A. Constitution of India, 1950—Article 324—Election Commission—Free and Fair Elections—Scope of Powers—The Election Commission possesses wide powers of superintendence, direction and control over the entire electoral process, including measures necessary to preserve the purity and integrity of elections. However, such powers are not plenary where Parliament or the State Legislature has occupied the field; in areas left unregulated by legislation, Article 324 operates as a reservoir of power enabling the Commission to issue appropriate directions to secure free and fair elections. [Paras 10–11] B. Constitution of India, 1950—Articles 324 & 19(1)(a)—Elections—Voter’s Right to Know—Transparency—Black Money—Free and fair elections are an essential feature of ...
A. Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986—Section 12—Trial by Special Court—Precedence—Scope of Provision—Section 12 mandates that, where there is a clash of dates between the trial under the Gangsters Act and another criminal case against the same accused, the trial under the Gangsters Act shall receive priority. The provision does not intend to keep all other criminal proceedings in abeyance until conclusion of the Gangsters Act trial; its object is to prevent simultaneous trials and ensure expeditious conclusion of the Special Court proceedings. [Paras 16–19, 25–26] B. Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986—Section 12—Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023—Section 346—Expeditious Trial—Harmo...
A. Indian Penal Code, 1860—Sections 148, 324/149 & 302/149—Murder and Rioting—Eyewitness Evidence—Contradictions and Embellishments—Where the prosecution case rests substantially upon eyewitness testimony, material contradictions, embellishments and admissions in cross-examination rendering the witnesses unreliable cannot be ignored. Where an alleged eyewitness admitted that he became unconscious after the first blow and did not personally witness the deceased being struck, his detailed attribution of specific blows and weapons could not safely be relied upon for conviction. [Paras 6–8] B. Indian Penal Code, 1860—Sections 302/149—Criminal Trial—Interested Witnesses—Credibility—False Implication—Land Dispute—Where the prosecution witnesses materially contr...
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985—Section 20(b)—Bail—Parity with Co-accused—Prolonged Custody—Where similarly situated co-accused had already been enlarged on bail and the petitioner had undergone 1 year and 4 months in custody, the Supreme Court, considering the overall facts and circumstances, the principle of parity, the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution and the statutory restrictions under Section 37 NDPS Act, found it appropriate to grant bail to the petitioner pending trial, subject to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. (Paras 2–5) ...
A. Indian Evidence Act, 1872—Section 27—Disclosure Statement—Discovery of Fact—Limited Admissibility—A disclosure statement made by an accused is admissible only to the extent that it distinctly relates to the fact thereby discovered; the remaining portion of the statement must be excluded from consideration. Mere disclosure of the place where counterfeit currency was allegedly recovered does not, by itself, establish that the accused was in possession, ownership or exclusive control of the recovered articles. (Para 10) B. Indian Penal Code, 1860—Sections 489A, 489B & 489C—Counterfeit Currency—Recovery from Premises Not Owned or Controlled by Accused—Possession—Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt—Where no counterfeit currency or manufacturing equipment was recovered from t...
A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973—Bail—Prolonged Custody—Further Detention Pending Trial—Where the appellant was in custody for 13 months in a case under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 201 IPC, and considering the totality of circumstances and period of incarceration, the Supreme Court held that further detention was not necessary pending trial and granted bail. (Paras 5–7) B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973—Bail—Conditions—Misuse of Liberty—Attendance at Trial—Merits of Case—Bail was made subject to furnishing bonds and such conditions as the Trial Court may impose, including prohibition against inducement, threat or promise to witnesses, diligent attendance during trial, and cancellation of bail in case of breach. The Court clarified that the observations ma...
A. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012—Sections 5(m), 6, 7, 8, 9(m), 10 & 18—Attempt to Penetrative Sexual Assault—Suspension of Sentence—In considering suspension of the respondent’s sentence of 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment, the State contended that the case involved an attempt to commit penetrative sexual assault under Section 5(m) POCSO, whereas the High Court had prima facie viewed the case as falling under Section 7 POCSO. The Supreme Court, despite noticing the State’s objections, declined to interfere with the suspension of sentence. (Paras 2–3) B. Constitution of India, 1950—Article 136—Suspension of Sentence—Prima Facie Observations—Appeal on Merits—The Supreme Court clarified that the observations made while considering susp...
