Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-16-2022
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2310 OF2022(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.8488 of 2022 ) HASMUKHLAL D. VORA & ANR. APPELLANT (S) VERSUS THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU RESPONDENT (S) JUDGMENT KRISHNA MURARI, J.Leave Granted.2. The present appeal is directed against the final order dated 23.08.2021 passed by the High Court of Madras (hereinafter referred to as "High Court) in Criminal O.P. No.6445 of 2018, where the Appellants' plea under Section 482 of the Cr.PC to quash the criminal complaint against them was dismissed. 13. Briefly, the facts relevant for the purpose of this Appeal are as follows: I. Appellant No.1 is the proprietor of an established company under the name of M/s. Chem Pharm, a trader of raw material chemicals used in food, food supplements, medicinal preparations etc. Appellant No.2 is the son and employee of Appellant No.1. II. During the course of their business, the Appellants purchased 75...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-16-2022
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No 2319 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No 8238 of 2022) Iqram Appellant versus The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors Respondents JUDGMENT Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI1Leave granted. 2 The facts of the present case provide another instance, a glaring one at that, indicating a justification for this Court to exercise its jurisdiction as a protector of the fundamental right to life and personal liberty inhering in every citizen. If the Court were not to do so, a serious miscarriage of justice of the nature which has emerged in the present case would be allowed to persist and the voice of a citizen whose liberty has been abrogated would receive no attention. The history of this Court indicates that it is in the seemingly small and routine matters involving grievances of citizens that issues of moment, both in jurisprudential and constitutional terms, emerge. The intervention by this Court to protec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-15-2022
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1669 OF2009NEERAJ DUTTA .... APPELLANT VS. STATE (GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI) .... RESPONDENT WITH SLP (Crl.) No.6497 of 2020 SLP (Crl.) No.294 of 2022 CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1779 OF2010CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2136 OF2010DIARY No.27232 OF2019SLP (Crl.) No.11339 OF2019SLP(Crl.) No.3828 OF2020SLP (Crl.) No.5905 OF2021SLP(Crl.) No.6279 OF2020CRIMINAL APPEAL No.678 OF2021CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1490 OF2021CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1592 OF20222 JUDGMENT NAGARATHNA, J.By Order dated 27.08.2019, a Three Judge Bench of this court has referred the question of law framed to be decided by a Bench of appropriate strength. That is how this batch of cases has been referred to the Constitution Bench comprising of five judges by Honble the Chief Justice of India. For easy reference, the Order of Reference dated 27.08.2019 is extracted as under: ORDER1 The present reference, concerning the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, arises ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-15-2022
Non-Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2290 OF2022(arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No.4629 of 2021) R. NAGENDER YADAV APPELLANT VERSUS THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND ANR. RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT J.B. Pardiwala, J.:1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is at the instance of the original accused and is directed against the order passed by the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad dated 1st of June, 2021 in Criminal Petition No.4687 of 2020 by which the High Court declined to quash the criminal proceedings instituted against the appellant herein at the instance of the respondent No.2 (original complainant) and accordingly rejected the application filed by the appellant herein under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) for quashing of the proceedings. 1 Factual Matrix 3. This litigation highlights one of the most perfunctory investigations at the hands of the police. The subject matter of this litigation is an open p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-15-2022
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2291 OF2022(arising out of SLP (CRIMINAL) No.6101 OF2021 THE STATE OF GUJARAT ..APPELLANT VERSUS SANDIP OMPRAKASH GUPTA ..RESPONDENT JUDGMENT J.B. PARDIWALA, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is at the instance of the State of Gujarat and is directed against the order passed by the High Court of Gujarat dated 06.05.2021, in R/Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.3819 of 2021 by which the High Court ordered release of the respondent accused herein on bail in connection with the First Information Report being C.R. No.11210015200100 of 2020 registered with the D.C.B. Police Station, Surat City, District Surat for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(i) and (ii), 3(2) and 3(4) resply of the Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organised Crime Act, 2015 (for short, the 2015 Act). 13. The question that falls for our consideration is: whether the requirement of continuing unlawful activity, as defi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-15-2022
