Supreme Court of India Judgements

46650 Judgements hosted as on 11/11/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Month: September 2018

Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.362~Recalling of Order-However patently erroneous the earlier order be, it can only be corrected in the process known to law and not under Section 362 Cr.P.C.-The whole purpose of Section 362 Cr.P.C. is only to correct a clerical or arithmetical error. 

Sep 17, 2018 sclaw

2018(3) Law Herald (SC) 1902 : 2018 LawHerald.Org 1401 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul Criminal Appeal No(S).…

Constitution

Lynching—Police directed to register FIR against persons who spread irresponsible and explore message and videos on various social media platforms having content which is likely to incite mob violence and lynching of any kind. Lynching—Mob-violence—Parliament recommended to create a separate offence for lynching and provide adequate punishment for the same—Certain other directions also issued.

Sep 17, 2018 sclaw

2018 (3) Law Herald (SC) 1873 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH TEHSEEN S. POONAWALLA — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA — Respondent ( Before : Dipak Misra, CJI., A.M. Khanwilkar…

Constitution I P C

Section 498- A, Judgement ” In the aforesaid analysis, while declaring the directions pertaining to Family  Welfare  Committee  and  its  constitution  by  the  District  Legal Services   Authority   and   the   power   conferred   on   the   Committee   is impermissible.  Therefore,  we  think  it  appropriate  to  direct  that  the investigating officers be careful and be guided by the principles stated in Joginder  Kumar  (supra),  D.K.  Basu  (supra),   Lalita  Kumari  (supra) and  Arnesh  Kumar  (supra).  It  will  also  be  appropriate  to  direct  the Director  General  of  Police  of  each  State  to  ensure  that  investigating officers  who  are  in  charge  of  investigation  of  cases  of  offences  under Section  498-A IPC  should  be  imparted  rigorous  training with  regard  to the principles stated by this Court relating to arrest. In view  of  the  aforesaid  premises,  the  direction  contained  in paragraph 19(i) as a whole is not in accord with the statutory framework and the direction issued in paragraph 19(ii) shall be read in conjunction with the direction given hereinabove. Direction No. 19(iii) is modified to the extent that if a settlement is arrived at, the parties can approach the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the High Court, keeping in view the law laid down in Gian Singh (supra), shall dispose of the same. As far  as  direction  Nos.  19(iv),  19(v)  and  19(vi)  and  19(vii)  are concerned, they shall be governed by what we have stated in paragraph 35.

Sep 14, 2018 sclaw

    REPORTABLE     IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 73 OF 2015 Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar                    …Petitioner(s) and another…

Narcotics

Narcotics—Personal Search—Accused posed faith in raiding party and gave written consent for being searched by raiding party—Held; this does not satisfy the requirement ofS.50 NDPS Act—Accused acquitted. Narcotics–Personal Search—Search before Magistrate or Gazetted officer is mandatory requirement and strict compliance thereof is mandated.

Sep 13, 2018 sclaw

2018(2) Law Herald (P&H) 1617 (SC) : 2018 LawHerald.Org 925   SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ARIF KHAN @ AGHA KHAN — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND — Respondent ( Before : R.K. Agrawal…

Cr P C

Constitution of India, 1950, Article 141-Precedent-Judgments are not legislations, they have to be. read in the context and background discussions. Police Diary—Absence of entries in the General Diary concerning the preliminary enquiry would not be per se illegal or fatal to prosecution.

Sep 12, 2018 sclaw

(2018) 5 JT 387 : (2018) 7 SCALE 6492018(2) Law Herald (SC) 746 : 2018 LawHerald.Org 1023   SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE BY LOKAYUKTHA POLICE — Appellant Vs. H. SRINIVAS —…

You missed

Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 376 and 313 — Rape — False promise of marriage — Physical relationship with the complainant under the false promise of marriage, leading to her pregnancy and subsequent abortions — Whether the FIR should be quashed based on the allegations and the delay in filing the complaint — The petitioner argued that the relationship was consensual and the delay in filing the FIR undermines the credibility of the allegations — The respondent claimed that the petitioner deceived her with a false promise of marriage, leading to non-consensual physical relations — The Supreme Court quashed the FIR, noting the long-term consensual relationship and the lack of prima facie evidence for rape under Section 376 IPC —The Court emphasized the delay in filing the FIR and the nature of the relationship, which appeared consensual —The Court referred to previous judgments, highlighting the importance of prima facie evidence and the misuse of legal provisions —The FIR and all proceedings based on it were quashed, preventing abuse of the legal process.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120-B —Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 13(2) and 13(1)(d) — Financial misconduct and conspiracy — Whether the High Court was correct in discharging the respondent from the charges of conspiracy and financial misconduct — The CBI argued that the High Court conducted a mini-trial at the charge-framing stage and that there was sufficient suspicion to frame charges against the respondent — The respondent’s counsel argued that the material in the charge sheet did not make out a case against the respondent and that the High Court rightly discharged him —The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to discharge the respondent, stating that mere suspicion was not enough to frame charges – The Court found that the respondent’s role was limited to signing the memorandum prepared by senior officers and participating in the Management Committee meeting, which approved the proposal — The Court emphasized that the proposal had passed through various committees and that the respondent’s actions did not amount to criminal misconduct — The appeal was dismissed, and the respondent was discharged from the charges — The trial against other accused persons will continue.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Municipal Laws

Patna Municipal Corporation Act, 1951 — Sections 146, 423 and 488(1) — The Patna Municipal Corporation imposed a royalty on advertisements, which was later increased — The respondents challenged this imposition, arguing it was a tax without legislative backing — Whether the royalty imposed by the Corporation was a tax and if it was legally enforceable without legislative sanction — The Corporation argued that the royalty was agreed upon by the parties and was not a tax — They contended that the enhancement of the rate was within their rights — The respondents argued that the imposition was a tax, which required legislative sanction, and the Corporation had no authority to levy it — The Division Bench quashed the enhancement, ruling that the Corporation had no power to impose the tax without legislative backing — The Court found that the royalty was not a tax but a fee agreed upon by the parties — It held that the Corporation’s actions were within the scope of the agreement — The Court distinguished between royalty and tax, emphasizing that royalty is based on an agreement, not statutory provision — The Court upheld the imposition of royalty as per the agreement but noted that the enhancement in rates was not challenged effectively — The judgment of the Division Bench was set aside.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Constitution

Citizenship Act, 1955 — Section 6A — Special provisions as to citizenship of persons covered by the Assam Accord — The case involves the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act 1955, which grants citizenship to certain migrants from Bangladesh to Assam —The main issues include whether Parliament had the legislative competence to enact Section 6A, and if Section 6A violates Articles 6, 7, 14, 29, and 355 of the Constitution — Petitioners argue that Section 6A is unconstitutional as it conflicts with Articles 6 and 7, adopts unreasonable cut-off dates, and violates Articles 14, 29, and 355 — Respondents contend that Section 6A is within Parliament’s legislative competence under Article 11 and does not violate the Constitution — The judgment addresses the legislative competence of Parliament, the reasonableness of cut-off dates, and the impact on Assamese cultural identity — The court examines the historical context of citizenship provisions, the legislative intent behind Section 6A, and the scope of judicial review under Article 14 — The court analyzes the constitutional provisions on citizenship, the legislative objective of Section 6A, and the balance between legislative intent and constitutional mandates —The court concludes that Section 6A of the Citizenship Act is constitutional and does not violate the cited Articles of the Constitution.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw