List of Current Affairs

Source: Kerala High Court

Why in News?

The recent ruling by the High Court of Karnataka in the case of C. Ganesh Narayan v. State of Karnataka stated that pepper spray cannot be used for private defence in situations where there is no immediate threat to life. The court deemed pepper spray a dangerous weapon in such circumstances.

What was the Background of C. Ganesh Narayan v. State of Karnataka Case?

• The complainant, Rajdeep Das, an employee of the company, engaged in a dispute with Vinod Hayagriv, resulting in an injunction suit against the company's director, C. Ganesh Narayan, to prevent property alterations obstructing movement around the building.
• The court granted an interim injunction on 28^th March 2023, barring property changes. On 07^th April 2023, Vinod Hayagriv attempted to construct a wall at the company's gate, leading to a confrontation.
• On 29^th April 2023, employees of Vinod Hayagriv allegedly interfered with the company's property, leading to a physical and verbal altercation wherein pepper spray was purportedly used by the petitioners. Consequently, the petitioners faced charges under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). They claimed self-defence under Section 100 of the IPC, arguing pepper spray use in response to property interference.
• However, the Karnataka High Court refused to dismiss the criminal case against C. Ganesh Narayan and his wife for allegedly using pepper spray against the complainant and security personnel. The court considered pepper spray use in this context potentially illegal, rejecting it as self-defence.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Justice M Nagaprasanna observed that the use of pepper spray as private defence, as prima facie there was no imminent threat or danger caused to her life. Therefore, the case at hand would require investigation in the least.
• The Court observed that there is no determination by law in this country regarding usage of pepper spray being a dangerous weapon.
• Further the Court referred the case of the United States of America in People v. Sandel 84 N.Y.S. 3d 340 (N.Y. Sup.Ct.2018) wherein it was held that noxious chemical sprays, like pepper sprays, are dangerous weapons.

What is the Provision of Private Defence in IPC?

About:

• Sections 76 to 106 in chapter IV of IPC deals with General Exceptions which are exempted from the category of offences under IPC.
• Section 100 of IPC deals with when the right of private defence of the body extends to causing death.
• Under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) the circumstances wherein the right of private defence of the body extends to causing death has been covered under Section 38.

Private Defence:

• The term private defence is not explicitly defined in the IPC.
• In simple terms it refers to the use of force by an individual to safeguard their life, liberty, or property.
• Section 100 of the IPC grants the right to self-defence against individuals who endanger life or property. In such cases, individuals are permitted to use defensive force, which may otherwise be considered unlawful.

Section 100 of IPC:

• Section 100 of the IPC grants individuals the right to defend their body, which may involve causing harm or death to the assailant, provided the offense falls within certain categories such as assault likely to cause death, grievous hurt, rape, unnatural lust, kidnapping, wrongful confinement, or throwing acid.
• This Section deals with the situation in which the right of private defence of the body extends to causing death.
• It states that the right of private defence of the body extends, under the restrictions mentioned in the section 99, to the voluntary causing of death or of any other harm to the assailant, if the offence which occasions the exercise of the right be of any of the descriptions hereinafter enumerated, namely: —
  • Such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that death will otherwise be the consequence of such assault.
  • Such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that grievous hurt will otherwise be the consequence of such assault.
  • An assault with the intention of committing rape.
  • An assault with the intention of gratifying unnatural lust.
  • An assault with the intention of kidnapping or abducting.
  • An assault with the intention of wrongfully confining a person, under circumstances which may reasonably cause him to apprehend that he will be unable to have recourse to the public authorities for his release.
  • An act of throwing or administering acid or an attempt to throw or administer acid which may reasonably cause the apprehension that grievous hurt will otherwise be the consequence of such act.

Essential Conditions for section 100 of IPC:

• For Section 100 of IPC, the following conditions should be fulfilled: -
  • There must be an immediate risk of life or grievous hurt to the body.
  • There must be no reasonable means to escape available.
  • There must be insufficient time to seek assistance from the authorities.
  • Causing the death of the assailant must have been unavoidable.

Source: Kerala High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Kerala High Court in the matter of Chekkutty v. State of Kerala has held that the right to plead guilty shall not be used as a device to get a lesser sentence.

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

• In the instant case, the accused remained absconded for a long time and did not appear before the trial court, though the offence alleged are very serious offences which would come under the purview of the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
• The injury alleged to have been inflicted on the victim as evident from the wound certificate shows the manner in which the injuries were inflicted which are on the vital part, the head of the victim.
• The Magistrate awarded a lesser sentence of fine only because the accused pleaded guilty before the Trial Court.
• Thereafter, the complainant filed a criminal revision petition before the Kerala High Court.
• Allowing the petition, the High Court set aside the impugned order of sentence and the matter is remanded back to the Trial Court for fresh consideration and to order a proper sentence.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Justice P Somarajan observed that the right to plead guilty shall not be used as a device to get a lesser sentence. In the case of pleading guilty by the accused, the court should not adopt a liberal approach and no concession can be given simply on the reason that the accused pleaded guilty in the matter of awarding sentence. On the other hand, the sentence should reflect a proper balance.

