Judicial Updates

HTML Treetable - Example 1 Expand all | Collapse all

Title View
CIVIL Procedure Code 
     
  Amended CPC  
     Salem Advocate Bar Assn VS UOI AIR 2005 SC 3353 view
     Ram Chandra Singh V Savitri Devi and Ors 2003 8 SCC 319 view
  Fraud 
     Santosh V Jagat Ram and Anr MANU SC 0097 2010 view
     SP Chengalvaraya naidu vs Jagannath AIR 1994 SC 853 view
  Section 9 of CPC 
     Dhulabai vs state of MP 2005 3 SCC 427 view
     Raizada Topandas & Anr v Gorakhram Gokalchand AIR 1964 SC 1348 view
  Section 10 of CPC 
     Chitivalasa Jute Mills Vs. Jaypee Rewa Cement AIR 2004 SC 1687 view
     Gupte Cardiac Care center and Hospital Vs Olympic Pharma Care Pvt Ltd AIR 2004 SC 2339 view
     Indian Bank Vs Maharashtra State Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd AIR 1998 SC 1952 view
     National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences Vs C.Parameshwara AIR 2005 SC 242 view
     Pukhraj D. Jain and Ors. Vs Gopalakrishna AIR 2004 SC 3504 view
  Section 11 of CPC 
     AIR 2016 SC 1134view
     AIR 2015 SC 460view
     P V Jose V Kanickammal Dead by LRs 2000 9 SCC 350 view
     Pandit Ishwardas V St of MP & Ors 1979 4 SCC 163 view
     Saroja v Chinnusamy Dead by LRs & Anr AIR 2007 SC 3067 view
     Singhai Lal Chand Jain Dead Vs Rashtriya Swayam Sewak Sangh Patna 1996 3 SCC 149 view
     Subhash Mahadevasa Habib vs Nemasa Ambasa Dharmadas & Ors AIR 2007 SC 1828 view
  Section 20 of CPC 
     Om Prakash Srivastava Vs. UOI & Anr 2006 6 SCC 207 view
  Section 24 of CPC 
     Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd & Ors Vs Hong Kong & Shanghai Bank 2009 4 CTC 74 view
     Shri Radhey Shyam Vs Shyam Behari Singh AIR 1971 SC 2337 view
  Section 34 of CPC 
     Central Bank of India vs Ravindra And ors. AIR 2001 SC 3095 view
  Section 47 of CPC 
     Janapareddy Latchan Naidu V Janapareddy Sanyasamma AIR 1963 SC 1556 view
     Moti Lal Banker V Mahraj Kumar Mahmood Hasan Khan AIR 1968 SC 1087 view
     Pratibha Singh and Anr V Shanti Devi Prasad and Anr AIR 2003 SC 643 view
     Seth Hiralal Patni v Sri Kali Nath AIR 1962 SC 199 view
  Section 48 of CPC 
     Pentapati Chinna Venkanna and Ors V Pentapati Bengararaju and Ors AIR 1964 SC 1454 view
  Section 80 of CPC 
     Amar Nath Dogra Vs Union of India UOI AIR 1963 SC 424 view
     Ghanshyam Dass and Ors Vs Dominion of India AIR 1984 SC 1004 view
     Ghulam Rasool and Anr Vs State of Jammu and Kashmir and Anr AIR 1983 SC 1188 view
     Raghunath Das Vs UOI AIR 1969 SC 674 view
     Sawai Singhai Nirmal Chand Vs UOI AIR 1966 SC 1068 view
     State of Punjab Vs Geeta Iron & Brass Works Ltd AIR 1978 SC 1608 view
     State of Seraikella Vs. UOI AIR 1951 SC 253 view
     Smt Kavita Devi Alias Kavita vs The State Of Jharkhand on 27 February, 2017view
  Section 89 - ADR and Lok Adalat 
     State of Punjab and Anr V Jalour Singh and Ors AIR 2008 SC 1209 view
     State of Punjab and Ors V Phulan Rani and Anr AIR 2004 SC 4105 view
     State of Punjab and Ors V Shri Ganpat Raj AIR 2006 SC 3089 view
     UOI V Ananto Dead and Anr AIR 2007 SC 1561 view
  Section 92 of CPC 
     Sri Jeyaram Educational Trust and Ors Vs A G Syed Mohideen and Ors AIR 2010 SC 671 view
     Sri Vedagiri Lakshmi Narasimha Swami Temple v Induru Pattabhirami Reddy AIR 1967 SC 781 view
     Order 21 Rule 29 view
     Shaukat Hussain alias Ali Akram and Ors V Bhuneshwari Devi Dead by Lrs and Ors AIR 1973 SC 528 view
     Sri Krishna Singh V Mathura Ahir and Ors AIR 1982 SC 686 view
  Section 96 of CPC 
     Orissa Hydro Power Corporation Ltd Vs Santwant Singh Gill 2006 9 SCC 663 view
  Section 100 of CPC 
     C A Sulaiman and Ors Vs State Bank of Travancore Alwayee and Ors AIR 2006 SC 2848view
     Chacko and Anr Vs Mahadevan AIR 2007 SC 2967 view
     Ramavilasom Grandhasala Versus NSS Karayogam 2000 5 SCC 64 view
  Section 146 of CPC 
     Zila Singh and Ors V Hazari and Ors AIR 1979 SC 1066 view
  Section 148 A of CPC 
     Ila Vipin Pandya Vs Smita Ambalal Patel AIR2007SC2404 view
  Section 151 of CPC 
     Arjun Singh Vs Mohindra Kumar and Ors AIR 1964 SC 993 view
     Prakash H.Jain Vs Ms. Marie Fernandes AIR 2003 SC 4591 view
     Sneh Gupta Vs Devi Sarup and Ors 2009 6 SCC 194 view
     State of Punjab vs Darshan Singh AIR 2003 SC 4179 view
     State of UP and Ors Vs Roshan Singh (Dead) by LRs. and Ors. AIR 2008 SC 1190 view
     State of West Bengal and Ors Vs Karan Singh Binayak and Ors AIR 2002 SC 1543 view
  Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC 
     Narayan Bhagwantrao Gosavi Balajiwale Vs Gopal Vinayak Gosavi and Ors AIR1960SC100 view
  Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC 
     Ram Prasad Dagduram Vs Vijay Kumar Motilal Mirakhanwala and Ors AIR1967SC278 view
     Ramesh Hiranand Kundanmal Versus Municipal Corporation Greater Bombay 1992 2 SCC 524 view
     Razia Begum Vs Sahebzadi Anwar Begum and Others AIR 1958 SC 886 view
     Savitri Devi Versus District Judge Gorakhpur 1999 2 SCC 577 view
     Sumtibai & Ors vs Paras Finance Co & Ors AIR 2007 SC 3166 view
  Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC 
     Ajendraprasadji N Pande & Anr Vs Swami Keshavprakeshdasji N & Ors AIR 2007 SC 806 view
     Andhra Bank vs ABN Amro Bank NV & Ors AIR 2007 SC 2511 view
     BK Narayana Pillai vs Parameswaran Pillai & Anr AIR 2000 SC 614 view
     Heeralal vs Kalyan Mal & Ors AIR 1998 SC 618 view
     Ramchandra Vs Damodar Trimbak Tanksale D and Ors 2007 6 SCC 737 view
     Revajeetu Builders and Developers V Narayanaswamy and Sons and Ors 2009 10 SCC 84 view
     Shiv Gopal Sah vs Sita Ram Saraugi & Ors AIR 2007 SC 1478 view
     UOI vs Pramod Gupta & Ors AIR 2005 SC 3708 view
     Usha Balashaheb Swami & Ors vs Kiran Appaso Swami & Ors AIR 2007 SC 1663 view
  Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC 
     Central Provident fund commissioner, New Delhi Vs Lala JR education Society (2016) 4 JBCJ 414 SC view
     Mayar HK Ltd & Ors vs Owners & Parties vessel MV Fortune Express & Ors 2006 3 SCC 100 view
     PK Palanisamy Vs N Arumugham & Anr 2009 4 LW 75 view
     Prem Lala Nahata & Anr vs Chandi Prasad Sikaria AIR 2007 SC 1247 view
     Saleem Bhai & Ors v St of Maharashtra & Ors 2003 1 SCC 557 view
     Sopan Sukhdeo Sable and Ors Vs Asst Charity Com and Ors AIR 2004 SC 1801 view
     Sudhir G Angur & Ors v M Sanjeev & Ors AIR 2006 SC 351 view
     T Arivandandam vs TV Satyapal & Anr AIR 1977 SC 2421 view
  Order 8 Rule 1 
     Aditya Hotels P Ltd vs Bombay Swadeshi Stores Ltd & Ors AIR 2007 SC 157 view
     RN Jadi and Brothers & Ors vs Subhashchandra AIR 2007 SC 2571 view
  Order 8 Rule 6 
     Jag Mohan Chawla & anr vs Dera Radha Swami Satsang & ors AIR 1996 2222 view
     Rohit Singh & Ors v St of Bihar Now St of Jharkhand & Ors AIR 2007 SC 10 view
  Order 8 Rule 9 
     Olympic Industries Vs Mulla Hussainy Bhai Mulla Akberall 2009 9 SCALE 338 view
  Order 9 Rule 6 of CPC 
     Gauhati University Versus Niharlal Bhattacharjee 1995 6 SCC 731 view
     Lal Devi and Ans Vs Vaneeta Jain and Ors AIR 2007 SC 2577 view
  Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC 
     Baldev Singh V Surinder Mohan Sharma and Ors 2003 1 SCC 34 view
     Naresh Chandra Agarwal Versus Bank of Baroda 2001 3 SCC 163 view
     Sahara India & Ors vs M C Aggarwal HUF AIR 2007 SC 1261 view
  Order 12  
     2015(3) JLJR 552 SC view
  Order 13 Rule 10 of CPC  
     Lakshmi and Anr V Chinnammal @ Rayyammal and Ors AIR 2009 SC 2352 view
  Order 18 Rule 2  
     AIR 2014 SC 2301 view
  Order 20 Rule 2  
     RS Madanappa and Others Vs Chandramma and Anr AIR 1965 SC 1812 view
  Order 20 Rule 3 
     Vinod Kumar Singh V Banaras Hindu University and Ors AIR 1988 SC 371 view
  Order 20 Rule 9 to 19 
     Lakshmi Ram Bhuyan V Hari Prasad Bhuyan and Ors 2003 1 SCC 197 view
  Order 20 Rule 12 
     Gopalakrishna Pillai and Ors V Meenakshi Ayal and Ors AIR 1967 SC 155 view
  Order 20 Rule 14 
     Dattaraya V Shaikh Mahboob Shaikh Ali and Anr AIR 1970 SC 750 view
     Jodhayan V Babu Ram and Ors AIR 1983 SC 57 view
     Johri Singh V Sukh Pal Singh and Ors AIR 1989 SC 2073 view
  Order 20 Rule 18 of CPC 
     Hasham Abbas Sayyad vs Usman Abbas Sayyad & Ors 2007 2 SCC 355 view
     Muthangi Ayyanna V Muthangi Jaggarao and Ors AIR 1977 SC 292 view
  Order 21 Rule 10 
     FCI Vs S N Nagarkar AIR 2002 SC 808 view
  Order 21 Rule 15 and 16 
     Dhani Ram Gupta and Ors V Lala Sri Ram and Anr AIR 1980 SC 157 view
     Gangabai Gopaldas Mohata v. Fulchand and others AIR 1997 SC 1812 view
  Order 21 Rule 22 
     Satyanarain Bajoria and anr V Ramnarain Tibrewal and anr 1993 4 SCC 414 view
     Tata Steel Ltd. Vs Manager, Bihar Khandi association & ors (2016) 2 JBCJ 250 view
  Order 21 Rule 32 
     Yashpal Singh Vs VIII Addl Dist Judge and Ors 1992 2 SCC 504 view
  Order 21 Rule 35 
     Mohamed Masthan V Society Congregation Bros S Heart and Anr AIR 2006 SC 1706 view
     Prithvichand Ramchand Sablok V S Y Shinde AIR 1993 SC 1929 view
     Ratan Lal Jain and Ors V Uma Shankar Vyas and Ors AIR 2002 SC 804 view
     Ravinder Kaur V Ashok Kumar and Anr 2003 8 SCC 289 view
  Order 21 Rule 46 
     Mannalal Khetan and Ors V Kedar Nath Khetan and Ors 1977 2 SCC 424 view
     Syndicate Bank Vs Vijay Kumar and Ors AIR 1992 SC 1066 view
  Order 21 Rule 48 and 50 
     Mohit Bhargava vs Bharat Bhushan Bhargava & Ors AIR 2007 SC 1717 view
  Order 21 Rule 54 
     Barnes Investments Ltd and Ors V Raj K Gupta and Ors AIR 2001 SC 2818 view
  Order 21 Rule 57 
     Nancy John Lyndon V Prabhati Lal Chowdhury and Ors AIR 1987 SC 2061 view
  Order 21 Rule 58 
     Ghanshyamdas and anr V Om Parkash and anr AIR 1994 SC 1292 view
  Order 21 Rule 64 
     Lal Chand Vs VIIIth Addl Dist Judge and ors AIR 1997 SC 2106 view
     S S Dayananda V K S Nagesh Rao and Ors 1997 4 SCC 451 view
  Order 21 Rule 66 
     Desh Bandhu Gupta V N L Anand & Rajinder Singh 1994 1 SCC 131 view
  Order 21 Rule 84 to 86 
     Balram son of Bhasa Ram V Ilam Singh and ors AIR 1996 SC 2781 view
  Order 21 Rule 89 to 92 
     Challamane Huchha Gowda V M R Tirumala and Anr 2004 1 SCC 453 view
     Chinnamal and ors V P Arumugham and anr AIR 1990 SC 1828 view
     Dadi Jagannadham Vs Jammulu Ramulu and Ors AIR 2001 SC 2699 view
     Ganpat Singh Dead by Lrs V Kailash Shankar and Ors AIR 1987 SC 1443 view
     Himmatbhai V Rikhilal and Ors AIR 1978 SC 918 view
     Janak Raj V Gurdial Singh and Anr AIR 1967 SC 608 view
     Jaswantlal Natvarlal Thakkar Vs Sushilaben Manilal Dangarwala and ors AIR 1991 SC 770 view
     Kayjay Industries P Ltd Vs Asnew Drums P Ltd and Ors AIR 1974 SC 1331 view
     Kumar Sudhendu Narain Deb Vs Renuka Biswas and ors AIR 1992 SC 385 view
     Sagar Mahila Vidyalaya Sagar Vs Pandit Sadashiv Rao Harshe and Ors AIR 1991 SC 1825 view
     Saheb Khan Vs Mohd Yusufuddin and Ors AIR 2006 SC 1871 view
     Sardar Govindrao Mahadik and Anr Vs Devi Sahai and Ors AIR 1982 SC 989 view
     Satyanarain Bajoria and anr Vs Ramnarain Tibrewal and anr AIR 1994 SC 1583 view
     Shri Radhey Shyam Vs Shyam Behari Singh AIR 1971 SC 2337 view
     UOI V Kishorilal Gupta and Bros AIR 1959 SC 1362 view
  Order 21 Rule 97 
     Ashan Devi and Anr Vs Phulwasi Devi and Ors 2003 12 SCC 219 view
     Babulal Vs Raj Kumar and Ors AIR 1996 SC 2050 view
     Bhanwar Lal Vs Satyanarain and anr AIR 1995 SC 358 view
     Ghasi Ram and Ors Vs Chait Ram Saini and Ors AIR 1998 SC 2476 view
     P Janardhana Rao Vs Kannan and Ors 2004 11 SCC 511 view
     Shreenath and Anr Vs Rajesh and Ors AIR 1998 SC 1827 view
  Order 22 Rule 3 and 4 
     Piara Singh and Ors Vs Natha Singh and Ors AIR 1991 SC 1529 view
     S Amarjit Singh Kalra dead by Lrs and Ors Vs Pramod Gupta dead by Lrs and Ors AIR 2003 SC 2588 view
     T Gnanavel V T S Kanagaraj and Anr AIR 2009 SC 2367 view
     The Andhra Bank Ltd V R Srinivasan and Ors AIR 1962 SC 232 view
     The State of Punjab Vs Nathu Ram AIR 1962 SC 89 view
  Order 22 Rule 10 of CPC 
     Amit Kumar Shaw and Anr Vs Farida Khatoon and Anr 2005 11 SCC 403 view
  Order 23 Rule 1 of CPC 
     Dwarika Prasad V Nirmala and Ors 2009 14 SCALE 682 view
  Order 26 Rule 1 of CPC 
     Padam Sen and Anr V The State of UP AIR 1961 SC 218 view
  Order 32 A Rule 3 
     Jagraj Singh V Birpal Kaur AIR 2007 SC 2083 view
  Order 33 Rule 1 
     Vijay Pratap Singh vs Dukh Haran Nath Singh & Anr- AIR 1962 SC 941 view
  Order 39 Rule 1 
     A Venkatasubbiah Naidu v S Chellappan & Ors AIR 2000 SC 3032 view
     Dalpat Kumar & anr v Prahlad Singh & ors AIR 1993 SC 276 view
     Dorab Cawasji Warden v Coomi Sorab Warden & ors AIR 1990 SC 867 view
     Gangubai Bablya Chaudhary & Ors v Sitaram Bhalchandra Sukhtankar & Ors AIR 1983 SC 742 view
     Gujarat Bottling Co Ltd & ors v Coca Cola Co & ors AIR 1995 SC 2372 view
     HPCL Vs Sri Sriman Narayan and Anr AIR 2002 SC 2598 view
     J M Biswas Vs N K Bhattacharjee and Ors AIR 2002 SC 1649 view
     Kuldip Singh v Subhash Chander Jain & Ors AIR 2000 SC 1410 view
     Mahadeo Savlaram Shelke & Ors v Pune Municipal Corp & Anr 1995 3 SCC 33 view
     Manohar Lal Chopra v Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal 1962 Supp 1 SCR 450 view
     Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v Kartick Das 1994 SCW 2801 view
     Rajnibai alias Mannubai v Kamla Devi & Ors AIR 1996 SC 1946 view
  Order 39 Rule 2A 
     Samee Khan Vs Bindu Khan AIR 1998 SC 2765 view
     Tayabbhai M Bagasarwalla and anr V Hind Rubber Ind Pvt Ltd AIR 1997 SC 1240 view
  Order 39 Rule 3A 
     A Venkatasubbiah Naidu Vs S Challappan and Ors AIR 2000 SC 3032 view
  Order 40 Rule 1 
     Brig Sawai Bhawani Singh V Indian Hotels Co Ltd and ors AIR 1997 SC 2183 view
     Everest Coal Company P Ltd V St of Bihar AIR 1977 SC 2304 view
     Hiralal Patni V Loonkaram Sethiya and Ors AIR 1962 SC 21 view
     ICICI V Karnataka Ball Bearings Corp Ltd and Ors AIR 1999 SC 3438 view
     S Saleema Bi V S Pyari Begum and Anr 2000 9 SCC 560 view
  Order 41 Rule 11 
     MGMT of Devi Theatre V Vishwanath Raju 2004 7 SCC 337 view
  Order 41 Rule 22 and 33 
     Banarsi and Ors V Ram Phal 2003 9 SCC 606 view
     Chandramohan Ramchandra Patil and Ors V Bapu Koyappa Patil Dead thro Lrs and Ors 2003 3 SCC 552 view
  Order 41 Rule 27 
     UOI vs Ibrahim Uddin and Ors. 2012 (8) SCC 148 view
  Order 47 Rule 1 
     Rekha Mukherjee Vs Ashis Kumar Das and Ors 2005 3 SCC 427 view
     Tata Steel Ltd. Vs Manager Bihar Khandi association (2016) 2 JBCJ 250 SC view
  Summary Suits 
     Defiance Knitting Industries Pvt Ltd Vs Jay Arts 2006 4 MLJ 939 SC view
     ONGC Vs SBI Overseas Branch Bombay AIR 2000 SC 2548 view
     Raj Duggal Vs Ramesh Kumar Bansal AIR 1990 SC 2218 view
     Rajni Kumar Vs Suresh Kumar Malhotra and Anr AIR 2003 SC 1322 view
     Sunil Enterprises and Anr Vs SBI Commercial and International Bank Ltd AIR 1998 SC 2317 view
  Order 21 Rule 11 
     Bhaskaran V Sreedharan 2002 6 Supreme 384 view
CONTRACT 
  Unjust Enrichment 
     Kerala State Elec Board V Hindustan Construction Co Ltd & Ors AIR 2007 SC 425 view
  Vicarious Liability 
     Bank of Bihar Ltd V Mahabir Lal and Ors AIR 1964 SC 377 view
  Medicial Negligence 
     Martin F DSouza Vs Mohd Ishfaq AIR 2009 SC 2049 view
     Graduate Inst of Medical Edu and Res Chandigarh V Jaspal Singh and Ors 2009 7 SCC 330 view
     St of Haryana & Ors V Raj Rani AIR 2005 SC 3279 view
     State of Punjab V Shiv Ram and Ors AIR 2005 SC 3280 view
  Nomination 
     Shipra Sengupta V Mridul Sengupta and Ors AIR 1964 SC 377 view
PERSONAL LAW 
  Guardian and wards Act 
     Rosy Jacob Vs Jacob A Chakramakkal AIR 1973 SC 2090 view
  Adoption and Maintenance 
     Dharma Shamrao Agalawe V Pandurang Miragu Agalawe & Ors AIR 1988 SC 845 view
     SS Munna Lal V SS Rajkumar & Ors AIR 1962 SC 1493 view
  Marriage and Divorce 
     Durga Prasanna Tripathy Vs Arundhati Tripathy AIR2005SC3297 view
     Mayadevi V Jagdish Prasad AIR 2007 SC 1426 view
     Saroj Rani V Sudarshan Kumar Chadha AIR 1984 SC 1562 view
     Smruti Pahariya V Sanjay Pahariya AIR 2009 SC 2840 view
  Sucession 
     Chinthamani Ammal Vs Nandagopal Gounder and Anr 2007 4 SCC 163 view
     Comm of Wealth Tax Kanpur & Ors V Chander Sen & Ors AIR 1986 SC 1753 view
     G Sekar v Geetha & Ors 2009 3 LW 807 view
     Gopal Singh & Ors V Ujagar Singh & Ors AIR 1954 SC 579 view
     Gurdev Kaur and Ors Vs Kaki and ors 2007 1 SCC 546 view
     Mahant Salig Ram V Musammat Maya Devi AIR 1955 SC 266 view
     Makhan Singh D by Lrs V Kulwant Singh AIR 2007 SC 1808 view
     Omprakash & Ors v Radhacharan & Ors 2009 5 MLJ 761 SC view
     Sheela Devi & Ors V Lal Chand & Anr 2006 10 SCALE 75 view
