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.

B.R.K. AATHITHAN
 versus
SUN GROUP & ANR.
-
[2022] 10 S.C.R. 87
2022 INSC 1236
Coram : SURYA KANT
*
, J.K. MAHESHWARI
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Quashing of criminal proceedings – Second complaint on identical set of facts – Factum of FIR against appellant and his arrest was telecasted and publicised by the respondents – Complaint u/ss.499 and 500, IPC filed by Revision petition filed by the appellant before High Court was dismissed as withdrawn – Appellant filed second complaint under the same provisions on same facts only adding the factum of Revision Petition and claiming that the second complaint is being filed as per the order of the High
 Decision Date :
 29-11-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2080/2022
 | 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.

YASHPAL SINGH
 versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR
-
[2022] 4 S.C.R. 835
2022 INSC 966
Coram : M.R. SHAH
*
, KRISHNA MURARI
 Bail – Cancellation of – Allegedly a land dispute was going on between respondent no.2-original accused and original informant-Complainant – It was also alleged that accused persons had attacked informant and other persons – In the said incident brother of informant died on FIR was registered – Respondent no.2 was arrested – Bail of respondent no.2 was rejected by the trial Court – High Court released respondent no. 2 on bail – Complainant approached Supreme Court and challenged the validity of grant of bail – Held: That on the day of
 Decision Date :
 15-09-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1509/2022
 | 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.

AMRITLAL
 versus
SHANTILAL SONI & ORS.
-
[2022] 1 S.C.R. 721
2022 INSC 243
Coram : DINESH MAHESHWARI
*
, VIKRAM NATH
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 468 – Bar to cognizance after lapse of period of limitation – Relevant date for computation of limitation period u/s. 468 – Held: Is the date of filing of the complaint or the date of institution of prosecution and not the date on which the offence – On facts, the High Court erred in assuming that the date of taking cognizance is decisive of the matter, while ignoring the fact that the written complaint was indeed filed by the complainant well within the period of limitation of 3 years with reference to the date of commission
 Decision Date :
 28-02-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 301/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

ગુજરાતી - Gujarati
हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

KANCHAN KUMARI
 versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR.
-
[2022] 7 S.C.R. 138
2022 INSC 746
Coram : K.M. JOSEPH, HRISHIKESH ROY
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.438 – Anticipatory Bail granted to second respondent by High Court, however adverse directions passed against third party – In the instant case, second respondent filed an application u/s.438 before High Court seeking anticipatory bail for and 468 IPC – High Court while allowing the said application, directed the authority to cancel the licence of agent granted to appellant and not to allow to work as agent in Bihar or anywhere else – Justification of such peremptory direction – Held: High Court went beyond what
 Decision Date :
 25-07-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1031/2022
 | 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.

JAGJEET SINGH & ORS
 versus
ASHISH MISHRA @ MONU & ANR.
-
[2022] 4 S.C.R. 536
2022 INSC 427
Coram : N.V. RAMANA
*
, SURYA KANT, HIMA KOHLI
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: ss.2(wa),372, 439 – Victim’s right to be heard – Consideration for granting bail – Lakhimpur Kheri Incident – On 03.10.2021, an annual Dangal (wrestling) competition was organised Some supporters of respondent No.1, who were travelling by a car to the Dangal venue were allegedly attacked by certain farmers – Due to the large protest, the route of the Chief Guest had to be changed – Respondent Accused became agitated –Respondent No.1 and his aides, armed
 Decision Date :
 18-04-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 632/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Disposed off

