Intern
Forum Replies Created
- Replies
young offenders are the ones who are below the age of criminal liability and has committed an offence. age of criminal liability varies from state to state. in india a child below the age of 18 is said to be a minor and is considered juvenile. principle of doli incapax is used in most of the countries that means, a person incapable of understanding the nature and impact of the act she/he has committed. when a child commits a crime he/she can’t be treated as adult and is tried ina special manner and mostly sent for rehabilitation. it is only in exceptional cases where the crime committed is very grave and the child has the full knowledge of the crime and is able to understand the nature of the crime that he/she is considered equal to adult and tried that way.
now when these young offenders complete their period of stay in rehab centre and after being released if they resort to crime again then they are known as young repeat offenders. the rates if recidivism in young offenders are alarming. although recent studies show a decrease in juvenile recidivism in india but overall rate of crimes by young offenders have increased. even after being in rehab centres under guidance of govt officials and psychologists these young people again resort to crimes. here are some of the reasons and factors that affect the recidivism in these young offenders. 1] Age of onset of crime, the age at which young minds resort to crime also somehow affects their life, as at tender age if mind is attracted towards crime and the offences committed by minors are driven by passion then it is difficult to bring them back on track. 2] Family environment and peer pressure, the kind of environment the family of these children provide impacts a lot n their growth, toxic and non-supportive environment encourage them to resort to crime again. peer pressure also forms an important factor, the kind of company the child has and its influence if his/her mind. 3] earlier assault or trauma, many of the young offenders have a traumatic history, this trauma or assault also drives them back to crime. 4] psychological prombles and lack of help, many studies have shown that young offenders suffer from psychological disorders that go unidentified and unaddressed. 5] education and financial condition, the level of education and financial condition of an offender affects their behaviours, good education and financial stability helps in preventing them from resorting back to crime.
so these were some of the reasons and factors affecting recidivism, proper preventive measures and care can help in reducing the rate of recidivism.~ Chhavi Sompura
The liability of one person due to the acts of other person is known as Vicarious liability. In case of Principal and agent the Principle is always responsible to the acts done by his agent in the scope of employement or in the scope of agency. The principal will be held liable for the acts of the agent in the sense if a agent commits a wrong while working for the principal then the principal will be held liable instead of Agent. And if it is a wrong committed during his personal work then there can be no immunity under this concept of Vicarious liability, For example, If A is an Agent to B. And all the transactions and courses are all performed by A in place of B ie if he is working to deliver flowers and all decorative during the process of all agency and then collect money from them and then he is going to account those back to the principal B.If this is his duty and during the process of delivery A commits an accident where 3 were severely injured because of the accident. So, all those three people can claim damages from the principal for the act of Agent. So,this is the principle of Vicarious liability. And if he commits an accident not during the scope of agency be it something like when he is purchasing some articles for his home then those three people cannot bring the question of damages to the Principal. However in torts the person is always is responsible for his or her own acts. So, in some way or the other the agent has to accord to the principal for the loss suffered. And if the agent not in his authority takes the decision wisely without the principal permission then the agent only will be held liable even if it is in the course of employment. For example Jignesh is the owner of a taxi which drops people from one place to other. He authorized Ramesh to make use of it and get the money back to him. But one day Ramesh allowed his friend Suresh to drive the taxi and make money out of it. This wasn’t informed to Mr Jignesh. And during the drive of Suresh he commits an accident and injures a person. So, here in this case the agent acted beyond his authority and delegated it to some other person so in this case he didn’t act according to the scope of agency so the principal will not be held liable for that and even the agent is personally liable for the tort and he is even liable to pay Jignesh in case of any fault in vehicle due to accident.
– No, it is not applicable. The order of a superior to an inferior servant to commit an offense is not a valid defense. Thus, when under an order of superior a subordinate officer fires a shot at a mob which otherwise, was no means they were violent, it will be held that subordinate officer will be held liable. As he was not bound to obey illegal orders. The officer could have refused to execute the order.
