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.

NAGARAJ REDDY
 versus
STATE OF TAMIL NADU
-
[2023] 14 S.C.R. 457
2023 INSC 269
Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
*
, VIKRAM NATH
 HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Concurrent conviction of the appellant- accused No.1 for off ences punishable u/ss.302, 341 IPC primarily on the basis of evidence of PW-1, an interested witness, if justifi ed. Evidence – Interested witness – Previous enmity – Conviction based witness, without corroboration of such testimony – Legality: Held: PW-1 is an interested witness, being the brother of the deceased – He admitted that there existed previous enmity between the parties wherein the deceased and his wife-PW-3 were injured after a scuffl e between
 Decision Date :
 21-03-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 886/2023
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

MANGILAL
 versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
-
[2023] 10 S.C.R. 517
2023 INSC 634
Coram : A.S. BOPANNA
*
, M.M. SUNDRESH
 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 – s.52A – Non-compliance of – Held: – In the present case, search warrant under Exhibit P-4 acknowledged the fact that procedure contemplated under the NDPS Act was not followed – Also, one of the witnesses to the while the other turned hostile – Both the witnesses to the arrest memo were not examined – The record also indicates that an order was passed by the trial Judge permitting the prosecution to keep the seized materials within the police station, to be produced at a later point of
 Decision Date :
 12-07-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1651/2023
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi
தமிழ் - Tamil
తెలుగు - Telugu

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

JOHN ANTHONISAMY @ JOHN
 versus
STATE, REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
-
[2023] 1 S.C.R. 279
2023 INSC 54
Coram : M.R. SHAH
*
, C.T. RAVIKUMAR
 Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 r/w s.201 – Murder – Circumstantial evidence – Purported extra-judicial confession – Effect – Five accused including appellant (A-1) – Prosecution case that in pursuance of a conspiracy, the accused persons killed the deceased car – PW11 (Sub inspector) closed the case as undetected – However, case was subsequently re-opened and investigation initiated by police witness (PW30) on basis of confessional statement made in letter allegedly written by appellant to PW22 – Trial Court convicted appellant
 Decision Date :
 19-01-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 466/2017
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

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

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

PAWAN KUMAR CHOURASIA
 versus
STATE OF BIHAR
-
[2023] 2 S.C.R. 875
2023 INSC 227
Coram : ABHAY S. OKA
*
, RAJESH BINDAL
 Criminal Law – Evidence – Extra-Judicial Confession – Conviction based on, when not justified – Appellant was convicted for offences punishable u/s.302 r/w 34 and s.201, IPC based on extra-judicial confession – Held: Case of the prosecution was that the appellant had PW6 including the complainant himself whose son was killed did not support prosecution – PW7 to PW9, the only material prosecution witnesses were not consistent about the place at which the alleged confession was made – Even after the alleged extra-judicial confession of committing
 Decision Date :
 14-03-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2230/2010
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
 नेपाली - Nepali
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

PURUSHOTHAMAN
 versus
STATE OF TAMIL NADU
-
[2023] 14 S.C.R. 181
2023 INSC 970
Coram : ABHAY S. OKA
*
, PANKAJ MITHAL
 HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: When the sentence of accused is suspended on appeal and he is released on bail, whether the High Court can cancel the bail without giving a reasonable opportunity, to the accused of being heard. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 389 – Suspension the appeal; release of appellant on bail - Appeal against conviction by the accused admitted by the High Court – Substantive sentence of the accused suspended and he was enlarged on bail – When appeal called for hearing, the High Court cancelled the bail of the accused, without giving
 Decision Date :
 30-10-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3341/2023
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

RAMESH KUMAR
 versus
 STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
-
[2023] 9 S.C.R. 1165
2023 INSC 596
Coram : S. RAVINDRA BHAT, DIPANKAR DATTA
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.438 – Anticipatory Bail – Payment of amount as a condition precedent for grant of bail – Legality of – An FIR was registered u/ss. 420, 406 r/w s. 34 – As per the FIR, an agreement to sell was executed by and between the of Rs. 17,00,000/- by issuing cheques favouring the appellant-owner allegedly on the instructions of the builder – Complainants were not handed over the floor which they intended to purchase – Apprehending arrest, the appellant moved an application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. before the
 Decision Date :
 04-07-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1741/2023
 | Disposal Nature :
 Disposed off

