List of Current Affairs

Source: Jharkhand High Court 

Why in News? 

The Jharkhand High Court overturned a lower court's decision in the matter of Budhuwa Oraon v. Ghura Oraon, allowing the introduction of documentary evidence after the initial filing of written statements. This ruling clarifies that courts have the discretion to admit late evidence if it's crucial for just adjudication and the delay is justified. 

• The High Court's ruling favors a flexible interpretation of civil procedure, permitting the late submission of crucial documentary evidence despite procedural timelines. 

What was the Background of Budhuwa Oraon v. Ghura Oraon? 

• Ghura Oraon filed Suit against Budhwa Oraon and others, seeking to nullify certain deeds and mutation orders. 
• Budhwa Oraon (defendant) filed a written statement, but later sought to introduce additional documents during the plaintiff's evidence stage. 
• 21st September 2016, the Civil Judge (Junior Division)-I, Gumla rejected the defendant's application to produce these additional documents. 
• Budhwa Oraon filed a writ petition in Jharkhand High Court challenging this order. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The trial court erred in rejecting the defendant's application solely because no reason was given for not producing the documents earlier. 
• Documentary evidence can be admitted at a later stage if: 
  • Due diligence was exercised in attempting to produce it earlier 
  • The documents are necessary for adjudicating the issues between parties 
• This allowance persists even after the deletion of Order XVIII Rule 17A of the Civil Procedure Code. 
• To maintain fairness, the plaintiff should be given an opportunity to present rebuttal evidence if new documents are admitted. 
• The court emphasized that procedural rules should not impede the just resolution of cases when parties have valid reasons for delayed document production. 

What is Documentary Evidence? 

• Definition 
  • The word document has been defined under Section 2(d) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.(BSA) 
    • Any matter expressed or described or otherwise recorded upon any substance by means of letters, figures or marks or any other means or by more than one of those means, intended to be used, or which may be used, for the purpose of recording that matter and includes electronic and digital records 
  • Under BSA Chapter 5 deals with documentary evidence Section 56 to 73 of the Act. 
• Position under Indian Evidence Act, 1872:  
  • Under the Indian Evidence Act 1872(IEA), a document includes writings, maps, and caricatures BSA adds that electronic records will also be considered as documents.  
• Types:  
  • Documentary evidence includes primary and secondary evidence. 
    • Primary evidence includes the original document and its parts, such as electronic records and video recordings. 
    • Secondary evidence contains documents and oral accounts that can prove the contents of the original. 
      • The BSA expands secondary evidence to include: (i) oral and written admissions, and (ii) the testimony of a person who has examined the document and is skilled to examine the documents. 
• Doctrine: 
  • This principle comes from the doctrine of vox Audita Perit, literra Scripta Manet which means spoken words vanish whereas only the written words remain.  
  • This means when there is evidence in front of the court, one is the oral evidence, and the other is the documentary evidence supremacy will be given to the documentary Evidence. 
• Admissibility of Electronic or Digital Records as Evidence:  
  • Documentary evidence includes information in electronic records that have been printed or stored in optical or magnetic media produced by a computer. 
  • Such information may have been stored or processed by a combination of computers or different computers. 
• Documentary evidence has been categorized in three parts (as per BSA): 
  • General rules concerning proving documentary evidence in various cases are dealt with under sections 56 to 73. 
  • Second is the public documents which are dealt with under sections 74 to 77 and 
  • Finally, it is Section 78 to 93 which deals with presumptions as to the documents. 

What are the Important Legal Provisions? 

