List of Current Affairs

Why in News?

A bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya held that an employee of Cooperative Bank not controlled of funded by government is not a public servant under Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

• The Calcutta High Court made this observation in the case of Malda District Central Cooperative Bank Employees Association and others v. The Election Commission of India and others.

What was the Background of Malda District Central Cooperative Bank Employees Association and others v. The Election Commission of India and others Case?

• The members of the petitioner association no. 1, who were employees of a District Cooperative Bank, were appointed as Polling Officers for the ongoing parliamentary election under Section 26 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RP Act).
• The Election Commission of India (ECI) relied on Section 21 of the IPC to appoint the employees of the Cooperative Bank as Polling Officers.
  • The petitioner no. 1 is an association of employees of the District Cooperative Bank, representing the interests of such employees.
  • The petitioner no. 2 is the Secretary of the petitioner association no. 1.
• The Cooperative Bank is registered under the West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act, 2006, but it is not controlled or funded by any government.
• The petitioners filed a writ petition in the Calcutta High Court, challenging the appointment of the members of the association as Polling Officers.
  • Another writ petition was also filed in the Calcutta High Court on the same issue, involving employees of the Mugberia Central Cooperative Bank.
• The petitioners argued that the employees of the Cooperative Bank cannot be appointed as Polling Officers under Section 26 of the RP Act, as the Bank does not come within the purview of Section 159(2) of the Act.
• The petitioners contended that the Cooperative Bank is not established under a Central, Provincial, or State Act, and is merely registered under the West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act, 2006.
• The petitioners challenged the ECI's reliance on Section 21 of the IPC to appoint the employees as Polling Officers.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The court observed that Section 21 of the IPC defines the term "public servant" within the context of the IPC itself, and this definition cannot be extended to a different statute like the RP Act, which operates in a different field altogether.
• The court observed that the Cooperative Bank was not controlled or financed by any government and was merely registered under the West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act, 2006, but not established by or under that Act.
• The court allowed the writ petitions and set aside the requisition and appointment of the members of the petitioner associations working for the Cooperative Banks as Polling Officers.
• However, to avoid hampering the ongoing election process, the court allowed the appointments to be valid for the present ongoing election but directed that the observations shall be given effect from the next elections.

Who are Public Servants under New and Old Criminal Law?

Old Law (IPC)

Section 21 of the IPC states that the words “public servant” denote a person falling under any of the descriptions hereinafter following, namely:

• Military Personnel (Second Clause):
  • Every Commissioned Officer in the Military, Naval or Air Forces of India
• Judges and Judicial Officers (Third Clause):
  • Every Judge including any person empowered by law to discharge, whether by himself or as a member of any body of persons, any adjudicatory functions
• Officer of Court of Justice (Fourth Clause):
  • Every officer of a Court of Justice (including a liquidator, receiver or commissioner) whose duty it is, as such officer, to investigate or report on any matter of law or fact, or to make, authenticate, or keep any document, or to take charge or dispose of any property, or to execute any judicial process, or to administer any oath, or to interpret, or to preserve order in the Court, and every person specially authorized by a Court of Justice to perform any of such duties
• Jurors and Assessors (Fifth Clause):
  • Every juryman, assessor, or member of a panchayat assisting a Court of Justice or public servant
• Arbitrators and Persons Appointed by Courts (Sixth Clause):
  • Every arbitrator or other person to whom any cause or matter has been referred for decision or report by any Court of Justice, or by any other competent public authority
• Persons Empowered to Confine Others (Seventh Clause):
  • Every person who holds any office by virtue of which he is empowered to place or keep any person in confinement
• Law Enforcement and Public Safety Officers (Eighth Clause):
  • Every officer of the Government whose duty it is, as such officer, to prevent offences, to give information of offences, to bring offenders to justice, or to protect the public health, safety or convenience
• Government Revenue and Property Officers (Ninth Clause):
  • Every officer whose duty it is as such officer, to take, receive, keep or expend any property on behalf of the Government, or to make any survey, assessment or contract on behalf of the Government, or to execute any revenue process, or to investigate, or to report, on any matter affecting the pecuniary interests of the Government, or to make authenticate or keep any document relating to the pecuniary interests of the Government, or to prevent the infraction of any law for the protection of the pecuniary interests of the Government
• Local Authority Revenue and Property Officers (Tenth Clause):
  • Every officer whose duty it is, as such officer, to take, receive, keep or expend any property, to make any survey or assessment or to levy any rate or tax for any secular common purpose of any village, town or district, or to make, authenticate or keep any document for the ascertaining of the rights of the people of any village, town or district
• Electoral Officers (Eleventh Clause):
  • Every person who holds any office in virtue of which he is empowered to prepare, publish, maintain or revise an electoral roll or to conduct an election or part of an election
• Government and Public Sector Employees (Twelfth Clause):
  • Every person in the service or pay of the Government or remunerated by fees or commission for the performance of any public duty by the Government
  • Every person in the service or pay of a local authority, a corporation established by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act or a Government company as defined in section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956.

