Supreme Court Monthly Criminal Digest: December 2022

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973; Section 319 - Supreme Court Constitution Bench issues elaborate guidelines on the exercise of powers to summon additional accused. (Para 33) Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. State of Punjab, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1009

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973; Section 319 - The power under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. is to be invoked and exercised before the pronouncement of the order of sentence where there is a judgment of conviction of the accused. In the case of acquittal, the power should be exercised before the order of acquittal is pronounced. Hence, the summoning order has to precede the conclusion of trial by imposition of sentence in the case of conviction. (Para 33) Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. State of Punjab, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1009

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973; Section 319 - The trial court has the power to summon additional accused when the trial is proceeded in respect of the absconding accused after securing his presence, subject to the evidence recorded in the split up (bifurcated) trial pointing to the involvement of the accused sought to be summoned. But the evidence recorded in the main concluded trial cannot be the basis of the summoning order if such power has not been exercised in the main trial till its conclusion. (Para 33) Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. State of Punjab, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1009

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Chapter VIII; Section 107,117 - The provisions of Chapter VIII are merely preventive in nature and are not to be used as a vehicle for punishment - The object of furnishing security and/or executing a bond under Chapter VIII is not to augment the state exchequer but to avoid any possible breach of peace for maintaining public peace and tranquillity - The Magistrate while ordering security under Section 117 has to take into consideration the status and position of the person to decide the quantum of security/bond; and cannot alter the purpose of the provisions from preventive to punitive by imposing heavy quantum of security/bond, which a person might be unable to pay. The demand of excessive and arbitrary amount of security/bond stultifies the spirit of Chapter VIII of the Code, which remains impermissible. (Para 11-12) Istkar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1000

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Chapter XVII - Objects of provisions regarding framing of charge - To make the accused aware of the accusations against him on the basis of which the prosecution is seeking to convict him - Accused should be in a position to effectively defend himself. An accused can properly defend himself provided he is clearly informed about the nature of the allegations against him before the actual trial starts. (Para 16-17) Kalicharan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1027

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 107 - The scope and nature of Section 107 CrPC is preventive and not punitive - It aims at ensuring that there be no breach of peace and that the public tranquillity be not disturbed by any wrongful or illegal act. The action being preventive in nature is not based on any overt act but is intended to forestall the potential danger to serve the interests of public at large. (Para 11) Istkar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1000

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 190, 200 - The second complaint can be maintainable in exceptional circumstances, depending upon the manner in which the first complaint came to be dismissed. To say it differently, if the first complaint was dismissed without venturing into the merits of the case or on a technical ground and/or by returning a reasoning which can be termed as perverse or absurd in law, and/or when the essential foundation of second complaint is based upon such set of facts which were either not in existence at the time when the first complaint was filed or the complainant could not have possibly lay his hands to such facts at that time, an exception can be made to entertain the second complaint. (Para 14) B.R.K Aathithan v. Sun Group, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1022

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 204 - The application of judicial mind and arriving at an erroneous conclusion are two distinct things. The Court even after due application of mind may reach to an erroneous conclusion and such an order is always justiciable before a superior Court. Even if the said Order is set aside, it does not mean that the trial court did not apply its mind. (Para 16) B.R.K Aathithan v. Sun Group, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1022

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 300 - Section 300 of the CrPC places a bar wherein, a person who has already been tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction for an offence arising out of the same facts, and has either been acquitted or convicted of such offence cannot be tried again for the same offence as well as on the same facts for any other offence as long as such acquittal or conviction remains in force. T.P. Gopalakrishnan v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1039

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 313 - Questioning an accused under Section 313 CrPC is not an empty formality - Accused must be explained the circumstances appearing in the evidence against him so that accused can offer an explanation. After an accused is questioned under Section 313 CrPC, he is entitled to take a call on the question of examining defence witnesses and leading other evidence. If the accused is not explained the important circumstances appearing against him in the evidence on which his conviction is sought to be based, the accused will not be in a position to explain the said circumstances brought on record against him. (Para 22) Kalicharan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1027

