[leaglesamiksha]

Section 10 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, talks about Subordination of Assistant Sessions Judges:
1) All Assistant Sessions Judges shall be subordinate to the Sessions’ Judge in whose Court they exercise jurisdiction.
2) The Sessions Judge may, from time to time, make rules consistent with this Code, as to the distribution of business among such Assistant Sessions Judges.
3) The Sessions Judge may also make provision for the disposal of any urgent application, in the event of his absence or inability to act. by an Additional or Assistant Sessions Judge, or, if there be no Additional or Assistant Sessions Judge, by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, and every such Judge or Magistrate shall be deemed to have jurisdiction to deal with any such application.
Section 10 Subsection of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 lays down that All Assistant Sessions Judges shall be subordinate to the Sessions Judge in whose Court they exercise jurisdiction. The use of the phrase in the subsection ‘SHALL’ indicates the obligation.
Section 10 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 lays down that the Session Judge is authorized to make rules from time to time but the condition is that such rules must be consistent with this. code. He is also authorized to distribute business among such Assistant Sessions Judges. The use of the phrase in the subsection “MAY” indicates the discretion of the Session Judge.
Section 10 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 lays down that the Sessions Judge may also make provision for the disposal of any urgent application, in the event of his absence or inability to act, by an Additional or Assistant Sessions Judge, or, if there be no Additional or Assistant Sessions Judge, by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, and every such Judge or Magistrate shall be deemed to have jurisdiction to deal with any such application. The use of the phrase in the subsection ‘MAY’ indicates the discretion of the Session Judge.

[leaglesamiksha]

In Indian Law, this doctrine is contained in Section 53 – A of Transfer of Property Act 1882 (Amendment Act Of 1929), whereas in English Law, it is included in Section 40 of the Law of Property, 1925. The right contained under this doctrine in India is a statutory right, and in English Law, it’s an equitable right. In Indian Law, the contract should be in writing and must be signed by the transferor. But in English law, it is not necessary to be in writing and signed by the transferor. In Indian Law, it does not create a title in the transferee, whereas in English Law, it creates a title in the transferee. Finally, in Indian Law, this doctrine can only be used for defending the possession of the transferee, but in English Law, it can be used both for enforcing and defending the right.

[leaglesamiksha]

insanity always being regarded as a defense and act of not guilty Essentials of section 84 of IPC need to be followed
1. The act should be done by an individual of unsound mind
2. Such individual should be ineffectual of judging and knowing
3. The exact nature of the act done by him, or the act committed by him is inconsistent with the law of the land
4. The impotency must exist at the time of doing the act constituting an offense.
The above essentials need to be proved in order to be held not guilty and have protection by law over the case trials and procedure. In the case, Bapu Alias Gujraj Singh vs the state of Rajasthan, it was found out that some of the witnesses have stated the accused have suffered from unsoundness of mind and the accused was incapable to understand at the time of the offense. Hence the case concludes with giving protection to the accused under section 84 of IPC.

[leaglesamiksha]

Section 154, 156, 157 of CRPC refers to the cognizable case which deals with investigation whereas section 174, 175, 176 refers to the non-cognizable case which deals with the case of inquiry. According to Section 2(g) of CrPC, every inquiry other than a trial is conducted under the CrPC by a Magistrate or Court. Inquiry refers to proceedings conducted by a Court or a Magistrate and according to Section 2(h) of the CrPC investigation includes all proceedings under the CrPC for collection of evidence conducted by a Police Officer or any person (other than a Magistrate) authorized by a Magistrate in this behalf. An investigation refers to the proceedings or steps taken by an authority like Police Officer. An investigation is not conducted by Magistrate, it is conducted by a person authorized on this behalf by the Magistrate.
Section 154, 156, 157 of CRPC provides that under a Cognizable offense, the Police Officer has to receive the First Information Report (FIR) relating to the cognizable offense where doesn’t need to obtain the Magistrate’s permission and immediately work on the investigation after a general diary entry. The FIR is the option for the investigation to proceed with the procedure and has full authority by the Police officer over the cognizable case.
Section 174 and 175 of CRPC exclusively deals with the skeptical case of unnatural death and accidents and in a quest to ascertain the actual cause of death of the victim. Here inquest report has the implications for an inquiry about the case of death, which is apparently not due to natural causes rather than FIR. We can even draw statement that where cases of custodial deaths and rape come up police officers & their investigations are not admissible as a shred of evidence and trust factor least in seem section 174, 175, and 176 giving power to the magistrate to take case inspection at every level and section 154, 156, 157 enacted the powers and procedure for investigation by Police Officer.

