Supreme Court of India

SITA RAM & ORS. versus STATE OF U.P.

Decided: 24 January 1979
Judges listed: V.R. KRISHNA IYER (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal: Disposed off

Citations

Official

[1979] 2 S.C.R. 1085 · 1979 INSC 15

Also cited as

(1979) 2 SCC 656 (12 citing judgments)
(1979) SCC(CRI) 576 (3 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 7 other Supreme Court judgments we hold. The 5 most recent:

MANOJ RAMESHLAL CHHABRIYA versus MAHESH PRAKASH AHUJA & ANR. 27 February 2025 · bench of 2 judges · cites it at para 8
SUBRATA ROY SAHARA versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 6 May 2014 · bench of 2 judges · cites it at para 77
BOLIN CHETIA versus JOGADISH BHUYAN AND ORS. 11 March 2005 · bench of 2 judges
KARTAR SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB 11 March 1994 · bench of 5 judges
CHANDRA MOHAN TIWARI AND ANR. versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 22 January 1992 · bench of 2 judges

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.

Unnumbered paragraph¶

In the light of the· majority judgment, we uphold the vires of Order XXI Rule 15(1)(c) of the Supreme Court Rhles and also S. 384 of the Criminal Procedure Code but hold that in their application both the provisions shall be governed by the criteria laid down in the majority Judgment.

p. 1125, margin E

Unnumbered paragraph¶

In the appeal, above mentioned, we direct notice to the respondent. N.V.K.

p. 1125, margin E