• Section 57 deals with Primary evidence. 
  • It states that Primary evidence means the document itself produced for the inspection of the Court. 
    • Explanation 1. —Where a document is executed in several parts, each part is primary evidence of the document.  
    • Explanation 2. —Where a document is executed in counterpart, each counterpart being executed by one or some of the parties only, each counterpart is primary evidence as against the parties executing it. 
    • Explanation 3. —Where a number of documents are all made by one uniform process, as in the case of printing, lithography or photography, each is primary evidence of the contents of the rest; but, where they are all copies of a common original, they are not primary evidence of the contents of the original. Facts admitted need not be proved. Proof of facts by oral evidence. Oral evidence to be direct. Proof of contents of documents. Primary evidence.  
    •  Explanation 4. —Where an electronic or digital record is created or stored, and such storage occurs simultaneously or sequentially in multiple files, each such file is primary evidence.  
    • Explanation 5. —Where an electronic or digital record is produced from proper custody, such electronic and digital record is primary evidence unless it is disputed. 
    • Explanation 6. —Where a video recording is simultaneously stored in electronic form and transmitted or broadcast or transferred to another, each of the stored recordings is primary evidence. 
    • Explanation 7. —Where an electronic or digital record is stored in multiple storage spaces in a computer resource, each such automated storage, including temporary files, is primary evidence. 
• Section 58 deals with Secondary evidence. 
  • It includes: - 
    • (i) certified copies given under the provisions hereinafter contained; 
    • (ii) copies made from the original by mechanical processes which in themselves ensure the accuracy of the copy, and copies compared with such copies;  
    • (iii) copies made from or compared with the original;  
    • (iv) counterparts of documents as against the parties who did not execute them;  
    • (v) oral accounts of the contents of a document given by some person who has himself seen it;  
    • (vi) oral admissions;  
    • (vii) written admissions;  
    • (viii) evidence of a person who has examined a document, the original of which consists of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot conveniently be examined in Court, and who is skilled in the examination of such documents. 
• Sections 65 to 73 of BSA deal with the documents to be attested. This means that whenever you go to court you also need to prove the genuine nature of the document you presented before it. Hence mere presentation of the document in the court is not enough but must be proved as well. 
• Section 65 deals with proof of signature and handwriting of person alleged to have signed or written document produced. 
• Section 66 deals with proof as to electronic signature. 
• Section 67 deals with Proof of execution of document required by law to be attested. 
• Section 68 deals with proof where no attesting witness found 
• Section 69 deals with admission of execution by party to attested document 
• Section 70 deals with proof when an attesting witness denies execution. 
• Section 71 deals with proof of documents not required by law to be attested. 
• Section 72 deals with comparison of signature, writing or seal with others admitted or proved. 
• Section 73 deals with proof as to verification of digital signature. 

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma held that merely on the grounds of good public image of the accused there can be no withdrawal from prosecution.   

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of Shailendra Kumar Srivastava v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 

What is the Background of Shailendra Kumar Srivastava v. The State of Uttar Pradesh Case?

• The First Information Report (FIR) was filed against the five named accused persons and against two unknown persons under Section 147, Section148, Section 149, Section 307 and Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). 
• It is the case of the complainant that the accused persons fired indiscriminately at the complainant and other persons owing to which two of the persons died. 
• During the investigation names of Chhote Singh and Ganga Singh were arrayed as unknown persons. 
• Accused Chhote Singh was elected as member of legislative Assembly. 
• There was a Government order passed granting permission to withdraw prosecution with respect to all accused persons. 
• The Trial Court allowed withdrawal of prosecution against Chhote Singh on the ground that he was respected citizen of the society. With respect to other accused persons the application was rejected. 
• The first informant filed a revision petition before the Allahabad High Court against the withdrawal of prosecution. 
• In 2023, the High Court dismissed the revision petition, following which he approached the Supreme Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court held that merely because an accused person is elected to the Legislative Assembly this cannot be a testament to their image among the general public. 
• The Court further observed that withdrawal from prosecution merely on the grounds of good public image of accused is impermissible. 
• Thus, the Court set aside the withdrawal of prosecution of the accused as allowed by the Trial Court. 

What is Withdrawal from Prosecution under Section 321 of CrPC? 

• In Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), withdrawal from prosecution has been provided for under Section 321 of CrPC. 
• According to Section 321 CrPC, only the Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor who is in charge of a particular case can apply for withdrawal from the respective case. 
• This Section provides that the consent of the Court should be taken before withdrawal. 
• The withdrawal can happen at any time before the pronouncement of judgment. 
• Further, it can happen generally or in respect of any one or more offences for which the accused is tried.  
• The consequences of withdrawal from prosecution are : 

• The proviso provides that for following offences the prosecutor has to get permission from the Central Government for withdrawal of prosecution if the prosecutor in charge of the case has not been appointed by the Central Government. 
  • Also, the Court before granting consent in the above cases would direct the prosecutor to produce before it the permission granted by the Central Government to withdraw from the prosecution. 
  • The offences on which the proviso applies are: 

What are the New Features Added by Section 360 of BNSS? 

