List of Current Affairs

Source: Jharkhand High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Jharkhand High Court in the matter of Binod Kumar Mishra v. The State of Jharkhand has held that to ensure the fair trial the documentary evidence may also be adduced even after conclusion of the evidence so as to give the just decision of the case.

What was the Background of Binod Kumar Mishra v. The State of Jharkhand Case?

• In this case, the petitioner has filed a complaint against the accused for dishonour of the cheque issued to set up the business of medicine.
• In the complaint case, the evidence of the complainant was completed and the statement of the accused under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) was recorded.
• The accused examined himself in defence evidence in which this fact was deposed by the accused that the marriage of his sister was cancelled in Hyderabad.
• In regard to the same he apprised the petitioner in October 2015 and the said cheque was demanded back from him and the petitioner said that the same cheque was kept in his Office.
• The said cheque was never returned despite repeated demand.
• In order to rebut this fact, which was deposed by the accused in evidence, the petitioner moved the application before the learned court-below to adduce the copy of the FIR.
• Against the said application, the objection was filed on behalf of the accused.
• The Trial Court rejected the application filed under Section 311 of CrPC for production of the document.
• Aggrieved from the order of the Trial Court, a criminal revision has been filed before the High Court of Jharkhand which was later allowed by the High Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Justice Subhash Chand observed that the very purpose of Section 311 of CrPC is to ensure the fair trial which is also enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950. Even if there is no specific provision in Section 311 of CrPC in regard to adducing the documentary evidence; but reading Sections 91 and 311 of CrPC, simultaneously to ensure the fair trial the documentary evidence may also be adduced even after conclusion of the evidence so as to give the just decision of the case.
• It was further held that the learned trial court by passing the impugned order has rejected the application of the petitioner on the sole ground that the complaint cannot be permitted to rebut the evidence adduced in defence after concluding his evidence, the same finding is found perverse and the same order needs interference.

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions Involved in it?

Section 311 of CrPC

About:

• Section 311 of CrPC deals with the power to summon material witness or examine person present whereas the same provisions has been covered under Section 348 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
• It states that any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, summon any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and re-examine any person already examined and the Court shall summon and examine or recall and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case.
• Under the provisions of section 311 CrPC, the court has plenary power to summon any person at any stage of the proceedings as a witness. This power includes recall and re-examination of any person who has already been examined.
• The power lies with the Court alone as juxtaposed to rights or powers of parties and this power is to be exercised when the court finds it necessary to summon/recall any witness for just decision of the case.

Objectives:

• In the case of Hanuman Ram v. State of Rajasthan (2008), the Supreme Court highlighted the object of Section 311 of CrPC which is as follows:
  • It provides an opportunity for the accused and the prosecution to present their case and get justice.
  • It aims at preventing any scope of failure of justice.

Case Law:

• In Natasha Singh v. CBI (2013), the Supreme Court held that the object of Section 313 of CrPC is to do justice not only from the point of view of the accused and the prosecution but also from the point of view of an orderly society.

Section 91 of CrPC

• This Section deals with the summons to produce document or other thing. It states that—

(1) Whenever any Court or any officer in charge of a police station considers that the production of any document or other thing is necessary or desirable for the purposes of any investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code by or before such Court or officer, such Court may issue a summons, or such officer a written order, to the person in whose possession or power such document or thing is believed to be, requiring him to attend and produce it, or to produce it, at the time and place stated in the summons or order.

(2) Any person required under this section merely to produce a document or other thing shall be deemed to have complied with the requisition if he causes such document or thing to be produced instead of attending personally to produce the same.

(3) Nothing in this section shall be deemed—

(a) To affect Sections 123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), or the Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891 (13 of 1891), or

(b) To apply to a letter, postcard, telegram or other document or any parcel or thing in the custody of the postal or telegraph authority.

Source: Madhya Pradesh High Court

Why in News?

Recently the Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that compelling a married woman to live in her parental home for less dowry would amount to mental cruelty and would constitute a continuous offence.

What was the Background of the Case?

• In this case, the complainant (wife) had lodged an FIR in December 2021 under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 on the allegation that she got married to the applicant (husband) in the year 2017.
• She was kept properly by her husband for about one month and thereafter her husband, mother-in-law and relatives subjected her to torture, including physical and mental cruelty, for bringing less dowry.
• Her husband and mother-in-law allegedly used to beat her up by demanding an additional Rs 10 lakhs.
• Thereafter, an application was filed before the Madhya Pradesh High Court by the applicant for quashing the FIR.
• The application was dismissed by the Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The single-judge bench of Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia observed that it is true that there may not be any physical cruelty after the separation but under section 498A of IPC, cruelty may be mental or physical. If a lady has been ousted from her matrimonial house, then certainly it will have an impact on her mind amounting to mental cruelty, then it would become a continuous offence and every day would give a fresh cause of action.

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions Involved in it?

Section 498A of IPC

About:

• Section 498A was introduced in the year 1983 to protect married women from being subjected to cruelty by the husband or his relatives.
• It states that if the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjected such woman towards cruelty would be punished with imprisonment for a term which might extend to 3 years and may also be liable for fine.
• For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means—
  • any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
  • harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.
• The offence under this section is a cognizable and a non bailable offence.
• The complaint under Section 498-A may be filed by the women aggrieved by the offence or by any person related to her by blood, marriage or adoption. And if there is no such relative, then by any public servant as may be notified by the State Government on this behalf.
• A complaint alleging commission of an offence under Section 498-A can be filed within 3 years of the alleged incident. However, Section 473 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) enables the Court to take cognizance of an offence after the period of limitation if it is satisfied that it is necessary so to do in the interest of justice.

