The prosecution could not prove his guilt beyond all reasonable doubt, as there were glaring discrepancies in the eyewitnesses’ version, absence of the testimony of the material witnesses and the ballistic report, and non-recovery of the weapon of crime – The Court also observed that the trial court had erred in convicting and acquitting the co-accused on the same set of evidence.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAM SINGH — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF U.P. — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…
Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSSA) – Sections 3(zz), 59 and 89 – Penal Code, 1860(IPC) – FSSA is a comprehensive and exhaustive legislation on all aspects of food and food safety, and that Section 89 of the FSSA gives an overriding effect to its provisions over any other law, including the IPC, in so far as the law applies to the aspects of food covered by the FSSA
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAM NATH — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol, JJ.…
(a) whether the appellant was entitled to withdraw her prospective resignation before the effective date; (b) whether the acceptance of her resignation by the trust was final, binding and irrevocable; and (c) what relief could be granted to the appellant – The court allowed the appeal and set aside the orders of the College Tribunal and the High Court
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DR. MRS. SUMAN V. JAIN — Appellant Vs. MARWADI SAMMELAN THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari and K.V.…
Court held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act was applicable in appeals against acquittal under Section 378 of CrPC, unless expressly excluded by the special law
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MOHD ABAAD ALI AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE PROSECUTION INTELLIGENCE — Respondent ( Before : Sudhanshu Dhulia and Prasanna Bhalachandra Varale,…
Institute had deviated from the original selection procedure and introduced a new criterion of “relevant subject” for PG Degree, which was not prescribed in the notification – The Court also held that the appellant was entitled to 6 marks for his additional qualification, which would have made him the highest in the list
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MANOJ KUMAR — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Civil…
“Unreliable Confession, Doubtful Evidence: Murder Acquittal Upheld”
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KALINGA @ KUSHAL — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY POLICE INSPECTOR HUBLI — Respondent ( Before : Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra…
Holding that the respondents did not prove the contents of the lease deed by summoning the record from the Gram Panchayat, and that the suit for injunction was not maintainable without proving the title or legality of possession of the land.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE TEHSILDAR, URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. GANGA BAI MENARIYA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND OTHER — Respondent ( Before : Vikram…
Chandigarh Mayor Election: Supreme Court quashed the election result and declared the appellant as the validly elected candidate for the post of Mayor – It also issued a notice to the presiding officer to show cause why criminal proceedings should not be initiated against him under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH KULDEEP KUMAR — Appellant Vs. — Respondent U.T. CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI., J B Pardiwala and Manoj…
Bail applications should have been placed before the same Single Judge who had granted bail, and not before another Single Judge – The Supreme Court further noted that the trial had commenced and the appellants had not misused their liberty or violated the bail conditions.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HIMANSHU SHARMA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No(s)…..…
Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 – Sections 2(b)(i) and 3(1) – Quashing of FIR – Member of gang – For framing a charge for the offence under the Gangsters Act and for continuing the prosecution of the accused under the above provisions, the prosecution would be required to clearly state that the appellants are being prosecuted for any one or more offences covered by anti-social activities as defined under Section 2(b) – FIR and criminal proceedings were quashed – Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH FARHANA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…