List of Current Affairs

Source: Himachal Pradesh High Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Sushil Kukreja held that even after taking cognizance, power under Section 173 (8) of CrPC can be exercised by the Magistrate suo moto to direct the police to conduct further investigation.   

• The Himachal Pradesh High Court held this in the case of Dharam Chand v. State of H.P. (2025). 

What was the Background of Dharam Chand v. State of H.P. (2025) Case?   

• A complaint was filed by Lal Chand, Clerk at the HP Milk Federation, Mandi Unit, alleging milk was being sold en route to the plant and proceeds were embezzled. 
• FIR No. 10/2002 was registered on 01.07.2002 against Dharam Chand and others under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 
• Dharam Chand, Incharge of MCC Kataula, was responsible for collecting milk from various Co-operative Societies and delivering it to the Chakkar Milk Plant. 
• An inquiry revealed that milk worth ₹5,56,656 was received less at the Chakkar unit between June 1994 and March 2001. 
• Specifically, for April 1995 to March 1996, 12,683 liters of milk worth ₹1,07,198 were found to be less deposited, allegedly due to illegal sale by the petitioner during transit. 
• During the trial, Dharam Chand moved an application under Section 227 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) seeking discharge, citing lack of evidence and procedural lapses. 
• The Trial Court dismissed the application and directed the police to conduct further investigation and refile the charge sheet if necessary. 
• Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a criminal revision before the High Court challenging the Trial Court’s order. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The High Court observed that the Trial Court was empowered under Section 173(8) CrPC to direct further investigation even after taking cognizance. 
• The Court relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya v. State of Gujarat, (2019) which held that a Magistrate can suo motu direct further investigation before the trial begins. 
• The Court emphasized that Article 21 of the Constitution demands a fair and just investigation, which may warrant further inquiry to uncover the truth. 
• The Court found that the initial investigation was incomplete, particularly concerning whether the proceeds from sold milk were deposited in the government treasury via TR-V bills. 
• It held that without complete investigation into these aspects, discharging the accused at this stage would be premature. 
• The revision petition was dismissed, and the order of the Trial Court for further investigation was upheld as legal and justified. 

What is Further Investigation? 

• Section 173 (8) of CrPC provides for further investigation. 
  • This provision allows for further investigation of an offence even after a police report (charge sheet) under Section 173(2) has been submitted to the Magistrate. 
  • If, during such further investigation, the officer in charge of the police station obtains new evidence, whether oral or documentary, he is required to submit a supplementary report to the Magistrate. 
  • The supplementary report must be in the prescribed format, similar to the original charge sheet. 
  • The procedural rules contained in sub-sections (2) to (6) of Section 173 shall, as far as applicable, also apply to these supplementary reports. 
  • This provision ensures that investigation remains open and flexible, allowing the discovery of additional facts to ensure justice. 
• This provision is now provided under Section 193 (9) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). 
• Section 193 (9) of BNSS also adds a  proviso which was not in Section 173 (8) of CrPC: 
  • The Proviso provides that: 
    • Further investigation during the trial may be conducted with the permission of the Court trying the case and the same shall be completed within a period of ninety days which may be extended with the permission of the Court. 

What is the Landmark Judgment on Further Investigation? 

• Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya and others Vs. State of Gujarat and another, (2019) 
  • The Court criticized the view that a Magistrate's power to order further investigation ceases once process is issued or the accused appears before the court. 
  • The judgment clarified that a criminal trial begins only after charges are framed, not merely after cognizance is taken. 
  • The Court emphasized that Article 21 of the Constitution requires a fair and just investigation, which may necessitate further inquiry. 
  • It noted that the police retain the power to conduct further investigation up to the trial stage, subject to Magistrate’s permission under Section 173(8) CrPC. 
  • The idea that a Magistrate’s supervisory jurisdiction ends mid-way through pre-trial proceedings was declared a travesty of justice. 
  • The Magistrate’s powers are derived from Sections 156(1), 156(3), 2(h), and 173(8) CrPC, and are available at all pre-trial stages. 
  • The Court affirmed that a Magistrate can even suo motu order further investigation, based on the facts of the case. 
  • It stressed that uncovering the truth and ensuring justice (including identifying the guilty and protecting the innocent) is more important than avoiding delay. 

Source: Madras High Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy held that using titles like “Mr. India” in bodybuilding contests does not violate Section 3 of the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950, as it merely denotes the winner and not a commercial misuse of the national name. 

