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.

SALIMBHAI HAMIDBHAI MEMON
 versus
NITESHKUMAR MAGANBHAI PATEL & ANR.
-
[2021] 8 S.C.R. 281
2021 INSC 430
Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
*
, M.R. SHAH
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.405, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 – Appellant and the first respondent entered into a deed of partnership under which a firm was constituted – Dispute arose between the parties – The gravamen of the allegations in the FIR is that: a) The deed of relinquishment which was prepared in relation to certain lands situated was interpolated and forged by the first respondent; b) The deed of dissolution of partnership was fabricated; and c) Despite the settlement dated 24.12.2018,
 Decision Date :
 31-08-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 884/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Disposed off

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
मराठी - Marathi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi
தமிழ் - Tamil

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

BHUPESH RATHOD
 versus
DAYASHANKAR PRASAD CHAURASIA & ANR.
-
[2021] 7 S.C.R. 319
2021 INSC 710
Coram : SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
*
, M.M. SUNDRESH
 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: ss.138, 142 – Complaint filed u/s.138 by the Managing Director of the appellant-company – Board Resolution authorising the Managing Director to file complaint for dishonour of cheque annexed with the complaint – Defence of respondent that the the complaint and the Board Resolution annexed did not lead to conclusion that it was filed on behalf of the Company – Held: It is quite apparent from the format of the complaint that the Managing Director had filed the complaint on behalf of the Company – There could be a format
 Decision Date :
 10-11-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1105/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

PRADEEP S. WODEYAR
 versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
-
[2021] 11 S.C.R. 985
2021 INSC 798
Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
*
, VIKRAM NATH, B.V. NAGARATHNA
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss. 193, 209 and 465 – Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 – Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969 – Special Court’s power to take cognizance – Allegations of purchasing and selling extracted iron mining dispatch permits and the payments of charges to the Mining and Geological Departments and the Forest Department – FIR registered and a final report u/s. 173 of Cr.P.C. submitted – Additional City and Civil Sessions Judge and Special Judge took cognizance after perusing the
 Decision Date :
 29-11-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1288/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

 |  Bench :
 3 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
 versus
RAJ KUMAR
-
[2021] 6 S.C.R. 4
2021 INSC 423
Coram : K.M. JOSEPH
*
, S. RAVINDRA BHAT
 Service Law – Recruitment – Public employment – Delhi Police – Post of constable – Standing Order No.398/2010 Policy for deciding cases of candidates provisionally selected in Delhi Police involved in criminal cases (facing trial or acquitted) – Selection candidature of respondents candidates as they had faced criminal proceedings – CAT allowed the applications of respondents – Writ petitions – Direction of High Court that the respondents be considered for appointment – Held: Not justified – Reading of the applicable
 Decision Date :
 25-08-2021
 | Case No :
 CIVIL APPEAL No. 4960/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

DR. U. N. BORA, EX. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER & ORS.
 versus
ASSAM ROLLER FLOUR MILLS ASSOCIATION & ANR.
-
[2021] 10 S.C.R. 484
2021 INSC 671
Coram : SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
*
, M.M. SUNDRESH
 Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Assam Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1972 – s.21 – Levy of cess on the agricultural produce bought or sold in the notified market area – Deeming fiction respondent no.1-Association – Rules struck down – s.21A inserted by 2006 amending Act – Challenged – Division Bench of High Court upheld s.21 and held that the deeming fiction would apply only where a trader fails to establish direct evidence of sale or purchase having
 Decision Date :
 26-10-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1967/2009
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

বাংলা - Bengali
हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

SUDHA SINGH
 versus
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
-
[2021] 4 S.C.R. 95
2021 INSC 271
Coram : S.A. BOBDE, A.S. BOPANNA, V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN
 Bail: Bail granted to accused arrested with respect to the offence punishable under s.3(1) of the U.P. Gangster and Anti- Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 – Accused alleged to be a contract killer and sharp shooter and allegedly murdered husband of the appellant – Previously he was prosecuted in 15 cases for serious offences including murder, attempt to murder and criminal conspiracy – High Court granted bail to the accused on liberal terms – Appeal by complainant – Held: High Court overlooked several aspects, such as the
 Decision Date :
 23-04-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 448/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 3 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