• Section 360 of BNSS makes changes in the proviso which will come into play in those cases where permission of Central Government is required before withdrawal of prosecution. 
  • Instead of offences investigated by Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (under Section 321 of CrPC), the new provision provides for offence investigated under any Central Act. 
• Further, this Section also adds a new proviso which was missing earlier. 
  • The new proviso provides that no Court shall allow such withdrawal without giving an opportunity of being heard to the victim in the case. 
  • Thus, it furthers the interest of the victim as they are given an opportunity to be heard before the withdrawal from prosecution. 
• Rest all the provisions are similar to Section 321 of CrPC.   

A Comparative Table of Withdrawal from Prosecution under Section 360 of BNSS and 321 CrPC?  

What are the Important Case Laws? 

• M. Balakrishna Reddy v. Principal Secretary to Govt. Home Deptt (1999) 
  • The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that: 
    • An individual not being the victim of the crime is equally endowed with the right to oppose the withdrawal application from prosecution as is the victim of the crime. 
    • The court further observed that the third person is a part of the community against whom the crime has been committed and thus he or she has a locus standi to oppose the withdrawal. 
• V.S Achuthanandan v. R. Balakrishnan Pillai (1995) 
  • The Supreme Court accepted the locus standi of the opposition leader in opposing the withdrawal application from prosecution against a minister since no one else was opposing such an application.

Source: Bombay High Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the Bombay High Court in the matter of Mr. Momin Zulfikar Kasam v. Ajay Balkrishna Durve & Anr.  has held that as per the amendment in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) transferee of right is entitled for execution of the decree without an assignment of decree.   

What was the Background of the Mr. Momin Zulfikar Kasam vs. Ajay Balkrishna Durve & Anr. Case?

• In this case, the plaintiff let out the suit premises to the defendant based on an agreement of license which came to an end hence plaintiff asked for the possession of the premises. 
• Even after several notices the defendant did not comply with the notices. 
• The plaintiff filed a suit for the eviction of respondent before the Competent Authority under Section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 seeking eviction of the defendant. 
  • The defendant filed an objection petition objecting that the Competent Authority does not have jurisdiction to decide the matter which was dismissed by the Competent Authority. 
• The plaintiff filed a suit for the eviction of respondent before the Small Cause Court. 
  • Small Cause Court decreed in favor of plaintiff and ordered defendant warrant of possession. 
• The defendant, aggrieved by the decision, filed an appeal before the Appellate Small Cause Court which was dismissed by the Appellate Court. 
• Plaintiff then filed an execution application before the Small Cause Court which was opposed by the defendant while the Execution Decree was passed by the Small Cause court in favor of the plaintiff under Order XXI Rule 35 of warrant of possession of the CPC. 
• The defendant filed an objection petition before the Small Cause Court objecting that the court does not have jurisdiction to pass the execution decree in view of the provisions of Section 22 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act and also prayed for stay of possession warrant is still pending while the application of stay on warrant of possession, was rejected by the court. 
• The defendant further filed a revision petition before the Appellate Court which allowed the petition for the stay on warrant of possession and set aside the decree passed by Small Cause Court by staying the warrant of possession stating that mere transfer does not amount to assignment of the decree as per Order XXI Rule 16 (O21 R16) of CPC, 1908. 
• Aggrieved by the decision of the Appellate Court plaintiff filed an Appeal before the Bombay High Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• It was observed by the Bombay High Court that the Appellate Court has applied Order XXI R16 of CPC but has failed to apply the amended provision which enables the transferee to file for an execution of decree without a separate assignment of decree. 
• The court also clarified that nothing under Order XXI R16 affects Section 146 of CPC. 
• It was also settled by the High Court that all the questions relating to execution of decree shall be satisfied by the executing court and not by filing separate suit as per the provisions of Section 47 of CPC. 
• It was noted by the court that the Appellate Small Cause Court has committed a grave error in setting aside the order of the Executing Court and staying the warrant of possession. 
• Therefore, the court upheld the decision of the Small Cause Court/ Executing Court and allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiff. However, the objection petition of defendant on jurisdiction is pending before the Small Cause Court. 