A. Information Technology Act, 2000—Section 79—Intermediary—Safe Harbour—Due Diligence—The exemption from liability available to an intermediary under Section 79 is conditional upon compliance with due-diligence requirements. Where an intermediary has actual knowledge or is notified by the appropriate Government or its agency that unlawful material is being used through its computer resource, it must expeditiously remove or disable access to such material without compromising the evidence. Failure to comply may result in loss of safe-harbour protection. (Para 6; Main Judgment Paras 254, 256) B. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012—Sections 19, 20, 21 read with Rule 11, POCSO Rules, 2020—Social Media Intermediaries—Mandatory Reporting—Social media intermediaries are ...
A. Indian Penal Code, 1860—Sections 306 & 107—Abetment of Suicide—Proximate Act—Instigation—Mens Rea—To constitute abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, read with Section 107 IPC, there must be direct or indirect instigation, in close proximity to the suicide, coupled with clear mens rea to aid, provoke or incite the deceased to commit suicide. Mere allegations of harassment or continuous unpleasant conduct, without a proximate positive act capable of driving the deceased to take the extreme step, are insufficient to constitute the offence. [Paras 14–20, 23–25] B. Indian Penal Code, 1860—Section 306—Suicide Note—Allegations of Harassment—Proximate Conduct—Official Supervision—A suicide note naming or blaming the accused does not, by itself, est...
A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988—Sections 166(1)(c)—Legal Representatives—Dependency—Maintainability of Claim—All legal representatives of a deceased victim are entitled to maintain a claim petition under Section 166(1)(c), irrespective of whether each legal representative was actually dependent upon the deceased. The absence or extent of dependency may affect the quantum of compensation, but does not defeat the right to maintain the claim. [Paras 5–5.3] B. Motor Accident Compensation—Consortium—Spousal, Parental and Filial Consortium—Consortium is an independent and indispensable head of compensation. Spousal consortium is payable to the surviving spouse, parental consortium to children for the loss of parental care, affection, guidance and protection, and filial consortium to parents f...
A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Sections 138 & 141—Dishonour of Cheque—Sole Proprietary Concern—Separate Arraignment—Not Necessary— A sole proprietary concern has no independent legal or juristic existence apart from its proprietor—the proprietor and proprietary concern are legally one and the same person—therefore, where the cheque is issued from the account of a sole proprietary concern and the proprietor is himself prosecuted, separate arraignment of the proprietary concern as an accused is not necessary—the principle in Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels & Tours (P) Ltd. requiring arraignment of the principal offender is applicable where the principal offender is a separate juristic entity and not to a sole proprietary concern. (Paras 17–20) B. Code of Criminal P...
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Section 143(3)—Dishonour of Cheque—Expeditious Trial—Time Limit— In a complaint under Section 138 of the Act, the trial is required to be conducted as expeditiously as possible, with an endeavour to conclude it within six months from the date of filing of the complaint—where the proceedings had remained pending due to the respondent’s non-appearance and pending exemption application, the Trial Court was directed to take necessary measures to secure his presence and endeavour to conclude the trial within six months from production of the certified copy of the order. (Paras 6–7) ...
A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Section 147—Section 138—Dishonour of Cheque—Compounding After Conviction— An offence under Section 138 is compoundable at any stage, including after conviction and dismissal of appeal or revision—voluntary settlement between the parties can be accepted notwithstanding that no further proceedings remain pending. (Paras 12–15) B. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023—Section 528—Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Section 147—Inherent Powers—Quashing of Conviction and Sentence— The High Court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction to give effect to a settlement and compound an offence under Section 138 even after conviction and sentence have attained finality in revision—upon valid settlement, the conviction and sentenc...
