List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar held that the intent of Section 50 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 is to inform a suspect who is about to be searched of the right to be taken to a Gazetted Officer.               

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of State of NCT of Delhi v. Mohd. Jabir.

What was the Background of State of NCT of Delhi v. Mohd. Jabir Case?  

• The case involves a criminal appeal by the State of NCT of Delhi against a bail order granted to Mohd. Jabir under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS). 
• The High Court had previously granted bail to Mohd. Jabir on the grounds that the notice given during his search used the words "any Gazetted Officer" instead of "nearest Gazetted Officer", which was deemed a violation of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. 
• The Delhi High Court granted bail on two points: 
  • The notice served under Section 50 of the NDPS Act is ill-informed. 
  • The search was done not by an independent officer but by ACP/  
• Mohd. Jabir is already on bail in another case (FIR No. 217/2019) involving an intermediate quantity of drugs. 
• Thus, the matter was before the Supreme Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations?  

• Thus, the Court held that the intent behind the provision i.e. Section 50 of NDPS Act is to ensure that the person to be searched is made aware of the option to be taken before a third person other than the one who is conducting the search. 
• Use of the expression “nearest” refers to the convenience as the subject is to be searched. 
• Delay should be avoided, as is reflected from the use of the word “unnecessary delay” and the exception carved in sub-section (5) to Section 50 of the NDPS Act. 
• Thus, the Court held that the use of the word ‘any’ does not signify the mandate of the ‘nearest’ Gazetted officer and hence the respondent is entitled to bail. 
• Hence, the Supreme Court held that, Mohd. Jabir is entitled to bail.

What is Section 50 of the NDPS Act?

About: 

• Section 50 of the NDPS Act provides for conditions under which searches of persons shall be conducted. 
• Section 50 (1) provides: 
  • If a legally authorized drug enforcement officer wants to search someone, the person being searched can request to be taken to a higher-ranking government official or a magistrate. 
  • The officer must quickly and without unnecessary delay take the person to the closest available Gazetted Officer or nearby magistrate if such a request is made. 
  • This rule gives the person being searched a chance to have their search witnessed by an independent official, providing an additional layer of protection against potential misconduct. 
• Section 50 (2) provides that if such requisition is made, the officer may detain the person until he can bring him before the Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate referred in sub section (1). 
• Section 50 (3) provides that the Gazetted Officer or Magistrate before whom any such person is brought shall, if he sees no reasonable ground for search, forthwith discharge the person but otherwise shall direct that search be made. 
• Section 50 (4) makes special provision for women. 
• Section 50 (5) provides that: 
  • If a legally authorized drug enforcement officer believes that taking the suspect to a Gazetted Officer or magistrate might result in the suspect losing or disposing of drugs, evidence, or documents, the officer has special provisions. 
  • In such circumstances, the officer is allowed to deviate from the standard procedure of taking the person to an independent official. 
  • Instead, the officer can directly proceed with searching for the person using the search procedures outlined in section 100 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 
  • This exception allows law enforcement to prevent potential destruction of evidence while still maintaining a legal framework for conducting searches during drug-related investigations. 
•  Section 50 (6) provides that after a search is conducted under sub-section (5), the officer shall record the reasons for such belief which necessitated such search and within seventy-two hours send a copy thereof to his immediate official superior 

Case Law: 

• Union of India v. Ram Samujh (1999): 
  • The Supreme Court held that Parliament has provided that the person accused of offences under the NDPS Act should not be released on bail during trial unless the mandatory conditions provided in Section 37, namely-  
    • There are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such an offence.  
    • That he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of The State of Telangana v. C. Shobha Rani has held that if the sanction to prosecute public servant is denied for once it cannot be granted later on the same material. 

What was the Background of the State of Telangana v. C. Shobha Rani Case? 

• The case involves criminal charges filed by the State of Telangana against C. Shobha Rani (defendant).  
• The original charges against the defendant included multiple serious offenses under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 
  • Section 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property) 
  • Section 467 (forgery of valuable security) 
  • Section 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating) 
  • Section 471 (using forged document as genuine) 
  • Section 120B (punishment for criminal conspiracy) 
• Additionally, there were charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: 
  • Section 13(2) read with Sections 13(1)(c) and (d), which typically relate to criminal misconduct by a public servant. 
• A charge sheet was filed after an investigation into these allegations. 
• The case went through multiple legal stages: 
  • Initially, charges were filed against the defendant. 
  • A sanction (legal permission) process was involved. 
  • The High Court previously quashed the criminal proceedings. 
  • The State of Telangana then appealed to the Supreme Court. 
• The key dispute centered around two main issues: 
  • The validity of the sanction process 
  • The merits of the criminal charges against the respondent 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court made the following observations: 
  • On the Sanction Issue: 
    • The Court agreed with the High Court that the subsequent sanction was problematic.  
    • The new sanction was based on the same material as the previous one.  
    • Without any new contrary material, the subsequent sanction cannot be legally sustained.  
  • On the Criminal Charges: 
    • The Court found merit in the State of Telangana's argument that the High Court did not adequately examine the charges under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120B of the IPC 
    • The Supreme Court noted that no sanction under Section 197 of the CrPC was necessary for these specific charges. 
  • Procedural Observations: 
    • The Court was critical of the High Court quashing the criminal proceedings without examining the merits of the case. 
    • The Court observed that a chargesheet had already been filed after investigation. 
  • The Supreme Court partially allowed the State of Telangana's appeal and remitted the matter back to the High Court. 
    • Requested the High Court to reconsider the case, especially the applicability of the mentioned IPC sections.  
    • Directed the High Court to expedite the disposal of the Criminal Petition, preferably within four months. 
    • Temporarily dispensed with the respondent's appearance until required by the Trial Court. 
• The Supreme Court essentially found that the High Court's previous order needed review, particularly regarding the criminal charges against the defendant. 

