List of Important Leading Judgements

  1. Supreme Court of India Upload Date - 3/23/2017

    Ram Kishan Fauji Versus State of Haryana and Ors.

    The Supreme Court has held that an intra-court appeal cannot be filed before a division bench of the high court if a single judge has passed the order in a criminal case

    Share with your friends


    View Judgement


  2. Supreme Court of India Upload Date - 8/3/2012

    Dayal Singh & Ors. Versus State of Uttaranchal

    In this important case Hon'ble decided three important issue -

    1.  Where acts of omission and commission, deliberate  or  otherwise,  are committed by the investigating agency or other significant  witnesses instrumental in proving the offence, what approach,  in  appreciation of evidence, should be adopted?

    2. Depending upon the answer to the  above,  what  directions  should  be issued by the courts of competent jurisdiction?

    3. Whenever there is some conflict in the eye-witness version  of  events and the medical evidence, what effect will it have on the case of the prosecution and what would be the manner in which  the  Court  should appreciate such evidence?

    HELD- WHERE THERE IS AN INCONSISTENCY WITH MEDICAL EVIDENCE (POST MORTEM) AND EYE WITNESS, THE RELIABLE TESTIMONY OF EYE WITNESS SHALL PREVIAL - REFER PARA 11 AND 12 OF JUDGMENT

    Share with your friends


    View Judgement


  3. Supreme Court of India Upload Date - 4/24/1992

    MADAN GOPAL KAKKAD Vs. NAVAL DUBEY AND ANR

    The medical officer should mention the negative facts in his report, but should not give his opinion that no rape had been committed. Rape is crime and not a medical condition. Rape is a legal term and not a diagnosis to be made by the medical officer treating the victim. The only statement that can be made by the medical officer is that there is evidence of recent sexual activity. Whether the rape has occurred or not is a legal conclusion, not a medical one.

    Share with your friends


    View Judgement


  4. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Upload Date - 1/2/2017

    Abhiram Singh V. C.D. Commachen (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS , New Delhi, January 02, 2017

    SEEKING VOTES ON GROUND OF RELIGION IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL -

    Hon'ble Supreme Court ban on seeking votes over religion, race or caste. Held- “religion, race, caste, community or language would not be allowed to play any role in the electoral process”. Section 123(3) of the Representation of the People Act defines as “corrupt practice” appeals made by a candidate or his agents to vote or refrain from voting for any person on the ground of “his” religion, race, caste, community or language.  The Constitution forbids state from mixing religion with politics,” ruled a seven-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice T.S. Chief Justice Thakur, judges S.A. Bobde, Adarsh Kumar Goel and L. Nageswara Rao and Madan B. Lokur formed the majority opinion. Three judges—Adarsh Kumar Goel, U.U. Lalit and D.Y. Chandrachud—argued against it maintaining this was the prerogative of Parliament

    Share with your friends


    View Judgement


  5. Andhra Pradesh High Court Upload Date - 7/4/2003

    Avon Organics Ltd. vs Poineer Products Ltd. And Ors. on 4 July, 2003

    ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT held-  "I am of considered view that the cheque issued without mentioning the amount for which it is drawn is not a cheque at all. It is not a bill of exchange at all as it is not drawn for a certain amount. When such is the thing, the question of invoking Section 138 of the Act does not arise". 

     

    Share with your friends


    View Judgement


  6. Bombay High Court Upload Date - 2/20/2010

    Ramkrishna Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., Maliwada, Ahmednagar v. Shri Rajendra Bhagchand Warma 2010

    Bombay High Court held - Banks cannot prosecute borrowers under section 138, Negotiable Instrument Act, if blank post-dated cheques issued by them as collateral security are dishonoured. The court upheld the acquittal of Ahmednagar resident Rajendra Warma, who was prosecuted after a blank cheque issued by him for a loan was dishonoured. ​

    ''It is doubtful if the provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can apply to a case in which a blank or post-dated cheque is obtained by a bank or money lender before or while sanctioning or disbursing loan amounts as security for the loan,'' said Justice P R Borkar. The order is likely to come as a huge setback to lending agencies who ask borrowers to deposit blank post-dated cheques as security. ''Law-makers must not have intended or imagined that money lenders or banks would obtain blank or post-dated cheques while sanctioning/disbursing loans as securities and would use them to make debtors/borrowers repay the loan under threat of prosecution and punishment (under the cheque-bouncing law),'' added the judge".
     

