List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and P B Varale observed that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 would apply in the case of delay in filing appeal from acquittal.

• The aforesaid observation was made in the matter of Mohd Abaad Ali & Anr. v. Directorate of Revenue Prosecution Intelligence.

What was the Background of Mohd Abaad Ali & Anr. v. Directorate of Revenue Prosecution Intelligence Case?

• The appellant was one of four accused in a Customs Act, 1962 case and was acquitted on 6^th October 2012 by the Additional Sessions Judge, North, Delhi.
• The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence appealed this acquittal on 27^th June 2013, with a 72-day delay, which was condoned by the Delhi High Court on 18^th May 2016.
• The appellant later moved the HC under Section 482 of Code of Criminal; Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) to recall the order, arguing that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply to appeals against acquittals.
• Despite this, the Delhi HC dismissed the application on 20th January 2017 without providing reasons.
• The appellant challenged this dismissal before the Supreme Court, contending that the HC erred in allowing the delayed appeal against acquittal, asserting that Section 378 of CrPC sets its own limitations and the Limitation Act, 1973 does not apply.
  • The appeal posits that the HC lacks authority to condone delay, as Section 378 of CrPC governs appeal limitations against acquittals.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• SC observed that “Under Section 378 of the new CrPC read with Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 though a limitation is prescribed, yet Section 29(2) of 1963 Act, does not exclude the application of Section 5”.
• Hence the SC dismissed the appeal.

What is Section 378 of CrPC?

• About:
  • This section deals with the process of appealing against orders of acquittal passed by different courts in cases of cognizable and non-bailable offences.
• District Magistrate's Authority:
  • The District Magistrate can direct the Public Prosecutor to appeal to the Court of Session against an acquittal order by a Magistrate.
• State Government's Authority:
  • The State Government can direct the Public Prosecutor to appeal to the HC against an original or appellate acquittal order by any court other than the HC.
• Central Government's Authority:
  • The Central Government, in cases investigated by certain empowered agencies, can direct the Public Prosecutor to appeal to the Court of Session or the High Court against acquittal orders.
• Entertaining Appeals:
  • Appeals under this section require the HC's permission.
  • In cases initiated by complaint, if the HC grants special leave, the complainant can appeal against the acquittal order to the HC.
• Time Limit for Special Leave:
  • The HC must receive applications for special leave within specific time frames: six months for public servants and sixty days for others, from the date of the acquittal order.
• Refusal of Special Leave:
  • If the HC refuses special leave, no appeal can be made against the acquittal order under this section.

Source: Kerala High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Kerala High Court held that under the provisions of Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA), Courts could arrive at a conclusion based on their own observation of disputed signatures/handwritings with admitted evidence if there is other supporting evidence also pointing towards the conclusion arrived by the Court.

• The aforesaid observation was made in the matter of Johny Kunnumpurath House v. State of Kerala.

What was the Background of Johny Kunnumpurath House v. State of Kerala Case?

• In this case, the wife of the revision petitioner, who was a Captain in the Indian Army, met with unnatural death, in respect of which her mother and siblings raised complaint against the revision petitioner for having caused her death.
• It was further alleged that the revision petitioner to whisk away the insurance money and other benefits of his wife by making use of forged succession certificate.
• The Trial Court found the revision petitioner guilty of commission of offences under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and convicted him.
• The Additional Sessions Court confirmed the verdict of the learned Magistrate and upheld the conviction.
• Aggrieved by the above concurrent verdicts, the petitioner filed a criminal revision petition before the Kerala High Court.
• The learned counsel for the revision petitioner stated that the appellate Court by relying upon Section 73 of the IEA wrongly compared and admitted the signatures of the petitioner which were available on record with the disputed signatures on the photocopies of the alleged forged documents and arrived at the wrong conclusion that both signatures were the same.
• Dismissing the petition, the High Court upheld the judgments of the Trial Court and Sessions Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Justice G Girish observed that though it would be unsafe and improper to decide an issue regarding disputed handwriting, signatures, fingerprints, etc., solely on the basis of the conclusions arrived by the Court, by resorting to a comparison of the records on its own accord by invoking Section 73 of IEA, in cases where there are other supportive evidence pointing to such conclusions it is well within the ambit of power of the court to decide the case on the basis of the exercise undertaken by it in that regard as well.
• The Court further considered the ambit of Section 73 of IEA and concluded that the Courts could arrive at a conclusion based on their own observation of disputed signatures/handwritings with admitted evidence if there is other supporting evidence also pointing towards the conclusion arrived by the Court.

