English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

								Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version.
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools.
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.

						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India.

						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text.
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.

						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.

SAJEEV
 versus
STATE OF KERALA
-
[2023] 15 S.C.R. 241
2023 INSC 998
Coram : ABHAY S. OKA
*
, SANJAY KAROL
 HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the conviction and sentence of the accused-A10 and A11 u/ss. 302, 307, and 326/120B IPC and s.55(a), (h), (i) and s. 57 (A)(1)(ii) of the Abkari Act by the courts below is sustainable in law. Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 302, 307 and 326/120B – – Conspiracy of alcohol poisoning – A1, kingpin of the illicit liquor business alongwith A3, A10, and A11 hatched a conspiracy to mix methyl alcohol with spirit to sell the same for an unlawful gain through the outlet operated by A1, and the consumption of the same resulted in the
 Decision Date :
 09-11-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1134/2011
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

								Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version.
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools.
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.

						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India.

						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text.
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.

						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.

R. SREENIVASA
 versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA
-
[2023] 12 S.C.R. 55
2023 INSC 803
Coram : VIKRAM NATH
*
, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
 HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: High Court if justifi ed in reversing the acquittal order passed by the Trial Court qua the appellant-accused acquitting him of off ences u/ss.302 and 201, IPC by which it held that the prosecution had failed to prove that the deceased was last seen in the Evidence – Circumstantial evidence – Last seen theory – When cannot be invoked: Held: The ‘last seen’ theory can be invoked only when the same stands proved beyond reasonable doubt – In the present case, there is no defi nitive evidence of last seen and
 Decision Date :
 06-09-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 859/2011
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi
తెలుగు - Telugu

 Disclaimer

								Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version.
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools.
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.

						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India.

						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text.
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.

						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.

SUNIL SAINI & ORS.
 versus
THE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
-
[2023] 1 S.C.R. 1105
2023 INSC 715
Coram : K.M. JOSEPH, B.V. NAGARATHNA
 1 S.C.R. 1105 SUNIL SAINI & ORS. v. THE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. (Transfer Petition (Criminal) No.125 of 2019) JANUARY 30, 2023 [K. M. JOSEPH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA] Transfer Petition: Transfer of the case sought from the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jhajjar to the Competent Court in to the petitioners by setting their houses, godowns and their every belonging on fire – Complete breakdown of the law and order resulting in gross damage – Prosecuting team not acting in a fair and fearless manner – Petitioners who are witnesses have been under threats by the
 Decision Date :
 30-01-2023
 | Case No :
 TRANSFER PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 125/2019
 | Disposal Nature :
 Disposed off

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
मराठी - Marathi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi
తెలుగు - Telugu

 Disclaimer

								Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version.
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools.
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.

						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India.

						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text.
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.

						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.

B. S. HARI COMMANDANT
 versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
-
[2023] 3 S.C.R. 431
2023 INSC 369
Coram : KRISHNA MURARI, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
 Border Security Force Act, 1968 – Appellant-Commandant in Border Security Force was sentenced to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment; imposed fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and dismissed from service for allegedly permitting smuggling of contraband goods from India to Pakistan from his control – Held: Though in the armed forces, including the paramilitary forces, utmost discipline, unity of command are the sine qua non, the doctrine of proportionality still holds the field – In the present case, there is no direct evidence against the appellant – Except
 Decision Date :
 13-04-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1890/2014
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

								Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version.
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools.
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.

						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India.

						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text.
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.

						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.

SHATRUGHAN
 versus
THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
-
[2023] 10 S.C.R. 758
2023 INSC 630
Coram : VIKRAM NATH
*
, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
 Penal Code, 1860: s. 302 – Culpable homicide amounting to murder – Conviction u/s. 302 – Correctness of – FIR against the appellant by the informant-uncle of deceased – Allegation that the deceased had shouted that the appellant had assaulted him with a tabbal – place of incident and saw his nephew lying there with deep cut on the neck – Nephew later succumbed to his injuries – Conviction of the appellant u/s. 302 and sentenced to life imprisonment by the courts below – On appeal, held: Prosecution failed to establish the charge –
 Decision Date :
 20-07-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 437/2016
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

								Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version.
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools.
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.

						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India.

						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text.
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.

						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.

BUDDHADEB SAHA & ORS.
 versus
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL
-
[2023] 15 S.C.R. 332
2023 INSC 1084
Coram : J.B. PARDIWALA, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA
 HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the High Court committed any error in passing the impugned judgment holding the husband and in-laws guilty for the off ence punishable u/ss. 498A, 304B read with 34 IPC. Evidence – Circumstantial evidence – Dowry demand – Commission of suicide by victim-wife on account of consumption of poison – However, post mortem report silent as to the exact cause of death and the viscera report silent as to traces of poison being found therein – Eff ect of, on prosecution case: Held: Considering the
 Decision Date :
 13-09-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1692/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
മലയാളം - Malayalam
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi
తెలుగు - Telugu

 Disclaimer

								Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version.
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools.
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.

						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India.

						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text.
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.

						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.

RITU CHHABARIA
 versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
-
[2023] 3 S.C.R. 826
2023 INSC 436
Coram : KRISHNA MURARI
*
, C.T. RAVIKUMAR
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.167(2) – Right of default bail – A chargesheet, if can be filed in piecemeal without first completing the investigation and whether the filing of such chargesheet extinguishes the right of an accused for grant of default bail – Held: completing the investigation of a case, a chargesheet or prosecution complaint cannot be filed by an investigating agency only to deprive an arrested accused of his right to default bail u/s.167(2) – Such a chargesheet, if filed, would not extinguish the right to default bail u/s.167(2)
 Decision Date :
 26-04-2023
 | Case No :
 WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 60/2023
 | Disposal Nature :
 Disposed off

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

ગુજરાતી - Gujarati
हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi
తెలుగు - Telugu

 Disclaimer

								Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version.
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools.
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.

						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India.

						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text.
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.

						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.

JUDGEBIR SINGH @ JASBIR SINGH SAMRA @ JASBIR & ORS.
 versus
NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY
-
[2023] 6 S.C.R. 1
2023 INSC 472
Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
*
, J.B. PARDIWALA
 1 1 JUDGEBIR SINGH @ JASBIR SINGH SAMRA @ JASBIR & ORS. v. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY (Criminal Appeal No. 1011 of 2023) MAY 01, 2023 [DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, CJI AND J. B. PARDIWALA, J.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: ss. 167(2), 173 – Default Bail – Entitlement to, passed by a competent authority – Held : It cannot be said that a chargesheet filed without sanction is an incomplete chargesheet which could be termed as not in consonance with s. 173 – According sanction is the duty of the sanctioning authority who is not connected with the
 Decision Date :
 01-05-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1011/2023
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

								Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version.
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools.
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.

						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India.

						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text.
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.

						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.

FIRST GLOBAL STOCKBROKING PVT. LTD. & ORS.
 versus
ANIL RISHIRAJ & ANR.
-
[2023] 12 S.C.R. 421
2023 INSC 845
Coram : ABHAY S. OKA
*
, SANJAY KAROL
 HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the Enforcement Offi cer appointed under FERA, 1973 continued to have the authority or competence to fi le a complaint for the off ences punishable under FERA before the expiry of the sunset period provided in sub-section FEMA, 1999. Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 – Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 – On 11.02.2002, the fi rst respondent, who was an Enforcement Offi cer appointed under clause (e) of s.3 of FERA, fi led a complaint against the appellants for various off ences punishable under
 Decision Date :
 21-09-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2151/2011
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

								Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version.
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools.
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.

						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India.

						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text.
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.

						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.

MUNILAKSHMI
 versus
NARENDRA BABU & ANR.
-
[2023] 14 S.C.R. 1058
2023 INSC 943
Coram : SURYA KANT
*
, DIPANKAR DATTA
 HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Bail granted to Respondent No.1 accused of off ences u/ss.109, 120B, 201, 302, 450, 454 r/w s.34, IPC, if to be cancelled, in view of events subsequent to the grant of bail. Bail – Scope of interference – Respondent No.1 was specifi cally named as the murder of his wife – However, change of stance by most vital witnesses, the family members of the deceased within 20 days of their examination-in-chief – Allegations made against Respondent No.1 in the past, of infl uencing the police, hiring goons, repeatedly assaulting the deceased
 Decision Date :
 20-10-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3297/2023
 | Disposal Nature :
 Disposed off

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
कोंकणी - Konkani
മലയാളം - Malayalam
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi
தமிழ் - Tamil
తెలుగు - Telugu

 Disclaimer

								Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version.
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools.
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.

