List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

The bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah  , only when the last seen theory is established beyond reasonable doubt.

• The Supreme Court gave this observation in the matter of R Sreenivasa v. State of Karnataka.

Background

• The appellant was a co-accused along with one other.
• The Trial Court acquitted both the accused.
• However, in an appeal before the Karnataka High Court, the appellant was convicted of and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment.
• The fact that witnesses saw the appellant with the deceased two days before the incident was considered a part of the for reversing the acquittal of the appellant.
• The counsel for the State cited the case of State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram (2006) where it was held that “Once the accused is found to be the person with whom the deceased was last seen, the onus is on the accused to explain as to where the victim had gone or how the incident occurred”.

Court’s Observation

• The SC set aside the HC judgment by stating, there is no definitive evidence of last seen in the present case. There is a long time-gap between the alleged last seen and the recovery of the body.
• Hence, the Court said that in the absence of other corroborative pieces of evidence, it cannot be said that the chain of circumstances is so complete that the only inference that could be drawn is the guilt of the appellant.

Last Seen Theory

• The theory finds its roots in English common law principles and has been an integral part of Indian criminal jurisprudence.
• This theory relies on the principle that if a person is last seen with the victim before a crime occurs and no credible explanation is provided, there is a strong presumption that they are responsible for the crime.
• The theory emerged from the presumption of innocence until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, where circumstantial evidence can play a crucial role in establishing guilt.
• This legal principle has been applied in various cases to secure convictions and ensure justice is served under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) in India.

Position of Last Seen Theory in Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA)

• Section 7: The provision states that, facts which are the occasion, cause or effect of relevant facts or facts in issue, or which constitute the state of things under which they happened, or which afforded an opportunity for their occurrence or transaction, are relevant.
• Section 106: It places the burden of proof on the accused when certain facts are especially within their knowledge.
• Section 114: It states that courts may presume existence of certain facts if other facts relevant to them are proved in the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business.

Relevant Cases

• State of UP v. Satish (2005):
  • The SC held that the last seen theory comes into play where the time-gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were seen last alive and when the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible.
• Kanhaiya Lal v. State of Rajasthan (2014):
  • The SC held that the circumstance of last seen together does not by itself and necessarily lead to the inference that it was the accused who committed the crime.
    • The Court said that there must be something more to establish the connectivity.

Source: IE

Why in News?

The Ministry of Environment replaced an ad hoc expert panel which assisted the Supreme Court on forest and environment related matters, with a new Central Empowered Committee (CEC).

• It is a step taken after the promulgation of Forest Conservation (Amendment) Act, 2023.

Background

• In May 2023, the Solicitor General Tushar Mehta asked the Union Government to table a draft before SC adhering to the to make the committee a permanent statutory body.
  • The SC called the step of formulating CEC as a permanent statutory body “a step in the interest of stakeholders”.
• In August 2023, the SC reviewed the draft presented by the ministry and allowed the Government to constitute CEC as a permanent body.
• The Union Government released a notification of 5^th September 2023 according to which new members of CEC will be appointed and th.
  • Before the release of the notification, the committee was accountable to report before the SC.
• The notification clarifies that in case any suggestion or recommendation of the CEC is not acceptable to the State or Central Government, the Government shall give reasons in writing for not accepting the same and such decision of the Central Government shall be final.

History of CEC

• The establishment of the CEC can be traced from the landmark case of N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Ors (1997).
  • This case, initiated in 1995, pertained to the conservation and protection of the , one of India's ecologically fragile regions.
• The SC recognizing the need for a specialized body to assist in the adjudication of complex environmental matters, constituted the CEC in 2002.
  • The committee was reconstituted in the year 2008.

Constitution of New CEC

• Composition:
  • A Chairperson, Secretary, and 3 Expert members will constitute the committee.
  • The previous committee also included the members from Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO) whereas this newly structured committee completely removes the presence of NGO members.
• Qualification:
  • The Chairperson must have 25 years of experience in environmental, forestry, or wildlife fields or substantial administrative exercise.
    • His tenure will be 3 years.
  • The Secretary must have 12 years of experience in environmental, forestry, or wildlife matters and must hold a rank no less than a Deputy Inspector General (DIG) or director in the G
  • The , one each from the environmental, forestry, or wildlife matters must have experience of not less than  .

Major Contributions of CEC

• It gave detailed report about illegal mining in Goa in year 2012
• It presented a report in 2014 criticizing the Odisha Government over the production of iron ore and manganese without environment clearance or beyond the period of environment clearance in the mining leases in the state.
• It reported the matter filed before it by the Kudremukh Wildlife Foundation and others regarding alleged illegal diversion of forest lands for non-forest uses in the region in Karnataka.
• It rejected the doubling of railway tracks from Castle Rock in Karnataka to Kulem in Goa, which was accepted by SC in May 2023.

Source: Delhi High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the High Court of Delhi in the matter of Promoshirt SM SA v. Armassuisse and Anr., has held that where a Single Judge had heard an appeal from an original or appellate decree or order, the filing of the second appeal is barred by virtue of Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).

Background

• In this case, the Deputy Registrar of Trademarks permitted the registration of trademarks by Promoshirt SM SA (appellant) under the provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
• Aggrieved by the orders of the Deputy Registrar of Trademarks, Armasuisse, a federal agency of Switzerland filed an appeal before the Single Judge of the Delhi HC.
• The Single Judge allowed the appeals moved by Armasuisse and set aside the orders passed by the Deputy Registrar of Trademark.
• Challenging the order of the Single Judge, Promoshirt filed the Letter Patent Appeal (LPA) before the HC of Delhi.
• The respondents (Armasuisse) have taken a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the instant LPA asserting that the same would not be maintainable in light of Section 100A of CPC.
• While listing the appeals for further consideration, the HC held that the LPA would not be barred by Section 100A of the Code and would be applicable.

Court’s Observations

• A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Dharmesh Sharma observed that Section 100A of CPC bars the filing of a second appeal where a Single Judge had heard an appeal from an original or appellate decree or order.
• The Court states that Section 100A of CPC prescribes the filing of a further appeal from a decision rendered by a Single Judge of a HC where such a Single Judge was hearing an appeal from an original or appellate decree or order.
  • It would thus appear to mean that where a Single Judge of HC has considered an appeal arising from an original or appellate decree or order, no further appeal would lie.
• The Court added that the intent of Section 100A would be confined to a second appeal when preferred against a judgment of a Single Judge exercising appellate powers, provided it pertained to a decree or order as defined by CPC.
• The bar would thus only operate where the decree or order against which the appeal was preferred before the Single Judge was of a civil court.

Legal Provisions

Section 100A, CPC

• Section 100A which was originally introduced by the Amendment Act of 1976.
  • However, the 1976 amendment was not given effect and this section was amended in the year 2002.
• Section 100A states that notwithstanding anything contained in any Letters Patent for any HC or in any instrument having the force of law or in any other law for the time being in force, where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a HC, no further appeal shall lie from the judgment and decree of such Single Judge.
• In Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu v. Union of India (2003), the SC upheld the validity of Section 100A of CPC.

Trade Marks Act, 1999

• The Trade Marks Act, 1999 repealed the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958.
• This Act provides for the registration and better protection of trademarks for goods and services and for the prevention of the use of fraudulent marks.