New Law (Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023)

• Section 2 (28) of BNS defines public servant.
• Section 2 (28) uses updated terminology compared to Section 21 of the IPC.
  • For example, it refers to “Government company as defined in clause (45) of Section 2 of the Companies Act, 2013” instead of the Companies Act, 1956 mentioned in Section 21 of the IPC.
• Section 2 (28) defines “local authority” by referring to clause (31) of Section 3 of the General Clauses Act, 1897.
  • Section 21 of the IPC does not provide a specific definition for "local authority".

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Prabir Purkayastha v. State of NCT of Delhi has held that there exists a significant difference between the phrases 'reasons for arrest' and 'grounds of arrest'.

What was the Background of Prabir Purkayastha v. State of NCT of Delhi Case?

• In this case, the officers of the PS Special Cell, New Delhi carried out extensive raids at the residential and official premises of the appellant and the company, namely, M/s. PPK Newsclick Studio Pvt. Ltd.( company) of which the appellant is the Director in connection with FIR registered for the offences punishable under the sections of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) and the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
• The appellant was arrested in connection with the said FIR on 3^rd October 2023 and the arrest memo was in a computerised format and does not contain any column regarding the grounds of arrest of the appellant.
  • This very issue is primarily the bone of contention between the parties to the appeal.
• The appellant was presented in the Court of Learned Additional Sessions Judge and the appellant was remanded to seven days police custody vide order dated 4^th October 2023.
• The appellant promptly questioned his arrest and the police custody remand granted by preferring criminal appeal in the High Court of Delhi which stands rejected by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi.
• The said order is subjected to challenge in the present appeal by special leave before the Supreme Court.
• The Supreme Court allowed the appeal.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Bench comprising of Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta observed that there is a significant difference between the phrases reasons for arrest and grounds of arrest.
• The Court explained that the reasons for arrest are formal and could apply generally to any person arrested for an offence. On the other hand, grounds of arrest are personal and specific to the person arrested.
• The Court also held that the grounds of arrest would invariably be personal to the accused and cannot be equated with the reasons for arrest which are general in nature.
• It was further held that the grounds of arrest informed in writing must convey to the arrested accused all basic facts on which he was being arrested so as to provide him an opportunity of defending himself against custodial remand and to seek bail.

What are the Provisions Relating to Arrest?

Introduction:

• Arrest means the deprivation of a person of his liberty by legal authority or by an apparent legal authority.
• The provisions of the CrPC that deal with arrest range from Section 41 – 60A under Chapter V of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC).
• Under CrPC arrest can be made by:
  • Police Officer (Section 41)
  • Private Person (Section 43)
  • Magistrate (Section 44)

Persons Authorized to Arrest:

• Police Officer

Arrest without warrant – Any police officer may arrest without an order of Magistrate and without a warrant when any person (Under Section 41 CrPC)

• • Commits cognizable offence in his presence,
  • Commits cognizable offence punishable with less than or equal to 7 years of imprisonment with or without fine:
    • Against whom reasonable complaint is made
    • Credible information has been received
    • Reasonable suspicion exists, if:
      • Police officer has reason to believe on the basis of such complaint, information, or suspicion that such person has committed the said offence
      • The police officer is satisfied that such arrest is necessary:
      • To prevent such a person from committing any further offence.
      • For proper investigation of the offence.
      • To prevent such person from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear or tampering with such evidence in any manner.
      • To prevent such person from making any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the police officer.
      • As unless such person is arrested, his presence in the Court whenever required cannot be ensured.

Provided that a police officer shall, in all cases where the arrest of a person is not required under the provisions of this sub-section, record the reasons in writing for not making the arrest.

The police officer shall record while making such arrest, his reasons in writing:

• • Against whom a complaint has been received or credible information has been received and a reasonable suspicion exists that such person has committed a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment for more than 7 years with or without fine and on the basis of that information the police is of the opinion that such person has committed the said offence.
  • When such person is a proclaimed offender.
  • In whose possession some stolen property is found and there exists a reason to believe that such person has committed an offence in relation to that stolen property.
  • When such person obstructs the police officer while in the execution of his duty.
  • Who has escaped or attempted to escape from lawful custody.
  • When such person is reasonably suspected of being a deserter from the armed forces of the union.
  • When such person is concerned with an act committed outside India that is an offence in India and against whom a reasonable complaint has been received or some credible information has been obtained or a reasonable suspicion exists and for the same, he is liable for extradition or apprehension under any law in force in India.
  • When such person is a released convict and has breached some rules related to his release.
  • When he is arrested under a requisition made by a police officer to arrest such a person who may be arrested without a warrant.

