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.

HARI & ANR.
 versus
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
-
[2021] 10 S.C.R. 1022
2021 INSC 792
Coram : L. NAGESWARA RAO
*
, SANJIV KHANNA, BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
 COURT REPORTS [2021] 10 S.C.R. [2021] 10 S.C.R. 1022 HARI & ANR. v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH (Criminal Appeal No. 186 of 2018) NOVEMBER 26, 2021 [L. NAGESWARA RAO, SANJIV KHANNA AND B. R. GAVAI, JJ] Penal Code, 1860: ss. 147, 302/149, 323/149, 324/149 and 201/149 – Scheduled Castes the Jat community – Jat girl and Jatav boy along with another Jatav boy who accompanied them, physically assaulted for 12 hours and killed by accused for violating caste-ridden societal norms – 54 persons charged – Trial court convicted 35 persons for the commission of
 Decision Date :
 26-11-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 186/2018
 | 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.

NAVEEN SINGH
 versus
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
-
[2021] 7 S.C.R. 52
2021 INSC 182
Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
*
, M.R. SHAH
 Bail – Forgery / manipulation of court records – Respondent no.2 was beneficiary of the same – FIR u/ss. 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC – Sessions Judge dismissed bail application of respondent no.2 – High Court, however, released him on bail – If justified released respondent no.2 on bail in a routine and casual manner without adverting to the seriousness of the offence and the gravity of the matter relating to forgery and /or manipulation of the court order – It did not at all consider that respondent no.2 was charged for offences u/ss.
 Decision Date :
 15-03-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 320/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

M/S. CHEMINOVA INDIA LTD. & ANR.
 versus
STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.
-
[2021] 8 S.C.R. 352
2021 INSC 381
Coram : NAVIN SINHA
*
, R. SUBHASH REDDY
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.469 – Commencement of period of limitation – Complaint of misbranding – Samples drawn from dealer on 10.02.2011 and sent to the Insecticide Testing Laboratory on 17.02.2011; and the report of analysis was received on 14.03.2011 with show cause notice – Request made on 15.04.2011 for reanalysis of second sample – Second sample sent on 02.05.2011 and re-analysis report was received on 09.12.2011 – Complaint filed on 25.03.2014 – Whether complaint was time-barred – Held: The report of
 Decision Date :
 04-08-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 749/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Leave Granted & Allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

TAIJUDDIN
 versus
STATE OF ASSAM & ORS.
-
[2021] 9 S.C.R. 444
2021 INSC 809
Coram : SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
*
, M.M. SUNDRESH
 Penal Code, 1860 – ss.147/148/324/302/201 r/w 149 – Unlawful assembly – When not part of – Land dispute – Victim died in a mob attack – 32 accused persons convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment – High Court convicted some while others – SLPs by unsuccessful appellants dismissed – However, notice issued in appellant’s case – Held: Only role assigned to the appellant was that of pointing out the place where the victim was hiding – Family members of the deceased never even pointed a finger at
 Decision Date :
 01-12-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1526/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

RAKESH AND ANOTHER
 versus
STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
-
[2021] 6 S.C.R. 874
2021 INSC 321
Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
*
, M.R. SHAH
 Penal Code, 1860: s.302 r/w s.34 – Previous enmity between the complainant party and accused – Gun shot and knife blows on the victim deceased resulting in his death – Conviction under s.302 r/w s.34 by courts below – On appeal, held: recovery of the weapon used in commission of offence is not a sine qua non – PW1 & PW2 were reliable and trustworthy eye- witnesses to the incident and they specifically stated that A1 fired from the gun and the deceased sustained injury – The injury by the gun was established
 Decision Date :
 06-07-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 556/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

