Supreme Court of India Judgements

46420 Judgements hosted as on 27/04/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Juvenile Justice

Juvenile Justice

Plea of juvenility has to be raised in a bonafide and truthful manner. If the reliance is on a document to seek juvenility which is not reliable or dubious in nature, the appellant cannot be treated to be juvenile keeping in view that the Act is a beneficial legislation – Appellant cannot be given benefit of juvenility – HELD birth certificate issued by corporation or municipal authority or a panchayat is a relevant document to prove the juvenility -Appeal dismissed.

Feb 26, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MANOJ @ MONU @ VISHAL CHAUDHARY — Appellant Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian,…

Juvenile Justice

Juvenile – HELD The age recorded by the Committee or the Board to be the age of the person so brought before it shall for the purpose of the JJ Act, 2015 be deemed to be the true age of the person. The deeming provision in sub-section (3) of section 94 of the JJ Act, 2015 is also significant inasmuch as the controversy or the doubt regarding the age of the child brought before the Committee or the JJ Board is sought to be set at rest at the level of the JJ Board or the Committee itself – Appeal dismissed

Nov 21, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RISHIPAL SINGH SOLANKI — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and B.V. Nagarathna,…

Juvenile Justice

No adoption of affected children should be permitted contrary to the provisions of the JJ Act, 2015 – Invitation to persons for adoption of orphans is contrary to law as no adoption of a child can be permitted without the involvement of CARA – Stringent action shall be taken by the State Governments/Union Territories against agencies / individuals who are responsible for indulging in this illegal activity

Jun 21, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH IN RE CONTAGION OF COVID 19 VIRUS IN CHILDREN PROTECTION HOMES ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and Aniruddha Bose, JJ. ) SMW (C) No.…

Juvenile Justice

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000- In all cases where the accused was above 16 years but below 18 years of age on the date of occurrence, the proceedings pending in the court would continue and be taken to the logical end subject to an exception that upon finding the juvenile to be guilty, the court would not pass an order of sentence

Oct 18, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SATYA DEO @ BHOOREY — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : S. Abdul Nazeer and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ. )…

Juvenile Justice

Death Penalty Cannot Be Imposed By Giving Retrospective Effect To POCSO Amendment To An Offence Committed Prior To Amendment HELD “The punishment of not being released till his last breath is punitive enough to send a signal to the society and it cannot be that only the death sentence can send a right signal”

Jun 17, 2020 sclaw

Death Penalty Cannot Be Imposed By Giving Retrospective Effect To POCSO Amendment To An Offence Committed Prior To Amendment: SC [Read Order] Mehal Jain 17 Jun 2020 12:08 PM “The…

Juvenile Justice

A Child In Conflict With Law Cannot Be Kept In Jail Or Police Lockup At Any Circumstances: SC HELD “We make it clear that the Juvenile Justice Boards are not meant to be silent spectators and pass orders only when a matter comes before them. They can take note of the factual situation if it comes to the knowledge of the JJBs

Feb 12, 2020 sclaw

A Child In Conflict With Law Cannot Be Kept In Jail Or Police Lockup At Any Circumstances: SC [Read Order] Akshita Saxena 12 Feb 2020 5:13 PM “We make it…

Juvenile Justice

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – Section 2(33) – Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 304 – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 – Sections 2(k), 2(l), and 15 – Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 – Section 2(h) – Offences Prescribing Max Sentence Of More Than 7 Years But Not Providing Minimum Sentence Are Not ‘Heinous Offences’, But ‘Serious Offences’

Jan 9, 2020 sclaw

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHILPA MITTAL — Appellant Vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose, JJ.…

