Criminal Law - Corruption - Conviction under Prevention of Corruption Act upheld despite hostile witness - Prosecution proved demand and acceptance of bribe through recovery of tainted money and corroborative testimonies despite complainant turning hostile - Conviction based on meticulous examination of material evidence, including the chain of recovery, witness testimonies, and statutory presumptions under Section 20 of the Act [Para 1-42].

Legal Procedure - Importance of timely cross-examination highlighted to prevent tampering and undue influence on witnesses - Supreme Court criticizes delays in cross-examination and unnecessary adjournments, emphasizing their detrimental effect on the fairness and efficacy of trials [Para 39-42].

Decision: The appeal is dismissed - The Supreme Court affirms the conviction of the appellant under the Prevention of Corruption Act, emphasizing the reliability and corroboration of evidence pertaining to the demand and acceptance of the bribe despite the complainant’s hostile testimony - The court reiterates the need for swift and efficient trial procedures, condemning unwarranted adjournments and delays in witness cross-examinations as harmful to justice delivery.

Referred Cases:

M.R. Purushotham Vs. State of Karnataka, , (2014) AIRSCW 5740 : (2014) 3 SCC 721

Satvir Singh Vs. State of Delhi, , (2014) AIRSCW 4924 : (2014) 9 SCALE 528

Suresh Budharmal Kalani @ Pappu Kalani Vs. State of Maharashtra, , AIR 1998 SC 3258 : (1998) CriLJ 4592 : (1998) 6 JT 371 : (1998) 5 SCALE 282 : (1998) 7 SCC 337 : (1998) 1 SCR 608 Supp : (1998) AIRSCW 3182 : (1998) 7 Supreme 378

Rammi @ Rameshwar etc. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, , AIR 1999 SC 3544 : (1999) CriLJ 4561 : (1999) 7 JT 247 : (1999) 6 SCALE 69 : (1999) 8 SCC 649 : (1999) 3 SCR 1 Supp : (1999) AIRSCW 3546 : (1999) 8 Supreme 364

C.M. Sharma Vs. State of A.P. Th. I.P., , AIR 2011 SC 608 : (2011) CriLJ 975 : (2010) 12 JT 546 : (2011) 1 RCR(Criminal) 183 : (2010) 12 SCALE 381 : (2011) AIRSCW 297

Megha Singh Vs. State of Haryana, , AIR 1995 SC 2339 : (1995) CriLJ 3988 : (1996) 11 SCC 709

Swaran Singh Vs. State of Punjab, , AIR 2000 SC 2017 : (2000) CriLJ 2780 : (2000) 6 JT 623 : (2000) 4 SCALE 153 : (2000) 5 SCC 668 : (2000) AIRSCW 1895 : (2000) 4 Supreme 364

Sita Ram Vs. The State of Rajasthan, , AIR 1975 SC 1432 : (1975) CriLJ 1224 : (1975) 2 SCC 227 : (1975) 7 UJ 563

S. Jeevanantham Vs. The State through Inspector of Police, TN, , (2004) CriLJ 3834 : (2004) 94 ECC 130 : (2004) 5 SCALE 780 : (2004) 5 SCC 230 : (2004) 1 SCR 607 Supp : (2004) AIRSCW 4203 : (2004) 4 Supreme 245

Shri Rabindra Kumar Dey Vs. State of Orissa, , AIR 1977 SC 170 : (1977) 43 CLT 1 : (1977) CriLJ 173 : (1976) 78 PLR 928 : (1976) 4 SCC 233 : (1976) SCC(Cri) 566 : (1977) 1 SCR 439

Syad Akbar Vs. State of Karnataka, , AIR 1979 SC 1848 : (1979) CriLJ 1374 : (1980) 1 SCC 30 : (1980) 1 SCR 95

C.M. Girish Babu Vs. CBI, Cochin, High Court of Kerala, , AIR 2009 SC 2022 : (2009) CLT 850 : (2009) 3 JT 32 : (2009) 3 SCALE 107 : (2009) 3 SCC 779 : (2009) 2 SCR 1021 : (2009) 2 UJ 990 : (2009) AIRSCW 1693

Bhagwan Singh Vs. The State of Haryana, , AIR 1976 SC 202 : (1976) CriLJ 203 : (1976) 1 SCC 389 : (1976) SCC(Cri) 7 : (1976) 2 SCR 921 : (1976) 8 UJ 78

The State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Bhagwant Kishore Joshi, , AIR 1964 SC 221 : (1964) CriLJ 140 : (1964) 1 LLJ 60 : (1964) 3 SCR 71

State rep. by Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Tiruchirapalli, Tamil Nadu Vs. V. Jayapaul, , (2004) CriLJ 1819 : (2004) 3 JT 633 : (2004) 3 SCALE 507 : (2004) 5 SCC 223 : (2004) 1 SCR 330 : (2004) AIRSCW 1762 : (2004) 3 Supreme 434

Hazari Lal Vs. State (Delhi Administration), , AIR 1980 SC 873 : (1980) CriLJ 564 : (1980) 2 SCC 390 : (1980) SCC(Cri) 458 : (1980) 2 SCR 1053

The State of Bihar Vs. Basawan Singh, , AIR 1958 SC 500 : (1958) CriLJ 976 : (1959) 1 SCR 195

Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh and Another Vs. The State of Vindhya Pradesh, , AIR 1954 SC 322 : (1954) CriLJ 910 : (1954) 1 SCR 1098

Suraj Mal Vs. State (Delhi Administration), , AIR 1979 SC 1408 : (1979) CriLJ 1087 : (1979) 4 SCC 725 : (1980) SCC(Cri) 159 : (1979) 11 UJ 916

Major E.G. Barsay Vs. The State of Bombay, , AIR 1961 SC 1762 : (1961) CriLJ 828 : (1962) 2 SCR 195

K.S. Panduranga Vs. State of Karnataka, , (2013) 3 AD 414 : AIR 2013 SC 2164 : (2013) 116 CLT 669 : (2013) CriLJ 1665 : (2013) 3 CTC 631 : (2013) 3 JT 514 : (2013) 2 RCR(Criminal) 219 : (2013) 3 SCALE 152 : (2013) 3 SCC 721 : (2013) 1 SCC(L&S) 791 : (2013) AIRSCW 1382

Banarsi Dass Vs. State of Haryana, , AIR 2010 SC 1589 : (2010) CriLJ 2419 : (2010) 2 Crimes 351 : (2010) 3 JT 552 : (2010) 4 SCC 450 : (2010) 4 SCR 383

B. Jayaraj Vs. State of A.P., , (2014) AIRSCW 2080 : (2014) CriLJ 2433 : (2014) 7 JT 381 : (2014) 4 SCALE 81

Bhagwan Singh Vs. The State of Rajasthan, , AIR 1976 SC 985 : (1976) CriLJ 713 : (1976) 1 SCC 15 : (1975) 7 UJ 680

Khujji alias Surendra Tiwari Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, , AIR 1991 SC 1853 : (1991) CriLJ 2653 : (1991) 3 Crimes 82 : (1991) 3 JT 151 : (1991) 2 SCALE 80 : (1991) 3 SCC 627 : (1991) 3 SCR 1

Sat Paul Vs. Delhi Administration, , AIR 1976 SC 294 : (1976) CriLJ 295 : (1976) 78 PLR 194 : (1976) 1 SCC 727 : (1976) SCC(Cri) 160 : (1976) 2 SCR 11

Gurnaib Singh Vs. State of Punjab, , (2013) CriLJ 3212 : (2013) 3 JCC 1775 : (2013) 8 JT 1 : (2013) 3 RCR(Criminal) 407 : (2013) 7 SCALE 89 : (2013) 7 SCC 108 : (2013) AIRSCW 4956

Madhukar Bhaskarrao Joshi Vs. State of Maharashtra, , (2001) CriLJ 175 : (2000) 2 JT 458 Supp : (2000) 7 SCALE 382 : (2000) 8 SCC 571 : (2000) 4 SCR 475 Supp : (2001) 1 UJ 323

M.O. Shamsudhin Vs. State of Kerala, , (1995) 2 Crimes 282 : (1995) 3 JT 367 : (1995) 2 SCALE 298 : (1995) 3 SCC 351 : (1995) 2 UJ 79

