Hibbaan/DIVYADRISHTI huggingface dataset:
M/S GODREJ SARA LEE LTDversusTHE EXCISE AND TAXATION OFFICER-CUM-ASSESSING AUTHORITY & ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 5393/2010
Decision Date: 01-02-2023
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC92

S. RAVINDRA BHAT*, DIPANKAR DATTA Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 : ss. 33 and 34 – Revision – As regards, tax liability on mosquito repellant manufactured by the appellant, the Revisional Authority suo moto called for the assessment records of appellant as found that erred in levying tax on mosquito repellant @ 4% instead of 10 % – It issued show cause notices and passed final revisional order enhancing the liability of the appellant to tax @10% instead of 4% – Writ petition thereagainst – High Court relegated the appellant to the
ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAYversusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.
Case No.: WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 699/2016
Decision Date: 09-11-2023
Disposal: Directions issued
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC991

D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, MANOJ MISRA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Writ petition in the nature of public interest sought expeditious disposal of criminal cases against elected members of the Parliament and Legislative Assemblies. Constitution of India – Art. 32 of criminal cases against elected members of the Parliament and Legislative Assemblies – Directions issued: Held: (i) Learned Chief Justices of the High Courts shall register a suo-motu case with the title, “In Re: designated courts for MPs/MLAs” to monitor early disposal of
MURTI SHRI DURGA BHAWANI (HETUWALI) TRUST & ANRversusSH. DIWAN CHAND (DEAD) THROUGH LRS & ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 6801/2010
Decision Date: 11-04-2023
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC348

ABHAY S. OKA*, RAJESH BINDAL Adverse possession – Ownership/title to property – Appellant, owner of land forming part of khasra No. 4833 – Suit for possession alleging that respondents had encroached the said land – Respondent’s case possession for the last 34 years; that they had become owners of the suit property by way of adverse possession and the suit property is not part of Khasra No. 4833 – Trial court decreed the suit for possession in favour of the appellants and the respondents ejected from the suit property
SIRAJUDHEENversusZEENATH & ORS
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 1491/2023
Decision Date: 27-02-2023
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC173

DINESH MAHESHWARI*, SUDHANSHU DHULIA Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XLI Rule 23, 23A, 24, 33 – Remand for trial de novo by the High Court – Justified or not – The two civil suits filed by the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 for cancellation of sale deed and for prohibitory injunction were dismissed, the two partition of respective properties were decreed – These four decisions were challenged by the respondent No.1 in the High Court by way of four appeals – The instant appeal is directed against the common judgment and order passed by the High Court, whereby the appeal filed by the
ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE GOVERNMENT OF INDIAversusKAPIL WADHAWAN & ANR. ETC
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 701/2020
Decision Date: 24-04-2023
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC1090

 




 Disclaimer 


 
								 
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools. 
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.
						 
						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India. 
						 
						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text. 
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments. 
						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.
						 ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA versus KAPIL WADHAWAN & ANR. ETC - [2023] 16 S.C.R. 11332023 INSC 1090 K.M. JOSEPH, HRISHIKESH ROY, B.V. NAGARATHNA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Matter pertains to application fi led by the appellant seeking clarifi cation of the judgment dated 27.03.2023 passed by this Court in Crl App Enforcement Directorate, Government of India v. Kapil Wadhawan & Anr. Etc. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 167(2) – Judgment/order as regards grant of default bail – Clarifi cation of – Application by the appellant seeking clarifi cation of the judgment dated
ADITI ALIAS MITHIversusJITESH SHARMA
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3446/2023
Decision Date: 06-11-2023
Disposal: Disposed off
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC981

VIKRAM NATH*, RAJESH BINDAL HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: The appellant-minor daughter of the respondent-father is aggrieved of the order passed by the High Court by which the maintenance for the appellant ₹ 20,000/- per month, was reduced to ₹7,500/- per month by the High Court. Maintenance – The High Court of maintenance from ₹20,000/- to ₹7,500/- – Propriety: Held: The manner in which maintenance payable u/s. 24 of the Hindu Mariage Act, 1955 or s.125 Cr.P.C. is to be assessed, was considered by the Supreme Court in its celebrated judgment in Rajnesh v. Neha and Another, [2020] 13 SCR
HEINZ INDIA LIMITEDversusTHE STATE OF KERALA
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 2338/2010
Decision Date: 04-05-2023
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC488

