English

हिन्दी - Hindi
 नेपाली - Nepali
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

DHARNIDHAR MISHRA (D) AND ANOTHER
 versus
STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS
-
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 714
2024 INSC 415
Coram : J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA
 Issue for Consideration A land owned by the appellant was acquired and he did not receive any compensation for the same. Before the Division Bench of the High Court, the appellant was informed that value of land was Rs. 4,68,099/-. The Division Bench of the High Court disposed of the Letters the appellant to file an appropriate application before the concerned authority for disbursement of the value of the land. Whether the High Court committed any error in passing the impugned order. Headnotes Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Payment of compensation – In the year 1977, a land
 Decision Date :
 13-05-2024
 | Case No :
 CIVIL APPEAL No. 6351/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

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.

SURAJ SINGH GUJAR & ANR.
 versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.
-
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 782
2024 INSC 661
Coram : SUDHANSHU DHULIA, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
 Issue for Consideration Appellants were convicted by the Trial Court u/ss.323, 324 and 325 r/w. s.34 of IPC. It is stated by the appellants that they have settled the dispute with the injured persons vide compromise deed dated 29.01.2024. In the instant appeal, they are Court for compounding the offence. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.323, 324 and 325 r/w. s.34 – Constitution of India – Art.142 – Incident between relatives – Conviction under non-compoundable offences set aside: Held: On perusal of affidavits filed, this
 Decision Date :
 30-08-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3731/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Disposed off

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


BHARTI ARORA
 versus
THE STATE OF HARYANA
-
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1044
Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
*
, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, K.V. VISWANATHAN
 Issue for Consideration Whether the Special Judge could have conducted the proceedings against the present appellant for the offence punishable u/s.58 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; whether the Special Judge was justified in recording the findings against as the other police officers without even issuing notice to them. Headnotes† Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – ss.36-A, 58 – In a trial regarding recovery of the opium from the accused persons, the Special Judge vide final judgment dated 22.02.2007
 Decision Date :
 13-12-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1699/2011
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

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.

CHABI KARMAKAR & ORS.
 versus
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL
-
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 796
2024 INSC 665
Coram : SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J.B. PARDIWALA
 Issue for Consideration The appellants have been convicted u/ss.498A, 304B and 306 r/w.s.34 of the IPC. The Trial Court had convicted sister-in-law (appellant no.1), husband (appellant no.2) and mother-in-law of the deceased and sentenced them to suffer life imprisonment, 3 years R.I and 10 years 498A and 306 of IPC respectively, along with fine and other default stipulations. Both the conviction and the sentence of the present appellants have been upheld in appeal and the High Court. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – s.498A, 304B and s.306 r/w. s.34 – Evidence Act, 1872
 Decision Date :
 29-08-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1556/2013
 | Disposal Nature :
 Disposed off

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

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.

DATTATRAYA
 versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
-
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 989
2024 INSC 167
Coram : SUDHANSHU DHULIA, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE
 Issue for Consideration Whether the courts below were justified in convicting the appellant u/ss. 302 and 316 IPC and sentencing to undergo life imprisonment and 10 years of R.I. respectively along with fine, for causing death of his wife as also the child she was bearing by pouring kerosene on fire. Headnotes Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 304 Part II and 316 – Culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Causing death of quick unborn child by act amounting to culpable homicide – Prosecution case that on the fateful night the husband in an inebriated state, picked a fight
 Decision Date :
 01-02-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 666/2012
 | Disposal Nature :
 Case Partly allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

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.

RAJU AND ANOTHER
 versus
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
-
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 1147
2024 INSC 633
Coram : SURYA KANT
*
, DIPANKAR DATTA, UJJAL BHUYAN
 Issue for Consideration Whether the material on record unmistakably justifies the conviction of the appellant u/s. 307 IPC. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – s. 307 – Attempt to murder – Prosecution case that appellants armed with knives and lathis inflicted injuries to the to whom the incident was narrated later – Trial court acquitted the appellant and his co-accused, however, the High Court sentenced the appellant and one of his co-accused to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and upheld acquittal of other two accused – Correctness: Held:
 Decision Date :
 31-07-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1151/2010
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

