Biggest SALE Ever! Avail a flat 60% OFF on exclusive online courses. This offer is valid only from 5th to 12th March.
         









List of Current Affairs

Home / List of Current Affairs

Criminal Law

Non-Signing of Witness's Deposition

 19-Feb-2025

Rajender Singh v. State of Haryana 

“Warrant Case Records: Magistrate's Failure to Sign Witness Deposition Fatal to Prosecution.” 

Justice Harpreet Singh Brar 

Source: Punjab & Haryana High 

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justice Harpreet Singh Brar has held that a Magistrate's failure to sign witness depositions in a warrant case under Section 275(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 CrPC (Section 310 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)) is fatal to the prosecution.  

  • The Punjab & Haryana High Court held this in the matter of Rajender Singh v. State of Haryana (2025). 
  • The court states that unsigned testimonies cannot be considered evidence, impacting the entire case. 

What was the Background of Rajender Singh v. State of Haryana Case? 

  • The case originated from a complaint filed by a female teacher at a Government School against two fellow teachers (the petitioners). 
  • The complainant alleged harassment by the petitioner-teachers. 
  • In one specific incident, the complainant alleged that the petitioners pushed her into a room and attempted to close the door with the intention to outrage her modesty. 
  • The complainant managed to escape from the situation. 
  • The accused were charged under Sections 294 and 357 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (IPC). 
  • The JMIC convicted the accused and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months along with a fine of Rs. 3,000. 
  • The accused filed an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, which was dismissed. 
  • Subsequently, the accused filed a revision plea seeking to set aside both the conviction order and the dismissal of appeal. 
  • ASI Rajbir Singh, who prepared the site plan and partly investigated the matter, did not appear for cross-examination. 
  • Two Investigating Officers, both named Rajbir Singh, conducted the investigation in this case. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

  • The High Court states that non-signing of witness depositions by a Magistrate in a warrant case under Section 275 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) is fatal to the prosecution's case. 
  • The Court held that Section 275(4) CrPC mandates that any evidence taken by the jurisdictional Magistrate in written form must be signed by him to be considered as evidence. 
  • The Court observed that failure to comply with Section 275(4) CrPC is not merely an inconsequential irregularity but impacts the entire prosecution. 
  • The Court noted that testimony recorded in a warrant case without following Section 275(4) CrPC cannot be read into evidence. 
  • The Court observed that all evidence collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation must be proved in accordance with law. 
  • The Court observed that denial of cross-examination opportunity violates:  
    • The right to free and fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.  
    • The principles of natural justice. 
    • The Court found that the deposition of the second Investigating Officer (PW5) was not signed and endorsed by the jurisdictional Court, making it unreliable. 
  • The Court held that testimony cannot be read into evidence until the opposite party is granted an opportunity for cross-examination. 

What is Section 310 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023? 

  • The Section applies specifically to warrant cases being tried before a Magistrate. 
  • This section essentially establishes the procedural requirements for recording witness testimony in warrant cases, ensuring proper documentation and authentication of evidence. 
  • Recording of Evidence:  
    • The evidence must be recorded in writing as the examination of each witness proceeds. 
    • The recording can be done in three ways:  
      • By the Magistrate personally. 
      • Under the Magistrate's dictation in open Court. 
      • By a Court officer appointed by the Magistrate, if the Magistrate is physically incapacitated or unable to record. 
  • Alternative Recording Method:  
    • Evidence can also be recorded through audio-video electronic means. 
    • This must be done in the presence of the accused person's advocate. 
  • Magistrate's Certificate Requirement:  
    • If the Magistrate doesn't personally record the evidence. 
    • They must record a certificate explaining why they couldn't take down the evidence themselves. 
  • Format of Recording:  
    • The evidence should normally be recorded in narrative form. 
    • However, the Magistrate has discretion to record any part in question-and-answer format. 
  • Authentication Requirement:  
    • The recorded evidence must be signed by the Magistrate. 
    • Only after signing does it become part of the official court record. 
  • Mandatory Nature:  
    • The signing requirement is not optional. 
    • The evidence must form part of the permanent court record. 

Criminal Law

Section 480 (6) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

 19-Feb-2025

Subhelal @ Sushil Sahu v. State of Chattisgarh  

“Section 437(6), as such, cannot be considered to be mandatory in nature and cannot be interpreted to grant an absolute and indefeasible right of bail in favor of accused.” 

Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan 

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan held that Section 437 (6) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) [Section 480 (6) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)] cannot be considered to be mandatory in nature and cannot be interpreted to grant an absolute and indefeasible right of bail in favour of accused. 

  • The Supreme Court held this in the case of Subhelal @ Sushil Sahu v. The State of Chattisgarh (2025).

What was the Background of Subhelal @ Sushil Sahu v. The State of Chhattisgarh Case?