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.9322 OF2022[ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.32448 OF2018 Gohar Mohammed ...Appellant Versus Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation & others ...Respondent(s) JUDGMENT J.K. Maheshwari, J.Leave granted.2. The instant appeal has been filed assailing the final order dated 06.09.2018 passed by the High Court of Allahabad in First Appeal from Order No.3303 of 2018, vide which the appeal preferred by the appellant against the award dated 04.05.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short MACT) in MACP No.1107 of 2012 has been dismissed. MACT allowed the claim petition and 1 awarded a compensation of Rs. 31,90,000/ (Thirtyone lacs and ninety thousand only) in favour of respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 8 (legal representatives of deceased and hereinafter referred to as claimants) to be paid by respondent No.5 (Insurance Company), with further direction to recover the same from appel...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-14-2022
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.122 OF2021Kalicharan & Ors. Appellants v. State of Uttar Pradesh ... Respondent JUDGMENT ABHAY S. OKA, J.FACTUAL DETAILS1 Mainly two issues arise in this appeal. The first issue is regarding the omission to frame a proper charge in accordance with Section 213 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, CrPC). The second issue is of the consequence of the failure of the learned Trial Judge to put material circumstances brought on record in the prosecution evidence to the accused in 1 their statements under Section 313 of CrPC. In short, this Court will have to examine whether there is a failure to comply with the requirements of Sections 213 and 313 of CrPC. If the answer to the said question is in the affirmative, the next question will be whether prejudice has been caused to the accused due to failure to comply with the aforesaid provisions and whether it has caused a failure of justic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-09-2022
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.8179 OF2022[Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.30754 of 2019]. RAJWATI @ RAJJO & ORS. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ORS. RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.8180 OF2022[Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.30755 of 2019]. SEEMA & ORS. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ORS. RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT KRISHNA MURARI, J.These two appeals are directed against the final orders dated 29.04.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench (hereinafter referred to as High Court) in two Miscellaneous Appeals (being S.B.Misc. Appeal No.441/2019 and S.B. Misc. Appeal No.561/2019) filed by 1 Respondent No.1 herein, seeking to set aside the judgment and award dated 26.10.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kaman, District Bharatpur (hereinafter referred to as Learned Trib...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-08-2022
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.187-188 OF2017T.P. Gopalakrishnan APPELLANT(S) Vs. State of Kerala ... RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT NAGARATHNA, J.1. These Criminal Appeals have been filed assailing the impugned judgment and order dated 13.06.2016 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Criminal Appeal Nos. 947 and 948 of 2009 by which the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.04.2009 passed in C.C. No.24 and 25 of 2003 by the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kozhikode (Trial Court, for the sake of convenience) has been upheld by dismissing the aforesaid appeals and consequently confirming the conviction of the appellant herein.2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court. 13. The Trial Court vide its judgment and order dated 27.04.2009 in both the aforesaid cases convicted the appellant herein-accused for offences under Sect...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-07-2022
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2201 OF2011THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN ..... APPELLANT VERSUS GURBACHAN SINGH & OTHERS ..... RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT SANJIV KHANNA, J.By the order dated 01.05.2009, notice in the special leave petition was confined to the first respondent - Gurbachan Singh. The special leave petition against other respondents was dismissed. Our attention is drawn to the order dated 17.12.2008, whereby Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.19754/2008 preferred against the acquittal of Manjeet Kaur, stands dismissed. The case and evidence relied by the prosecution against Manjeet Kaur and Jangir Kaur is identical. We are of the opinion and reiterate that the prosecution has not been able to establish its case against Jangir Kaur. Challenge to the acquittal of Jangir Kaur is dismissed.2. The prosecutions case as per the charge sheet is that Teja Singh along with his brother Harbhajan Singh (PW-1) on one side, and Gurbachan ...
Tag this Judgment!