as a sweeper on contractual basis at a fixed honorarium – Termination found in breach of Sections 25-F and 25-G by Labour Court – No specific allegations of unfair labour practice – Supreme Court modifies the order of reinstatement and back wages to lump sum compensation, considering nature of appointment and honorarium [Paras 2-7].

Decision- Appeal partly allowed – High Court judgment and Labour Court award modified – Appellant directed to pay lump sum compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- to respondent within four weeks – No order as to costs [Paras 8].

Tender Process – Judicial Review – Appeals challenging High Court's interference with the tender inviting authority's decision – Tender for supply of tablets – Supreme Court emphasizes that the tender inviting authority is the best judge of its requirements – Court should not interfere unless there is mala fide or perversity – High Court's decision to interpret tender terms contrary to the tender inviting authority's interpretation was erroneous – Appeals allowed, High Court judgment set aside, writ petition dismissed [Paras 1-29].

Interpretation of Tender Documents – Authority's Discretion – Tender inviting authority interpreted "similar category products" to exclude smart phones from tablets – High Court's detailed analysis of similarities between tablets and smart phones was unnecessary – Authority's interpretation aligned with categorization on GeM portal and customs classifications – Decision of authority upheld as it was neither arbitrary nor unreasonable [Paras 18-23].

Decision- Appeals allowed – High Court judgment and order dated September 27, 2021, set aside – Writ Petition (C) No. 6676 of 2021 dismissed – No order as to costs [Paras 28-29].