List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

• Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mitthal observed that the Madhya Pradesh High Court has, thus, committed illegality by deciding the appeal against the conviction preferred by the appellant without hearing the appellant or his advocate.
• Supreme Court gave this observation in the case of S Chandra Pratap Singh v. State of MP.

What is the Background of Chandra Pratap Singh v. State of MP Case?

• The SC heard a triple murder case where the HC gave the judgment without hearing the advocate of the appellant.
• The HC sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment for murder along with common intention.
• The appellant got to opportunity to defend himself upon charges under Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) as the original charges against accused were under Section 302 read with Sections 148 and/or 149 of IPC which were altered to a charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC by the High Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The SC while emphasizing the error made by the HC said, “After finding that the advocate appointed by the appellant was absent, the HC ought to have appointed a lawyer to espouse his cause”.
• The court further said in view of the wide powers conferred by Section 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), even an Appellate Court can exercise the power under Section 216 CrPC of altering or adding the charge.
• The SC set aside the conviction for murder with common intention by examining the case on evidence because the case was pending since very long and HC made a procedural error in giving the judgment.
• However, the SC retained his conviction under Section 201 of IPC for causing the disappearance of evidence or giving false information to screen the offender.

What were Major Legal Provisions Involved in the Case?

Indian Penal Code, 1860

• Section 201: Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender —
  • Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false;
  • If a capital offence — shall, if the offence which he knows or believes to have been committed is punishable with death, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine;
  • If punishable with imprisonment for life — and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine;
  • If punishable with less than ten years imprisonment — and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for any term not extending to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term of the imprisonment provided for the offence, or with fine, or with both.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

• Section 386: Power of the Appellate Court
  • After perusing such record and hearing the appellant or his pleader, if he appears, and the Public Prosecutor if he appears, and in case of an appeal under section 377 or section 378, the accused, if he appears, the Appellate Court may, if it considers that there is no sufficient ground for interfering, dismiss the appeal, or may-
    • (a) in an appeal from an order or acquittal, reverse such order and direct that further inquiry be made, or that the accused be re- tried or committed for trial, as the case may be, or find him guilty and pass sentence on him according to law;
    • (b) in an appeal from a conviction-
    • (i) reverse the finding and sentence and acquit or discharge the accused, or order him to be re- tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction subordinate to such Appellate Court or committed for trial, or
    • (ii) alter the finding, maintaining the sentence, or
    • (iii) with or without altering the finding, alter the nature or the extent, or the nature and extent, of the sentence, but not so as to enhance the Same;
    • (c) in an appeal for enhancement of sentence-
    • (i) reverse the finding and sentence and acquit or discharge the accused or order him to be re- tried by a Court competent to try the offence, or
    • (ii) alter the finding maintaining the sentence, or
    • (iii) with or without altering the finding, alter the nature or the extent, or the nature and extent, of the sentence, so as to enhance or reduce the same;
    • (d) in an appeal from any other order, alter or reverse such order;
    • (e) make any amendment or any consequential or incidental order that may be just or proper; Provided that the sentence shall not be enhanced unless the accused has had an opportunity of showing cause against such enhancement: Provided further that the Appellate Court shall not inflict greater punishment for the offence which in its opinion the accused has committed, than might have been inflicted for that offence by the Court passing the order or sentence under appeal.

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

The Supreme Court (SC) has stated that during the preliminary stage of framing charges, the accused is not entitled to present any evidence or documents to contest the case in the matter of State of Gujarat v. Dilipsingh Kishorsinh Rao.

What is the Background of the State of Gujarat v. Dilipsingh Kishorsinh Rao Case?

• In the present matter, the proceedings were initiated under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Act) against the respondent (Dilipsingh Kishorsinh Rao).
  • The charges were framed under Section 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
  • The proceedings were questioned by filing an application for discharge in the Trial Court by him on the ground that the investigating officer has failed to consider the written explanation offered by the respondent.
• It was also contended that the sanctioning authority reached the conclusion without considering his submissions.
• It was further mentioned that the charge-sheet material did not reveal any circumstance or evidence to arrive at a conclusion that the accused had a disproportionate source of income.
• The said application was rejected by the Trial Court.
• Thereafter, High Court (HC) was approached under Sections 397 read with sections 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) which was allowed.
  • HC relied on:
    • State of MP v. SB Johari (2000), SC held that “Only prima facie case is to be looked into. The charge can be quashed if the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to prove the guilt of the accused, even if fully accepted, it cannot show that the accused committed that particular offence.”
• The state therefore has preferred the present appeal to SC.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Justice Aravind Kumar while hearing an appeal against the Gujarat HC judgment which had quashed the trial court’s order rejecting the respondent’s application seeking discharge under section 227 CrPC, stated that the primary consideration during the framing of charges is to ascertain the existence of a prima facie case. At this stage, the probative value of the evidence on record need not be thoroughly examined.
• SC further directed that the trial court to proceed and shall conclude the trial within 1 year.

What are Charges under CrPC?