Arrest with warrant (Subject to Section 42):

• No person concerned in a non-cognizable offence or against whom a complaint has been made or credible information has been received or reasonable suspicion exists of his having so concerned shall be arrested without a warrant or order of the Magistrate.
• Private person

A private person can make an arrest by virtue of Section 43 of CrPC when a person:

• • In his presence commits a non-bailable and cognizable offence.
  • Is a proclaimed offender.
• Magistrate

A Magistrate (Executive or Judicial) can make an arrest under Section 44 of CrPC of a person:

• • Either himself or may order any other person to arrest the offender within his local jurisdiction.
  • He may at any time arrest or direct the arrest, in his presence, within his local jurisdiction, of any person for whose arrest he is competent at the time and in the circumstances to issue a warrant.

Procedure of Arrest:

• The procedure for how arrest is to be made is provided under section 46 of the Code.

Section 46 - Arrest How Made -

(1) In making an arrest the police officer or other person making the same shall actually touch or confine the body of the person to be arrested, unless there be a submission to the custody by word or action:

Provided that where a woman is to be arrested, unless the circumstances indicate to the contrary, her submission to custody on an oral intimation of arrest shall be presumed and, unless the circumstances otherwise require or unless the police officer is a female, the police officer shall not touch the person of the woman for making her arrest.

(2) If such person forcibly resists the endeavour to arrest him, or attempts to evade the arrest, such police officer or other person may use all means necessary to effect the arrest.

(3) Nothing in this section gives a right to cause the death of a person who is not accused of an offence punishable with death or with imprisonment for life.

(4) Save in exceptional circumstances, no woman shall be arrested after sunset and before sunrise, and where such exceptional circumstances exist, the woman police officer shall, by making a written report, obtain the prior permission of the Judicial Magistrate of the first class within whose local jurisdiction the offence is committed, or the arrest is to be made.

Requisites Regarding Arrest:

• Where arrest is not required, notice must be compulsorily issued before arresting.
• According to Section 41B of CrPC - Every police officer while making an arrest shall:
  • Bear accurate, visible and clear identification of his name.
  • Prepare memo of arrest, attested by at least one witness and countersigned by the arrested person.
  • Inform person arrested his right to have a relative informed.
• Police control rooms are to be established in every district and at the state level according to Section 41C of CrPC.
• An arrested person is entitled to meet an advocate during interrogation, not throughout the interrogation as per Section 41D of CrPC.
• A Police Officer may, in addition to arrest, exercise following powers:
  • May search a place entered by person sought to be arrested.
  • May pursue any person into any place in India.
  • Shall not subject person to more restraint than necessary.
  • Inform arrested person the grounds of arrest.
  • Inform arrested person of right to bail.
  • Has an obligation to inform about the arrest to a nominated person.
  • Search for the arrested person.
  • Seize offensive weapon.
  • Medical examination of accused at the request of police officer.
  • Medical examination of person accused of rape.
  • Medical examination of arrested person.
• Duty of person having the custody to take reasonable care of health and safety of arrested person.
• A person arrested must be taken before the magistrate within 24 hours of the arrest as per Section 57 of CrPC.
• Officer in charge shall report to District Magistrate of all arrests without warrant.
• Person arrested to be discharged on his own bond/bail/special order of magistrate
• Power to pursue and retake in case of escape.
• Arrest to be made strictly according to the CrPC according to Section 60A.
  • In Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014), Supreme Court of India ordered to ensure that police officers do not arrest the accused unnecessarily and magistrate do not authorize detention in such cases.

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

In a recent hearing, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that even in the event of the principal's death, the agency remains legally binding if the agent maintains a vested interest in the property outlined in the contract.

• This reaffirmation was made in the case of P. Seshareddy (D) Rep. By His LR. Cum Irrevocable GPA Holder And Assignee Kotamreddy kodandarami v. State of Karnataka.

What was the Background of P. Seshareddy (D) Rep. By His LR. Cum Irrevocable GPA Holder And Assignee Kotamreddy kodandarami v. State of Karnataka & Ors. Case?

