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.

AMINUDDIN
 versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER
-
[2021] 7 S.C.R. 264
2021 INSC 181
Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
*
, M.R. SHAH
 Constitution of India: Arts. 136, 21 – Invocation of jurisdiction under – In a matter involving serious offence of murder, grant of bail by High Court – On appeal, held: Undoubtedly, the protection of personal liberty u/Art. 21 is a constitutional value which by the High Court, as indeed by all courts – Equally, in a matter involving serious offence of murder, the liberty of the accused has to be necessarily balanced with the public interest in the administration of criminal justice system which requires that a person who is accused of a crime
 Decision Date :
 15-03-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 317/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
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.

SHRI MAHADEV MEENA
 versus
PRAVEEN RATHORE AND ANOTHER
-
[2021] 9 S.C.R. 214
2021 INSC 548
Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
*
, B.V. NAGARATHNA
 Penal Code, 1860– ss.302, 120B – Bail – Murder of appellant’s son – FIR inter alia alleged involvement of first respondent and his proximity with deceased’s wife (co-accused) – Eventually, first respondent granted bail – On appeal, held: High in allowing the application for bail – It ought to have had due regard to the seriousness and gravity of the crime – Deceased was employed with the Intelligence Bureau in New Delhi – First respondent being an employee of the Anti-Corruption Bureau at Jhalawar, the likelihood of
 Decision Date :
 27-09-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1089/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
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.

REKHA SENGAR
 versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
-
[2021] 2 S.C.R. 314
2021 INSC 37
Coram : MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR
*
, VINEET SARAN, AJAY RASTOGI
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.439 – Bail – Non- bailable cases – FIR against petitioner and another person alleging involvement in pre-natal sex determination and sex selective abortion – Bail denied cases, the primary factors the court must consider while exercising the discretion to grant bail are nature and gravity of the offence, its impact on society, and whether there is a prima facie case against the accused – In the present case, there is prima facie evidence against the
 Decision Date :
 21-01-2021
 | Case No :
 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 380/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

 |  Bench :
 3 Judges
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 REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
 versus
TR N SEENIVASAGAN
-
[2021] 2 S.C.R. 529
2021 INSC 125
Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
*
, M.R. SHAH
 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – s.311 – Ambit of – FIR under PC Act registered in 2010 against respondent-Chief Engineer in the Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Company Limited (TANGEDCO) and other co-accused (since deceased) accorded – Final report filed in July 2011 – Prosecution evidence closed in October 2017 – Applications filed u/s.311 in 2019 for recalling PW-1(Chairman of TANGEDCO) and PW-11 (Deputy Superintendent of Police) – Dismissed – On appeal, held: Having due regard to
 Decision Date :
 01-03-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 231/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Leave Granted & Allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
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.

MADHAV
 versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
-
[2021] 8 S.C.R. 451
2021 INSC 413
Coram : INDIRA BANERJEE
*
, V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN
 Penal Code, 1860: s. 302 rw s. 34 – Murder – Prosecution case that three accused, A1, A2 and A3 in furtherance of common intention, attacked, brother of A1 with weapons, resulting in his death – A2 took victim to the hospital and sent information to the police that the assault of A1, A2 and A3 u/s. 302 rw s. 34 by the courts below – Appeal by A2 and A3 before this Court – Held: Right from the beginning there was an attempt on the part of the prosecution to shield the culprits named in the first FIR, on account of political pressure, as admitted by the IO
 Decision Date :
 18-08-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 852/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Leave Granted & Allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
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.

PREM SHANKAR PRASAD
 versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR.
-
[2021] 6 S.C.R. 1176
2021 INSC 658
Coram : M.R. SHAH
*
, A.S. BOPANNA
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.438 – Anticipatory bail – FIR lodged by appellant against respondent no.2 for offences punishable under ss.406, 407, 468 and 506 IPC – A warrant of arrest issued by Magistrate – Thereafter, respondent himself to avoid service of warrant of arrest – Magistrate issued a proclamation against respondent no.2 under s.82 CrPC – Thereafter respondent no.2 filed anticipatory bail application before trial court which was dismissed – However, High Court allowed the anticipatory
 Decision Date :
 21-10-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1209/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
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.

