Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952

20 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

A.R. ANTULAYversusR.S. NAIK & ORS.

1986 INSC 22329 October 1986Dismissed

The petition sought revocation of special leave that had been granted by the Supreme Court in the presence of the respondents' counsel after hearing. The Court examined whether it could set aside its own order of special leave, considering the procedural propriety of the original grant and the constitutional implicatio

STATE OF WEST BENGALversusSADAN K. BORMAL AND ANR.

2004 INSC 32629 April 2004Appeal(s) allowed

The State of West Bengal filed a criminal appeal against S.K. Bormal and others, who were charged under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 for offences alleged to have been committed in August 1988. The 1947 Act was repealed on 9 September 1988 by the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and the case was transferred

A.R. ANTULAYversusR.S. NAYAK & ANR.

1988 INSC 12329 April 1988Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a former Chief Minister of Maharashtra, was prosecuted for corruption offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Supreme Court, in an earlier order dated 16.2.1984, suo motu transferred the case from the Special Judge to the Bombay High Court for speedy trial. The appe

P.C. MISHRAversusSTATE (C.B.I.) & ANR.

2014 INSC 21527 March 2014Dismissed

The case concerned an application by the CBI for a pardon under s.306 CrPC in a corruption investigation where the offence was triable by a Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Metropolitan Magistrate granted the pardon to the co‑accused during the investigation, a decision later challenged b

BANGARU LAXMANversusSTATE (THROUGH CBI) & ANOTHER

2011 INSC 81422 November 2011Dismissed

Bangaru Laxman appealed against the order of a Special Judge that granted pardon to an accomplice (respondent No.2) before the charge‑sheet was filed. The appellant argued that the Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) lacked jurisdiction to grant pardon at the investigation stage and that

SUPDT. & REMEMBRANCER OF LEGAL AFFAIRS, WEST BENGALversusUSHA RANJAN ROY CHOUDHURY & ANR.

1986 INSC 12621 May 1986Dismissed

Three Army officers were charged with offences under Section 52 of the Army Act, 1950, which can be tried either by an ordinary criminal court or a court‑martial. They were tried before a Special Judge of the Fourth Additional Special Court, Calcutta, but the trial judge did not follow the Criminal Courts and Court Mar

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONversusSUBODH KUMAR DUTTA AND ANR.

1997 INSC 3517 January 1997Disposed off

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) filed a charge sheet against Subodh Kumar Dutta under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 for allegedly accepting a bribe of Rs. 700. A Special Judge, appointed under the West Bengal Special Courts Act, 1949, took cognizance of the offence on 9 July 1988. The 1947 Act was re

R. S. NAYAKversusA.R. ANTULAY

1984 INSC 3216 February 1984Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant R.S. Nayak filed a private complaint against the respondent A.R. Antulay, then Chief Minister of Maharashtra, alleging corruption under Sections 161, 164, 165 IPC and Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The complaint was initially dismissed for lack of a sanction under Section 6 of the 19

A.R. ANTULAYversusRAMDAS SRINIWAS NAYAK AND ANOTHER

1984 INSC 3316 February 1984Dismissed

The appellant, A.R. Antulay, challenged the jurisdiction of a Special Judge who had taken cognizance of corruption offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, based on a private complaint filed by the respondent, R.S. Nayak. The issues were whether a Special Judge could entertain a private complaint under th

STATE THROUGH CBI, CHENNAIversusV. ARUL KUMAR

2016 INSC 118513 May 2016Appeal(s) allowed

The State, represented by the CBI, appealed against a High Court order that struck down a tender of pardon granted by a Metropolitan Magistrate to five approvers in a corruption case triable by a Special Judge. The prosecution had filed a charge‑sheet before the Magistrate and obtained a pardon under Section 306 of the

NAR BAHADUR BHANDARI AND ANR.versusSTATE OF SIKKIM AND OTHERS

1998 INSC 24013 May 1998Dismissed

The Chief Minister of Sikkim and an IAS officer were charged under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 for offences alleged in 1984. After the 1947 Act was repealed and replaced by the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, a Special Judge appointed under the 1988 Act tried the case, but later held it lacked jurisdicti

VASANT ARJUNRAO BHANDAKversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

2002 INSC 46512 November 2002Dismissed

Vasant Arjunrao Bhandak was charged under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and contended that the Principal Sessions Judge, Belgaum, lacked jurisdiction because the judge was not a "Special Judge" as defined in Section 3 of the 1988 Act. He argued that the appointment of the judge under a notification issued purs

SATYAVIR SINGH AND OTHERSversusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS. ETC. ETC.

1985 INSC 19612 September 1985Dismissed

The appellants, employees of the Research and Analysis Wing, were dismissed under clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution and Rule 19 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, without a charge‑sheet or inquiry, after a violent pen‑down strike and inti

STATE OF KARNATAKAversusADIMURTHY ALIAS B. MOORTHY

1983 INSC 6711 May 1983Appeal(s) allowed

A supervisor of the Karnataka Electricity Board discovered that the respondent had tampered with the electric meter to avoid recording consumption and lodged a complaint with the police. The trial magistrate acquitted the respondent, holding that the supervisor was not authorized under section 50 of the Indian Electric

ABDUL REHMAN ANTULAY ETC. ETC.versusR.S. NAYAK AND ANR. ETC. ETC.

1991 INSC 32910 December 1991

The Supreme Court examined two writ petitions challenging prolonged criminal proceedings – one by former Maharashtra Chief Minister A.R. Antulay and another by advocate Ranjan Dwivedi – alleging violation of the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court reaffirmed that the right to a speed

ZAHIRA HABIBULLAH SHEIKH AND ANR. ETC.versusSTATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS. ETC.

2004 INSC 3737 May 2004

The State of Gujarat and an accused, Tulsibhai Bhikhabhai Tadvi, filed applications seeking modification of a Supreme Court judgment that ordered a fresh trial of the Zahira Habibullah Sheikh case outside Gujarat. They contended that such a transfer was unlawful, alleging lack of a specific prayer, violation of Section

HARSHAD S. MEHTA AND ORS.versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2001 INSC 4296 September 2001Dismissed

The appellants, Harshad S. Mehta and others, sought to revoke conditional pardons granted by the Special Court under the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992, arguing that the Court lacked jurisdiction to grant pardon because the power under Sections 306 and 307 of the Crim

R. S. NAYAKversusA.R. ANTULAY

1984 INSC 765 April 1984Disposed off

The Supreme Court dealt with two criminal matters transferred from the Special Judge, Greater Bombay, to a sitting High Court Judge. The issues were the procedural law to be applied to the trial after transfer and who would act as public prosecutor when cognizance was taken under Section 8(1) of the Criminal Law (Amend

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search