• Charge is defined under Section 2(b) of the CrPC as “charge” includes any head of charge when the charge contains more heads than one.
  • In simpler terms it refers to a formal accusation or statement that outlines the specific offence or offences a person is alleged to have committed.
• The Form of Charge is Form No. 32 under the Second Schedule of the CrPC.

A part of Form 32 is reflected by the above picture for reference.

• The detailed provision of Charge is contained under Chapter XVII varying from Section 211 – 224.

What is Discharge under CrPC?

• If, during the court proceedings, the complainant's advocate is unable to present substantial evidence to substantiate the accusations against the accused, and the court is convinced that there is no evidence of the accused committing the alleged offences, the accused can be discharged under such circumstances.
• The present matter pertains to application from discharge under Section 227 of CrPC.
  • It deals with discharge in a case of Session Trial.
• Section 227 – Discharge — If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing.

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

A three-judge bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice while discussing the directions for hybrid hearing of cases said that the problem is compounded by the absence of a uniform Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for accessing electronic mode of hearing.

• The Supreme Court gave this observation in the case of Sarvesh Mathur v. The Registrar General of Punjab and Haryana High Court.

What is the Background of Chandra Pratap Singh v. State of MP?

• The SC is having multiple hearings upon allowing hybrid hearing of cases in HCs.
• On 15th September 2023, notice was issued to the Registrars General of all the HCs, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), and the National Green Tribunal (NGT).
• They were directed to file an affidavit detailing:
  • How many video conferencing hearings have taken place in the last three months; and
  • Whether any courts are declining to permit video conferencing hearings. Further, the Solicitor General was requested to assist the court with data on hybrid hearings in the tribunals under various ministries of the Union Government on the next date of hearing.
• As a response to the notice 15 HCs gave affidavits which reflected variations in the adoption of technology in each HC.
• The SC also discussed the abysmal number of hearings through video conferencing/hybrid mode due to lack of an SOP

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The SC said that an SOP is required for hybrid hearing of cases.
• It further mentioned the age restrictions in hybrid hearing by stating that “The arbitrariness of the existing SOPs is also borne out by rules such as hearing being allowed in hybrid mode for advocates/parties-in-person who are 65 years of age or above”.
  • The age restriction would unfairly disadvantage younger lawyers and restrict access to technology only in the hands of the seniors at the Bar. Such criteria do not bear any nexus to the aim of using technology to increase access to courtrooms.

What are the Court’s Directions for High Court to Ensure Hybrid Hearing?

• After a lapse of two weeks from the date of this order, no HC shall deny access to video conferencing facilities or hearing through the hybrid mode to any member of the Bar or litigant desirous of availing of such a facility;
• All State Governments shall provide necessary funds to the HCs to put into place the facilities requisite for that purpose within the time frame indicated above;
• The HCs shall ensure that adequate internet facilities, including Wi-Fi facilities, with sufficient bandwidth are made available free of charge to all advocates and litigants appearing before the HCs within the precincts of the HC complex;
• The links available for accessing video conferencing/hybrid hearings shall be made available in the daily cause-list of each court and there shall be no requirement of making prior applications. No HC shall impose an age requirement or any other arbitrary criteria for availing of virtual/hybrid hearings;
• All the HC shall put into place an SOP within a period of four weeks for availing of access to hybrid/video conference hearings. In order to effectuate this, Justice Rajiv Shakdher, Hon’ble Judge of the HC of Delhi is requested to prepare a model SOP, in conjunction with Mr. Gaurav Agrawal and Mr. K Parameshwar, based on the SOP which has been prepared by the e-Committee. Once the SOP is prepared, it shall be placed on the record of these proceedings and be circulated in advance to all the HCs so that a uniform SOP is 8 adopted across all the HCs for facilitating video conference/hybrid hearings;
• All the HCs shall, on or before the next date of listing, place on the record the following details:
  • The number of video conferencing licences which have been obtained by the HC and the nature of the hybrid infrastructure;
  • A court-wise tabulation of the number of video conference/hybrid hearings which have taken place since 1st April 2023; and
  • The steps which have been taken to ensure that Wi-Fi/internet facilities are made available within every High Court to members of the Bar and litigants appearing in person in compliance with the above directions.
• The Union Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology is directed to coordinate with the Department of Justice to ensure that adequate bandwidth and internet connectivity is provided to all the courts in the North-East and in Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh and Jammu and Kashmir so as to facilitate access to online hearings;
• All High Courts shall ensure that adequate training facilities are made available to the members of the Bar and Bench so as to enable all practising advocates and Judges of each HC to be conversant with the use of technology. Such training facilities shall be set up by all 9 the HCs under intimation to this Court within a period of two weeks from the date of this order; and
• The Union of India shall ensure that on or before 15^th November 2023, all tribunals are provided with requisite infrastructure for hybrid hearings. All Tribunals shall ensure the commencement of hybrid hearings no later than 15 November 2023.
  • The directions governing the HCs shall also apply to the Tribunals functioning under all the Ministries of the Union Government including Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), NCLAT, National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Armed Forced Tribunal (AFT), NCDRC, NGT, Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT), Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunals (DRAT)s and Debt Recovery Tribunals (DRTs).