Non-Compliance With Rule 14 Of NDPS Rules 2022 Regarding Quantitative Test Vitiates Prosecution Case And Renders Detention Illegal: Allahabad High Court Supreme Court Directs Systematic Audit And Institutional Accountability For Safety In Public Spaces Under Article 21 Extra-Judicial Confession Made Before Police Cannot Solely Sustain Preventive Detention: Supreme Court Pre-Trial Incarceration Cannot Masquerade As Punitive Detention When Trial Is Not Imminent: Supreme Court Land Acquisition | Radial ‘Hub-And-Spoke’ Valuation Models For Contiguous Lands Are Legally Unsustainable: Supreme Court Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Deposit Is A Valid Consequence Upon Failure To Pay Balance Sale Consideration Under IBC Liquidation Process: Supreme Court Res Judicata | Suit For Specific Performance Barred If Relief Was Available In Prior Suit For Permanent Injunction And Not Claimed: Supreme Court RERA | Allottee’s Right To Seek Refund Is Absolute And Unqualified, Not Subject To Promoter’s Completion Of Project: Bombay High Court Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC | Appellate Court Cannot Summarily Reject Addition Of Legal Heirs Based On Unproven Documents Without Reason: Calcutta High Court Order XIV Rule 5 CPC | Trial Court Must Frame Additional Issues Based On Liberty Granted By Supreme Court To Ensure Just Adjudication: Delhi High Court Mere Citation Of Wrong Provision Does Not Invalidate Order If Court Possessed Jurisdiction: Gujarat High Court Injunction Under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC Cannot Be Granted Over Large Unidentified Tract Of Land Without Establishing Prima Facie Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 125 CrPC | Mere Rejection Of Permanent Alimony Plea In Divorce Proceedings Does Not Bar Claim For Maintenance: Karnataka High Court Section 311 BNSS | Trial Court Has Discretion To Record Evidence In Narrative Form; Accused Cannot Insist On Question-Answer Format: Kerala High Court Section 482 CrPC | Principle Of Parity Cannot Be Invoked To Quash FIR If Allegations Against Accused Are Distinct And Substantiated: Madhya Pradesh High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Tribunal Cannot Grant 'Right Of Recovery' To Insurer Without Evidence Of Policy Violation: Orissa High Court Mere Inadequacy Of Consideration Or Illiteracy Does Not Vitiate Specific Performance Unless Exploitation Is Proved: Madras High Court Contempt Jurisdiction Cannot Be Converted Into Parallel Forum To Enforce Civil Decrees: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 18 Rule 17 CPC | Reopening Evidence At The Stage Of Arguments Without Compelling Grounds Amounts To Abuse Of Process: Telangana High Court Cannot Circumvent Bail Granted By Supreme Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes PITNDPS Preventive Detention Order

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