Criminal Appeal - Quashing of Criminal Complaints - Allegations of dishonored cheques and liability under various sections of NI Act and IPC - Respondent claimed retirement from partnership firm and sought quashing of proceedings - High Court quashed summoning order and complaints - Appeal against High Court's order - Whether the order quashing summoning order and complaints against respondent justified - Appellate Court's findings.

Personal Liability - Liability of partners in a partnership firm for dishonored cheques - Relevance of evidence and timing of retirement announcement - Courts must evaluate evidence presented during the trial - Retirement Deed produced after complaints were filed cannot be conclusive proof for quashing proceedings - Partner's involvement in business affairs must be assessed in context.

Quashing of Proceedings - Exercise of powers under Section 482 of CrPC for quashing proceedings - Courts can quash proceedings if unimpeachable and incontrovertible evidence shows lack of involvement in the alleged offense - Evidence regarding partner's connection with issuance of cheques must be thoroughly examined.

Decision - High Court's quashing of summoning order and complaints against respondent set aside - Complaints revived for trial by the concerned court - Appeals allowed.

(Para No. 9, 10, 15 – 20)

Criminal Appeal - Conviction and Sentence - Challenge to judgment of the High Court confirming the appellant's conviction and sentence of death - The appellant was convicted for offences under Sections 302, 436, and 326-A of the IPC - Prosecution's case based on circumstantial evidence and dying declarations - Appellant's plea of innocence and false implication - Motive for the crime based on family disputes - Courts below held appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt - Appeal dismissed by the High Court - Issues of circumstantial evidence, dying declarations, and credibility of witnesses raised.

Dying Declarations – Assessment of Evidence – Discrepancies between Dying Declarations and Oral Witnesses – Distrust in the veracity of dying declarations due to inconsistencies with oral witness accounts – Examination of circumstances surrounding the incident and statements – Weight given to dying declarations and oral evidence – Caution against blind reliance on dying declarations – Absence of cross-examination in dying declarations – Need for careful consideration in evaluating dying declarations. [Para 37-53]

Admissibility of Dying Declarations – Historical and Literary Basis – Principle of Necessity – Presumption of Truthfulness – Shakespearean Origin – Importance of Dying Person's Veracity – Sanctity of Declarations Made in Extreme Circumstances – Maxims "nemo moriturus praesumitur mentire" and "a man will not meet his Maker with a lie in his mouth" – Dispensation of Oath and Cross-Examination – Caution against Tutoring or Prompting. [Para 32-35]

Reliability of Dying Declarations – Weight of Evidence – Sole Basis for Conviction – Safeguarding Against Unreliable Declarations – Evaluation Criteria – Fit State of Mind of Deceased – Clarity of Observation and Identification – Voluntariness – Role of Medical Opinion – Prudence of Corroboration – Circumstantial Considerations. [Para 39-49]

Supreme Court articulated an array of factors that should be taken into account while evaluating the weight and credibility of a dying declaration. These factors are elucidated below:

(i) Whether the person making the statement was in expectation of death?

(ii) Whether the dying declaration was made at the earliest opportunity? “Rule of First Opportunity”

(iii) Whether there is any reasonable suspicion to believe the dying declaration was put in the mouth of the dying person?

(iv) Whether the dying declaration was a product of prompting, tutoring or leading at the instance of police or any interested party? 

(v) Whether the statement was not recorded properly?

(vi) Whether the dying declarant had opportunity to clearly observe the incident?

(vii)Whether the dying declaration has been consistent throughout?

(viii) Whether the dying declaration in itself is a manifestation / fiction of the dying person’s imagination of what he thinks transpired?

(ix) Whether the dying declaration was itself voluntary?

(x) In case of multiple dying declarations, whether, the first one inspires truth and consistent with the other dying declaration?

(xi) Whether, as per the injuries, it would have been impossible for the deceased to make a dying declaration?   (Para No. 62)

Acquittal - Safeguards and Precautions in Admitting Dying Declarations – Principles of Reliability and Truthfulness – Distinction between "Proof beyond Reasonable Doubt" and "Suspicion" – Caution against Conviction based solely on Dying Declaration – Duty of Courts to Evaluate Credibility – Necessity of Clear, Cogent, and Unimpeachable Evidence – Benefit of Doubt in Favor of Accused. Appeal Allowed. [Para 65-69]

