Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.457 OF2018(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.5838 of 2014) MANJU SURANA .Appellant SUNIL ARORA & ORS. Versus WITH ..Respondents CRIMINAL APPEAL No.458 OF2018(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.1092 of 2015) JUDGMENT SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.CRIMINAL APPEAL No.457 OF2018(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.5838 of 2014) 1.2. Leave granted. The question of law sought to be raised in the appeals is as to whether prior sanction for prosecution qua allegation of corruption in respect of a public servants is required before setting in motion even the investigative process under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Cr.P.C.). Page 1 of 30 3. In Criminal Appeal No.of 2018 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.5838 of 2014), the appellant submitted a complaint before the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act, Jaipur Metropolitan City, Jaipur) under Sections 7 & 13 of the Prevent...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 546-550 OF2017M/S BANDEKAR BROTHERS PVT. LTD. & ANR. Appellants Versus PRASAD VASSUDEV KENI, ETC. ETC. Respondents JUDGMENT R.F. Nariman, J.1. The proceedings in this case arise out of two criminal complaints dated 11.08.2009 filed by the Appellants against the Respondents herein before the Court of the Sessions Judge, North Goa, under Section 340 read with Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) in respect of offences alleged under Sections 191 and 192 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).2. Accused No.1 in the aforesaid complaints is a proprietary concern of the late V.G. Quenim, based in Goa, which is engaged in the business of producing, processing and sale of iron ore. Accused Nos.2 and 3 are his son and wife respectively, who are the co-proprietors of M/s V.G. Quenim, the aforesaid V.G. Quenim having expired on 20.07.2007. M/s V.G. 1 Quenim had shared a business relati...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC823; 1974(0)BLJR150; 1971LabIC487; (1971)ILLJ299SC; (1971)1SCC734; [1971]3SCR715
G.K. Mitter, J.1. The question in this appeal is, whether the order of suspension passed on the respondent on July 31, 1964 was properly struck down by the Patna High Court.2. The facts are as follows. The respondent is a member of the Indian Police Service appointed on 25th January, 1937 and at the material time he was holding the substantive rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police in Bihar. In June 1962 he was posted at Ranchi. He was transferred to Patna and appointed as Special Officer, Political, General and Transport Department on July 23, 1964. The order of which the validity is in question ran as follows :Whereas serious allegations of corruption and malpractices have been made against Shri T.N. Ghosh, I.P., Deputy Inspector General of Police, Southern Range, Ranchi;And whereas the said Shri T.N. Ghosh is also reported to have contravened certain provisions of the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1954;And whereas the enquiries made by the Government of Bihar into these alleg...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
CA NO.253 OF2017REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.253 OF2017NEERA YADAV Appellant Versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATON ...Respondent JUDGMENT R. BANUMATHI, J.This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 24.02.2016 passed by High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No.4837 of 2012, affirming the conviction of appellant-Neera Yadav, the then Chairperson and Chief Executive Officer (CCEO) of NOIDA (New Okhla Industrial Development Authority) under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short P.C. Act) and sentencing her to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in case of default in 1 CA NO.253 OF2017payment of fine with simple imprisonment for an additional period of four months.2. It is a harsh reality that corruption has become all-pervasive in the present system of bureaucracy. It is a fact that rich and powerful try t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2357 OF2017GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI .....APPELLANT(S) UNION OF INDIA VERSUS WITH .....RESPONDENT(S) CONT. PETITION (CIVIL) No.175 OF2016IN WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No.539 OF1986CIVIL APPEAL No.2360 OF2017CIVIL APPEAL No.2359 OF2017CIVIL APPEAL No.2363 OF2017CIVIL APPEAL No.2362 OF2017CIVIL APPEAL No.2358 OF2017CIVIL APPEAL No.2361 OF2017CRIMINAL APPEAL No.277 OF2017AND CIVIL APPEAL No.2364 OF20172 JUDGMENT A.K. SIKRI, J.Prologue All these appeals arise out of the judgment dated August 04, 2016 rendered by the High Court of Delhi in writ petitions filed before it under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We would refer to the subject matter of those writ petitions and the manner in which the High Court dealt with and decided the same at the appropriate stage. However, it would be pertinent to point out that in the said impugned judgment, main issue related to the status of National Capital Terri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition (C) No 229 of 2014 National Confederation of Officers Association of Central Public Sector Enterprises and Ors. ....Petitioners Versus Union of India & Ors. .... Respondents 1 JUDGMENT Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J A Introduction ...........................................................................................................3 B Submissions of Counsel .......................................................................................9 C Res Judicata and PILs ........................................................................................2 2 D The decision in Centre for Public Litigation ........................................................ 