     Smt Ass Kaur (D) by LRs Vs Kartar Singh (D) by LRs & Ors AIR 2007 SC 2369 view
     Smt Dipo Vs Wassan Singh and Ors 1983 3 SCC 376 view
     Ujagar Singh V Jeo AIR 1959 SC 1041 view
  Avyavaharika Debt 
     Sita Ram V Radhabai and Ors AIR 1968 SC 534 view
  Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act 1986 
     Danial Latifi & Anr V UOI AIR 2001 SC 3958 view
     Iqbal Bano V State of UP & Anr AIR 2007 SC 2215 view
     Khatoon Nisa V State of UP & Ors 2002 6 SCALE 165 view
     Mohd Ahmed Khan V Shah Bano Begum and Ors AIR1985SC945 view
     Shabana Bano Vs Imran Khan AIR 2010 SC 305 view
     Shamim Ara V State of UP & Anr 2002 7 SCC 518 view
  Registration Act (Section 17 and 49) 
     Lachhman Dass V Ram Lal and Anr AIR 1989 SC 1923 view
     Mattapalli Chelamayya and Anr V Mattapalli Venkataratnam and Anr AIR 1972 SC 1121 view
     Mst Kirpal Kaur Vs Bachan Singh and Ors AIR1958SC199 view
     Satish Kumar V Zarif Ahmed and Ors 1997 3 SCC 679 view
SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT 
  Declaration 
     Ramesh Chand Ardawatiya v Anil Panjwani 2003 7 SCC 350 view
  Permanent Injunction 
     Chairman Tamil Nadu Housing Board Madras Vs T N Ganapathy 1990 1 SCC 608 view
  Specific performance 
     Aniglase Yohannan Vs Ramlatha & Ors AIR 2005 SC 3503 view
     Manjunath Anandappa Urf Shivappa Hanasi V Tammanasa & Ors AIR 2003 SC 1391 view
     P S Ranakrishna Reddy V M K Bhagyalakshmi & Anr AIR 2007 SC 1256 view
     R C Chandiok and Anr V Chuni Lal Sabharwal and Ors AIR 1971 SC 1238 view
     Shiv Kumar Sharma Vs Santosh Kumari 2007 8 SCC 600 view
TRANSFER OF PROPERTY 
  Feeding the Grant by Estoppel 
     Renu Devi V Mahendra Singh and Ors AIR 2003 SC 1608 view
  Lease 
     Burmah Shell Oil Distributing now known as BPCL V Khaja Midhat Noor & Ors AIR 1988 SC 1470 view
     Jagdish Dutt & Anr V Dharam Pal & Ors AIR 1999 SC 1694 view
     Narain Prasad Aggarwal (D) by LRs V St of MP AIR 2007 SC 2349 view
     Tara Chand V Sagarbai @ Chaiyalibai AIR 2007 SC 2059 view
  Lis Pendent 
     Nagubai Ammal & Ors Vs B Sama Rao AIR 1956 SC 593 view
  Mortgage 
     Beli Ram & anr Vs Salig Ram AIR 1996 SC 757 view
     Sardar Autar Singh Vs Raja Sir Mohammad Ejaz Rasool Khan since deceased & Ors AIR 1950 PC 88 view
  Ostensible Owner 
     Hardev Singh V Gurmail Singh (D) by LRs AIR 2007 SC 1058 view
  Part Performance 
     FGP Ltd V Saleh Hooseini Doctor & Anr AIR 2007 SC 1058 view
  Redemption of Mortgage 
     S Nazeer Ahmed v St Bank of Mysore & Ors AIR 2007 SC 989 view
     Tara Chand V Sagarbai @ Chaiyalibai AIR 2007 SC 2059 view
  Tenancy by Holding Over 
     Raptakos Brett & Co Ltd v Ganesh Property AIR 1998 SC 3085 view
CONSTITUTION 
  Basic Structure 
     His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru & Ors Vs St of Kerala & Anr AIR 1973 SC 1461 view
     Indira Nehru Gandhi v Raj Narain AIR 1975 SC 2299 view
     L Chandrakumar Vs Union of India AIR 1997 SC 1125 view
CRIMINAL LAW 
  Absconding Accused 
     C.B.I. Vs Rathin Dandapat and Ors 2015 SC 3285 view
     Dharampal & Others Vs St of Harayana and Anr 2014 (3) SCC 306 view
     Smt. Urmila Sahu Vs St of Orrisa 1998 Cri.L.J. 1372 Orissa view
     Jayendra Vishnu Thakur Vs St of Maharahstra and Anr 2009 7 SCC 104 1 view
     Sanjay Kumar Singh vs State of Jharkhand W.P. (Cr.) No. 46 of 2010 view
  Right of Prisioners 
     Amir Shad Khan and anr V L Hmingliana and ors 1991 4 SCC 39 view
     Citizens for Democracy thro its President V St of Assam and Ors 1995 3 SCC 743 view
     David Patrick Ward and Anr V UI and Ors 1992 4 SCC 154 view
     D K Basu Vs St of West Bengal AIR 1997 SC 610 view
     Hussainara Khatoon Vs Home Secy St of Bihar Patna AIR 1979 SC 1360 view
     Kamleshkumar Ishwardas Patel V UI and Ors 1995 4 SCC 51 view
     Kewal Pati Smt V State of UP and Ors 1995 3 SCC 600 view
     Murti Devi V State of Delhi and Ors 1998 9 SCC 604 view
     Rama Murthy V State of Karnataka 1997 2 SCC 642 view
     RD Upadhyay Vs St of AP & Ors AIR 2006 SC 1946 view
     Sanjay Suri and Anr V Delhi Administration and Anr AIR 1988 SC 414 view
     Smt Nilabati Behera alieas Lalita Behera V State of Orissa and Ors 1993 2 SCC 746 view
     State of AP Challa Ramkrishna Reddy & Ors 2000 5 SCC 712 view
     State of Gujarat and Anr V Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat 1998 7 SCC 392 view
     State of Haryana and another V Ram Diya 1990 CriLJ 1327 view
     State of Haryana V Ghaseeta Ram 1997 3 SCC 766 view
     State of M.P. v. Shyamsunder Trivedi and Ors 1995 4SCC 262 view
     State of Madhya Pradesh V Mohan Singh 1995 6 SCC 321 view
     State of Maharashtra and Ors V Ravikant S Patil 1991 2 SCC 373 view
     State of Punjab and ors V Joginder Singh and ors 1990 2 SCC 661 view
     State Through Supdtt Central Jail N Delhi V Charulata Joshi & Anr 1999 CriLJ 2273 view
     Sheela Barse v St of Maharashtra 1983 2 SCC 96 view
     Sunil Batra Vs Delhi Administration AIR 1978 SC 1675 view
     Sunil Gupta and OrsV St of MP 1990 3 SCC 119 view
     T.N. Mathur v. State of Uttar Pradesh 1993 Supp(1)SCC722 view
  Delay In Pronouncing Judgment 
     Anil Rai vs St of Bihar AIR 2001 SC 3173 view
  Anticipatory Bail 
     Bhadresh Bipin Bhai Sheth vs St. Of Gujrat and another 2016 (1) SCC 152 JLJR 2014 (4) 128 view
     Adri Dharan Das vs St of West Bengal 2005 4 SCC 303 view
     MP Lohia etc V St of West Bengal and Anr AIR2005SC790 view
     RK Krishna Kumar and Anr vs St of Assam AIR 1998 SC 530 view
     Salauddin Abdulsamad Shaikh vs St of Maharashtra AIR 1996 SC 1042 view
     Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Ors vs St of Punjab AIR 1980 SC 1632 view
     State by the CBI v Anil Sharma JT 1997 7 SC 651 view
  Appreciation of Evidence 
     Papu Mandal @ Hira lal mandal vs St of Jharkhand Cr. Appeal (D.B) No. 587 of 2007 view
     Vidya Dharan vs St of Kerala (2004) 1 SCC 2015 view
     Belal @ Billo @ Md. Belal vs St of Jharkhand Cr. Appeal (D.B) No. 465 of 2013 view
     AIR 2014 S.C. 394 view
     Om Prakash Vs Shati Devi 2015 (1) JLJR (SC) 276 view
     AIR 2016 SC 2376 view
     Mahiman Singh vs St of Uttrakhand (2016) 4 JBCJ 140 SC view
     Abdul Matin vs. State of Rajasthan 2014 (3) JLJR (SC) 224-225 view
     B Vishwanath V State of Karnataka JT 2008 2 SC 305 view
     Churey Lal V State of UP 2008 10 SCC 450 view
     Jai Singh and Ors V The State of Karnataka 2007 10 SCC 788 view
     Main Pal and Anr V State of Haryana and Ors 2004 10 SCC 692 view
     Ram Pat and Ors V State of Haryana 2009 7 SCC 614 view
     Rathnaiah V State of Karnataka JT 2008 3 SC 564 view
     Sambhaji Hindurao Deshmukh and Ors V State of Maharashtra 2008 11 SCC 186 view
     Shingara Singh V State of Haryana and Anr 2003 12 SCC 758 view
     Shivappa and Ors V State of Karnataka 2008 11 SCC 337 view
     State of MP V Bacchudas alias Balram and Ors 2007 9 SCC 135 view
     State of UP V Banne alias Baijnath and Ors 2009 4 SCC 271 view
     State of UP V Govind Das alias Gudda and Anr 2007 10 SCC 795 view
     State of UP V Punni and Ors 2008 11 SCC 153 view
     Swami Prasad V State of MP JT 2007 4 SC 337 view
     Valson and Anr V State of Kerala view
  Arrest and Custody 
     Arnesh Kumar vs. St of Bihar AIR 2014 SC 2756 view
     Manu Bhai Ratti lal patel Tr. Usha Ben Vs. St of Gujrat and Ors. AIR 2013 SC 313 view
     Satyajeet Ballu Bhai Desai and Ors. Vs. St of Gujrat , (2015) CCR 321 (SC) view
     Directorate of Enforcement vs Deepak Mahajan and another AIR 1994 SC 1775 view
     Joginder Kumar vs State of UP 1994 4 SCC 260 view
     Sube Singh vs St of Haryana & Ors 2006 3 SCC 178 view
     Ashok Kumar Agarwal vs St of Jharkhand (2016) 2 JBCJ 212 HC view
  Bail 
     Harjit Singh vs UOI and ors, 1994 Cri. L.J. 3134 view
     JLJR 2014 (4) 128 view
     Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs Rajesh Ranjan, 2005 Cri.L.J. 944 (SC) view
     Neery Uadav vs St of U.P. 2014 (14) SCALE 59 view
     Mani Malhotra Vs St of Rajasthan 1991 Cr.L.J. 806 view
     Chenna Boyanna Krishna Yadav vs St of Maharashtra and Anr 2007 CrLJ 782 SC view
     Free Legal Aid Committee Jamshedpur vs St of Bihar AIR 1982 SC 1463 view
     Kashi Nath Roy vs State of Bihar AIR 1996 SC 3240 view
     Mansab Ali vs Irsan and Anr 2003 1 SCC 632 view
     Masroor v St of UP and Anr JT2009 8 SC 398 view
     Nirmal Jeet Kaur vs State of MP 2004 7 SCC 558 view
     Prahlad Singh Bhati vs NCT Delhi and Anr JT 2001 4 SC 116 view
     Rajesh Ranjan Yadav at Pappu Yadav vs CBI AIR 2007 SC 451 view
     Ram Pratap Yadav vs Mitra Sen Yadav and Anr 2003 1 SCC 15 view
     Uday Mohanlal Acharya v State of Maharashtra 2001 5 SCC 453 view
     UOI vs Thamisharasi and Ors 1995 4 SCC 190 view
  Cancellation of Bail 
     Aslam Babalal Desai vs St of Maharashtra 1992 CrLJ 3712 view
     Bhupinder Singh & Ors vs Jarnail Singh and Anr 2006 CrLJ 3621 view
     Chaganti Satyanarayana and Ors vs St of AP AIR 1986 SC 2130 view
     Gurcharan Singh and Ors vs Delhi Administration AIR 1978 SC 179a view
     Niranjan Singh and Anr vs Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and Ors AIR 1980 SC 785 view
     Ram Govind Upadhyay vs Sudarshan Singh and Ors AIR 2002 SC 1475 view
     Simranjit Singh Mann and Ors vs St of Bihar AIR 1987 SC 149 view
  Cognizance 
     Vijay Kant Thakur and Anr. Vs State of Bihar and Anr. 2010 Cri.L.J. 4190 view
     2016 (2) JBCJ (SC) 85 view
     JLJR (4) 136 SC view
     Dharam Pal and ors vs St of Haryana and anr, AIR 2013 SC 3018 view
     AIR 2016 SC 2266 view
     Chittranjan Mirdha Vs Dunal Ghos and Ors (2009) 6 SCC 661 view
     Vijay Kant Thakur and Ors Vs St of Bihar and Ors 2010 Cr.L.J. 4190 view
     Jamuna Singh vs Bhadai Shah AIR1964SC1541 view
     State of Haryana vs Bahajanlal AIR1992SC604 view
     Tula Ram vs Kishore Singh AIR 1977 SC 2401 view
  Compensation under Section 357 
     R. Mohan vs A.K. Vijaya Kumar, 2012 (8) SCC 721 view
     R. Vijayan vs. Baby, 2000 (1) SCC 260 view
     Dhanu Ram Soren @ Bali Ram Soren Vs St of Jharkhand Cr. Appeal (D.B) No. 173 of 2013 view
     Gopi Nath Ghos vs The St of Jharkhand & Anr. W.P. (PIL) No. 2584 of 2011 view
     Monohar singh vs St of Rajasthan, AIR 2015 SC 1124 view
     St of M.P. Vs Mehtab, 2015 (5) SCC 197 view
     Mojib Ansari & Ors. Vs St of Jharkhand Cr. Appeal No. 1089 of 2004 view
     Hari Singh v Sukhbir Singh and Ors AIR 1988 SC 2127 view
     Vijayan Vs Sadanandan K & Anr CDJ 2009 SC 918 view
  Discharge 
     St of Orrisa Vs Devendra nath Padhi AIR 2005 SC 369 view
     Arun Vyas & Anr v Anita Vyas AIR 1999 SC 2071 view
     State of Orissa vs Debendranath Padhi AIR 2005 SC 359 view
  Framing of Charge 
     Pollution Control Board v Mohan Meakins AIR 2000 SC 1456 view
     RS Nayak v AR Antulay & Anr AIR 1986 SC 2045 view
     St of AP v Cheemalapati Ganeswara Rao & Anr AIR 1963 SC 1850 view
     St of AP v Golconda Linga Swamy & Anr 2004 6 SCC 522 view
     St of Orissa v Debendra Nath Padhi 2005 1 SCC 568 view
  Further Investigation and Re-Investigation 
     Rama Chaudhary Vs. State of Bihar 2009 (6) SCC 346 view
  Grant of Pardon by Sessions Judge 
     Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar Vs. State of Maharastra 2009 (6) SCC 346 view
  Inquest Report 
     State of UP Vs Shobhanath & Ors AIR 2009 SC 2395 view
  Jurisdiction 
     Hiten P Dalal Vs Bratindranath Banerjee AIR 2001 SC 3897 view
  Order of Remand 
     St of W.B. vs Dinesh Dalmia, (2007) 5 SCC 773 view
     State of W.B. Vs. Falguni Dutta, (1993) 3 SCC 288 view
     C.B.I. Vs Rathin Dandapath and ors. 2015 Cri.L.J. 4488 view
     Manubhai Ratilal Patel Tr. Ushaben vs St of Gujarat and ors. AIR 2013 SC 313 view
     State of T.N. Vs. V. Krishnaswami Naidu, (1979) 4 SCC 5 view
     Sundeep Kumar Bafna Vs State of Maharashtra, Air 2014 SC 1745 view
     Khatri and Others Vs. State of Bihar 1981 SCC (1) 627 view
     State of W.B. Vs Dinesh Dalmiya AIR 2007 SC 1801 view
     Manu Bhai Ratti Lal Patel Tr Usha Ben vs St of Gujrat AIR 2013 SC 313 view
     Satyajeet Balu Bhai Desai and Ors Vs St of Gujrat (2015) CCR 321 (SC) view
     C.B.I. Vs Anupam J. Kulkarni AIR 1992 SC 1768 view
     Hussain Nara Khatun and Ors Vs Home Secretary Air 1979 SC 1377 view
     State Rep by Inspector of Police and Ors V NMT Joy Immaculate 2004 5 SCALE 330 view
  Police Custody 
     CBI SIT New Delhi v Anupam J Kulkarni AIR 1992 SC 1768 view
     Mithabhai Pashabhai Patel & Ors Vs St of Gujarat CDJ 2009 SC 1014 view
  Public Prosecutor 
     Mukul Dalal & Ors v UOI 1998 1 SCR 868 view
  Reinvestigation by Appellate Court 
     Popular Muthiah Vs State rep by Inspector of Police 2006 6 SCALE 417 view
  Relative of Husband 
     U Suvetha vs State by Inspector of Police 2009 7 SCALE 149 view
  Right of Complainant 
     Kishan Lal V Dharmendra Bafna and Anr 2009 7 SCC 685 view
  Search and Seizure 
     MP Sharma & Ors v Satish Chandra DM Delhi & Ors AIR 1954 SC 300 view
     Radhakishan v St of UP AIR 1963 SC 822 view
     St of Punjab v Balbir Singh AIR 1994 SC 1872 view
     St of Punjab v Jasbir Singh and Ors 1995 4 CRIMES 765 SC view
     State of MP thro CBI etc v Paltan Mallah & Ors 2005 3 SCC 169 view
     Sunder Singh v St of UP AIR 1956 SC 411 view
  Section 154 (1) CrPC 
     State rep. By Inspector of police, Vigilance and anti-corruption, Tiruchirapalli, Tamilnadu vs Jayapaul, Air 2004 SC 2684 view
     Alagarsamy and Ors V State of DSP2009 13 SCALE 376 view
     State of Punjab V Gurdip Kaur2008 14 SCALE 369 view
  Section 154 of CrPC 
     Aghnoo Nagesia v St of Bihar 1966 1 SCR 134 view
     Amar Singh v Balwinder Singh & Ors 2003 2 SCC 518 view
     Apren Joseph alias Current Kunjukunju & Ors v St of Kerala AIR 1973 SC 1 view
     Baldev Singh & anr v State of Punjab AIR 1996 SC 372 view
     Bandlamuddi Atchuta Ramaiah & ors v St of AP 1996 CrLJ 4463 view
     Bhopat Singh Kishan Singh v St of Maharashtra AIR 1973 SC 446 view
     CBI V State of Rajasthan 2001 3 SCC 333 view
     CBI Vs State of Gujarat AIR 2007 SC 2522 view
     Faddi v St of MP 1964 6 SCR 312 view
     George & Ors v St of Kerala & Anr AIR 1998 SC 1376 view
     Hallu & Ors v St of MP AIR 1974 SC 1936 view
     Harpal Singh & Anr v St of Himachal Pradesh AIR 1981 SC 361 view
     Hemant Dhasmane V CBI & Ors 2001 7 SCC 536 view
     Lalai @ Dindoo & Anr v St of UP AIR 1974 SC 2118 view
     MC Mehta Vs UOI 2008 1 SCC 407 view
     Mulla and Anr V St of UP MANU SC 0091 2010 view
     Nisar Ali v St of UP AIR 1957 SC 366 view
     Parkash Singh Badal & Anr V St of Punjab & Ors AIR 2007 SC 1274 view
     Rattan Singh v State of Himachal Pradesh AIR 1997 SC 768 view
     Sakiri Vasu V State of UP & Ors 2008 2 SCC 409 view
     Shanker v State of UP AIR 1975 SC 757 view
     Sheikh Hasib alias Tabarak v St of Bihar AIR 1972 SC 283 view
     Sheonandan Paswan V St of Bihar & Ors 1987 1 SCC 288 view
     SN Sharma V Bipen Kumar Tiwari & Ors 1970 1 SCC 653 view
     SP CBI & Ors v Tapan Kr Singh 2003 6 SCC 175 view
     Tapinder Singh v St of Punjab & Anr AIR 1970 SC 1566 view
     Tara Singh & others v St of Punjab 1991 Supp 1 SCC 536 view
     Wilayat Khan & Ors v State of UP AIR 1953 SC 122 view
  Section 156(3) of CrPC 
     Hamant Yashwant Dhage vs State of Maharashtra and ors. AIR 2016 SC 814 view
     Lalita Kumari Vs St of U.P. anr (2014) 2 SCC 1 view
     Sakeri Wasu Vs. St of U.P. (AIR 2008 SC 907) view
     Kewal Kishan Vs SurajBhan AIR 1980 SC 1780 view
     Ms. Priyanka Srivastava & Anr Vs St of U.P. and Ors (2015) 9 SC 287 view
     Mohd. Yousuf Vs Smt. Afaq Jahan and anr, AIR 2006 SC 705 view
     H S Bains vs State AIR 1980 SC 1883 view
     Rasiklal Dalpatram Thakkar V St of Gujarat and Ors 2009 13 SCALE 628 view
  Section 161 of CrPC 
     State of Gujarat Vs. Kathi ramku Aligbhai, 1986 Cri.L.J. 239 view
     Banti @ Guddu v St of MP 2004 1 SCC 414 view
     Gurnam Kaur v Bakshish Singh & Ors AIR 1981 SC 631 view
     Nanhku Singh & Anr v St of Bihar AIR 1973 SC 491 view
     Nirpal Singh & Ors v St of Haryana AIR 1977 SC 1066 view
     Ranbir & Ors v St of Punjab AIR 1973 SC 1409 view
     St of UP v MK Anthony AIR 1985 SC 48 view
  Section 164 of CrPC 
     Mahabir Singh Vs State of Haryana 2001 7 SCC 148 view
     State of UP V Singhara Singh and Ors AIR 1964 SC 358 view
  Section 164(1) CrPC 
     Kanwar Pal Singh Vs St of Haryana AIR 1994 SC 2795 view
     Jogendra Nahak & ors vs State of Orissa AIR1999SC2565 view
  Section 164(2) of CrPC 
     MA Antony @ Antappan Vs St of Kerala 2009 6 SCALE 36 view
  Section 167(2) of CrPC 
     State of W.B. Vs Dinesh Dalmia, (2007) 5 SCC 773 view
     State of W.B. Vs Falguni Dutta, (1993) 3 SCC 288 view
