List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of M/S Sas Infratech Pvt. Ltd v. The State of Telangana & Anr., has held that a magistrate cannot be said to have taken cognizance of any offence when he in the exercise of his judicial discretion directs investigation under Section 156(3) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC).

What was the Background of M/S Sas Infratech Pvt. Ltd v. The State of Telangana & Anr. Case?

• In this case, the Trial Court after the scrutiny of the complaint, documents and the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant, exercised its judicial discretion by directing the investigation under Section 156(3) of CrPC.
• Thereafter the Respondent (accused), being aggrieved with the same, had preferred the criminal petition before the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.
• The High Court set aside the order of the Trial Court and stated that it is made without any proper reasons.
• Thereafter the present appeal has been filed by the appellant before the Supreme Court against the Judgment and order passed by the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.
• Allowing the appeal, the Court restored the Trial Court’s order directing a police investigation.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The bench comprising of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal observed that when the Magistrate, in exercise of his judicial discretion directs investigation under Section 156(3) of CrPC, he cannot be said to have taken cognizance of any offence. It is only when the Magistrate, after applying his mind prefers to follow the procedure under Chapter XV of CrPC by resorting to Sections 200, he can be said to have taken cognizance of the offence.

What are the Legal Provisions Involved in it?

Section 156(3) of CrPC

About:

• Section 156(3) of CrPC states that a Magistrate who is empowered to take cognizance under Section 190 of Code may order investigation for the cognizable offence.
• An application under section 156(3) of CrPC discloses the cognizable offence, then it is the duty of the concerned Magistrate to direct registration of the FIR, which is to be investigated by the Investigation Agency, in accordance with law.
• If the information received does not disclose the commission of cognizable offence apparently, but indicates necessity for inquiry, the preliminary inquiry may be conducted in order to ascertain whether the cognizable offence is disclosed or not.
• Any judicial magistrate may order an investigation under Section 156(3) of CrPC before taking notice of the offence.

Essential Elements:

• The power to order police investigation under Section 156 (3) is exercisable at the pre-cognizance stage.
• The power under Section 156 (3) can be invoked by the Magistrate before he takes cognizance of the offence.
• An order made under sub-section (3) of Section 156, is in the nature of a peremptory reminder or intimation to the police to exercise their plenary powers of investigation.

Case Laws

• Har prasad v. State of U.P (2006), the Supreme Court held that if the application under Section 156(3) CrPC. discloses the commission of cognizable offence and at the stage of Section 156(3) CrPC, which is the cognizable stage, once the cognizable offence is disclosed through an application, it was the duty of the concerned Court to order for registration and investigation of the offences, as crime detection and crime prevention are the foremost duty of the police and not of the Court.
• Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P (2014), the Supreme Court held that if the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not.
• Priyanka Srivastava and Ors v. State of U.P. and Ors (2015), the Supreme Court held that a stage has come in this country where Section 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure applications are to be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by the applicant who seeks the invocation of the Magistrate’s jurisdiction.

Section 200 of CrPC

About:

• Section 200 of CrPC deals with the examination of complainant.

Legal Provision:

• A Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on complaint shall examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present, if any, and the substance of such examination shall be reduced to writing and shall be signed by the complainant and the witnesses, and by the Magistrate.
• Provided that, when the complaint is made in writing, the Magistrate need not examine the complainant and the witnesses-

(a) If a public servant acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties or a Court has made the complaint; or

(b) If the Magistrate makes over the case for inquiry or trial to another Magistrate under section 192.

Source: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Why in News?

Recently the Punjab & Haryana High Court acquittal of Dera Sacha Sauda chief Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh and four others in the 2002 Ranjit Singh murder has stirred controversy. The court stated that the consent of the accused persons was taken before conducting the polygraph test.

What was the Background of Jasbir Singh (deceased) v. CBI Case?

