English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

RAM CHANDER
 versus
THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ANR.
-
[2022] 4 S.C.R. 1103
2022 INSC 468
Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
*
, ANIRUDDHA BOSE
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 432- Power to suspend or remit sentences – Application of a convict for premature release – On completion of 16 years of imprisonment without remission – Value of the Opinion of the Presiding Judge – There is nothing to judge took into account the factors for grant of remission – In his opinion dated 21 July 2021 the Special Judge, Durg referred to the crime for which the petitioner was convicted and simply stated that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case it would not be appropriate to
 Decision Date :
 22-04-2022
 | Case No :
 WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 49/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

MANOJ @ MONU @ VISHAL CHAUDHARY
 versus
STATE OF HARYANA & ANR
-
[2022] 8 S.C.R. 279
2022 INSC 186
Coram : HEMANT GUPTA
*
, V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN
 Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – s.94(2)(ii) – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 – r.12(3) – U.P Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 – U.P. Panchayat Raj (Maintenance of Family Register) Rules, 1970 – in conflict with law by Additional Sessions Judge – Order set aside by High Court, appellant ordered to stand trial as an adult – On appeal, held: Plea of juvenility has to be raised in a bonafide and truthful manner – To seek juvenility, if the reliance is on a document
 Decision Date :
 15-02-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 207/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

AJWAR
 versus
NIYAJ AHMAD & ANR.
-
[2022] 7 S.C.R. 356
2022 INSC 1054
Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
*
, HIMA KOHLI
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss. 161, 482, 173 – Bail – When not granted – FIR was registered against the ten accused for offence punishable u/s 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 352 and 504 r/w. s.34 of the IPC – The first respondent was not named in the FIR, his role during the course of the investigation – After the investigation was completed, charge-sheet was filed against the accused, including the first respondent – During the course of the deposition, PW 1 has adverted to the role of the first respondent – Bail application filed
 Decision Date :
 30-09-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1722/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi
தமிழ் - Tamil

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

RAJU @ RAJENDRA PRASAD
 versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN
-
[2022] 7 S.C.R. 241
2022 INSC 983
Coram : M.R. SHAH
*
, KRISHNA MURARI
 Penal Code – ss.302, 34 – Murder – Circumstantial evidence – As per FIR, the appellants-accused (wife of the deceased and co- accused) had illicit relations – It was further stated that on account of disputes, the accused started residing in her paternal house – and the children back, however, on the next day his body was found hanging from tree – Appellants convicted u/s.302 r/w s.34 – On appeal, held: Case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence – There is no direct evidence that the appellants killed or committed the
 Decision Date :
 19-09-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1559/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

M. NAGESWARA REDDY
 versus
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS
-
[2022] 2 S.C.R. 501
2022 INSC 266
Coram : M.R. SHAH
*
, B.V. NAGARATHNA
 Appeal: Appeal against acquittal – In the instant case, eleven accused were tried together for the offences under ss.147,148, 324, 326, 307, 427 and 302 r/ws.149 IPC– Trial Court convicted accused no.1 to 3 u/ss. 148 and 302 of IPC and acquitted accused no.4 to 11 – High of accused no.1 to 3 and confirmed the acquittal of accused no.4 to 11 – State and complainant filed appeal against acquittal – Held: With respect to accused no.1 to 3, they were identified by PW1, PW3 & PW6 – They were main assailants – The depositions of the
 Decision Date :
 07-03-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 72/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Disposed off

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

U.P. AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD THROUGH HOUSING COMMISSIONER
 versus
RAM SINGH (D) TH. LRS. & ORS.
-
[2022] 19 S.C.R. 853
2022 INSC 448
Coram : K.M. JOSEPH
*
, HRISHIKESH ROY
 Land Acquisition Act, 1894:s. 48 – Scope of – ‘Actual’ Possession – Completion of acquisition not compulsory, but compensation to be awarded when not completed – Acquisition of land u/s. 28 of the U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Urgency Clause invoked – Actual Possession of acquired land not taken – Notification purporting to exempt the acquired land in question – Representation by the beneficiary of the acquisition – By notification dated 25.04.2008 exemption notification cancelled and
 Decision Date :
 20-04-2022
 | Case No :
 CIVIL APPEAL No. 3023/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

