R. C. LAHOTI, C. K. THAKKER, P. K. BALASUBRAMANYAN
Samya Sett – Appellant
Versus
Shambu Sarkar – Respondent
Judgment
C.K. Thakker, J.—Leave granted.
2. The present appeal reminds us of a golden advice given by this Court before more than four decades. In State of U.P. vs. Mohd. Naim, (1964) 2 SCR 363, a single Judge of the High Court of Allahabad while deciding a criminal case, made certain sweeping and uncalled for observations against the entire police force of the State. The State, therefore, approached this Court making grievance against indiscriminate observations by the High Court. Observing that the case was exceptional in nature and inherent powers of expunging remarks were called for, this Court, speaking through S.K. Das, J. stated:
“The last question is, is the present case a case of an exceptional nature in which the learned Judge should have exercised his inherent jurisdiction under S. 561-A Cr.P.C. in respect of the observations complained of by the State Government? If there is one principle of cardinal importance in the administration of justice, it is this: the proper freedom and independence of Judges and Magistrates must be maintained and they must be allowed to perform their functions freely and fearlessly and without undue interference by anybody, even by this Court. A
Alok Kumar Roy v. Dr. S.N. Sarma & Another
State of Bihar v. Nilmani Sahu & Another
State of M.P. v. Nandlal Jaiswal & Others
A.M. Mathur v. Pramod Kumar Gupta
In the matter of ‘K’ A Judicial Officer (2001) 3 SCC 54. (Para 14)
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.