M. Narsinga Rao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, , AIR 2001 SC 318 : (2001) CriLJ 515 : (2000) 3 JT 559 Supp : (2000) 10 JT 268 : (2000) 8 SCALE 303 : (2001) 1 SCC 691 : (2000) 5 SCR 584 Supp : (2000) AIRSCW 4427 : (2000) 8 Supreme 498

Raghubir Singh Vs. State of Haryana, , AIR 1974 SC 1516 : (1974) CriLJ 1062 : (1974) 4 SCC 560 : (1974) SCC(Cri) 596 : (1974) 3 SCR 799

State of Maharashtra Vs. Dnyaneshwar Laxman Rao Wankhede, , (2009) 12 JT 515 : (2009) 10 SCALE 355 : (2009) 15 SCC 200 : (2009) 12 SCR 513

T. Subramanian Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, , AIR 2006 SC 836 : (2006) 101 CLT 516 : (2006) CriLJ 804 : (2006) 1 JT 101 : (2006) 1 SCALE 116 : (2006) 1 SCR 180 : (2006) AIRSCW 184 : (2006) 1 Supreme 1

Talab Haji Hussain Vs. Madhukar Purshottam Mondkar and Another, , AIR 1958 SC 376 : (1958) CriLJ 701 : (1958) 1 SCR 1226

Raj Rajendra Singh Seth @ R.R.S. Seth Vs. The State of Jharkhand and Another, , AIR 2008 SC 3217 : (2008) CLT 1085 : (2008) CriLJ 4306 : (2008) 10 SCALE 287 : (2008) 11 SCC 681 : (2008) AIRSCW 5442

Criminal Procedure - Quashing of FIR – Appeal against High Court's dismissal of the petition for quashing FIR, which was deemed premature as it was filed before investigation completion - Supreme Court evaluated whether uncontroverted allegations made out the offenses charged - Held that the FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings against appellants were not sustainable in law, as the actions described did not constitute criminal force or intimidation under IPC - FIR quashed - Ingredients of the offenses under Sections 353 and 506 IPC not satisfied as per allegations and evidence presented [Paras 2-16]

Interpretation of IPC Sections 353 and 506 – Analysis on whether online comments on public forum amounted to criminal force or intimidation - Found no substantial or convincing evidence of intent to alarm or cause harm necessary for said sections - Role of intention in determining applicability of criminal intimidation discussed [Paras 11-15]

Decision - Allowing the appeal, quashing the FIR registered against the appellants under Crime No. 174/2013, and setting aside the impugned order of the High Court [Para 17]

Referred Cases:

State of T.N. vs. Thirukkural Perumal, (1995) 2 SCC 449

State of Haryana and others vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604

Circumstantial Evidence & Conviction - Supreme Court sets aside conviction under Section 302/34 IPC of Italian nationals in a case based on circumstantial evidence - High Court's confirmation of life sentence for alleged murder within hotel room premises questioned - Focus on procedural lapses, non-production of crucial CCTV footage, and gaps in chain of circumstances leading to conviction - Appellants' version of leaving deceased in hotel room while going out contested but not convincingly disproven by prosecution - Absence of struggle marks and inconsistencies in medical reports noted - Held: Acquittal based on benefit of doubt due to non-fulfillment of criteria for conviction solely on circumstantial evidence [Paras 1-43].

Electronic Evidence & Investigative Lapses - Critique of non-production of CCTV footage and other electronic evidence which are crucial in substantiating the presence of the accused at the crime scene - Supreme Court underscores the necessity of adhering to Section 65B of the Evidence Act for admissibility of electronic records - Adverse inference drawn against prosecution for non-disclosure and missing evidence leading to failure in proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 22, 23, 26-28].

Decision: Allowed - Conviction and sentence set aside - Appellants to be released forthwith.

