Back
D.A.DESAI, N.L.UNTWALIA, P.K.GOSWAMI
Madhu Limaye – Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra – Respondent
JUDGMENT
UNTWALIA, J.:— This is an appeal by special leave from the order of the Bombay High Court rejecting the application in revision filed by the appellant under Section 397 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 hereinafter to be referred to as the 1973 Code or the new Code, on the ground that it was not maintainable in view of the provision contained in sub-sec. (2) of S. 397. The High Court has not gone into its merits.
2. It is not necessary to state the facts of the case in any detail for the disposal of this appeal. A bare skeleton of them will suffice. In a press conference held at New Delhi on the 27th September, 1974 the appellant is said to have made certain statements and handed over a "press hand-out" containing allegedly some defamatory statements concerning Shri A. R. Antulay, the then Law Minister of the Government of Maharashtra. The said statements were published in various newspapers. The State Government decided to prosecute the appellant for an offence under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code as it was of the view that the Law Minister was defamed in respect of his conduct in the discharge of his public functions. Section in accordance with Section 199
No cases identified as overruled, reversed, abrogated, or otherwise treated as bad law. All references consistently treat the cases (primarily Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1978 SC 47) positively without negative treatment indicators such as "overruled," "reversed," "abrogated," "criticized," or "questioned."
All cases in the list (over 200 references) fall into this category. They overwhelmingly cite, follow, approve, reiterate, rely upon, or quote with approval Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1978 SC 47 or (1977) 4 SCC 551) and related cases like Amar Nath v. State of Haryana (AIR 1977 SC 2185).
Examples of supporting language:
"Ankaputtaswamy and others VS Papegowda and State - 1978 0 Supreme(Mad) 60: While affirming the above view, the Supreme Court in Madhu Limaye v. ..."
"Manjoor Ahmad VS State Of Bihar - 1978 0 Supreme(Pat) 64: In Madhu Limaye V/s. ... the Court observed"
"[MODI SPINNING AND WEAVING MILLS CO
VS LADHA RAM AND CO
1978 0 Supreme(All) 213](https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/02500038700): In Madhu Limaye v. ... Untwalia, J. observed as follows"
"Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. and Another v. M/s. Ladha Ram and Co. - 1978 Supreme(Online)(All) 32: ... well laid down by the Supreme Court in Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra"
"[PREMWATI
VS MAHESH CHANDRA
1979 0 Supreme(All) 545](https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/02500039113): ... not tenable in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Madhu Limaye v. ... wherein the Supreme Court modified its earlier decision"
"Haryana Land Reclamation And Development Corporation LTD. VS State Of Haryana - 1990 0 Supreme(SC) 312: Untwalia, J. speaking for the bench in Madhu Limaye v. ... after referring to Amar Nath case"
"Sunil Kumar Sabharwal VS Neelam Sabharwal - 1990 0 Supreme(P&H) 17: The same interpretation was approved and affirmed in Madhu Limaye V/s. State of Maharashtra"
"Mahesh Chander Singh VS Raghunandan Prasad - Crimes (1990): No doubt as held in the case of Madhu Limaye v. ..."
"SANTOSH KUMAR PADHAN VS LALBIHARI BEHERA ALIAS FITIA - 1985 0 Supreme(Ori) 325: See Madhu Limaye Vs. The State of Maharashtra"
"A. S. SANYAL VS KHEM CHAND - 1983 0 Supreme(All) 123: IN the case of Madhu Limaye v. ... it was held on page 51"
Repeated patterns: "laid down by the Supreme Court in Madhu Limaye," "reliance has been placed on Madhu Limaye," "followed this decision and the subsequent decision... in Madhu Limaye," "quoted with approval in Madhu Limaye," "reiterated in Madhu Limaye," "principles laid down in Madhu Limaye."
Minor references to other cases (e.g., State of Haryana v. others, V.C. Shukla v. State, R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab) are also positively cited alongside Madhu Limaye, often as part of the same lineage of authority on interlocutory orders, inherent powers under S.482 CrPC, and revision bars under S.397(2) CrPC.
No distinctions, criticisms, or limitations are applied; all uses affirm the principles on "intermediate orders," inherent powers, and non-interlocutory classifications.
None. All treatments are unambiguously positive (followed, cited approvingly, relied upon, approved, affirmed, reiterated, or quoted as authority). No ambiguous, conflicting, or neutral references found. A few snippets have typos (e.g., "Madhu Limiye," "Madhu Limaya") or fragments, but context clearly indicates positive treatment.
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
