IPC Section 120B — Punishment of criminal conspiracy

Judgments citing IPC Section 120B

1. Smt. Madavarapu Sridevi vs Mr.Potharaiu Narsimha & Others on 09 August, 2023

   High Court of High Court for State of Telangana9 Aug 2023

   Case Name: Smt. Madavarapu Sridevi vs Mr.Potharaiu Narsimha & Others on 09 August, 2023 Court: High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 09 August, 2023 Bench: Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice T. Vinod Kumar Subject: Writ Appeal – Handing over of seized premises – Necessary Party – Disposal of Writ Petition without hearing – Remittance to Single Judge. Key Legal Propositions 1. A necessary party to a writ petition must be heard before a decision is rendered, and failure to do so renders the order unsustainable in law. 2. When a dispute regarding property ownership is pending before a court (O.S.), and a writ petition concerns the same property, the party claiming ownership through a sale deed is a necessary party in the writ proceedings. 3. A coordinate bench may, at its discretion, direct the simultaneous hearing of related writ petitions to ensure a comprehensive resolution of the dispute. Judgment Summary Background: The appeal arises from an order passed by a learned Single Judge disposing of W.P.No.4987 of 2023, directing the police to hand over keys of a seized shop to the Respondents (Writ Petitioners). The Appellant (Third Party in the

2. D Srinivasa Rao vs The State of Telangana on 24 April, 2023

   High Court of High Court for State of Telangana24 Apr 2023

   Case Name: D Srinivasa Rao vs The State of Telangana on 24 April, 2023 Court: High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 24 April, 2023 Bench: Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili & Justice Pulla Karthik Subject: Service Law – Suspension – Disciplinary Proceedings – Review of Suspension Order – Period of Suspension – Transfer during Suspension Key Legal Propositions 1. Prolonged suspension of an employee, exceeding six years, is arbitrary in the absence of demonstrable public interest or ongoing disciplinary proceedings. 2. Transferring a suspended employee does not negate the need for a review of the suspension order, particularly considering the length of suspension. 3. Authorities must review suspension orders in accordance with established rules and relevant precedents, considering all attendant circumstances. Judgment Summary Background: The appellant, a Joint Commissioner of State GST, was placed under suspension in 2017 following the registration of a criminal case and initiation of disciplinary proceedings alleging financial irregularities. Despite a prior direction from the Court to review the suspension order, it was repeatedly extended. The appe

3. Abdul Raheem & Ors. vs The State of Telangana on 09 February, 2023

   High Court of High Court for State of Telangana9 Feb 2023

   Case Name: Abdul Raheem & Ors. vs The State of Telangana on 09 February, 2023 Court: High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 09 February, 2023 Bench: M. Laxman & G. Anupama Chakravarthy, JJ. Subject: Criminal Appeal – NIA Act – Police Custody – Section 43D UAPA – Interpretation of Proviso Key Legal Propositions 1. The second proviso to Section 43D(2)(b) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) creates an exception to the general rule regarding the 30-day limit for police custody. 2. An application for police custody beyond 30 days is maintainable if reasonable reasons for the delay are demonstrated, and the accused is in judicial custody. 3. Multiple applications for police custody within the 30-day period are permissible, and a subsequent application beyond 30 days is also maintainable if justified by valid reasons. Judgment Summary Background: This Criminal Appeal arises from an order dated 17.01.2023, granting police custody of the appellants/accused Nos. 32-36 for three days. The National Investigation Agency (NIA) sought police custody based on forensic evidence collected from other accused’s cell phones and information derived from those p

4. R. Veera Bramham vs State AP on 21 November, 2023

   High Court of Andhra Pradesh21 Nov 2023

   Case Name: R. Veera Bramham vs State AP on 21 November, 2023 Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati Date of Judgment: 21 November, 2023 Bench: Sri Justice K. Sreenivasa Reddy Subject: Criminal Appeal – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) – Illegal Gratuity – Public Servants – Lack of Intent Key Legal Propositions 1. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. Heavy workload and staff shortage in government offices are relevant considerations when assessing negligence of public servants. 3. Mere failure to meticulously verify documents, without evidence of intention to defraud or collusion, does not establish guilt under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Judgment Summary Background: Four criminal appeals arose from a common judgment dated 03.11.2010, convicting the appellants (A.5, A.7, A.8, and A.4) under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for allegedly facilitating the fraudulent payment of pensions to A.1 and A.2. The prosecution alleged that the appellants failed to properly scrutinize forged Pension Paymen