• On July 10, 2002, Ranjit Singh was shot dead by four individuals while in the fields. His father, Joginder Singh, suspected Ram Kumar Sarpanch and Raj Singh due to prior disputes.
• FIR filed against Ram Kumar Sarpanch, Raj Singh, and four others under Sections 120-B, 302, 34 Indian Penal Code,1860 based on Joginder Singh's statement.
• Joginder Singh later implicated Dera Sacha Sauda followers, citing suspicions related to an anonymous letter about sexual exploitation.
• On 24.08.2002, Joginder Singh implicated Jasbir Singh and Sabdil Singh, a constable and gunman of Baba Gurmeet Singh, in the murder.
• The case transferred to CID Crime Branch on 22.11.2002. Jasbir Singh and Sabdil Singh were arrested on 02.12.2002.
• CID Crime Branch filed charge sheets against Jasbir Singh and Sabdil Singh on 17.02.2003 and a supplementary charge sheet.
• Joginder Singh petitioned for a CBI investigation due to dissatisfaction with local police inquiry.
• The High Court transferred the case to CBI on 10.11.2003 and began investigation.
• Polygraph Test was Conducted on three accused persons related to the alleged incident.
• High Court acquitted the Dera Chief and four other accused individuals, stating merit in their appeals and overturning the previous verdict.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Punjab and Haryana High Court acquitted Dera Sacha Sauda chief Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh and four others who were sentenced to life imprisonment by a CBI court in the 2002 Ranjit Singh murder case.
• A division bench found the CBI, which took over the probe in November 2023, failed to establish the motive of the crime and rather, the prosecution case was "shrouded in doubts".
• The court observed that the instant case is a stark portrayal of the necessity of Courts of law making an incisive and objective analysis, of the evidence as exists on record, rather than the said objective analyses becoming attempted to become stultified, through a proactive media trial becoming made of the purported incriminatory role of the accused vis-a-vis the crime event.
• A polygraph test was conducted on three accused persons relating to an alleged incident. The Court noted that results of the examinations thereof reveal that there were some deceptive answers meted to the relevant queries.
• It further highlighted that it is nowhere stated that the consent of the accused persons was taken before conducting the polygraph test.

What is a Polygraph Test?

• Polygraph or Lie Detector Test is a procedure that measures and records several physiological indicators such as blood pressure, pulse, respiration, and skin conductivity while a person is asked and answers a series of questions.
• This test is based on the assumption that physiological responses that are triggered when a person is lying are different from what they would be otherwise.
• A numerical value is assigned to each response to conclude whether the person is telling the truth, is deceiving, or is uncertain.
• A test similar to Polygraph was first done in the 19^th century by the Italian criminologist Cesare Lombroso, who used a machine to measure changes in the blood pressure of criminal suspects during interrogation.

What is the Legal Admissibility of the Polygraph Test?

• The polygraphy test, along with other methods like narco-analysis and brain-mapping, is utilized by police to facilitate investigations while avoiding physical violence.
• These methods mainly rely on extracting information from the accused, potentially incriminating them.
• According to Article 21(3) of the Indian Constitution,1950 individuals cannot be compelled to testify against themselves, making polygraphy test results inadmissible as evidence in court.
• The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) has issued guidelines to conduct polygraphy tests in accordance with Article 21, safeguarding personal liberty and privacy rights.
• Prior to these guidelines, tests were often coercive and violated individual liberties. Despite the guidelines, some agencies may not fully adhere to NHRC recommendations.
• The questions about the accuracy of polygraphy tests, as fear or panic during interrogation may lead to unreliable results.
• This poses the risk of wrongful punishment for innocent individuals who may falsely incriminate themselves under pressure.

What are the Guidelines Issued by NHRC Regarding the Polygraph Test?

• The guidelines issued by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) on administering polygraph tests to suspects ensure a fair and transparent process that respects the rights of the accused.
  • Voluntary Consent: The accused must give their consent to undergo the polygraph test voluntarily. They should have the option to decline the test.
  • Informed Consent: Before consenting to the test, the accused should be fully informed about its purpose, procedure, and legal implications. This information should be provided by the police and the accused's lawyer.
  • Recorded Consent: The consent of the accused to undergo the polygraph test must be recorded before a Judicial Magistrate.
  • Documentation: During the court proceedings, the police must present evidence to show that the accused agreed to undergo the polygraph test. This documentation is presented by the lawyer in front of the judge.
  • Clarification of Statements: The accused should understand that the statements made during the polygraph test are considered as statements to the police, not confessions.
  • Judicial Consideration: When considering the results of a polygraph test, the judge considers factors such as the duration of the accused's detention and the interrogation.

What are the Landmark Judgments Related to Polygraph Test?

• Selvi v. State of Karnataka & Anr Case 2010:
  • The SC ruled on the legality and admissibility of narco tests establishing that the involuntary administration of narco or lie detector tests constitutes an intrusion into an individual's "mental privacy."
  • The apex court held that narco tests violate the fundamental right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution, which states that no person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.
    • Self-incrimination is a legal principle under which a person cannot be compelled to provide information or testify against themselves in a criminal case.
• D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal case, 1997:
  • The SC ruled that involuntary administration of the polygraph and narcos test will amount to cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment in the context of Article 21 or the Right to Life and Liberty.
• Other Observations of the SC:
  • Narco tests are not reliable or conclusive as evidence, as they are based on assumptions and probabilities.
  • Any information or material that is subsequently discovered with the help of voluntarily administered test results can be admitted, under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872.
    • Section 27 of IEA deals with how much information received from accused may be proved.
    • It states that when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police-officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.
  • The court also emphasized that the ‘Guidelines for the Administration of Polygraph Test on an Accused’, published by the National Human Rights Commission in 2000, must be strictly followed.