     C.B.I. Vs Rathin Dandapath and ors. 2015 Cri.L.J. 4488 view
     AIR 2013 SC 313 view
     State of T.N. Vs v. Krishnaswami Naidu, (1979) 4 SCC 5 view
     Sundeep Kumar Bafna Vs State of Maharashtra, AIR 2014 SC 1745 view
     Khatri And ors Vs State of Bihar 1981 SCC (1) 627 view
     Mr. Uday Mohan Acharya Vs St of Maharashtra 2001 Cr.L.J. 4563 view
     UoI Vs Nirala Yadav AIR 2014 SC 3036 view
     Bhikam Chandra Jain Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors (2013) 3 SCC 77 view
     Moti Ram & Ors v State of MP AIR 1978 SC 1594 view
     Rajeev Chaudhary vs St NCT of Delhi AIR 2001 SC 2369 view
  Section 190 of CrPC 
     Hira Lal and Ors V State of UP and Ors AIR 2009 SC 2380 view
  Section 197 of CrPC Protection to Public Servants Against Prosecution 
     Nagraj Vs. State of Mysore AIR 1964 SC 269 view
     Shiv Bachan Singh vs St of Jharkhand and ors. W.P. (Cr.) No. 186 of 2010 view
     AR Antulay vs RS Nayak & Ors 1988 2 SCC 602 view
     B Saha & Ors v MS Kochar 1979 4 SCC 177 view
     Bhagwan Prasad Srivastava v NP Mishra AIR 1970 SC 1661 view
     Dhannjay Ram Sharma v MS Uppadaya & Ors AIR 1960 SC 74 view
     HHB Gill & Anr v The King AIR 1948 PC 128 view
     KN Shukla v Navnit Lal Manilal Bhat & Anr 1967 CriLJ 1200 SC view
     Lalu Prasad Yadav V State of Bihar 2007 1 SCC 49 view
     Matajog Dobey v H C Bhari AIR 1956 SC 44 view
     Parkash Singh Badal & Anr v St of Punjab & Ors 2007 1 SCC 1 view
     Prabhakar V Sinari v Shanker Anant Verlekar AIR 1969 SC 686 view
     Sankaran Moitra v Sadhna Das & Anr 2006 4 SCC 584 view
     St of Orissa & Ors v Ganesh Chandra Jew 2004 8 SCC 40 view
  Section 203 of CrPC 
     Adalat Prasad Vs Rooplal Jindal & Ors 2004 7 SCC 388 view
  Section 207 of CrPC 
     Noor Khan v St of Rajasthan AIR 1964 SC 286 view
  Section 209 of CrPC - Committal Procedure 
     Chhotan Saw and Ors vs St of Bihar AIr 2014 SC 907 view
     Kishun Singh and Ors Vs St of Bihar (1993) 2 SCC 16 view
     Lallan Chaudhary and Ors v St of Bihar AIR2006SC3376 view
     Sudhir & ors etc V State of MP etc 2001 2 SCC 688 view
  Section 306 of CrPC - Approver 
     Delhi Admn Vs Jagit Singh AIR 1989 SC 598 view
  Section 309 CrPC 
     State of U.P. Vs. Shambhu Nath Singh & ors. AIR 2001 SC 1403 view
     Lt Col SJ Chaudhary v St Delhi Admin AIR 1984 SC 618 view
  Section 311 CrPC 
     AG Vs Shive Kumar Yadav, 2015 Cri. L.J. 4640 (SC) view
     Shailendra Kumar v State of Bihar & Ors AIR 2002 SC 270 view
  Section 313 of CrPC 
     Basavaraj R Patil & Ors v St of Karnataka & Ors AIR 2000 SC 3214 view
     Ganesh Gogoi Versus State of Assam CDJ 2009 SC 1348 view
     Lallu Manjhi & Anr v St of Jharkhand 2003 2 SCC 401 view
     Naval Kishore Singh v St of Bihar 2004 7 SCC 502 view
  Section 319 of CrPC 
     Hardeep Singh etc. Vs. State of Punjab and ors. Etc. (2014) 3 SSC 92 view
     AIR 2015 SC view
     Hardeep Singh Vs St of Punjab and Ors AIR 2014 SC 1400 view
     Dilawar Singh Vs Parvinder Singh CDJ 2009 SC 1348 view
     Ganesh Lal Vs State of Rajasthan 2002 SCC Crl 247 view
     Rakesh Vs State of Haryana AIR 2001 SC 2521 view
     Ranjit Singh v St of Punjab AIR 1998 SC 3148 view
     Shashikant Singh Vs Tarkeshwar Singh AIR 2002 SC 2031 view
  Section 320 of CrPC 
     Rumi Dhar vs State of West Bengal & Anr CDJ 2009 SC 1348 view
  Section 327 of CrPC 
     State of Punjab Vs. Gurmit Singh & Ors AIR 1996 SC 1393 view
  Section 340 CrPC 
     N Natarajan vs B K Subbarao AIR 2003 SC 541 view
     St of AP vs V Sarma Rao & Ors Etc AIR 2007 SC 137 view
  Section 357 CrPC 
     R. Mohan Vs A.K. Vijaya Kumar, 2012 (8) SCC 721 view
     R. Vijayan Vs baby 2000 (1) SCC 260 view
     Dhanu Ram Soren @ Bali Ram Soren Vs St of Jharkhand Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 173 of 2013 view
     Gopi Nath ghosh vs State of Jharkhand & Anr. W.P. (PIL) No. 2584 of 2011 view
     Monohar Singh vs State of Rajasthan, AIR 2015 SC 1124 view
     State of M.P. Vs Mehtab, 2015 (5) SCC 197 view
     Mojib Ansari & Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand Cr. Appeal No. 1089 of 2004 view
     St of Haryana Vs Sukhbir Singh AIR 1998 SC 1927 view
     Balraj Vs St of U.P. AIR 1995 SC 1935 view
  Section 389 CrPC 
     Atul tripathi Vs State of U.P. (2014) 9 SCC 177: 2014 AIR SCW 4326 view
     Lalsai Khunte V Nirmal Sinha and Ors 2007 9 SCC 330 view
     Navjot Singh Sidhu V State of Punjab and Anr AIR 2007 SC 1003 view
     Sanjay Dutt V St of Maharashtra Tr CBI Bombay 2009 5 SCC 787 view
     Narayan Das V The State of Jharkhand view
  Section 406 of CrPC 
     K Anbazhagan Vs The Superintendent of Police AIR 2004 SC 524 view
     Zahira Habibullah Sheikh & Anr v St of Gujarat AIR 2004 SC 3467 view
  Section 433 A 
     Ramraj @ Nanhoo @ Bihnu Vs State of Chhattisgarh AIR 2010 SC 420 view
  Section 452 of CrPC 
     Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs State of Gujarat AIR 2003 SC 638 view
  Section 468 Limitation 
     Japani Sahoo Vs Chandra Sekhar Mohanty AIR 2007 SC 2762 view
  Section 482 of CrPC 
     Dr. S.R. Malusare Vs St of Jharkhand and ors (2012) 3 JLJR 366 view
     Nasim ansari Vs State of Jharkhand and ors (2013) 1 JCR 357 Jhr view
     Mohan Lal & Anr V Ajit Singh & Anr 1978 3 SCC 279 view
     Neelu Chopra & Anr V Bharti 2009 13 SCALE 313 view
     Ram Singh V Sonia & Ors AIR 2007 SC 1218 view
     St of Maharashtra Vs Salman Salim Khan & Anr 2003 10 SCALE 1041 view
     St of Rajasthan Vs Kashi Ram AIR 2007 SC 144 view
  Sentencing 
     Haru Ghosh Vs State of West Bengal JT 2009 (11)SC 240 view
     Kamalanantha & Ors V State of Tamil Nadu AIR 2005 SC 2132 view
     Muniappan v St of TN AIR 1981 SC 1220 view
     Phul Singh V State Of Haryana 1979 4 SCC 413 view
     Ram Deo Chauhan & Raj Nath Chauhan v St of Assam AIR 2000 SC 2679 view
     Ram Deo Chauhan @ Raj Nath V St of Assam 2001 5 SCC 714 view
     Ramraj @ Nanhoo @ Bihnu v State of Chhattisgarh 2009 14 SCALE 533 view
     Rang Bahadur Singh & Ors vs St of UP AIR 2000 SC 1209 view
     Rattan Singh Vs St of Punjab 1979 4 SCC 719 view
     Shailesh Jasvanthbhai & Anr vs St of Gujarat & Ors 2006 2 SCC 359 view
     Siddarama & Ors Vs State of Karnataka AIR 2006 SC 3265 view
     St of MP vs Munna Choubey & Anr AIR 2005 SC 682 view
     St of UP vs Ram Veer Singh & Ors AIR2007SC3075 view
     State of Karnataka V Raju 2007 11 SCALE 114 view
     The State of Karnataka Vs Krishnappa 2000 2 SCALE 610 view
     State of M.P. Vs Bala @ Balaram AIR2005SC3567 view
     State of Madhya Pradesh Vs Balu AIR2005SC222 view
     State of Madhya Pradesh Vs Ghanshyam Singh AIR2003SC3191 view
     State of MP V Sheikh Shahid JT 2009 8 SC 277 view
     State of Punjab Vs Prem Sagar and Ors 2008CriLJ3533 view
     Surja Ram Vs State of Rajasthan AIR1997SC18 view
     State SP through CBI vs Nalini & anr 1999 5 SCC 253 view
     Surjit Singh v Nahara Ram & Anr 2004 6 SCC 513 view
     Swamy Shraddananda @ Murali Manohar Mishra V State of Karnataka AIR 2008 SC 3040 view
  Tender of Pardon 
     Bipin Behari Sarkar & Anr V St of West Bengal AIR 1959 SC 13 view
     Konajeti Rajababu V St of AP & Anr 2002 CriLJ 2990 view
     Lt Commander Pascal Fernandes V St of Maharashtra & Ors AIR 1968 SC 594 view
     Rameshwar V The State of Rajasthan AIR 1952 SC 54 view
     Sardar Iqbal Singh Vs State Delhi Admn & Ors 1977 4 SCC 536 view
     Sitaram Sao @ Mungeri Vs St of Jharkhand AIR 2008 SC 391 view
     St of AP V Cheemalapati Ganeswara Rao & Anr AIR 1963 SC 1850 view
     Subramania Goundan V The State of Madras AIR 1958 SC 66 view
     Suresh Chandra Bahri V St of Bihar with Gurbachan Singh AIR 1994 SC 2420 view
  Extradiction 
     Bhavesh Jayanti Lakhani V St of Maharashtra and Ors 2009 9 SCC 551 view
     Daya Singh Lahoria Vs Union of India AIR 2001 SC 1716 view
     Sarabjit Rick Singh Vs UOI 2008 2 SCC 417 view
  IPC Common Intention 
     Gurpreet Singh Vs St of Punjab AIR 2006 SC 191 view
  IPC Common Object 
     Bhagwan Singh and Ors V State of MP 2002 4 SCC 85 view
     Pandurang Chandrakant Mhatre and Ors V State of Maharashtra 2009 10 SCC 773 view
  IPC Death Sentence 
     Panchhi and Ors v St of UP AIR 1998 SC 2726 view
     Shivu and Anr Vs RG High Court of Karnataka and Anr 2007 3 SCALE 157 view
  Dowry Demand - Cruelty/Death 
     Mangat Ram vs. State of Hariyana AIR 2014 SC 1782 view
     AIR 2014 SC 2561 view
     Appasaheb & Anr v St of Maharashtra AIR 2007 SC 763 view
     Arun Vyas & Anr v Anita Vyas AIR 1999 SC 2071 view
     Govindaraju V State of Karnataka JT 2009 7 SC 521 view
     Hem Chand v St of Haryana 1994 6 SCC 727 view
     Kans Raj v St of Punjab & Ors 2000 5 SCC 207 view
     Kundula Bala Subrahmanyam & Anr v St of AP 1993 CrLJ 1635 SC view
     M Srinivasulu V St of AP AIR 2007 SC 3146 view
     Raja Lal Singh V St of Jharkhand 2007 CrLJ 3262 SC view
     Ram Badan Sharma v St of Bihar AIR 2006 SC 2855 view
     Ramesh Kumar v St of Chhattisgarh 2001 9 SCC 618 view
     Reema Aggarwal v Anupam & Ors 2004 3 SCC 199 view
     Sasikumar V The State of TN 2009 7 SCALE 444 view
     Satvir Singh & Ors v St of Punjab & Anr AIR 2001 SC 2828 view
     Shanti & Anr v St of Haryana 1991 1 SCC 371 view
     Soni Devrajbhai Babubhai v St of Gujarat & Ors 1991 4 SCC 298 view
     St of Karnataka v MV Manjunathegowda & Anr AIR 2003 SC 809 view
     State of West Bengal v Orilal Jaiswal & Anr 1994 1 SCC 73 view
     Suresh Kumar Singh V State of U.P 2009 7 SCALE 629 view
     Trimukh Maroti Kirkan V St of Maharashtra 2007 CriLJ 20 SC view
  Murder/Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder 
     Amrit Singh V St of Punjab AIR 2007 SC 132 view
     Balkar Singh v St of Uttarakhand 2009 CrLJ 2980 SC view
     D Sailu Vs State of AP AIR 2008 SC 505 view
     Gurmail Singh Vs State of Punjab AIR 1982 SC 1466 view
     Manilal Mohanlal Shah and Ors V Sardar Sayed Ahmed Sayed Mahamad and Anr AIR 1954 SC 349 view
     Manubhai Atabhai V St of Gujarat AIR 2007 SC 2437 view
     Naresh Giri Vs State of MP 2007 13 SCALE 7 view
     Rathnashalvan V State of Karnataka 2007 3 SCC 474 view
     Shaik Mastan Vali V State of AP 2007 9 SCC 342 view
     St of Rajasthan V Chittarmal 2007 8 SCALE 659 view
     State of Haryana V Jagat Paul & Ors 2007 8 SCALE 625 view
     State of UP Vs Indrajeet @ Sukhatha AIR 2000 SC 3158 view
     Vadla Chandraiah V St of AP 2006 14 SCALE 108 view
  Section 120B 
     Ajay Agarwal V UOI AIR 1992 SC 1637 view
     Chaman Lal and Ors V St of Punjab AIR 2009 SC 2972 view
     Harihar Prasad etc v St of Bihar 19723 SCC 89 view
     Suman Sood @ Kamal Jeet Kaur V State of Rajasthan AIR 2007 SC 2774 view
  Section 193 and 344 IPC 
     M S Sheriff v The State of Madras and Ors AIR 1954 SC 397 view
  Section 306 IPC 
     Dabloo Linda Vs The St of Jharkhand, 2013 (1) JLJR 511 view
     Mankamma V State of Kerala 2009 13 SCALE 367 view
  Section 376 
     State of UP V Manoj Kumar Pandey 2009 1 SCC 72 view
  Unsound Mind 
     Jagdish V St of MP 2009 12 SCALE 580 view
JUVENILE JUSTICE 
  Borstal School Act - Section 10A 
     Balu @ Bakthvatchalu Vs St of Tamil Nadu AIR 2008 SC 1434 view
  Determination of Age of Juvenility 
     Jitendra Ram @ Jitu Vs St of Jharkhand AIR 2006 SC 1933 view
     Jyoti Prakash Rai @ Jyoti Prakash Vs St of Bihar AIR 2008 SC 1696 view
     Pratap Singh Vs St of Jharkhand AIR 2005 SC 2731 view
     Ram Deo Chauhan @ Raj Nath Vs St of Assam AIR 2001 SC 2231 view
     Ravinder Singh Gorkhi Vs State of UP AIR 2006 SC 2157 view
     Surinder Singh and Anr Vs State of UP AIR 2003 SC 3811 view
     Vikram Singh Vs St of Haryana 2009 6 SCALE 726 view
     Vimal Chadha Vs Vikas Choudhary and Ors 2008 8 SCALE 608 view
  Juvenile Justice Act 
     Om Prakash vs St of Rajasthan and ors. (2012) 5 SCC 201 view
     2015 (2) JLJR SC 367 view
     Arnit Das Vs St of Bhiar AIR 2000 SC 2264 view
     Jameel Vs St of Maharashtra AIR 2007 SC 971 view
     Rajinder Chandra Vs St of Chhattisgarh & Anr AIR 2002 SC 748 view
     Babloo Pasi Vs St of Jharkhand 2008 13 SCALE 137 view
     Hari Ram Vs St of Rajasthan & Anr 2009 6 SCALE 695 view
     Bijender Singh Vs St of Haryana & anr AIR 2005 SC 2262 view
     Eerati Laxman Vs St of AP 2009 1 SCALE 41 view
     Ranjit Singh Vs St of Haryana 2009 1 SCALE 586 view
     Sidharth etc Vs State of Bihar AIR 2005 SC 4352 view
  Plea of Juvenility 
     Munney @ Rahat Jan Khan Vs St of UP AIR 2006 SC 2902 view
     Pawan Vs St of Uttaranchal 2009 3 SCALE 195 view
     Satbir Singh and Ors Vs State of Haryana AIR 2005 SC 3546 view
     Satish @ Dhanna Vs St of MP and ors AIR 2009 SC 2643 view
PROBATION OF OFFENDERS ACT 1958 
     Central Excise, Bangalore Vs. Bahubali AIR 1979 SC 1271 view
     Sudesh Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand AIR 2008 SC 1120 view
NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT 
  Delay in Forwarding Samples 
     Hardip Singh V St of Punjab 2008 11 SCALE 513 view
  NDPS Act - Section 42 
     Karnail Singh V State of Haryana 2009 8 SCC 539 view
  Search of a Person/of an Enclosed Place/in a Public Place 
     Abdul Rashid Ibrahim Mansuri v St of Gujarat 2000 2 SCC 513 view
     Ahmed v St of Gujarat 2000 7 SCC 477 view
     Bharatbhai Bhagwanjibhai v St of Gujarat 2002 8 SCC 327 view
     Dadu @ Tulsidas Vs State of Maharashtra AIR 2000 SC 3203 view
     E Michelraj v NCB Tiruvandrum AIR 2008 SC 1720 view
     Ganga Bahadur Thapa v St of Goa 2000 10 SCC 312 view
     Jawahar Singh @ Bhagat Ji Vs St of GNCT of Delhi AIR 2009 SC 2391 view
     Joseph Fernandez v State of Goa 2000 1 SCC 707 view
     Kalema Tumba v St of Maharashtra & Anr 1999 8 SCC 257 view
     Kanhaiya Lal v State of MP 2000 10 SCC 380 view
     Krishna Kanwar @ Thakuraeen v St of Rajasthan 2004 2 SCC 608 view
     Madan Lal & Anr v St of HP 2003 7 SCC 465 view
     Manohar Lal v St of Rajasthan 1996 11 SCC 391 view
     Narayanaswamy Ravishankar Vs Asst Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence AIR2002SC3658 view
     Pon Adithan v Dy Dir Narcotics Control Bureau Madras 1999 6 SCC 1 view
     Raghbir Singh v St of Haryana 1996 CrLJ 1694 view
     Satyabalan Vs State of Kerala & Ors CDJ 2004 SC 792 view
     St of Punjab v Baldev Singh 1999 6 SCC 172 view
     St of Punjab v Surinder Rani alias Chhindi 2000 10 SCC 429 view
     State of Punjab v Balbir Singh AIR 1994 SC 1872 view
     T T Haneefa v St of Kerala 2004 AIR SCW 3300 view
     UOI & Ors v LD Balam Singh 2002 9 SCC 73 view
  Section 50 of NDPS Act 
     Gurbax Singh v State of Haryana AIR 2001 SC 1002 view
     Sajan Abraham v St of Kerala AIR 2001 SC 3190 view
  Section 54 
     Noor Aga V St of Punjab and Anr 2008 9 SCALE 681 view
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION 
  Discharge 
     RS Nayak Vs AR Antulay and Anr AIR 1986 SC 2045 view
  Disproportionate Assets 
     R Janakiraman vs State rep by Inspector of Police AIR 2006 SC 1106 view
  Illegal Gratification 
     Chaturdas Bhagwandas Patel Vs The State of Gujarat AIR1976SC1497 view
     CI Emden Vs State of Uttar Pradesh AIR1960SC548 view
     Madhukar Bhaskarrao Joshi V State of Maharashtra 2001 CriLJ 175 view
  Sanction 
     State of TN v Damodaran AIR 1992 SC 563 view
     State through IP AP v K Narasimhachary AIR 2006 SC 628 view
     State of HP v MP Gupta 2004 2 SCC 349 view
SC AND ST ACT 
  Prevention of Atrocities 
     Gangula Ashok & Anr v State of AP AIR 2000 SC 740 view
     Lunaram V Bhupat Singh and Ors 2009 3 SCC 749 view
EVIDENCE ACT 
  Admission 
     Seth Ramdayal Jat Vs Laxmi Prasad AIR 2009 SC 2463 view
  Alibi 
     Munshi Prasad and Ors Vs State of Bihar AIR 2001 SC 3031 view
  Approver Evidence 
     State Delhi Admn vs Jagjit Singh AIR 1989 SC 598 view
  CHILD WITNESS 
     Dattu Ramrao Sakhare and Ors v St of Maharashtra 1997 5 SCC 341 view
    Himmat Sukhadeo Wahurwagh and Ors Vs St Of Maharashtha AIR 2009 SC 2292 view
  COMPEL TO UNDERGO MEDICAL EXAMINATION 
    Sharda Vs Dharampal 2003 2 CTC 760 view
  CRIME SCENE MAP 
    Santa Singh v The State of Punjab AIR 1956 SC 526 view
    Tori Singh v The State of UP AIR 1962 SC 399 view
  DYING DECLARATION 
    Anil Prakash Shukla V Arvind Shukla 2007 6 SCALE 367 view
    Cherlopalli Cheliminabi Saheb & Anr Vs St of AP AIR 2003 SC 1014 view
    Laxman Vs State of Maharastra AIR 2002 SC 2973 view
    Sayarabano @ Sultanabegum V St of Maharashtra 2007 CriLJ 1458 view
    Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v St of Maharashtra AIR 1984 SC 1622 view
    Sharda Vs State of Rajasthan AIR 2010 SC 408 view
    Sher Singh Vs State of Punjab AIR 2008 SC 1426 view
    State of Tamil Nadu Versus Karuppasamy AIR 2009 SC 948 view
