மனுதாரர் 'ஜோதி யோஜனா' வாக்குறுதிகளின் அடிப்படையில் கருத்தடை செய்யப்படவில்லை, மாநிலத்தின் வாக்குறுதியை மீறுவது சட்டபூர்வமான எதிர்பார்ப்பின் கொள்கைகளை மீறுகிறது: ராஜஸ்தான் உயர் நீதிமன்றம்

 ஒன்று அல்லது இரண்டு குழந்தைகளைப் பெற்றெடுத்த பிறகு தானாக முன்வந்து கருத்தடை அறுவை சிகிச்சைக்கு உட்படுத்தப்பட்ட ஒவ்வொரு பெண்ணுக்கும் 'ஜோதி யோஜனா' திட்டத்தின் பலன்களை வழங்குமாறு ராஜஸ்தான் உயர் நீதிமன்றம் மாநிலத்திற்கு உத்தரவு பிறப்பித்துள்ளது.

நீதிபதி அனூப் குமார் தண்டின் ஒற்றை நீதிபதி அமர்வு, 2011 ஆம் ஆண்டில் அறிமுகப்படுத்தப்பட்ட இந்த திட்டம் முதலில் மேற்கூறிய பிரிவில் வரும் பெண்களுக்கு அதிகாரம் அளிக்கும் நோக்கில் இருந்தது, எனவே, இது திறம்பட செயல்படுத்தப்பட வேண்டும் என்று தீர்ப்பளித்தது.

"இல்லையெனில் செய்வது சட்டப்பூர்வமாக கேள்விக்குரியதாக மட்டுமல்லாமல், தார்மீக ரீதியாக நியாயமற்றதாகவும் இருக்கும், ஏனெனில் இது நல்ல நம்பிக்கையுடன் செயல்பட்ட தனிநபர்களை அவர்கள் எதிர்பார்க்க வழிவகுத்த ஆதரவு இல்லாமல் விட்டுவிடும்... "என்று ஜெய்ப்பூரில் அமர்ந்திருக்கும் பெஞ்ச் கூறியது, நிர்வாகத்தில் பொறுப்புக்கூறலை உறுதி செய்வதற்கான திட்டத்தின் கீழ் அரசாங்கம் தனது கடமைகளையும் கடமைகளையும் மதித்திருக்க வேண்டும்.

'ஜோதி யோஜனா' திட்டம் 19.08.2011 தேதியிட்ட அரசு சுற்றறிக்கையின்படி அறிமுகப்படுத்தப்பட்டது, மேற்கூறிய பெண்களுக்கு இலவச கல்வியின் பலன்கள் மற்றும் ஆஷா சஹயோகினி, ஏ. என். எம் (துணை நர்சிங் மற்றும் மருத்துவச்சி) மற்றும் ஜி. என். எம் (பொது நர்சிங் மற்றும் மருத்துவச்சி) படிப்புகளைத் தேர்ந்தெடுப்பதில் முன்னுரிமை அளிக்கிறது.

2016 ஆம் ஆண்டில், இந்த திட்டம் அரசால் ரத்து செய்யப்பட்டது. சுற்றறிக்கையின்படி, மனுதாரர் பெண் முதுகலை வரை மற்றும் அவரது நர்சிங் படிப்புக்கு இலவச கல்வியைப் பெற உரிமை உண்டு. பயனாளிகளின் குடும்ப உறுப்பினர்களுக்கு அரசு மருத்துவமனைகளில் இலவச மருத்துவ வசதிகளையும் இத்திட்டம் வழங்குகிறது.

இந்தத் திட்டத்தின் பலன்களைப் பெறுவதற்காக மனுதாரர் 2012 ஆம் ஆண்டில் ஒரு பெண் குழந்தையைப் பெற்றெடுத்த பிறகு கருத்தடை செயல்முறைக்கு உட்படுத்தப்பட்டாலும், பத்தாம் வகுப்பு முதல் ஜி. என். எம் பாடநெறி முடியும் வரை தனது கல்விக்கான செலவுகளைத் திருப்பித் தருவதற்கான அவரது கோரிக்கை அரசாங்கத்தால் மறுக்கப்பட்டது. 2013 ஆம் ஆண்டில் 'ஜோதி அட்டை' வழங்கப்பட்ட பின்னரே மனுதாரர் பத்தாம் வகுப்பு-ஜி. என். எம் படிப்பை மேற்கொண்டார்.

"... உடனடி வழக்கில், ஒரு பெண் குழந்தையைப் பெற்றெடுத்து கருத்தடை செய்த மனுதாரர்," ஜோதி யோஜனா "திட்டத்தில் கோடிட்டுக் காட்டப்பட்ட அரசாங்கத்தின் உத்தரவாதங்களின் அடிப்படையில் அவ்வாறு செய்தார். கல்விச் செலவுகள், மருத்துவச் செலவுகள் மற்றும் நர்சிங் ரோல்களில் வேலைவாய்ப்பு முன்னுரிமைகளை வழங்குவது உள்ளிட்ட தனது கடமைகளை அரசாங்கம் நிறைவேற்றும் என்ற நியாயமான எதிர்பார்ப்பை இந்த திட்டம் உருவாக்கியது... "என்று ஒற்றை நீதிபதி அமர்வு மேலும் கூறியது.

ஒரு பொது அதிகாரம், அதன் நிர்வாக நடவடிக்கையின் ஒரு பகுதியாக, அதன் குடிமக்களுக்கு ஒரு நன்மை, நிவாரணம் அல்லது தீர்வு குறித்த வாக்குறுதியை வழங்கி, பின்னர் உருவாக்கப்பட்ட அத்தகைய எதிர்பார்ப்பை தன்னிச்சையாக மறுக்கும் போது, பொது சட்டத்தின் களத்தில் நியாயமான எதிர்பார்ப்பின் கொள்கை மீறப்படுகிறது என்று நீதிமன்றம் கூறியது தேசிய கட்டிடங்கள் கட்டுமானக் கழகம் v. S.Raghunathan & Ors., (1998) 7 SCC 66 இன் வழக்குச் சட்டத்தை பகுப்பாய்வு செய்த பின்னர். உடனடி வழக்கில், மருத்துவம், சுகாதாரம் மற்றும் குடும்ப நலத்துறை ஜோதி யோஜனா திட்டத்தின் கீழ் பெறப்பட்ட நன்மைகளை தன்னிச்சையாக ரத்து செய்வதன் மூலம் பொது நலனுக்கு எதிராக செயல்பட்டது என்று நீதிமன்றம் முடிவு செய்தது.

மனுதாரர் பெண் தனக்கு தீங்கு விளைவிக்கும் வகையில் அரசின் வாக்குறுதியை நியாயமாக நம்பியிருந்தபோது, 'பிராமிஸரி எஸ்டோபல்' கொள்கையும் அரசால் மீறப்பட்டுள்ளது என்று நீதிமன்றம் உத்தரவில் மேலும் கூறியது.

https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029Va9tkDP4CrfefciWJN0y

"ஜோதி யோஜனாவின் வாக்குறுதிகளின் அடிப்படையில் கருத்தடை செய்வதன் மூலமும், வாழ்க்கை முடிவுகளை எடுப்பதன் மூலமும், அந்தப் பெண் தனது சூழ்நிலைகளை கணிசமாக மாற்றினார். இப்போது இந்த கடமைகளில் இருந்து பின்வாங்குவது நியாயமற்றது மட்டுமல்லாமல், அரசாங்க திட்டங்கள் மற்றும் கொள்கைகளில் குடிமக்கள் வைத்திருக்கும் நம்பிக்கையையும் நம்பிக்கையையும் குறைமதிப்பிற்கு உட்படுத்தும் "என்று நீதிமன்றம் உத்தரவில் மேலும் வலியுறுத்தியது.

மனுதாரரின் வழக்கைப் பொருத்தவரை, மனுதாரரின் நலனுக்காக ஜோதி யோஜனா திட்டத்தைப் பயன்படுத்தவும், பத்தாம் வகுப்பு முதல் ஜி. என். எம் பாடநெறி வரை ஏற்படும் கல்விக் கட்டணத்தை ஆண்டுக்கு 9% என்ற விகிதத்தில் திருப்பிச் செலுத்தவும் நீதிமன்றம் பதிலளித்த அதிகாரிகளுக்கு உத்தரவிட்டுள்ளது.

இறுதியில், மருத்துவம் மற்றும் சுகாதாரத் துறை தலைமையில் ஒரு குழுவை அமைக்க மாநில தலைமைச் செயலாளர் மற்றும் பிற அதிகாரிகளுக்கு நீதிமன்றம் ஒரு பொது ஆணையை பிறப்பித்தது. இவ்வாறு அமைக்கப்பட்ட குழு, இத்திட்டத்தின் கீழ் நிலுவையில் உள்ள உரிமைகோரல்கள் மற்றும் தகுதியான பெண்களின் விண்ணப்பங்களை மூன்று மாதங்களுக்குள் ஆய்வு செய்ய வேண்டும்.

மனுதாரர் சார்பில் வழக்கறிஞர் இன்ட்ஜார் அலி ஆஜரானார். பிரதிவாதி மாநில அதிகாரிகள் சார்பில் கூடுதல் அரசு வழக்கறிஞர் பாரத் சைனி ஆஜரானார்.

வழக்கின் தலைப்பு: திருமதி. வந்தனா டபிள்யூ/ஓ பஜ்ரங் சிங் வி. ராஜஸ்தான் மாநிலம், முதன்மை செயலாளர், மருத்துவம் மற்றும் சுகாதாரத் துறை மூலம்.

வழக்கு எண்: S.B. சிவில் ரிட் மனு எண். 5078/2018

மேற்கோள்: 2024 லைவ் லா (ராஜ்) 21

மேல்முறையீட்டு நீதிமன்றங்கள், மேல்முறையீட்டைத் தீர்ப்பதில் பின்பற்ற வேண்டிய கோட்பாடுகள்: உச்ச நீதிமன்றம் விளக்குகிறது

சமீபத்தில், சாட்சியங்களின் பாராட்டு இரண்டு சாத்தியமான கருத்துக்களுக்கு வழிவகுத்தால், குற்றம் சாட்டப்பட்டவர்களை விடுவிக்கும் விசாரணை நீதிமன்றத்தின் தீர்ப்பை மேல்முறையீட்டு நீதிமன்றத்தால் மாற்றியமைக்க முடியாது என்று உச்ச நீதிமன்றம் கூறியது, குற்றம் சாட்டப்பட்டவரின் தண்டனைக்கு வழிவகுத்த மற்றொரு பார்வை இருப்பதால் மட்டுமே.

நீதிமன்றத்தின் கூற்றுப்படி, சாட்சியங்களின் பாராட்டு இரண்டு சாத்தியமான கருத்துக்களுக்கு வழிவகுத்தால், குற்றம் சாட்டப்பட்டவரின் குற்றமற்றவர் என்பதை நிரூபிக்கும் பார்வை கணக்கில் எடுத்துக்கொள்ளப்படும், குற்றம் சாட்டப்பட்டவரின் குற்றத்தை நிரூபிக்கும் பார்வை அல்ல.

