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.

DAYLE DE’SOUZA
 versus
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA THROUGH DEPUTY CHIEF LABOUR COMMISSIONER (C) AND ANOTHER
-
[2021] 11 S.C.R. 511
2021 INSC 699
Coram : R. SUBHASH REDDY
*
, SANJIV KHANNA
 Minimum Wages Act, 1948: s.22A, s.22C(1) and (2) – Appellant is director of WS Company which had entered into an agreement for servicing of ATMs with another company – The latter company had entered into agreement with State Bank of all their ATMs – A notice was issued to the appellant and the head of WS company (accused no.2) by Labour Enforcement Officer alleging non-compliance of provisions of 1948 Act – WS company responded that they neither manage the ATMs nor work at the ATMs – Criminal
 Decision Date :
 29-10-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1319/2021
 | 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.

OPTO CIRCUIT INDIA LTD.
 versus
AXIS BANK & ORS.
-
[2021] 2 S.C.R. 81
2021 INSC 56
Coram : S.A. BOBDE
*
, A.S. BOPANNA, V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN
 Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 – s.17, 2(v) and s.2(w) – The Directorate of Enforcement initiated the proceedings against the appellant under PMLA – In the said process the Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement through the communication dated Anti Money-Laundering (AML) Officer of Respondents No.1 to 3 Banks instructed them that the accounts maintained by the appellant company be ‘debit freezed/ stop operations’ – Aggrieved, the appellant filed writ petition and sought to quash the communication dated 15.05.2020
 Decision Date :
 03-02-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 102/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Case Partly allowed

 |  Bench :
 3 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

বাংলা - Bengali
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.

BRIJESH SINGH
 versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS
-
[2021] 6 S.C.R. 522
2021 INSC 341
Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, M.R. SHAH
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 378 – Appeal against acquittal – Grant of leave to appeal against order of acquittal by trial court – Principles to be considered by the High Court – On facts, trial court acquitted second to sixth respondents under the Penal Code and Dowry Prohibition Act – Application for leave to appeal by the informant – Rejected by the High Court – On appeal, held: Judgment of the High Court did not meet the requirements to be observed, consistent with the provisions of s. 378 – High Court
 Decision Date :
 20-07-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 646/2021
 | 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.

XXX
 versus
THE STATE OF KERALA & ORS.
-
[2021] 7 S.C.R. 1115
2021 INSC 770
Coram : VINEET SARAN, ANIRUDDHA BOSE
 Practice and Procedure – Recall of earlier order – By order dated 20.04.2021, FIR quashed by High Court by a detailed reasoned order – Thereafter, on 28.04.2021, High Court took up the matter suo moto and recalled the order dated 20.04.2021 – Propriety of – Held: Not to alter the judgment and order once passed, except to correct the clerical or arithmetical error – There is no power, except u/s.362 CrPC, which only provides for correction of any clerical or arithmetical error – The same does not empower the court to recall the earlier order
 Decision Date :
 22-11-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1444/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  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.

BHAGWAN NARAYAN GAIKWAD
 versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
-
[2021] 9 S.C.R. 81
2021 INSC 503
Coram : AJAY RASTOGI
*
, ABHAY S. OKA
 Penal Code, 1860 – s.326 – Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons – Conviction under – Prosecution case that the appellant and other accused persons attacked the victim with a lethal weapon which chopped off his right arm and leg during the course of the with the immediate medical treatment – Trial Court convicted 12 accused persons including appellant – accused for the offence punishable u/s.326 r/w. s.149 IPC and each of them was sentenced to suffer 7 years rigorous imprisonment – Appeal before the High Court was collectively
 Decision Date :
 20-09-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1039/2021
 | 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.

RAMESH BHAVAN RATHOD
 versus
VISHANBHAI HIRABHAI MAKWANA MAKWANA (KOLI) & ANR.
-
[2021] 7 S.C.R. 17
2021 INSC 265
Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
*
, M.R. SHAH
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 439 – Special powers of High Court or Court of Session regarding bail – On facts, six persons implicated in five homicidal deaths – Grant of bail by High Court – Correctness of – Held: Nature of the offence, its gravity is a important bearing on the grant of bail – On facts, while granting bail to the six accused, the High Court committed serious mistake by failing to recognize material aspects of the case, rendering the orders of the High Court vulnerable to assail on the ground of perversity – High Court
 Decision Date :
 20-04-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 422/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  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.