[leaglesamiksha]

Women have always subject to cruelty by male society, Section 498A was introduced in the year 1983 to protect married women from subjected to cruelty by the husband and his relatives. Punishment for this Cruelty extending to 3 years of imprisonment and fine has been prescribed.
The term “Cruelty” includes inflicting physical and mental harm to the body or health of the women. It is a non-bailable offence and if the information related to the commission of the offence is given to the officer then it will be considered as a cognizable offence.
Use of section 498A, IPC
~ 9 out of 10 cases are always related to dowry, so to protect women from the cruelty 498A plays a vital role.
~Women are threatened, tortured and abused for something or the other ,these also led women to commit suicide, Section 498A allows women to approach the court of law and help preventing their mental and physical abuse.

In Shobha Rani v Medhukar Reddy, if the act done is of such a nature that the women tried to commit suicide which may prove fatal.

Misuse of section 498A,IPC
~Many women abuses their power, they use it as a weapon than to shield themselves.
In Arnesh kumar v. State of Bihar,
It was stated that bedridden grandmothers and grandfathers and relatives living abroad were arrested,so women have started using it as a weapon to get their husband arrested.There are many false cases registered in the court which increases pendency of the court.
Recovery in case of false accusation- • husband can file a defamation case under section 500 of ipc. • under section 9 , he can claim damages

We can conclude by saying that, section 498A is crucial for women’s safety from cruelty on the other hand it can be misused to frame men with false charges. So it all depends upon the deployment to decide whether section 498A is a bane or boon.

[leaglesamiksha]

Section 43 of the code of criminal procedure provides for arrest by a private person and the procedure for arrest.This section empowers any person and not just a citizen can arrest or cause a person to be arrested, who commits a non-bailable offence and cognizable offence in his presence.This also includes a proclaimed offender. This private person shall take over such a person arrested by him to a police officer. In case of absence of a police officer he shall take that offender to the nearest police station. The police officer shall re-arrest the person if there is reason to believe that he has committed a non-bailable and cognizable offence under section 41 of the code of criminal procedure.
According to Amrendra Nath v. State (1955), the court observed that the offence must be cognizable and non-bailable for a private person to make an arrest.
Precautions while making an arrest by a private person

~The private person must have reasonable cause to arrest a person.
~By attempting to arrest the offender, the private person is likely to compromise his safety.
~Call and inform the police about the arrest.
~He should directly tell the offender that why he is arresting him before the police arrives.

In Abdul v. State 1974 CrLJ 248, the court held that the right under section 43 must be simultaneously exercised with the commission of An Offence.

[leaglesamiksha]

Section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation act provides for the interim relief provided by a civil court in suits and Section 17 of the act provides for the interim relief by arbitration tribunal.
Whereas Section 9 provides for interim relief to any party in arbitration agreement by the way of interim measure application, the period to file application for interim relief is before the commencement and before the pronouncement and enforcement of award. Any relief granted by Section 9 of the act will be enforced same as if it is any other order or statute.
Section 17 of the act also provides for interim measures and any party in the arbitration agreement can file for interim measure through the application within a required time period which is before the commencement and pronouncement of the award. The act also states that any order passed by arbitral tribunal is equivalent to any other order passed by any civil court. The orders of section 17 are only appealable under section 37 of the act.
Though the major difference between section 9 and section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation act is that the provider of interim measure is civil court and arbitration tribunal respectively. Also, to invoke interim measure under section 9 an application for interim measure should be filed before constitution of Arbitral Tribunal or before the commencement of arbitral proceedings.

[leaglesamiksha]

Young Repeat Offenders
Section 82 and Section 83 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 provides for immunity from criminal liability to children’s till the age of 7 and partial immunity for children’s between 7-12 years of age depending upon seriousness of their offense. A child when unaware of nature and net consequences of his act, there is an absolute chance that the child may repeat the offence again and again, while having in mind the defence of his act.
The major loop holes of India’s legislation regarding to juvenile offences is the consideration of age till which a child is considered immune of any act is 7 years in India against the UN guidelines of 18 years. Juvenile recidivism has a bad growth in India where Maharashtra is among the most affected states in the country.
The major cause of rise in juvenile recidivism is (1) Breakage of the family system, (2) Poor financial status of a family, (3) Lack of literacy, (4) Substance abuse at a young age, (5) Poor mental health, (6) Migration and sex indulgence.
The Indian Legal system believes in reformation for which they are sent to rehabilitation centers and correction homes which is less effective. Following are the suggestive steps to be taken to counter juvenile recidivism effectively and efficiently:
(i) Children should be taught basic laws and moral codes in schools also they should be made well aware of the consequences of their unlawful acts.
(ii) They should be taught conflict resolution and violence prevention curriculums.
(iii) Recreational programs should be set up to allow them to grow with which helps them to fit in a good personality.
(iv) Increased indulgence in social works with the help of NGOs.
(v) Once a child leaves correction homes he/she should be kept away from substance abuse which is one of the major causes of juvenile recidivism
(vi) Proper research should be done to trace the root of the crimes committed by juveniles to take proper precautions and planning future counter-strategies.

