List of Current Affairs

Source: Kerala High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Kerala High Court in the case of Kuthiralamuttam Saji v. State of Kerala, has held that power to commit a case to the Sessions Court after commencement of inquiry/ trial under Section 323 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) may be invoked by the Magistrate only after recording its reasons by way of a speaking order.

What was the Background of Kuthiralamuttam Saji v. State of Kerala Case?

• In this case, the husband of the second respondent was allegedly accused of assaulting and attempting to commit murder and crime was registered against him.
• As a counter blast, the second respondent filed a private complaint before the Judicial First-Class Magistrate Court Payyannur.
• The case proceeded as a warrant case.
• The respondent alleged commission of dacoity under Section 391 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) in the private complaint.
• The magistrate did not take cognizance under Section 391 of IPC.
• But during arguments, the Magistrate recorded that the offence of dacoity under Section 391 IPC was also made out.
• The Magistrate invoked powers under Section 323 CrPC and committed the case to Sessions Court.
• This Order of the Magistrate was challenged by the petitioners before the High Court of Kerala.
• The High Court set aside the Magistrate’s order and directed the Magistrate Court to reconsider whether provisions of Section 323 CrPC were to be invoked or not.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan observed, Section 323 CrPC provides the procedure when, after Commencement of inquiry or trial, Magistrate finds that the case should be committed and tried by Sessions Court.
• The Court further held that since the words “it appears to him at any stage” is used in Section 323 CrPC, it is clear that when a Magistrate invokes the powers under Section 323 CrPC, the reason for the same should be recorded. In other words, the Magistrate is required to give reason for thinking that the case ought to be tried by the Sessions Court, while invoking Section 323 CrPC.

What are the Legal Provisions Involved in it?

Section 323, CrPC

• This section deals with the procedure when, after commencement of inquiry or trial, the Magistrate finds that the case should be committed and tried by the Session court. It states that -
  • If, in any inquiry into an offence or a trial before a Magistrate, it appears to him at any stage of the proceedings before signing judgment that the case is one which ought to be tried by the Court of Session, he shall commit it to that Court under the provisions hereinbefore contained and thereupon the provisions of Chapter XVIII shall apply to the commitment so made.
• Section 323 CrPC gives a discretion to the Court to exercise its power at any stage of the proceeding before signing judgment.

Section 391, IPC

• This section deals with the offence of Dacoity. It states that-
  • When five or more persons conjointly commit or attempt to commit a robbery, or where the whole number of persons conjointly committing or attempting to commit a robbery, and persons present and aiding such commission or attempt, amount to five or more, every person so committing, attempting or aiding, is said to commit dacoity.
• In the Om Prakash v. State (1956) case, the Allahabad High Court held that the offence of dacoity consists of the cooperation of five or more persons to commit or attempt to commit robbery. All the persons must share the common intention of committing robbery.

Why in News?

Recently, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has restated the scope of revisional jurisdiction of High Courts under Section 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) is limited and it cannot be put to use for reversing the conclusions reached by the courts below.

What is the Background of this News?

• The marriage of the petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 14^th February 2009.
• After marriage the respondent started harassing the petitioner mentally and physically on her domestic working style and also insisted her to leave her service.
• It is further alleged that they also demanded dowry of Rs.20.00 lakhs and also caused injury for not fulfilling their demand of dowry.
• The police had lodged the First Information Report (FIR) against the respondent under Section 498-A, Section 323, Section 506 and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
• The learned trial Court acquitted the respondent of the offence under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 and 34 of IPC.
• Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court, the petitioner had filed an appeal before the Second Additional Sessions Judge, which was later dismissed.
• Thereafter the present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner before the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
• The High Court dismissed the petition and the orders of acquittal made by the lower courts were affirmed by the High Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The single-judge bench of Justice Prem Narayan Singh observed that the scope of revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 401 CrPC is limited, and it cannot be put to use for reversing the conclusions reached by the courts below it.
• The Court also noted that the High Court cannot remand back a case to the trial court unless there is manifest illegality or miscarriage of justice in the judgment rendered by the trial court as enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case of Kaptan Singh and others v. State of M.P & Anr. (1997).
  • In this case, the Supreme Court held that the revisional power of the High Court while sitting in judgment over and order of acquittal should not be exercised unless there exists a manifest illegality in the judgment or order of acquittal or there is grave miscarriage of justice.
  • The Court further concluded that the High Court could proceed like an appeal court does only when the situation envisaged in Section 401(5) of CrPC presents itself.