What is Section 197 of CrPC? 

About:

• Provisions for Prosecuting Judges, Magistrates, and Public Servants, the same has now been covered under Section 218 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) 
• This section helps to:  
  • Protects public servants from frivolous prosecutions.  
  • Ensures administrative oversight in legal proceedings. 
  • Balances accountability with protection of official duties.

Scope of Protection: 

• Applies to Judges, Magistrates, and Public Servants. 
• Covers offences committed while acting in an official capacity. 

Cognizance Restrictions: 

• General Prohibition: 
  • No Court shall take cognizance of offences without previous sanction. 
  • Protects public servants from arbitrary prosecution.
• Sanction Authorities:
  • Central Government Jurisdiction: 
    • For persons employed in Union/Central Government affairs. 
    • Applies to offences related to Central Government employees.
  • State Government Jurisdiction: 
    • For persons employed in State Government affairs. 
    • Covers offences related to State Government employees. 

Special Provisions for Armed Forces: 

• Armed Forces Prosecution: 
  • No Court shall take cognizance of offences committed by Armed Forces members. 
  • Requires previous sanction from Central Government. 
• State-Level Forces Provision: 
  • State Government can notify specific public order maintenance forces. 
  • Can direct that Central Government sanction provisions apply to state forces. 

Emergency Provisions: 

• State Emergency Cognizance: 
  • During President's Rule (Article 356 of the COI). 
  • Special restrictions on prosecuting public order maintenance forces. 
  • Requires Central Government sanction. 
• Historical Sanction Validation: 
  • Invalidates sanctions given during specific historical periods. 
  • Empowers Central Government to accord fresh sanctions. 

Prosecution Management: 

• Prosecution Determination: 
  • Central or State Government can: 
    • Determine the prosecuting person. 
    • Specify prosecution manner. 
    • Define specific offences for prosecution. 
    • Select the trial court. 

Case Law: 

• State of Orissa v. Ganesh Chandra Jew, (2004): 
  • The Supreme Court held that the protection given under Section 197 of CrPC is to protect responsible public servants against the institution of possibly vexatious criminal proceedings for offences alleged to have been committed by them while they are acting or purporting to act as public servants.

What is the Sanctioning Process under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018?  

• Requirement for Previous Sanction: 
  • No court can take cognizance of offenses under sections 7, 11, 13, and 15 alleged against a public servant without previous sanction.  
  • Exceptions are provided in the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013.  
• Sanctioning Authorities: 
  • For Union affairs: Central Government   
  • For State affairs: State Government   
  • For others: Authority competent to remove the person from office  
• Process for Requesting Sanction:   
  • Requests can be made by police officers, investigation agencies, or other law enforcement authorities.  
  • Other individuals must file a complaint in a competent court first.  
    • The court must not have dismissed the complaint under section 203 of CrPC.  
• Safeguards for Public Servants:   
  • Public servants must be given an opportunity to be heard before sanction is granted (for non-law enforcement requests).  
• Timeframe for Sanction Decision:   
  • The appropriate authority should try to decide within 3 months of receiving the proposal.  
  • An additional month may be granted if legal consultation is required.  
• Guidelines for Sanction:   
  • The Central Government may prescribe guidelines for sanctioning prosecution.  
• Definition of Public Servant:  
  • Includes those who have ceased to hold office during which the offense is alleged.  
  • Includes those holding a different office at the time of prosecution.  
• Clarification on Sanctioning Authority:   
  • In case of doubt, sanction should be given by the authority competent to remove the public servant at the time of the alleged offense.  
• Legal Proceedings and Sanctions: 
  • Absence or errors in sanction won't reverse court decisions unless a failure of justice has occurred.  
  • Courts cannot stay proceedings due to errors in sanction unless it results in a failure of justice.  
  • No stay of proceedings on other grounds or revision of interlocutory orders.  
• Determining Failure of Justice:   
  • Courts must consider whether objections could have been raised earlier in the proceedings.  
• Explanations: 
  • "Error" includes competency of the sanctioning authority.  
  • "Sanction" includes requirements for prosecution by specified authorities or persons.  

Case Law: 

• Nanjappa v. State of Karnataka (2012):    
  • In this case the Supreme Court held that if the trial has proceeded to conclusion and resulted in a finding or sentence, the same should not be lightly interfered with by the appellate or the revisional court simply because there was some omission, error or irregularity in the order sanctioning prosecution under Section 19(1).    
  • It was also observed by the court that if the trial Court proceeds, despite the invalidity attached to the sanction order, the same shall be deemed to be non-est in the eyes of law and shall not forbid a second trial for the same offences, upon grant of a valid sanction for such prosecution.