S. RAVINDRA BHAT*, DIPANKAR DATTA Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 – Entry 79, 127 – Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 – s. 3, Entry 20-(A) of Part C of First Schedule; Entry 1(iii) of Part-F of First Schedule – Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 – s. 3(aaa), 3(b) – Whether medicated talcum statutes in question, medicated talcum powder – In the first set of appeals, the revisional authority was of the view that the order of assessment passed by the assessing authority (levying tax at 8% on ‘Prickly heat powder’) was prejudicial to the interest of revenue by treating
K C CINEMA (CORRECT NAME K C THEATRE)versusSTATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR & ORS
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 77/2023
Decision Date: 03-01-2023
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC6

D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA COURT REPORTS [2023] 6 S.C.R. [2023] 6 S.C.R. 572 572 K C CINEMA (CORRECT NAME K C THEATRE) v. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR & ORS (Civil Appeal No 77 of 2023) JANUARY 03, 2023 [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI AND PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.] Constitution of India – Article 226, the Multiplexes/Cinema Halls Owners of the State of J&K not to prohibit cinema goers/viewers from carrying his/her own food articles and water inside the theatre – Legality of – Held: Trade and business of operating cinema theatres is subject to regulation by the State
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA (THROUGH STRESSED ASSETS STABILIZATION FUND CONSTITUTED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA)versusSUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS AND OTHERS
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 2568/2013
Decision Date: 18-08-2023
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC746

SANJIV KHANNA*, SUDHANSHU DHULIA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the Customs Act, 1962 creates a fi rst charge overriding the charge in favour of the secured creditor. Companies Act, 1956 – ss.529A, 530(1) – Customs duty ‘due and payable’ – ‘relevant date’ – Preferential payments u/clause (a) to s.530(1) – Customs Act if negates or overrides the statutory preference in terms of s.529A, Companies Act
THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusRAJIB KHAN & ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 172/2023
Decision Date: 16-01-2023
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC41

M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Service Law – Entitlement to Nursing allowance – Respondents were working as Nursing Assistants in BSF and were paid “Hospital Patient care Allowance” – Respondents claimed to be entitled to “Nursing Allowance” at par with Staff Nurses – Single Judge & Nursing Assistants, thus respondents are entitled to Nursing allowance – It also held that educational qualification cannot be a ground for denial of Nursing Allowance – Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant-Union of India –
R SUNDARAMversusTHE TAMIL NADU STATE LEVEL SCRUTINY COMMITTEE & ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 1770/2023
Decision Date: 17-03-2023
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC249

ANIRUDDHA BOSE*, KRISHNA MURARI Service Law – Scheduled Tribe – Community Certificate – Validity – Post Retirement Benefit – Effect – Appellant was appointed as clerk-cum-shroff in the respondent bank on the basis of the community certificate – The appellant served in service for 38 2 days of his superannuation, he received a cessation order on the ground that his caste certificate being false and all his retirement benefits except PF were withheld from him – Aggrieved by this, the appellant approached High Court – High Court remanded the matter back to the
PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS LTD.versusGAGANDEEP BRAR AND ANOTHER
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 6380/2021
Decision Date: 13-04-2023
Disposal: Disposed off
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC370

M.R. SHAH*, A.S. BOPANNA Consumer Protection Act, 1986: Compensation – Award of, in a flat buyer agreement – Payment to be borne by the developer or by the developer and Housing Board – On facts, in a dispute between the developer and the Housing Board as regards development agreement, directing that any amount payable on account of refund of price, interest or compensation (if and when finally determined by the National Commission/Supreme Court) would be borne by the developer and the Housing Board in the ratio of 70:30 – Award attained finality – However, the
SAURAV DASversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Case No.: WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 1126/2022
Decision Date: 20-01-2023
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC76

M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:ss. 173, 207 – Report of police officer on completion of investigation – Writ Petition u/Art. 32 seeking direction to all the States to upload all chargesheets on public domain/websites – Held: Relief sought is contrary to scheme of CrPC – as victim and/or even the investigating agency – Putting the FIR on the website cannot be equated with putting the chargesheets along with the relevant documents on the public domain and on the websites of the State Governments – Chargesheet are not public documents u/s. 73 of the
LOK PRAHARIversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS
Case No.: WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 1141/2020
Decision Date: 27-03-2023
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC302

D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.B. PARDIWALA Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 – Rule 39-AA – Representation of the People Act, 1951 – ss. 59, 94 and 128(1), amended by Act of 2003 – Challenge to r. 39-AA – Petitioner has challenged the constitutional validity of rule 39-AA on the ground that the said Art.14 of the Constitution and is also contrary to s.123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 – Held: The Constitution Bench in Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India held that after the amendment, voting to the Council of States has undergone a material change and that the norm of
GUNA MAHTOversusSTATE OF JHARKHAND
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 108/2012
Decision Date: 16-03-2023
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC240

BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, SANJAY KAROL Penal Code, 1860 : ss. 302, 201 – Murder – Prosecution case that husband murdered his wife and dumped her dead body in well to cause disappearance of evidence and later lodged missing report with the police – Conviction u/ss. 302 and 201 by the courts below – On appeal, Officer has, in the attending circumstances rendered the prosecution case to be doubtful if not false – Offence u/s. 201 could not have been proven without his examination – Courts below presumptively, proceeded with the acquired assumption of the guilt of the accused for the
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHIversusVIJAY GUPTA & ORS
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 1784/2023
Decision Date: 24-03-2023
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC297

M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s.24(2) – High Court allowing the writ petition filed by respondents-subsequent purchasers declared that the acquisition w.r.t the land in question is deemed to have lapsed by of the subsequent purchasers to challenge the acquisition/ lapsing of the acquisition – Held: A subsequent purchaser has no locus to challenge the acquisition/lapsing of the acquisition – High Court erred in entertaining the writ petition preferred by the respondents praying for
IN RE : T. N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPADversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Case No.: WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 202/1995
Decision Date: 28-04-2023
Disposal: Rejected
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC442

BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, VIKRAM NATH Environmental Laws: Mining activities beyond the distance of one kilometer from the boundary of the Protected Area, irrespective of the fact that such an area falls under the Eco-Sensitive Zone-ESZ – Permissibility of – Held: Some of the Sanctuaries, the ESZ areas are less than one kilometer, in some, it is as less as 500 meters or even less than 500 meters – Thus, it is clarified that even in case where the ESZ boundaries are less than one kilometer from the Protected Area, the ban on mining shall extend upto a distance
PINAK PANI MOHANTYversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Case No.: WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 191/2022
Decision Date: 29-03-2023
Disposal: Disposed off
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC320

M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Directions – Union of India, sought directions to transfer an amount of Rs. 5,000 crores out of unutilized amount of Rs. 23,937 crores (lying in “Sahara-SEBI Refund Account) to be disbursed against the legitimate dues of depositors of Sahara – Held: The amount lying in the “Sahara- SEBI Refund Account” is unutilized and the genuine depositors of the Sahara Group of Cooperative Societies are entitled to get back their money, the prayer in application is reasonable and in the larger public interest/interest of the
ARNAB ROYversusCONSORTIUM OF NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITIES & ANR.
Case No.: WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 1109/2022
Decision Date: 17-03-2023
Disposal: Disposed off
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC261

D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.B. PARDIWALA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: The issue specifi cally addressed by the petitioner relates to the facilities for candidates who intend to avail of a scribe in the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) 2023. Rights Act, 2016 – Following the decision of the Supreme Court in Vikash Kumar Vs. Union Public Service Commission & Ors., by an Office Memorandum dated 10.08.2022, guidelines have been formulated by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment: Held: Paragraph 4 of the Offi ce Decision Date : 17-03-2023 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 1109/2022 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off  | Direction Issue : Writ petition and Miscellaneous Application disposed of.  |  Bench : 3 Judges
GAS POINT PETROLEUM INDIA LTD.versusRAJENDRA MAROTHI & ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 619/2023
Decision Date: 10-02-2023
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC119

M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XXI, rules 64, 84, 85 and 86 – Execution proceedings – Decree passed in civil suit – Property of judgment debtor auctioned and sold on 03.11.2011 in favour of respondent No.1 for recovery of amount – Appellant filed objection that the property was purchased by him from judgment debtor on 31.08.1999 and they were in possession of the same – Executing Court overruled the objections – Lower Appellate Court allowed appeal and remitted the matter back to the Executing Court – Writ petition –
THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER & ORSversusNEERAJA PIPES PVT. LTD.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 760/2023
Decision Date: 15-03-2023
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC236

S. RAVINDRA BHAT*, DIPANKAR DATTA Notices/Process: Mode of service of orders and notices – Non- service of notice/assessment order – Consequence of – Assessee alleged that the Revenue did not provide copies of assessment order and proceeded to claim tax as arrears and attached the properties of High Court, relying on r. 64 held that revenue did not have record evidencing the service of assessment order on the assessee; and that it was not clear on what basis revised notices as well as notices of attachment claiming arrears of tax from the assessee were issued, and thus set aside the
BTL EPC LTD.versusMACAWBER BEEKAY PVT LTD AND OTHERS
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 5968/2023
Decision Date: 18-09-2023
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC864