What are the Legal Provisions Involved in it?
Section 401, CrPC

• This section deals with the High Court' s Powers of revisions. It states that-
  • (1) In the case of any proceeding the record of which has been called for by itself or which otherwise comes to its knowledge, the High Court may, in its discretion, exercise any of the powers conferred on a Court of Appeal by sections 386, 389, 390 and 391 or on a Court of Session by section 307 and, when the Judges composing the Court of revision are equally divided in opinion, the case shall be disposed of in the manner provided by section 392.
  • (2) No order under this section shall be made to the prejudice of the accused or other person unless he has had an opportunity of being heard either personally or by pleader in his own defence.
  • (3) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorize a High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction.
  • (4) Where under this Code an appeal lies and no appeal is brought, no proceeding by way of revision shall be entertained at the instance of the party who could have appealed.
  • (5) Where under this Code an appeal lies but an application for revision has been made to the High Court by any person and the High Court is satisfied that such application was made under the erroneous belief that no appeal lies thereto and that it is necessary in the interests of justice.
• In the State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri (1999) case, the Supreme Court held that in its revisional jurisdiction, the High Court can call for and examine the record of any proceedings for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order. In other words, the jurisdiction is one of the Supervisory Jurisdiction exercised by the High Court for correcting a miscarriage of justice. But the said revisional power cannot be equated with the power of an Appellate Court nor can it be treated even as a second Appellate Jurisdiction.

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

The Supreme Court (SC) has raised significant apprehensions about the backlog of cases in the country and subsequently issued a series of directives aimed at expediting the resolution of these cases in the matter of Yashpal Jain v. Sushila Devi and others.

What is the Background of the Yashpal Jain v. Sushila Devi and others Case?

