List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

A bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant Kumar Mishra held that “The proceedings under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 initiated against the appellant on the basis of the complaint of the Police Inspector is legally invalid”.

• The Supreme Court gave this judgment in the case Rakesh Kumar v. State of Bihar.

What is the Background of Rakesh Kumar v. State of Bihar Case?

• The case involves a challenge to the order dated 27^th September 2018, where the High Court dismissed a petition filed under Section 482 of the CrPC.
• The appellant contested an order dated 22nd November 2016 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jamui, taking cognizance of offences under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.
• The appellant sought to quash these proceedings.
• The High Court upheld the cognizance order, finding a prima facie case against the appellant.
• However, the appellant argued that only a Drug Inspector could initiate proceedings under the Act, not a police officer.
• The crucial question revolved around whether the police officer's actions constituted valid initiation under Section 32(1)(a) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Ultimately, the court found the proceedings initiated against the appellant invalid, setting aside the cognizance order and quashing the proceedings.
• The court held that “Having regard to the scheme of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) and also the mandate of Section 32 of the Act and on a conspectus of powers which are available with the Drugs Inspector under the Act and also his duties, a police officer cannot register an FIR under Section 154 CrPC, in regard to cognizable offences under Chapter IV of the Act and he cannot investigate such offences under the provisions of CrPC.”
• The appeal was allowed accordingly.

What is Section 32 of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940?

Cognizance of offences. —

• No prosecution under this Chapter shall be instituted except by—
  • an Inspector; or
  • any gazetted officer of the Central Government or a State Government authorised in writing in this behalf by the Central Government or a State Government by a general or special order made in this behalf by that Government; or
  • the person aggrieved; or
  • a recognised consumer association whether such person is a member of that association or not.
• Save as otherwise provided in this Act, no court inferior to that of a Court of Session shall try an offence punishable under this Chapter.
• Nothing contained in this Chapter shall be deemed to prevent any person from being prosecuted under any other law for any act or omission which constitutes an offence against this Chapter.

Source: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the matter of Pinapala Uday Bhushan v. The State of Andhra Pradesh has held that the mere issuance of notice under Section 41A of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) will not act as a bar against an application for anticipatory bail.

What was the Background of Pinapala Uday Bhushan v. The State of Andhra Pradesh Case?

• In this case, the defacto complainant lodged a report before the police stating that some unknown persons have created fake ID in Facebook and is posting defaming content on Facebook against the YSR family specifically YS Sharmila and YS Sunitha and abusing them in filthy language.
• It was alleged that the accused had impersonated the de facto complainant to settle political scores, as the accused were supporters of the opposition party, and the complainant was from the ruling YSR Congress party.
• Thereafter, the petitioner filed a criminal petition before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh for grant of bail for the offences punishable under Section 469, 471 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
• The prosecution contended that the object of issuance of a 41A notice was to eliminate the fear of an unwarranted arrest and once a 41A notice was issued, subsequent issuance of an anticipatory bail would be redundant.
• The accused on the other hand argued that even after a 41A notice was issued, the accused could be arrested as per 41A (4).
• The criminal petition was allowed by the High Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Justice T. Mallikarjuna Rao observed that mere issuance of Section 41A of CrPC notice will not act as a bar against an application for anticipatory bail.
• It was further held that when apprehension of arrest exists, even after issuance of notice of appearance it cannot be said that the anticipatory bail application is not maintainable.

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions Involved in it?

Section 41A of CrPC

• This Section deals with notice of appearance before police officer. It states that -

(1) The police officer shall, in all cases where the arrest of a person is not required under the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 41, issue a notice directing the person against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, or credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed a cognizable offence, to appear before him or at such other place as may be specified in the notice.

(2) Where such a notice is issued to any person, it shall be the duty of that person to comply with the terms of the notice.

(3) Where such person complies and continues to comply with the notice, he shall not be arrested in respect of the offence referred to in the notice unless, for reasons to be recorded, the police officer is of the opinion that he ought to be arrested.

(4) Where such person, at any time, fails to comply with the terms of the notice or is unwilling to identify himself, the police officer may, subject to such orders as may have been passed by a competent Court in this behalf, arrest him for the offence mentioned in the notice.

Section 469 of IPC

• This Section deals with forgery for the purpose of harming reputation.
• It states that whoever commits forgery, intending that the document or electronic record forged shall harm the reputation of any party, or knowing that it is likely to be used for that purpose, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Section 471 of IPC

• This Section deals with the use as genuine a forged document or electronic record.
• It states that whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document or electronic record which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document or electronic record, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document or electronic record.

Section 509 of IPC

• This Section deals with the word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman.
• It states that whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any words, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, and also with fine.