List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

The bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Satish Chandra Sharma in the case of Ranimol & Ors. v. The State of Kerala & Anr. (2025) held that the process of law had been grossly abused and misused by the private respondent who filed a complaint after a closure report had already been submitted. 

What was the Background of Ranimol & Ors. v. The State of Kerala & Anr. (2025) Case? 

• The second respondent filed a First Information Report against the appellants and other accused persons for offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 324 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). 
• The charge sheet was filed in 2015, but appellant Nos. 1 to 3 were not included in the report (a negative report was filed against them). 
• The Trial Court took cognizance of the negative report regarding the appellants, and the trial commenced in CC No. 295/2016 against the remaining accused persons. 
• The allegations were that the appellants, along with their husbands, confronted the complainant/respondent No. 2 in the southern courtyard of his shop and attacked him. 
• Despite the negative report filed against the appellants, respondent No. 2 did not file a protest petition challenging the closure report. 
• After a lapse of two and a half years, respondent No. 2 chose to file a private complaint invoking Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). 
• The appellants challenged the committal proceedings initiated by the Magistrate by approaching the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC. 
• The High Court dismissed the petition on the ground that a new offence (Section 308 IPC) had been added, and therefore there was no need to interfere.

What were the Court's Observations?

• The Court noted this was "nothing but an abuse of the process of law" where a detailed investigation had been conducted and a negative report filed, which respondent No. 2 had not challenged. 
• Merely adding an offence for the same occurrence, by the same informant, a second complaint through invocation of Section 200 CrPC is not maintainable. 
• The respondent relied on Surender Kaushik & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors. (2013), but the Court held that the ratio was actually in favour of the appellants. 
• The Court emphasized the principle from Surender Kaushik: "What is prohibited is any further complaint by the same complainant and others against the same accused subsequent to the registration of the case", as it would amount to improvement of facts. 
• The prohibition does not cover rival versions or counter complaints by different persons making distinct allegations, which was not the case here. 
• The Court noted it was dealing with the liberty of a person, and therefore the question of double jeopardy would arise. 
• The High Court ought to have invoked its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC by quashing the vexatious proceedings.

Court's Directions: 

• The impugned order passed by the High Court was set aside. 
• The proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate against the appellants were quashed. 
• The Court clarified that this order would not have any bearing on the pending trial pertaining to the earlier First Information Report (against the other accused persons). 
• The appeal was allowed.

What is  Section 223 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023? 

About: 

• The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) received Presidential assent on December 25, 2023 and came into force on July 1, 2024, repealing the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. 
• Section 223 of BNSS corresponds to Section 200 of the erstwhile Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. 
• The introduction of a proviso to Section 223(1) has completely changed the manner in which Magistrates deal with private complaints. 

Text of Section 223 BNSS: 

Section 223(1): 

• A Magistrate having jurisdiction while taking cognizance of an offence on complaint shall examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present, and the substance of such examination shall be reduced to writing and signed by the complainant, witnesses, and the Magistrate. 

First Proviso (Key Change): 

• No cognizance of an offence shall be taken by the Magistrate without giving the accused an opportunity of being heard. 

Section 223(2): 

• For complaints against public servants, the Magistrate shall not take cognizance unless the public servant is given an opportunity to make assertions about the incident and a report from the superior officer is received.

Legislative Intent and Objectives: 

The legislature, following the principle of "audi alteram partem," introduced this statutory safeguard with two objectives: 

1. To provide the proposed accused in a private complaint an opportunity of being heard before cognizance and summoning. 
2. To discourage filing of private criminal complaints laden with subterfuges, concealments and misrepresentation of facts. 

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

The bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta in the case of T. Manjunath v. The State of Karnataka and Anr. (2025) examined whether exoneration in departmental proceedings and alleged invalidity of prosecution sanction warrant discharge in a corruption case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 

What was the Background of T. Manjunath v. The State of Karnataka and Anr. (2025) Case? 

• The appellant, T. Manjunath, was working as a Senior Inspector of Motor Vehicles at R.T.O. Office, K.R. Puram, Bengaluru when a trap was arranged against him by the Lokayuktha. 
• The trap proceedings involved pre-trap formalities where Rs. 15,000 was entrusted to the complainant to be handed over to the accused upon demand. 
• The accused was trapped while allegedly demanding and accepting illegal gratification of Rs. 15,000 through co-accused H.B. Mastigowda, a private person who received the amount at the instance of the accused. 
• Crime No. 48/2012 was registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and sanction for prosecution was granted by the Commissioner of Transport under Section 19 of the PC Act. 
• Chargesheet was filed against the accused for offences punishable under Sections 7, 8, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act. 
• The accused filed an application under Section 227 read with Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking discharge on two primary grounds: 
  • The sanction for prosecution was granted by the Commissioner of Transport who was allegedly not the competent authority, as the accused was appointed by the State Government. 
  • The accused had been exonerated in departmental proceedings on the same charges and allegations. 
• The trial Court allowed the discharge application, holding that the sanction was invalid as it was not granted by the competent authority (State Government), though liberty was granted to file fresh chargesheet after obtaining proper sanction. 
• The High Court of Karnataka reversed the trial Court's order, holding that the sanction was valid as it was accorded by the competent authority in terms of a notification dated February 11, 2010. 
• The accused appealed to the Supreme Court challenging the High Court's order. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

On Departmental Exoneration vs Criminal Proceedings: 

• The Court examined the departmental inquiry report which exonerated the accused primarily because the complainant, shadow witness, and colleague did not support the department's case, though the Investigating Officer fully supported it. 
• The Court emphasized that conviction in trap cases can be based on the testimony of the trap laying officer alone if reliable, citing N. Narsinga Rao v. State of A.P. (2001) and Neeraj Datta v. State (2023). 
• The Court observed that witnesses who turn hostile in departmental proceedings may not behave similarly in criminal trials due to perjury prosecution pressure. 

On Validity of Sanction under Section 19 PC Act: 

• The Court noted that Section 19(1) stipulates that where the appointing authority is the State Government, sanction must be accorded by the State Government only. 
• The Court distinguished precedents relied upon by the State, noting that the Explanation to Section 19(4) regarding competence becomes relevant only in appellate or revisional forums, not in original proceedings where the trial Court had held the sanction invalid. 

On Disputed Appointing Authority and Final Directions: 

• The Court observed conflicting claims regarding the appointing authority - the State contended it was the Commissioner while the accused claimed it was the State Government. 
• Due to this disputed scenario, the Court remitted the matter to the trial Court for fresh adjudication on the limited issue of the actual appointing authority and its bearing on sanction validity. 
• The trial Court was granted liberty to summon original appointment records and decide accordingly - if sanction is valid, trial shall proceed; otherwise, chargesheet shall be returned for obtaining fresh sanction from the appropriate authority. 

What is the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988? 

• About: 
  • The PC Act is an act to consolidate and amend the law relating to the prevention of corruption and connected matters in India. 
• Important Sections: 
  • Section 3: "Power to appoint special Judges" 
    • Allows Central/State Government to appoint special Judges for trying corruption cases. 
  • Section 7: "Offence relating to public servant being bribed" 
    • Deals with public servants obtaining undue advantage to influence public duty. 
    • Punishment: 3-7 years imprisonment plus fine. 
  • Section 8: "Offence relating to bribing of a public servant" 
    • Covers giving undue advantage to public servants. 
    • Punishment: Up to 7 years imprisonment or fine or both. 
  • Section 9: "Offence relating to bribing a public servant by a commercial organization" 
    • Addresses corruption involving commercial organizations. 
    • Includes provisions for corporate liability. 
  • Section 13: "Criminal misconduct by a public servant" 
    • Defines criminal misconduct by public servants. 
    • Includes misappropriation and illicit enrichment. 
    • Punishment: 4-10 years imprisonment plus fine. 
  • Section 17: "Persons authorised to investigate" 
    • Specifies minimum rank of police officers authorized to investigate. 
    • Requires approval from specified authorities. 
  • Section 19: "Previous sanction necessary for prosecution" 
    • Makes prior sanction mandatory for prosecuting public servants. 
    • Details authorities competent to grant sanction. 
  • Section 20: "Presumption where public servant accepts any undue advantage" 
    • Creates legal presumption of corruption when undue advantage is proven. 
  • Section 23: "Particulars in a charge in relation to an offence under section 13(1)(a)" 
    • Specifies requirements for framing charges in corruption cases.