Civil Procedure - Receiver's Authority to File Suit - Interpretation of Order 40 Rule 1 CPC - Section 503 CPC - Appeal challenging Receiver's eviction suit without prior court leave - Held, Receiver acting under Order 40 Rule 1(d) CPC can institute suit for recovery of possession for preservation of estate - Court's permission, though preferable, not mandatory if suit is pending - Appeal dismissed. [Paras 10-16]

Transfer of Property Act - Notice for Termination of Tenancy - Section 106(3) - Notice validity challenged - Notice under Section 106 issued by Receiver, followed by suit after six months - Held, notice valid as per Section 106(3) despite initial period shortfall - Appeal dismissed. [Paras 16-17]

Trust Property Management - Receiver's Actions - Challenge to Receiver's eviction suit for trustees' non-joinder - Receiver appointed to manage property, acted prudently for estate's benefit - Held, actions within Receiver's powers, appeal dismissed. [Paras 17-19]

Sick Industrial Companies Act - Impact on Eviction Proceedings - Appellant declared sick under SICA - Contention not raised in High Court, not relevant for residential tenancy - Held, appeal dismissed. [Para 18]

Decision- Appeal Dismissed - Court affirms the authority of the Receiver under Order 40 Rule 1(d) CPC to file suit for possession without prior court leave if it is for estate preservation and notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is valid if suit is filed after six months.

Referred Cases:

Maharana Kunwar Vs. E.V. David and Others, (1924) ILR (All) 16

Ram Ranjan Chakravarti Vs. A.B. Miller, (1884) ILR (Cal) 1014

C.T. Davis and Others Vs. Drobomoyi Gupta and Others, (1887) ILR (Cal) 323

Anthony C. Leo Vs. Nandlal Bal Krishnan and others, (1996) 8 AD 494

Kurapati Venkata Mallayya and Another Vs. Thondepu Ramaswami and Co. and Another, AIR 1964 SC 818

Balkrishan Gupta and Others Vs. Swadeshi Polytex Ltd. and Another, AIR 1985 SC 520

Everest Coal Company (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar and Others, AIR 1977 SC 2304

Krishna Kumar Khemka Vs. Grindlays Bank P.L.C. and others, AIR 1991 SC 899

Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. M.W. Pradhan, AIR 1966 SC 1707

J.C. Macgregor Vs. Huri Dass Kundu, (1891) ILR (Cal) 477

W.R. Fink Vs. Buldeo Dass and Others, (1899) ILR (Cal) 715

Shantaram Hirachand Danez Vs. Narayan Bapusa Fulpagar, AIR 1999 Bom 16

Shyam Lal Gomatwala Vs. Nand Lal and Others, AIR 1944 All 220

Central Excise - Valuation of Goods - Assessment of Excise Duty – Appeal against the High Court order which set aside show-cause notices for short payment of excise duty – The show-cause notices were issued for the period 1982 to 1985 alleging under-assessment due to non-inclusion of freight, dealer's margin, and other expenses in the assessable value – The High Court held that the department was not justified in demanding excise duty based on the higher price at which goods were sold from depots. [Para 9-14]

Valuation Rules - Inclusion of Charges - Held – The Supreme Court emphasized the need to consider transportation cost, dealer’s margin, after-sales services, and other related expenses in the assessable value as per the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975 – The Court referred to the interpretation of Section 4 as per prior judgments, confirming that the price at which goods are sold from depots should include these additional charges for accurate duty assessment. [Para 15-18]

Show-cause Notices – Justification – Held – The issuance of show-cause notices by the competent authority under Section 11A of the Act was justified – The Supreme Court directed the remittance of the case to the competent authority to allow the assessee to present evidence supporting their valuation claims and for proper assessment under the law. [Para 19-20]

Decision – Appeal Allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court judgment and remitted the case to the competent authority for reassessment – The Assessee was given the liberty to forward a copy of each show-cause reply and produce relevant evidence within four weeks. [Para 21]

