Supreme Court lays down procedure for impounding of document which is not duly stamped

Seemingly there is a divergence in opinion, but we do not see any conflict in the two decisions. In both the decisions, this Court unequivocally found that if an instrument is not duly stamped, it is inadmissible Under Section 34 and if it is brought before any person or authority empowered to receive evidence, then, it shall be impounded. It was also recognized that on such impounding; for expedition of the suit, the party who produces the document can seek for determination of the insufficient duty by the court itself in which circumstance, the instrument can be taken in evidence on payment of the deficit duty as also ten times the deficit duty determined as penalty. There is no discretion insofar as the quantum of penalty is concerned when the instrument is sought to be admitted in evidence before court without transmitting it to the District Commissioner. However, if the deficit and the penalty at ten times is paid, after admission in evidence, a copy of the instrument has to be transmitted to the Deputy Commissioner Under Section 37(1). The Deputy Commissioner on receipt of a copy of the instrument Under Section 37(1) has the discretion to refund any portion of the penalty in excess of five rupees Under Section 38. {Para 15}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 3476 of 2026

Decided On: 23.03.2026

Krishnavathi Sharma Vs. Bhagwandas Sharma and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

P.V. Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.

Citation: MANU/SC/0514/2026

Print Page

Beyond the Charge Sheet: Why Wildlife Offences Need Statutory Complaints, Not Police Reports

Explainer on this judgment 

Elvish Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

M.M. Sundresh and N. Kotiswar Singh, JJ.

Citation: MANU/SC/0515/2026,2026 INSC 329.

Decided On: 19.03.2026

 1. Cognizance under Wildlife Act: Police Chargesheet Is Not a “Complaint”

The Supreme Court’s starting point is Section 55 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, which clearly says that no court shall take cognizance of any offence under the Act except on a complaint by specified authorities (Director, Chief Wildlife Warden, authorised officers, or a private person after 60‑days’ notice). This must be read with the CrPC definition of “complaint” in Section 2(d), which expressly excludes a police report under Section 173 CrPC. Therefore, a police chargesheet cannot be “converted” into a statutory complaint for the purpose of Section 55, and cognizance taken on such a chargesheet for offences under the 1972 Act is legally impermissible. The Court relies on earlier rulings like Murad Ali Khan and Jeewan Kumar Raut to reaffirm that special statutes with their own cognizance mechanism (Wildlife Act, TOHO, Drugs & Cosmetics, MMDR, etc.) must be strictly followed, and general CrPC provisions yield to this special procedure (generalia specialibus non derogant).

Print Page

Supreme Court: Snake venom or anti-bodies to snake venom will not come within the definition of a psychotropic substanceU/S 2(xxiii) of the NDPS Act

 From a bare reading of the aforesaid provision, the definition of a psychotropic substance Under Section 2(xxiii) of the NDPS Act has a clear import that any substance or any natural material or any salt or preparation of such substance or material has to be included in the list of substances which are specified under the Schedule of the NDPS Act. The conscious omission of the legislature in not placing snake venom or anti-bodies to snake venom under the Schedule of the NDPS Act, would clearly mean that that the said substances could not have been construed as psychotropic substances, by any stretch of imagination, warranting application of the provisions under the NDPS Act. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the recovery of the anti-bodies of snake venom from the co-Accused person(s) will not fall within the purview of a psychotropic substance and, hence, does not warrant invocation of the provisions of the NDPS Act.

{Para 36}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1661/2026 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 11480/2025)

Decided On: 19.03.2026

Elvish Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

M.M. Sundresh and N. Kotiswar Singh, JJ.

Citation: MANU/SC/0515/2026,2026 INSC 329

Print Page

Supreme Court Issues Directions To Ensure Same/Next-Day Release Of Prisoners Granted Bail, Acquittal Or Sentence Suspension LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK 30 May 2026 2:29 PM (4 mins read )

To that end, and in exercise of the jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, we hereby issue the following comprehensive guidelines, which shall hereafter operate as binding directions upon all High Courts across the country:

A. Procedural Timelines re Pronouncement of  Judgements/Orders

3 Ravindra Pratap Shahi v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1813; Rajan v. The State of

Haryana, Criminal Appeal No. 3904/2025.

4 Section 353(1), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 392, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha

Sanhita, 2023; Order XX Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

I. Timelines

a. In a matter where the judgement is reserved, the High

Court shall endeavour to pronounce a reasoned

judgement promptly, within a maximum period of 3

months from the date of reserving such judgement.

b. The High Courts shall display extra promptitude in

pronouncing judgements and orders in matters of

personal liberty, e.g. regular bail, anticipatory bail,

criminal appeals (where the convict is in custody), death

references, etc.

c. As soon as the bail application is heard, the order should

preferably be pronounced and uploaded on the same day.

In the event the order is reserved, it is expected to be

pronounced on the next day and uploaded to the website.

d. Orders granting regular bail, suspending sentence, or

acquitting a convict in custody should be communicated

to the jail authorities and the Trial Court on the date it is

pronounced.

e. Consequent upon the outcome of serial number (d) above,

the undertrial/convict must be released on the same day

or, at most, on the next day, unless they are required to

be taken in custody in another case, or there is a delay in

complying with the bail conditions, etc.

f. The compliance with the order must be reported by the

Trial Court to the Bench of the High Court that passed the

order. {Para 16}

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL / CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 169 / 2025

Pila Pahan @ Peela Pahan and others Vs State of Jharkhand and another 

Author: SURYA KANT, CJI.

Citation:  2026 INSC 604

Dated: MAY 29, 2026

Print Page