						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India.

						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text.
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.

						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.

MOHD MUSLIM @ HUSSAIN
 versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI
-
[2023] 3 S.C.R. 697
2023 INSC 311
Coram : S. RAVINDRA BHAT
*
, DIPANKAR DATTA
 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – s.37 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.436A – Appellant accused of committing offences punishable under NDPS Act has been in custody since 2015, if entitled to bail – Held: Recovery of ganja was made from the behest, and on the statement of one of the co-accused – Prosecution relied on that statement, as well as the confessional statement of the appellant – In addition, it also relied on the bank statements of one of the co-accused who allegedly disclosed that money used to be transferred
 Decision Date :
 28-03-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 943/2023
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

ગુજરાતી - Gujarati
हिन्दी - Hindi
मराठी - Marathi
 नेपाली - Nepali
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi
తెలుగు - Telugu

 Disclaimer

								Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version.
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools.
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.

						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India.

						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text.
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.

						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
 versus
ARYAN SINGH ETC.
-
[2023] 2 S.C.R. 819
2023 INSC 338
Coram : M.R. SHAH
*
, C.T. RAVIKUMAR
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 482 – Saving of inherent powers of the High Court – Accused chargesheeted, on conclusion of the investigations by the CBI – Discharge applications by the two accused – Dismissed by the trial court, and thereafter, the High Court quashed proceedings in exercise of the powers u/s. 482 – On appeal, held: High Court exceeded in its jurisdiction in quashing the entire criminal proceedings in exercise of the limited powers u/s. 482 – At the stage of discharge and/or quashing of the criminal proceedings, while exercising
 Decision Date :
 10-04-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1025/2023
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi
తెలుగు - Telugu

 Disclaimer

								Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version.
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools.
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.

						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India.

						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text.
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.

						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.

SUNEETHA NARREDDY
 versus
Y S AVINASH REDDY & ANR
-
[2023] 4 S.C.R. 568
2023 INSC 422
Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
*
, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA
 Investigation – Victim-deceased was found murdered – CBI submitted a chargesheet and supplementary chargesheet naming five persons – CBI issued summons to the first respondent – First respondent appeared before the CBI on several occasions petition – On 18.04.2023, the High Court (i) granted an ad interim stay of arrest; and (ii) directed that the examination before the CBI in the course of the investigation shall be “in printed/written form” during the course of which a questionnaire may also be handed over to
 Decision Date :
 24-04-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1251/2023
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

								Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version.
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools.
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.

						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India.

						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text.
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.

						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.

MANIK HIRU JHANGIANI
 versus
STATE OF M.P
-
[2023] 16 S.C.R. 551
2023 INSC 1078
Coram : ABHAY S. OKA
*
, SANJAY KAROL
 HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: The question arose when the penal action can be taken under both the statutes-Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, which statute would prevail. Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSSA) – ss. 52, 89 – this Act over all other food related laws: Held: Eff ect of s. 89 is that if there is an inconsistency between the provisions of the PFA and the FSSA, s. 89 would operate, and provisions of the FSSA would prevail over the provisions of the PFA to the extent to which the same are inconsistent
 Decision Date :
 14-12-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3864/2023
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

								Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version.
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools.
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.

						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India.

						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text.
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.

						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.

M/S UNIBROS
 versus
ALL INDIA RADIO
-
[2023] 14 S.C.R. 683
2023 INSC 931
Coram : S. RAVINDRA BHAT
*
, DIPANKAR DATTA
 HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Arbitral award in question if in confl ict with the public policy of India and; whether a claim on account of loss of profi t is liable to succeed merely on the ground that there has been delay in the execution of the construction contract, attributable to Act, 1996 – s.34(2)(b) – “Public policy of India” – Appellant awarded work contract by the respondent – Disputes between the parties owing to the delay in work, referred to Arbitrator – Vide First Award, appellant was awarded sum towards loss of
 Decision Date :
 19-10-2023
 | Case No :
 CIVIL APPEAL No. 6895/2023
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

অসমীয়া - Assamese
हिन्दी - Hindi
മലയാളം - Malayalam
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi
తెలుగు - Telugu

 Disclaimer

								Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version.
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools.
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.

						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India.

						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text.
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.

						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.