MEKALA SIVAIAH
 versus
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
-
[2022] 6 S.C.R. 989
2022 INSC 727
Coram : DINESH MAHESHWARI
*
, KRISHNA MURARI
 Penal Code, 1860: s. 302 – Murder – On account of previous grudge, accused armed with knife, sprinkled chilli powder into the eyes of the agriculturalist and stabbed him on the chest and abdomen, resulting in grievous injuries which led to his death – Conviction u/s. 302 and Interference with – Held: Not called for – On facts and upon appreciation of evidence of the eyewitnesses and other material adduced by the prosecution, the courts below rightly convicted the accused for offence u/s. 302. Constitution of India: Art. 136 – Scope of
 Decision Date :
 15-07-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2016/2013
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
മലയാളം - Malayalam
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.

PUSHPENDRA KUMAR SINHA
 versus
STATE OF JHARKHAND
-
[2022] 11 S.C.R. 25
2022 INSC 860
Coram : N.V. RAMANA
*
, J.K. MAHESHWARI, HIMA KOHLI
 Penal Code, 1860 – ss.109, 409, 420, 467, 471, 477A and 120B – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – s.13(1)(c) and s. 13(1)(d) – Charges under – While giving effect to an award in favour of RPCL, JSEB faced shortage of funds – JSEB decided to make internal RPCL – On basis of the said enquiry, allegations of malpractice and financial irregularity were levelled against the appellant and some others – FIR was registered – Charge sheet was filed – Appellant moved a discharge petition u/s.239 of Cr.PC, which was dismissed by the
 Decision Date :
 24-08-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1333/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) 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.

RAMABORA @ RAMABORAIAH & ANR
 versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA
-
[2022] 4 S.C.R. 827
2022 INSC 809
Coram : INDIRA BANERJEE
*
, V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN
 Penal Code,1860 – ss.143,144,148,147,448,302 and 149 – 22 accused formed unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapon and trespassed into the house of victim-deceased and committed the murder of victim in furtherance of a common object – Sessions Court acquitted all the accused of appellants (A-1 and A-2) and held them guilty of the offence punishable u/s 302 IPC and sentenced them to imprisonment for life but the acquittal of all the other accused was confirmed by High Court – Held: High Court has not given more stronger and cogent reasons to set aside the
 Decision Date :
 10-08-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1697/2011
 | 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.

DEVENDRA NATH SINGH
 versus
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.
-
[2022] 15 S.C.R. 692
2022 INSC 1071
Coram : DINESH MAHESHWARI
*
, ANIRUDDHA BOSE
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 482 – Allegations of defalcation of goods and misappropriation of stocks from the godown of the Corporation – FIR was registered – Magistrate took cognizance of offences u/ss. 409, 467, 468 and 420 of IPC against respondent no.3 petition u/s. 482 Cr.PC – High Court observed that an accused in the case ‘as scapegoat to save the skin’ of the present appellant – Having said so, the High Court proceeded to direct the Magistrate to give directions to the police to further investigate the case in
 Decision Date :
 12-10-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1768/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
മലയാളം - Malayalam
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.

B.L.A. INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED
 versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER
-
[2022] 11 S.C.R. 184
2022 INSC 838
Coram : N.V. RAMANA
*
, KRISHNA MURARI, HIMA KOHLI
 Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 – Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 – Mines (Special Provisions) Ordinance, 2014 – Supreme Court in Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary and Others [2014] 8 SCR 446 (the that the entire allocation of coal blocks, as per the recommendations made by the Screening Committee constituted by respondent no.1- Union of India (UOI) from 14th July, 1993 onwards and the allocations made through the Government Dispensation Route after 1993 were arbitrary and illegal –
 Decision Date :
 17-08-2022
 | Case No :
 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 63/2015

 | Direction Issue :
 Writ petition allowed and contempt petition dismissed

 |  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.

