Wednesday, 23 December 2015

Laws against Noise Pollution

I have discussed about laws pertaining to Public Nuisance caused by Noise Pollution between 10 PM to 6 AM in the course of replying an activist in such a case and observations are reproduced-

1.माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय ने अपने निर्णय दिनांक-18/07/2005,रिट याचिका(सिविल) संख्या-72/1998,Noise Pollution (v) in Re,(2005)5 SCC 733 में कानून बनाया है कि रात्रि का दस बजे से सुबह के छह बजे तक लाउडस्पीकर या किसी वाद्य यन्त्र के माध्यम से ध्वनि प्रदूषण फैलाना IPC का धारा 268,290 और 291 के तहत लोक अपदूषण (Public Nuisance) होने के कारण दंडनीय अपराध है।CrPC का धारा 133 के तहत कार्यपालक दंडाधिकारी द्वारा ध्वनि प्रदूषण को भी लोक अपदूषण मानकर इसे रोकने का आदेश दिया जा सकता है,ऐसा इस निर्णय में माननीय न्यायालय ने कहा है।माननीय न्यायालय ने ये भी कहा है कि रात्रि का 10 बजे से लेकर सुबह 6 बजे तक ध्वनि प्रदूषण फैलाना भारतीय संविधान का अनुच्छेद 21 के तहत उन सभी के जीने के मौलिक अधिकार का हनन है जो रात्रि में इन अवधियों के दौरान शांति चाहते हैं।

2.केंद्र सरकार द्वारा बनाया गया the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules,2000 की नियम 5 में ध्वनि प्रदूषण को रोकने सम्बंधित प्रावधान किया गया है।नियम 5(1) के मुताबिक लाउडस्पीकर या किसी भी वाद्य यन्त्र का उपयोग प्राधिकरी से अनुमति के बगैर नहीं की जायेगी।नियम 5(2) के मुताबिक रात्रि 10 बजे से सुबह 6 बजे तक लाउडस्पीकर और वाद्य यंत्र के उपयोग पर पाबन्दी रहेगी,परंतु नियम 5(3) के मुताबिक एक वर्ष में अधिकतम 15 दिनों के लिए रात्रि का 10 बजे से लेकर 12 बजे मध्यरात्रि तक कोई सांस्कृतिक और धार्मिक कार्यक्रम होने पर लाउडस्पीकर और वाद्य-यन्त्र का उपयोग करने की अनुमति दी जायेगी यानि 2 घंटे की छूट दी जायेगी लेकिन आवाज का स्तर तय होना चाहिए।

3.IPC का धारा 268 में लोक अपदूषण का परिभाषा दिया गया है।IPC का धारा 290 में ध्वनि प्रदूषण जैसे मामले में(सुप्रीम कोर्ट के आदेशानुसार) लोक अपदूषण करने पर 200 रूपये जुर्माने का प्रावधान है।IPC का धारा 291 में लोकसेवक के व्यादेश के बावजूद भी लोक अपदूषण जारी रखने या दोहराने पर 6 महीने का कारावास या जुर्माने या दोनों का प्रावधान है।साथ में लोकसेवक के आदेश का अवहेलना करने पर IPC का धारा 188 के तहत 6 महीने कारावास या 1000 रूपये जुर्माने या दोनों प्रावधान है।

4.CrPC का धारा 133 के तहत कार्यपालक दंडाधिकारी(उपजिलाधिकारी) लोक अपदूषण रोकने का आदेश दे सकते हैं।यदि आदेश के बावजूद जारी रहता है या दोहराया जाता है तो IPC का धारा 291 और 188 के तहत ऐसे लोग दोषी होंगे।

5.सूचना आवेदन दायर कर उपजिलाधिकारी द्वारा उक्त अनुमति देने के लिए पारित आदेश का अभिप्रमाणित प्रतिलिपि प्राप्त किया जाये।कार्यक्रम का अनुमति नहीं पाये जाने या 10 बजे रात के बाद या 12 बजे मध्यरात्रि के बाद का अनुमति नहीं पाये जाने पर IPC का धारा 290 के तहत प्राथमिकी दर्ज कराये जाये और साथ में CrPC धारा 133 के तहत उपजिलाधिकारी के न्यायालय में लोक अपदूषण को दोहराने से रोकने के लिए आवेदन दिया जाये ताकि अगली बार ऐसा करने पर IPC का धारा 188 और 291 के तहत प्राथमिकी दर्ज कराया जा सके।
Posted by at No comments:

