List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh held that while mere absconding is not conclusive proof of guilt, it is a relevant fact under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872 (IEA)  . When the accused is last seen with the deceased and fails to explain his subsequent absconding, such conduct, corroborated by other evidence, justifies drawing an adverse inference and supports the conviction for murder. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Chetan v. the State of Karnataka (2025). 

What was the Background of Chetan v. the State of Karnataka (2025) Case ? 

• This murder case dates back to July 2006 and involves the death of a young man named Vikram Shinde. The accused and Vikram were friends who had known each other for some time before the tragic incident occurred. 
• The accused had borrowed Rs. 4,000 from one Ravindra Chavan with the intention of lending this money to Vikram Shinde.  
  • However, despite repeated requests over a period of 7-8 months, Vikram failed to return the borrowed amount to the accused. 
  • This created tension between the two friends, and during arguments about the money, Vikram had apparently insulted the accused, which led to the accused harboring a grudge against him. 
• On the evening of 10 th July, 2006, at around 8:30 PM, the accused took his grandfather's 12-bore double-barrel gun under the pretext of going hunting. He then asked Vikram to accompany him on his Hero Honda motorcycle to a sugarcane grove located in Shahapur village, which belonged to one Arun Kumar Minache. 
• The accused shot Vikram dead with the gun in the sugarcane field. After committing the murder, the accused took Vikram's Nokia mobile phone and gold chain, essentially stealing these items from the deceased. 
• When Vikram did not return home that night after leaving around 7:45 PM, his father became worried and contacted the accused's family by telephone. The accused's family informed him that the accused was not at home. 
  • The next morning, on 11th July, 2006, Vikram's father visited the accused's house personally to inquire about his son's whereabouts.  
  • The accused gave false information, claiming that he had separated from Vikram at around 8:00 PM the previous evening. 
• The dead body was discovered three days later on 13th July, 2006, in the sugarcane field.  
  • Due to decomposition, the body could not be immediately identified.  
  • The discovery was reported in newspapers, and Vikram's father identified the body on 14th July 2006, through photographs and personal items found on the deceased, including his sweater, a handkerchief, and a motorcycle key found in his pocket. 
• During the investigation, several witnesses came forward stating they had seen the accused and Vikram together on the evening of 10th July, 2006, near Mahishyal bus stand and later riding a motorcycle towards Shahapur.  
  • The accused was arrested on 22nd July, 2006, in Miraj after police searched for him in multiple locations. 
• The accused was charged with multiple offences under Indian law: 
  • Murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). 
  • Misappropriation of property (mobile phone and gold chain) under Section 404 of the IPC 
  • Illegal possession and use of firearms under Sections 3, 5, 25, and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• Trial Court Observations: 
  • The Trial Court noted that the accused was last seen with the deceased shortly before the commission of the offence. 
  • It further observed that the accused had absconded immediately after the incident and failed to give any reasonable explanation for the same. 
  • The court inferred that this conduct, along with corroborative circumstantial evidence, established his complicity in the offence of murder under Section 302 IPC. 
• High Court Observations:  
  • The High Court upheld the findings of the Trial Court and reaffirmed the conviction. 
  • It observed that abscondence of the accused, near the time of death and his being last seen with the deceased, was a relevant circumstance supporting the prosecution case. 
  • The court also stated that although absconding alone may not prove guilt, when weighed with the overall chain of circumstances, it lent credibility to the prosecution version. 
• Supreme Court Observations:  
  • The Supreme Court clarified that mere absconding does not conclusively establish guilt, as an innocent person may also abscond out of fear or panic. 
  • However, it emphasized that such conduct is a relevant fact under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, reflecting the mental state of the accused, and can be relied upon if corroborated by other evidence. 
  • The Court observed that the failure of the accused to explain his sudden disappearance, especially after being last seen with the deceased, strengthens the prosecution's case. 
  • It relied on the precedent laid down in Matru @ Girish Chandra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1971) wherein it was held that abscondence is a material circumstance when evaluated with other incriminating facts. 
  • The Bench upheld the conviction for murder, holding that the cumulative effect of the absconding conduct, last seen theory, and lack of credible defence justified the finding of guilt. 
  • The Court concluded that the act of absconding, when viewed in the totality of circumstances, is “a conduct indicating a guilty mind” and forms a relevant piece of circumstantial evidence. 