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
 versus
BHUPENDRA YADAV
-
[2023] 14 S.C.R. 438
2023 INSC 837
Coram : HIMA KOHLI
*
, RAJESH BINDAL
 HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the appellants have erred in rejecting the candidature of the respondent to the post of Constable, despite the latter having truthfully disclosed in his affi davit the fact that he had faced trial in a criminal case which had resulted Service Law – Rejection of candidature by the departmental authorities on basis of moral turpitude – Propriety: Held: An employer has the discretion to terminate or condone an omission in the disclosure made by a candidate – While doing so, the employer must act with
 Decision Date :
 20-09-2023
 | Case No :
 CIVIL APPEAL No. 5984/2023
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
 नेपाली - Nepali
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

RUPESH MANGER (THAPA)
 versus
STATE OF SIKKIM
-
[2023] 12 S.C.R. 578
2023 INSC 826
Coram : J.B. PARDIWALA
*
, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA
 HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: High Court reversed the order of acquittal of the trial Court and convicted appellant-accused u/s.302 IPC, whether the case of the appellant-accused falls within the exception u/s. 84 of IPC or not. Penal Code, 1860 – Appellant-accused deceased with sharp-edged weapon causing his death – Appellant pleaded insanity: Held: During preliminary examination, CW-1-doctor categorically deposed that going by the case history of the accused prepared by the Hospital, appellant had earlier been treated for acute and transient
 Decision Date :
 13-09-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2069/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

STATE OF PUNJAB
 versus
KEWAL KRISHAN
-
[2023] 10 S.C.R. 1
2023 INSC 583
Coram : B.V. NAGARATHNA, MANOJ MISRA
 Penal Code, 1860 – s. 302 – Acquittal confirmed – Prosecution case that the deceased was last seen alive in his own house in the company of the accused at about 7.00 p.m. on 10.12.1998 – PW-6, nephew of the deceased discovered body of deceased on 12.12.1998 – FIR was – PW-2, the sole witness of the last seen circumstance, in his deposition in court, stated that he had expressed his suspicion in respect of accused’s involvement to the police on 13.12.1998 – It was also alleged that accused made an extra-judicial confession before PW-3
 Decision Date :
 21-06-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2128/2014
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

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

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

HARBHAJAN SINGH
 versus
STATE OF HARYANA
-
[2023] 3 S.C.R. 545
2023 INSC 424
Coram : ABHAY S. OKA
*
, RAJESH BINDAL
 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985: ss. 25, 35 – Applicability of s. 25 – When – Presumption of culpable mental state u/s. 35 – When, available –On facts, truck found lying turtle and bags of powder scattered which on investigation found to be and the cleaner coming out of the truck and disclosed the name of the owner- appellant, and fled away – Conviction of the appellant u/s. 25 and imposition of imprisonment for 10 years by the courts below – On appeal, held: s. 25 provides that if an owner of a vehicle knowingly
 Decision Date :
 25-04-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1480/2011
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi
తెలుగు - Telugu

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

PRAMOD SINGLA
 versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS
-
[2023] 2 S.C.R. 793
2023 INSC 344
Coram : KRISHNA MURARI, V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN
 Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 – Preventive Detention – Representation by detenue to the Central Government, the detaining authority and the Advisory Board – Central Govt. if bound to wait for the decision of the Advisory Board Whether there exists an incongruity between the Pankaj Kumar case and the Abdullah Kunhi case – Held: No – Since these two judgments exist symbiotically and apply to two separate authorities within the COFEPOSA Act, there exists no friction between the judgments – The mandate to
 Decision Date :
 10-04-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1051/2023
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi
తెలుగు - Telugu

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

RAVI DHINGRA
 versus
THE STATE OF HARYANA
-
[2023] 2 S.C.R. 164
2023 INSC 182
Coram : SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
*
, B.V. NAGARATHNA
 Penal Code, 1860 – ss.364A, 363 and 364 – Modification of conviction u/s.364A to s.363 – Appellants convicted u/ss.148, 364A r/w s.149, IPC – Sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years u/s.148, rigorous imprisonment for life and fine u/s.364A r/w s.149 – has three components- kidnapping or abduction of a person and keeping them in detention; threat to cause death or hurt, and the use of kidnapping, abduction, or detention with a demand to pay the ransom; and when the demand is not met, then causing death – In the present case, there are two
 Decision Date :
 01-03-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 987/2009
 | Disposal Nature :
 Case Partly allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi
తెలుగు - Telugu

