Category: Cr P C

Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 – Section 65 – Transfer of case – An order under Section 167(2) of the Code had to be passed necessarily by the Magistrate “to whom an accused person is forwarded” – In fact, Section 167(2) contains the words “whether he has or has not jurisdiction to try the case” – Transfer petition dismissed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KA RAUF SHERIF — Appellant Vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : V. Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mithal, JJ. ) Transfer…

(CrPC) – Section 482 – Quashing of criminal proceedings – Family dispute — looking to the relationship between the appellants and the original complainant of son, grandson and the mother/grandmother – Criminal proceedings against the appellants would not be in the larger interest of the parties – Criminal proceedings quashed – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HEMANTBHAI BALVANTBHAI PATEL AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Krishna Murari,…

(CrPC) – Section 482 – – howsoever well intentioned, cannot be permitted to be operated in utter disregard of the well-recognized judicial principles governing uniform application of law – Unwarranted judicial activism may cause uncertainty or confusion not only in the mind of the authorities but also in the mind of the litigants.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CARDINAL MAR GEORGE ALENCHERRY — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dinesh Maheshwari and Bela M. Trivedi, JJ.…

CrPC, Sec 406, – Article 139A of the Constitution – Order 39 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 – HELD phrase party interested under Section 406(2) of the CrPC, the Petitioner, being the real brother of the Deceased, is vitally interested in a fair trial – challenge to the locus standi of the Petitioner is thus rejected. there is no legal necessity to transfer the trial outside the State of West Bengal and the apprehensions of the Petitioner, some of which are indeed genuine, can be effectively redressed by issuing appropriate directions.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AFJAL ALI SHA @ ABJAL SHAUKAT SHA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Surya Kant and…

(CrPC) – Section 482 – Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 – Section 18(c) and 27(b)(ii) – Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 – Rule 123 – Sanctioning authority had not examined at all whether a practising doctor could be prosecuted under the facts of the case, considering the small quantity of the drugs and the exception created in favour of medical practitioner under Rule 123, read with the Schedule “K” – Criminal proceedings is quashed

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH S. ATHILAKSHMI — Appellant Vs. THE STATE REP. BY THE DRUGS INSPECTOR — Respondent ( Before : Krishna Murari and Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ. )…

You missed