SACHIN GARG
 versus
STATE OF U.P & ANR.
-
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 1134
2024 INSC 72
Coram : ANIRUDDHA BOSE, SANJAY KUMAR
 Issue for Consideration In a case wherein the dispute was commercial in nature having no element of criminality, whether the Magistrate was justified in issuing summons for trial u/ss.406, 504 and 506, Penal Code, 1860 and the High Court in dismissing the application filed by the appellant for complaint case. Headnotes Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Issuance of summons, duty of Magistrate – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.406, 504 and 506 – Commercial dispute given criminal colour – Dispute between the parties related to the rate at which the assigned work was
 Decision Date :
 30-01-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 497/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

BALLU @ BALRAM @ BALMUKUND AND ANOTHER
 versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
-
[2024] 4 S.C.R. 48
2024 INSC 258
Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
*
, SANDEEP MEHTA
 Issue for Consideration High Court whether justified in reversing the acquittal of the appellant Nos.1 and 2 and convicting them u/ss.302 and 201/34 and ss.302/34 and 201, Penal Code, 1860 respectively and sentencing accordingly; whether the prosecution proved its case whether the appellants were guilty of committing the crime. Headnotes Appeal against acquittal – Interference – When not sustainable: Held: Prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence – Trial Judge gave sound and cogent reasons for discarding the testimony of the IO and
 Decision Date :
 02-04-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1167/2018
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


PRAKASH AND OTHERS
 versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
-
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1160
2024 INSC 1020
Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
*
, K.V. VISWANATHAN
 Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the courts below were justified in accepting the prosecution case that the act of suicide by the victim was a direct result of the words uttered by the appellants at the mahalokadalat when there was a clear gap of over a month between the incident and the commission of suicide. Headnotes† Penal Code – ss.306, 107 – Abetment of suicide – Disputes between the victim, and her husband-appellant no.1 and in-laws – Victim tortured mentally and physically over demand of money at her matrimonial house –
 Decision Date :
 19-12-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5543/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi
తెలుగు - Telugu

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

 STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS
 versus
ASSOCIATION OF RETIRED SUPREME COURT AND HIGH COURT JUDGES AT ALLAHABAD & ORS
-
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 211
2024 INSC 4
Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
*
, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA
 Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court had the power to direct the State Government to notify Rules proposed by the Chief Justice pertaining to post-retiral benefits for High Court; whether the power of criminal contempt could be invoked by the High Court against officials of the State Government on the ground that the application for recall was ‘contemptuous’; and as regards the broad guidelines to guide courts when they direct the presence of
 Decision Date :
 03-01-2024
 | Case No :
 CIVIL APPEAL No. 23/2024

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


VIJAYA SINGH & ANR.
 versus
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
-
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 906
2024 INSC 905
Coram : BELA M. TRIVEDI
*
, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
 Issue for Consideration Whether the Criminal Appeal filed by the Appellants challenging the conviction under Section 302/201 IPC can be entertained in the facts and circumstances of the case. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – evidence reiterated – On facts and circumstances, held that the Trial Court and the High Court have correctly appreciated the evidence, and the conviction of the Appellant upheld: Held: It is a well settled principle of law that when a case is based on circumstantial evidence, the
 Decision Date :
 25-11-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 122/2013
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

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.

DARSHAN SINGH
 versus
STATE OF PUNJAB
-
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 248
2024 INSC 19
Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
*
, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, ARAVIND KUMAR
 Issue for Consideration Whether the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt, the entire chain of circumstances, not leaving any link missing for the appellant to escape from the clutches of law. Headnotes Penal Code, 1860 – s. 302 rw s. 34 – Murder – appellant along with the lady with whom he had illicit relations, administered poison to the appellant’s wife, with the motive to eliminate her and caused her death – Conviction u/s.302/34 and sentenced to life imprisonment – High Court upheld the order of conviction and
 Decision Date :
 04-01-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 163/2010
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

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.

