List of Current Affairs

Source: Uttarakhand High Court 

Why in News? 

Justice Ashish Naithani of the Uttarakhand High Court in the case of Bhim Singh v. Bhawan Dutt Bhatt (2026) held that the proviso to Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 9173 (CrPC) imposes a mandatory obligation upon a Magistrate to postpone the issuance of process and either conduct an inquiry himself or direct investigation, before summoning an accused who resides beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the court. This requirement applies equally to complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ('NI Act') concerning dishonour of cheques. 

• Section 202 of CrPC corresponds to Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

What was the Background of Bhim Singh v. Bhawan Dutt Bhatt (2026) Case? 

• The case arose from a complaint filed under Section 138 of the NI Act before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar. 
• The respondent alleged that he had paid a total sum of Rs. 20 lakhs in cash to the applicant for the construction of a residential house. 
• Upon the applicant's failure to carry out the construction, two cheques of Rs. 10 lakhs each were issued by the applicant to return the amount. 
• Both cheques were dishonoured on presentation due to insufficiency of funds. 
• After issuance of a statutory notice and non-payment, the respondent filed the complaint before the Khatima court. 
• The Magistrate issued summons against the applicant. 
• Notably, the applicant was a resident of District Nainital, which lies beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Khatima court in District Udham Singh Nagar. 
• The applicant challenged the summons primarily on the ground of non-compliance with the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 202 CrPC. 
• The core question before the High Court was whether the summoning order suffered from a fundamental legal infirmity under Section 482 CrPC warranting its quashing.

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court reiterated that Section 202 CrPC employs the term "shall" in its proviso concerning accused residing beyond the Magistrate's territorial jurisdiction, indicating a clear statutory mandate with no room for discretion. 
• Justice Naithani held that the procedural safeguard under Section 202 is not a mere formality but a substantive protection against mechanical summoning of persons who reside outside the court's jurisdiction. 
• The Court observed that the impugned summoning order dated 29.07.2022 made no reference to Section 202 CrPC, nor did it reflect that any inquiry or investigation was conducted prior to the issuance of process. 
• The order merely noted the allegations and proceeded to summon the applicant, without any application of judicial mind to the statutory requirement. 
• The Court held that such omission goes to the root of the matter and renders the summoning order legally unsustainable. 
• Justice Naithani underlined that the safeguard under Section 202 is equally applicable and equally mandatory in cases of cheque dishonour under Section 138 of the NI Act. 
• The Court concluded that continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to permitting a prosecution founded upon an invalid exercise of jurisdiction. 
• Accordingly, both the summoning order and the pending criminal proceedings were quashed, with liberty granted to the respondent to proceed against the applicant afresh.

What is Section 223 BNSS, 2023? 

Basic Requirement: 

• When a complaint is filed before a Magistrate, the Magistrate must examine the complainant and any witnesses present under oath before taking cognizance of the offence. 
• The Magistrate must reduce the substance of such examination to writing and ensure it is signed by the complainant, witnesses, and the Magistrate himself. 

Key Procedural Safeguard — First Proviso: 

• No cognizance of an offence shall be taken by the Magistrate without giving the accused an opportunity of being heard. 
• This is a significant departure from the previous law under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which contained no such requirement. 

Exceptions to Examination Requirement — Second Proviso: 

• Where a complaint is made in writing, the Magistrate need not examine the complainant and witnesses if the complaint is made by a public servant acting in official capacity or by a Court. 
• Examination is also not required if the Magistrate transfers the case to another Magistrate under Section 212 for inquiry or trial. 

Transfer of Cases — Third Proviso: 

• If a Magistrate transfers a case to another Magistrate under Section 212 after examining the complainant and witnesses, the receiving Magistrate need not re-examine them. 

