List of Current Affairs

Source: Allahabad High Court

Why in News?

The bench of Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra observed that the charge once framed must lead to either acquittal or conviction at the conclusion of the trial.

• The Supreme Court gave this observation in the matter of Dev Narain v. State of UP and Another.

Background

• The case relates to a dowry death of woman and death of her husband wherein the prime revisionist is her brother-in-law.
• The brother-in-law contended that he was not living with either of the deceased, hence, could not be a beneficiary of any demand of dowry allegedly made by the husband of the deceased wife from deceased and her family members.
• The brother-in-law of the deceased moved an application for discharge before Trial Court, which was rejected, and case was fixed for prosecution evidence.
• The HC upheld the order of the Trial Court but permitted him to move an application for alteration of charge under Section 216 Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) before the Trial Court.
• However, HC during revision noted that the revisionist prayed from quashing of charges levelled upon him.

Court’s Observation

• The HC observed that a Trial Court cannot delete the charges framed by it because it does not have such powers under procedural law.

Charge

• A charge can be understood as a formal accusation made by the prosecution against an individual who is alleged to have committed a criminal offence.
• Section 2 (b) of CrPC defines ‘charge’ in following words, ‘charge’ includes any head of the charge when the charge contains more head than one.
• The framing of charges is a pivotal stage in a criminal trial.
  • It informs the accused about the nature of the allegations they are facing, allowing them to prepare their defence accordingly.
• The process of framing charges is enshrined under Section 211 to 224 of the CrPC.

Alteration of Charge

• The alteration of charges under the CrPC holds significant importance in the realm of criminal trials in India.
• It enables the courts to modify or amend the charges framed against an accused during the course of a trial, based on the evidence presented and the evolving understanding of the case.
• The process of altering charges seeks to strike a balance between the interests of justice and the rights of the accused.
• Section 216 of the CrPC primarily governs the alteration of charges.
• Section 216 states that:
• Any Court may alter or add to any charge at any time before judgment is pronounced.
• Every such alteration or addition shall be read and explained to the accused.
• If alteration/amendment does not prejudice the right to defence or prosecute, the court may proceed with the trial as if the altered or added charge had been the original charge.
• If alteration/amendment prejudices the right to defence or prosecute, the court may either direct a new trial or adjourn the trial for such period as may be necessary.
• If the offence stated in altered/ amended charges requires previous sanction the case shall not be proceeded with until such sanction is obtained, unless sanction has been already obtained.

Deletion of Charge

• The CrPC outlines the procedure for deleting charges through Section 227 that is designed to safeguard the rights of the accused and prevent the misuse of legal processes.
• Section 227 empowers the court to discharge the accused if, after considering the material on record and hearing the arguments of the parties, it is of the opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
  • However, the term ‘deletion of charge’ is nowhere mentioned under this provision, the usage of term ‘discharge’ is generally interpreted as deletion of charge.
• Section 216 CrPC only gives power to the court to correct the erroneous or improperly levelled charge or add a required charge. There is no reference to the deletion of any charge.
• On literal interpretation of Section 216 CrPC, charges cannot be quashed by presenting application under Section 216 CrPC.

Landmark Cases

• Anant Prakash Sinha v. State of Haryana (2016):
  • The SC held that Section 216 CrPC confers jurisdiction on all courts, to alter or add to any charge framed earlier, at any time before the judgment is pronounced.
  • It further stated that the courts can exercise this power only when there exists some material before the court which has some connection or link with the charges sought to be amended, added or modified.
• P. Kartikalakshmi v. Sri Ganesh and another (2017):
  • The SC held that it is now well settled that the power vested in the Court under Section 216 is exclusive to the Court and there is no right in any party to seek such addition or alteration by filing any application as a matter of right.

Source – Kerala High Court

Why in News?

• While analyzing the scope of Section 451 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the Kerala High Court in the matter of Vinayakumar K.R. v. State of Kerala, held that the seized property should not remain in police or court custody for longer than absolutely necessary.

