Supreme Court: Procedure the appellate court should follow if they appoints amicus in any criminal appeal

 Having regard to the dictum of the three-Judge Bench in

Anokhi Lal (supra) and in order to curb the tendency of convicts to

raise technical pleas of the nature which were advanced before us,

we observe that, henceforth, whenever an appellate court considers

it desirable to appoint an amicus to represent a convict whose

counsel is absent, such court may also consider the desirability of

issuing a notice from the registry to the address of the convict

mentioned in the memorandum of appeal, for such notice to be

served on him through the jurisdictional police station, with an

intimation that the convict may contact the learned amicus and

provide him necessary instructions so that his case is argued before

the court effectively and meaningfully. In the event the convict

contacts the amicus and provides instructions, there would

ordinarily be no impediment in proceeding with hearing of the

appeal. If, indeed, the convict desires to have his own counsel argue

the appeal on his behalf and not the amicus, the court may hear

such counsel in addition to the amicus. However, if the service

report indicates that the convict was not found at the address or

that he refused to accept notice despite being present, it would

amount to sufficient compliance if the notice is pasted on the outer

wall of the premises, address whereof is mentioned in the cause title

of the memorandum of appeal. Should the convict still remain

dormant, and it is so reported, the High Court may proceed to

decide the appeal without waiting for the convict to turn up either in

person or through the counsel of his choice engaged by him. This

process, in our view, would substantially serve the purpose of

eliminating any plea of unfairness being raised before this Court if

an appeal is disposed of upon hearing the amicus appointed by the

court. Additionally, in a case of like nature where the appeal is listed two decades after grant of bail, this process would ensure obtaining of information as to whether the appeal survives for decision or stands abated.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2026

BHOLA MAHTO   VS. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND 

Citation: 2026 INSC 257 .

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Convicts who misuse sentence suspension must be firmly dealt with

 In continuation of the above and in the light of what has transpired in course of the present proceedings, we wish to make an additional observation. It is a matter of common knowledge that once a convict obtains an order from the appellate court suspending the sentence of imprisonment and is, consequently, released on bail, more often than not, he neglects and/or fails to cooperate with the court and impedes an expeditious decision on his appeal by staying away from the proceedings with a view to ensure that his liberty is not curtailed, if the appeal were to fail. Drawing from experience, we can record that on many an occasion, such convicts become untraceable. These convicts, enjoying the concession of bail and misusing it, need to be dealt with firm and strong hands by the courts. {Para 23}

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2026

BHOLA MAHTO   VS. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND 

Citation: 2026 INSC 257 

Print Page

Supreme Court explains distinction between the “sum adjudged” and the “principal sum adjudged

 On the basis of this judgment, the distinction is that “sum adjudged” may mean the whole amount adjudicated as payable, while “principal sum adjudged” means only the principal amount adjudged, excluding the interest component unless there is a specific legal basis to merge it into principal.

Meaning of “sum adjudged”

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.812 OF 2014

M/S D. KHOSLA AND COMPANY  Vs THE UNION OF INDIA

Citation: 2024 INSC 587

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Whether Non-Filing of CA/FSL Report With Chargesheet in NDPS Case Gives Right to Default Bail? Bombay High Court Conflict and Supreme Court Reference in Hanif Ansari

In NDPS cases, an important question frequently arises before Special Courts: if the chargesheet is filed within the statutory period, but the Chemical Analyser/FSL report is not filed along with it, can the accused claim default bail? The answer, as on date, is not finally settled by the Supreme Court. The precise issue has been referred to a larger Bench in Hanif Ansari v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), SLP (Crl.) No. 15293 of 2023.

At present, the correct legal position is that default bail is not automatic merely because the CA/FSL report was not filed with the chargesheet. However, in a given case, the accused may still contend that the chargesheet is incomplete if the report is indispensable to establish that the seized substance is in fact a narcotic drug or psychotropic substance.

Print Page