SUBRATA ROY SAHARA
 versus
PRAMOD KUMAR SAINI & ORS.
-
[2022] 7 S.C.R. 122
2022 INSC 1308
Coram : A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.B. PARDIWALA
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 438 – Anticipatory bail – Application under – Scope of – Held: Is limited to the cause of the concerned applicant, applying for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with offence already registered against him and in connection with such a case – Inquiry must be limited to the facts relevant and applicable to the concerned applicant who has come before the Court – No attempt should be made to inquire into matters pertaining to some third party much less beyond the scope of the complaint/FIR
 Decision Date :
 14-07-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 955/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Disposed off

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

MS. P
 versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER
-
[2022] 3 S.C.R. 823
2022 INSC 514
Coram : N.V. RAMANA
*
, KRISHNA MURARI, HIMA KOHLI
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 439 – Special powers of High Courts and Courts of Sessions regarding bail – Exercise of – Held: High Court or the Sessions Court have wide discretion u/s. 439(1) however, it must be exercised after due application of the judicial mind and not individual has been placed on the high pedestal however, the reasons for granting bail should be furnished – Absence of cogent reasons and failure to refer the relevant factors to grant bail can persuade the appellate court to interfere with the order passed – Bail once granted, can be
 Decision Date :
 05-05-2022
 | Case No :
 CIVIL APPEAL No. 740/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) 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.

VIRENDRA
 versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
-
[2022] 7 S.C.R. 464
2022 INSC 678
Coram : SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
*
, M.M. SUNDRESH
 Penal Code, 1860: ss. 302 r/w s. 34 – Murder – Prosecution case that victim was allegedly shot dead and killed by the three persons over a pending property dispute – One of them died during the trial – Conviction of other two-appellant and other u/s. 302/34 and the Arms Act imprisonment by courts below – Appeal by the appellant before this Court – Held: Evidence of eye-witness cannot be relied upon as against the other prosecution witnesses – Recovery of weapon not proved – Evidence to implicate the accused not adequate – Failure of
 Decision Date :
 11-07-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 466/2018
 | 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.

LAKHAN SINGH
 versus
AMARJEET SINGH & ANR
-
[2022] 17 S.C.R. 820
2022 INSC 1327
Coram : DINESH MAHESHWARI
*
, SUDHANSHU DHULIA
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.391 – Additional evidence in criminal appeal – When impermissible – Respondent no.1-accused was convicted u/s 302, IPC and sentenced to life – Conviction and sentence challenged by respondent before High for recording of evidence in respect of his plea of unsoundness of mind – Application allowed, Trial Court was directed to take on record the additional evidence and documents and to send the file back along with additional evidence – On appeal by complainant, held: Evidence
 Decision Date :
 06-12-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2191/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
മലയാളം - Malayalam
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.

JAI PRAKASH TIWARI
 versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
-
[2022] 10 S.C.R. 198
2022 INSC 791
Coram : N.V. RAMANA
*
, KRISHNA MURARI, HIMA KOHLI
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 313 – Power to examine the accused – Object and scope of – Held: s. 313 confers a valuable right upon an accused to establish his innocence – Purpose of s. 313 is to provide the accused a reasonable opportunity circumstances which have emerged against him during the course of trial – Non-fulfilment of the true spirit of s. 313 may ultimately cause grave prejudice to the accused and the court may not have the benefit of all the necessary facts and circumstances to arrive at a fair conclusion
 Decision Date :
 04-08-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 704/2018
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 3 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.

DEEPAK S/O LAXMAN DONGRE
 versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
-
[2022] 8 S.C.R. 35
2022 INSC 110
Coram : AJAY RASTOGI
*
, ABHAY S. OKA
 Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 – s.56(1)(a)(b) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.151 – Constitution of India – Arts.19(1)(d), 19(5) – Respondent no.2 exercising powers u/ s.56(1)(a)(b) passed the impugned order of externment dtd.15.12.20 against appellant, 5 the appellant were relied upon – Statutory appeal and writ petition against the impugned order were also dismissed – Held: As the order impugned takes away fundamental right u/Art. 19(1)(d), it must stand the test of reasonableness contemplated by clause (5) of Article 19 –
 Decision Date :
 28-01-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 139/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ಕನ್ನಡ - Kannada
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

REKHA JAIN
 versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR.
-
[2022] 3 S.C.R. 558
2022 INSC 549
Coram : M.R. SHAH
*
, B.V. NAGARATHNA
 Penal Code, 1860: s. 420 – Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property – Necessary ingredient of s. 420 – Held: To make out a case against a person for the offence u/s. 420, there must be a dishonest inducement to deceive a person to deliver any property to any On facts, no allegation at all against accused-appellant of any inducement by her to deceive and to deliver the gold jewellery – Allegations of dishonest inducement and cheating against her husband – Thus, it cannot be said that she has committed any offence u/s. 420 for which she is
 Decision Date :
 10-05-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 749/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Case Partly 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.