    Sukanti Moharana vs State of Orissa 2009 10 SCALE 246 view
  FALSUS IN UNO FALSUS IN OMNIBUS 
    Animireddy Venkata Ramana and Ors V Public Prosecutor HC of AP 2008 5 SCC 368 view
    Bhagwan Tana Patil v St of Maharashtra AIR 1974 SC 21 view
    Dalbir Singh and Ors v St of Punjab AIR 1987 SC 1328 view
    Jakki at Selvaraj and Anr v St rep by IP Coimbatore 2007 CrLJ 1671 SC view
    State of UP v Anil Singh AIR 1988 SC 1998 view
    State of UP v Shanker AIR 1981 SC 897 view
    Ugar Ahir and Ors v St of Bihar AIR 1965 SC 277 view
  HOSTILE WITNESS 
    Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakker v St of Gujarat AIR 1964 SC 1563 view
    Gurpreet Singh v St of Haryana AIR 2002 SC 3217 view
    Jamatraj Kewalji Govani v St of Maharashtra AIR 1968 SC 178 view
    Karuppanna Thevar and Ors v St of TN AIR 1976 SC 980 view
    Khujji alias Surendra Tiwari v St of MP AIR 1991 SC 1853 view
    Raghunandan v St of UP AIR 1974 SC 463 view
    Ram Chander v St of Haryana AIR 1981 SC 1036 view
    Sat Paul v Delhi Administration AIR 1976 SC 294 view
    Shri Rabindra Kumar Dey v St of Orissa AIR 1977 SC 170 view
    Swaran Singh v State of Punjab 2000 4 SCALE 153 view
    Varkey Joseph v St of Kerala rep by Circle Ins of Police AIR 1993 SC 1892 view
  IDENTIFICATION 
    Budhsen & Anr V State of UP AIR 1970 SC 1321 view
    D Gopalakrishnan Vs Sadanand Naik AIR 2004 SC 4965 view
    Heera and Anr Vs St of Rajasthan AIR 2007 SC 2425 view
    State of UP V Sukhpal Singh and Ors 2009 4 SCC 385 view
  INJURIES ON THE ACCUSED 
    Bhaba Nanda Sarma and Ors v State of Assam AIR 1977 SC 2252 view
    Hare Krishna Singh and Ors v State of Bihar AIR 1988 SC 863 view
    Jagdish v State of Rajasthan AIR 1979 SC 1010 view
    Lakshmi Singh and Ors v State of Bihar AIR 1976 SC 2263 view
    Ram Sunder Yadav and Ors v The State of Bihar AIR 1998 SC 3117 view
  INSANITY 
    Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakker V State of Gujarat AIR1964SC1563 view
  INTERESTED WITNESS/CHANCE WITNESS 
     Bahal Singh v St of Haryana AIR 1976 SC 2032 view
    Dalip Singh and Ors v St of Punjab AIR 1953 SC 364 view
    Guli Chand and Ors v St of Rajasthan 1974 3 SCC 698 view
    Hari Obula Reddy and Ors v St of AP AIR 1981 SC 82 view
    Hari Ram v St of UP 2004 8 SCC 146 view
    Sarwan Singh and Ors v St of Punjab AIR 1976 SC 2304 view
    Seeman at Veeranam v St by Inspector of Police 2005 11 SCC 142 view
    St of Rajasthan v Kalki and Anr AIR 1981 SC 1390 view
    St of Rajasthan v Teja Ram and Ors 1999 3 SCC 507 view
    Vadivelu Thevar v St of Madras AIR 1957 SC 614 view
  JUDICIAL AND EXTRA - JUDICIAL CONFESSION 
     Ajay Singh v St of Maharashtra AIR 2007 SC 2188 view
    Babubhai Udesinh Parmar V State of Gujarat AIR 2007 SC 420 view
    Bishnu Prasad Sinha & Anr vs St of Assam AIR 2007 SC 848 view
    Francis Stanly @ Stalin v NCB Thiruvananthapuram AIR 2007 SC 794 view
    Raj Kumar Karwal Versus Union of India AIR 1991 SC 45 view
    Shiva Karam Payaswami Tewari V St of Maharashtra 2009 1 SCALE 717 view
    Sivakumar vs St of Inspector of Police AIR2006SC653 view
  LEADING QUESTIONS 
     Varkey Joseph Vs State of Kerala rep by Circle IP AIR1993SC1892 view
  OCCULAR EVIDENCE DISCRIPANCIES 
    Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai Vs State of Gujarat AIR 1983 SC 753 view
    Rameshwar Vs State of Rajasthan AIR 1952 SC 54 view
    St of Himachal Pradesh v Lekh Raj & Anr 2000 1 SCC 247 view
    State of Gujarat v Raghunath Vamanrao Baxi AIR 1985 SC 1092 view
  PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENT 
    Khatri vs State of Bihar AIR 1981 SC 1068 view
  PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL 
    Agricultural produce marketing Committee vs Bananamma AIR 2014 (SC) 3000 view
    Pratima Choudhary vs. Kalpana Mukharjee and others AIR 2014 SC 1304 view
    Express Newspapers Pvt Ltd & Ors vs UOI and Ors 1986 1 SCC 133 view
    Mukund Swarup Mishra vs UOI and ors 2007 2 SCC 536 view
    Pine Chemicals Ltd & Ors vs Assessing Authority and Ors 1992 2 SCC 683 view
    Promoters & Builders Association of Pune vs Pune Municipal Corporation & Ors 2007 6 SCC 143 view
    St of Karnataka and Anr vs K K Mohandas and Ors 2007 6 SCC 484 view
    UOI vs Ganesh Rice Mills and Anr 1998 9 SCC 630 view
    UP Power Corporation Ltd and Anr vs Sant Steels and Alloys P Ltd and Ors MANU SC 4602 2007 view
  PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT 
     Harijana Thirupala & Ors v PP HC AP 2002 6 scc 470 view
    Inder Singh & Anr v St Delhi Admn 1978 4 SCC 161 view
     Krishna Mochi & Ors v St of Bihar 2002 6 SCC 81 view
     Maqsoodan & Ors v St of UP AIR 1983 SC 126 view
    Masalti v State of UP AIR 1965 SC 202 view
    Sardul Singh & Jagtar Singh v St of Haryana 2002 8 SCC 372 view
    Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr v St of Maharashtra AIR 1973 SC 2622 view
    St of West Bengal v Orilal Jaiswal & Anr 1994 1 SCC 73 view
    Sucha Singh and Anr v St of Punjab AIR 2003 SC 3617 view
  RAPE VICTIM 
    Delhi Domestic Working Womens Forum vs UOI and Ors 1995 1 SCC 14 view
    Sakshi vs UOI and Ors 2004 5 SCC 518 view
     St of Punjab vs Gurmit Singh and Ors 1996 2 SCC 384 view
  RIGOR MORTIS 
    Baso Prasad & Ors v St of Bihar AIR 2007 SC 1019 view
  SCIENTIFIC/EXPERT EVIDENCE 
    Bhagwandas v St of Rajasthan AIR 1957 SC 589 view
    Lalit Popli v Canara Bank & Ors 2003 3 SCC 583 view
    Mohan Lal & Anr v Ajit Singh & Anr AIR 1978 SC 1183 view
    St (Delhi Admin) v Pali Ram AIR 1979 SC 14 view
    St of AP v Madiga Boosena & Ors AIR 1967 SC 1550 view
    St of HP v Jai Lal & Ors 1999 7 SCC 280 view
    St of Maharashtra v Sukhdeo Singh & anr 1992 3 SCC 700 view
    St of UP v Harban Sahai & Ors JT 1998 3 SC 443 view
    State thro CBI New Delhi Vs SJ Choudhary AIR 1996 SC 1491 view
  SECONDARY EVIDENCE 
    Kalyan Singh Vs Smt Chhoti & Ors AIR 2007 SC 1019 view
  SECTION 6 
    Narbada Devi Gupta V Birendra Kumar Jaiswal and Anr 2003 8 SCC 745 view
  SECTION 27 
    Amitsingh Bhikamsing Thakur v St of Maharashtra AIR 2007 SC 676 view
    Geejaganda Somaiah v St of Karnataka AIR 2007 SC 1355 view
    Himachal Pradesh Administration Vs Om Prakash AIR 1972 SC 975 view
    Khujji alias Surendra Tiwari v St of MP AIR 1991 SC 1853 view
    Pulukuri Kotayya & Ors Vs King Emperor 1947 LR 74 IA 65 view
    Sanjay @ Kaka etc v St NCT of Delhi AIR 2001 SC 979 view
    St of HP v Jeet Singh AIR 1999 SC 1293 view
    St of UP v Deoman Upadhyaya AIR 1960 SC 1125 view
    State of Maharashtra v Damu 2000(4)SCALE8 view
    Suresh Chandra Bahri v St of Bihar AIR 1994 SC 2420 view
  SECTION 165 
    Raghunandan v State of UP AIR 1974 SC 463 view
    Ram Chander v State of Haryana AIR 1981 SC 1036 view
  SOLITARY WITNESS 
    Harijan Megham Jesha vs State of Gujarat AIR1979SC1566 view
    Karamjit Singh v State Delhi Administration 2003 5 SCC 291 view
    Lallu Manjhi & Anr v St of Jharkhand 2003 2 SCC 401 view
    Nathusingh v State of MP AIR 1973 SC 2783 view
    Thangaiya v St of TN 2005 9 SCC 650 view
  SUDDEN PROVOCATION 
    Jagat Singh Vs State of Punjab 1994 2 SCALE 963 view
  TAPE RECORDED CONVERSATION 
    N Sri Rama Reddy etc v V V Giri AIR 1971 SC 1162 view
    Ram Singh & Ors v Ram Singh AIR 1986 SC 3 view
    RM Malkani v State of Maharashtra AIR 1973 SC 157 view
    S Pratap Singh v The State of Punjab AIR 1964 SC 72 view
    Tukaram S Dighole V Manikrao Shivaji Kokate 2010 2 SCALE 109 view
    Yusufalli Esmail Nagree v State of Maharashtra AIR 1968 SC 147 view
    Ziyauddin Burhanuddin Bukhari v Brijmohan Ramdass Mehra & Ors AIR 1975 SC 1788 view
  TESTIMONY OF POLICE 
    Tahir Vs State Delhi AIR 1996 SC 3079 view
  T.I.P 
    Arun Kumar Varma & ors vs St of Jharkhand (2016) 2 JBCJ 310 HC view
JUDGEMENT WRITING 
     Alok Kumar Roy v Dr SN Sarma & Anr AIR 1968 SC 453 view
     Amina Ahmed Dossa & Ors v St of Maharashtra AIR 2001 SC 656 view
     Balraj Taneja & Anr v Sunil Madan & Anr AIR 1999 SC 3381 view
     Bhupinder Sharma v St of Himachal Pradesh AIR 2003 SC 4684 view
     Lattu Mahto Vs State of Bihar 2008 8 SCC 395 view
     RC Sharma v UOI & Ors AIR 1976 SC 2037 view
     Surendra Singh & Ors v St of UP AIR 1954 SC 194 view
     Swaran Lata Ghosh v HK Banerjee & Ors AIR 1969 SC 1167 view
MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988 
  Act Liability 
     Munna lal Jain Vs Vipin Kumar Sharma, (2015) 6 SCC 347 view
     National Insurance Co Ltd Vs Prembai Patel Ors AIR 2005 SC 2337 view
  Appropriate Multiplier 
     New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Charlie & ors AIR 2005 SC 2157 view
     Smt Sarla Verma & Ors Vs Delhi Transport Corp & Anr 2009 6 SCC 121 view
     UP St Road Transport Corp & Ors Vs Trilo Chandra & Ors 1996 4 SCALE 522 view
  Child Victim - Appropriate Compensation 
     R K Malik and Anr V Kiran Pal and Ors AIR 2009 SC 2506 view
  Contributory Negligence 
     Bijoy Kumar Dugar Vs Bidyadhar Dutta AIR 2006 SC 1255 view
     The MD TNSTC Ltd Vs KI Bindu & Ors 2005 8 SCC 473 view
  Professional Negligence 
     Jacob Mathew V St of Punjab and Anr AIR 2005 SC 3180 view
     Malay Kumar Ganguly V Dr Sukumar Mukherjee and Ors 2009 9 SCC 221 view
  FAKE LICENCE 
     National Insurance Co Vs Kanti Devi AIR 2005 SC 2850 view
     New India Assurance Co Vs Kamla AIR 2001 SC 1419 view
  GENUINENESS OF THE LICENCE 
    United India Insurance Co Vs Anbari & Ors 2000 10 SCC 523 view
  HIRER LIABILITY 
    Rajasthan State Road Transport Co Vs Kailash Nath K AIR 1997 SC 3444 view
  JUST COMPENSATION 
    Oriental Insurance Co Ltd Vs Mohd Nasir & Anr 2009 6 SCC 280 view
    The Div Controller KSRTC Vs Mahadeva Shetty & Anr AIR 2003 SC 4172 view
  NO FAULT LIABLITY 
    Kaushnuma Begum and Ors V New India Assurance Co Ltd and Ors AIR 2001 SC 485 view
  PAY AND RECOVER 
    British India General Insurance Co Ltd v Captain Itbar Singh & Ors AIR 1959 SC 1331 view
    National Insurance Co Ltd v Challa Bharathamma & Ors 2004 8 SCC 517 view
    National Insurance Co Ltd v Swaran Singh & Ors AIR 2004 SC 1531 view
    National Insurance Co v Baljit Kaur & Ors AIR 2004 SC 1340 view
    National Insurance Co Vs Kusum & ors AIR 2006 SC 3440 view
    New India Assurance Co v Kamla AIR 2001 SC 1419 view
    Oriental Insurance Co Ltd Vs Nanjappan AIR 2004 SC 1630 view
   Pramod Kumar Agrawal Vs Mushtari Begum & Ors AIR 2004 SC 4360 view
  PLYING WITHOUT PERMIT 
    National Insurance Vs Challa Upendra Rao & Ors 2004 8 SCALE 90 view
  PREMIUM UNPAID 
    National Insurance Co Ltd Vs Seema Malhotra AIR 2001 SC 1197 view
  RASH AND NEGLIGENCE - IPC 427 
    Shakila Khader & Ors Vs Nausheer Cama & Ors AIR 1975 SC 1324 view
  SCHEME OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 
    Deepal Girishbhai Soni & Ors Vs United India Insurance Co AIR 2004 SC 2107 view
  SECTION 11 OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 
    Malla Prakasarao Vs Malla Janki 2004 3 SCC 343 view
  SECTIONS 92A AND 92B OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1939 
    National Insurance VS Jethu Ram & Ors 1999 9 SCC 62 view
  SECTION 149(2) 
    Sadhana Lodh V National Insurance Co Ltd and Anr 2003 3 SCC 524 view
  SECTION 163 A AND 166 OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 
    Deepal Girishbhai Soni & Ors v United India Insurance 2004 5 SCC 385 view
    The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd etc v Hansrajbhai V Kodala & Ors 2001 5 SCC 175 view
  SECTION 163A OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988 
    Ningamma & Anr v United India Insu Co Ltd AIR 2009 SC 3056 view
    Oriental Insurance Co Ltd Vs Hansrajbai V Kodala AIR 2001 SC 1832 view
  SECTION 170 OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 
    NIC Vs Meghji Naran Soratiya & Ors 2009 4 SCALE 50 view
  THIRD PARTY LIABILITY 
    United India Insurance Company Vs Lehru & Ors AIR 2003 SC 1292 view
  THIRD PARTY/PERSON/VEHICLE 
    Nandakumar v MD Thanthal Periyar Transport Corpn 1996 ACJ 555 SC view
    Mallawwa v The Oriental Insu Co Ltd & Ors 1999 1 SCC 403 view
    New India Assurance Co Ltd v Asha Rani & Ors 2003 3 SCC 223 view
    New India Assurance Co v Shri Satpal Singh & Ors 2000 ACJ 1 SC view
    Pushpabai Purshottam Udeshi & Ors v Ranjit Ginning & Pressing Co P Ltd & Anr AIR 1977 SC 1735 view
NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT 
  Account Closed 
     Jugesh Sehgal Versus Shamsher Singh Gogi 2009 9 SCALE 455 view
     Narayana Menon @ Mani-vs- St of Kerala AIR2006SC3366 view
  Cause Of Action 
     Sadanandan Bhadran v Madhavan Sunil Kumar 1998 6 SCC 514 view
  Civil Suit And Criminal Complaint No Resjudicata 
     Sh Vishnu Dutt Sharma Vs Smt Daya Sapra 2009 8 SCALE 698 view
  Complaint By Power Of Attorney 
     CG Praveen -Vs- Mohd Tajuddin CDJ 2009 SC 1188 view
     Shankar Finance and Investments vs St of AP 2008 10 SCALE 654 view
  Compounding The Offence 
     Rajendran Vs N Mohanan 2009 4 BomCR 206 view
  Default Sentence While Ordering Compensation 
     Vijayan Vs Sadanandan 2009 6 SCC 652 view
  Handwriting Expert 
     G Someshwar Rao Vs Samineni Nageshwar Rao 2009 10 SCALE 268 view
  Legally Enforceable Debt-Burden of Proof 
     Balaji Seafoods Exports (I) Ltd Vs MAC Industries 1999 1 CTC 6 view
     Hiten P Dalal v Bratindranath Banerjee 2001 6 SCC 16 view
     KN Beena v Muniyappan & anr AIR 2001 SC 2895 view
  Limitation 
     Munoth Investments Ltd Vs Puttukola Properties Ltd & anr AIR 2001 SC 2752 view
     Saketh India Ltd & ors v India Securities Ltd AIR 1999 SC 1090 view
  Notice 
     CC Alavi Haji v Palapetty Muhammed & Anr 2007 6 SCC 555 view
     Jagdish Singh v Natthu Singh AIR 1992 SC 1604 view
     KR Indira v Dr G Adinarayana 2003 8 SCC 300 view
     State of MP v Hiralal & Ors 1996 7 SCC 523 view
     V Raja Kumari v P Subbarama Naidu & Anr 2004 8 SCC 774 view
  Person In Charge Of The Company 
     KK Ahuja Vs VK Vora 2009 9 SCALE 87 view
     KPG Nair Vs Jindal Menthol India Ltd 2001 10 SCC 218 view
     National Small Industries Corp Ltd V Harmeet Singh Paintal and Anr MANU SC 0112 2010 view
     NK Wahi Vs Shekhar Singh AIR 2007 SC 1454 view
  Post Dated Cheque 
     Shri Ishar Alloy Steels Ltd v Jayaswals NECO Ltd view
  Prosecution Of A Company 
     Anil Hada Vs Indian Acrylic Ltd AIR 2000 SC 145 view
  Prosecution Of A Sick Industry 
     Kusum Ingots Alloys Ltd Vs Pennar Peterson Ltd AIR 2000 SC 954 view
  Scope Of Section 138 
     D Vinod Shivappa v Nanda Belliappa 2006 AIR SCW 2757 view
     Goa Plast P Ltd v Chico Ursula D Souza 2004 2 SCC 235 view
     Modi Cements Ltd v Shri Kuchil Kumar Nandi AIR 1998 SC 1057 view
     NEPC Micon Ltd & Ors v Magma Leasing Ltd AIR 1999 SC 1952 view
     Prem Chand Vijay Kumar v Yashpal Singh & Anr 2005 4 SCC 417 view
  SECTION 118 A OF NI ACT 
     Bharat Barrel & Drum Manu Co Vs Amirchand Pyarelal AIR 1999 SC 1008 view
  SENTENCING-POWER OF A MAGISTRATE 
    Pankajbhai Nagji Bhai Patel Vs St of Gujarat AIR 2001 SC 567 view
  STANDARD OF PROOF-PRESUMPTION 
    Krishna Janardhan Bhat Vs Dattatharaya Hegde AIR 2008 SC 1325 view
  STOP PAYMENT 
    MMTC Ltd & Anr Vs Medchl Chemicals & Pharma Pvt Ltd 2001 8 SCALE 191 view
  TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION 
    K Bhaskaran Vs Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan & Anr AIR 1999 SC 3762 view
  VICARIOUS LIABILITY/a> 
    Ramrajsingh Vs State of MP 2009 5 SCALE 670 view
    SMS Pharmacheuticals Ltd Vs Neeta Bhalla 2007 3 SCALE 245 view
  RECONSTRUCTION OF RECORDS 
    978 State of UP V Abhai Raj Singh & Anr 2004 4 SCC 6 view
  RECONSTRUCTION OF RECORDS 
    978 State of UP V Abhai Raj Singh & Anr 2004 4 SCC 6 view
Court Fees Act 
     Commercial Aviation and Travel Co and Ors v Vimla Pannalal AIR 1988 SC 1636 view
     Sathappa Chettiar v Ramanathan Chettiar AIR 1958 SC 245 view
     Shamsher Singh v Rajinder Prashad and Ors AIR 1973 SC 2384 view
     Tara Devi v Sri Thakur Radha Krishna Maharaj AIR 1987 SC 2085 view
Easement Act 
     Hero Vinoth minor Vs Seshammal AIR 2006 SC 2234 view
Insolvency Act 
     Venkata Reddi and Ors V Pothi Reddi AIR 1963 SC 992 view
Intellectual Property Copy Right 
     Eastern Book Co & Ors Vs DB Modak & Anr AIR 2008 SC 809 view
     Entertainment Network (I) Ltd Vs Super Cassette Indust 2008 9 SCALE 69 view
     Gramophone Company of India Ltd V Birendra Bahadur Pandey and Ors AIR 1984 SC 667 view
Domestic Violence Act 
     SR Batra & Anr V Smt Taruna Batra 2007 3 SCC 169 view
Environmental Protection 
     A Chowgule and Co Ltd V Goa Foundation and Ors 2008 11 SCALE 482 view
     MC Mehta and anr V UOI and ors AIR 1987 SC 1086 view