நீதிபதிகள் பேலா எம். திரிவேதி மற்றும் சதீஷ் சந்திர ஷர்மா அடங்கிய பெஞ்ச், விசாரணை நீதிமன்றம் எடுத்த கருத்து குற்றம் சாட்டப்பட்டவர்களை விடுவிக்க வழிவகுத்தால், மேல்முறையீட்டு நீதிமன்றம்/உயர் நீதிமன்றம் விசாரணை நீதிமன்றத்தின் கண்டுபிடிப்புகளை மாற்றியமைக்க அனுமதிக்கப்படாது என்று குறிப்பிட்டார்.

நீதிமன்றத்தின் மேற்கூறிய அவதானிப்பு குற்றவியல் சட்டத்தின் தீர்க்கப்பட்ட கொள்கையை அடிப்படையாகக் கொண்டது, அதாவது i.e., 'குற்றவாளி நிரூபிக்கப்படும் வரை நிரபராதி'.

நீதிபதி சதீஷ் சந்திர ஷர்மா எழுதிய தீர்ப்பு, உயர் நீதிமன்றம்/மேல்முறையீட்டு நீதிமன்றத்திற்கு ஆறு கொள்கைகளை வகுத்தது, அவை விடுவிக்கப்படுவதிலிருந்து மேல்முறையீட்டைத் தீர்மானிக்கும் போது நடைமுறைக்கு வரும்.

"(i) சாட்சியங்களைப் பாராட்டுவது ஒரு குற்றவியல் விசாரணையின் முக்கிய அம்சமாகும், மேலும் அத்தகைய பாராட்டு விரிவானதாக இருக்க வேண்டும்-வாய்மொழியாகவோ ஆவணப்படமாகவோ உள்ள அனைத்து ஆதாரங்களையும் உள்ளடக்கியது;

(ii) சான்றுகளின் பகுதி அல்லது தேர்ந்தெடுக்கப்பட்ட பாராட்டு நீதியின் கருச்சிதைவுக்கு வழிவகுக்கும் மற்றும் அதுவே சவாலின் அடித்தளமாகும்;

(iii) சாட்சியங்களைப் படித்த பிறகு, இரண்டு கருத்துக்கள் சாத்தியம் என்று நீதிமன்றம் கண்டறிந்தால், குற்றம் சாட்டப்பட்டவருக்கு ஆதரவாக உள்ள ஒன்று பொதுவாக பின்பற்றப்படும்;

(iv) விசாரணை நீதிமன்றத்தின் பார்வை சட்டப்பூர்வமாக நம்பத்தகுந்த கருத்தாக இருந்தால், அதற்கு நேர்மாறான கருத்தின் சாத்தியம் மட்டுமே விடுவிக்கப்பட்டதை மாற்றியமைப்பதை நியாயப்படுத்தாது;

(v) மேல்முறையீட்டு நீதிமன்றம் சாட்சியங்களை மறுபரிசீலனை செய்வதன் மீது மேல்முறையீட்டில் விடுவிக்கப்பட்டதை மாற்றியமைக்க விரும்பினால், அது விடுவிக்க விசாரணை நீதிமன்றம் வழங்கிய அனைத்து காரணங்களையும் குறிப்பாக உரையாற்ற வேண்டும் மற்றும் அனைத்து உண்மைகளையும் உள்ளடக்க வேண்டும்;

(vi) விடுவிக்கப்பட்டதில் இருந்து தண்டனைக்கு மாற்றப்படும் வழக்கில், மேல்முறையீட்டு நீதிமன்றம் விசாரணை நீதிமன்றத்தின் தீர்ப்பில் சட்டவிரோதம், முரண்பாடு அல்லது சட்டம் அல்லது உண்மையின் பிழையை நிரூபிக்க வேண்டும்.

https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029Va9tkDP4CrfefciWJN0y

மேற்கூறிய கொள்கைகளைப் பயன்படுத்தும்போது, சாட்சியங்களை மறுபரிசீலனை செய்யும் அதே வேளையில், விசாரணை நீதிமன்றத்தின் நியாயத்தில் சட்டவிரோதம் அல்லது முரண்பாடு அல்லது பிழை பற்றிய எந்தவொரு கண்டுபிடிப்புக்கும் வராமல், விடுவிக்கப்பட்ட தீர்ப்பை மாற்றியமைப்பதில் உயர் நீதிமன்றம் தவறு செய்துள்ளதாக நீதிமன்றம் கண்டறிந்தது.

அதன்படி, சர்ச்சைக்குரிய உத்தரவும் தீர்ப்பும் ஒதுக்கி வைக்கப்படுகின்றன. இதன் விளைவாக, குற்றம் சாட்டப்பட்டவர்கள் அவர்கள் மீது சுமத்தப்பட்ட அனைத்து குற்றச்சாட்டுகளிலிருந்தும் விடுவிக்கப்படுகிறார்கள்.

மேலும் படிக்க: விசாரணை நீதிமன்றத்தின் விடுதலை ஒரு நம்பத்தகுந்த பார்வையாக இருந்தால், உயர் நீதிமன்றம் சாட்சியங்களை மறுபரிசீலனை செய்வதன் மூலம் குற்றம் சாட்டப்பட்டவர்களை குற்றவாளியாக்கக்கூடாது: உச்ச நீதிமன்றம்

வழக்கு விவரங்கள்: MALLAPPA & ORS. கர்நாடக மாநிலம் | குற்றவியல் மேல்முறையீட்டு எண் (கள்) 1162/2011

02 | Administrative Law | MCQ for LLB, LLM, Advocate and All Judicial Se...

