Judgments - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860
SANDHYA RANI DEBBARMA & ORS Vs. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD & ANR
S.B.I & ORS. Vs. NEELAM NAG & ANR.
It is well-settled that there is no legal bar to the conduct of the disciplinary proceedings and criminal trial simultaneously. However, no straightjacket formula can be spelt out and the Court has to keep in mind the broad approach to be adopted in such matters on case to case basis. The contour of the approach to be adopted by the Court has been delineated in series Full Judgment
TATTU LODHI @ PANCHAM LODHI Vs. STATE OF M.P
GOVINDASWAMY Vs. STATE OF KERALA
PANKAJ Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
BALKAR SINGH Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS
L. NARAYANA SWAMY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.
With this factual background, we advert to the questions of law that arise for consideration: (1) Whether an order directing further investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. can be passed in relation to public servant in the absence of valid sanction and contrary to the judgments of this Court in Anil Kumar & Ors. v. M.K. Aiyappa & Anr.[1] and Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia and Anr. v. Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai Patel and Ors.[2]? (2) Whether a Full Judgment
PRABHU CHAWLA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.
SHANTI DEVI & ORS Vs STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR
BABITA LILA & ANR Vs. UNION OF INDIA
KADMANIAN @ MANIKANDAN Vs. STATE TR.INSP.OF POLICE
ASHIQ HUSSAIN FAKTOO Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
The principle of ex debito justitiae is founded on a recognition of a debt that the justice delivery system owes to a litigant to correct an error in a judicial dispensation. Its application, by the very nature of things, cannot be made to depend on varying perceptions of legal omissions and commissions but such recognition of the debt which have the potential of opening new vistas of Full Judgment
State of Chhattisgarh Vs . Sunil @ Balikaran Sahu & Anr.
Bennet Castelino Vs State Of U.P. Thru. The Secy. Min. Of Law & Justice & Ors.
BHARWAD NAVGHANBHAJ JAKSHIBHAI & ORS. Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
BRIJ LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Every accused is presumed to be innocent unless his guilt is proved. The presumption of innocence is a human right. Subject to the statutory exceptions, the said principle forms the basis of criminal jurisprudence in India. The nature of the offence, its seriousness and gravity has to be taken into consideration. The appellate court should bear in mind the presumption of innocence Full Judgment
KALA @ CHANDRAKALA Vs. STATE TR.INSP.OF POLICE
The prosecution has not been able to complete the chain of circumstances so as to fasten the guilt and to prove the commission of offence by the appellant beyond periphery of doubt. The appellant is acquitted giving her the benefit of doubt. Full Judgment