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED
 versus
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA & ORS.
-
[2022] 15 S.C.R. 730
2022 INSC 796
Coram : N.V. RAMANA
*
, J.K. MAHESHWARI, HIMA KOHLI
 Companies Act, 1956 – s.77 – Non-disclosure of information by SEBI – SEBI directed to act fairly – Complaint was filed with SEBI against RIL & its associate companies and its directors alleging that they fraudulently shares of RIL to entities purportedly connected with RIL – Investigation Report was submitted by the Investigating Authority on 04.02.2005 – SEBI in its counter affidavit admitted that the aforesaid report was inconclusive and recommended further enquiry in this regard –
 Decision Date :
 05-08-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1167/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) 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.

IQRAM
 versus
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS
-
[2022] 16 S.C.R. 51
2022 INSC 1295
Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
*
, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA
 UTTAR PRADESH & ORS (Criminal Appeal No. 2319 of 2022) DECEMBER 16, 2022 [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI AND PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.] Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – s. 427 – Sentences in multiple trials – Appellant sought concurrent running of sentences – and consequently the accused was convicted by nine separate judgments – No specific direction was issued by the trial Court as to allow the subsequent sentences to run concurrently – Net consequence of the position emerged that appellant had to undergo a total term of
 Decision Date :
 16-12-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2319/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

SHIV KUMAR SHARMA
 versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN
-
[2022] 13 S.C.R. 403
2022 INSC 765
Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
*
, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA
 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – ss.13(1)(d)(ii), 15 – Penal Code, 1860 – s.477A – Complaint made regarding malpractices in the construction of rooms and varandha in Primary Schools – As per the prosecution, the appellant manipulated the record and after the in the Measurement Book and also with regard to the construction work – Appellant convicted u/s.13(1)(d)(ii) r/w s.15 and u/s.477A, IPC – On appeal, held: For an offence punishable u/ss.13(1)(d)(ii) r/w s.15, it is necessary to establish that a public servant has attempted to
 Decision Date :
 28-07-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1050/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

VASUDEV
 versus
STATE OF M.P.
-
[2022] 1 S.C.R. 514
2022 INSC 135
Coram : INDIRA BANERJEE
*
, J.K. MAHESHWARI
 Penal Code, 1860 – ss.307/34 – Arms Act – s. 3/25(1B)(a) and s. 27/34 – The case of prosecution that Sub-Inspector (PW-6) along with SDOP (PW-10) reached a village on having information that an absconding accused ‘R’ was hiding with his associate members – were hiding in a house – PW-10 challenged the accused to surrender – However, the accused persons opened fire on the police from inside the house – After retaliation from the police parties, the accused ‘R’ expressed his wish to surrender – Accordingly, the
 Decision Date :
 01-02-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 388/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Case Partly allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

S. KALEESWARAN
 versus
STATE BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE POLLACHI TOWN EAST POLICE STATION, COIMBATORE DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU
-
[2022] 10 S.C.R. 38
2022 INSC 1157
Coram : UDAY UMESH LALIT
*
, BELA M. TRIVEDI
 COURT REPORTS [2022] 10 S.C.R. S. KALEESWARAN v. STATE BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE POLLACHI TOWN EAST POLICE STATION, COIMBATORE DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU (Criminal Appeal No. 160 of 2017) NOVEMBER 03, 2022 [UDAY UMESH LALIT, CJI AND BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.] Evidence: Circumstantial Evidence – body in a pit, and also sold the car and shared the sale proceeds – Conviction of all of them for offences u/ss. 120(B), 147, 364, 302 r/w s.120(B)/149, 201 and 396 IPC and sentenced accordingly by the courts below – Held: Entire prosecution case rested on the circumstantial evidence
 Decision Date :
 03-11-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 160/2017
 | 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.

