List of Current Affairs

Source: Telangana High Court 

Why in News? 

Justice N. Tukaramji of the Telangana High Court in the case of J. Chandra Lekha and G. Jayaraj v. State of Telangana and Another. (2025) set aside Sessions Court orders and provided crucial guidance on the proper procedure for issuing Non-Bailable Warrants (NBWs), emphasizing strict adherence to Supreme Court guidelines established in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2021). 

What was the Background of J. Chandra Lekha and G. Jayaraj v/s State of Telangana and Anr. (2025) Cases?

• The petition was filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 to set aside the Sessions Judge's order dated 10.07.2025 and recall NBWs issued against the petitioners. 
• The petitioners were accused in C.C.No.15408 of 2024 for offences under Sections 329(4), 232, 351(3), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. 
• The trial court noted that Accused Nos. 3 and 4 (the petitioners) had been absconding since the commencement of proceedings and directly issued Non-Bailable Warrants against them. 
• The petitioners challenged the non-bailable warrants issued against them at the summons stage, arguing that NBWs could not be issued without first issuing summons and following the prescribed sequential procedure. 

Common Issues in Both Cases: 

• The investigating agency had served notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS selectively, without proper service on all accused persons. 
• No notice was served upon the petitioners at any stage of the proceedings in both cases. 
• The trial courts issued NBWs without following the mandatory sequential procedure established by Supreme Court guidelines. 
• The prosecution argued that the accused had been absconding since the filing of charge sheets, justifying the direct issuance of NBWs. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

Procedural Violations: 

• The Court found that the trial court failed to follow the prescribed sequential procedure before issuing NBWs, noting the absence of any material demonstrating that securing the petitioners' presence or custody was essential for investigation purposes. 

Supreme Court Guidelines in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022):  

• The Court extensively referenced the Supreme Court's guidelines in this case which categorized offences and prescribed specific procedures: 
• Category A Offences (Punishable with imprisonment of 7 years or less): 
  • First instance: Ordinary summons (including permitting appearance through lawyer). 
  • Second step: Bailable warrant for physical appearance if accused doesn't appear despite service of summons. 
  • Final step: NBW only on failure to appear despite issuance of bailable warrant 
• Category B Offences (Punishable with death, life imprisonment, or more than 7 years): On appearance, bail application to be decided on merits. 
• Category C Offences (Under Special Acts like NDPS, PMLA, UAPA): Same as Category B with additional compliance requirements. 
• Category D Offences (Economic offences not covered by Special Acts): Similar to Category B. 

Judicial Assessment Requirements: 

The Court emphasized that before issuing coercive measures, the Magistrate must: 

• Carefully examine materials produced by the investigating agency. 
• Consider the nature of process issued, allegations made, and evidence collected. 
• Undertake independent judicial assessment to determine necessity of accused's presence or custody. 
• Record reasons for such opinion. 

Court's Directions: 

• Immediate Relief: The impugned order was set aside for non-adherence to prescribed procedure. 
• Petitioners' Obligations: Directed to appear in person before the trial court on or before the next adjournment date and file appropriate petition. 
• Trial Court Directions: The Magistrate was directed to recall the NBWs and proceed with the case strictly in accordance with law. 
• Procedural Emphasis: Reiterated that NBWs should be issued as a measure of last resort solely for securing the presence of the accused. 

What is a Non-Bailable Warrant? 

• A non-bailable warrant is a judicial directive that authorizes law enforcement agencies to arrest a person and produce them before the court, without providing the option of immediate bail upon arrest. 
• When a non-bailable warrant is issued, the arrested individual cannot be released on bail by the police officer executing the warrant; instead, bail can only be granted by a competent court after consideration of the specific circumstances of the case. 
• The issuance of non-bailable warrants is typically reserved for serious offenses, cases where the accused has repeatedly failed to appear before the court despite opportunities, or situations where the court has reasonable grounds to believe the accused may abscond or tamper with evidence. 
• Section 73 of the Criminal Procedure Code governs the form of warrants of arrest, while Sections 72, 74, 75, 76, 78, and 80 provide the procedural framework for the execution of such warrants. 
• As established in State of Bihar v. J.A.C. Saldanha (1980), non-bailable warrants should not be issued routinely or mechanically, but only after proper judicial consideration of the circumstances necessitating such a serious restriction on liberty. 
• The execution of non-bailable warrants must follow specific procedural safeguards, including informing the arrested person of the contents of the warrant and producing them before the court without delay, generally within 24 hours of arrest. 

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan held that electronic evidence seized by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) can be admissible without a certificate under Section 138C(4) of the Customs Act if the assessee has acknowledged the documents in statements recorded under Section 108. This ruling clarifies that strict compliance with certificate requirements can be relaxed when the evidence is duly admitted by the assessee. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Additional Director General Adjudication, Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence v. Suresh Kumar And Co. Impex Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (2025). 

What was the Background of Additional Director General Adjudication, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. Suresh Kumar And co. Impex Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (2025)? 