Referred Cases:

Shivu and Another Vs. R.G. High Court of Karnataka and Another, , (2007) CriLJ 1806 : (2007) 3 JT 332 : (2007) 3 SCALE 157 : (2007) 4 SCC 713 : (2007) 2 SCR 555

Radhakrishna Nagesh Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, , (2013) 1 AD 308 : (2013) 1 Crimes 325 : (2013) 4 JT 68 : (2012) 12 JT 616 : (2013) 1 RCR(Criminal) 659 : (2012) 12 SCALE 506

C. Chenga Reddy and Others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, , (1996) 5 AD 445 : AIR 1996 SC 3390 : (1996) CriLJ 3461 : (1996) 3 Crimes 119 : (1996) 6 JT 739 : (1996) 5 SCALE 318 : (1996) 10 SCC 193 : (1996) 3 SCR 479 Supp

Munshi Prasad and Others Vs. State of Bihar, , AIR 2001 SC 3031 : (2001) CriLJ 4708 : (2001) 8 JT 406 : (2001) 7 SCALE 114 : (2002) 1 SCC 351 : (2001) AIRSCW 4174 : (2001) 8 Supreme 11

Dayal Singh and Others Vs. State of Uttaranchal, , AIR 2012 SC 3046 : (2012) CriLJ 4323 : (2012) 7 JT 353 : (2012) 7 SCALE 165 : (2012) 8 SCC 263 : (2012) AIRSCW 4488 : (2012) AIRSCW 5243 : (2012) 5 Supreme 260 : (2012) 6 Supreme 722

Earabhadrappa Vs. State of Karnataka, , AIR 1983 SC 70 : AIR 1983 SC 446 : (1983) CriLJ 846 : (1983) 2 SCC 330

Gambhir Vs. State of Maharashtra, , AIR 1982 SC 1157 : (1982) CriLJ 1243 : (1982) 1 SCALE 388 : (1982) 2 SCC 351 : (1982) 14 UJ 475

Umesh Singh Vs. State of Bihar, , (2013) 4 AD 129 : AIR 2013 SC 1743 : (2013) CriLJ 2116 : (2013) 7 JT 130 : (2013) 4 JT 485 : (2013) 3 RCR(Criminal) 120 : (2013) 5 SCALE 83 : (2013) 4 SCC 360 : (2013) AIRSCW 4953 : (2013) 3 Supreme 457

Ashok Kumar Chatterjee Vs. State of M.P., , AIR 1989 SC 1890 : (1989) CriLJ 2124 : (1989) 2 Crimes 423 : (1989) 3 JT 451 : (1989) 1 SCALE 1313 : (1989) 1 SCC 560 Supp

Bhagat Ram Vs. State of Punjab, , AIR 1954 SC 621

Hukam Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, , AIR 1977 SC 1063 : (1977) CriLJ 639 : (1977) 2 SCC 99

Padala Veera Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, , AIR 1990 SC 79 : (1989) 4 JT 223 : (1989) 2 SCALE 906 : (1989) 2 SCC 706 Supp : (1990) 1 UJ 137

Thakur Prasad Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, , AIR 1954 SC 30

State of U.P. Vs. Sukhbasi and Others, , AIR 1985 SC 1224 : (1985) CriLJ 1479 : (1985) 2 Crimes 465 : (1985) 1 SCALE 1120 : (1985) SCC 79 Supp

State (N.C.T. of Delhi) Vs. Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru, , AIR 2005 SC 3820 : (2005) CriLJ 3950 : (2005) 11 SCC 600 : (2005) 3 SCR 79 Supp : (2005) AIRSCW 4146 : (2005) 5 Supreme 414

Gosu Jairami Reddy and Another Vs. State of A.P., , AIR 2011 SC 3147 : (2011) CriLJ 4387 : (2011) 4 Crimes 244 : (2011) 3 JCC 2160 : (2011) 8 JT 263 : (2011) 4 RCR(Criminal) 540 : (2011) 8 SCALE 58 : (2011) 11 SCC 766 : (2011) 9 SCR 503 : (2011) AIRSCW 4717 : (2011) 7 Supreme 379

Eradu and Others Vs. State of Hyderabad, , AIR 1956 SC 316 : (1956) CriLJ 559

Property Law – Land Ownership and Encroachment – Appeal against High Court judgment partially modifying trial and first appellate court's decision regarding ownership and encroachment of property earmarked for road – Supreme Court restores judgments of lower courts establishing appellant's ownership of 'A' schedule property – Held that the appellant remains the absolute owner, with entitlement to compensation for the land if acquired by authorities – Respondents' encroachment on 'B' schedule property confirmed, leading to restoration of lower court orders for its vacating. [Paras 1-16]

Appellants are original owners of land in Chikmagalur village, converted for non-agricultural purposes and subdivided – Portions sold to Respondents, with 'A' schedule property reserved for future road – No road constructed, and municipal authority did not acquire 'A' schedule – Trial court and first appellate court declared appellants as absolute owners, entitled to both 'A' and 'B' schedule properties, latter being encroached by Respondents – High Court modified decree, denying absolute ownership and declaration of title over 'A' schedule to appellants, only granting potential compensation rights [Paras 2-6].