 

CIVIL

CPC S.11: Even an erroneous decision on the question of law attracts the provision of res Judicata. AIR 2015, SC 460

A suit is founded upon same cause of action which was foundation of former suit. Earlier suit for possession of entire property based on settlement deed. Later suit for partition was for plaintiff’s one half share in property based on her birth right. Cause of action is entirely different. Therefore suit for partition not hit by principle of res judicata. AIR 2016 SC 1134

Due Process of Law does not necessarily mean full fledged trial: Due process of law means that nobody ought to be condemned unheard. Due process means an opportunity to the defendant to file pleadings including written statement and documents before the Court of law. Due process of law is satisfied the moment rights of parties are adjudicated upon by a competent Court -Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes Vs. Erasmo Jack de Sequeira, AIR 2012 SC 1727

CPC S.34: Principal Sum Adjudged includes Capitalized interest But for agriculture capitalization be annual or 6 monthly -5 Judges AIR 2001 SC 3095 Central Bank Of India vs Ravindra And Ors.

C.P.C. O. 2 R 2: Since the reliefs are different in the two suits the provision of Order 2 rule 2 is not applicable in the given case. 2014(4) JLJR 550 (SC)

C.P.C. O. 7 R 11: Civil Court only see pleadings in plaint and not anything else including written statement – rejection of plaint on institutional grounds is different from dismissal of two at pretrial stage of ground of maintainability – for dismissal on preliminary issue, Court is entitled and liable to look into entire documents including those furnish by defendant Central Provident Fund commissioner, New Delhi Vs Lala J.R. Education society. (2016) 4 JBCJ 414 SC

C.P.C. O.12 R 6: Where defendant has raised objection which go to the root of case, it would not be appropriate to exercise the discretion under Rule VI Order 12. Said rule is an enabling provision which confers the discretion on the court in delivering a quick judgement on admission and to extent of claim of admitted by one of all the parties of his opponents claim. 2015 (3) JLJR 552 SC

C.P.C. O.14: Issue of limitation can’t be decided as a preliminary issue JLJR(3)449SC

C.P.C. O.18 R 2: Bar under Order 2 Rule 2 C.P.C. needs to be specifically pleaded by the defendant in the suit and specific issue in that regard needs to be framed by the trial court. AIR 2014 SC 2301

C.P.C. O.18 R.4: Deponent need not enter witness box merely to prove affidavit of examination-in-chief -Ameer Trading Corporation Ltd. Vs. Shapoorji Data Processing Ltd, AIR 2004 SC 355

C.P.C. O. 21: The Court may dispose of it without registering miscellaneous case in the execution proceeding if the court prima facie finds no substance in the petition of the person raising objections 2014 (3) JLJR Jhr. 13.

C.P.C. O.41 R.27(1)(b): Allowing the application under sub-clause (b) prior to hearing the appeal is gross violation of statute. Test to admit additional evidence in appeal is discussed -Union of India Vs. Ibrahim Uddin and another, (2012) 8 SCC 148

MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIM

Age of the deceased and not the dependants is to be considered- Munna Lal Jain Vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma, (2015) 6 SCC 347

GENERAL CLAUSES ACT 1897

S.6A: Repeal of Amendment Act, by virtue of Savings Clause, saves the Amendments in the amended Act -Jethanand Betab Vs. State of Delhi, AIR 1960 SC 89.

SARFAESI ACT

SARFAESI Act S.35 cannot be used to bulldoze the statutory rights vested in tenants under the Rent Control Act -Vishal N. Kalsaria Vs. Bank of India and others decided on 20 Jan 2016 by the Apex Court.

CONTRACT ACT

Section 74 of the Contract Act will apply to cases of forfeiture of earnest money under a contract where damage or loss is caused by such breach. However, where forfeiture takes place under the terms and conditions of a public auction before agreement is reached, section 74 cannot be applied. In cases where a public auction is held, forfeiture of earnest money may take place even before an agreement is reached as bid is to be accepted only after the earnest money is paid. JLJR 2015 SC 285

REGISTRATION ACT 1908

S 47: Document registered on a subsequent date, operates from the date of execution not from the date of registration Principle secretary, Govt. Of Karnataka vs Ragni Narayan (2016) 4 JBCJ 420 SC

PROBATION OF OFFENDERS ACT

Overriding Effect Over Probation of Offenders Act: P.O. Act S. 3 to 6 are not applicable to a Specific Act it that is subsequent to the Probation of Offenders Act and if that Specific Act was enacted subsequent to Probation of Offenders Act and that particular offence under that Specific Act provides minimum punishment – Superintendent , Central Excise , Bangalore Vs . Bahubali AIR 1979 SC 1271

S.4 and 6(1): Calling for a report from the probation officer under S.4(2) though not mandatory is absolutely essential, save in exceptional cases where there is sufficient material on record justifying the sue of discretion conferred by S.4 of the Act-The State of Maharashtra Vs. Bodya Ramji Patil, 1978 Cri.L.J.411 (Bom DB)

N.D.P.S. ACT

N.D.P.S. Act S.52A: Directions to Magistrates regarding inventory etc., given by the Apex Court in Union of India Vs. Mohanlal and another decided on 28 Jan 2016

OATHS ACT

Oath to Child witness: The main object of the Oaths Act is to render persons who give false evidence liable to prosecution. The provision of S.5 of the Oaths Act, makes it incumbent that any witness examined by a Court of law in a judicial proceeding may be administered oath or affirmation. But the proviso to that sectio makes an exceptin in case of a child witness under 12 years of age. The administration of oath or affirmation may be dispensed with if the Court which examines such witness is of opinion that though he understands the duty of speaking the truth, he does not understand the nature of an oath or affirmation. Thus, under this provision, administration of an oath or affirmation may be dispensed with when the Court forms an opinion that a child witness does not understand the nature of an oath or affirmation but understands the duty of speaking the truth.-Rameshwar Vs. State of Rajasthan, 1952 Cri.L.J. 547 (Supreme Court)

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Constitution Art.20: An accused person has no fundamental right to be tried by any particular Court or procedure. The Protection is only against discrimination. What is prohibited under Art. 20 is only conviction or sentence under an `ex post facto’ law and not the trial thereof. Such trial under a procedure different from what obtained at the time of the commission of the offence or by a Court different from that which had competence at the time cannot `ipso facto’ be held to be unconstitutional. A person accused of the commission of an offence has no fundamental right to trial by a particular Court or by a particular procedure, except in so far as any constitutional objection by way of discrimination or the violating of any other fundamental right may be involved-Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh and another v. The State of Vindhya Pradesh, AIR 1953 SC 394 : 1953 CrLJ 1480

Cr.P.C. S.41: A Warrant of arreast and order of proclamation and process of attachment of properties cannot be passed without complying with Hon’ble Apex Court guidline as well as statutory provisions Ashok Kumar agarwal vs St of Jharkhand (2016) 2 JBCJ 212 HC

Cr.P.C. S. 45: Where there is contradiction between medical evidence or ocular can be crystallized to the effect that though the ocular testimony of the witness has greater evidenciery value vis-a-viz medical evidence, when medical evidence makes the ocular testimony improbable, that becomes a relevant factor in the process of the value of the evidence. However where the medical evidence goes so far that it completely rules out all possible of ocular evidence being true, is may be disbelieved. : Umesh Singh vs State of Bihar Criminal Appeal No. 43 of 2010

Cr.P.C. S. 53 A: The rape survivor are entitled to medical procedures conducted in a manner that respects their right to consent – medical procedure should not be carried out in a manner that constitutes cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and health should be paramount consideration while dealing with gender based valuations- two finger test and its interpretation violates the rights to rape survivors to privacy, physical and mental integrity and dignity; therefore is deprecated. Lillu @ Rajesh & Anr vs State of Haryana Criminal Appeal No. 1226 OF 2011

Cr.P.C. S. 73: In case of Rajesh Pd. Singh vs St of Jharkhand Cr. (M.P.) No. 743 of 2013 Hon’ble Court held that the court in exercise of its power u/s 73 Cr.P.C. cannot issue of warrant only for helping and assisting the prosecution/ police in investigation, rather, shall have to ensure that at least one of the three conditions, i.e. I which, escaped convict, proclaimed offender or a person who is an accused of a non bailable offence, evading arrest; is fulfilled

Cr.P.C. S.125(3): There is no bar to commit a person under S.125(3), Cr.P.C. to commit a person defaulting in payment of maintenance amount to imprisonment and also simultaneously to proceed against his properties, be it movable or immovable for realisation of the maintenance amount -Smt. Kuldip Kaur Vs. Surinder Singh, AIR 1989 SC 232.

