Supreme Court of India Judgements

46660 Judgements hosted as on 19/11/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: CBI

CBI I P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 420 and 120B – Cheating in Land Mortgage -Court found no evidence of intentional deceit or conspiracy by the appellants, as the AICTE was aware of the mortgage from the first application – The Court referenced legal definitions of cheating and criminal conspiracy, emphasizing the lack of dishonest inducement and absence of AICTE’s complaint – The appellants were discharged from the alleged offences, with the Court concluding that the essential elements of cheating were not present.

Apr 13, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 284 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VIPIN SAHNI AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION — Respondent ( Before : Aniruddha Bose and Sanjay Kumar,…

CBI I P C

CBI investigation for justice – The Court finds the investigation ineffective and is inclined to transfer the case to the CBI, noting the need for a credible investigation and the fundamental rights of the appellants – The Court discusses the circumstances under which investigations can be transferred to the CBI, emphasizing the sparing use of this power and the need for complete justice – The Court sets aside the High Court’s order dismissing the transfer to the CBI and directs the CBI to take over the investigation, ensuring a thorough inquiry and the pursuit of justice.

Mar 26, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AWUNGSHI CHIRMAYO AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari and Sudhanshu Dhulia,…

CBI

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order 16 Rule 21 – There is no difference between a party to a suit as a witness and a witness simpliciter – Production of documents for both a party to the suit and a witness as the case may be, at the stage of cross-examination, is permissible within law – Function performed by either a witness or a party to a suit when in the witness box is the same

Dec 17, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MOHAMMED ABDUL WAHID — Appellant Vs. NILOFER AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : B. R. Gavai and Sanjay Karol, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

CBI Constitution

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 13(2) – Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 – Section 6A – the declaration made by the Constitution Bench in the case of Subramanian Swamy vs. Director, Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2014) 8 SCC 682, will have retrospective operation – Section 6A of the DSPE Act is held to be not in force from the date of its insertion i.e. 11.09.2003.

Sep 23, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH CBI — Appellant Vs. R.R. KISHORE — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, Abhay S. Oka, Vikram Nath and J.K. Maheshwari,…

Acquittal CBI Circumstantial Evidence

Murder – Acquittal – circumstances found proved do not constitute a chain so far complete as to indicate that in all human probability it were the accused persons and no one else who committed the crime – In such a situation, there was no option for the trial court but to extend the benefit of doubt to the accused – Order of acquittal upheld – Appeal dismissed.

Jul 20, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION — Appellant Vs. SHYAM BIHARI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B. V. Nagarathna and Manoj Misra, JJ. )…

Acquittal CBI Corruption

(CrPC) – Section 306(4)(a) – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 5(2) – In cases where the Special Court decides to proceed with a case under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, there is no need to consider the requirement of the approver being examined as a witness in the Magistrate’s Court according to Section 306(4)(a).

Jul 11, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH A. SRINIVASULU — Appellant Vs. THE STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE — Respondent ( Before : V. Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mithal, JJ.…

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