Background

• The prosecution allegation is that the accused transported 50 bottles of Old Admiral VSOP brandy in a Mahindra Pickup Jeep.
• The said vehicle was seized for violating the provisions of the Abkari Act, 1077.
• In her capacity as the registered owner of the vehicle, Chenjamma approached the learned Magistrate and filed an application seeking interim custody of the vehicle.
• She could not get the vehicle released due to the onerous nature of the conditions imposed by the Magistrate.
• Chenjamma passed away and the petitioner herein is her son, and he is stated to be the person entitled to possession of the vehicle.
• He approached the Sessions Court and the Court holding that the petitioner had not been able to explain how the vehicle happened to come into the possession of the accused, rejected the application.
• Thereafter the petition was filed before the Kerala High Court.
• Setting aside the order of the Sessions Court, the Keral HC directed the Sessions Court to release the vehicle after obtaining fresh valuation as per the provisions of Section 53B of the Abkari Act, 1077.

Court’s Observations

• The Single Judge Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. observed that when a property is so produced before the criminal court, the said court would have the discretion to make such an order as it thinks fit for the proper custody of such article, pending the conclusion of the enquiry or trial.
• The HC in this case was of the view that the court below was not justified in rejecting the application and that under Section 451 of CrPC, when a property has been seized by the police, it ought not to be retained in the custody of the Court or of the police for any time longer than absolutely necessary.
• The HC further held that for releasing the vehicle, the Court may follow the procedure of recording such evidence, as it thinks necessary, as provided under Section 451 of CrPC, and bond and security also ought to be taken so as to prevent the evidence being lost, altered or destroyed.

Legal Provisions

Section 451, CrPC

• It deals with the order for custody and disposal of property pending during trial in certain cases. It states that -
  • When any property is produced before any Criminal Court during any inquiry or trial, the Court may make such order as it thinks fit for the proper custody of such property pending the conclusion of the inquiry or trial, and, if the property is subject to speedy and natural decay, or if it is otherwise expedient so to do, the Court may, after recording such evidence as it thinks necessary, order it to be sold or otherwise disposed of.
  • Explanation - For the purposes of this section,"property" includes-
    (a) property of any kind or document which is produced before the Court or which is in its custody,
    (b) any property regarding which an offence appears to have been committed or which appears to have been used for the commission of any offence.
• This section empowers the criminal court to make orders for interim custody of the property produced before it during trial and inquiry.
• The objective of this section is that any property which is under the control of the Court either directly or indirectly should be disposed of by the Court under just and proper order regarding its disposal.

Akbari Act, 1077

• The Act was passed by His Highness of Cochin on the 5th day of August 1902, corresponding to the 31st day of Karkadagom 1077.
• This Act was extended to the whole of Kerala as per Amending Act of 1967 which received the assent of the President on 29th July, 1967.
• This Act provides for the consolidation and amendment of laws relating to the import, export, transport, manufacture, sale and possession of intoxicating liquor and of intoxicating drugs in the State of Kerala.
• Section 53B of this Act deals with the jurisdiction of courts on cuticles seized. It states that -
  • Whenever any vehicle or other conveyance used for committing any offence is seized or detained under this Act, and if any court finds that it shall be released temporarily, it shall do so with direction to execute sufficient bond by way of cash security equivalent to the market value of such vehicle or conveyance, to be fixed by the Mechanical Engineer of the Excise Department or any Mechanical Engineer of or above the rank of an Assistant Executive Engineer of the State Public Works Department, for production of such vehicle or conveyance on demand before the court or the authorized officer and such order shall not prevent the authorized officer from taking or continuing action under section 67B of this Act.

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

The Supreme Court (SC) ruled that the Executing Court cannot dismiss an execution petition on consideration that the decree is unenforceable solely due to the property being taken over by a third party in the matter of Smt. Ved Kumari (Dead Through Her Legal Representative) Dr. Vijay Agarwal v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi.

Background

• Ved Kumari (The appellant since deceased represented through Legal Representative) leased out the suit property to Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) in 1973 for a period of 10 years which was renewable with the consent of both the parties.
• The lease was not renewed and the appellant, thereafter, served a notice upon MCD to hand over the vacant possession of the suit property on 02.12.1987.
• MCD was called upon to hand over the possession of the Suit Property on or before 06.01.1988 but it did not turn to the demand of the appellant.
• The appellant then filed suit for recovery of possession in respect of the land against MCD before the Sub-Judge, Ist Class, Delhi which was decreed in favour of appellant.
• The appellant filed execution proceedings against the judgment-debtor and obtained warrants for delivery of possession from the Executing Court.
• When the appellant along with the police force went to the spot to execute the warrants, they faced resistance and therefore the warrants could not be executed.
• The Executing Court thereafter stayed the execution proceedings upon MCD’s application upon which appellant filed an application for issuance of fresh warrants of possession.
• On account of the refusal of the MCD to hand over possession of the decretal land to the appellant a Contempt Petition before the High Court of Delhi (HC) was filed and once again appellants got warrants for possession of decretal land issued. It was further contended by MCD that the suit land has been encroached upon.
• The Executing Court vide its order dismissed the Execution Petition filed by the appellant on the ground that the encroacher(s) upon the land in question were not party to the suit.
• Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the execution petition, the appellant preferred a Revision Petition before the HC which was dismissed.
• The appellant being dissatisfied sought review of the judgment which also got dismissed. Hence the present appeal was filed in the SC.

