SCC Volume 8 Part 2: Supreme Court Rulings on Arrest Grounds, Cheque Bounce, Contempt and More
The Supreme Court has decided a fresh batch of cases covering arrest procedures, cheque dishonour, contempt of court, illegal sand mining, and consumer protection, among other issues. These rulings appear in Part 2 of Volume 8 of Supreme Court Cases (SCC).
In Kasireddy Upender Reddy v. State of A.P., the Court clarified the obligation of an arresting authority to supply the grounds of arrest at the time of arrest. The judgment explains the scope and extent of detail that must be provided, in a case involving Articles 22(1) and 21 of the Constitution, and Article 226.
Another ruling, State of Karnataka v. Shri Darshan, dealt with bail in a murder case. The Court held that while Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 50(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 require an arrested person to be informed of the grounds of arrest, neither provision prescribes a specific form or insists on written communication in every case. Substantial compliance is sufficient unless demonstrable prejudice is shown. The case also touched on Section 439 CrPC, with the Court clarifying that its contours do not permit the grant of compensation, as also addressed in Union of India v. Man Singh Verma.
In Nilesh C. Ojha v. High Court of Bombay, the Court explained the general principles relating to scandalising or lowering the authority of a court, attacks on the integrity of a judge, and contempt of court. A separate judgment, Shephali Chakraborty v. State of W.B., discussed the nature of judicial scrutiny at different stages, distinguishing between ex ante (assessment before an event) and ex post (scrutiny after the fact) and how this distinction matters for constitutional safeguards, statutory remedies, and judicial review.
On cheque dishonour, Jai Balaji Industries Ltd. v. HEG Ltd. clarified the territorial jurisdiction of courts to try complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, in respect of account payee cheques. The case considered Sections 138, 142(2)(a) (as amended in 2015), and 142-A(1) read with Sections 46 and 64. In consumer protection, Canara Bank v. Kavita Chowdhary held that a bank's failure to present a cheque within its validity period amounts to a deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Finally, in Illegal Sand Mining in the National Chambal Sanctuary & Threat to Endangered Aquatic Wildlife, In re, the Court issued directions to ensure effective compliance with environmental protection laws and to safeguard the fragile ecosystem of the National Chambal Gharial Sanctuary, where rampant illegal sand mining had severely degraded critical wildlife habitats, including those of the endangered gharials.
Source: SCC Times