List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran in the case of Rakesh Mittal v. Ajay Pal Gupta alias Sonu Chaudhary & Anr. (2026) set aside the Allahabad High Court's Lucknow Bench order granting bail to a habitual financial fraudster, holding that principles governing bail in heinous offences apply with equal force to serious economic offences. The Court emphasised that the value of life and liberty extends beyond personal safety to include the economic well-being of citizens.

What was the Background Rakesh Mittal v. Ajay Pal Gupta alias Sonu Chaudhary & Anr. (2026) Case? 

• The petition arose from an order of the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) which granted bail to the accused in a case involving large-scale cheating, criminal breach of trust, forgery, and criminal intimidation. 
• The Appellant-complainant alleged that he had supplied foodgrains worth over ₹11.52 crore to the accused and his associates, but received payments of only ₹5.02 crore. The remaining amount was allegedly siphoned off through forged documents, fake addresses, and multiple false identities. 
• The FIR was registered under Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 506 IPC. During investigation, Section 409 IPC (criminal breach of trust by a person in a position of trust) was also added. 
• The prosecution alleged that the accused operated under several aliases, possessed multiple forged Aadhaar and PAN cards, absconded for nearly 20 months, and was apprehended only after a reward was announced. 
• The Sessions Court had earlier rejected the bail plea, noting suppression of criminal antecedents and deliberate misleading of the court. However, the High Court granted bail on the ground of parity with co-accused, observing that the offence was triable by a Magistrate, the charge sheet had been filed, and the accused had spent some time in custody. 
• Challenging the High Court's order, the complainant approached the Supreme Court.

What were the Court's Observations? 

The bench, in a judgment authored by Justice K. Vinod Chandran, made the following key observations: 

• The Court held that though earlier precedents such as Neeru Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2014) and Sudha Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021) arose from heinous and violent crimes, the underlying principles enshrined therein apply equally to cases involving financial fraud. 
• The Court emphasised that the value of life and liberty is not limited to the physical person alone but extends to the quality of life, including economic well-being — making serious economic offences no less grave than violent crimes for the purposes of bail jurisprudence. 
• The bench found that the High Court erred in applying the parity principle blindly, without considering the accused's active role in the crime, his history of repeat offences, use of multiple fake identities, and his prior conduct of absconding despite being granted bail. 
• The Court found the accused to be a career criminal and a menace to society, noting that he had secured bail previously in FIR No. 229 of 2017, chose to abscond thereafter, and continued to indulge in the same fraudulent activities, resulting in multiple FIRs over the years. 
• The Court held that ignoring criminal antecedents, absconding conduct, use of fake identities, and the likelihood of repeat offences renders a bail order perverse and vulnerable to appellate interference.

What are Economic Offences? 

About: 

• Economic offences are crimes committed during the course of economic or business activities that cause financial harm and adversely impact the country's economic wellbeing and financial health. 
• These offences typically involve fraudulent activities such as tax evasion, money laundering, bank fraud, securities scams, corporate fraud, smuggling, and corruption that affect both public and private financial interests. 
• While there is no specific legislation in India that comprehensively defines economic offences, they are treated as a distinct category of crimes requiring special attention — first recognised by the 47th Law Commission of India (1972). 
• Economic offences are considered more serious than conventional crimes as they affect the entire economy, pose a serious threat to the financial health of the country, and shake public confidence in the financial system. 
• These offences often involve complex transactions, sophisticated methods, and significant amounts of public money, making them different from regular criminal offences and requiring specialised investigation and prosecution approaches. 

Legal Provisions Related to Economic Offences: 

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023: 

• The BNS replaced the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and retains and consolidates provisions relevant to economic offences. Section 316 of BNS deals with cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. Section 316(2) specifically addresses cheating involving public interest. Provisions on criminal breach of trust (Section 316 read with Section 318), forgery (Sections 336–340), and criminal misappropriation (Section 314) continue to govern financial fraud cases under the new code. 

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023: 

• The BNSS replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and governs procedural aspects of bail in economic offence cases. Section 482 of BNSS relates to anticipatory bail, including in economic offence cases. Section 479 of BNSS governs bail in bailable offences, while Section 480 governs bail in non-bailable offences, both of which are relevant when courts weigh criminal antecedents, flight risk, and likelihood of repeat offences in financial fraud matters. 

Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002: 

• Section 2(u) defines "proceeds of crime" as property derived or obtained from criminal activity.  
• Section 3 defines money laundering as direct or indirect attempts to indulge in, knowingly assist, be a party to, or be involved in processes related to proceeds of crime.  
• Bail under PMLA is subject to the rigorous twin conditions under Section 45, requiring the court to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit any offence while on bail. 

Companies Act, 2013: 

• Section 447 provides a comprehensive definition of fraud, including acts and omissions, concealment of facts, abuse of position, actions for unfair advantage, and actions harming company or stakeholder interests. 

Income Tax Act, 1961: 

• The Act criminalises tax evasion and income concealment, and prescribes penalties for failure to furnish returns, non-compliance with notices, and concealment of income or fringe benefit particulars. 

Customs Act, 1962: 

• The Act regulates the movement of goods in and out of the country, provides for confiscation of improperly imported goods, and contains safeguards against smuggling. 

Fugitive Economic Offenders Act, 2018: 

• This legislation targets offenders who have fled India to avoid prosecution. It empowers Directors and Deputy Directors under PMLA, and provides for attachment and confiscation of properties of fugitive economic offenders. 

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016: 

• Penalty provisions prescribe punishment of not less than INR 1 lakh, which may extend to INR 1 crore, for fraudulent bankruptcy proceedings. 

Other Specialised Laws: 

• Several other legislations address specific categories of economic offences, including the Central Excise Act, 1944 (excise duty evasion), SEBI Regulations, 1995 (stock market manipulation), the Information Technology Act, 2000 (credit card and cyber fraud), and state-specific land grabbing laws such as the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 1982. 

Historical Landmark Cases:  

• Harshad Mehta Securities Scam (1992):  
  • First major financial fraud involving manipulation of banking system and stock market  
  • Led to loss of ₹4,000 crore through fake bank receipts and securities  
• Satyam Scandal (2009):  
  • Landmark corporate fraud case involving inflated revenues and fake invoices worth ₹14,000 crore  
  • Set precedent for corporate governance reforms in India  
• 2G Spectrum Scam (2011):  
  • Largest telecom scandal involving irregular allocation of spectrum licenses  
  • Resulted in ₹1.76 lakh crore loss and cancellation of 122 licenses  
• PNB Fraud Case (2018):  
  • Major banking fraud involving fake letters of credit worth ₹14,000 crore  
  • Highlighted vulnerabilities in banking system and led to stricter monitoring of large value transactions

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

The bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and K Vinod Chandran in the case of Rohit Jangde v. The State of Chhattisgarh (2026) acquitted a man convicted of murdering his six-year-old stepdaughter, ruling that a disclosure statement leading to the recovery of evidence is admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA) only if the accused was in police custody at the time of making the statement.

What was the Background of Rohit Jangde v. The State of Chhattisgarh (2026) Case? 

• The accused was convicted of the murder of his six-year-old stepdaughter.  
• The prosecution's case relied substantially on a disclosure statement made by the accused that led to the discovery of bone remnants of the deceased. 
• The memorandum under Section 27 was recorded on October 13, 2018, at 10:30 am, while the arrest memo showed that the accused was arrested only at 10:00 pm the same day — nearly twelve hours after the statement was recorded.  
• The accused was released on October 8, 2018, two days before the FIR was lodged. 
• Despite DNA evidence confirming the death of the child, no definitive time of death was established, as the corpus delicti was not recovered.  
• The family and police had been informed that the child had last gone with the accused, yet no complaint regarding the missing child was made for a significant period, and the accused was not questioned during that time. 
• The accused was convicted by the lower court, and the matter came before the Supreme Court on appeal.

What were the Court's Observations? 

On admissibility under Section 27 — Custody as a prerequisite: 

• The bench held that the discovery of the deceased's bone remnants based on the accused's disclosure statements could not be admitted in evidence, as the accused was not in custody while making such disclosure statements.  
• The Court referred to the decision in Durlav Namasudra v. Emperor (1931), which held that information coming from a person not in police custody cannot be brought under Section 27. 

On the meaning of "custody": 

• Though the Court acknowledged that "custody" need not mean formal arrest and could include surveillance or restraint.   
• The gap of over twelve hours between the recording of the memorandum and the formal arrest was determinative. 

On admissibility under Section 8 as conduct evidence: 

• Relying on the precedent in State of A.P. v. Gangula Satya Murthy (1997) the Court held that although a disclosure statement made outside custody falls outside the ambit of Section 27, it can be admissible to show the accused's conduct under Section 8 of the Evidence Act. T 
• he bench, however, underscored that such evidence is weak and cannot, alone, form the basis for a conviction: 

On benefit of doubt and acquittal: 

• The judgment authored by Justice Chandran noted that DNA evidence confirmed the death of the child but did not conclusively link the accused to the crime, especially given the lack of a definite time of death and the long, unexplained delay by the family in reporting the child missing.  
• The appeal was allowed.

What are the Disclosure Statements? 

About: 

• Disclosure Statement is provided under Section 27 of the IEA.   
• This section is based on the doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events – a fact is actually discovered as a consequence of the information given, which results in recovery of a physical object.

Section 27 of IEA:

• This is in the form of proviso to other provisions. 
• The fact should be discovered in consequence of information received from the person accused of any offence. 
• The Accused should be in the custody of police. 
• So much information as it relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered may be proved. 
• This is irrespective of whether the statement amounts to confession or not.  
• In the case of Pulukuri Kottaya v. Emperor (1947), Sir John Beaumont held that Section 27 is proviso to only Section 26 of IEA.   
• However, in the recent times in the case of Jafarudheen v. State of Kerela (2022), the Supreme Court has held that Section 27 is an exception to preceding Sections particularly, Section 25 and Section 26.

Requisite Essentials to Invoke Section 27 of IEA:

• This was laid down in the case of Preumal Raja @ Perumal v. State Represented by the Inspector of Police (2023) where the Court held the following:  
  • Firstly, there should be discovery of fact. The facts should be relevant in consequence of information received from the accused person.  
  • Secondly, the discovery of such a fact must be deposed to. This means that the fact should not already be known to the police.  
  • Thirdly, at the time of receipt of information the accused should be in the custody of the police.  
  • Lastly, only so much information as relates distinctly to fact thereby discovered is admissible.  
  • This words fact discovered would include the following:   
  • The “place” from where the object is produced. 
  • The knowledge of the accused as to this.

Which Provision of BharatiyaSakshyaAdhiniyam, 2023 Provide for Disclosure Statement? 

• It can be found as proviso to Section 23 (2) of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA). 
• Section 23 (2) provides: 
  • No confession made by any person while he is in the custody of a police officer, unless it is made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate shall be proved against him. 
  • Provided that when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact discovered, may be proved.

What are Important Case Laws on Section 27 of IEA? 

• Mohmed Inayatullah v. State of Maharashtra (1976): 
  • It has been held that the first condition imposed and necessary for bringing the section into operation is the discovery of a fact which should be a relevant fact in consequence of information received from a person accused of an offence. 
  • The second is that the discovery of such a fact must be deposed to. A fact already known to the police will fall foul and not meet this condition. 
  • The third is that at the time of receipt of the information, the accused must be in police custody. 
  • Lastly, it is only so much information which relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered resulting in recovery of a physical object which is admissible.
• Perumal Raja @ Perumal v. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police (2024): 
  • The requisites for invoking Section 27 are as follows: 
    • Firstly, there should be discovery of fact. The facts should be relevant in consequence of information received from the accused person.  
    • Secondly, the discovery of such a fact must be deposed to. This means that the fact should not already be known to the police.  
    • Thirdly, at the time of receipt of information the accused should be in the custody of the police.  
    • Lastly, only so much information as relates distinctly to fact thereby discovered is admissible.
• State of NCT of Delhi v. Navjot Sandhu alias Afsan Guru (2005): 
  • The Supreme Court affirmed that the fact discovered within the meaning of Section 27 of the IEA must be some concrete fact to which the information directly relates.