List of Current Affairs

Source: Allahabad High Court 

Why in News? 

Justice Vivek Kumar Singh of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Kamran v. State of U.P. and Another (2025) dismissed an application seeking to quash proceedings under Section 13 of the Public Gambling Act, 1867, holding that it constitutes a cognizable offence where police can investigate without prior magisterial permission. 

What was the Background of Kamran v. State of U.P. and Another (2025) Case? 

• An FIR was lodged on 08.12.2019 at Police Station Sikandara, District Agra, as Case Crime No.1025 of 2019, under Section 13 of the Public Gambling Act, 1867. 
• The applicant and co-accused were arrested by police while allegedly playing cards in a park, and Rs.750/- was recovered from their possession. 
• The Investigating Officer recorded statements of the informant and witnesses and submitted a chargesheet on 21.12.2019 under Section 13 of the Gambling Act. 
• The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence vide order dated 24.02.2020. 
• The applicant filed an application under Section 528 BNSS to quash the entire proceedings, chargesheet, and summoning order. 
• The applicant's counsel argued that under Section 13 of the Gambling Act in Uttar Pradesh, the maximum punishment for first offence is rigorous imprisonment for one month and fine not exceeding Rs.250, making it a non-cognizable offence. 
• The counsel relied on Schedule I Part II of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which classifies offences punishable with imprisonment for less than three years as non-cognizable, bailable, and triable by Magistrate. 
• The State counsel opposed the application, arguing that Section 13 of the Gambling Act is a cognizable offence, distinguishing it from Sections 3/4, and that FIR registration and investigation by police were legally valid. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court noted that the chargesheet was filed under Section 13 of the Gambling Act with maximum punishment of one month imprisonment and fine not exceeding Rs.250 for first offence in Uttar Pradesh. 
• The Court observed that Uttar Pradesh had enhanced the sentence in Section 13 through U.P. Act No.21 of 1961 (effective from 07.09.1961). 
• Under the amended Section 13 for Uttar Pradesh, first offenders face a fine between Rs.50 and Rs.250 and may be awarded rigorous imprisonment for up to one month, while subsequent offences carry a fine between Rs.100 and Rs.500 and rigorous imprisonment between one month to six months. 
• The Court emphasized that the language of Section 13 begins with "a police officer may apprehend without warrant," clearly indicating police authority to arrest without warrant. 
• The Court held that in cognizable offences, a police officer may arrest any person without warrant, whereas in non-cognizable offences, a police officer has no right to arrest without warrant. 
• The Court concluded that since Section 13 of the Gambling Act authorizes police officers to arrest without warrant, it cannot be classified as a non-cognizable offence. 
• The Court held that police have authority to register FIR and investigate matters under Section 13 of the Gambling Act, and the learned Magistrate did not commit any illegality or irregularity in taking cognizance on police report. 
• The Court dismissed the application for lacking merit, finding that the judgments relied upon by the applicant were entirely different on facts. 
• The Court directed the trial court to conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably within three months from the date of production of certified copy of the order, keeping in mind the punishment for the offence. 

What is the difference between Cognizable and Non-Cognizable Offences? 

• Section 2(c) of CrPC (Section 2(1)(g) of BNSS) defines "cognizable offence" as an offence for which a police officer may, in accordance with the First Schedule or under any other law, arrest without warrant. 
• Section 2(l) of CrPC (Section 2(1)(o) of BNSS) defines "non-cognizable offence" as an offence for which a police officer has no authority to arrest without warrant. 

What is the Public Gambling Act, 1867? 

About: 

• The Public Gambling Act, 1867 is a colonial-era law that prohibits public gambling and the operation of common gaming houses in India. It remains in force with state amendments. 

Key Definition: 

• A "common gaming house" is any premises where gambling instruments (cards, dice, tables) are kept or used for the profit of the owner, whether through charging for use of equipment or the premises itself. 

Major Provisions: 

Penalties for Operators (Section 3): 

• Owner/occupier who operates a gambling house. 
• Anyone who knowingly permits their property to be used for gambling. 
• Anyone who manages or assists in running gambling operations. 
• Anyone who finances gambling activities. 
• Punishment: Fine up to ₹200 or imprisonment up to 3 months. 

Penalties for Gamblers (Section 4): 

• Anyone found gambling or present for gambling purposes in a gaming house. 
• Presumption: Anyone found in a gaming house is assumed to be there for gambling unless proven otherwise. 
• Punishment: Fine up to ₹100 or imprisonment up to 1 month. 

Police Powers (Sections 5-6): 

Magistrates or senior police officers can: 

• Enter and search suspected gambling premises (day or night, using force if necessary). 
• Arrest everyone presents, whether actively gambling or not. 
• Seize all gambling instruments, money, and valuables. 
• Finding gambling equipment is evidence that the place is a gaming house. 

Other Important Provisions: 

• False identity (Section 7): Penalty up to ₹500- or 1-month imprisonment. 
• Destruction of equipment (Section 8): Confiscated gambling instruments must be destroyed. 
• No proof of stakes required (Section 9): Conviction doesn't require proving people gambled for money. 
• Witness protection (Section 11): Informers who testify truthfully are immune from prosecution. 
• Games of skill exempted (Section 12): The Act doesn't apply to games based purely on skill. 

Public Gambling (Section 13): 

Police can arrest without warrant anyone: 

• Gambling in public places (streets, thoroughfares) with games not based on skill. 
• Setting animals/birds to fight in public. 
• Punishment: Fine up to ₹50 or imprisonment up to 1 month 

State Amendments: 

Uttar Pradesh added provisions for: 

• Compounding offences: Special officers can settle cases out of court 
• Abatement of trials: Certain pending minor gambling trials from before December 31, 2015, were discontinued 

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

The bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Prashant Kumar Mishra in Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Limited v. The Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Pensioners Welfare Association (Regd.) & Ors. (2025) dismissed a Special Leave Petition as not maintainable, emphasizing that parties cannot repeatedly challenge the same order after withdrawing earlier proceedings without specific liberty from the Court.

What was the Background of Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Limited v. The Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Pensioners Welfare Association (Regd.) & Ors. (2025) Case? 

• On 15.05.2012, the Single Judge of Himachal Pradesh High Court decided CWP No.1679/2010 regarding pension-related issues, issuing directions that aggrieved both the Bank and the pensioners' association. 
• On 03.09.2014, the Division Bench allowed Letters Patent Appeals from both parties and dismissed the original writ petition as not maintainable. 
• On 12.08.2022, the Supreme Court restored only LPA No.316/2012 (filed by pensioners) to the Division Bench for consideration on merits. 
• On 26.02.2024, the High Court's Division Bench allowed LPA No.316/2012, setting aside the portion of the 2012 order that was impugned by the pensioners. 
• On 23.09.2024, the Supreme Court dismissed the Bank's challenge to the 26.02.2024 order, keeping the question of law open but dismissing the SLP. 
• The Bank then filed a Miscellaneous Application seeking recall of the 23.09.2024 order. 
• On 20.12.2024, the Supreme Court dismissed the MA but granted liberty to approach the High Court in a Review Petition, without granting further liberty to approach the Supreme Court again. 
• On 11.04.2025, the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed Review Petition No.18/2025. 
• The Bank then filed the present SLP challenging both the review order and the underlying judgment.

What were the Court's Observations? 

On Review Jurisdiction After SLP Dismissal: 

• A party does not require any liberty to move in review before the High Court after dismissal simpliciter of an SLP by a non-speaking order, citing Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala (2000) and Khoday Distilleries Limited (2019). 
• However, if the High Court refuses to exercise review jurisdiction, it would not be just and proper to permit the same party to approach the Supreme Court again in the absence of specific liberty having been granted. 

On Successive SLPs and Public Policy: 

• The Court relied on Upadhyay and Co. v. State of U.P. (1999), which established that a party cannot challenge the same order again after withdrawing an SLP without obtaining permission to file fresh proceedings. 
• This principle is based on public policy, similar to Order 23 Rule 1 of CPC regarding withdrawal of suits and discourages bench-hunting tactics while ensuring finality in litigation. 
• The Court applied the principle from Satheesh V K v. Federal Bank Limited (2025), which held that a second SLP is not maintainable when the earlier SLP was withdrawn without permission to approach the Court again should the review fail. 

On Order XLVII Rule 7 CPC: 

• No appeal lies from an order rejecting a review petition as per Order XLVII Rule 7 CPC. 
• When review is rejected, the original decree/order remains intact without any merger, and the party aggrieved must challenge the original decree/order, not the review rejection order. 

Distinguished Manisha Nimesh Mehta Case: 

• The Court distinguished Manisha Nimesh Mehta v. Board of Directors of ICICI Bank (2024), where the Bombay High Court had dismissed review petitions on maintainability grounds alone without considering merits. 
• In the present case, the High Court had recorded that it found no infirmity or illegality warranting review, which was deemed sufficient to sustain the judgment in the limited and circumscribed review jurisdiction. 

Finality Principle: 

• The Court emphasized that entertaining such a petition would be contrary to public policy and tantamount to sitting in appeal over the previous order of the Supreme Court which had attained finality. 
• The maxim interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium (it is for the public good that there be an end to litigation) applies squarely to prevent re-litigation after withdrawal and failed review. 
• Another chance cannot be accorded to the petitioner to agitate its case before the Supreme Court when the initial SLP was dismissed, the MA seeking recall was withdrawn with liberty only to file review before the High Court, and the review has failed. 

Decision on Maintainability: 

• The Court accepted the preliminary objection raised by the respondents and dismissed the Special Leave Petition as not maintainable in limine. 
• The original judgment dated 26.02.2024 attained finality inter-partes, albeit keeping open the question(s) of law as directed in the order dated 23.09.2024.

What is a Special Leave Petition (SLP)? 

About: 

• Definition: SLP is an appeal mechanism to the Supreme Court of India provided under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, 1950. 
• Scope: Can be filed against any judgment, order, decree, or determination of any court or tribunal in India, except matters related to armed forces. 
• Nature: Permits Supreme Court to hear appeals even when no direct right of appeal exists. 
• Discretionary Power: Supreme Court has complete discretion to grant or deny special leave. 
• Application: Available in both civil and criminal cases. 

Historical Background: 

• Origin: Concept derived from the Government of India Act, 1935. 
• Evolution: Term "special leave" appeared in Sections 110, 205, 206, and 208 of the 1935 Act. 
• Privy Council Connection: Originally, special leave was granted by the Privy Council's Judicial Committee under His Majesty-in-Council. 
• Constitutional Adoption: The Indian Constitution incorporated this concept with modifications under Article 136. 

Key Features of SLP: 

• Last Resort: Filed after all other legal remedies are exhausted. 
• Perceived Injustice: Usually filed when there is perceived injustice or significant legal issue. 
• Conversion to Appeal: If leave is granted, the petition becomes an appeal; if denied, no reasons need be given. 
• Constitutional Right: Supreme Court recognized SLP remedy under Article 136 as a constitutional right. 
• Non Obstante Provision: Article 136 is a non obstante clause, meaning it overrides restrictions on appellate jurisdiction. 

Scope and Applicability: 

• Broad Coverage: Includes final and interlocutory orders from courts and quasi-judicial tribunals. 
• Exceptional Circumstances: Supreme Court exercises this power in exceptional cases, particularly when legal issues of general public importance arise. 
• Self-Imposed Restrictions: In criminal cases with concurrent findings of fact, Court exercises restraint unless there's perversity, impropriety, violation of natural justice, or errors of law. 
• No Strict Guidelines: Supreme Court has refused to establish rigid standards for exercising Article 136 powers, preferring case-by-case discretion. 

Limitation Period: 

• 90-Day Rule: SLPs must be filed within 90 days from the date of High Court judgment. 
• 60-Day Rule: Within 60 days against High Court orders refusing certificate of fitness for appeal to Supreme Court. 

Filing Procedure: 

• Who Can File: Any aggrieved party can file an SLP. 
• Requirements: Must provide concise summary of case facts, issues, timeline, and legal arguments. 
• Court Process: After filing, petitioner presents case; Court may issue notice to opposing party who submits counter-affidavit. 
• Decision: Supreme Court decides whether to grant leave based on merits. 
• Post-Grant: If granted, case converts to civil appeal and is heard by Supreme Court. 

Common Grounds for Filing: 

• Substantial question of law 
• Gross miscarriage of justice 
• Violation of principles of natural justice 
• Violation of fundamental rights 

Article 136 Provisions: 

• Clause (1): Supreme Court may grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence, or order of any court/tribunal in India. 
• Clause (2): Excludes judgments/orders from courts/tribunals under laws relating to Armed Forces. 

Landmark Cases: 

• Laxmi & Co. v. Anand R. Deshpande (1972): Court may consider subsequent developments to advance justice. 
• Kerala State v. Kunhayammed (2000): Declining to grant leave doesn't invoke appellate jurisdiction. 
• Pritam Singh v. The State (1950): Supreme Court should intervene only in exceptional circumstances. 
• N. Suriyakala v. A. Mohandoss (2007): Article 136 doesn't establish ordinary appeal court but grants discretionary powers for justice. 
• Mathai Joby v. George (2016): Supreme Court's authority should not be limited but used sparingly and sensibly.