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

AMOD KUMAR KANTH
 versus
ASSOCIATION OF VICTIM OF UPHAAR TRAGEDY AND ANR.
-
[2023] 6 S.C.R. 669
2023 INSC 397
Coram : K.M. JOSEPH, B.V. NAGARATHNA, ARAVIND KUMAR
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.197 –Ambit of – Uphaar Tragedy case – Closure report filed by the CBI against the appellant was rejected by the Magistrate,who instead took cognizance on the protest petition filed by the first against the appellant – Cognizance was taken for offences u/ss.304A, 337, 338, IPC and u/s.14, Cinematograph Act r/w the Rules – Appellant filed petition u/s.482, CrPC challenging the order issuing summons – Dismissed – On appeal, held: When considering the question of
 Decision Date :
 20-04-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1359/2017
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
कोंकणी - Konkani
मराठी - Marathi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi
తెలుగు - Telugu

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

STATE OF PUNJAB
 versus
DIL BAHADUR
-
[2023] 3 S.C.R. 766
2023 INSC 307
Coram : M.R. SHAH
*
, C.T. RAVIKUMAR
 Sentence/Sentencing – Principle of – High Court though confirmed the conviction of the respondent-accused for offences u/ ss.279 and 304A, IPC, however, reduced the sentence from two years to eight months – Justification of – Held: While reducing the sentence, the High of the offence and the manner in which the accused committed the offence – Because of the rash and negligent driving on the part of the accused one innocent person died and two persons sustained injuries – High Court did not consider the fact that IPC is punitive and deterrent in
 Decision Date :
 28-03-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 844/2023
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

RUCHIR RASTOGI
 versus
PANKAJ RASTOGI AND OTHERS ETC.
-
[2023] 14 S.C.R. 914
2023 INSC 941
Coram : VIKRAM NATH
*
, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
 HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: High Court if justifi ed in quashing the FIR lodged by the appellant against respondents u/ss.457, 380 and 506, IPC. Penal Code, 1860 – ss.457, 380, 506 – FIR fi led stating that the appellant and respondent No.1 as Kartas of in equal share and there was an interim order of preserving the assets and belongings of the shop in question – However, Respondent No.1, along with other co-accused, removed the assets and belongings of the shop in violation thereof – When the appellant inquired from respondent
 Decision Date :
 19-10-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3283/2013
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

JASWANT SINGH & ORS
 versus
THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ANR.
-
[2023] 1 S.C.R. 595
2023 INSC 31
Coram : DINESH MAHESHWARI
*
, BELA M. TRIVEDI
 Code of Criminal Procedure 1973: s. 432(2) – Grant of Remission – Requirement of s. 432(2) – Held: Presiding Judge must give adequate reasons while giving an opinion u/s. 432(2) – On facts, three convicts, out of a total of eight, submitted their respective applications for same was refused– Held:The said orders should have contained adequate reasons after taking into consideration the relevant factors that govern the grant of remission as laid down in Laxman Naskar’s case applications for remission – Issuance of direction to the Special Judge to
 Decision Date :
 13-01-2023
 | Case No :
 WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 323/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

UGGARSAIN
 versus
THE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
-
[2023] 10 S.C.R. 74
2023 INSC 587
Coram : S. RAVINDRA BHAT
*
, DIPANKAR DATTA
 Sentence/Sentencing – Appropriateness of sentences – Eight accused persons were charged with and tried for offences punishable u/ss. 148, 149, 302, 304 Part-II and 323 of IPC for having causing death of deceased and causing injury Trial Court convicted all the accused persons and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for life u/s. 302 r/w s.149 and one year rigorous imprisonment u/s. 148 and six months rigorous imprisonment u/s.323 r/w. s.149 – The High Court partially allowing the appeal by the accused persons
 Decision Date :
 03-07-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1378/2023
 | Disposal Nature :
 Case Partly allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
മലയാളം - Malayalam
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.