JITUL JENTILAL KOTECHA
 versus
STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS. ETC
-
[2021] 11 S.C.R. 9
2021 INSC 718
Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
*
, B.V. NAGARATHNA
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 482 – Inherent powers of High Court – Exercise of – On facts, dispute over title of land – FIR registered against respondents u/ss 465, 467, 468 and 120B IPC by the appellant – Respondents nos. 2 to 7 filed petitions u/s 482 before of FIR – Interim order by the High Court that investigation to be continued but charge-sheet to be filed only with its permission – Draft charge-sheet placed before the High Court for offences punishable u/ss. 385, 389, 418, 477, 506(2), 120B and 34 IPC – Draft charge-sheet
 Decision Date :
 12-11-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1328/2021
 | 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.

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
 versus
DALBIR SINGH
-
[2021] 7 S.C.R. 800
2021 INSC 520
Coram : HEMANT GUPTA
*
, V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN
 Service Law – Dismissal from service – The writ petitioner was a General Duty Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) – A FIR was lodged against the writ petitioner u/ss. 302, 307 of IPC and s.27 of the Arms Act – He was accused of firing from his service and Deputy Commandant, resulting in death of the Head Constable and injuring Deputy Commandant – Trial Court convicted the writ petitioner – However, the High Court acquitted him – Criminal Appeal filed by the State against the acquittal of the High Court was dismissed by the
 Decision Date :
 21-09-2021
 | Case No :
 CIVIL APPEAL No. 5848/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
मराठी - Marathi
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.

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
 versus
PANKAJ JAGSHI GANGAR
-
[2021] 9 S.C.R. 307
2021 INSC 824
Coram : M.R. SHAH
*
, SANJIV KHANNA
 Penal Code, 1860 – ss.384,386,387 r/w. s.34 – Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 – s.23(1)(a) and s.21(4) – Prosecution case that there was a organized crime by one international gangster and it was also found that from time to time, the respondent was paying crime syndicate and other gangs which they used to use the said amount for taking help of other members by paying amount to them and it was also found that the respondent was running the Matka business – After investigation a charge sheet was submitted under the provisions of the IPC
 Decision Date :
 03-12-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1493/2021
 | 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.

SARTAJ SINGH
 versus
STATE OF HARYANA & ANR. ETC.
-
[2021] 3 S.C.R. 87
2021 INSC 185
Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
*
, M.R. SHAH
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.319 – Summoning of additional accused – Appellant-original informant was attacked by private respondents and other accused persons – On basis of the statement of the appellant, FIR was lodged for offences u/ss.148, 149, 341, 323, 324, – Thereafter, charge-sheet was filed by the Investigating Officer against the other accused, but not against the private respondents – During the trial the appellant was examined as P.W-1, he named the private respondents in his evidence specifically and stood the test of
 Decision Date :
 15-03-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 298/2021
 | 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.

BANKA SNEHA SHEELA
 versus
THE STATE OF TELANGANA & ORS.
-
[2021] 8 S.C.R. 978
2021 INSC 371
Coram : R.F. NARIMAN
*
, HRISHIKESH ROY
 Preventive detention: Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-leggers, Dacoits, Drug-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders Land-Grabbers, Spurious Seed Offenders, Insecticide Offenders, Fertiliser Offenders, Food Adulteration Offenders, Fake Commodities Offenders, 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) – Preventive detention under – On facts, detenu accused of cheating
 Decision Date :
 02-08-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 733/2021
 | 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.

SRIPATI SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS SON GAURAV SINGH
 versus
THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR.
-
[2021] 10 S.C.R. 116
2021 INSC 687
Coram : M.R. SHAH
*
, A.S. BOPANNA
 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1882: s.138 – Respondent no.2 obtained financial assistance of Rs.2 crore from the appellant due to previous acquaintance and assured that the amount would be returned in June/July 2015 – Towards were handed over to appellant – Based on assurance of payment, appellant presented the cheques for realisation in October 2015, however same were dishonoured on account of insufficiency of funds – Appellant filed complaint under s.420 IPC and also under s.138 NI Act – Respondent
 Decision Date :
 28-10-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1269/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Case Partly allowed

 | Direction Issue :
 Appeal 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.

