Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Uttaranchal High Court: Ramesh Chandra Khulbe, J. dismissed a criminal appeal which was filed from jail assailing the judgment and order whereby
Tripura High Court: Arindam Lodh, J. partly allowed an appeal which was filed challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence
Central District, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi: Kratika Chaturvedi, DJS, while addressing a matter revolving around Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
Meghalaya High Court: The Division Bench of Sanjib Banerjee and W. Diengdoh, JJ., while hearing an appeal which challenged the judgment of
Supreme Court: In a case where it was argued before the bench of Dr. DY Chandrachud* and Surya Kant, JJ that in
Karnataka High Court: Sreenivas Harish Kumar, J., disposed of the petition and modified the judgment of the appellate court. The facts of
Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of S.S. Shinde and Milind N. Jadhav, JJ. allowed an appeal against conviction of the Appellant
Supreme Court: The bench of MR Shah* and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ has answered the following three important questions on the revisional jurisdiction
Dwarka Courts, New Delhi: Sushil Anuj Tyagi, ASJ while addressing a case of drink and drive, expressed that, “There has to be
Supreme Court: Reminding the Courts of the importance of hierarchy of Courts, the bench of Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh*, JJ
“A few bits here and a few bits there on which prosecution relies, cannot be held to be adequate for connecting the accused with the commission of crime of criminal conspiracy.”
“The acquittal of a guilty person constitutes a miscarriage of justice just as much as the conviction of the innocent.”
Jharkhand High Court: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J. while holding the reason assigned by the Director-General of Police (DGP) while rejecting the claim
Supreme Court: The Division Bench of M.R. Shah and Aniruddha Bose, JJ., while addressing a matter noted that, Abetment by a person
Supreme Court: A Division Bench of S. Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari, JJ. refused to interfere in the judgment passed by the
Orissa High Court: S. K. Sahoo, J., dismissed the petition being devoid of merits and upheld the conviction passed in the impugned
Supreme Court: A Division Bench of Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. took the liberty of disagreeing with one of the
Supreme Court of India: The Division Bench of Navin Sinha and R. Subhash Reddy, JJ., reiterated the value of ocular evidence while
Kerala High Court: T.R.Ravi, J., held that a monosyllabic “yes” cannot amount to pleading guilty. The petitioner was convicted by the Magistrate
