List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News?

Recently, Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan clarified that cheating [S.420 Indian Penal Code,1860 (IPC) /S.318 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS)] and criminal breach of trust (S.405 IPC/S.316 BNS) cannot be alleged together on the same facts, as they are “antithetical.” The ruling came in a property sale dispute, where the Court set aside criminal proceedings for both offences filed simultaneously. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Arshad Neyaz Khan v. State of Jharkhand & Another (2025). 

What was the Background of Arshad Neyaz Khan v. State of Jharkhand & Another (2025)? 

• Arshad Neyaz Khan owned property situated at Khata No.186, MS Plot No.1322, Sub Plot No.1322/38-A and held power of attorney for an adjacent property at Sub-Plot No.1322/39-A-1. In January 2013, one Atik Alam approached complainant Md. Mustafa, informing him that Khan's property was available for sale. 
• Upon meeting Khan, the complainant was assured that all documents and titles to the property were in proper order. Khan also represented that the adjacent land was owned by six different individuals who had executed powers of attorney in his favour, authorizing him to sell that property as well. Based on these representations, both parties entered into an Agreement for Sale dated 16th February 2013 for a total consideration of Rs.43,00,000/-. 
• As per the agreement terms, the complainant paid an advance amount of Rs.20,00,000/- to Khan on the date of execution, with the balance amount to be paid during registration of the sale deed. However, after executing the agreement, Khan failed to convey title of the properties to the complainant and also did not return the advance money deposited with him. 
• After nearly eight years of non-performance, on 29th January 2021, the complainant filed a complaint in Complaint Case No.619 of 2021 against Khan. This complaint resulted in the registration of FIR No.18 of 2021 dated 8th February 2021 at Police Station Hindpiri, alleging offences under Sections 406 (Criminal Breach of Trust), 420 (Cheating), and 120B (Criminal Conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code. 
• Apprehending arrest, Khan filed an Anticipatory Bail Petition which was granted by the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi on 23rd December 2021. During proceedings, parties were referred to mediation where they reached a settlement agreement for Khan to pay Rs.24,00,000/- to the complainant in five instalments. Khan paid the first instalment of Rs.5,00,000/- but failed to comply with subsequent instalment conditions, leading to cancellation of his anticipatory bail on 15th June 2022.

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court observed that criminal breach of trust and cheating cannot co-exist on the same allegations as they are "antithetical" to each other. Cheating requires criminal intention from inception, while criminal breach of trust involves lawful entrustment followed by misappropriation. 
• The Court observed that establishing cheating requires demonstrating fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making representations. Such culpable intention cannot be presumed and must be proven through cogent facts. Mere failure to keep a promise does not establish initial fraudulent intent. 
• The Court observed that not every breach of trust constitutes a penal offence unless there is evidence of fraudulent misappropriation. The complainant failed to establish how property was entrusted and subsequently misappropriated for personal use. 
• The Court observed that neither cheating nor criminal breach of trust was established in this case. There was a clear absence of dishonest intention during the agreement execution and no evidence of intentional deception from the beginning. 
• The Court observed that the eight-year delay in filing complaint raised suspicions about bona fides. Criminal law should not become a platform for vindictive proceedings or settling personal scores when no prima facie case exists.

What are Sections 316 and 318 of BNS ? 

• Section 316 - Criminal Breach of Trust 
  • Entrustment of Property: A person must be entrusted with property or dominion over property in any manner, creating a fiduciary relationship between the parties. 
  • Dishonest Misappropriation or Conversion: The entrusted person must dishonestly misappropriate or convert the property to his own use, departing from the terms of entrustment. 
  • Violation of Legal Direction or Contract: The accused must dishonestly use or dispose of the property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode of discharge of trust, or breach any legal contract (express or implied) regarding the trust discharge. 
  • Wilful Permission to Others: The section covers situations where the accused wilfully suffers any other person to commit the aforementioned acts, extending liability to passive facilitation. 
• Section 318 – Cheating  
  • Deception: The accused must deceive any person through false representations, concealment of material facts, or other fraudulent means. 
  • Fraudulent or Dishonest Inducement: The deception must fraudulently or dishonestly induce the deceived person to deliver property to any person or consent to property retention by another. 
  • Intentional Inducement for Action/Omission: The accused must intentionally induce the deceived person to do or omit doing something which they would not have done or omitted if not deceived. 
  • Causation of Damage or Harm: The act or omission caused by deception must result in or be likely to cause damage or harm to the deceived person in body, mind, reputation, or property. 