Essential Elements:

• For commission of an offence under Section 498-A, following necessary elements are required to be satisfied:
  • The woman must be married;
  • She must be subjected to cruelty or harassment;
  • Such cruelty or harassment must have been shown either by husband of the woman or by the relative of her husband.

Case Law:

• In the case of Arun Vyas v. Anita Vyas, (1999), the Supreme Court held that the essence of the offence in Section 498-A is cruelty. It is a continuing offence and on each occasion on which the woman was subjected to cruelty, she would have a new starting point of limitation.

Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961

• Section 3
  • This section deals with Penalty for giving or taking dowry. It states that-

(1)If any person, after the commencement of this Act, gives or takes or abets the giving or taking of dowry, he shall be punishable ²[with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ³[five years, and with fine which shall not be less than fifteen thousand rupees or the amount of the value of such dowry, whichever is more.

Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than five years.

(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall apply to, or in relation to, -

(a) presents which are given at the time of marriage to the bride (without any demand having been made on that behalf).

Provided that such presents are entered in a list maintained in accordance with the rules made under this Act;

(b) presents which are given at the time of marriage to the bridegroom (without any demand having been made on that behalf).

Provided that such presents are entered in a list maintained in accordance with the rules made under this Act.

• Section 4
  • This Section deals with the penalty for demanding dowry.
  • It states that if any person demands, directly or indirectly, from the parents or other relatives or guardian of a bride or bridegroom, as the case may be, any dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees.
  • Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six months.

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court comprising of Justices CT Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal heard a review petition in the case of Gaurav Kumar @ Monu v. The State of Haryana dealing with Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007.

What was the Background of Gaurav Kumar @ Monu v. The State of Haryana Case?

• Review petitions were filed to seek review of a judgment dated 15th February 2019.
• The judgment requested the High Court to reconsider the question of juvenility before proceeding with the pending appeal.
• The contention for review was based on a manifest error in the judgment, citing Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• After hearing both the petitioner's and state's counsels, the court found that the applicable provisions for considering the question of juvenility were under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007.
• Despite the respondent's argument that the original judgment was rightly decided, the court acknowledged a manifest error and deemed it necessary to correct it.
• The court emphasized that the petitioner should not suffer due to the court's mistake, and therefore, the error needed correction within the judgment itself.
• Consequently, the court reviewed paragraph 17 of the original judgment and corrected the requirement for the High Court to consider the relevant rules under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007.
• The review petitions were disposed of accordingly.

What is Rule 12 of JJ Rule, 2007?

The rules provide the procedure to be followed in determination of age of juvenile.

• Timeframe for Age Determination:
  • In every case concerning a child or a juvenile in conflict with law, the court or the Board or as the case may be the Committee referred to in rule 19 of these rules shall determine the age of such juvenile or child or a juvenile in conflict with law within a period of thirty days from the date of making of the application for that purpose.
• Initial Assessment of Juvenility:
  • The court or the Board or as the case may be the Committee shall decide the juvenility or otherwise of the juvenile or the child or as the case may be the juvenile in conflict with law, prima facie on the basis of physical appearance or documents, if available, and send him to the observation home or in jail.
• Age Determination Inquiry Process:
  • In every case concerning a child or juvenile in conflict with law, the age determination inquiry shall be conducted by the court or the Board or, as the case may be, the Committee by seeking evidence by obtaining –
  • Documentation
    • Matriculation or Equivalent Certificates, if available;
    • Date of Birth Certificate from the school (other than a play school) first attended, in absence of (i);
    • Birth Certificate from a corporation, municipal authority, or panchayat, in absence of (i) and (ii).
  • Medical Opinion
    • In the absence of (i), (ii), or (iii) of clause (a) above, seek a medical opinion from a duly constituted Medical Board.
    • If exact assessment of the age cannot be done, the Court or the Board or, as the case may be, the Committee, may, if considered necessary, give benefit to the child or juvenile by considering his/her age on lower side within the margin of one year.
  • Determination of Juvenility:
    • If the age of a juvenile or child or the juvenile in conflict with law is found to be below 18 years on the date of the offence, based on any of the conclusive proof specified in sub-rule (3), the court or the Board or as the case may be the Committee shall in writing pass an order stating the age and declaring the status of juvenility or otherwise, for the purpose of the Act and these rules and a copy of the order shall be given to such juvenile or the person concerned.
  • Conclusion of Inquiry:
    • Save and except where further inquiry or otherwise is required, no further inquiry shall be conducted by the court or the Board after examining and obtaining the certificate, or any other documentary proof referred to in sub-rule (3) of this rule.
  • Application of Rule Provisions:
    • The provisions contained in this rule shall also apply to those disposed-off cases, where the status of juvenility has not been determined in accordance with the provisions contained in sub-rule (3) and the Act, requiring dispensation of the sentence under the Act for passing appropriate order in the interest of the juvenile in conflict with law.