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 427 - Supreme Court orders that sentences in nine cases against an appellant for theft of electricity shall run concurrently- The Court notes that serious miscarriage will be caused if the appellant is to serve 18 years of sentence for these offences. Iqram v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1032

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 438 - Anticipatory Bail - Bombay HC direction to give to give 72 hours' notice to an accused in the event the State intends to arrest him - Manifestly Incorrect - Such a direction could not have been issued. Vijaykumar Gopichand Ramchandani v. Amar Sadhuram Mulchandani, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1010

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 438 - ISRO Espionage Case - SC set aside the orders passed by the Kerala High Court in 2021 granting anticipatory bail of five former police and intelligence bureau officials in the case related to the alleged framing of ISRO scientist Nambi Narayanan in 1994 ISRO espionage case -The Court remitted the bail applications back to the High Court and asked the High Court to decide the same as early as possible. CBI v. Siby Mathew, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1005

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 439 - Prisoners in jail despite getting bail as they can't fulfil conditions - Supreme Court directs States to furnish data of undertrial prisoners who remain in bail as they can't satisfy surety or comply with other conditions. Sonadhar v. State of Chattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1007

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 446 - Discretionary power to the Court to remit any portion of the penalty mentioned and enforce payment in part only, after recording its reasons for doing so - Even when a person fails to show sufficient cause as to forfeiture of the bond amount, the Court is not bound to direct payment or recovery of the entire bond amount. The Court can exercise its discretion and remit some portion of the bond owing to the nature of the offence, status and position of the person, and having regard to other facts and circumstances of the case or when the amount of bond is unduly excessive. (Para 13) Istkar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1000

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - Complainant alleged that his signature on a sale deed has been forged - Later filed civil suit seeking cancellation of sale deed - High Court refused to quash the complaint - While allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court said : A complaint disclosing civil transaction may also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether the dispute which is in substance of a civil nature is given a cloak of a criminal offence. In such a situation, if civil remedy is available and is in fact adopted, the High Court should have quashed the criminal proceeding to prevent abuse of process of court - This order (1) will not come in the way of instituting appropriate proceedings in future in case the Civil Court comes to the conclusion that the disputed sale deed is forged (2) shall not be cited as a precedent. R. Nagender Yadav v. State of Telangana, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1030

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 - No explanation for the extraordinary delay of more than four years between the initial site inspection, the show cause notice, and the complaint - While inordinate delay in itself may not be ground for quashing of a criminal complaint, unexplained inordinate delay of such length must be taken into consideration as a very crucial factor as grounds for quashing a criminal complaint - While the court does not expect a full-blown investigation at the stage of a criminal complaint, however, in such cases where the accused has been subjected to the anxiety of a potential initiation of criminal proceedings for such a length of time, it is only reasonable for the court to expect bare-minimum evidence from the Investigating Authorities. (Para 24-26) Hasmukhlal D. Vora v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1033

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - Perfunctory investigation cannot be a ground either to quash the criminal proceedings or even to acquit the accused. (Para 14) R. Nagender Yadav v. State of Telangana, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1030

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - The court can exercise its powers to quash a criminal complaint, provided that the evidence adduced is clearly inconsistent with the accusations made, or no legal evidence has been presented - For the quashing of a criminal complaint, the Court, when it exercises its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether or not the allegations in the complaint disclose the commission of a cognizable offence - Broad guidelines for quashing a criminal complaint. Hasmukhlal D. Vora v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1033

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the High Court has to be conscious that this power is to be exercised sparingly and only for the purpose of prevention of abuse of the process of the court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not, depends upon the nature of the act alleged thereunder. (Para 16) R. Nagender Yadav v. State of Telangana, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1030

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - While it is true that the quashing of a criminal complaint must be done only in the rarest of rare cases, it is still the duty of the High Court to look into each and every case with great detail to prevent miscarriage of justice - Courts, as protectors of the law and servants of the law, must always ensure that frivolous cases do not pervert the sacrosanct nature of the law. (Para 28) Hasmukhlal D. Vora v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1033