What is the Difference Between Section 316 (Criminal Breach of Trust) and Section 318 (Cheating)?

Source: Madras High Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, Justice Shamim Ahmed upheld a Family Court order directing a husband and his two sons to pay ₹21,000 monthly maintenance to the wife/mother, emphasizing that it is a man’s legal and moral duty to support his wife and mother, ensuring dignity and care in their old age. 

• The Madras High Court held this in the matter of RAP v. AM  (2025). 

What was the Background of RAP v. AM  (2025)? 

• The present criminal revision petition arose from a maintenance dispute under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)1973. 
• The marriage between the first petitioner and the respondent was solemnised on 7th January, 1986. The respondent voluntarily deserted the matrimonial home and left the petitioners during the year 2015. 
• After a period of four years from the date of desertion, the respondent instituted proceedings before the Family Court, Madurai in M.C. No. 64 of 2019, seeking monthly maintenance of Rs. 40,000/- along with recovery of gold jewellery weighing 290 sovereigns allegedly given as marriage gifts and recovery of Rs. 5,00,000/- from the petitioners. 
• The Family Court, Madurai, vide its order dated 18th March, 2025, awarded Rs. 21,000/- per month as maintenance allowance to the respondent. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioners preferred the present criminal revision petition under Section 438 read with Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 
• The petitioners contended that the first petitioner, being over 60 years of age, was suffering from health complications and remained without any source of income. The second petitioner's income was allegedly meager and insufficient to manage his own household expenses, medical expenditure for his father, and maintenance of his wife and children. The third petitioner, employed in Bangalore, was stated to have inadequate income to meet his personal expenditures and frequently required financial assistance from the second petitioner. 
• The petitioners further submitted that the respondent possessed sufficient financial means, as evidenced by her maintenance of a personal vehicle and employment of a driver. They alleged that the Family Court failed to consider that the respondent was residing separately without just or reasonable cause and therefore was not entitled to claim maintenance. The petitioners expressed their willingness to provide care for the respondent as their wife and mother respectively.

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court observed that maintaining one's mother and wife is both a legal and moral obligation. This duty stems from the inherent responsibility of children to care for parents and husbands to support wives during old age. The Court emphasised this constitutes a legal obligation recognised in various jurisdictions through statutory provisions mandating financial support for aging parents. 
• The Court pronounced that husbands and sons bear social responsibility to maintain their wives and mothers respectively. The invaluable care provided by a mother cannot be adequately compensated through monetary means, and no payment can compensate for the pain and sacrifices endured during childbirth and child-rearing. 
• The Court found petitioners failed to demonstrate any illegality, impropriety, or incorrectness warranting judicial interference. The maintenance amount of Rs. 21,000/- was held reasonable considering prevailing rising prices and high cost of living. 
• The Court recognised Section 125 CrPC as beneficial legislation enacted to prevent vagrancy of destitute wives and mothers. The undisputed relationship between parties (husband-wife and mother-sons) was noted. 
• The Court concluded the impugned order required no interference to meet ends of justice. Finding no illegality or abuse of process, the Criminal Revision Petition lacked merit. Consequently, the petition was dismissed and the Family Court was directed to proceed in accordance with law. 

What are Sections 438 and 442 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) 

• Section 438: Calling for Records to Exercise Powers of Revision 
  • High Court and Sessions Judge can call for and examine records of any proceeding before inferior Criminal Courts within their jurisdiction to check the correctness, legality, or propriety of findings, sentences, or orders. 
  • All Magistrates (Executive or Judicial, original or appellate) are deemed inferior to Sessions Judge for revision purposes under this section. 
  • Interim relief can be granted by suspending execution of sentence/order and releasing accused on bail during record examination. 
  • Revision powers cannot be exercised for interlocutory orders in appeals, inquiries, trials, or other proceedings. 
  • No duplicate applications - if one person applies to either High Court or Sessions Judge, no further application by same person to the other court is allowed. 
• Section 442: High Court's Powers of Revision 
  • High Court's discretionary power to exercise revisional jurisdiction in cases where records are called for by itself or otherwise come to its knowledge, with powers similar to appellate and sessions courts. 
  • Natural justice principle - no prejudicial order against accused can be made without giving opportunity of being heard personally or through advocate. 
  • Fundamental limitation - High Court cannot convert a finding of acquittal into conviction under revisional powers. 
  • Bar on revision - where appeal lies but no appeal is brought, revision cannot be entertained at the instance of party who could have appealed. 
  • Conversion provision - High Court may treat revision application as appeal petition if made under erroneous belief that no appeal lies and interests of justice so require. 
  • Equal division clause - when revision court judges are equally divided in opinion, case disposal follows Section 433 procedure. 