ISTKAR
 versus
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
-
[2022] 8 S.C.R. 854
2022 INSC 1324
Coram : DINESH MAHESHWARI
*
, SUDHANSHU DHULIA
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Chapter VIII – s.107, 117 – Bond in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- was furnished by the appellant in terms of s.107 for keeping the peace in the wake of upcoming panchayat elections – Forfeited – appellant was dismissed – Writ petition filed by appellant, High Court held that there was no illegality in the orders passed – On appeal, held: The scope and nature of s.107 is preventive and not punitive as it aims at ensuring that there be no breach of peace and that the public
 Decision Date :
 11-11-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2034/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Case Partly allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

SRS ADVERTISING & MARKETING PVT. LTD. ORS
 versus
MR. KAMAL GARG & ANR.
-
[2022] 2 S.C.R. 254
2022 INSC 192
Coram : M.R. SHAH
*
, B.V. NAGARATHNA
 Constitution of India – Writ petition – Exceeding of jurisdiction by High Court – Respondent no.1-writ petitioner bought properties auctioned in pursuance of Recovery Certificate which was in favour of bank – 25% of the as earnest money – Respondent no.1 filed application seeking some clarity in the matter, replied by Bank – However, thereafter the Recovery Officer dismissed the application and forfeited 10% of the amount deposited– Appeal filed by respondent no.1, dismissed by DRT –
 Decision Date :
 16-02-2022
 | Case No :
 CIVIL APPEAL No. 1302/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

MOHAMMAD LATIEF MAGREY
 versus
THE UNION TERRITORY OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR & ORS.
-
[2022] 11 S.C.R. 236
2022 INSC 947
Coram : SURYA KANT
*
, J.B. PARDIWALA
 Constitution of India – Arts. 14, 21, 25, 26 and 136 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.176(3) – Exhumation of the dead body – There was an encounter between militants and Police – Four militants were shot including the son of appellant – During the investigation four bullet ridden unidentified dead bodies were recovered from the site of the encounter – Bodies of two out of four persons were later exhumed and handed over to their relatives for performing their last rites – The bodies of the other two
 Decision Date :
 12-09-2022
 | Case No :
 CIVIL APPEAL No. 6544/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
മലയാളം - Malayalam
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.

DILIP HARIRAMANI
 versus
BANK OF BARODA
-
[2022] 4 S.C.R. 615
2022 INSC 539
Coram : AJAY RASTOGI
*
, SANJIV KHANNA
 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: s. 138 r/w s.141 – Dishonour of cheque – Vicarious liability of partner – On facts, cheque issued by authorised signatory of the partnership firm to the Bankfor part payment of loan - Dishonour of cheque due to insufficient funds – – Firm not made an accused – Conviction by trail court and High Court – On appeal, held : s. 141 impose vicarious liability by deeming fiction which presupposes and requires the commission of the offence by the company or firm as a principal accused, to make them liable and
 Decision Date :
 09-05-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 767/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

SARDAR MEENA
 versus
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.
-
[2022] 2 S.C.R. 114
2022 INSC 220
Coram : SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
*
, M.M. SUNDRESH
 Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 – s.38(1) – Removal and Suspension of a member of Panchayati Raj Institution – FIR was registered against the appellant-Sarpanch – Allegations that appellant along with others committed the offence of indiscriminate firing that has resulted in the injuries on several parts of the body of the complainant – High Court granted bail to appellant – Preliminary enquiry initiated u/s.38(1) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act read with r.22(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules
 Decision Date :
 22-02-2022
 | Case No :
 CIVIL APPEAL No. 1558/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Disposed off

 |  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.

MAMTA & ANR
 versus
THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR
-
[2022] 3 S.C.R. 548
2022 INSC 626
Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
*
, BELA M. TRIVEDI
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 439 – Bail – Grant of – Factors to be considered – Allegation of murder of young child for ransom against the second respondent – Grant of bail by the High Court – Propriety of – Held: Exercise of discretion by the High – While granting bail, the High Court failed to take into consideration that crucial witnesses were yet to be examined, that release of the second respondent on bail, at this stage, would impede a fair trial, and that there was an apprehension that the witnesses may be tampered – Thus,
 Decision Date :
 24-05-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 878/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

ROHITH THAMMANA GOWDA
 versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.
-
[2022] 4 S.C.R. 784
2022 INSC 770
Coram : A.M. KHANWILKAR
*
, C.T. RAVIKUMAR
 Child and Family welfare – Custody of minor child – Appellant (Husband) and respondent no.3 (Wife) shifted to US from India and presently are holders of Permanent US Resident Cards – Their child was born in USA in the year 2011 and till 2020 he was living there occurred in connubial relationship – The appellant came to India on 27.02.2020 in India to attend his ailing mother – On 03.03.2020, respondent no.3 came to India and brought the child with herself, without the consent of the appellant – Upon reaching back to USA,
 Decision Date :
 29-07-2022
 | Case No :
 CIVIL APPEAL No. 4987/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Disposed off