Special Protection for Public Servants — Sub-section (2): 

• Sub-section (2)(a) requires that before taking cognizance of a complaint against a public servant for offences committed during official duties, the public servant must be given an opportunity to make assertions about the incident. 
• Sub-section (2)(b) mandates that a report containing facts and circumstances of the incident must be received from the officer superior to such public servant before cognizance can be taken. 

Source: Supreme Court of India

Why in News? 

A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan of the Supreme Court, in the case of Bhagyalaxmi Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v. Babaldas Amtharam Patel (D) Through Legal Representatives & Others (2026), held that a guarantor cannot be held liable for loan amounts withdrawn by the borrower beyond the sanctioned limit without the guarantor's consent. However, the guarantor remains liable for the loan amount originally guaranteed under Section 133 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (ICA).

What was the Background of Bhagyalaxmi Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v. Babaldas Amtharam Patel (D) Through Legal Representatives & Others (2026) Case? 

• The dispute originated on October 30, 1993, when M/s Darshak Trading Company (Respondent No. 6) obtained a cash-credit facility of Rs. 4,00,000 from the Appellant, Bhagyalakshmi Co-Operative Bank. 
• Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 executed contracts of guarantee, standing as sureties specifically for this sanctioned loan amount. 
• The borrower allegedly connived with bank officials to withdraw amounts far exceeding the original sanctioned limit. 
• When the borrower defaulted, the Bank filed a suit seeking to recover Rs. 26,95,196.75 — nearly seven times the original sanctioned amount — from both the borrower and the sureties. 
• The Gujarat High Court ruled that the sureties were not liable at all, reasoning that because the Bank allowed the borrower to overdraw, the contract was fundamentally altered, thereby discharging the sureties from the entire debt under Section 139 of the Indian Contract Act. 
• The matter was then brought before the Supreme Court by way of appeal.

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court examined the provisions relating to guarantees under Chapter VIII of the Indian Contract Act, particularly Sections 133 and 139. 
• The Court clarified that under Section 133, a surety is not released from their entire obligation due to a contract modification; the guarantor is discharged only regarding transactions that occur after the unauthorized variance, while remaining liable for the original amount initially consented to. 
• The Court rejected the Gujarat High Court's view that sureties must be liable for the "entire amount or not at all," holding that the law mandates a bifurcation — liability remains for the original contract amount, but ceases for the overdrawn variance amounts. 
• Regarding Section 139, the Court held that this provision applies only when the creditor's act or omission impairs the surety's eventual remedy against the principal debtor. In the present case, while the bank permitted overdrawing, there was no impairment of the sureties' remedy against the borrower, and hence Section 139 had no application. 
• The Court observed that since there was no intimation to the respondent-sureties about the overdrawing from the cash-credit facility, they are liable only to the extent of the original amount of Rs. 4,00,000 with applicable interest. 
• The Court set aside the Gujarat High Court's judgment and allowed the appeal, holding the sureties liable for the originally guaranteed amount.

What are Sections 133 and 139 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872? 

About: 

• The Indian Contract Act, 1872 is the primary legislation governing contracts in India, codifying the general principles of contract law applicable to all persons in India. 
• Chapter VIII of the Act specifically deals with contracts of indemnity and guarantee, laying down the rights and liabilities of the surety, principal debtor, and creditor. 
• The Act provides a comprehensive framework to determine when a surety may be discharged from their obligations.

Section 133 — Discharge by Variance in Contract Terms: 

• Any change in the contract between the creditor and principal debtor made without the surety's consent discharges the surety. 
• The discharge is not total — the surety is only released from liability for transactions occurring after the variance. 
• The surety remains liable for all obligations arising before the unauthorized modification.

Section 139 — Discharge by Creditor's Act or Omission: 

• If the creditor does any act inconsistent with the surety's rights, the surety is discharged. 
• The surety is also discharged if the creditor omits to do something they were duty-bound to do towards the surety. 
• However, discharge only occurs if the creditor's act or omission actually impairs the surety's eventual remedy against the principal debtor. 
• Unlike Section 133, this provision can result in a complete discharge of the surety.