Advocate | Legal Blogger | Judicial Insights & Updates

Supreme Court Clarifies No Offence of Cheating Where Forged Document Did Not Induce Material Benefit The legal Bandhu 48.3K followers September 12, 2025 Authored by ABHISHEK J. The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a significant ruling in the criminal appeal of Jupally Lakshmikantha Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. (2025 LiveLaw SC 893), elucidating the foundational principles for the offence of cheating under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). This judgment has substantial implications for litigants and legal practitioners engaged with white-collar offences involving forged documents. Background of the Case The appellant, representing JVRR Education Society, operated an educational institution from a building with a height of 14.20 metres. Allegations arose that the appellant submitted a forged Fire Department No-Objection Certificate (NOC) to the Education Department in Kurnool to secure affiliation and recognition for the college. The complaint origin...

  Supreme Court Advocates for Mandatory Disclosure in Bail Pleas and Shields Judicial Officers from Unwarranted Criticism By- Adv. Abhishek Jat New Delhi, India – In a significant move towards greater transparency and the protection of judicial integrity, the Supreme Court of India, on July 18, 2025, issued a pivotal ruling in the case of Kaushal Singh vs. State of Rajasthan . The Court not only expunged adverse remarks made against a Judicial Officer but also strongly recommended that all High Courts across the nation implement a mandatory rule requiring accused persons to disclose their complete criminal history and prior bail application details when seeking bail. A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol, and Justice Sandeep Mehta, while addressing the appeal, emphasized the need for a uniform practice akin to Rule 5 of Chapter 1-A(b) Volume-V of the Punjab & Haryana High Court Rules. This rule currently obligates bail petitioners to declare whether a s...

Madhya Pradesh High Court Reclassifies Murder Conviction as Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder By Abhishek Jat, Advocate Citation: X v State of Madhya Pradesh , Madhya Pradesh High Court, Judgment dated 1 July 2025 Coram: Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla and Justice Prem Narayan Singh Case Background The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently adjudicated upon an appeal concerning the conviction of an individual for the death of his wife following a domestic altercation. The appellant, convicted by the trial court under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for murder and sentenced to life imprisonment, challenged the verdict, asserting the absence of intent to kill. Factual Matrix The incident originated from a domestic dispute over a monetary demand. The appellant, in a heated exchange with his wife, physically assaulted her and subsequently inflicted a fatal head injury using a brick. Witness testimonies indicated that the altercation was spontaneous, escalating rapidly wit...

Authored by Abhishek Jat, Advocate The recent order issued by Chief Judicial Magistrate Vasundhara Chhaunkar of Rohini Courts in Setara Bibi vs. Unknown Persons (Ct. Case 1933/2024) marks a pivotal judicial intervention in a case involving the alleged custodial death of Sheikh Shadat at Subhash Place Police Station, Delhi. The proceedings were initiated on an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure by Setara Bibi, the widow of the deceased, after more than seven months had elapsed without the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) regarding her husband's death in police custody. The factual matrix reveals that on July 21, 2023, Sheikh Shadat, accompanied by four others, was intercepted by police officers at Netaji Subhash Place. The group was detained and taken to Subhash Place Police Station under circumstances that the complainant described as arbitrary and aggressive. Family members, upon visiting the station, reported that all detainees, inc...

  By Abhishek Jat, Advocate The digital revolution has transformed the landscape of journalism and content creation, but it has also introduced complex legal challenges regarding the use of copyrighted material. The recent dispute between Mohak Mangal, a digital content creator, and Asian News International (ANI), a prominent news agency, exemplifies these challenges. This article explores the legal framework, analyzes the positions of both parties, and suggests a pragmatic path forward for resolving such disputes. Factual Background Mohak Mangal, known for producing long-form videos on current affairs, incorporated brief snippets of ANI-owned news footage into his content. YouTube’s Content ID system detected these segments, prompting ANI to issue two copyright strikes against Mangal’s channel. When Mangal sought resolution, ANI demanded ₹50 lakhs for a two-year licensing agreement—a figure that sparked debate over the reasonableness of such claims for limited use. The situation r...

  By Abhishek Jat, Advocate Introduction The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) is a robust legislative framework designed to combat the menace of money laundering in India. A recurring legal conundrum under the Act is whether properties acquired prior to the commission of the scheduled offence can be attached as "proceeds of crime," especially when the actual tainted property is unavailable. The recent decision of the Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA in Sadananda Nayak v. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Bhubaneswar (FPA-PMLA-5612/BBS/2023, decided 14.10.2024) has provided significant clarity on this issue. Factual Matrix Appellant: Shri Sadananda Nayak, a sub-contractor with Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL), Sunabeda, Odisha, for nearly 40 years. Allegations: In 2017, the then Finance Manager of HAL, Mr. Bhaben Maitra, allegedly credited substantial sums to the appellant’s account without consent. Under threat and intimidation, Mr. Nayak withdrew...

  By Abhishek Jat, Advocate In the recent Supreme Court proceedings in the case of Arvind Singh v. Directorate of Enforcement (SLP(Crl) No. 2715/2025), the bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan raised serious concerns regarding the manner in which the Enforcement Directorate (ED) has been presenting its prosecution complaints. The Court observed a recurring trend where the ED makes broad allegations without citing specific evidence to substantiate its claims. This observation came during the hearing of Arvind Singh’s bail plea, where the ED accused him of amassing illicit gains amounting to ₹40 crore as part of the alleged ₹2,000-crore Chhattisgarh liquor scam. However, when pressed by the bench, the ED was unable to demonstrate Singh’s direct involvement or financial connection to the companies implicated in the alleged scam. The judges emphasized that for such serious allegations, the prosecution must provide clear evidence linking the accused to the proceeds of...

 By Abhishek Jat, Advocate Background and Case Overview On April 25, 2025, the Supreme Court of India delivered a pointed admonition to Rahul Gandhi, Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha, in connection with his contentious remarks regarding Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, a prominent figure in India's freedom movement. The apex court, while granting a stay on ongoing criminal defamation proceedings against Gandhi initiated in a Lucknow court, underscored the imperative of exercising restraint and responsibility when commenting on national icons and freedom fighters. The controversy originated from statements made by Gandhi during the Bharat Jodo Yatra in Maharashtra's Akola district on November 17, 2022. Gandhi allegedly characterized Savarkar as a "servant of the British" and alluded to him receiving a pension from colonial authorities. These remarks prompted a criminal complaint by Advocate Nripendra Pandey, who asserted that Gandhi's statements were calculated...

GST Levy on Services Provided by Clubs to Members: Kerala High Court Declares Key Provisions Unconstitutional By Abhishek Jat,Advocate Introduction The Kerala High Court, in a landmark judgment dated  April 11, 2025 , struck down  Sections 2(17)(e) and 7(1)(aa)  of the  Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) , holding them  ultra vires  the Constitution. The Division Bench, comprising  Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar  and  Justice Easwaran S. , ruled that the  levy of GST on services provided by a club or association to its members  is unconstitutional, as it violates the  doctrine of mutuality  and exceeds the legislative competence under  Articles 246A and 366(12A)  of the Constitution. Background of the Case The dispute arose when the  Indian Medical Association (IMA), Kerala State Branch , challenged the constitutional validity of the retrospective amendments introduced by th...