List of Current Affairs

Source: Allahabad High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Allahabad High Court in the matter of Diwakar Singh v. State of U.P, has held that as per the provisions of Section 243(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), the Magistrate cannot compel re-appearances of prosecution witnesses already examined unless the Magistrate is satisfied that it is necessary to meet the ends of justice.

What is the Background of Diwakar Singh v. State of U.P Case?

• The petitioner was posted as Sub-Inspector of police, and he lodged an First Information Report (FIR) under the provisions of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
• The police investigated the matter and filed a chargesheet, not against the persons named therein but against the petitioner stating therein that the petitioner with his unknown associates hatched a conspiracy showing a fake incident of loot and he also prepared false papers to show a false incident as genuine one.
• After the prosecution evidence was closed, the petitioner moved applications requesting the Court to summon the certain witness which included police officers to meet the ends of justice and the trial court dismissed both the applications.
• Thereafter, a criminal revision was preferred by the petitioner which was partly allowed.
• The order revisional court was challenged before the High Court, which is still pending.
• During the pendency of the case before the High Court, Trial Court proceeded to allow the applications filed by the petitioner. However, the order was set aside by the revisional court with a direction to the Trial Court to pass a fresh reasoned order.
• Thereafter a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) has been filed by the petitioner before the High Court with a prayer to set aside the order by which applications were rejected, with a further prayer to issue an appropriate direction to the court. This petition was later dismissed.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Justice Jyotsna Sharma observed that the law provides that in the first case ordinarily, the Magistrate may issue process unless he considered that such application should be refused on the ground that it is made for the purpose of vexation or delay or for defeating the ends of justice.
  • In the second case (i.e., when a person has already been cross-examined by the defence), the attendance of such a witness shall not be compelled unless the Magistrate is satisfied that it is necessary for the ends of justice.
• The Court further concluded that Section 243(2) of CrPC imposes an obligation on the Magistrate not to compel the attendance of any such witnesses unless it is satisfied that it is necessary for the ends of justice.

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions Involved in it?

Section 243 of CrPC

• Section 243 of CrPC deals with the evidence for defence whereas the same provision has been covered under Section 266 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
• Section 243(1) states that the accused shall then be called upon to enter upon his defence and produce his evidence; and if the accused puts in any written statement, the Magistrate shall file it with the record.
• Section 243(2) states that if the accused, after he has entered upon his defence, applies to the Magistrate to issue any process for compelling the attendance of any witness for the purpose of examination or cross-examination, or the production of any document or other thing, the Magistrate shall issue such process unless he considers that such application should be refused on the ground that it is made for the purpose of vexation or delay or for defeating the ends of justice and such ground shall be recorded by him in writing.
• Section 243(2) deals with two categories of witnesses.
  • Fresh witnesses that the defence wants to produce.
  • Those witnesses who had already been produced during prosecution evidence but the defence wants to further examine/cross-examine.
• Section 243(3) states that the Magistrate may, before summoning any witness on an application under sub-section (2), require that the reasonable expenses incurred by the witness in attending for the purposes of the trial be deposited in Court.

Article 227 of the COI

• This Article deals with the power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court. It states that -

(1) Every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision, the High Court may—

(a) call for returns from such courts;

(b) make and issue general rules and prescribe forms for regulating the practice and proceedings of such courts;

(c) prescribe forms in which books, entries and accounts shall be kept by the officers of any such courts.

(3) The High Court may also settle tables of fees to be allowed to the sheriff and all clerks and officers of such courts and to attorneys, advocates and pleaders practicing therein.

(4) Nothing in this article shall be deemed to confer on a High Court power of superintendence over any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces.

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently the Supreme Court in the matter of Gurdev Singh Bhalla v. State of Punjab & Ors., has upheld an application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) filed against the police officials accused of corruption.

What is the Background of Gurdev Singh Bhalla v. State of Punjab & Ors. Case?

• In this case, Punjab Agro Foodgrains Corporation Ltd., Bathinda, lodged a complaint at Police Station, Phul, District Bathinda against accused Devraj Miglani of the offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
• The investigation of this case was transferred to the Vigilance Bureau, Bathinda where the appellant (Gurdev Singh Bhalla) was posted as an Inspector, and he was assigned the task of investigating the said crime and the accused Devraj was arrested.
• According to the informant of the present case, the Head Constable Kikkar Singh approached Ms. Ritu, niece of the accused Devraj at her workplace demanding a sum of Rs.50,000/- by handing over a slip which was said to have been written by the accused Devraj.
• It was found that the allegation against the Head Constable Kikkar Singh were prima facie made out.
• The Trial Court allowed the application under Section 319 of CrPC and summoned the four police officials namely Janak Singh,Gurdev Sigh Bhalla, Harjinder Singh and Rajwant Singh
• The appellant challenged the aforesaid order before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh which was later dismissed by the Court.
• Aggrieved by this, the appellant filed an appeal before the Supreme Court which was later dismissed.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Division Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal observed that there appears to be prima facie evidence on record to make it a triable case against the appellant.
  • The Court upheld an application under Section 319 of CrPC filed against the police officials accused of corruption. Thus, the Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order.
• The Court further made it clear that any observations made in this order will not come in the way of the Trial Court in deciding the trial on its own merits on the basis of the evidence adduced before it, completely uninfluenced by this judgment.

What is Section 319 of CrPC?