GURDEV SINGH
 versus
STATE OF PUNJAB
-
[2021] 4 S.C.R. 439
2021 INSC 232
Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
*
, M.R. SHAH
 Sentence/Sentencing: Conviction of appellant-accused under s.21 of NDPS Act – He was found to be in possession of 1 kg heroin which is four times more than the minimum of commercial quantity – As per NDPS Act, 250 gm and above of Narcotic substance/drug is a commercial quantity – under s.21 of the NDPS Act is 10 years R.I. – So far as the commercial quantity is concerned, it may be upto 20 years R.I. – Appellant was sentenced to 15 years R.I. with fine of Rs.2 lakhs – Plea of appellant that while imposing punishment of 15 years R.I. which is higher than
 Decision Date :
 06-04-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 375/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

বাংলা - Bengali
हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

M/S SUVARNA COOPERATIVE BANK LTD.
 versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR.
-
[2021] 9 S.C.R. 389
2021 INSC 854
Coram : M.R. SHAH
*
, B.V. NAGARATHNA
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.482 and 319 – Quashing of criminal proceedings – Held: Merely because some other persons who might have committed the offences, but were not arrayed as accused and were not charge-sheeted cannot be a ground to quash the the accused who is charge- sheeted after a thorough investigation – During the trial if it is found that other accused persons who committed the offence are not charge-sheeted, the Court may array those persons as accused in exercise of powers u/s.319 CrPC. Allowing the appeal, the Court
 Decision Date :
 09-12-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1535/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
मराठी - Marathi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

SHIVAJI CHINTAPPA PATIL
 versus
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
-
[2021] 2 S.C.R. 617
2021 INSC 136
Coram : R.F. NARIMAN
*
, BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
 Penal Code, 1860: s.302 – Conviction based on circumstantial evidence – Prosecution case was that the appellant was addicted to liquor and used to abuse and beat his wife forcing her to get money from her mother – On the fateful night, the appellant and his wife went to sleep in of the appellant went to call the appellant for going to field for harvesting crop, appellant informed him that his wife committed suicide by hanging – Trial court convicted appellant under s.302 and sentenced him to imprisonment for life – High Court upheld the said order – On
 Decision Date :
 02-03-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1348/2013
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

LOK PRAHARI THROUGH ITS GENERAL SECRETARY S.N. SHUKLA IAS (RETD.)
 versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
-
[2021] 3 S.C.R. 317
2021 INSC 261
Coram : S.A. BOBDE, SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, SURYA KANT
 Constitution of India: Art. 224A – Appointment of retired judges at sittings of High Courts – Pendency of 57 lakhs cases in the High Courts along with consistent ratio of vacancies of almost 40 per cent – Held: Recourse to Art. 224A by judges needed – It would provide a ready-made pool of known judicial talent to deal with the disposal of pending old cases – Certain checks and balances to be provided for resorting to Art. 224A – Guidelines on aspects such as, the trigger point to activate the provision,
 Decision Date :
 20-04-2021
 | Case No :
 WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 20/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Directions issued

 |  Bench :
 3 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
मराठी - Marathi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

LALA @ANURAG PRAKASH AASRE
 versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
-
[2021] 8 S.C.R. 501
2021 INSC 415
Coram : SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
*
, HRISHIKESH ROY
 Penal Code, 1860: ss. 302, 120B, 147, 148 and 324 – Unlawful assembly with common object of causing death – Prosecution case that dispute between the parties – Deadly assault on victim by 10-12 persons carrying sharp edged weapons – Victim later succumbed to his injuries the injured informant wherein six accused named, however appellant not named but his physical description given – In the supplementary statement u/s. 161 CrPC appellant identified by name – Conviction and sentence of accused including appellant u/ss. 302, 120B, 147, 148 and 324 –
 Decision Date :
 24-08-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 540/2018
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

GANESAN
 versus
STATE REP. BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER
-
[2021] 10 S.C.R. 514
2021 INSC 698
Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
*
, M.R. SHAH
 Penal Code, 1860: s.397 – Applicability of – Held: To bring the case within s.397, the offender who uses any deadly weapon, or causes grievous hurt to any person shall be liable for minimum punishment under s.397 – The term confined to the ‘offender’ who uses any deadly weapon and use of deadly weapon by one offender at the time of committing robbery cannot attract s.397 for the imposition of minimum punishment on another offender who has not used any deadly weapon. Penal Code, 1860: ss.391, 395, 397
 Decision Date :
 29-10-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 903/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Case Partly allowed

 | Direction Issue :
 Appeals partly allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
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.