What is the Right to Plead Guilty?

About:

• The right to plead guilty is a right that has been provided under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) wherein the accused has been given a chance, after framing of chance either to plead guilty or not guilty.
• Once the accused pleads not guilty, the Judge proceeds with the trial of the case.
• If the accused pleads guilty, then the Judge shall record the plea and may, in his discretion, convict him.

Relevant Legal Provisions:

Source: Allahabad High Court

Why in News?

Recently the Allahabad High Court held that the petitioner by merely putting allegations of irregularity in disciplinary proceedings cannot escape his responsibility to show that prejudice has been caused to him by the same.

What was the Background of Mohd. Asgar Ali v. Union of India Through Home Secy. and others case?

• The petitioner was appointed on the post of Constable in CISF on 12^th April 1987.
• In 1996 he was on election duty and the allegation was that petitioner was assigned to be on duty at Quarter Guard and from 9.00pm to 5.00am. Hawaldar Major checked the Quarter Guard around 2.00am and petitioner was not present there and found sleeping with rifle on his side in his room No. 22.
• He was placed under suspension and served with a charge sheet.
• One, Mr. I.P Singh, Inspector, was appointed as Inquiry Officer.
• However, the petitioner requested the higher authority to change an inquiry officer. The petitioner alleging the inquiry officer to be biased.
• His request to change inquiry officer was rejected and he participated in the enquiry proceedings.
• Thereafter, the statement of the petitioner was recorded, and a copy of the inquiry report was supplied to him. And giving him an opportunity to give his explanation.
• The explanation did not favor him, and he was punished by removal from his service in 1996.
• He filed an appeal against the said order which was rejected by the appellate authority in 1997. Against the said appellate order, the petitioner preferred a revision, which was also rejected in 1998.
• The present appeal was filed before the High Court and petitioner challenging all these three impugned orders.
• Two main contention of the petitioner was that:
  • The petitioner has sent representations to the higher authorities for change in the inquiry officer on the ground that he is biased, but the same was not allowed.
  • The opportunity to defend was not adequately provided to the petitioner as documents were not supplied to him.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The High Court held that the petitioner has participated in the proceedings as well as cross-examined seven departmental witnesses and relied on several documents during the departmental proceedings. There had been no report of biasness by the petitioner during the said proceedings.
• Prejudice de facto should not be based on a mere apprehension or even on a reasonable suspicion. This Court finds no basis for any bias or prejudice in the appointment of the inquiry officer in the enquiry proceedings.
• Regarding the second contention, the court stated that the petitioner, during the inquiry has admitted that he had received all documents and was also allowed inspection of all records.
• The contention of the petitioner relating to non-supply of documents, without any specific enumeration, is devoid of merits and as such, the petitioner's present ground fails.
• There is absolutely no ground nor any iota of mention as to how the same has caused prejudice to the petitioner.

What are the Landmark Judgments Cited in this Case?

• B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India and Others, (1995):
  • When an inquiry is conducted on charges of misconduct by a public servant, the Court/Tribunal is concerned to determine whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether rules of natural justice are complied with.
  • The Court/Tribunal may interfere where the authority held that the proceedings against the delinquent officer in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence.
• Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad Vs. B. Karunakar, (1993):
  • The theory of reasonable opportunity and the principles of natural justice have evolved to uphold the rule of law and to assist the individual to vindicate his just rights.
  • They are neither incantation to be invoked nor rites to be performed on all sundry occasions.

What are the Legal Provisions Involved in this Case?

Rule 7-A of the Central Industrial Security Rules, 1969:

• This Section deals with the duties of Deputy Commandant. It states that-

(1) The Deputy Commandant shall assist the Commandant in the discharge of his duties; and where he is placed as head of the unit, he shall discharge all the duties of a Commandant and shall exercise only those financial powers that are delegated to him under the relevant rules.

(2) The Deputy Commandant shall be responsible for the efficiency, discipline, and morale of the personnel under him and shall also be responsible for the security of the undertaking or its part entrusted to him.

Section 9(3) of the Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968:

• This Section deals with the appeal and revision. It states that the Central Government may call for and examine the record of any proceeding [under section 8, 8, sub-section (2), sub-section (2A) or sub-section (2B) of this section and may make such inquiry or cause such inquiry to be made and subject to the provisions of this Act, may pass such order thereon as it thinks fit.
• Provided that no order imposing an enhanced penalty under sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) shall be made unless a reasonable opportunity of being heard has been given to the person affected by such order.