Search Judgments

(Cybersecurity Vulnerability and Regulatory Compliance)

The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Sections 43(b), 66, 70B) and the Information Technology (The Indian Computer Emergency Response Team and Manner of performing Functions and Duties) Rules, 2013 (Rules 12(1)(a), 15) - The appellant, a policyholder and cybersecurity service provider, alleged discovering vulnerabilities in the 7th respondent Insurance Company's website, potentially exposing other policyholders' data. He reported this, subsequently offering his company's cybersecurity services for a fee.

The 7th respondent initiated a civil suit against the appellant for unauthorized access and data theft, securing an interim injunction (later confirmed by a Division Bench) restraining him from publishing or dealing with the accessed information. An FIR was also lodged against the appellant under Sections 66 and 43(b) of the IT Act, leading to a pending criminal case.

(Applicability of Probation of Offenders Act for Fine-Only Sentences & Removal of Disqualification)

The Indian Penal Code (IPC) Sections 323, 324, 34, and the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (1958 Act) Sections 3, 4, 12, as well as Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - The Supreme Court heard an appeal challenging a High Court order that upheld convictions under IPC Sections 323, 324, and 34. Appellants A-1, A-2, A-3 were convicted under Sections 323/324/34 IPC with fines, and A-4 under Section 323/34 IPC with a fine. No imprisonment was imposed. The appellants sought the benefits of the 1958 Act.

(Wakf Property Status and Title Dispute)

Wakf Act, 1995 Sections 5(2), 6, 83(9) - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Sections 101-103 - This appeal addressed whether specific land in Sy. No. 914/B, Kallur Village, constituted private property or Wakf land. Plaintiffs claimed ownership as "personal inam" via registered deeds and a 1945 partition deed. The Wakf Board contended the land was "service inam" for Budda Buddi Mosque, making it Wakf property, also notified in 1963 under the Wakf Act, 1995. The Wakf Tribunal dismissed the plaintiffs' suit, but the High Court reversed this, decreeing in favour of the plaintiffs.

(Grant of Regular Bail under NDPS Act)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Sections 21(c), 29, 37(1)(b)(ii)); Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Section 483); Constitution of India (Article 21) - The Supreme Court entertained an appeal against a High Court order granting regular bail to the respondent, who faced charges under the NDPS Act for possessing a commercial quantity (1.465 kg) of heroin. The High Court based its bail decision on the respondent's over two years in custody, slow trial progress (2/24 witnesses), co-accused being on bail, and the right to speedy trial under Article 21, suggesting a dilution of Section 37 NDPS Act rigors.

The State argued the High Court failed to record the mandatory twin satisfaction under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act: reasonable grounds of not guilty and no likelihood of committing further offences.

The Supreme Court emphasized that this twin satisfaction is a jurisdictional prerequisite. It clarified that Article 21's right to speedy trial complements, but does not displace, Section 37's specific mandate.

(Appellate Rights of Complainant in NI Act Cases)

The Negotiable Instruments Act Section 138 of t, 1881 (NI Act) - The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) Sections 372 and 378 - The Court referenced a recent coordinate Bench judgment, 'Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran', which held that a complainant under Section 138 NI Act is a 'victim' entitled to appeal an acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC, without needing special leave under Section 378(4) CrPC.

However, the present Bench observed that the 'Celestium Financial' judgment did not consider prior authoritative decisions, 'Satya Pal Singh vs.

(Quashing of Proceedings under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 for Non-Signatory Joint Account Holder)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: Sections 138, 141, 142 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: Section 482 - This petition was filed by the second accused, R. Manjulakshmi, seeking to quash a private complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) in S.T.C.No.626 of 2025. The dishonored cheque was drawn from a joint account held by the first accused (R. Ramesh) and the petitioner, but only the first accused had signed it.

(Criminal Revision - Limitation for Filing Final Report)

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.): Sections 468, 468(2)(b), 468(2)(c), 473 - The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): Sections 294(b), 323, 324 - This Criminal Revision challenged the order of the Judicial Magistrate, Palladam, which dismissed the petitioner's (A4) application under Section 468 Cr.P.C. The petitioner sought to reject the Final Report on the grounds that it was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation.

The prosecution had alleged offences under Sections 294(b), 323, and 324 IPC. The FIR was registered on 11.03.2020.