Search Judgments

Criminal Law – Death Sentence – Commutation – Delay in Execution – Constitutional Rights – Article 21 Undue and inordinate delay in the execution of a death sentence may warrant its commutation to life imprisonment, provided two conditions are met: the delay must be (1) avoidable, and (2) unduly long or inordinate. There is no fixed period of delay that automatically leads to commutation. Delay in deciding mercy petitions by the Governor and President, when explained by necessary procedural requirements such as verifying information or confirming non-filing of review petitions, may not be considered inordinate. However, inexplicable delay by the Sessions Court in issuing execution warrants after the rejection of mercy petitions can be a significant factor.

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138 (Dishonour of Cheque) – Section 143A (Interim Compensation) – Section 148 (Deposit pending Appeal) – “Drawer” vs. “Authorized Signatory” An authorized signatory of a company’s cheque is generally not considered the “drawer” of the cheque for the purpose of Sections 143A and 148 of the NI Act. While the company is the primary obligor, and its officers may be vicariously liable under Section 141, the statutory language of Sections 143A and 148 specifically refers to the “drawer.” Therefore, merely being an authorized signatory, without being the actual drawer, does not empower a trial court to direct interim compensation under Section 143A or an appellate court to direct a deposit of fine/compensation under Section 148(1) as a condition for suspending sentence in an appeal against conviction under Section 138. The liability for such deposits rests primarily with the “drawer” of the cheque.

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) – Section 19 (Previous Sanction for Prosecution) – Scope of Appellate Review – “Failure of Justice” Under Section 19(3)(a) of the PC Act, an appellate court cannot reverse a conviction merely due to an error, omission, or irregularity in the sanction unless it finds that a “failure of justice” has in fact been occasioned thereby. The burden is on the accused to demonstrate actual prejudice or detriment to their rights under criminal jurisprudence. A “failure of justice” is not a pliable expression and must be truly established, not just a camouflage argument. The court must consider whether the objection regarding sanction could and should have been raised at an earlier stage in the proceedings [Section 19(4) PC Act, and Section 465(2) Cr.P.C.].

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 (Inherent Powers of High Court) – Quashing of FIR/Proceedings – Matrimonial Disputes – Section 406 (Criminal Breach of Trust) & 498-A (Cruelty by Husband or Relatives) High Courts, in exercising their inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., must be extremely cautious and pragmatic when dealing with matrimonial disputes, especially those alleging offenses under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC. There is a common tendency to implicate distant relatives of the husband with general, ominous, and omnibus allegations. The courts have an “irrecusable duty” to scrutinize such implications for “over implication” or “exaggerated versions,” particularly when the accused are not close family members or reside in different cities. Mere filing of a charge sheet should not deter the High Court from quashing proceedings if, prima facie, the allegations do not constitute the alleged offenses or amount to an abuse of the court’s process.

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC & ST (POA) Act) – Section 3(1)(x) (Pre-2016 Amendment) – “In any place within public view” For an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC & ST (POA) Act (as it stood prior to the 2016 amendment), which penalizes intentional insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate a member of SC/ST, a crucial ingredient is that the act must occur “in any place within public view.” A private area, such as the backyard of a house, is not considered a “place within public view.” Similarly, individuals who are merely employees or laborers engaged by the complainant and present in such a private space do not constitute “public in general” for the purpose of satisfying the “public view” requirement.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 239 (Discharge of Accused) – Section 482 (Inherent Powers of High Court) An accused can be discharged under Section 239 Cr.P.C. if the allegations, even if taken at face value, do not disclose the commission of an offense, particularly when a key ingredient of the alleged offense is clearly absent. High Courts, in revision or under Section 482 Cr.P.C., should interfere to quash proceedings if the facts demonstrate that the alleged offense could not have been committed due to the absence of a crucial statutory ingredient.

• Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) – Section 50: The requirement of Section 50 is satisfied if the person to be searched is made aware of their option to be taken before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate; specifying “any Gazetted Officer” instead of “nearest Gazetted Officer” does not violate Section 50, especially if the option is not exercised.
• NDPS Act – Section 50: The use of the word “nearest” in Section 50(1) primarily refers to convenience and avoidance of unnecessary delay, not a specific linguistic mandate for the notice provided to the accused.

Final Decision:   The impugned judgment granting bail based on a violation of Section 50 of the NDPS Act due to the phrasing “any Gazetted Officer” is set aside. The accused is directed to surrender, and the trial is to proceed expeditiously.

• Look Out Circular (LOC) – Foreign National – Right to Travel Abroad: The right to travel abroad, even for a foreign national of Indian origin facing criminal charges and an LOC, is not absolute but must be balanced against the investigating agencies’ concerns regarding flight risk and evidence tampering, especially where no extradition treaty exists.
• Look Out Circular (LOC) – Grounds for Suspension: Previous rejections of LOC challenges or suspension requests do not automatically bar a fresh application, but the applicant must demonstrate a change in circumstances or present arguments concerning the impact of indefinite LOC on their right to life and liberty.
• Fundamental Rights – Right to Life and Liberty (Article 21) – Applicability to Foreigners: Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, guaranteeing the right to life and personal liberty, extends equally to citizens and foreign nationals. The principle of “Vasudhaiva Kudumbakam” (the world is one family) underscores this constitutional vision of human dignity and equality for all residing in India.