List of Current Affairs

Why in News?

A bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Pankaj Mittal observed in this case the court cannot rely upon the ruling of V.K. Bansal v. State of Haryana (2013) as the existence of circumstances in both the cases are different.

• The court made this observation in the matter of K Padmaja Rani v. State of Telangana.

Background

• The grievance of the petitioner was on account of consecutive sentence ordered for the four cases against her, under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
• The petitioner relied on verdict in V.K. Bansal v. State of Haryana & Anr. (2013) to point out that for a single transaction, the Court should have ordered concurrent running of sentence instead of consecutive sentence.
• The Apex Court denied granting her benefit of the V K Bansal case as her case did not stand on same footing.

Court’s Observation

The court observed that in this case there were several transactions over a period of time pertaining to supply of raw material to the petitioner for which the cheques tendered towards payment were dishonoured.

Concurrent and Consecutive Sentencing

• Consecutive punishments refer to the scenario where a court gives sentence in two or more cases, the second sentence will commence after the expiration of first sentence.
• Concurrent punishments mean that two punishments will be counted parallelly.
  • When two sentences are directed to run concurrently, they do merge into one sentence.
• Section 31(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) entrusts a discretion in the Court to direct that the punishment shall run concurrently when a person is convicted at one trial of two or more offences.
• Section 427 of the CrPC, 1973 directs that one sentence takes effect after the other. The sentencing Court has the discretion of ordering a concurrency of punishments.

Cheque Bouncing

• According to Section 6, of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the term cheque is defined as “a bill of exchange drawn on a specified banker and not expressed to be payable otherwise than on demand”.
• A cheque bounce is an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 punishable with a fine which can extend to twice the amount of the cheque or imprisonment for a term not more than two years or both.
• When the payee presents a cheque to the bank for payment, and it is returned by the bank because of the insufficiency of funds it is said to be bounced or dishonoured.
• The reasons which results into dishonour of cheque are insufficiency of funds, an expired cheque, overwriting, a damaged cheque, and mismatching of signature, amount or digits.

Legal Provision

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 - Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account. —

Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provisions of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may be extended to two years, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both: Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless—

(a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier;

(b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, [within 30 days] of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; and

(c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or, as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice.

Explanation.— For the purposes of this section, “debt or other liability” means a legally enforceable debt or other liability.

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Nirmala Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh, held that sudden provocation cannot be ruled out.

• The Court held that the case falls under Exception 1 to Section 300 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

Background

• In this case, the accused was convicted by the Trial Court for murder of her husband under Section 302 of IPC.
• The accused caused the death of the deceased while being deprived of the power of self-control, due to the provocation on account of the deceased not agreeing to pay Rs. 500 /- to the daughter of the accused.
• An appeal was preferred by the accused before the High Court which was dismissed.
• An appeal was filed before the Apex Court, in which the conviction of the accused was altered from Section 302 of IPC to Part-I of Section 304 of IPC.
• The Supreme Court held that the accused has already been incarcerated for a period of almost 9 years, and, therefore, the sentence already undergone would serve the ends of justice.

Court’s Observation

The Bench of Justices B R Gavai and J B Pardiwala observed that, the possibility of the accused causing the death of the deceased while being deprived of the power of self-control, due to the provocation on account of the deceased not agreeing to pay Rs.500/- to her daughter cannot be ruled out.

Legal Provisions

Section 300 of IPC

• Murder is dealt with in Section 300 of the IPC.
  • Murder is one of the most serious offences and is punished by life in prison or the death sentence.
• Section 300 of the IPC states that a person is guilty of murder if the following factors are present:
  • The Act of Causing Death: The accused must have killed another person.
  • The Purpose to Cause Death: The accused must have had the intent to kill the victim. Alternatively, the accused must have known that their conduct was likely to result in the victim’s death.
  • The Act was Committed with the Knowledge that it would Result in Death: The accused must have been aware that their acts were likely to result in the victim’s death.
• If all three factors are present, the offender might face murder charges.
• If any of these factors are missing, the accused may not be convicted of murder but may be guilty of culpable homicide.
• There are certain exceptions to this rule such as:
  • Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender is deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation and causes the death of the person who gave the provocation or causes the death of any other person by mistake or accident. This exception is subject to the following provisos:
    • Provocation is not sought or voluntarily pro­voked by the offender.
    • Provocation is not given by anything done in obedience to the law, or by a public servant in the lawful exer­cise of the powers of such public servant.
    • Provocation is not given by anything done in the lawful exercise of the right of private defence.
  • Culpable homicide is not murder in the exercise of the right to private defence.
  • Culpable homicide is not murder, if it is done by the public servant acting in good faith.
  • Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel.
  • Culpable homicide is not murder when the person whose death is caused, being above the age of eighteen years, suffers death or takes the risk of death with his own consent.