• The respondents were engaged in importing branded food items from various countries for sale in Delhi and Mumbai. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence alleged that the respondents had under-declared the Retail Sale Price/Maximum Retail Price (RSP/MRP) while filing Bills of Entry, resulting in evasion of customs duties. 
• DRI conducted raids on business and residential premises, seizing electronic devices including laptops and hard drives. The investigation revealed evidence of short-payment of customs duty through mis-declaration of actual selling prices. 
• A show cause notice dated 06.06.2016 demanded differential duties of Rs. 9,24,50,644/- from respondent no.1 and Rs. 9,83,614/- from respondent no.2, along with interest and penalty. 
• The Additional Director General confirmed the demands vide order dated 17.07.2017. The CESTAT allowed the respondents' appeals, holding that electronic evidence was inadmissible due to non-compliance with Section 138C(4) of the Customs Act, 1962.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Court identified whether the Tribunal erred in allowing appeals solely on grounds of non-compliance with Section 138C(4) of the Customs Act, 1962. 
• The Court observed that Section 138C(4) of the Customs Act is pari materia to Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act. While acknowledging the mandatory nature of certificate requirements for electronic evidence, the Court applied legal maxims "impotentia excusat legem" and "lex non cogit ad impossibilia" - establishing that law does not compel performance of impossible acts. 
• The Court held that due compliance does not necessarily require a certificate stricto senso under Section 138C(4). The Record of Proceedings and statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act could constitute due compliance with Section 138C(4). 
• The Court noted that electronic documents were collected in the presence of company directors who signed every page of printouts and acknowledged their authenticity in unretracted statements under Section 108. The respondents confirmed accuracy of records and their presence during the printing process from seized hard drives. 
• The Court clarified that while acknowledgment in Section 108 statements determines compliance with Section 138C(4), their evidentiary value in other proceedings must be considered in accordance with law, including compliance with Section 138B of the Customs Act. 

What is Electronic Evidence? 

• Electronic evidence has become fundamental to modern legal proceedings, necessitating robust statutory frameworks for admissibility and authentication. Under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Sections 65A and 65B governed electronic records, requiring strict compliance with certificate provisions under Section 65B(4). This provision mandated certificates from responsible officials identifying electronic records, describing production methods, and confirming operational conditions. 
• The Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 has modernised electronic evidence rules through Sections 62 and 63. Section 63 expands the scope beyond traditional computers to include communication devices and semiconductor memory storage. The new framework recognises electronic records stored in multiple formats and locations as primary evidence, addressing contemporary digital practices like cloud storage and network-based systems. 
• Key improvements include broader definitions encompassing communication devices, recognition of multiple storage formats, and standardised certificate requirements with expert validation. The BSA mandates certificates in prescribed schedule format with dual verification - Part A completed by the producing party and Part B by technical experts. 
• However, challenges remain regarding undefined terms like "electronic records" and "electronic form," creating potential ambiguities. The relationship between substantial compliance principles established in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar and strict certificate requirements under the new framework requires judicial interpretation. 
• Electronic evidence provisions aim to balance technological advancement with evidentiary reliability, ensuring authentic documentation while recognising practical limitations in obtaining formal certificates in complex digital environments.

What is Section 138C of Customs Act ?

• Overview of Section 138C: 
  • Section 138C of the Customs Act, 1962 governs the admissibility of electronic records, micro films, facsimile copies, and computer printouts as documentary evidence in customs proceedings. This provision was inserted by Act 29 of 1988 with effect from 1st July 1988 to address the growing use of electronic documentation in commercial transactions. 
• Key Provisions: 
  • Scope of Admissibility: Section 138C(1) declares that micro films, facsimile copies, and computer printouts shall be deemed documents under the Customs Act and admissible as evidence without production of originals, provided specified conditions are satisfied. 
  • Mandatory Conditions for Computer Printouts: Sub-section (2) establishes four essential conditions for admitting computer printouts: the computer must have been used regularly for storing information during relevant activities; information must have been regularly supplied in ordinary course of activities; the computer must have operated properly throughout the material period; and the statement must reproduce information supplied in ordinary course. 
  • Certificate Requirement: Sub-section (4) mandates production of a certificate from a person in responsible official position identifying the document, describing production manner, providing device particulars, and dealing with conditions in sub-section (2). The certificate serves as evidence of matters stated therein. 
  • Practical Definitions: The section defines "computer" broadly as any device receiving, storing and processing data, and clarifies that information derivation includes calculation, comparison or other processes. 
• Legal Significance: 
  • Evidentiary Framework: Section 138C creates a comprehensive framework for electronic evidence admissibility in customs proceedings, balancing technological advancement with evidentiary reliability. The provision ensures authenticity while recognising practical challenges in electronic documentation. 
  • Relationship with Evidence Act: Section 138C(4) is pari materia to Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, maintaining consistency in electronic evidence standards across different statutory frameworks. 
  • Compliance Requirements: The section establishes that while certificate requirements are mandatory, courts may consider substantial compliance where strict technical compliance becomes impossible due to circumstances beyond the party's control, as recognised in recent judicial pronouncements. 

