Offences Against Property

Supreme Court Clarifies Theft Definition in Document Misappropriation Case: Birla Corporation vs. Adventz Investments (2019)

/ Code of Criminal Procedure, Code of Criminal Procedure with Section 202, Code of Criminal Procedure with Section 482, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 378, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 379, Judges, Offences Against Property, R. Banumathi, R. Subhash Reddy

Supreme Court Clarifies Theft Definition in Document Misappropriation Case: Birla Corporation vs. Adventz Investments (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the temporary removal and use of confidential documents in ongoing litigation constitutes theft under the Indian Penal Code, 1860. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law Case Name: Birla Corporation Limited vs. Adventz Investments and Holdings Limited & Others [Judgment […]

Supreme Court Clarifies Theft Definition in Document Misappropriation Case: Birla Corporation vs. Adventz Investments (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Complaint Against Police Officer: Devendra Prasad Singh vs. State of Bihar (2019)

/ Abhay Manohar Sapre, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 with Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 with Section 482, Dinesh Maheshwari, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Judges, Offences Against Human Body, Offences Against Property

Supreme Court Upholds Complaint Against Police Officer: Devendra Prasad Singh vs. State of Bihar (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a prior sanction is required under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 to prosecute a police officer for offences allegedly committed not in the course of his official duties. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law. Case Name:

Supreme Court Upholds Complaint Against Police Officer: Devendra Prasad Singh vs. State of Bihar (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court upholds robbery conviction, reduces sentence: Jahangir Hussain vs. State of West Bengal (2019)

/ Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 395, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 412, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao, M.R. Shah, Offences Against Property

Supreme Court upholds robbery conviction, reduces sentence: Jahangir Hussain vs. State of West Bengal (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the conviction of the accused for offences of robbery and receiving stolen property was correct. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law Case Name: Jahangir Hussain vs. State of West Bengal Judgment Date: 29 March 2019 Date of the Judgment:

Supreme Court upholds robbery conviction, reduces sentence: Jahangir Hussain vs. State of West Bengal (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court overturns conviction under Forest Act due to lack of evidence: Pawan Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (2019)

/ Indian Forest Act, Indian Forest Act with Section 41, Indian Forest Act with Section 42, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 379, Judges, M.R. Shah, Navin Sinha, Offences Against Property

Supreme Court overturns conviction under Forest Act due to lack of evidence: Pawan Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (2019) Date of the Judgment: March 6, 2019 Citation: Pawan Kumar & Ors. vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh (2019) INSC 187 Judges: Justice Navin Sinha and Justice M.R. Shah Can a conviction under the Indian

Supreme Court overturns conviction under Forest Act due to lack of evidence: Pawan Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Mobile Snatching Case Due to Doubtful Identification: Suraj Pal vs. State of Haryana (25 January 2019)

/ Criminal Law, Identification of Accused, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 379-A, Judges, Offences Against Property, R. Banumathi, R. Subhash Reddy

Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Mobile Snatching Case Due to Doubtful Identification: Suraj Pal vs. State of Haryana (2019) Date of the Judgment: 25 January 2019 Citation: 2019 INSC 68 Judges: R. Banumathi, J. and R. Subhash Reddy, J. Can a conviction be sustained solely on the basis of a witness identifying the accused for

Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Mobile Snatching Case Due to Doubtful Identification: Suraj Pal vs. State of Haryana (25 January 2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Complaint in Family Share Dispute: Suresh Kumar Goyal vs. State of UP (2019)

/ Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 245(2), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 482, Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 406, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 420, Judges, Offences Against Property, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Complaint in Family Share Dispute: Suresh Kumar Goyal vs. State of UP (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Quashing of criminal proceedings in a family dispute over share ownership. CASE TYPE: Criminal Case Name: Sri Suresh Kumar Goyal & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. Judgment Date: 11 January 2019 Date of

Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Complaint in Family Share Dispute: Suresh Kumar Goyal vs. State of UP (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court allows second complaint on same facts: V. Ravi Kumar vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2018)

