1

LEGAL NEWS [21.11.2022 & 22.11.2022]

1. Supreme Court Will Have Special Bench For Tax Matters From Next Week : CJI
DY Chandrachud
Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachudsaid that special benches will be set up from next
week in the Supreme Court for hearing tax matters.
"There would a Special Indirect and Direct Tax Bench next week. We'll list it", CJI
Chandrachud said when a counsel mentioned a tax case for urgent listing.

CJI also reiterated that registry has been given directions for giving automatic dates for
freshly filed matters. He said that the registry officials were asked to come on Sunday to
reduce the arrears ofverification.

2. Adult Female Member Of Family Not Competent To Accept Summons? Supreme

Court Issues Notice On Plea Challenging Section 64 CrPC

CASE TITLE: Kush Kalra v. UoI And Anr.

The Supreme Court of India issued notice to the Central Government in a plea challenging
Section 64 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the ground that the said section
discriminated against women by treating female members of a family incapable of accepting
summons on behalf of the person summoned. The matter was heard by a bench comprising
Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli.
At the outset, the counsel for petitioner submitted that the provision was discriminatory
against women. It may be noted that Section 64 reads as follows:"Where the person
summoned cannot, by the exercise of due diligence, be found, the summons may be served
by leaving one of the duplicates for him with some adult male member of his family residing
with him." The bench issued notice to the central government returnable for four weeks.

As per the petition, while the Civil Procedure Code, enacted in 1908, required the
summons to be served on any adult member of the defendant's family regardless of their
gender, the CrPC, which was enacted after 65 years of PC
C was "anarchic and dogmatic".
It states that–
"Cr.P.C. does not consider an adult female member of the family capable and competent to
receive summons."As per the petition, the exclusion of female family members to receive
summons on behalf of the summoned person violates the women's right to equality
 2

guaranteed to them under Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India, the right to
know guaranteed to them under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, and right to
dignity guaranteed to them under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The petition adds
that, "In Madras High Court a petition was filed titled G. Kavitha v. Union of India,
challenging the discrimination against women under section 64 Cr.P.C., wherein Ministry
of Law and Justice, Union of Indiawas impleaded as Respondent. Therein, the Ministry of
Law and Justice, Union of India, supported the nonservice of summons on females to
protect their privacy.The Ministry also justified non service of summons on females keeping
in mind Pardanashin females."

It stated that the provision also jeopardises the victim's right to speedy trial guaranteed to
him under Article 21 of the Constitution. As per the petition, apart fro m significantly
delaying the proceedings, Section 64 CrPC creates hardships for all other relevant
stakeholders as well.
Additionally, the petition states that the provision fails to account for the following
situations:
A. When the person summoned residesonly with the female family members or;
B. When the only person available at the time of service of summons is a female.
It stated that the possibility of such situations is particularly high in light of the stark gender
gap in the workforce between the males and the females, i.e., only 22% of the Indian
women are at work, which entails that the remaining 78% of women are at home.

3. Exempt All Persons With Less Than ₹8 L Annual Income From Income Tax In
The Light Of EWS Criteria : Plea In Madras High Court
Case Title: Kunnur Seenivasan v Union of India and others

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has sought the response of the Centre on a
plea challenging the fixation of 2.5 lakh as the basencome
i for the purpose of collecting
Income Tax in light of the recent Supreme Court decision upholding the validity of 103rd
Constitutional Amendment providing reservation to Economically Weaker Sections of the
society with gross annual income below Rs. 99,999.
7,

The bench of Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Sathya Narayana Prasad on Monday ordered
notice to the Union Ministries of Law & Justice, Finance Personnel, Public Grievance and
Pension and adjourned the matter by 4 weeks.The petitioner, Kunnur Seenivasan, an
agriculturist and a member of Asset Protection Council (DMK Party) approached the court
 3