5. Derangula Srinivasu @ Srinivas & Others vs State of Andhra Pradesh on 24 January, 2023

   High Court of Andhra Pradesh24 Jan 2023

   Case Name: Derangula Srinivasu @ Srinivas & Others vs State of Andhra Pradesh on 24 January, 2023 Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati Date of Judgment: 24.01.2023 Bench: Justice U. Durga Prasad Rao & Justice G. Ramakrishna Prasad Subject: Criminal Appeal – Murder, Conspiracy, Evidence Key Legal Propositions 1. A conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires the establishment of a complete chain of circumstances pointing unerringly towards the guilt of the accused and excluding all other hypotheses. 2. Motive, while relevant in cases of circumstantial evidence, is not an indispensable element for conviction, especially when direct evidence establishes guilt. 3. Proof of criminal conspiracy requires more than just individual acts; a clear connection between those acts and a pre-arranged agreement must be established, and evidence regarding such agreement must be cogent. Judgment Summary Background: The appellants were convicted by a trial court for the murder of Karri Mohana Sai Reddy, allegedly stemming from a dispute over illegal activities in Dubai. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence to establish the conspiracy and the involvement of eac

6. State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Margadarsi Chit Funds Private Limited on 20 October, 2023

   High Court of Andhra Pradesh20 Oct 2023

   Case Name: State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Margadarsi Chit Funds Private Limited on 20 October, 2023 Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh Date of Judgment: 20 October, 2023 Bench: U.Durga Prasad Rao, A.V. Ravindra Babu Subject: Criminal Procedure, Writ Appeal, Section 102 CrPC, Freezing of Bank Accounts, Intra-Court Appeal, Jurisdiction Key Legal Propositions 1. An intra-court writ appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent is not maintainable if the impugned order was passed in a criminal case exercising criminal jurisdiction. 2. The nature of the order (civil or criminal) is determined by the field in respect of which the jurisdiction is exercised, not merely by the procedure used to obtain the order (e.g., writ petition). 3. The availability of an alternative remedy under Section 451/457 CrPC does not preclude the exercise of plenary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution when fundamental rights are affected. Judgment Summary Background: This intra-court writ appeal arises from an order passed by a learned single judge suspending a notice issued under Section 102 CrPC to freeze three bank accounts of Margadarsi Chit Fund Pvt Ltd during a police investigation into

7. Petitioner vs Respondent on 21 July, 2023

   High Court of Andhra Pradesh21 Jul 2023

   Case Name: Court: Date of Judgment: Bench: Subject: Key Legal Propositions 1. Upon the death of an accused during the pendency of a criminal revision, the revision petition abates. 2. Confirmation of conviction and sentence by a higher court does not preclude the effect of the accused’s death on pending revision petitions. 3. Pending miscellaneous applications are dismissed upon disposal of the primary revision petition. Judgment Summary Background: The petitioner/accused No.1 filed a Criminal Revision against a judgment confirming conviction and sentence under Sections 409, 420, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequently, the petitioner/accused No.1 died on 03.01.2020. Held: A. On Abatement of Revision Petition due to Death of Accused: Majority View: The Court held that in light of the petitioner/accused No.1’s death, the Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of. Dissenting View: None. B. On Pending Miscellaneous Applications: Majority View: The Court directed that any pending miscellaneous applications be dismissed as a consequence of the disposal of the revision petition. Dissenting View: None. C. On Confirmation of Conviction: Majority View: The Court did not address

8. Ashok Kumar Deg vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 03 April, 2023

   High Court of Andhra Pradesh3 Apr 2023

   Case Name: Ashok Kumar Deg vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 03 April, 2023 Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh Date of Judgment: 03 April, 2023 Bench: Justice A.V. Sesha Sai & Justice Venkata Jyothirmayi Pratapa Subject: Criminal Appeal – Bail Application under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. in a NIA Act case. Key Legal Propositions 1. In matters concerning national security and terrorism, the interests of the nation must prevail over individual liberty. 2. Courts should exercise caution when considering bail applications in cases involving offences under Section 3 of the Official Secrets Act and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, particularly when the trial has not commenced. 3. A prima facie case established through evidence, including WhatsApp chats and material collected during investigation, can justify the denial of bail, especially in cases involving serious charges like conspiracy and terrorist activities. Judgment Summary Background: This Criminal Appeal arises from an order dated 10.06.2022 dismissing a bail application filed by the appellant (Accused No. 7) in connection with Sessions Case No. 39 of 2020, registered under the NIA Act. The appellant is accused of sha

