List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Priya Indoria v. State of Karnataka has held that the Sessions Court or High Court that would have the power to grant transit anticipatory bail, even when the First Information Report (FIR) has not been filed within its territorial jurisdiction but in a different State.

What was the Background of Priya Indoria v. State of Karnataka Case?

• The complainant (wife) got married to the accused (husband) on 11^th December 2020 and started living in Bengaluru.
• The complainant was a victim of harassment, torture and assault for the demand of dowry and this harassment and torture continued from 11th December 2020 until 06th July 2021.
• Thereafter, on 11th June 2021, the complainant’s father was forced to bring the complainant back to Chirawa, Rajasthan.
• The complainant registered a FIR for offences punishable under provisions of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
• Thereafter the accused and his family members sought the relief of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).
• The Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, allowed the applications of anticipatory bail made by the accused and his family members.
• Thereafter, an appeal was filed before the SC.
• The SC granted extraterritorial anticipatory bail to the accused and his family members.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna, and Ujjal Bhuyan observed that the Court of Session or the High Court, as the case may be, can exercise jurisdiction and entertain a plea for limited anticipatory bail even if the FIR has not been filed within its territorial jurisdiction and depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case.
• The Court further states that if the accused apprehending arrest makes out a case for grant of anticipatory bail but having regard to the fact that the FIR has not been registered within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court or Court of Session, as the case may, at the least consider the case of the accused for grant of transit anticipatory bail which is an interim protection of limited duration till such accused approaches the competent Sessions Court or the High Court, as the case may be, for seeking full-fledged anticipatory bail.
• The Court also held that if the transit bail application is rejected on the sole ground of territorial jurisdiction, it will add a restriction to the powers under Section 438 of CrPC. This would result in miscarriage and travesty of justice, aggravating the adversity of the accused who is apprehending arrest. It would also be against the principles of access to justice.

What is Transit Anticipatory Bail?

• About:
  • In this type of bail, the accused can be protected from arrest until they reach a court with territorial jurisdiction for the alleged offence.
  • The phrase transit anticipatory bail is not defined under the CrPC or under any other legislation.
  • The SC had adopted the transit anticipatory bail approach in the case of State of Assam v. Brojen Gogol (1998).
  • It provides equitable and interim relief enabling an accused residing in a different State to seek anticipatory bail.
  • This is granted for a specific time period, until an applicant can make an application for anticipatory bail before a Court that can take cognizance of the offence.
• Conditions for Transit Anticipatory Bail:
  • The Investigating Officer and the Public Prosecutor shall be issued notice by the court before the passing of the order of limited anticipatory bail, and the court would have discretion to grant interim anticipatory bail.
  • The order of grant must record reasons as to why the applicant apprehends an inter-state arrest and the impact of interim anticipatory bail as the case may be on the status of investigation.
  • The jurisdiction in which the cognizance of the offence has been taken does not exclude the said offense from the scope of anticipatory bail by way of a state amendment to section 438 CrPC.
  • The applicant must satisfy the court, regarding his inability to seek such bail from the court having territorial jurisdiction.
  • The grounds raised may be a reasonable and immediate threat to life, personal liberty, and bodily harm, the jurisdiction where FIR is registered, the apprehension of violation of the right to life liberty or impediments owing to arbitrariness, the medical status or disability of person seeking extra-territorial limited anticipatory bail.
• Case Laws:
  • In Amita Garg v. State of UP (2022), the Allahabad High Court noted that there is no legislation or law which defines transit anticipatory bail in definitive or specific terms. The said Court explained that the transit anticipatory bail precedes detention of the accused and is effective immediately at the time of the arrest.
  • In Ajay Agarwal v. The State of UP (2022), the Allahabad High Court noted that transit bail is protection from arrest for a certain definite period as granted by the Court granting such transit bail.

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

A bench of Justice Aniruddha Bose and Bela M Trivedi said that “When the detention of the accused is continued by the Court, the courts are also expected to conclude the trials within a reasonable time, further ensuring the right of speedy trial guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution".

• The Supreme Court gave this judgment in the case of Tarun Kumar v. Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement.

What is the Background of Tarun Kumar v. Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement?

• M/s. Shakti Bhog Foods Ltd. (SBFL) was engaged in manufacturing and selling food items under the brand name of “Shakti Bhog”.
• The consortium of banks led by the State Bank of India vide the Letter of Engagement dated 18th May 2018 engaged the services of a Forensic Auditor – BDO India LLP for conducting the Forensic Audit of SBFL.
• The Forensic Auditor conducted audit review for the period 1st April 2013 to 31st March 2017 and submitted the report on 25th June 2019, disclosing several financial irregularities and discrepancies in the functioning of SBFL, and alleged that SBFL had failed to discharge its loan liability and caused loss to the consortium member banks to the tune of Rs.3269.42 crores.
• An FIR registered on 31st December 2020 by the Central Bureau of Investigation, Bank Securities and Fraud Cell, New Delhi for the offences under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under Section 120B read with Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• An Enforcement Case Information Report came to be recorded on 31st January 2021 against SBFL and others with regard to the said FIR registered by the CBI against the accused for investigation of the commission of offence under Section 3 punishable under Section 4 of the PML Act.
• The appellant filed a bail application in a complaint case before the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) Rouse Avenue Court Complex, New Delhi on 18th October 2022, which came to be dismissed by the Special Judge vide the order dated 23rd December 2022.
• The bail application, No. 152 of 2023 preferred by the appellant before the High Court of Delhi also came to be rejected vide the impugned order dated 18th July 2023.