RAJ KUMAR @ SUMAN
 versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
-
[2023] 5 S.C.R. 754
2023 INSC 520
Coram : ABHAY S. OKA
*
, RAJESH BINDAL
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.313 – Power to examine the accused – Law summarized. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.313 – Non-compliance of – Omission made while questioning the accused u/s.313, effect of – Appellant was convicted IPC and sentenced accordingly –Held: The only alleged incriminating circumstance against the appellant is in the evidence of PW5, who stated that the appellant was standing with a katta in his hand outside the premises where the offence took place–However, this was not put to him
 Decision Date :
 11-05-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1471/2023
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
 नेपाली - Nepali
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

BHISHAM LAL VERMA
 versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER
-
[2023] 14 S.C.R. 55
2023 INSC 955
Coram : C.T. RAVIKUMAR
*
, SANJAY KUMAR
 HEADNOTES Issue for consideration : Is a second petition maintainable u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. on grounds that were available for challenge even at the time of fi ling of the fi rst petition thereunder. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 482 – A complaint case 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of IPC r/w. ss. 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Petitioner was amongst the accused named therein – The State Government accorded sanction to prosecute the petitioner – Upon completion of investigation, charge- sheet was
 Decision Date :
 30-10-2023
 | Case No :
 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 7976/2023
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

HARIPRASAD @ KISHAN SAHU
 versus
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
-
[2023] 14 S.C.R. 214
2023 INSC 986
Coram : BELA M. TRIVEDI
*
, DIPANKAR DATTA
 HEADNOTES Issues for consideration: Whether the delay of about more than one year in registering the FIR could be said to be fatal to the case of prosecution; whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased had died due to administration of poison and the poison in the liquor and made the deceased to drink it on the previous date of his death. Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 – Allegation of murder by poisoning – Delay in registering FIR – When not fatal: Held: FIR being only a corroborative piece of evidence and not a
 Decision Date :
 07-11-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1182/2012
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

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.

ILAVARASAN
 versus
THE SUPERITENDENT OF POLICE & ORS.
-
[2023] 15 S.C.R. 325
2023 INSC 813
Coram : S. RAVINDRA BHAT
*
, ARAVIND KUMAR
 HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Issue arose as regards the conduct of advocates as to whether they are capable of certifying self respect marriages u/s. 7A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; and whether the Suyammariyathai marriage-self-respect marriage can Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – s. 7A (as amended and applicable in Tamil Nadu) – Special provision regarding suyamariyathai and seerthiruththa marriages-self respect marriages – Advocates, if cabable of certifying marriages u/s. 7A – Appellant married a girl in accordance
 Decision Date :
 28-08-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 002752/2023
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

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

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

SURENDRA SINGH
 versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR.
-
[2023] 3 S.C.R. 354
2023 INSC 354
Coram : M.R. SHAH
*
, C.T. RAVIKUMAR
 Penal Code, 1860 – s.149 – Applicability of – High Court set aside the respondent-accused’s conviction for the offence punishable u/s.302/149, IPC on the ground that the initial charge- sheet was filed only against two accused persons (one of and the remaining three persons were subsequently arrayed as the accused and are being tried separately thus, s.149, IPC shall not be attracted – Held: When five persons were specifically named in the FIR and are facing the trial though separately, s.149 IPC would be attracted –
 Decision Date :
 11-04-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1059/2023
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.
 versus
MITUL KUMAR JANA
-
[2023] 11 S.C.R. 613
2023 INSC 754
Coram : J.K. MAHESHWARI
*
, K.V. VISWANATHAN
 HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the High Court erred in allowing the writ petition fi led by the respondent, setting aside the order passed by the Administrative Tribunal and directing the appointment of the respondent as constable in the West Bengal police force. Suppression of material information – When not: Held: Information sought in the verifi cation roll was regarding arrest, detention and conviction by a Court in any off ence – In reply to the information asked the respondent gave the answer as “no” – As per the
 Decision Date :
 22-08-2023
 | Case No :
 CIVIL APPEAL No. 8510/2011
 | Disposal Nature :
 Disposed off

