Latest Post

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 374 — Appeal against dismissal of criminal appeal by High Court — Conviction under Section 302 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act — Prosecution case based entirely on circumstantial evidence — No eyewitnesses — Reliability of prosecution witnesses critically examined — Admission by key witness regarding darkness and identification by voice only, materially undermining credibility — Evidence found insufficient to meet standard of proof in criminal law and exclude reasonable hypotheses of innocence — Conviction set aside and appellant acquitted. Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 294(b) — Conviction for uttering obscene words — Held, mere use of the word “bastard” is not sufficient to constitute obscenity, especially in heated conversations during the modern era — Conviction under Section 294(b) IPC is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 — Quashing of criminal proceedings — Medical negligence — Consent for surgery — Allegation of interpolation in consent form for Orchidectomy — Medical Board’s opinion that Orchidectomy was an appropriate procedure in cases of undescended testicle and that consent should have been obtained — No evidence of interpolation in consent form (different ink or handwriting) — Consent form indicated both Orchidopexy and Orchidectomy as options. Held, continuance of criminal proceedings would be an abuse of process of court and liable to be quashed. Appeals allowed, impugned High Court judgment set aside, and proceedings quashed Extraordinary Jurisdiction of Supreme Court (Article 136) — Equitable relief — Not granted to litigants whose conduct is callous, lackadaisical, and in clear violation of applicable rules and regulations — Commercial decisions of State Government not substituted by court. Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 14 — Public power, allocation of public resources, award of public contracts, execution of public works — State bound to act transparently, fairly, and consistently with equality — Process must withstand objective scrutiny and be free from arbitrariness, favouritism, or undisclosed conflicts of interest — Public confidence in governance requires equality, integrity, and accountability.

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Section 29A – Coparcenary rights – Partition and separate possession of one-third in the plaint schedule property – Property is not available partition as of the date of coming into force of Section 29A – There is no prohibition to effect a partition otherwise than through an instrument in writing by duly complying with the requirement of law – Division may also be effected under a settlement or oral understanding

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH H. VASANTHI — Appellant Vs. A. SANTHA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Bela M. Trivedi and S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ.…

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order 17 Rule 2 – Procedure if parties fail to appear on day fixed – Where the evidence or a substantial portion of the evidence of any party has already been recorded and such party fails to appear on any day to which the hearing of the suit is adjourned, the Court would be at liberty to proceed with the case as if such party were present

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH Y.P. LELE — Appellant Vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ.…

Right to Education Act, 2009 – Section 23(1) – Appointment to Post of Primary School Teachers – Decision of the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) to include B.Ed. as a qualification for teachers in a primary school seems arbitrary, unreasonable and in fact has no nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the Act i.e. Right to Education Act, which is to give to children not only free and compulsory but also ‘quality’ education

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DEVESH SHARMA — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Aniruddha Bose and Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Complaint to SDM — Held, no case is made out to put the appellant to trial for the alleged offence — No defamation as such — Exception 8 to Section 499 clearly indicates that it is not a defamation to prefer in good faith an accusation against any person to any of those who have lawful authority over that person with regard to the subject-matter of accusation.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before: J.B. Pardiwala & Manoj Misra, JJ. Criminal Appeal No.2291 of 2011 Decided on: 02.08.2023 Kishore Balkrishna Nand – Appellant(s) Versus State of Maharashtra & Anr.…

Acquittal – Criminal conspiracy and dishonestly receiving stolen property – Sole connecting evidence that the recovery based on disclosure statements of accused, along with those of the other co-accused but this evidence is not sufficient to qualify as “fact … discovered” within the meaning of Section 27 of Evidence Act, 1872 – Conviction and sentence set-aside – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MANOJ KUMAR SONI AND OTHER — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta,…

Judicial review becomes necessary where there is an illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety. A policy decision which is totally arbitrary; contrary to the law, or a decision which has been taken without proper application of mind, or in total disregard of relevant factors is liable to be interfered with, as that also is the mandate of law and the Constitution.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DEVESH SHARMA — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Aniruddha Bose and Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Abkari Act – Offence in question is 2003, Final report after delayed investigation was submitted in 2006, Accused-appellant was convicted in 2008, and that more than 20 years have passed since the commission of the offence – It fit to modify the sentence of the Accused-appellant to serve a period of three months – Appeal partly allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SATHYAN — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KERALA — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 2363…

You missed