PULEN PHUKAN & ORS.
 versus
THE STATE OF ASSAM
-
[2023] 4 S.C.R. 616
2023 INSC 305
Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
*
, VIKRAM NATH, SANJAY KAROL
 Penal Code, 1860 : ss. 302, 326, 147, 148, 149, 447 and 34 – Murder – Unlawful Assembly – Complainant-PW 1’s case that 13 persons entered her house and caused grievous injury to her brother-in-law PW 2 and three of them assaulted the weapons resulting in his death – Trial conducted against 11 of them – Courts below convicted them u/s. 147/148/ 447/323/302/149 and sentenced them to imprisonment for life u/ss. 302/149 along with other punishment for the charged offences – On appeal, held: Prosecution is not to
 Decision Date :
 28-03-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 906/2016
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 3 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

								Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version.
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools.
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.

						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India.

						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text.
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.

						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.

ABHISHEK SHARMA
 versus
STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI)
-
[2023] 14 S.C.R. 890
2023 INSC 924
Coram : ABHAY S. OKA
*
, SANJAY KAROL
 HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: The victim-deceased gave four dying declarations. High Court confi rmed the appellant’s conviction and sentence of life imprisonment u/s. 302 IPC as awarded by the trial Court. Penal Code, 1860 – s. 302 – Evidence Act, 1872 – Multiple Prosecution case that appellant and victim had a quarrel, as the victim had aff ection for their boss and not for appellant – Appellant took victim to an open site near a school and in the midst of an argument, set her on fi re – Victim died – Victim had given four dying
 Decision Date :
 18-10-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1473/2011
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

								Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version.
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools.
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.

						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India.

						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text.
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.

						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.

YASHODHAN SINGH & ORS.
 versus
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
-
[2023] 10 S.C.R. 1196
2023 INSC 652
Coram : B.V. NAGARATHNA, UJJAL BHUYAN
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.319 – Principle of hearing a person who is summoned u/s. 319 Cr.P.C. – Applicability of – Respondent no.2-complainant got an FIR registered u/ss. 147, 148, 149, 302, 452, 307, 504 of IPC – A charge-sheet was filed persons but the names of appellants were not mentioned in it as their role was under investigation – Respondent no.2 filed application u/s. 319 Cr.P.C. to summon appellants – Trial Court summoned appellants to join trial – High Court affirmed the order passed by the trial Court
 Decision Date :
 18-07-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2186/2023
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi
தமிழ் - Tamil
తెలుగు - Telugu

 Disclaimer

								Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version.
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools.
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.

						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India.

						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text.
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.

						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.

S. ATHILAKSHMI
 versus
THE STATE REP. BY THE DRUGS INSPECTOR
-
[2023] 2 S.C.R. 914
2023 INSC 237
Coram : KRISHNA MURARI
*
, SUDHANSHU DHULIA
 Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 – ss.18(c), 27(b)(ii) – Prosecution of appellant u/s.18(c) punishable u/s.27(b)(ii) – Held: Prohibition u/s.18(c) is on the manufacturing, distribution, stocking or exhibition of medicines for the purposes of sale – In against the appellant was unwarranted – Appellant is a registered medical practitioner along with the fact that the quantity of medicines seized was extremely small, a quantity which can be easily found in the house or a consultation room of a doctor – Considering the small
 Decision Date :
 15-03-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 804/2023
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

								Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version.
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools.
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.

						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India.

						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text.
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.

						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.

PEOPLE’S UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES AND ANR.
 versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
-
[2023] 12 S.C.R. 370
2023 INSC 833
Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, MANOJ MISRA
 HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Matter pertains to the modalities to be followed by the police in conducting media briefi ngs during criminal investigation. Media – Media briefi ngs/reporting by Propriety and procedure: Held: Media reporting in criminal matters involves degree of public interest associated with the fundamental right u/Art. 19(1)(a) – Guidelines for conducting media briefi ngs were prepared by the Union Ministry of Home Aff airs over a decade ago – Since then
 Decision Date :
 13-09-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1255/1999
 | Disposal Nature :
 Directions issued

 |  Bench :
 3 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi
తెలుగు - Telugu

 Disclaimer

								Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version.
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools.
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.

						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India.

						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text.
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.

						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.

