List of Current Affairs

Source: Madhya Pradesh High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of Sanjay Nagayach v. The State of Madhya Pradesh has held that the surrendering of an accused is not necessary before preferring a criminal revision application under Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC).

What was the Background of Sanjay Nagayach v. The State of Madhya Pradesh Case?

• In this case, the Applicant has filed revision application against judgment passed by Additional Sessions Judge by which sentence of applicant has been enhanced.
• The learned Senior Advocate appearing for the applicant submitted that notice is required to the applicant before enhancing the sentence.
• It is also argued on behalf of applicant that surrendering of applicant is not necessary while preferring criminal revision before this Court.
• The High Court allowed the revision application.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Single-judge bench of Justice Vishal Dhagat observed that there is no bar under Section 397 of CrPC for entertaining a revision application even though the applicant is not in confinement.
• It was further added that if the accused is in jail when the execution of the sentence is suspended or when the judgment of the appellate court itself is suspended, then he/she can be released on bail. In case he is not in jail then, he could be asked by the court to furnish bail bonds for appearance before the high court when required.

What is Section 397 of CrPC?

About:

• This Section deals with the calling for records to exercise powers of revision. It states that—

(1) The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself; to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court, and may, when calling, for such record, direct that the execution of any sentence or order be suspended, and if the accused is in confinement that he be released on bail or on his own bond pending the examination of the record.

Explanation. —All Magistrates, whether Executive or Judicial, and whether exercising original or appellate jurisdiction, shall be deemed to be inferior to the Sessions Judge for the purposes of this sub-section and of section 398.

(2) The powers of revision conferred by sub-section (1) shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding.

(3) If an application under this section has been made by any person either to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by the other of them.

Case Law

• In the case of Easwaramurthy Vs. N. Krishnaswamy (2006), the Madras High Court held that the words 'direct that execution of sentence or order be suspended' mentioned in Section 397(1) of CrPC must be read 'dis-conjunctively' from words 'and if the accused is in confinement that he be released on bail or on his bond pending the examination of the record.

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and P B Varale heard a case on application of Section 417 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

• The aforesaid observation was made in the matter of Raju Krishna Shedbalkar v. The State of Karnataka.

What was the Background of Raju Krishna Shedbalkar v. The State of Karnataka Case?

• The case revolves around a First Information Report (FIR) filed by Ms. Sushmita against six individuals, including the appellant, at Malamaruti Police Station, Karnataka.
• The charges under several sections of IPC.
• Ms. Sushmita alleged that the appellant, a prospective groom chosen by her family, deceived her by marrying another woman despite their engagement talks and the advance payment of Rs. 75,000 for the marriage hall.
• The accused, including the appellant, his mother, sisters, and brothers, filed a petition to quash the proceedings, arguing that the allegations lacked merit and constituted an abuse of legal process.
• The High Court's Single Judge ruled that the accused did not commit offences under IPC as alleged by Ms. Sushmita.
  • However, HC did not quash proceedings for Cheating under Section 417 of IPC against the appellant.
• Hence, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.

What were the Court’s Observation?

• The SC observed that it cannot comprehend how an offence even under Section 417 of IPC was made out against the present appellant. There can be multiple reasons for initiating a marriage proposal and then the proposal not reaching the desired end.
  • Hence, there was no such evidence before the prosecution and therefore no offence under Section 417 is also made out.
• The SC allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Trial Court to the extent it has refrained from quashing the proceedings under Section 417 IPC.

What is Cheating of Indian Penal Code?