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
 versus
MAHENDRA ALIAS GOLU
-
[2021] 10 S.C.R. 133
2021 INSC 665
Coram : SURYA KANT
*
, HIMA KOHLI
 Penal Code, 1860: s.376(2)(f) or s.354 – Prosecution case was that about fortnight prior to the date of registration of FIR, the two victim-prosecutrix (PW-1 and PW-2) aged about 9 years and 8 years respectively were playing in the street near the respondent’s house – Respondent them to his house and took off his clothes and undressed PW- 1 and started rubbing his genital against her genital and repeated same act with PW-2 – Both the girls got scared and started crying and he threatened them with physcial harm – After few days, victims revealed the incident
 Decision Date :
 25-10-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1827/2011
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

বাংলা - Bengali
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.

POOJA CERATECH PRIVATE LIMITED
 versus
OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD. & ANR.
-
[2021] 9 S.C.R. 441
2021 INSC 925
Coram : M.R. SHAH
*
, B.V. NAGARATHNA
 9 S.C.R. 441 441 POOJA CERATECH PRIVATE LIMITED v. OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD. & ANR. (Special Leave Petition (C) No. 19006 Of 2021) DECEMBER 03, 2021 [ M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ] Tender: Tender process – Security interest deposit – Forfeiture of – Bidder Corporation then decided to invoke the bank guarantees furnished by the bidder towards the security interest deposit invoking clause 14.5(b) of the tender document – Writ petition by the bidder challenging the decision of the Corporation to forfeit the security interest deposit by invoking
 Decision Date :
 03-12-2021
 | Case No :
 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 19006/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
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.

STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
 versus
NARAYAN @ NARAYAN SAI @ MOTA BHAGWAN ASARAM @ ASUMAL HARPALANI
-
[2021] 10 S.C.R. 330
2021 INSC 653
Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
*
, B.V. NAGARATHNA
 Bombay Furlough and Parole Rules: Release on furlough – Respondent was convicted under ss.376(2)(c), 377, 354, 504, 506(2), 508 of the IPC – By order dated 8 May 2021, application by the Sanctioning Authority on the ground that the respondent had engaged in illegal activities inside the jail, including keeping a mobile phone and making contacts outside the jail; has engaged in criminal misconduct to hinder the judicial proceedings during trial by threatening,
 Decision Date :
 20-10-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1159/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
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.

SUMAN CHADHA & ANR.
 versus
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA
-
[2021] 8 S.C.R. 370
2021 INSC 386
Coram : INDIRA BANERJEE
*
, V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN
 Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: ss. 2(b), 19 – Contempt of court – Wilful breach of the undertaking given to the Court – On facts, bank filed a petition u/ss. 10 and 12 for punishing the petitioners for wilful and deliberate breach of their breach of an undertaking made with a view to secure a conditional order of stay may not tantamount to contempt, especially when the consequences of breach of such undertaking are spelt out in the Court order itself – Single judge of the High Court held the petitioners guilty of contempt
 Decision Date :
 09-08-2021
 | Case No :
 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 28592/2018
 | Disposal Nature :
 Disposed off

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
मराठी - Marathi
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.

MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
 versus
DILIP UTTAM JAYABHAY
-
[2022] 1 S.C.R. 148
2022 INSC 5
Coram : M.R. SHAH
*
, B.V. NAGARATHNA
 Maharashtra Recognition of trade unions and prevention of unfair labour practices Act 1971: Departmental proceedings – Misconduct proved against respondent-driver of driving the vehicle rashly and negligently due to which the four persons died – Disciplinary authority passed order of dismissal from service – Labour Court did not interfere with the order of dismissal by giving cogent reasons and after re-appreciating entire evidence on record including the order of acquittal passed by the criminal court
 Decision Date :
 03-01-2022
 | Case No :
 CIVIL APPEAL No. 7403/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi
தமிழ் - Tamil

 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.

AROON PURIE
 versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
-
[2022] 18 S.C.R. 311
2022 INSC 1142
Coram : UDAY UMESH LALIT
*
, BELA M. TRIVEDI
 STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. (Criminal Appeal Nos. 1853-1856 of 2022) OCTOBER 31, 2022 [UDAY UMESH LALIT, CJI AND BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.] Code of Criminal Procedure 1973: s.482 – Quashing of complaint – In the instant case, a news item titled ‘Mission Misconduct’ was to be recalled in quick succession following serious allegations of sexual misconduct, corruption in issuance of visas and sale of Indian passports to illegal immigrants – Allegations were levelled against an officer of the Indian Foreign Service posted in UK for soliciting sexual favours
 Decision Date :
 31-10-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1853/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Disposed off

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
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.