HARI OM @ HERO
 versus
STATE OF U.P.
-
[2021] 13 S.C.R. 49
2021 INSC 1
Coram : UDAY UMESH LALIT
*
, INDU MALHOTRA, KRISHNA MURARI
 Penal Code, 1860: ss.396, 412 – Six accused persons tried for committing offences u/ss.396 and 412 IPC, s.3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and s.25 of Arms Act – Trial court convicted all the accused persons for offence u/s accused persons while awarding death sentence to Appellant- Hari Om – High Court affirmed death sentence of appellant-Hari Om, life imprisonment of Appellant-Sanjay and Saurabh and acquitted other three accused persons – On appeal, held: Corroboration of the testimony of a child
 Decision Date :
 05-01-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1256/2017
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 3 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR
 versus
AKHILESH JHA & ANR
-
[2021] 6 S.C.R. 146
2021 INSC 450
Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
*
, VIKRAM NATH, HIMA KOHLI
 Service Law – Departmental enquiry – First respondent- Superintendent of Police allegedly violated administrative orders of the Inspector General of Police for disbanding “Gunda Squad” constituted, operated and supervised by the interrogated by the Squad died in custody – Magisterial enquiry was conducted and the report submitted contained observations against the first respondent – Departmental enquiry subsequently convened against the first respondent and charge sheet was issued – Tribunal
 Decision Date :
 06-09-2021
 | Case No :
 CIVIL APPEAL No. 5153/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 3 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

N. RAGHAVENDER
 versus
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, CBI
-
[2021] 12 S.C.R. 57
2021 INSC 876
Coram : N.V. RAMANA
*
, SURYA KANT, HIMA KOHLI
 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d) – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.409, 420, 477A – Criminal breach of trust by public servant or Banker – Strong suspicion short of conclusive proof – Case of prosecution that accused no.3-brother-in-law of an account of the Academy of which he was Treasurer – Allegedly, appellant and the other co- accused also working in the Bank conspired with accused no.3 by allowing withdrawal of amounts from the said account, despite insufficient funds – Appellant was further accused of pre-maturely
 Decision Date :
 13-12-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5/2010
 | 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.

BHARAT CHAUDHARY
 versus
UNION OF INDIA
-
[2021] 9 S.C.R. 551
2021 INSC 877
Coram : N.V. RAMANA
*
, SURYA KANT, HIMA KOHLI
 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985: ss. 8(c), 22(c), 25, 28, 29, 67 – Seizure of psychotropic substances – Prosecution case that large number of tablets seized by Directorate of Revenue Intelligence from different locations believing – A-1 to A-3 arrested under various provisions of NDPS Act for alleged export of psychotropic substances – Arrest of A-4 on the basis of statements of A-1 and A- 3 for contravening provisions of NDPS Act – Grant of bail to A-4 by NDPS Court – However, the High Court
 Decision Date :
 13-12-2021
 | Case No :
 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 5703/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Disposed off

 |  Bench :
 3 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

KAVITHA LANKESH
 versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.
-
[2021] 10 S.C.R. 309
2021 INSC 654
Coram : A.M. KHANWILKAR
*
, DINESH MAHESHWARI, C.T. RAVIKUMAR
 Karnataka Control of Organised Crimes Act, 2000: s.24 – Purport of – The purport of s.24 is that information regarding commission of an offence of organized crime under the 2000 Act can be recorded by a police officer only upon obtaining prior approval of the police officer not below Inspector General of Police – What is crucial in this provision is the factum of recording of offence of organized crime and not of recording of a crime against an offender as such – Thus, only after registration of FIR, investigation for the concerned offence would proceed in which
 Decision Date :
 21-10-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1236/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 3 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

NASER BIN ABU BAKR YAFAI
 versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.
-
[2021] 10 S.C.R. 353
2021 INSC 649
Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
*
, VIKRAM NATH, B.V. NAGARATHNA
 National Investigation Agency Act, 2008: s.6 – Investigation by NIA – If the Central government is of the opinion that the offence is a scheduled offence and it is a fit case to be investigated by the NIA, it shall direct the NIA to investigate Upon the issuance of a direction by the Central government, two consequences emanate under sub-Section (6) of s.6: (a) the State government and any police officer of the State government investigating the offence shall not proceed with the investigation; and (b) the relevant documents and records
 Decision Date :
 20-10-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1165/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

 |  Bench :
 3 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

BHOOPENDRA SINGH
 versus
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN
-
[2021] 10 S.C.R. 188
2021 INSC 691
Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
*
, B.V. NAGARATHNA
 Bail: Grant of – Correctness of – On facts, 60 year old women accused of murder of village sarpanch – Case of previous enimity between accused and the victim – Four previous bail application rejected – Fifth bail application granted by the High Held: Not sustainable – High Court failed to notice relevant circumstances bearing on the seriousness and gravity of the crime and the specific role attributed to the accused – High Court proceeded on the erroneous basis that no specific or overt act attributed to the accused
 Decision Date :
 29-10-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1279/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