/ Code of Criminal Procedure, Code of Criminal Procedure with Section 156(3), Code of Criminal Procedure with Section 482, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 409, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 420, Indira Banerjee, Judges, Offences Against Property, R. Banumathi

Supreme Court Allows Second Complaint on Same Facts: V. Ravi Kumar vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2018) Date of the Judgment: 14 December 2018 Citation: (2018) INSC 1088 Judges: R. Banumathi, J. and Indira Banerjee, J. Can a person file a second criminal complaint if the first one was withdrawn? The Supreme Court addressed this

Supreme Court allows second complaint on same facts: V. Ravi Kumar vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Quashing of Criminal Proceedings in Contract Dispute: Vinod Natesan vs. State of Kerala (2018)

/ Code of Criminal Procedure, Code of Criminal Procedure with Section 482, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 406, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 420, Judges, M. R. Shah, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Offences Against Property

Supreme Court Upholds Quashing of Criminal Proceedings in Contract Dispute: Vinod Natesan vs. State of Kerala (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a breach of contract for non-payment of dues constitutes a criminal offense of cheating and/or breach of trust under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). CASE TYPE: Criminal Case Name: Vinod

Supreme Court Upholds Quashing of Criminal Proceedings in Contract Dispute: Vinod Natesan vs. State of Kerala (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Arson Case Citing Material Contradictions: Shanthamalleshappa vs. State of Karnataka (2018)

/ Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 391, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 436, Judges, Offences Against Property, R. Subhash Reddy, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Arson Case Citing Material Contradictions: Shanthamalleshappa vs. State of Karnataka (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the accused was guilty of setting fire to a thatched shed. CASE TYPE: Criminal. Case Name: Shanthamalleshappa vs. State of Karnataka. [Judgment Date]: 10 December 2018 Introduction Date of the Judgment: 10 December 2018 Citation: 2018

Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Arson Case Citing Material Contradictions: Shanthamalleshappa vs. State of Karnataka (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case Based on Circumstantial Evidence: Surendra Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand (2018)

/ Abhay Manohar Sapre, Circumstantial Evidence, Criminal Law, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 34, Indu Malhotra, Judges, Murder, Offences Against Property

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case Based on Circumstantial Evidence: Surendra Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the conviction of the accused for murder based on circumstantial evidence was justified. CASE TYPE: Criminal Case Name: Surendra Singh & Anr. vs. State of Uttarakhand [Judgment Date]: 04 December 2018 Date of the

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case Based on Circumstantial Evidence: Surendra Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Reduces Life Sentence to 10 Years in Dacoity-Murder Case: Shajahan vs. State (2018) INSC 123

/ Criminal Procedure, Criminal Procedure with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 396, Judges, Offences Against Human Body, Offences Against Property, R. Banumathi, Ranjan Gogoi

Supreme Court Reduces Life Sentence to 10 Years in Dacoity-Murder Case Date of the Judgment: February 16, 2018 Citation: (2018) INSC 123 Judges: Ranjan Gogoi, J., R. Banumathi, J. Can a sentence of life imprisonment for dacoity with murder be reduced based on the facts and circumstances of the case? The Supreme Court of India

Supreme Court Reduces Life Sentence to 10 Years in Dacoity-Murder Case: Shajahan vs. State (2018) INSC 123 Read Post »

Supreme Court Reduces Sentence in Dacoity-Murder Case: Shajahan vs. State (2018)

/ Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 396, Judges, Offences Against Property, R. Banumathi, Ranjan Gogoi

Supreme Court Reduces Sentence in Dacoity-Murder Case: Shajahan vs. State (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court was justified in enhancing the sentence of imprisonment for dacoity with murder from ten years to life imprisonment. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law Case Name: Shajahan vs. State Rep. by Inspector of Police Judgment Date: 16 February 2018 Date

Supreme Court Reduces Sentence in Dacoity-Murder Case: Shajahan vs. State (2018) Read Post »

Scroll to Top