9. K. Sreenivasa Reddy vs The State on 21 November, 2023

   High Court of Andhra Pradesh21 Nov 2023

   Case Name: K. Sreenivasa Reddy vs The State on 21 November, 2023 Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh Date of Judgment: 21 November, 2023 Bench: Sri Justice K. Sreenivasa Reddy Subject: Criminal Law – Prevention of Corruption Act – Offence under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) – Acquittal – Appeal – Appreciation of Evidence – Standard of Proof. Key Legal Propositions 1. For conviction under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, proof of intention to defraud the Government and a direct link between the public servant’s actions and the wrongful loss is essential. 2. Mere procedural lapses or failure to meticulously verify documents, without evidence of collusion or intent, may not suffice for a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act. 3. In cases involving heavy workload and administrative constraints, a reasonable standard of diligence must be considered while assessing the conduct of public servants. Judgment Summary Background: The appeals arise from a judgment convicting A.5, A.7, A.8, and A.4 under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for their alleged role in facilitating the fraudulent payment of pen

10. Shantanu Joshi vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 20/06/2023

    High Court of Chhattisgarh20 Jun 2023

    Case Name: Shantanu Joshi vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 20/06/2023 Court: HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Date of Judgment: 20/06/2023 Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri & Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Subject: Criminal Law – Murder – Conspiracy – Evidence – Appreciation of Evidence – Motive Key Legal Propositions 1. Statements forming part of the same transaction are admissible under Section 6 of the Evidence Act, 1872, provided they are substantially contemporaneous with the incident. 2. To establish motive, reliance can be placed on consistent testimonies of witnesses detailing prior threats and animosity, corroborated by circumstantial evidence like the timing of events (e.g., obtaining a driving license shortly before the incident). 3. In cases of murder, the court must first establish a causal connection between the accused's act and the death, then determine if it constitutes culpable homicide, and finally, assess if it falls within the ambit of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. Judgment Summary Background: The appeal arises from a conviction and sentence imposed by the Sessions Judge, Mungeli, for offences under Sections 120B (criminal cons

11. Satish Swaroop & Anr. vs Nipon Dholua on 12 December, 2023

    High Court of Delhi12 Dec 2023

    Case Name: Satish Swaroop & Anr. vs Nipon Dholua on 12 December, 2023 Court: High Court of Delhi Date of Judgment: 12th December, 2023 Bench: Justice Chandra Dhari Singh Subject: Civil Procedure, Order XII Rule 6, Admissions, Revisional Jurisdiction, Section 115 CPC Key Legal Propositions 1. Order XII Rule 6 CPC empowers the Court to pass a judgment on admissions made in pleadings or otherwise, but such admissions must be clear, unequivocal, unconditional, and unambiguous. 2. The scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC is limited to jurisdictional errors – illegal exercise, failure to exercise, or irregular exercise of jurisdiction – and does not extend to correcting errors of fact or law. 3. A Court is not bound to pass a judgment under Order XII Rule 6 if objections are raised that go to the root of the matter, requiring a full trial to determine the issues. Judgment Summary Background: The petitioners filed a civil suit for recovery of an advance payment and subsequently applied under Order XII Rule 6 CPC seeking a decree based on alleged admissions made by the respondent in a legal notice reply and written statement. The Trial Court dismissed the applicatio

12. Abhishek Verma vs CBI on 10th April, 2023

    High Court of Delhi

    Case Name: Abhishek Verma vs CBI on 10th April, 2023 Court: High Court of Delhi Date of Judgment: 10th April, 2023 Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma Subject: Criminal Law – Application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. – Setting aside of rejection order – Liberty to file fresh application – Scope and purpose of Section 319 Cr.P.C. Key Legal Propositions 1. Section 319 Cr.P.C. empowers the court to summon an individual not initially named as an accused if evidence suggests their involvement in an offence triable together with existing accused. 2. The legislative intent behind Section 319 Cr.P.C. is to ensure that no person involved in an offence escapes legal scrutiny if evidence warrants their prosecution. 3. A court may defer the conclusion of a trial to consider an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., and a joint trial is permissible but not mandatory, allowing for separate trials if deemed appropriate. Judgment Summary Background: The petitioner challenged an order dated 04.07.2014 rejecting his application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. seeking to summon Mr. C. Edmonds Allen as an accused. The petitioner sought liberty to move a fresh application under Section 319 Cr.P.