Section 302 of IPC

• This Section states that anyone who commits murder can be punished with the death penalty or life imprisonment and shall also be liable to fine.

Section 304 of IPC

• It can be separated into the following two parts:
  • Section 304(Part I) states that, Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
  • Section 304 (Part II) states that, Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.

Why in News?

The Supreme Court has ordered the Director General of Police (DGP) of Manipur for appearance in person in Court on 7th August 2023, during the hearing of cluster of petitions concerning the violence in the Manipur.

Background

• Ethno-religious violence erupted in Manipur in May 2023, between the Meitei people, a majority that lives in the Imphal Valley, and the Kuki tribal community from the surrounding hills.
• Till July, 2023 181 people have been killed in the violence and more than 300 wounded with approximately 54,488 displaced.
• Instances of videography of women being stripped and gang raped have also erupted.
• A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court was hearing a bunch of petitions related to Manipur violence including the petitions filed by victims of sexual violence.
• The Court was further informed by the Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, (appearing for the State) that 6532 First Information Reports (FIRs) have been filed and 11 out of them are relating to crimes against women.
• It was also stated by the Solicitor General of India that the state is not witnessing complete breakdown of machinery (as specified under Article 356 of the Indian Constitution) yet and there has been no lethargy after the Union Government ordered a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

Court’s Observations

• The bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra while admonishing the authorities and the State police stated that "Based on the preliminary data, it prima facie appears that investigation has been tardy with considerable lapse between occurrence and the registration of the FIR, recording of witness statements and arrests have been few and far between. In order to help the Court to determine the nature of investigation, we direct the DGP Manipur to be personally present in Supreme Court to aid the Court”.
• The Chief Justice of India asked the state regarding the number of 'zero' FIRs and also asked about the dates on which the 'zero' FIRs were converted as regular FIR.
• The CJI further indicated that the Court may think of constituting a committee of former judges of the High Court to make an overall assessment of situation, rehabilitation, restoration of homes.
• It was also stated by the Apex Court that the committee will also ensure that the pre-investigation process relating to recording of statements shall now go on in a proper way.

Manipur Violence

• Manipur is a state in the Northeast of India consisting majorly of:
  • Meitie Group
  • Kuki Group
  • Naga Group
• The Naga and Kuki people enjoy special privileges under the Schedule Tribes (STs) as they are already mentioned in the Government List of Tribes whereas Meitei Community is not part of that list.
• The Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960 prohibits transfer of tribal land holdings to non-tribal land holding, thereby preventing Meitei and other people from expanding into the hilly districts.
• The Meiteis who are largely Hindus, make-up the majority of population and they are barred from settling in the hilly regions of the state except with the permission of the Local District Councils according to the Land Reform Act of Manipur.
• In April 2023, the Manipur High Court directed the State Government to consider request of the Meitei community to be included in the STs List.
• The Kuki group feared that the grant of ST status to Meitei would allow the Meiteis to purchase land in the prohibited hilly areas.
• It was thereafter stated by the Chief Minister of Manipur, N. Biren Singh, that the riots were instigated by “prevailing misunderstanding between two communities”.

Legal Provisions

Constitution of India, 1950

Article 356 - Provisions in case of failure of constitutional machinery in States

(1) If the President, on receipt of a report from the Governor of a State or otherwise, is satisfied that a situation has arisen in which the Government of the State cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution, the President may by Proclamation—

(a) assume to himself all or any of the functions of the Government of the State and all or any of the powers vested in or exercisable by the Governor or any body or authority in the State other than the Legislature of the State;

(b) declare that the powers of the Legislature of the State shall be exercisable by or under the authority of Parliament;

(c) make such incidental and consequential provisions as appear to the President to be necessary or desirable for giving effect to the objects of the Proclamation, including provisions for suspending in whole or in part the operation of any provisions of this Constitution relating to any body or authority in the State: Provided that nothing in this clause shall authorise the President to assume to himself any of the powers vested in or exercisable by a High Court, or to suspend in whole or in part the operation of any provision of this Constitution relating to High Courts.