ALAUDDIN & ORS.
 versus
THE STATE OF ASSAM & ANR.
-
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 20
2024 INSC 376
Coram : ABHAY S. OKA
*
, UJJAL BHUYAN
 Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to correctness of the order convicting the appellants for the offences punishable u/ss. 302/149 IPC when the statements in evidence full of omissions and contradictions and the evidence of last seen theory and motive not established. Headnotes Penal Code, Murder and unlawful assembly – Conviction of the appellants for the offences punishable u/ ss. 302/149 for committing murder of the victim by the courts below – Correctness – Plea that statements in evidence of prosecution witness full of omissions and contradictions, and
 Decision Date :
 03-05-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1637/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


BIJAY AGARWAL
 versus
M/S MEDILINES
-
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 1890
2024 INSC 918
Coram : C.T. RAVIKUMAR
*
, SANJAY KAROL
 Issue for Consideration Whether the signatory of a cheque authorized by the Company is a drawer and whether such a signatory could be directed to deposit any sum out of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial Court u/s.148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, as a condition for his conviction u/s.138 of the NI Act. Headnotes† Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – ss.138 and 148 – Appellant is the authorized signatory of the company – The signed cheques were presented in the bank – The cheques were dishonoured and returned with the
 Decision Date :
 21-10-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4301/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

BHARAT SHER SINGH KALSIA
 versus
STATE OF BIHAR & ANR.
-
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 1165
2024 INSC 77
Coram : VIKRAM NATH, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
 Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in rejecting the prayer for quashing of the FIR registered u/ss. 409, 467, 468, 471 and 420 IPC against the vendee for the criminal acts, misuse of power of attorney-PoA, misappropriation of property, and executing fraudulent had no role either in the execution of the PoA nor in any misdeed by the PoA holder vis-à-vis the land-owners/principals. Headnotes Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 482 – Quashing of FIR – Power of Attorney-PoA executed by the landowners/ principals, including the
 Decision Date :
 31-01-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 523/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


ASHOK VERMA
 versus
THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
-
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 743
Coram : C.T. RAVIKUMAR
*
, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA
 Issue for Consideration Whether concurrent conviction of the appellant u/ss.302, 201 and 498A of the IPC for the murder of his wife is justified. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302, 201 and 498A – Concurrent conviction – Death of the wife of the appellant-convict, Plea of the appellant-convict that her death was suicidal and not homicidal: Held: Trial Court and High Court concurrently weighed the circumstances and gave sturdy reasons to conclude that death of the deceased was homicidal in nature and not suicidal – Even after seeing his wife hanged
 Decision Date :
 19-12-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 815/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
 versus
RAMJAN KHAN & ORS.
-
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 1876
2024 INSC 823
Coram : C.T. RAVIKUMAR
*
, SUDHANSHU DHULIA
 Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was right in setting aside the conviction of the respondents-accused under Section 302, IPC read with Section 34, IPC. Headnotes† Evidence – Dying declaration, allegedly made to a close relative – Reliance upon – When not inter alia relying on the dying declaration allegedly made to the mother of the deceased (PW-8) – Conviction set aside by High Court – Correctness: Held: Oral dying declaration should be of such a nature as to inspire full confidence of the Court in its correctness – Dying
 Decision Date :
 25-10-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2129/2014
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


SAMBHUBHAI RAISANGBHAI PADHIYAR
 versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
-
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1072
Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
*
, ARAVIND KUMAR, K.V. VISWANATHAN
 Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the correctness of the order of conviction and death sentence to the appellant for offences punishable u/ss.302, 364 and 377 IPC and ss. 4 and 6 of the POCSO, for committing murder and brutal sexual assault of the 4 year old ss.302, 364, 377 – Protection of Children from Sexual offences Act, 2012 – ss.4, 5, 6, 29 – Murder, kidnapping and sexual assault – Case of brutal sexual assault and murder of four year old boy – Trial court convicted and sentenced the appellant to death for
 Decision Date :
 17-12-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5412/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Case Partly allowed

 | Direction Issue :
 Special Leave Petition dismissed.

