Know Your Justice (SC): Justice N.V. Ramana , Supreme Court of India (with important judgment) Amaresh Patel Know Your Justice Sun, Jun 02, 2019, at ,03:32 PM Justice N.V. Ramana , Supreme Court of India, Term of Office: (DoA) 17-02-2014 to (DoR) 26-08-2022 N.V. Ramana, B.Sc., B.L., was born in an agricultural family on August 27, 1957 in Ponnavaram Village, Krishna District. He enrolled as an Advocate on February 10, 1983. He has practiced in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Central and Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunals and the Supreme Court of India in Civil, Criminal, Constitutional, Labour, Service and Election matters. He has specialized in Constitutional, Criminal, Service and Inter-State River laws. He has also functioned as Panel Counsel for various Government Organizations. He has functioned as Additional Standing Counsel for Central Government and Standing Counsel for Railways in the Central Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad. He has also functioned as Additional Advocate General of Andhra Pradesh. He was appointed as a permanent Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court on June 27, 2000. He functioned as Acting Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh High Court from March 10, 2013 to May 20, 2013. He had participated in several National and International Conferences held in India and aborad and submitted papers on various topics of legal importance. Elevated as the Chief Justice of Delhi High Court w.e.f. 02.09.2013. Elevated as a Judge, Supreme Court of India w.e.f. 17.02.2014. before his due retirement on 26 August, 2022, he is in line to be Chief Justice of India (with effect from 24th April 2021) after superannuation of Justice S A Bobde. Landmark Judgment Pronounced by him in 2019 Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. The State of Punjab, Crl. A. No. 885 of 2019 (@SLP (Crl.) No. 9063 of 2017) on whether the trial court has the power under section 319 of CrPC for summoning additional accused has ended and the judgment of conviction rendered on the same date before pronouncing the summoning order? Power Grid Corporation of India v. Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Co. Ltd. & ors., C.A. No. 684 of 2007, on unfair to the consumer who were not consumers for the abovementioned period but will eventually bear the brunt of transactions which took place 15-18 years ago. Union of India and ors. V. Dharam Pal, Crl. A. No. 804 of 2019 (@SLP (Crl.) No. 498 of 2016), on prolonged delay in execution of a sentence of death has a dehumanizing effect and this has the constitutional implication of depriving a person of his life in an unjust, unfair and unreasonable way so as to offend the fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. Accused ‘X’ v. State of Maharastra, Crl. A. No. 680 of 2007, on a complex question concerning the relationship between mental illness and crime. How can culpability be assessed for sentencing those with mental illness? Is treatment better suited than punishment? Pattu Rajan v. The State of Tamil Nadu, Crl. A. No. 680-681 of 2009, on proof beyond reasonable doubt should be adduced in all criminal cases, it is not necessary that such proof should be perfect, and someone who is guilty cannot get away with impunity only because the truth may develop some infirmity when projected through human processes. P. Rajagopal & ors. Etc. v. The State of Tamil Nadu., Crl. A. No. 820-821 of 2009, on benefit of doubt. Lullu Vas (since deceased) v. State of Maharaastra & ors., C.A. No. 1973 of 2019 (@SLP (C) 15944 of 2018) on where the rights of the parties have not yet crystalized, and no irreparable injury can accrue to the plaintiff pending trial, the entire case then resolves around the principles of comparative convenience. Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar., Crl. A. No. 230-231 (@SLP (Crl.) 9334-35 of 2018) on the subsequent filing in of an unfilled signed cheque is not an alteration. Poona Ram v. Moti Ram (D) Th. Lrs. & ors., C.A. No. 4527 of 2009., on no documentary proof that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property, that too for a long period, he cannot be allowed to succeed based on minor discrepancies in the evidence of the defendants. Satishchandra Ratanlal Shah v. State of Gujarat and anr, Crl. A. No. 9 of 2019 (@SLP (Crl.) No. 5223 of 2018) on judicial restraint and desisted from making such general observations at this stage of the criminal proceeding.