What is Section 6 of  Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA)? 

• Section 6 of BSA deals with Motive, Preparation, and Conduct. 
• Previously, it was covered under Section 8 of the IEA. 

Source: Kerala High Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice VG Arun held that CrPC did not contain any provision for seizure or attachment of the proceeds of crime which is now contained in Section 107 of BNSS. 

• The Kerala High Court held this in the case of Headstar Global Pvt Limited v. State of Kerala (2025). 

What was the Background of Headstar Global Pvt Limited v. State of Kerala (2025) Case? 

• M/s. Apple Middle East General Trading LLC, a company based in the UAE and now the 3rd respondent in this case, is involved in importing and exporting food grains and food articles. 
• Through Headstar Trading LLP, the 3rd respondent placed an order with Spezia Organic Condiments Pvt. Ltd. for the export of 378 metric tons of sugar from Kochi to the UAE. 
• As an advance payment for the consignment, the 3rd respondent remitted ₹49.53 lakhs to the account of Spezia Organic Condiments Pvt. Ltd. maintained at IDBI Bank, Kochi. 
• The shipment was promised to be delivered within 30 days, but the sugar was never dispatched. 
• On inquiry, it was revealed that due to a change in government policy, sugar could no longer be exported from India — a fact concealed by the supplier at the time of making the deal. 
• Despite promising to refund the amount, the Directors of Spezia Organic Condiments Pvt. Ltd. failed to do so. 
• As a result, the 3rd respondent filed a complaint which led to registration of Crime No. 732 of 2024 at Kalamassery Police Station under Sections 406, 420 read with 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). 
• It was discovered that ₹46,50,525 from the advance was transferred to M/s. Headstar Trading LLP, which in turn transferred ₹52,44,750 to Headstar Global Pvt. Ltd., the petitioner in the current proceedings. 
• The police then issued a notice (Annexure B) directing the bank to debit freeze the petitioner’s account. The petitioner challenged this through Annexure C before the Magistrate, which was dismissed by Annexure D order. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• In the case of State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D. Neogy (1999) the Supreme Court held that a police officer can seize or prohibit operations of a bank account under Section 102 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) if the money in the account is suspected to be connected with the commission of an offence. 
• The Court held in this case that bank accounts are considered “property” under this provision. 
• The Court further observed that under Section 102(1), a police officer can seize any property suspected to be stolen or involved in a crime. However, if there is no such suspicion, seizure is impermissible. 
• The Court made an observation that CrPC lacked explicit provisions for attachment or forfeiture of proceeds of crime, except in cross-border cases under Chapter VII-A. This gap has been addressed in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) by enacting Section 107. 
• With regards to Section 107 of BNSS the Court held that the police officer must apply to the Magistrate for attachment of property suspected to be proceeds of crime. The Magistrate may issue a notice and, after hearing the parties, pass attachment orders or even interim ex parte orders to prevent disposal. 
• The Court further made distinction between Section 106 of BNSS and Section 107 of BNSS. 
• Section 106 BNSS (like Section 102 CrPC) allows police to seize property as evidence. In contrast, Section 107 requires Magistrate approval for attachment, targeting preservation and forfeiture of criminal proceeds. 
• In the present facts the police froze the petitioner’s bank account based on a chain of suspicious fund transfers.  
• The Court observed that even if the funds are suspected proceeds of crime, such freezing must follow the procedure under Section 107 BNSS. 
• The High Court thus allowed the petition, quashed the impugned debit freeze order, and clarified that the police must follow Section 107 BNSS by approaching the Magistrate for attachment if necessary. 

What is Section 107 of BNSS? 

