leaglesamiksha
Forum Replies Created
- Replies
S. 43 of CrPC speaks of a situation where an arrest can be made by a private person and the procedure to be followed on such arrest.
(1) Any private person may arrest or cause to be arrested any person who in his presence commits a non-bailable and cognizable offence, or any proclaimed offender, and, without unnecessary delay, shall make over or cause to be made over any person so arrested to a police officer, or, in the absence of a police officer, take such person or cause him to be taken in custody to the nearest police station.
But there are circumstances only under which it is possible to do so. This is given under clause 3 of the same section – If there is reason to believe that he has committed a non-cognizable offence, and he refuses on the demand of a police officer to give his name and residence, or gives a name or residence which such officer has reason to believe to be false, he shall be dealt with under the provisions of section 42; but if there is no sufficient reason to believe that he has committed any offence, he shall be at once released.
A private individual that includes a foreigner may conduct an arrest or cause to be arrested by any individual who in his presence commits a cognizable or a non-bailable offence or who is a proclaimed offender. This right of arrest arises under the Common Law which applies to India Ramaswamy Aiyar (1921) 44 Mad. 913.To begin with, let’s understand the difference between Inquiry (174, 176) and Investigation (155, 156). An investigation is the first step taken by the police officer in any matter of offence and the culprit thereof whereas inquiry includes everything done by a Magistrate, irrespective of whether the case has been challenged or not.
S. 154, 155 and 156 of CrPC are completely based on power of the police to gather related information of the cognizable, non-cognizable offence and investigate these offences. Whereas S. 174, 175 and 176 of the code carry the objective of police inquiry, reporting, power of summoning and to figure the cause of death through inquiry by magistrate. Purpose of section 174 and 176 remains to inquire into cause of death which is suspicious or unnatural.
There’s another term under s. 176(2) – ‘inquest’ means an inquiry conducted by the medical officers or sometimes with the help of a jury into the manner of death of a person, who has died under suspicious circumstances or has died in prison. The provisions relating to the inquest report are covered under Chapter XII of the Code.
Therefore section 154, 156 and 157 deal with power of police & section 174 & 176 gives power to the magistrate to keep a check on the investigating powers of the police so as to not completely rely on the investigation report of the police, especially in cases of unnatural deaths, custodial deaths and other such cases.An agreement is a genuine understanding between at least two gatherings, however a Quasi-contract isn’t an arrangement yet looks like an understanding or an agreement.
Under an agreement, the two players give their assents unreservedly, while under semi agreement, there is no assent of both of the gatherings, as it isn’t deliberately made.
Under an agreement, responsibility exists as per the terms referenced and settled upon by both the gatherings, while under semi agreement, the risk appears through the lead of the gatherings and depends on ethical quality, regular equity, value, and a decent heart.
General Contracts are gone into by invested individuals deliberately with no impulse, though semi agreements are forced by law.
General Contracts can be the two rights in Rem (against the entire world) and rights in Personam (against any Since the arrangement is being set up in a courtroom, it is lawfully enforceable; neither of the gatherings needs to give assent. The semi agreement’s point is to make a reasonable result in a circumstance where one party enjoys an upper hand over another.
individual or element). However, semi agreements are just rights in Personam, these are just accessible against a particular individual.
The Indian agreements act 1872 all in all, envelops everything pretty much a wide range of agreements. An agreement is characterized in area 2(h) and areas 68-72 comprise all the data about Quasi-contracts.
Since the understanding is being set up in a courtroom, it is lawfully enforceable; neither of the gatherings needs to give assent. The semi agreement’s point is to make a reasonable result in a circumstance where one party enjoys an upper hand over another.
A contract is a real agreement between two or more parties, but a Quasi-contract is not an agreement but resembles an agreement or a contract.
Under a contract, both parties give their consents freely, while under quasi-contract, there is no consent of either of the parties, as it is not voluntarily made.