• The Madras High Court held this in the matter of Puducherry Body Builders & Fitness Association v. The Government of India (2025). 

What was the Background of Puducherry Body Builders & Fitness Association v. The Government of India (2025) Case? 

• The Puducherry Body Builders & Fitness Association filed a writ petition before the Madras High Court seeking to prevent certain private respondents from conducting bodybuilding competitions using specific titles. 
• The petitioner association specifically objected to the use of titles such as "Mr. India", "Open Mr. South India", and "National" in the advertisements and conduct of these sporting events. 
• The competitions in question were scheduled to be held at Rock Beach, Puducherry on 03rd May 2025 and at Karaikal Beach on 25th May 2025, organized by private associations run by the 6th to 8th respondents. 
• The petitioner's primary contention was that the use of such titles in the advertisement and conduct of bodybuilding competitions constituted a violation of Section 3 of the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950. 
• The association argued that using names like "Mr. India" and "Open Mr. South India" without proper authorization amounted to improper use of the nation's name, which is prohibited under the legislation. 
• The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the government respondents (1st to 5th respondents) to forbear private respondents from conducting any such events using these contested titles. 
• The Government of India, represented through the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, along with the Government of Puducherry and related departments, were made respondents to the petition. 
• Both the Centre and State governments submitted that the competitions were being organized by private entities, and they had no direct involvement in the matter. 
• The petitioner also relied upon an interim order granted by the same court in an earlier case (W.P. No. 33576 of 2024) to support their arguments restraining the use of such titles in private bodybuilding competitions. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that the use of titles such as "Mr. India" or "Ms. South India" in bodybuilding competitions does not constitute a violation of Section 3 of the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950. 
• The court noted that it is common knowledge and practice specific to the sport of bodybuilding that competition winners are traditionally called "Mr." or "Ms." followed by geographical designations like South India, India, or World. 
• The court emphasized that such usage is synonymous with referring to the title winner of bodybuilding competitions and does not amount to the use of any national emblem or the country's name for trade, business, calling, or profession. 
• The court further observed that bodybuilding competitions are conducted primarily to encourage physical fitness among individuals, serving a legitimate sporting and health promotion purpose. 
• The Hon'ble Justice clarified that the prohibition under Section 3 of the Act applies to the use of the nation's name or emblem in trade, business, calling, profession, patents, trademarks, or designs without prior permission from the Central Government. 
• Finding no merit in the petitioner's arguments and no violation of the relevant legal provisions, the court dismissed the writ petition while noting that the traditional practice of using such titles in bodybuilding competitions is neither improper nor constitutes an offence under the applicable law. 

Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950 

About 

• The Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950 is an Act of Parliament enacted to prevent the improper use of certain emblems and names for professional and commercial purposes. 
• The Act extends to the whole of India and also applies to citizens of India outside India, having come into force on 1st September, 1950. 
• Under the Act, "emblem" means any emblem, seal, flag, insignia, coat-of-arms or pictorial representation specified in the Schedule, while "name" includes any abbreviation of a name. 
• The Act prohibits the use of specified names and emblems for trade, business, calling, profession, patents, trademarks, or designs without prior permission from the Central Government. 
• It also prohibits the registration of companies, firms, trade marks, designs, or patents that bear any prohibited name or emblem in contravention of the Act's provisions. 
• Any person who contravenes the provisions of the Act shall be punishable with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees. 
• No prosecution for any offence under this Act can be instituted except with the previous sanction of the Central Government or authorised officers. 
• The Central Government has the power to amend the Schedule by adding to or altering it through notification in the Official Gazette. 
• The Schedule contains 28 categories of protected names and emblems, including the Indian National Flag, government emblems, names of constitutional authorities, and various national and international organisations. 

Section 3  

• Section 3 prohibits any person from using or continuing to use any name or emblem specified in the Schedule or any colourable imitation thereof without the previous permission of the Central Government. 
• The prohibition applies to the use of such names or emblems for the purpose of any trade, business, calling or profession, or in the title of any patent, or in any trade mark or design. 
• The section operates notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, giving it overriding effect. 
• Exceptions are permitted only in such cases and under such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government through rules. 
• The permission must be obtained from the Central Government or such officer of Government as may be authorised in this behalf by the Central Government. 
• Any violation of this section constitutes an offence punishable under Section 5 of the Act with a fine extending up to five hundred rupees.