    Share with your friends


    View Judgement


  7. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Upload Date - 11/30/2016

    MUKARRAB ETC. Versus STATE OF U.P.

    BONE OSSIFICATION TEST MEDICAL IS NOT CONCLUSIVE PROOF OF AGE- Medical evidence as to the age of a person though a very useful guiding factor is not conclusive and has to be considered along with other circumstances. Bench said "We hold that ossification test cannot be regarded as conclusive when it comes to ascertaining the age of a person"

    Share with your friends


    View Judgement


  8. Supreme Court of India Upload Date - 11/30/2016

    SHYAM NARAYAN CHOUKSEY Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA Respondent(s)

    NATIONAL ANTHEM CASE- it is the duty of every person to show respect when the National Anthem is played or recited or sung. Apex court passed following directions -

    (a) There shall be no commercial exploitation to give financial advantage or any kind of benefit.

    (b) There shall not be dramatization of the National Anthem and it should not be included as a part of any variety show.

    (c) Not be printed on any object and also never be displayed in such a manner at such places which  may be disgraceful to its status and tantamount to disrespect. 

    (d) All the cinema halls in India shall play the National Anthem before the feature film starts and all present in the hall are obliged to stand up to show respect to the National Anthem. 

    (e) Prior to the National Anthem is played or sung in the cinema hall on the screen, the entry and exit doors shall remain closed so that no one can create any kind of disturbance which will amount to disrespect to the National Anthem. After the National Anthem is played or sung, the doors can be opened. 

    (f) When the National Anthem shall be played in the Cinema Halls, it shall be with the National Flag on the screen. 

    (g) The abridge version of the National Anthem made by any one for whatever reason shall not be played or displayed.

    Share with your friends


    View Judgement


  9. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Upload Date - 11/22/2016

    RAMESH AND OTHERS V. STATE OF HARYANA , CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2526 OF 2014

    CONVICTION DESPITE WITNESS TURNED HOSTILE-

    it is held by Apex court "In my fieldwork experiences, witnesses become “hostile” not only when  they are directly implicated in a case filed by the police, but  also  when  they are on the side of the plaintiff's  party. During  the  often  rather  long period that elapses between the police investigation and the  trial  itself, often observed, the party who has lodged the complaint  (and  who  becomes the main witness) can irreparably compromise the case with the  other  party by means of compensation, threat or blackmail."

    The State has a definite role to play in protecting the  witnesses,  to start with at least in sensitive cases involving those  in  power, who  has political patronage and could wield muscle and money power, to  avert  trial getting tainted and derailed and truth becoming a casualty. As  a  protector of its citizens it has to ensure that during a trial in  Court  the  witness could safely depose truth  without  any  fear  of  being  haunted  by  those against whom he had deposed. Every State  has  a  constitutional  obligation and duty to protect the life and  liberty  of  its  citizens.

    Share with your friends


    View Judgement


  10. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Upload Date - 11/26/2013

    Indra Sarma Versus V.K.V. Sarma , New Delhi, November 26, 2013

    •   Live-in or marriage like relationship is neither a  crime  nor  a  sin though socially unacceptable in this country.   The  decision  to  marry  or not to marry or to have a heterosexual relationship is  intensely  personal.
    •   We are, in this case, concerned with the question whether  a  “live-in relationship” would amount to a “relationship in  the  nature  of  marriage” falling within the definition of “domestic relationship” under Section  2(f) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short  “the DV Act”) and the disruption of such a relationship by failure to maintain  a women involved in such a relationship amounts to “domestic violence”  within the meaning of Section 3 of the DV Act.

    Share with your friends


    View Judgement