 |  Bench :
 3 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

RAM LAL
 versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.
-
[2023] 15 S.C.R. 808
2023 INSC 1047
Coram : J.K. MAHESHWARI
*
, K.V. VISWANATHAN
 HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the dismissal of the appellant- constable from service pursuant to the departmental enquiry was justifi ed; and what is the eff ect of the acquittal, ordered by the appellate judge in the criminal trial, on the order of dismissal passed in Service law – Dismissal from service pursuant to the departmental enquiry on allegation of commission of fraud – Justifi cation – Eff ect of acquittal ordered by the appellate judge in the criminal trial, on the order of dismissal – Allegation against the
 Decision Date :
 04-12-2023
 | Case No :
 CIVIL APPEAL No. 7935/2023
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
 versus
NAROTTAM DHAKAD & ANR.
-
[2023] 14 S.C.R. 306
2023 INSC 770
Coram : ABHAY S. OKA
*
, RAJESH BINDAL
 HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: In cases relating to off ences arising out of the Vyapam Scam, respondents-accused fi led applications seeking direction to supply a Hindi translation of the charge sheet fi led by the appellant in English language. Rejected by Magistrate High Court whether justifi ed in interfering and inter alia holding that Hindi was the only language of the Criminal Courts in the State of MP and therefore, the respondents were entitled to seek translation of the charge sheet into the language of the Court. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
 Decision Date :
 25-08-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2592/2023
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

RAJO @ RAJWA @ RAJENDRA MANDAL
 versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.
-
[2023] 11 S.C.R. 484
2023 INSC 771
Coram : S. RAVINDRA BHAT
*
, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA
 HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Petitioner serving a sentence of life imprisonment for commission of off ences punishable u/ss.302/34 of the IPC, 1860 and s.27 of the Arms Act, 1959 sought direction for his premature release on the ground that he has been in custody for 24 years without or parole. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Remission – Grant of: Held: Remission Board rejected the petitioner’s application for premature release twice – The reason for rejection of the petitioner’s application was the adverse report submitted by the presiding
 Decision Date :
 25-08-2023
 | Case No :
 WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 252/2023
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

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

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

M/S. GAIL (INDIA) LIMITED
 versus
M/S. INDIAN PETROCHEMICALS CORP. LTD. & ORS.
-
[2023] 2 S.C.R. 326
2023 INSC 103
Coram : SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
*
, ABHAY S. OKA
 Constitution of India – Arts. 226, 12, 14 – Commercial Contract – Unequal bargaining power – Maintainability of writ petition – Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas issued a letter for allocation of natural a PSU) – IPCL entered into a contract with GAIL for supply of natural gas – As per the allocation terms, IPCL had to lay down its own pipelines and those pipelines alone were utilised for carrying gas – IPCL laid down pipelines – However, GAIL levied charge for
 Decision Date :
 08-02-2023
 | Case No :
 CIVIL APPEAL No. 3504/2010
 | Disposal Nature :
 Case Partly allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
कोंकणी - Konkani
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.

PRAKASH NISHAD @ KEWAT ZINAK NISHAD
 versus
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
-
[2023] 8 S.C.R. 152
2023 INSC 561
Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
*
, VIKRAM NATH, SANJAY KAROL
 Evidence – Case of circumstantial evidence – Six year old child was sexually assaulted, killed and thrown her into a ‘nala’ – Appellant was arrested on the basis of suspicion – Charged for having committed 377, 302 and 201, IPC –Concurrently convicted, death sentence imposed for the charge u/s.302 and sentenced for other offences – Correctness of – Held: There were yawning gaps in the chain of circumstances rendering it far from being established, pointing to the guilt of the
 Decision Date :
 19-05-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1636/2023
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

RAJKUMAR
 versus
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
-
[2023] 6 S.C.R. 412
2023 INSC 718
Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
*
, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.B. PARDIWALA
 Uttar Pradesh Prisoners (Release on Probation) Act 1938 – Uttar Pradesh Prisoners (Release on Probation) Rules 1938 – Standing Policy formulated on 01.08.2018, amended release of persons sentenced to suffer life imprisonment on conviction under IPC, directions issued by Supreme Court in Rashidul Jafar case – Despite the said judgment and the convicts having fulfilled the conditions of eligibility for the grant of premature release, cases were not being
 Decision Date :
 06-02-2023
 | Case No :
 MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. 2169/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Directions issued

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 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.