D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: The issue pertains to the pre-qualifi cation requirement for bidders, notifi ed by the contractor; and whether the bid submitted by the successful bidder was liable to be rejected on the ground that the it had entered into a consortium agreement was not registered with the competent authority in terms of the Public Procurement Order. Contract – Complex technical contract – Power of judicial review – Writ petition by the competing bidder challenging the contract awarded to the
ANBAZHAGANversusTHE STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2043/2023
Decision Date: 20-07-2023
Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC632

BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, J.B. PARDIWALA Penal Code, 1860 – Alteration of conviction from s. 304-I to s.304-II of IPC – Single injury – Prosecution case that appellant and deceased picked up verbal altercation in regard to the pathway and the appellant had inflicted one blow with a “Hoe”-a of which the victim fell unconscious and later died – Trial Court held appellant guilty for the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder u/s. 304-I of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years – High Court dismissed the appeal
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXversusM/S JINDAL STEEL & POWER LIMITED THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 13771/2015
Decision Date: 06-12-2023
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC1053

B.V. NAGARATHNA*, UJJAL BHUYAN HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: All the appeals are by the revenue assailing orders of various high courts dismissing its appeals fi led u/s. 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 – The core and common issue raised in all the appeals is u/s. 80 IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the assessing offi cer which was set aside by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and upheld by the High Courts by accepting the contention of the assessee. Income Tax Act, 1961 – s.80-IA – The assessing offi cer accepted the claim of the
ASHUTOSH SAMANTA (D) BY LRS. & ORS.versusSM. RANJAN BALA DASI & ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 7775/2021
Decision Date: 14-03-2023
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC225

S. RAVINDRA BHAT*, HIMA KOHLI Evidence Act, 1872 – ss.68, 69, 71 and 90 – Proof of Will – Held: Wills cannot be proved only on the basis of their age – The presumption u/s.90, Evidence Act as to the regularity of documents more than 30 years of age is inapplicable when it comes to proof of wills, which Succession Act and s.68, Evidence Act – There are often situations when wills which otherwise may have satisfied the requirements of being attested, as provided by law, cannot be proved in terms of the said two provisions, for the reason that the attesting witnesses are not available,
THANESAR SINGH SODHI (D) THR. LRS.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 5500/2011
Decision Date: 09-11-2023
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC997

VIKRAM NATH*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Detention order passed under Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 subsequently revoked/withdrawn, proceedings under Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) become non est and untenable, as claimed. Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 – s.2(2)(b) and its proviso – Application – Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 – ss.3, 9, 12 –
BHIMASHANKAR SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE NIYAMITAversusWALCHANDNAGAR INDUSTRIES LTD. (WIL)
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 6810/2022
Decision Date: 10-04-2023
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC335

M.R. SHAH*, KRISHNA MURARI Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.34(3) – Limitation Act, 1963 – s.2(j) r/w s.4 – “period of limitation” – General Clauses Act, 1897 – s.10 – Application u/s.34(3) – Filing of, after the expiry of 120 days but filed on the first – Last day of the condonable period of 30 days u/s.34(3) had fallen during the said vacation – Benefit of s.4, Limitation Act, if available – Held: No – Issue is not res integra – In Assam Urban Water Supply and Sewerage Board vs. Subash Projects and Marketing
YAMAL MANOJBHAIversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS
Case No.: WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 55/2023
Decision Date: 04-05-2023
Disposal: Matter referred to larger bench
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC498

KRISHNA MURARI*, SANJAY KAROL Customs Act, 1962 – ss.123, 127B – Seized goods specified u/s.123, remedy of settlement u/s.127B if available – Held: Per Krishna Murari, J. In cases of seizure within the customs area, s.123 cannot apply and the accused is entitled to the remedy of by the Bombay High Court in Suresh Raheja case states the correct position of law – Per Sanjay Karol, J. Proviso to s.127B(1) specifies certain categories of goods that are barred from the jurisdiction of the settlement commission including goods mentioned u/s.123 and goods relating to NDPS Decision Date : 04-05-2023 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 55/2023 | Disposal Nature : Matter referred to larger bench  | Direction Issue : Matter to be placed before Hon’ble CJI.  |  Bench : 2 Judges
SANDEEP KUMARversusSTATE OF HARYANA & ANR
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2195/2023
Decision Date: 28-07-2023
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC654

C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, SUDHANSHU DHULIA Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.319 – The appellant- informant (PW-9) moved an application u/s. 319 before the Trial Court to summon three additional accused persons, R, K and P, who were named in FIR but not in the charge-sheet by the appellant as assailants in his examination-in-chief during trial – The trial Court allowed the application and summoned the three accused persons – However, the High Court set aside the said order in revision – The revision was allowed for the reasons that R was