List of Current Affairs

Source: Allahabad High Court  

Why in News? 

The Allahabad High Court quashed criminal proceedings against a couple. Accused had removed the deceased individual, who accompanied his mother to the hospital, and later died in a road accident.  

• The court noted that a special investigation team had ruled out culpable homicide, and the couple's appeals against the magisterial and sessions court decisions were upheld. 
• Justices Saurabh Shyam Shamshery  in the matter of Dr. Rajesh Singh And Another v. State of U.P. and Another. 

What was the Background of Dr. Rajesh Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and Another? 

• The case involves a complaint against a couple doctors who run Singh Life Care Hospital in Ghazipur district. 
• On 19th September, 2015, a man named Anandi Singh Yadav filed a First Information Report (FIR) alleging that his son died at the hospital on the night of September 18-19, 2015. 
• The FIR accused the doctor couple and unknown persons of murder, rioting, causing hurt, and intentional insult. 
• The complainant claimed that when his son went to call the doctors, they beat him severely, resulting in his death.  
  • The complainant, his daughter, and nephew claimed to be eyewitnesses. 
• A post-mortem report found 24 injuries on the deceased's body and concluded the cause of death was "Coma and Haemorrhagic shock as a result of Ante-Mortem Injuries." 
• During the investigation, conflicting statements emerged:  
• The complainant and his daughter maintained their initial accusation against the doctors. 
• The complainant's nephew gave a different version, stating that a dispute arose between the deceased and other patients' attendants, which was intervened by hospital staff.  
  • He said the deceased was then taken outside the hospital and later died in an accident. 
• A Special Investigation Team (SIT) took over the case.  
  • They conducted lie detector and narco tests on four witnesses, including the daughter and nephew. 
• The investigation concluded with a Final Report stating that the deceased died due to a road accident, not homicide. 
• The complainant filed a protest petition against this Final Report. 
• The Chief Judicial Magistrate rejected the Final Report's conclusion and issued summons to the doctor couple and others under various sections of the Indian Penal Code. 
• The doctor couple appealed this decision, first through a Revision Petition (which was dismissed), and then by approaching the High Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The High Court states that the Special Investigation Team (SIT) conducted a thorough and comprehensive investigation, which should not have been summarily rejected without substantial reasons. 
• The court ruled that to reject the Final Report and issue summons, the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) was required to provide substantive reasons, which were found to be lacking in this case. 
• The High Court held that scientific test results (including Lie Detector and Narco Analysis) and witness statements could not be disregarded merely due to perceived implausibilities or omissions, and that the Trial Court failed to properly analyze this evidence. 
• The court observed that summoning is a serious matter, especially when done after rejecting an investigation's outcome, and requires substantive reasons that were absent in the impugned order. 
• Based on a detailed analysis of the evidence, the High Court quashed the proceedings against all accused persons, concluding that it was a case of accidental death rather than homicide. 
• While quashing the impugned orders and proceedings, the court clarified that its judgment does not prevent the complainant from pursuing other legal alternatives before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, in accordance with the law. 

What is a Closure Report? 

About : 

• A closure report, also known as a report under Section 169 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) currently in Section 189 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 BNSS,  is submitted by investigating authorities to the magistrate when there is insufficient evidence or reasonable grounds to justify forwarding the accused for trial. 
• The closure report states that there is no evidence or reasonable grounds of suspicion to justify proceeding further against the accused.  
  • It allows for the release of the accused from custody on bond. 
• Even if a closure report is filed, the magistrate has the power to direct the police to conduct further investigation if deemed necessary. 
• The magistrate has the discretion to reject a closure report and take cognizance of the case if they find sufficient grounds to proceed, despite the police report stating no case is made out. 
• Filing an unwarranted closure report or proceeding with prosecution when there is clearly no evidence can be considered a violation of the accused's right to fair investigation and trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. 
• The courts have emphasized that criminal law and prosecutions should not be used as tools of harassment when there is no material evidence connecting an accused to a crime

What are the Legal Provisions Involved? 