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

SHARIF AHMED AND ANOTHER
 versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER
-
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 86
2024 INSC 363
Coram : SANJIV KHANNA
*
, SARASA VENKATANARAYANA BHATTI
 Issue for Consideration Nature of chargesheets filed in some jurisdictions by the State/ Police, without stating sufficient details of the facts constituting the offense or putting the relevant evidence on record; significance of chargesheets for taking cognizance, summoning of the Magistrate; chargesheets and criminal proceedings against the appellants, if to be quashed. Headnotes Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.173 – Report of police officer on completion of investigation – Nature and standard of evidence in chargesheet – Chargesheet when
 Decision Date :
 01-05-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2357/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Disposed off

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


SURESH CHANDRA TIWARI & ANR.
 versus
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
-
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 1233
2024 INSC 907
Coram : J.B. PARDIWALA
*
, MANOJ MISRA
 Issue for Consideration (a) Whether the circumstances relied by the prosecution have been proved beyond reasonable doubt; (b) whether those circumstances are of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; (c) whether those circumstances taken cumulatively form a that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused; (d) whether they are consistent only with the hypothesis of the accused being guilty; and (e) whether they exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved.
 Decision Date :
 24-11-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1902/2013
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


GURMEET KAUR
 versus
DEVENDER GUPTA & ANOTHER
-
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 1602
2024 INSC 967
Coram : B.V. NAGARATHNA
*
, N KOTISWAR SINGH
 1602 : 2024 INSC 967 Gurmeet Kaur v. Devender Gupta & Another (Criminal Appeal No(s). 4825-4826 of 2024) 26 November 2024 [B.V. Nagarathna* and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh JJ.] Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the appellant while discharging her duty as a public servant on the Procedure, 1973 – s.197 – Prosecution of Judges and public servants – Appellant-District Town Planner (Enforcement) and 12 others forcibly entered the college of the respondent-chairman, created chaos and took away the college telephone forcibly – Complaint filed but
 Decision Date :
 26-11-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4825/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

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.

C. SUBBIAH @ KADAMBUR JAYARAJ AND OTHERS
 versus
THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE AND OTHERS
-
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 813
2024 INSC 416
Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
*
, SANDEEP MEHTA
 Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the permissibility of suing the accused for a civil wrong, in relation to the benami transactions, as a corollary, allowing criminal prosecution of the accused in relation to the same cause of action. Headnotes† Act 1988 – s. 4 – Benami transaction – Initiation of civil suit/criminal proceedings by the real owner of the benami property – Permissibility – Complainant-government teacher, previously doing real estate business, fraudulently allured and induced by the
 Decision Date :
 15-05-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2582/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi

 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.

X
 versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.
-
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 941
2024 INSC 909
Coram : J.B. PARDIWALA, R MAHADEVAN
 Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards accused being enlarged on bail in rape case by the High Court, when the victim and the mother who was the eye-witness to the incident were yet to be examined. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.438 - Grant of bail to person enlarged on bail in rape case by the High Court, when only one witness was examined and the victim and the mother who was the eye-witness to the incident were yet to be examined – Propriety: Held: In the instant case, the victim is yet to be examined and her mother who, is an eye-witness
 Decision Date :
 27-11-2024
 | Case No :
 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 13378/2024

 | Direction Issue :
 Special Leave Petition disposed of.

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


PARTHA CHATTERJEE
 versus
DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
-
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 627
Coram : SURYA KANT, UJJAL BHUYAN
 Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to grant of bail to the appellant-former State Education Minister and MLA, in the ED case for his involvement in various investigations, owing to the racket of illegal appointment of teachers. Headnotes† Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Teachers Recruitment Scam – FIR registered by CBI under the PC Act, as well as IPC, against certain functionaries of the West Bengal Board of Primary Education, and one who was allegedly engaged in an unholy nexus with varied authorities, so as to facilitate appointments of primary
 Decision Date :
 13-12-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5266/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Disposed off

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


ATHAR PARWEZ
 versus
UNION OF INDIA
-
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1093
Coram : ABHAY S. OKA
*
, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
 Issue for Consideration Appellant alleged to be an active member of the Popular Front of India (PFI) involved in planning to cause disturbance during the proposed visit of Prime Minister of India to Patna in 2022. Chargesheet filed against the appellant under Sections 121, 121A, 122, 153A & 18, 18A, 18B & 20, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. Charges not framed yet. Appellant has undergone long incarceration, no likelihood of trial being completed in near future. High Court whether justified in denying bail. Headnotes† Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967
 Decision Date :
 17-12-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5387/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


