List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mittal acquitted a man convicted under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1881 (NDPS Act).

• The Supreme Court gave this observation in the case of Yusuf @ Asif v. State.

What is the Background of Yusuf @ Asif v. State Case?

• The appellant, along with three other individuals, received a 10-year imprisonment sentence after being found in possession of 20 kilograms of heroin.
• The Trial Court convicted them, and the High Court subsequently affirmed the decision of Trial Court.
• The appellant contended that the seizure and sampling of the alleged contraband violated the mandatory stipulations of Section 52A of NDPS Act.
• Section 52A of the NDPS Act outlines the procedure for seizing, preparing an inventory of the seized material, forwarding the seized material, and obtaining certification from the relevant Magistrate.
• Furthermore, Section 52A of NDPS Act considers that the certified inventory or photographs of the seized substance, along with any list of seized samples primary evidence in the trial.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The SC held that no evidence has been brought on record that the samples were drawn in the presence of the Magistrate and the list of the samples so drawn were certified by the Magistrate.
  • The mere fact that the samples were drawn in the presence of a gazetted officer is not sufficient compliance of the mandate of sub­section (2) of Section 52A of the NDPS Act.

What is Section 52A (2) of the NDPS Act?

• Where any narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyances has been seized and forwarded to the officer-in-charge of the nearest police station or to the officer empowered under Section 53, the officer referred to in sub-section (1) shall prepare:
  • An inventory of such narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyances.
  • The inventory must contain such details relating to their description, quality, quantity, mode of packing, marks, numbers or such other identifying particulars.
  • Or mention conveyances or the packing in which they are packed, country of origin and other particulars as the officer referred to in sub-section (1) may consider relevant to the identity.
  • And make an application, to any Magistrate for the purpose of-

(a) certifying the correctness of the inventory so prepared; or

(b) taking, in the presence of such magistrate, photographs of such drugs, substances or conveyances and certifying such photographs as true; or

(c) allowing to draw representative samples of such drugs or substances, in the presence of such magistrate and certifying the correctness of any list of samples so drawn.

What was the Landmark Judgment Involved in the Case?

• Union of India v. Mohanlal and Anr (2016):
  • The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that “It is manifest from the said provision that upon seizure of the contraband, it has to be forwarded either to the officer-in-charge of the nearest police station or to the officer empowered under Section 53 who is obliged to prepare an inventory of the seized contraband.”
    • And then to make an application to the Magistrate for the purpose of getting its correctness certified.

Source: Karnataka High Court (Bengaluru Bench, Criminal Petition No. 7421 of 2023)

Why in News?

The Karnataka High Court (HC) has ruled that in cases where the offences under two specific laws, namely the Scheduled Castes and Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Atrocities Act) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) both are applicable, the POCSO Act being recent of the two legislations, takes precedence over the Atrocities Act in the matter of Somashekhar And State by Rural Police Station.

What is the Background of the Somashekhar and State by Rural Police Station Case?

• The petitioner was accused of persistently persuading the complainant's (who belonged to Schedule Caste Community) underage daughter to engage in a romantic relationship with him.
• The complainant contended that the petitioner allegedly came to his house and called out her minor daughter's name.
  • When he inquired about the whereabouts of the petitioner, he informed her that he was the lover of her daughter.
• The petitioner went inside the house of the complainant and quarreled with the minor daughter and started pestering her to love him.
  • Since the complainant's daughter did not agree, the petitioner allegedly abused her and threatened her with dire consequences to her life and went away.
  • The minor felt ashamed and allegedly committed suicide by hanging herself with a saree.
• The complainant had approached the police and submitted the typed complaint against which a First Information Report (FIR) was lodged for offences for the offences punishable under Sections 306, 504, 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), Section 12 of POCSO Act and Section 3(2) (va) of the Atrocities Act.
• During the course of the investigation, the petitioner was arrested, and a charge sheet was filed.
• He applied for bail in the Trial Court, but it was dismissed.
• Therefore, application for bail was filed in the HC under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC).
  • It was submitted on behalf of the state that prima facie case against the petitioner and also that the offence punishable under the provisions of Atrocities Act is invoked against the petitioner, therefore he is required to file an appeal as provided under Section 14A (1) of the Atrocities Act.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Justice S Vishwajith Shetty clarified that a petition under Section 439 of the CrPC before the High Court was maintainable when both the Atrocities Act and the POCSO Act were invoked, rather than having to file to an appeal as mandated by the Atrocities Act. The petition was thus allowed, and the court granted the accused bail.
• The HC also stated that the Atrocities Act and the POCSO Act are unique pieces of legislation. Section 20 of the Atrocities Act stipulates the prevailing authority of this Act, whereas Section 42A of the POCSO Act delineates the supremacy of the POCSO Act. The POCSO Act, being the latest legislation, will take precedence over the Atrocities Act.

What are the Legal Provisions Involved?

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

• Section 439 - Special powers of High Court or Court of Session regarding bail

(1) A High Court or Court of Session may direct —

(a) that any person accused of an offence and in custody be released on bail, and if the offence is of the nature specified in sub-section (3) of section 437, may impose any condition which it considers necessary for the purposes mentioned in that sub-section;

(b) that any condition imposed by a Magistrate when releasing any person on bail be set aside or modified:

• Provided that the High Court or the Court of Session shall, before granting bail to a person who is accused of an offence which is triable exclusively by the Court of Session or which, though not so triable, is punishable with imprisonment for life, give notice of the application for bail to the Public Prosecutor unless it is, for reasons to be recorded in writing, of opinion that it is not practicable to give such notice.
• Provided further that the High Court or the Court of Session shall, before granting bail to a person who is accused of an offence triable under sub-section (3) of section 376 or section 376AB or section 376DA or section 376DB of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), give notice of the application for bail to the Public Prosecutor within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of the notice of such application.

(1A) The presence of the informant or any person authorized by him shall be obligatory at the time of hearing of the application for bail to the person under sub-section (3) of section 376 or section 376AB or section 376DA or section DB of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).

(2) A High Court or Court of Session may direct that any person who has been released on bail under this Chapter be arrested and commit him to custody.

The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act

• The Atrocities Act often referred to as the SC/ST Act, is a legislative framework in India aimed at preventing and addressing discrimination, harassment, and violence against individuals belonging to the Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) communities, which are historically disadvantaged groups. It contains following features:
  • Offences and Penalties: The Act lists various offences as atrocities, including but not limited to physical violence, social boycott, and exploitation. Perpetrators of such offences can face stringent penalties, including imprisonment.
  • Special Courts: The Act provides for the establishment of exclusive special courts for the speedy trial of cases related to atrocities against SC and ST individuals, ensuring quicker justice.
  • Protection of Witnesses and Victims: The Act also includes provisions to safeguard the witnesses and victims in cases filed under it to prevent intimidation and harassment.