Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.458 OF2020[ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL.) NO.1882 OF2018 D. DEVARAJA Appellant OWAIS SABEER HUSSAIN Respondent VERSUS JUDGMENT Indira Banerjee, J.Leave granted.2. This appeal is against a judgment and order dated 31-1-2018 passed by the Karnataka High Court, disposing of the application of the appellant under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing an order dated 27-12-2016 passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate III, Bengaluru City in PCR No.17214 of 2013, taking cognizance of a private complaint being PCR No.17214 of 2013 inter alia against the accused appellant, for offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 220, 323, 330 348, 506B read with Section 34 2 of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court did not quash the impugned order of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate dated 27.12.2006, but remitted the complaint back to the Learned Additional Chief Metropol...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
[REPORTABLE]. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION TRANSFER PETITION (CRL.) NOS. 534-536 OF2019Umesh Kumar Sharma Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand & Ors. Respondents JUDGMENT Hrishikesh Roy, J.1. The present petitions are filed under Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the CrPC) read with Order XXXIX of the Supreme Court Rules seeking transfer of three criminal cases pending before different courts in Dehradun to competent courts in Delhi or some other courts outside the State of Uttarakhand. Page 1 of 202. Mr. Kapil Sibal, the learned Senior Counsel submits that the petitioner apprehends threat to his life and will be prejudiced in conducting his defense in the courts at Dehradun. The basic premise for such apprehension is that on account of his work as an investigative journalist against the Ruling dispensation, the State is targeting the petitioner for vindictive prosecution. It is pointed out that as a journalist the petition...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
2023 INSC669REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1598 OF2023STATE OF KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA POLICE .....APPELLANT VERSUS S. SUBBEGOWDA ....RESPONDENT JUDGMENT BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.1. The appellant State of Karnataka Lokayukta Police by way of instant appeal has assailed the judgment and order dated 16.08.2018 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Criminal Petition No.4463 of 2018 whereby the High Court has allowed the said petition by discharging the respondent (original petitioner-accused) from the offences charged under Section 13(1) (e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), on the ground that the sanction accorded to prosecute the respondent-accused by the Government was illegal and without jurisdiction.2. The respondent was working as an Executive Engineer in the Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board, Mandya 1 Division, Mandya during th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.1692-1718 OF2013(@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NOS. 2970-2996 OF2012 A.K. SINGHANIA APPELLANT VERSUS GUJARAT STATE FERTILIZER CO. LTD. & ANR. RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.1719-1725 OF2013(@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NOS. 3100-3106 OF2012 A.K. SINGHANIA APPELLANT VERSUS GUJARAT STATE FERTILIZER CO. LTD. & ANR. RESPONDENTS CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.1726-1732 OF2013(@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NOS.984-990 OF2013 GUJARAT STATE FERTILIZER CO. LTD. APPELLANT VERSUS VIKRAM PRAKASH & ANR. RESPONDENTS CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.1733-1759 OF2013(@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NOS. 1068-1094 OF2013 GUJARAT STATE FERTILIZER CO. LTD. APPELLANT VERSUS VIKRAM PRAKASH & ANR. RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, J.In all these special leave petitions common question of law and facts arise and, therefore, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1555 OF2022(@ SLP (Crl.) No.3411/2021) B. VENKATESWARAN & ORS. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS P. BAKTHAVATCHALAM RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT M.R. Shah, J.1.0. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of judicature at Madras in Criminal (OP) No.33505 of 2019, by which, the High Court has dismissed the said petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and has refused to quash the criminal 1 8 Page of proceedings initiated by the private respondent herein, initiated against the petitioners for the offence under Sections 3(1)(v) and (va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the accused have preferred present appeal. 2.0. That the private respondent herein has filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