29 E CBIs preliminary enquiry .................................................................................... 45 F Conclusion ..........................................................................................................6 1 2 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 14521453 OF2022(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos. 34453446 of 2019) STATE THROUGH .APPELLANT(S) DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT Of POLICE VERSUS R. SOUNDIRARASU ETC. ....RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT J.B. PARDIWALA, J.1. Leave granted.2. Since the issues raised in both the captioned appeals are the same, those were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.3. These appeals are at the instance of the State of Tamil Nadu through the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and 1 AntiCorruption, Salem District, Tamil Nadu and are directed against the two judgments and orders passed by the High Court of Madras dated 27.04.2017 allowing the criminal revision applications preferred by the respondents herein (original accused persons) discharging them from the prosecution under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1958SC300; (1959)ILLJ167SC; (1958)IMLJ169(SC); [1958]1SCR1080; [1963]Supp1SCR229
Das, C.J.1. This appeal by special leave granted by this Court to the plaintiff-appellant is directed against the judgment and decree passed on November 1, 1955, by a single Judge of the Punjab High Court sitting in the Circuit Bench at Delhi in regular second appeal No. 28-D of 1955. 2. The facts leading up to the present appeal are shortly as follows : On April 6, 1943, the appellant was appointed a sub-inspector under the Delhi Audit Fund. In February 1947, he was transferred to the Co-operative Societies Department and posted as sub-inspector in the Milk Scheme. On July 3, 1947, the appellant was confirmed by the then Deputy Commissioner of Delhi who was also the ex-officio Registrar of Co-operative Societies. On August 1, 1948, the appellant was transferred to the Rehabilitation Department of the Co-operative Societies and posted as sub-inspector. On July 1, 1949, the appellant was suspended by the then Deputy Commissioner, Delhi. On July 9, 1949, the appellant was served with a c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC1977; [1990]67CompCas71(SC); (1989)3CompLJ199(SC); [1989(59)FLR601]; JT1989(3)SC432; 1989(2)SCALE350; (1989)4SCC441; [1989]3SCR935; 1990(1)LC169(SC); (1990)1UPLBEC
J.S. Sharma, J.1. The main question before us is whether a Regional Rural Bank established by a notification under Section 3 of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 is 'State' for the purposes of Part III of the Constitution of India. This appeal by special leave arises out of a suit by the respondent No. 1, an employee of the appellant Bank, challenging the validity of a disciplinary proceeding against him and the order of his dismissal from service passed therein. The trial court decreed the suit and the decree was confirmed by the Additional District Judge in appeal and by the High Court in second appeal.2. The facts briefly slated, omitting the details which are not relevant for the purpose of this judgment, are in a short compass. The respondent No. 1 was, in 1981, served with a lengthy charge-sheet containing many accusations, some of them being serious, and he was called upon to file his show cause. A large number of documents were mentioned in the charge-sheet and the respondent ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC2267; (1988)90BOMLR434; 1988(3)Crimes655(SC); [1989]176ITR1(SC); JT1988(4)SC265; 1988(2)SCALE688; (1988)4SCC419; [1988]Supp2SCR942; [1989]72STC384(SC)
A.P. Sen, J.1. This appeal by special leave directed against the judgment and order of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court dated August 11, 1987 raises a question of far-reaching importance. The question is whether a Commission of Inquiry constituted under Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') is a 'Court' for purposes of Section 95(1)(b) of the CrPC, 1973.2. We had the benefit of hearing Dr. Y.S. Chitale, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant Dr.Baliram Waman Hiray, who at one time was the Health Minister of Maharashtra, and Shri A.S. Bobde, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State Government, as to the purport and effect of the inclusive clause of Sub-section (3) of Section 95 of the Code which provides that in Clause (b) of Sub-section (1), the term 'Court' means a Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court, and includes a tribunal constituted by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act if declared by that Act ...
Tag this Judgment!