VISHWAS BHANDARI
 versus
STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.
-
[2021] 2 S.C.R. 59
2021 INSC 57
Coram : HEMANT GUPTA, S. RAVINDRA BHAT
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.482 – Complaint filed under ss.363 and 366-A IPC against one ‘V’ and the appellant that the two accused had kidnapped her daughter by alluring her for the purpose of marriage – In the proceedings before the court, the complainant appeared of ‘V’ only while prosecutrix deposed that accused ‘V’ had married her and she has two children with him – Trial court acquitted ‘V’ – Appellant invoked the jurisdiction of High Court for quashing of the FIR and subsequent proceedings, inter
 Decision Date :
 03-02-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 105/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

KALA SINGH @ GURNAM SINGH
 versus
STATE OF PUNJAB
-
[2021] 6 S.C.R. 225
2021 INSC 519
Coram : R. SUBHASH REDDY
*
, HRISHIKESH ROY
 Penal Code, 1860 – s.304 Part II r/w s.34 and s.201 – Appellant-accused and deceased had a sudden fight – In the heat of passion, the co-accused, who had rod with him, gave a blow with the rod on the head of deceased resulting in his death – Thereafter appellant and canal – Appellant and co-accused were convicted by the Sessions Court u/ss.302/34 and s.201 IPC – High Court modified the conviction u/s.302 IPC to that u/s.304 Part-I IPC – On appeal, held: Sudden fight took place in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel – There was no
 Decision Date :
 21-09-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1040/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Case Partly allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

JASWANT SINGH
 versus
STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.
-
[2021] 6 S.C.R. 1100
2021 INSC 650
Coram : DINESH MAHESHWARI
*
, VIKRAM NATH
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – High Court declined to exercise its powers u/s.482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings arising out of FIR u/ss.406 and 420 of IPC – Propriety – Held: The power u/s.482 CrPC is to be exercised to prevent the abuse of process of any secure the ends of justice – Inherent powers should be exercised in a given and deserving case where the Court is satisfied that exercise of such power would either prevent abuse of such power or such exercise would result in securing the ends of justice – It is clear from the facts
 Decision Date :
 20-10-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1233/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

RAMESH ALIAS DAPINDER SINGH
 versus
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
-
[2021] 2 S.C.R. 896
2021 INSC 198
Coram : UDAY UMESH LALIT
*
, K.M. JOSEPH
 Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302, 323 and 324 r/w 34 – Murder consequent to armed assault – Common intention – Vicarious liability – Three accused – ‘S’ and ‘N’, maternal uncles of PW1 (informant), were the principal accused – nursed ill-will against PW1 – PW1 had visited residence of his maternal grandmother alongwith his friends – ‘S’ and ‘N’, who were present there, abused PW1 and his friends leading to a quarrel and scuffle – PW1 and his friends hurriedly left the spot
 Decision Date :
 22-03-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 347/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Case Partly allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

KERALEEYA SAMAJAM & ANR.
 versus
PRATIBHA DATTATRAY KULKARNI (DEAD) THROUGH LRS & ORS.
-
[2021] 8 S.C.R. 737
2021 INSC 594
Coram : M.R. SHAH
*
, A.S. BOPANNA
 Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Condition of Service) Regulation Rules, 1981 – Second petitioner-School directed by High Court to pay arrears of salary as per 5th and 6 th Pay Commission to its teaching and non-teaching staff – Petitioners though ready sought to restrict the same to three years preceding the filing of the writ petitions alleging limitation in view of respondents having approached the Deputy Director (Education) – Held: Only when the petitioners though required to pay wages as per the applicable rules and
 Decision Date :
 01-10-2021
 | Case No :
 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 21660/2019
 | 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.