A. SREENIVASA REDDY
 versus
RAKESH SHARMA AND ANR.
-
[2023] 12 S.C.R. 932
2023 INSC 682
Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
*
, J.B. PARDIWALA
 HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the appellant, an Assistant General Manager of a Nationalised Bank is removable from his offi ce save by or with the sanction of the Government so as to make s.197, CrPC applicable; and if he can be proceeded against for off ences punishable the sanction u/s.19, PC Act, 1988 to prosecute him for the off ences thereunder was declined. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.197 – When not attracted: Held: Although a person working in a Nationalised Bank is a public servant, yet the provisions of s.197 would not be
 Decision Date :
 08-08-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2339/2023
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

								Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version.
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools.
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.

						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India.

						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text.
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.

						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.

THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.
 versus
SUVENDU ADHIKARI & ORS.
-
[2023] 10 S.C.R. 842
2023 INSC 647
Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
*
, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA
 National Investigating Agency Act, 2008 – s.6(5) – Exercise of Jurisdiction u/s. 6(5) – Six FIRs were registered between 30.03.2023 to 03.04.2023 in relation to different incidents – Acting on a High Court by its order held that the allegations implicate offences punishable under the Explosive Substances Act, and held that the entire investigation should be transferred to the National Investigation Agency with a direction to the Central Government to exercise their power u/s 6(5) Act
 Decision Date :
 24-07-2023
 | Case No :
 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 6283/2023
 | Disposal Nature :
 Disposed off

 |  Bench :
 3 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
मराठी - Marathi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi
తెలుగు - Telugu

 Disclaimer

								Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version.
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools.
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.

						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India.

						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text.
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.

						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.

YOGESH UPADHYAY AND ANR.
 versus
ATLANTA LIMITED
-
[2023] 2 S.C.R. 511
2023 INSC 150
Coram : DINESH MAHESHWARI
*
, SANJAY KUMAR
 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – ss.138, 142(1) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.406 – Transfer of criminal cases – Power of Supreme Court – Held: Notwithstanding the non-obstante clause in s.142(1), the power of Supreme Court to transfer criminal remains intact in relation to offences u/s.138, if it is found expedient for the ends of justice – In the present case, as the six complaint cases filed by the respondent (four before the Dwarka Courts at New Delhi and two before the Courts at Nagpur, Maharashtra) pertain to the same
 Decision Date :
 21-02-2023
 | Case No :
 TRANSFER PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 526/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi
తెలుగు - Telugu

 Disclaimer

								Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version.
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools.
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.

						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India.

						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text.
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.

						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.

BIMLA TIWARI
 versus
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.
-
[2023] 1 S.C.R. 501
2023 INSC 45
Coram : DINESH MAHESHWARI, HRISHIKESH ROY
 Bail – Pre-arrest bail and regular bail – Grant of – Considerations – Held: The process of criminal law cannot be utilised for armtwisting and money recovery, particularly while opposing the prayer for bail – The question as to whether pre- arrest bail, or for that or not is required to be examined and the discretion is required to be exercised by the Court with reference to the material on record and the parameters governing bail considerations – In a given case, the concession of pre-arrest bail or regular bail could be declined even if the
 Decision Date :
 16-01-2023
 | Case No :
 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 834/2023
 | Disposal Nature :
 Disposed off

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi
తెలుగు - Telugu

 Disclaimer

								Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version.
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools.
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.

						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India.

						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text.
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.

						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.

THE DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
 versus
M. GOPAL REDDY & ANR
-
[2023] 3 S.C.R. 79
2023 INSC 163
Coram : M.R. SHAH
*
, C.T. RAVIKUMAR
 Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – s.45 – Applicability of, to applications u/s.438, CrPC – Held: Once the prayer for anticipatory bail is made in connection with offence under the 2002 Act, the underlying principles and rigours of s.45 must get triggered, although CrPC – In the present case, once the enquiry/investigation against respondent No. 1 was going on for the offence under the 2002 Act, the rigour of s.45 of the 2002 Act would be attracted – Impugned order passed by the High Court holding that the provisions of s.45 shall not be
 Decision Date :
 24-02-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 534/2023
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

ગુજરાતી - Gujarati
हिन्दी - Hindi
മലയാളം - Malayalam
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi
తెలుగు - Telugu

 Disclaimer

								Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version.
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools.
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.

						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India.

						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text.
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.

						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.

STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. ETC.
 versus
DR. P. A. BHATT & ORS. ETC.
-
[2023] 5 S.C.R. 301
2023 INSC 434
Coram : V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN
*
, PANKAJ MITHAL
 Service Law : Equal Pay – Allopathy doctors and doctors of indigenous medicine-, if can be said to be performing “equal work” so as to be entitled to “equal pay Non-MBBS medical officers seeked extension of the benefit of higher scales of pay on parity on the basis of the recommendations of Tikku Pay Commission – – Held: Classification based upon educational qualification for the grant of higher pay scale, is a valid classification – Both categories of doctors are certainly not performing equal work to be entitled to equal
 Decision Date :
 26-04-2023
 | Case No :
 CIVIL APPEAL No. 8553/2014
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi
తెలుగు - Telugu

 Disclaimer

								Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version.
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools.
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.

						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India.

						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text.
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.

						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.

ANIL KUMAR
 versus
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
-
[2023] 3 S.C.R. 666
2023 INSC 296
Coram : M.R. SHAH
*
, C.T. RAVIKUMAR
 Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 – s.3(3) – Petitioner was released on emergency parole/ temporary parole pursuant to the decision of the High-Powered Committee constituted as per the orders issued by Supreme Court, due to the Covid-19 pandemic – Such be counted towards the total period of sentence of the petitioner – Held: No – In the State of Haryana, the temporary release on parole is governed by the statutory provisions of the 1988 Act – s.3(3) of the 1988 Act specifically provides that the period of temporary release
 Decision Date :
 24-03-2023
 | Case No :
 TRANSFERRED CASE (CRIMINAL) No. 46/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
मराठी - Marathi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi
తెలుగు - Telugu

 Disclaimer

								Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version.
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools.
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.

						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India.

						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text.
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.

						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.

SHANKAR
 versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
-
[2023] 2 S.C.R. 661
2023 INSC 234
Coram : AJAY RASTOGI
*
, C.T. RAVIKUMAR
 Penal Code 1860: s. 302 r/w 34 – Conviction under, on basis of circumstantial evidence – Sustainability of – Prosecution case that the victim assaulted with sharp weapons, sustained 22 ante- mortem injuries leading to instantaneous death – On the fateful day, the victim also came there and the appellant in the latter appeal hurled abuses on the victim and asked him why he along with his friend had assaulted his brother, though the victim denied the assault – Later, the accused invited the victim for drinks and all of them left the house of PW 8 on
 Decision Date :
 15-03-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 954/2011
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

								Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version.
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools.
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.

						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India.

						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text.
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.

						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.

VERNON
 versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.
-
[2023] 10 S.C.R. 867
2023 INSC 655
Coram : ANIRUDDHA BOSE
*
, SUDHANSHU DHULIA
 Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – Chapters IV and VI- ss.16, 17, 18, 18B, 20, 38, 39, 40 and ss.13, 43D(5) – Denial of bail – When not justified – Bhima-Koregaon violence – FIR – Scope of the investigation was expanded – Searches were conducted – Case of the NIA is that various letters and other materials recovered from the arrested co-accused persons showed appellants’ involvement with the CPI (Maoist), an organization placed in the First Schedule to the 1967 Act as a terrorist organization – It is alleged that the
 Decision Date :
 28-07-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 639/2023
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
मराठी - Marathi
 नेपाली - Nepali
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi
తెలుగు - Telugu

 Disclaimer

								Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version.
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools.
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.

						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India.

						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text.
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.

						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.

ASHOK GULABRAO BONDRE
 versus
VILAS MADHUKARRAO DESHMUKH AND OTHERS
-
[2023] 3 S.C.R. 820
2023 INSC 724
Coram : SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
*
, BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.195 – Documents allegedly fabricated and forged prior to filing in evidence, embargo u/s.195 if applicable – On appeal, held: s.195(1)(b)(ii) would be attracted only when the offence enumerated in the said provision was of a document after it has been produced or filed in evidence during proceedings before any Court, i.e. during the time when the document is custodia legis – In such a case, the Court will be entitled to take cognizance of the offence only on the basis of the complaint made by the
 Decision Date :
 12-04-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1931/2011
 | Disposal Nature :
 Disposed off

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

ગુજરાતી - Gujarati
हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

								Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version.
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools.
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.

						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India.

						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text.
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.

						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.