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

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

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

VIKAS RATHI
 versus
THE STATE OF U.P. & ANR.
-
[2023] 2 S.C.R. 6
2023 INSC 186
Coram : ABHAY S. OKA
*
, RAJESH BINDAL
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 : s. 319 – Summoning of additional accused – Murder of a person working in the appellant’s firm – Complaint by the brother of the deceased – FIR registered against unknown persons – However, after two months, complaint by the – Appellant listed as a prosecution witness – Application u/s. 319 by the complainant to summon the appellant as accused – Dismissed by the trial court – High Court quashed the order passed by trial court and remanded the matter – On appeal, held: On
 Decision Date :
 01-03-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 644/2023
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi
తెలుగు - Telugu

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

STATE OF HARYANA
 versus
DHARAMRAJ
-
[2023] 11 S.C.R. 705
2023 INSC 784
Coram : AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
*
, SARASA VENKATANARAYANA BHATTI
 HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: In instant appeal, the State seeks cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the sole respondent by the Single Judge of the High Court. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 438 – Pre arrest bail – FIR u/ss. 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 341, charges u/ss. 186, 353 and 364 against the respondent – Grant of anticipatory bail to the respondent by the High Court – Cancellation of: Held: Much like bail, grant of anticipatory bail is to be exercised with judicial discretion – Each case turns on its own facts and
 Decision Date :
 29-08-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2635/2023
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

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

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

NEERAJ DUTTA
 versus
STATE (GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI)
-
[2023] 2 S.C.R. 997
2023 INSC 245
Coram : ABHAY S. OKA
*
, RAJESH BINDAL
 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 : ss. 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) – Proof of demand of illegal gratification – Prosecution case that a trap was laid and the appellant-Electricity Inspector came with the co-accused and demanded the documents and bribe of which was paid by the complainant circumstantial evidence on record to prove the guilt of the appellant, convicted her for the offence punishable u/ ss. 7 and 13(i)(d)(i) and (ii) rw 13(2) – High Court upheld the same – On appeal, held : Apart from the evidence of PW-5-shadow witness, there is no other evidence
 Decision Date :
 17-03-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1669/2009
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi
తెలుగు - Telugu

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

MUKESHBHAI VALLABHBHAI ABHANGI
 versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
-
[2023] 4 S.C.R. 1137
2023 INSC 496
Coram : AJAY RASTOGI
*
, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
 Bail : Grant of – Appellant, along with accused no.1 who was operating an organised crime syndicate involving, inter alia, extortion, land grabbing, contract killing, money-laundering, pressurized Secret Witness 11 to enter into a deal – SW11 was threatened to execute around with either creditors of the leader of the organized crime syndicate-accused no. 1 or creditors of the appellant – Allegedly the appellant had extorted 50,000 square feet of land from the said persons – FIR against the appellant for offences punishable under the 2015 Act and Penal
 Decision Date :
 04-05-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1391/2023
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

DHANRAJ N ASAWANI
 versus
AMARJEET SINGH MOHINDER SINGH BASI AND OTHERS
-
[2023] 11 S.C.R. 297
2023 INSC 710
Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
*
, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA
 HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the provisions of s.81(5B) of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 can be construed as preventing a share holder of the society such as the appellant, who was also an erstwhile director, from independently setting the criminal Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 – s.81(5B) – The High Court was of the view that since the provisions of the 1960 Act are special, the provisions of s.81(5B) would preclude the registration of an FIR at the behest of a person, such as the appellant, who is a shareholder
 Decision Date :
 25-07-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2093/2023
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 | Direction Issue :
 Appeal allowed and SLP disposed of.

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

STATE OF KARNATAKA
 versus
T. NASEER @ NASIR @ THANDIANTAVIDA NASEER @ UMARHAZI @ HAZI & ORS.
-
[2023] 14 S.C.R. 230
2023 INSC 988
Coram : VIKRAM NATH
*
, RAJESH BINDAL
 HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: The High Court rejected the applications fi led by the prosecution u/s. 311 of the Cr.P.C., seeking recall of PW-189 and to permit the prosecution to produce the report and the certifi cate u/s. 65B of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 311 – Evidence Act, 1872 – s.65B – A serial bomb blasts took place – Certain electronic devices were seized – Trial Court held electronic devices inadmissible in evidence – Thereafter, an application was fi led in
 Decision Date :
 06-11-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3456/2023
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

ગુજરાતી - Gujarati
हिन्दी - Hindi
മലയാളം - Malayalam
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