PRAVAT CHANDRA MOHANTY
 versus
THE STATE OF ODISHA & ANR.
-
[2021] 4 S.C.R. 407
2021 INSC 80
Coram : ASHOK BHUSHAN
*
, AJAY RASTOGI
 Penal Code, 1860: s. 324 – Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means – Two police officers mercilessly beat victim in the premises of the police station, who died the same night – Conviction of the accused u/s. 304 (Part II), s. 471/466, s. 342, s. 323 and High Court set aside the conviction u/s. 304 (Part II) r/w s. 34 and s. 342/34, and upheld their conviction u/s. 324/34, s. 323/34 and s. 471/34 – Appeal before this Court – Submissions of the accused that conviction u/s. 324 be compounded by this Court u/s. 320(2) Cr.P.C.; and that
 Decision Date :
 11-02-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 125/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Case Partly allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

THE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS
 versus
RAJ KUMAR @ BITTU
-
[2021] 8 S.C.R. 320
2021 INSC 377
Coram : HEMANT GUPTA
*
, A.S. BOPANNA
 Constitution of India: Art. 161 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 432, 433, 433-A – Power of Governor to grant pardon/remission – Order by the High Court whereby the policies of the State Government to grant remission were decided, inter alia, directing the State of drafting a fresh policy particularly in respect of exercise of powers conferred u/Art 161; that such policy may have retrospective operation, provided the same does not lead to discrimination amongst identically situated prisoners; and till such decision is taken, the appropriate
 Decision Date :
 03-08-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 721/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Disposed off

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE LTD.
 versus
RAMJAN ALI & ORS.
-
[2021] 1 S.C.R. 36
2021 INSC 3
Coram : ASHOK BHUSHAN
*
, M.R. SHAH, R. SUBHASH REDDY
 Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989: r.61 – Termination of hire purchase agreement – Hire purchase agreement entered into by appellant financier with the original owner/purchaser of vehicle – While registering the vehicle, an entry regarding hypothecation was certificate – Failure on part of original owner to pay instalment of loan – Appellant referred dispute to arbitrator who passed award in favour of appellant for an amount of Rs.25,97,053/- – Subsequently, original owner filed application before the Regional Transport
 Decision Date :
 05-01-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 6/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 3 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi
தமிழ் - Tamil

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH (RETD.)
 versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
-
[2021] 3 S.C.R. 364
2021 INSC 248
Coram : ASHOK BHUSHAN
*
, R. SUBHASH REDDY
 Public Interest Litigation: The instant special leave petition is filed by a non-party to the writ petition PIL questioning order passed in the writ petition – Before the High Court, the Registrar General of the High Court had filed preliminary of the PIL and pleaded that the petition was filed by political person to political gain and to malign the High Court – It was further stated therein that former High Court Judge ‘VE’ (the petitioner in the instant special leave petition) had also submitted a complaint
 Decision Date :
 12-04-2021
 | Case No :
 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 6100/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Disposed off

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi
தமிழ் - Tamil

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

A.T. MYDEEN AND ANOTHER
 versus
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CUSTOMS DEPARTMENT
-
[2021] 10 S.C.R. 91
2021 INSC 697
Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
*
, VIKRAM NATH, B.V. NAGARATHNA
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Allegation of clandestine export – Two separate trials – Acquittal by two separate judgments – Appellate court considering evidence of only one case and convicting the accused – Propriety of – Held: Evidence trial against any accused is confined to the culpability of that accused only and it does not have any bearing upon a co- accused, who has been tried on the basis of evidence recorded in a separate trial, though for the commission of the same offence – In the instant case, High Court
 Decision Date :
 29-10-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1306/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 3 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

