Handcuffs Under BNSS, Constitutional Limits Under Article 21: Reading Section 43(3) With Vihaan Kumar

Section 43(3) BNSS: What the law now provides

The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has introduced an express statutory provision on handcuffing. Section 43(3) states that a police officer may, having regard to the nature and gravity of the offence, use handcuffs while making arrest or while producing the arrested person before the court in specified categories of cases.

These categories include habitual or repeat offenders, persons who have escaped from custody, and those accused of serious offences such as organised crime, terrorist acts, drug-related offences, illegal possession of arms and ammunition, murder, rape, acid attack, counterfeiting of coins and currency notes, human trafficking, sexual offences against children, and offences against the State. Therefore, unlike the old CrPC, BNSS now expressly recognizes a statutory power to handcuff in identified situations.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Appellate court may not order deposit of 20% of compensation in appeal against conviction in checque dishonour case

We may take the discussion a little forward to emphasize

our point of view. There could arise a case before the Appellate

Court where such court is capable of forming an opinion, even in

course of considering as to what would be the appropriate

quantum of fine or compensation to be kept in deposit, that the

impugned conviction and the consequent sentence

recorded/imposed by the trial court is so wholly incorrect and

erroneous that it is only a matter of time for the same to be set

aside and that ordering a deposit would be unnecessarily

burdensome for the appellant. Such firm opinion could be formed

on a plain reading of the order, such as, the conviction might have

been recorded and sentence imposed without adherence to the

mandatory procedural requirements of the N.I. Act prior to/at the

time lodging of the complaint by the complainant rendering the

proceedings vitiated, or the trial court might have rejected

admissible evidence from being led and/or relied on inadmissible

evidence which was permitted to be led, or the trial court might

have recorded an order of conviction which is its ipse dixit, without

any assessment/analysis of the evidence and/or totally

misappreciating the evidence on record, or the trial court might

have passed an order failing to disclose application of mind and/or

sufficient reasons thereby establishing the link between the

appellant and the offence, alleged and found to be proved, or that

the compensation awarded is so excessive and outrageous that it

fails to meet the proportionality test : all that, which would evince

an order to be in defiance of the applicable law and, thus, liable to

be labelled as perverse. These instances, which are merely

illustrative and not exhaustive, may not arise too frequently but its

possibility cannot be completely ruled out. It would amount to a

travesty of justice if exercise of discretion, which is permitted by

the legislature and could indeed be called for in situations such as

these pointed out above, or in any other appropriate situation, is

not permitted to be exercised by the Appellate Court by a judicial interpretation of ‘may’ being read as ‘shall’ in sub-section (1) of Section 148 and the aggrieved appellant is compelled to make a deposit of minimum 20% of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial court, notwithstanding any opinion that the Appellate Court might have formed at the stage of ordering deposit as regards invalidity of the conviction and sentence under challenge on any valid ground. Reading ‘may’ as ‘may’ leads to the text matching the context and, therefore, it seems to be just and proper not to denude the Appellate Court of a limited discretion conferred by the legislature and that is, exercise of the power of not ordering deposit altogether albeit in a rare, fit and appropriate case which commends to the Appellate Court as exceptional. While there can be no gainsaying that normally the discretion of the Appellate Court should lean towards requiring a deposit to be made with the quantum of such deposit depending upon the factual situation in every individual case, more so because an

order under challenge does not bear the mark of invalidity on its

forehead, retention of the power of such court not to order any

deposit in a given case (which in its view and for the recorded

reasons is exceptional) and calling for exercise of the discretion to

not order deposit, has to be conceded. If indeed the legislative

intent were not to leave any discretion to the Appellate Court,

there is little reason as to why the legislature did not also use

‘shall’ instead of ‘may’ in sub-section (1). Since the self-same

section, read as a whole, reveals that ‘may’ has been used twice

and ‘shall’ thrice, it must be presumed that the legislature was

well and truly aware of the words used which form the skin of the

language. Reading and understanding the words used by the

legislature in the literal sense does not also result in manifest

absurdity and hence tinkering with the same ought to be avoided

at all costs. We would, therefore, read ‘may’ as ‘may’ and ‘shall’ as ‘shall’, wherever they are used in Section 148. This is because, the words mean what they say. {Para 27}

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5491/2024

MUSKAN ENTERPRISES & ANR. Vs THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. 

DIPANKAR DATTA, J.

Citation: 2024 INSC 1046.

Print Page

Supreme Court: 20% deposit of compensation amount in appeal against conviction for offence U/S 138 of NI Act is not an absolute rule and can be relaxed in exceptional cases

What is held by this Court is that a purposive interpretation should be made of Section 148 of the N.I. Act. Hence, normally, Appellate Court will be justified in imposing the condition of deposit as provided in Section 148. However, in a case where the Appellate Court is satisfied that the condition of deposit of 20% will be unjust or imposing such a condition will amount to deprivation of the right of appeal of the Appellant, exception can be made for the reasons specifically recorded. {Para 6}

7. Therefore, when Appellate Court considers the prayer Under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of an Accused who has been convicted for offence Under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, it is always open for the Appellate Court to consider whether it is an exceptional case which warrants grant of suspension of sentence without imposing the condition of deposit of 20% of the fine/compensation amount. As stated earlier, if the Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that it is an exceptional case, the reasons for coming to the said conclusion must be recorded.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 2741 of 2023 

Decided On: 04.09.2023

Jamboo Bhandari Vs. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. and Ors

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Abhay Shreeniwas Oka and Pankaj Mithal, JJ.

Author: Abhay Shreeniwas Oka, J.

Citation: 2023 INSC 822, MANU/SC/1005/2023.

Print Page

Guide for Session Judges for appreciating evidence of CA Reports, FSL Report, DNA report and all scientific experts report in Sessions Trials

A forensic report often enters the courtroom with an aura of certainty. Once the Chemical Analyser or FSL states that blood matches, DNA corresponds, or a sample confirms a prosecution theory, the natural temptation is to treat the report as near-conclusive proof. The decision of the Allahabad High Court in Najeeruddin v. State of U.P. is a powerful reminder that criminal courts must resist that temptation. A forensic report may be on record, and may even be formally admissible under Section 293 CrPC, yet it may still be legally unsafe to rely upon if the prosecution has not proved the source material, the chain of connection, and the accused has not been confronted with the incriminating contents under Section 313 CrPC.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page