CaseLaws

Section 100 CPC – Second Appeal – If no substantial question of law arose in the case then the appeal could not have been entertained and ought to have been dismissed at the stage of admission. But on the other hand, in the absence of framing any substantial question of law the appeal has been allowed, that too, at the stage of admission, without issuance of notice to the other respondents and by hearing only counsel for one respondent before the High Court who was on caveat – [Hemavathi vs V Hombegowda 2023 INSC 848] Section 100 CPC – Second Appeal – A Court sitting in second appellate jurisdiction is to frame substantial question of law at the time of admission, save and except in exceptional circumstances. Post such framing of questions the Court shall proceed to hear the parties on such questions, i.e., after giving them adequate time to meet and address them. It is only after such hearing subsequent to the framing that a second appeal shall come to be decided – In ordinary course, the High Court in such jurisdiction does not interfere with finding of fact, however, if it does find any compelling reason to do so as regard in law – it can do but only after perusing the records of the Trial Court, on analysis of which the conclusion arrived at by such a Court is sought to be upturned. In other words, when overturning findings of fact, the Court will be required to call for the records of the Trial Court or if placed on record, peruse the same and only then question the veracity of the conclusions drawn by the Court below – [Suresh Lataruji Ramteke vs Sumanbai Pandurang Petkar 2023 INSC 846] Section 100 CPC– What is the meaning of the phrase “substantial question of law” in Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure ? The test is whether it is of general public importance or whether it directly or substantially affects the right of the parties or whether the question is still open i.e., it is not finally settled by the Supreme Court- The word substantial, as qualifying “question of law”, means — of having substance, essential, real, of sound worth, important or considerable. It is to be understood as something in contradistinction with — technical, of no substance or consequence, or academic merely-Legislature has chosen not to qualify the scope of “substantial question of law” by suffixing the words “of general importance” as has been done in many other provisions such as Section 109 of the Code or Article 133(1)(a) of the Constitution. The substantial question of law on which a second appeal shall be heard need not necessarily be a substantial question of law of general importance- A point of law which admits of no two opinions may be a proposition of law but cannot be a substantial question of law- To be “substantial” a question of law must be debatable, not previously settled by law of the land or a binding precedent, and must have a material bearing on the decision of the case, if answered either way, insofar as the rights of the parties before it are concerned. To be a question of law “involving in the case” there must be first a foundation for it laid in the pleadings and the question should emerge from the sustainable findings of fact arrived at by court of facts and it must be necessary to decide that question of law for a just and proper decision of the case. An entirely new point raised for the first time before the High Court is not a question involved in the case unless it goes to the root of the matter- It will depend on the facts and circumstance of each case whether a question of law is a substantial one and involved in the case, or not; the paramount overall consideration being the need for striking a judicious balance between the indispensable obligation to do justice at all stages and impelling necessity of avoiding prolongation in the life of any lis.-When court is called upon to interpret documents and examine their effect, depending upon the nature of controversy and the issues involved, it would constitute substantial question (s) of law – [Appaiya vs Andimuthu Thangapandi 2023 INSC 835.] Section 100 CPC (second appeal)- High Court judgment in a second appeal set aside by the Supreme Court on the ground of non framing of substantial questions of law. In this case, Uttarakhand High Court framed a substantial question of law only to recall it later. Thereafter without framing a new substantial question of law, it disposed of the second appeal re-appreciating evidence. Supreme Court now set aside this HC judgment and directed it to consider the second appeal afresh. “if the appeal was entertained without framing substantial questions of law, then it would be illegal and would amount to failure or abdication of the duty cast on the court. Further, it was held that existence of substantial question of law is the sine qua non for exercise of power under Section 100, Code”, the court noted. – [Ashok Kumar Goel vs Ram Niwas Goel – SLP(C) .6474-6475/2019.]

Section 26-27 – Being in ‘the custody of a police officer’ and being ‘accused of an offence’, are indispensable pre-requisites to render a confession made to the police admissible to a limited extent, by bringing into play the exception postulated under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. In this case, the accused’s name was not in the FIR. He was taken to the police station. Before his arrest was recorded, he is said to have made a confession. The court held thus: “It was his arrest which resulted in actual ‘police custody’, and the confession made by him, before such arrest and prior to his being ‘accused of any offence’, would be directly hit by Section 26 of the Evidence Act and there is no possibility of applying the exception under Section 27 to any information given by him in the course of such confession, even if it may have led to the discovery of any fact.” So the court held that the purported discovery of the dead body, the murder weapon and the other material objects, even if it was at his behest of, cannot be proved against him, as he was not ‘accused of any offence’ and was not in ‘police custody’ at the point of time he allegedly made a confession –

