State of West Bengal & others v/s. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal & Others.

The Supreme Court in the instant judgment held that the High Court can direct the CBI to investigate a cognizable offense which is alleged to have taken place in the state, which is outside its jurisdiction. The Supreme Court also deals with the issue of Federal structure doctrine, the concept of judicial review and much more.

State of West Bengal & others v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal & Others.

Civil Appeals No.- 6249-50 of 2001

Before the Supreme Court of India

Bench: K.G. Balakrishna, C.J., R.V. Raveendran, D.K. Jain, P. Sathasivam and J.M. Panchal, JJ.

Author of the Judgement: Justice D.K. Jain

Relevant Acts:

  • Constitution of India- Article 226, Article 142
  • Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946- Section 5 and Section 6
  • Indian Penal Code, 1860- Sections 148/149/448/436/364/302/201
  • Arms Act, 1959- Sections 25/27
  • Explosives Act, 1884- Section 9(B)

Decided on: February 17, 2010


Continue Reading

Anjan Das Gupta v/s. State of West Bengal & Ors.

In the instant judgement, the Honourable Apex Court of the country has made the accused liable for murder under section 302/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1960. It is interesting how the Honourable Supreme Court by placing reliance on Arya Joseph alias current Kunjukunju v/s. State of Kerala held that the FIR in the question is not anti-dated or anti-timed.

 Anjan Das Gupta v/s. State of West Bengal & Ors. 

Criminal Appeal No. 298 of 2016

Before the Supreme Court of India

Coram: Ashok Bhushan and Pinaki Chandra Ghose, JJ.

Author of the Judgement: Justice Ashok Bhushan

Delivered on: November 25, 2016.

Advocate for Appellant: Kapil Sibal, Senior Counsel.

Advocate for Respondent: Rupesh Kumar, Senior Counsel.

Advocate for State: Parijat Sinha, Senior Counsel.

Brief Facts: On 16th June In2000, at around 4:50 PM, the deceased- Debol Kumar Ghosh was sitting in his party office and at that time Anjan Das Gupta along with 4 other persons arrived there. The present appellant- Debol Kumar Ghosh has ordered certain persons to shoot the deceased from the pipe gun. This led to the death of the accused. Sandip Ghosh, the son of the deceased, was an eye-witness to this incident.

In the initial proceedings of the case, the accused were charge-sheet under Indian Penal Code as:

  • Section 302/34– Anjan Das Gupta, Bhola Kundu, Saroj Roy and Biswanath Paul
  • Section 212 – Basudev Paul.


Continue Reading

UCO Bank & Anr. V. Dipak Debbarma & Ors.

This judgement delivered on November 25, 2016, deals with the dominance of Union Legislation over the State Legislation in accordance with the two preconditions being satisfied. The ratio laid down by comparing Article 246 and Article 31B of the Indian Constitution suggests that if the state legislation encroaches the parliamentary legislation then it can be nullified.

UCO Bank & Anr. V. Dipak Debbarma & Ors.

Civil Appeal No. 11250 of 2016

Before the Supreme Court of India

Coram: Ranjan Gogoi and Abhay Manohar Sapre, JJ.

Delivered on: November 25, 2016.

Facts: The UCO bank by the sale notification dated 26.06.2012 under SARFESI Act, 2002, sold the land by auction to the purchaser who is not the member of Schedule Tribe. By the virtue of section 187 of Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reform Act, 1960, it is mandatory for the bank to sell such property to schedule tribe only.

Procedural History: A writ petition was instituted in the Agartala Bench of the Gauhati high Court who are the respondent in the present appeal. The High Court agreed with the act of 1960 because it is included in the 9th schedule of the constitution and therefore enjoys protection under section 31B of the Constitution and hence prevails over the act of 2002.


Continue Reading

Mukkarab, ETC. V/s. State of Uttar Pradesh

The judgment delivered by the Honourable Supreme Court of India deals with the question of acceptance of medical report vis-a-vis the main purpose behind the legislation of Juvenile Justice Act. It is noteworthy how the Supreme Court has given importance to the purpose of the legislation as against the dictionary meaning of the words used in it.

Mukkarab, ETC. V/s. State of Uttar Pradesh

Criminal Appeal Nos. 1119-1120 of 2016

In the Supreme Court of India

Bench: R. Banumathi and A.K. Sikri, JJ.

Delivered on: 30th November 2016

Advocates for appellants: Mr. Shakeel Ahmed, Adv.

Advocates for respondent: Mr. Abhishek Chaudhary, Adv., Mr. Pawanshree Agrawal, Adv., Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg, Adv.

Brief Facts: On 22.03.1994, six of the accused had a quarrel with the deceased when he was returning to his home from the market at around 5:30 PM. The accused abused the deceased on the pretext that he was causing obstruction in the Mangal Bazaar. Deceased was attacked by guns and knives and was subsequently killed.

All the accused were charge-sheeted under section 147, 148, 149 & 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1960.


Continue Reading

Ramesh & others v. state of Haryana

The Supreme Court in the present judgement decides the admissibility of the Dying Declaration made by the deceased in the present facts and circumstances of the case. The Supreme Court also elaborates on the reasons which lead the witness to turn hostile. `

Ramesh & others v. State of Haryana

Criminal appeal nos. 2526 of 2014

In the supreme court of India

Bench: A.K. Sikri and Amitava Roy, JJ.

Delivered on: November 22, 2016

Advocates for appellant: Mr. Praveen Kumar Aggarwal, Adv., Mr. U.P. Singh, Adv., Mr. Sanjay Jain, Adv.

Advocates for respondent: Mr. Jaydeep Kumar Sharma, Adv., Mr. Gyanendra Kumar, Adv., Mr. Vishwa Pal Singh, Adv.

Brief Facts: the marriage between the accused husband and the deceased wife were solemnized 20 years before. Out of the said marriage, they had two sons. In the dying declaration, two incidents were narrated by the deceased:

  • She was thrown into the well after her marriage by her husband
  • She was set at ablaze by her husband, devar, devarani & mother-in-law. These people also used to demand dowry by means of buffalo, money or scooter.

A FIR No. 254 on 28th September 1999 was registered in the police station against the accused persons for the offenses under section 302, 34, 498A of Indian Penal Code, 1960.


Continue Reading

K V Prabhu v. State of Karnataka

This judgement lays down the true interpretation to the word ‘cruelty’ mentioned under section 498A and explains the two limbs of the said section. Along with it, the judgement also lays down that the prosecution should explain beyond doubt that the ingredients of section 306 are satisfied.

K.V. Prabhu v/s. State of Karnataka

Criminal Appeal Nos. 1138-1139 of 2016

Before the Honourable Supreme Court of India

Coram: Justice Deepak Mishra, Justice Amitava Roy

Advocate for appellant: Mr. S.R. Singh

Advocate for the respondent: Mr. V.N. Raghupathy

Decided on: November 22, 2016.

Brief Facts: The marriage between appellant and the deceased were solemnised on 12.10.1997. Appellant alleged to have relation with Deepa D/o Ashwathamma. Deceased could not beat this and committed suicide on 20th August 2004. A FIR was launched by the father of the deceased and the Investigation Officer (IO) vide section 161 of Indian Penal Code, 1960, recorded the statement of witnesses. In the charge sheet the appellant was accused of section 201, 302 and 498 of IPC and section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.


Continue Reading
Close Menu