• Section 189  
  • Section 189 deals with release of accused when evidence is deficient  
  • If an investigation reveals insufficient evidence or reasonable grounds of suspicion against the accused, the officer in charge of the police station must release the accused if they are in custody. 
  • The release is conditional upon the accused executing a bond or bail bond as directed by the officer. 
  • The bond requires the accused to appear before a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report when required. 
  • This provision ensures that accused persons are not unnecessarily detained when there is a lack of substantial evidence against them. 
• Section 193 
  • Section 193 deals with Report of police officer on completion of investigation. 
  • Section 193 (1) states that every investigation under this Chapter must be completed without unnecessary delay. 
  • Section 193(2) deals with the  specific offences (sections 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 70, 71 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 or sections 4, 6, 8, 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012), the investigation must be completed within two months from the date of recording the information. 
  • Submission of Police Report (Section 193) 
    • Upon completion of the investigation, the officer in charge must forward a report to the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence. 
    • The report can be sent through electronic communication. 
    • The report must include specific details such as names of parties, nature of information, names of potential witnesses, whether an offence appears to have been committed and by whom, arrest status of the accused, and other relevant information. 
  • Communication with Informant/Victim Section 193(3) 
    • The police officer must inform the informant or victim about the progress of the investigation within 90 days, including through electronic communication. 
    • The officer must also communicate the action taken to the person who first gave the information about the offence. 
  • Role of Superior Officers Section 193(4) 
    • In cases where a superior officer of police has been appointed, the report may need to be submitted through that officer as per government directives. 
    • The superior officer can direct further investigation pending the Magistrate's orders. 
  • Documents to be Forwarded with Report (Section 193) 
    • The police officer must forward all relevant documents or extracts on which the prosecution intends to rely, along with statements of proposed prosecution witnesses. 
    • The officer can request the Magistrate to exclude certain parts of statements if deemed not relevant or if disclosure is not in the public interest. 
  • Provision for Further Investigation Section 193(9) 
    • Further investigation is allowed even after the initial report has been forwarded to the Magistrate. 
    • Any additional evidence obtained must be reported to the Magistrate in the prescribed form. 
    • During trial, further investigation may be conducted with the court's permission and must be completed within 90 days, extendable with court approval. 
  • Supply of Documents to Accused, Section 193 (8) 
    • The investigating officer must submit copies of the police report and other documents for supply to the accused. 
    • Supply of reports and documents through electronic communication is considered valid service. 

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) D Y Chandrachud and Justice J B Pardiwala explained when ignorance of law can be taken as defence.  

• The Supreme Court explained the concept in the case of Just Right for Children Alliance v. S Harish. 

What was the Background of Just Right for Children Alliance v. S Harish Case? 