Cr. P.C. S. 125 : Wife is herself earning more amount that husband and is herself capable to maintain herself as well as minor son. Held, wife is in position to maintain herself by getting salary of Rs. 50,000/- she is not entitled to get any amount as maintainance from husband. So far minor son is concerned, he is student studying in school. Order of maintenance passed by Lower Court to minor son held justified Nand Kishor Banra vs St of Jharkhand and ors (2016) 4 JBCJ 595 HC

Cr.P.C. Ss.154, 155, 156, 157: Investigation by the police officer who registered the FIR Is not illegal per se: State rep. by Inspector of police, Vigilance and anti-corruption, Tiruchirapalli, Tamilnadu Vs. Jayapaul, AIR 2004 SC 2684

Cr.P.C. S.156(3): Magistrate can direct registration of F.I.R., recommend to the SSP/SP to change the I.O. if necessary: In view of the aforesaid broad consensus amongst the counsel for the various parties, it is not necessary for us to go deeper into the relevant issue of law as to whether the earlier order of this Court dated April 12, 2010 warranted registering of F.I.R. by the police before commencing investigation. But we would like to only indicate in brief the law on this subject expressly stated by this Court in the case of Mohd. Yousuf versus Afaq Jahan (Smt.) and another, (2006) 1 SCC 627 : (AIR 2006 SC 705). This Court explained that registration of an F.I.R. involves only the process of recording the substance of information relating to commission of any cognizable offence in a book kept by the officer incharge of the concerned police station. In paragraph 11 of the aforementioned case, the law was further elucidated by pointing out that to enable the police to start investigation, it is open to the Magistrate to direct the police to register an F.I.R. and even where a Magistrate does not do so in explicit words but directs for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code, the police should register an F.I.R. because Section 156 falls within Chapter XII of the Code which deals with powers of the police officers to investigate cognizable offences, the police officer concerned would always be in a better position to take further steps contemplated in Chapter XII once F.I.R. is registered in respect of the concerned cognizable offence-Hamant Yashwant Dhage Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors., AIR 2016 SC 814

Cr.P.C. S.157 and 165: When the evidence of the I.O. who recovered the material object is convincing, recovery of material object cannot be rejected on the ground that the seizure witness do not support the prosecution version.-Modan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1978 SC 1511

Cr.P.C. S. 167 : Remand of an absconding accused in police custody who is arrested only after filing of the charge-sheet may be remanded in police custody and the court taking cognizance may exercise its powers to detain such accused in police custody subject to the limitations of Section 167 of Cr.P.C- 2015(4) JLJR SC 119

Cr.P.C. S.173: Cognizance can be taken on charge-sheet for S.379, IPC in Sand theft matter: Mines and Minerals Act 1957: Though cognizance of offence punishable under section 22, cannot be taken on police report, theft of sand from river bed is theft of government property and hence cognizance of offence punishable under section 379, I.P.C. can be taken on police report. – Jaysukh Bavanji Shingalia Vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 2015 SC 75.

S.3 of the Police Act, 1861 empowered the State Government with superintendence including giving directions to such a superior officer for further investigation under S.173(8), Cr.P.C. even after submission of report by the previous investigating agency under S.173(2). Power under S.173(8) is not affected by Magistrate’s power to order investigation under S.156(3). State of Bihar Vs. J.A.C. Saldhana, (1980) 1 SCC 554

Cr.P.C. S.161 and 162: It is the duty of the prosecutor and the Judge to bracket the inadmissible portion in the panchanama before giving exhibit number to it – State of Gujarat Vs. Kathi Ramku Aligbhai, 1986 Cri.L.J. 239.

Cr.P.C. S.167(2): For the purpose of counting the 15 days, 60 days and 90 days custody, the date of suo motu surrender of the accused, is not material. Because, it is not preceded by arrest without warrant. Hence, it is not equivalent to production under S.167.State of West Bengal Vs. Dinesh Dalmia, (2007) 5 SCC 773.

Cr.P.C. S.167(5) and S.12-AA(1)(f), Essential Commodities Act: Section 167(5), Cr.P.C. is applicable to a summarily triable warrant case. Hence, investigation may be directed to be stopped if not completed in 6 months from arrest of accused. But, the I.O. is not absovled from filing final report on the basis of the investigation done within 6 months and the Court is competent to accept such police report. – State of W.B. Vs. Falguni Dutta, (1993) 3 SCC 288.

Cr.P.C. S.167 and S.309: Police Custody of post-charge sheet arrested accused is permissible: It is permissible to grant police custody of an accused who is arrested subsequest to the charge-sheet when he was shown as absconding previously-Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Rathin Dandapath and others, 2015 Cri.L.J. 4488

Cr.P.C. S.167 Magistrate has to look into facts before granting remand: The act of directing remand of an accused is fundamentally a judicial function. The Magistrate does not act in executive capacity while ordering the detention of an accused. While exercising this judicial act, it is obligatory on the part of the Magistrate to satisfy himself whether the materials placed before him justify such a remand or, to put it differently, whether there exist reasonable grounds to commit the accused to custody and extend his remand. The purpose of remand as postulated Under Section 167 is that investigation cannot be completed within 24 hours. It enables the Magistrate to see that the remand is really necessary. This requires the investigating agency to send the case diary along with the remand report so that the Magistrate can appreciate the factual scenario and apply his mind whether there is a warrant for police remand or justification for judicial remand or there is no need for any remand at all. It is obligatory on the part of the Magistrate to apply his mind and not to pass an order of remand automatically or in a mechanical manner. It is apt to note that in Madhu Limaye, it has been stated that once it is shown that the arrests made by the police officers were illegal, it was necessary for the State to establish that at the stage of remand, the Magistrate directed detention in jail custody after applying his mind to all relevant matters.-Manubhai Ratilal Patel Tr. Ushaben Vs. State of Gujarat and ors., AIR 2013 SC 313

Cr.P.C. S.167: The Special Judge under S.8 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1952 is a Magistrate for the purpose of S.167. Because, Section 3 of the Code suggests that if the context otherwise required, the term “Magistrate” may include the Magistrate who are not specified in the Section. – State of T.N. Vs. V. Krishnaswami Naidu, (1979) 4 SCC 5

Cr.P.C. S.167: Private Counsel in State Case? No vested right is granted to a complainant or informant or aggrieved party to directly conduct a prosecution. So far as the Magistrate is concerned, cmoparative latitude is given to him but he must always bear in mind that while the prosecution must remain robust and comprehensive and effective it should not abandon the need to be free, fair and diligent. So far as the Sessions Court is conerned, it is the Public Prosecutor who must at all times remain in control of the prosecution and a counsel of a priavate party can only assist the public prosecutor in discharging its responsibility. The complainant or informant or aggrieved party may, however, be heard at a curcial and critical juncture of the Trial so that his interests in the prosecution are not prejudiced or jeopardized. Constant or even frequest interferance in the prosecution should not be encouraged as it will have a deleterious impact on its impartiality. If the Magistrate or Sessions Judge harbours the opinion that the prosecution is likey to fail, prudence would prompt that the complainant or informant or aggrieved party be given an informal hearing-Sundeep Kumar Bafna Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2014 SC 1745.

Cr.P.C. S.167 Magistrate and Judges shall inform accused about free legal aid -Khatri And Others Vs. State of Bihar 1981 SCC (1) 627.

Cr.P.C. S 169: A Magistrate after accepting a negative final report under Cr.P.C., can take action on the basis of the protest petition filed by the complainant JLJR(4)16 SC

Cr.P.C. S. 177 & 178 : At stage of investigation, if cannot be held that SHO does not have territorial jurisdiction to investigate crime-But after the investigation is over, if officer arrives at conclusion that cause of action for lodging Fir has not arisen within his territorial jurisdiction, then he will forward case to Magistrate concerned empowered to take cognizance offence – Terrirorial jurisdictiojn of a court with regard to a criminal offence would be decided on the basis of place of occurrence of incident. Manoj Kumar Sharma and ors vs St of Chattishgarh (2016) 4 JBCJ 236 SC

Cr.P.C. S.179: Magistrate’s Jurisdiction: A Magistrate’s jurisdiction is limited to his territorial jurisdiction. He cannot permit investigation in a case he is not competent to try. A Magistrate does not exercise jurisdiction throughout the length and breadth of India for purposes of Code of Criminal Procedure or of Prevention of Corruption Act. The Code of Criminal Procedure defines the territorial jurisdiction of Magistrates. It will not be a consonance with the jurisdiction and structure of Courts of Magistrates to allow an order of investigation to be made by a Magistrate of Delhi for investigation of a case in the State of Assam. The reason is that a Magistrate orders investigation in a case which he has power to inquire into or try.-Union of India and another v. B.N. Ananthapadmanabhiah, 1971 CrLJ 1287: AIR 1971 SC 1836

Cr.P.C. S.190 Magistrate can take cognizance against other accused on subsequent date also (when the order is postponed) Vijay Kant Thakur and Anr. Vs. Stale of Bihar and Anr. 2010 Cri.L.J. 4190

When the accused is charge sheeted U/S 3,4,5,6 and 7 of Immoral Traffic under (Prevention) Act,1956 on the basis of First FIR There can be second FIR U/S 419,420 I.P.C. against the same set of accused persons for furnishing wrong names address and parentage because these are distinct offences and it cannot said to be in form of part of same transaction with alleged offences under first FIR .Even in event of any further information being received y in respect of offence of same occurrence of incident giving rise to one or more offences for which charge sheet has already been filed by investigating agency. 2016 (2) JBCJ (SC) 85

Removing sand which is a property of state is a distinct offence under I.P.C. and as such the provisions contained section 21, 22 and other sections of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 shall not operates as a bar against prosecution of a person who has been charged with allegation which constitutes offence under section 379, 411 and other provisions of the I.P.C and a Magistrate can take cognizance for offence in such a case JLJR(4)136 SC
Cr.P.C. S.193 and 299: After committal, Sessions Judge has jurisdiction to summon the accused named in column no.2 i.e. absconding-Constitution Bench in – Dharam Pal and ors Vs. State of Haryana and anr, AIR 2013 SC 3018

Cr.P.C. S.193 Normally Sessions Court is not entitled to take cognizance of the offence under Section 304 B and 498A of the IPC. But when proper opportunity is given to the accused then Sessions Court can take cognizance. AIR 2016 SC 2266
Cr.P.C. S.197 Dropping the proceeding for want of sanction is proper: Question to consider is that if the Court comes at any stage to the conclusion that the prosecution could not have been instituted without the sanction of the Government, what should be the procedure to be followed by it, i.e., whether the Court should discharge the accused or acquit him of the charge if framed against him or just drop the proceedings and pass no formal order of discharge or acquittal as contemplated in the case of a prosecution under the Code. The High Court has said that when the Sessions Judge be satisfied that the facts proved bring the case within the mischief of s. 132 of the Code then he is at liberty to reject the complaint holding that it is barred by that section. We consider this to be the right order to be passed in those circumstances. It is not essential that the Court must pass a formal order discharging or acquitting the accused. In fact no such order can be passed. If s. 132 applies, the complaint could not have been instituted without the sanction of the Government and the proceedings on a complaint so instituted would be void the Court having no jurisdiction to take those proceedings. When the proceedings be void, the Court is not competent to pass any order except an order that the proceedings be dropped and the complaint is rejected. Nagraj Vs. State of Mysore, AIR 1964 SC 269

Shiv Bachan Singh Vs St of Jharkhand and ors. W.P. (Cr.) No. 186 of 2010 Hon’ble Court observed that the protection is given to the public servant against institution of possibly vexatious criminal proceeding for offfences alleged to have been committed by them while they are acting are purporting to act as a public servant. The policy of the legislature is to afford adequate protection to public servant to ensure that they shall not be prosecuted for anything done by them in the discharge of their duty without reasonable cause but then such protection has to be considered within certain limits. It should be available only when the alleged at done by the public servant is reasonably connected with the discharge of these official duties and is not merely a cloak for doing the objectional act. If in doing his official duty, he acted in excess of his duty, which constitutes offence, the excess bill not be considered to protect him from criminal prosecution.
Cr.P.C. S.202: CJM/ACJM is not required to hold inquiry under section 202 Cr. P. C. before the transfer in view of the amendment in Sec. 202 of Cr. P.C. 2014(3) SC 415

Cr.P.C. S.216: Charge can be altered any time before the judgment. S.216(2) to (5) is the procedure to be followed once the Court decides to alter or add any charge. – Jasvinder Saini and ors Vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi, (2013) 7 SCC 256.

Cr.P.C. S.220 A conviction under Section 306 IPC can be sustained if the accused is charged and tried u/s 498(A) of IPC and 304(B) of IPC. Absence of charge u/s 306 IPC is not fatal then all the materials relating to these facts is already part of charge. AIR 2016 Page 2689

Cr.P.C. S.227 and 239: At the state of framing of charge the documents produced by accused cannot be considered- State of Orissa Vs Debendra Nath Padhi, AIR 2005 SC 369 (Satish Mehra Vs. Delhi Administration (1996) 9 SCC 766 is overruled)

Purnima Kumari vs St of Jharkhand – Held that the factual aspect as to whether since inception of making promise of marriage to the informant/victim by the accused, he was having deceptive intent or he developed its subsequently; is a question of fact, which can be adjudged only in course of trial and, therefore, the discharge of the accused u/s 376 IPC at the stage of framing of charge itself is bad in law

Cr.P.C. S.226 and 231: Prosecutor can skip witness: If the public prosecutor got reliable information that any of his witnesses would not support the prosecution version, he can interview that witness beforehand and state to the Court and skip that witness – Banti @ Guddu Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2004 SC 261

Cr.P.C. S.231 Additional witness for prosecution can be allowed State of Bombay Vs. Mohamadh Khan AIR 1960 Bom 150

Cr.P.C. S.235(2) Accused upon conviction can be sent to jail until hearing on sentence Ram Deo Chauhan Vs. State of Assam (2001) 5 SCC 714

Cr.P.C. S.244(1): Accused has a statutory right of cross-examination at the stage of EBC.-Ajoy Kumar Ghose Vs. State of Jharkhand and another, (2009) 14 SCC 115.

Cr.P.C. S.245(2): “Discharge at any previous stage of the case” occuring in S.245(2) is before the prosecution’s evidence under S.244(1) is completed, or at any stage prior to that, namely, the stages prescribed in Ss.200 to 204, Cr.P.C. Magistrate can therefore discharge accused after recording reasons, even at stage when accused appears in response to summons or warrant but no prosecution evidence has been led. Application for discharge is therefore maintainable at that stage.-Ajoy Kumar Ghose Vs. State of Jharkhand and another, (2009) 14 SCC 115.

Cr.P.C. S.251: It is inherent in Section 251 of the Code that when an accused appears before the trial Court pursuant to summons issued Under Section 204 of the Code in a summons trial case, it is the bounden duty of the trial Court to carefully go through the allegations made in the charge sheet or complaint and consider the evidence to come to a conclusion whether or not, commission of any offence is disclosed and if the answer is in the affirmative, the Magistrate shall explain the substance of the accusation to the accused and ask him whether he pleads guilty otherwise, he is bound to discharge the accused as per Section 239 of the Code.-Bhushan Kumar and Anr. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr., AIR 2012 SC 1747.

Cr.P.C. S.255(2) and S.66(1)(b) Magistrate has to hear the accused on sentence Jethalal Girdharlal Vs. State of Gujarat MANU-GJ-0206-1984.

Cr.P.C. S.256 and 249: Magistrate has no jurisdiction to restore a complaint dismissed vide S.256, Cr.P.C. Filing of a 2nd complaint is not the same thing as reviving a dismissed complaint. A second complaint is permissible in law if it could be brought within the limitation -Maj. Genl. A.S. Gauraya and anr. Vs. S.N. Thakur and anr.AIR 1986 SC 1440.(Bindeshwari Prasad Singh versus Kali Singh, (1977) 1 SCR 125 referred to); Narayandas Narayandas Gulabchand Agrawal Vs. Rakesh Kumar Nem Kumar Porwal 1996 (2) Mh.L.J. 463.

Cr.P.C. S.265-A to 265-L: When accused pleads guilty, complainant or victim must be heard before deciding on guilty plea of accused.- Giriraj Prasad Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2014) 13 SCC 674.

Cr.P.C. S.299: Section 299 empowers only the trial court to record evidence in the case of an accused who is absconding. But the above changes do not enable the Magistrate to commit the case against any of the accused before the accused actually appears or is brought before the Court. The Judicial Magistrate was directed to give a new number to the case against the absconding accused and take steps to apprehend them.-State of Kerala Vs. John and Ors., MANU/KE/0204/1977

Sanjay Kumar Singh vs St of Jharkhand W.P.(Cr.) No. 46 of 2010 Hon’bel Court setting aside the order declaring the accused and absconder at proceeding u/s 299, where the execution reports of warrant and process u/s 82 & 83 Cr.P.C. were not received before making such a declaration

Cr.P.C. S.300 The dismissal of a complaint or discharge of an accused would not be construed as acquittal for the purpose of section 300. Therefore it was held that the proceeding in second complaint filed by wife under section 493 to 494, 420, 506 IPC against her husband is not barred under section 300 Cr. P.C. JLJR 2015 (2) SC 399

Cr.P.C. S.309: Day-to-day Trials: In some states a system is evolved for framing a schedule of consecutive working days for examination of witnesses in each sessions trial to be followed. Such schedule is fixed by the Court well in advance after ascertaining the convenience of the counsel on both sides. Summons or process would then be handed over to the Public Prosecutor incharge of the case to cause them to be served on the witnesses. Once the schedule is so fixed and witnesses are summoned the trial invariably proceeds from day today. This is one method of complying with the mandates of the law. It is for the presiding officer of each court to chalk out any other methods, if any found better, for complying with the legal provisions contained in Section 309 of the Code -State of U.P. Vs. Shambhu Nath Singh & Ors. AIR 2001 SC 1403

Cr.P.C. S.311: Lacuna Means inherent weakness or a latent wedge: After the defence and prosecution closed their evidence, the prosecution applied to resummon two of it’s already exmined witnessess, for proving it’s certain documents. Thus, a question arose, whether a trial court can permit a lacuna in prosecution evidence to be filled up? Upholding allowing the application, held that the conventional concept is that the court should not do so. But, then, what is meant by lacuna in a prosecution case, has to be understood before deciding the said question one way or the other. Lacuna in the prosecution must be understood as the inherent weakness or a latent wedge in the matrix of the prosecution case. No party in a trial can be foreclosed from correcting errors. – Rajendra Prasad Vs. The Narcotic Cell, AIR 1999 SC 2292.

Cr.P.C. S.311: Mere change of counsel is not a valid ground for recalling witness -AG Vs Shiv Kumar Yadav, 2015 Cri.L.J. 4640 (SC)

Cr.P.C. S.319: A person who has been discharged can also be arraigned as accused under S.319, but only after an inquiry as contemplated by Section 300(5) and 398, Cr.P.C., if during such enquiry there appears to be evidence against such person-(Constitution Bench) held in – Hardeep Singh etc. Vs. State of Panjub and ors. etc. (2014) 3 SSC 92

Cr.P.C. S.319: Summoning of additional accused and discharge of accused are opposite to each other in effect and the person summoned as an additional accused U/s 319 of Cr.P.C cannot avail remedy of discharge on ground that there is no sufficient material against him. AIR 2015 SC.

Cr.P.C. S. 319 (2) : Sessions Court issuing non bailable warrant of arrest to ensure the appearance of newly added accused in exercise of power u/s 319 Cr.P.C., it was held that as the purpose is to secure the attendance of the accused in the court only, after discussing the law on this point, the order of trial court was modified by setting aside the non bailable warrant of arrest and summon was order to be issued

Cr.P.C. S.344: Object of enactment of S.344 is that evil of perjury and fabrication of evidence has to be eradicated. At the time of delivery of judgment or final order, the Court must at the first instance express an opinion to the effect that the witness before it has either intentionally given false evidence or fabricated such evidence. Court must come to the conclusion that in the interests of justice the witness concerned should be punished summarily by it for the offence which appears to have been committed by the witness – Mahila Vinod Kumari Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 2008 SC 2965

Cr.P.C. S.354: Acquittal Judgment shall point out lapses if any: On the culmination of a criminal case in acquittal, the concerned investigating/prosecuting official(s) responsible for such acquittal must necessaril be identified. A finding needs to be recorded in each case, whether the lapse was innocent or blameworthy. Each erring officer must suffer the consequences of his lapse, by appropriate departmental action, whenever called for. – State of Gujarat Vs. Kishanbhai etc., (2014) 5 SCC 108.

