List of Current Affairs

Source: Allahabad High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Allahabad High Court in the matter of Khalid Khan and Anr v. State of UP and Anr, has held that under the provisions of Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973(CrPC) a Judicial Magistrate has the discretion to direct a preliminary inquiry before ordering for the registration of the First Information Report (FIR) in cases where no cognizable offence is made out.

What was the Background of Khalid Khan and Anr v. State of U.P. and Anr Case?

• In this case, one Satyendra Pal was murdered.
• Though in the complaint, the accused were named, however, the police after investigation arrested the son of said deceased Satyendra Pal namely Monu Pal for the murder of his father Satyendra Pal.
• An application under Section 156(3) of CrPC was filed, for registering the offence against the erring police officers.
• Thereafter the learned Magistrate directed the preliminary inquiry to be conducted by the Sub Divisional Magistrate.
• For the purpose of quashing the order of the learned Magistrate, an application has been filed before the HC of Allahabad.
• While dismissing the application, the HC held that there is no illegality in the order passed by the learned Magistrate and the instant application is devoid of merits.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Justice Anish Kumar Gupta observed that a Judicial Magistrate, while dealing with an application filed under Section 156(3) CrPC, has the discretion to direct a preliminary inquiry before ordering for the registration of the FIR in cases where he thinks that no cognizable offence is made out.
• The Court also held that the scope of the preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence.
• The Court further noted that when the application u/S 156(3) CrPC discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, then the concerned Magistrate must direct the registration of the FIR.

What is Section 156(3) of CrPC?

• About:
  • Section 156(3) of CrPC states that a Magistrate who is empowered to take cognizance under Section 190 of Code may order investigation for the cognizable offence.
  • An application under section 156(3) of CrPC discloses the cognizable offence, then it is the duty of the concerned Magistrate to direct registration of the FIR, which is to be investigated by the Investigation Agency, in accordance with law.
  • If the information received does not disclose the commission of cognizable offence apparently, but indicates necessity for inquiry, the preliminary inquiry may be conducted in order to ascertain whether the cognizable offence is disclosed or not.
  • Any judicial magistrate may order an investigation under Section 156(3) of CrPC before taking notice of the offence.
• Case Laws:
  • Har prasad v. State of UP (2006), the Supreme Court held that if the application under Section 156(3) CrPC. discloses the commission of cognizable offence and at the stage of Section 156(3) CrPC, which is the cognizable stage, once the cognizable offence is disclosed through an application, it was the duty of the concerned Court to order for registration and investigation of the offences, as crime detection and crime prevention are the foremost duty of the police and not of the Court.
  • Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of UP (2014), the SC held that if the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not.
  • Priyanka Srivastava and Ors v. State of UP and Ors (2015), the SC held that a stage has come in this country where Section 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure applications are to be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by the applicant who seeks the invocation of the Magistrate’s jurisdiction.

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Karnataka v. T.Naseer, restated that a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA) for the purpose of proving electronic evidence can be produced at any stage of the trial.

What was the Background of State of Karnataka v. T.Naseer Case?

• In a serial bomb blast, which took place in Bangalore on 25^th July 2008, one woman lost her life whereas several persons were injured.
• Several First Information Report (FIRs) were registered at a number of police stations.
• During the course of investigation certain electronic devices such as Laptop, Pen Drives, floppies, SIM cards, mobile phones, digital cameras etc. were seized at the instance of the accused.
• These devices were sent to the Central Forensic Sciences Laboratory (CFSL) Hyderabad, which prepared a report after examination in 2010.
• The Trial Court ordered that the CFSL Report was inadmissible in evidence in the absence of a certificate under Section 65B of the IEA.
• The order of the Trial Court was upheld by the High Court of Karnataka.
• Thereafter, an appeal was filed before the SC.
• While allowing the appeal, the orders passed by the courts below were set aside.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal observed that a certificate under Section 65B of the IEA for proving electronic evidence can be produced at any stage of the trial.
• The Court also held that a fair trial in a criminal case does not mean that it should be fair to one of the parties. Rather, the object is that no guilty should go scot-free and no innocent should be punished.
• It was further stated that a certificate under Section 65B of the Act, which is sought to be produced by the prosecution is not evidence that has been created now. Permitting the prosecution to produce the certificate under Section 65B of the Act at this stage will not result in any irreversible prejudice to the accused. The accused will have the full opportunity to rebut the evidence led by the prosecution.
• The Court also referred to the case of Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020).
  • In this case, the SC held that a certificate under 65 B of the IEA can be produced at any stage if the trial is not over.

