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 TAMIL NADU versus SELVI J. JAYALALITHA

Decided
25 April 2000
Judges listed
K.T. THOMAS, RUMA PAL (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Disposed off

Citations

Official
[2000] 3 S.C.R. 563 · 2000 INSC 249

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 granted.

p. 563, margin F

When we heard Shri Santi Bhushan, Learned senior counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu on 18.4.2000, he frankly conceded that the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be charged against the respondent on the facts of this case. However, learned senior counsel addressed detailed arguments regarding sustainability of the other offences included in the charge framed against the respondent, and seriously attacked the reasons of the learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court in the impugned order. Shri Sushil Kumar, learned senior counsel who argued for the respondent defended the order. We are told that the impugned order was passed by the High Court when the trial court has reached almost the final stage of prosecution evidence, as only a few more witnesses remained to be examined. When we expressed to Shri Sushil Kumar that it was not proper for the Single Judge to have expressed final opinion on the merits of the legal interpretations regarding the points raised, when the trial has reached such a stage, learned senior counsel wanted time to get instructions as to whether the petitions filed by the respondent to discharge the accused can be withdrawn without prejudice to her rights to raise all the contentions in the trial court afresh. We granted till).e till today.

pp. 563–564, margin F

Learned counsel for the respondent now seeks permission. to withdraw the criminal revision petitions filed in the High Court (Crl. Revision Complaint Nos. 406/1998, 606/1999 and 930/1999) without prejudice to her rights to raise all the contentions in the trial court afresh. In fact an application has been filed on behalf of the respondent seeking permission to withdraw, unconditionally, Criminal Revision Petitions numbered as above filed before the High Court of Madras. That application will be on record. We order that the above revision petitions filed in the High Court would stand dismissed as withdrawn. However, we, permit the respondent to raise all contentions which she thinks necessary before the trial court at the final stage. We, therefore, declare that the impugned common judgment dated 13.1.2000 passed by the High Court of Madras will stand erased. If the trial court is to decide any questions which have been dealt with in the impugned judgment the same shall be decided as though the High Court has not pronounced any opinion on such questions thus far. The trial court will now proceed to conclude the trial and dispose it of in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.

p. 564, margin C

These appeals are disposed of accordingly. R.P. Appeal disposed of.

p. 564, margin F