SIJU KURIAN
 versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA
-
[2023] 4 S.C.R. 397
2023 INSC 378
Coram : SURYA KANT
*
, ARAVIND KUMAR
 Penal Code, 1860: ss. 302, 201, 404 and 419 – Circumstantial Evidence – Reliance upon – Prosecution case that the accused- labourer in the farmhouse of the victim, murdered the victim by hitting him with iron rod and then hid the dead body in a pit located in the garden – house and sold them as also sold the land to make undue monetary gain – Acquittal by the trial court on the ground that prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt – However, the High Court convicted and sentenced the accused for the offence punishable u/ss. 302,
 Decision Date :
 17-04-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 64/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

A. SRINIVASULU
 versus
THE STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
-
[2023] 10 S.C.R. 11
2023 INSC 971
Coram : V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN
*
, PANKAJ MITHAL
 Penal Code, 1860: ss.120B, 193, 420, 468 and 471 – Criminal conspiracy and cheating – Prosecution case that the appellant, officials of PSU and other private persons entered into a criminal conspiracy to cheat the PSU in the matter of award of contract – Contract granted to one tenders causing wrongful loss to the PSU – Illegalities alleged in the procedure followed for inviting the tender – FIR lodged u/s. 120B r/w ss. 193, 420, 468, 471 r/w ss. 13 (2) and 13(1)(d) of PC Act – Final report against accused persons including the public
 Decision Date :
 15-06-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2417/2010
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

NAVEEN @ AJAY
 versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
-
[2023] 14 S.C.R. 977
2023 INSC 936
Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
*
, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA
 HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether appellant was aff orded a fair trial; whether he was deprived of his valuable legal rights. Penal Code, 1860 – s. 302 – Appellant was convicted and sentenced for committing rape and murder of 3 – His death sentence was confi rmed by the High Court – Appellant contended that the entire trial was completed within a span of 15 days and appellant was not aff orded a fair trial – Propriety: Held: The Order-sheet would clearly indicate that the trial was conducted in a
 Decision Date :
 19-10-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 489/2019
 | Disposal Nature :
 Disposed off

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

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

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

M/S. BLS INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED
 versus
M/S. RAJWANT SINGH & OTHERS
-
[2023] 2 S.C.R. 183
2023 INSC 187
Coram : SUDHANSHU DHULIA
*
, MANOJ MISRA
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 256(1) Proviso – Non- appearance of complainant – Dismissal of complaints for non- prosecution – Sustainability of – On facts, the appellant-complainant filed eight complaints u/s 138, N.I. Act – Complainant’s statement and Accordingly, complainant’s evidence closed with date set for recording of defence evidence – Application u/s 311 CrPC also filed by complainant – However, complainant failed to register appearance on subsequent dates – Magistrate dismissed the complaints for
 Decision Date :
 01-03-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 657/2023
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

SHRI SUKHBIR SINGH BADAL
 versus
BALWANT SINGH KHERA AND ORS.
-
[2023] 10 S.C.R. 917
2023 INSC 466
Coram : M.R. SHAH
*
, C.T. RAVIKUMAR
 Representation of People Act, 1951 – s. 29-A(5) – Sikh Gurudwaras Act, 1925 – Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 420, 463, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471 r/w s. 120B, 191, 192 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss. 202, 204, 315, 482 – A private complaint was filed by the 468, 471, 191, 192 of IPC against the appellants – It was alleged in the complaint that while complying with the requirements of s.29-A(5) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 an affidavit was filed before the Election Commission of India (ECI), which conflicted with the
 Decision Date :
 28-04-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1116/2023
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

STATE OF PUNJAB
 versus
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNOR OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER
-
[2023] 6 S.C.R. 532
2023 INSC 181
Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
*
, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA
 COURT REPORTS [2023] 6 S.C.R. STATE OF PUNJAB v. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNOR OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 302 of 2023) FEBRUARY 28, 2023 [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI AND PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.] Constitution of India – Art.174 – Governor (not furnished the relevant information sought) – The Governor noted that the CM in his correspondence underscored the mandate of Art. 167 of the Constitution as per which the CM is bound to furnish full details and information sought by the Governor – On 22.02.2023, the
 Decision Date :
 28-02-2023
 | Case No :
 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 302/2023
 | Disposal Nature :
 Disposed off

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.