• On 29^th January 2020, the All-Women's Police Station in Ambattur, Chennai received a letter from the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police (Crime against women and children Branch). 
• The letter stated that according to a Cyber Tipline Report from the National Crimes Record Bureau (NCRB), the respondent (accused) was an active consumer of pornography and had allegedly downloaded child pornographic material on his mobile phone. 
• A First Information Report (FIR) was registered against the respondent on the same day for offences under Section 67B of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act) and Section 14(1) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). 
• During the investigation the respondent's mobile phone was seized and sent for forensic analysis. 
  • The respondent admitted to regularly viewing pornography while in college when questioned. 
• The Computer Forensic Analysis Report dated 22nd August 2020, revealed two video files relating to child pornography were found on the respondent's phone, depicting two underage boys involved in sexual activity with an adult woman. 
• Over a hundred other pornographic video files were also found downloaded and stored on the phone. 
• On September 19, 2023, a chargesheet was filed against the respondent for offenses under:  
  • Section 67B of the IT Act 
  • Section 15(1) of the POCSO Act (changed from the initially registered Section 14(1) based on the investigation findings) 
• The change in the POCSO Act section (from 14(1) to 15(1)) was made in light of the materials collected during the investigation and the findings in the Computer Forensic Analysis Report. 
• The accused contended that he was not aware that storing child pornography was a punishable offense under Section 15 of POCSO. 
• He claimed that the child pornographic material found stored in his mobile phone was due to his unawareness of the law, accompanied by a bona fide belief that such storage was not an offense. 
• Based on this claimed ignorance of the law, the accused argued that he should not be held liable for the offence. 
• However, the High Court of Judicature at Madras quashed the chargesheet under Section 67B of the IT Act, and Section 15(1) of the POCSO Act. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The court concluded that the High Court made a significant error in its judgment.  
• As a result, the Supreme Court decided to set aside the High Court's judgment and restore the criminal proceedings in Special Sessions Case No. 170 of 2023 to the Sessions Judge of the Mahila Neethi Mandram (Fast Track Court) in Tiruvallur District. 
• Supreme Court explained the situation when ignorance of law can be taken as defence and also gave suggestions to Union of India and courts for better implementation of POCSO.  

When Ignorance of Law Can be Taken as Defence? 

Ignorance of Law v. Bona Fide Belief 

• The court distinguishes between ignorance of law and a bona fide belief arising from ignorance of law. 
• Mere ignorance of law is not a valid defence. 
• However, ignorance of law that leads to a bona fide belief in the existence of a right or claim can potentially be a valid defense in some cases. 

Four-Prong Test for Valid Defence 

• There must be ignorance or unawareness of a law. 
• This ignorance must give rise to a corresponding reasonable and legitimate right or claim. 
• The existence of such right or claim must be believed bona fide. 
• The act in question must take place on the strength of such right or claim. 

Limitations of the Defence 

• This defence is not statutory but rather a product of the doctrine of equity. 
• It depends on the specific facts and circumstances of each case. 
• Equity cannot supplant clear and unambiguous law. 
• Where positive law exists, equity will always yield to it. 

Application to Child Pornography Cases 

• The court ruled that ignorance of law regarding possession of child pornography cannot give rise to any legitimate right or claim. 
• Even if unaware of the specific law (Section 15 of POCSO), this does not create a reasonable belief in a right to possess such material. 
• Therefore, the defence of ignorance of law fails in child pornography cases. 

Statutory Presumption and Burden of Proof 

• In cases where statutory presumption of culpable mental state applies, defences like lack of knowledge or intention are matters for trial. 
• The accused must establish absence of culpable mental state through cogent evidence at trial. 
• Such defenses should not be considered at the stage of determining whether a prima facie case exists. 

What were the Suggestions Made by Court to Union of India and Other Courts? 

• The Parliament should seriously consider to bring about an amendment to the POCSO for the purpose of substituting the term “child pornography” that with “child sexual exploitative and abuse material” (CSEAM) with a view to reflect more accurately on the reality of such offences. The Union of India, in the meantime may consider to bring about the suggested amendment to the POCSO by way of an ordinance.  
• We put the courts to notice that the term “child pornography” shall not be used in any judicial order or judgment, and instead the term “child sexual exploitative and abuse material” (CSEAM) should be endorsed. 
• Implementing comprehensive sex education programs that include information about the legal and ethical ramifications of child pornography can help deter potential offenders. These programs should address common misconceptions and provide young people with a clear understanding of consent and the impact of exploitation.  
• Providing support services to the victims and rehabilitation programs for the offenders is essential. These services should include psychological counselling, therapeutic interventions, and educational support to address the underlying issues and promote healthy development. For those already involved in viewing or distributing child pornography, CBT has proven effective in addressing the cognitive distortions that fuel such behaviour. Therapy programs should focus on developing empathy, understanding the harm caused to victims, and altering problematic thought patterns.  
• Raising awareness about the realities of child sexual exploitative material and its consequences through public campaigns can help reduce its prevalence. These campaigns should aim to destigmatize reporting and encourage community vigilance. 
• Identifying at-risk individuals early and implementing intervention strategies for youth with problematic sexual behaviours (PSB) involves several steps and requires a coordinated effort among various stakeholders, including educators, healthcare providers, law enforcement, and child welfare services. Educators, healthcare professionals, and law enforcement officers should be imparted training to identify signs of PSB. Awareness programs can help these professionals recognize early warning signs and understand how to respond appropriately. 
• Schools can also play a crucial role in early identification and intervention. Implementing school-based programs that educate students about healthy relationships, consent, and appropriate behaviour can help prevent PSB.  
• To give meaningful effect to the above suggestions and work out the necessary modalities, the Union of India may consider constituting an Expert Committee tasked with devising a comprehensive program or mechanism for health and sex education, as well as raising awareness about the POCSO among children across the country from an early age, for ensuring a robust and well-informed approach to child protection, education, and sexual well-being. 

