Supreme Court of India Judgements

47000 Judgements hosted as on 19/12/2025 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Cr P C

Cr P C

Held; while considering an application for bail, detailed discussion of evidence and elaborate documentation of merit is to be avoided–No party should have impression that his case has been pre-judged–Existence of prima facie case is only to be considered–No merit–Appeal dismissed

Jan 1, 2019 sclaw

2009(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 117 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Arijit Pasayat The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Mukundakam Sharma Criminal Appeal No. 406…

Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.300—Double Jeopardy—The whole basis of Section 300 (1) Cr.P.C. is that the person who was tried by a competent court, once acquitted or convicted, cannot be tried for the same offence—Where accused has not been tried nor was there a full fledged trial, then principles of’double jeopardy’ would not apply to the accused though earlier discharged.

Dec 30, 2018 sclaw

2018(4) Law Herald (SC) 3263 : 2018 LawHerald.org 1786 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Indira Banerjee Criminal Appeal No. 1322…

Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.125–Maintenance–Proof of Marriage–Under S.125 Cr.P.C, strict proof of marriage is not necessary—Unlike matrimonial proceedings where strict proof of marriage is essential, in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C, such strict standard of proof is not necessary as it is summary in nature meant to prevent vagrancy.

Dec 22, 2018 sclaw

2018(4) Law Herald (SC) 2954 : 2018 LawHerald.org 1768 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before                                                          Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. Banumathi Honble Mrs. Justice Indira Banerjee Criminal Appeal Nos. 2368-2369…

Cr P C

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 and S.304-A—Murder—Alteration of Charge—Death by Negligence—Blast occurred in a factory—7 workers died due to stampede caused by smoke in whole area—Respondent are directors of company involved in day to day functioning—High Court held to have rightly alerted the charges from S.302 IPC to S.304-A IPC

Dec 21, 2018 sclaw

2018(4) Law Herald (SC) 2952 : 2018 LawHerald.org 1767 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Haul Criminal Appeal…

Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.451–Superdari–Release of Vehicle-­ Respondent was engaged as a contractor by the National Highway Authority—In the process of the work, as per the direction given by his superior officers, the building was demolished for the purpose of National Highway development-Held; Bank guarantee for the alleged loss need not be insisted for releasing a vehicle involved in the process.   

Dec 21, 2018 sclaw

2018(4) Law Herald (SC) 2950 : 2018 LawHerald.org 1766   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA                                           Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul…

Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.125–Maintenance–Non-earning Husband-Determination of monthly maintenance amount payable to the wife on the basis of notional minimum income of the husband as per the current minimum wages is untenable-Living standard of the husband, his family and his past conduct must be taken into consideration.

Dec 21, 2018 sclaw

2018(4) Law Herald (SC) 2933 : 2018 LawHerald.org 1762 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Chief Justice DipakMisra Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.M. Khanwilkar Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr.…

Cr P C

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302~Murder~Charges—Omission to frame charge—Accused failed to prove prejudice caused to him due to non- framing of charge—Non objection has been raised earlier on this ground-­ Accused throughout has been defending himself against charge u/s 302 r/ w S.34 IPC-In such facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that the failure of justice has occasioned to him and the absence of a charge under Section 302 read with Section 34IPC cannot be said to have caused any prejudice to him—Conviction upheld.     

Dec 18, 2018 sclaw

2018(4) Law Herald (SC) 2869 : 2018 LawHerald.Org 1753 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Indira Banerjee Criminal Appeal No. 1568…

Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.231(2)–Deferment of cross-examination of witness—Balance must be struck between the rights of the accused, and the prerogative of the prosecution to lead evidence—The following factors must be kept in consideration: (i) possibility of undue influence on witness(es); (ii) possibility of threats to witness(es); (iii) possibility that non-deferral would enable subsequent witnesses giving evidence on similar facts to tailor their testimony to circumvent the defence strategy; (iv) possibility of loss of memory of the witness(es) whose examination-in-chief has been completed; (v) occurrence of delay in the trial, and the non-availability of witnesses, if deferral is allowed, in view of Section 309(1) of the Cr.P.C.

Dec 17, 2018 sclaw

2018(4) Law Herald (SC) 2852 : 2018 LawHerald.Org 1751 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Indu Malhotra Criminal Appeal No.…

You missed

Service

Cochin University of Science and Technology Act, 1986 — Section 31(10) and 31(11) — Selection and Appointment — Validity of Rank List and Communal Rotation — Harmonious Construction — Section 31(10) stipulates that the Rank List remains valid for two years, and vacancies arising during this period “shall be filled up from the list so published” — Section 31(11) mandates that “Communal rotation shall be followed category-wise” — These sub-sections operate in distinct spheres but are not mutually exclusive; the Rank List’s validity period (Sub-sec 10) co-exists with the mandatory application of communal rotation (Sub-sec 11) for every appointment made therefrom — Interpreting Sub-section (11) as becoming operative only after the Rank List expires would render the reservation/rotation requirement otiose during the list’s validity, defeating legislative intent and violating the doctrine of harmonious construction. (Paras 5, 5.2, 5.4, 5.5, 5.5.1, 5.5.2

Dec 19, 2025 sclaw
Acquittal I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) —Section 302 read with Sections 149 and 148 — Murder —Conviction affirmed by High Court — Appeal to Supreme Court — Sufficiency of evidence — Role of interested/related witnesses — Deposition of PW-4 (mother of deceased and alleged eyewitness) scrutinized closely — Material contradictions found in PW-4’s evidence regarding the manner of assault and who informed her — Failure of prosecution to examine key witness (deceased’s granddaughter, who initially informed PW-4) — Independent witnesses (PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-9) turned hostile — Recovery of weapons based on accused’s memorandum/statement rendered unreliable when supporting witnesses hostile. (Paras 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15)

Dec 19, 2025 sclaw
Constitution

Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 — Section 45A — Determination of contributions in certain cases — Preconditions for invoking Section 45A — Section 45A is a special provision for best-judgment assessment applicable only when an employer fails to submit, furnish, or maintain returns, particulars, registers, or records as required by Section 44, OR obstructs an Inspector or official in discharging duties under Section 45 — It is not an alternative mode of assessment available at the option of the Corporation — When records (ledgers, cash books, vouchers, etc.) are produced and the employer cooperates by attending multiple personal hearings, the mere allegation of inadequacy or deficiency of supporting documents does not satisfy the statutory threshold of “non-production” or “obstruction” to invoke Section 45A — Mere inadequacy of records does not confer jurisdiction under Section 45A. (Paras 14.6, 14.7, 24, 25, 27, 30)

Dec 19, 2025 sclaw
Tenders & Contracts

Tender and Contract — Eligibility Criteria — Interpretation of “prime contractor” and “in the same name and style” — Requirement of work experience — Where an NIT’s pre-qualification document requires “each prime contractor in the same name and style (tenderer)” to have completed previous work, and the term “prime contractor” is undefined, its meaning must be derived from common parlance as the tenderer primarily responsible for the contract offer; however, the requirement must be construed from the standpoint of a prudent businessman, considering the credentials and capacity to execute the work, not merely the name. (Paras 17, 20, 21.3)

Dec 19, 2025 sclaw