List of Current Affairs

Source: Allahabad High Court

Why in News? 

A Division Bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi of the Allahabad High Court, in Pramod Kumar Singh Alias Guddu Singh v. State of U.P. (2026), acquitted a murder accused who had been summoned to face trial under Section 319 CrPC (Section 358 of BNSS). The Court held that evidence recorded prior to the summoning of an accused cannot form the basis of his conviction, as such reliance directly violates Section 273 CrPC, which mandates that all evidence be recorded in the presence of the accused.

What was the Background of Pramod Kumar Singh Alias Guddu Singh v. State of U.P. (2026) Case? 

• A case was registered in connection with the murder of Vijay Kumar Singh, who succumbed to gunshot injuries allegedly fired by four accused persons. 
• In the chargesheet, the appellant (Pramod Kumar Singh Alias Guddu Singh) was not named, as the police could not establish his involvement in the incident. 
• During the trial of the four charge-sheeted accused, an application under Section 319 CrPC was filed to summon the appellant, which was allowed in June 2012. 
• The Section 319 CrPC application was based on the earlier testimonies of the injured complainant/PW-1 (Pintu Singh), the deceased's uncle (Indrapal Singh; testimony recorded in 2011), and an independent witness (Ajay Kumar Singh; testimony recorded in 2009). 
• After the appellant was summoned, PW-1 and the deceased's uncle, who were re-examined in 2013, completely resiled from their previous statements and denied the appellant's involvement in the case. 
• PW-1 categorically stated that he had falsely implicated the appellant in his earlier statement under pressure. 
• The independent witness never came forward to testify again after the appellant was summoned. 
• Despite this, the trial court convicted the appellant under Sections 302 r/w Section 149, Section 307 r/w Section 149, Section 148, and Section 506(2) IPC, sentencing him to life imprisonment, by relying on the pre-summoning statements of the deceased's uncle and the independent witness. 
• The trial court reasoned that once testimonies have been acted upon to summon an accused under Section 319 CrPC, they cannot be ignored and can form the basis for conviction. 
• Aggrieved, the appellant approached the Allahabad High Court challenging his conviction.

What were the Court's Observations? 

The Court made the following key observations: 

Pre-Summoning Evidence Cannot Ground Conviction: 

• The Court held that the trial court severely erred in relying on the statement of the deceased's uncle implicating the appellant, as it was recorded before the appellant was summoned as an additional accused. 
• Such a statement cannot be read against the appellant, as it was recorded when he was neither present before the court nor party to the proceedings. 
• The trial court had acted on the statement recorded prior to summoning while ignoring the subsequent statement of the same witness, which categorically exonerated the appellant.

Violation of Section 273 CrPC: 

• The Court emphasised the mandatory requirement under Section 273 CrPC that all evidence taken in the course of a trial or proceeding shall be recorded in the presence of the accused. 
• Evidence recorded when the appellant had not yet been summoned and was not present before the court could not lawfully be relied upon by the trial court to record his conviction.

Section 319 CrPC — No Opinion on Guilt: 

• Relying on the Supreme Court's 2014 judgment in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, the Court reiterated that there is no scope for the court acting under Section 319 CrPC to form any opinion as to the guilt of the accused at the stage of summoning. 
• The power under Section 319 CrPC is only to add an accused to face trial and does not predetermine the question of guilt.

Outcome: 

• Finding no other evidence on record to establish the appellant's involvement in the alleged offence, the Court allowed his appeal and set aside the conviction. 
• The Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish the guilt of the appellant, and that the trial court's judgment, rendered without adverting to the aforesaid aspects, was unsustainable in law.

What is Section 358 of BNSS? 

Section 358 BNSS, 2023 — Power to Proceed Against Other Persons Appearing to be Guilty of Offence  

(Corresponds to Section 319, CrPC, 1973) 

Sub-section (1) — Power to Proceed: 

• Where, during any inquiry or trial, evidence reveals that a person not originally named as accused has committed an offence for which he could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person.

Sub-section (2) — Arrest or Summons: 

• If such person is not present before the Court, he may be arrested or summoned, depending on the circumstances of the case.

Sub-section (3) — Detention of Person Present: 

• Any person attending the Court, even if not under arrest or served with a summons, may be detained by the Court for the purpose of inquiry or trial into the offence he appears to have committed.

Sub-section (4) — Fresh Proceedings: 

• Where the Court proceeds against such person under Sub-section (1):  
  • The proceedings shall be commenced afresh and witnesses re-heard. 
  • Subject to the above, the case proceeds as if such person had been an accused when the Court originally took cognizance of the offence. 