RAJENDRA BHAGAT
 versus
STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR.
-
[2022] 1 S.C.R. 473
2022 INSC 6
Coram : DINESH MAHESHWARI, VIKRAM NATH
 Penal Code, 1860: s. 498A – Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty – Conviction of the appellant- husband u/s 498A and imposition of simple imprisonment for three years – Few years later, appellant and his wife entered into a settlement, resolved all a happy conjugal life – High Court took note of the settlement, and reduced the sentence to the period of imprisonment already undergone, however, upheld the conviction u/s 498A – On appeal, held: Taking note of the terms of settlement which include the undertaking of the
 Decision Date :
 03-01-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
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.

DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
 versus
PADMANABHAN KISHORE
-
[2022] 13 S.C.R. 1064
2022 INSC 1143
Coram : UDAY UMESH LALIT
*
, BELA M. TRIVEDI
 COURT REPORTS [2022] 13 S.C.R.[2022] 13 S.C.R. 1064 1064 DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT v. PADMANABHAN KISHORE (Criminal Appeal No. 1864 of 2022) October 31, 2022 [UDAY UMESH LALIT, CJI AND BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.] Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – ss. 2(1)(u), 3, and 4 – Prosecution Rs.50,00,000/- in cash – It is alleged that A1 and A3 were in that car at that time – During investigation, it came to light that the sum of Rs.50,00,000/- was handed over to A-1 by A-2 whose income tax file was pending with A1 for clearance – Since A-2 wanted certain benefits,
 Decision Date :
 31-10-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1864/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
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 JHARKHAND
 versus
 SHAILENDRA KUMAR RAI @ PANDAV RAI
-
[2022] 13 S.C.R. 1033
2022 INSC 1139
Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
*
, HIMA KOHLI
 Evidence Act, 1872 – s.32(1) – Dying declaration – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302,376,341 and 448 – Victim was raped and set on fire – Respondent was convicted u/ss. 302, 341, 376,448 by the Sessions Court onthebasis of dying declaration of the Judgment set aside by High Court inter alia holding that the statement made by the deceased is not admissible as a dying declaration, respondent was acquitted – On appeal, held: Post- mortem report concludes that the cause of death is septicemia caused by the burn injuries sustained by the
 Decision Date :
 31-10-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1441/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
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.

INDRESH KUMAR MISHRA AND ORS.
 versus
THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS.
-
[2022] 3 S.C.R. 323
2022 INSC 426
Coram : M.R. SHAH
*
, B.V. NAGARATHNA
 Service law: Appointment to the Post of Postgraduate trained Teachers – Eligibility Criteria – Jharkhand Selection Service Selection issued an advertisement by which application were invited from the eligible candidate for the appointment to the Post of – Eligibility Criteria for the appointment in History was Postgraduate degree in History with 50% marks – At the time of verification of testimonials of the selected candidates, it was found that they had a Postgraduate degree in one of the branches of History in place of History as
 Decision Date :
 13-04-2022
 | Case No :
 CIVIL APPEAL No. 2217/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
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.

KAMATCHI
 versus
LAKSHMI NARAYANAN
-
[2022] 5 S.C.R. 629
2022 INSC 422
Coram : UDAY UMESH LALIT
*
, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA
 Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – ss.12 and 31 – Proceedings arising out of application of appellant-wife u/s.12 of the Act in the year 2018 seeking protection in terms of ss.17 and 18 of the Act – Petition of respondent-husband u/s.482 CrPC – High of limitation holding that ss.28 and 32 of the Domestic Violence Act r/w r.15(6) of the Domestic Violence Rules, made the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code applicable and therefore, appellant ought to have filed application u/s.12 of the Act within period of one year from date of the
 Decision Date :
 13-04-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 627/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
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.