Article 226 – Writ Jurisdiction in SARFAESI matters – High Courts should not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act – CELIR LLP vs Bafna Motors (Mumbai ) Pvt. Ltd 2023 INSC 838 Article 13,14, 19, 21- Fundamental rights do not exist in silos, the Supreme Court observed while it referred the challenge against constitutional validity of Section 124A IPC (sedition) to a larger bench.The court noted that the Kedar Nath Singh Vs State of Bihar did not : (1) make a distinction between the State which falls within the ambit of Article 19(2) and the Government, which does not (2) consider the validity of the provision against a constitutional challenge on the basis of Article 14. The court also rejected the Union Government’s plea to defer considering whether a reference should be made to a larger bench. It had submittted that the Parliament is in the process of reenacting the provisions of the Penal Code and the Bill has been placed before a Standing Committee. “The validity of the prosecutions which have been launched or would be launched so long as Section 124A continues to remain on the statute would have to be assessed under it. The issue of the validity of the provision for the period that it continues to operate would, therefore, need to be determined.”, the court noted – S G Vombatkere vs Union of India WP(C) 682 of 2021 Article 136 – The jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India can be invoked in favour of the party even suo moto when the Court is satisfied that compelling ground for its exercise exists. However, such suo moto power should be used very sparingly with caution and circumspection. The Court held that the power must be exercised in the rarest of the rare cases. – Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi vs State Of Gujarat 2023 INSC 829 Article 136 – An order refusing special leave to appeal by a non­speaking order does not attract the doctrine of merger – Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi vs State Of Gujarat 2023 INSC 829 Article 20 – Sub-article (1) of Article 20 of the Constitution consists of two parts. The first part prohibits any law that prescribes judicial punishment for violation of law with retrospective effect. Subarticle (1) to Article 20 of the Constitution does not apply to civil liability, as distinguished from punishment for a criminal offence. Further, what is prohibited is conviction or sentence for any offence under an ex post facto law, albeit the trial itself is not prohibited. Trial under a procedure different from the one when at the time of commission of an offence, or by a court different from the time when the offence was committed is not unconstitutional on account of violation of sub-article (1) to Article 20 of the Constitution. It may be different, if the procedure or the trial is challengeable on account of discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution or violation of any other fundamental right- The right under first part of sub-article (1) to Article 20 of the Constitution is a very valuable right, which must be safeguarded and protected by the courts as it is a constitutional mandate – the second part of sub-article (1) to Article 20, which states that a person can only be subjected to penalties prescribed under the law at the time when the offence for which he is charged was committed. Any additional or higher penalty prescribed by any law after the offence was committed cannot be imposed or inflicted on him. The sub-article does not prohibit substitution of the penalty or sentence which is not higher or greater than the previous one or modification of rigours of criminal law – Article 20(1) of the Constitution only and only confines to conviction and sentence. It does not at all refer to any procedural part which may result into conviction or acquittal and/or sentence. (Para 26-30, 35) CBI vs RR Kishore – 2023 INSC 817.

Magistrate is not debarred from taking cognizance of a complaint merely on the ground that earlier he had declined to take cognizance of the police report- Magistrate while exercising his judicial discretion has to apply his mind to the contents of the Protest Petition or the complaint as the case may be. [Zunaid vs State of UP – 2023 INSC 778] Bail – Gujarat High Court granted bail to a murder accused. One of the factors considered by the High Court was that the accused and deceased’s son entered into settlement. Now, Supreme Court finds it strange and sets aside the bail order. Accused’s antecedents also indicate his propensity towards committing crime, the court said – [Bharwad Santoshbhai Sondabhai vs State of Gujarat] Section 272 Crpc – A charge sheet filed within the period provided either under Section 167 of Crpc or any other relevant statute in a language other than the language of the Court or the language which the accused does not understand, is not illegal and no one can claim a default bail on that ground. If both the accused and his advocate are not conversant with the language in which the charge sheet has been filed,…. the Courts can always direct the prosecution to provide a translated version of the charge sheet. – [CBI vs Narottam Dhakad -2023 INSC 770] On Section 4(2) Crpc – Section 4(2) lays down that the provisions of the Crpc shall apply to all offences under any other law apart from the IPC. However, the application of the Crpc will be excluded only where a special law prescribes special procedures to deal with the investigation, inquiry, or the trial of the special offence. –In determining whether a special procedure will override the general procedure laid down under the Crpc, the courts have to ascertain whether the special law excludes, either specifically or by necessary implication, the application of the provisions of the Crpc – [Dhanraj N Asawani vs Amarjeet singh Mohindersingh Basi and Others | 2023 INSC 710]

Direction to deposit the amount of ₹1,00,000 as compensation to the victim – This Court, time and again, deprecated the practice of putting such conditions while granting bail – [Gopinath vs State of Maharashtra – SLP (Crl.) No.8373 of 2023] Once the High Court came to the conclusion that the accused was entitled to bail, there was no reason to restrict the bail to the period of three months – [Ranjit Digal vs State of Odisha – SLP(Crl) 8926 OF 2023] Bail application of the petitioner is opposed on the ground that the petitioner did not appear before the Trial Court and as such warrants came to be issued – Since the petitioner is in prison, therefore, it was the duty of the police authorities to produce him before the Trial Court. The petitioner cannot be blamed for the negligence on behalf of the police authorities- Bail granted – [Satendra Babu vs State of UP –– SLP(Crl) 8247/2023] Gujarat High Court granted bail to a murder accused. One of the factors considered by the High Court was that the accused and deceased’s son entered into settlement. Now, Supreme Court finds it strange and sets aside the bail order. Accused’s antecedents also indicate his propensity towards committing crime, the court said – [Bharwad Santoshbhai Sondabhai vs State of Gujarat]

The power to grant divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage is exercised by the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to do complete justice to both the parties. Such a power is not vested in the High Courts leave alone the Family Courts.” – [D vs A 2023 DHC 6803 -DB]