RAJENDRA KHARE
 versus
SWAATI NIRKHI AND ORS.
-
[2021] 1 S.C.R. 460
2021 INSC 45
Coram : ASHOK BHUSHAN
*
, INDU MALHOTRA
 Constitution of India: Arts. 137 and 145 r/w Order XLVII rule 1 and Order XXXIX Rule 2 of Supreme Court Rules, 2013 – Review jurisdiction – Scope and ambit of – By order dated 18.05.2018, a from the court of Delhi to the Court at Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh – The informant of the criminal case, who was not impleaded as party in the transfer petition, filed Miscellaneous Application for recalling the order dated 18.05.2018 – The Application was dismissed –
 Decision Date :
 28-01-2021
 | Case No :
 TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) No. 262/2018

 | Direction Issue :
 Review Petition 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.

SONU
 versus
SONU YADAV AND ANOTHER
-
[2021] 7 S.C.R. 78
2021 INSC 225
Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
*
, M.R. SHAH
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 439 – Unnatural death of married woman within a year of marriage – Charge-sheet against her husband (first respondent) for offences u/ss.498-A and 304-B IPC and ss.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act – Bail application of first respondent Judge – Bail application u/ s.439 CrPC before High Court – High Court allowed the application – Justification of – Held: In view of the provisions of s.304-B IPC, as well as the presumption arising u/s.113-B of Evidence Act, the High Court, on facts, was clearly not
 Decision Date :
 05-04-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 377/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

GEO VARGHESE
 versus
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.
-
[2021] 10 S.C.R. 393
2021 INSC 618
Coram : S. ABDUL NAZEER
*
, KRISHNA MURARI
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.482 – Allegation against appellant was that the son of the complainant committed suicide due to mental harassment meted out by the appellant – Appellant was physical Training Teacher in the school where complainant’s son was student – overall discipline by the students of the school – The allegations in the FIR was that the appellant had harassed and insulted her son in the presence of everyone due to which he was under deep mental pressure and committed suicide – High Court dismissed s. 482 application for
 Decision Date :
 05-10-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1164/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

BHARATH BOOSHAN AGGARWAL
 versus
STATE OF KERALA
-
[2021] 8 S.C.R. 671
2021 INSC 621
Coram : INDIRA BANERJEE
*
, S. RAVINDRA BHAT
 Kerala Forest Act – ss.2(f), 27, 69 – Appellant convicted and sentenced by Trial Court u/s.27 (1) (d), u/r.3(iii) r/w r.23 of the Transit Rules – Acquitted by Sessions Court – Acquittal reversed by High Court – On appeal, held: Sandalwood oil in question is a forest seizure ipso facto meant that the appellant had conscious knowledge about its illicit nature or origin; or the inability to account for a transit pass implied that it was procured illegally, thus attracting s.27 – Appellant furnished documents explaining how they had sourced the sandalwood
 Decision Date :
 06-10-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 834/2009
 | 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.

MANMOHAN NANDA
 versus
UNITED INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR
-
[2021] 11 S.C.R. 1138
2021 INSC 826
Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
*
, B.V. NAGARATHNA
 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – s.21 – Insurance – Repudiation of claim on ground of suppression or non-disclosure of material facts – Appellant intended to travel to the USA – Appellant was issued a overseas policy – The appellant was medically examined at the instance of respondent No. 1 insurance company prior to the consideration of his request for issuance of a mediclaim policy – The medical report categorically noted that the appellant had diabetes-type II (mellitus- II) –
 Decision Date :
 06-12-2021
 | Case No :
 CIVIL APPEAL No. 8386/2015
 | 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.

RAHUL
 versus
STATE OF HARYANA
-
[2021] 2 S.C.R. 499
2021 INSC 145
Coram : ASHOK BHUSHAN
*
, R. SUBHASH REDDY
 Indian Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 r/w. s.34 – Arms Act, 1959 – s.25(1B)(a) – Prosecution case was that the appellant-accused suspected that his wife was in illicit relation with the victim-deceased – The appellant informed his father-in-law and his brother-in-law about All three of them had taken victim-deceased to a hill and fired on him and thereafter thrown him in a pit – A telephonic message regarding the body was received in Police station – After receiving the said information, the police officials reached the spot – The inspecting
 Decision Date :
 03-03-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 262/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Leave Granted & 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.