– This section only excuses a person from criminal liability who, in good faith, commits an act which he believes he is justified to do, due to a mistake of fact.While researching about this, I came across the case of Ashiruddin Ahmed v. The King, under which the accused kills his son claiming that it was a command from Paradise. Ion this case, he was clearly aware of the nature of the act. However, the court of law held him to be not guilty. Since the accused went and narrated the entire incident to another person, he thought what he did was right. This implies that since he was of unsound mind, he was “acting under the delusion of his dream, believing the sacrifice to be right.” Hence even though he was aware of the nature but not wrongfulness, he is not liable
SUB AGENT:
Section 191 of Indian contract Act, A “sub-agent” is a person employed by and acting under the control of the original agent in the business of the agency.CONTROL:
Sub-agents work under the control of an agentCONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP:
There is no contract between the sub-agent and the principal.LIABILITY:
The sub-agent is cannot be held liable by the principal, except in case of fraud. Also, the principal and the sub-agent cannot sue each other directlyRESPONSIBILITYAND REMUNERATION:
The agent is responsible for the acts of the sub-agent and he can delegate his work to his sub-agent. But, the sub-agent is not entitled to get any remuneration from the principal.SUBSTITUTED AGENT:
The substituted agent is a person named by the agent for the principal. He is an agent for a part of the agency entrusted to him. Here the agent must hold an implied or express authority from the principal to name another person act as an agency business source. So such person is an agent of principal for the part of the work entrusted to him.CONTROL:
The substituted agent works under the control of the principal.CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP:
There exists a contractual relationship between the substituted agent and the principal.LIABILITY:
A substituted agent can be held liable by his principle. Also, the principal and the substituted agent can sue each other.RESPONSIBILITY AND REMUNERATION:
The agent is not responsible for the acts of the substituted agent and he cannot delegate his work to his substituted agent but, the substituted agent can get remuneration from his principal.A sub-agent is the agent of the original agent because he works under the control of the agent
whereas, a substituted agent is the principal’s agent as he works under the control of the
principal. A sub-agent is responsible to the original agent for all the acts and the acts of fraud or
willful wrong to the principal. A substituted agent is responsible solely to the principal. No
direct contract is there between the principal and the sub-agent whereas there is a direct
contract between the principal and the substituted agent.
An agent appoints a sub-agent only when he deems it important as per the nature of agency or
the custom of trade. Whereas, a substituted agent is appointed by the agent when he hasimplied or express authority to do so from the principal. Sub-agent is liable to the agent. O the
other hand, the substituted agent is liable to the principal.
The agent pays commission or remuneration to a sub-agent. In the case of a substituted agent,
the principal makes the payments.
A principal is not responsible to the third parties for the acts committed by the sub-agent
provided he has not been appointed by the principal’s consent. The principal is bound to all the
acts of a substituted agent in the same way and extent as he is liable to the acts of his agentAs per the Sec 191 of Indian Contract act,
A “sub-agent” is a person employed by, and acting under the control of, the original agent in the business of the agency.
Whereas ‘Substitute agent’ has been defined in Sec 194 of Indian Contract Act as, Relation between principal and person duly appointed by agent to act in business of agency.
When an agent, holding an express or implied authority to name another person to act for the principal in the business of the agency, has named another person accordingly, such person is not a sub-agent, but an agent of the principal for such part of the business of the agency as is entrusted to him.A sub agent acts under the agent as per his orders and as his subordinate, whereas a substitute agent acts on the place of the main agent instead of him, he is not abide to work under the main agent unlike the sub agent.
They both have different scope,
Sub agent has a narrower scope as well as authority and works under the agent as per the hierarchy
whereas the substituted agent has a wider scope as well as authority and does not work under the main agent but on his placeA sub-agent is an agent of the original agent while the Substituted Agent is the agent of the Principal.
Following are the basis of the difference between the Sub-Agent & Substituted Agent –
• Section
Sub-Agent – Sub-Agent is stated under Section 191 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
Substituted Agent – Substituted Agent is stated under Section 194 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
• Meaning
Sub-Agent – A sub-agent is a person employed by and acting under the control of the original agent in the business of the agency.
Substituted Agent – A substituted agent is a person who is appointed by the agent but works under the authority of the Principal.
• Responsible for
Sub-Agent – A sub-agent is responsible for the agent.
Substituted Agent – A substituted agent is responsible to the principal.
• Appointed by
Sub-Agent – A sub-agent is appointed by the original agent.
Substituted Agent – A substituted agent is appointed by the original agent on behalf of the Principal.
• Acts under
Sub-Agent – A sub-agent acts under the authority & control of the original agent.
