Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a jeep driver's appeal against his conviction under Section 302 IPC for running down a man who, with his friends, had hired the jeep, after a quarrel over his rash driving. It held that a Section 313 CrPC statement lets the accused put forward his own version but is not strictly evidence and may be used only together with the prosecution evidence (paras 27-28). His explanation was rejected (paras 42-43).

The Supreme Court held that once a person arrested under Section 19 of the PMLA is remanded by a Magistrate, a writ of habeas corpus does not lie. The Enforcement Directorate can seek custody under Section 167(2) CrPC, and the 15 days of such custody may be spread over the whole 60- or 90-day investigation. It referred Anupam J. Kulkarni to a larger Bench (paras 88-91).

The Rajasthan High Court granted regular bail, on a third application, to an accused charged under Section 8/21 of the NDPS Act over 310 grams of smack (paras 1, 3, 11). The seizure procedure, as seen from the challan papers, prima facie did not show compliance with Section 50 in its true spirit (para 7). With investigation complete, the challan filed and the investigating officer examined, the Court took the Section 37 conditions to be satisfied (paras 7-8).

The Rajasthan High Court cancelled bail granted by a Special Judge to the alleged central figure in a tramadol and alprazolam racket. The Special Judge had treated the seized psychotropic substances as medicines, ignored commercial quantity and recorded no Section 37 satisfaction; after bail, two investigating officers were transferred or prosecuted, so tampering with the investigation could not be ruled out (paras 18-19, 24-27).

The Supreme Court acquitted a truck owner convicted under Section 25 of the NDPS Act merely because he was the registered owner of a truck found carrying contraband. Section 25 requires that the owner knowingly permitted the vehicle's use, and the Section 35 presumption arises only after the prosecution proves the foundational facts, which it had not done (paras 7-8, 11-12).

The Supreme Court granted bail to a man held for over seven years in an NDPS ganja case whose trial had barely reached the half-way mark. It held that Section 37's condition that the court be satisfied the accused is "not guilty" calls only for a prima facie view, since a literal reading would exclude bail altogether, and that bail for undue delay is not fettered by Section 37 (paras 18-20, 24).

Re-hearing in open court a review petition reopened after Mohd. Arif, a three-Judge Bench upheld a conviction for kidnapping a seven-year-old for ransom and murdering him, finding no error apparent on the record and no reasonable doubt even without call records that lacked a Section 65B certificate. Because no court had examined mitigating circumstances or the probability of reform, it commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment for at least twenty years without remission (paras 53, 79, 94).

The Rajasthan High Court held that Lok Adalats under Chapter VI of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 have no adjudicatory power and can make an award only on a compromise or settlement between the parties (paras 12-13). Because withdrawal of a prosecution under Section 321 CrPC needs the court's consent after application of mind, a Lok Adalat that allowed the prosecutor to withdraw a criminal case and discharged the accused exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it (paras 9, 13).

A five-Judge Constitution Bench clarified that its judgment in Joseph Shine, which struck down Section 497 IPC, was not concerned with the Army Act, 1950, the Navy Act, 1957 or the Air Force Act, 1950. It did not pronounce on Sections 45 and 63 of the Army Act or the corresponding provisions, which the Union, citing Article 33, wished to invoke against personnel for adulterous conduct (paras 2, 4, 24).

The Punjab and Haryana High Court granted regular bail to an accused in a heroin case under the NDPS Act, judging him by the 200 g recovered on his own disclosure, not the 1 kg 200 g total the Additional Sessions Judge reached by adding a co-accused's separate 1 kg recovery (paras 7-8, 15). After recalling its earlier order in Sukhdev Singh on clubbing, the Court held Section 37 inapplicable to that non-commercial quantity and noted custody since 03.09.2022 (paras 13, 15-16).

The Rajasthan High Court dismissed two petitions under Section 482 CrPC to quash an FIR under Section 419 IPC because the petitioners' earlier petition seeking the same relief had already been dismissed in 2017. Granting the prayer would amount to a review barred by Section 362 CrPC, which inherent powers cannot override (paras 8-12). The Court held that a successive petition with the same prayer is not maintainable (para 13).

A Constitution Bench held that a trial court may summon an additional accused under Section 319 CrPC only before it pronounces the sentence after a conviction, or before it acquits. A summoning order passed after the trial ends is not sustainable, and evidence from a concluded main trial cannot be used in a split-up trial. It laid down step-by-step guidelines for pausing the trial and deciding on a joint or separate trial (para 33).