Referred Cases: Assistant Collector of Central Excise and Others v. Madras Rubber Factory Ltd., AIR 1987 SC 701 Union of India (UOI) and Others v. Bombay Tyre International Ltd., AIR 1984 SC 420 Collector of Central Excise, Madras v. Indian Oxygen Ltd., AIR 1988 SC 1873 A.K. Roy and Another v. Voltas Limited, AIR 1973 SC 225

Constitutional Law – Legislative Competence – Jurisdictional Conflict between Central and State Acts:

Held – The 1951 and 1958 Acts govern ancient monuments of national importance declared by the Central Government. However, the Kundalpur Jain Temples, including the Bade Baba Temple, were never declared as monuments of national importance under these Acts. Instead, the Madhya Pradesh Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1964, which received Presidential assent, applies. Therefore, the ASI does not have jurisdiction over these temples. The High Court’s direction for the Trust to seek permission from the State Government under the 1964 Act is upheld. [Paras 1-47]

Ancient Monuments – Preservation and Construction – Role of Religious Agamas:

Held – The Jain Temple Trust's construction activities at the Bade Baba Temple were necessary due to the dilapidated state of the existing structure. The construction aligns with the Jain Agamas and Nagara architectural style, which are integral to Jain religious practices. The removal and reinstallation of the Bade Baba idol were carried out with appropriate religious ceremonies. The High Court’s directive to the Trust to seek permission from the State Government for new construction, ensuring it respects both archaeological preservation and religious practices, is affirmed. [Paras 48-58]

Decision:

The appeals are dismissed, upholding the High Court's judgment directing the Trust to submit an application to the State Government for permission to raise construction. The State Government is instructed to consider the application within two months, taking into account the cultural and religious significance of the structures. [Paras 59]

Referred Cases:

Venkatachala Mudaliar Vs. Sambasiva Mudaliar and Others, AIR 1927 Mad 465

Rajeev Mankotia Vs. Secretary to the President of India and others, AIR 1997 SC 2766

Narayan Bhagwantrao Gosavi Balajiwale Vs. Gopal Vinayak Gosavi and Others, AIR 1960 SC 100

Archaeological Survey of India and Others Vs. Narender Anand and Another, (2012) 2 SCC 562

Seshammal and Others, Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1972 SC 1586

Josep Pothen Vs. State of Kerala, AIR 1965 SC 1514

Karnataka Board of Wakf Vs. Government of India and Others, (2004) 10 SCC 779

Constitutional Law - Power of Judicial Review - Article 32 and 226 of the Constitution - Held that judicial review is a basic feature of the Constitution, and the superior courts have the power to direct the transfer of investigation from State Police to CBI to protect fundamental rights. The Court emphasized that this power should be exercised sparingly and in exceptional situations where it is necessary to ensure a fair and impartial investigation. [Paras 1-3, 31-33]

Criminal Law - Transfer of Investigation - Investigation of financial scams - CBI directed to take over investigations in West Bengal and Odisha involving the Saradha Group of Companies and other similar cases due to the inter-state ramifications, complexity, and involvement of influential personalities. The Court noted that the State Police had done commendable work but the magnitude and nature of the scam warranted an independent investigation by the CBI to maintain public confidence. [Paras 10-13, 30-35]

Regulatory Authorities - Role and Responsibility - Investigation into the role of regulatory authorities like SEBI, Registrar of Companies, and RBI is essential. The Court noted possible connivance or negligence of these authorities in preventing the scam, which necessitates a thorough investigation to ensure accountability and prevent future occurrences. [Paras 20-22]

Decision - Transfer of Investigation to CBI - Directed transfer of all cases related to the Saradha Group of Companies and other companies involved in similar scams from the State Police to the CBI in West Bengal and Odisha. The CBI was also permitted to conduct further investigations under Section 173(8) CrPC in cases where charge sheets had already been filed. This transfer does not affect the proceedings of State Commissions of Enquiry or the legal recovery actions for repayment to depositors. The writ petitions and transfer petition were disposed of with these directions, and the State Police were directed to provide full cooperation to the CBI. [Paras 34-40]

