Digest Of Supreme Court Cases

Enforcement of PUCL Guidelines not Contingent on Direct Victim Participation

The Supreme Court held that the procedural safeguards laid down in People’s Union for Civil Liberties v State of Maharashtra (2014) for police encounters are binding and must be enforced regardless of whether the victim or their family initiates the complaint. A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) at the Assam High Court sought an independent investigation into alleged

Enforcement of PUCL Guidelines not Contingent on Direct Victim Participation Read More »

Courts Must Compare Prosecution and Defence Statements in Cases of Circumstantial Evidence

The Supreme Court held that in cases where a court has relied on circumstantial evidence, it must compare the prosecution’s evidence with that of the defence. Where two views exist, the one favouring the accused should be taken. Vaibhav, the accused, claimed that he found Mangesh, the deceased, in a pool of blood along with

Courts Must Compare Prosecution and Defence Statements in Cases of Circumstantial Evidence Read More »

Preliminary Enquiry Not Necessary to Register FIR in Corruption Cases- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

The Supreme Court held that a preliminary enquiry in corruption cases, while desirable, is not mandatory under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Court was hearing appeals against a Karnataka High Court decision which had quashed an FIR against Sri Channakeshava H.D., a public servant accused of corruption. The High Court noted that the Superintendent

Preliminary Enquiry Not Necessary to Register FIR in Corruption Cases- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Read More »

Anticipatory Bail in cases of Financial Fraud- IPC/ CrPC / Companies Act 2013

The Supreme Court emphasised that anticipatory bail should not be granted to persons accused of serious economic fraud under Section 212(6) read along with Section 447 (Punishment for fraud) of the Companies Act, 2013.  The Punjab and Haryana High Court granted anticipatory bail to individuals accused by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO). The SFIO was

Anticipatory Bail in cases of Financial Fraud- IPC/ CrPC / Companies Act 2013 Read More »

Maintenance Despite Restitution of Conjugal Rights-section 125 CrPC

The Supreme Court held that a restitution of conjugal rights decree does not absolve a husband from paying maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), if the wife has valid reasons to live separately.  Rina Kumari married Dinesh Kumar Mahto in 2014 but left in 2015, citing cruelty, dowry demands and lack of basic amenities.

Maintenance Despite Restitution of Conjugal Rights-section 125 CrPC Read More »

Supreme Court’s power to expand the scope of appeal under Article 142-IPC- Prevention of corruption Act

The Supreme Court held that it is not bound to limit its scope while hearing an appeal. It may expand the merits of the case if required, under its power to do “complete justice” under Article 142. The Court was hearing an appeal filed by Biswajit Das, a Development Officer of Life Insurance Corporation of India,

Supreme Court’s power to expand the scope of appeal under Article 142-IPC- Prevention of corruption Act Read More »

Transfer of prisoner on grounds of security—valid—administrative decision—Prisoners Act 1900

The Supreme Court held that the transfer of a prisoner from one jail to another is an administrative decision. Therefore, Courts must interfere in the matter sparingly. A decision to transfer a prisoner is not arbitrary if a profound rationale supports it. The respondent, Vikash Tiwary, a gangster, was serving life imprisonment at Lok Nayak

Transfer of prisoner on grounds of security—valid—administrative decision—Prisoners Act 1900 Read More »

error: Content is protected !!

Terms And Condition

The rules of the Bar Council of India prohibit law firms from soliciting work or advertising in any manner. By clicking on ‘I AGREE’, the user acknowledges that:

  1. The user wishes to gain more information about Re Legal, its practice areas for his/her own information and use
  2. That the information provided in the website is only for personal use or reference of the visitor and is provided only on his/her specific request.
  3. That the material available for downloading on the website and other information provided on the website would not create any lawyer-client relationship.
  4. That we are not responsible for any consequence of any action taken by the user relying on material/information provided under this website.
  5. That in case the visitor has any legal issues; he or she should seek independent legal advice.

The information provided under this website is for informational purposes only and solely available at your request. It should not be interpreted as soliciting or advertising.