Ansari Solicitor Firm

ARTICLES

Woman cannot be arrested after sunset, before sunrise

 In India a person is “Innocent until proven guilty”, consequently rights of arrested person is preserved under Indian Constitution. Indian legal system provides rights to an arrested people; there is even special Provision which has to be borne in mind while making arrest of a woman. No matter how grave the offence is a woman shall not be deprived of her safety and modesty. For that there are various procedures to be ensured of while making arrest a woman. Indian Legislature has thoughtfully envisaged legal provision in order to safeguard women which the arresting authority has to follow.           Firstly, no woman can be arrested by male police officer and; secondly, no woman can be arrested after sunset and before sunrise. Therefore, only Lady Police Officer can make arrest of a woman. However, if necessary for an arrest of woman to be made between sunset and sunrise then under such exceptional circumstances after getting permission from Judicial Magistrate First Class an arrest can be made of such woman. [Section 46(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act 25 of 2005]           Hence, every woman should be aware that: She cannot be arrested after sunset and before sunrise; Also, a warrant is a necessity for an arrest to be made in case of Non-Cognizable offence (Police can neither register the FIR nor can investigate or effect arrest without the express permission or directions from the court); Whereas in case of Cognizable offence (police officer has the authority to make an arrest without a warrant and to start an investigation with or without the permission of a court) only lady Police officer can arrest a woman; Only female Police officer can make body-search upon her, however a  male officer can make search in her house if need be; And, under no circumstances a male police officer can arrest her.                      Bombay High Court in case of CBI vs. State of Maharashtra has stated that if these norms are violated by the police authorities in making arrest of a woman then such an arrest considered as an illegal arrest; upholding Right to Life and Liberty [Article 21 of Indian Constitution].  The breach of her rights and any harm to her modesty and safety will be taken as violation of Fundamental Rights. If a woman finds herself in a situation where there is violation of arrest procedure by the police authority then she must: Refuse her arrest if due procedure of law is not followed by the arresting police authority; Contact to her Advocate to seek legal guidance & remedy; Remind her legal rights to the arresting police authority; Complain to the Station House Officer (SHO) of the police station where she has been arrested; Complain to the Magistrate having local jurisdiction. Written by: Advocate Monika Thakkar [B.A.LL.B.(Hons.); LL.M. (Business Laws)]  & Alveera Kachara [B.A.LL.B.(Hons.)]

Position of Legal Heir(s) in case of Death of Complainant

(Under the Case Proceedings of Dishonour of Cheque) If the complainant happens to die during the pendency of cheque bounce case proceedings[1] then the legal heir of a complainant can apply to the court to allow him/her to continue proceeding as the representative of deceased. The Court has discretion whether to allow such type of application.[2] For the said purpose the legal heir will require documents such as Death Certificate, Successor Certificate, Ration Card, etc as a proof of being related to the deceased complainant. He/she will have to file an application for getting permission from the Court. After getting such permission from the Court he/she will be entitled to continue the proceedings of cheque bounce case as a representative of the deceased. Some basic insight into the related legal provisions will help in better understanding of this- The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is applicable for the cases of dishonour of cheque. According to which, dishonour of cheque is a criminal offence that is punishable with imprisonment up to two years or, with monetary penalty or, with both. Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 is to be tried summarily, according to the procedure for summons cases.[3] Under Section 256 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which deals with the non-appearance or death of complainant during trial of summons cases, states that the Magistrate has power to acquit the accused or to adjourn the hearing of the case to some other day. Section 302 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 provides that the Magistrate can permit prosecution to be conducted by any person. (Provided that no police officer shall be permitted to conduct the prosecution if he has taken part in the investigation into the offense with respect to which the accused is being prosecuted. Also, police officer below the rank of Inspector is not allowed. Advocate-General/Government Advocate/Public Prosecutor/Assistant Public Prosecutor are not required to take such permission.) Why the heir(s) of the deceased complainant need to be proactive? Although the death or absence of the complainant does not ipso facto (by that very fact or act) bring termination of the criminal case. However, the Indian Legislature has given the power of discretion to Magistrates based upon which- A Magistrate can decide whether on the non-appearance or death of the complainant: Either dismiss the complaint and acquit the accused; or To adjourn the hearing.[4] Therefore, if the legal heir(s) fails to make a permission application, in timely manner, to represent the deceased complainant in the cheque bounce case before the Court then there is a chance that Court may dismiss the complaint and as a result of which the accused may get the acquittal. If it happens so then all the efforts of the deceased will go in vain. Written by Advocate Monika Thakkar [B.A.LL.B.(Hons.); LL.M. (Business Laws)] References: Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 Section 302 of The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Chapter XX of the Code of Criminal Procedure Naveen Rao v/s Ravikant Choudhary (Dead) Thr. (MCRC-2118-2018) held by Madhya Pradesh High Court on 5th March, 2018.