SONU AGNIHOTRI
 versus
CHANDRA SHEKHAR & ORS.
-
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 861
2024 INSC 888
Coram : ABHAY S. OKA
*
, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
 Issue for Consideration The appellant-Judicial Officer has preferred these appeals for expunging adverse findings/remarks recorded against him in the impugned order dated 02.03.2023 by the Delhi High Court. Headnotes† Judicial Service – Expunging of adverse Officer passed some strict orders against police officials – He pointed out flaws in the investigation and failure of the police officials – Writ petition – The High Court directed all the remarks made against the IO & SHO expunged and recorded findings/remarks
 Decision Date :
 22-11-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 388/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


UMA & ANR.
 versus
THE STATE REP. BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
-
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 1757
2024 INSC 809
Coram : BELA M. TRIVEDI
*
, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
 1757 : 2024 INSC 809 Uma & Anr. v. The State Rep. by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Criminal Appeal No. 757 of 2015) 22 October 2024 [Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma,* JJ] Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was able to demonstrate perversity and non-appreciation s.4A – Appellants acquitted by Trial Court – High Court in impugned judgment reversed the finding of acquittal and convicted the Appellants – Held, High Court has demonstrated perversity and non-appreciation of the materials on record by Trial Court – Appeals dismissed:
 Decision Date :
 22-10-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 757/2015
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


OM PRAKASH YADAV
 versus
NIRANJAN KUMAR UPADHYAY & ORS.
-
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 777
Coram : J.B. PARDIWALA
*
, MANOJ MISRA
 Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards whether in the absence of the grant of sanction for prosecution u/s.197 CrPC, the CJM, Firozabad could have taken cognizance of the charge sheets against the respondents; and whether the offence or the act alleged to have been committed by said to have been done while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of official duty. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.197 – Prosecution of Judges and public servants – Incident of indiscriminate firing by eight persons including main accused at
 Decision Date :
 13-12-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5267/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

मराठी - Marathi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

FULESHWAR GOPE
 versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
-
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 315
2024 INSC 718
Coram : C.T. RAVIKUMAR
*
, SANJAY KAROL
 Issue for Consideration Issue arose as to whether the validity of the Sanction Order can be challenged at any stage; whether violation of s.45(2) of the UAPA r/w rr.3 and 4 of the 2008 Rules, if any, vitiates the proceedings, whether violation of statutory timelines and the requirement of of mind, are necessary aspects of procedure; whether the appellant’s involvement were actually independent of the ones in which A-6 and other members were arrayed as accused; and whether the statutory exemption u/s.22 A of the UAPA applies to the appellant who claims to be unaware of
 Decision Date :
 23-09-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3923/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

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.

JUST RIGHTS FOR CHILDREN ALLIANCE & ANR.
 versus
S. HARISH & ORS.
-
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 154
2024 INSC 716
Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
*
, J.B. PARDIWALA
 154 : 2024 INSC 716 Just Rights for Children Alliance & Anr. v. S. Harish & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No(s). 2161-2162 of 2024) 23 September 2024 [Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI, J.B. Pardiwala,* J.] Issue for Consideration What is the scope of Section 15 of the Protection of Children child pornographic material is punishable under the POCSO; what is the true scope of Section 67B of the IT Act; what is the scope of Section 30 of the POCSO; what are the foundational facts necessary for invoking the statutory presumption of culpable mental state in respect of Section 15 of the
 Decision Date :
 23-09-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2161/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Disposed off

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


SIDDHANT @ SIDHARTH BALU TAKTODE
 versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
-
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 837
Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
*
, K.V. VISWANATHAN
 Issue for Consideration In six years, out of 102 dates, on most of the dates the appellant- accused was not produced before the Court either physically or virtually. Prolonged incarceration. Bail rejected by High Court. Headnotes† Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, on account of non-production of the appellant- accused – Appellant incarcerated for approximately five years – If entitled to bail: Held: Yes – Prolonged incarceration without the accused being made to face the trial would result in forcing him to face the sentence
 Decision Date :
 18-12-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5438/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

ગુજરાતી - Gujarati
मराठी - Marathi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

