List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

The Supreme Court ruled that the High Court, while exercising its revision jurisdiction under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(CrPC) (now Section 442 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,2023 (BNSS), cannot convert an acquittal into a conviction. Instead, if the High Court finds the acquittal erroneous, it should remand the case to the appellate court for re-appreciation. This ruling followed a case where the High Court overturned an acquittal in a cheque dishonor matter without remanding it for further review. 

• Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti held in C.N. Shantha Kumar v. M.S. Srinivas. 

What was the Background of C.N. Shantha Kumar v. M.S. Srinivas ? 

• The complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, alleging cheque dishonor. 
• The trial court convicted the accused (appellant) based on the complaint. 
• On appeal, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and acquitted the accused. 
• The complainant (respondent) filed a criminal revision petition before the High Court challenging the acquittal. 
• The High Court, exercising its revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 of the CrPC.(now Section 442 of BNSS), reversed the appellate court's acquittal and convicted the accused. 
• The accused then appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court's authority to convert an acquittal into a conviction while exercising its revisional powers. 
• The case before the Supreme Court centered on the interpretation and application of Section 401(3) CrPC (now Section 442(3) of BNSS), which defines the scope of the High Court's revisional powers in criminal matters. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The High Court, while exercising criminal revision jurisdiction under Section 401 CrPC (now Section 442 of BNSS), cannot convert a decision of acquittal to conviction. 
• Section 442(3) of BNSS [analogous to Section 401(3) CrPC] explicitly prohibits the High Court from converting a finding of acquittal into one of conviction while exercising its revisional power. 
• The approach adopted by the High Court in reversing the acquittal and ordering conviction was deemed improper and unsustainable. 
• If the High Court was convinced of a wrongful acquittal, the appropriate course of action would have been to remit the matter back to the appellate court for re-appreciation, rather than directly ordering conviction. 
• The High Court's failure to adopt the correct procedural course rendered its decision untenable in law. 
• The Supreme Court emphasized that the merits of conviction or acquittal were not the issue before it; rather, the focus was on the proper exercise of revisional powers by the High Court. 
• The Court observed that the High Court's revisional jurisdiction is limited and must be exercised within the statutory framework provided by the Code of Criminal Procedure. 

What is Revision Jurisdiction (According to CrPC)? 

• Revisional jurisdiction is a supervisory power exercised by the High Court and Sessions Judge under Sections 399 and 401 of CrPC. 
• The scope of revisional jurisdiction is broad, allowing the court to examine the correctness, legality, or propriety of any finding, sentence, or order, and the regularity of proceedings in subordinate courts. 
• High Courts and Sessions Judges possess concurrent and co-extensive revisional jurisdiction over subordinate criminal courts within their respective territorial jurisdictions. 
• Section 397(3) explicitly bars the exercise of revisional jurisdiction by one court if the other has already exercised it on the same subject matter. 
• Revisional powers are subject to statutory limitations, including:  
  • a) Prohibition on revising interlocutory orders (Section 397(2)). 
  • b) Restriction on filing multiple revision applications by the same person (Section 397(3)). 
  • c) Mandatory hearing of the accused or affected person before passing adverse orders (Section 401(2)). 
  • d) Prohibition on converting acquittals into convictions (Section 401(3)). 
  • e) Bar on revision proceedings when an appeal was available but not pursued (Section 401(4)). 
• The exercise of revisional jurisdiction is discretionary and typically limited to questions of law or cases involving perverse findings. 
• Revisional courts are generally not empowered to re-appreciate evidence, except in cases of glaring defects in procedure or manifest errors of law resulting in flagrant miscarriage of justice. 
• Section 401(1) allows revisional courts to exercise powers of appellate courts (under Section 386) for the limited purpose of ensuring correctness, legality, or propriety of lower court decisions. 
• High Courts retain the power to enhance sentences in exercise of their revisional jurisdiction, despite the provision for state appeals against inadequate sentences under Section 377. 
• Interference with acquittals in revision is permissible in specific circumstances, such as lack of jurisdiction, wrongful exclusion of evidence, overlooking material evidence, or invalid compounding of offences. 
• The term "interlocutory order" in Section 397(2) is to be interpreted liberally in favor of the accused, and orders substantially affecting rights or deciding important issues are not considered purely interlocutory. 
• Revisional jurisdiction can be invoked suo motu by the court or at the instance of third parties, as the statutory power vests with the court regardless of who brings the matter to its attention. 
• Criminal revisions, like criminal appeals, cannot be dismissed for default or want of prosecution, as established in case law. 
• There is a split in judicial opinion regarding whether Sessions Judges can enhance sentences in exercise of their revisional jurisdiction, with some High Courts allowing it and others opposing the practice. 

What is Section 442 of BNSS?

