List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti emphasized upon the importance of chargesheet under Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) and the manner of preparing it.

• The Supreme Court gave this judgment in the case of Sharif Ahmed and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh.

What was the Background of Sharif Ahmed and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh Case?

• The SC while considering the value of chargesheet gave several guidelines and considered legal precedents while giving those guidelines.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Supreme mainly observed that “The investigating officer must make clear and complete entries of all columns in the chargesheet so that the court can clearly understand which crime has been committed by which accused and what is the material evidence available on the file”.

What is a Chargesheet?

What are the Landmark Cases on Chargesheet?

• H.N. Rishbud and Inder Singh v. State of Delhi (!954):
  • Supreme Court noted that that the process of investigation generally consists of:
    • proceeding to the concerned spot,
    • ascertainment of facts and circumstances,
    • discovery and arrest,
    • collection of evidence which includes examination of various persons, search of places and seizure of things, and
    • formation of an opinion on whether an offence is made out, and filing the chargesheet accordingly.
• Abhinandan Jha and Others v. Dinesh Mishra (1968):
  • It was stated in this case that the submission of the final report/chargesheet depends on the nature of the opinion formed after the investigation.
• Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police (1985):
  • The Court discussed the three options available to a Magistrate on receiving a police report under Section 173(2):
    • Accept report and take cognizance
    • Direct further investigation under Section 156(3)
    • Disagree with report and discharge accused
• K. Veeraswami v. Union of India (1991):
  • The Court held that the chargesheet need not elaborate evaluating the evidence, as that is for the trial stage.
  • However, it should disclose/refer to facts as per requirements of Section 173(2) CrPC and state rules.
• Zakia Ahsan Jafri v. State of Gujarat (2022):
  • The Court explained that for forming an opinion under Section 173(2)(i)(d) CrPC, the investigating officer must collect corroborative evidence to support any information received during investigation.
  • Mere suspicion is not enough, there must be grave suspicion based on sufficient materials to presume the accused committed the alleged offence.
• Dablu Kujur v. State of Jharkhand (2024):
  • The Supreme Court gave the following guidelines regarding the details to be included in the police report/chargesheet under Section 173(2) CrPC:
    • Names of parties
    • Nature of information
    • Names of persons acquainted with circumstances
    • Whether any offence appears committed and by whom
    • Whether accused arrested
    • Whether accused released on bond, with or without sureties
    • Whether accused forwarded in custody under Section 170
    • Whether medical report attached in certain offences

Source: Delhi High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Delhi High Court in the matter of M/S Krish Overseas v. Commissioner Central Tax-Delhi West & Ors., has held that the life of an order of provisional attachment is only one year.

What was the Background of M/S Krish Overseas v. Commissioner Central Tax-Delhi West & Ors. Case?

• In this case, before the Delhi High Court the petitioner impugns communication dated 14^th August 2019 issued under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) to the Branch Manager, HDFC Bank Ltd. to seize the outward movement of funds from the bank account of the petitioner.
• The learned counsel for petitioner submits that the validity of an order under Section 83 of the CGST Act is one year and despite the passage of one year, the Bank is not permitting the operation of the said account.
• Accordingly, the High Court declared that the order dated 14^th August 2019 ceases to have effect. Consequently, respondent HDFC Bank henceforth cannot restrain operation of the bank account of the petitioner based solely on the basis of this order.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The bench comprising of Justices Sanjeev Sachdeva and Ravinder Dudeja observed that in view Section 83 (2) of the CGST Act, the life of an order of provisional attachment is only one year.
• The Court further clarified that this order would be without prejudice to any other order of provisional attachment issued by either the respondents or any other authority communicated to the HDFC Bank.

What is Section 83 of the CGST Act?

CGST Act

• This Act makes provision for levying and collection of tax on intra-State supply of goods or services or both by the Central Government and for matters connected therewith.

Section 83 of CGST Act

• This Act deals with the provisional attachment to protect revenue in certain cases. It states that-

(1) Where during the pendency of any proceedings under section 62 or section 63 or section 64 or section 67 or section 73 or section 74, the Commissioner is of the opinion that for the purpose of protecting the interest of the Government revenue, it is necessary so to do, he may, by order in writing attach provisionally any property, including bank account, belonging to the taxable person in such manner as may be prescribed.

(2) Every such provisional attachment shall cease to have effect after the expiry of a period of one year from the date of the order made under sub-section (1).

Essential Elements of Section 83

• This section empowers the Commissioner to provisionally attach any property including a bank account.
• The property must belong to a taxable person.
• The attachment of the property must be done for the purpose of protecting the interest of the Government revenue.
• Every provisional attachment ceases to have effect after the expiry of a period of one year from the date said order.

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently the Supreme Court set aside the order passed by the Bombay High Court and said that the High Court has failed to make an elementary enquiry and the order only on the base of Minutes of Order is entirely illegal.

What was the Background of Ajay Ishwar Ghute & Ors v. Meher k. Patel & Ors. Case?

• Arbitration Petitions were filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A & C Act) before a Single Judge of the Bombay High Court. The dispute in the Arbitration Petitions related to the lands of Parsi Dairy Farm.
• The High Court directed the police to provide police protection to the parties for completing the process of handing over possession.
• As per the consent terms a compound wall was to be constructed.
• Few local people obstructed the construction of the compound wall. These locals were not parties to the proceedings of either the Arbitration Petition or the interim application.
• A writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950(COI).
• The Division Bench of the High Court neither directing impleadment of the affected parties nor dismisses the Writ Petition for non-joinder of necessary parties. And passed the order in terms of the Minutes of Order.
• Reasons were not recorded for passing an order in terms of the Minutes of Order.
• Even the High Court did not take care of the admitted fact that third parties would have been affected by the construction of the compound wall that was permitted to be constructed under police protection.
• The present appeal was filed before the Supreme Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Supreme Court set aside the order and held that such an order passed in terms of the Minutes of Order is an order in invitum and the Court must first examine whether it will be lawful to pass an order in terms of the Minutes of Order.
• The Court said that the High Court must consider that all the necessary parties are impleaded. The court must consider that third parties will be affected by the order which is passed in terms of the Minutes of Order and the Court must decline the petition on the failure of the petitioner to implead the necessary parties.
• Without hearing the necessary parties, an order passed by the Court is entirely illegal. The order based on the Minutes of Order is not a consent order.
• While passing an order in terms of the Minutes of Order, the Court must record brief reasons indicating the application of mind.

What are Minutes of Order?

• The advocates representing the parties can draft Minutes of Order for the convenience of the Court.
• Minutes of Order deals with what could be incorporated by the Court in its order.
• This practice evolved to save the time of the Court.
• The advocates who sign the Minutes of Order have greater responsibility to perform a duty as officers of the Court to consider whether the order they were proposing will be lawful.
• The practice of passing orders based on Minutes of Order submitted by the advocates representing the parties prevails perhaps only in the Bombay High Court.