MUKESH SINGH
 versus
THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
-
[2023] 11 S.C.R. 886
2023 INSC 765
Coram : M.M. SUNDRESH
*
, J.B. PARDIWALA
 HEADNOTES Issues for consideration: (i) Whether the High Court committed any error in dismissing the appeal fi led by the appellant convict and thereby affi rming the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court for the alleged off ences?; (ii) Whether an accused in the TIP on the ground that he was already shown to the eye witnesses prior to the conduct of the TIP and in such circumstances, the TIP would be nothing short of creating evidence against him?; (iii) Can an accused decline to participate in the TIP that the investigating offi cer may
 Decision Date :
 24-08-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1554/2015
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi
తెలుగు - Telugu

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

BHAGWAN SINGH
 versus
DILIP KUMAR @ DEEPU @ DEPAK AND ANOTHER
-
[2023] 11 S.C.R. 469
2023 INSC 761
Coram : S. RAVINDRA BHAT
*
, ARAVIND KUMAR
 HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the Single Judge of the High Court was justifi ed in granting bail to the respondent-accused in connection with the FIR registered against them by the appellant-uncle of the minor girl alleging gang rape, threat of making video of rape recorded viral and u/ss. 376D, 384, 506 IPC, s. 3 to 6 of POCSO Act, s. 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and s. 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 439 – Special powers of High Court or Court of
 Decision Date :
 23-08-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2560/2023
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
 नेपाली - Nepali
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.

SHASHIKANT SHARMA & ORS.
 versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
-
[2023] 15 S.C.R. 1067
2023 INSC 1036
Coram : PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA
*
, SANDEEP MEHTA
 HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the prima facie ingredients of the off ence punishable u/s. 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act were made out against the appellants. Penal Code, 1860 – ss.147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 504 – Scheduled Castes and of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – s.3(2)(v) – Appellants, at the outset, conceded that so far as the off ences punishable under IPC are concerned, the prayer for discharge would require extensive evaluation of evidence and hence, challenge to the order framing charges was given up
 Decision Date :
 01-12-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3663/2023
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
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.

RANA AYYUB
 versus
DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT THROUGH ITS ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
-
[2023] 3 S.C.R. 892
2023 INSC 101
Coram : V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN
*
, J.B. PARDIWALA
 Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 – s. 3, 4, 44 and 45 – Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 4.3, 406, 418, 420 – Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 – s. 66D – Black Money Act – s. 4 – Act, 1999 – s. 37 – Income Tax Act, 1961 – ss. 133(6) – Petitioner during the pandemic did the crowdfunding campaign using an online crowdfunding platform “Ketto” – Mumbai Zonal Office of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) initiated inquiry under FEMA
 Decision Date :
 07-02-2023
 | Case No :
 WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 12/2023
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

ગુજરાતી - Gujarati
हिन्दी - Hindi
 नेपाली - Nepali
ଓଡ଼ିଆ - Odia
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

SEBIL ELANJIMPALLY
 versus
THE STATE OF ODISHA
-
[2023] 6 S.C.R. 563
2023 INSC 557
Coram : K.M. JOSEPH, ARAVIND KUMAR
 Bail – Denial of – When not proper – Appellant charged for commission of offences u/s. 20(b)(ii)(C), NDPS Act had been in custody for two years and 11 months – Bail denied – On appeal, held: The fact that the co-accused who was released on bail did not surrender Impugned order set aside – Matter to be reconsidered by the High Court – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – s.20(b)(ii)(C). CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.1578 of 2023. From the Judgment and Order dated 20.01.2023 of the High Court
 Decision Date :
 18-05-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1578/2023
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

বাংলা - Bengali
हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

CHANCHALPATI DAS
 versus
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.
-
[2023] 6 S.C.R. 655
2023 INSC 554
Coram : AJAY RASTOGI
*
, BELA M. TRIVEDI
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – FIR and charge-sheet – Quashing of – FIR was registered against appellant-accused u/ss. 468, 471, 406 and 120-B of IPC – Appellant-accused claim themselves to be spiritual leaders and are related to a religious/ spiritual society – had committed theft as well as criminal breach of trust in respect of a bus – Appellant-accused sought quashing of the criminal proceedings – High Court dismissed the criminal revisions – On appeal, held: As per the case of the complainant, the alleged incident of bus
 Decision Date :
 18-05-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1592/2023
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

RAMESH CHANDRA VAISHYA
 versus
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
-
[2023] 6 S.C.R. 643
2023 INSC 569
Coram : S. RAVINDRA BHAT
*
, DIPANKAR DATTA
 Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – ss. 3(1)(x), 18 – Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 323, 325, 392, 452, 504, 506 – Prosecution case that the appellant was engaged in an altercation with the second respondent-complainant over the issue – It was alleged that during this altercation, the appellant verbally hurled caste related abuses towards the complainant and his family members, and subsequently physically assaulted the complainant causing him multiple injuries – Two FIRs were filed – First FIR by the
 Decision Date :
 19-05-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1617/2023
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi
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.

