List of Current Affairs

Source: Allahabad High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Allahabad High Court in the matter of Sumit & Anr v. State of UP & Ors., has held that cognizance of the offence under Section 174 A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) can be taken by a Court only based on a written complaint of the court which had initiated proceedings, and the Police have no power to lodge a First Information Report (FIR) in such cases.

What was the Background of Sumit & Anr v. State of UP & Ors. Case?

• In this case, a charge sheet under Sections 395 and 412 of IPC was submitted by the police against the present petitioners.
• The Learned Magistrate also took cognizance on the above charge sheet and thereafter a non-bailable warrant was issued against the petitioners.
• Thereafter, an FIR under Section 174A of IPC was lodged against the petitioners.
• The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the aforesaid FIR.
• Allowing the petition, the High Court quashed the FIR.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• A bench of Justices Anjani Kumar Mishra and Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal observed that the court itself cannot take cognizance of the offence under Section 174A IPC on the basis of police report, then lodging the FIR under Section 174A of IPC is futile. Therefore, proceedings can be initiated only on the basis of a written complaint from the court which initiated proceedings.
• The Court further held that Section 195(1)(a)(i) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) prohibits the taking cognizance of the offence under Section 174A of IPC except on the basis of written complaint, then permitting lodging of an FIR will amount to travesty of justice to the person concerned.

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions Involved in it?
Section 174A of IPC

• This section was introduced in 2005 and criminalizes the non-appearance of proclaimed offenders at the specified place and time.
• It states that whoever fails to appear at the specified place and the specified time as required by a proclamation published under sub-section (1) of section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both, and where a declaration has been made under sub-section (4) of that section pronouncing him as a proclaimed offender, he shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.
• In the case of Moti Singh Sirkarwar v. State of UP. & Ors. (2015), the Allahabad High Court held that the offence under Section 174A of IPC is non-cognizable and bailable.
• Section 207 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) deals with this provision.

Section 395 of IPC

• This Section deals with the punishment for dacoity.
• It states that whoever commits dacoity shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine.
• The offence of dacoity has been defined under Section 391 of IPC, whereas the same has been defined under Section 308 of BNS.
  • 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.

Section 412 of IPC

• This section deals with dishonestly receiving property stolen in the commission of a dacoity.
• It states that whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, the possession whereof he knows or has reason to believe to have been transferred by the commission of dacoity, or dishonestly receives from a person, whom he knows or has reason to believe to belong or to have belonged to a gang of dacoits, property which he knows or has reason to believe to have been stolen, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Section 195(1)(a)(i) of CrPC

• This section states that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the IPC except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate.
• Section 215 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) deals with this provision.

Source: Bombay High Court

Why in News?

Recently, a bench of Justice M S Karnik observed that petitioner is suffering from 83% physical disability and in the interest of justice, this is a fit case where the judgment can be pronounced by the trial Court by permitting the petitioner to present himself through video conferencing.

• Bombay High Court gave this judgment in the case of Ashwini Kumar Sharma v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

What is the Background of Ashwini Kumar Sharma v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.?

• The petitioner is charged under several sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
• A petitioner suffering from 83% disability requested the Bombay High Court to allow him to attend the pronunciation of judgment through video conferencing.
• However, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) who is respondent no. 2 in the case opposed the attendance through video conferencing citing it as against Section 353 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).

What was the Court’s Observation?

• Bombay HC said that if the judgment is pronounced by permitting the petitioner to attend through video conferencing, the petitioner shall not raise any plea in any proceeding that the judgment is invalid only by the reason that he was not physically present at the time of pronouncement of judgment.

What is the Legal Provision Involved?

• About:
  • Section 353 of CrPC talks about Judgment, Procedure for Pronouncement, Delivery, along with Duty of accused to attend the pronouncement.
  • This Section does not limit the power of the court to reverse or alter the sentence under Section 465 of CrPC.
• Procedure for Pronouncement:
  • Sub-section 1 of the judgment is a mandatory provision covering the procedure for pronouncement of judgment.
  • The judgment in every trial in any Criminal Court of original jurisdiction shall be pronounced in open Court by the presiding officer immediately after the termination of the trial or at some subsequent time of which notice shall be given to the parties or their pleaders,
    • by delivering the whole of the judgment; or
    • by reading out the whole of the judgment; or
    • by reading out the operative part of the judgment and explaining the substance of the judgment in a language which is understood by the accused or his pleader.
• Signing of Judgment:
  • Sub-section 2 states that where the judgment is delivered under clause a) of Sub-Section (1), the presiding officer shall cause it to be taken down in short-hand, sign the transcript and every page thereof as soon as it is made ready, and write on it the date of the delivery of the judgment in open Court.
  • Sub-section 3 states that where the judgment or the operative part thereof is read out under clause b) or clause c) of Sub-Section (1), as the case may be, it shall be dated and signed by the presiding officer in open Court and if it is not written with his own hand, every page of the judgment shall be signed by him.
• Copy of Judgment:
  • After pronouncement, the whole judgment or a copy thereof shall be immediately made available for the perusal of the parties or their pleaders free of cost.
• Attendance of Accused:
  • If the accused is in custody, he shall be brought up to hear the judgment pronounced.
  • If the accused is not in custody, he shall be required by the Court to attend to hear the judgment pronounced, except where his personal attendance during the trial has been dispensed with and the sentence is one of fine only or he is acquitted;
  • Provided that, where there are more accused than one, and one or more of them do not attend the Court on the date on which the judgment is to be pronounced, the presiding officer may, in order to avoid undue delay in the disposal of the case, pronounce the judgment notwithstanding their absence.
• Result of Absence of Party:
  • Sub-section 7 states that no judgment delivered by any Criminal Court shall be deemed to be invalid by reason only of the absence of any party or his pleader on the day or from the place notified for the delivery thereof, or of any omission to serve, or defect in serving, on the parties or their pleaders, or any of them, the notice of such day and place.
• Current Scenario:
  • The aforementioned provision is covered under Section 392 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) which is the new procedural law for criminal cases.