RAJESH JAIN
 versus
AJAY SINGH
-
[2023] 13 S.C.R. 788
2023 INSC 888
Coram : ARAVIND KUMAR
*
, SARASA VENKATANARAYANA BHATTI
 HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Since the execution of the cheque is, admittedly, not under dispute, the limited question to be considered, is (i) whether the accused can be said to have discharged his ‘evidential burden’, for the courts below to have concluded that the presumption Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 had been rebutted. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – s.139 – Respondent-accused tried for off ence u/s. 138 of NI Act – Trial Court acquitted respondent – Order of acquittal upheld by the High Court – Propriety: Held: There is a
 Decision Date :
 09-10-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3126/2023
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
मराठी - Marathi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi
తెలుగు - Telugu

 Disclaimer

								Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version.
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools.
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.

						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India.

						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text.
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.

						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.

SH. RAKESH RAMAN
 versus
SMT. KAVITA
-
[2023] 3 S.C.R. 552
2023 INSC 433
Coram : SUDHANSHU DHULIA
*
, J.B. PARDIWALA
 Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: s. 13(1)(ia) and (ib) – Divorce – Grounds of cruelty and desertion – Marital discord between the parties – Petition for dissolution of marriage by the husband on the ground that the wife treated him with cruelty and deserted him,that between the parties, and that the wife had filed multiple false and frivolous criminal cases against him – Trial court passed a decree of divorce holding that the wife had deserted the husband and had meted out cruel behaviour against him – However, the High Court set aside
 Decision Date :
 26-04-2023
 | Case No :
 CIVIL APPEAL No. 2012/2013
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi
தமிழ் - Tamil
తెలుగు - Telugu
اُردُو - Urdu

 Disclaimer

								Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version.
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools.
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.

						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India.

						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text.
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.

						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.

MOHINDER PAL AND OTHERS
 versus
STATE OF J & K
-
[2023] 1 S.C.R. 375
2023 INSC 26
Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
*
, M.M. SUNDRESH
 Ranbir Penal Code – s.300 Exception I, s.302 and Part I of s.304 – Grave and sudden provocation – Death of two persons, ‘J’ and ‘M’ – Seven accused – Allegation that accused No.1 and his sons forcibly detained ‘J’ and injuries – Sessions Judge acquitted accused nos.5 and 6 but convicted accused nos.1 to 4 and 7 u/s 302, 148 and 149 of RPC – High Court upheld the conviction – Accused no.1 died during pendency of appeal while accused no.2 went absconding – On appeal by accused nos.3, 4 and
 Decision Date :
 12-01-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1863/2010
 | Disposal Nature :
 Case Partly allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi
தமிழ் - Tamil
తెలుగు - Telugu

 Disclaimer

								Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version.
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools.
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.

						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India.

						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text.
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.

						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.

NAGARATHINAM
 versus
STATE THROUGH THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
-
[2023] 4 S.C.R. 1124
2023 INSC 495
Coram : AJAY RASTOGI
*
, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
 Premature Release – Appellant had an affair with ‘S’, who threatened her often – Appellant took decision to commit suicide along with her children – Appellant survived – Children died – Trial Court convicted appellant u/ss. 302 High Court partly allowed appeal, acquitted appellant u/s. 309 and upheld the conviction u/s. 302 IPC – After undergoing imprisonment for 20 years, appellant applied for premature release – However, same was rejected by the State – Held: Appellant was in tremendous mental
 Decision Date :
 04-05-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1389/2023
 | Disposal Nature :
 Disposed off

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi
తెలుగు - Telugu

 Disclaimer

								Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version.
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools.
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.

						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India.

						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text.
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.

						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.

THE STATE THROUGH CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
 versus
T. GANGI REDDY @ YERRA GANGI REDDY
-
[2023] 1 S.C.R. 741
2023 INSC 44
Coram : M.R. SHAH
*
, C.T. RAVIKUMAR
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 : s. 167(2) – Default bail – Cancellation of, on merits – On facts, accused-respondent arrested in connection with the murder of a former MLA, released on default bail u/s 167(2) – CBI concluded the investigation, filed chargesheet cancellation of bail of the respondent – However, the High Court rejected the said petition on the ground that default bail granted u/s. 167(2) cannot be cancelled on merits – On appeal, held: Order of release on bail under proviso to s. 167(2) cannot be called as an order on merits
 Decision Date :
 16-01-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 37/2023
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.