What is Section 73 of IEA?

About:

• This Section deals with the comparison of signature, writing or seal with others admitted or proved. It states that -

In order to ascertain whether a signature, writing, or seal is that of the person by whom it purports to have been written or made, any signature, writing, or seal admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the Court to have been written or made by that person may be compared with the one which is to be proved, although that signature, writing, or seal has not been produced or proved for any other purpose.

The Court may direct any person present in Court to write any words or figures for the purpose of enabling the Court to compare the words or figures so written with any words or figures alleged to have been written by such person.

This section applies also, with any necessary modifications, to finger impressions.

• This Section empowers the Court to compare writings with specimen or admitted documents.
• The phrase ‘admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the Court’ used in this section contemplates that the specimen document taken for comparison of writing or signature in the purported document must be undisputed one and all parties to the dispute must admit the specimen signature or writing in the base document.
• In case one party refuses to admit, or disputes the specimen document, it is incumbent on the Court to first satisfy that the signature or writing on the specimen document is proved to be of the person concerned and only then proceed for comparison with the purported document.

Case Law:

• In the case of Lalit Popli v. Canara Bank and Ors. (2003), the Supreme Court held that under Section 73 of the IEA, the Court, by its own comparison of writings can form its opinion.

Source: Karnataka High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Karnataka High Court in the matter of Shahen @ Hanifa v. Shivakumar Bolishetty & Ors., has held that while considering an application made under Rule 2 of Order III of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC), the trial court cannot assess and prejudge the evidence that would be given by the Special Power of Attorney.

What was the Background of Shahen @ Hanifa v. Shivakumar Bolishetty & Ors. Case?

• In this case, the petitioner had filed a suit seeking specific performance against the defendants.
• In the said suit, an application under Rule 2 of Order III read with Section 151 of the CPC was filed seeking permission of the Court to lead oral and documentary evidence through her husband and a special power of attorney.
• The said application was rejected by the Trial Court.
• Thereafter, a petition was filed before the Karnataka High Court which was later allowed.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Justice Suraj Govindaraj said observed that in terms of Rule 2 of Order III of CPC, the option having been provided under the CPC for leading of such evidence, the assessment of evidence cannot be done at the stage of consideration of application under Order III Rule 2 of CPC.
  • It is only after the evidence is led and the witness is cross-examined, would the Court be in a position to assess whether the person who has been deposed has personal knowledge or not.
• It was further stated that a special power of attorney is permitted to lead oral and documentary evidence and the opinion on personal knowledge or otherwise of the said witness shall be considered by the Court based on the cross-examination.

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions Involved in it?

Rule 2 of Order III of CPC

• Order III of CPC deals recognized agents and pleaders.
• Rule 2 of Order III of CPC deals with recognized agents.
• It states that the recognized agents of parties by whom such appearances, applications and acts may be made or done are—

(a) persons holding powers-of-attorney, authorizing them to make and do such appearances, applications and acts on behalf of such parties;

(b) persons carrying on trade or business for and in the names of parties not resident within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court within which limits the appearance, application or act is made or done, in matters connected with such trade or business only, where no other agent is expressly authorized to make and do such appearances, applications and acts.

Section 151 of CPC

About:

• This section deals with the saving of inherent powers of Court.
• It states that nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court.
• This section does not confer any substantive rights on parties but is meant to get over the difficulties arising from rules of procedure.

Case Law:

• In Ram Chand v. Kanhayalal (1966), the Supreme Court held that the inherent powers under Section 151 of CPC can also be exercised to prevent the abuse of the process of court.