• Definition of Cheating:
  • Section 415 of IPC deals with the offence of cheating.
  • It states that whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation, or property, is said to “cheat”.
  • It is important to note that a dishonest concealment of facts constitutes deception under this section.
• Essential of Cheating:
  • Deception:
    • The accused must have deceived another person by making a false representation or by any other dishonest act.
  • Fraudulent Intention:
    • The deception must have been done to induce the other person to deliver property, consent to the retention of property, or do or omit to do something he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived.
  • Act or omission Induced by Deception:
    • The deception must have caused the person to whom it was directed to either deliver property, consent to the retention of property, or do or omit to do something.
  • Dishonest Inducement:
    • The inducement must be dishonest. The accused must have induced the person by some deception, so as to enable him or her to act in a manner in which he or she would not otherwise have acted.
  • Presence of mens rea:
    • The accused must have had a guilty mind or mens rea at the time of committing the act of cheating.
• Punishment for Cheating:
  • Section 417 of IPC deals with the punishment for cheating.
  • It states that whoever cheats shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.

What are the Landmark Cases of Cheating under IPC?

• Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar (2000):
  • In this case, SC held that to hold a person guilty of cheating it is necessary to show that he had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise.
• Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd. and Others (2006):
  • Madras HC held that mere breach of contractual terms would not amount to cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction and in the absence of an allegation that the accused had a fraudulent or dishonest intention while making a promise, there is no “cheating”.
  • The HC cited illustration (f) of Section 415 of IPC.
    • A intentionally deceives Z into a belief that A means to repay any money that Z may lend to him and thereby dishonestly induces Z to lend him money, A not intending to repay it. A cheats.

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Lucknow Nagar Nigam & Ors. v. Kohli Brothers Colour Lab. Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., has held that that the right to property as enshrined under Article 300A of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) extends to persons who are not citizens of India.

What was the Background of Lucknow Nagar Nigam & Ors. v. Kohli Brothers Colour Lab. Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Case?

• In this case, the subject property is an Enemy Property located on Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Lucknow, owned by the Raja of Mahmudabad, who migrated to Pakistan in the year 1947.
• A portion of the property is currently occupied and utilized for profit-generating purposes by the respondent (assessee).
• in the fiscal year 1998-1999, it came to the Municipal Corporation’s attention that the assessee was operating a commercial establishment within the premises.
• Consequently, the appellant (Municipal Corporation) conducted an assessment based on Capital Value and issued a notice to the assessee regarding the assessed Annual Value.
• Thereafter, a writ petition has been filed before the High Court of Allahabad by the respondent.
• The High Court of Allahabad has allowed the petition, thereby holding that the assessee is exempt from payment of property tax under the provisions of the UP Municipal Corporation Adhiniyam, 1959.
• The present civil appeal has been filed by the appellant before the Supreme Court which was later allowed by the Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• A bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan observed that having regard to the salutary principles of Article 300A of the COI, we cannot construe the taking possession of the enemy property for the purpose of administration of the same by the Custodian, as an instance of transfer of ownership from the true owner to the Custodian and thereby to the Union.
• It was further held that the expression person in Article 300A covers not only a legal or juristic person but also a person who is not a citizen of India. The expression property is also of a wide scope and includes not only tangible or intangible property but also all rights, title and interest in a property.

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions Involved in it?

Enemy Property

About:

• As per the Enemy Property Act, 1968, enemy property is any property for the time being belonging to or held or managed on behalf of an enemy, an enemy subject or an enemy firm.
• The expression enemy property shall mean and include and shall be deemed to have always meant and included all rights, titles and interest in, or any benefit arising out of, such property.

The Enemy Property Act, 1968:

• This is an act of the Parliament of India, which enables and regulates the appropriation of property in India owned by Pakistani nationals.
• The act was passed following the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965.
• This act provides for the continued vesting of enemy property vested in the Custodian of Enemy Property for India under the Defence of India Rules, 1962 and the Defence of India Rules, 1971, and for matters connected therewith.

Article 300A of the COI

• Originally, Part III of the COI contained the right to property as one of the fundamental rights.
  • However, the Right to Property ceased to be a fundamental right with the 44^th Constitution Amendment in 1978.
• It was made a Constitutional right under Article 300A of the COI.
  • Article 300A requires the State to follow due procedure and authority of law to deprive a person of his or her private property