Supreme Court of India Judgements

46610 Judgements hosted as on 29/08/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Acquittal Corruption

Approver Need Not Be Examined As Witness By Magistrate When Cognizance Is Taken By Special Court Under PC Act

Bysclaw

Jun 17, 2023

This content is restricted to site members. If you are an existing user, please log in. New users may register below.

Existing Users Log In
   
Forgot password? Click here to reset
New User? Click here to register

By sclaw

Related Post

Bail Granted Corruption

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Sections 7, 7A, 8 and 12 — Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 420, 201 and 120B — Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 — Section 3 — Manish Sisodia’s bail applications were rejected by the High Court of Delhi — He is involved in cases registered by the CBI and ED related to alleged irregularities in Delhi’s Excise Policy for 2021-22 —Whether the appellant is entitled to bail considering the prolonged incarceration and the right to a speedy trial — Petitioner argues that the trial is delayed, and the appellant has been in custody for a long time — The prosecution has not completed the investigation, and the trial is proceeding at a snail’s pace — ED Contends that the appellant is influential and may tamper with evidence or influence witnesses — The trial delay is due to the appellant’s actions — The Supreme Court granted bail to Manish Sisodia, emphasizing the right to a speedy trial and noting the prolonged incarceration — The trial has not commenced despite assurances, and the appellant’s prolonged detention violates the right to liberty — The right to a speedy trial is fundamental, and bail should not be withheld as punishment — The court also considered the large volume of documents and witnesses involved — The appellant is granted bail with conditions to ensure his presence at trial and prevent tampering with evidence.

Aug 18, 2024 sclaw
Acquittal I P C

Distinction Between Assault and Jostling/Struggling — The court distinguished between an assault, which involves an intentional application of force or a threat to apply force, and jostling or struggling that may occur during an attempt to resist arrest or escape — The mere act of jostling or struggling, without evidence of intent to assault or use criminal force, does not constitute an offence under Section 353 IPC. Necessity of Compliance with Section 195(1)(a)(i) Cr.P.C. for Prosecuting under Section 186 IPC —The court held that for prosecuting an offence under Section 186 IPC (obstructing a public servant in the discharge of public functions), it is mandatory to follow the procedure laid down in Section 195(1)(a)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), which requires a complaint or report by the public servant concerned or by some other person authorized by him in writing.

Aug 18, 2024 sclaw
Acquittal Cheque Dishonour

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Section 138 — The appellant lent Rs. 2,00,000 to the respondent, who issued a cheque as a guarantee — The cheque was dishonored due to insufficient funds — Whether the respondent committed an offence under Section 138 of the Act, 1881 and Section 420 of the IPC — The appellant argued that the respondent failed to repay the loan and intentionally cheated him — The respondent claimed the cheque was issued for security purposes to a third party and denied the loan transaction — The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court’s judgment that favored the respondent’s acquittal — The court found contradictions in the appellant’s statements and lack of evidence regarding the loan transaction — The court emphasized the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act, 1881, and the burden on the respondent to rebut it — The appeal was dismissed, and the respondent’s acquittal was upheld.

Aug 11, 2024 sclaw

You missed

Consumer

The flat was purchased for the personal use of one of its directors and his family — The appellant created confusion by double allotment of the flat and unfairly forfeited the deposited amount —The NCDRC ruled in favor of the respondent, directing the appellant to refund the deposited amount with interest — The Supreme Court upheld this decision —The respondent was considered a consumer as the flat was for personal use — The appellant’s actions were deemed deficient and unfair due to the double allotment and premature cancellation —

Aug 29, 2024 sclaw
Anticipatory Bail Bail Granted

Anticipatory bail — Cancellation of — The appellant had his anticipatory bail cancelled without notice due to failure to plant saplings —Whether the cancellation of anticipatory bail without notice was justified The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, granting additional time to plant 500 trees —The anticipatory bail granted to is revived, and he must deposit the cost of saplings with the Forest authorities.

Aug 29, 2024 sclaw
Anticipatory Bail Bail Granted

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 420 and 34 — Nature of Offence —The Court’s decision to grant bail in a case involving Sections 420 and 34 IPC indicates that while these sections pertain to serious offenses (cheating and criminal conspiracy, respectively), bail may still be granted if the circumstances of the case, such as the nature of the transaction and the relationship between the parties, warrant it.

Aug 29, 2024 sclaw
Tenders & Contracts

Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) — PPA between Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited, and the Hirehalli Solar Power Project LLP — The respondent sought an extension of the scheduled commissioning date (SCD) under the force majeure clause of the PPA due to delays in obtaining necessary approvals and licenses —The Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (KERC) rejected the force majeure claim, but the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) reversed the decision, finding that the delay was not attributable to the respondent and that the force majeure clause was applicable — The Supreme Court agreed with the APTEL’s findings and dismissed the appeals — The court also rejected the appellant’s contention that the APTEL’s direction to pay late payment surcharge to the respondent was unjustified, as it was rooted in the PPA and in furtherance of the intention of the parties.

Aug 29, 2024 sclaw