CAPTAIN MANJIT SINGH VIRDI (RETD.)
 versus
HUSSAIN MOHAMMED SHATTAF & ORS.
-
[2023] 6 S.C.R. 469
2023 INSC 555
Coram : ABHAY S. OKA
*
, RAJESH BINDAL
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Application for discharge – Victim’s body was found in a pool of blood in his bedroom – After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against respondent nos.1 & 2 – Trial Court had not yet framed charges – Immediately after was filed – The same was dismissed by the Trial Court – However, the High Court set aside the order passed by the Trial Court and discharged respondent nos. 1 & 2 – On appeal, held: The settled proposition of law is that at the stage of hearing on charges entire
 Decision Date :
 18-05-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1399/2023
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

RAVI MANDAL
 versus
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
-
[2023] 7 S.C.R. 1
2023 INSC 552
Coram : HRISHIKESH ROY
*
, MANOJ MISRA
 Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 302, 34 and 201 – Arms Act, 1959 – ss. 4 and 25 – Acquittal under – FIR lodged by PW-1 (father of deceased) after founding dead body of his son at 0730 hours on 01.11.2001 in a forest, alleging that deceased was with ‘R’ and with ‘S’ in written information – Both accused (R and S) were convicted by the Trial Court u/s.302 r/w. s.34, s.201 of IPC and ss. 4/25 of the Arms Act – Trial Court relied on testimonies of PW-2 and PW-5 to conclude that deceased was last seen alive in the company
 Decision Date :
 18-05-2023
 | Case No :
 CIVIL APPEAL No. 511/2011
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

V. SENTHIL BALAJI
 versus
THE STATE REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY DIRECTOR AND ORS.
-
[2023] 12 S.C.R. 853
2023 INSC 677
Coram : A.S. BOPANNA
*
, M.M. SUNDRESH
 HEADNOTES Issues for consideration: (i) When an arrestee is forwarded to the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 19(3) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, whether writ of Habeus Corpus would lie; (ii) Whether s.41 CrPC has got any made under PMLA, 2002; (iii) The actual import of Section 167(2) of the CrPC, 1973 as to whether the 15 days period of custody in favour of the police should be only within the fi rst 15 days of remand or spanning over the entire period of investigation - 60 or 90 days, as the case may be, as a
 Decision Date :
 07-08-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2284/2023
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

SREE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF SANSKRIT & ORS.
 versus
DR. MANU & ANR.
-
[2023] 7 S.C.R. 366
2023 INSC 539
Coram : K.M. JOSEPH
*
, B.V. NAGARATHNA
 Service Law – Respondent No.1 joined the service of the Appellant-University in July 1999 as a Lecturer – He was placed in the senior scale and granted four advance increments by virtue of Cl 6.16 of the UGC Scheme dtd.21.12.1999 which provided that degree at the time of recruitment as lecturers would be eligible for four advance increments – Later, Respondent No.1 was placed as a Selection Grade Lecturer however, while fixing the pay, two advance increments payable on placement of a Lecturer holding a Ph.D. degree as a Selection
 Decision Date :
 16-05-2023
 | Case No :
 CIVIL APPEAL No. 3752/2023
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

STATE OF U.P
 versus
SONU KUSHWAHA
-
[2023] 10 S.C.R. 993
2023 INSC 603
Coram : ABHAY S. OKA
*
, RAJESH BINDAL
 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012: ss. 6, 5 clause (m) – Aggravated penetrative sexual assault – Punishment for – Prosecution case that accused had put his penis into mouth of the victim aged about 10 years and discharged semen – Conviction u/s. 377 and the POCSO Act, and sentenced accordingly – However, the High Court held that the act committed by the accused was of penetrative sexual assault punishable u/s. 4 and reduced the sentence – Correctness of – Held: Accused committed an offence of aggravated penetrative sexual
 Decision Date :
 05-07-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1633/2023
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

RANJAN KUMAR CHADHA
 versus
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
-
[2023] 13 S.C.R. 289
2023 INSC 878
Coram : M.M. SUNDRESH
*
, J.B. PARDIWALA
 HEADNOTES Issues for consideration : The contention raised was that the High Court erred in holding the appellant guilty of off ence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) as Section 50 of the NDPS Act was not contended that the High Court committed error in recording the fi nding that Section 50 of the NDPS Act was not applicable in the present case as the recovery of the contraband substance was not made as a result of the personal search of the accused but on account of the search of his bag. The
 Decision Date :
 06-10-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2239/2011
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

M/S IVECO MAGIRUS BRANDSCHUTZTECHNIK GMBH
 versus
NIRMAL KISHORE BHARTIYA & ANR
-
[2023] 13 S.C.R. 220
2023 INSC 880
Coram : BELA M. TRIVEDI
*
, DIPANKAR DATTA
 HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: (i) Whether, while considering a private complaint alleging defamation, the Magistrate before summoning the accused ought to confi ne himself to the allegations forming part of the petition only or he may, applying the exceptions to s.499, IPC, dismiss the complaint holding that the facts alleged do not make out a case of defamation? (ii) Whether and, if at all, to what extent, is it open to the High Courts to exercise inherent power saved by s.482, Cr. PC to quash proceedings for defamation by setting
 Decision Date :
 05-10-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1959/2012
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

STATE OF KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA POLICE
 versus
S. SUBBEGOWDA
-
[2023] 11 S.C.R. 19
2023 INSC 669
Coram : ANIRUDDHA BOSE
*
, BELA M. TRIVEDI
 HEADNOTES Issues for consideration: (i) Whether the High Court in exercise of its powers u/s. 482 of CrPC could have discharged the respondent-accused from the charges levelled against him for the off ences u/s. 13(1)(e) punishable u/s. 13(2) of the said Act, despite the fact that pressed for his second application for discharge by submitting the Memo dated 02.12.2014 and despite the fact that after framing of the charge by the Special Court on 23.12.2014, the trial had proceeded further and the prosecution had examined 17 witnesses in support of its case? (ii) Whether the
 Decision Date :
 03-08-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1598/2023
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

M/S. JERMYN CAPITAL LLC DUBAI
 versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ORS.
-
[2023] 6 S.C.R. 565
2023 INSC 509
Coram : KRISHNA MURARI
*
, SANJAY KUMAR
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.102 – Freeze orders and bank guarantee in furtherance there of were imposed against the appellant company on grounds of necessity of investigation of an alleged crime initiated against one ‘D’ allegedly connected to the appellant company an employee/ share holder/director or a key managerial person in the appellant company – Since ‘D’ was in no way connected to the appellant company, the trial faced by him, was in his individual capacity, and not vicariously on behalf of the appellant company – No
 Decision Date :
 09-05-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1434/2023
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

VISHNU KUMAR SHUKLA & ANR
 versus
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR
-
[2023] 13 S.C.R. 1071
2023 INSC 1026
Coram : VIKRAM NATH
*
, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
 HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the order passed by the High Court refusing to discharge the accused in a criminal case and quashing an FIR calls for interference. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss. 239-240 – Trial of warrant- cases Application for discharge – Permissible extent of scrutiny – On facts, refusal of the High Court to discharge the accused- appellant in a criminal case and quash an FIR – Interference with: Held: Case for interference made out – There is no suspicion, much less strong or
 Decision Date :
 28-11-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3618/2023
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

N. RAMKUMAR
 versus
THE STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE
-
[2023] 11 S.C.R. 845
2023 INSC 812
Coram : S. RAVINDRA BHAT
*
, ARAVIND KUMAR
 HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Appellant in fi t of rage, dashed head of the victim against the wall, resulting in death of victim. Appellant convicted u/s. 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. Whether judgment, order and sentence passed by the Sessions Court and affi rmed by rmed or the sentence is to be converted and punishment to be awarded u/s. 304 of IPC and if so, which part of s.304 IPC? Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 and 304 Part II – Limited question before the Supreme Court regarding the affi rmation of sentence u/s. 302 IPC or conversion of sentence
 Decision Date :
 06-09-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2006/2023
 | Disposal Nature :
 Case Partly allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

