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.

BHURI BAI
 versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
-
[2022] 10 S.C.R. 190
2022 INSC 1325
Coram : DINESH MAHESHWARI
*
, SUDHANSHU DHULIA
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 439(2) – Cancellation of bail – Power of – Held: Power of cancellation of bail should be exercised with extreme care and circumspection – Such cancellation cannot be ordered merely for any perceived indiscipline on the part of granting bail – Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances or grounds are required to cancel the bail already granted – Unless a strong case based on any supervening event is made out, an order granting bail is not to be lightly interfered with – Cancellation is envisaged only in
 Decision Date :
 11-11-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1972/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

RAMANAND @ NANDLAL BHARTI
 versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
-
[2022] 5 S.C.R. 162
2022 INSC 1075
Coram : UDAY UMESH LALIT
*
, S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.B. PARDIWALA
 Penal Code, 1860: s.302 – Prosecution case was that on fateful day, appellant-accused murdered his wife and four children with a sharp cutting weapon while they were sleeping – Motive behind the murder was attributed to extra marital affair lady which was highly opposed by the deceased- wife – Discovery statement made by appellant and consequently recovery made – Appellant said to have made extra judicial confession to prosecution witness – Trial court convicted the appellant and passed death sentence –
 Decision Date :
 13-10-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 64/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 3 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

INDRAJEET YADAV
 versus
SANTOSH SINGH AND ANR.
-
[2022] 3 S.C.R. 73
2022 INSC 440
Coram : M.R. SHAH
*
, B.V. NAGARATHNA
 Practice and Procedure – Pronouncement of final orders without a reasoned judgment, deprecated – High Court while allowing appeals of the accused pronounced the operative portion of the order and set aside the judgment and order of conviction passed by the trial court and directed the be released, but a reasoned judgment and order was pronounced after approximately five months – On appeal, held: Despite strong observations made by Supreme Court as far as back in the year 1984 and thereafter repeatedly reiterated, still the practice of pronouncing only the operative
 Decision Date :
 19-04-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 577/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
മലയാളം - Malayalam
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi
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.

XYZ
 versus
ABHISHEIK & ANR
-
[2022] 14 S.C.R. 420
2022 INSC 905
Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
*
, HIMA KOHLI
 Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000: s.7A – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 – R.12(3)(b) – Plea of Juvenility – Appellant alleged that she was subjected to gang rape by the first – FIR was registered on 24 July 2015, three to four months after the commission of offences – Plea of Juvenility – JMFC found that the matriculation certificate produced by the first respondent was fabricated and therefore directed FIR to be filed against first respondent
 Decision Date :
 02-09-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1408/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

STATE OF M.P.
 versus
RAMJI LAL SHARMA & ANR.
-
[2022] 1 S.C.R. 754
2022 INSC 285
Coram : M.R. SHAH
*
, B.V. NAGARATHNA
 Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 r/w s.34 – Murder – Common Intention – Trial Court held that all the four accused shared the common intention to kill the deceased, and convicted them u/s.302 r/w s.34 – High Court allowed appeal of accused no.1 and 3 by giving them benefit of doubt and by observing that there was a contradiction in the ocular and medical evidence and therefore their presence itself was doubtful – According to High Court, three eye witnesses stated that respondent No.1 and 2 were having axe in their hands, and they
 Decision Date :
 09-03-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 293/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.
 versus
CHETAN JEFF
-
[2022] 4 S.C.R. 692
2022 INSC 556
Coram : M.R. SHAH
*
, B.V. NAGARATHNA
 Service Law – Appointment – Post of Constable – Suppression of material fact by the candidate in respect of his criminal antecedents and making false statement in the job application form – Rejection of his candidature – Writ petition by the candidate – Single offences for which the candidate was charged with of trivial in nature and their suppression should have been ignored thus, the State directed to consider him for the post – Upheld by the Division Bench – On appeal, held: It is the duty of the constable is to maintain law and order
 Decision Date :
 11-05-2022
 | Case No :
 CIVIL APPEAL No. 3116/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

