Section 9 A&C Act Relief Available Until Award Is Actually Enforced, Even After It Becomes Enforceable: Telangana High Court Matrimonial Litigations Must Not Degenerate Into Contests Of Mutual Humiliation By Weaponising Private Images: Delhi High Court Unarmed Witnesses’ Inaction Against Armed Assailants Justified By Instinct Of Self-Preservation; Testimony Cannot Be Discarded: Allahabad High Court Ocular Evidence Outweighs Motive: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Based On Reliable Eyewitness Testimony Arrest Illegal If Written 'Grounds Of Arrest' Not Furnished To Accused; Communication Of Mere 'Reasons' Insufficient: Bombay High Court Absence Of Territorial Jurisdiction No Ground To Quash FIR At Threshold If Allegations Disclose Cognizable Offence: Calcutta High Court Proof Of Demand Is Sine Qua Non For PC Act Conviction; Voice Recordings Inadmissible Without Sec 65-B Certificate: Chhattisgarh HC Section 91 IEA | Disposition Of Immovable Property Cannot Be Proved By Oral Evidence If Written Document Not Produced: Delhi High Court NRC Legacy Data Extracts Inadmissible Without Section 65B Certificate; PAN Card & EPIC Not Proof Of Citizenship: Gauhati High Court Testimony Of Injured Witness Entitled To Great Weight; Minor Contradictions Due To Lapse Of Memory Cannot Discard Prosecution Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Kerala High Court Remands Teacher Seniority Dispute For Fresh Consideration To Verify If Senior Teacher Relinquished Promotion Claim Receipt Of DNA Report After Testimony Doesn't Automatically Confer Right To Recall Witness For Further Cross-Examination: Madhya Pradesh High Court

Supreme Court Steps In to Rectify "Lapse in Providing Proper Legal Guidance" in Dishonoured Cheques Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India has exercised its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India read with Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to rectify what it termed as a "lapse in providing proper legal guidance" to the appellant. The ruling came in the case of Bijoy Shankar Mishra vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr., and it involved a jurisdictional dispute regarding dishonoured cheques amounting to Rs. 45,20,000.

Bijoy Shankar Mishra had initially filed a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The case was dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, who ruled they lacked territorial jurisdiction to try the case. Mishra's subsequent appeal to the High Court also resulted in a dismissal.

"We are of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise our power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India read with Section 406 of the Code," said the bench comprising Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti. "The Judicial Magistrate, First Class, has passed the order without realizing the legal consequences. There was a lapse and proper legal guidance, which was not provided to the appellant – Bijoy Shankar Mishra."

The Supreme Court emphasized that "procedural defect/lapse had a remedy, and was not substantial as to constitute lack of subject-matter jurisdiction." It further noted that "technical defects and irregularities should not come in the way of substantial justice," citing a recent judgment for this reasoning.

The Court clarified that its ruling was based on the "unique facts and circumstances" of the case and "should not be treated as a precedent."

The Supreme Court's decision has set aside both the order of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, and the impugned order of the High Court, directing that the trial will continue in Jamshedpur, Jharkhand.

The case highlights the Supreme Court's commitment to ensuring that procedural shortcomings do not obstruct the course of justice, reinforcing the principle that the law exists to serve substantial justice above all.

Date of Decision: September 12, 2023

BIJOY SHANKAR MISHRA vs HE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR.

Latest Legal News