Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

RAKESH SAXENA versus STATE THROUGH C.B.I.

Decided
7 November 1986
Judges listed
P.N. BHAGWATI (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[1987] 1 S.C.R. 173 · 1986 INSC 228
Also cited as
  • AIR 1987 SC 740 (2 citing judgments)
  • MANU/SC/0109/1986 (2 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Not shown
1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

Cited in 2 other Supreme Court judgments we hold.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

MISRA, J. Special leave granted.

p. 173, margin G

We have carefully considered the various aspects of the case and we are of the view that having regard to the nature of the dispute and the fact that the offences, if any, are alleged to have been committed more than six years ago and the appellant was merely a trader at the · lowest rung of the hierarchy in the Foreign Exchange Division of the Bank and not a highly placed officer and the trial is bound to occupy the time of the court of first instance for not less that two or three years in view of the complicated nature of the case and even then, it is extremely doubtful whether it will at all result in conviction, no useful purpose will be served by allowing the prosecutions to continue. Hence, we allow the appeals and quash the charges against the appellant. We may, however, make it clear that if the Bank has any legitimate claim against the appellant, it will be open to the Bank to pursue any civil remedies which may be available to it. M.L.A. Appeals allowed.

pp. 173–174, margin G