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

 IN RE: FRAMING GUIDELINES REGARDING POTENTIAL MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES TO BE CONSIDERED WHILE IMPOSING DEATH SENTENCES
 versus
 IN RE: FRAMING GUIDELINES REGARDING POTENTIAL MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES TO BE CONSIDERED WHILE IMPOSING DEATH SENTENCES
-
[2022] 16 S.C.R. 543
2022 INSC 987
Coram : UDAY UMESH LALIT
*
, S. RAVINDRA BHAT, SUDHANSHU DHULIA
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss. 235, 309 – Whether, after recording conviction for a capital offence, under law, the court is obligated to conduct a separate hearing on the issue of sentence to have clarity in the matter to ensure a uniform approach on the question of granting real and meaningful opportunity, as opposed to a formal hearing, to the accused/convict, on the issue of sentence – Matter referred to a larger bench of five Hon’ble Judges. Referring the
 Decision Date :
 19-09-2022
 | Case No :
 SUO MOTO WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 1/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Matter referred to larger bench

 |  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.

J. VEDHASINGH
 versus
R.M. GOVINDAN & ORS.
-
[2022] 6 S.C.R. 888
2022 INSC 825
Coram : S. ABDUL NAZEER
*
, J.K. MAHESHWARI
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 and s.300 (1) – High Court allowed criminal petition filed by respondents no.1 to 4 u/s.482 CrPC and quashed proceedings u/ss.120B, 406, 420 and 34 IPC taking into consideration that proceedings u/s.138 of the NI same cause of action and on the same facts and grounds were pending, prior to registration of the present proceedings – It held that, looking to the allegations made in the FIR, only offence u/s.138 of NI Act can be made out and continuance of the proceedings for offences u/ss.406, 420, 120B
 Decision Date :
 11-08-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2864/2019
 | Disposal Nature :
 Matter referred to larger bench

 |  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.

SURYAVIR
 versus
STATE OF HARYANA
-
[2022] 2 S.C.R. 1
2022 INSC 139
Coram : UDAY UMESH LALIT
*
, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA
 Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 302, 34 and 120-B – Indian Arms Act, 1959 –s.25 – The present appellant-original accused no.1 along with two persons (‘D’ and ‘P’) were tried for having committed murder of PW-12’s son – FIR was registered against was prepared – Trial Court convicted accused no.1 and ‘D’ of offence punishable u/s. 302/34IPC and acquitted ‘P’ of all charges – On appeal against conviction High Court affirmed the view taken by trial Court – Accused ‘D’ preferred SLP
 Decision Date :
 03-02-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 177/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

THE STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR (NOW U.T. OF JAMMU & KASHMIR) & ORS.
 versus
SHUBAM SANGRA
-
[2022] 8 S.C.R. 349
2022 INSC 1205
Coram : AJAY RASTOGI
*
, J.B. PARDIWALA
 Juvenile Justice: Jammu and Kashmir Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2014: r.74 – Plea of Juvenility – Kathua Rape Case – The Kathua rape case involved abduction, gang rape and murder of an eight year-old girl by six men and the respondent – Special Medical Board opined the age of respondent as above 19 years – However, the CJM, Kathua relied on the deposition of the Executive Officer, Municipal Committee and the deposition of father of respondent held that respondent was juvenile on date of the commission of the
 Decision Date :
 16-11-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1928/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

MUNUWA @ SATISH ETC.
 versus
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
-
[2022] 12 S.C.R. 86
2022 INSC 874
Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
*
, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA
 Penal Code, 1860: ss. 34, 302, 307 – Murder – On the fateful day, while the victim-principal of the College was sitting with his family physician and private practitioner-PW-6 outside his office of the college campus, three persons, A-1, A-2, and and fired gunshots at the principal as well as at PW-6, and fled – First aid given to the principal and thereafter taken to Police Station on bullock cart – FIR lodged by the victim, thereafter sent to hospital where he died of shock and hemorrhage due to injuries caused by
 Decision Date :
 26-08-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2224/2010
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.