What is Section 65B of the IEA?

• About:
  • This section deals with the admissibility of electronic records. It states that-

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any information contained in an electronic record which is printed on a paper, stored, recorded or copied in optical or magnetic media produced by a computer (hereinafter referred to as the computer output) shall be deemed to be also a document, if the conditions mentioned in this section are satisfied in relation to the information and computer in question and shall be admissible in any proceedings, without further proof or production of the original, as evidence or any contents of the original or of any fact stated therein of which direct evidence would be admissible.

(2) The conditions referred to in sub-section (1) in respect of a computer output shall be the following, namely: -

(a) the computer output containing the information was produced by the computer during the period over which the computer was used regularly to store or process information for the purposes of any activities regularly carried on over that period by the person having lawful control over the use of the computer;

(b) during the said period, information of the kind contained in the electronic record or of the kind from which the information so contained is derived was regularly fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activities;

(c) throughout the material part of the said period, the computer was operating properly or, if not, then in respect of any period in which it was not operating properly or was out of operation during that part of the period, was not such as to affect the electronic record or the accuracy of its contents; and

(d) the information contained in the electronic record reproduces or is derived from such information fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activities.

(3) Where over any period, the function of storing or processing information for the purposes of any activities regularly carried on over that period as mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (2) was regularly performed by computers, whether--

(a) by a combination of computers operating over that period; or

(b) by different computers operating in succession over that period; or

(c) by different combinations of computers operating in succession over that period; or

(d) in any other manner involving the successive operation over that period, in whatever order, of one or more computers and one or more combinations of computers, all the computers used for that purpose during that period shall be treated for the purposes of this section as constituting a single computer; and references in this section to a computer shall be construed accordingly.

(4) In any proceedings where it is desired to give a statement in evidence by virtue of this section, a certificate doing any of the following things, that is to say, --

(a) identifying the electronic record containing the statement and describing the manner in which it was produced;

(b) giving such particulars of any device involved in the production of that electronic record as may be appropriate for the purpose of showing that the electronic record was produced by a computer;

(c) dealing with any of the matters to which the conditions mentioned in sub-section (2) relate, and purporting to be signed by a person occupying a responsible official position in relation to the operation of the relevant device or the management of the relevant activities (whichever is appropriate) shall be evidence of any matter stated in the certificate; and for the purposes of this subsection it shall be sufficient for a matter to be stated to the best of the knowledge and belief of the person stating it.

(5) For the purposes of this section,

(a) information shall be taken to be supplied to a computer if it is supplied thereto in any appropriate form and whether it is so supplied directly or (with or without human intervention) by means of any appropriate equipment; --

(b) whether in the course of activities carried on by any official, information is supplied with a view to its being stored or processed for the purposes of those activities by a computer operated otherwise than in the course of those activities, that information, if duly supplied to that computer, shall be taken to be supplied to it in the course of those activities;

(c) a computer output shall be taken to have been produced by a computer whether it was produced by it directly or (with or without human intervention) by means of any appropriate equipment.

Explanation. -- For the purposes of this section any reference to information being derived from other information shall be a reference to its being derived therefrom by calculation, comparison or any other process.

