List of Current Affairs

Source: Kerala High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Kerala High Court in the matter of Shyju v. State of Kerala has held that a document can be submitted as evidence under Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) which was not procured during investigation nor produced along with the final report.

What was the Background of Shyju v. State of Kerala Case?

• In this case, the petitioner is facing an indictment for the offences under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
• He is alleged to have attacked the victim with acid. The victim who suffered the attack became blind.
• After the evidence in the case was completed and when the case was posted for hearing, a petition was filed by the Public Prosecutor seeking to re-open the evidence to produce a disability certificate and to examine the doctor who issued the certificate stating that the victim has become 100% blind.
• The Additional Sessions Judge allowed the said application.
• Aggrieved by this, the petitioner approached the Kerala High Court.
• The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the production of evidence that came into existence after filing the final report is not permissible.
• The Public Prosecutor stated that the court’s power to permit any evidence to come on record is determined by its essentiality, and therefore, the court's power to permit such a recall of witnesses or reopening of evidence cannot be restricted.
• Dismissing the case, the High Court find no perversity in the impugned order.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed that a document can be submitted as evidence under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which was not procured during investigation nor produced along with the final report.
• It was further held that if an important document or a witness has been omitted or was not produced, for whatever reason it may be, the prosecution cannot be denied an opportunity to bring it on record as a piece of evidence in the trial.

What is 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.

Case Law:

• In Natasha Singh v. CBI (2013), the Supreme Court held that the object of Section 311 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.

Source: Calcutta High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Calcutta High Court in the matter of United Machinery & Appliances v. Greaves Cotton Limited has held that dispute would not be referred to arbitration when the allegations of cheating and forgery are serious in nature and the cognizance of the same is taken by the magistrate.

What was the Background of United Machinery & Appliances v. Greaves Cotton Limited Case?

• In this case, the plaintiff is a manufacturer of diesel generator sets and also carries on allied businesses.
• The defendant is a manufacturer of diesel engines including diesel generator engines.
• The plaintiff and respondent entered into an arrangement in the year 2000 wherein the defendant agreed to supply engines exclusively to the plaintiff.
• It was agreed that the defendant would not supply the engines to any other entity, and the plaintiff would not enter into agreements with any other manufacturer.
• Pursuant to this understanding, the plaintiff made investments, however, in 2012, the plaintiff discovered that the defendant was supplying engines directly to potential buyers in Assam.
• Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff filed the civil suit, claiming damages.
• Thereafter, before the Calcutta High Court the defendant filed an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A & C Act) seeking to refer the dispute between the parties to Arbitration.
• The application was later dismissed by the High Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The bench of Justice Krishna Rao observed that to hold that dispute would not be referred to arbitration when the allegations of cheating and forgery are serious in nature and goes to the existence of the agreement containing arbitration clause.

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions Involved in it?

Cheating

• Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) deals with the offence of cheating.
• It states that whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to “cheat”.
• Explanation to this Section states that a dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section.
• Section 417 of IPC deals with the punishment for cheating. It states that whoever cheats shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.

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.

Section 8 of A & C Act

• This section deals with the power to refer parties to arbitration where there is an arbitration agreement. It states that -

(1) A judicial authority, before which an action is brought in a matter which is the subject of an arbitration agreement shall, if a party to the arbitration agreement or any person claiming through or under him, so applies not later than the date of submitting his first statement on the substance of the dispute, then, notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of the Supreme Court or any Court, refer the parties to arbitration unless it finds that prima facie no valid arbitration agreement exists.

(2) The application referred to in sub-section (1) shall not be entertained unless it is accompanied by the original arbitration agreement or a duly certified copy thereof:

Provided that where the original arbitration agreement or a certified copy thereof is not available with the party applying for reference to arbitration under sub-section (1), and the said agreement or certified copy is retained by the other party to that agreement, then, the party so applying shall file such application along with a copy of the arbitration agreement and a petition praying the Court to call upon the other party to produce the original arbitration agreement or its duly certified copy before that Court.

(3) Notwithstanding that an application has been made under sub-section (1) and that the issue is pending before the judicial authority, an arbitration may be commenced or continued, and an arbitral award made.

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Justices Aniruddha Bose and JB Pardiwala held that “The question of limitation is not merely a technical consideration. The rules of limitation are based on the principles of sound public policy and principles of equity. We should not keep the 'Sword of Damocles' hanging over the head of the respondent for indefinite period of time to be determined at the whims and fancies of the appellants”.

• The Supreme Court heard this in the case Union of India & Anr. v. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D) Through His LR.

What is the Background of Union of India & Anr. v. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D) Through His LR?

• The appeal arose from an order passed by a learned single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay on 9th July 2019.
• The High Court declined to condone the delay of 12 years and 158 days in filing the application for restoration of Writ Petition No. 2307 of 1993, dismissed for non-prosecution on 10^th October 2006.
• The suit property, leased on 09^th March 1951, led to civil suit No. 2599 of 1981 due to lease breaches.
• The appeal against the judgment and decree was dismissed on 29^th August 1992.
• Various legal actions followed, including an unsuccessful attempt to restore the petition dismissed in 2006.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The court said that “We have reached to the conclusion that the High Court committed no error much less any error of law in passing the impugned order. Even otherwise, the High Court was exercising its supervisory jurisdiction”.
• In many decisions of SC, it has been said that delay should not be excused as a matter of generosity. Rendering substantial justice is not to cause prejudice to the opposite party.
• The appellants have failed to prove that they were reasonably diligent in prosecuting the matter and this vital test for condoning the delay is not satisfied in this case.

What is Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963?

• Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 deals with the concept of condonation of delay.
  • The condonation of delay means the extension of prescribed time in certain cases subject to sufficient cause.
  • The concept of condoning a delay is primarily preferred to the applications and appeal and does not cover the suits.
• Section 5 states that any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), may be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period.
• Explanation to Section 5 states that the fact that when the appellant or the applicant was missed by any order, practice or judgment of the HC in ascertaining or computing the prescribed period may be sufficient cause within the meaning of this section.
• The SC in the case of Raheem Shah & Anr. v. Govind Singh & Ors. (2023), held that the legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting Section 5 of the Limitation Act of 1963, in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on merits. The expression sufficient cause employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice-that being the life-purpose for the existence of the institution of courts