SITA SOREN
 versus
UNION OF INDIA
-
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 462
2024 INSC 161
Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
*
, A.S. BOPANNA, M.M. SUNDRESH, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.B. PARDIWALA, SANJAY KUMAR, MANOJ MISRA
 Issue for Consideration Instant Reference pertains to reconsideration of the correctness of the view of the majority judgment in *PV Narasimha Rao’s case granting immunity from prosecution to a member of allegedly engaged in bribery for speaking or casting a vote. Headnotes Constitution of India – Arts. 105 and 196 – Powers, privileges and immunities of the Houses of Parliament or Legislature, as the case may be, and of members and committees – Member of Parliament or the
 Decision Date :
 04-03-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 451/2019
 | Disposal Nature :
 Reference answered

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


AMUTHA
 versus
A.R. SUBRAMANIAN
-
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 755
Coram : VIKRAM NATH
*
, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE
 Issue for Consideration The appellant-wife herein is challenging the grant of divorce. Headnotes† Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – s.13(1)(ia) and (ib) – Cruelty and desertion – The High Court found that the respondent- husband had sufficiently established the grounds of cruelty the appellant’s false criminal complaint and her indifference to reconciliation efforts caused significant mental agony to the respondent, amounting to cruelty – Additionally, her prolonged separation without reasonable cause constituted desertion – Thus, the High Court
 Decision Date :
 19-12-2024
 | Case No :
 CIVIL APPEAL No. 2643/2023
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


MAFABHAI MOTIBHAI SAGAR
 versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
-
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 1448
2024 INSC 806
Coram : ABHAY S. OKA
*
, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
 Issue for Consideration The appellant was convicted for offences punishable under Section 302 read with sections 147 and 148 Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to life imprisonment. His application for remission was considered expeditiously by the State Government after interference of the Government while granting remission imposed four conditions on the appellant. The appellant contended that two out of these four conditions are vague, subjective and arbitrary. The issue before the Hon’ble Supreme Court is the legality of these two conditions imposed by the appropriate
 Decision Date :
 21-10-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4307/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Case Partly allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
 नेपाली - Nepali
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

ARVIND KEJRIWAL
 versus
DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
-
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 346
2024 INSC 400
Coram : SANJIV KHANNA, DIPANKAR DATTA
 Issue for Consideration Whether the Appellant is entitled to grant of interim bail/release during the pendency of the Appeal challenging his arrest by the Directorate of Enforcement, on account of an intervening factor i.e. 18th Lok Sabha General Elections. Headnotes† Bail – Interim Court to consider peculiarities associated with person in question and surrounding circumstances – Appellant has not been convicted, no criminal antecedents – Question of legality and validity of arrest sub judice – Interim bail granted. Held: Appellant arrested on 21.03.2024 by
 Decision Date :
 10-05-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2493/2024

 | Direction Issue :
 Interim Bail granted

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


MAHESH DAMU KHARE
 versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.
-
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 886
2024 INSC 897
Coram : B.V. NAGARATHNA
*
, N KOTISWAR SINGH
 Issue for Consideration The High Court dismissed the petition filed u/s.482 of CrPC for quashing FIR registered u/ss.376, 420, 504 and 506 IPC holding, inter alia, that the offence under Section 376 of IPC is an offence against the society which would require further investigation and does not warrant interference. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – s.376, 420, 504 and 506 – Complainant filed a complaint alleging that the appellant had cheated on her by forcibly engaging in sexual intercourse without her consent in his house and in the rented rooms from 2008
 Decision Date :
 26-11-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4882/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


AYUB KHAN
 versus
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN
-
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 680
Coram : ABHAY S. OKA
*
, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
 Issue for Consideration Adverse observations were made against the appellant, a District and Sessions Judge of Rajasthan Judicial Service by the Rajasthan High Court. High Court observed that while rejecting the bail application, the appellant did not incorporate the details of the antecedents of form in terms of the directions issued to the Trial Courts by the High Court in the case of Jugal Kishore vs. State of Rajasthan. Granting bail to the accused by the impugned order, High Court observed that non- compliance of the directions by the appellant, not only amounted to indiscipline
 Decision Date :
 17-12-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5388/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


RANDEEP SINGH @ RANA & ANR.
 versus
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
-
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 1425
2024 INSC 887
Coram : ABHAY S. OKA
*
, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
 Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards conviction and sentence of the appellants u/ss.364, 302, 120-B and 201 IPC for abduction and brutal murder of the victim, if justified. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.364, 302, 120-B and 201 – Abduction and Criminal conspiracy – Prosecution case that accused persons abducted the victim, thereafter murdered him and the next day the torso with other body parts of the deceased were recovered from the canal – Conviction of the appellants-accused along with others u/ss.364, 302, 120-B and 201
 Decision Date :
 22-11-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 297/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

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.