• Case Laws:
  • State of Karnataka v. M.R. Hiremath (2019), the SC held that the non-production of the Certificate under Section 65B of IEA is a curable defect
  • Anwar PV v. PK Basheer (2014), the SC held that a certificate under Section 65B of the Act is not required if electronic record is used as primary evidence.

Source: Hindustan Times

Why in News?

The Rajasthan High Court has observed that when it comes to granting maternity leave, there is no distinction between a biological mother and a mother who has had a child through surrogacy.

What is the Background of the Case?

• The petitioner who had begotten twins through the surrogacy process, applied for maternity leave of 180 days.
• The application was rejected by the state authorities citing that there is no corresponding provision in the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951.
• The present petition was filed challenging the above said order of the Rajasthan Government.
• The state's argument was that Rule 103 of Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 does not envision the provision of maternity leave to a mother (commissioning mother) who has given birth to a child through the surrogacy process.
• Following an examination of the State's argument, the court leaned on interpretations of 'maternity benefits' and 'child' as outlined in the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, along with diverse definitions of 'maternity leave' in common usage.
• Upon reviewing the provisions of the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulations) Act, 2021, the Rajasthan High Court (HC) observed that a commissioning mother is recognized as the biological mother of the child and retains full rights over the child.
  • A commissioning mother is a woman who seeks to obtain a child through the rented womb of a surrogate mother.
• The court further noted that the Government has already recognized surrogacy as an option for infertile couples to have a child of their own, through the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Court took note of following cases:
  • Devshree Bandhey v. Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Co.Ltd. & Ors (2017), Chhattisgarh High Court
  • Rama Pandey v. Union of India & Ors. (2015), Delhi High Court
  • Dr. Mrs. Hema Vijay Menon Vs. State of Maharasthra & Ors (2015), Bombay High Court
    • In all three cases, it has been held by various HCs that a female employee who is the commissioning mother would be entitled to maternity leave just like an adoptive mother would be under the applicable rules and regulations.
• Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand has expressed the view that infants born through surrogacy should not be left in the care of others.
  • Instead, they need the love, care, protection, and attention of a mother during their early stages of life.
• The court further held that the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950 includes the right to motherhood and also the right of every child to full development and hence the order of the state authority was set aside.

What are the Legal Provisions Involved?

Maternity Benefit Act, 1961

• It is an Indian legislation that aims to regulate the employment of women in certain establishments for a certain period before and after childbirth. Some key points are:
  • Applicability: The act applies to all establishments employing ten or more people, including factories, mines, plantations, shops, and other entities.
  • Benefit Period: A woman is entitled to maternity leave of 26 weeks, with the provision to extend it by an additional 4 weeks in case of medical complications or other specified circumstances.
  • Payment during Leave: The employer is required to pay the woman on maternity leave at the rate of her average daily wage for the period of her leave.
  • Medical Bonus: Employers are also required to provide a medical bonus to women who do not avail of the full maternity leave, as long as they have worked for a certain period preceding their pregnancy.
  • Prohibition of Dismissal: During the maternity leave period, it is illegal for employers to dismiss or discharge a woman or give notice of dismissal.
  • Creche Facilities: Establishments with 50 or more employees are required to provide creche facilities and allow women to visit the creche during working hours.

Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulations) Act, 2021

• The act is aimed at regulation and supervision of the assisted reproductive technology clinics and the assisted reproductive technology banks, prevention of misuse, safe and ethical practice of assisted reproductive technology services for addressing the issues of reproductive health where assisted reproductive technology is required for becoming a parent or for freezing gametes, embryos, embryonic tissues for further use due to infertility, disease or social or medical concerns and for regulation and supervision of research and development and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.
• The act defines:
  • Infertility under Section 2(j) as the inability to conceive after one year of unprotected coitus or other proven medical condition preventing a couple from conception.
  • Commissioning couple under Section 2(e) as an infertile married couple who approach an assisted reproductive technology clinic or assisted reproductive technology bank to obtain the services authorised of the said clinic or bank.