Frequently Asked Questions on Administrative Law

Q. 31. Write a Note on Constitution and Functioning of following :

(A) Industrial Tribunal.

(B) Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

(C) Railway Rates Tribunal.

Q. 32. Do you agree with the view that principles of natural justice are to be followed by Tribunals ?

Q. 33. Discuss the scope of Administrative Tribunal Act 1985.

Q. 34. Discuss the jurisdiction and scope, powers of Central Administration Tribunal.

Q. 35. What do you mean by Administrative Discretion. State the grounds on which the conferment, non-use and abuse of discretion can be challenged in a court of law ?

Q. 36. Discuss the nature and scope of Judicial Review over Administrative Actions.

Q. 37. Discuss mala fides as a ground of challenge of administrative action. State the rules regarding burden of proof in petition on this ground.

Q. 38. "The powers of Supreme Court under Article 32(2) are very wide". Discuss the statement with illustration from decided cases.

Q. 39. What is the scope of Article 226 of India Constitution regarding the power of High Court to control the Administrative Act ?

Q. 40. Discuss the principles which would regulate the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226.

Q. 41. Discuss the scope and nature of writ of Habeas Corpus.

Q. 42. Define the writ of Certiorari. Discuss its scope and nature.

Q. 43. Define the writ of Mandamus. Discuss its nature and scope.

Q. 44. Discuss the nature and scope of writ of quo warranto.

Q. 45. What Constitutional remedies are available to a person aggrieved of action of Administrative Authority ?

Q. 46. Discuss about Supervisory Jurisdiction of High Court under the Constitution of India.

Q. 47. What do you understand by Ombudsman ? What are the function and power of ombudsman ?

Q. 48. What is the position of Ombudsman in India ?

Q. 49. What do you understand by "Public Corporation" ? Discuss their importance in Modern Times. Enumerate some of the important Public Corporations in India and discuss their working.

Q. 50. Discuss about Parliamentary and Government Control over Public Corporation.

What is Arrest, can a private person make an arrest, what procedure is p...

The word "Arrest" when used in its ordinary sense means the restraint or the deprivation of one's personal liberty to go where he pleases. When used in the legal sense, an arrest consists of taking a person into custody under the authority empowered by law for the purpose of holding or detaining him to answer a criminal charge and preventing the commission of criminal offence. Section 46 of Criminal Procedure Code provides as to how arrest is to be made.

Section 46 says that in making an arrest the police officer or other person making the same shall actually touch and confine the body of the person to be arrested unless there be a submission to the custody by words or action.

In Rahimal v. State of U.P. 1992 Criminal Law Journal 3819, it was observed that Section 46 does not contemplate any formality before a person can be said to be taken in custody. Submission to custody by words or action is sufficient. But investigating officer should give full details as to in what manner the accused was arrested. Single sentence of I.O. regarding arrest without mentioning even the time and place is not sufficient to prove arrest.

ARREST BY PRIVATE PERSON Section 43 of Cr.P.C. provide that any private person may arrest or cause to be arrested any person:

(a) Who in his presence commits a non-bailable and cognizable offence.

(b) Who is a proclaimed offender.

Such private person after the arrest, without unnecessary delay shall make over or cause to be made over the person arrested to police officer or take him to nearest police station.

Sub-section (2) to Section 43 then provides that if the person so arrested appears to come under the provisions of Section 41 of Code, such police officer shall rearrest him. Section 43(3) says if the police officer has reason to believe that the person arrested has committed a non-cognizable offence provisions of Section 42 would apply if such arrested person refuses to give his name and address or gives a false name and address.

In Abdul Habib v. State 1974 Criminal Law Journal 248, it was held that a private person can not arrest any one on mere suspicion or information. The offence must be committed in his view or in his presence. Where therefore an individual seeing a person fleeing with the knife in his hand pursued by others, tries to arrest him his exercise of power of arrest cannot be brought under Section 43.

In Directorate of Enforcement v. Deepak Mahajan AIR 1994 SC 1775, it was observed "The code gives power of arrest not only to a Police Officer and a Magistrate but also under certain circumstances or given situations to private persons. Further, when an accused person appears before a Magistrate or surrenders voluntarily, the Magistrate is empowered to take that accused person into custody and deal with him according to law. Needless to emphasize that the arrest of a person is a condition precedent for taking him into judicial custody thereof. To put it differently, the taking of the person into judicial custody is followed after the arrest of the person concerned by the Magistrate on appearance or surrender. In every arrest, there is custody but not vice-versa and that both the words `custody' and `arrest' are not synonymous terms."

The provision relating to Public Prosecutor, under the Code of Criminal

Section 2(4) of Code says "Public Prosecutor" means any person appointed under section 24 and includes any person acting under the directions of Public Prosecutor.

Since in criminal cases State is in the prosecutor, the State is represented in the Court by the Public Prosecutor. In the High Courts and Court of Sessions the State Government is represented by Public Prosecutor and in the Court of Magistrate by the Assistant Public Prosecutor.

The provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code regarding the appointment of Public Prosecutors are contained in Section 24, which provides as herein under :-

(1) For every High Court, the Central Government, or the State Government shall, after consultation with the High Court, appoint a Public Prosecutor and may also appoint one or more Additional Public Prosecutors, for conducting in such Court, any prosecution, appeal or other proceeding on behalf of the Central Government or State Government, as the case may be.

(2) The Central Government may appoint one or more Public Prosecutors, for the purpose of conducting any case or class of cases in any district or local area.

