11 February 2025 - Legal Updates

1. Contents of FIR Inadmissible & Cannot Be Proved Through Investigating Officer If Informant Dies A Natural Death: Supreme Court

Case- Lalita vs. Vishwanath & Ors.

Date of Order- January 30, 2025

Bench- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan

The Supreme Court has recently clarified the evidentiary value of an FIR (First Information Report) lodged by a deceased person. The court stated that the FIR's contents must be corroborated and proven to hold evidentiary value. If the informant's death is unrelated to the complaint, the FIR's contents are inadmissible and cannot be proven through the investigating officer. However, if the FIR is considered a dying declaration, the deposition of its contents by an officer may be admissible.

Here are the key facts from ruling-

Admissibility of FIR Contents: For an FIR lodged by a deceased person to be treated as substantial, its contents must be proven and corroborated. The FIR can be used by the defense to impeach the credit of the person who lodged it under Section 154(3) of the Evidence Act [Section 157(3) of BSA].

Investigating Officer's Role: The investigating officer can only identify their signature and the informant's signature on the FIR and depose about the FIR's registration date and police station. The investigating officer should not be permitted to depose the exact contents of the FIR to make them admissible as evidence.

Dying Declaration: If the informant's death has a connection to the FIR, the FIR can be used as substantive evidence. The death of the informant must have a nexus with the FIR filed or some link with any evidence regarding the FIR.

Appeal Case: The appeal was filed by the mother of the deceased, challenging the acquittal of the accused regarding offenses under Sections 306, 498A read with Section 34 of the IPC [Section 108, 178 read with section 3(5) of BNS]. The case involved a daughter who died by suicide after facing harassment, and her father had lodged the initial complaint before his death. 

Court's Observation: The Supreme Court noted that the Trial and High Courts were incorrect in allowing the police officer to prove the FIR contents. The court referenced Harkirat Singh v. State of Punjab in its decision.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, reinforcing that an FIR is not substantial evidence unless it qualifies as a dying declaration under Section 32 of the Evidence Act (Section 26 of BSA).

2. Section 141 NI Act | ‘Director Who’s In Charge of Company’ & ‘Director Who’s Responsible to Company are Different Aspects: Supreme Court

Case- Hitesh Verma vs. M/S Health Care at Home India Pvt. Ltd.

Date of Order- January 29, 2025

Bench- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

The Supreme Court recently addressed the requirements for an offense to fall under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which concerns cheque dishonor by a company. The Court clarified that to be held liable, the accused person must have been in charge of and responsible for the company's business operations at the time the offense was committed.

Here are the key facts from ruling-

Twin Requirements: The Supreme Court emphasized that Section 141(1) of the 1881 Act has twin requirements. The complaint must allege that the person sought to be held vicariously liable was in charge of and responsible for the company's business when the offense occurred. A director in charge and a director responsible for the company's business are distinct aspects, and both must be included in the complaint.

Case Details: A complaint was filed against a company and its directors for cheque dishonor. An appellant approached the High Court to quash the complaint, arguing that they were not responsible for the company's day-to-day affairs and were not a cheque signatory. The High Court dismissed the appeal and imposed costs.

Court Observations: Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan noted that only the cheque signatory could be held liable. The complaint lacked any assertion that the appellant was in charge of the company's business.

Court Decision: The Supreme Court set aside the orders and allowed the appeal, noting that the appellant could not be prosecuted under Section 141(1) of the 1881 Act based on the complaint's plain reading. The Court clarified that the merits of the complaint regarding other accused individuals remain open for adjudication by the Trial Court.

Vicarious Liability: Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, establishes the principle of vicarious liability, holding individuals associated with a company accountable for the company's actions, particularly in cases of cheque dishonor. It imposes vicarious liability on those responsible for or in charge of the company’s business at the time of the conduct of such an offence.

3. Article 227 of The Constitution Cannot Be Used as an Appellate or Revisional Power: Kerela High Court

Case- T.M. Leela and another vs. P.K. Vasu and Another

Date of Order- January 15, 2025

Bench- Justice k. Babu

In a recent case, the Kerala High Court, while dismissing a petition, reiterated that its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution should not be used as an appellate or revisional power and must be exercised sparingly, only in cases of apparent error or grave injustice.

Key points-

Scope of Article 227: The High Court emphasized that Article 227 is restricted to cases of grave dereliction of duty or flagrant violation of law, where grave injustice would occur without intervention. It cannot be used to correct simple errors of fact or law unless the error is clear on the record, indicating ignorance or disregard of the law, and results in a grave failure of justice.

Case Origin: The case originated from a specific performance suit for the execution of a sale deed, which the Trial Court referred to Lok Adalat. A settlement was reached, and an award was passed based on a joint statement.

The Issue: The plaintiffs sought permission from the Trial Court to deposit the remaining sale consideration due to the defendants' default, which was granted. The defendants then challenged this decision in the High Court.

Court's Reasoning: Justice K. Babu observed that the defendants were required to hand over prior documents for the property within three weeks, but failed to provide evidence supporting their claim that they had done so. The court invoked Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act, presuming that the withheld evidence would be unfavorable to the defendants.

Decision: The High Court concluded that the defendants did not fulfill their contractual obligations. Emphasizing that Article 227 cannot be used as an appellate or revisional power; the Court declined to interfere with the Trial Court's order and dismissed the petition