A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Section 138—Dishonour of Cheque—Joint Account Holder—Non-Signatory—Prosecution Not Maintainable— A joint account holder who has not signed the dishonoured cheque cannot be prosecuted under Section 138 merely because she is a joint account holder or wife of the signatory—liability under Section 138 is confined to the drawer of the cheque, except where Section 141 applies. (Paras 4–5) B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Section 138—Quashing of Proceedings—Joint Account—Non-Signatory—Abuse of Process— Where the applicant was impleaded as an accused solely on the ground that she was a joint account holder and wife of the cheque-signatory, without any allegation of her having signed or drawn the cheque, continuation of the...
A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Sections 138 & 141—Dishonour of Cheque—Vicarious Liability of Director—Specific Averments— Mere designation as Director or Whole Time Director does not create deemed vicarious liability under Section 141—complaint must specifically aver that the accused was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company’s business at the time of commission of the offence. (Paras 8–11) B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Sections 138 & 141—Resignation of Director Before Issuance of Cheques—Quashing of Proceedings— Where the accused had ceased to be a Director nearly two months before issuance and dishonour of the cheques, and statutory records conclusively established such cessation, he could not be held vicariously liable und...
A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973—Section 311—Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Recall of Witness—Additional Evidence— Power under Section 311 is wide and may be exercised at any stage where the proposed evidence is germane and essential for a just decision—mere delay or closure of evidence does not create an absolute bar, provided the opposite party is afforded an effective opportunity of cross-examination and rebuttal. (Paras 30–38, 58–62) B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973—Sections 294(3) & 482—Promissory Note—Disputed Document—Proof of Genuineness— Dispute regarding genuineness of a document does not make it inadmissible or incapable of being produced—Section 294(3) merely dispenses with formal proof where genuineness is admitted&...
A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973—Section 311—Criminal Trial—Defence Evidence—Fair Opportunity—The power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is wide and may be exercised at any stage where the evidence of a witness is essential for a just decision of the case—the accused must be afforded a fair and reasonable opportunity to adduce defence evidence, particularly where such evidence is necessary to rebut statutory presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act. (Paras 9–14) B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973—Section 311—Closure of Defence Evidence—Recall—Last Opportunity—Where defence evidence had been closed due to the accused’s repeated absence, but denial of such evidence would prejudice a fair trial, the Magistrate’s order refusing recall was set aside&md...
A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Sections 138 & 142—Dishonour of Cheque—Demand Notice—Deemed Service—Premature Complaint— Where the demand notice was sent to the correct address but its actual date of service was not proved, service could be deemed on expiry of 30 days from dispatch—the drawer thereafter gets 15 days to make payment and a complaint filed before expiry of such period is premature and not maintainable. (Paras 17–24 B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Section 138—Premature Complaint—Jurisdictional Defect—Revision— Filing of a complaint before expiry of 15 days from service or deemed service of notice creates a jurisdictional bar to taking cognizance—the issue can be raised in revision even if not urged before the Courts below, and t...
A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Sections 118 & 139—Section 138—Presumption of Consideration—Rebuttal— Admission of issuance of cheque and signature raises the statutory presumption that the cheque was issued towards discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability—the accused may rebut such presumption either through cross-examination of the complainant’s witnesses or by leading defence evidence, and where the complainant’s own evidence discredits the existence of consideration, the presumption stands rebutted and the complaint must fail. (Paras 19–25) B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Section 138—Limitation Act, 1963—Section 19—Time-barred Debt—Acknowledgment of Liability—Appellate Interference with Acquittal— A cheque issued ...
A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Sections 118 & 139—Presumption—Sections 138—Dishonour of Cheque— Once issuance of cheque and signature are admitted, statutory presumption arises that cheque was issued for consideration and in discharge of legally enforceable debt or liability—the presumption is rebuttable, but mere denial in statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is insufficient without substantive evidence. (Paras 26–28) B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Sections 138 & 143—Dishonour of Cheque—Compensation and Fine— Proceedings under Section 138 are punitive, compensatory and restitutive in nature—Magistrate may impose fine up to twice the cheque amount and compensation may be awarded from the fine amount, ordinarily with simple interest at 9% per annum ...