DAUVARAM NIRMALKAR
 versus
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
-
[2022] 7 S.C.R. 5
2022 INSC 786
Coram : SANJIV KHANNA
*
, BELA M. TRIVEDI
 Penal Code, 1860 – ss.304 Part I and 302 and Exception 1 to s.300 – Murder – Conviction of appellant by Courts below u/s.302 IPC for murder of his brother – Challenge to – Held: The fact that the appellant and the deceased were together the night when the deceased Therefore, s.106 of the Evidence Act gets attracted and in the absence of any breakin or third-party involvement, the chain of facts and circumstances established beyond doubt, bares that the appellant and no other person was the perpetrator who had inflicted the injuries on his brother –
 Decision Date :
 02-08-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1124/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Case Partly allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

SUNITA PALITA & OTHERS
 versus
M/S PANCHAMI STONE QUARRY
-
[2022] 14 S.C.R. 458
2022 INSC 775
Coram : INDIRA BANERJEE
*
, J.K. MAHESHWARI
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.482 – Quashing of proceedings – Dishonour of cheque – Account Payee Cheque signed by accused no. 2, who was M.D. of the Company in favour of respondent in discharge of liability – On dishonour u/s.138 r/w s.141 of NI Act – In the complaint, appellants who were independent/non-executive director were impleaded as accused no. 3 to 5 – Appellants unsuccessfully filed application in High Court u/s.482 praying that the proceeding be quashed – Hence instant appeal
 Decision Date :
 01-08-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1105/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

RAJESH GUPTA
 versus
STATE THROUGH CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
-
[2022] 2 S.C.R. 864
2022 INSC 359
Coram : VINEET SARAN, J.K. MAHESHWARI
 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: s.7 – For an offence under s.7, the demand of illegal gratification is a sine qua non to prove the guilt – Mere recovery of currency notes cannot constitute an offence under s.7 unless it is proved accused voluntarily accepted the money, knowing it to be a bribe – The proof of acceptance of illegal gratification can follow only if there is proof of demand – In the instant case there are no sufficient evidence available which points towards such demand except of the evidence
 Decision Date :
 29-03-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1769/2014
 | 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.

MOHAMMED ZUBAIR
 versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS
-
[2022] 18 S.C.R. 494
2022 INSC 736
Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, SURYA KANT, A.S. BOPANNA
 Criminal Law – Multiplicity of proceedings – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.153-A, 295-A, 201, 120-B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.437, 438, 482 – Constitution of India – Arts. 32, 226 – Foreign Contribution (Regulation) s.35 – FIR No.172 of 2022 was registered against Petitioner, co-founder of ALT News, a fact checking portal, at Special Cell of Delhi Police for alleged offences punishable u/ss.153-A, 295-A, 2 201 and 120-B, IPC – Offence u/s.35, FCRA added during course of investigation –
 Decision Date :
 20-07-2022
 | Case No :
 WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 279/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Case Partly allowed

 |  Bench :
 3 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

RAHUL
 versus
STATE OF DELHI MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS & ANR.
-
[2022] 9 S.C.R. 1129
2022 INSC 1176
Coram : UDAY UMESH LALIT
*
, S. RAVINDRA BHAT, BELA M. TRIVEDI
 Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 365, 367, 376(2)(g), 302, 201 & 34 – A girl was kidnapped when she was returning from her job along with her friends – She was raped and killed later on and her body was thrown in open field – FIR was registered against the accused- appellant 302, 201 read with 34 of IPC – Trial Court after appreciating the evidence on record and material recovered during investigation, convicted and sentenced them with death penalty – The same was confirmed by the High Court in Death Sentence Reference referred by the Session
 Decision Date :
 07-11-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 611/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 3 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

RASHIDUL JAFAR @ CHOTA
 versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR
-
[2022] 8 S.C.R. 475
2022 INSC 932
Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
*
, HIMA KOHLI
 Remission: Pre-mature release – Remission plea of five hundred and twelve convicts undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for life in the State of UP – In 2021, amendment brought to the Standing Policy Regarding Premature Release of Life Convicts of 2018 – Earlier policy of the so as to provide that a convict undergoing imprisonment for life would not be released until the age of sixty years is attained – Challenge to, on the ground that the plea for premature release must be considered on the basis of the law as it stood on the date of conviction and that a
 Decision Date :
 06-09-2022
 | Case No :
 WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 336/2019
 | Disposal Nature :
 Disposed off