13. Vijay Bahadur @ Monu vs State on 29 May, 2023

    High Court of Delhi29 May 2023

    Case Name: Vijay Bahadur @ Monu vs State on 29 May, 2023 Court: High Court of Delhi Date of Judgment: 29.05.2023 Bench: Ms. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma Subject: Criminal Appeal – Sections 120B, 201 IPC, Section 374 CrPC Key Legal Propositions 1. Conviction under Section 201 IPC is contingent upon establishing the commission of a substantive offence. 2. Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain, excluding all other hypotheses except the guilt of the accused, to sustain a conviction. 3. A conviction under Section 201 IPC is unsustainable if the accused is acquitted of the principal offence (Section 302 IPC) in the same case. Judgment Summary Background: The present appeal challenges the judgment of the Trial Court convicting the appellant under Sections 120B and 201 of the IPC, read with Section 302 IPC, concerning a case of vehicle theft and murder. The prosecution alleged that the appellant was involved in concealing evidence related to the crime. The Trial Court convicted the appellant, sentencing him to one year’s imprisonment and a fine. Held: A. On Validity of Conviction under Sections 120B/201 IPC: Majority View: The Court held that the conviction under Sectio

14. DINESH KUMAR vs STATE (NCT OF DELHI) on 02 February, 2023 & YOGESH KUMAR vs STATE (NCT OF DELHI) on 02 February, 2023

    High Court of Delhi2 Feb 2023

    Case Name: DINESH KUMAR vs STATE (NCT OF DELHI) on 02 February, 2023 & YOGESH KUMAR vs STATE (NCT OF DELHI) on 02 February, 2023 Court: High Court of Delhi Date of Judgment: 02 February, 2023 Bench: Ms. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma Subject: Criminal Appeal – Sentence Reduction Key Legal Propositions 1. Where an appeal is limited to the sentence and not the merits of the conviction, the court may consider reducing the sentence based on the age of the case, the conduct of the appellants, and their current circumstances. 2. Prolonged litigation and the appellants’ engagement in meaningful employment and family responsibilities are relevant factors for sentence reduction. 3. A court may reduce the remaining portion of a sentence if requiring its completion would not serve a useful purpose, considering the overall circumstances. Judgment Summary Background: The present appeals under Section 374 Cr.P.C. were filed against a judgment dated 23.05.2009, convicting the appellants under Sections 325/34 of the IPC and sentencing them to three years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. The appellants sought a reduction of sentence, arguing that the incident occurred 17 y

15. State vs Sanjay @ Surender Kharb on 24 March, 2023

    High Court of Delhi24 Mar 2023

    Case Name: State vs Sanjay @ Surender Kharb on 24 March, 2023 Court: High Court of Delhi Date of Judgment: 24 March, 2023 Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amit Sharma Subject: Criminal Revision Petition – Discharge – Sufficiency of Evidence – Section 397 & 401 CrPC – Sections 302/365/201/120B IPC Key Legal Propositions 1. The scope of revision under Section 397 CrPC is limited to examining the legality and correctness of the impugned order, not re-appreciating evidence. 2. A trial court’s discharge order will not be interfered with unless it is perverse in law or ignores crucial evidence. 3. At the stage of framing charges, the court must determine if there is a grave suspicion against the accused, not conduct a full trial. Judgment Summary Background: The State filed a revision petition challenging the order of the Additional Sessions Judge discharging the respondent, Sanjay @ Surender Kharb, under Sections 302/365/201/120B of the IPC in FIR No. 12/2010. The charges stemmed from the alleged kidnapping and murder of Komal Sharma. The trial court discharged the respondent due to lack of credible evidence, primarily relying on inadmissible confessional statements and weak circumstant

16. Akash Verma vs State of NCT of Delhi on 02 February, 2023

    High Court of Delhi2 Feb 2023

    Case Name: Akash Verma vs State of NCT of Delhi on 02 February, 2023 Court: High Court of Delhi Date of Judgment: 02 February, 2023 Bench: Ms. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma Subject: Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Section 482 CrPC – Hoarding and Black Marketing – Epidemic Diseases Act – Essential Commodities Act Key Legal Propositions 1. Courts should be cautious in exercising the power to quash FIRs, especially at the investigation stage, unless there are clear mala fides or a lack of a cognizable offence. 2. The High Court can quash an FIR only in exceptional circumstances where a prima facie case is not made out against the accused. 3. A criminal investigation, unless tainted by mala fides, should not be foreclosed by a court of law. Judgment Summary Background: The petitioner sought quashing of FIR No. 108/2021 registered for offences under Sections 420/188/120B/34 IPC, Section 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897, and Section 3(7) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The allegations involved possession and attempted sale of Remdesivir injections at inflated prices during the COVID-19 pandemic. Held: A. On Quashing of FIR: Majority View: The Court held that it would