YOGARANI
 versus
STATE BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
-
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 625
2024 INSC 721
Coram : SANJAY KUMAR
*
, ARAVIND KUMAR
 Issue for Consideration Issue arose, if the court can convict one accused and acquit the other when there is similar or identical evidence pitted against two accused persons. Headnotes† Passports Act, 1967 – ss.12(1)(b) and 12(2) – Offences and penalties – Prosecution of second passport in favour of accused no.1 – Other accused persons connived with the appellant in procuring second passport to accused no.1 – Appellant and accused no.1 convicted for offences punishable u/s.420 IPC and s.12(1)(b) and s.12(2) of the 1967 Act, accused no.5
 Decision Date :
 23-09-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 477/2017
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
 versus
CHANDRASHA
-
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 1472
2024 INSC 928
Coram : SANJIV KHANNA
*
, SANJAY KUMAR, R MAHADEVAN
 Issue for Consideration Issue as regards the correctness of the order passed by the High Court setting aside the conviction of the respondent-government servant u/ss.7 and 13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for demanding of illegal gratification and its Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – ss.7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) and 20 – Illegal gratification – Presumption u/s. 20, if attracted – Prosecution case of demand and acceptance of bribe amount by the respondent-government servant from the complainant for encashment of
 Decision Date :
 26-11-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2646/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

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.

NATIONAL HOUSING BANK
 versus
BHERUDAN DUGAR HOUSING FINANCE LTD. & ORS. ETC.
-
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 1
2024 INSC 566
Coram : ABHAY S. OKA
*
, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
 Issue for Consideration On a complaint filed u/s. 200 CrPC, wherein the Magistrate took cognizance of the complaint for the offence u/s. 29A (i) read with s. 50 and punishable u/s. 49 (2A) of the 1987 Act against the first respondent-company, second accused-Managing accused as directors, whether the High Court was justified in quashing the complaint in its entirety, holding that the requirements of sub-Section (1) of s. 50 of the 1987 Act are similar to the requirements incorporated in s. 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which were not
 Decision Date :
 01-08-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3176/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Case Partly allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

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.

SHOOR SINGH & ANR.
 versus
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
-
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 818
2024 INSC 713
Coram : J.B. PARDIWALA
*
, MANOJ MISRA
 Issue for Consideration High Court, if justified in acquitting the parents-in-laws and the husband of the victim-daughter-in-law of the offences punishable u/ss.304-B and 498-A IPC. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.304-B and 498-A – Evidence Act, 1872 – s.113-B – – Victim-daughter-in-law died of burn injuries at her matrimonial home within one year of marriage – FIR by the father that his daughter was harassed by the appellants-parent- in-laws and husband soon before her death in connection with dowry demand – Order of conviction and
 Decision Date :
 20-09-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 249/2013
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

AMANATULLAH KHAN
 versus
THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, DELHI & ORS.
-
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 927
2024 INSC 383
Coram : SURYA KANT
*
, K.V. VISWANATHAN
 Issue for Consideration Whether the names of the Appellant’s minor children and his wife against whom there is no adverse material should be included in the History Sheet of the Appellant. Headnotes† Punjab Police Rules 1934 (As applicable rule 23.8 and rule 23.9 – Format of history sheet – Need to revisit archaic rules – Amended Standing Order issued on 21.03.2024 – In column on ‘relations and connections’ only those persons who can provide shelter to history sheeter to be reflected –
 Decision Date :
 07-05-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2349/2024

 | Direction Issue :
 Appeal partly allowed with directions.