MAHENDRA K C
 versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR.
-
[2021] 10 S.C.R. 582
2021 INSC 700
Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
*
, B.V. NAGARATHNA
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.482 – Exercise of power under, scope – Prosecution case was that the victim-deceased, the driver of accused-second respondent committed suicide – In the suicide note, he had made serious and the accused second respondent of amassing wealth disproportionate to the known sources of income and a detailed account of the role of the accused in the events which led to the deceased committing suicide – Second respondent successfully filed s.482 application for quashing the criminal
 Decision Date :
 29-10-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1238/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

PARVEEN @ SONU
 versus
THE STATE OF HARYANA
-
[2021] 9 S.C.R. 643
2021 INSC 835
Coram : R. SUBHASH REDDY
*
, HRISHIKESH ROY
 Penal Code, 1860 – ss.224, 225, 332, 353, 302 r/w s.120-B – Case of prosecution that police party was escorting four accused to be produced before the Court – Appellant, a party to another accused group, conspired together to rescue them – One of the accused was alleged to who later succumbed to fire arm injuries – Accused persons convicted and sentenced – On appeal only by appellant, held: To prove the charge of conspiracy, within the ambit of s.120-B, it is necessary to establish that there was an agreement between the parties for doing an unlawful
 Decision Date :
 07-12-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1571/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi
தமிழ் - Tamil

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

BIJENDER @ MANDAR
 versus
STATE OF HARYANA
-
[2021] 7 S.C.R. 1138
2021 INSC 706
Coram : N.V. RAMANA
*
, SURYA KANT, HIMA KOHLI
 Penal Code, 1860: ss. 392 and 397 – Robbery using deadly weapons – Prosecution case that appellant and co-accused armed with pistols robbed the complainant and his nephew – Conviction u/ss. 392 and 397 and sentenced accordingly, on basis of the disclosure statement – High Court upheld the conviction, however, reduced the sentence u/s. 397 – On appeal, held: Court can convict an accused exclusively on the basis of his disclosure statement and the resultant recovery of inculpatory material – However, in order to sustain the guilt of
 Decision Date :
 08-11-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2438/2010
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 3 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

KAPIL AGARWAL AND OTHERS
 versus
SANJAY SHARMA AND OTHERS
-
[2021] 2 S.C.R. 145
2021 INSC 132
Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
*
, M.R. SHAH
 Constitution of India: Art. 226 – Writ petition – For quashing FIR u/ss. 420/406 IPC – Pursuant to termination of contract of distributorship of the complainant, the manufacturing company demanded outstanding amount due on the complainant – Cheque issued by amount was dishonoured and case u/s. 138 of NI Act pending – Complaint alleging misappropriation of funds against one of the officers of the manufacturing company resulted in negative final police report – Another complaint of complainant u/s. 156(3) Cr.P.C against officers of
 Decision Date :
 01-03-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 142/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

RISHIPAL SINGH SOLANKI
 versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.
-
[2021] 12 S.C.R. 502
2021 INSC 752
Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
*
, B.V. NAGARATHNA
 Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – Claim of juvenility – Determination of age – Matriculation Certificate – Respondent no.2-accused along with others was alleged to have attacked family causing death of his father and uncle – Application filed by respondent no.2, through his mother/natural guardian before the Juvenile Justice Board for declaring the respondent no.2 as a juvenile delinquent – Appellant sought medical test of respondent no.2 to ascertain his
 Decision Date :
 18-11-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1240/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi
தமிழ் - Tamil

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

M/S. SUPREME BHIWANDI WADA MANOR INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.
 versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.
-
[2021] 7 S.C.R. 226
2021 INSC 360
Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
*
, M.R. SHAH
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.438 – Anticipatory bail – Appellant-complainant was awarded contract for constructing road – Four accused were engaged by appellant company as its employees and were farmers on the basis of list provided by the governmental authorities and to disburse compensation to them after verifying authenticity of the claim – Appellant filed complaint against the four accused alleging that the accused were involved in fraud of around Rs.5.08 crores by
 Decision Date :
 26-07-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 680/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

RAJENDRA @ RAJAPPA AND ORS.
 versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA
-
[2021] 2 S.C.R. 293
2021 INSC 219
Coram : SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
*
, R. SUBHASH REDDY
 Penal Code, 1860 – s. 302 r/w 149 – Murder pursuant to armed assault – Deceased was assaulted with axe, stick, pickaxe and stone when he was coming back from work alongwith his wife (PW1) and elder brother (PW2) – Six accused – A-1 died – Trial court acquitted reversed acquittal of A-2 to A-5 and convicted them u/s.302 r/w s.149, however, confirmed acquittal of A-6 – On appeal by A-2 to A-5 (appellants), held: Trial court erred in disbelieving the evidence of PWs-1 to 3 only on the ground that they were relatives of the deceased, forgetting
 Decision Date :
 26-03-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1438/2011
 | 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.

