Filter by Date
Bombay High Court (Single Judge)

FAKIRA S/O MADGU KANNAKE Vs STATE OF MAH. THRU. PSO MULCHERA

CRIMINAL APPEAL, 248 of 2008, Judgment Date: Jun 02, 2017

Full Judgment

Bombay High Court (Single Judge)

STATE OF MAHA Vs MOHAN MADHUSUDAN DASKHEDKAR

CRIMINAL APPEAL, 360 of 2004, Judgment Date: May 09, 2017

Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

STATE OF JHARKHAND THR.S.P.,CBI,RANCHI Vs. SAJAL CHAKRABORTY

Appeal (Crl.), 394 of 2017, Judgment Date: May 08, 2017

39. The modus operandi being the same would not make it a single offence when the offences are separate. Commission of offence pursuant to a conspiracy has to be punished. If conspiracy is furthered into several distinct offences there have to be separate trials. There may be a situation where in furtherance of general conspiracy, Full Judgment

Bombay High Court (Single Judge)

RAVI SO. RAJU BHALERAO Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

CRIMINAL APPEAL, 562 of 2002, Judgment Date: May 08, 2017

Full Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Rajkumar Jaiswal Versus State of M.P

CRA, 2276 of 2017, Judgment Date: May 02, 2017

Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ANR Vs. AMIT KUMAR @ BACHCHA RAI

Appeal (Crl.), 767 of 2017, Judgment Date: Apr 20, 2017

Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ANR Vs. AMIT KUMAR @ BACHCHA RAI

Appeal (Crl.), 767 of 2017, Judgment Date: Apr 20, 2017

Full Judgment

Tags Bail
Bombay High Court (Single Judge)

PRADEEP S/O TRIMBAKRAO KALE Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

APPA, 508 of 2016, Judgment Date: Apr 19, 2017

Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

VINEET KUMAR AND ORS Vs. STATE OF UP & ANR

Appeal (Crl.), 577 of 2017, Judgment Date: Mar 31, 2017

Inherent power given to the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is with the purpose and object of advancement of justice. In case solemn process of Court is sought to be abused by a person with some oblique motive, the Court has to thwart the attempt at the very threshold. The Court cannot permit a prosecution to go on if Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

VIRUPAKSHAPPA GOUDA AND ANOTHER Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER

Appeal (Crl.), 601 of 2017, Judgment Date: Mar 28, 2017

Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

ASHA RANJAN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

Writ Petition (Crl.), 132 of 2016, Judgment Date: Feb 15, 2017

Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs SELVI J. JAYALALITHA & ORS.

Appeal (Crl.), 300 of 2017, Judgment Date: Feb 14, 2017

Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. FATEHKARAN MEHDU

Appeal (Crl.), 216 of 2017, Judgment Date: Feb 03, 2017

The scope of interference and exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. has been time and again explained by this Court. Further, the scope of interference under Section 397 Cr.P.C. at a stage, when charge had been framed, is also well settled. At the stage of framing of a charge, the court is concerned not with the proof of the allegation rather it has to focus on the material and Full Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Mintu Dubey. Vs. Union of India through SP, CBI Jabalpur.

CRA, 02419 of 2012, Judgment Date: Jan 03, 2017

  Head Notes : It is the settled position of law that mere recovery of amount is not sufficient to convict a person under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act if the same is not backed by demand and acceptance of bribe as an illegal gratification.  The proof of demand of illegal gratification, thus, is the gravamen of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) & (ii) of the Act and in absence thereof, unmistakably the charge therefor, would fail. Mere acceptance Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

VIVEK BATRA Vs. U.O.I & ORS

Appeal (Crl.), 2491 of 2014, Judgment Date: Oct 18, 2016

Having gone through the copy of note-sheets relating to sanction in question placed before us as part of rejoinder affidavit, it is evident that there had been proper application of mind on the part of the competent authority before the sanction was accorded. Our perusal of the said record does not indicate that any decision was taken by the competent authority, at any point of Full Judgment

Delhi High Court (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

BALKAR SINGH Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS

W.P.(C), 1191 of 2015, Judgment Date: Sep 07, 2016

Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

L. NARAYANA SWAMY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.

Appeal (Crl.), 721 of 2016, Judgment Date: Sep 06, 2016

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

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

M/S HCL INFOSYSTEM LTD Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

Appeal (Crl.), 751 of 2016, Judgment Date: Aug 09, 2016

The question for consideration relates to the jurisdiction of the Special Judge appointed under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (the “PC Act”) to try a person other than a public servant if the public servant dies before the commencement of the trial. Further question is whether the Special Judge can try a non PC Act case when his appointment is to try all cases of the Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

MUKHTIAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB - PC Act

Appeal (Crl.), 618 of 2012, Judgment Date: Jul 05, 2016

It is a settled principle of law laid down by this Court in a number of decisions that once the demand and voluntary acceptance of illegal gratification knowing it to be the bribe are proved by evidence then conviction must follow under Section 7 of the PC Act against the accused. Indeed, these twin requirements are sine qua non for proving Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

STATE OF KERALA Vs. P. MUHAMMED NOUSHAD - PC Act

Appeal (Crl.), 736 of 2008, Judgment Date: Jun 29, 2016

16) It is a settled principle of law that if the view taken by the High Court while reversing the judgment of the Trial Court appears to be just and reasonable and which is supported by cogent reasoning then this Court would not re-appreciate the evidence again especially when the appeal arises out of the order of acquittal. 17) It is only when the Full Judgment