(3) For every district, the State Government shall appoint a Public Prosecutor and may also appoint one or more Additional Public Prosecutors for the district :

Provided that the Public Prosecutor or Additional Public Prosecutor appointed for one district may be appointed also to be a Public Prosecutor or an Additional Public Prosecutor, as the case may be, for another district.

(4) The District Magistrate shall, in consultation with the Sessions Judge, prepare a panel of names of persons, who are in his opinion fit to be appointed as Public Prosecutors or Additional Public Prosecutors for the district.

(5) No person shall be appointed by the State Government as the Public Prosecutor or Addl. Public Prosecutor for the district unless his name appears in the panel of names prepared by the District Magistrate under sub-section (4).

(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (5) where in a State there exists a regular Cadre of Prosecuting Officers, the State Government shall appoint a Public Prosecutor or an Addl. Public Prosecutor only from among the persons constituting such Cadre :

Provided that where, in the opinion of the State Government, no suitable person is available in such Cadre for such appointment, the Government may appoint a person as Public Prosecutor or Addl. Public Prosecutor, as the case may be from the panels of names prepared under sub- section (4).

(7) A person shall be eligible to be appointed as a Public Prosecutor or an Addl. Public Prosecutor under sub-section (1), (2) or (3) or (6), only if he is in practice as an advocate for not less than 7 years.

(8) The Central Government or the State Government may appoint for the purpose of any case or class of cases, a person who has been in practice for not less than ten years, as a Special Public Prosecutor.

(9) For the purpose of sub-sections (7) and (8), the period during which a person has been in practice as a pleader, or has rendered (whether before or after commencement of this Code) service as a Public Prosecutor or as an Addl. Public Prosecutor or as Assistant Public Prosecutor or other Prosecution Officer, by whatever name called, shall be deemed to be the period during which such person has been in practice as an advocate.

In State of Rajasthan v. Manohar 1981(2) SCC 525, it was held that notification by State Government appointing Advocate General is to be public prosecutor under section 24 Criminal P.C. - Another Notification by Advocate General authorising law officers including Deputy Advocate General to act, plead and argue in all matters covered by code - Held - Deputy Advocate General was public servant.

In R. Sarala v. T.S. Velu and others AIR 2000 SC 1731, it was observed that role of Public Prosecutor is inside the court and it commences after investigating agency presents the case in court after completion of investigation. Therefore, involving Public Prosecutor in investigation is injudicious and an investigating officer can not be directed to consult the Public Prosecutor before filling his report under section 173 Cr. P.C.

According to section 25 an Assistant Public Prosecutor is appointed to conduct prosecutions in the Courts of Magistrates. They are appointed by the State Government. No police officer is eligible for appointment as such but in a case for which no Assistant Public Prosecutor is available, the District Magistrate may appoint any other person to be Assistant may also be so appointed but such police officer should not be below the rank of an Inspector or and he should not have participated in the investigation of the case being prosecuted. A new sub-section (1-A) to Section 25 of the Code has been inserted by the Amendment Act, 1978, by which Central Government may also appoint Assistant Public Prosecutors for conducting cases in the Court of Magistrate.

In S.B. Shane v. State AIR 1995 SC 1628, it was observed that according to section 25 there is statutory obligation imposed on the state or Central Government to appoint one or more Asst. Public Prosecutors in every district for conducting prosecutions in the Magistrate Courts and of making such Assit. Public Prosecutors independent of the Police Department by constituting separate cadre of such Asst. Public Prosecutor and creating a separate Prosecution Department and its Head directly responsible to Govt. for such Department's work.

The various classes of Criminal courts and their powers

Chapter II of Code and Sections 6 to 24 deal with the constitution of Criminal Courts. Section 6 of Code says -

Besides the High Courts and the Courts constituted under any law, other than this Code, there shall be, in every State, the following classes of Criminal Courts, namely :-

(i) Courts of Session;

(ii) Judicial Magistrates of the first class and, in any metropolitan area, Metropolitan Magistrates;

(iii) Judicial Magistrates of the second class; and

(iv) Executive Magistrates.

Then Section 7 of the Code says that every State shall consist of Session division and each Session division, for the purpose of this Code, shall be district or consist of districts. In substance provision under section 7 is the same as was provided in old code but as a result of separation of judicial functions of magistrate from those of executive consequential changes were brought. Then Section 8 of code says that State Government may by notification declare any area in the State, comprising a city or town whose population exceeds one million shall be metropolitan area and city of Ahmedabad declared to be metropolitan area. State Government have also been empowered to extend, reduce or alter the limits of metropolitan area.

Section 9 of Code says -

(1) The State Government shall establish a Court of Session for every sessions division.

(2) Every court of Session shall be presided over by a Judge, to be appointed by the High Court.

(3) The High Court may also appoint Additional Sessions Judges and Assistant Sessions Judges to exercise jurisdiction in a Court of Session.

(4) The Sessions Judge of one Sessions division may be appointed by the High Court to be also an Additional Sessions Judge of another division, and in such case he may sit for the disposal of cases at such place or places in the other division as the High Court may direct.

(5) Where the office of the Sessions Judge is vacant, the High Court may make arrangements for the disposal of any urgent application which is, or may be, made or pending before such Court of Session by an Additional or Assistant Sessions Judge, or, if there be no Additional or Assistant Sessions Judge, by a Chief Judicial Magistrate, in the sessions division; and every such Judge or Magistrate shall have jurisdiction to deal with any such application.

