List of Current Affairs

Source: Allahabad High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Allahabad High Court in the matter of XYZ v. State of UP and Anr., that the bail granted to an accused should not be cancelled based on the plea that the accused is continuously threatening the applicant/informant after his/her release on bail.

What was the Background of XYZ v. State of UP and Anr. Case?

• Before the Allahabad High Court, the instant bail cancellation application has been filed on behalf of the applicant seeking cancellation of bail granted to opposite party number 2.
• The applicant is the informant of the case.
• Learned counsel for the applicant states that the applicant has filed the bail cancellation application on the ground that after release on bail, opposite party number 2 is continuously threatening her and in this regard, an application has been moved before the higher authorities on 2^nd September, 2023 and when no action was taken against opposite party number 2 then she had filed an application under Section 156 (3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) which is still pending.
• The instant bail cancellation application is devoid of metrics and so it is dismissed by the High court.

What were the Cour’s Observations?

• Justice Sameer Jain observed that the bail granted to an accused should not be cancelled on the basis of an application filed claiming that the accused is continuously threatening the applicant/informant after his/her release on bail.
• The Court also held that if based on such an application, bail granted to the accused is cancelled, then it would open a Pandora's box and endless litigation would start between both parties.
• The Court further noted that it is easy to reject a bail application, but it is very difficult to cancel the bail already granted and for cancellation, very cogent and overwhelming reasons must be present.

What is Section 156(3) of CrPC?

About:

• Section 156 of CrPC deals with the police officer’s power to investigate cognizable cases. It states that-

(1) Any officer in charge of a police station may, without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any cognizable case which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII.

(2) No proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered under this section to investigate.

(3) Any Magistrate empowered under section 190 may order such an investigation as above-mentioned.

Case Laws:

• Mohd Yousuf v. Smt. Afaq Jahan and Anr. (2006), the Supreme Court held that any judicial magistrate might order an investigation under Section 156 (3) of CrPC before taking notice of the offence. If he does, he is not allowed to force the complainant to take an oath because he was unaware of any wrongdoing.
• Ramdev Food Products v. State of Gujarat (2015), SC held that a directive under Section 156(3) of CrPC should only be given following the Magistrate’s application of thought.

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Hyder v. State of Kerala, is about to examine whether a subsequent change in law can be a ground for condoning delay or to disturb the acquittal finding.

What was the Background of Hyder v. State of Kerala Case?

• In this case, the petitioner who faced prosecution in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS) case was acquitted on 10^th December 2018 by the Trial Court.
• The acquittal was based on the law declared by the SC in the case of Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab (2018).
• Before the High Court of Kerala, an appeal was filed against this acquittal.
• Before the HC, the Prosecution submitted that the law established in Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab (2018) was overruled in Mukesh Singh. v. State Narcotic Branch of Delhi (2020).
• The HC, condoning the huge delay of 1148 days, has decided to consider the Prosecution’s appeal, on merit.
• Thereafter, a Special Leave Petition (SLP) was filed in the SC against the order of the HC.
• The SC issued a notice returnable in six weeks while staying the further proceedings.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Relying on the dictum laid down in the case of Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab (2018), the Trial Court held that it is well settled that a fair investigation, which is but the very foundation of fair trial, necessarily postulates that the informant and the investigator must not be the same person. It is axiomatic that justice must not only be done but must appear to be done also.
  • In Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab (2018), the SC has categorically held that the informant and the investigator in NDPS cases must not be the same person. It was also held that when the investigation is conducted by the police officer who himself is the complainant, the trial is vitiated, and the accused is entitled to acquittal. The law established in this case was overruled in Mukesh Singh. v. State Narcotic Branch of Delhi (2020).
  • In Mukesh Singh. v. State Narcotic Branch of Delhi (2020), the Supreme Court held that NDPS Act does not specifically bar the informant/complainant to be an investigator and officer in charge of a police station for investigating the offences under the NDPS Act.

What is Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985?

• With the aim of prohibiting the production, manufacturing, cultivation, possession, sale, purchasing, transport, storage, and consumption of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, this Act came into force on 14^th November 1985.
• Since than this Act has been amended four times in 1988, 2001, 2014 and 2021.
• An Act to consolidate and amend the law relating to narcotic drugs, to make stringent provisions for the control and regulation of operations relating to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, to provide for the forfeiture of property derived from, or used in, illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, to implement the provisions of the International Convention on Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances and for matters connected therewith.
• According to the Act, narcotic drugs include coca leaf, cannabis (hemp), opium, and poppy straw and psychotropic substances include any natural or synthetic material, or any salt or preparation protected by the Psychotropic Substances Convention of 1971.
• All the offences under the NDPS Act are non-bailable.

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

A bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra held that a Facilitation Council under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development (MSMED) Act, 2006 would not be maintainable.

• The Supreme Court gave this judgment in the case of M/s India Glycols Limited and Another v. Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Medchal - Malkajgiri and Others.

What is the Background of M/s India Glycols Limited and Another v. Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Medchal - Malkajgiri and Others Case?

• The present case pertained to the challenge of an award of a Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, involving a company governed by the provisions of MSMED Act.
• The award passed by the Facilitation Council was set aside by a single judge of the High Court of Telangana on the ground that the claim was barred by limitation.
• This order was reversed by a Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench held that the petition challenging the award was not maintainable as the appellant should have pursued remedies under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act of 1996) instead of filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution.

What were the Court’s Observation?

• The entertaining of a petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution, in order to obviate compliance with the requirement of pre-deposit under Section 19, would defeat the object and purpose of the special enactment which has been legislated upon by Parliament.
• So, the petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution instituted by the appellant was not maintainable.

What is Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development (MSMED) Act, 2006?

• This is an act for facilitating the promotion and development and enhancing the competitiveness of micro, small and medium enterprises and for matters connected therein or incidental thereto.
• The Act was published in gazette of India on 16^th June 2006. However, it came into from 2^nd October 2006, the birth- date of the father of the nation.
• Meaning of MSMED:
  • In accordance with the Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises Development (MSMED) Act in 2006, the enterprises are classified into two divisions.
    • Manufacturing Enterprises – engaged in the manufacturing or production of goods in any industry
    • Service Enterprises – engaged in providing or rendering services.
• Features of MSMEs:
  • MSMEs are known to provide reasonable assistance for improved access to the domestic as well as export markets for businesses.
  • MSMEs support product development, design innovation, intervention, and packaging elements of a business.
  • MSMEs support the upgrading of technology, infrastructure, and the modernization of this sector as a whole.
  • MSMEs provide employment opportunities and loans.
  • MSMEs provide credit limits or funding support to various banks in the country.