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

SHAILESH KUMAR
 versus
STATE OF U.P. (NOW STATE OF UTTARAKHAND)
-
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 776
2024 INSC 143
Coram : M.M. SUNDRESH
*
, SARASA VENKATANARAYANA BHATTI
 Issue for Consideration What is the goal of investigation and what is the role of investigating officer; Are s.172 CrPC and ss. 145 & 161 of the Evidence Act to be read in consonance with each other; Can a General Diary entry precede the registration of FIR. Headnotes Code of Goal of investigation and the role of investigating officer: Held: An investigation of a crime is a lawful search of men and materials relevant in reconstructing and recreating the circumstances of an offence said to have been committed – With the evidence in possession, an
 Decision Date :
 26-02-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 684/2012
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

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.

COL. RAMNEESH PAL SINGH
 versus
SUGANDHI AGGARWAL
-
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 259
2024 INSC 397
Coram : VIKRAM NATH
*
, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
 Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the guardianship of two minor children till they attain the age of majority. Headnotes Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 – ss. 7, 9 and 25 – Custody of two minor children – Family Court granted permanent custody of minor children to the visitation rights to the mother – However, the High Court set aside the order and granted the parties shared custody of the minor children – Challenge to: Held: Principal consideration whilst deciding an application for guardianship under the Act in exercise of its parens patriae
 Decision Date :
 08-05-2024
 | Case No :
 CIVIL APPEAL No. 6137/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


ARJUN S/O RATAN GAIKWAD
 versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
-
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 637
Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
*
, K.V. VISWANATHAN
 Issue for Consideration Appellant was detained under s.3(2) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons Engaged in Black-Marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981 to prevent in the activities of bootlegging thereby preventing the maintenance of peace. High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant. Headnotes† Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand
 Decision Date :
 11-12-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5204/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

ગુજરાતી - Gujarati
हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 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.

HIGH COURT BAR ASSOCIATION, ALLAHABAD
 versus
STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
-
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 946
2024 INSC 150
Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
*
, ABHAY S. OKA
*
, J.B. PARDIWALA, PANKAJ MITHAL, MANOJ MISRA
 Issue for Consideration What is the object behind passing interim orders; Whether the High Courts are empowered to vacate or modify interim relief; Whether an interim order can come to an end automatically only due to What is the scope of exercise of powers u/Art. 142 of the Constitution; Position of the High Courts and its power of superintendence; Whether the Court should deal with an issue not arising for consideration; Effect of directions issued by the Constitutional Courts to decide pending cases in a
 Decision Date :
 29-02-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3589/2023
 | Disposal Nature :
 Reference answered

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

ગુજરાતી - Gujarati
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.

THAKORE UMEDSING NATHUSING
 versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
-
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 1178
2024 INSC 198
Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
*
, SANDEEP MEHTA
 Issue for Consideration Scope of interference by High Court in an appeal challenging acquittal of the accused by the trial Court; standard of proof required to bring home charges in a case based purely on circumstantial evidence. Headnotes Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.378(1)(b) acquittal – Interference by High Court – Scope – Prosecution’s case that the accused persons took the jeep of the victim-deceased on hire and thereafter they murdered the victim and looted the jeep – Appellants-accused were convicted and sentenced for offence
 Decision Date :
 22-02-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 250/2016
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

ଓଡ଼ିଆ - Odia
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

BHARTI CELLULAR LIMITED (NOW BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED)
 versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 57, KOLKATA AND ANOTHER
-
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 1001
2024 INSC 148
Coram : SANJIV KHANNA
*
, SARASA VENKATANARAYANA BHATTI
 Issue for Consideration The liability to deduct tax at source u/s.194-H, Income Tax Act, 1961 on the amount which, as per the Revenue, is a commission payable to an agent by the assessees-cellular mobile telephone franchise/distributorship agreement between the assessees and the franchisees/distributors. Headnotes Income Tax Act, 1961 – s.194-H – When not attracted – Assessees entered into franchise or distribution agreements and sold start-up kits, recharge vouchers at a discounted
 Decision Date :
 28-02-2024
 | Case No :
 CIVIL APPEAL No. 7257/2011
 | Disposal Nature :
 Disposed off

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.