Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2018 Supreme(SC) 1425

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J. Chelameswar, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, JJ.
High Court Of Judicature Of Hyderabad For High Court Of Telangana And Andhra Pradesh - Appellant
Versus
Mahabunisa Begum - Respondent
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 2240 of 2018 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 25-10-2017 in CRLP No. 7108 of 2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh)
Decided On : 14-05-2018

Advocates Appeared:
Ms. Anitha Shenoy, AOR, Ms. Srishti Agnihotri and Ms. Remya Raj, Advocates, For the Petitioner; Mr. Aman Lekhi, ASG, Ms. Suhasini Sen, Mr. Md. Irshad Hanif, Mr. Rizwan Ahmad Durrani, Mr. Arif Ali Khan, Mr. Mujahid Ahmad, Advocates, Mr. S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, AOR and Mr. Mrityunjai Singh, Advocate, For the Respondents

The court's decision is based on the scheme provided in the proviso to Section 24(8) of the Cr.PC and previous court decisions.

Headnote:
Section 24(8) of the Cr.PC - Scheme and Proviso - Court sets aside impugned judgment based on previous decisions
Fact of the Case:

Learned counsel for both parties submit that the impugned order cannot be sustained in view of the scheme provided in the proviso to Section 24(8) of the Cr.PC and in light of previous court decisions.
Finding of the Court:

The court sets aside the impugned judgment based on the aforementioned decisions and disposes of the special leave petition along with any pending applications.
Issues:
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision is influenced by the scheme provided in the proviso to Section 24(8) of the Cr.PC and previous court decisions, including Shiv Kumar v. Hukam Chand & Anr. and Dhariwal Industries Ltd. v. Kishore Wadhwani & Ors.
Final Decision: The impugned judgment is set aside, and the special leave petition is disposed of along with any pending applications.

ORDER

1. Learned counsel appearing for both the parties in the matter submit that the impugned order cannot be sustained in view of the scheme provided in the proviso to Section 24(8) of the Cr.PC and in light of the decision of this Court in Shiv Kumar v. Hukam Chand & Anr. (1999) 7 SCC 467 and Dhariwal Industries Ltd. v. Kishore Wadhwani & Ors. 2016 (4) Law Herald (SC) 2725 : 2016 (5) Law Herald (P & H) 4020 (SC) : 2016 Law Herald. Org 1731 : (2016) 10 SCC 378 .

2. The impugned judgment is accordingly set aside in light of the aforementioned decisions.

3. The special leave petition is disposed of.

4. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis