List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

The bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Satish Chandra Sharma in the case of Deepak Yadav and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (2025) held that the Trial Courts cannot take cognizance of additional offences based solely on affidavits filed by complainant's witnesses without examining the complete investigation record or ordering fresh investigation. 

What was the Background of Deepak Yadav and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (2025) Case? 

• The FIR was initially registered in 2017 under Sections 394, 452, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 
• After investigation, the Police submitted the charge sheet under Sections 452, 323, 504 and 506 of the IPC and under Section 3(1)(D) of the 1989 Act, omitting Section 394 of the IPC. 
• The complainant filed an application before the Trial Court praying for addition of charge under Section 394 IPC, which was rejected and charges were framed under other Sections. 
• The complainant moved before the High Court, which disposed of the matter with liberty to file an application before the Trial Court for leading evidence and filing documents. 
• In the second round, the Trial Court again did not frame charge under Section 394 IPC, prompting the complainant to move the High Court again. 
• The High Court remanded the matter to the Trial Court for the second time. 
• In the third round, the Trial Court took cognizance under Section 394 IPC based on affidavits filed by the complainant's witnesses. 
• The appellants challenged this order before the High Court through an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), which was dismissed by the High Court vide order dated 11.11.2024. 
• The appellants then filed the present appeal before the Supreme Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

What Trial Courts Must Do: 

1. Form Independent Satisfaction: Courts must independently assess applicability of charges based on proper investigation materials, not just complainant's affidavits. 
2. Examine Complete Case Diary: Call for entire police case diary under Section 172 CrPC, including all witness statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC. 
3. Review Suppressed Materials: Examine portions not initially forwarded to court to form independent opinion on whether offence ingredients are made out. 

Fresh Investigation Protocol: 

• Police must produce entire investigation record and all witness statements. 
• If any witness statements were missed, affidavits furnished by complainant shall be forwarded to police. 
• Police to conduct further investigation and submit report within six weeks. 
• Court to then proceed with cognizance, charge framing, and trial based on complete materials. 

Legal Significance: 

This judgment reinforces that: 

• Cognizance cannot be mechanical based on private affidavits alone. 
• Prosecution must furnish complete Section 161 CrPC statements for judicial scrutiny. 
• Trial Courts must ensure fairness through proper investigation procedures. 
• Addition of charges requires independent judicial satisfaction based on investigation record. 
• Officers can face personal liability for suppressing evidence. 

What does Taking Cognizance of an Offence mean? 

About:

• The concept of "taking cognizance of an offence" is a fundamental principle in criminal law and procedure that determines when a judicial authority first becomes aware of and takes judicial notice of an alleged offence.  
• This legal framework establishes the crucial threshold that must be crossed before any criminal proceedings can be initiated. Understanding this concept is essential for practitioners of criminal law, as it serves as the foundation upon which the entire criminal justice process is built. 

Meaning of Cognizance: 

• The term "cognizance" in criminal law represents the pivotal moment when a Magistrate or Judge transitions from being unaware of an alleged crime to actively considering it within their judicial capacity.  
• This transformation is not merely administrative but carries significant legal implications for both the accused and the prosecution. 

Practical Application: 

• The practical aspects of taking cognizance were elaborated in Emperor v. Sourindra Mohan Chuckerbutty (1910): 
  • "Taking cognizance does not involve any formal action; or indeed action of any kind, but occurs as soon as a Magistrate, as such, applies his mind to the suspected commission of an offence." 
• Key principles derived: 
  • No Formal Requirements: The process doesn't require specific formal actions or procedures. 
  • Mental Application: It occurs when the judicial mind is applied to the suspected offence. 
  • Statutory Compliance: When statutes prescribe specific materials for judicial consideration, those requirements must be fulfilled. 

Statutory Framework: 

Section 210 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) and the corresponding Section 190 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) dealing with “cognizance of offences by Magistrates” read as follows – 

Source: Bombay High Court 

Why in News? 