SANJAY GUPTA & ORS
 versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY & ORS
-
[2022] 15 S.C.R. 137
2022 INSC 421
Coram : HEMANT GUPTA
*
, V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN
 Constitution of India: Arts. 21 and 32 –Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 - ss.2(a), 3 - U.P. Fire Service Act, 1944 - s. 16 – Uttar Pradesh Fire Prevention and Fire Safety Act, 2005 - ss. 2(g) ,3 - Code of Criminal Procedure - ss.133,144 Tragedy in a Consumer Show, organized by the respondents 10 to 12( Organizers)– Incident claimed lives of 65 persons and 161 suffered burn injuries – Organizers appointed a contractor to look after the proposed construction of exhibition infrastructure – Organizers claiming that
 Decision Date :
 12-04-2022
 | Case No :
 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 338/2006
 | Disposal Nature :
 Directions issued

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
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.

JAHIR HAK
 versus
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN
-
[2022] 3 S.C.R. 101
2022 INSC 412
Coram : K.M. JOSEPH, HRISHIKESH ROY
 3 S.C.R. 101 101 JAHIR HAK v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN (Criminal Appeal No. 605 of 2022) April 11, 2022 [K. M. JOSEPH AND HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ. ] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.439 – Application for anticipatory bail by undertrial prisoner who has undergone 8 years of incarceration – him on 29.01.2018 – Appellant has been in custody for a period of 8 years – By impugned order, his application for bail was rejected by High Court – On appeal, held: Appellant is charged with offences, some of which are punishable with a minimum punishment of 10 years and the
 Decision Date :
 11-04-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 605/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
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.

STATE OF RAJASTHAN
 versus
BANWARI LAL AND ANOTHER
-
[2022] 5 S.C.R. 613
2022 INSC 410
Coram : M.R. SHAH
*
, B.V. NAGARATHNA
 Appeal by State: Conviction of accused-B by the trial Court for the offence u/s.307 IPC for having caused serious injuries on the vital part of the body of the victim/injured – Trial Court sentenced accused-B to undergo three years’ rigorous imprisonment – In an appeal before the did not challenge the conviction, but only prayed the Court to reduce the sentence to the period already undergone by him by submitting that occurrence took place about 26 years ago; that they were facing trial since then; and when the occurrence took place, they were young and now they are aged
 Decision Date :
 08-04-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 579/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Case Partly allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
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.

JEETU KHATIK
 versus
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
-
[2022] 3 S.C.R. 128
2022 INSC 414
Coram : DINESH MAHESHWARI, ANIRUDDHA BOSE
 Sentence / Sentencing – Suspension of execution of sentence – Trial Court had convicted and sentenced appellant u/ss.363 and 354 IPC and s.8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 – Prayer of appellant for declined by High Court –Appellant pleaded before Supreme Court that the High Court had taken too strict and stern view of the matter and failed to appreciate that the maximum sentence of imprisonment awarded in the matter was of three years – Held: The High Court, while referring
 Decision Date :
 11-04-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 603/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
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.

EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED & ORS.
 versus
RABINDRA KUMAR BHARTI
-
[2022] 4 S.C.R. 1084
2022 INSC 405
Coram : K.M. JOSEPH
*
, HRISHIKESH ROY
 Service Law – Departmental proceedings – Respondent, employed as a clerk with the appellant(s), was suspended by the appellant on the complaint of demanding bribe to clear retirement formalities and also served with a notice of Respondent moved a writ petition – Single Judge of High Court allowed the appellant to continue with the proceedings but ordered the appellant to not to pass final order without the leave of the Court – At the end of the enquiry, the appellant(s) filed an application seeking leave to
 Decision Date :
 07-04-2022
 | Case No :
 CIVIL APPEAL No. 2794/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
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.

MANENDRA PRASAD TIWARI
 versus
AMIT KUMAR TIWARI & ANR.
-
[2022] 13 S.C.R. 174
2022 INSC 1317
Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
*
, J.B. PARDIWALA
 Penal Code, 1860 – s.376 – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) – ss. 5 and 6 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss. 397, 482 – Discharge of Accused – ‘X’, delivered a baby and thereafter committed suicide by registered for the offence punishable u/s 376 of IPC and the provision of the POCSO Act against the respondent – The special Judge framed charges for the abovementioned offences against the respondent – The accused questioned the legality and validity of the order of framing charge by
 Decision Date :
 12-08-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1210/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
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.