Cr.P.C. S.357(3): Order under this section must have potentiality to secure its observance. If merely an order directing compnesation is passed, it would be totally ineffective. Deterrence can only be infused into the order by providing for a default sentence. Hence, the order to pay compensation to be paid by the convict may be enforeced by awarding sentence of imprisonment in default. -R. Mohan Vs. A.K. Vijaya Kumar, 2012(8) SCC 721.
In. R. Vijayan v. Baby, 2000 (1) SCC 260 the court observed that: “it is evident from the sub-section (3) of section 357 of the Code, that where the sentence imposed does not include a fine, that is, where the sentence relates to only imprisonment, the court, when passing judgment, can direct the accused to pay by way of compensation, such amount as may be specified in the order to the person who has suffered any loss or injury by reason of the act for which the accused has been so sentenced. The reason for this is obvious. Sub-section (1) of section 357 provides that court imposes a sentence of fine or a sentence of which fine forms a part, the court may direct the fine amount to be applied in the payment to any person of compensation for any loss or injury caused by the offence, when compensation is, in the opinion of the court, recoverable by such person in a Civil Court. Thus, if compensation could be paid from out of the fine, there is no need to award separate compensation. Only where the sentence does not include fine but only imprisonment and court finds that the person who has suffered any loss or injury by reason of the act of the accused person, requires to be compensated, it is permitted to award compensation under section 357 (3).”

Dhanu Ram Soren @ Bali Ram Soren Vs. State of Jharkhand Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 173 of 2013 Hon’ble Court observed that step must pay compensation initially and thereafter, amount may be recovered as per the methodology developed for the purpose by deducting a part of the remuneration from the convict while at work in jail

Gopi Nath Ghosh vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr. W.P (PIL) No. 2584 of 2011 Hon’ble Court directed the state of Jharkhand to settle the compensation claims in respect of the pending applications in various districts and dispose of the same within a period of six months and not later than one year.
In future, as and when application is received claiming compensation/benefits of the Scheme, the State is directed to ensure that the application be considered and disposed of within a period of six months from the date of its receipt by the respective District Magistrate/Deputy Commissioner/District Committee.

Cr.P.C. S.357 & 357A: Just compensation to the victim has to be fixed having regard to medical and other expenses, pain and suffering, loss of earning and other relevant factors.While punishment to accused is one aspect, determination of just compensation to the victim is the other. At times, evidence is not available in this regard. Some guess work in such a situation is inevitable. Compensation under S.357, Cr.P.C. is payable by convict. Section 357A, Cr.P.C. has to be invoked to make up the requirement of just compensation.-Monohar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2015 SC 1124

Cr.P.C. S.357 & 357A: It is the duty of the court to award just sentence. Mechanical reduction of sentence to the period already undergone cannot be appreciated. Sentence has to be fair not only to the accused but also to the victim and the society. Accused was ordered to pay compensation of Rs.2 Lakhs under S.357(3) and the State to pay compensation of Rs.3 Lakhs and if the accused does not pay, the State was directed to pay the entire amount of Rs.5 Lakhs.-State of M.P. Vs. Mehtab, 2015(5) SCC 197

Cr.P.C. S. 357 : Mojib Ansari & Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand Cr. Appeal No. 1089 of 2004 The victim who was 19 years old girl was gang-raped by persons belonging to different age groups. Victim subsequently died due to mental insanity and shock. The Hon’ble Court highlighting certain procedure irregularities committed by the trial Court partly affirmed the sentence imposed by it. It was ruled that the victim of crime or his kith and kin have legitimate expectation that the state will punish the guilty and compensate the victim. Hon’ble Court invoking section 357 A of the Cr.P.C. directed the State Government to pay compensation to the Mother of the deceased to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/-. Jharkhand State legal Service Authority was asked to look into this matter and provide timely assistance to the mother of the deceased.

Cr.P.C. S. 372 & 378 : In Case of Vivekan & Pathak and ors vs St of Jharkhand and ors reported in 2013 (1) JLJR I while considering the application of the petitioners Hon’ble Court held that when the victim & complainant are the same person then the complaint have a right to people statutory appeal u/s 372 of Cr.P.C. whenever the statutory appeal is provided, the parties have to avail the statutory right prefer an appeal. But when the victim is somebody else in those cases, application u/s 378 (2) of Cr.P.C. is tenable at law.

Cr.P.C. S.384 TO 386: Appeal once admitted has to be decided on merits even in absence of acused -K.S. Panduranga Vs. State of Karnataka AIR 2013 SC 2164 (Dictum in Mohd. Sukur Ali (2011) 4 SCC 729 to the effect that the Court cannot decide a criminal appeal in absence of counsel for the accused and that too if the cousel does not appear deliberately or shows negligence in appearing, being contrary to the ratio laid down by Larger Bench in Bani Singh, AIR 1996 SC 2439, is per incuriam.)

Cr.P.C. S.389: In case of post conviction bail under Section 389, Cr.P.C, it is mandatory that appellate Court gives an opportunity to public prosecutor for showing cause in writing against such release. Suspension of sentence and release on bail. Appellate Court may even without hearing public prosecutor, decline to grant bail. However, in case appellate Court is inclined to consider release of convict on bail, public prosecutor shall be granted opportunity to show cause in writing as to why appellant be not released on bail. Despite such opportunity being granted to public prosecutor, in case no cause is shown in writing, appellate Court shall record that State has not filed any objection in writing. This procedure is intended to ensure transparency, to ensure that there is no allegation of collusion and to ensure that Court is properly assisted by State with true and correct facts with regard to relevant considerations for grant of bail in respect of serious offences, at post conviction stage -Atul Tripathi Vs. State Of U.P., (2014) 9 SCC 177: 2014 AIR SCW 4326

Cr.P.C. S.427:Totality of the Sentence has to be considered: The basic rule of thumb over the years has been the so called single transaction rule for concurrent sentences. If a given transaction constitutes two offences under two enactments generally, it is wrong to have consecutive sentences. It is proper and legitimate to have concurrent sentences. But. this rule has no application if the transaction relating to offences Is not the same or the facts constituting the two offences are quite different.-Mohd. Akhtar Hussain aliasIbrahlm Ahmed Bhatti v. Assistant Collector of Customs (Prevention) Ahmedabad and others, (1988) 4 SCC 183

Cr.P.C. S.427: If a given transaction constitutes two offences under the enactments, generally it would be wrong to impose consecutive sentences. It would be proper and legitimate to have concurrent sentences, but the said rule would have no application if the facts constituting the same offences are quite different -Mohd. Akhtar Hussain Alias AIR 1988 SC 2143.

Cr.P.C. 427 and 31: Aggregate sentence not to exceed 14 years when consecutive.-Chatar Singh vs State Of M.P. AIR 2007 SC 319

Cr.P.C. S.438 and 437: There is no justification for reading into Section 438, Cr.P.C. the limitations mentioned in Section 437, Cr.P.C.- Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth Vs. State of Gujarat and another,(2016) 1 SCC 152

Cr.P.C. S.437A is not mandatory. It is required for appearance of accused in an appeal which may be filed against the accused. Sareena, O.P. Vs. State of KeralaIL R 2013 (1) Kerala 537=MANU/KE/2226/2012

Cr.P.C. S.438 Jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail lies with the Court where offence took place (A) Dr. Pradeep Kumar Soni Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1990 Cri.L.J. 2055 (M.P.) (B) Harjit Singh Vs. Union of India and ors, 1994 Cri.L.J. 3134

Cr.P.C. S.438 The anticipatory bail cannot be granted against whom processes u/s 82 Cr PC has been issued. It is implicit in sec 438 itself. JLJR 2014(4)128

Cr.P.C. S.438: Successive anticipatory bail applications are tenable.-Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan, 2005 Cri.L.J.944 (SC)

Cr.P.C. S.439 Parity ground is not absolute Antecedents of applicant may warrant rejection of bail Neeru Yadav Vs. State of U.P. 2014 (14) SCALE 59

Cr.P.C. S.451: Party adversely affected should be heard before the Court makes order for return of the seized property – State Bank of India Vs. Rajendra Kumar Singh and ors., AIR 1969 SC 401

Cr.P.C. S.457 and Wild Life (Protection) Act S.50(1): Limited/No Jurisdiction of Magistrate: Forest Authorities or police officer can seize vehicle used for committing offence under the Wild Life Act. An Assistant Director of the Wild Life Preservation or Wild Life Warden may give the same for custody on bond for the production before the Magistrate. They have to give intimation to the Chief Wildlife Officer, who can place the relevant materials before the Magistrate. The Magistrate can, in appropriate cases reject the prayer for release or custody of the seized vehicle.-State of U.P. and another Vs. Lalloo Singh, (2007) 7 SCC 334

Cr.P.C. S. 482 : While dealing with a case of medical negligence held that the act complained against The Doctor must show negligence or rashness of such a highest degree so as to indicate a mental state which can be described as totally apathetic towards to patient and only such gross negligence is punishable – Dr. S.R. Malusare vs St of Jharkhand and ors (2012)3 JLJR 366

At the time of exercising revisional jurisdiction, the concerned court should always reframe from giving such observations that particular has been made out or not, else it may prejudice the party before the court below Nasim Ansari vs St of Jharkhand and ors (2013) 1 JCR 357 Jhr

JHARKHAND BOVINE ANIMALS PROHIBITION OF SLAUGHTER ACT, 2005

While hearing a quashing matter find on the ground that the complainant effecting search & seizure and launching prosecution not being an inspector of Police rather, being an Inspector of NGO known as SPCA , Jharkhand was never authorised to do so, held that since there was violation under the prevention cruelty to animal Act the search & seizure effected can we shall to be in connection with the offence under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act, 1960 and therefore launching prosecution under Jharkhand Bovine Animals Prohibition of Slaughter Act, 2005 also is not illegal as the offences there under are cognizable and anyone can set the law in motion

APPRECIATION OF ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE

Anwar P.V. vs P.K. Basheer & Ors Hon’ble court held that Section 63 & Section 65 of Evidence Act have no application in the case of secondary evidence by way of Electronic Evidence, the same is wholly governed by section 65 A & 65 B. In case of CD, VCD, Chips etc, the same shall be accompanied by the certificate in terms of section 65 B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record is inadmissible.

State of Maharashtra vs Dr. Praphul B. Desai AIR 2003 SC 2053 Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the legal requirement for the presence of the witness does not mean actual physical presence. And also observed that there is no reason why the examination of a witness by video conferencing should not be essential part of electronic evidence.

Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation vs. NRI Film Production Associates (P) Ltd. (AIR 2003 KANT 148), certain condition for video-recording of evidence has been laid down:
a) Before a witness is examined in terms of the Audio-Video Link, witness is to file an affidavit or an undertaking duly verified before a notary or a judge that the person who is shown as the witness is the same person as who is going to depose on the screen. A copy is to be made available to the other side.
b) The person who examines the witness on the screen is also supposed to file an affidavit/undertaking before examining the witness with a copy to the other side with regard to identification.
c) The witness has to be examined during working hours of Indian Courts. Oath is to be administered through the media.
d) The witness should not plead any inconvenience on account of time difference between India and USA.
e) Before examination of the witness, a set of plaint, written statement and other documents must be sent to the witness so that the witness has acquaintance with the documents and an acknowledgement is to be filed before the Court in this regard.
f) The learned judge is to record such remarks as is material regarding the demeanour of the witness while on the screen.
g) The learned judge must note the objections raised during recording of witness and to decide the same at the time of arguments.
h) After recording the evidence, the same is to be sent to the witness and his signature is to be obtained in the presence of a Notary Public and thereafter it forms part of the record of the suit proceedings.
i) The visual is to be recorded and the record would be at both ends. The witness also is to be alone at the time of visual conference and notary is to certificate to this effect.
j) The learned judge may also impose such other conditions as are necessary in a given set of facts.
k) The expenses and the arrangements are to be borne by the applicant who wants this facility.

In Kishan Tripathi @Kishan Painter vs State 2016 SCC online Delhi 1136 Delhi High Court discussed the law relating to admissibility of CCTV. Footage and observed that the CCTV footage is captured by the Camera and can be stored in the computer where the files are created with serial no., date, time and identification marks these identification marks/details are self generated and recorded as a result of pre exiting software commands the capture of visual images on the hard disk is automatic in the sense that the video images get stored and recorded suo-moto when the CCTV camera is on and is properly connected with the Hard Disc installed in the computer therefore the original hard disc could be the primary and direct evidence when we see the CCTV footage we are in the same position as that of the witness, who had seen the occurrence though crime had not occurred at that time when the recording, but earlier this Video recording which capture the occurrence would be per se and mostly discernringly reliable and compellingly conclusive evidence, unless its authenticity is in question.

In R.M. Malkani v State of Maharashtra (1973) 1 SCC 471 Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that a contemporaneous tap record of a relevant conversation is a relevant fact and is admissible u/s 8 of the evidence Act

In Ziyauddin Barhanuddin Bukhari vs. Brajmohan Ramdas Mehra (1976) 2 SCC 17 Hon’ble Court held that tap records of speeches were documents as defined by section 3 of the evidence Act which stood on no different footing than photographs and are admissible in evidence on satisfying relevant conditions.

JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT

Om Prakash vs State of Rajasthan and ors. (2012) 5 SCC 201 Hon’ble Court held that the court must be sensitive in dealing with the Juvenile who is involved in cases of serious nature like Sexual Molestation Rape, Gang rape , Murder and host of other offences, that is cannot be allowed to abuse the statutory protection by attempting to prove himself as a minor when the documentary evidence to prove his minority gives rise to a reasonable doubt about his assertion of minority. Under such circumstance, the medical evidence based on scientific investigation will have to be given due with and precedence over the evidence based on school administration records which give rise to hypothesis and speculation about the age of the accused the matter however would stand on a different footing in the academic certificates and school records are alleged to have been with held deliberately with ulterior motive and authenticity of the medical evidence is under challenge by the prosecution.

The plea of juvinility can be taken even at the appellate stage being the benivolent provision of law, so, after amendment benefit can be extended to the juvenile. 2015(2)JLJR SC 367

APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE

S. 302/34 IPC: In a case where eye witnesses are available and they have described place of occurrence and evidence of those eye witnesses is reliable and trustworthy. Non examination of IO is not sufficient to disbelieve place of occurrence there is consistent evidence of P.Ws. that the opened fire on deceased conviction and sentence affirmed. Papu Mandal @ Hira Lal Mandal vs St of Jharkhand Cr. Appeal (D.B.)No. 587 of 2007

S. 354 IPC: Intention is not sole criteria of the offence punishable u/s 354 IPC and it can be committed by a person assaulting are using criminal force to any women, if he knows that by such act the modesty of the human is likely to be affected. Knowledge and Intention are essentially things of the mind and cannot be demonstrated like physical objects. The existence of intention or knowledge has to be culled out from various circumstances in which and upon whom the alleged offece is alleged to have been committed. A victim of molestation an indignation is in the same position as an injured witness and her testimony should receive the same weight. Vidya Dharan vs St of Kerala (2004) 1 SCC 2015

Belal Alias Billo Alias Md. Belal vs State of Jharkhand Cr.Appeal (D.B.) No.465 of 2013
The Secretary Home Department has been asked for taking action against investigating officer and responsibility of the investigating officer has been reiterated as follows.
(1) It is the duty of the IO to remain present before the Trial Court
(2) To Bring Prosecution witness to the Court
(3) In case the witness including IO, Doctors or other government Officers fail to attend the Court and give evidence despite issuance of summons, the Trial court can pass an order to stop the payment of their salary or pension.

A witness is normally considered to be independent unless he springs from sources are likely to be tainted and this usually means that the said witness has caused to bear enmity against the accused so as to implicate him falsely. In view of above there can provision to the effect that a police man can not a witness or that his deposition can relied upon if inspires confidence.The evidence of Police personnel who were made recovery witnesses are reliable and cannot be discarded -AIR 2014 S.C. 394.

The date from which the antiquity of a document is to be calculated is the date on which the document has been tendered in evidence or subjected to being proved/exhibited. Om Prakash Vs Shati Devi, 2015(1)JLJR (SC)276

Objection raised by the defence that FIR has been lodged by the Court duty constable instead of the Presiding Officer of the Court and even before registration of the FIR, inquest was undertaken and post mortem was conducted is not tenable and is of no help. AIR 2016 SC 2376

If evidence adduced by prosecution is found sufficient to warrant conviction then it is not necessary for prosecution to examine all witnesses cited by them- it is for prosecution to decide as to how many witnesses they consider it proper to examine to prove their case against accused and whether their evidence would be sufficient to warrant conviction of accused Thereafter it is for Court to assess and appreciate evidence adduced to see as to whether it is sufficient to sustain conviction with aid of such evidence or not. Mahiman Singh vs St of Uttrakhand (2016) 4 JBCJ 140 SC

Examination of Dist. Magistrate is not required as the same has been proved by the competent person. Abdul Matin V/s. state of Rajasthan 2014 (3) JLJR (S.C.) 224- 225

LIMITATION ACT

Reasonable explanation for delay must be given to condone delay and condonation of delay must receive liberal construction and the court should not take a pedantic approach rather they should adopt a rational and pragmatic approach and the said power to condone the delay and the discretion is vested in the court to advance the cause of substantial justice and not to scuttle the same on the ground of technical approach and the period of delay is not relevant rather acceptability of the explanation for the delay is the only criteria for condonation 2015(4) JLJR 708

PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT

P.C. Act S.2(c) Chairman of Co-op Bank is a public servant. Decision in Laljit Rajshi Shah is no longer applicable in view of the amended provisions of Section 2(c) of PC Act -State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Rameshwar and Ors.(2009) 11 SCC 424

P.C. Act S.3 and 4(3): Special Judge’s Jurisdiction: Special Judge can not try other than P.C. Act offences by non-public servant unless it is a joint trial with P.C. Act offences by public servant or P.C. Act offfences by non-public servant. But, after framing such charges of P.C. Act offences, even if the lone public servant accused dies, special judge has to continue the trial. – State through C.B.I. New Delhi Vs Jitender Kumar Singh, AIR 2014 SC 1169

P.C. Act Ss.7 and 13(1)(d): Every acceptance of illegal gratification whether preceded by a demand or not, would be covered by S.7. But, if the acceptance of an illegal gratisfication is in pursuance of a demand by the public servant, then it would also fall under S.13(1)(d). The act of demanding and receiving illegal gratification constitutes an offence both under S.7 and S.13(1)(d) and hence the offender cannot be liable for double penalty.-The State Rep. by Inspector of Police, Pudukottai, Tamil Nadu Vs. A Partiban, AIR 2007 SC 51.

P.C. Act S.7 and 13 When one act is falling under both section, the punishment would be concurrent- The State rep. by Inspector of Police Vs. A. Parthiban AIR 2007 SC 51

P.C. Act S.7 Informant could not be examined due to death. Still accused was convicted on the basis of other evidence Kishan Chand Mangal Vs State of Rajasthan AIR 1982 SC 1511

P.C. Act S.19: Whether the appellate court could reverse the conviction and sentece merely on the ground of want of a valid sanction? S.465(2) enjoins on the court a duty to consider whether the accused had raised any objection on that score at the trial stage. If case the accused failed to raise, the trial would normally proceed to its logical end by making a judicial scrutiy of the entire materials.-CBI Vs. V.K. Sehgal, (1999) 8 SCC 501.

