6 March 2025 Legal Updates

1. Section 45 Evidence Act | Opinion of Handwriting Expert Must Be Treated With Caution: Supreme Court

• Case- C. Kamalakkannan vs. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. By Inspector of Police C.B.C.I.D., Chennai
• Date of Order- March 3, 2025
• Bench- Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta

Case Overview:

• The Supreme Court of India heard a case involving an appellant who challenged his conviction under Sections 120B, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
• The case involved the fabrication of a mark sheet used for admission to an MBBS course.

Prosecution's Evidence:

• The prosecution relied on the testimony of a handwriting expert to prove that the handwriting on a postal cover matched the appellant's.
• However, the original postal cover was never exhibited as evidence, and the prosecution failed to prove its existence.

Appellant's Challenge:

• The appellant argued that the expert's evidence report could not be relied upon without the original postal cover.
• The court found merit in this argument.

Supreme Court's Judgment:

• The court, comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant.
• The judgment emphasized that the prosecution failed to prove the existence of the disputed postal cover, which was central to the case.

Legal Precedents:

• The court cited the landmark case of Murari Lal v. State of M.P. (1980), which established that expert testimony, especially handwriting analysis, must be treated with caution due to its imperfect nature.
• The court noted that while corroboration may not always be required, it is necessary to scrutinize expert opinions carefully and consider other relevant evidence.

Outcome:

• The appellant was acquitted of all charges due to the lack of primary evidence and the unreliability of the handwriting expert's testimony without corroboration.

2. Section 141 NI Act | Non-Executive & Independent Company Directors Not Liable For Cheques Dishonour Unless Their Direct Involvement Shown: Supreme Court

• Case- K.S. Mehta vs. M/S Morgan Securities and Credits Pvt. Ltd.
• Date of Order- March 4, 2025
• Bench- Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice SC Sharma

Ruling Overview:

• The Supreme Court of India ruled that non-executive and independent directors cannot be held vicariously liable under Sections 138 and 141 of the NI Act unless their direct involvement in the company's financial transactions is established.
• The court emphasized that merely holding the position of a non-executive or independent director does not automatically make them liable for the company's defaults.

Court's Observations:

• The bench, comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and SC Sharma, noted that specific allegations are required to demonstrate a director's direct involvement in the company's affairs at the relevant time.
• The court observed that attendance at board meetings does not suffice to impose financial liability, as it does not automatically translate into control over financial operations.

Case Background:

• The case involved non-executive directors of a company who were accused under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the NI Act for dishonored cheques.
• The appellants neither issued nor signed the cheques and had no role in their execution.
• Their involvement was purely non-executive, confined to governance oversight without financial decision-making or operational management.

Legal Precedents:

• The court referenced several precedents, including Pooja Ravinder Devidasani v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (2014), National Small Industries Corpn. Ltd. v. Harmeet Singh Paintal (2010), and S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla (2005).
• These precedents emphasize the strict interpretation of vicarious liability, requiring specific allegations to establish a director's role in the company's business.

Outcome:

• The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the criminal proceedings against the non-executive directors, providing relief by clarifying that they cannot be held liable without evidence of direct involvement in financial transactions.

3. Section 306 IPC | Suicide Note Alone Insufficient For Conviction Unless Its Proved There Was incitement By Accused Proximate To Death: Supreme Court

• Case- Patel Babubhai Manohardas & Ors. vs. State of Gujarat
• Date of Order- March 5, 2025
• Bench- Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

Case Overview:

• The Supreme Court set aside the conviction of an appellant accused of abetting suicide by blackmailing the deceased using compromising photographs and videos.
• The appellant was convicted under Section 306 IPC for allegedly causing the suicide of the deceased.

Legal Requirements for Abetment of Suicide:

•  
• Mere harassment or differences are insufficient unless there is a proximate act leading to suicide.

Role of Suicide Notes:

• The Court ruled that a suicide note alone is not sufficient to establish abetment unless corroborated by other evidence.
• The authenticity of a suicide note must be proven, and the handwriting expert should be examined in court.

Appellant's Arguments:

• The appellant argued that there was no direct evidence of abetment, such as instigation or incitement, to prove guilt under Section 306 IPC.
• The appellant claimed there was no proximate act on their part that directly led to the suicide, and the alleged blackmailing was not supported by concrete evidence.

Court's Observations:

• The bench, comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, found that the prosecution failed to prove abetment to suicide beyond reasonable doubt.
• The Court noted significant lapses in the investigation and inconsistencies in witness testimonies.

Legal Precedents:

• The Court cited precedents such as Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) and Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (2009) to emphasize that instigation must involve goading or provoking the deceased to commit suicide.
• The Court also referenced Keshav Dutt versus State of Haryana (2010) regarding the need for expert evidence to be corroborated.

Outcome:

• The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the convictions of the appellants due to insufficient evidence and procedural lapses.