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News? 

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran of the Supreme Court, in Mondira Ghosh v. Chaitali Ghosh (2026), set aside a Calcutta High Court order that had permitted the defendant to file an additional written statement at an advanced stage of civil proceedings. The Court held that a party cannot use an additional written statement under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC to introduce a case wholly contradictory to the original defence, and that such an attempt — made after commencement of trial — constitutes a clear abuse of process aimed at circumventing the embargo under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC.

What was the Background of Mondira Ghosh v. Chaitali Ghosh (2026) Case? 

• Mondira Ghosh filed a civil suit seeking a declaration that Chaitali Ghosh was in unlawful possession of the suit property and for her eviction. 
• In her original written statement filed in December 2022, the defendant claimed to be a bona fide co-sharer of the suit property and denied the plaintiff's claim of unlawful possession. 
• Issues were framed in May 2023, following which the plaintiff's witness was extensively cross-examined. 
• After the trial had commenced, the defendant filed an application under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC seeking permission to file an additional written statement along with a counterclaim. 
• Through the proposed additional written statement, the defendant sought to completely change her position and claim that she was a tenant under the plaintiff — a stand wholly inconsistent with her original defence of being a co-sharer. 
• The Trial Court rejected the application, holding that the defendant could not retract from her earlier plea and substitute it with an inconsistent case, relying on Order VI Rule 7 CPC, which prohibits raising allegations inconsistent with previous pleadings except through amendment. 
• The Calcutta High Court partly allowed the defendant's challenge, permitting the filing of the additional written statement on payment of Rs. 15,000 as costs, while refusing to entertain the counterclaim. 
• Aggrieved, the plaintiff Mondira Ghosh approached the Supreme Court challenging the High Court's order.

What were the Court's Observations? 

The Court made the following key observations: 

Additional Written Statement Cannot Introduce Contradictory Case: 

• The Court held that the High Court erred in permitting the additional written statement, as the defendant was seeking to do a complete volte-face by changing her status from a bona fide co-sharer to a tenant of the plaintiff. 
• This was not a case of inadvertent omission of facts from the original written statement; rather, it was a deliberate attempt to withdraw an earlier stand and replace it with a wholly contradictory plea. 
• Such a course is contrary to the mandate of Order VI Rule 7 CPC, which prohibits a party from pleading facts inconsistent with its earlier pleadings without seeking formal amendment.

Abuse of Process — Circumventing Order VI Rule 17: 

• The Court observed that the application under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC was filed only to overcome the embargo contained in the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC, which restricts amendment of pleadings after commencement of trial. 
• The filing of such an application — particularly after the defendant had failed to seek amendment of her written statement at the appropriate stage — was held to be a clear abuse of process. 
• Permitting such a course would render the restrictions on post-trial amendments meaningless.

Restoration of Trial Court's Order: 

• The Supreme Court allowed the plaintiff's appeal, set aside the Calcutta High Court's order dated September 3, 2025, and restored the Trial Court's order rejecting the defendant's application.

What is a Written Statement? 

About: 

• A written statement is the defendant's reply to the plaintiff's plaint. Order 8 CPC governs all provisions related to it.

Key Rules at a Glance

• Rule 1 — Time Limit:  
  • Must be filed within 30 days of service of summons. 
  • Court may extend up to 90 days (with recorded reasons). 
  • Commercial suits: further extension up to 120 days; after which the right to file is forfeited. 
• Rule 2 — New Facts: All grounds of defence (fraud, limitation, illegality, etc.) must be specifically pleaded; otherwise they cannot be raised later. 
• Rule 3 — Specific Denial: General denial is insufficient; each allegation must be dealt with specifically. 
• Rule 4 — No Evasive Denial: Denial must go to the substance, not merely to the exact form of the allegation. 
• Rule 6 — Set-Off: A defendant may claim set-off of an ascertained sum against the plaintiff's claim, but only at the first hearing unless permitted later. 
• Rule 6B — Counterclaim: Must be specifically stated as a counterclaim in the written statement. 
• Rule 10 — Failure to File: Court may pronounce judgment against the defaulting party or pass any appropriate order.

Case Laws 

• Kailash v. Nankhu (2005): Proviso to Rule 1, Order 8 is directory, not mandatory. 
• Salem Advocate Bar Assn. v. Union of India (2005): Extension of time under Rule 10 cannot be granted routinely; only in exceptionally hard cases.