List of Current Affairs

Source: Allahabad High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Allahabad High Court in the matter of Dhirendra & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr., has held that the mere use of abusive language or being discourteous or rude would not by itself amount to any intentional insult within the meaning of Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

What was the Background of Dhirendra & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr. Case?

• In the present case, the complainant preferred a complaint against the applicants.
• The allegation as per the complaint is that the complainant had tied up his goat just outside his house and left the village.
• When the complainant came back to the village on the same day and reached his house, he found that his goat was missing.
• Thereafter, he was informed that the goat had been taken by the applicants by way of theft.
• Upon confronting the applicants at their house, the complainant found the goat there.
• It was further alleged that when the complainant confronted the applicants with the aforesaid act they abused and threatened him.
• The Judicial Magistrate has passed an order summoning the applicants under Sections 379, 504 and 506 of IPC.
• Challenging the summoning order, the application has been filed by the applicant before the Allahabad High Court.
• The application was partly allowed by setting aside the summoning order for the offence under Section 504 of the IPC.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Justice Vikram D. Chauhan observed that mere use of abusive language or being discourteous to the opponent or rude would not by itself amount to any intentional insult within the meaning of Section 504 of the IPC.
• The Court added that for an act to come under the purview of this offence, it has to be shown that the nature of abusive language or insult was such that it is likely to insult a person or to commit a breach of the peace or commit an offence.
• The High Court relied on the judgment given in the case of Mohammad Wajid v. State of U.P (2023).
  • In this case, the Supreme Court observed that mere abuse, discourtesy, rudeness or insolence, may not amount to an intentional insult within the meaning of Section 504, IPC if it does not have the necessary element of being likely to incite the person insulted to commit a breach of the peace of an offence.

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions Involved in it?

Section 379 of IPC

• Section 379 of the IPC prescribes punishment for theft whereas the same provision has been covered under Section 303(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).
• It states that whoever commits theft shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
• The offence of theft has been defined under Section 378 of IPC whereas it has been defined under Section 303 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).
• A theft is said to have been committed when a person intending to take dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of any person without the person's consent, moves the property in order to take such property.

Section 504 of IPC

• This section deals with the intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace.
• This section states that whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
• It is a non-cognizable, compoundable and bailable offence and is triable by any magistrate.

Section 506 of IPC

• This section deals with the punishment for criminal intimidation.
• It states that whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
• If the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.

Source: Calcutta High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Calcutta High Court in the matter of Sanjay Biswas v. The State has held that filling up gaps in the prosecution case by invoking Section 53A of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) would offend Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI).

What was the Background of Sanjay Biswas v. The State Case?

• In this case, the Court was dealing with a plea of criminal revision filed before the Calcutta High Court against an order by the special judge who allowed the prosecution's application for taking blood samples of the accused, victim, and minor baby of the victim for DNA profiling.
• The petitioner's counsel argued that the application for DNA testing was made only to fill up the gaps in the prosecution case.
• It was further stated that the application was made after the completion of the cross-examination, and that a public prosecutor under the provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, did not have the authority to direct the police to act in an investigative capacity.
• The State argued that the invocation of Section 53A of CrPC cannot be faulted. It was submitted that the section could be invoked at any time for the purpose of adducing additional evidence.
• The High Court allowed the plea.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• A single bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya observed that ignoring the gaps in the investigation in the form of collecting material contemplated under Section 53 A of CrPC gives rise to a presumption that the prosecution sought to fill up the gaps by invoking Section 53 A after the stage of the investigation was over.
• The Court stated that allowing new evidence to be taken after the investigation to fill the gaps in the prosecution case, and that such actions offended the Article 21 rights of the petitioner.
• It was further stated that Article 21 of the COI embodies a fair trial and presumes that every person will have the benefit of a trial which follows the procedure established by law. The principles of criminal jurisprudence cannot be diluted or bent to justify civil or social considerations which are collateral in nature.

What is Section 53 A of CrPC?

• This Section deals with the examination of person accused of rape by medical practitioner. It states that—

(1) When a person is arrested on a charge of committing an offence of rape or an attempt to commit rape and there are reasonable grounds for believing that an examination of his person will afford evidence as to the commission of such offence, it shall be lawful for a registered medical practitioner employed in a hospital run by the Government or by a local authority and in the absence of such a practitioner within the radius of sixteen kilometers from the place where the offence has been committed, by any other registered medical practitioner, acting at the request of a police officer not below the rank of a sub-inspector, and for any person acting in good faith in his aid and under his direction, to make such an examination of the arrested person and to use such force as is reasonably necessary for that purpose.

(2) The registered medical practitioner conducting such examination shall, without delay, examine such person and prepare a report of his examination giving the following particulars, namely: —

(i) The name and address of the accused and of the person by whom he was brought.

(ii) The age of the accused.

