AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH

The respondents were convicted under the NDPS Act for transporting 750 kg of poppy husk after a seizure in 2009. They appealed their convictions, and the High Court acquitted them, relying solely on the principle from Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab that an informant cannot also be the investigator. The State of Punjab ch…

The State of Maharashtra filed an application seeking to modify the Supreme Court's directions dated 22 May 2025 concerning the Zudpi Jungle Lands. The Court had earlier declared fragmented land parcels as protected forest and granted a one‑time exemption for certain encroachments covering 10,365.049 hectares. Maharash…

The appellant, Neelam Kumari, was convicted under Section 302 IPC for the murder of her infant son based primarily on alleged extra‑judicial confessions to her husband and other villagers. The prosecution also relied on a green dupatta found with blood stains and circumstantial evidence, but failed to establish a clear…

The petitioners, both commercial pilots, claimed to have "solemnised" their marriage on 7 July 2021 and obtained a marriage certificate from Vadik Jankalyan Samiti, which was later used to register the marriage under the Uttar Pradesh Marriage Registration Rules, 2017. In reality, no Hindu rites or saptapadi were perfo…

The appellants and respondents, both claiming to be trustees of a charitable trust, were involved in a dispute that led the respondents to file a suit for perpetual injunction. The trial court dismissed the suit under Section 92 of the CPC, prompting an appeal during which the parties agreed to arbitration and later ac…

The appellant, Mihir Rajesh Shah, was arrested for a fatal hit‑and‑run involving his BMW, but the police failed to provide him with a written copy of the grounds of arrest as required by Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The High Court upheld the arrest de…

The appellant, Abhishek Gupta, was allotted a fair‑price shop licence after the licence of respondent No.1 was revoked for breach of conditions. The revocation and its affirmation were challenged by respondent No.1 in a writ petition under Art.226, where the appellant was not impleaded. The Single Judge set aside the r…