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
മലയാളം - Malayalam
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

SANJEET KUMAR SINGH @ MUNNA KUMAR SINGH
 versus
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
-
[2022] 11 S.C.R. 166
2022 INSC 883
Coram : INDIRA BANERJEE
*
, V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN
 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – ss.20(b)(ii)(C), 54 Presumption u/s.54 – Appellant concurrently convicted u/s.20(b)(ii)(C) and sentenced, relying on the testimony of PW-7-DSP (who acted both as the informant and the IO) examined as PW-7 claims to have done everything only in the presence of independent witnesses – But those independent witnesses not merely denied their presence and participation but also came up with an explanation as to how their signatures found a place in the documents – Thus,
 Decision Date :
 30-08-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 871/2021
 | 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.

SUNIL KUMAR
 versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ANR.
-
[2022] 1 S.C.R. 229
2022 INSC 99
Coram : M.R. SHAH
*
, SANJIV KHANNA
 Bail – Murder – Unlawful assembly – Respondent No.2 and other accused persons allegedly formed an unlawful assembly and killed the elder brother of informant- appellant – Deceased was fired at, and also assaulted with danda and lathi – Respondent no.2 was a He was also allegedly involved in murder of informant’s father and younger brother – Trial of these cases were at the crucial stage of recording of evidence, and there were allegations of the informant and the witnesses being pressurised by respondent no.2 – Judgment of High
 Decision Date :
 25-01-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 95/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

SHAKEEL AHMED
 versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
-
[2022] 8 S.C.R. 705
2022 INSC 1162
Coram : SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
*
, ABHAY S. OKA, VIKRAM NATH
 Directions – Direction issued to the State Government to implement the recommendations – Government of Maharashtra in the aftermath of communal riots and bomb blasts that occurred in Mumbai between December 1992 and March 1993 constituted a Commission – The in February 1998, which contained recommendations on various issues, including the causes of the riots, inadequate measures taken by the police, failure to register crimes, delay in the disposal of criminal cases, political interference in the functioning of the police machinery, and lack of
 Decision Date :
 04-11-2022
 | Case No :
 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 182/2001
 | Disposal Nature :
 Disposed off

 |  Bench :
 3 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
മലയാളം - Malayalam
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

NAWABUDDIN
 versus
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
-
[2022] 1 S.C.R. 1083
2022 INSC 162
Coram : M.R. SHAH
*
, B.V. NAGARATHNA
 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012: ss.5/ 6 – Penal Code, 1860 – s.376(2)(i) – Prosecution case was that the appellant-accused was neighbour of PW-1-informant – On the fateful day, when PW-1 went out of the house, appellant took four year old daughter of clothes as well as clothes of the victim girl and fondled her private parts and penetrated his finger into the vagina of the victim girl – Some persons spotted the accused and caught him red handed – Trial Court as well as the High Court convicted the accused for the offences under
 Decision Date :
 08-02-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 144/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Case Partly allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

S. P. MANI AND MOHAN DAIRY
 versus
DR.SNEHALATHA ELANGOVAN
-
[2022] 9 S.C.R. 634
2022 INSC 970
Coram : SURYA KANT
*
, J.B. PARDIWALA
 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – ss.138 and 141 – Partnership firm – Cheque dishonour case – Vicarious liability of the partners – Held: Burden is on Board of Directors or officers in charge of the affairs of the company /partners of a firm to show that they to be convicted – Existence of any special circumstance that makes them not liable is something that is peculiarly within their knowledge and it is for them to establish at the trial to show that at the relevant time they were not in charge of the affairs of the company or the firm –
 Decision Date :
 16-09-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1586/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi
தமிழ் - Tamil

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

BHOLA KUMHAR
 versus
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
-
[2022] 7 S.C.R. 1176
2022 INSC 535
Coram : AJAY RASTOGI
*
, C.T. RAVIKUMAR
 Constitution of India – Art. 19(1)(d), 21 – Illegal detention – Accused kept in prison beyond the Period of Imprisonment – The appellant was convicted for the offence punishable u/s. 376 of IPC and Sections 3(ii)(v) and 3(1)(xii) of the Scheduled (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 12 years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default, to undergo imprisonment for one more year – High Court in appeal, confirmed the conviction but reduced his sentence of 12
 Decision Date :
 09-05-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 937/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Disposed off