Referred Cases:

Advocates Association, Bangalore v. Union of India (2013) 10 SCC 611

State of West Bengal v. The Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal (2010) 3 SCC 571

Inder Singh v. State of Punjab (1994) 6 SCC 275

Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984) 3 SCC 161

R.S. Sodhi v. State of U.P. (1994) 1 SCC 143 Supp

Civil Procedure - Order 2 Rule 2 - Bar on subsequent suit - Appeal against High Court judgment partly decreeing original suit - Respondent (plaintiff) filed two suits for damages against appellant (Coffee Board) based on failure to provide ICO stamps for coffee export - First suit (O.S. No. 3150 of 1985) sought losses for delayed shipment; second suit (O.S. No. 4763 of 1986) sought costs for re-import due to lack of ICO stamps - Supreme Court examines whether the subsequent suit is barred by Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC for splitting claims arising from the same cause of action - Held, second suit is barred by Order 2 Rule 2 as both suits were based on the same cause of action and could have been combined in one suit - High Court misappreciated facts, trial court's judgment restored, and respondent's suit dismissed. [Paras 6-21]

Interpretation of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC - Analysis - Held - Order 2 Rule 2 requires a plaintiff to include the whole claim arising from a cause of action in one suit to prevent multiple litigations on the same cause - The rule's intent is to avoid vexing a defendant twice for the same cause and to prevent the splitting of claims - Supreme Court finds that the cause of action in both suits was identical and arose from the appellant's failure to provide ICO stamps - Claims for different reliefs based on the same cause of action should have been included in one suit. [Para 10-13, 18-20]

Decision - Appeal allowed, High Court judgment set aside - Original suit (O.S. No. 4763 of 1986) dismissed as barred by Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC - Supreme Court reinstates trial court's judgment. [Para 22]

Referred Cases:

Deva Ram and Another v. Ishwar Chand and Another, AIR 1996 SC 378

Gurbux Singh v. Bhooralal, AIR 1964 SC 1810

Alka Gupta v. Narender Kumar Gupta, AIR 2011 SC 9

S. Nazeer Ahmed v. State Bank of Mysore and Others, AIR 2007 SC 989

Criminal Law – Conviction based on circumstantial evidence – Criminal Appeal against the High Court order convicting the appellant – Evaluation of circumstantial evidence required to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Supreme Court finds material discrepancies and lack of independent corroboration in the evidence presented – Held that the circumstantial evidence does not conclusively prove the appellant's involvement in the murder and robbery – Conviction set aside, appellant acquitted. [Paras 1-18]

Circumstantial Evidence – Principles – Held – Each circumstance must be proved beyond reasonable doubt by independent evidence – Circumstances must form a complete chain consistent only with the guilt of the accused – In absence of such a chain, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused. [Para 17]

Decision – Acquittal of Appellant – Court sets aside the conviction by the High Court – Finds that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence pointing conclusively to the appellant's guilt – Appellant acquitted and directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. [Para 18]

Referred Cases:

Sahadevan and another v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2012 SC 2435

Munish Mubar v. State of Haryana, AIR 2013 SC 912

Mano v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2007) 13 SCC 795

Pancho v. State of Haryana, AIR 2012 SC 523

Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622

Madhu v. State of Kerala, AIR 2012 SC 664

State of Rajasthan v. Talevar and Another, AIR 2011 SC 2271

Gopal Sah v. State of Bihar, (2008) 16 SCALE 223

Election Law - Non-disclosure of Material Information - Election Petition - Successful candidate's election was set aside by High Court for non-disclosure of material information in nomination form - Issues of non-disclosure included government dues, assets of spouse, and partnership interests - Supreme Court examined whether non-disclosure amounted to substantial non-compliance affecting election result - Held, non-disclosure was significant and materially affected the election result - Appeal dismissed. [Paras 1-39]

Nomination Form - Affidavit - Disclosure Requirements - Analysis - Held - Affidavit filed with nomination form must fully disclose required information, including assets and liabilities - Non-disclosure or misstatement can render nomination invalid - Returning Officer's role in scrutiny discussed - Proper acceptance of nomination forms emphasized for free and fair elections. [Para 30-38]