Tender Conditions - Additional Performance Security - Compliance with Clause 2.22.0 (ix) - Interpretation of a mandatory condition for submission of additional performance security within a specified timeframe - Effect of bank holidays and employee strikes - Appellant's compliance with the condition by submitting security on the third working day - No breach of Clause 2.22.0 (ix) - Acceptance of additional performance security justified. [Para 13-19]

Interpretation of Tender Documents - Employer's Understanding - Deference to employer's interpretation of tender documents - Absence of mala fide or perversity - Tender authority's acceptance of security based on understanding of ground realities and necessities - No arbitrariness or irrationality - Court's role in interpreting tender documents. [Para 25-26]

Legal Maxim - Lex non cogit ad impossibilia - Principle that the law does not compel the performance of impossible tasks - Application to tender conditions and compliance - Appellant's reasonable efforts to comply with security submission timeframe - Acceptance of security in due compliance with law. [Para 19-20]

Judicial Review of Tender Matters - Standards for interference - Court's caution against interference in tender matters - Consideration of mala fide, arbitrariness, irrationality, and impact on public interest - Guiding principles for judicial review in tender and contractual issues. [Para 33]

Setting aside of the High Court's order - Direction to dismiss Writ Petition challenging the acceptance of appellant's tender and issuance of work order - Appellant's compliance with tender conditions upheld - Appeal allowed. [Para 34]

Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 – Compensation Claim – Death of Driver During Employment – Appellants, legal heirs of deceased Sumer Singh, challenged High Court's reversal of Workmen's Compensation Commissioner's award of ₹3,26,140 with 12% p.a. interest under the 1923 Act. Supreme Court found merit in the appeal, reinstating the Commissioner's award. [Para 1, 14]

Employment – Causal Connection – Death During Duty – Deceased was employed as a driver and died while on a long-distance assignment. Supreme Court found a causal connection between the death and the nature of employment, relying on precedents like Param Pal Singh's case. [Para 9, 10]

Insurance – Liability of Insurance Company – Respondents argued that the death did not arise out of employment and thus was not covered under the insurance policy. Supreme Court rejected this argument, noting that an additional premium was paid to cover such eventualities under the 1923 Act. [Para 4, 7]

Decision – Restoration of Commissioner's Award – Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's decision and restoring the Commissioner's award of compensation with no order as to costs. [Para 14]

Cancellation of Bail – Rape - appellant registered an FIR alleging gang rape, threat, and extortion against the respondents - gang rape of a minor girl, who was also threatened by the accused -appeals arising from the High Court's order granting bail to the first respondent under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. – aggrieved appellant preferred appeals against bail order by special leave. [Para 2, 3, 4, 8]

Principles for Grant of Bail – The Court delves into the principles governing the grant of bail, emphasizing that factors like the nature of accusations, punishment severity, and credibility of the prosecution are key elements to consider. [Para 12-17]

Cancellation of Bail – The Court stresses that cancelling bail necessitates compelling circumstances. It underscores the societal impact and the role of the Superior Court in certain situations. [Para 18]

Analysis of High Court's Decision – The Court scrutinizes the High Court's decision to grant bail, taking into account the background, contentions, and relevant considerations. The Court finds flaws in the High Court's approach. [Para 19-27]

Delay in Filing Complaint – The Court discusses the significance of the delay in filing the complaint and argues that such delay is not necessarily fatal to the prosecution's case. Factors like threats, societal circumstances, and the victim's age are presented as valid reasons for the delay. [Para 20-21]

Accused's Non-Cooperation and Influence – The Court examines the accused's behavior, highlighting that the first respondent did not initially surrender or cooperate with the investigation. The accused's position as the son of an MLA is noted, raising concerns about his potential influence on the proceedings. [Para 22-23]

Evidence and Witness Intimidation – The Court considers the threat to witnesses and the prosecutrix's claims. Lack of witness cooperation, despite multiple hearing dates, lends credence to the complainant's apprehensions. [Para 24-25]

High Court's Error in Granting Bail – The Court criticizes the High Court's decision to grant bail, citing the omission of crucial facts and established judicial precedents in the decision-making process. The High Court's focus on delay and missing evidence is found inadequate. [Para 26-27]

Bail Order Set Aside – The Supreme Court sets aside the High Court's bail order and directs the accused to surrender within two weeks. The accused are permitted to seek bail after the completion of witness depositions. The jurisdictional court's role is clarified, and its decision should not be influenced by prior observations. The appeals are allowed. [Para 28]