CONSIDER HARASSMENT OF THAT SO CALLED JUVENILE

December 21 at 1:40pm ·
Bar & Bench
December 21 at 12:26pm ·
The Court, however, made it clear that it was bound by the statute.
“There should be some legal sanction. There is nothing in law. We share your concern but law as it stands today [does not provide for this]. We will be taking away the right under Article 20 and 21 [if we issue any directions].”
#Nirbhaya: "We share your concern but there is no legal sanction" - SC dismisses plea by DCW -...
The Supreme Court of India today dismissed a petition filed by the Delhi Commission for Women seeking the …
barandbench.com|By Murali Krishnan
Umapathy BE Tragedy is that if a eminent advocate argues, S.C. likely to " go out of the way" to give succour to Nirbhaya's parents.
By invoking either Article 32 or 142 , S.C. ought to have granted " massive desired relief ( all Remedies- Criminal & Civil) ".
For a victim of rape and dacoity, and victimized IFoS officer of U.P. ( Rahul Kumar ) S.C. granted desired relief under Criminal Procedure Code, 357A (4 ). Nirbhaya's parents definitely deserve this.
Our legislators legitimately protect their own tribe by:
(1) Producing an Ordinance, which promptly get's President's assent.
(2) Both L.S. & R.S show overzealous interest in passing Law.
(3) Lalu Prasad Yadav, Somashekar Reddy MLA ( brother of Janardhan Reddy MLA ), are few of the beneficiaries.
Let them get " Victim-centric Justice ( and NOT Criminal Justice System ) System.
Unlike · Reply · 2 · December 21 at 6:43pm
Rahul Kumar
Rahul Kumar CONSIDER HARASSMENT OF THAT SO CALLED JUVENILE We have lopsided attitude towards release of that so called juvenile. We express imaginary doubt that he can again be a criminal but we forget to express reasonable doubt that if his identity is revealed,he can be harassed in society. He can be brutaly beaten,murdered by mob or can be falsely implicated in rape or any heinous crime due to his previous bad conduct.People can get the benefit of his previous bad conduct in implicating him falsely, though his previous record of crime has been removed.Due to this reason of being harassed,that so called juvenile preferred to stay at an NGO for two years instead of deciding to go to his native place. What happened wrong is that the so called juvenile convict would definitely be of more than 18 years,though being less than 18 years on certificate.The upper limit of age of juvenile/minor must be fixed at 16 years in all crimes,not only in heinous crimes like murder,rape etc,as it is proposed by the Central Govt vide an amendment in the Juvenile Justices Act,2000.Even being 16 or less on certificate,most guys are more than 18 in real. That so called juvenile would definitely be more than 18,so he was not deserving the privilege what he got.But if we still consider him less than 18 at the time of crime,then we must also express reasonable doubt towards his harassment,not only imaginary doubt towards crime what he may (or may not) commit.
Like · Reply · 1 · Yesterday at 6:31am
Rahul Kumar
Rahul Kumar Rahul Kumar So far compensation is concerned,the Criminal Appeal Petition of four adult convicts of Nirbhaya Case is pending in the Supreme Court.The parents of Nirbhaya ought to demand compensation at the time of passing order by the court both u/s 357 and 357A CrPC.
Like · Reply · 2 · Yesterday at 6:40am
Umapathy BE
Umapathy BE When this petition will see the light of the day?
http://devgan.in/criminal_procedure_code/section/357A/
It is already Three years. Jyothi Singh's parents did get
Zero relief.
Read 357A (4) ,along with (5) & (6).
Hypothetically best medical treatment was given by spending 10 Crore ₹, within a minute, she should have survived.
【 I was able to achieve Five Minutes Flat Response time, for Control Room Vehicles, when a Jyothi Singh type crime was reported. Was heading a tier- Two City Police 】
A fast and fair urgent relief to Jyothi Singh's mother will go a long way.
Imagine Oscar Fernadiz Kapil Sibal and a host of others lining up to defend you. If Jyothi Singh's mother gets a support " Rahul_Sonia''got, see the effect.
That is what 357 A (4) (5) (6) , envisages.
Unlike · Reply · 2 · Yesterday at 9:48am
Rahul Kumar
Rahul Kumar Hon'ble Umapathy BE Sir

