22 February 2025 - Legal Updates

1. Supreme Court Quashes Culpable Homicide Charge Against Doctor For Patient’s Death After Nurse’s Injection Over Phone Instruction, Directs Trial For Negligence

Case- Dr. Mohan vs. The State of Tamil Nadu & Anr.

Date of Order- February 12, 2025

Bench- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta

The Supreme Court's decision to quash culpable homicide charges against a doctor:

Case Background:

A doctor was accused of instructing a nurse over the phone to administer an injection that led to a patient's death due to an adverse reaction.

The incident occurred in Tamil Nadu, involving Dr. Mohan.

Charges and Proceedings:

Initially, the doctor was charged under Section 304 Part I IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), which carries up to ten years imprisonment.

The Madras High Court refused to quash these charges, prompting an appeal before the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court Decision:

A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta quashed the culpable homicide charges under Section 304 Part I IPC.

The court directed that the case should proceed under Section 304A IPC (death by negligence), which carries up to two years imprisonment.

Legal Arguments:

The defence argued that at most, this was a case of medical negligence rather than culpable homicide.

They cited Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab & Another (2005) as precedent for requiring gross negligence for criminal liability in medical cases.

Outcome:

The Supreme Court allowed Dr. Mohan's appeal and ordered trial proceedings under Section 304A IPC instead of Section 304 Part I IPC.

This decision emphasizes that mere administration leading to death does not automatically constitute culpable homicide without intent or knowledge akin to criminal intent.

2.     [Muslim Law] Daughter as Legal Heir Cannot Be Excluded From Revenue Documents Without Recording Valid Reasons: J&K High Court

Case- Mohammad Maqbool vs. State of J&K

Date of Order- February 10, 2025

Bench- Justice Javed Iqbal Wani

Issue: The Jammu and Kashmir High Court dealt with a case where a mutation of record was attested, excluding a legal heir (the petitioner’s sister) from the deceased father's property without providing reasons for her exclusion.

Court's Finding: The mutation was ruled invalid by the court because there was no record indicating that the sister had relinquished her right or that customary law applied in this case.

Petitioner's Claim: The petitioner (brother) had sole ownership of the father's property after his death, while the sister (respondent) was excluded from the mutation record.

Legal Context: The court found the mutation violated Muslim Personal Law on inheritance, as well as the provisions of Standing Order 23-A, which outlines the procedure for mutation of records.

Court's Observation: The court noted that both the petitioner and the respondent were successors to the deceased father’s property by inheritance. However, the mutation granted sole ownership to the petitioner, excluding the sister without legal justification.

Court's Ruling:

The mutation was set aside by the finance commissioner, which the court upheld, finding no legal error or irregularity.

The court clarified that the impugned order did not grant ownership to the sister but remanded the matter for fresh consideration by the revenue officer, following Muslim Personal Law and Standing Order 23-A procedures.

The petitioner was granted an opportunity to present his case regarding the respondent's claims.

Background:

The petitioner challenged the finance commissioner’s order, which set aside the mutation that granted sole ownership to him, excluding the respondent.

The respondent had challenged the mutation before the finance commissioner (revenue), which led to the mutation being set aside.

Outcome:

The court dismissed the petition, upholding the finance commissioner’s decision.

The mutation was deemed invalid, as no proper justification was provided for excluding the respondent from the property, and the relevant legal procedures were not followed.

Legal Impact: The case emphasized that an invalid mutation could be challenged at any time, regardless of the limitation period, and that the correct procedures must be followed in inheritance matters under Muslim Personal Law. 

3. Police Can Freeze Bank Accounts U/S 102 CrPC For Crimes Under Prevention of Corruption Act: Kerela High Court

Case- Sreekala K. vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Others

Date of Order- February 14, 2025

Bench- Justice C. Jayachandran

Court's Decision: The Kerala High Court held that freezing a person’s bank accounts under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) while investigating offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act) is valid.

Petitioner’s Argument: The petitioner, an accused, argued that freezing should have been done only under the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance of 1944, as it was a special statute for offenses under the PC Act.

Amicus Curiae's Argument: Advocate John S. Ralph, as amicus curiae, argued that since the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance was a special law for offenses under the PC Act, Section 102 of CrPC should not be applied for freezing the bank accounts. The Ordinance provides additional safeguards for the accused, such as a mandatory judicial order and an opportunity for hearing.

Court's Ruling: The Court rejected these arguments, stating that both Section 102 of CrPC and the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance serve different purposes. Section 102 of CrPC allows for seizure of property suspected of being related to an offense, whereas the Ordinance ensures that money gained through scheduled offenses can be forfeited if the accused is convicted.

Legal Precedent: The Court cited the case of State of Maharashtra v Tapas D. Neogy (1999), where the Supreme Court held that bank accounts are considered property and can be seized under Section 102 of CrPC.

Background of the Case: The petitioner was accused of aiding and abetting the first accused, an accountant at the Kerala Bar Council, in misappropriating Rs. 7.6 crores from the Kerala Bar Council Welfare Fund. The charges against her included various sections of the IPC and PC Act.

Issue with Seizure Procedure: The petitioner argued that the seizure of her bank accounts under Section 102 of CrPC was invalid because the procedures under Section 102(3) CrPC (which mandates reporting the seizure to the Magistrate) were not followed.

Court’s Ruling on Non-Compliance: The Court referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Shento Varghese v Julfikar Husen and Others (2024), which stated that non-compliance with Section 102(3) CrPC does not invalidate the seizure but may affect the credibility of the prosecution’s case.

Final Outcome: The Kerala High Court dismissed the petition and directed the investigating officer to comply with Section 102(3) within one month. It was emphasized that the police should follow the procedural requirements, though failure to do so would not automatically annul the seizure.

Divergence in Legal Views: The decision reflects differing views on the applicability of Section 102 CrPC to freezing of bank accounts under the PC Act. While the Madras High Court supports its application, the Patna High Court disagrees, stating that such freezing should occur only under Section 18A of the PC Act. The Supreme Court is expected to resolve this issue.