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Sections 215 and 464 - When the Court of appeal is called upon to decide whether any failure of justice has been occasioned due to omission to frame a charge or error in the charge, the Court is duty bound to examine the entire record of the trial including all exhibited documents, depositions and the statements of the accused recorded under Section 313. (Para 20) Kalicharan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1027

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Sections 227, 228 - The stage of discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C. is a stage prior to framing of the charge (under Section 228 Cr.P.C.) - If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for doing so. As per Section 228 Cr.P.C. only thereafter and if, after such consideration and hearing as aforesaid, the Judge is of the opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, the trial Court shall frame the charge. (Para 7) Chandi Puliya v. State of West Bengal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1019

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Sections 227, 228, 300 - It is at the stage of discharge that the court can consider the application under Section 300 Cr.P.C - Once the court rejects the discharge application, it would proceed to framing of charge under Section 228 Cr.P.C. (Para 7-8) Chandi Puliya v. State of West Bengal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1019

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 20(2) - Articles 20 to 22 deal with personal liberty of citizens and others. Article 20(2) expressly provides that no person shall be prosecuted or punished for the same offence, more than once. The protection against double jeopardy is also supplemented by statutory provisions contained in Section 300 of the CrPC, Section 40 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 71 of the IPC and Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. T.P. Gopalakrishnan v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1039

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21 - Supreme Court's duty to protect personal liberty - No case is too small for the Court -The history of this Court indicates that it is in the seemingly small and routine matters involving grievances of citizens that issues of moment, both in jurisprudential and constitutional terms, emerge. The intervention by this Court to protect the liberty of citizens is hence founded on sound constitutional principles embodied in Part III of the Constitution. The Court is entrusted with judicial powers under Article 32 and Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The right to personal liberty is a precious and inalienable right recognised by the Constitution. In attending to such grievances, the Supreme Court performs a plain constitutional duty, obligation and function; no more and no less. Iqram v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1032

Constitution of India, 1950; Articles 226 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - High Court does not have the power even under Articles 226 or Section 482 CrPC to direct the investigation to be conducted in a particular manner. State of West Bengal v. Sandip Biswas, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1024

Control of Terrorism and Organised Crime Act, 2015 (Gujarat) - Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (Maharashtra) - Where a person commits no unlawful activity after the invocation of the MCOCA. In such circumstances, the person cannot be arrested under the said Act on account of the offences committed by him before coming into force of the said Act, even if, he is found guilty of the same. However, if the person continues with the unlawful activities and is arrested, after the promulgation of the said Act, then, such person can be tried for the offence under the said Act. If a person ceases to indulge in any unlawful act after the said Act, then, he is absolved of the prosecution under the said Act. But, if he continues with the unlawful activity, it cannot be said that the State has to wait till, he commits two acts of which cognizance is taken by the Court after coming into force. The same principle would apply, even in the case of the 2015 Act. (Para 51) State of Gujarat v. Sandip Omprakash Gupta, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1031

Control of Terrorism and Organised Crime Act, 2015 (Gujarat); Section 3 - The offence of 'organised crime' could be said to have been constituted by at least one instance of continuation, apart from continuing unlawful activity evidenced by more than one chargesheets in the preceding ten years. (Para 51) State of Gujarat v. Sandip Omprakash Gupta, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1031

Criminal Trial - Circumstantial Evidence - Suspicion, howsoever strong, cannot substitute proof beyond reasonable doubt - There is not only a grammatical but also a legal distinction between 'may' and 'must'. For proving a case based on circumstantial evidence, it is necessary for the prosecution to establish each and every circumstance beyond reasonable doubt, and further, that the circumstances so proved must form a complete chain of evidence so as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show, in all human probability, that the act has been done by the accused - The facts so established must exclude every hypothesis except the guilt of the accused. Ram Pratap v. State of Haryana, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1025

Evidence Act 1872; Section 154 - the fact that a witness has been declared "hostile" does not result in an automatic rejection of his evidence. Even, the evidence of a "hostile witness" if it finds corroboration from the facts of the case may be taken into account while judging the guilt of the accused. Thus, there is no legal bar to raise a conviction upon a "hostile witness" testimony if corroborated by other reliable evidence. (Para 67) Neeraj Dutta v. State (GNCTD), 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1029

Foreigners Act 1946 – Citizenship - Supreme Court orders the release of a 62-year old man named Mohammad Qamar, who has been under detention in a Foreigners Detention Centre since 2015 on being adjudged that he belonged to Pakistan and that he was not an Indian citizen - The Court directed the Union Government to take a decision on granting him Long Term Visa. Ana Parveen v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1038

Moral Policing - Supreme Court upholds dismissal of a CISF personnel who was found to have harassed a couple at night - Condemns moral policing by police. CISF v. Santosh Kumar Pandey, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1036

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Section 20 - Supreme Court sets aside conviction - gives benefit of doubt after noting gaps in the prosecution case - arrest memo, body search memo not proved - site plan wrongly prepared - no independent witnesses. Amar Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1002

Penal Code, 1860 ; Section 499, 500 - First defamation complaint dismissed by Magistrate observing that there is no prima facie case as it falls under fourth exception - Revision petition before HC filed was withdrawn - Second complaint filed before Magistrate with same set of facts - High Court quashed the complaint - While dismissing appeal, the Supreme Court observed: Even if the order of Judicial Magistrate while dismissing the first complaint was erroneous in law, it does not amount to non­application of mind by the trial court. B.R.K Aathithan v. Sun Group, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1022

Penal Code, 1860; Section 34 - Co-perpetrator, who had participated in the offence, equally liable on the principle of joint liability. For Section 34 to apply, there should be common intention among the co-perpetrators, which means that there should be community of purpose and common design. Common intention can be formed at the spur of the moment and during the occurrence itself. Common intention is necessarily a psychological fact and as such, direct evidence normally will not be available. Therefore, in most cases, whether or not there exists a common intention, has to be determined by drawing inference from the facts proved. Constructive intention, can be arrived at only when the court can hold that the accused must have preconceived the result that ensued in furtherance of the common intention. State of Rajasthan v. Gurbachan Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1028

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Constitution Bench answers reference on whether circumstantial evidence can be used to prove demand of illegal gratification- In the absence of evidence of the complainant (direct/primary, oral/documentary evidence) it is permissible to draw an inferential deduction of culpability/guilt of a public servant under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act based on other evidence adduced by the prosecution. (Para 70) Neeraj Dutta v. State (GNCTD), 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1029

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to first prove the demand of illegal gratification and the subsequent acceptance as a matter of fact. This fact in issue can be proved either by direct evidence which can be in the nature of oral evidence or documentary evidence. (Para 68) Neeraj Dutta v. State (GNCTD), 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1029

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - In the event the complainant turns 'hostile', or has died or is unavailable to let in his evidence during trial, demand of illegal gratification can be proved by letting in the evidence of any other witness who can again let in evidence, either orally or by documentary evidence or the prosecution can prove the case by circumstantial evidence. The trial does not abate nor does it result in an order of acquittal of the accused public servant. Neeraj Dutta v. State (GNCTD), 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1029

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - the offer by the bribe giver and the demand by the public servant respectively have to be proved by the prosecution as a fact in issue. In other words, mere acceptance or receipt of an illegal gratification without anything more would not make it an offence under Section 7 or Section 13 (1)(d), (i) and (ii) respectively of the Act. Therefore, under Section 7 of the Act, in order to bring home the offence, there must be an offer which emanates from the bribe giver which is accepted by the public servant which would make it an offence. Similarly, a prior demand by the public servant when accepted by the bribe giver and in turn there is a payment made which is received by the public servant, would be an offence of obtainment under Section 13 (1)(d) and (i) and (ii) of the Act. (Para 68) Neeraj Dutta v. State (GNCTD), 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1029