High Court’s interference deemed improper under Section 100 CPC as it involved re-assessment of factual determinations made by trial and lower appellate courts – Documentary and oral evidence supported appellant's title to 'A' schedule property – Concurrent findings by lower courts on ownership and encroachment upheld – High Court found to have erred in overturning these findings [Paras 7-15].

Decision: Supreme Court allows appeal, sets aside High Court's judgment, and restores decree of trial court as confirmed by the first appellate court – Parties to bear their own costs. [Para 16]

Referred Cases:

None

Arbitration Clause Activation - Works contract dated 20th December 2000 with arbitration clause invoked due to disputes - Appellant nominated an arbitrator and requested Respondent to appoint another within 30 days per agreement; Respondent failed, leading to ICADR intervention as stipulated by the contract and ICADR Rules [Para 1-3].

Dispute Over Arbitrator Appointment - Respondent appointed an arbitrator beyond the 30-day period without adhering to the panel provided by ICADR - Appellant challenged the appointment, arguing it deviated from the agreed procedure and questioned the arbitrator's independence and impartiality [Para 4-5].

Legal Assessment and Court Decision - Supreme Court finds Respondent’s appointment of arbitrator non-est (non-existent in law) due to non-compliance with the specific ICADR Rules agreed upon by the parties - Rules did not permit the Respondent to appoint an arbitrator of its choice independently from the ICADR panel [Para 8-9].

Appointment by Supreme Court - Court exercises powers under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act to appoint a new arbitrator, Shri Justice S.R. Sathe, for the Respondent due to the invalid initial appointment - Emphasizes the need for adherence to agreed arbitration procedures [Para 10].

Decision: Petition allowed - Appointment of arbitrator made by Respondent Corporation set aside - Shri Justice S.R. Sathe appointed as arbitrator on behalf of Respondent Corporation by the Court. . The arbitration petition is disposed of in the above terms.

Referred Cases:

Deep Trading Company Vs. Indian Oil Corporation and Others, (2013) 4 SCC 35

Antrix Corporation Ltd. Vs. Devas Multimedia P. Ltd., (2013) AIRSCW 2781

Datar Switchgears Ltd. Vs. Tata Finance Ltd. and Another, (2000) 8 SCC 151

Pricol Limited v. Johnson Controls Enterprise Ltd. and Ors., [Arbitration Case (Civil) No. 30 of 2014]

Navy Service and Pension Regulations – Interpretation of Navy (Pension) Regulations, 1964, specifically Regulation 82, which was declared ultra vires and violative of Article 14 due to its discriminatory nature against servicemen voluntarily retiring - Tribunal's decision upheld, allowing condonation of service shortfall - Respondent's total service deemed as 14 years for pension calculations based on rounding off provisions in Ministry of Defence instructions, leading to his eligibility for pension benefits [Paras 1-9]

The Supreme Court modified the Tribunal’s decision, stating benefits apply from 14th August 2001, the date of relevant instruction, not from the date of retirement. The appeal stands disposed of with aforesaid observations. [Para 9]

Referred Cases:

Gurmukh Singh v. UOI, where similar provisions were struck down as unconstitutional [Para 3]

Employment Law - Applicability of Pension Scheme to Autonomous Body Employees - Dispute over the application of central government pension rules to employees of NWDA, an autonomous body under the Ministry of Water Resources - Issues concerning whether NWDA employees are to be treated like other central government employees and covered under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. [Paras 1-39]

Central Government Memorandum - Interpretation and Application - Discussion on the applicability of Office Memorandum dated 1st May 1987 regarding the switch from the Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) scheme to the pension scheme for central government employees, its applicability to NWDA employees contested - Held that NWDA, being an autonomous body with its own CPF rules established prior to the memorandum, is not covered under the said memorandum. [Paras 10-15]