(6) The Court of Session shall ordinarily hold its sitting at such place or places as the High Court may, by notification, specify; but, if, in any particular case, the Court of Session is of opinion that it will tend to the general convenience of the parties and witness to hold its sittings at any other place in the sessions division, it may, with the consent of the prosecution and the accused, sit at that place for the disposal of the cases or the examination of any witness or witnesses therein.

So Section 9 deals with the power of State Government to establish Courts of Sessions and the power of High Court to appoint judges thereto and to direct at what places such courts shall hold its sittings. The State Government is bound to establish a Court of Session for every Sessions division then section 10 declares that all Assistant Sessions Judges shall be subordinate to Sessions Judge, who will time to time make rules as to distribution of business among such Assistant Sessions Judges.

Then Section 11 provides -

(1) In every district (not being a metropolitan area), there shall be established as many Courts of Judicial Magistrates of the first class and of the second class, and at such places, as the State Government may, after consultation with the High Court, by notification, specify:

Provided that the State Government may, after consultation with the High Court, establish, for any local area, one or more Special Courts of Judicial Magistrates of the first class or of the second class to try any particular case or particular class of cases, and where any such Special Court is established, no other court of Magistrate in the local area shall have jurisdiction to try any case or class of cases for the trial of which the such Special Court of Judicial Magistrate has been established.

(2) The presiding officers of such Courts shall be appointed by the High Court.

(3) The High Court may, whenever, it appears to be expedient or necessary, confer the powers of a Judicial Magistrate of the first class or of the second class on any member of the Judicial Service of the State, functioning as a Judge in a Civil Court.

The Section 12 says that in every district (not being a metropolitan area) High Court shall appoint a Judicial Magistrate of first class to be Chief Judicial Magistrate and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and Sub- divisional Judicial Magistrate. Then Section 13 of Code says that High Court upon the request of Central or State Government, confer upon any person who hold or has held any post under the Government all or any powers conferrable under the code to a Judicial Magistrate of first or second class for particular case or class of cases provided such person possesses such qualification and experience in legal affairs as High Court requires and such Magistrate shall be called "Special Magistrate" who will be appointed for term not exceeding one year at a time. Then section 14 of Code says subject to control of High Court, Chief Judicial Magistrate may from time to time define local jurisdiction within which Magistrates as appointed under section 11 or 13 may exercise any power as conferred under this Code. Then Section 15 says every Chief Judicial Magistrate shall be subordinate to Sessions Judge and every other Judicial Magistrate, shall be subject to general control of Sessions Judge be subordinate to Chief Judicial Magistrate who shall from title to time make rules or make order as to distribution of business among Judicial Magistrates.

Thereafter Sections 16, 17, 18 and 19 deal regarding Metropolitan Magistrate on similar provisions as stated above. Then section 20 says that in every District and Metropolitan area, the State Government may appoint any numbers of Executive Magistrates and one of them shall be appointed as District Magistrate. State Government may appoint an Executive Magistrate as Additional District Magistrate and may place any such executive magistrate in sub-division who shall be called `Sub-divisional Magistrate. Section 21 provides regarding appointment of Special Executive Magistrate. Then Section 22 says that subject to control of State Government, District Magistrate from time to time, may define local limits of jurisdiction of Executive Magistrates. All Executive Magistrates, other than Additional District Magistrate shall be subordinate to District Magistrate who will make rules regarding distribution of work among Executive Magistrate. (Section 23).

Power of Courts :- Chapter III of Codes deal with power of different criminal courts. Section 26 deals with the description of offences cognizable by several courts constituted under the Code. Section 26(a) says any offence of I.P.C. may be tried by

(i) High Court or

(ii) Court of Session or

(iii) any Judicial Magistrate by which such offence is shown in First Schedule, to be triable.

Section 26(b) says any offence under any other law shall be tried by court as mentioned in that law and when no such court is so mentioned, then it will be tried by

(i) High Court or

(ii) Court by which such offence is shown in First Schedule to triable.

Section 27 of Code then says about jurisdiction of court in case of Juveniles.

Then Section 28 says -

"(1) A High Court may pass any sentence authorised by law.

(2) A Sessions Judge or Additional Sessions Judge may pass any sentence authorised by law; but any sentence of death passed by such Judge shall be subject to confirmation by the High Court.

(3) Any Assistant Sessions Judge may pass any sentence authorised by law except a sentence of death or of imprisonment for life or of imprisonment for a term exceeding ten years."

Section 29 of Code says -

"(1) The Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate may pass any sentence authorised by law except a sentence of death or of imprisonment for life or of imprisonment for a term exceeding seven years.

(2) The Court of a Magistrate of the first class may pass a sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years, or of fine not exceeding five thousand rupees, or of both.

(3) The Court of a Magistrate of the second class may pass a sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year, or of fine not exceeding one thousand rupees, or of both.

(4) The Court of a Chief Metropolitan Magistrate shall have the powers of the Court of a Chief Judicial Magistrate and that of a Metropolitan Magistrate, the powers of the Court of a Magistrate of the first class."

Then Section 30 says -

(1) The Court of a Magistrate may award such term of imprisonment in default of payment of fine as is authorised by law :

Provided that the term -

(a) is not in excess of the powers of the Magistrate under Section 29;

(b) shall not, where imprisonment has been awarded as part of the substantive sentence, exceed one-fourth of the term of imprisonment which the Magistrate is competent to inflict as punishment for the offence otherwise than as imprisonment in default of payment of the fine.

(2) The imprisonment awarded under this section may be in addition to a substantive sentence of imprisonment for the maximum term awardable by the Magistrate under Section 29.