Source: Allahabad High Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the Allahabad High Court in the matter of Kishore Shankar Signapurkar v. State of U.P. and anr has held that if the director signing the cheque has been summoned then it shall be presumed that the company has also been summoned. 

What was the Background of Kishore Shankar Signapurkar v. State of U.P. and anr Case? 

• In the present case, the applicant is the director of the company M/s Signapurkar's Leather House Pvt.Ltd. Against whom the complaint was filed by the respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument  Act, 1881 (NI). 
• The respondent, M/s Indcoat Shoe Component Ltd alleged that the applicant issued 12 cheques in his name. 
• The respondent alleged that the cheques were dishonoured at the time of encashment as the applicant stopped payment. 
• Aggrieved, the respondent sent the demand notices to the applicant and the applicant failed to comply with them. 
• The respondent filed a complaint against the applicant under NI Act and summons were issued against the company’s director. 
• The Applicant challenged the summons under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908(CPC) before the Allahabad High Court by arguing that summon cannot be issued directly to him without summoning the company. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Allahabad High Court observed that: 
  • The instruction of “stop payment” falls within the ambit of dishonour of cheque by referring a case of Supreme Court.  
  • If the cheque or the negotiable instrument has the sign of the parties, it is sufficient to note that the party signed was involved and had due knowledge of all the transactions and shall be held liable under Section 141 of the NI Act. 
  • To charge under Section 141 it is important to make the company liable. 
  • The burden of proof shall lie on the person claiming that he had no involvement, and he was not aware of the commencement of the offence by providing evidence to substantiate the same. 
• The Allahabad High Court held that: 
  • The issuing of summon on the applicant shall be deemed as the summon is issued to the company as well. 
  • The demand notice was issued to the applicant was deemed that it has been issued to the company so the same shall be applicable to the summons as well. 
• The Allahabad High Court, based on the above observations, dismissed the application of the applicant. 

Landmark Judgement 

• Electronics Trade and Technology Development Corpn. Ltd. vs Indian Technologists and Engineers (Electronics) (P) Ltd (1996): 
  • The Supreme Court in this case held that the instruction ‘stop payment’ shall be included as dishonour of cheque. 
• K.K. Ahuja vs. V.K. Vora (2009): 
  • The Supreme Court in this case held that when a cheque is signed by any person that person shall be liable under Section 141 of NI Act if the cheque gets dishonoured. 
• Aneeta Hada vs. Godfather Travels & Tours (P) Ltd (2012): 
  • The Court held that in cases of dishonour of cheque it is important to make the company liable under Section 141 of the NI Act. 
• S.P. Mani & Mohan Dairy vs. Snehalatha Elangovan (2022): 
  • In this case the Supreme Court held that the burden of proving the liability of the offence and that a person had no knowledge of such offence shall lie on the person averting the same by producing evidence that may support his argument. 

What is Section 141 of NI Act? 