(iii) Marks of injury, if any, on the person of the accused.

(iv) The description of material taken from the person of the accused for DNA profiling, and (v) other material particulars in reasonable detail.

(3) The report shall state precisely the reasons for each conclusion arrived at.

(4) The exact time of commencement and completion of the examination shall also be noted in the report.

(5) The registered medical practitioner shall, without delay, forward the report to the investigating officer, who shall forward it to the Magistrate referred to in section 173 as part of the documents referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (5) of that section.

• Section 53 A is an enabling provision which gives a roadmap to the police after arrest.
• This Section provides for the registered medical practitioner forwarding the report to the Investigating Officer who shall thereafter forward it to the Magistrate.
• This Section does not vest the Court with any power for directing an examination under that section after the investigative phase which ends with framing of the charge.

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, a bench of CJI D Y Chandrachud, Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra held that the Appellate Authority has the power to recall the resolution plan.

• The Supreme Court gave this observation in the case of Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority v. Prabhjit Singh Soni & Anr.

What was the Background of Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority v. Prabhjit Singh Soni & Anr Case?

• The appellant, a statutory authority under the U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976, acquired land for an urban and industrial township, allotting a plan to M/s. JNC Construction (P) Ltd for a residential project.
• Despite a 90-year lease, the Corporate Debtor (CD) defaulted on premium payments, leading to a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) initiated in 2019.
• The appellant claimed Rs. 43,40,31,951 as unpaid premiums but was erroneously treated as an operational creditor by the Resolution Professional (RP).
• The CD's resolution plan was approved without considering the appellant's claims as a financial creditor and owner of the land.
• The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) rejected the appellant's plea, citing delay and completion of the CIRP.
• Challenging the NCLT's decision, the appellant appealed to the NCLAT, highlighting its rightful status as a financial creditor, secured creditor under relevant laws, and discrepancies in the resolution process, seeking proper acknowledgment and redressal of its claims.
• A recall application was filed before NCLAT to recall the resolution plan mentioning material irregularities.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The SC held that, a Court or a Tribunal, in absence of any provision to the contrary, has inherent power to recall an order to secure the ends of justice and/or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court.
  • The Court added that neither the IBC nor the Regulations framed thereunder, in any way, prohibit, exercise of such inherent power.
• The SC also observed that, such power is to be exercised sparingly, and not as a tool to re-hear the matter.
• Ordinarily, an application for recall of an order is maintainable on limited grounds, inter alia, where
  • the order is without jurisdiction;
  • the party aggrieved with the order is not served with notice of the proceedings in which the order under recall has been passed; and
  • the order has been obtained by misrepresentation of facts or by playing fraud upon the Court /Tribunal resulting in gross failure of justice.

What is Resolution Plan under Insolvency and Bankruptcy, 2016 (IBC)?

• Definition:
  • Section 5(26) of the IBC, 2016 defines "Resolution plan" as a plan provided by the resolution applicant for the corporate debtor's bankruptcy resolution as a going concern in line with Chapter II of Part II of the IBC.
• Submission:
  • Under Section 30 of IBC, 2016 a resolution applicant may submit a resolution plan along with an affidavit stating that he is eligible under section 29A to the resolution professional prepared on the basis of the information memorandum.
• Regulation 37:
  • A resolution plan shall provide for the measures, for insolvency resolution of the corporate debtor for maximization of value of its assets, including but not limited to the following:-
    • transfer of all or part of the assets of the corporate debtor to one or more persons;
    • sale of all or part of the assets whether subject to any security interest or not;
    • the substantial acquisition of shares of the corporate debtor, or the merger or consolidation of the corporate debtor with one or more persons;
    • cancellation or delisting of any shares of the corporate debtor, if applicable
    • satisfaction or modification of any security interest;
    • curing or waiving of any breach of the terms of any debt due from the corporate debtor;
    • reduction in the amount payable to the creditors;
    • extension of a maturity date or a change in interest rate or other terms of a debt due from the corporate debtor;
    • amendment of the constitutional documents of the corporate debtor;
    • issuance of securities of the corporate debtor, for cash, property, securities, or in exchange for claims or interests, or other appropriate purpose;
    • change in portfolio of goods or services produced or rendered by the corporate debtor;
    • change in technology used by the corporate debtor; and
    • obtaining necessary approvals from the Central and State Governments and other authorities
• Mandatory Contents under Regulation 38:
  • A resolution plan shall provide:
    • the term of the plan and its implementation schedule;
    • the management and control of the business of the corporate debtor during its term; and
    • adequate means for supervising its implementation.
  • A resolution plan shall demonstrate that –
    • it addresses the cause of default;
    • it is feasible and viable;
    • it has provisions for its effective implementation;
    • it has provisions for approvals required and the timeline for the same; and
    • the resolution applicant has the capability to implement the resolution plan.