List of Current Affairs

Source: Jharkhand High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Jharkhand High Court in the matter of Amit Kumar Kachhap v. Sangeeta Toppo, has held that when a wife chooses to live separately from her husband without any valid reason, she is not eligible for maintenance under Section 125 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).

What was the Background of Amit Kumar Kachhap v. Sangeeta Toppo Case?

• In this case, the maintenance application under Section 125 of CrPC was filed on behalf of the wife against her husband with these allegations that she was married with Amit Kumar Kachhap in the year 2014 according to their custom, rites, ritual and usages as both the parties are belonging to Sarna community.
• Upon marriage, the wife was taken to her husband's family home where demands for dowry, including a car, fridge, and LED TV, allegedly began immediately. She stated that her husband neglected her over trivial matters, often abusing her under the influence of alcohol.
• The learned Trial Court after hearing the submissions of both parties, allowed the maintenance application and directed the petitioner (husband) to pay maintenance amount of Rs.15,000/- per month to the opposite party-wife.
• Thereafter, a criminal revision has been preferred before the Jharkhand High Court against the impugned judgment of the Trial Court.
• The High Court allowed the criminal revision while setting aside the order passed by the Trial Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Justice Subhash Chand observed that in view of the overall evidence adduced on behalf of both the parties, it is found that the wife has been residing aloof from the husband without any reasonable cause. Accordingly, this point of determination is decided in favor of the petitioner-husband and against the opposite party-wife. In consequence thereof, in view of Section 125 (4) of CrPC she is not entitled to any amount of maintenance.

What is Section 125 of CrPC?

About:

• This section deals with the order for maintenance of wives, children and parents. It states that -

(1) If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain -

(a) his wife, unable to maintain herself, or

(b) his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself, or

(c) his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attained majority, where such child is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself, or

(d) his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself,

Provided further that if such person offers to maintain his wife on condition of her living with him, and she refuses to live with him, such Magistrate may consider any grounds of refusal stated by her, and may make an order under this section notwithstanding such offer, if he is satisfied that there is just ground for so doing.

Explanation. - If a husband has contracted marriage with another woman or keeps a mistress, it shall be considered to be just ground for his wife’s refusal to live with him.

(4) No wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance for the maintenance or the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be, from her husband under this section if she is living in adultery, or if, without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her husband, or if they are living separately by mutual consent.

(5) On proof that any wife in whose favor an order has been made under this section in living in adultery, or that without sufficient reason she refuses to live with her husband, or that they are living separately by mutual consent, the Magistrate shall cancel the order.

Case Law:

• In K. Vimal v. K. Veeraswamy (1991), the Supreme Court where it was held that Section 125 of the CrPC had been introduced for achieving a social purpose. The aim of this section is the welfare of the wife by providing her with the required shelter and food after the separation from the husband.

Source: Gauhati High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Gauhati High Court in the matter of Dimbeswar Bobo v. The State of Assam, has held that without proving the mens rea, mere possession of the said counterfeit notes is not enough to constitute an offence under Section 489B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

What was the Background of Dimbeswar Bobo v. The State of Assam Case?

• In this case, the appellant was apprehended and was confined in the office room of Balijan Bazar Committee while he was purchasing goods in the market by giving some counterfeit currency notes of Rs. 100/.
• A case was registered against the appellant under Section 489B of IPC.
• The Trial Court convicted the appellant under the said provision and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-.
• Thereafter, a criminal appeal was filed before the Gauhati High Court.
• The Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the Trial Court had erred in arriving at the conclusion of guilt of the present appellant under Section 489B of IPC as no evidence had been laid to show that the appellant knew or had any reason to believe that the seized notes were forged or counterfeit.
• The impugned judgment of the Trial Court was set aside by the High Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita observed that the prosecution side has failed to prove the essential ingredient regarding the mens rea of the present appellant necessary to constitute an offence under Section 489B of IPC.
• It was further held that without proving the mens rea, mere possession of the said counterfeit notes is not enough to constitute an offence under Section 489B of IPC.

What is Section 489B of IPC?

About:

• This Section deals with the using forged or counterfeit currency notes or bank notes as genuine.
• It states that whoever sells to, or buys or receives from, any other person, or otherwise traffics in or uses as genuine, any forged or counterfeit currency-note or bank-note, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be forged or counterfeit, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Case Law:

• In the case of Uma Shankar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001), the Supreme Court held that the object of the legislature in enacting this provision is not only to protect the economy of the country but also to provide adequate protection to currency notes and banknotes.
• The currency notes are, in spite of growing accustomedness to the credit card system, still the backbone of the commercial transactions by the multitudes in our country. But this provision is not meant to punish unwary possessors or users.

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan heard a case on training of police officials under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA).

• The aforesaid observation was made in the matter of William Stephen v. The State of Tamil Nadu.

What was the Background of William Stephen v. The State of Tamil Nadu Case?

• The victim, PW-2, an eight-year-old child in third standard, was kidnapped on 20^th October 2010, while returning from tuition.
  • Allegedly, the accused, in a Maruti Car, had claimed the child's father intended to buy a car and had lured him into their vehicle.
• The prosecution had contended that they demanded a Rs. 5 lakh ransom via phone call to Prosecution Witness PW-3.
• The police had arrested the accused at Pallikonda toll gate, Vellore District, rescuing the child.
• The prosecution had relied on call records and testimonies of PW-1 to PW-3 and PW-19, the Investigating Officer.
• Accused nos. 1 and 2 had lodged appeals against the judgment dated 27^th July 2016, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras, which upheld their conviction and life sentences under Section 364A of the IPC.
• Prosecution evidence includes call records and testimonies of witnesses. High Court discarded evidence due to lacking Section 65B of IEA certificate.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The court's observation highlighted a procedural issue regarding the Investigating Officer (PW-19) and the certificate under Section 65B of the IEA.
• The court noted that the Investigating Officer was not aware of the procedure to obtain a certificate under Section 65B, and it acknowledged that the officer could not be blamed for this lack of knowledge since proper training had not been imparted to him.
• Furthermore, the court emphasized the responsibility of the State Government to ensure that police officers receive proper training on under Section 65B of the IEA.

What is Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872?

• Electronic Records as Documents:
  • Information within an electronic record, whether printed or stored in various media by a computer (referred to as computer output), is considered a document under certain conditions.
  • Such electronic records are admissible in legal proceedings as evidence without the need for further proof or the original document.
• Conditions for Computer Output:
  • The record was produced during regular computer usage for relevant activities.
  • Information similar to that in the electronic record was routinely input into the computer.
  • The computer was operating properly during the relevant period.
  • The information in the electronic record aligns with data fed into the computer during regular activities.
• Treatment of Multiple Computers:
  • In cases where multiple computers were used over a period, they are treated as a single entity for legal purposes.
• Certification for Evidence:
  • A certificate signed by an authorized person describing the production of the electronic record, detailing relevant devices, and addressing conditions specified in subsection (2) serves as evidence in legal proceedings.
• Definitions and Interpretations
  • Information supplied to a computer, directly or indirectly, is considered input.
  • Information supplied for storage or processing by a computer, even if not part of its usual activities, is still considered part of those activities.
  • Computer output is considered produced by a computer, regardless of direct or indirect means.