Substantial Compliance - Legal Standards - Examination - Held - Substantial compliance with disclosure requirements necessary - Bona fide disputes regarding dues may be acceptable, but material non-disclosures affecting election validity cannot be condoned - Each case to be assessed based on specific facts and circumstances. [Para 31-35]

Election Result - Material Effect - Criteria - Legal Principles - Held - Election can be set aside if non-disclosure materially affects election result - Findings of fact by High Court on non-disclosures upheld - Substantial non-compliance and misinformation justify setting aside election. [Para 36-39]

Decision - Appeal Dismissed - Supreme Court upholds High Court's decision setting aside election of Appellant due to substantial non-disclosures in nomination form, materially affecting the election result. [Para 39]

Referred Cases:

Resurgence India Vs. Election Commission of India and Another, AIR 2014 SC 344

Union of India (UOI) Vs. Association for Democratic Reforms and Another, AIR 2002 SC 2112

People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, AIR 2003 SC 2363

Kanhiya Lal Omar Vs. R.K. Trivedi and Others, AIR 1986 SC 111

Azhar Hussain Vs. Rajiv Gandhi, AIR 1986 SC 1253 G.M.

Siddeshwar Vs. Prasanna Kumar, AIR 2013 SC 1549

Common Cause A Registered Society Vs. Union of India and others, (1996) 3 AD 456

Shaligram Shrivastava Vs. Naresh Singh Patel, AIR 2003 SC 2128

Criminal Law – Quashing of Prosecution – Criminal Appeal against High Court order declining to quash proceedings – Appeal seeking quashing of criminal proceedings and charges under Sections 498A, 506 IPC, and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act – Allegations of dowry harassment and intimidation found to be vague and lacking detailed evidence – Appellant's wife had been living separately since April 2011, and earlier complaints did not result in prosecution – Appellants’ application for restitution of conjugal rights withdrawn, and no credible evidence of continued harassment or demands for dowry – Held that the charges against the appellants were unfounded, and continuing prosecution was an abuse of process – Proceedings quashed and appellants discharged. [Paras 1-12]

Role of Accused in Dowry Harassment – Analysis – Held – Finds no substantial evidence of physical or mental harassment or illegal demand for dowry by the appellants – Notes that previous complaints were closed with the conclusion that disputes were family differences to be settled legally – Court finds no grounds to presume appellants committed the offences charged – High Court and Sessions Court overlooked key points in the appellants' favor. [Para 10-11]

Decision – Quashing of Charges – Charges framed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore in Criminal Case No. 10245 of 2012 against the appellants quashed – Appellants discharged – Observations made are solely for the purpose of this judgment and do not affect ongoing matrimonial disputes. [Para 12]

Referred Cases:

none

Criminal Law - Validity of Sanction for Prosecution – Sanction for prosecution under Section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 – Challenge to validity on grounds of non-examination of District Magistrate as a witness and alleged non-application of mind – Court holds that District Magistrate’s consent, based on detailed sanction order and police diary, is valid – Sanction upheld as proper and lawful. [Paras 22-30]

Evidence Law - Admissibility of Approver Testimony – Testimony of approver (Pappu @ Saleem) under Section 133 and Illustration (b) to Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Court emphasizes that approver testimony must be reliable and corroborated by independent evidence – Approver’s evidence found credible, consistent, and corroborated by material facts and recoveries – Court upholds convictions based on approver's testimony. [Paras 35-48]

Criminal Procedure - Delay in Test Identification Parade – Delay of three weeks in conducting the test identification parade – Court holds that the delay per se does not vitiate the identification process – Witnesses identified accused in court, and no infirmity found in the identification parade – Identification evidence upheld. [Paras 31-34]

Criminal Conspiracy - Evidence and Proof – Proof of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B IPC – Court emphasizes that direct evidence of conspiracy is rare, reliance placed on circumstantial evidence – Frequent meetings, coordination, and recoveries establish conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction for conspiracy upheld. [Paras 69-73]

