LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Suresh Chandra & Ors. vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh (M.A. No. 1242 of 2021)

SLP (Crl.) · 2022 INSC 571Decided 13 May 2022
SLP (Crl.) No. 7628 of 2019
Abhay S. Oka

Background

Siya Ram, convicted along with four others under Section 304-Part I IPC, was shown as the first petitioner in an SLP filed by an Advocate-on-Record challenging the Allahabad High Court's judgment. After failing to surrender as directed, he was taken into custody. He later claimed through a new advocate that he had never authorised or signed the vakalatnama for that SLP. He was illiterate and always used a thumb impression, whereas the vakalatnama on file bore a signature in Hindi. An inquiry was ordered into how the SLP came to be filed in his name.

Decision Breakdown

The Court examined the Advocate-on-Record's and his colleague's statements and found that the colleague who took instructions never personally knew the petitioners, was not accompanied by anyone who could vouch for their identity, and never verified identity through Aadhaar/PAN, nor obtained the mandatory endorsement under Rule 7(b) of Order IV of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 certifying proper execution of the vakalatnama. Since this certification was missing and the applicant's illiteracy/thumb-impression practice was corroborated by jail records, the Court accepted that Siya Ram had not signed or authorised the earlier SLP, and directed that the SLP be treated as filed only by the other four petitioners. However, it clarified that the earlier custody action against him could not be nullified. The Registry was directed to circulate this order to remind Advocates-on-Record of the mandatory certification requirement.

Lesson Learnt

An Advocate-on-Record must personally verify a client's identity (via Aadhaar/PAN or personal knowledge) and formally certify due execution of a vakalatnama under Supreme Court Rules; failure to do so can allow a person to later show they never authorised litigation filed in their name, but such a finding does not automatically undo other lawful consequences (like custody) that already followed.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Criminal Law

Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Charming Rupon v. State of Meghalaya

The Supreme Court acquitted the accused, finding the prosecution's case riddled with serious doubt. Both the victim and her cousin (a key witness) admitted in cross-examination that they could not identify the accused and that his name had been supplied to them by the victim's mother, raising a strong suspicion of tutoring, especially since the victim admitted she had been coached by the public prosecutor before testifying. The mother's own conduct (not reacting urgently despite being told of the assault, and material facts missing from the belated FIR) was found "unnatural." A crucial witness, the school teacher whose disclosure triggered the FIR, was never examined, without explanation, warranting an adverse inference against the prosecution. The Court also noted that two medical witnesses were never meaningfully cross-examined because the defence counsel was absent on the relevant dates, and that the trial court had wrongly brushed aside credible alibi evidence led by the accused.

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Ramkrushna Prahllad Dongardive v. The State of Maharashtra

The Supreme Court restored the trial court's acquittal. It found that the prosecution never produced the original cashbooks, daily registers, or audit reports that would have actually proven the appellant was entrusted with and misappropriated the money: the investigating officer himself admitted these documents were never shown to him despite being asked for. The department also failed to produce records the appellant had specifically sought in his own defence. Separately, the search and seizure of documents from the appellant's house was legally doubtful, since both independent witnesses to the seizure turned hostile and denied knowing its contents, and the mandatory procedural safeguards for such a seizure were not followed. The Court also flagged that the High Court convicted the appellant for the very first time on appeal without ever hearing him on the question of sentence, which the law required it to do.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Gurpreet Singh vs. State (NCT of Delhi)

The Court accepted that the order recalling the proclaimed offender status be placed on record. Noting that the complainant was untraceable and the prosecution itself raised no serious objection to anticipatory bail, the Court found no reason to deny the applicant liberty. It granted anticipatory bail, directing release on a personal bond of Rs. 20,000 with one surety in the event of arrest.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Mukesh Rani vs. Narcotics Control Bureau

The Court noted the investigation was complete, the chargesheet was filed, the co-accused had already been granted bail, and the combined quantity recovered (1.976 kg) still fell short of the "commercial quantity" threshold under the NDPS Act. With ten witnesses yet to be examined and no indication the trial would conclude quickly, the Court found continued detention unnecessary and granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Aakash vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

The Court noted that all prosecution witnesses, including the complainant and the guest house manager, had already been examined, and that a co-accused in the same FIR had already been granted bail. Given the complainant's own testimony about voluntary association with the petitioner and the completed trial evidence, the Court found the overall facts favoured bail. It granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions (reporting to police weekly, not influencing witnesses, providing address/mobile details).

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Kundan Kumar vs. State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

The Court relied on earlier Delhi High Court rulings holding that whether a broken promise of marriage was "false" from the outset (criminal) or a mere "breach" (not criminal) is a question for trial, not something requiring custodial interrogation. Noting the investigation was complete and the applicant had no prior criminal record, the Court granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with conditions, clarifying the order was not an opinion on the merits.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case