SC rules on NI Act offence timing, grants relief in UPSC forgery case, and questions Lokpal’s jurisdiction over judges—key legal developments shaping judicial interpretation.
DAILY CURRENT AFFAIRS (18 MARCH 2025)
SUPREME COURT CLARIFIES CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER SECTION 138 NI ACT
Case Name: Vishnoo Mittal vs. M/s Shakti Trading Company
The Supreme Court held that an offense under Section 138 of the NI Act occurs only when the cheque amount remains unpaid 15 days after the receipt of the demand notice and not upon dishonor. Therefore, it quashed the proceedings against an ex-director since the cause of action arose after the IBC moratorium.
Legal Provision
- SECTION 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Deals with dishonoring of cheques.
- Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC)—Provides for a moratorium during the insolvency resolution excluding legal proceedings.
Source: Supreme Court of India
SUPREME COURT EXTENDS INTERIM PROTECTION TO EX-IAS OFFICER IN UPSC FORGERY CASE
Case Name: Puja Manorama Dilip Khedkar vs. State of NCT of Delhi
Interim protection was extended to Puja Khedkar by the Supreme Court in the matter of alleged forgery of OBC and PwD certificates for attempts at the UPSC examination. The court asked the authorities to explain why custodial interrogation was necessary in the matter and urged the Delhi Police to hasten the investigation of the case. This essentially concerns the allegation that there is a bigger game afoot-procurement of certificates by fraud.
Legal Provision
- Sections 420, 468, 471 IPC: Cover cheating, forgery, and using forged documents.
- UPSC Examination Rules: Regulate eligibility criteria, including attempts based on category and disability status.
Source: Supreme Court of India
SUPREME COURT TO HEAR SUP MOTO CASE ON LOKPAL’S JURISDICTION
Case Name: In Re: Order Dated 27/01/2025 Passed by Lokpal of India and Ancillary Issues
The Supreme Court has put on hold a Lokpal decision to entertain a complaint against a judge of the High Court questioning its jurisdiction. The court has however appointed Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar as amicus curiae. It clearly stated that High Court Judges were actually constitutional functionaries and thus not coming under the Lokpal jurisdiction by virtue of Section 14(1)(f) of the Act..
Legal Provision
- Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013: Defines Lokpal’s jurisdiction over public officials.
- Article 217, Constitution of India: Governs appointment and conditions of service of High Court Judges.
Source: Supreme Court of India
Also Read: DAILY CURRENT AFFAIRS (17 MARCH 2025)