Justice Jitendra Jain of the Bombay High Court in the case of Gautam Dham Co-operative Housing Society Limited v. Funds and Properties of Parsi Panchayat, Bombay and Others (2025) allowed condonation of 75 days delay in filing written statement in a non-commercial suit, holding that the limitation period under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC starts from the date of actual service of writ of summons along with plaint copy, not from the date of filing vakalatnama. 

What was the Background of Gautam Dham Co-operative Housing Society Limited v. Funds and Properties of Parsi Panchayat, Bombay and Others (2025) Case? 

• This was an Interim Application No.4761 of 2025 in Suit No.393 of 2022 filed by the Original Defendant No.1 (Gautam Dham Co-operative Housing Society Limited) seeking condonation of 75 days delay in filing written statement in a non-commercial suit. 
• The Plaintiffs were the Funds and Properties of Parsi Panchayat, Bombay and its Trustees who had filed the suit against the Defendant society and others. 
• The vakalatnama on behalf of Defendant No.1 was filed on 11.06.2021. 
• The writ of summons along with copy of the plaint was served on Defendant No.1 on 08.03.2023. 
• As per Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Defendant was supposed to file written statement within 30 days from service of summons, which expired on 07.04.2023. 
• However, the written statement was actually filed on 21.06.2023, resulting in a delay of 75 days starting from 08.04.2023. 
• The Defendant explained that the delay occurred because the advocate's office inadvertently did not inform the advocate about the writ of summons when it was received. 
• Later, on inquiry by the office bearers of Defendant No.1 society, the advocate inquired with his staff and became aware that the writ of summons had been served on 08.03.2023. 
• Thereafter, immediate steps were taken in drafting the written statement, getting it approved by the office bearers and holding conferences for finalization.

What were the Court's Observations? 

On Starting Point of Limitation Period: 

• The Court held that the object of Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC is to enable defendant to present defence to the case made in the plaint, which requires actual receipt of plaint copy. 
• The limitation under Order VIII Rule 1 starts from the date of service of writ of summons along with plaint copy, which in this case was 08.03.2023. 

On Sufficient Cause for Delay: 

• The reasons constituted "sufficient cause" since Defendant No.1 is a society run by honorary members. 
• Litigant cannot be made to suffer for advocate's office lapse, especially when delay is only 75 days. 
• Office bearers showed vigilance by contacting the advocate, and immediate steps were taken once lapse was discovered. 
• Defendant No.1 has not gained anything by the delay. 

Final Decision: 

• The Court was satisfied that the applicant explained the delay in filing written statement and the delay required to be condoned. 
• The Interim Application was allowed and Registry was directed to take written statement on record.

What is Order VIII Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908? 

Order VIII: 

• Order VIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) contains provisions in relation to written statement.  

Rule 1 of Order VIII of CPC: 

• Rule 1 of Order VIII deals with written statement. It states that -  
• The Defendant shall, within thirty days from the date of service of summons on him, present a written statement of his defence.  
• Provided that where the defendant fails to file the written statement within the said period of thirty days, he shall be allowed to file the same on such other day, as may be specified by the Court, for reasons to be recorded in writing, but which shall not be later than ninety days from the date of service of summons. 
• Provided that where the defendant fails to file the written statement within the said period of thirty days, he shall be allowed to file the written statement on such other day, as may be specified by the Court, for reasons to be recorded in writing and on payment of such costs as the Court deems fit, but which shall not be later than one hundred twenty days from the date of service of summons and on expiry of one hundred twenty days from the date of service of summons, the defendant shall forfeit the right to file the written statement and the Court shall not allow the written statement to be taken on record.

Purpose and Objective: 

• The object is to enable defendant to present defence to plaintiff's case, which requires actual receipt of plaint copy. 
• Therefore, limitation period starts from actual service of summons along with plaint, not from any deemed date.