TAXES OFFICER, CIRCLE-B, BHARATPUR
 versus
M/S BHAGAT SINGH
-
[2021] 1 S.C.R. 488
2021 INSC 36
Coram : INDIRA BANERJEE
*
, SANJIV KHANNA
 Rajasthan Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicle into Local Areas Act, 1988 – Respondent purchased a truck/trailer on 26.12.2009 – On 11.07.2012, the respondent received a summon under 1988 Act – The respondent failed to the Assistant Commissioner Commercial Taxes Department levied a total demand of Rs.3,00,376/-, which included tax, penalty and interest – Aggrieved, the respondent filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority and contended that the Assessment order was barred by limitation, the
 Decision Date :
 21-01-2021
 | Case No :
 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 15870/2020

 | Direction Issue :
 SLP 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.

 LAXMIBAI CHANDARAGI& ANR.
 versus
THE STATE OF KARNATKA & ORS.
-
[2021] 1 S.C.R. 518
2021 INSC 67
Coram : SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
*
, HRISHIKESH ROY
 Constitution of India – Article 21 – Right to choose life partner – Missing complaint of petitioner no.1 lodged by her father – FIR – On investigation it was found that without informing her parents, she had travelled from Hubli to Delhi no.2 – Resided with him in U.P – Sent marriage certificate to parents on whatsapp – Informed IO – IO insisted on her to visit Murgod police station, objected by her in view of threat from parents – Petitioners approached Allahabad High Court for protection, matter
 Decision Date :
 08-02-2021
 | Case No :
 WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 359/2020
 | 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.

SURAJDEO MAHTO AND ANR.
 versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR
-
[2021] 8 S.C.R. 911
2021 INSC 379
Coram : N.V. RAMANA
*
, SURYA KANT, ANIRUDDHA BOSE
 Evidence: Circumstantial evidence – Conviction on basis of – Permissibility of – On facts, prosecution case that appellant no. 1 lured the victim out of his house, remained with him all along, on the fourth day joined by appellant no. 2 thereafter, both conspired and murdered the no. 1 and 2, u/s. 302 r/w 34 and 120B and sentenced accordingly – Appellant no. 1 also convicted u/s. 364 – Upheld by the High Court – On appeal, held: Upon considering the prosecution evidence in entirety, no reason to disbelieve the prosecution version of last seen theory
 Decision Date :
 04-08-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1677/2011
 | Disposal Nature :
 Case Partly allowed

 |  Bench :
 3 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

বাংলা - Bengali
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.

C. SIVASANKARAN
 versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
-
[2021] 9 S.C.R. 589
2021 INSC 833
Coram : A.M. KHANWILKAR, DINESH MAHESHWARI, C.T. RAVIKUMAR
 Diplomats/Ambassadors – Diplomatic immunity – Ambassador- at-large – Relief(s) claimed in writ petition before High Court on the assertion that the petitioner being an Ambassador-at-large of Seychelles, enjoys diplomatic immunity and, therefore, cannot be proceeded with before by way of criminal action – Argument rejected by High Court – Propriety – Held: Proper – For, the petitioner does not come within the sweep of definition of “diplomatic agent” or for that matter any other category of officials referred to in Article 1 of the
 Decision Date :
 07-12-2021
 | Case No :
 WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 302/2019
 | Disposal Nature :
 Directions issued

 |  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.

SMRITI MADAN KANSAGRA
 versus
PERRY KANSAGRA
-
[2021] 10 S.C.R. 742
2021 INSC 632
Coram : UDAY UMESH LALIT
*
, AJAY RASTOGI, HEMANT GUPTA
 Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 – Custody of minor child – Obtained by fraud – Contempt of Court – Guardianship petition filed by father (of Indian origin) settled in Kenya for custody of the Family Court, New Delhi – Allowed – Affirmed by High Court – Undertaking given by him to submit to the jurisdiction of Indian Courts – High Court’s order challenged by mother – Appeal dismissed by majority judgment of Supreme Court dtd. 28.10.20 – Custody
 Decision Date :
 07-10-2021
 | Case No :
 MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. 1167/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Disposed off

 | Direction Issue :
 Application disposed of

 |  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.