• The present suit was instituted in the year 1982 for the relief to declare the sale deed, executed by one Mangal Singh (First Defendant).
• The sole plaintiff (Urmila Devi) expired in 2007 consequently Manoj Kumar Jain filed an application to substitute himself as her legal heir claiming as a legatee, by placing reliance on a Will made in year 1999.
  • He also filed an affidavit stating thereunder that Mr. Yashpal Jain (appellant) was a witness to the said registered will.
  • The said application was allowed by the court.
• Being aggrieved by the said order the legal heir of the first defendant, filed a Civil Revision before the District Judge which came to be allowed by setting aside the order of the Trial Court.
• Yashpal Jain, being the adopted son of Urmila Devi thereafter filed an application to be made the legal heir in place of Manoj Kumar Jain.
• The Trial Court allowed the application permitting Yashpal Jain to be substituted as legal representative of late Urmila Devi.
  • The Legal Representatives of Mangal Singh filed Civil Revision before the District Judge who affirmed the Order of the Trial Court.
  • A petition was filed in the High Court (HC) against the abovesaid order, which was allowed, thereby restoring the original order wherein Manoj Jain had been ordered to be substituted as legal representative of late Urmila Devi.
  • Being aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed in SC.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Bench of Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Aravind Kumar considering that the matter pertained to a will dated stated that even after so many years of litigation, the parties to this lis are still groping in the dark and litigating as to who should be brought on record as legal representative of the sole plaintiff.
  • The court further held that this situation serves as a timeless example and reflection of how individuals involved in legal cases can lose faith in the judicial system because of the excessive delays in legal proceedings.
• The Apex Cout dismissed the HC order and issued following guidelines for speedy disposal of civil cases:
  • All courts at district and taluka levels shall ensure proper execution of the summons and in a time bound manner as prescribed under Order V Rule (2) of CPC and same shall be monitored by Principal District Judges and after collating the statistics they shall forward the same to be placed before the committee constituted by the High Court for its consideration and monitoring.
  • All courts at District and Taluka level shall ensure that written statement is filed within the prescribed limit namely as prescribed under Order VIII Rule 1 and preferably within 30 days and to assign reasons in writing as to why the time limit is being extended beyond 30 days as indicated under proviso to sub-Rule (1) of Order VIII of CPC.
  • All courts at Districts and Talukas shall ensure after the pleadings are complete, the parties should be called upon to appear on the day fixed as indicated in Order X and record the admissions and denials and the court shall direct the parties to the suit to opt for either mode of the settlement outside the court as specified in sub-Section (1) of Section 89 and at the option of the parties shall fix the date of appearance before such forum or authority and in the event of the parties opting to any one of the modes of settlement directions be issued to appear on the date, time and venue fixed and the parties shall so appear before such authority/forum without any further notice at such designated place and time and it shall also be made clear in the reference order that trial is fixed beyond the period of two months making it clear that in the event of ADR not being fruitful, the trial would commence on the next day so fixed and would proceed on day-to-day basis.
  • In the event of the party’s failure to opt for ADR namely resolution of dispute as prescribed under Section 89(1) the court should frame the issues for its determination within one week preferably, in the open court.
  • Fixing of the date of trial shall be in consultation with the learned advocates appearing for the parties to enable them to adjust their calendar. Once the date of the trial is fixed, the trial should proceed accordingly to the extent possible, on a day-to-day basis.
  • Learned trial judges of District and Taluka Courts shall as far as possible maintain the diary for ensuring that only such number of cases as can be handled on any given day for trial and complete the recording of evidence so as to avoid overcrowding of the cases and as a sequence of it would result in adjournment being sought and thereby preventing any inconvenience being caused to the stakeholders.
  • The counsels representing the parties may be enlightened of the provisions of Order XI and Order XII so as to narrow down the scope of dispute and it would be also the onerous responsibility of the Bar Associations and Bar Councils to have periodical refresher courses and preferably by virtual mode.
  • The trial courts shall scrupulously, meticulously and without fail comply with the provisions of Rule 1 of Order XVII and once the trial has commenced it shall proceed from day to day as contemplated under the proviso to Rule (2).
  • The courts shall give meaningful effect to the provisions for payment of cost for ensuring that no adjournment is sought for procrastination of the litigation and the opposite party is suitably compensated in the event of such adjournment is being granted.
  • At conclusion of trial the oral arguments shall be heard immediately and continuously and judgment be pronounced within the period stipulated under Order XX of CPC.
  • The statistics relating to the cases pending in each court beyond 5 years shall be forwarded by every presiding officer to the Principal District Judge once in a month who (Principal District Judge/District Judge) shall collate the same and forward it to the review committee constituted by the respective High Courts for enabling it to take further steps.
  • The Committee so constituted by the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the respective States shall meet at least once in two months and direct such corrective measures to be taken by concerned court as deemed fit and shall also monitor the old cases (preferably which are pending for more than 05 years) constantly.

Who is a Legal Representative?

• Section 2(11) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) defines Legal Representative as a person who in law represents the estate of a deceased person, and includes any person who intermeddles with the estate of the deceased and where a party sues or is sued in a representative character the person on whom the estate devolves on the death of the party so suing or sued.
• The SC in the Andhra Banks Ltd. v. R. Srinivasan and Ors. (1962) case held that a legal representative is a "person representing the estate of the deceased" in law.

What is a Speedy Trial?

• The concept of the "Right to Speedy Trial" focuses on expeditious case resolution to enhance the efficiency and credibility of the judiciary. Its primary objective is to instill a sense of justice within society by timely disposal of cases.
• The right to a speedy trial is recognized as a fundamental right guaranteed by the Indian Constitution and is closely tied to the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 as held by the SC in the case of Hussainara Khatoon & Ors. v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar (1979).
• Article 21 of the Indian Constitution: This article ensures the right to life and personal liberty, and Indian courts have interpreted it to encompass the right to a speedy trial.
  • Article 21 - Protection of Life and Personal Liberty - No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.
• To assist the process of speedy trial Order 17 Rule 1 of CPC mentions that court should not allow more than 3 adjournments.
  • Order 17 Rule 1 - Court may grant time and adjourn hearing - (1) The court may, if sufficient cause is shown, at any stage of the suit grant time to the parties or to any of them, and may from time to time adjourn the hearing of the suit for reasons to be recorded in writing:

Provided that no such adjournment shall be granted more than three times to a party during hearing of the suit.

• Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) also requires that criminal trials be conducted as expeditiously as possible, and it gives the court the power to make orders to prevent delays and expedite the trial.
• A speedy trial must also be a fair trial.