STATE OF- UTTAR PRADESH & Ors. v. SUBHASH CHANDRA JAISWAL & Ors.
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 29 Nov 2016
- Bench
- DIPAK MISRA, AMITAVA ROY
Outcome
Allowed
Resultantly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 419, 420, 467, 468, 471
- Constitution of India art. 226
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Judgment
· 1.3 It is expected that the High Courts while dealing with the /is are expected to focus on the process of adjudication and decide the matter. The concept, what is thought of or experienced cannot be ingrained or engrafted into an order solely because such a thought has struck the adjudicator. It must flow from the factual base and based on law. To say the least, in the present case, some of the directions issued were not permissible and all of them were totally unrelated to the case before the High Court . . A Court cannot take steps for framing a policy. The directions issued by the High Court and the queries made by it related to various spheres which the High Court should not have gone into. It had a very limited tis before it. A Judge should not perceive a situation in a generalised manner. In the instant case, the controversy was absolutely different but the High Court generalised it and issued the directions. The directions definitely show some anxiety on the part of the Judges, but it is to be remembered that directions are not issued solely out of concern. They have to be founded on certain fegally justifiable principles t!tat have roots in the laws of the country. [Paras 11, 16, 17 & 23] [140-A-B, C; 143-D-F]
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Resultantly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 419, 420, 467, 468, 471; Constitution of India — art. 226; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Supreme Court of India, on 29 Nov 2016. The bench was DIPAK MISRA, AMITAVA ROY.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.