Firstly i appreciate you for your quick response as to medical treatment in cases like Nirbhaya what you did as a Police Officer of Karnataka. u/s 357A(6) of the CrPC the State or District Legal Services Authority has been conferred powers to award compensation for medical treatment in cases like Nirbhaya but i haven't seen such case of awarding ccompensation.u/s 357A(6) of the CrPC,it is the legal obligation of the Officer In-Charge of a police station and his senior police officers and the magistrate to report to the Legal Services Authority requesting to award compensation for medical treatment,but police officers and magistrates have not been taught about their obligations by the Govt. Also the Supreme Court has not taught them by issuing guidelines for the implementation of section 357A(6) of the CrPC.

Though,compensation has been provided to the parents of Nirbhaya by the Govt but compensation has not been provided to them by the recommendation/order of the court of Justice.The provisions of sections 357 and 357A of the CrPC don't bar court to provide compensation in addition to the compensation provided by the Govt.So,they may be compensated by the court.

I think,parents of Nirbhaya have now been star and there is no need of legal help for them by me.Eminent Jurist like Subramanian Swamy is with them.

It is further clarified that i am a student, not a lawyer.I am only a law aspirant.At this juncture, i can only suggest that the parents of Nirbhaya ought to demand compensation from the Appellate Court u/s 357(1) CrPC and u/s 357A(1),(2)& (3) CrPC.The parents ought to also question in the Appellate Court the negligence of police officers and Magistrate in reporting to the Legal Services Authority for compensation for medical treatment u/s 357A(6) of the CrPC.If it is questioned,then it will surely be a landmark Judgement and it will compel police officers and magistrates to report to the Legal Services Authority for compensation for medical treatment in other cases like Nirbhaya and any cases of heinous crimes.

So far that so called juvenile convict is concerned, people are only apprehended about the crime which may be committed by him but people are not at all apprehended about the crime which may be committed by society against that so called juvenile.

I concur with your opinion regarding NOTA.After being 18,i voted first time in the General Election 2014 and pressed NOTA.Again i have pressed NOTA in the Bihar Legislative Election 2015.NOTA can pave the way for revolution but inspite of order of the Supreme Court to the Election Commission to make people aware of NOTA in PUCL Case,by which NOTA was introduced, Election Commission has not taken a single step to aware people about NOTA.I have sent an RTI Application to the Election Commission seeking information as to various programmes initiated by Election Commission to make people aware of NOTA.
Like · Reply · 1 · 2 hrs
Umapathy BE
Umapathy BE Rahul Kumar
Priyanka Sahasrabudhe
So precise. Highly impressed.
I will try to reach out to DGP of that State, where Jyothi Singh's parents reside.
It is in their interest, and Public Interest , we will take it further forward.
Under 39 Cr.Pc. we are all mandated to do that.
You have performed all obligations.
Grateful to you on behalf of Civil Society.
Superb Legal Advice.
Like · Reply · 6 mins
Rahul Kumar
Write a reply...

Ankur Tiwari
Ankur Tiwari That bill is already passed in Lok Sabha for the juvenile crime considering it as a category of heinous crime...but that is stuck in Rajya Sabha and people know because of whom. If that bill was passed before this petition then the scene would have been different.. Shame.
Like · Reply · 2 · December 21 at 8:27pm
Priyanka Sahasrabudhe
Rahul Kumar
Rahul Kumar Hon'ble Umapathy BE Sir

Firstly i appreciate you for your quick response as to medical treatment in cases like Nirbhaya what you did as a Police Officer of Karnataka. u/s 357A(6) of the CrPC the State or District Legal Services Authority has been conferred powers to award compensation for medical treatment in cases like Nirbhaya but i haven't seen such case of awarding ccompensation.u/s 357A(6) of the CrPC,it is the legal obligation of the Officer In-Charge of a police station and his senior police officers and the magistrate to report to the Legal Services Authority requesting to award compensation for medical treatment,but police officers and magistrates have not been taught about their obligations by the Govt. Also the Supreme Court has not taught them by issuing guidelines for the implementation of section 357A(6) of the CrPC.

Though,compensation has been provided to the parents of Nirbhaya by the Govt but compensation has not been provided to them by the recommendation/order of the court of Justice.The provisions of sections 357 and 357A of the CrPC don't bar court to provide compensation in addition to the compensation provided by the Govt.So,they may be compensated by the court.

I think,parents of Nirbhaya have now been star and there is no need of legal help for them by me.Eminent Jurist like Subramanian Swamy is with them.

It is further clarified that i am a student, not a lawyer.I am only a law aspirant.At this juncture, i can only suggest that the parents of Nirbhaya ought to demand compensation from the Appellate Court u/s 357(1) CrPC and u/s 357A(1),(2)& (3) CrPC.The parents ought to also question in the Appellate Court the negligence of police officers and Magistrate in reporting to the Legal Services Authority for compensation for medical treatment u/s 357A(6) of the CrPC.If it is questioned,then it will surely be a landmark Judgement and it will compel police officers and magistrates to report to the Legal Services Authority for compensation for medical treatment in other cases like Nirbhaya and any cases of heinous crimes.

So far that so called juvenile convict is concerned, people are only apprehended about the crime which may be committed by him but people are not at all apprehended about the crime which may be committed by society against that so called juvenile.

I concur with your opinion regarding NOTA.After being 18,i voted first time in the General Election 2014 and pressed NOTA.Again i have pressed NOTA in the Bihar Legislative Election 2015.NOTA can pave the way for revolution but inspite of order of the Supreme Court to the Election Commission to make people aware of NOTA in PUCL Case,by which NOTA was introduced, Election Commission has not taken a single step to aware people about NOTA.I have sent an RTI Application to the Election Commission seeking information as to various programmes initiated by Election Commission to make people aware of NOTA.
Like · Reply · 2 hrs
Rahul Kumar
Write a reply...
Rahul Kumar
Rahul Kumar CONSIDER HARASSMENT OF THAT SO CALLED JUVENILE We have lopsided attitude towards release of that so called juvenile. We express imaginary doubt that he can again be a criminal but we forget to express reasonable doubt that if his identity is reve...See More
Like · Reply · 1 · Yesterday at 6:30am
Rahul Kumar
Rahul Kumar Rahul Kumar So far compensation is concerned,the Criminal Appeal Petition of four adult convicts of Nirbhaya Case is pending in the Supreme Court.The parents of Nirbhaya ought to demand compensation at the time of passing order by the court both u/s 357 and 357A CrPC.
Like · Reply · 1 · Yesterday at 6:40am
Umapathy BE
Umapathy BE Priyanka Sahasrabudhe
Rahul Kumar
Happy to see the " meeting of minds "
Priyanka, you would appreciate the judicial mind of Rahul Kumar.
Incidentally staunch Hindus, are singling out this Juvenile, since he is a Muslim. But if you remember, the graphic description of brutality on Jyothi Singh aka Nirbhaya , any mother's blood will boil.
Realpolitik dictates that both Communists and Congress, has to save this Muslim pervert rapist, from the jaws of Hindu retaliation.
Justice Verma had rightly decided "judiciously" to hang such pervert rapist- murderers.
It did result in death sentence to rapists ( and NOT rapist-murderers ) of Lakshmi Mills rape of a journalist in Mumbai.
Mulayam termed as extreme justice, and justified rape " boys are boys ...." statement.
Only a country like India will condone such crimes, if it happens, to a mother of Jyothi Singh ( an aspiring hapless Lower middle class young girl ).
Compare this with Mrs.Dimple Akhilesh Yadav. Nobody was allowed to contest against her in Loka sabha elections, and she is an M.P. now.
Pervert democracy, in the guise of " elected Dynasty ".
Right to reject, and Right to recall are ONLY solutions.
NOTA is a "half baked" Right to reject. Till it comes as complete solution, we should champion Shrimathi NOTA Ji as our Candidate in all future elections.
We will NOT be " beggars ",
BUT WILL BE CHOOSERS.
Referring to " begging by Jyothi Singh"s mother " before Rajya Sabha members to make 16 age as Juvenile.
Unlike · Reply · 2 · Yesterday at 9:25am
Rahul Kumar
Rahul Kumar Hon'ble Umapathy BE Sir

