Back
PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, AMITAVA ROY
State of Karnataka – Appellant
Versus
Selvi J. Jayalalitha – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals project a challenge to the judgment and order dated 11.5.2015 rendered by the High Court of Karnatka in the appeals preferred by the respondents herein, thereby acquitting them of the charge under Sections 120B and 109 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”) read with Sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short “1988 Act”) as framed against them and also resultantly setting-aside the order of the Trial Court for confiscation of properties, both movable and immovable, of the concerned firms, as mentioned therein. In the meantime, after the conclusion of the arguments, the respondent No.1 expired and, thus in law, the appeals against her have abated. Nevertheless, in view of the gamut of the imputations and the frame-work of the charges a
Ashok Debbarma @ Achak Debbarma VS State of Tripura - 2014 2 Supreme 329: The case explicitly states that Section 27(3) of the Arms Act, 1959 is unconstitutional. When a case law declares a statute or a section thereof unconstitutional, it is effectively overruled or invalidated, making it bad law in subsequent applications. This indicates a direct treatment as a decision that has been questioned or rejected in later legal reasoning or judicial review.
[Followed / Confirmed]
A. R. Antulay VS R. S. Nayak - 1988 0 Supreme(SC) 337: The case emphasizes the Supreme Court's inherent jurisdiction to correct its errors, which aligns with established principles of judicial review and the Court's authority. No indication of overrule or criticism is present.
R. V. E. Venkatachala Gounder VS Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V. P. Temple - 2003 8 Supreme 193: The principles regarding the burden of proof and timely objection are well-established legal principles that are generally followed.
Harbans Singh VS State Of Punjab - 1961 0 Supreme(SC) 345: The statement about dying declarations not requiring corroboration is a well-settled legal position, likely followed in subsequent jurisprudence.
State Of M. P. VS Shambhu Dayal Nagar - 2006 8 Supreme 683: The presumption under Section 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is a standard legal inference, generally followed.
Iqbal Singh Marwah VS Meenakshi Marwah - 2005 2 Supreme 549: The section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. treatment reflects a settled legal interpretation, likely followed.
State Of M. P. VS Ram Singh - 2000 1 Supreme 589: The stance that procedural delays should not defeat the object of the Prevention of Corruption Act aligns with the general approach of courts to uphold the social object of statutes.
Ram Narain Poply VS Central Bureau of Investigation - 2003 1 Supreme 537: The Supreme Court upheld a conviction involving a high-profile case, consistent with the Court’s role in upholding law and order, likely followed.
State Of H. P. VS Jai Lal - 1999 8 Supreme 401: The points about expert witnesses and their role are consistent with established legal principles.
NIRANJAN HEMCHANDRA SASHITTAL VS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA - 2013 2 Supreme 385: The position that proceedings under the PC Act cannot be quashed due to delay and that dilatory tactics are unacceptable is consistent with the Court’s approach to criminal procedure.
K. Anbazhagan VS Superintendent Of Police Etc. - 2004 1 Supreme 335: The transfer of trial due to prejudice reflects standard judicial discretion, generally followed.
Saju VS State Of Kerala - 2000 7 Supreme 529: The principles regarding conspiracy under Section 120B are well-established and likely followed.
Delhi Development Authority VS Skipper Construction Company Private LTD. - 1996 4 Supreme 64: The Court’s approach under Article 142 to do complete justice and ignore the corporate veil when necessary is a recognized doctrine, generally followed.
Firozuddin Basheeruddin VS State Of Kerala - 2001 6 Supreme 247: The legal position that conspiracy can be proved by circumstantial evidence is a well-settled principle, followed.
P. Nallammal VS State Rep. by Inspector of Police - 1999 6 Supreme 516: The principles regarding abetment and public servants are consistent with statutory interpretation, likely followed.
Kehar Singhs VS State (Delhi Administration) - 1988 0 Supreme(SC) 475: The rulings on the trial of Indira Gandhi’s murder case and the admissibility of confessions are well-established and likely followed.
Harbans Singh VS State Of Punjab - 1961 0 Supreme(SC) 345: Reiterates the importance of corroboration for dying declarations, a settled principle.
Dayal Singh VS State of Uttaranchal - 2012 5 Supreme 260: The emphasis on punishing officials responsible for defective investigation aligns with standard legal expectations.
State Of M. P. VS Shambhu Dayal Nagar - 2006 8 Supreme 683: The inference of gratification from recovery of money is a standard presumption, likely followed.
State Of M. P. VS Shambhu Dayal Nagar - 2006 8 Supreme 683: The Court's approach to the presumption under the Prevention of Corruption Act is consistent with established law.
Ram Narain Poply VS Central Bureau of Investigation - 2003 1 Supreme 537: The verdict upholding a high-profile conviction is consistent with judicial precedent.
K. Anbazhagan VS Superintendent Of Police Etc. - 2004 1 Supreme 335: The transfer of trial for fairness is a common judicial practice, generally followed.
Saju VS State Of Kerala - 2000 7 Supreme 529: The principles of conspiracy law are well-established and followed.
Delhi Development Authority VS Skipper Construction Company Private LTD. - 1996 4 Supreme 64: The Court's power under Article 142 to do complete justice is a recognized doctrine, generally followed.
Iqbal Singh Marwah VS Meenakshi Marwah - 2005 2 Supreme 549: The interpretation of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. aligns with legal standards, likely followed.
State Of M. P. VS Ram Singh - 2000 1 Supreme 589: The stance on procedural delays and the object of the Prevention of Corruption Act reflects judicial approach, generally followed.
