Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan held that issuing a limited notice does not restrict its jurisdiction to address broader issues if substantial legal questions or glaring errors are raised.  

• Supreme Court held this in the matter of Biswajit Das v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2025). 
  • This ruling states the Court's discretionary power under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) and ensures justice isn't compromised due to procedural technicalities. 

What is the Background of Biswajit Das v. Central Bureau of Investigation Case? 

• Biswajit Das, a Development Officer of Life Insurance Corporation of India (LICI), was charged with fraudulently obtaining settlement of two insurance claims. 
• He allegedly portrayed an insured person as deceased when the person was alive, in collusion with a co-convict. 
• The prosecution presented evidence showing that Das and the insured person had a friendly relationship, and Das had obtained policies from the insured on the pretext of upgrading them. 
• Das was found to have filled six blank cheques totaling Rs. 1,67,583, which corresponded to the insurance claim amount. 
• The trial court convicted Das under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860(IPC) including Sections 468, 271, 465, and 420 read with Section 120(B). 
• He was also convicted under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC). 
• The trial court sentenced him to two years' rigorous imprisonment for most IPC offenses, one year for Section 271 and 465, and three years for offenses under the PC Act. 
• Das appealed to the Gauhati High Court, which affirmed both his conviction and sentence through a judgment dated 27th September 2013. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court held that when a limited notice is issued, the view taken is typically tentative and should not restrict the court's jurisdiction to address broader issues. 
• The Court observed that justice would be compromised if subsequent benches were prevented from ruling on merits beyond the limited notice's scope. 
• The Court clarified that the jurisdiction to decide all legal points exists and is not diminished by a limited notice issuing order. 
• Regarding the PC Act's applicability, the Court found that Das, as a Development Officer in LICI (established by central statute), was clearly covered under Section 2(c)(iii). 
• The Court distinguished the present case from State of Gujarat v. Manshankar Prabhashankar Dwivedi (1972) noting that Das committed offenses while discharging his official duties. 
• On examining the evidence, the Court confirmed that both trial court and High Court were justified in finding Das guilty under both IPC and PC Act. 
• The Court noted that Das had already served 22 months of his 36-month sentence. 
• Considering the case dated back to 2004 and Das had served nearly two-thirds of his sentence, the Court modified the sentence to the period already served. 
• While maintaining the conviction, the Court partially allowed the appeal by relieving Das from serving the remainder of his prison term. 

What are the Legal Provisions Referred as per Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS)? 

• Section 334: Dishonestly breaking open receptacle containing property. 
  • Section 334(2) Whoever, being entrusted with any closed receptacle which contains or which he believes to contain property, without having authority to open the same, dishonestly, or with intent to commit mischief, breaks open or unfastens that receptacle, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both 
• Section 273: Disobedience to quarantine rule. 
  • Whoever knowingly disobeys any rule made by the Government for putting any mode of transport into a state of quarantine, or for regulating the intercourse of any such transport in a state of quarantine or for regulating the intercourse between places where an infectious disease prevails and other places, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both. 
• Section 336: Forgery. 
  • Section 336 (2) Whoever commits forgery shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both 
• Section 318: Cheating. 
  • Section 318 (4) Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. 

What is the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988? 

• About: 
  • The PC Act is an act to consolidate and amend the law relating to the prevention of corruption and connected matters in India. 
• Important Sections: 
  • Section 3: "Power to appoint special Judges" 
    • Allows Central/State Government to appoint special Judges for trying corruption cases. 
  • Section 7: "Offence relating to public servant being bribed" 
    • Deals with public servants obtaining undue advantage to influence public duty. 
    • Punishment: 3-7 years imprisonment plus fine. 
  • Section 8: "Offence relating to bribing of a public servant" 
    • Covers giving undue advantage to public servants. 
    • Punishment: Up to 7 years imprisonment or fine or both. 
  • Section 9: "Offence relating to bribing a public servant by a commercial organization" 
    • Addresses corruption involving commercial organizations. 
    • Includes provisions for corporate liability. 
  • Section 13: "Criminal misconduct by a public servant" 
    • Defines criminal misconduct by public servants. 
    • Includes misappropriation and illicit enrichment. 
    • Punishment: 4-10 years imprisonment plus fine. 
  • Section 17: "Persons authorised to investigate" 
    • Specifies minimum rank of police officers authorized to investigate. 
    • Requires approval from specified authorities. 
    • Section 19: "Previous sanction necessary for prosecution". 
    • Makes prior sanction mandatory for prosecuting public servants. 
    • Details authorities competent to grant sanction. 
  • Section 20: "Presumption where public servant accepts any undue advantage" 
    • Creates legal presumption of corruption when undue advantage is proven. 
  • Section 23: "Particulars in a charge in relation to an offence under section 13(1)(a)" 
    • Specifies requirements for framing charges in corruption cases.