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Convictions and sentences upheld – Court finds no merit in contentions regarding invalidity of sanction, inadmissibility of evidence, or inadequacy of charges – Appeal dismissed, affirming lower court’s judgments. [Paras 76-79]

Referred Cases:

Renuka Bai @ Rinku @ Ratan and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2006 SC 3056 : (2006) 8 JT 282 : (2006) 8 SCALE 604 : (2006) 7 SCC 442 : (2006) 5 SCR 643 Supp : (2006) AIRSCW 4385 : (2006) 6 Supreme 679

Bhagwan Dass Vs. State (NCT) of Delhi, AIR 2011 SC 1863 : (2011) CriLJ 2903 : (2011) 2 Crimes 266 : (2011) 6 JT 345 : (2011) 2 RCR(Criminal) 920 : (2011) 5 SCALE 498 : (2011) 6 SCC 396 : (2011) 2 UJ 1770 : (2011) AIRSCW 2867 : (2011) 3 Supreme 729

Anna Reddy Sambasiva Reddy and Others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2009 SC 2661 : (2009) CLT 969 : (2009) 5 JT 617 : (2009) 6 SCALE 223 : (2009) 12 SCC 546 : (2009) 6 SCR 755 : (2009) 6 UJ 2718 : (2009) AIRSCW 4091 : (2009) 4 Supreme 506

Yogesh @ Sachin Jagdish Joshi Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2008 SC 2991 : (2008) CriLJ 3872 : (2008) 6 JT 299 : (2008) 6 SCALE 469 : (2008) 10 SCC 394 : (2008) AIRSCW 5043

State of U.P. Vs. Deoman Upadhyaya, AIR 1960 SC 1125 : (1960) CriLJ 1504 : (1961) 1 SCR 14

Ramanand Ramnath Vs. State of M.P., (1996) 3 AD 583 : (1996) 2 Crimes 57 : (1996) 6 JT 3 : (1996) 3 SCALE 429 : (1996) 8 SCC 514

Santosh Kumari Vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir and Others, AIR 2011 SC 3402 : (2011) 10 JT 271 : (2011) 4 RCR(Criminal) 360 : (2011) 10 SCALE 379 : (2011) 6 UJ 3606 : (2011) AIRSCW 5313

State of T.N. Vs. Sivarasan alias Raghu alias Sivarasa and Others, (1996) 8 AD 345 : (1997) 1 Crimes 170 : (1996) 10 JT 141 : (1996) 7 SCALE 920 : (1997) 1 SCC 682 : (1996) 8 SCR 243 Supp

State of M.P. Vs. Bhupendra Singh, AIR 2000 SC 679 : (2000) CriLJ 805 : (2000) 1 CTC 554 : (2000) ECR 542 : (2001) 134 ELT 330 : (2000) 1 JT 82 : (2000) 1 SCALE 69 : (2000) 1 SCC 555 : (2000) 1 SCR 104 : (2000) AIRSCW 206 : (2000) 1 Supreme 104

State of U.P. Vs. Paras Nath Singh, (2009) CriLJ 3069 : (2009) 13 JT 625 : (2009) 8 SCALE 553 : (2009) 6 SCC 372 : (2009) 2 SCC(L&S) 200 : (2009) 9 SCR 85

Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq Vs. State of NCT of Delhi, (2011) 3 Crimes 228 : (2011) 9 JT 563 : (2011) 8 SCALE 328 : (2011) 13 SCC 621 : (2011) 10 SCR 56

State of Maharashtra Vs. Suresh, (1999) 9 JT 513 : (1999) 7 SCALE 386 : (2000) 1 SCC 471 : (1999) 5 SCR 215 Supp : (2000) 1 UJ 326

Erram Santosh Reddy and others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1991 SC 1672 : (1991) CriLJ 2189 : (1991) 2 Crimes 671 : (1991) 1 SCALE 846 : (1991) 3 SCC 206 : (1991) 2 UJ 522