You missed

Stamp Act State Laws

“Supreme Court Clarifies State’s Power to Levy Stamp Duty on Insurance Policies” Stamp Act, 1899 – Rajasthan Stamp Law (Adaptation) Act, 1952 – Power to levy and collect stamp duty – The primary issues are the legislative competence of the State to levy stamp duty on insurance policies and the applicability of the Rajasthan Stamp Law (Adaptation) Act, 1952 or the 1998 Act – LIC contends that the state lacks legislative competence to impose stamp duty on insurance policies and challenges the demand for stamp duty payment for policies issued using stamps purchased from Maharashtra – The State of Rajasthan argues that it has the power to collect stamp duty on insurance policies under Entry 44 of List III, as per the rate prescribed by the Parliament under Entry 91 of List I – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upheld the High Court’s judgment, and affirmed the state’s power to levy stamp duty. However, it directed that the state shall not demand and collect the stamp duty as per the orders dated between 1993-94 and 2001-02 – The Court reasoned that the state has the legislative competence to impose and collect stamp duty on insurance policies, and the 1952 Act applies to the case – The Court analyzed the constitutional provisions and previous judgments to conclude that the state can impose stamp duty using rates prescribed by the Parliament – The Supreme Court concluded that while the state’s power to levy stamp duty is upheld, the specific demands for stamp duty payment in this case were set aside due to the circumstances presented.

May 5, 2024 sclaw
I P C

“Supreme Court Overturns Lower Courts, Orders Trial for Alleged Marriage Fraud and Conspiracy (IPC Sections 420 & 120-B)” Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 420 read with Section 120-B – The appellant challenged lower courts’ orders regarding the summoning of respondents for alleged dishonest inducement in a marriage – The appellant claimed he was deceived into marrying a married respondent and that all respondents conspired to induce him into marriage and leave him with a significant sum of money – The respondents argued that there was no concealment or cheating, as all facts were disclosed to the appellant from the beginning – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of the High Court and Sessions Court, and restored the Magistrate’s order for the respondents to face trial – The court found that a prima facie case was made out for issuing process against the respondents, and the lower courts’ approach was not legally sustainable – The court concluded that the respondents should face trial for the alleged offences, and the case will be decided on its merits based on the evidence presented by the parties.

May 5, 2024 sclaw
Specific Relief Act

Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 6 – Suit by person dispossessed of immovable property – The appellants, owner of the property, allegedly evicted the respondent illegally and by force – The main issue was the maintainability of the suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and the illegal dispossession – The appellants contended voluntary handover of possession and challenged the maintainability of the suit – The respondent filed a suit within six months of dispossession under Section 6 of the Act – The Trial Court decreed in favor of the respondent, and the High Court dismissed the appellant’s revision – The High Court concurred with the Trial Court on the illegal dispossession and maintainability of the suit – The appeal was dismissed based on concurrent findings and evidence on record – The Supreme Court found no merit in the appeal and upheld the decisions of the lower courts.

May 5, 2024 sclaw
I P C

“Conspiracy Theory Revived: Supreme Court Orders Trial in Forged Documents Case Involving Government Land” Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 477(A), 120(B) and 34 – The case involves allegations of a conspiracy to illegally transfer government land using forged documents – The respondents, along with others, are accused of manipulating judicial processes and revenue records to acquire government lands – The primary issue is whether the High Court was correct in quashing the order taking cognizance against the respondents, given the evidence of a conspiracy and manipulation of documents – The State argues that the High Court overlooked circumstantial evidence of a broader conspiracy and failed to appreciate the severity of the offences, which could undermine public trust in land administration – The respondents challenged the order of cognizance, arguing insufficient evidence directly implicating them in the conspiracy – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order, and directed the trial to proceed against the respondents – The Court found that the High Court’s decision was based on an incomplete assessment of facts and that a detailed trial is necessary to fully unravel the extent of the alleged conspiracy – The Court emphasized the need for a thorough examination of evidence and witnesses by the Trial Court to determine the actual harm caused to the public exchequer – The Supreme Court concluded that the case should not be dismissed at the preliminary stage and must be examined judiciously in a trial setting to ensure the integrity of ongoing investigations and judicial processes.

May 5, 2024 sclaw