Under a contract, liability exists according to the terms mentioned and agreed upon by both the parties, whereas under quasi-contract, the liability comes into existence through the conduct of the parties and is based on morality, natural justice, equity, and a good conscience.
General Contracts are entered into by interested parties voluntarily without any compulsion, whereas quasi-contracts are imposed by law.
General Contracts can be both rights in Rem (against the whole world) and rights in Personam (against any Since the agreement is being established in a court of law, it is legally enforceable; neither of the parties has to provide consent. The quasi-contract’s aim is to make a fair outcome in a situation where one party has an advantage over another.
person or entity). But quasi-contracts are only rights in Personam, these are only available against a specific person.
The Indian contracts act 1872 as a whole, encompasses everything about all kinds of contracts. A contract is defined in section 2(h) and sections 68-72 constitute all the information about Quasi-contracts.
Since the agreement is being established in a court of law, it is legally enforceable; neither of the parties has to provide consent. The quasi-contract’s aim is to make a fair outcome in a situation where one party has an advantage over another.The section 10 of criminal procedure code 1973 prescribes for assistant session judge to exercise the power of court of session but within the power prescribed but the law, but it is not an independent court of session as held by the supreme court in RAHUL SHARMA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN (1978,Cri LJ 1276 ).
likewise, If the Sessions Court judge feels that the offence that has been made out against the said accused is not exclusively to be tried in the Sessions Court, then the concerned judge can opt to transfer the case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) as per section 228 (1)(a). In case, however, the accused pleads guilty, then the Sessions Court judge can convict him.
Hence, under section 10 (3) the magistrate have the power to deal with such an application.Doctrine of Part performance is a modified version of English doctrine. Section 53-A was added to the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 thus importing in India a modified form of equity of part performance as developed in England in Maddison V. Alderson. Prior to this amendment there was uncertainty and controversy regarding this concept in India but enactment of section 53- A set rest to all such confusions.
The Doctrine of Part Performance is an equitable doctrine. It is basically a situation where the contract is performed partly by taking the possession or any part thereof, in such a scenario the transferee is ready to perform the complete contract but the transferor refuses to do so. The willingness to perform the contract is very essential for this doctrine. In such situations the part performance by the transferee is assumed to be done which is ought to have been done. In the cases where the contract has been performed partly the transferor cannot be estopped from the obligation contracted to perform.
The concept of this doctrine in English Law does not demand the contract to be in writing or signed by the transferor and it is an equitable right which thus being an enforceable right. It can also be used to defend the possession of the transferee which created title in the transferee.
While the same is not the case in Indian Law, the contract in India in such cases need to be in writing and signed by both the parties. In India it is a statutory right and is used only to defend the possession of the transferee and it does not even create title to the transferee.It is well established principle of criminal law that to constitute an offence, mens rea is taken to be an essential element of crime. A person who is not of sound mind is something related to his nature and someone who is not aware of his acts and the consequences of his acts he cannot be held guilty as there is no mens represent in the commission of offence. To commit a crime intention and act together constitute a crime and for a person of unsound mind since the element of intention is absent, he/she is not held guilty by laws. Every normal person is expected to have some sense and thus is very much aware of his or her actions and the consequences of the same, but similar is not true in the case of a person of unsound mind as he is not aware of his actions.
It was held in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Shera Ram, a person of unsound mind or a person suffering from a mental disorder cannot be said to possess the understanding of right and wrong, that are the basic norms of human behaviour.Married Women have been subjected to cruelty by the husband and relatives from the past. The number of sufferings and hardships women have gone through irrespective of the fact that which community they belong to cannot be over looked. Section 498-A was introduced in the year 1983 to protect married women from being subjected to cruelty by the husband or his relatives.
The term cruelty has been defined in the code to include inflicting harm be it physical or mental to the body or health of the woman and forcing her and harassing her to meet unlawful dowry demands for any property or valuable security. An attempt to drive woman to commit suicide by creating such situations also amounts to the ingredients of cruelty.