THE STATE (GNCT OF DELHI) NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU
 versus
LOKESH CHADHA
-
[2021] 2 S.C.R. 538
2021 INSC 142
Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
*
, M.R. SHAH
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 389(1) r/w. s. 37 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Suspension of sentence – Of the person convicted u/ss. 23(c) and 25A of NDPS Act – Granted by High Court during pendency of Appeal to Supreme Court – Held: Where trial has ended in conviction, High court should exercise its power to suspend the sentence for sufficient reasons, which must have bearing on the public policy underlying s. 37 NDPS Act – No case of suspension of sentence u/s. 389(1) is made out
 Decision Date :
 02-03-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 257/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Leave Granted & Allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
 versus
METHU MEDA
-
[2021] 8 S.C.R. 657
2021 INSC 623
Coram : INDIRA BANERJEE
*
, J.K. MAHESHWARI
 Service Law – Appointment – Acquittal from criminal case – Nature of – Effect of – Respondent applied for the post of Constable in Central Industrial Security Force – Provisionally selected – Found not eligible for appointment on account of a criminal case acquitted – Held: If a person is acquitted giving him the benefit of doubt, from the charge of an offence involving moral turpitude or because the witnesses turned hostile, like in the present case, it would not automatically entitle him for the employment, that too in disciplined force
 Decision Date :
 06-10-2021
 | Case No :
 CIVIL APPEAL No. 6238/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Leave Granted & Allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

ગુજરાતી - Gujarati
हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

SHANTABEN BHURABHAI BHURIYA
 versus
ANAND ATHABHAI CHAUDHARI & ORS.
-
[2021] 10 S.C.R. 460
2021 INSC 674
Coram : M.R. SHAH
*
, ANIRUDDHA BOSE
 Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Proviso to s.14 inserted by amendment – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.207, 209, 193, 482 – Offences under Atrocities Act – Second proviso to Special Court constituted u/s.14 also to directly take cognizance of such offences – Cognizance taken by Magistrate and thereafter case committed to the Special Court – Criminal proceedings, if vitiated – High Court quashed and set aside the FIR as well as order passed by the
 Decision Date :
 26-10-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 967/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

SURINDER SINGH
 versus
STATE (UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH)
-
[2021] 10 S.C.R. 1061
2021 INSC 790
Coram : N.V. RAMANA
*
, SURYA KANT, A.S. BOPANNA
 Penal Code, 1860 – s.307 – Attempt to murder – Appellant- Head Constable convicted u/s.307 and s.27 of Arms Act, sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of 3 years for both the offences – On appeal, held: Appellant was in an inebriated condition office of the complainant – After consuming water, he pulled out his pistol and aimed it at the complainant, whereafter he directed PW-3 and PW-4 to get out of the room – CFSL Report proves that the cartridge recovered from the office of the complainant was fired from the service
 Decision Date :
 26-11-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2373/2010
 | Disposal Nature :
 Case Partly allowed

 | Direction Issue :
 Appeal partly allowed

 |  Bench :
 3 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

THE STATE BY S.P. THROUGH THE SPE CBI
 versus
UTTAMCHAND BOHRA
-
[2021] 9 S.C.R. 821
2021 INSC 855
Coram : K.M. JOSEPH
*
, S. RAVINDRA BHAT
 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – ss.13(1)(e), 13(2) – A-1, a public servant was accused of accumulating assets disproportionate to his known sources of income in collusion with other accused – Respondent accused of abetting and/or conspiring with A-1 – According A-1 acquired a flat, through a company – Respondent was alleged to be close associate and financer of A-1 and his family – Chargesheet against the respondent quashed by High Court – On appeal, held: Role attributed to the respondent is that he helped in the execution of the
 Decision Date :
 09-12-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1590/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

P. MOHANRAJ & ORS.
 versus
M/S. SHAH BROTHERS ISPAT PVT. LTD.
-
[2021] 14 S.C.R. 204
2021 INSC 133
Coram : R.F. NARIMAN
*
, NAVIN SINHA, K.M. JOSEPH
 Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – s.14 – Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 – Chapter XVII – ss.138, 141 – Institution/ continuation of proceeding u/s.138/141, NI Act, if covered by the moratorium provision i.e. Natural persons if covered by s.14 – Held: A s.138/141 proceeding against a corporate debtor is covered by s.14(1)(a), IBC – A quasi-criminal proceeding contained in Chapter XVII of the NI Act would amount to a “proceeding” within the meaning of s.14(1)(a), the moratorium
 Decision Date :
 01-03-2021
 | Case No :
 CIVIL APPEAL No. 10355/2018
 | Disposal Nature :
 Disposed off

 |  Bench :
 3 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

LAXMAN PRASAD PANDEY
 versus
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
-
[2021] 9 S.C.R. 629
2021 INSC 874
Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
*
, A.S. BOPANNA
 Penal Code, 1860 – ss.147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 188 and s.120B – Arms Act – s.27/30 – Two FIRs were filed, both pertained to the same incident – There was a clash of two groups by using firearms which resulted in indiscriminate firing from both of 2020 (u/ss.147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 188, 120B IPC and s.27/30 of the Arms Act) was filed by the appellant alleging that he along with his brother and some other persons had gone to seek return of the money which he had given to a person of the another group – It is alleged that they
 Decision Date :
 11-12-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1551/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Disposed off