• It is to be noted that CrPC did not contain any provision for seizure or attachment of the proceeds of crime, except under Chapter VII A dealing with reciprocal arrangements with other countries for assistance in attachment and forfeiture of property in a contracting state. 
• This lacuna is cured by retaining Section 102 of CrPC as Section 106 and including Section 107 in BNSS. 
• Thus, Section 107 of BNSS is a newly added provision. 
• Section 107 (1) provides: 
  • If a police officer believes that a property is derived directly or indirectly from criminal activity or an offence, he can seek its attachment. 
  • Before doing so, the police officer must obtain approval from the Superintendent or Commissioner of Police. 
  • The officer must then apply to the Court or Magistrate who has jurisdiction to take cognizance of or try the case. 
• Section 107 (2) provides:  
  • If the Court or Magistrate believes that the property in question may be proceeds of crime, they can initiate further action. 
  • This belief can be formed either before or after taking evidence. 
  • The Court or Magistrate may issue a notice to the concerned person, asking them to explain why the property should not be attached. 
  • The person is given fourteen days to respond to the show cause notice. 
• Section 107 (3) provides: 
  • If the notice under sub-section (2) mentions that any property is held by another person on behalf of the main person, that other person must also be informed. 
  • A copy of the notice must be served upon the person holding the property on behalf of the main person. 
• Section 107 (4) provides: 
  • The Court or Magistrate can pass an order of attachment after considering the explanation to the show-cause notice and the available material facts. 
  • A reasonable opportunity of being heard must be given to the concerned person or persons. 
  • If the property is found to be proceeds of crime, an attachment order can be issued. 
  • If the person does not appear or present their case within fourteen days, the Court or Magistrate can pass an ex parte attachment order. 
• Section 107 (5) provides: 
  • If the Court or Magistrate believes that issuing a notice under sub-section (2) would defeat the purpose of attachment or seizure, they may pass an interim ex parte order. 
  • This interim order can direct the attachment or seizure of the property without prior notice. 
  • The interim order will remain in effect until a final order is passed under sub-section (6). 
• Section 107 (6) provides: 
  • If the Court or Magistrate determines that the attached or seized properties are proceeds of crime, they shall issue an order accordingly. 
  • The order will direct the District Magistrate to rateably distribute the proceeds of crime among the persons affected by the crime. 
• Section 107 (7) provides: 
  • Upon receiving the order under sub-section (6), the District Magistrate must distribute the proceeds of crime within sixty days. 
  • The District Magistrate may carry out the distribution personally or authorize a subordinate officer to do so. 
• Section 107 (8) provides: 
  • If no claimants are found or identifiable for the proceeds of crime, or if there is any surplus remaining after satisfying all claims, the proceeds shall be forfeited to the Government. 

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan held that in the absence of a suit for specific performance, an agreement to sell cannot be made the basis for claiming ownership, title, or any transferable interest in the property. Such an agreement, by itself, does not create any right, title, or interest under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882,(TPA) and cannot be enforced unless it is followed by a decree for specific performance under the Specific Relief Act, 1963. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Vinod Infra Developers Ltd. v. Mahaveer Lunia & Ors. (2025). 

What was the Background of Vinod Infra Developers Ltd. v. Mahaveer Lunia & Ors., (2025) Case? 

• Vinod Infra Developers Ltd. claimed ownership of agricultural land in Village Pal, Jodhpur, and had borrowed Rs. 7.5 crores from Mahaveer Lunia in 2014. 
• As security for this loan, the company executed unregistered documents including a power of attorney and agreement to sell in favor of Lunia through a board resolution. 
• The original sale deeds of the property were impounded by the Collector of Stamps for insufficient stamp duty, and the company handed over these documents to Lunia as additional security. 
• In April 2022, when the company approached Lunia to settle the loan and retrieve the documents, he failed to respond. 
• Consequently, the company's Board of Directors revoked Lunia's authority and the power of attorney in May 2022. 
• Despite this revocation, Lunia proceeded to execute registered sale deeds in July 2022 in his favour and that of other respondents, leading to mutation of their names in revenue records. 
• The company then filed a civil suit seeking declaration of title, possession, and permanent injunction, claiming the sale deeds were void due to prior revocation of authority. 
• The respondents challenged the suit under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, which was initially dismissed by the trial court but later allowed by the High Court, resulting in rejection of the plaint entirely.