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors. v. Mb Power (Madhya Pradesh) Limited & Ors., has held that under the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI), the High Court must exercise its discretionary power with great caution.

What was the Background of Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors. v. Mb Power (Madhya Pradesh) Limited & Ors. Case?

• In this case, the respondent - Mb Power (Madhya Pradesh) Limited submitted the bid to supply electricity at the tariff of Rs. 5.517 per unit, to the appellant, and the respondent was able to find a place in the top seven bidders.
• The appellant decided not to purchase the electricity from the respondent.
• The Respondent approached the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur under Article 226 of the COI directing the appellants to immediately issue a Letter of Intent in favour of the respondent and immediately commence supply of power.
• Allowing the writ petition, High Court held that the appellants and the State of Rajasthan are bound to purchase a total of 906 MW of electricity from the successful bidders.
• Thereafter, the present appeal has been filed before the Supreme Court challenging the judgment and order passed by the High Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Division Bench comprising of Justices B.R. Gavai and Prashant Kumar Mishra observed that the High Court must exercise its discretionary power under Article 226 of the COI with great caution and should exercise it only in furtherance of public interest and not merely on the making out of a legal point. The court should always keep the larger public interest in mind in order to decide whether its intervention is called for or not. Only when it comes to a conclusion that overwhelming public interest requires interference, the court should intervene.
• The Court further states that the High Court erred while entertaining a Writ Petition in the instant case.

What is Article 226 of the COI?

About:

• Article 226 is enshrined under Part V of the Constitution which puts power in the hands of the High Court to issue the writs.
• Article 226(1) of the COI states that every High Court shall have powers to issue orders or writs including habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari, to any person or any government for the enforcement of fundamental rights and other purpose.
• Article 226(2) states that the High Court has the power to issue writs or orders to any person, government, or authority -
  • Located within its jurisdiction or
  • Outside its local jurisdiction if the circumstances of the cause of action arises either wholly or partly within its territorial jurisdiction.
• Article 226(3) states that when an interim order is passed by a High Court by way of injunction, stay, or by other means against a party then that party may apply to the court for the vacation of such an order and such an application should be disposed of by the court within the period of two weeks.
• Article 226(4) says that the power granted by this article to a high court should not diminish the authority granted to the Supreme Court by Clause (2) of Article 32.
• This Article can be issued against any person or authority, including the government.
• This is merely a constitutional right and not a fundamental right and cannot be suspended even during an emergency.
• Article 226 is of mandatory nature in case of fundamental rights and discretionary nature when it is issued for “any other purpose”.
• It enforces not only fundamental rights, but also other legal rights.

Writs available under Article 226:

• Writ of Habeas Corpus:
  • It is a Latin phrase which means ‘to have a body or to produce a body’.
  • This is the most often used writ.
  • When a person is wrongfully held by the government, that person, or his family or friends, can file a writ of Habeas Corpus to have that person released.
• Writ of Mandamus:
  • It is a Latin phrase that translates to ‘we command.’
  • Mandamus is a judicial command issued to perform public duty.
  • The only requirement for using this writ is that there should be a mandatory public duty.
• Writ of Certiorari:
  • It is a Latin phrase that means ‘to be informed.’
  • It is a command or order issued by the Higher Court to the inferior court.
  • It is issued when the inferior courts violate the principles of natural justice.
  • The Superior Court can quash the order given by the inferior court, if it finds any error.
• Writ of prohibition:
  • It simply means ‘to stop’.
  • This writ is issued against the inferior court (i.e., subordinate courts, tribunals, quasi-judicial bodies) by the Higher Courts.
• Writ of Quo warranto:
  • The term Quo warranto means ‘by what authority’.
  • It is issued against a private person by what authority he is holding the office on which he has no right.
  • By this writ, the Court can control the public official appointment, and protect a citizen from being deprived of a public office to which he may be entitled.

Case Laws

• In Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. the Union of India (1984), the Supreme Court held that Article 226 has a much broader scope than Article 32 as Article 226 can be issued to safeguard legal rights as well.
• In Common Cause v. Union of India (2018), the Supreme Court held that the writ under Article 226 can also be issued for the enforcement of public responsibilities by public authorities.