[leaglesamiksha]

So, basically, when a person does an act bound by law, he commits no offence. Here in Section 76 of the IPC, it says that mistake of fact may be a defence in a criminal act, and it is essential for the offender to prove for escaping the punishment. But the mistake of law is not a defence under both civil and criminal law. This finds a place in the expression called ignorantia facit excusat, ignorantia Juris non excusat. It is clear that the mistake of law is not an excuse. So, everyone needs to be up to date with the law, and no one can take a defence by saying that they were not aware of the law. At the same time, Section 79 of the IPC protects the acts that are justifiable by the law or in good faith believed to be justified by the law. So, the act justified by law is not an offence. When we look at both sections, they look pretty similar as in both the sections there should be a bona fide intention. Still, there is a key difference that in Section 76, the essential element is a legal compulsion, and in Section 79, it is legal justification.

[leaglesamiksha]

The 2019 Act changed the pecuniary jurisdiction for the District, State and National Commissions, respectively. The pecuniary limit for the District Commission has been increased to up to Rs.1 Crore from up to Rs.20 Lakhs; for State Commission it has been increased to up to Rs.10 Crores from up to Rs.1 Crore; and for National Commission the pecuniary jurisdiction has been increased to over and above Rs.10 Crores as against Rs.1 Crore in the 1986 Act.
In addition to this, the 2019 Act has also changed the manner for determining the pecuniary jurisdiction for filing the Complaint. Now the pecuniary jurisdiction will be determined on the basis of the value of goods or services paid as consideration as against the 1986 Act wherein, the pecuniary jurisdiction was determined as per the value of goods and services as well as compensation claimed. This would help in doing away the practice of inflating the compensation claimed so as to bring the complaint within the jurisdiction of State or National Commission.
Recently, a similar situation arose before the Division Bench of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) in the case of Pyaridevi Chabiraj Steels Pvt. Ltd. v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. In this case, the complainant had preferred a complaint before NCDRC challenging the decision of an insurance company for wrongfully repudiating its insurance claim of INR 28.23 crore for restoration of its factory premises.
The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 when compared with the 1986 Act shows that it provides for greater protection of consumer interests taking into consideration the current age of digitization. The 2019 Act also deals with the technological advancements in the industry, provides for easier filing of complaints and also imposes strict liability on businesses including endorsers for violating the interest of the consumers. Hence, a statute is presumed to have a prospective effect unless it is held to be retrospective.

[leaglesamiksha]

The Juvenile Justice System in India is made on the basis of three main assumptions:
1. young offenders should not be tried in courts, rather they should be corrected in all the best possible ways,
2. they should not be punished by the courts, but they should get a chance to reform
3. trial for child in conflict with law should be based on non-penal treatment through the communities based upon the social control agencies for e.g., Observation Homes and Special Homes.
According to the Latin maxim, ‘doli incapax’ a child under the age of seven is incapable of committing a crime. The same as been affirmed in Sec. 82 of the Indian Penal Code, nothing is an offence which is done by a child under seven years of age. The Juvenile Justice Act defines a child in Sec. 2 (12), as any person who has not completed the age of 18 years. The Juvenile Justice Act does not specify anything about procedure to be followed if a child under seven years of age is in conflict with the law.
So, keeping in mind the aforementioned, the procedure mentioned in Sec. 10(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 is for a child between the ages of 7 to 18 years of age. The Sec. 10 (1) of the Act says that as soon as a child who is said to be in conflict with law is detained by the police, the child shall be placed under the charge of the special juvenile police unit or the designated child welfare police officer. He/she is required to produce the child before the Board as soon as possible within a period of twenty-four hours, excluding the time necessary for the journey, from the place where the child had been apprehended.
In no situation or circumstance, the “child in conflict with law” as defined under sec. 2(13), is to be handcuffed, placed in police lockup, or put in jail. A child in conflict with law will be sent to an Observation Home temporarily during the period of inquiry. The child will be segregated according to age, gender, physical and mental status and nature of offence. A child who is found to have committed an offence by the Juvenile Justice Board will be placed in a Special Home.
The Juvenile Justice Board will conduct regular inspection of jails meant for adults to check if any child is lodged in such jails and take immediate measures for transfer of such a child to the Observation Home, as specified under Section 8 (3) (m) of the Act.

[leaglesamiksha]

According to section 82 of the IPC, a child below 7 years of age gets a complete defense/immunity from any kind of criminal liability. The above statement gets justified by the principle of “doli incapax”, a child below the age of 7 cannot be held guilty for any offense because the nature of the child is not well capable of handling the situations and deciding the matter on his/her knowledge and understanding. As the boy/girl is under the age of 7, he cannot be charged with a crime leading to a denial of the trial whatever and however strong the case filed against him. Similarly, the POCSO act does not include such a provision and is carried out with the IPC section 82 enactment where states nothing is an offense that is done by a child under seven years of age. Law provides total immunity for any offense committed by them. The matter throws an insight when a child above the age of 7 years and below the age of 12 years is said to have committed an offense if the Court can ascertain that the child had sufficient maturity to understand the nature and consequences of their actions and the trial procedure starts as per the section 10 to 26 of The Juvenile Justice (Care And Protection Of Children) Act, 2015 relates with the procedure concerning children in conflict with the law.

[leaglesamiksha]

When an agreement is made on an impossible act or event including the matter of inherent then as per the nature it is to be declared not a contingent contract and hence void. For example, If a shipowner agrees to pay some money to an agent in order to bring back his wrecked ship from the ocean which is definitely void in terms of the contingent contract. A contingent contract based on the possibility of either the happening or non-happening of an event clearly ruling out the impossibility of the happening and non-happening of the event or act. Prima facie comes when enforcement of the contingent contract is enforceable by law on such happening on the specified date and the impracticality of Occurrence is a subject of the matter leads the contract to be void. Section 36 of the Indian Contract Act,1872 is under the head of contingent agreement stating clearly that it has never been void ab initio at instance because as the parties knowledge about the unobtainable on the facts of the agreement does not make a prime factor at the time of making the contract which makes it void. Section 32 mentioned the events for the contingent contract occurring and the similar exception mentioned in section 36 is a noticeable matter of judgment.

[leaglesamiksha]

Contract Of Indemnity has been defined under Section 124, whereas the contract of guarantee has been defined under Section 126, the Indian Contract Act 1872.
Following are the main differences between the two:
Contract of indemnity consists of two parties, namely Indemnifier and Indemnity holder. Contract of guarantee consists of three parties, Principal debtor, creditor, and surety. In a contract of indemnity, there is only one contract between indemnifier and indemnity holder, but in a contract of guarantee, there are three contracts: principal debtor & creditor, surety & principal debtor, and finally the surety & creditor. The object of a contract of indemnity is to reimburse the loss. A contract of guarantee is to give security to the creditor. The liability in a contract of indemnity is primary and independent, whereas it is secondary in a contract of guarantee. In Common Law, a contract of indemnity may either in oral or written, but a contract of guarantee should be in writing. But when it comes to Indian Law, there is no such difference; both can be either oral or written. In a contract of indemnity, the indemnifier should always bring the suit in the name of indemnified, and they cannot sue a third party in his own name, but in a contract of guarantee, if surety discharges the debt payable by the principal debtor, he steps into the shoes of the creditor and becomes entitled to realize the money paid in this own right.

[leaglesamiksha]

Sec 151 of the Indian Contract Act explains that “bailee is bound to take as much care of the goods bailed to him as a man of ordinary prudence“. Is the Bailee liable for the loss of goods even if he takes reasonable care of the goods? What about when he agrees to take special care of goods?
Ans: Section 151 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 states that “In all cases of bailment the bailee is bound to take as much care of the goods bailed to him as a man of ordinary prudence would, under similar circumstances, take of his own goods of the same bulk quality and value as the goods bailed”. Exploring this section we can say that there can be no specific bar set for measure of care of the product bailed. During bailment it is assumed that the bailee would take utmost care of the products or goods bailed to him. According to section 152, in the absence of any special contract the bailee would not be found guilty due to loss of the bailed item if it was assured that he/she had taken utmost care of it and took all the possible measures to prevent any mishap. However, the bailee could be held liable for the loss of the bailed product if there is gross negligence on his part and had not taken necessary measures to prevent such loss. In case of any loss or theft of the bailed product the burden of proof is on the bailee to show that he had taken reasonable care and if he is able to prove this then he will not be held liable. He must provide to the court with evidence that he had take necessary steps to prevent and foreseeable damage or loss.
Example: ‘A’ bailed his car to ’B’ for travelling to a certain place. ‘B’ upon reaching the place parked the car on the road instead of the parking space and forgot to lock it in hurry. Upon his return he found that the car had been stolen. ‘A’ filed a case against ‘B’. The court ruled that ‘B’ is liable for the theft and should compensate ‘A’ for the loss of his car.

[Author]

Replies