Fundamental Rights - Claims of Violation under Article 14 and Article 16 - Assertion that denial of pension benefits to NWDA employees amounts to unequal treatment compared to other central government employees - Supreme Court finds that such a claim does not hold as NWDA employees do not fall under the same category as central government employees. [Paras 16-18]

Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions - Scope of Court's Interference in Autonomy of Bodies - Court emphasizes limited interference in the operational autonomy of institutions like NWDA concerning internal regulations like employee pension schemes. [Paras 18-20]

Decision: Appeals dismissed - The Supreme Court held that the specific pension rules applicable to

Referred Cases:

Union Territory, Chandigarh Vs. Krishan Bhandari, (1996) 11 SCC 348

Associate Banks Officers' Association Vs. State Bank of India, (1998) 1 SCC 428

A.K. Bindal and Another Vs. Union of India, (2003) 5 SCC 163

The Accountant General, Bihar Vs. N. Bakshi, AIR 1962 SC 505

All India Imam Organization Vs. Union of India, (1993) 3 SCC 584

Kapila Hingorani Vs. State of Bihar, (2003) 6 SCC 1

Municipal Council, Ratlam Vs. Vardichan, (1980) 4 SCC 162

State of Kerala Vs. M. Padmanabhan Nair, AIR 1985 SC 356

Deokinandan Prasad Vs. The State of Bihar, (1971) 2 SCC 330

Chairman and M.D., K.S.R.T.C. Vs. K.O. Varghese, (2007) 8 SCC 231

Zee Telefilms Ltd. Vs. Union of India, (2005) 4 SCC 649

All India Sainik Schools Employees' Association Vs. Defence Minister, (1989) 1 SCC 205

S.C. Chandra Vs. State of Jharkhand, (2007) 8 SCC 279

Civil Procedure - Condonation of Delay - Application for condonation of 1373 days' delay in filing second appeal declined by High Court - Initial suit filed for declaration and possession of land, termed Natham Poramboke, under the control of the Panchayat - First appeal decreed the suit in favor of the respondent - No steps taken by the Executive Officer at the time due to later-discovered corrupt practices and suspension - Supreme Court sets aside High Court order, condones delay, remits case back for decision on merits, emphasizing justice-oriented approach and leniency in administrative lapses by public servants - [Paras 1-6]

Decision: Appeal allowed - Delay condoned - Case remitted to the High Court for further proceedings.

Referred Cases:

State of Nagaland vs. Lipok AO and Others, AIR 2005 SC 2191: (2005) 3 SCC 752

Criminal Law - Concurrent Sentences - The appellant, a former postal employee, was convicted of theft under Section 381 IPC and Section 52 of the Post Office Act for stealing a gold chain from a registered parcel - Appeal filed against the decision of the High Court which upheld the sentences to be served consecutively - Supreme Court directed that the sentences run concurrently, citing the nature of the offences and the fact they arose from a single act (theft) during one trial - Court invoked Section 31 of the CrPC, emphasizing the importance of specifying whether sentences should run concurrently or consecutively at the trial's conclusion [Paras 9-10, 12-20].

Sentencing - Court considered the appellant's advanced age, health issues, and the fact that he had already been dismissed from his job due to the conviction - Both sentences arising from the theft, tried in one trial, to run concurrently, promoting justice and taking into consideration the appellant’s personal circumstances [Para 21-23].

Consecutive vs. Concurrent Sentences - Discussion on legal principles underpinning the imposition of consecutive or concurrent sentences - Reference to multiple precedents that guide the discretion of the courts in sentencing, stressing the single transaction rule for concurrent sentences [Para 14-19].

Decision: Appeal allowed in part - Convictions upheld, but sentences to run concurrently.

Referred Cases:

State of Punjab vs. Madan Lal, (2009) 5 SCC 238

State of Maharashtra and Another vs. Najakat Alia Mubarak Ali, AIR 2001 SC 2255

Sawal Das vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1974 SC 2276

Mohd. Akhtar Hussain alias Ibrahim Ahmed Bhatti vs. Assistant Collector of Customs, (1988) 4 SCC 183

Manoj @ Panu vs. State of Haryana, (2014) 2 SCC 153

Chatar Singh vs. State of M.P., AIR 2007 SC 319