Criminal Law

Knowledge acquires substantial importance qua a contempt order. There is no material to either establish their knowledge on action of their subordinates, or they acted in collusion with each other. Merely because a subordinate official acted in disregard of an order passed by court, a liability cannot be fastened on a higher official in absence […]

High Court must set forth its reasons, indicating at least in brief, an application of mind to nature of evidence and findings which have been arrived at. Not doing so, is not consistent with the duty which is cast upon High Court while determing whether leave should be granted to appeal against order of acquittal.

Remission policies may be composite ones referable both to S. 432/S. 433 CrPC and Art. 161 of the Constitution. Remission power exercisable under a particular remission policy whether would be one exercisable: (A) under S. 432/S. 433 CrPC, and/or (B) under Art. 161 of the Constitution, inter alia, depends on: the terms of the remission

Grant of, by High Court under S. 482: It is permissible for High Court to pass an interim order under S. 482 CrPC of the nature impugned herein, in exceptional cases with caution and circumspection, giving at least brief reasons. What is not permissible is the tendency of the courts to pass blanket, cryptic, laconic, non-speaking

High Court’s power under this section cannot be used to undermine a statutory dictate, in present case provided under Ss. 14 and 17 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). In this view, the amount remitted to the bank account of respondent1 by corporate debtor / company without any authority from appellant, held, was

SC had passed interim order pertaining to the mutual funds for a period of six months. However, the pandemic situation delayed hearing of accompanying appeal and consequently the resolution of the case. Thus, interim order was modified to the extent that MF units kept with R1 be released subject to the applicant furnishing requisite bank

Stage of framing of charge: Principles that must keep in mind by High Court while exercising jurisdiction under S. 482 at the stage of framing of charges. Held, High Court committed grave error in quashing charge sheet / entire criminal proceedings as there is ample material to show at least a prima facie case against the

In the instant case, when High Court quashed criminal proceedings, the IO had after doing the investigation and collecting the evidence, had filed the charge sheet before Magistrate for offences under Ss 147,148, 149, 406, 329 and 386 IPC and even Magistrate took the cognizance of the same. High court lost sight of crucial aspects

S.197 CrPC seeks to protect officer from unnecessary harassment, who is accused of offence committed while acting or purporting to act in discharge of his official duties and, thus, prohibits court from taking cognizance of such offence except with previous sanction of competent authority. At the same time, such shield cannot protect corrupt officers and

In this case, as High Court exercised its power of granting ad interim protection from arrest to accused without recording any reasons,, the least that is expected by the High Court is to record some reasons as to why it chooses to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction. Matter remitted back to High Court for decision afresh