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 U.P. versus KAMARUJJAMA @ MALVA AND ORS.

Decided
25 February 2002
Judges listed
S.S.M. QUADRI (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[2002] 2 S.C.R. 29 · 2002 INSC 98

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.

Leave is granted.

p. 29, margin F

The State of Uttar Pradesh is in appeal against the Judgment of the High Court of Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No. 361/1996 dated November 29, 1999. The impugned Judgment reads as follows:- "Heard learned A.G.A. and perused the impugned judgment. After perusal of the judgment, we do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned judgment challenged in this appeal. The leave

pp. 29–30, margin G

sought is refused, the appeal is accordingly rejected.

p. 30, margin A

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment, we are of the view that as the accused was acquitted charges under Sections 147, 148 and 302/149 IPC by the trial court, the High Court in appeal should have considered the merits of the case and recorded the reasons for its decision. The judgment quoted above is bereft or reasons and falls short of the requirements of a speaking order: A confirming judgment need consider the contentions urged before the court and record reasons for agreeing with the order under app!!al. We are therefore constrained to set aside the said judgment, restore the appeal to the file of the High Court and remit the case to the Higtr Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law.

p. 30, margin A

The appeal is accordingly allowed. R.P. Appeal allowed.

p. 30, margin C