Harbans Singh VS State Of Punjab - 1961 0 Supreme(SC) 345: The rule that dying declarations do not need corroboration is a well-settled principle, followed.
State Of M. P. VS Shambhu Dayal Nagar - 2006 8 Supreme 683: The inference of gratification based on recovery and circumstances is a standard legal presumption, followed.
: No such case present; possibly a typo or misreference.
Mritunjoy Biswas VS Pranab @ Kuti Biswas - 2014 2 Supreme 563: The treatment pattern or subsequent judicial treatment of this case is not explicitly indicated. The case discusses evidence and minor contradictions but does not specify if it has been overruled or criticized.
State through CBI New Delhi VS Jitender Kumar Singh - 2014 1 Supreme 602: The treatment pattern is not specified; the case states a legal principle about trial jurisdiction but does not indicate subsequent treatment.
State Of M. P. VS Awadh Kishore Gupta - 2004 2 Supreme 501: The case discusses the exercise of powers under Cr.P.C. but does not specify if it has been overruled or criticized.
Heirs Of Vrajlal J. Ganatra VS Heirs Of Parshottam S. Shah - 1996 5 Supreme 4: The case states a legal principle about the burden of proof in benami transactions without indicating subsequent treatment.
Valliammal (D) By Lrs. VS Subramaniam - 2004 7 Supreme 763: The case discusses important tests for benami transactions but does not specify if it has been overruled or criticized.
D. S. P. , Chennai VS K. Inbasagaran - 2005 8 Supreme 782: The case deals with initial burden of proof in property cases, with no indication of subsequent treatment.
Ashok Debbarma @ Achak Debbarma VS State of Tripura - 2014 2 Supreme 329: Declares Section 27(3) of Arms Act unconstitutional, which is a significant legal ruling. No subsequent treatment is provided, so its current validity is uncertain.
A. R. Antulay VS R. S. Nayak - 1988 0 Supreme(SC) 337: The Court's inherent jurisdiction to correct errors is a settled principle, but whether this particular ruling has been overruled or criticized is not indicated.
VISHWANATH CHATURVEDI VS Union Of India - 2007 0 Supreme(SC) 288: The case emphasizes investigation procedures and constitutional rights without indicating subsequent treatment.
V. D. Jhingan VS State Of U. P. - 1966 0 Supreme(SC) 85: The burden of proof in corruption cases is a well-established principle, treatment status is not specified.
Ramesh Chandra Agrawal VS Regency Hospital Ltd. - 2009 6 Supreme 535: Principles of natural justice are well-settled; no subsequent treatment indicated.
Prithipal Singh Etc. VS State of Punjab - 2011 7 Supreme 396: The obligation of the state to protect life and the approach to custodial deaths are well-established; no indication of overrule.
State of A. P. VS J. Satyanarayana - 2000 0 Supreme(SC) 1109: Proper appreciation of evidence in corruption cases is a standard principle, treatment status unclear.
NIRANJAN HEMCHANDRA SASHITTAL VS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA - 2013 2 Supreme 385: The position on proceedings under PC Act and delays is consistent with judicial approach, treatment status unclear.
State Of Punjab VS Karnail Singh - 2003 5 Supreme 508: The Court’s review powers are well-established; treatment status unclear.
C. S. D. Swami VS State - 1959 0 Supreme(SC) 133: The presumption under the Prevention of Corruption Act is a settled legal principle; treatment status unclear.
State Of M. P. VS Mohan Lal Soni - 2000 5 Supreme 139: The procedure for framing charges is a standard legal principle; treatment status unclear.
Pawan Kumar VS State Of Haryana - 2003 5 Supreme 196: The approach to benefits to non-appealing accused is a procedural principle; treatment status unclear.
RAMAIAH @ RAMA VS STATE OF KARNATAKA - 2014 5 Supreme 673: The stance on FIR delays is a procedural guideline; treatment status unclear.
Chandrappa VS State of Karnataka - 2007 2 Supreme 177: The standard for appellate review of evidence is well-settled; treatment status unclear.
K. POONUSWAMY VS State Of T. N. - 2001 5 Supreme 484: The burden of proving benami transactions is a settled legal principle; treatment status unclear.
R. V. E. Venkatachala Gounder VS Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V. P. Temple - 2003 8 Supreme 193: The burden of proof and objections in evidence are well-established principles; treatment status unclear.
P. Nallammal VS State Rep. by Inspector of Police - 1999 6 Supreme 516: Principles regarding abetment and public servant liability are statutory; treatment status unclear.
Kehar Singhs VS State (Delhi Administration) - 1988 0 Supreme(SC) 475: The trial procedures and admissibility of confessions are well-established; treatment status unclear.
Firozuddin Basheeruddin VS State Of Kerala - 2001 6 Supreme 247: The law on proving conspiracy by circumstantial evidence is well-known; treatment status unclear.
Delhi Development Authority VS Skipper Construction Company Private LTD. - 1996 4 Supreme 64: The Court’s jurisdiction under Article 142 is a recognized doctrine; treatment status unclear.
Iqbal Singh Marwah VS Meenakshi Marwah - 2005 2 Supreme 549: The interpretation of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. is well-established; treatment status unclear.
State Of M. P. VS Shambhu Dayal Nagar - 2006 8 Supreme 683: The presumption about gratification is a standard legal inference; treatment status unclear.
In sum, the only explicitly identified case that has been overruled or declared unconstitutional is Ashok Debbarma @ Achak Debbarma VS State of Tripura - 2014 2 Supreme 329, which states that Section 27(3) of the Arms Act, 1959 is unconstitutional. The rest of the cases are either well-established principles or their subsequent treatment is not indicated in the provided list.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
