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

MUBARIK KHAN versus NABABKHA @ NAWAB AND ORS.

Decided
1 October 2008
Judges listed
ARIJIT PASAYAT (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[2008] 14 S.C.R. 124 ยท 2008 INSC 1114

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. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

1

Having heard learned counsel for the appellant at length we are not satisfied that this is a case where any interference is called for. The High Court has found that the evidence of PW5, who was stated to be the sole eye-witness, unreliable. Apart from that there is considerable delay in dispatch of the first information report to the court. Though in all cases that may not be the determinative factor, but when considered with other aspects that assumes importance. The High Court has dealt with this aspect in detail. The view taken by the High Court is 9 possible view and therefore considering the parametres relating to cases where judgment of acquittal is assailed, we do not consider this to be fit case for interference.

p. 125, margin A

2

The appeal is dismissed. Criminal Appeal No. 110512002:

p. 125, margin C

3

In view of the dismissal of Criminal Appeal No. 612/ 2002, this appeal is also dismissed. B.B.B. Appeals dismissed.

p. 125, margin E