ASIAN RESURFACING OF ROAD AGENCY PVT. LTD. & ANR.V. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
2018 INSC 28228 March 2018Directions issued
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 examined whether suc…
VIDYA CHARAN SHUKLAversusPURSHOTTAM LAL KAUSHIK
1981 INSC 1415 January 1981Appeal(s) allowed
Vidya Charan Shukla was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment exceeding two years, but his conviction was stayed pending appeal. He filed his nomination for the Lok Sabha election, which was accepted despite an objection that he was disqualified under Section 8(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. He was…
SHUKLAversusSTATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION)
1980 INSC 7411 April 1980Disposed off
The Supreme Court examined the conviction of V.C. Shukla and Sanjay Gandhi for alleged conspiracy to destroy the film "Kissa Kursi Ka" under various sections of the Indian Penal Code. The Court held that the Special Courts Act, 1979 – which created special courts for offences by persons holding high public or political…
AMRIT NAHATAversusUNION OF INDIA
1985 INSC 1298 May 1985Disposed off
Amrit Nahata filed a writ petition challenging sections of the Cinematograph Act and Censorship Rules and seeking certification of his film ‘Kissa Kursee Ka’. The Supreme Court ordered the film’s negatives and prints to be preserved and screened before five judges, but the film was not made available. The Solicitor Gen…
V.C. SHUKLAversusSTATE THROUGH C.B.I.
1979 INSC 2627 December 1979Dismissed
V.C. Shukla was charged under the Special Courts Act, 1979 and the Special Judge ordered that a charge be framed against him. The State raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the order was merely an interlocutory one and that, under section 11(1) of the Act (which contains a non‑obstante clause), no appeal lies f…
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…