List of Current Affairs

Source: Bombay High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Bombay High Court has held that mere touching of the penis to the private part of the victim constitutes an offence under section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act ,2012 (POCSO).

What is the Background of the Case?

• In this case, the accused was the victim’s uncle.
• A complaint was filed by the victim's mother alleging that her two daughters aged 9 and 13 were sexually abused by the accused several times between 2016-2019 when the children visited his home.
• The girls further alleged the man touched their private parts inappropriately.
• In the year 2021, the accused was charged under Sections 4, 6, 8 and 12 of the POCSO.
• Thereafter, the accused filed a bail application before the Bombay High Court which was later denied by the Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Justice Prithviraj Chavan observed that even in cases of penetrative sexual assault, it is not essential that there must be some injury to the hymen, labia majora, labia minora of the victim. Mere touching of the penis to the private part of the victim constitutes an offence under Section 4 of the POCSO.
• The Court further interpreted phrases 'inserts or penetrates to any extent' mentioned in Section 3 (a) and 3 (b) of the POCSO, which describes penetrative sex assault, to include touching of the reproductive organs.

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions?

POCSO Act

• This Act was passed in 2012 under the Ministry of Women and Child Development.
• It is a comprehensive piece of legislation designed to protect children from crimes including sexual assault, sexual harassment, and pornography.
• It is gender neutral act and considers welfare of the child as a matter of paramount importance.
• It provides for the establishment of Special Courts for trial of such offences and related matters and incidents.
• Death penalty as a punishment for offences of penetrative sexual assault and aggravated penetrative sexual assault was introduced in this act by the POCSO Amendment Act, 2019.
• Under Section 2(1) (d) of the POCSO Act, a child is defined as any person below the age of 18 years.

Section 4 of POCSO

• Section 4 of this Act prescribes punishment for penetrative sexual assault. It states that-

(1) Whoever commits penetrative sexual assault shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than ten years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.

(2) Whoever commits penetrative sexual assault on a child below sixteen years of age shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than twenty years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of natural life of that person and shall also be liable to fine.

(3) The fine imposed under sub-section (1) shall be just and reasonable and paid to the victim to meet the medical expenses and rehabilitation of such victim.

Section 6 of POCSO

• Section 6 of this Act deals with the punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault. It states that—

(1) Whoever commits aggravated penetrative sexual assault shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than twenty years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of natural life of that person and shall also be liable to fine, or with death.

(2) The fine imposed under sub-section (1) shall be just and reasonable and paid to the victim to meet the medical expenses and rehabilitation of such victim.

Section 8 of POCSO

• Section 8 of this Act deals with the punishment for sexual assault.
• It states that whoever, commits sexual assault, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than three years, but which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Section 12 of POCSO

• Section 12 of this Act deals with the punishment for sexual harassment.
• It states that whoever, commits sexual harassment upon a child shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

Source: Madras High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the bench of Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar heard a petition on an application of period of limitation under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).

• The Madras High Court observed this in the case of A.Kaliyaperumal v. The Superintendent of Police.

What is the Background of A.Kaliyaperumal v. The Superintendent of Police?

• An important issue had been raised in petitions, prompting a collective approach in addressing them in these criminal original petitions.
  • Following the resolution of the issue, the particulars of each case were examined by the court, and distinct rulings were made for each petition.
• In 2024, a petition was lodged, requesting the transfer of an investigation due to the police's failure to conclude the investigation and submit a final report, despite explicit directives from this Court in the past.
• During the proceedings the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, upon instruction, informed the court that the final report had been submitted before the Judicial Magistrate, Thittakudi.
• However, considering that the offence carried a two-year imprisonment term, the final report should have been filed within the timeframe specified under Section 468 of the CrPC.
• Since the report was only filed after four years, clearly surpassing the limitation period, the lower court declined to take cognizance of the matter.
• Hence, the petitioners approached the HC.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Madras HC held that “the relevant date for reckoning the period of limitation is the date on which the final report was filed and not the date on which the First Information Report (FIR) was registered”.

How Court Described the Period Limitation under CrPC in this case?