Yakub Abdul Razak Memon Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 5 JT 142 : (2013) 4 SCALE 565

Balwant Kaur Vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh, AIR 1988 SC 139 : (1988) CriLJ 398 : (1987) 4 JT 239 : (1987) 2 SCALE 1019 : (1988) 1 SCC 1 : (1988) 1 SCR 745

Mohammad Usman Mohammad Hussain Maniyar and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1981 SC 1062 : (1981) CriLJ 588 : (1981) 1 SCALE 445 : (1981) 2 SCC 443 : (1981) SCC 17 Supp : (1981) SCC(Cri) 477 : (1981) 3 SCR 68

Mohmed Inayatullah Vs. The State of Maharashtra, AIR 1976 SC 483 : (1976) CriLJ 481 : (1976) 1 SCC 828 : (1976) SCC(Cri) 199 : (1976) 1 SCR 715

Prakash Chand Vs. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1979 SC 400 : (1979) CriLJ 329 : (1979) 3 SCC 90 : (1979) SCC(Cri) 656 : (1979) 2 SCR 330 : (1979) 11 UJ 17

Mohd. Husain Umar Kochra etc. Vs. K.S. Dalipsinghji and Another etc., AIR 1970 SC 45 : (1970) CriLJ 9 : (1969) 3 SCC 429 : (1970) 1 SCC(Cri) 99 : (1970) 1 SCR 130

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

Lennart Schussler and Another Vs. The Director of Enforcement and Another, AIR 1970 SC 549 : (1970) CriLJ 707 : (1970) 1 SCC 152 : (1970) 1 SCC(Cri) 73 : (1970) 2 SCR 760

Anil Kumar Vs. State of U.P., AIR 2003 SC 1596 : (2003) CriLJ 1524 : (2003) 2 JT 175 : (2003) 2 SCALE 74 : (2003) 3 SCC 569 : (2003) 1 SCR 1067 : (2003) AIRSCW 977 : (2003) 2 Supreme 319

Ram Narain Vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1973 SC 1188 : (1973) CriLJ 914 : (1973) 3 SCC 805 : (1973) SCC(Cri) 545 : (1973) 3 SCR 463 : (1973) 5 UJ 598

Tribhuvan Nath Vs. The State of Maharashtra, AIR 1973 SC 451 : AIR 1972 SC 2134 : (1972) CriLJ 1277 : (1972) 3 SCC 511 : (1972) SCC(Cri) 604 : (1972) 4 UJ 826

Vikram Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 2010 SC 1007 : (2010) CLT 560 : (2010) 1 JT 568 : (2010) 1 SCALE 633 : (2010) 3 SCC 56 : (2010) 3 SCR 22 : (2010) AIRSCW 5853 : (2010) AIRSCW 5148

Sarwan Singh Vs. The State of Punjab, AIR 1957 SC 637 : (1957) CriLJ 1014 : (1957) 1 SCR 953

Willie (William) Slaney Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1956 SC 116 : (1956) CriLJ 291 : (1955) 2 SCR 1140

Aftab Ahmad Anasari Vs. State of Uttaranchal, AIR 2010 SC 773 : (2010) CLT 499 : (2010) 1 Crimes 97 : (2010) 1 JT 424 : (2010) 1 SCALE 408 : (2010) 2 SCC 583 : (2010) 1 SCR 1027

Haroon Haji Abdulla Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1968 SC 832 : (1968) 2 SCR 641

Chandan and Another Vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1988 SC 599 : (1988) CriLJ 842 : (1990) 2 SCALE 733 : (1988) 1 SCC 696 : (1988) 2 SCR 599

Anter Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2004) CriLJ 1380 : (2004) 1 CTC 612 : (2004) 2 JT 332 : (2004) 2 SCALE 271 : (2004) 10 SCC 657 : (2004) 2 SCR 123 : (2004) 2 UJ 769 : (2004) AIRSCW 743 : (2004) AIRSCW 3104 : (2004) 1 Supreme 1005 : (2004) 3 Supreme 131