17. Devender Dubey vs State of N.C.T. of Delhi on 22 December, 2023

    High Court of Delhi22 Dec 2023

    Case Name: Devender Dubey vs State of N.C.T. of Delhi on 22 December, 2023 Court: High Court of Delhi Date of Judgment: 22.12.2023 Bench: Ms. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma Subject: Criminal Law – Bail Application – Impersonation – Extortion – Conspiracy Key Legal Propositions 1. Allegations of impersonating a public servant and extortion are serious in nature and warrant careful consideration in bail applications. 2. Identification of the accused by the complainant, coupled with corroborating evidence like CCTV footage, can be a significant factor in denying bail. 3. A criminal conspiracy to extort money by falsely invoking the authority of a government agency is a grave offense. Judgment Summary Background: The present application is a petition for regular bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. filed by Devender Dubey, accused in FIR No. 264/2022 registered at Police Station Crime Branch, Delhi, under Sections 170/389/387/465/471/120B/34 of the IPC. The FIR was lodged based on a complaint alleging that the accused persons were attempting to extort money from officials of Nippon Paint India Ltd. by impersonating Enforcement Directorate (ED) officials. Held: A. On Bail Appli

18. Bably Morehwar Lawatre vs The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) on 06 January, 2023

    High Court of Delhi6 Jan 2023

    Case Name: Bably Morehwar Lawatre vs The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) on 06 January, 2023 Court: High Court of Delhi Date of Judgment: 06.01.2023 Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amit Mahajan Subject: Criminal Law – Bail Application – Section 439 CrPC – Forgery – Cheating – IT Act Offences Key Legal Propositions 1. Grant of bail is the rule, and refusal an exception, ensuring the accused an opportunity for a fair trial. 2. The triple test (flight risk, tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses) must be considered when deciding bail applications. 3. Peculiar facts, such as the disability of the applicant and his wife, and the presence of a minor child, can be considered when deciding a bail application. Judgment Summary Background: The present application is a petition for regular bail under Section 439 of the CrPC in connection with FIR No. 111/2022, registered under Sections 170/419/420/468/471/120B of the IPC, and Sections 66C/66D of the IT Act. The FIR was lodged based on a complaint alleging a forged scheme for a solar power plant and subsequent financial fraud. The applicant, the Director of HB Group, is accused of receiving fraudulently obtained funds in his company’s a

19. Ashwani Kumar vs State on 13 January, 2023

    High Court of Delhi13 Jan 2023

    Case Name: Ashwani Kumar vs State on 13 January, 2023 Court: High Court of Delhi Date of Judgment: 13 January, 2023 Bench: Justice Amit Mahajan Subject: Criminal Law – Quashing of Non-Bailable Warrant – Abuse of Process – Absence of Accused – Section 482 CrPC – Anticipatory Bail Key Legal Propositions 1. Courts may refuse to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC if the conduct of the petitioner is not bona fide or there is a possibility of misusing the process of law. 2. A person evading the process of law for a long time should submit themselves to the court’s authority, and relief should not be granted to encourage abuse of legal processes. 3. The High Court will not interfere with a trial court’s order issuing a Non-Bailable Warrant when the petitioner is absconding, has not cooperated with the investigation, and has suppressed material facts. Judgment Summary Background: The petition challenged an order dated 19.10.2022 issuing a Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW) against the petitioner in connection with FIR No. 0299/2020, registered under Sections 419/420/468/471/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections 66C & D of the Information Technology

20. Central Bureau of Investigation vs Kapil Wadhawan & Anr. on 30 May, 2023

    High Court of Delhi30 May 2023

    Case Name: Central Bureau of Investigation vs Kapil Wadhawan & Anr. on 30 May, 2023 Court: High Court of Delhi Date of Judgment: 30 May, 2023 Bench: Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma Subject: Criminal Law, Bail, Section 167 CrPC, Default Bail, Investigation, Completion of Investigation Key Legal Propositions 1. Completion of investigation, and not merely filing of a chargesheet, is the prerequisite for denying default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC. 2. A chargesheet filed without completing the investigation, particularly concerning all named accused and relevant offenses, is considered incomplete for the purpose of Section 167(2) CrPC. 3. Courts must prioritize protecting the fundamental right to personal liberty and interpret penal statutes in a manner that safeguards the rights of the accused. Judgment Summary Background: The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) filed a petition seeking quashing of an order granting default bail to Kapil Wadhawan and Dheeraj Wadhawan, accused in a case involving alleged financial fraud and misappropriation of funds amounting to approximately Rs. 34,000 Crores. The CBI argued that the chargesheet was filed within the stipulated time and therefor