If a person is convicted under section 498-A of IPC, it will land them in jail for a period of three years along with the liability of paying fine.
It was evident from the past two decades that the laws that were made to protect the women were being vigorously misused by them. In order to curb such issues courts have given there say in certain judgements and the recent amendments made in the section were also made with a view to resolve these issues of misuse of section 498A.
In the case of Preeti Gupta Vs. State of Jharkhand, the court quoted that, “It is a matter of common knowledge that exaggerated versions of the incidents are reflected in a large number of complaints”. The Supreme Court directed the Registry to send a copy of judgment to the Law Commission and Union Law Secretary to take appropriate steps in the concerned matter.Hurt is defined under section 319 of Indian Penal Code as “Whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt.” Section 319 makes it clear that to constitute Hurt, any of the following forbidden act needs to be caused: Bodily pain, Disease or Infirmity. Where there is no intention to cause death nor knowledge that death is likely to be caused from the harm inflicted, and the death is caused the accused world be guilty of hurt only if the injury was not serious.
In case of Beshor Bewa, the accused was charged with the offence of voluntary causing hurt where she kicked her 10-year-old daughter on her back and slapped her, because of which she died.
Grievous hurt is defined under section 320 of Indian Penal Code, stating eight kinds of offences that will amount to causing grievous hurt. The hurts that are designates as grievous in nature are: emasculation, permanent privation of sight of either eye or ear, privation of any member or joint, destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or joint, permanent disfiguration of the head or face, fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth or any hurst which endangers life of any person. It is more of a serious nature.
When we talk about the specific concept of hurt and grievous hurt, both differ from each other in certain ways. The offence of grievous hurt specifically covers emasculation, loss of sight, loss of limb, fracture, disfiguration, etc. whereas hurt broadly covers Bodily pain, Disease or Infirmity. The offence of grievous hurt is more serious in nature than hurt. The offence of hurt is non-cognizable, bailable and triable by any Magistrate where as that of grievous hurt is cognizable, bailable, compoundable with the permission of the Court and an important point to not in grievous hurt is that it does not needs to be accompanied by any other offence to make it punishable but the same is not the case with hurt. The punishment of both the offences are provided under separate sections of IPC.Federalism is a system of government in which the power is divided between a central authority and various constituent units of the country. Usually, a federation has two levels of government. One is the government for the entire country that is usually responsible for a few subjects of common national interest. The others are governments at the level of provinces or states that look after much of the day-to-day administering of their state. Both these levels of governments enjoy their power independent of the other. According to A.V Dicey, there are three leading characters of a fully developed Federalism. They are briefly discussed as below:
1. Distribution of powers among governmental bodies: In a federation, there should be a clear division of powers among the central and state government, each with limited and coordinate powers so that the units and the center is required to enact and legislate within their sphere of activity and none violates its limits and tries to encroach upon the functions of others. This requisite is evident in the Indian Constitution.
2. Supremacy of the constitution: There should be the supremacy of the Constitution of the nation which is not the hand-made of either the Centre or of the States. In case of any violation of the provisions of the Constitutional provisions, the courts of laws are there to ensure that the dignity of the Constitution is upheld at all costs.
3. Authority of the courts as the interpreters of the constitution: In a federal constitution, the court of law has the authority to act as the interpreters of the constitution and its provisions. In India, the Constitution has provided for a Supreme Court and every effort has been made to see that the judiciary in India is independent and supreme. The Supreme Court of India can declare a law as unconstitutional or ultra vires if it contravenes any provisions of the Constitution.While drafting the Act, the draftsman kept in the mind certain provisions that were laid under the Constitution of India. Part III and Part IV of the Constitution deals with the Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policies (DPSP) respectively which lays down certain basic provisions especially for children:
1. Article 21A of the Constitution provides free and compulsory education to all the children till the age of 14 years.
2. Article 24 prohibits employment of children in factories, etc.
3. Article 39 (e) and (f) ensures that the children are not abused.
4. Article 15 (3) provides special powers to State to uplift children and women.Section 319 of IPC defines the word “hurt”, which states. It means causing bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person. It just includes the physical pain and not the mental pain. This can be considered as a “simple hurt” The punishment for this simple hurt is defined under Section 323 of IPC. In other hand, Section 320 defines “grievous hurt”. Grievous hurt is more than a simple hurt. There may be injury of external or internal part of the body causing bodily pain. In the case of grievous hurt, the risk of life is more. Therefore the punishment is also grave, which is mentioned in the Section 325 of IPC.
Chapter XI of Code of Criminal Procedure deals with Preventive Actions of the Police which allows police to prevent commitment of cognizable offences in future and preventive power to protect public property from any type of injury. Here, power to prevent commission of cognizable offence includes detention of a person and seizure of property on grounds of suspicion of future commitment of crime. The power to detain allows police to detain a person illegally for their personal and immoral gains.
Since past decades there has been a rise in cases of illegal detention in India and Uttar Pradesh is the state with most cases of illegal detention.
Illegal detention on the said ground of preventive measure is a crucial threat to fundamental rights and harm to the democracy, as it completely violates Article 19 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India which allows ‘Freedom of Speech and Expression’ and ‘Right to Life and personal Liberty’ which ensures that a person can go anywhere without any boundation.
Illegal detention or Illegal custody also attracts to custodial death, in 2019 alone, National Campaign for Torture alone reported 125 deaths in police custody mostly which were cases of illegal detention. Also, the NCRB reported 1725 deaths in Judicial custody till mid-August, 2019. Apart from custodial deaths there is innumerable reports of enforced disappearance of persons detained by police and were not presented in the court within 24 hours of arrest, which is against laws in itself. The CHRI reported that 48% of detained persons are victim of inhumane cruelty of police.
One of the major Loop holes of the chapter is that it allows police to arrest a person without any warrant and requirement of any judicial order which makes detaining a person easier in the absence of any perquisite procedure.
Thus, detaining a person merely on the grounds of suspicion should not be allowed and legislation prohibiting illegal detention and leniency in remand should be passed.the answer to this question lays about the option for the past judgments and law about the adoption of a minor/child was only accessible to the Hindu community after the enactment of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 which has only power and rights given to Hindus in general ruling out the other religion’s perspective in the matter of Guardianship and Adoption. The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act of 2000, which was last updated in 2015 ways to assign a secular adoption law for every citizen of India. It was done to govern and liberate a law for both in-country and intra-country adoption which are administered by the Central Adoption Resource Agency, a statutory body of the Government of India having applicable in every state of the country for better governance. This adoption agency follows a complete procedure starting with accessing the family ending with finally signed for the foster agreement. According to Section 61(2) of the Juvenile Justice Act, all processes must be held in private and concluded within two months after filing. One advantage levied on the district magistrate will be able to administer the trial process over the cases filed more efficiently respond to the matter since he has power to the decision being more familiar with all of the departments as it comes in his jurisdiction.
In traditional Hindu Law, the order of succession is based on spiritual benefit, but the Act has changed the order of succession based on affinity. In the old Hindu Law, women were entitled to a limited estate ( property inheritance), the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 abolished the limited estate, and now they are entitled to the absolute estate. In the past, the coparcenary could not make a will regarding his interest in Joint family property, whereas after passing the Act, he can execute a will in respect of his interest in the property. In old Hindu Law, Mithakshara and Dayabhaga schools recognized separate rules of succession; there were no uniform rules. But the Act has now adopted a uniform set of rules for all Hindus. The rule of spiritual benefit used to be the previous rule, whereas now it’s the rule of equality. Finally, in old Hindu Law, unchastity was a ground for excluding from inheritance on the part of women, but now it is not a ground.