• Section 141 of NI Act establishes the principle of vicarious liability. 
• Vicarious liability is a legal concept that holds one party responsible for the actions of another. 
• According to this section, if an offence under the NI Act is committed by a company, every person who, at the time of the offence, was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company itself, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence. 
• This provision states that individuals associated with the company can be held liable for the company's actions. 

What is Corporate Criminal Liability? 

• This concept gives rise to the liability of the corporations when a criminal breach happens on the part of it. 
• A company generally has liabilities in two cases: 
  • When there is a direct involvement of the company in any offence. 
  • When there is an indirect involvement of the company through its agents or employees in any offence. 

How Liability Can be Proved under Section 141 of NI Act? 

• Establishing liability under Section 141of NI Act requires proving that the individual was actively involved in the conduct of the company's business and had a role in the commission of the offence. 
• Mere designation or being a nominal head may not be sufficient. 
• The prosecution must demonstrate a direct link between the individual's role and the commission of the offence. 
• The prosecution has to prove that the offence has been committed with consent or connivance or due to the neglect of the person. 

What were the Observations of the Court in the K. K. Ahuja v. V.K. Vora (2009) Case? 

• The court in this case observed that only the person who was directly involved and had knowledge of the commission of the offence shall be liable under Section 141 of the NI Act. 
• A list of person was suggested by the court who shall be held responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company :  
  • The managing director/s 
  • The whole-time director/s 
  • The manager  
  • The secretary 
  • Any person in accordance with whose directions or instructions the Board of directors of the company is accustomed to act. 
  • Any person charged by the Board with the responsibility of complying with that provision (and who has given his consent in that behalf to the Board. 
  •  Where any company does not have any of the officers specified in clauses (a) to (c), any director or directors who may be specified by the Board in this behalf or where no director is so specified, all the directors.

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice CT Ravikumar allowed the amendment as it was necessary for determining the controversy between the parties.                     

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of Dinesh Goyal @ Pappu v. Suman Agarwal (Bindal) & Ors. 

What was the Background of Dinesh Goyal @ Pappu v. Suman Agarwal (Bindal) Case? 

• The Appellant and the Respondent are siblings and are children of Smt. Katoribai. 
• The dispute pertains to the suit property which was purchased by way of a registered sale deed. 
• On 14th January, 2013 Smt. Katoribai executed a will and bequeathed the property to the defendant. Smt. Katoribai subsequently passed away. 
• The plaintiff (Smt. Suman Agarwal) filed a suit claiming 1/5th share in the suit property. 
• The defendant filed a written statement praying the suit be dismissed in view of the Will executed by Smt. Katoribai. 
• The plaintiff filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking amendment of her plaint to add a list of movable properties in the property sought to be partitioned as part of the suit, as also questioned the genuineness of the Will.  
• The Trial Court rejected the application for amendment of pleadings. 
• Aggrieved by the above a writ petition was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) in the High Court. 
• The High Court allowed the application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC. 
• Hence, the appeal was presented before the Supreme Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?  

• The question that the Court had to determine in this case was whether the High Court committed an error in not allowing the application seeking leave to amend the pleadings. 
• The Court observed that by way of amendment the party seeks to question the validity of the Will on the basis of which the, the defendant sought to have the suit dismissed, while also expanding the scope of adjudication of the suit to i9nclude the movable property. 
• Thus, the Court held that there are two issues that need to be proved:  
  • determination of the genuineness of the Will is the necessary course of action in determining the issues inter se the parties; 
  • given the finding of the court below that the application was presented post the commencement of the trial, it could not have been, despite due diligence, presented prior to such commencement. 
• The Court held that in the present facts the two issues do not stand on the same footing and the first issue will necessarily have to weigh over the second. 
• On the issue of delay in filing the application for amendment the Court held that delay cannot decide the fate of the suit in all the cases. 
  • If the unexplained delay is taken into consideration the question of will shall remain undecided or at best will be decided with great delay. 
• Keeping in view the above, along with the fact that without determination of the question of Will and its genuineness, the partition of the Suit property would not be possible, the Court allowed the amendment of the pleadings. 
• Hence, the application for amendment of pleadings was allowed.