• Section 442 of BNSS deals with the power of the High Court to withdraw or transfer revision cases (under Section 401 of CrPC.)  
• The High Court possesses discretionary revisional powers over proceedings, whether called for by itself or otherwise coming to its knowledge. 
• In exercising its revisional jurisdiction, the High Court may utilize powers conferred on a Court of Appeal by sections 427, 430, 431 and 432, or on a Court of Session by section 344. 
• When Judges composing the Court of Revision are equally divided in opinion, the case shall be disposed of as per the procedure outlined in section 433. 
• No order under this section can be made to the prejudice of the accused or other person without providing them with an opportunity of being heard, either personally or through an advocate. 
• The High Court is expressly prohibited from converting a finding of acquittal into one of conviction while exercising its revisional powers. 
• Revision proceedings cannot be entertained at the instance of a party who had the right to appeal but did not exercise it. 
• The High Court has the discretion to treat an application for revision as a petition of appeal if it is satisfied that the application was made under the erroneous belief that no appeal lies, and that such treatment is necessary in the interests of justice. 
• This provision allows the High Court to rectify procedural mistakes made by parties in good faith, ensuring that substantive justice is not defeated by technical errors. 
• The section maintains the hierarchical structure of the criminal justice system by preventing the revisional jurisdiction from superseding the appellate process.

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of George v. State of Kerala has held that there is no minimum punishment prescribed under the provisions of Section 304 (A) and Section 338 of Indian Penal Code, 1860(IPC). 

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

• In the present case, the appellant was held convicted under the offences of  Sections 279, 337, 338, 304 (A) of IPC  
• It was alleged that the appellant was driving a mini lorry rashly and negligently which resulted in the demise of Santosh Kumar and certain injuries were also sustained by one of the pedestrian. 
• The trail court rendered the judgement against the appellant stating fines and period of convictions based on the evidence produced. 
• The Trial court order was confirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge and the High Court when the revision appeal was filed by the appellant before it. 
• Aggrieved by the order the appellant appealed before the Supreme Court. 
• The appellant argued that under Section 304(A) and Section 338 of the IPC, there is no minimum sentence prescribed, but the term may extend to 2 years.  
  • It was also alleged that the sentence can also be limited to a fine without any term of imprisonment.  
  • It was alleged that for the offence under Sections 279 and 337 of the IPC, the maximum punishment prescribed is 6 months and punishment can also be fine only. 
  • He also pleaded for reduction in amount of the compensation as he was a poor and aged man. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court observed that the appellant has already spent 117 days of conviction based on the previous judgments of the lower courts. 
• The Supreme court further noted that there is no minimum punishment referred under Section 304(A) and 338 of IPC, relying on the case of Surendran v. Sub-Inspector of Police (2021). 
• Therefore, the Supreme Court modified the order of the High court and reduced the sentence and compensation payable by the appellant. 

Period of Conviction for Negligent Acts Causing Death Under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 

• Section 106: Causing Death by Negligence 
  • Negligent Act Causing Death: 
    • This clause was earlier covered under Section 304 (A) of IPC under which the stated punishment was imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both 
    • Clause (1) of this section under BNS states that whoever causes death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if such act is done by a registered medical practitioner while performing medical procedure, he shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, and shall also be liable to fine. 
  • Rash and Negligent Driving Causing Death 
    • This clause was earlier covered under section 279 of IPC, where the punishment was for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. 
    • Clause (2) of this section under BNS states that whoever causes death of any person by rash and negligent driving of vehicle not amounting to culpable homicide, and escapes without reporting it to a police officer or a Magistrate soon after the incident, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description of a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
• Section 125: Act Endangering Life or Personal Safety of others. 
  • This section of BNS states that whoever does any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months or with fine which may extend to two thousand five hundred rupees, or with both.
• Section 114: Hurt 
  • As per BNS, where hurt is caused, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both. 
  • This section was earlier covered under Section 337 of IPC where the punishment for hurt was imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.
• Section 116: Grievous Hurt 
  • As per BNS, where grievous hurt is caused, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both. 
    • This section was earlier covered under Section 338 of IPC where the stated punishment for grievous hurt, was imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. 

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News?

A bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Abhay S. Oka held that for the purpose of conviction under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) which is now Section 188 of  Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), no overt act is required, the presence of accused as a part of unlawful assembly is sufficient for conviction.          

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of Nitya Nand v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 

What is the Background of Nitya Nand v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr Case? 

