List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Ekene Godwin & Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu has held that recording only the examination in chief of witnesses without recording their cross-examination is contrary to the law.

What is the Background of Ekene Godwin & Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu Case?

• In this case, the appellants are being prosecuted for offences punishable under Sections 419 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
• Having been unsuccessful in securing bail from the High Court, the appellants approached the Supreme Court.
• During the proceedings before the Supreme Court, it was stated that the Trial Court recorded the examination in chief of 12 prosecution witnesses one after the other on different dates without recording their cross-examination.
• The Supreme Court came to know that the High Court had directed the Trial Court to submit a report within four months.
• The report records that the evidence of prosecution witnesses was recorded in the presence of the appellants, but their Advocate was not present as they had not engaged any Advocate.
• The Supreme Court pointed out the discrepancy in this approach.
• Allowing the bail application, the Supreme Court directed the Trial Court to hold a de novo trial.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Division bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan observed that before recording the examination in chief of the first prosecution witness, after finding that the appellants had not engaged any Advocate, the Trial Court ought to have provided a legal aid Advocate to the appellants so that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses could have been recorded in the presence of the Advocate representing the appellants. The order sheet enclosed with the report does not record that the appellants declined to accept the services of a legal aid lawyer.
• The Court also held that recording only the examination in chief of witnesses without recording their cross-examination is contrary to the law. To strengthen this, the Court also referred to Section 138 of the Indian Evidence Act of 1872, which outlines the examination order of witnesses.

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions Involved in it?

Section 138 of IEA

About:

• Section 138 of the IEA deals with the order of examinations.
• It states that witnesses shall be first examined-in-chief, then (if the adverse party so desires) cross-examined, then (if the party calling him so desires) re-examined.
• The examination and cross-examination must relate to relevant facts, but the cross-examination need not be confined to the facts to which the witness testified on his examination-in-chief.

Examination in Chief:

• As per Section 137 of IEA, the examination of witness by the party who calls him shall be called his examination-in-chief.

Cross-Examination:

• As per Section 137 of IEA, the examination of a witness by the adverse party shall be called his cross-examination.

Re-Examination:

• As per Section 137 of IEA, the examination of a witness, subsequent to the cross-examination by the party who called him, shall be called his re-examination.
• The re-examination shall be directed to the explanation of matters referred to in cross-examination; and, if a new matter is, by permission of the Court, introduced in re-examination, the adverse party may further cross-examine upon that matter.

Section 419 of IPC

• This Section deals with the punishment for cheating by personation.
• It states that whoever cheats by personation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

Section 420 of IPC

• This Section deals with cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.
• It states that whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Source: Patna High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Patna High Court has held that in its deliberation on the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC), the defendant is barred from belatedly amending pleadings to fill up lacunae when confronted with the document recorded in evidence.

• The aforesaid observation was made in the matter of Shibjee Pd. Singh v. Manju Devi & Ors.

What was the Background of Shibjee Pd. Singh v. Manju Devi & Ors. Case?

• In this case, the plaintiff initiated a Title Suit, to which the defendant responded by submitting a written statement.
• The basis of the suit was an agreement of sale.
• The agreement to sale, put up before him during cross examination, was different from the document that he had executed earlier, the defendant moved an application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC for amendment of his written statement.
• The learned Sub Judge dismissed the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC.
• Thereafter, a petition was filed before the Patna High Court for quashing the order passed by learned Sub Judge.
• The High Court dismissed the petition.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Justice Arun Kumar Jha observed that if certain document has come during the evidence being recorded for the defendants and the defendants are confronted with the same, it does not give right to the defendants to amend their pleadings in order to fill up the lacunae in his case.
• It was further stated that the amendment has been moved at quite a belated stage and proviso to Order VI Rule 17 clearly bars such amendment after commencement of trial and when no due diligence has been shown.

What is Order VI Rule 17 of CPC?

Order VI of CPC

About:

• Order VI of CPC deals with pleading in general.
• Pleading shall mean plaint or written statement.

Pleadings:

• Pleadings are statements in writing delivered by each party alternately to his opponent, stating what his contentions will be at the trial, giving all such details as his opponent needs to know in order to prepare his case in answer.
• It is an essential requirement of pleading that material fact and necessary particulars must be stated in the pleadings and the decisions cannot be based on the grounds outside the pleadings.

Rule 17:

• This rule deals with the amendment of pleadings.
• It states that the Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties.
• Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial
• The object of Rule 17 is to minimize the litigation, minimize the delay and to avoid multiplicity of suits.