Created by Fuzzy Cloud | Our 2nd AI-Powered Solution
21 judgments · newest first · showing 1–21
Nathuni Sah was arrested in connection with a case of an explosive device discovered on a road on Republic Day 2013, alleged under sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substances Act and section 17 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. The FIR described a pressure‑cooker bomb found by the bomb disposal …
The petitioners, Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency and others, challenged the order of charge framed by a Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, alleging that it was an interlocutory order barred by Section 19(3)(c) of the Act and by Section 397(2) of the CrPC. The Supreme Court …
The case concerns the demolition of the Babri Masjid and the filing of a joint charge‑sheet by the CBI covering 49 FIRs alleging offences such as criminal conspiracy, hate offences and dacoity. The High Court held that a technical defect in the State notification preventing a joint trial was …
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 …
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 …
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 …
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, …
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 The 1947 Act was repealed on 9 September 1988 by the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and the …
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 …
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 …
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 …
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 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 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 …
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 …
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 …
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 …
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 …
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 …
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 …
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 …
