Judgments - Supreme Court of India
SMT. SURINDAR KAUR SANDHU Vs.HARBAX SINGH SANDHU & ANR.
SIRAJMOHMEDKHAN JANMOHAMADKHAN VS. HAFIZUNNISA YASINKHAN & ANR.
Suraj Mal Vs State (Delhi Administration)
In our opinion, mere recovery of money divorced from the circumstances under which it is paid is not sufficient to convict the accused when the substantive evidence in the case is not reliable. Thus mere recovery by itself cannot prove the charge of the prosecution against the appellant, in the absence of any evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that the appellant voluntarily accepted the money. Full Judgment
MOHD. IQBAL, AHMAD Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Any case instituted without proper sanction must fail because this being a manifest defect in the prosecution, the entire proceedings are rendered void ab initio. The grant of sanction is not an idle formality but a solemn and sacrosanct act which affords protection to government servants against frivolous prosecutions and must therefore be strictly complied with before any prosecution could be launched against public servants. The presumption does not arise automatically but only on proof of certain circumstances that is to say, Full Judgment
LILA GUPTA Vs LAXMI NARAIN & ORS
HELD : (1) Examining the matter from all possible angles and keeping in view the fact that the scheme of the Act provides for, treating certain marriages void and simultaneously some marriages which are made punishable yet not void and no consequences having been provided for in respect of the marriage in contravention of the proviso to s. 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 it cannot be said that such marriage would be void. In the instant case, as the Full Judgment
State Of West Bengal Etc vs Manmal Bhutoria & Ors. Etc
HEADNOTE: In May 1967 a case was lodged against the respondent and a Major of the Indian Army who was retired in 1966, alleging that the Major, along with the respondent, had committed offences of conspiracy of criminal misconduct by a public servant in dishonestly abusing his position as a public servant, under s. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. When the case, which was allotted to the Fourth Additional Special Court under s. 4(.2) of the West Bengal Full Judgment
Palaniappa Gounder vs State Of Tamil Nadu & Ors
ASHOK DULICHAND VS. MADAHAVLAL DUBE & ANOTHER
NARAYAN GANESH DASTANE VS. SUCHETA NARAYAN DASTANE
ROSY JACOB Vs.JACOB A. CHAKRAMAKKAL
ROHINI KUMARI VS. NARENDRA SINGH
KULBHUSHAN KUMAR VS. RAJ KUMARI & ANR.
MATHURA PRASAD BAJOO JAISWAL & ORS. Vs. DOSSIBAI N. B. JEEJEEBHOY
NANI GOPAL MITRA Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. LEELA JAIN
The preamble may, no doubt, be used to solve any ambiguity or to fix the meaning of words which may have more than one meaning, but it can, however, not be used to eliminate as redundant or unintended, the operative provisions of a statute. Full Judgment
Avtar Singh vs State Of Punjab
HEADNOTE: The appellant was prosecuted and convicted for theft of electrical energy under s. 39 of the Indian Electricity Act (9 of 1910). He contended that, as his prosecution was for an offence against the Act it was incompetent, because, it had not been instituted at the instance of any of the persons mentioned in s. 50 of the Act. HELD : The conviction of the appellant must be set aside. The dishonest abstraction of electricity mentioned in s. 39 Full Judgment