What is Order XXI of CPC? 

• About: 
  • This order gives a complete procedure of execution of a decree. 
  • It states that a decree must be signed by the judges delivering it and then must be recorded in a register by the court. 
  • It is the longest order under CPC covering 106 Rules.  
  • The Execution decree is open for inspection by the parties. 
• Various Modes of Executing a Decree: 
  • Attachment and Sale of the Property. 
  • Arrest & detention 
  • Appointment of a receiver. 
  • Delivery possession. 
• Procedure for Filing Under Order 21 
  • An application shall be filed by Judgement creditor before the Executing Court. 
  • The Executing Court shall issue a notice to the Judgement Debtor. 
  • The Court shall execute the decree after all necessary examinations and may issue warrants, attach property, order arrest, or take any other necessary measures for the decree's execution. 

What are Important Rules & Sections of CPC, 1908 Referred in Mr. Momin Zulfikar Kasam v. Ajay Balkrishna Durve & Anr Case? 

• Section 47: Questions to be determined by the Court executing decree 
  • Clause (1) states that all question arising between the parties to the suit in which the decree was passed, or their representatives, and relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree, shall be determined by the Court executing the decree and not by a separate suit.  
  • Clause (3) states that where a question arises as to whether any person is or is not the representative of a party, such a question shall, for the purposes of this section, be determined by the Court. 
  • Explanation: the purposes of this section, a plaintiff whose suit has been dismissed and a defendant against whom a suit has been dismissed, are parties to the suit. 
• Section 146: Proceedings by or against representatives. - 
  • Save as otherwise provided by this Code or by any law for P the time being in force, where any proceeding may be taken or by application made by or against any person, then the proceeding may t be taken or the application may be made by or against any person claiming under him. 
• Order XXI Rule 16: Application for execution by transferee of decree 
  • This rule states that where a decree or, if a decree has been passed jointly in favor of two or more persons, the interest of any decree-holder in the decree is transferred by assignment in writing or by operation of law, the transferee may apply for execution of the decree to the Court which passed it and the decree may be executed in the same manner and subject to the same conditions as if the application were made by such decree-holder. 
  • Provided that, where the decree, or such interest as aforesaid, has been transferred by assignment, notice of such application shall be given to the transferor and the judgment-debtor, and the decree shall not be executed until the Court has heard their objections (if any) to its execution. 
  • Provided also that, where a decree for the payment of money against two or more persons has been transferred to one of them, it shall not be executed against the others.  
  • An explanation added by amendment that nothing in this rule shall affect the provisions of section 146, and a transferee of rights in the property, which is the subject matter of the suit, may apply for execution of the decree without a separate assignment of the decree as required by this rule. 
• Order XXI Rule 35: Decree for immovable property - 
  • Clause (1) states that where a decree is for the delivery of any immovable property, possession thereof shall be delivered to the party to whom it has been adjudged, or to such person as he may appoint to receive delivery on his behalf, and, if necessary, by removing any person bound by the decree who refuses to vacate the property. 
  • Clause (2) states that where a decree is for the joint possession of immovable property, such possession shall be delivered by affixing a copy of the warrant in some conspicuous place on the property and proclaiming by beat of drum, or other customary mode, at some convenient place, the substance of the decree. 
  • Clause (3) states that where possession of any building on enclosure is to be delivered and the person in possession, being bound by the decree, does not afford free access, the Court, through its officers, may, after giving reasonable warning and facility to any woman not appearing in public according to the customs of the country to withdraw, remove or open any lock or bolt or break open any door or do any other act necessary for putting the decree-holder in possession. 

What are Landmark Judgements on the Applicability of Order XXI? 

• Jugal Kishore Saraf v. Raw Cotton Co. Ltd (1955): In this case it was held that transferee of rights in the property is not entitled to apply for execution of the decree in absence of separate assignment of the decree. It is a bad law after the amendment in the Code (CPC). 
• Vaishno Devi Construction v. Union of India (2022):  The Supreme Court in this case held that transferee of rights in the property is entitled to apply for execution of the decree in absence of separate assignment of the decree.