Judgments - Supreme Court of India
Vasant Rao Guhe VERSUS State of Madhya Pradesh
Trial Court on the two major heads of income i.e. pay and agricultural earnings, the learned Trial Court not only of its own embarked on an inquiry to ascertain and compute the figures, it wholly resorted to inferences in calculating the pay for the periods omitted by the prosecution as well as in fixing 60% expenditure from pay towards household needs. Its assessment of agricultural income of the appellant to say the least is also wholly presumptive in absence of Full Judgment
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND VERSUS MAHENDRA SINGH & ORS.
DR. ABHINAV GUPTA VERSUS PROF. G.K. MEHTA ERSTWHILE VICE CHANCELLOR UNIVERSITY OF ALLAHABAD
SUHAS RAMCHANDRA APTE VERSUS VASANTRAO SHANKARRAO BHOSLE (D) THR. LRS.
ASHA EDUCATION SOCIETY AND ANR. VERSUS NANDKISHORE SHRIKRISHNA WANKHEDKAR AND ANR.
PRAVEER KUMAR PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF MEDICAL HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, GOVT. OF U.P. & ORS. VERSUS REENA KUMARI & ORS.
U. Manjunath Rao Versus U. Chandrashekar & Anr.
State through Central Bureau of Investigation Versus Dr. Anup Kumar Srivastava
Framing of charge is the first major step in a criminal trial where the court is expected to apply its mind to the entire record and documents placed therewith before the court. Taking cognizance of an offence has been stated to necessitate an application of mind by the court but framing of charge is a major event where the court considers the possibility of discharging the accused of the offence with which he is charged or requiring the accused to face trial. There are different categories Full Judgment
M.P. HOUSING BOARD (NOW KNOWN AS M.P HOUSING AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT BOARD) AND ORS. VERSUS PURUSHOTTAM LAL AND ORS.
SHEELA GOYAL & ORS. VERSUS ADVISOR TO THE ADMINISTRATOR, UT, CHANDIGARH & ORS.
RAMA SHANKAR SRIVASTAVA VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
Sanjay Khanderao Wadane Versus State of Maharashtra
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – 1, MUMBAI VERSUS M/S. HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.
RUSTOM KERAWALLA FOUNDATION VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
Smt. Surekha & Ors. Versus The Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd.
NAGAR NIGAM, ALLAHABAD THROUGH ITS MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER VERSUS LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA & ORS.
NEERA YADAV Versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATON
A perusal of the above provision makes it clear that if the elements of any of the three sub-clauses are met, the same would be sufficient to constitute an offence of ‘criminal misconduct’ under Section 13(1)(d). Undoubtedly, all the three wings of clause (d) of Section 13(1) are independent, alternative and disjunctive. Thus, under Section 13(1)(d)(i) obtaining any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage by corrupt or illegal means by a public servant in itself would amount to criminal misconduct. On Full Judgment
RAJIV KUMAR Versus STATE OF U.P. AND ANR.
The essential ingredients of the offence of criminal conspiracy are: (i) an agreement between two or more persons; (ii) the agreement must relate to doing or causing to be done either (a) an illegal act; or (b) an act which is not illegal in itself but is done by illegal means. It is, therefore, plain that meeting of minds of two or more persons for doing or causing to be done an illegal act or an act by illegal means Full Judgment