Retrospective vs. Prospective Law: The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision, stating that judicial interpretations usually have retrospective effects unless otherwise noted in case: Kaniskh Sinha v State of West Bengal, 2025

The article discusses a Supreme Court ruling regarding a criminal appeal by Kanishk Sinha and his wife, who are involved in two cases of forgery and fraud. Here are the main points:

  • Case Background: Kanishk Sinha and his wife face allegations of cheating and conspiracy in two criminal cases, initiated by different complainants.

  • Legal Proceedings: The appellants sought revisions in the Calcutta High Court concerning the dismissal of their complaints. Their argument was based on a prior Supreme Court ruling requiring complaints under Section 156(3) CrPC to be supported by an affidavit.

  • High Court Ruling: The High Court determined that the affidavit requirement from the Supreme Court ruling is prospective and does not apply to the appellants' earlier cases from 2010-2011.

  • Retrospective vs. Prospective Law: The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision, stating that judicial interpretations usually have retrospective effects unless otherwise noted, thus supporting the appellants.

  • Implications: The ruling aims to reduce frivolous complaints and enhance accountability in criminal cases. It also allows the appellants the option to seek discharge if charges are not framed, maintaining avenues for legal recourse.

These points reflect the court's emphasis on preventing injustice while ensuring legal stability and compliance in future proceedings.

The ruling also highlights a procedural clarification concerning the applicability of judicial mandates over existing cases between the parties involved.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Important sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) along with key points:

Advocate Amendment Bill 2025: Key Reforms and Implications for the Legal Profession"

MCQs on Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023