List of Current Affairs

Source: Kerala High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Kerala High Court in the matter of Fazid & Ors. v. XXXX & Ors. has held that the Courts must state reasons for passing orders and an order without recording reasons in the form of cryptic and non-speaking stature would not sustain under the law.

What was the Background of Fazid & Ors. v. XXXX & Ors. Case?

• In this case the criminal revision petition has been filed under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC).
• The revision petitioners are the accused Nos.1 to 4 on the files of the Judicial First-Class Magistrate Court where the prosecution alleges commission of the offences punishable under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
• The petitioners had earlier filed a plea seeking their discharge from the case before a magistrate court. After the trial court rejected their discharge plea, they moved the High Court for relief and questioned the correctness of the magistrate's order.
• The counsel for the petitioners submitted that dismissing a discharge order, it is essential that the court’s order must not be cryptic and must clearly lay out the reasons for such dismissal.
• A Criminal Revision Petition is found to be meritless, and it is dismissed accordingly by the High Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Justice A Badharudeen observed that as far as the legal position regarding the essentials of an order of discharge is well settled. While passing an order of discharge by allowing the same or dismissing the same the Courts must have to state reasons for passing such orders and an order without recording reasons in the form of cryptic and non-speaking stature would not sustain under the law.

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions Involved in it?

Section 397 of CrPC

• This Section deals with the calling for records to exercise powers of revision. It states that—

(1) The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself; to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court, and may, when calling, for such record, direct that the execution of any sentence or order be suspended, and if the accused is in confinement that he be released on bail or on his own bond pending the examination of the record.

Explanation. —All Magistrates, whether Executive or Judicial, and whether exercising original or appellate jurisdiction, shall be deemed to be inferior to the Sessions Judge for the purposes of this sub-section and of section 398.

(2) The powers of revision conferred by sub-section (1) shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding.

(3) If an application under this section has been made by any person either to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by the other of them.

Section 401 of CrPC

• This Section deals with the High Court's powers of revision. It states that -

(1) In the case of any proceeding the record of which has been called for by itself or which otherwise comes to its knowledge, the High Court may, in its discretion, exercise any of the powers conferred on a Court of Appeal by sections 386, 389, 390 and 391 or on a Court of Session by section 307, and, when the Judges composing the Court of Revision are equally divided in opinion, the case shall be disposed of in the manner provided by section 392.

(2) No order under this section shall be made to the prejudice of the accused or other person unless he has had an opportunity of being heard either personally or by pleader in his own defence.

(3) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorize a High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one conviction.

(4) Where under this Code an appeal lies and no appeal is brought, no proceeding by way of revision shall be entertained at the instance of the party who could have appealed.

(5) Where under this Code an appeal lies but an application for revision has been made to the High Court by any person and the High Court is satisfied that such application was made under the erroneous belief that no appeal lies thereto and that it is necessary in the interests of Justice so to do, the High Court may treat the application for revision as a petition of appeal and deal with the same accordingly.

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court held that “The operation of repeal or substitution of a statutory provision is thus clear, a repealed provision will cease to operate from the date of repeal and the substituted provision will commence to operate from the date of its substitution”.

• The court gave this observation in the case of Pernod Ricard India (P) LTD. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh.

What was the Background of Pernod Ricard India (P) LTD. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh Case?

• The appellant was a sub-licensee under the Madhya Pradesh Excise Act, 1915 for manufacture, import and sale of Foreign Liquor, regulated under the Madhya Pradesh Foreign Liquor Rules, 1996.
• Sub-licensees importing Foreign Liquor were granted transit permits recording details like origin, quality, quantity and delivery point of the imported liquor. At the destination, the consignment was verified for quality and quantity, and a certificate under Rule 13 was granted. Rule 16 prescribed permissible limits of loss due to leakage, evaporation, wastage etc. to prevent illegal diversion and evasion of excise duty.
• If the permissible limits were exceeded, Rule 19 provided for imposition of penalty up to four times the maximum duty payable during the 2009-2010 license period.
• No action was initiated against the appellant during 2009-2010. On 29^th March 2011, Rule 19 was substituted, reducing the penalty from four times to an amount not exceeding the duty payable.
• Eight months after the amendment, on 22^nd November 2011, a demand notice was issued to the appellant seeking penalty as per the old Rule 19 for exceeding permissible limits in 2009-2010.
• The appellant objected, stating the substituted Rule 19 should apply.
• The appellant's objections were rejected by the statutory authorities.
• The Single Judge set aside these orders, holding the substituted Rule applied to pending proceedings.
• However, the Division Bench reversed this, stating the Rule existing during the license year must apply as penalty determination is substantive law.

What are the Court’s Observations?