Civil Appeal - Jurisdiction - High Court's Jurisdiction under Article 226 - Validity of Assignment and Resumption Proceedings - Scope of - Whether High Court's decision to entertain and decide disputed questions of fact was within its jurisdiction under Article 226 - Whether resumption proceedings against allotted land were valid - Examination of - Disputed questions decided based on documents and records - High Court not deciding fact in issue on title, identity, or entitlement - Admitted documents forming basis of findings - High Court's approach deemed appropriate - Jurisdiction under Article 226 not exceeded. [Para 10, 12.2]

Property Dispute - Land Allotment - Resumption Proceedings - Power of re-entry - Law on power of re-entry - Re-entry without reference to law - Whether needs of justice demand interference by Supreme Court against impugned Judgment - Examining needs of justice - High Court's finding on Points 1 and 2 available from record - Respondent-State's method for dispossessing or attempting to dispossess first petitioner unconstitutional and illegal - State's objections against impugned Judgment rejected - Respondent-State's actions contradictory and arbitrary - Answer of High Court upheld. [Para 11, 12, 12.1]

Land Allocation - Government Land - Allotment to Armed Personnel - Allocation of land to armed personnel participated in Indo-China war - Assignment order for land settlement in favor of Surgeon Vice Admiral GP Panda - Validity of assignment examined - Revision against assignment order dismissed earlier - Land allocated to IDCO subsequently - Resumption proceedings initiated against allotted land - State's attempt to dispossess and allocate land to IDCO found unconstitutional and illegal - State's actions contradictory and arbitrary. [Para 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8]

Appeals - Dismissal - Appeals filed by State and IDCO - Dismissal of appeals - High Court's findings based on documents and records, not disputed questions of fact - Appeals lacked merit - High Court's decision in favor of GP Panda's legal heirs affirmed - Importance of lawful process emphasized. [Para 9, 13, 14]

Criminal Appeal - Regular Bail - Offence under Sections 302 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 - High Court granted regular bail to the respondent No.2 - Appellant challenged the High Court's order - Peculiar nature of the case and considerations warrant further review by the Supreme Court - Special leave granted. [Para 1-5]

Bail Criteria - Considerations for granting bail - Settlement between parties and absence of adverse antecedents considered by the High Court - Importance of proper assessment of circumstances and antecedents in bail decisions. [Para 7-8]

Antecedents of Accused - Criminal antecedents of respondent No.2 considered by the State - Record of previous FIRs and subsequent arrest during bail period - Antecedents indicate propensity towards committing crimes - Significance of considering antecedents in bail decisions. [Para 8-9]

Tampering with Evidence - Apprehension of tampering with evidence if accused remains on bail - Defense's argument against tampering with evidence - Court's consideration of this aspect. [Para 10-11]

Denial of Bail - Inadequacy of time spent in custody and serious nature of the offence - Antecedents and propensity towards crime weighed in decision - High Court's bail order quashed and set aside - Respondent No.2 directed to surrender before the trial court. [Para 12]

Future Bail Application - Possibility of future bail application based on new facts and circumstances acknowledged - Directions for consideration of any new application in accordance with law. [Para 14]

Criminal Procedure – Complaint under Section 200 of CRPC – Allegation of offences under Sections 120-B, 406, 420 read with Section 34 of IPC – Summons issued – Objection raised by respondents regarding non-compliance with Section 202(1) of CRPC – High Court quashed the summons and remanded the complaint for compliance with Section 202(1) – Petitioner’s contention of substantial compliance with examination of complainant before issuing summons – Reliance on Vijay Dhanuka case – Mandatory nature of Section 202(1) of CRPC emphasized – Failure of substantial compliance in this case – Impugned order of remand upheld. [Para 2-5]

Appointment – Assistant Teacher – Illegal Appointment – Appellant claimed appointment as Assistant Teacher in Bengabari M.E. School and sought release of salary from 12.03.2001 onwards. The Director of Elementary Education, Assam, declared all appointments, including the appellant’s, as illegal and void ab initio, as they were made against non-existent posts [Para 4].

Jurisdiction – Appointment Beyond Legislative Assembly Constituency – The appellant’s appointment was beyond the Udalguri Legislative Assembly Constituency, making it invalid and in violation of the Rules [Para 4].

Continuation in Service – No Legal Right – Once the appointment of the appellant had been declared illegal and void ab initio, and was canceled, the appellant could not legally continue in service. The appellant had no legal right to continue in service, especially when there was no order or letter allowing her to continue beyond 31.03.2002 [Para 7].

Claim for Salary – Dismissed – No claim for payment of salary could be made for any period, as the appellant’s appointment was declared illegal. The appeal was dismissed, concurring with the reasons recorded by the High Court [Para 8].