About:

• Section 319 of CrPC deals with the power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence whereas the same provision has been covered under Section 358 Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
• It is based on the doctrine judex damantur cum nocens absolvitur which means Judges condemned when guilty is acquitted. This section states that-

(1) Where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed.

(2) Where such a person is not attending the Court, he may be arrested or summoned, as the circumstances of the case may require, for the purpose aforesaid.

(3) Any person attending the Court, although not under arrest or upon a summons, may be detained by such Court for the purpose of the inquiry into, or trial of, the offence which he appears to have committed.

(4) Where the Court proceeds against any person under sub-section (1), then—

(a) The proceedings in respect of such person shall be commenced afresh, and the witnesses re-heard;

(b) Subject to the provisions of clause (a), the case may proceed as if such person had been an accused person when the Court took cognizance of the offence upon which the inquiry or trial was commenced.

Essential Elements of Section 319:

• There is any enquiry or trial of an offence.
• It appears from the evidence that any person, not being an accused has committed any offence for which, the person to be tried together with the accused.

Case laws

• In the case of Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab (2014), the Supreme Court held that Section 319 CrPC is based on the principle that innocent should not be punished, at the same time, real culprit should not be allowed to escape.
• In Lal Suraj @ Suraj Singh and another v. State of Jharkhand (2008), the Supreme Court held that Section 319 of CrPC is a special provision. It seeks to meet an extraordinary situation. Although it confers of vide amplitude but is required to be exercised sparingly.

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, a bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal gave directions to Union of Indian to formulate a policy of phasing out heavy­ duty diesel vehicles and replacing them with BS­-VI vehicles.

• The Supreme Court gave the directions in the case of Container Corporation of India Ltd v. Ajay Khera and ors.

What is the Background of Container Corporation of India Ltd v. Ajay Khera and Ors?

• The first respondent filed the original application under Section 14, read with Section 15 and Section 18(1) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (NGT Act) and raised an important issue of the pollution created by the Inland Container Depot (ICD) at Tughlakabad.
  • It was alleged in the application that the said ICD is used by trucks/trailers not destined for Delhi and is used for delivery/pick up to and from locations outside Delhi.
• The first respondent pointed out that because of the inflow of a large number of trucks/trailers to the said ICD, the air pollution in Delhi NCR has substantially increased due to the emission from trucks/trailers.
  • He contended that there are other ICDs around Delhi, and therefore, it is quite possible to divert the inflow of trucks/trailers to the other ICDs around Delhi NCR.
  • Hence, the first respondent prayed for a direction to the appellant the Container Corporation of India Ltd. and the Railway Board to shift the operations of the said ICD at Tughlakabad which are not bound for Delhi to other locations outside Delhi.
• The second direction was to prohibit entry of containers/trailers at the said ICD, Tughlakabad, which are not bound for Delhi and only to utilize CNG run/battery operated Forklifts/empty Handlers and small vehicles, as also run electric trains rather than diesel locomotives in and out of the said ICD.
• NGT passed an order directing the appellant to ensure that, in a phased manner, diesel vehicles stop visiting the ICD and shift to electric, hybrid and CNG vehicles.
  • An appeal against the order of NGT was filed before SC where SC gave directions to Environment Pollution (Prevention and Control) Authority (EPCA) to look into the issues raised in the appeal and to file a report containing its recommendations.
  • Directions given by SC in this case are based on the recommendations made EPCA in its report submitted on 30^th June 2020.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The SC observed that the NGT has inter alia observed that there is an option to restrict the entry of diesel vehicles in the said ICDs at Tughlakabad by diverting these vehicles to the ICDs at Dadri, Rewari, Ballabhgarh, Khatuawas or any other ICD around Delhi so as to control the pollution in Delhi NCR, as if only the people living in Delhi NCR alone are entitled to pollution free atmosphere and not those living in other parts of the country.
• Court further said that such an observation by the NGT is in complete ignorance of the fact that citizens living in other parts of the country other than Delhi NCR also have a fundamental right to a pollution free environment as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
  • Such a fundamental right is equally enforceable by all and is not confined to the people of Delhi NCR.
• The court concluded that NGT while protecting/safeguarding the above fundamental rights of the people of Delhi NCR cannot allow infringement of the same fundamental right of the citizens living outside Delhi NCR.
• The SC finally held the observation of the NGT as totally unjustified and unwarranted.

What were the Directions Given by the Supreme Court?

• After examining recommendation, the Union of India shall formulate a policy of phasing out heavy-duty diesel vehicles and replacing them with BS­VI vehicles. The Union of India shall formulate appropriate policy on this behalf within six months from the date of order;
• Though the Union of India is a party in this case through the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways is not formally made a party.
  • The court therefore directed the Registry to forward a copy of this order to the Secretary of the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways.
• The process of exploring the possibility of finding better sources, including CNG/Hybrid/Electric, for the use of heavy-duty vehicles shall continue.
• The plan for optimal utilisation of ICDs around Delhi, in terms of recommendation no. 3.2 shall be formulated by the appellant within six months from the date of order.
  • In the meanwhile, the appellant will coordinate with all the official agencies to enable the setting up of central laboratories near ICDs around Delhi NCR;
• The court directed the appellant to implement the recommendations made by KPMG in February 2021 for improving the parking management of vehicles in the said ICD.
  • The court granted time of six months to the appellant to implement the recommendations of the KPMG.