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ଓଡ଼ିଆ - Odia
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 TRL KROSAKI REFRACTORIES LTD
 versus
M/S SMS ASIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR.
-
[2022] 2 S.C.R. 268
2022 INSC 214
Coram : N.V. RAMANA
*
, A.S. BOPANNA, HIMA KOHLI
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.482 – Dishonour of cheque – Respondent issued certain cheques in favour of the appellant company which on presentation were dishonoured by the bank – On respondent’s with the demand notices, appellant filed the complaint before the Magistrate u/ss.138 and 142 of N.I. Act – Respondent filed petition u/s.482 before the High Court for quashing of complaint, which was allowed – On appeal, held: s.142(1)(a) of N.I. Act states that the complaint ought to
 Decision Date :
 22-02-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 270/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 3 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

KHEMA @ KHEM CHANDRA ETC.
 versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
-
[2022] 13 S.C.R. 21
2022 INSC 810
Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
*
, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA
 Criminal Trial: Evidence – Appreciation of – Discrepancies and inconsistencies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses – Effect of – On facts, the appellant-accused persons armed with various weapons assaulted the victim, and also fired gun shots, resulting in his brother, his sister, his wife and PW-2 – When they all came forward to save victim’s life, they were also assaulted and in the assault PW-2 sufferred gunshot injury – Conviction and sentence of the appellants for offences punishable u/s. 302/149, s. 307/149 and s.148 IPC by the
 Decision Date :
 10-08-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1200/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

TEDHI SINGH
 versus
NARAYAN DASS MAHANT
-
[2022] 4 S.C.R. 442
2022 INSC 272
Coram : K.M. JOSEPH
*
, HRISHIKESH ROY
 Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881: s.139 – Presumption in favour of holder – Respondent filed complaint stating that appellant was his friend and as he was in urgent need of money, he gave a sum of Rs.7 lakhs – However, cheque given by the appellant was dishonored u/s.138 – Held: s.139 of the N.I. Act provides that Court shall presume that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in s.138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability – However, it is open to the accused to establish that
 Decision Date :
 07-03-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 362/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Case Partly allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

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.

P R ADIKESAVAN
 versus
THE REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF MADRAS AND ANOTHER
-
[2022] 4 S.C.R. 779
2022 INSC 625
Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
*
, BELA M. TRIVEDI
 Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – ss. 2(c)(iii), 12(1) – Conviction under – Insolvency proceedings were initiated against the appellant – The Single Judge of the High Court issued a non-bailable warrant and sought the presence of the appellant – When a team of the the warrant, the appellant and other advocates gheraoed the police and prevented them from executing the order – High Court initiated contempt proceedings against the appellant – Division Bench of the High Court found that the appellant is guilty of contempt and sentenced him to
 Decision Date :
 23-05-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 847/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

KANCHAN KUMAR
 versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR
-
[2022] 16 S.C.R. 188
2022 INSC 955
Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
*
, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.227, 228 – Discharge application – Requirement of prime facie case for framing of charges – FIR filed against appellant under ss.13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, alleging that he possessed known source of income – Charge-sheet filed against him indicated that he earned a total income of Rs. 3,01,561 and incurred an expenditure of Rs. 5,24,386 during the check period – Thus, charge was of having amassed Rs. 2,22,825, disproportionate to his known sources of income –
 Decision Date :
 14-09-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1562/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

PRAMOD SINGH KIRAR
 versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.
-
[2022] 15 S.C.R. 841
2022 INSC 1241
Coram : M.R. SHAH
*
, C.T. RAVIKUMAR
 Service Law: Appointment for the post of Police Constable – Disclosure in the verification form – Appellant while applying for the post of police constable disclosed in verification form the fact of his being tried for offence under s.498A IPC, for which he was later acquitted – Appellant filed writ petition before the High Court – Single Judge of the High Court set aside the cancellation of candidature with all consequential benefits – Division Bench of the High Court allowed the appeal and set aside order of Single Judge – Hence instant appeal –
 Decision Date :
 02-12-2022
 | Case No :
 CIVIL APPEAL No. 8934/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Case Partly allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