MOHD ZAHID
 versus
STATE THROUGH NCB
-
[2021] 9 S.C.R. 372
2021 INSC 834
Coram : M.R. SHAH
*
, B.V. NAGARATHNA
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.427 – Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – ss. 23, 29 and s.21 – Appellant-accused was held guilty by the PS Customs, Amritsar u/s.23 and s.21 of the NDPS Act for recovery of 4 kg of heroin and sentenced rigorous imprisonment (RI) – Thereafter, he was again held guilty for the offence u/s.29 r/w. s.21(c) of the NDPS Act after recovery of 750 grams of heroin from Delhi and was sentenced for 10 years RI by the Trial Court at Delhi, however, in view of the provisions of s.31 (ii) of the NDPS
 Decision Date :
 07-12-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1457/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi
தமிழ் - Tamil

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

M/S CHEMINOVA INDIA LIMITED & ANR.
 versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.
-
[2021] 8 S.C.R. 360
2021 INSC 381
Coram : NAVIN SINHA
*
, R. SUBHASH REDDY
 Insecticides Act, 1968: s.33 – Allegation of misbranding – Complaint against the appellant-manufacturing company and appellant-Managing Director of the company and other accused under ss.3(k)(i),17,18 and 33 – High Court dismissed the petition for quashing In the instant appeal, plea of appellants was that they had nominated the manager to be incharge and responsible officer of the company to maintain quality of the pesticides manufactured by company and had filed the undertaking to that effect before the respondents along with the resolution of
 Decision Date :
 04-08-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 750/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Case Partly allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

BRIJMANI DEVI
 versus
PAPPU KUMAR & ANR.
-
[2021] 9 S.C.R. 533
2021 INSC 919
Coram : L. NAGESWARA RAO
*
, BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI, B.V. NAGARATHNA
 PAPPU KUMAR & ANR. (Criminal Appeal No.1663 of 2021) DECEMBER 17, 2021 [L. NAGESWARA RAO, B. R. GAVAI AND B. V. NAGARATHNA] Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302 r/w 34; 341, 307 r/w 34 – Bail – Respondent accused of murder of appellant’s son – Bail rejected by Sessions alleging attempt to murder him and in 2020 alleging his murder – Respondent has criminal antecedents – There is a likelihood of him absconding or threatening the witnesses if on bail which would have a vital bearing on the trial – Present cases not fit for grant of bail to the
 Decision Date :
 17-12-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1663/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 3 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

HARJIT SINGH
 versus
INDERPREET SINGH @ INDER AND ANOTHER
-
[2021] 8 S.C.R. 258
2021 INSC 418
Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
*
, M.R. SHAH
 Bail: Grant of bail – Exercise of power while granting bail, scope of – Duty of appellate court particularly when bail was refused by lower courts and principles and considerations for granting or refusing the bail – Discussed – In the instant FIR alleging that his father was murdered by the accused in connivance with respondent no.1 who was undergoing sentence on account of a case registered at the instance of the complainant party – Respondent no.1 filed bail application before High Court – High Court released respondent
 Decision Date :
 24-08-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 883/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Leave Granted & Allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

BHAGCHANDRA
 versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
-
[2021] 9 S.C.R. 765
2021 INSC 851
Coram : L. NAGESWARA RAO
*
, BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI, B.V. NAGARATHNA
 Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 r/w. s.201 and 506-B – Prosecution case that appellant committed murder of his two brothers and a nephew – There was a property dispute of appellant with his both brothers – On the day of incident, PW-1-complainant had gone to attend the – While returning, she saw the appellant armed with an axe getting out of her house – When she went inside her house she saw her brother-in-law lying dead in outer room – His neck was cut – When she came in the courtyard, she saw her son dead, having injuries on his neck
 Decision Date :
 09-12-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 255/2018
 | Disposal Nature :
 Case Partly allowed

 |  Bench :
 3 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.