UNION OF INDIA THROUGH NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU, LUCKNOW
 versus
MD. NAWAZ KHAN
-
[2021] 7 S.C.R. 819
2021 INSC 526
Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
*
, B.V. NAGARATHNA
 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – ss.8, 21, 27A and 29 – On receiving information, a vehicle was intercepted by the NCB officers in which respondent and other two accused persons were travelling – Nothing objectionable was found in the search – However, search of car revealed two packets together weighing 3.300 kg hidden under the place where wiper is connected to the front bonnet of the car – The application for bail of the respondent was rejected by the Additional District and Sessions Judge – The High
 Decision Date :
 22-09-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1043/2021
 | 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.

THWAHA FASAL
 versus
UNION OF INDIA
-
[2021] 8 S.C.R. 797
2021 INSC 688
Coram : AJAY RASTOGI
*
, ABHAY S. OKA
 Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967: Factors for consideration while granting bail – While deciding a bail petition filed by an accused against whom offences under Chapters IV and VI of the 1967 Act have been alleged, the Court has to consider whether there are reasonable grounds for the accused is prima facie true – If the Court is satisfied after examining the material on record that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against the accused is prima facie true, then the accused is entitled to bail – Thus, the scope of inquiry is to
 Decision Date :
 28-10-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1302/2021
 | 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.

IRAPPA SIDDAPPA MURGANNAVAR
 versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA
-
[2021] 11 S.C.R. 51
2021 INSC 707
Coram : L. NAGESWARA RAO
*
, SANJIV KHANNA, BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
 Penal Code, 1860: ss. 302, 376, 364, 366A and 201 – Rape and murder – Prosecution case that accused raped and murdered a five year old girl, and then disposed of her body, tied in a gunny bag, into the stream – Conviction and sentence for commission of offence u/s. 302, 376, 364, Upheld by the High Court – On appeal, held: On overall view of the evidence and witness statements adduced by the prosecution, the chain of circumstances affirmatively establishes the guilt of the appellant – Contradictions and inconsistencies highlighted in the prosecution’s
 Decision Date :
 08-11-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1473/2017
 | Disposal Nature :
 Disposed off

 |  Bench :
 3 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ଓଡ଼ିଆ - Odia
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 ODISHA
 versus
PRATIMA MOHANTY ETC.
-
[2021] 9 S.C.R. 335
2021 INSC 872
Coram : M.R. SHAH
*
, B.V. NAGARATHNA
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 482 – An FIR was lodged u/s. 420 r/w.120B IPC and ss.13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the public servants occupying crucial positions in Bhubaneswar Development Authority (BDA) and in Housing and Development entered into a criminal conspiracy, abusing their official position distributed prime plots among themselves and their relatives at minimal rates – Five Accused persons approached High Court u/s.482 Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings – The High Court partly allowed the
 Decision Date :
 11-12-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1455/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  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.

ANVERSINH @ KIRANSINH FATESINH ZALA
 versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
-
[2021] 1 S.C.R. 249
2021 INSC 16
Coram : N.V. RAMANA
*
, S. ABDUL NAZEER, SURYA KANT
 Penal Code, 1860: ss.361 and 366 – Kidnapping – Victim- minor girl aged 16 years recovered from custody of appellant – Appellant admited to having established sexual intercourse and of having an intention to marry the victim – Conviction under ss.361 and 366 – Held: there should be an act of enticing or taking, in addition to establishing the child’s minority (being sixteen for boys and eighteen for girls) and care/keep of a lawful guardian – Such ‘enticement’ need not be direct or immediate in time and can also be through
 Decision Date :
 12-01-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1919/2010
 | 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.

SURENDRAN
 versus
SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE
-
[2021] 7 S.C.R. 171
2021 INSC 317
Coram : ASHOK BHUSHAN, VINEET SARAN, M.R. SHAH
 Sentence / Sentencing – Trial Court (Magistrate) convicted appellant u/ss.279, 338 IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs.500/- u/s.337 IPC – Conviction upheld by Sessions Judge and High Court – Appellant, however, was on bail all throughout – – Plea of appellant that he was sole earning member of a poor family consisting of four children and his wife; and if he was sent to jail after so many years, he will suffer irreparable injury – Held: Conviction of appellant affirmed – However, on facts, specially the fact that
 Decision Date :
 30-06-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 536/2021
 | 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.