ABU SALEM ABDUL KAYYUM ANSARI
 versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
-
[2022] 12 S.C.R. 169
2022 INSC 671
Coram : SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
*
, M.M. SUNDRESH
 Extradition Act, 1962: Sovereign assurance – In the instant case, appellant was extradited from the Republic of Portugal and custody of the appellant was handed over to Indian authorities – Government of India submitted a solemn sovereign assurance under the Portuguese law that penalty or imprisonment for a term beyond 25 years – Trial Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him under the different provisions of law – Held: Separation of Judicial and Executive powers and the scheme of the Indian Constitution cannot bind the Indian courts in proceedings
 Decision Date :
 11-07-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 679/2015
 | Disposal Nature :
 Disposed off

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

CHOTKAU
 versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
-
[2022] 9 S.C.R. 601
2022 INSC 1032
Coram : S. ABDUL NAZEER
*
, A.S. BOPANNA, V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN
 Penal Code, 1860: ss.376, 302 – Rape and murder – Conviction for, and death sentence by courts below – Challenged – Held: There were very serious contradictions in the evidence tendered by prosecution witnesses on crucial aspects which made them completely untrustworthy Court trivialized the major contradictions to hold that the chain of circumstances was established unbroken – Delay of five days in transmitting the FIR to the jurisdictional court was fatal – Failure of the prosecution to subject the accused to medical examination when ocular
 Decision Date :
 28-09-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 361/2018
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 3 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
कोंकणी - Konkani
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

IN RE: EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL OF CASES UNDER SECTION 138 OF N.I. ACT 1881
 versus
.
-
[2022] 3 S.C.R. 276
2021 INSC 257
Coram : L. NAGESWARA RAO
*
, BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI, S. RAVINDRA BHAT
 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – s.138 – Supreme Court had issued various directions with respect to conduct of trials of complaints u/s.138 – Expert Committee was constituted to consider suggestions the procedure of arresting the judicial docket, in regard to complaints and trials for offences under the NI Act – The Expert Committee suggested creation of de novo Special NI Courts by the Central Government to tackle the problem of docket explosion – The amici curiae
 Decision Date :
 19-05-2022
 | Case No :
 SUO MOTO WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 2/2020
 | Disposal Nature :
 Directions issued

 |  Bench :
 3 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

SATISH CHANDRA YADAV
 versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS
-
[2022] 10 S.C.R. 537
2022 INSC 1024
Coram : SURYA KANT
*
, J.B. PARDIWALA
 Service Law – Appointment – Suppression of information/ submitting false information in the verification form – Dismissal of the appellants from service – Correctness of – Held: In case of appellant in Civil Appeal arising out of the SLP (C) No. 20860 of 2019, what services was not his involvement in the criminal case which was then pending, and in which he was acquitted subsequently but the fact that he had withheld relevant information while filling in the verification Form – Appellant was given appointment on probation subject to the verification of
 Decision Date :
 26-09-2022
 | Case No :
 CIVIL APPEAL No. 6955/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

V. P. SINGH ETC
 versus
THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.
-
[2022] 8 S.C.R. 847
2022 INSC 1326
Coram : SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
*
, ABHAY S. OKA
 Penal Code, 1860: s. 306 – Abetment of suicide – Commission of suicide by the student after he was reprimanded for the misconduct in the College – He was suspended and asked to call for his parents as an exercise of legitimate disciplinary action; and was also issued notice and security amount of Rs. 10,000/- – However, instead of complying with the disciplinary action, student took his own life by jumping into the canal – Before doing so, he sent an SMS to his brother stating that he love his parents and does not want to trouble them – Registration
 Decision Date :
 24-11-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2103/2010
 | 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.