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
 versus
JOGENDRA & ANR.
-
[2022] 2 S.C.R. 295
2022 INSC 30
Coram : N.V. RAMANA
*
, A.S. BOPANNA, HIMA KOHLI
 Penal Code, 1860: s.304-B, 498-A – Dowry death – Prosecution case was that fed up with the constant dowry demands made on her by the respondents (husband and father-in-law), which her family could not satisfy, the victim-deceased committed suicide by immolating herself at her – Conviction of respondents for offence under ss.304B, 498A and 306 – On appeal, held: All the four pre-requisites for invoking s.304-B were satisfied, namely, that the death of the victim-deceased took place at her matrimonial home within seven years of her marriage; that the
 Decision Date :
 11-01-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 190/2012
 | Disposal Nature :
 Case Partly allowed

 |  Bench :
 3 Judges
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.

JOSEPH JOHNSON N. MAITHKURI
 versus
SUBRAHMANYA & ANOTHER
-
[2022] 7 S.C.R. 505
2022 INSC 944
Coram : M.R. SHAH
*
, KRISHNA MURARI
 Bail – Cancellation of – High Court granted bail to accused persons – Original complainant has preferred appeal before the Supreme Court for cancellation of bail and submitted that in a case of co- accused, Supreme Court in Crl.A.No.39/2022 by judgment and order dated 06.01.2022 a similar order passed by the High Court – Held: In view of the reasons stated in the judgment and order dated 06.01.2022 passed in Crl.A.No.39/2022, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court in the instant case releasing accused on bail deserve to be quashed and set aside
 Decision Date :
 09-09-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1439/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
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.

CHAITU GOWALA AND ANOTHER
 versus
THE STATE OF ASSAM
-
[2022] 7 S.C.R. 190
2022 INSC 937
Coram : M.R. SHAH
*
, KRISHNA MURARI
 Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 302 and 149 – Appellants alongwith 70 other accused persons were accused of murdering the Managing Director of a company in which they were working – Prosecution examined three eye witnesses who identified the appellants – Trial Court them to life imprisonment – High Court confirmed the conviction – On appeal, held : On considering the disposition of the eye witnesses nothing is forthcoming that appellants caused any injury to the deceased and participated in any manner in commission of the offence –
 Decision Date :
 07-09-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 325/2020
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
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.

SMRUTI TUKARAM BADADE
 versus
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR
-
[2022] 1 S.C.R. 443
2022 INSC 39
Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
*
, SURYA KANT
 Guidelines/Norms/Directions: Guidelines – Issuance of – As regards recording evidence of vulnerable witnesses in criminal matters – Directions issued to facilitate the implementation of directions issued in State of Maharashtra v Bandu @ Daulat’s case centres for examination of vulnerable witnesses in criminal cases – Definition of “vulnerable witness” contained in Clause 3(a) of the ‘Guidelines for recording evidence of vulnerable witnesses in criminal matters’ of the High Court of Delhi widened –
 Decision Date :
 11-01-2022
 | Case No :
 MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. 1852/2019
 | Disposal Nature :
 Disposed off

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
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.

P. DHARAMARAJ
 versus
SHANMUGAM & ORS.
-
[2022] 9 S.C.R. 972
2022 INSC 940
Coram : S. ABDUL NAZEER
*
, V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: ss.320, 482 – Compounding of Offence – Inherent powers of High Court – Exercise of, permissibility – As per s.320(9), no offence can be compounded except as provided in the said section – Compounding of offences is not permissible – Non-Compoundable offences are well within the jurisdiction of the High Court u/s.482 of the Code and Art. 226 of the Constitution and can be quashed on the basis of settlement but the court has to go slow while exercising such jurisdiction when the offence has impact
 Decision Date :
 08-09-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1514/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
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.

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
 versus
DILIP KUMAR MALLICK
-
[2022] 2 S.C.R. 1056
2022 INSC 1301
Coram : DINESH MAHESHWARI
*
, M.M. SUNDRESH
 Service law: Central Reserve Police Force – Punishment of Removal – In the instant case, respondent was removed from the service on the ground that a criminal case was pending against him for offence 337, 506 r/w s.34 IPC before the competent court but, while filling up the verification roll, he concealed the said fact and such an act was prejudicial to the discipline of CRPF – Appellate Authority declined to interfere with the decision of the Disciplinary Authority – Respondent
 Decision Date :
 05-04-2022
 | Case No :
 CIVIL APPEAL No. 2754/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi
தமிழ் - Tamil

 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.