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently a bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Sanjay Karol reiterated that the appellate court has the power to direct the tenant to pay a reasonable amount, not necessarily the contractual rent, as mesne profit when granting a stay on the execution of an eviction decree.

• The Supreme Court gave this observation in the case of Bijay Kumar Manish Kumar HUF v. Ashwin Bhanulal Desai.

What was the Background of Bijay Kumar Manish Kumar Huf v. Ashwin Bhanulal Desai Case?

• The case involves four different tenancies between the petitioner-landlord and the respondent-tenant in properties located in the Dalhousie area of Kolkata.
• The lease agreements were executed between 1991-1992, and the respondent-tenant allegedly defaulted on rent payments since 2002 and municipal taxes since 1996.
• The petitioner-landlord alleged that the lease was forfeited due to non-payment of rent, and initiated eviction proceedings under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
• The matter went through various courts, and the High Court eventually held that the West Bengal Tenancy Act, 1997 would govern the dispute, dismissing the landlord's eviction suits.
• During the pendency of the Special Leave Petitions in the Supreme Court, the petitioner-landlord filed interlocutory applications seeking directions for payment of "monthly occupational charges" at the market rate, claiming Rs. 5,15,05,512/- as dues from the respondent-tenant.
  • This claimed amount was effectively seeking mesne profit or compensation for the period the respondent-tenant continued to occupy the premises after the alleged determination/forfeiture of the lease.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Supreme Court noted that while mesne profit is generally awarded after a decree of eviction is passed and stayed, a tenant continuing in possession after their right to occupy is extinguished is liable to compensate the landlord for the period after their right expires.
• The Court observed that the effect of words like 'determination', 'expiry', 'forfeiture', and 'termination' of a lease would be similar, i.e., the rights of the tenant stand extinguished or metamorphosed into a weaker form, and in such situations, mesne profit would be payable.
• Considering the disputed nature of the lease, the location of the premises, and the alleged deprivation of rent for a considerable period, the Court took a prima facie view that the respondent-tenant had been delaying the payment of rent and other dues.
• The Court directed the respondent-tenant to deposit the amount of Rs. 5,15,05,512/- claimed by the petitioner-landlord with the Registry of the Supreme Court within four weeks, subject to the final outcome of the Special Leave Petitions.

What is Mesne Profits?

• As per Section 2(12) of CPC, mesne profits of property mean those profits which the person in wrongful possession of such property actually received or might with ordinary diligence have received therefrom, together with interest on such profits, but shall not include profits due to improvements made by the person in wrongful possession.
• It is compensation paid to the real owner.
• Objectives:
  • Every person has a right to possess his property. And when he is deprived of such property by another person, he is not only entitled to restoration of possession of his property, but also damages for wrongful possession from that person.
  • The object of awarding a decree for mesne profits is to compensate the person who has been kept out of possession and deprived of enjoyment of his property.
• Principles:
  • The following principles would guide a Court in determining the amount of mesne profits.
    • No profit by a person in wrongful possession.
    • Restoration of status before dispossession of decree holder.
    • Use to which a decree holder would have put the property if he himself was in possession.
• Against Whom Mesne Profits can be Claimed:
  • Wrongful possession of the defendant is the essence of a claim for mesne profits and the very foundation of the defendant’s liability, therefore.
  • A person in wrongful possession and enjoyment of immovable property is liable for mesne profits.
  • Mesne profits can be claimed with regard to immovable property only.
  • Where a plaintiff is dispossessed by several persons, every one of them would be liable to pay mesne profits to the plaintiff.
• Assessment of Mesne Profits:
  • Mesne profits being in the nature of damages, no invariable rule governing their award and assessment in every case can be laid down and the Court may mould it according to the case.
  • In assessing the mesne profits, usually the Court will take into account what the defendant has gained by his wrongful possession of the property.
  • The test to ascertain mesne profits is not what the plaintiff has lost by being out of possession but what the defendant gained or might reasonably and with ordinary prudence would have gained by such wrongful possession.
  • While awarding mesne profits, the Court may allow deductions to be made from the gross profits of the defendant in wrongful possession of the property.