Difference between Investigation, Inquiry and Trial

Section 2(g) of Code of Criminal Procedure defines the term : "Inquiry" "Inquiry means every inquiry other than a trial conducted under this code by a Magistrate or Court."

Term "Inquiry" is wider than `b'. In V.C. Shukla v. State through C.B.I. AIR 1980 SC 962. The Supreme Court has held that from the time the accused appears or is produced before the Magistrate with the Police Report under Section 170 of Code and the Magistrate proceeds to enquire whether Section 207 of Code has been complied with and then proceeds to commit the accused to the court of Session, the proceedings before the Magistrate would be an inquiry as contemplated by Section 2(g) of the Code."

https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029Va9tkDP4CrfefciWJN0y

So "Inquiry" is a name given to a proceeding conducted under the Code of Criminal Procedure by a Magistrate or a Court, other than a trial for ascertaining or verifying facts with a view to take some action under the code. Ambit of Inquiry is very wide and comprehensive and include proceedings under Sections 340, 144, 145, 176, 446 of Cr.P.C.

Section 2(h) of Code define the expression "Investigation" as "Investigation includes all the proceedings under this code for the collection of evidence, conducted by Police Officer or by any person (other than Magistrate) who is authorized by a Magistrate in this behalf."

Supreme Court recently in Navin Chandra N. Majithia v. State of Meghalaya 2000(4) Recent Criminal Reports 476 has observed "The Code contemplates the following steps to be carried out during such investigation (1) Proceeding to spot (2) Ascertainment of the facts and circumstances of the case (3) Discovery and arrest of suspected offender (4) Collection of evidence relating to the commission of offence which may consist of (a) the examination of various persons (including accused) and reduction of their statement into writing (b) search of places, seizure of things considered necessary for investigation and to be produced at the trial. (5) Formation of opinion as to whether on material collected, there is a case to place the accused before Magistrate for trial and if so taking the necessary steps for the same by the filing of a charge sheet under Section 173."

DISTINCTION BETWEEN INQUIRY AND INVESTIGATION : An `Inquiry' relates to a proceeding held by a court or Magistrate while an `Investigation' relates to steps taken by a police officer or a person other than a Magistrate. The object of Inquiry is to determine `prima facie' the truth of falsity of certain facts in order to take further action thereon. Object of Investigation to ascertain the facts and collecting the evidence relating to commission of crime and to arrest the offender.

https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029Va9tkDP4CrfefciWJN0y

Term "Trial" has not been defined in the Code. Trial may be said to be a judicial proceeding which ends either in conviction or acquittal of the accused. If in a proceeding the court has no power to convict or acquit, it is no `trial'. Trial includes all steps which a criminal court adopts subsequent to the framing of charge and until the pronouncement of judgement.

INQUIRY AND TRIAL - DISTINCTION : Inquiry is the second stage of a criminal proceeding and is always to be conducted by a Magistrate. Term `Trial' is distinguished as an original judicial proceeding. A judicial proceeding in a criminal case which ends either in conviction or acquittal of the accused, is a proceeding in which evidence is or may be legally taken on oath. The proceedings in a summon case after the appearance of accused or in a warrant case, after the charge is drawn are trials . In criminal matters, the inquiry is something different from trial. `Inquiry stops when trial begins so all proceedings before Magistrate, before framing the charge which do not result in conviction or acquittal can be termed as `Inquiry'. Trial presupposes the idea of an offence. But inquiry relates or matters which are not offences .

https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029Va9tkDP4CrfefciWJN0y

Cognizable and Non-Cognizable Offences, Bailable and Non Bailable Offenc...

(i) Cognizable and Non-Cognizable Offences.
(ii) Bailable and Non-Bailable Offences.
(iii) Summons Cases and Warrant Cases.

 https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029Va9tkDP4CrfefciWJN0y

Cognizable and Non-Cognizable Offence Section 2(c) of Code define "Cognizable Offences and Cognizable Cases" as cognizable offence means offences for which and cognizable case means cases in which police officer may in accordance with first schedule of Criminal Procedure Code or under any other law for the time being in force arrest without warrant.

Then Section 2(l) of Code defines Non-Cognizable Offences and Non-Cognizable Cases as non-cognizable offence means offences for which and non-cognizable case means cases in which police officer has no authority to arrest without warrant.

So difference between cognizable and non-cognizable offences lies in the fact that in case of cognizable offence, a police officer can arrest without warrant whereas in Non-Cognizable offences police officer can not arrest any one without warrant.

Column 4 of First Schedule attached to the Code of Criminal Procedure mentions which are cognizable offences and which are non-cognizable offences. In case of commission of cognizable offence, if matter is reported to police, then police will record the First Information Report under Section 154 of Code and shall proceed to investigate the matter and arrest the accused without any warrant or Order of Magistrate. But in case of Non-Cognizable offence, police can not investigate without Order of Magistrate. Section 155 of Code provides procedure to be adopted by police in case of non-cognizable offences

Bailable and Non-Bailable Offences Section 2(a) of Code of Criminal Procedure defines `Bailable and Non-Bailable Offences' Section 2(a) says "Bailable offence means an offence which is shown as bailable in the first schedule or which is made bailable by any other law for the time being in force and non-bailable offence means any other offence.

 https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029Va9tkDP4CrfefciWJN0y

Column 5 of first schedule in its first part mention which offence of Indian Penal Code is bailable and which is non-bailable. Second part of the first schedule of Code deals with offences, other than that of Indian Penal Code and provides that all those offences which are punishable with imprisonment for term of 7 years or more are non-bailable and all offences punishable with imprisonment for term of three years or more are also non-bailable but offence punishment of which is imprisonment for term less than three years are bailable.