P.C. Act S.13(1)(d) Maximum Disproportion Assets of 10 percent is permissible Krishnanand Vs.The State of Madhya Pradesh AIR1977SC796 (3Judges)

P.C. Act S.13(2) Due to minimum sentence no probation benefit – Shyam Lal Verma Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation 2013 (1) Crimes 317 (SC)

P.C. Act S.19 Sanction u/s S.19 PC Act to prosecute a public servant is not required if the public servant has retired on the date of cognizance by the court. State of Punjab Vs Labh Singh, 2015 (1) JLJR (SC)263

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT

The live in relationship does not fall within the definition of the domestic relationship as defined in S. 2 (f) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. Such a relationship can either be of the party being a concubine or one practicing polygamy or person having an adulterous relationship. AIR 2014 SC 309 Indra Sharma Vs. V.K.V. Sharma

A woman living in judicial separation can file an application u/s 12 of domestic violence act 2005 as it is a beneficial legislation for upholding and realisation of constitutional right of woman as enshrined in Constitution of India. JBCJ (1) 2016 (29) SC,

Merely because complainant has been residing in her matrimonial home where no torture was inflicted upon her, torture allegedly inflicted upon her at another place cannot be termed as a continuing offence. JBCJ 2016(1) 143(HC)

Unsuccessful divorce proceeding cannot adversely affect the maintainability of application filed by the contesting respondents under sec 20 and 2 of the DV act for maintenance 2016(3) JBCJ 151 SC

The magistrate issuing N.B.W. following special procedure for the arrest of the husband for non payment of the maintenance ordered to be paid, held valid and also observed that such procedural order is within the framework of section 28 (2) of the D.V. Act. Sagar Sudhakar Shendge Vs. Mrs. Naina Sagar Shendge & ors Cr. W.P. No. 236 of 2013 (Bom. H.C.)

Stridhan Property is the exclusive property of the wife on proof that she interested the property or dominion over the Stridhan property to her husband are anyother member of the family, there is no need to establish any further special aggrement to establish that the property was given to the husband are other member of the family. As long as the status of the aggrieved person remains and stridhan remains in the custody of the husband, the wife can always put forth her claim u/s 12 of the Act. The concept of the continuing offence gets attracted from the date of deprivation of Stridhan property. Krishna Bhattacharjee v. Sarathi Choudhaury, 2015 SCC 1229, 2015

If amendment become necessary in view of subsequent events or to avoid of multiplicity of litigation, court will have power to permit such an amendment – even in criminal cases governed by Cr.P.C. court is not powerless and may along amendment in appropriate cases Kunapareddy @ Nookala Shanka vs Kunapareddy Swarna Kumari (2016) 4 JBCJ 151 SC

EVIDENCE ACT – CRIMINAL

Evi Act S.3: Interested Witness: A witness may be called “Interested” only when he or she derives some benefit from the result of litigation in the decree in a civil case, or in seeing an accused person punished. A witness is a natural and is the only possible eye witness in the circumstances of a case cannot be said to be interested. A relation of a victim may be a natural witness – State of Rajastan Vs. Smt. Kalki and another, AIR 1981 SC 1390

Evi Act S.3 Enmity: The witnesses were inimical to the accused, but that by itself was not a sufficient ground for rejecting their testimony – Raman Kalia Vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1979 SC 1261.

Evi Act S.3 -Discrepancies in oral evidence: Discrepancies which do not go to the root of the matter and shake the basic version of the witnesses cannot be annexed with undue importance. More so when the all important “probabilities-factor” echoes in favour of the version narrated by the witnesses. The reasons are given in – Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai Vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1983 SC 753

Evi Act S.27: Accused need not be in formal arrest when he gave the information- Vikram Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab, (2010) 3 SCC 56.

Evi Act S.27 and S.162(2), Cr.P.C. (A) It is fallacious impression that when recovery is effected under S.27, Evidence Act, the document prepared by the I.O., contemporaneous with such recovery, must be attested by independent witness. Of course, if any such statement leads to recovery of any article, it is open to the investigating officer to take the signature of any person present at that time, on the recovery document. (B) It is not a legally approvable procedure to presume the police action as unreliable to start with, or to jettison such action merely for the reason that police did not collect signature of independent persons in the documents made contemporaneous with such actions – State, Govt. of NCT of Delhi Vs. Sunil and another, (2001) 1 SCC 652

Evi. Act S.3: Police credibility: The presumption that a person acts honestly applies as much in favour of a police officer as in other persons and it is not a judicial approach to distrust or suspect him without good ground thereof. Such an attitude could do neither credit to Magistrate not to the public. It can only run down prestige of public administration -Ahir Raja khima Vs. State of Saurashtra, AIR 1956 SC 217.

Evi. Act S.3 and 114: Non-examination of the I.O. per se is not fatal: Investigating officer was not examined. A case of prejudice likely to be suffered by an accused must depend on the facts of the case and no universal straitjacket formula should be laid down that non-examination of the investigating officer per se vitiates a criminal trial – Behari Prasad VS. State of Bihar, AIR 1996 SC 2911

Evi Act S.3: Non-examination of independent witness was not fatal. Civilized people are generally insensitive-Appabhai and anr Vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1988 SC 696

Evi. Act S.3: Evidence of Hostile witness: Law is well settled that mere fact that witness is declared hostile by the party calling him and was allowed to be cross-examine, does not make him an unreliable witness so as to exclude his evidence all together-Bhagwan Vs State, AIR 1976 SC 202.

Evi. Act S.3: Independent witness turned hostile, that itself is not a ground for acquittal-Bholaram Kushwaha Vs. State of MP, 2001 Cr.L.J. 116 SC.

Evi. Act S.3: F I R details unnecessary: The F I R given by a rustic lay woman is not to be treated as or equated to the summary of the entire prosecution’s case and a mere omission to mention an incidental fact cannot have the effect of nullifying an otherwise proper and impeccable report -Gurnam Kaur Vs. Bashib Singh, AIR 1981 SC 631.

Evi Act S.3 Seizure can be believed if the evidence of IO is convincing though witnesses did not support Modan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan AIR 1978 SC 1511

Evi. Act S.27 Discovery need not be a thing but a fact Mehboob Ali and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan 2015 (12) SCALE 67

Evi Act S.27: Investigating Officer need not take signature of accused on seizure memo: The investigating officer has no obligation to obtain signatures of accused but obtaining such signatures is also not illegal. The resultant position is that the Investigating Officer is not obliged to obtain the signature of an accused in any statement attributed to him while preparing seizure memo for the recovery of any article covered by Section 27 of the Evidence Act. But, if any signature has been obtained by an Investigating Officer, there is nothing wrong or illegal about it. -State of Rajasthan v. Teja Ram and others, 1999 CrLJ 2588

Evi Act S. 45: Rabi Kumar vs Duryodhan Gope Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 88 of 2015 In a case of Gangrape , solitary evidence of the prosecutrix cannot result in conviction of the accused persons unless the same is corroborated with medical evidence. There was no evidence available on record with regard the medical examination of the accused person far ascertaining whether they were capable of performing sexual intercourse. The Doctor who examined the accused for that purpose did not step in the witness box and his name did not feature in the list of witnesses. This aspect cannot be ignored well the accused persons are facing such a serious charge.

Evi Act S.112 DNA test allowed by holding that it is most legitimate and scientifically perfect means Dipanwita Roy Vs. Ronobroto Roy (2015) 1 SCC 365

Evi. Act S.157 Non examination of independent witness is not sufficient to discard reliable evidence The State of Karnataka Vs. Moin Patel and Others AIR 1996 SC 3041

Evi. Act S.159: Refreshing Memory: It is always advisable that the investigating officer looks into records before answering any question -State of Karnataka Vs. K. Yarappa Reddy, (1999) 8 SCC 715

Evi. Act S.165 and 137: Witness in a bit of confusion during his cross-examination – Not improper for trial Court to put questions during his cross-examination to elicit truth: A judge is expected to actively participate in the trial, elicit necessary materials from witnesses at the appropriate context which he feels necessary for reaching the correct conclusion. There is nothing which inhibits his power to put questions to the witnesses, either during Chief examination or cross-examination or even during re-examination to elicit truth. The corollary of it is that if a judge felt that a witness has committed an error or a slip it is the duty of the judge to ascertain whether it was so for to err is human and the chances of erring may accelerate under stress of nervousness during cross-examination. Criminal justice is not to be founded on erroneous answers spelled out by witnesses during evidence collecting process. It is a useful exercise for trial judge to remain active and alert so that errors can be minimised.- State of Rajasthan Vs. Ani alias Hanif and Ors, AIR 1997 SC 1023

MONEY LENDING

Assam Money Lenders Act, 1934 section 2 (1): A few disconnected and isolated transactions would not make one a person engaged regularly in money lending business – Ka Icilda Wallang Vs. U.Lokendra Suiam, AIR 1987 SC 2047

C.P.and Berar Money Lenders Act, section 11 F and section 11 H: “Moneylender” under the Act means a person who in the regular course of business advances a loan and excludes isolated transactions of money lending. – Gajanan and others Vs. Seth Brindaban, AIR 1970 SC 2007. (AIR 1954 Nagpur 44, (1965) 67 Bom LR 816 and AIR 1962 Madh Pra 117 (FB) Approved.)

SPECIFIC RELIEF

Specific Relief Act S.21: Compensation: In Shamsu Suhara Beevi Vs G. Alex and Another [(2004) 8 SCC 569], this Court, while dealing with a matter relating to grant of compensation by the High Court under Section 21 of the Specific Relief Act in addition to the relief of specfic performance in the absence of prayer made to that effect either in the plaint or amending the same at any legal stage of the proceedings to include the relief of compensation in addition to the relief of specific performance, observed: “Grant of such a relief in the teeth of express provisions of the statue to the contrary is not permissible. On equitable consideration court cannot ignore or overlook the provisions of the statute. Equity must yield to law”. – Shiv Kumar Sharma vs Santosh Kumari on 18 September, 2007.

When granting probate the court has given finding that the parties are not governed by customary law and said finding has attained finality, in such circumstances Title partition suit by the objector on the plea of “being governed by tribal customary law” is not maintainable and is hit by principle of res-judicata. Marium Tiggal &Ors- Vs Michel &Ors 2015 (4) JLJR 658.

The plaintiff is not to be denied the specific performance of contract on account of phenomenal increase of price during pendency of litigation . 2014(4) JLJR (SC) 578

SUCCESSION

Hindu widow is not a coparcener in HUF of her husband and cannot act as a karta of HUF after death of her husband. When shows male coparcener is a minor HUF does not come to an end. Mother of male coparcener can act as legal guardian of minor and also look after his role as karta is her capacity as his legal guardian. A Hindu widow acting as Manger of HUF in her capacity as guardian of sole surviving minor male coparcener, such a role necessarily has to be distinguished from that of a karta which position Hindu widow cannot assume by virtue of her disentitlement to be a coparcener of HUF of her husband. 2016 (2) JBCJ (SC) 141

Under Mohammedan law a gift of corpus has to be unconditional. The condition expressed in gift is treated as void. the conditional gift is valid but the conditions are void2014(4)JLJR 117(SC)
A daughter can not claim partition where the disposition of property has taken place before 20th 12. 2004. JBCJ(1) 2016 (1) SC

Factors to be considered necessary by a trial court in partition suit filed by a co-sharer, coparcrener, co-owner, joint owner for partition are- nature and character of property in suit such as who was the original owner of the suit property, how and by which source he/she acquired such properties, whether it was his/her self acquired property or ancestral property, or joint property or co-parcenary property in his/her hand and, if so, who are the co-pacenars or joint owner with him. Secondly how the devolution of his interest in the property took place consequent upon his death on surviving members and in what proportion, whether he died intestate or left behind any testamentary succession in favour of any family members or out side to inherit his share in the properties and if so, its effects. Thirdly whether the property in suit are capable of being partitioned effectively and lastly whether all properties included in the suit and all co-sharer, coparcener, co-owner are made party. JLJR 2015 SC 457

Suit is not maintainable as on death of grandfather of plaintiff the joint family property which was ancestral property in hands of grandfather and other co-parceners devolved by succession u/s 8 and therefore ancestral property ceased to be joint family property on death of the grand father2016(2) JBCJ 442 SC

ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE & CYBER LAW

Recording Evidence through Electronic Media: CPC O.18 R.4(3): Evidence can be recorded though electronic media alsoSalem Advocate Bar Association Vs. Union of India (UOI), AIR 2003 SC 189

Evi Act S.3: Tape Record is admissible as evidence on proof of identification of voice proof of absence of tampering. Secondary Evidence is not admissible until non-production of primary evidence is satisfactorily proved. Exception is to public document in view of S.65(e), Evidence Act.-Tukaram S. Dighole Vs Manikrao Shivaji Kok
ate (2010) 4 SCC 329 =AIR 2010 SC 965 dd on 5 February, 2010.
Evi Act S. 27 The confession made by accused to the police can be treated as F.I.R. in a case and it will have no evidentiary value. JLJR 2015 Supreme Court page 483

Information Technology Act S.69A: Magistrate has no jurisdiction without the matter before him to order blocking website -Sreekanth C. Nair Vs. Licensee Developer decided on 29.08.2008 by Kerala High Court.

Evi Act S.65: The pre-conditions to lead secondary evidence are as follows that original documents could not be produced by the party relying upon such document in spite of his best effort and is unable to produce the same, which was beyond his control and the party sought to produce secondary evidence should establish for non production of primary evidence and unless it is established that the original document has been lost or destroyed or was being deliberately withheld by the party, then only the secondary evidence with respect to such document can be accepted. 2015(4) JLJR SC 437

Stage for S.65B: Evidence Act Certificate: Certificate can be filed at the time the electronic record is tendered in evidence.-Avadut Waman Kushe Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2016 SCC Online Bom 3256 (Hon. Smt. Justice R.P. SondurBaldota) dd on 03.03.2016.[Observed that this point did not arise in Anvar P.V. and Faim @ Lala Ibrahim Khan distinguished]. Trial Court ought not to have rejected production of CD by accused as the accused

Fresh Certificate S.65B: Evidence Act: If the certificate under S.65B, Evidence Act which was produced was rejected as not compliance with the Section, fresh certificate may be produced.-Ignatius Topy Pereira Vs. Travel Corporation (India) Pvt. Ltd and another, 2016 SCC Online Bom 97 (Hon. Shri Justice S.B. Shukre).

Evi Act S.65B: Late production of Certificate: Certificate produced after charge-sheet i.e. separate from the C.D. can be considered by the Court -Paras Jain and ors Vs. State of Rajasthan decided by Rajasthan High Court on 04.07.2015

Tape Recorded Conversation, Admissibility, Nature and Value – To what extent a Tape Record Evidence is admissible. Read the article at http://www.legalservicesindia.com/articles/trc1.htm
Evi Act S 106 : Whenever the attaint of rape is committed inside the house and upon the resistance of the prosecutrix, the accused committed murder in the house, mostly the witnesses will be close relatives. Merely they are close relatives, that does not mean that the deposition given by brother, father and mother should be discarded by the court or should be brushed aside straightly. Whenever close relatives are giving their depositions before the Court, their deposition should be viewed circumspection and closely Dabloo Linda vs. The St of Jharkhand, 2013 (1) JLJR 511

When an offence like murder is committed in secrecy inside a house, initial burden to establish case would be upon prosecution In view of section 106 of Evidence Act there will be corresponding burden on inmates of house to give cogent explanation as to how crime was committed. Inmates of house cannot get away by simply keeping quiet and offering no explanation on supposed premise that burden to establish its case lies entirely upon prosecution and there is no duty at an accused to all. 2016(2) JBCJ (SC) 334

Evi Act S 113A Mere fact that a married woman commits suicide within a period of seven years of her marriage the presumption u/s. 113A of the Evidence Act would not automatically apply. the Legislative mandate is that where a woman commit suicide within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that her husband or any relative of her husband has subjected her to cruelty, the presumption as defined u/s. 498A IPC may attract. Mangat Ram V/s. state of Hariyana AIR 2014 S.C. 1782,

The brother of aunt of husband of deceased cannot be said to be relative of deceased husband as he is not related to the husband of deceased either by blood or marriage or adoption in the aforesaid case. It does not mean that such person cannot be prosecuted for any other offence. AIR 2014 SC 2561

Evi Act S 113B: If prosecution fails to establish that soon before death deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by accused or their family members and also independent witnesses does not support prosecution case and contradictory statement is supported by objective evidence of I.O. conviction u/s 304 B cannot sustained. NAGESHWAR RAJWAR & ORS VS ST OF JHARKHAND (2016) 4 JBCJ 71 HC

Evi Act S 115: It has been held that when a person by fraudulent representation or erroneous representation transfers certain immovable property claiming himself to be the owner then such transfer will subsequently operate on any interest which the transferor may acquire in such property during the subsistence of the contract. Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee Vs Bananamma AIR 2014(SC)3000

According to section 115 of Evidence Act for estoppel there is four pre condition for invoking the rule of estoppal firstly, one party should make a factual representation to the other party secondly, the other party should accept and rely upon the aforesaid factual transaction thirdly, having relied on the aforesaid factual transaction the second party should alter his position fourthly, the instant altering a position should be such that it would be iniquitous to require him to revert back to original position. Pratima Choudhary V/s. Kalpana Mukharjee and others AIR 2014 S. C. 1304

Evi Act S 134: Conviction can well be founded upon the testimony of a sole witness .However the testimony of a sole witness must be confidence inspiring and beyond suspicion leaving no doubt in the mind of the court and has to be corroborated by other evidence 2015 (4) JLJR 312 SC

INDIAN FOREST ACT

S. 33 (C) : Notification declaring the forest land as protected forest u/s 30 of Indian Forest Act shall remain effective for period of 30 years only from the date of notification therefore the petitioner cannot be prosecuted u/s 33 (c) of Indian Forest Act, after laps of 30 years period since notification i.e. after the period of validity of said notification unless renewed. Tulshi Singh and Ors vs St of Jharkhand Cr. M.P. No. 612 of 2009 St of Gujrat vs Kishan Bhai (2014) 5 SCC 108 the Apex Court opined that ‘On the culmination of a criminal case in acquittal, the4 concerned investigating/prosecuting official(s) responsible for such acquittal must necessarily be identified. A finding needs to be recorded in each case, whether the lapse was innocent or blameworthy. Each erring officer must suffer the consequences of his lapse, by appropriate departmental action, whenever called for. Taking into consideration the seriousness of the matter, the concerned official may be withdrawn from investigative responsibilities, permanently or temporarily, depending purely on his culpability. We also feel compelled to require the adoption of some indispensable measures, which may reduce the malady suffered by parties on both sides of criminal litigation. Accordingly we direct the Home Department of every State to formulate a procedure for taking action against all erring investigating/prosecuting officials/officers. All such erring officials/officers identified, as responsible for failure of a prosecution case, on account of sheer negligence or because of culpable lapses, must suffer departmental action. The above mechanism formulated would infuse seriousness in the performance of investigating and prosecuting duties, and would ensure that investigation and prosecution are purposeful and decisive.

NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT ACT

N.I. Act S. 138: A complaint filed before expiry of 15 days from the date on which notice has been served on he drawer is no complaint in the eye of law and therefore cognizance cannot be taken of the offence on the basis of such complaint. AIR 2015 SC 157

The date of computation of limitation will be the date of the filing of the complaint or the date of institution of the prosecution and not the date of cognizance. 2014(1) JLJR (SC) 617

In absence of pleading no evidence can be looked into. For criminal liability to be made out under section 138, there should be legally enforceable debt or liability 2016(2)JBCJ,278 (HC) RAVINDRA PRASAD SINGH VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND &ANR.

Under Section 142 of the N.I. act the court has been empowered to take cognizance even after the prescribed period but only if the complainant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not making complaint within the prescribed period. AIR (6) SC 2149 U/S 142

TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT
Delivery of possession is not an essential prerequisite for validity of gift of immovable property 2014 AIR(SC) 2906

CNT ACT
Authorities under the CNT Act does not have statutory power to declare title and possession of parties. 2016(2)JBCJ,208(HC)