• The informant, Sarwan Kumar had lodged a First Information Report (FIR) before the police station where he stated that on 8th September 1992 when he and his father (Satya Narain) as well as uncle as per their daily routine came to Ganga ghat after easing themselves for taking bath the incident occurred.  
• Shree Dev and his four sons Munna Lal, Raju, Nitya Nand and Uchchav @ Pappu armed with kanta, knives and country made pistol confronted Satya Narain. 
• The accused persons caught hold of Satya Narain and started assaulting him. 
• On hearing the cries of his father, the informant, Sarwan Kumar and others came to save him. 
• It was then that Nitya Nand fired from his country made pistol whereafter all the accused persons made their escape. 
• When the informant reached the spot Satya Narain (father of informant) had already succumbed to injuries. 
• On the completion of investigation charges were framed against the accused persons under Section 147 and Section 302 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). 
• The Trial Court convicted the accused Shree Dev and also persons Munna Lal, Raju and Uchchav @ Pappu under Section 148 and Section 302 read with Section 149 of IPC. 
• An appeal was filed before the High Court. The High Court, while upholding the conviction dismissed the appeal. 
• Consequently, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court against the conviction of Allahabad High Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The question for consideration before the Court was whether the prosecution could establish the culpability of the appellant in murder of Satya Narain beyond reasonable doubt. 
• The Appellant was charged by virtue of Section 148 and Section 149 of IPC. 
• Section 149 of IPC lays down that every member of unlawful assembly shall be guilty of the offence committed in prosecution of common object. 
  • Section 149 of IPC provides that  if an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of committing of that offence, is a member of the said assembly; is guilty of that offence.  
• Thus, if it is a case of murder each member of unlawful assembly would be guilty of committing the offence under Section 302 of IPC. 
• Thus, the question which is required to be answered is whether the accused was a member of unlawful assembly and not whether he actually took part in the crime or not. 
• The Court held that as was held in Yunis @ Kariya v. State of M.P. (2002), no overt act is required to be imputed to a particular person when the charge is under Section 149 of IPC. 
• The presence of the accused as a part of the unlawful assembly is sufficient for conviction. 
• Hence, the Supreme Court held that the trial Court was justified in confirming the conviction under Section 302 read with Section 149 of IPC.
  

What is Unlawful Assembly under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS)? 

• Section 189 (1) of BNS lays down what is unlawful assembly. It is to be noted that this is provided under Section 141 of IPC.  
• The most important ingredient for unlawful assembly is that there should be more than 5 persons. 
• The common object of the persons composing the assembly is: 
  • To overawe by criminal force, or show of criminal force, 
    • The Central Government, or 
    • Any State Government, or 
    • Parliament, or 
    • Legislature of any State, or 
    • any public servant in the exercise of the lawful power of such public servant 
  • To resist the execution of any law, or of any legal process, or 
  • To commit 
    • Mischief, or 
    • Criminal trespass, or 
    • Other offence 
  • By means of criminal force or show of criminal force to any person 
    • to take or obtain possession of any property, or 
    • to deprive any person of the enjoyment of a right of way or of the use of water or other incorporeal right of which he is in possession or enjoyment, or 
    • to enforce any right or supposed right 
  • By means of criminal force or show of criminal force 
    • to compel any person to do what he is not legally bound to do, or 
    • to omit to do what he is legally entitled to do 
• The Explanation to Section 189 provides that an assembly which is not unlawful when it assembled may subsequently become an unlawful assembly.  
• The Rest of the provisions are an amalgamation of other provisions under IPC. A comparative analysis of these provisions is as follows: 

What is Vicarious Liability Arising out of Unlawful Assembly? 

• Section 189 of BNS lays down vicarious liability with respect to every member of unlawful assembly. 
• Every member of unlawful assembly shall be liable for the offence committed by any member of the unlawful assembly if: 
  • Offence committed in prosecution of common object of the assembly. 
  • Or such as the members of the assembly knew to be likely committed in prosecution of common object 
• This was earlier provided for under Section 149 of IPC.

What are the Case Laws on Liability under Section 149 of IPC? 

• Vinubhai Ranchhodbhai Patel v. Rajivbhai Dudabhai Patel (2018): 
  • It is not necessary for liability under Section 149 of IPC that each of the persons should have inflicted injuries. 
  • The presence of the accused in that assembly is sufficient to render him vicariously liable under Section 149 of IPC. 
  • When a large number of people gather together (assemble) and commit an offence, it is possible that only some of the members of the assembly commit the crucial act which renders the transaction an offence and the remaining members do not take part in that “crucial act”. 
  • It is in those situations, the legislature thought it fit as a matter of legislative policy to press into service the concept of vicarious liability for the crime. Section 149 IPC is one such provision 
  • It is a provision conceived in the larger public interest to maintain the tranquility of the society and prevent wrongdoers (who actively collaborate or assist the commission of offences) claiming impunity on the ground that their activity as members of the unlawful assembly is limited. 
• Krishnappa v. State of Karnataka (2012):  
  • Section 149 IPC creates a constructive or vicarious liability of the members of the unlawful assembly for the unlawful acts committed pursuant to the common object by any other member of that assembly. 
  • The factum of causing injury or not causing injury would not be relevant, where the accused is sought to be roped in with the aid of Section 149 IPC. 
  • The relevant question to be examined by the court is whether the accused was a member of an unlawful assembly and not whether he actually took active part in the crime or not.