• P. Seshareddy (appellant) appointed Kotemreddy Kodandarami Reddy as his General Power of Attorney for a contract with the State of Karnataka (respondent).
• Disputes arose, leading to arbitration initiated by Seshareddy.
• After his death, his legal heirs took over, but the case was dismissed.
• Kodandarami Reddy filed for restoration, granted by the Trial Judge.
• The respondent filed writ petitions against the Trial Judge's orders, which the Single Judge allowed, setting aside the Trial Judge's orders.
• The appellant argued that the Single Judge only considered Section 201 of the Indian Contract Act,1872 (ICA) and overlooked Sections 202 and 209. It was emphasized that the appellant had a legitimate interest in the contract, enabling them to continue proceedings despite the principal contractor's death and allowed the writ petition(s) filed by the respondent-State.
• The Supreme Court deemed the Single Judge's interpretation as flawed, highlighting Section 202 of ICA. The assignment deed established the appellant's interest in the contract, allowing continuation of the agency absent express provisions to the contrary. The Trial Judge's decision was deemed appropriate, and the Single Judge's ruling was overturned.
• The appeals are disposed of.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Supreme Court remarked that the learned Single Judge erred by solely considering Section 201 of ICA without considering Section 202.
• Additionally, the Court noted that the learned Single Judge overlooked the fact that an interest had been gained by the appellant in the contract due to the assignment deed.
• It is undeniable that the contract in question was the focal point of the agency. Therefore, without any explicit provision indicating otherwise, the appellant had the rightful entitlement to proceed with the agency.
• The bench, overturned the High Court's conclusions, asserting that if the agent has a personal interest in the property specifically outlined in the contract, which serves as the focal point of the agency, then the agency contract would not be terminated under Section 201 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 ("1872 Act") upon the principal's death.
• The appellant asserted that under Section 202 of the Act, their interest in the property forming the agency's subject matter prevents termination of the agency without an explicit contract, which would unfairly impact their interest.
• The Supreme Court highlighted that the demise of the primary contractor wouldn't hinder the agent (power of attorney) from instigating proceedings arising from the contract if the agent possesses a specified interest within the contract.
• In the current scenario, the principal contractor granted power of attorney to the appellant.
• Following the principal contractor's demise, the respondent sought to terminate the agency, i.e., the power of attorney.
• However, the appellant argued that since they maintain a vested interest in the contract, the termination of the agency upon the principal contractor's death wouldn't be applicable under Section 201 of the Act.

What is Section 201 and 202 of Contract Act, 1872?

About

• Section 201 of ICA, 1872 states that an agency relationship is terminated by the principal's death or insanity.
• Section 202 of ICA, 1872 deals with termination of an agency where the agent has an interest in the subject matter of the agency.
  • It specifies that if the agent has a personal interest in the property, which is the agency's subject matter, the agency cannot be terminated to the prejudice of such interest unless there is an express contract allowing such termination.

Legal Provision

• Section 201 deals with termination of agency.
  • An agency is terminated by the principal revoking his authority; or by the agent renouncing the business of the agency; or by the business of the agency being completed; or by either the principal or agent dying or becoming of unsound mind; or by the principal being adjudicated an insolvent under the provisions of any Act for the time being in force for the relief of insolvent debtors.
• Section 202 deals with termination of agency, where agent has an interest in subject-matter.
  • Where the agent himself has an interest in the property which forms the subject-matter of the agency, the agency cannot, in the absence of an express contract, be terminated to the prejudice of such interest.

What are the Various modes for Termination of Agency?

Section 201 of ICA, 1872 describes the various modes of termination of agency.

• Termination of agency by act of the parties: -
  • Agreement
    • The relation of principal and agent, like any other agreement, may be terminated at any time and at any stage by the mutual agreement between the principal and the agent.
  • Revocation by Principal
    • According to Section 203, ICA, 1872 the principal may revoke the authority of the agent at any time before the agent has exercised his authority so as to bind the principal unless the agency is irrevocable.
  • Renunciation by Agent
    • An agent is entitled to renounce his power by refusing to act or by notifying the principal that he will not act for the principal.
• Termination of agency by operation of law-
  • Performance of the Contract-
    • Where the agency is for a particular object, it is terminated when the object is accomplished or when the accomplishment of the object becomes impossible.
  • Expiry of Time-
    • When the agent is appointed for a fixed period of time, the agency comes to an end after the expiry of that time even if the work is not complete.
  • Death and Insanity-
    • As per Section 209 of ICA,1872, When the agent or the principal dies or becomes of unsound mind, the agency is terminated.
  • Insolvency-
    • The insolvency of the agent, it is accepted, also terminate the agency unless the acts to be done by the agent are merely formal acts.
  • Destructions of Subject matter-
    • An agency which is created to deal with a certain subject-matter comes to an end by the destruction of the subject-matter.
  • Principal and Agent becoming Alien company-
    • The contract of agency is valid so long as the countries of the principal and the agent are at peace. If war breaks out between the two countries, the contract of agency is terminated.
  • Dissolution of a Company-
    • When a company is dissolved, the contract of the agency with or by the company automatically comes to an end.

Case Law

In the case of Bhagwanbhai Karamanbhai v. Arogyanagar Co-op. Hsg. Socy. Ltd. (2003) an irrevocable power of attorney was executed by all landowners for the sale of land. Also, the landowners relinquished their authority in favor of the power of attorney holder. The Gujarat High Court determined that upon the death of one of the landowners, there was no requirement for the power of attorney holder to seek consent from the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased landowner. This was because there was no explicit contract stipulating the termination of the agency.