• The court held that interpretation of laws is the exclusive domain of the courts, not defined by statutes or executive agencies.
• In examining whether a repealed rule on liquor license penalties should apply, the court looked to the subject and context.
  • If disapplying the repealed harsher penalty of four times the duty furthered the intent of better regulation, the court would not extend the repeal's effect.
• The court found the 2011 substitution reducing the penalty to just the duty amount was meant to improve governance and management of foreign liquor.
  • Applying the harsher repealed penalty did not serve this purpose. The substituted lower penalty applied retroactively to pending proceedings, not improperly retrospectively.
• The court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's judgment, and held the substituted Rule 19 with just the duty as penalty applied to the appellants for the 2009-10 license year.

What were the Landmark Judgments Cited in this Case?

• Koteswar Vittal Kamath v. K. Rangappa Baliga & Co. (1969):
  • The SC brought out the distinction between supersession of a rule and substitution of a rule and held that the process of substitution consists of two steps – first, the old rule is repealed, and next, a new rule is brought into existence in its place.
• Pushpa Devi v. Milkhi Ram (1990):
  • The SC explained the purpose and object of prefacing a definition or an interpretation with the phrase unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context.
  • The court held that it must examine the context and collocation in light of the object of the Act and the purpose for which a particular provision was made by the legislature.
• Zile Singh v. State of Haryana (2004):
  • The SC referred to the legislative practice of an amendment by substitution and held that substitution would have the effect of amending the operation of law during the period in which it was in force.
• Gottumukkala Venkata Krishamraju v. Union of India (2019):
  • The SC held that ordinarily, wherever the word "substitute" or "substitution" is used by the legislature, it has the effect of deleting the old provision and making the new provision operative.
  • However, the court also stated that in certain situations, it may construe the word "substitution" as an "amendment" having a prospective effect.

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Maya Gopinathan v. Anoop S.B. has restated that stridhan is an absolute property of a woman, and while the husband has no control over the same, he can use it in times of distress.

What was the Background of Maya Gopinathan v. Anoop S.B. Case?

• In this case, the marriage of the appellant and first respondent was solemnized according to Hindu rites and customs on 4^th May 2003.
• According to the appellant, 89 sovereigns of gold were gifted to her by her family at the time of marriage.
• Additionally, after the wedding, the appellant’s father handed over to the first respondent a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-.
• According to the appellant, the first respondent took custody of all her jewellery and entrusted the same to the second respondent under the garb of safekeeping.
• It was also the case of the appellant that all such jewellery stood misappropriated by the respondents to discharge their pre-existing financial liabilities.
• In 2009, the appellant filed a petition before the Family Court for the recovery of the value of jewellery, and the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-.
• The appellant also filed a petition for dissolution of marriage.
• The Family Court held that the respondents had indeed misappropriated the appellant’s gold jewellery and that she was entitled to recoup the loss caused to her by the said misappropriation.
• Aggrieved by the order of the Family Court, the respondents filed an appeal before the High Court of Kerala.
• The High Court partly allowed the appeal of the respondents and set aside the relief granted to the appellant by the Family Court.
• Thereafter, the present appeal has been filed before the Supreme Court assailing the final judgment of the High Court.
• The Supreme Court allowed the appeal.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• A Bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta observed that stridhan is an absolute property of a woman, and while the husband has no control over the same, he can use it in times of distress. Nevertheless, he has a moral obligation to restore the same or its value to his wife.
• The Court referred to the judgement given in the case of Rashmi Kumar v. Mahesh Kumar Bhada (1997).
  • In this case, the Supreme Court held that stridhan property does not become a joint property of the wife and the husband. The latter has no title or independent dominion over the property.

What is the Concept of Stridhan?

About:

• The word Stridhan has been derived from the words ‘Stri’ meaning a woman and the word ‘dhana’ means property.
• Stridhan is whatever a women receives during her life time.
• It includes all movable, immovable property gifts etc. received by women prior to marriage, at the time of marriage, during childbirth and during her widowhood.
• Stridhan differs from Dowry in the way that it is the voluntary gift given to a woman before or after her marriage and has no element of coercion.
• Women have an absolute right over their Stridhan.

Composition of Stridhan:

• Stridhan comprises of the following:
  • Gifts made before the nuptial fire.
  • Gifts made at the bridal procession.
  • Gifts made in token of love, that is, those made by her father-in-law and mother-in-law and other elders.
  • Gifts made by the father of the bride.
  • Gifts made by the mother of the bride.
  • Gifts made by the brother of the bride.

Laws Relating to Stridhan:

• A woman’s right to her Stridhan is protected under law Section14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 r/w Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 , “even if it is placed in the custody of her husband or her in-laws, they would be deemed to be trustees and bound to return the same if and when demanded by her.
• Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 provides for women right to her Stridhan in cases where she is a victim of domestic violence. The provisions of this law can be easily invoked for the recovery of Stridhan.The magistrate may direct the respondent to return to the possession of the aggrieved person her Stridhan or any other property or valuable security to which she is entitled.