List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Vijay v. Union of India described the principles relevant for examining the admissibility of secondary evidence under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA).

What was the Background of Vijay v. Union of India Case?

• Plaintiff and Defendant entered into an agreement to sell on 4^th February 1998.
• When Defendant denied the existence of such an agreement, Plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of contract.
• Plaintiff moved an application to file a copy of the agreement to sell, among other documents, as secondary evidence.
• The District Court held that secondary evidence of an agreement to sell could not be allowed as it was not executed on a proper stamp, thus barred under section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.
• Aggrieved by this, the Plaintiff filed a petition before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh and the Court upheld the order of the District Court.
  • Thereafter, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court which was later allowed by the court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Sanjay Karol while explaining the principles relevant for examining the admissibility of secondary evidence under IEA stated that if a document that is required to be stamped is not sufficiently stamped, then the position of law is well settled that a copy of such document as secondary evidence cannot be adduced.
• The court further deduced the following principles relevant for examining the admissibility of secondary evidence:
  • Law requires the best evidence to be given first, that is, primary evidence.
  • Section 63 of the IEA provides a list of the kinds of documents that can be produced as secondary evidence, which is admissible only in the absence of primary evidence.
  • If the original document is available, it has to be produced and proved in the manner prescribed for primary evidence. So long as the best evidence is within the possession or can be produced or can be reached, no inferior proof could be given.
  • A party must endeavor to adduce primary evidence of the contents, and only in exceptional cases will secondary evidence be admissible.
  • When the non-availability of a document is sufficiently and properly explained, then secondary evidence can be allowed.
  • Secondary evidence could be given when the party cannot produce the original document for any reason not arising from his default or neglect.
  • When the copies are produced in the absence of the original document, they become good secondary evidence. Still, there must be foundational evidence that the alleged copy is a true copy of the original.
  • Before producing secondary evidence of the contents of a document, the non-production of the original must be accounted for in a manner that can bring it within one or other of the cases provided for in the section.
  • Mere production and marking of a document as an exhibit by the Court cannot be held to be due proof of its contents. It has to be proved in accordance with the law.

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions Involved in it?

Section 63, IEA

About:

• This section deals with secondary evidence. Secondary evidence means and includes-

(1) certified copies given under the provisions hereinafter contained;

(2) copies made from the original by mechanical processes which in themselves insure the accuracy of the copy, and copies compared with such copies;

(3) copies made from or compared with the original;

(4) counterparts of documents as against the parties who did not execute them;

(5) oral accounts of the contents of a document given by some person who has himself seen it.

Case Law:

In the case of Cement Corpn. of India Ltd. v. Purya (2004), the Supreme Court held that the terms primary and secondary evidence apply to the kinds of proof that may be given to the contents of a document, irrespective of the purpose for which such contents, when proved, may be received

Section 35, The Indian Stamp Act, 1899

• This section deals with instruments not duly stamped inadmissible in evidence, etc.
• It states that no instrument chargeable with duty shall be admitted in evidence for any purpose by any person having by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence, or shall be acted upon, registered or authenticated by any such person or by any public officer, unless such instrument is duly stamped or if the instrument is written on sheet of paper with impressed stamp, such stamp paper is purchased in the name of one of the parties to the instrument.
  • Provided that—
    (a) any such instrument shall, subject to all just exceptions, be admitted in evidence on payment of the duty with which the same is chargeable, or, in the case of an instrument, insufficiently stamped, of the amount required to make up such duty, together with a penalty equal to two per cent of the deficient portion of stamp duty for every month or part thereof, from the date of execution of the instrument, minimum being Rs. 100.
    
    (b) where any person from whom a stamped receipt could have been demanded, has given an unstamped receipt and such receipt, if stamped, would be admissible in evidence against him, then such receipt shall be admitted in evidence against him on payment of penalty of one hundred rupees by the person tendering it.
    
    (c) where a contract or agreement of any kind is affected by correspondence consisting of two or more letters and anyone of the letters bears the proper stamp, the contract or agreement shall be deemed to be duly stamped.
    
    (d) nothing herein contained shall prevent the admission of any instrument in evidence in any proceeding in a criminal court, other than a proceeding under Chapter IX or part D of Chapter X of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).
    
    (e) nothing herein contained shall prevent the admission of any instrument in any court when such instrument has been executed by or on behalf of the Government of the Union territory of Jammu and Kashmir or where it bears the certificate of the Collector as provided by section 32 or any other provision of this Act and such certificate has not been revised in exercise of powers conferred under Chapter VI of this Act.
    
