Supreme Court of India Judgements

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

Category: Juvenile Justice

Juvenile Justice

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 302, 363,342 and 201 – Juvenile Justice(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – Sections 2(13) and 6 –The Court analyzed relevant provisions of the JJ Act, emphasizing the mandatory nature of preliminary assessments for CICLs accused of heinous offences – The Court quashed the impugned judgment and ordered the appellant’s release, noting that the proceedings against him were vitiated due to the violation of the JJ Act.

Mar 26, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THIRUMOORTHY — Appellant Vs. STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Criminal…

Juvenile Justice

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – Section 94 – Juvenile – Determination of Age – In the order of priorities, the date of birth certificate from the school stands at the highest pedestal whereas ossification test has been kept at the last rung to be considered, only in the absence of the criteria Nos. 1 and 2, i.e. in absence of both certificate from school and birth certificate issued by a Corporation/Municipal Authority/Panchayat.

Mar 9, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VINOD KATARA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Writ Petition (Criminal) No(s).…

Juvenile Justice

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 – Section 16 – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – Section 25 – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 – Rule 12 – Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 – Murder – – the conviction of the appellant under Sections 302 and 307 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, but all the sentences which have been awarded to him are hereby quashed as such sentences cannot be given to a juvenile, in view of Section 16 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 – The appeal is partially allowed concerning the issue of juvenility – The High Court’s order is modified accordingly.

Nov 25, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PAWAN KUMAR — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ. )…

Acquittal Juvenile Justice

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – Section 9 (2) – a casual or cavalier approach should not be taken in determining the age of the accused or convict on his plea of juvenility, but a decision against determination of juvenility ought not to be taken solely for the reason that offence involved is heinous or grave HELD Going by that certificate, his age at the time of commission of offence was 12 years and 6 months. Thus, he was a child/juvenile on the date of commission of offence for which he has been convicted

Mar 28, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH NARAYAN CHETANRAM CHAUDHARY @APPLELLANT Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA — Respondent ( Before : K.M. Joseph, Aniruddha Bose and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. ) Criminal…

Juvenile Justice

Kathua Gang Rape and Murder Case – – Respondent accused was not a juvenile at the time of commission of the offence and should be tried the way other co-accused were tried – Impugned order passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate and the High Court which held that one of the accused was a juvenile is set aside – Appeal allowed.

Nov 27, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR (NOW U.T. OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR) AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. SHUBAM SANGRA — Respondent ( Before :…

Juvenile Justice

HELD It is evident from the report of the medical board that the first respondent was not a juvenile. The entire record which was sought to be relied upon by the first respondent in support of the plea of juvenility was fabricated. The High Court has erred in accepting the plea of juvenility.

Sep 20, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH XYZ — Appellant Vs. ABHISHEIK AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and Hima Kohli, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal Nos…

Juvenile Justice

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 136 – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 – Section 7A – Plea of juvenility could be raised in any court, at any stage even after the final disposal of the Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution. If two views possible on evidence then view holding accused to be juvenile be favoured in borderline cases.

Sep 13, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH VINOD KATARA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : Dinesh Maheshwari and J.B. Pardiwala, JJ. ) Writ Petition (Criminal)…

Juvenile Justice

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2000 – Subsection (2) of Section 7A provided that if after holding an inquiry, the Court found the accused to be juvenile on the date of commission of the offence, the Court was under a mandate to forward the juvenile to the Juvenile Justice Board for passing appropriate orders. Subsection (2) of Section 7A further provided that in such a case, the sentence passed by Criminal Court shall be deemed to have no effect in such a case. Accused shall be forthwith set at liberty

Apr 17, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SANJAY PATEL AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar and Abhay S. Oka, 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