What is Amendment of Pleading?

• About Pleading:  
  • According to Order VI Rule 1 of the CPC, "Pleading", shall mean a plaint or written statement, which includes all the details required by a party to comprehend the contentions of the other party. 
• About Amendment of Pleading:  
  • An amendment of pleading under CPC can be performed under Order VI Rule 17. 
  • Order VI Rule 17 main provision provides that the Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. 
    • The proviso added in this provision provides that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. 
• Three Important Facts About Amendment of Pleadings: 
  • Amendment of pleadings can be allowed at any stage. 
  • Amendment must be necessary for determining the “real question of controversy” between the parties. 
  • if such amendment is sought to be brought after commencement of trial the Court must, in allowing the same come to a conclusion that in spite of best efforts on the part of the party to the suit, the same could not have been brought before the point of time, when it was actually brought. 
• Object 
  • The object of this rule is to minimize the litigation, minimize the delay and to avoid multiplicity of suits. 
  • In the case of Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu v. Union of India & Ors. (2005), the Court held that the object of adding the proviso is to prevent frivolous applications which are filed to delay the trial.

What are the Principles Guiding Amendment of Pleadings? 

• The principles regarding the Amendment of Pleadings were laid by the Court in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Anr (2022). The principles have been enunciated below: 
• It is a settled rule that the Courts should adopt a liberal approach in granting the leave to amend the pleadings. However, the same cannot be in contravention of the statutory boundaries placed on the power. 
• All amendments are to be allowed which are necessary for determining the real question in controversy provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. This is mandatory, as is apparent from the use of the word “shall”, in the latter part of Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC. 
• In the following scenario such applications should be ordinarily allowed if the amendment is for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided it does not result in injustice to the other side. 
• The amendments should be disallowed if: 
  • By the amendment, the parties seeking amendment does not seek to withdraw any clear admission made by the party which confers a right on the other side. 
  • The amendment does not raise a time-barred claim, resulting in the divesting of the other side of a valuable accrued right (in certain situations). 
  • The amendment completely changes the nature of the suit 
  • The prayer for amendment is malafide 
  • By the amendment, the other side should not lose a valid defence. 
• Some general principles to be kept in mind are 
  • The court should avoid a hyper-technical approach; ordinarily be liberal, especially when the opposite party can be compensated by costs 
  • Amendment may be justifiably allowed where it is intended to rectify the absence of material particulars in the plaint or introduce an additional or a new approach. 
  • The amendment should not change the cause of action, so as to set up an entirely new case, foreign to the case set up in the plaint.

What are the Landmark Cases on Amendment of Pleadings? 

• Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanswamy and Sons (2009) 
  • The Supreme Court laid down basic principles allowing or rejecting application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC: 
    • Whether the amendment sought is imperative for proper and effective adjudication of the case? 
    • Whether the application for amendment is bona fide or malafide? 
    • The amendment should not cause such prejudice to the other side which cannot be compensated adequately in terms of money; 
    • Refusing amendment would in fact lead to injustice or lead to multiple litigation; 
    • Whether the proposed amendment constitutionally or fundamentally changes the nature and character of the case? and 
    • As a general rule, the court should decline amendments if a fresh suit on the amended claims would be barred by limitation on the date of application. 
• Usha Balasaheb Swami and Ors v. Kiran Appaso Swami and Ors. (2006) 
  • A prayer for amendment of plaint and written statement stand on different footing. 
  • The general principle that amendment of pleadings cannot be allowed so as to alter materially or substitute cause of action or the nature of claim applies to amendments to plaint. It has no counterpart in the principles relating to amendment of the written statement.