Court’s Observation

• The SC's division bench comprising of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Prashant Kumar Mishra observed that the Executing Court had found that MCD’s stand at the inception of the suit was that the suit land was in MCD’s possession. However, in the execution proceedings, MCD had taken a completely different stand that the suit land was under possession of encroachers.
• The SC while observing that MCD was liable to disclose as to how the possession of the suit land had passed from it to a third party stated that “The Executing Court is directed to execute the decree by effecting delivery of physical vacant possession to the appellant/decree-holder in accordance with the provisions contained in Order XXI of CPC.”

Execution Proceedings Under Civil Procedure Code, 1908

• Execution is not defined in CPC, but it simply means the process of enforcing a decree that is passed in favour of the decree holder.
  • Section 2(3) - Decree Holder means any person in whose favour a decree has been passed or an order capable of execution has been made.
• As per Rule 2 (e) of Civil Rules of Practice, “Execution Petition” means the Petition to the court for the execution of any decree or order whereas Rule 2 (f) defines “Execution application” as an application to the court made in a pending Execution Petition and includes an application for transfer, of a decree.
• The CPC provides for Execution specifically under Part II from Section 36-74 and Order XXI.
• Section 37 - Definition of Court which passed a decree — The expression Court which passed a decree, or words to that effect, shall, in relation to the execution of decrees, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context, be deemed to include, —
  (a) where the decree to be executed has been passed in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction, the Court of first instance, and
  (b) where the Court of first instance has ceased to exist or to have jurisdiction to execute it, the Court which, if the suit wherein the decree was passed was instituted at the time of making the application for the execution of the decree, would have jurisdiction to try such suit.
• Court by which Decree can be Executed is provided under Section 38:
  • A decree may be executed either by the Court which passed it, or by the Court to which it is sent for execution.
• Section 51 - Powers of Court to Enforce Execution —Subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed, the Court may, on the application of the decree-holder, order execution of the decree —
  (a) by delivery of any property specifically decreed;
  (b) by attachment and sale or by the sale without attachment of any property;
  (c) by arrest and detention in prison for such period not exceeding the period specified in section 58, where arrest and detention is permissible under that section;
  (d) by appointing a receiver; or
  (e) in such other manner as the nature of the relief granted may require
• Order 21 primarily deals with the execution of decrees and orders and outlines the procedures that parties can follow to enforce judgments issued by civil courts. A brief overview of the main provisions is as follows:
  • Execution of Decrees and Orders: It outlines the general procedure for executing decrees and orders. It covers issues such as where the application for execution should be filed, the format of the application, and the court's authority to execute decrees.
  • Modes of Execution: This section provides various methods of execution, including attachment and sale of property, arrest and detention, appointing a receiver, and compelling specific performance of actions.
  • Attachment of Property: This part explains the process of attaching the property of the judgment debtor. Attachment involves seizing the property to ensure that it's available for potential sale to satisfy the judgment.
  • Sale of Immovable Property: It outlines the procedures for selling immovable property that has been attached. The process involves valuation and the sale itself.
  • Attachment of Movable Property: This section deals with the attachment and sale of movable property. It explains how movable property is attached and eventually sold through public auction.
  • Arrest and Detention: This part pertains to the arrest and detention of the judgment debtor in cases where the judgment involves payment of a monetary sum.
  • Stay of Execution: It explains the circumstances under which the execution of a decree can be stayed by the court.
  • Provisions Relating to Sale: These provisions provide detailed rules about the procedure for conducting a sale.
  • Disposal of Property: It outlines how the proceeds from the sale of the attached property are to be distributed among the parties involved.