What was the Court’s Observation?

• It cannot be gainsaid that the burden of proof lies on the accused for the condition set out in Section 45 that he is not guilty of such offence. Of course, such discharge of burden could be on the probabilities, nonetheless in the instant case there being sufficient material on record adduced by the respondent showing the thick involvement of the appellant in the alleged offence of money laundering under Section 3 of the said act, the court is not inclined to grant bail to the appellant.

What is the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002?

• About:
  • Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is an Act of the Parliament of India enacted by the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government to prevent money-laundering and to provide for confiscation of property derived from money-laundering. PMLA and the Rules notified thereunder came into force with effect from July 1, 2005.
• Objective of PMLA:
  • The PMLA seeks to combat money laundering in India and has three main objectives:
    • To prevent and control money laundering.
    • To confiscate and seize the property obtained from the laundered money.
    • To deal with any other issue connected with money laundering in India.
• Important Provisions of the Act
  • Section 45: Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.
    • It lays down conditions to be satisfied for the purpose of granting bail to an accused charged with the offence of money laundering.
  • Section 50: Powers of authorities regarding summons, production of documents and to give evidence, etc.
    • It details the powers of authorities in issuing summons, producing documents, and giving evidence. It equates the director's powers to those of a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for matters like discovery and inspection, enforcing attendance, compelling production of documents, and issuing commissions.
    • Section 50(2) empowers the Director and other officers to summon any person during any investigation or proceedings under the PMLA. Rule 2(p) and Rule 11 of PML Rules, 2005 further specify these powers.
    • Section 50(3) mandates that all summoned persons must attend in person or through authorized agents, state the truth upon examination, and produce required documents.
    • Section 50(4) deems every proceeding under Section 50(2) and Section 50(3) as a judicial proceeding as per Sections 193 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
    • Section 50(5) allows any officer referred to in Section 50(2) to impound and retain any records produced before him in any proceedings under Act 15 of 2003. There are safeguards in place to prevent misuse of this power.

Source: Karnataka High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the High Court of Karnataka held that under the provisions of Section 52A of the Waqf Act, 1955, the trial court can take cognizance only on complaint made by the Board or any officer duly authorized by the State Government in this regard and not the basis of police report.

• The aforesaid observation was made in the case of Sayyad Murtuza Sayyad Kasim Haji v. State of Karnataka & Ors.

What was the Background of Sayyad Murtuza Sayyad Kasim Haji v. State of Karnataka & Ors. Case?

• In this case, the respondent who is the Waqf Officer has filed the First Information Report (FIR).
• On the basis of this, the Police have registered the case against the petitioner for the offence under Section 52A of the Waqf Act.
• Learned Additional Civil Judge took cognizance of the offence under Section 52A of the Waqf Act against the petitioner based on the charge sheet.
• Thereafter, a petition was filed before the Karnataka High Court for quashing of the proceedings initiated against him.
• Allowing the petition, the High Court quashed the entire proceedings.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Court observed that under the provisions of Section 52A of the Waqf Act, the trial court can take cognizance only of the complaints made by the Board or any officer duly authorized by the State Government, it cannot take cognizance of offence based on a police report.
• The Court further added that the word complaint has been defined under Section 2(d) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC). It does not include a police report.
  • The Police report has been expressly excluded in the definition of complaint under Section 2(d) of the CrPC.

What are the Legal Provisions Involved?

• About the Waqf Act:
  • The Waqf Act, 1995, which repealed and replaced the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 1984, came into force on the 1st January 1996.
  • The Act provides for the better administration of auqaf (properties, legacies esp. for charitable purposes) and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.
  • However, over the years of the working of the Act, there has been a widespread feeling that the Act has not proved effective enough in improving the administration of auqaf.
• Section 52A of the Waqf Act:
• This section deals with the penalty for alienation of waqf property without sanction of Board. It states that-

(1) Whoever alienates or purchases or takes possession of, in any manner whatsoever, either permanently or temporarily, any movable or immovable property being a waqf property, without prior sanction of the Board, shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years.

Provided that the waqf property so alienated shall without prejudice to the provisions of any law for the time being in force, be vested in the Board without any compensation, therefore.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, any offence punishable under this section shall be cognizable and non-bailable.

(3) No court shall take cognizance of any offence under this section except on a complaint made by the Board or any officer duly authorized by the State Government in this behalf.

(4) No court inferior to that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the first class shall try any offence punishable under this section.