VIPAN KUMAR DHIR
 versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER
-
[2021] 6 S.C.R. 1137
2021 INSC 598
Coram : N.V. RAMANA
*
, SURYA KANT, HIMA KOHLI
 Bail – Dowry death alleged – Respondent no.2-accused, the mother-in- law of the deceased charged u/ss.304B, 302 r/w 120B – Anticipatory bail granted – Held: Offence alleged in the instant case is heinous – High Court swayed by the fact that the accused – However, this is contrary to the record as she remained absconding for more than two years after being declared a proclaimed offender – She chose to join investigation only after securing interim bail from the High Court – Further, ground of parity with co-accused,
 Decision Date :
 04-10-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1161/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Disposed off

 |  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.

LAKSHMAN SINGH
 versus
STATE OF BIHAR (NOW JHARKHAND)
-
[2021] 6 S.C.R. 723
2021 INSC 352
Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
*
, M.R. SHAH
 Penal Code, 1860: ss. 327 and 147 – Prosecution case was that on the day of general election PW-8 was issuing slips to the voters 200 yards away from pooling booth – Accused persons who belonged to another village came there armed with lathis, sticks and country made pistols and asked over voter list and on refusal by PW-8 started beating him with hands, fists, lathis and sticks – When PW-10, the brother of PW-8 came to rescue him, accused-‘D’ fired gun shot at PW-10 due to which he received pellet injuries – Accused-‘A’ fired at PW- 12
 Decision Date :
 23-07-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 606/2021
 | 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.

INDRA DEVI
 versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.
-
[2021] 8 S.C.R. 23
2021 INSC 356
Coram : SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
*
, HEMANT GUPTA
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.197 – Sanction for prosecution – Case of complainant was that in a sale transaction, the purchaser fabricated the agreement with the intention to defraud her – This was allegedly done in collusion with the then executive officer of the the dimensions of the plot whch was sold to him with the intention to grab the land and house occupied by the complainant and her husband – Respondent no.2 was the concerned clerk during the relevant period though he was neither named in the FIR nor in the charge sheet –
 Decision Date :
 23-07-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 593/2021
 | 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.

ASHIM @ ASIM KUMAR HARANATH BHATTACHARYA @ ASIM HARINATH BHATTACHARYA @ ASEEM KUMAR BHATTACHARYA
 versus
NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY
-
[2021] 9 S.C.R. 607
2021 INSC 813
Coram : AJAY RASTOGI
*
, ABHAY S. OKA
 Bail: Post-arrest bail – Trial for offence under National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 – Charge sheet filed against the accused in 2012 while charges framed after seven years in 2019 – Statement of still not completed – Large number of prosecution witnesses yet to be examined – Appellant-accused in custody since 2012 and completed nine and a half years of incarceration as undertrial prisoner – Appellant seeking bail – Held: Deprivation of personal liberty without
 Decision Date :
 01-12-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1525/2021
 | 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.

RAHMAT KHAN @ RAMMU BISMILLAH
 versus
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
-
[2021] 8 S.C.R. 571
2021 INSC 424
Coram : INDIRA BANERJEE
*
, V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN
 Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 – s.56(1)(a)(b) – Externment order – The State Government introduced a scheme for the upliftment of the Muslim community by providing quality education to Muslim children – The State announced the disbursement of grants to 33 Madrasas of – Appellant came to know of irregularities in the running of Madrasas, including misappropriation of public money distributed to Madrasas in the said District – Pursuant thereto, various complaints were made – The appellant requested the Collector as also the police to
 Decision Date :
 25-08-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 884/2021
 | 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
اُردُو - Urdu

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

THE STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND OTHERS
 versus
DR. SALEEM UR REHMAN
-
[2021] 10 S.C.R. 864
2021 INSC 703
Coram : M.R. SHAH
*
, A.S. BOPANNA
 J&K Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006: s.3, second proviso, s.5(1)(d) r/w 5(2) – Authorisation by Senior Superintendent of Police to the inspector to enquire into the FIR for the offences under ss.5(1)(d) r/w 5(2) of the J&K PC Act, 2006 Ranbir Penal Code, legality of – Requirement to give reasons in the authorisation – Held: It cannot be said that there was non- application of mind on the part of the Senior Superintendent of Police authorising the inspector to enquire into the FIR for the stated offences – The
 Decision Date :
 29-10-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1170/2021
 | 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.