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court observed that unregistered documents such as agreements to sell and powers of attorney cannot confer any valid authority to transfer title under Sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act, 1908. 
• The Court emphasized that in the absence of a suit for specific performance, an agreement to sell cannot be relied upon to claim ownership or assert any transferable interest in immovable property. 
• It was noted that Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act categorically provides that a contract for sale of immovable property does not, by itself, create any interest in or charge on such property. 
• The Court found that the subsequent revocation of the power of attorney prior to execution of the sale of deeds rendered Respondent No.1's actions legally ineffective and without authority. 
• The High Court was found to have erred in rejecting the plaint entirely without examining the distinct cause of action arising from sale of deeds executed after revocation of authority. 
• The Court reiterated that title to immovable property can only be adjudicated by competent civil courts and not by revenue authorities, as revenue entries are merely administrative and for fiscal purposes. 
• Finally, it was observed that serious triable issues arose from the pleadings which required adjudication by a competent civil court rather than summary rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. 

What is Section 54 of TPA? 

• Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act categorically defines "sale" as a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price, which can only be made through a registered instrument for immovable property valued at one hundred rupees and upwards. 
• It was emphasized that Section 54 clearly distinguishes between a "sale" and a "contract for sale," stating that a contract for sale of immovable property does not, of itself, create any interest in or charge on such property. 
• For tangible immovable property valued at one hundred rupees and upwards, such transfer can be made only by a registered instrument. 
• For tangible immovable property valued at less than one hundred rupees, the transfer may be made either by a registered instrument or by delivery of the property. 
• Delivery of tangible immovable property takes place when the seller places the buyer, or such person as he directs, in possession of the property. 
• A contract for the sale of immovable property is defined as a contract that a sale of such property shall take place on terms settled between the parties. 
• The section specifically clarifies that a contract for sale does not, of itself, create any interest in or charge on such property. 
• This provision establishes a clear distinction between an actual "sale" (which transfers ownership) and a "contract for sale" (which is merely an agreement to sell in future). 
• The section mandates compulsory registration for transfers of immovable property above the specified value, making unregistered documents legally ineffective for transferring title. 
• Unregistered agreements to sell, even if coupled with possession, do not convey title or create any interest in immovable property, as they fail to meet the requirements of Sections 54 and 55 of the Transfer of Property Act. 
• Title and ownership of immovable property can only be conveyed by a registered deed of sale, and any document falling short of this requirement cannot effectuate a valid transfer 
• An agreement to sell is not a conveyance and does not constitute a document of title or deed of transfer that confers ownership rights. 
• The subsequent revocation of authority further nullified any claim to title based on such unregistered documents, making the entire transaction legally ineffective. 

Cases Referred  

• S. Kaladevi v. V.R. Somasundaram (2010): Unregistered documents under Sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act and their admissibility only for collateral purposes or in suits for specific performance. 
• Muruganandam v. Muniyandi (Died) through LRs. (2025): Unregistered documents may be received as evidence of a contract in suits for specific performance under the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act. 
• Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd. v. State of Haryana (2012): Unregistered agreements to sell do not convey title or create interest in immovable property, and that SA/GPA/WILL transactions are not valid modes of transfer. 
• Cosmos Co. Operative Bank Ltd v. Central Bank of India & Ors. (2025): Title and ownership of immovable property can only be conveyed by a registered deed of sale. 
• M.S. Ananthamurthy v. J. Manjula (2025): Unregistered agreements to sell cannot create or transfer any right, title, or interest in immovable property. 
• Central Bank of India v. Prabha Jain (2025): - A plaint cannot be rejected entirely if even one cause of action survives, and that partial rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is not permissible.