Substituted Agent – A substituted agent acts under the control & authority of the Principal.
• Liability
Sub-Agent – The principal cannot hold the sub-agent liable, except in case of fraud.
Substituted Agent – The principal can hold the substitute agent liable.
• Contractual Relation
Sub-Agent – There is no privity of contract between sub-agent and principal.
Substituted Agent – There is a contractual relationship between the substituted agent & the Principal.
• Responsibility towards the third party
Sub-Agent – Principal cannot be held responsible towards the third party for the acts of the sub-agent as the sub-agent works under the authority of the original agent.
Substituted Agent – The Principal is held responsible towards the third party for the acts of the substituted agent as he was appointed on behalf of the Principal & also works under the authority of the Principal.Are these two different in the scope?
Yes, Both the Sub-agent & substituted agent are different in the scope because Sub-Agent is the agent of the original agent, he works under the control of the agent & original agent is responsible to pay remuneration to him & the agent is liable for the acts of the sub-agent; while the Substituted agent is the agent of the Principal, he works under the authority of the Principal & Principal is responsible to pay remuneration to the substituted agent & Principal is liable for the acts of the substituted agent.
~ Ayush PatriaThe difference can be studied on the basis of-:
Appointed- A sub-agent is appointed by an agent whereas a substituted agent maybe appointed by an agent or principle himself.
Responsibility-: A sub-agent is responsible to the original agent whereas a substituted-agent can be responsibe to the principle for all his acts.
Direction and control-: Likewise a sub-agent works under the instructions and control of the agent but a substituted agent works under the control of principle.
Privity of control-: A privity of control is made between the principle and the substituted agent, so both can sue each other. Whereas there is no privity of control between principle and the sub-agent.
Liability-: The agent is responsible to the principle for the acts of the sub agent but he is not made liable for the acts of the substituted agent, stating that he has taken proper care in choosing them.
Yes they are very much distinct in scope; sub agent has a wider scope than substituted agent.
~ Shruti Kulshrestha1) Sub Agent:
a) Control – A sub-agent is the agent of the original agent as he works under the control of the agent.b) Responsibility – A sub-agent is responsible for all the acts to original agent and for the acts of fraud and willful wrong to the principal.
c) Contract – There is no direct contract between the sub-agent and the principal.
d) Appointment – An agent appoints sub-agent only when he finds it necessary as per the custom of trade or the nature of agency.
e) Liability – Sub-agent is liable to the agent.
f) Remuneration to agents – The agent pays remuneration or commission to a sub-agent.
g) Responsibility to 3rd Party – A principal is not responsible to the 3rd parties for the acts committed by the sub-agent provided he has not been appointed by the consent of the principal.
2) Substitute Agent:
a) Control – A substitute agent is the agent of the principal because he works under the control of the principal.b) Responsibility – A substitute agent is responsible to the principal alone.
c) Contract – There is direct contract between the substitute agent and the principal.
d) Appointment – A substitute agent is appointed by the agent when he has express or implied authority to do so from the principal.
e) Liability – Substitute agent is liable to the principal.
f) Remuneration to agents – The principal makes the remuneration or commission to the substitute agent.
g) Responsibility to 3rd Party – The principal is bound to all the acts of a substituted agent in the same way and extent as he is liable to the acts of his agent.
~ Anushka Rai
A sub-agent has been defined by Section 191 of the Indian Contract Act. “A sub-agent is a person employed by and acting under the control of the original agent in the business of the agency)’.
A substituted agent is defined by Section 194 thus, “Where an agent, holding an express or implied authority to name another person or act for the principal in the business of agency, has named another person accordingly, such person is not a sub- agent but an agent , but an agent of the principal for such part of the business of the agency as is entrusted to him.”
Coming towards the difference part:
A sub agent is responsible for all the acts of the original agent along with the fraud taken place or any willful wrong took place to the goods. On the other hand, substituted is only responsible to the principle alone.
There is no direct contract between the sub- agent and the Principle whereas, there is direct contract between the substituted agent and the principle.
The agent pays the remuneration or the commission to a sub-agent. But in the case of the substituted agent the principle directly makes the payment.