    (f) nothing herein contained shall prevent the admission of a copy of any instrument or of an oral admission of the contents of any instrument, if the stamp duty or a deficient portion of the stamp duty and penalty as specified in clause (a) is paid.
    
    (g) any such instrument subject to all just exceptions be registered or authenticated on payment of the duty with which the same is chargeable, or in the case of an instrument insufficiently stamped, of the amount required to make up such duty.

Source: Delhi High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the High Court of Delhi in the case of Newton Engineering and Chemicals Limited and Ors v. Uem India Pvt Ltd., held that the arbitration proceedings and proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) arise from separate causes of action and pendency of one does not affect the other.

What was the Background of Newton Engineering and Chemicals Limited and Ors v. Uem India Pvt Ltd. Case?

• The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 19^th June 2014 was signed between the petitioners and the respondent company.
• The respondent company was to participate as a technical collaborator and provide its expertise to the petitioner.
• A post-dated cheque date was given by the petitioners to the respondent company.
• The petitioners vide e-mail asked the respondent company not to deposit the aforesaid cheque. However, the respondent company deposited the said cheque.
• Since the aforesaid cheque was dishonored, a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act was filed by the respondent company in which summons were issued to the petitioners by the learned Magistrate.
• Thereafter the petition was filed seeking quashing of complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act before the Delhi High Court which was later dismissed.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Justice Amit Bansal observed that the arbitration proceedings and proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act arise from separate causes of action and pendency of one does not affect the other.
• The Court further held that there is no merit in the contention of the petitioners that the complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act is not maintainable in view of the ongoing arbitration proceedings between the parties.

What is Section 138 of the NI Act?

• This Section deals with the dishonor of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account. It states that —

Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honor the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provisions of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may be extended to two years, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both:

Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless—

(a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier;

(b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within thirty days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; and

(c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or, as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice.

Explanation. - For the purposes of this section, debt or other liability means a legally enforceable debt or other liability.

Source: Punjab And Haryana High Court

Why in News?

Justice Anoop Chitkara observed the application of ‘Double Jeopardy’ due to the clash between Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881(NI Act) and Section 420 and 406 Indian Penal Code,1860 (IPC).

• The Punjab and Haryana High Court gave this judgment in the case of Jitendra Singh and another v. State of Punjab and others.

What is the Background of Jitendra Singh and another v. State of Punjab and others?

• Two complaints under Section 138 of NI Act and an FIR under Section 406/420 IPC were filed against the petitioners seeking criminal prosecution.
• The complainant contended that the case was not only of cheque dishonor, but also breach of trust accompanied by mens rea.
• First Information Report (FIR) under Section 406 and 420 IPC was not barred. The petitioners contended that dishonor of cheque could not be construed as intention to cheat or malicious act on part of the issuer. So, the FIR was liable to be quashed.

What was the Court’s Observation?

• “It would be a violation of Article 20(2) of Constitution of India to file an FIR under the IPC by leveling allegations that the goods were received with malicious intent and cheques were also issued with such an intent, and to simultaneously seek prosecution under Section 138 of NIA or the same set of allegations and a similar transaction for the same amount would violate Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India.”

What is ‘Double Jeopardy’?

• Double jeopardy is a legal conception that prevents a person from being tried or penalized twice for the same offence. It's a fundamental principle of criminal law, designed to protect individuals from the arbitrary use of state power and to ensure that they aren't subordinated to multiple executions and corrections for the same crime.
• In India, the principle of double jeopardy is elevated in Article 20(2) of the Constitution, which provides that no person shall be prosecuted and penalized for the same offence more than formerly.
  • The doctrine of double jeopardy is also elevated under Section 300 of the CrPC.
• The origins of double jeopardy can be traced back to ancient times, when numerous legal systems had rules against retrying a person for the same offense.
• In the English common law system, the principle of double jeopardy was first established in the 12^th century.
• Exception to the ‘Rule of Double Jeopardy’:
  • He or she can be retried if new and conclusive substantiation is set up, if the person has been acquitted of an offense.
  • He or she can be retried for the higher offense, if a person has been condemned of a lower offense and a higher offense is latterly discovered.
  • He or she can be tried again for the same offense in a higher court of appeal, if a person has been condemned by a court of competent jurisdiction.

What is the Landmark Judgment Cited in the Case?

• Ajay Kumar Radheshyam Goenka v. Tourism Finance Corporation of India Ltd, (2023):
  • Supreme Court held that the criminal prosecution initiated against the natural persons under Section 138 read with 141 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1882 read with Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 would not stand terminated, and both Hon’ble Judges of Supreme Court have authored separate but concurring verdicts.