LALANKUMAR SINGH & ORS.
 versus
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
-
[2022] 14 S.C.R. 573
2022 INSC 1061
Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
*
, C.T. RAVIKUMAR
 Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940: ss.34, 16, 18 – Vicarious liability – Appellants are the directors of M/s Cachet Pharmaceuticals Private Ltd. (CPPL) – Test report of the sample of the drug manufactured by CPPL stated that it was not of standard quality – Complaint filed 16 and 34 of the Act – CJM issued summons to all the accused including the appellants – Appellants filed revision petition against the summoning order before the Sessions Judge which was rejected on the ground that there was a specific averment in the complaint that the appellants
 Decision Date :
 11-10-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1757/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
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.

PAPPU
 versus
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
-
[2022] 2 S.C.R. 13
2022 INSC 164
Coram : A.M. KHANWILKAR
*
, DINESH MAHESHWARI, C.T. RAVIKUMAR
 13 13 PAPPU v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH (Criminal Appeal Nos. 1097-1098 of 2018) FEBRUARY 09, 2022 [A. M. KHANWILKAR, DINESH MAHESHWARI AND C. T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ] Penal Code, 1860: ss. 376, 302, 201 – Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act 2012 – ss. 5, 6 – her and killed her and dumped the dead body in bushes near the riverbank –Trial court and High Court concurrently recorded the findings that the prosecution was able to successfully establish the chain of circumstances leading to unmistakable conclusion that the appellant was guilty of the
 Decision Date :
 09-02-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1097/2018
 | Disposal Nature :
 Case Partly allowed

 |  Bench :
 3 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

ગુજરાતી - Gujarati
हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi
தமிழ் - Tamil

 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.

DASHRATHBHAI TRIKAMBHAI PATEL
 versus
HITESH MAHENDRABHAI PATEL & ANR
-
[2022] 16 S.C.R. 522
2022 INSC 1067
Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
*
, HIMA KOHLI
 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – s.138 and s.56 r/w s.15 – Legally enforceable debt on the date of maturity – Whether offence u/s.138 would deem to be committed if the cheque that is dishonoured does not represent the enforceable debt at – Whether s.138 would still be attracted when the drawer of the cheque makes a part payment towards the debt or liability after the cheque is drawn but before the cheque is encashed, for the dishonour of the cheque which represents the full sum – Held: For commission of an
 Decision Date :
 11-10-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1497/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
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.

MEERA
 versus
STATE BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE THIRUVOTRIYUR POLICE STATION CHENNAI
-
[2022] 1 S.C.R. 223
2022 INSC 35
Coram : M.R. SHAH
*
, B.V. NAGARATHNA
 Penal Code, 1860: s.498A – Death of married woman due to self-immolation – Allegation of dowry demand against in-laws – Conviction of mother-in-law and one year RI – Challenged – Held: Deceased was staying with her in-laws, while husband of deceased – It was established and proved that deceased was subjected to torture/cruelty by her mother-in-law (appellant) regarding jewellery – Conviction of appellant u/s.498-A was, therefore, justified – As regards the plea of lenient view in sentencing, incident having occurred in 2006
 Decision Date :
 11-01-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 31/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Case Partly allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
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.

RAM NIWAS
 versus
STATE OF HARYANA
-
[2022] 13 S.C.R. 138
2022 INSC 818
Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
*
, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA
 Evidence – Circumstantial evidence – Completion of chain of evidence – Held: There has to be a chain of evidence so complete so as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act by the accused – Circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency – The circumstances should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved – The accused ‘must be’ and not merely ‘may be’ guilty before a Court can convict
 Decision Date :
 11-08-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 25/2012
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
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.

MALLADA K SRI RAM
 versus
THE STATE OF TELANGANA & ORS.
-
[2022] 3 S.C.R. 5
2022 INSC 386
Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
*
, SURYA KANT
 Preventive Detention – Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug-Offenders,Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Land Grabbers, Spurious Seed Offenders, Insecticide Offenders, Fertiliser Offenders, Food Adulteration Offenders, Fake Document Forest Offenders, Gaming Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Explosive Substances Offenders, Arms Offenders, Cyber Crime Offenders and White Collar or Financial Offenders Act,1986 – s.3(2) and 2(x) – Order of detention u/s.3(2) – It was alleged that detenu was a ‘white-collar
 Decision Date :
 04-04-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 561/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.