The scope of the duty depends on the Agent and in the case of these two different agents yes definitely they both have different roles to present in case of sub agent he is responsible to his agent for any misleading in the contract whereas in the case of substituted agent he is directly responsible to the principle. A sub agent will not be sued for any fraud and will not pay to the principle.~ Priya Singh
Define the rights and responsibilities of ‘Sub-Agents’ and ‘Substituted Agents’.
Section 191 defines ‘Sub Agent’. Sub Agent is the agent of agent.
Section 192 says that if the sub-agent is properly appointed then the principal would be represented by sub-agent and also responsible for his acts in regard to the third person. Even if the sub-agent is properly appointed, there is no privity of contract between him and the principal. Simple meaning sub-agent is not directly responsible to the principal but to the agent and the reason for this is that there is no contractual relationship between the duos (principal and sub-agent). But there is an exception to this rule that in case of tortuous acts like fraud or willful wrong committed by sub-agent, the principal will be responsible for it.
Section 193 talks about when the sub-agent is appointed without authority. In such a case the principal is neither represented nor responsible for the acts of sub-agent.
Section 194 defines ‘Substituted Agent’. Substituted Agent is the agent who substitutes the original agent.
Section 195 says that while appointing a substituted agent, the agent should act in such a manner that a man with ordinary prudence would do in his own case.
Both these sub-agents and substituted agents are appointed by the agent and not by the principal. But they are very different as stated earlier that the sub-agent is the agent of the agent but the substituted agent is the agent of the principal. For the act of sub-agent, the agent is responsible (except in the case of fraud or willful wrong, where sub-agent is directly responsible to the principal) but for the acts of a substituted agent, the principal is responsible toward the third person. After appointing sub-agent, the agent continues to be responsible for his acts to his principal but in the case of the substituted agent, as soon as the substituted agent is appointed, the original agent goes out of the picture.
~ CHETAN KUMARCan a judge be held criminally for a judgement given by him/her?
Section 77- act of judge when acting judicially.
This section provides protection to a judge in those cases where he exercises his power irregularly given by law and also in those cases where he is acting in good faith. The exemption in this section is in respect to criminal cases only.
So, a judge cannot be help liable for a judgement given by him in good faith or where he exercises his power irregularly.Exceptions of Private Defense
In IPC, there are some rights of private defences given to the person or property to defend himself or of any other person against an act of another, which if the private defence is not pleaded would have amounted to a crime.
Though there are some exceptions when right of private defence cannot be exercised.
Section 99 lays down the conditions and limits within which the right of private defence can be exercised. –There is no right of private defence against an act which does not reasonably cause the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, if done, or attempted to be done, by a public servant acting in good faith under color of his office, though that act, may not be strictly justifiable by law.
The first two clauses of the section provide that there is no right of private defence against the public servant or person acting in good faith in the exercise of his legal duty provided that the act is not illegal.
The third clause restricts the right if private defence when there is sufficient time for recourse to the public authorities.
And the right must be not be exceeded the harm caused.When!!!! No right of private defense?
Section 99 provides conditions and limitations to enjoy the right to private defense against anyone. The section gives a defensive right to a man and not an offensive right. The first two clauses of this section say that a private defense can’t be enjoyed against a public servant or someone acting on behalf of a public servant in a good faith (section 52 of IPC 1860) is performing his legal duty. The Y gave a blow to X a police officer who had gone to collect the milk tax and had seized Y’s buffalo. Here Y can’t enjoy private defense because X’s police officer was performing his legal duty in a good faith [ Kesho Ram v/s Delhi Administration AIR 1974 ]. X a police officer gets information that certain stolen property was in the possession under Y. On arriving Y house officer found Y was not at home and Y’s wife asked to wait until the arrival of her husband. But X refuses to wait and threatened the woman. On hearing his cries, the Z rushed to the spot to help. In that situation, Z snatched a heavy stick and hit two blows on the forehead of X, which gives fatal. In this situation, the officer was not performing his legal duty in a good faith and Z can’t plead right to private defense for it. [ Parm Sukh v/s Emperor AIR 1926 All 147 ]. Similar the third clauses also restrict the right to private defense, if there is time to get the help of public authorities and if time is not there, then the harm in no case be in excess that may be necessary for defense. The X and his friends went out on a moonlight night and assaulted Y who was cutting rice in their field because of injuries Y died on the spot. Here X and his friends will be charged for murder as they had sufficient time to get help from public authorities [ Emperor v/s mammun ].