COVID-19 with regards to Indian Laws

During the period of COVID-19, the nation is under lockdown and by way of various provisions of the law the executive has restricted the movement and social gathering of people. So, below are the powers and legality of these provisions. There are majorly four acts which are being used by the government authorities against the violators of lockdown, for not maintaining quarantine, running away of the infected people from hospital, fake news etc. Does the authority have power to quarantine a person or family or his/her property? Answer is yes, Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 gives the preventive jurisdiction to the District Magistrate, Sub-Divisional Magistrate or to any Executive Magistrate to issue an order whereby a person is directed to abstain from a certain act or relating to certain property in his possession/under his management. Idea is to prevent immediate danger to human life, health or safety, or a disturbance of the public tranquility, or a riot, or an affray. And if a person disobeys such direction in the Order is he said to have violated the Order. It confers full powers on certain Magistrates to take prompt action in cases of emergency when immediate prevention or speedy remedy is desired. It requires the magistrate to issue the order in writing setting forth the material facts of the case and the order is to be served in the manner provided by section 134 of the Criminal Procedure Code. However, in case of grave urgency, such Orders can be passed ex-parte. Such order will remain in force for the period of two months unless extended by State Government and the State Government has power to extend it for maximum up to six months from the date of original Order. Such order can be rescinded or altered at any point of time. Nowadays, the Authority is quarantining the persons and their property with the aid of section 144 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Can the order passed under Section 144 of CrPC be challenged? Yes, the Order passed by the authority can be challenged before the High Court directly by way of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India if the Order is not issued in a bona fide and reasonable manner or issued without authority. The following are the grounds used to test the invocation of section 144 of CrPC: Whether the Order was properly passed? Whether the Public Servant issuing such Order was specially empowered by the State Government? Whether the Order was vague or not issued to a specific person? Whether such Order was warranted by the circumstances? Whether the Order so issued specifically mentions the area on which the restriction is imposed? Whether the Order was circulated as per section 134 CrPC? What is the punishment for violating Section 144 of CrPC? Section 144 of the Code itself does not provide for any penalty or punishment for its breach. However, the punishment is prescribed under section 188 of Indian Penal Code. What is Section 188 of IPC? Section 188 of IPC provides that whoever disobeys any of the directions mentioned in the Order or creates obstruction, annoyance or injury or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury then said person will be liable to simple imprisonment up to one month and fine up to rupees 200 or both. And if such disobedience causes danger to human life, health, safety or tend to cause riots or affray, then he will be liable for imprisonment up to six months or fine up to rupees 1000 or both. The latter part of Section 188 deals with the kind of disobedience that is most likely to take place during these times i.e., disobedience which causes danger to human life, health or safety or causes or tends to cause riot or affray will be punished with an imprisonment term up to six months or a fine up to 1,000 rupees or both. It can be observed that the former part is attracted when offence is committed against the lawfully employed person whereas the latter is attracted when the offence is committed against the general public. The offence committed under Section 188 is cognizable and bailable. Further, the general rule in Criminal Law is that both guilty mind (Mens Rea) and commission of crime (Actus Reus) has to be present in order for the stages of crime to be fulfilled. However, Section 188 is an exception where Mens Rea to exist is completely irrelevant. The commission is sufficient for the attraction of penal laws of the Act. Leaving the home for non-essential work If the Order provides for staying at home but the person nonetheless goes out, then he is said to have committed the offence under section 188 of IPC. What is the punishment when an infected person or the one       suspected of having COVID-19 runs away from the hospital? COVID-19 is considered as dangerous and a life-threatening disease which is contagious in nature and so a person can be booked under Sections 269, 270 & 271 of IPC as well. Section 269 of IPC states that if a person unlawfully or negligently does an act which he knows or has reason to believe that it is likely to spread the infection of any disease dangerous to life, then he will be punished with imprisonment up to six months, or with fine or with both. Section 270 of IPC covers malignant act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life and the violator of it shall be punished with imprisonment up to two years, or with fine, or with both. Further section 271 of IPC covers disobedience of quarantine of any vessel. (Does not apply to airplane or an individual) So, if a person who is quarantined or kept in hospital under isolation and is found to run away then, the same is an act whereby he/she is knowingly spreading infections of disease which is dangerous to life and he can be booked under sections

Call Now