(2) Any such Proclamation may be revoked or varied by a subsequent Proclamation.

(3) Every Proclamation under this article shall be laid before each House of Parliament and shall, except where it is a Proclamation revoking a previous Proclamation, cease to operate at the expiration of two months unless before the expiration of that period it has been approved by resolutions of both Houses of Parliament: Provided that if any such Proclamation (not being a Proclamation revoking a previous Proclamation) is issued at a time when the House of the People is dissolved or the dissolution of the House of the People takes place during the period of two months referred to in this clause, and if a resolution approving the Proclamation has been passed by the Council of States, but no resolution with respect to such Proclamation has been passed by the House of the People before the expiration of that period, the Proclamation shall cease to operate at the expiration of thirty days from the date on which the House of the People first sits after its reconstitution unless before the expiration of the said period of thirty days a resolution approving the Proclamation has been also passed by the House of the People.

(4) A Proclamation so approved shall, unless revoked, cease to operate on the expiration of a period of six months from the date of issue of the Proclamation.

Provided that if and so often as a resolution approving the continuance in force of such a Proclamation is passed by both Houses of Parliament, the Proclamation shall, unless revoked, continue in force for a further period of six months from the date on which under this clause it would otherwise have ceased to operate, but no such Proclamation shall in any case remain in force for more than three years.

Provided further that if the dissolution of the House of the People takes place during any such period of six months and a resolution approving the continuance in force of such Proclamation has been passed by the Council of States, but no resolution with respect to the continuance in force of such Proclamation has been passed by the House of the People during the said period, the Proclamation shall cease to operate at the expiration of thirty days from the date on which the House of the People first sits after its reconstitution unless before the expiration of the said period of thirty days a resolution approving the continuance in force of the Proclamation has been also passed by the House of the People.

Provided also that in the case of the Proclamation issued under clause (1) on the 11th day of May, 1987 with respect to the State of Punjab, the reference in the first proviso to this clause to “three years” shall be construed as a reference to five years.

(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (4), a resolution with respect to the continuance in force of a Proclamation approved under clause (3) for any period beyond the expiration of one year from the date of issue of such Proclamation shall not be passed by either House of Parliament unless—

(a) a Proclamation of Emergency is in operation, in the whole of India or, as the case may be, in the whole or any part of the State, at the time of the passing of such resolution, and (b) the Election Commission certifies that the continuance in force of the Proclamation approved under clause (3) during the period specified in such resolution is necessary on account of difficulties in holding general elections to the Legislative Assembly of the State concerned:

Provided that nothing in this clause shall apply to the Proclamation issued under clause (1) on the 11th day of May, 1987 with respect to the State of Punjab.

Criminal Law

First information Report (FIR)

• FIR is nowhere defined in the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 or any other law but Section 154 of the Code describes as to what amounts to first information.
• It means information recorded first in point of time by officer in charge of a Police Station given either by the aggrieved person or any other person regarding the commission of a Cognizable Offence.
• If the officer incharge of the Police Station refuses to record the information the substance of information shall be sent to the Superintendent of Police concerned in writing under Section 156(3) of CrPC.
• A copy of the FIR shall be given forthwith to the informant free of cost.
• On the basis of the FIR, the police commence its investigation.
• It is also provided by the code under Section 154(1) that if the information is given by the woman against whom an offence under Sections 326A, 326B, 354, 354A, 354B, 354C, 354D, 376, 376A, 376AB, 376B, 376C, 376D, 376DA, 376DB, 376E, 509 of the Indian Penal Code is/are alleged to have been committed or attempted, then such information shall be recorded, by a woman police officer or any woman officer.
• The golden principle of law prescribes that FIR should always be filed promptly and without wasting any time as such type of report gains the maximum credibility due to minimal changes of tutoring in such reports.
• In the case of Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. (2013) the Supreme Court, in its judgment held that the police must register an FIR in cases where there is an information disclosing a cognizable offence and where the police officer denies registering the FIR it amounts to dereliction of duty.

Zero FIR

• Zero FIR is an FIR that can be registered by any police station, irrespective of jurisdiction, when it receives a complaint regarding a cognizable offence.
• Regular FIR number is not assigned at this stage.
• Revenant Police Station registers a fresh FIR and starts the investigation after receiving the Zero FIR.
• The purpose of this FIR is to help victims of serious crimes, especially women and children, to lodge a complaint quickly and conveniently, without having to go from one Police Station to another.