  • The Appeal concerns an order passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur dated 22 July 2024, denying regular bail to the appellant.  
  • The criminal case involves charges under Sections 420, 201, 120-B read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code,1860 (IPC) related to cryptocurrency fraud. 
  • The amount involved in the fraud is approximately Rs. 4 Crore, affecting almost 2000 investors. 
  • The charge sheet has been filed against 5 individuals including the appellant. 
  • The trial is ongoing in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur, with only one witness examined so far. 
  • The prosecution plans to examine 189 witnesses in total. 
  • The Appellant has been in custody since December 2023. 
  •  The maximum punishment that can be imposed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate (if the offence is established) would be 7 years. 
  • The Counsel in this case attracted the attention of the Court to Section 437 (6) of CrPC which is currently Section 480 (6) of BNSS. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

  • The Supreme Court held in this case that the provisions of Section 437(6) (Section 480 (6)), as such, cannot be considered to be mandatory in nature and cannot be interpreted to grant an absolute and indefeasible right of bail in favour of the accused. 
  • While considering an application under Section 480 (6) the following factors are relevant: 
    • (i) Whether the reasons for being unable to conclude trial within sixty days from the first date fixed of taking evidence, are attributable to the accused? 
    • (ii) Whether there are any chances of the accused tampering with evidence or causing prejudice to the case of the prosecution in any other manner? 
    • (iii) Whether there are any chances of abscondence of the accused on being bailed out? 
    • (iv) Whether accused was not in custody during the whole of the said period? 
  • If the answer to any of the above is affirmative that would act as a fetter on the right of the accused under Section 480 (6) of BNSS. 
  • It was also observed by the Court that the factors mentioned above are only illustrative and not exhaustive. 
  • The Court held that the approach adopted by the Court while considering the application under Section 480 (6) of BNSS is liberal in nature and it should be a sound and judicious exercise of discretion in the favour of the accused. 
  • Also, normal parameters that are deciding bail application would also be relevant while deciding application under Section 437(6) of the Code, but not with that rigour as they might have been at the time of application for regular bail. 
  • The Court hence concluded that the appellant shall be released on bail subject to certain terms that may be imposed by the Trial Court.

What is Section 480 (6) of BNSS?

  • This provision was embodied earlier in Section 437 (6) of CrPC. 
  • Section 480 of BNSS provides when bail may be taken in case of non bailable offence. 
  • Section 480 (6) of BNSS provides for the release of the accused if the following requirements are fulfilled: 
    • This provision applies to non-bailable offences being tried by a Magistrate. 
    • If the trial is not concluded within 60 days from the first date fixed for taking evidence, the accused must be released on bail. 
    • This mandatory bail applies only if the accused has been in custody for the entire 60-day period. 
    • The Magistrate may deny bail despite this provision but must record specific reasons in writing for doing so. 
  • It is to be noted that Section 480 (6) can be divided into two parts: 
    • While the first part indicates that it is mandatory to release the accused person on bail. 
    • The second part has given discretion to the Magistrate not to grant bail by assigning reasons. 
    • Thus, although the first part can momentarily be said to be mandatory, it cannot be interpreted to give an indefeasible right to the accused to be released on bail as it is controlled by the second part of the provision.   
  • The intention behind introducing Section 480 (6) of BNSS is indeed to speed up trial without unnecessarily detaining the person as an undertrial prisoner for a prolonged time. 
  • Difference Between Section 480 (1) (2) and Section 480 (6) of BNSS: 
    • The grounds relevant for the purpose of refusing bail under Section 480 (6) of BNSS would not be the same which could have weighed with the Magisterial Court while refusing bail under Section 480(1) & (2) of the BNSS. 
    • The stage talked about in Section 480 (1) and (2) is much prior to the trial. The stage contemplated under Section 480 (6) is after filing of charge-sheet and framing of charge when trial commences, and the accused prefers an application after lapse of 60 days from first date fixed for taking evidence. 
  • If the grounds for both Section 480 (1) and (2) and Section 480 (6) are same that would render Section 480 (6) otiose. 
  • Thus, reasons for rejection of bail under Section 480 (6) should be different and a little more weighty as compared to rejection of bail at the initial stage. 

Family Law

Amending Original Plea Before Family Court to Incorporate Reliefs under Domestic Violence Act will not Change Its Nature and Character

 19-Feb-2025

Fathima v Vappinu 

“The reliefs which can be claimed under Sections 18 to 22 of the DV Act, may also fall in any of the categories envisaged under Section 7 of the Family Court Act.” 

Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha   

Source: Kerala High Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha held that the reliefs under Sections 18-22 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) may fall within categories under Section 7 of Family Courts Act, 1984. 

What was the Background of Fathima v. Vappinu Case?   