Chapter XXXIII of Code contains provisions regarding bail. Section 436 of Code provides as to bail in bailable offences Bail in bailable offences is a matter of right. Then Section 437 of Code provides as to granting of bail by Magistrate in non-bailable offences . It also provides that Magistrate shall not grant bail in offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. However in case of person less than 16 years of age or woman or sick or infirm person, Magistrate may grant bail even in case of offences punishable with imprisonment for life or with death. Then Section 438 of Code provides for Anticipatory bail and Section 439 of Code then provides for bail by Session Court or High Court in non-bailable offences

SUMMON AND WARRANT CASES Section 2(w) of Code says `Summons case', means a case relating to an offence and not being warrant case.

According to Section 2(x) `Warrant case' means a case relating to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for term exceeding two years.

So offences punishable with death or imprisonment for life or imprisonment for term exceeding 2 years are warrant cases and any other cases are summons cases. Following are the points of difference between two:

(a) For trial of Warrant Case by Magistrate two procedures are prescribed. One is adopted by Magistrate in cases instituted on Police report (Sections 238 to 243 and 248 Cr.P.C.) and other is for case instituted otherwise than on police report ( Sections 244 to 250 Cr.P.C.). Whereas, there is only one procedure prescribed for trial of Summons Cases (Sections 251 to 259).

(b) Trial of Warrant Cases as Summons Cases is an irregularity which vitiates the trial if prejudice is caused to accused. But trial of Summons Cases as Warrant Cases is only curable irregularity within the meaning of Section 465 of Code.

(c) Where a Warrant Case is tried as Summons Case and accused is acquitted, then Order of acquittal will operate as discharge under Section 245 and where a summon case is tried as a Warrant Case and accused is discharged under Section 245, it will operate as Order of acquittal.

(d) In a Warrant Case, framing of charge is necessary, whereas in Summon Cases framing of charge against accused is not necessary.

 https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029Va9tkDP4CrfefciWJN0y

Origin and developments of Law of Criminal Procedure

History of origin and developments of Law of Criminal Procedure. Discuss important changes introduced and Scope and Object.

 Join WhatsApp Channal URL : rb.gy/mi5oph

Ans. History of Law of Procedure in Criminal Courts - Previous to 1882 there was no uniform law of Criminal procedure for the whole of India. There were separate Acts, mostly rudimentary in their character, to guide the procedure of numerous courts in provinces and in the Presidency-towns. These Acts of procedure were replaced by Act X of 1882 which was Code of Criminal Procedure 1882 (Act X) which gave for the first time a uniform law of procedure for whole of India and it was supplanted by a new Code in 1898.

The Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 underwent drastic amendments at the hands of legislature in 1923 and since 1923 changes were made from time to time by minor Amendment Acts.

The Code again underwent drastic amendments in 1955 by Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act 26 of 1955. Schemes for the separation of judicial and executive functions of Magistrate were introduced by State legislatures from time to time and the Code was amended accordingly.

There was a constant demand for the revision of the Code partly to simplify the procedure and partly to introduce a uniform system in the country in relation to Judicial and Executive functions of Magistrates. The Law Commission therefore submitted a revised draft for the Code in its 13th report and thereafter it had undergone some changes in the hands of the joint select committee of the Parliament, and was passed into present form in 1973

Join WhatsApp Channal URL : rb.gy/mi5oph

Important Changes to Act 2 of 1974 : Following changes were brought about with a view to speeding up the disposal of Criminal Cases:-

(i) The preliminary inquiry which precedes the trial by Court of Session, known as "Committal proceedings" was abolished.

(ii) the scope of summary trials was widened by including offences punishable with imprisonment upto one year instead of six months.

(iii) the power of revision against "interlocutory orders" was taken away.

(iv) the provisions for compulsory stoppage of proceedings by subordinate court on mere intimation from a party of his intention to move a higher court for transfer of the case was omitted.

(v) Provision was made for service of summons by registered post in certain cases.

(vi) Provisions for legal aid to indigent persons were made.

(vii) Courts have been empowered to order for payment of compensation by accused to victims of crime

Scope and Object of Code The object of the Criminal Procedure Code is to provide a machinery for the punishment of offenders against the sub stantive criminal law. It prescribes the procedure for the trial of offences which the Indian Penal Code defines. Section 4 of this Code provides that all offences under the Code shall be investigated, enquired into, tried and otherwise dealt with according to the provisions of this Code. It also provides that offences under a law other that the Indian Penal Code will also be tried according to the provisions of the Procedure Code, but subject to any provision in that other law in regard to investigation, inquiry or trial [Section 4(2)]. The Penal Code is thus the substantive law, of which the Procedure Code furnishes the adjective law to put in force its provisions. The Code is a code of procedure and, like all procedural laws, is designed to further the ends of justice and not to frustrate them by the introduction of endless technicalities. The object of the Code is to ensure that an accused person gets a full and fair trial along certain well-established and well-understood lines in accord with our notions of natural justice.

In Wilie Staney v. State of M.P., AIR 1956 SC 116, it was observed "The object of code is to ensure that accused person gets full and fair trial along certain well-established and well-understood lines that accord with our notions of natural justice, under the code as in all procedural laws, certain things are regarded as vital. Disregard of provisions of that nature is fatal to trial and at once invalidates the conviction. Other are not vital and what ever the irregularity, they can be cured. Chapter 45 of the code has carefully classified certain kinds of errors and expressly indicates how they are to be dealt with.

Join WhatsApp Channal URL : rb.gy/mi5oph