R.K. Dalmia Vs. Delhi Administration, AIR 1962 SC 1821 : (1962) 32 CompCas 699 : (1963) 1 SCR 253

Himachal Pradesh Administration Vs. Om Prakash, AIR 1972 SC 975 : (1972) CriLJ 606 : (1972) 1 SCC 249 : (1972) SCC(Cri) 88 : (1972) 2 SCR 765

Prabhu Vs. State of U.P., AIR 1963 SC 1113 : (1963) 65 PLR 339 : (1963) 2 SCR 881

A.N. Venkatesh and Another Vs. State of Karnataka, AIR 2005 SC 3809 : (2005) 100 CLT 781 : (2005) CriLJ 3732 : (2005) 7 JT 246 : (2005) 7 SCC 714

Bhiva Doulu Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1963 SC 599 : (1963) 3 SCR 830

Ravinder Singh Vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1975 SC 856 : (1975) 3 SCC 742 : (1975) 3 SCR 453

Shivnarayan Laxminarayan Joshi and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1980 SC 439 : (1980) CriLJ 388 : (1980) 2 SCC 465 : (1980) SCC(Cri) 493

Ramanlal Mohanlal Pandya Vs. The State of Bombay, AIR 1960 SC 961

Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), AIR 2010 SC 2352 : (2010) 4 JT 107 : (2010) 4 SCALE 1 : (2010) 6 SCC 1 : (2010) 4 SCR 103 : (2010) 3 UJ 1650

State of Maharashtra Vs. Damu Shinde and Others, AIR 2000 SC 1691 : (2000) CriLJ 2301 : (2000) 5 JT 575 : (2000) 4 SCALE 8 : (2000) 6 SCC 269 : (2000) AIRSCW 1617

Dalbir Singh Vs. State of U.P., AIR 2004 SC 1990 : (2004) CriLJ 2025 : (2004) 1 DMC 680 : (2004) 4 JT 455 : (2004) 4 SCALE 238 : (2004) 5 SCC 334 : (2004) 3 SCR 941 : (2004) AIRSCW 5377 : (2004) AIRSCW 2119 : (2004) 3 Supreme 506 : (2004) 7 Supreme 200

Ranjeet Singh and Another Vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1988 SC 672 : (1988) CriLJ 845 : (1988) 1 JT 473 : (1988) 1 SCALE 171 : (1988) 1 SCC 633

Munna Kumar Upadhyaya @ Munna Upadhyaya Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh Through Public Prosecutor, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2012 SC 2470 : (2012) CriLJ 3068 : (2012) 2 RCR(Criminal) 962 : (2012) 5 SCALE 501 : (2012) 6 SCC 174 : (2012) AIRSCW 3060

A. Deivendran Vs. State of T.N., AIR 1998 SC 2821 : (1998) CriLJ 814 : (1997) 8 JT 619 : (1997) 6 SCALE 516 : (1997) 11 SCC 720 : (1997) 4 SCR 591 Supp : (1998) AIRSCW 285 : (1997) 9 Supreme 237

Mohd. Aslam Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2000) 8 JT 104 : (2004) 2 SCALE 242 : (2001) 9 SCC 362

Pratapbhai Hamirbhai Solanki Vs. State of Gujarat and Another, (2013) 3 AD 528 : (2012) 10 JT 286 : (2013) 1 RCR(Criminal) 592 : (2012) 10 SCALE 237 : (2013) 1 SCC 613 : (2012) AIRSCW 5567

K. Prema S. Rao and Another Vs. Yadla Srinivasa Rao and Others, AIR 2003 SC 11 : (2003) CriLJ 69 : (2002) 2 DMC 776 : (2002) 8 JT 502 : (2003) 1 SCC 217 : (2002) 3 SCR 339 Supp : (2003) 1 UJ 101

Mrinal Das and Others Vs. The State of Tripura, AIR 2011 SC 3753 : (2011) 4 JCC 2571 : (2012) 1 RCR(Criminal) 247 : (2011) 10 SCALE 55 : (2011) 5 UJ 3364 : (2011) AIRSCW 5566

Final Result : Dismissed