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

SOMESH CHAURASIA
 versus
STATE OF M.P. & ANR.
-
[2021] 6 S.C.R. 692
2021 INSC 349
Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
*
, HRISHIKESH ROY
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.389 (1) – Prosecution case was that the second respondent was convicted under s.302 IPC and awarded life imprisonment – By order dated 3.2.2016, High Court directed that the sentence shall during the pendency of appeal 389(1) – Two applications were filed before High Court for cancellation of bail and revocation of order dated 3.2.2016 suspending the sentence of second respondent inter- alia on ground that after the sentence was suspended, an FIR was registered against the second respondent at the behest
 Decision Date :
 22-07-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 590/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Disposed off

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi
தமிழ் - Tamil

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

KAPTAN SINGH
 versus
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS
-
[2021] 8 S.C.R. 408
2021 INSC 402
Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
*
, M.R. SHAH
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 482 – Inherent powers of High Court – Exercise of – On facts, criminal proceedings u/ss. 147, 148, 149, 406, 329 and 386 IPC pending against the private respondents – High Court in exercise of powers u/s. 482 proceedings – Sustainability of – Held: Not sustainable – High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in quashing the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers u/s. 482 – High Court failed to consider the material collected during the investigation/inquiry and even the
 Decision Date :
 13-08-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 787/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

NOORULLA KHAN
 versus
KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD & ANR.
-
[2021] 7 S.C.R. 243
2021 INSC 330
Coram : UDAY UMESH LALIT
*
, AJAY RASTOGI
 Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 – ss. 43, 44, 47 and 48 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 197 – Gram Panchayat and the appellant, who at the relevant time was chief officer of said Gram Panchayat, were accused of having committed offences – Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate First Class found appellant guilty of the offences – However, the Additional Session Judge held that the appellant was entitled to protection u/ s.197 of Cr.P.C. and in the absence of requisite sanction, his prosecution was
 Decision Date :
 13-07-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 599/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

STATE OF RAJASTHAN
 versus
BABLU @ OM PRAKASH
-
[2021] 7 S.C.R. 450
2021 INSC 782
Coram : UDAY UMESH LALIT, AJAY RASTOGI
 Appeal against acquittal: Interference with – Prosecution case that 13 accused along with 10-12 persons armed with weapons, forcibly entered the house of the informant and hurled abuses, inflicted informant’s brother with injuries who later succumbed to his injuries – injuries when he tried to intervene – Conviction of 13 accused in respect of offences punishable u/ss. 147, 148, 149, 450 or 450/149, 452 or 452/149, 302 or 302 rw ss. 149, 307 or 307 rw 149 IPC on basis of the eye witness account – High Court upheld the conviction and sentence
 Decision Date :
 24-11-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1475/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Case Partly allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

ગુજરાતી - Gujarati
हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi
தமிழ் - Tamil

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

KALABHAI HAMIRBHAI KACHHOT
 versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
-
[2021] 4 S.C.R. 239
2021 INSC 274
Coram : ASHOK BHUSHAN
*
, R. SUBHASH REDDY
 4 S.C.R. 239 239 KALABHAI HAMIRBHAI KACHHOT v. STATE OF GUJARAT (Criminal Appeal No. 216 of 2015) APRIL 28, 2021 [ASHOK BHUSHAN AND R. SUBHASH REDDY,JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: s. 302 rw s. 34 – Murder – Previous animosity between the parties – On the fateful day, accused persons Police Act – High Court while upholding the conviction, extended benefit of s. 428 CrPC – Interference with – Held: Not called for – On examination of entire evidence of all the witnesses with reference to medical and other evidence on record, it is clear that the
 Decision Date :
 28-04-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 216/2015
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