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

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

PREMCHAND
 versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
-
[2023] 2 S.C.R. 119
2023 INSC 207
Coram : S. RAVINDRA BHAT
*
, DIPANKAR DATTA
 Penal Code,1860 – ss. 300,302 307 and 304 – The trial Court convicted the appellant for the offence of murder of the victim- deceased and attempt to murder three others – The judgment of the trial Court was challenged by the appellant by preferring appeal before the High Court On appeal, held: The trial court and the High Court did not consider written Statement (Ext. 96) of the appellant u/s 313(5) Cr.P.C. in its entirety, non-consideration of the same has made the conviction vulnerable to interference – Trial Court failed to appreciate the defence version
 Decision Date :
 03-03-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 211/2023
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

PAVANA DIBBUR
 versus
THE DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
-
[2023] 13 S.C.R. 1049
2023 INSC 1029
Coram : ABHAY S. OKA
*
, PANKAJ MITHAL
 HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the off ence u/s.120B, IPC included in Paragraph 1 of the Schedule to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, can be treated as a scheduled off ence even if the criminal conspiracy alleged is to commit an off ence which is not a part Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Paragraph 1 of the Schedule – Penal Code, 1860 – s.120B – Appellant purchased the fi rst property from Alliance Business School and the second property from accused no.1 against whom an FIR was registered alleging that he
 Decision Date :
 29-11-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2779/2023
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

K. HYMAVATHI
 versus
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR.
-
[2023] 14 S.C.R. 412
2023 INSC 811
Coram : A.S. BOPANNA
*
, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA
 HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: High Court if justifi ed in quashing the criminal proceedings fi led by appellant against respondent No.2-accused u/ss.138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 holding that it was a fi t case for quashing since the complaint fi led seeking prosecution recoverable debt. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Debt if legally enforceable – Exercise of power u/s. 482, CrPC – Scope: Held: Whether the debt in question is a legally enforceable debt or other liability would arise on the facts and circumstance of each case and in that
 Decision Date :
 06-09-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2743/2023
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

ગુજરાતી - Gujarati
हिन्दी - Hindi
 नेपाली - Nepali
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.

KISHORE BALKRISHNA NAND
 versus
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.
-
[2023] 11 S.C.R. 34
2023 INSC 675
Coram : J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA
 HEADNOTES Issue for consideration : Whether the allegations made in the complaint in the good faith addressed to the lawful authority-Sub Divisional Magistrate, make out an off ence of defamation under Section 500 IPC or not. Penal Code, 1860 – s.499, eighth exception, s. 500 in good faith – When not defamation: Held : Accusation in the complaint preferred in good faith against any person, to a person in lawful authority with regard to the subject-matter of accusation, is not a defamation – By perusing the allegations made in the complaint, no case for
 Decision Date :
 02-08-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2291/2011
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

Y. BALAJI
 versus
KARTHIK DESARI & ANR. ETC.
-
[2023] 8 S.C.R. 1026
2023 INSC 542
Coram : KRISHNA MURARI
*
, V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN
 Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – ss.3, 2(1)(u) – Offence of Money Laundering – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Jobs-for-cash scam in the State of Tamil Nadu – Whether without identifying the proceeds of crime/a of crime and any process or activity connected to proceeds of crime as required by s.3, which constitute the foundational/ jurisdictional fact, can ED initiate an investigation and issue summons – Held: All the three FIRs alleged that the accused had committed offences included in the
 Decision Date :
 16-05-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1671/2023
 | Disposal Nature :
 Disposed off

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 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.

KAMAL
 versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
-
[2023] 11 S.C.R. 49
2023 INSC 678
Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
*
, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA
 HEADNOTES Issue for consideration : In a prosecution case where father was found dead by the complainant-brother of the deceased, and suspicion arose on the son of the deceased on account of the property dispute between the father and the son, and the son fl ed from the scene of incident and later, whether the courts below were justifi ed in convicting the son u/s. 302/34 IPC and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for life. Penal Code, 1860 – s. 302 r/w 34 – Murder – Circumstantial evidence and last seen theory – Conviction on basis of, by the courts
 Decision Date :
 07-08-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 465/2017
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.