  • The case involves Fathima (56 years) [Appellant] and her husband Vappinu (63 years) [defendant], where Fathima is seeking legal protection regarding her residence rights. 
  • After appellant’s marriage to the defendant her mother had transferred 25 cents of land for house construction. The house was reportedly built using proceeds from selling Fathima's gold ornaments. 
  • Appellant initially filed petition before the Family Court in Kunnamkulam under Section 7(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 seeking: 
    • A permanent prohibitory injunction to prevent her husband from trespassing into the property. 
    • Prevention from forcible eviction from the property. 
  • Fathima alleges that Vappinu ill-treated her and their children, married another woman, and is now attempting to: 
    • Forcibly evict her from the property. 
    • Alienate (transfer/sell) the property. 
  • During the pending original petition, appellant filed an amendment application seeking to include additional protections under Sections 18 and 19 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. (DV). 
  • Defendant opposed this amendment application, arguing that: 
    • There was no domestic violence against the appellant. 
    • She had never filed any petition under the DV Act before this. 
    • In a previous case appellant had claimed ownership of the property but lost. 
    • The amendment was filed only as a counterblast to his petition seeking her eviction. 
  • The Family Court at Kunnamkulam dismissed the appellant’s amendment application leading to the current appeal before the High Court of Kerala. 

What were the Court’s Observations?  

  • The Kerala High Court made the following observations: 
    • On Section 26 of DV Act: 
      • It empowers Civil Courts, Family Courts, and Criminal Courts to grant reliefs under Sections 18-22 of the DV Act. 
      • These reliefs can be sought in any legal proceeding affecting the aggrieved person and respondent. 
      • The provisions should be given liberal interpretation as they are beneficial social legislation. 
    • On the Relationship between Family Courts Act and DV Act: 
      • The reliefs under Sections 18-22 of DV Act may fall within categories under Section 7 of Family Courts Act. 
      • Family Courts can provide DV Act reliefs to ensure comprehensive protection. 
      • Incorporating DV Act reliefs into a Family Court petition won't change its fundamental nature. 
    • On Fathima's Specific Case: 
      • Her original petition already contained factual foundations regarding domestic violence 
      • Adding DV Act reliefs wouldn't change the nature of the original petition 
      • The amendment wouldn't cause prejudice to the respondent (Vappinu) 
    • The court observed that proceedings under DV Act and proceedings before the family court are independent. 
    • However, findings/orders from one forum must be considered by another forum. 
    • The High Court ultimately set aside the Family Court's order and allowed the appellate amendment application, though it specifically noted that it wasn't entering into the merits of whether she was entitled to the DV Act reliefs - that would be decided by the Family Court after trial.  

What is Section 7 of the Family Court’s Act? 

  • Section 7 states the jurisdictional powers of the Family Court as: 
    • Primary Jurisdiction of Family Courts: 
      • Family Courts are vested with comprehensive jurisdiction that encompasses both civil and specific family-related matters.  
      • The courts exercise powers equivalent to district courts and subordinate civil courts within their territorial jurisdiction. 
    • Matrimonial Proceedings: 
      • The courts have authority over various aspects of matrimonial relationships including: 
        • Marriage Status and Validity: 
          • The courts can hear cases seeking declaration of marriage as null and void. 
          • They can process requests for restitution of conjugal rights between spouses. 
          • Cases seeking judicial separation fall under their purview. 
          • They have authority to dissolve marriages through appropriate legal procedures. 
          • The courts can make declarations about the validity of marriages. 
          • They can determine and declare the matrimonial status of individuals. 
        • Property Disputes: 
          • The courts handle disputes between married parties regarding their joint property. 
          • They can adjudicate matters concerning individual property of either spouse. 
          • Cases involving division or claims over marital property are within their jurisdiction. 
        • Injunctive Relief: 
          • The courts can issue orders and injunctions in situations arising from marital relationships. 
          • They have the power to provide immediate relief in urgent matrimonial matters. 
        • Personal Status and Rights: 
          • Cases seeking declaration of legitimacy fall under their jurisdiction. 
          • The courts handle maintenance proceedings for family members. 
          • They have authority over guardianship matters. 
          • Child custody disputes are adjudicated by these courts. 
          • They can determine access rights to minors. 
    • Additional Jurisdictional Powers: 
      • Criminal Jurisdiction 
        • The Family Courts are empowered with criminal jurisdiction equivalent to First Class Magistrates specifically under Chapter IX of the Criminal Procedure Code. This allows them to: 
          • Issue maintenance orders for wives. 
          • Determine maintenance for children. 
          • Order maintenance for parents. 
          • Handle criminal aspects of family disputes within specified limits. 
  • Extended Jurisdiction: 
    • The courts can exercise additional powers as conferred by other legislation, making their jurisdiction adaptable to new laws and regulations related to family matters. 
  • Territorial Jurisdiction: 
    • The jurisdiction of Family Courts is limited to their specified geographical area. Within these territorial limits, they exercise all powers of both civil and criminal nature as specified under the Act. 
    • This comprehensive jurisdiction enables Family Courts to serve as specialized forums for resolving family disputes efficiently while ensuring that all related matters can be dealt with under one roof, avoiding multiplicity of proceedings in different courts.