Krishna Swami Vs Union of India (1992) 4 SCC 605

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed as under

"investigation connotes discovery and collection of evidence before charge-sheet is filed and based thereon definite charges are framed. Inquiry by a Magistrate is stopped when the trial begins. The trial is a culminating process to convict or acquit an accused. In Service Jurisprudence, departmental inquiry against a delinquent "

Miss Mohini Jain Vs State of Karnataka and others, AIR 1992 SC 1858

The Karnataka State Legislature, with the object of eliminating the practice of collecting capitation fee for admitting students into educational institutions, enacted the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1984 (the Act)…. Under the notification the candidates admitted against "Government seats" are to pay Rs. 2,000/- per year as tuition fee. The Karnataka students (other than those admitted against "Government seats") are to be charged tuition fee not exceeding Rs. 25,000/- per annum. The third category is of "Indian students from outside Karnataka", from whom tuition fee not exceeding Rs. 60,000/- per annum is permitted to be charged….
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed, “The directive principles which are fundamental in the governance of the country cannot be isolated from the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III. These principles have to be read into the fundamental rights. Both are supplementary to each other. The State is under a constitutional mandate to create conditions in which the fundamental rights guaranteed to the individuals under Part III could be enjoyed by all. Without making "right to education" under Article 41 of the Constitution a reality the fundamental rights under Chapter III shall remain beyond the reach of large majority which is illiterate….
The right to life under Article 21 and the dignity of an individual cannot be assured unless it is accompanied by the right to education. The State Government is under an obligation to make endeavour to provide educational facilities at all levels to its citizens….”

State of Haryana & Others Vs Bhajan Lal & Others 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed, “(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”

State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava 1992 Crl.LJ 1104,

It was pointed out that great care must be taken in evaluating circumstantial evidence and if the evidence relied on is reasonably capable of two inferences; the one in favour of the accused must be accepted.

C.I.T v. Sun Engg. Works (P) Ltd. 1992(4) SCC 363

It is neither desirable nor permissible to pick out a word or a sentence from the judgment of this Court, divorced from the context of the question under consideration and treat it to be complete `law' declared by this Court. The judgment must be read as a whole and the observations from the judgment have to be considered in the light of the questions which were before this Court. A decision of this Court takes its colour from the questions involved in the case in which it is rendered and while applying the decision to a later case, the courts must carefully try to ascertain the true principle laid down by the decision of this Court and not to pick out words or sentences from the judgment, divorced from the context of the questions under consideration by this Court, to support their reasonings.

Partnership Chandrakant Manilal Shah v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay, AIR 1992 (SC) it cannot be said that when a coparcener enters into a partnership with the karta of a HUE and contributes only his skill and labour, no contribution of any separate asset belonging to such partner is made to meet the requirement of a valid partnership. Reverting to the facts of the instant case it is noteworthy that it is not the case of the Revenue that the partnership between Chandrakant Manilal Shah as karta of HUE and Naresh Chandrakant was fictitious or invalid on any other ground.

IPC-Sec 377 "Brother John Antony v. State 1992 CRI. L. J. 1352 Acts alleged against accused falling into two categories (1) Sexual intercourse per OS (mouth) and (2) manipulation and movement of penis of accused whilst being held by victims in such way as to create orifice like thing for making manipulated movement of insertion and withdrawal till ejaculation of semen. Both categories of acts fall within sweep of unnatural carnal offences. "SODOMY : Non coital carnal copulation with a member of the same or opposite sex, e.g., per anus or per os (mouth). BUGGERY : Intercourse per anux by a man with a man or woman; or intercourse per anux or per vaginam by a man or a woman with an animal. BESTIALITY : Sexual intercourse by a human being with a lower animal. TRIBADISM : Friction of the external genital organs by one woman on another by mutual bodily contact for the gratification of the sexual desire. SADISM : A form of sexual perversion in which the infliction of pain and torture act as sexual stimulants. MASOCHISM : Opposite of sadism and sexual gratification is sought from the desire to be beaten , tormented or humiliated by one's sexual partner. FETICHISM : Experiencing sexual excitement leading to orgasm from some part of the body of a woman or some article belonging to her. EXHIBITIONISM : Exposure of genital organs in Public." Section 377, IPC de hors the Explanation appended to it consists of the following ingredients:- "(1) A person accused of this offence had carnal intercourse with man woman or animal; (2) Such intercourse was against the order of nature; and (3) Such act by the person accused of the offence was done voluntarily."