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

STATE OF RAJASTHAN versus CHANDA@ CHANDKORI AND ORS

Decided
24 September 2007
Judges listed
A.K. MATHUR, MARKANDEY KATJU (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)

Citations

Official
[2007] 10 S.C.R. 290 · 2007 INSC 970

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

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.

We have heard learned counsels for the parties. Delay condoned. Leave granted.

p. 291, margin A

This appeal is barred by time by 260 days. Ordinarily we may not have condoned such a long delay, and we do not appreciate the delays caused in filing Special Leave Petitions by the Government before this Court. Such kind of delay causes grave injustice to the parties. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we condone the delay. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 14th July 2005 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in D.B. Criminal Leave to appeal No. 165 of2005 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court had passed a cryptic order dismissing the application for leave to appeal against as acquittal judgment without giving proper reasons and without showing due application of mind. While disposing of an application for leave to appeal against an acquittal, it is expected that the High Court should pass a speaking order showing due application of mind. Of Course the said order need not be as elaborate as a full fledged judgment, but at least briefly some reasons should be given. That has not been done in this case. Hence we cannot sustain the impugned order dated 14th July 2005 passed by the High Court. We set aside the order of the High Court and remit the matter back to the High Court for passing an order after showing due application of mind.

p. 291, margin B

The appeal is accordingly, allowed. RP. Appeal allowed.

p. 291, margin E