RAM SHARAN CHATURVEDI
 versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
-
[2022] 11 S.C.R. 1
2022 INSC 866
Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
*
, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA
 Penal Code, 1860: ss. 201, 380, 435, 457 and 477 rw s. 120B – Theft of cash from the Bank – Criminal conspiracy – Prosecution of three employees of the Bank, for offences of theft of Rs. Six Lakhs from the safe and strong room of the Bank, house-trespass, destruction and other offences – Main accused persons A1 and A2 convicted and sentenced concurrently on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence, as per which the money is proved to have been recovered from their possession – Appellant, head cashier in the custody of one of the keys of
 Decision Date :
 25-08-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1066/2010
 | 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.

AMINUDDIN
 versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
-
[2022] 19 S.C.R. 271
2022 INSC 1020
Coram : DINESH MAHESHWARI
*
, KRISHNA MURARI
 Bail – Grant of, on parity – When not justified – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.147, 148, 149, 302, 352 and 34 – Held: When the bail granted to co-accused person has been disapproved by Supreme Court and such grant of bail to co-accused had been the only reason for which the order is liable to be set aside– In the said case, the High Court had proceeded in a rather cursory manner and without regard to the salient feature of the case at hand, being that of gruesome day- light murder of the son of the appellant with 8 grievous injuries, including those of incise
 Decision Date :
 23-09-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1669/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

DEEPAK YADAV
 versus
STATE OF U.P. & ANR
-
[2022] 4 S.C.R. 1
2022 INSC 610
Coram : N.V. RAMANA
*
, KRISHNA MURARI, HIMA KOHLI
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 : s. 439 – Bail – Cancellation of – Accused with the common intention to kill the victim, inflicted gun shot injuries to victim who later succumbed to his injuries – Before death, the victim gave statement naming the accused and the DSP and SI – Criminal case against accused and co-accused u/ss. 302 and 34 IPC – Rejection of bail to the accused by the Sessions Court, however, granted by the High Court on the ground of parity as the co-accused was granted bail – Sustainbility of – Held: Not sustainable
 Decision Date :
 20-05-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 861/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 3 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

HASMUKHLAL D. VORA & ANR.
 versus
THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU
-
[2022] 16 S.C.R. 113
2022 INSC 1294
Coram : KRISHNA MURARI
*
, S. RAVINDRA BHAT
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.482 – Quashing of Criminal complaint – Before High Court, appellant sought for quashing of complaint filed against him for contravening provision of Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940 and Drugs and Cosmetics Rules 1945, which was dismissed – On under s.482 only has to consider whether or not the allegations in the complaint disclose the commission of a cognizable offence – Quashing of a criminal complaint must be done only in the rarest of rare cases but still it is the duty of the High Court to look into each and every case
 Decision Date :
 16-12-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2310/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

ANUJ SINGH @ RAMANUJ SINGH @ SETH SINGH
 versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR
-
[2022] 4 S.C.R. 1023
2022 INSC 463
Coram : N.V. RAMANA
*
, KRISHNA MURARI, HIMA KOHLI
 Penal Code, 1860 : ss. 324, 307 r/w s. 34 – Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means – Altercation between the one of the appellant and the informant, over a land dispute – Appellants armed with guns fired upon the informant which hit his right arm – Other two accused assaulted the informant with spear and lathis – Trial court convicted the appellants u/s. 307 rw s. 34 and s. 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced accordingly – High Court modified the conviction u/s. 307/34 to s. 324 and awarded two years rigorous
 Decision Date :
 22-04-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 150/2020
 | 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.

DESH RAJ & ORS.
 versus
ROHTASH SINGH
-
[2022] 18 S.C.R. 65
2022 INSC 1279
Coram : SURYA KANT
*
, BELA M. TRIVEDI
 Contract Act, 1872: s. 55, 74 – Specific Relief Act - s. 22 – Specific performance of agreement - Effect of failure to perform at fixed time, in contract in which time is essential – Refund of earnest money – Appellants, joint owners of their respective share in the the agreements, the earnest money could be confiscated by the appellants if the sale deed was not executed on prescribed date – Respondent made a part payment towards the sale as earnest money – Respondent was liable to secure necessary No Objection Certificates and intimate the
 Decision Date :
 14-12-2022
 | Case No :
 CIVIL APPEAL No. 9217/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.