Source: Madras High Court 

Why in News? 

The bench of Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan in the case of M.R.Yajith Krishna (Minor) v. Union of India and Ors. (2025) dismissed a writ petition challenging the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for All India Sainik School Admission Counselling (AISSAC), particularly the eye standards prescribed for admission to 6th standard at Sainik Schools. 

What was the Background of M.R.Yajith Krishna (Minor) v. Union of India and Ors. (2025) Case? 

• The petitioner, a 12-year-old student represented by his natural guardian and mother, applied for admission to 6th Standard at Sainik School, Amaravathi Nagar, Udumalpet, Tiruppur District. 
• The petitioner secured 227 marks out of 300 marks in the entrance examination, well within the cut-off marks under the Scheduled Caste category. 
• Despite his academic performance, the petitioner was directed to appear for medical examination at Medical College Hospital, Coimbatore, for verification of medical fitness as per communication dated 27.06.2025. 
• The medical examination declared the petitioner medically unfit for Eye Standard-II due to vision defect of 6/36. 
• The petitioner applied for a review and was directed to report to Military Hospital, Chennai, for further examination, but the initial medical report was confirmed. 
• The petitioner challenged the rejection as discriminatory under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, arguing violation of Sections 3, 4, and 16 of the Act. 
• The petitioner contended that his rejection was solely on medical grounds and not academic ineligibility, violating Article 21 of the Constitution. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court noted that all Sainik Schools function under the administrative control of the Sainik Schools Society and the Ministry of Defence, New Delhi, and are residential institutions starting from Class VI. 
• The primary aim of Sainik Schools is to act as feeder institutes for the National Defence Academy and the Indian Naval Academy, requiring stringent medical standards. 
• The Court emphasized that Sainik Schools are designed to groom students for future roles as military officers, focusing on their mental and physical readiness. 
• Medical examination is non-negotiable before admission to Sainik Schools and is mandated by the Sainik Schools Society functioning under the Ministry of Defence. 
• The Court ruled that provisions under Section 12(c) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act, 2009, and Sections 3, 4, and 16 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, are not applicable to such specialized military preparatory schools. 
• The Court found that the petitioner cannot challenge the Standard Operating Procedure after having accepted it initially and appearing for the entrance examination. 
• The Court dismissed the petition, stating it found "no infirmity or illegality in the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for All India Sainik School Admission Counselling (AISSAC) 2025." 

What are Sainik Schools? 

About: 

• Sainik Schools are residential educational institutions in India that prepare students for careers in the armed forces. 
• These schools function under the administrative control of the Sainik Schools Society and the Ministry of Defence, New Delhi. 
• They commence from Class VI and serve as feeder institutes for the National Defence Academy (NDA) and the Indian Naval Academy (INA). 
• The primary objective is to groom students for future roles as military officers with focus on mental and physical readiness. 

Medical Standards for Sainik School Admission: 

The Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for All India Sainik School Admission Counselling (AISSAC) prescribes specific eye standards: 

• Standard-I: 6/6 & 6/6 (perfect vision in both eyes) 
• Standard-II: Uncorrected VA 6/18 & 6/18; BCVA 6/6 & 6/6 
• Myopia limitations: <-1.25 D Sph, including max astigmatism < +/-0.5 D Cyl 
• Hypermetropia limitations: < + 1.25 D Sch, including max astigmatism < +/-0.5 D Cyl 
• LASIK and equivalent procedures not permitted 
• Colour vision requirements: CP II 
• Additional requirements include absence of squint, morbid eye conditions, and active trachoma 

Admission Process: 

• Selection and admission are subject to fulfilling multiple criteria: admission criteria, eligibility, rank, merit list, medical fitness, and verification of original documents. 
• Students undergo entrance examinations followed by medical examinations for shortlisted candidates. 
• Medical fitness is assessed at designated medical institutions, with provision for review at Military Hospitals. 
• In case of unfit medical reports, the Principal is mandated to reject the candidature through the e-counselling portal.