Punjab and Haryana High Court: Manjari Nehru Kaul, J., while dealing with a revision petition for setting aside the order passed by
Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of UU Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat and PS Narsimha, JJ has set aside the Punjab and Haryana
Supreme Court: In a case where, on apprehending the accused, while making search of the motor cycle, 900 gm of smack was
The two proceedings, criminal and departmental, are entirely different. They operate in different fields and have different objectives.
Himachal Pradesh High Court: Vivek Thakur J. allowed the appeal and compensated the appellants because of false denial on thepart of respondents
“The ossification test can be said to be relevant for determining the approximate age of a person in conflict with law. However, when the person is around 40-55 years of age, the structure of bones cannot be helpful in determining the age.”
The finding of guilt cannot be based purely on the refusal of the accused to undergo an identification parade.
Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of NV Ramana, SA Nazeer and Surya Kant, JJ has held that in order to successfully claim
Delhi High Court: An important question of law relating to the Special Marriage Act, 1954 (hereinafter ‘Act’) has arisen before a Single
Chhattisgarh High Court: An appeal against the order of acquittal filed by the State was decided by a Division Bench comprising of
Supreme Court: In the Swami Gadadharanand murder case, the bench of Kurian Joseph and A.M. Khanwilkar, JJ upheld the conviction of 2
Supreme Court: In the case where the widow of Lt. Hari Kant Jha, a freedom fighter who was accused and arrested in
Supreme Court: Dealing with a matter relating to illegal gratification, the 3-judge bench of H.L. Dattu, CJI and V. Goapa Gowda and