List of Current Affairs

Source: Allahabad High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Allahabad High Court in the matter of Vishwanath v. State of U.P and Ors., has held that Section 195 (1) (b) (ii) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) doesn't bar registration of FIR in a case where alleged forgery has been committed in the document outside the Court.

What was the Background of Vishwanath v. State of U.P and Ors. Case?

• A criminal revision has been filed before the High Court of Allahabad by the revisionist for challenging the impugned judgement and order dated 20^th October 2022 passed by the Trial Court.
• By the impugned order, Trial Court has rejected the application of the revisionist filed under Section 156 (3) of CrPC for directing the Station House Officer, Police Station Kotwali, District Basti to register and investigate the criminal case against the opposite party.
• The trial Court has further mentioned the registration of FIR regarding filing of forged documents in a Court proceeding is barred under Section 195 (1) (b) (i) of CrPC.
• Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that revisionist has filed an application under Section 156 (3) of CrPC alleging that the opposite party had committed forgery and obtained the registered will deed.
• Setting aside the judgment of the Trial Court, the High Court allowed the criminal revision.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Justice Surendra Singh-I observed that Section 195 (1) (b) CrPC, imposes no bar on registration of a criminal case relating to such forged documents, it merely bars that the Magistrate shall not take cognizance of an offence regarding such forged document unless the Court, in which, forgery has been committed.
• It was further stated that Section 195 (1) (b) (ii) of CrPC doesn't bar registration of FIR in a case where alleged forgery has been committed in the document outside the Court and thereafter, the alleged forged document was filed in judicial proceedings in a case pending in a Court.

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions Involved in it?

Section 195(1)(b) of CrPC

• This Section states that no Court shall take cognizance—

(i) Of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), namely, sections 193 to 196 (both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, or

(ii) Of any offence described in section 463, or punishable under section 471, section 475 or section 476, of the said Code, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court, or

(iii) Of any criminal conspiracy to commit, or attempt to commit, or the abetment of, any offence specified in sub-clause (i) or sub-clause (ii), except on the complaint in writing of that Court or by such officer of the Court as that Court may authorize in writing in this behalf, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate.

• Section 215 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) deals with this provision.

Section 156(3) of CrPC

• Section 156(3) of CrPC states that a Magistrate who is empowered to take cognizance under Section 190 of Code may order investigation for the cognizable offence.
• An application under section 156(3) of CrPC discloses the cognizable offence, then it is the duty of the concerned Magistrate to direct registration of the FIR, which is to be investigated by the Investigation Agency, in accordance with law.
• If the information received does not disclose the commission of cognizable offence apparently, but indicates necessity for inquiry, the preliminary inquiry may be conducted in order to ascertain whether the cognizable offence is disclosed or not.
• Any judicial magistrate may order an investigation under Section 156(3) of CrPC before taking notice of the offence.

Forgery

• Section 463 contained in Chapter XVIII of IPC defines the offence of Forgery.
• This Section states that whoever makes any false documents or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery.
• Section 465 of IPC deals with the punishment for forgery and states that whoever commits forgery shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

Source: Karnataka High Court

Why in News?

Recently the Karnataka High Court in the matter of Dr. Yogananda A v. The Visvesvaraya Technological University & Ors., has held that Article 311(1) of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) provides safeguards to the government employees including the right to fair inquiry before any adverse action is taken against the employees.

What was the Background of Dr. Yogananda A v. The Visvesvaraya Technological University & Ors. Case?

• The case at hand pertains to disciplinary action taken against the petitioner by the Governing Council resulting in recommendation for petitioner’s compulsory retirement and consequently the respondent Registrar who is the Disciplinary Authority has issued a second show cause notice indicating inflicting of penalty thereby raising concern regarding procedural irregularities and potential violation of Article 311(1) of the COI.
• It is in this background that the petitioner has filed a petition before the Karnataka High Court against impugned order of penalty of compulsory retirement passed by the respondent.
• Allowing the petition, the High Court has set aside the impugned order.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• A single judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum observed that Article 311(1) of the COI guarantees certain safeguards to government employees, including the right to a fair enquiry before any adverse action is taken against the employees. This constitutional provision aims to prevent arbitrary deprivation of livelihood and ensures that Government employees are afforded due process.
• It was further noted that Article 311 (1) underscores the importance of providing employees with inquiry reports prior to the initiation of any punitive action, thereby enabling them to effectively defend themselves against allegations and ensuring procedural fairness.

What is Article 311(1) of the COI?

Article 311:

• This Article deals with the dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of persons employed in civil capacities under the Union or a State.
• The protective safeguards given under this Article are applicable only to civil servants, i.e. public officers.
• They are not available to defence personnel.
• People protected under this Article are the members of:
  • Civil service of the Union
  • All India Service
  • Civil service of any State
  • People who hold a civil post under the Union or any State.

Article 311(1):

• Article 311 (1) says that no government employee either of an all-India service or a state government shall be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to the own that appointed him/her.

Article 311(2):

• Article 311 (2) says that no civil servant shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except after an inquiry in which s/he has been informed of the charges and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges.

Case Law

• In the case of State of Punjab v. Kishan Dass (1971), the Supreme Court held that a mere reduction in the salary of a government servant cannot be termed as a reduction in rank of a government servant to invoke Article 311.It was further stated this article cannot be invoked on every little transactional details.