UTTAR PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
 versus
GAJADHAR NATH
-
[2021] 9 S.C.R. 394
2021 INSC 846
Coram : HEMANT GUPTA
*
, V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN
 Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Misconduct – Respondent- workman removed from service as conductor – Order of removal set aside by Tribunal – Confirmed by High Court – Held: Tribunal or High Court could not reject the appellant- employer in respect of misconduct of the workman before the adjudicator – Non lodging of FIR cannot be the circumstance against the witness examined by the employer – Initiation/non- initiation of criminal proceedings against an employee has no bearing to prove misconduct in
 Decision Date :
 08-12-2021
 | Case No :
 CIVIL APPEAL No. 7536/2021
 | 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.

ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR INDIA
 versus
SATISH AND ANOTHER
-
[2021] 10 S.C.R. 955
2021 INSC 762
Coram : UDAY UMESH LALIT
*
, S. RAVINDRA BHAT
*
, BELA M. TRIVEDI
 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012: s. 7 –”sexual assault” –Words touch and physical contact – Interpretation of – Held: Both the said words “touch” and “physical contact”have been interchangeably used in s. 7 by the with regard to the sexual parts of the body, whereas the word “physical contact” has been used for any other act – Thus, the act of touching the sexual part of body or any other act involving physical contact, if done with “sexual intent” would amount to
 Decision Date :
 18-11-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1410/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Disposed off

 | Direction Issue :
 Appeals disposed of

 |  Bench :
 3 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
 versus
BHALCHANDRA LAXMISHANKAR DAVE
-
[2021] 1 S.C.R. 453
2021 INSC 53
Coram : ASHOK BHUSHAN
*
, M.R. SHAH, R. SUBHASH REDDY
 Appeal: Appeal against acquittal – Scope of interference – Conviction of respondent-accused by trial court u/s.7 r/w ss.13(1) and (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act – Acquittal by High Court – On State’s appeal, held: High Court made general observations on witnesses examined – However, there was no re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record in detail, which ought to have been done by High Court while dealing with order of conviction passed by trial court – High Court ought to have appreciated that it was dealing with first appeal
 Decision Date :
 02-02-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 99/2021

 | Direction Issue :
 Appeal allowed and matter remitted to High Court.

 |  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.

KALLU KHAN
 versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN
-
[2021] 9 S.C.R. 700
2021 INSC 873
Coram : INDIRA BANERJEE
*
, J.K. MAHESHWARI
 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act – ss.8, 21, 43, 50 – Appellant convicted u/ss.8, 21 – Affirmed by High Court – On appeal, held: As recovery of the contraband from appellant’s motorcycle was a chance recovery on a public road, apply – Seizure of the motor cycle from appellant is proved beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, the question of ownership of vehicle is not relevant – Compliance of s.50 not attracted in the present case – Concurrent findings by courts holding the appellant guilty and
 Decision Date :
 11-12-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1605/2021
 | 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.

JOSE ANTONIO ZALBA DIEZ DEL CORRAL ALIAS JOSE ANTONIO ZALBA
 versus
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.
-
[2021] 6 S.C.R. 767
2021 INSC 367
Coram : VINEET SARAN, DINESH MAHESHWARI
 Constitution of India – Art. 32 – Habeas Corpus Petition – For custody of minor children – Maintainability – Petitioner had married respondent no.6 and they have two minor children – Disputes between petitioner and Habeas Corpus Petition filed u/Art.32 by petitioner, a citizen of Spain, for custody of the two minor children who were living with respondent no.6 in India – Preliminary objection raised by respondent no.6 with regard to maintainability of the Habeas Corpus petition, particularly when a
 Decision Date :
 28-07-2021
 | Case No :
 WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 318/2020
 | 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.

BRAJESH SINGH
 versus
SUNIL ARORA & ORS.
-
[2021] 7 S.C.R. 890
2021 INSC 388
Coram : R.F. NARIMAN, BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
 Contempt of Court: Contempt petition – Issue as regards publication of criminal antecedents of the contesting candidates – Contempt petition alleging violation of order dated 13.02.2020 passed in **Rambabu Singh Thakur’s case – Allegation that there has been order by various political parties during the Bihar Assembly Elections-2020, as regards publication and declaration of criminal antecedents by various political parties of their candidates – Prior thereto, directions have been issued by the Constitution Bench of this Court in
 Decision Date :
 10-08-2021
 | Case No :
 CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 656/2020
 | Disposal Nature :
 Disposed off

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.