NETAJI ACHYUT SHINDE (PATIL) & ANR.
 versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
-
[2021] 3 S.C.R. 255
2021 INSC 200
Coram : L. NAGESWARA RAO
*
, HEMANT GUPTA, S. RAVINDRA BHAT
 Penal Code, 1860: s.302 r/w s.34 – Prosecution case was that on the fateful day, at 17:30, accused persons in furtherance of their common intention assaulted the victim-deceased and inflicted serious injuries with a sword as well as by fists blows and kicks – At 17:45, information regarding the incident – Around 19:15, deceased succumbed to injuries in hospital – Based on the complaint of PW-1, FIR was registered at 23:45 pm at police station alleging involvement of appellants-accused and one absconding person – Trial court convicted A-2
 Decision Date :
 23-03-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 121/2019
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

 |  Bench :
 3 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

KUMER SINGH
 versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR
-
[2021] 6 S.C.R. 539
2021 INSC 343
Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
*
, M.R. SHAH
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.439 – Bail – Prosecution case was that the accused brutally killed brother of the complainant in a pre-planned manner – 26 injuries were found on the body of the victim-deceased and 11 injuries on brother of the deceased caused by blunt and the bail granted by High Court on the ground that no reasons whatsoever were assigned by High Court while releasing the accused on bail – Held: Except narrating the submissions made on behalf of the accused and the public prosecutor and the complainant, there was no independent
 Decision Date :
 20-07-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 571/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi
தமிழ் - Tamil

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

N. VIJAYAKUMAR
 versus
STATE OF TAMIL NADU
-
[2021] 2 S.C.R. 63
2021 INSC 60
Coram : ASHOK BHUSHAN
*
, M.R. SHAH, R. SUBHASH REDDY
 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – ss.7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) – Appellant-accused was Sanitary Inspector in 8th Ward of Madurai Municipal Corporation – Case of prosecution that he demanded Rs.500/- and a cell phone as illegal gratification from PW-2, to send his report working as Supervisor in an Organisation which was given sanitation work on contract basis in the aforesaid ward – Trial court acquitted the appellant – Acquittal reversed by High Court – On appeal, held: There are material contradictions in the deposition of key witnesses
 Decision Date :
 03-02-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 100/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 3 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE, GOVERNMENT OF
 versus
KAPIL WADHAWAN & ANR. ETC.
-
[2021] 1 S.C.R. 721
2021 INSC 113
Coram : SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, HRISHIKESH ROY
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.167(2)(a)(ii) – Default bail – Issue as to whether while computing the period of 90 days or 60 days as contemplated in s.167(2)(a)(ii) CrPC, the day of remand is to be included or excluded, for considering a bail – Because of the conflicting view on the proposition of law for grant of default bail, a judicial conundrum has arisen which is required to be resolved for guidance of the Court – Issue referred to larger Bench – Bail. State of M.P. v. Rustom & Ors. 1995 (Supp) 3 SCC
 Decision Date :
 23-02-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 701/2020

 | Direction Issue :
  Matter referred to larger bench.

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

SARABJEET SINGH MOKHA
 versus
THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, JABALPUR & ORS.
-
[2021] 11 S.C.R. 468
2021 INSC 702
Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
*
, VIKRAM NATH, B.V. NAGARATHNA
 Constitution of India: Art.22(5) – Preventive detention – Protection to undertrials and detainees – Held: Art.22(5) mandates that (i) the authority making the order shall “as soon as on which the order has been made to the person detained; and (ii) the detaining authority shall afford to the person detained “the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order” – Both these procedural requirements are mutually reinforcing – The
 Decision Date :
 29-10-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1301/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 3 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

ગુજરાતી - Gujarati
हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

SUNIL TODI & ORS.
 versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
-
[2021] 9 S.C.R. 1086
2021 INSC 823
Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
*
, A.S. BOPANNA
 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – ss.138, 141 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss. 202, 203 and 482 – Dishonour of cheque issued by way of security – A Power Supply Agreement (PSA) was entered into between the company – The PSA between the parties envisaged that the second respondent would supply power to the company of which the appellants are directors etc. – The agreement postulated that payment for the power supplied would be made by means of Letter of Credit (LCs) – A cheque
 Decision Date :
 03-12-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1446/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.