to set aside the First Schedule, Part

-I, paragraph-A of the Finance Act, 2022 fixing the rate
of Income Tax. As per the Schedule, any person whose total incom e does not exceed Rs.
2,50,000 is exempted from payment of tax.
The petitioner challenged this schedule on the basis of the recent Supreme Court decision
in Janhit Abiyan v. Union of India, in which, while upholding the 10% reservation to the
Economically Backward Society, the Apex court confirmed that a socially forward
community family having income upto the limit of Rs.7,99,999/ - per annum excluding
assets is a Economically Weaker Section family.According to the petitioner, when the
Government decided to classify a particular sections are groups of people as Economically
Weaker Section for getting reservation by fixing gross income, the very same yardstick
should be applied for all other sections of people and it shall not collect income tax from all
Economically Weaker Section of individual. Hence, the First Schedule, Part -I, paragraph-A
of the Finance Act, 2022, [No.6 of 2022], has to be declared as ultra -vires and against the
Article 14, 15, 16, 21 and 265 of the Constitution of India.
In his petition, Seenivasan also remarked that the office memorandum issued by the Centre
fixing 8 lakh per annum as the criteria for Economic Reservation destroyed the purposes of
other provisions contained in Article 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
The present Income Tax Act schedule is against the Supreme Court judgment, because it
would leads to collect tax from the economically poor citizen and they could not compete
with the forward community people in status or education or economic.
"By the impugned First Schedule, Part-I, paragraph-A of the Finance Act, 2022, [No.6 of
2022], the respondents are permitted to collect income tax from an individual having
income among Rs.2,50,000/- per annum and it would leads to maintain economic
inequality among the citizen, because a section of people having income below
Rs.7,99,999/-, per annum or eligible to get reservation and Economically Weaker Section,
but the others are not eligible to get reservation on the basis of income criteria. Hence, it is
clear violation of the fundamental rights", the plea states.

4. Presumption Under Section 139 NI Act Includes A Presumption That There

Exists A Legally Enforceable Debt Or Liability : Supreme Court
Case details : Jain P. Jose vs Santhosh

The Supreme Court reiterated that the presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable
Instruments Act includes a presumption that there exists a legally enforceable debt or
liability. In this case, the Trial Court dismissed a cheque bounce complaint on the grou
nd
 4

that the complainant was not able to adduce sufficient evidence that he was in a position to
advance a loan of Rs. 9 lakhs to the accused. The Kerala High Court upheld the Trial Court
order relying on a decision in John K. Abraham v. Simon C. Abraham 014)
(2 2 SCC 236.
In appeal, the Apex Court bench noted that that the accused had accepted his signature on
the subject cheque. We do not think that the High Court was right in holding that the onus
was not on the accused to show that the debt was neither du e nor payable, the bench of
Justices Sanjiv Khanna and J K Maheshwari said.
Referring to the decision in T. Vasanthakumar Vs. Vijaykumari (2015) 8 SCC 378, the
bench said:
"This decision, refers to an earlier judgment of this Court in "Rangappa vs. Sri Moh an"
(2010) 11 SCC 441, which elucidating on the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I.
Act, observes that this includes a presumption that there exists a legally enforceable debt or
liability. However, the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Acts irebuttable and it is
open to the accused to raise a defence wherein the existence of a legally enforceable debt or
liability can be contested."
The court thus held that the complainant was entitled to the benefit of presumption under
Section 139 of the N.I. Act. Allowing the appeal, the bench directed the High Court to
consider the evidence and the material on record to decide whether the offence under
Section 138 of the N.I. Act is established and made out.
It may be noted that the Supreme Court in Krishna Janardhan Bhat v. Dattatraya G.
Hegde, (2008) 4 SCC 54 had held that the existence of legally recoverable debt is not a
matter of presumption under Section 139 of the Act. This view was later overruled by a
three judges bench in Rangappa vs Sri Mohan (2010)
, 11 SCC 441.

5. During Further Investigation, Police Can Include Relevant Materials That Are
Subsequent To Filing Of Initial Final Report: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Kuriachan Chacko & Ors v. State of Kerala & Ors. and Joy John & Anr v. State
of Kerala & Ors

The Kerala High Court held that inclusion of events/ materials in the additional char ge
sheet, that are subsequent to filing of initial final report, is legally permissible.

It added that as long as the evidence collected and the subsequent events point towards the
commission of crime for which the report has been filed, the investigating agency would be
justified in collecting such materials also and is in fact bound to forward it with the report.
 5

The Single Judge Bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas was of the view that determining
as to whether such materials are relevant or even admissi
ble are to be agitated during the
trial. The Court also emphasized in this regard that what was envisaged under Section
173(8) Cr.P.C. was a right of 'further' investigation and not a 'fresh investigation' or a
'reinvestigation'.
The Court made the above observation in a 2006 case, relating to ponzi scheme whereby
the Petitioner herein is accused of duping the investors of around Rs.500 Crores. Th
e
Petitioner is booked under section 420 IPC, Sections 3, 4, & 5 of the Prize Chits and
Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978 and Sections 45LBB, 45S and 58B of the
Reserve Bank of India Act,1934.
Final report in the case was filed in September 2006and the concerned Magistrate court
framed charges after omitting the offences under the RBI Act, as well as those under section
2(e) r/w section 3 of the Prize Chits Act. During trial, 72 witnesses had been examined
when the prosecution filed an application for postponing the trial claiming that a further
investigation had already commenced.
It is this further final report that was challenged in the instant proceedings.