• About:
  • Chapter XXXVI of the Code comprising Sections 467-473 of CrPC was introduced in the CrPC of 1973.
  • The period of limitation, like a relay race, has a start and a finish point.
• Section 467 of CrPC:
  • Section 467 states that the “period of limitation” is the period prescribed in Section 468 for taking cognizance of an offence.
• Section 468 of CrPC:
  • Clause (2) of Section 468 CrPC prescribes a graded period of limitation shall be—
    • six months, if the offence is punishable with fine only;
    • one year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year;
    • three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years.
• Section 469 of CrPC
  • Section 469 CrPC is crucial for reckoning the starting point of the period of limitation.
  • Section 469 (a) spells out the general rule that the limitation shall run from the date of the offence (excluding the first day under Clause (2) of Section 469).
  • Section 469 (b) and (c) are exceptions to the general rule providing for deferment of running of limitation in cases where (a) the commission of the offence is not known or (b) the offender is not known.
  • In such cases the limitation would commence as follows:

• Sections 470 to 473 of CrPC:
  • Sections 470 and 471 provide for the exclusion of time in certain cases.
  • Section 472 CrPC incorporates the well-known rule that in case of a continuing offence, a fresh period of limitation begins to run at every moment of the time during which the offence continues.
  • Section 473 CrPC empowers the Court to condone the delay and take cognizance beyond the period prescribed in Section 468 CrPC if it is satisfied that the delay has been properly explained or that it is necessary to do so in the interests of justice.

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court held that imposition of moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) would not prevent any initiation of proceedings against the officers of the company.

• The aforesaid observation was made in the case of Ansal Crown Heights Flat Buyers Association (Regd.) v. M/S. Ansal Crown Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

What is the Background of Ansal Crown Heights Flat Buyers Association (Regd.) v. M/S. Ansal Crown Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Case?

• The Homebuyers' Association (Appellants) of a project developed by M/s Ansal Crown Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent) filed a complaint before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC).
• An order was made by the NCDRC directing the Developer Company to complete the project in all respects and handover the possession of the allotted flats/apartments to the members of the Association of the homebuyers within the time specified.
• The developer company is the subject-matter of the proceedings under Section 9 of IBC.
• The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has admitted the petition filed under Section 9 of the IBC against the developer company.
• The appellants sought to execute the directions of the NCDRC not only against the company but also against several individuals.
• The NCDRC held that the decree cannot be executed against the company due to the operation of the moratorium under Section 14 of IBC.
• Thereafter, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court by the appellant which was later allowed by the Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Bench comprising of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, has held that only because there is a moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC against the company, it cannot be said that no proceedings can be initiated against the company or its officers for execution, provided that they are otherwise liable to abide by and comply with the order, which is passed against the company.
• The Court also held that the protection of the moratorium will not be available to the directors/officers of the company.
• The Court placed reliance on the Supreme Court judgment in the case of P. Mohanraj v. Shah Bros. Ispat (P) Ltd. (2021).
• In this case, it was held that notwithstanding moratorium, the liability, if any, of the directors/officers will continue.

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions Involved in it?

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016

• This code consolidates and amends the laws relating to reorganization and insolvency resolution of corporate persons, partnership firms and individuals in a time bound manner for maximization of value of assets of such persons.
• It aims at promoting entrepreneurship, availability of credit and balance the interests of all the stakeholders including alteration in the order of priority of payment of Government dues and to establish an Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India.
• The IBC repealed two pieces of legislation, the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909, and the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920.
• Section 9 of IBC deals with the application for initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process by operational creditor.

Section 14 of IBC

• Section 14 of IBC deals with the concept of Moratorium. It states that-

(1) Subject to provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3), on the insolvency commencement date, the Adjudicating Authority shall by order declare moratorium for prohibiting all of the following, namely -

(a) The institution of suits or continuation of pending suits or proceedings against the corporate debtor including execution of any judgment, decree or order in any court of law, tribunal, arbitration panel or other authority.

(b) Transferring, encumbering, alienating or disposing of by the corporate debtor any of its assets or any legal right or beneficial interest therein.

(c) Any action to foreclose, recover or enforce any security interest created by the corporate debtor in respect of its property including any action under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

(d) The recovery of any property by an owner or lessor where such property is occupied by or in the possession of the corporate debtor.

(2) The supply of essential goods or services to the corporate debtor as may be specified shall not be terminated or suspended or interrupted during moratorium period.

(2A) Where the interim resolution professional or resolution professional, as the case may be, considers the supply of goods or services critical to protect and preserve the value of the corporate debtor and manage the operations of such corporate debtor as a going concern, then the supply of such goods or services shall not be terminated, suspended or interrupted during the period of moratorium, except where such corporate debtor has not paid dues arising from such supply during the moratorium period or in such circumstances as may be specified.

(3) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply to--

(a) Such transactions, agreements or other arrangements as may be notified by the Central Government in consultation with any financial sector regulator or any other authority.

(b) A surety in a contract of guarantee to a corporate debtor.

(4) The order of moratorium shall have effect from the date of such order till the completion of the corporate insolvency resolution process.