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, Justices Aravind Kumar and Sandeep Mehta held that immovable property title cannot be transferred without a registered sale deed, setting aside a Delhi High Court ruling that had upheld ownership based on an agreement to sell, GPA, and other unregistered documents. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Ramesh Chand (D) Thr. Lrs. v. Suresh Chand And Anr.(2025). 

What was the Background of Ramesh Chand (D) Thr. Lrs. v. Suresh Chand And Anr.(2025) Case? 

• Brothers Suresh Chand (plaintiff) and Ramesh Chand (defendant) disputed over property originally owned by their father, Shri Kundan Lal, who died on 10th April, 1997. 
• Property No. 563, Ambedkar Basti near Balmiki Gate, Delhi - 110053. 
• Suresh Chand claimed title through documents dated 16th May, 1996: Agreement to Sell, General Power of Attorney, Affidavit, Receipt for Rs. 1,40,000, and registered Will. He alleged Ramesh Chand was a licensee who became a trespasser and wrongfully sold half the property to a third party. 
• Ramesh Chand claimed oral transfer in July 1973 with continuous possession since then. He challenged all plaintiff's documents as invalid and noted that plaintiff had admitted in earlier suit (OS No. 294/1996) that their father owned the property, contradicting the May 1996 purchase claim. 
• Trial court and High Court ruled for plaintiff. After Supreme Court remand due to overruled precedent, High Court again dismissed defendant's appeal on 9th April, 2012.

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court observed that an Agreement to Sell does not constitute a deed of conveyance under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Such agreements merely create contractual rights and do not transfer ownership or create any interest in immovable property. The Court noted that while a sale involves transfer of ownership, a contract for sale is merely a document creating a right to obtain a registered sale deed to complete the transaction. 
• The Court observed that a General Power of Attorney does not constitute an instrument of transfer of immovable property, even where clauses are introduced making it irrevocable or authorising the attorney holder to effect sale. The Court noted that a power of attorney is essentially the creation of an agency whereby the grantor authorises the grantee to perform specified acts on behalf of the grantor. The Court found that the specific General Power of Attorney in question merely authorised management of property affairs including letting on rent and creating mortgages, but was silent on conveyance aspects. 
• The Court observed that the Will dated 16th May, 1996 was surrounded by suspicious circumstances and had not been proved in accordance with law. The Court noted that no attesting witness was examined as required under Section 68 of the Evidence Act, despite the Will being required to be attested by two witnesses under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act. The Court observed it was highly suspicious that the testator excluded three of his four children from the bequest without any evidence of estrangement or provision of other assets to them. 
• The Court observed that the plaintiff could not claim protection under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act relating to part performance, as he was not in possession of the property. The Court noted that the very fact that the plaintiff filed a suit for possession demonstrated his lack of possession on the date of filing, which is an essential requirement for invoking Section 53A protection. 
• The Court observed that upon the death of Shri Kundan Lal, succession had opened up, and in the absence of a valid Will, the Class-I legal heirs would be entitled to shares in the property according to law. 
• The Court observed that the rights of the second defendant (respondent No. 2), who had purchased 50% share from the appellant, would be protected to the extent of the appellant's share only, keeping all contentions open for the parties to work out their rights in accordance with law. 
• The Court observed that the propounder of documents claiming title must prove their validity through proper evidence, including examination of attesting witnesses and removal of suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of such documents. 

Can a Power of Attorney Serve as a Valid Instrument for Transferring Property Under Indian Law? 

Indian Contract Act, 1872: 

• Chapter X - Deals with "Agency" which governs the basic principles of Power of Attorney 
• Section 201 - Termination of Agency (covers how agency relationships end) 
• Section 202 - Termination of agency where agent has an interest in subject matter (crucial for determining irrevocable POAs) 

Powers of Attorney Act, 1882: 

• Section 1-A and Section 2 - Define the scope and nature of powers of attorney 

Transfer of Property Act, 1882: 

• Section 5 - Defines "transfer of property" 
• Section 54 - Defines "sale" and requirements for valid property transfers 
• Section 53-A - Part performance doctrine 

Key Legal Principles Established: 

The Supreme Court judgment in Ramesh Chand v. Suresh Chand (2025) and the case M.S. Ananthamurthy & Anr v. J Manjula (2025) establish several important principles: 

1. Nature of POA: A Power of Attorney creates an agency relationship, not a transfer of property rights 
2. Irrevocability: For a POA to be truly irrevocable, it must be "coupled with interest" - merely using the word "irrevocable" is insufficient 
3. No Title Transfer: A General Power of Attorney does not constitute an instrument of transfer of immovable property, even with clauses making it irrevocable 
4. Agency Termination: Under Section 201, agency normally terminates upon death of the principal, unless the agent has an interest in the subject matter (Section 202) 
5. Fiduciary Relationship: The POA holder acts in a fiduciary capacity and cannot use the power for personal benefit unless specifically authorized 

These provisions collectively establish that a Power of Attorney is primarily a document of convenience for agency purposes, not a method of property transfer, and its validity and scope are governed by the principles of agency law under the Indian Contract Act.