2024 INSC529Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.OF2024(Arising out of SLP (Crl.)No.16417 of 2023) SHAILENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT VIKRAM NATH, J.1. Leave granted.2. The judicial system of our country often finds itself grappling with the pervasive issues of prolonged delay and suspected political influence within the legal proceedings. The present case highlights the alarming trend where cases, particularly those involving influential figures, face significant delays, obstructing the administration of justice. The undue influence wielded by powerful Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) No.16417/2023 Page 1 of 17 individuals further exacerbates the situation, raising concerns about fairness and impartiality. This underscores the urgent need to address systemic flaws and ensure timely resolution of legal disputes.3. Under normal circumstances, we could have disposed of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE2024INSC618IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal Nos. _________ of 2024 (@Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos. 12344-12345/2022) CBI BS AND FC MUMBAI APPELLANT (s) VERSUS MANOJDEV GOKULCHAND SEKSARIA AND ANR. RESPONDENT(s) K.V. Viswanathan, J.1. Leave granted.2. The present appeals arise out of the judgement and order dated 05.01.2022 passed by the Learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No.245 of 2020 and Writ Petition No.730 of 2020. In view of the fact that we propose to set aside the judgement and remand the Writ Petitions to be heard a Division Bench of the High Court, only a brief reference to the facts of the case is being made hereinbelow. 13. The appellant-Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as the CBI), on 20.02.2006, registered a Criminal Case No.RC3(E)/2006/BS&FC/Mumbai against 19 accused persons on the basis of a written complaint made by R. Ravichandran, Chief ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC1856; 2002(1)ALD(Cri)792; 2002(2)ALT(Cri)133; 2002CriLJ2547; 2002(2)Crimes200(SC); (2002)2GLR1549; [2002(2)JCR273(SC)]; JT2002(4)SC92; 2002(2)KLT189(SC); 2002(3)Mh
R.C. Lahoti, J. 1. No person shall be deprived of his life or his personal libertyexcept according to procedure established by law-declares Article 21of the Constitution. Life and liberty, the words employed in shapingArticle 21, by the Founding Fathers of the Constitution, are not to beread narrowly in the sense drearily dictated by dictionaries, they are organic terms to be construed meaningfully. Embarking upon theinterpretation thereof, feeling the heart-throb of the Preamble, deriving strength from the Directive Principles of State Policy andalive to their constitutional obligation, the Courts have allowed Article 21 to stretch its arms as wide as it legitimately can. The mental agony, expense and strain which a person proceeded against in criminal law has to undergo and which, coupled with delay, mayresult in impairing the capability or ability of the accused to defend himself have persuaded the constitutional courts of the country inholding the right to speedy trial a manifestat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC3284; 2008(2)ALD(Cri)785; JT2008(8)SC432; 2009(I)OLR(SC)78; RLW2009(1)SC263; 2008(10)SCALE728; 2008AIRSCW5562; 2008(3)Crimes295; 2008(5)LH(SC)3044
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. These two appeals are directed against the judgment of a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court directing acquittal of respondent Gajanand. One appeal has been filed by the informant while the other has been filed by the State. The trial Court i.e. learned Additional Sessions Judge, No. 2, Bundi, Rajasthan, had convicted Gajanand for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the `IPC') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- with default stipulation. Co-accused Mahavir was, however, acquitted.2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:Kana (PW-13) lodged a First Information Report (Ext.P-2) that while he and his brother Devi Lal (hereinafter referred to as `deceased') were working in the field, respondent No. 1- Gajanand and Mahavir objected to it and caused injury to him. It was stated that Gajanand was having an axe in his hand and he caused injuries to Devi Lal on his ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1956SC217; 1956CriLJ426; (1956)IMLJ135(SC); [1955]2SCR1285
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 64 of 1955. On appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 27th February 1954 of the Saurashtra High Court at Rajkot in Criminal Appeal No. 108 of 1953 arising out of the judgment and order dated the 5th March 1953 of the Court of Sessions Judge, Halar Division in Sessions Case -No. 26 of 1952. V. N. Sethi, for the appellant. R. Ganapathy Iyer and R. H. Dhebar, for the respondent. 1955. December 22. BOSE J.-The only question in this appeal is whether the High Court bad in mind the principles we have enunciated about interference under section 417 of the Criminal Procedure Code when it allowed the appeal filed by the State against the acquittal of the appellant. It is, in our opinion, well settled that it is not enough for the High Court to take a different view of the evidence; there must also be substantial and compelling reasons for holding that the trial Court was wrong: Amar Singh v. State of Punjab(1) and if th...
Tag this Judgment!