Firstly i appreciate you for your quick response as to medical treatment in cases like Nirbhaya what you did as a Police Officer of Karnataka. u/s 357A(6) of the CrPC the State or District Legal Services Authority has been conferred powers to award compensation for medical treatment in cases like Nirbhaya but i haven't seen such case of awarding ccompensation.u/s 357A(6) of the CrPC,it is the legal obligation of the Officer In-Charge of a police station and his senior police officers and the magistrate to report to the Legal Services Authority requesting to award compensation for medical treatment,but police officers and magistrates have not been taught about their obligations by the Govt. Also the Supreme Court has not taught them by issuing guidelines for the implementation of section 357A(6) of the CrPC.

Though,compensation has been provided to the parents of Nirbhaya by the Govt but compensation has not been provided to them by the recommendation/order of the court of Justice.The provisions of sections 357 and 357A of the CrPC don't bar court to provide compensation in addition to the compensation provided by the Govt.So,they may be compensated by the court.

I think,parents of Nirbhaya have now been star and there is no need of legal help for them by me.Eminent Jurist like Subramanian Swamy is with them.

It is further clarified that i am a student, not a lawyer.I am only a law aspirant.At this juncture, i can only suggest that the parents of Nirbhaya ought to demand compensation from the Appellate Court u/s 357(1) CrPC and u/s 357A(1),(2)& (3) CrPC.The parents ought to also question in the Appellate Court the negligence of police officers and Magistrate in reporting to the Legal Services Authority for compensation for medical treatment u/s 357A(6) of the CrPC.If it is questioned,then it will surely be a landmark Judgement and it will compel police officers and magistrates to report to the Legal Services Authority for compensation for medical treatment in other cases like Nirbhaya and any cases of heinous crimes.

So far that so called juvenile convict is concerned, people are only apprehended about the crime which may be committed by him but people are not at all apprehended about the crime which may be committed by society against that so called juvenile.

I concur with your opinion regarding NOTA.After being 18,i voted first time in the General Election 2014 and pressed NOTA.Again i have pressed NOTA in the Bihar Legislative Election 2015.NOTA can pave the way for revolution but inspite of order of the Supreme Court to the Election Commission to make people aware of NOTA in PUCL Case,by which NOTA was introduced, Election Commission has not taken a single step to aware people about NOTA.I have sent an RTI Application to the Election Commission seeking information as to various programmes initiated by Election Commission to make people aware of NOTA.
Like · Reply · 1 · 2 hrs
Rahul Kumar
Write a reply...

Rahul Kumar
Rahul Kumar Hon'ble Umapathy BE Sir

Firstly i appreciate you for your quick response as to medical treatment in cases like Nirbhaya what you did as a Police Officer of Karnataka. u/s 357A(6) of the CrPC the State or District Legal Services Authority has been conferred powers to award compensation for medical treatment in cases like Nirbhaya but i haven't seen such case of awarding ccompensation.u/s 357A(6) of the CrPC,it is the legal obligation of the Officer In-Charge of a police station and his senior police officers and the magistrate to report to the Legal Services Authority requesting to award compensation for medical treatment,but police officers and magistrates have not been taught about their obligations by the Govt. Also the Supreme Court has not taught them by issuing guidelines for the implementation of section 357A(6) of the CrPC.

Though,compensation has been provided to the parents of Nirbhaya by the Govt but compensation has not been provided to them by the recommendation/order of the court of Justice.The provisions of sections 357 and 357A of the CrPC don't bar court to provide compensation in addition to the compensation provided by the Govt.So,they may be compensated by the court.

I think,parents of Nirbhaya have now been star and there is no need of legal help for them by me.Eminent Jurist like Subramanian Swamy is with them.

It is further clarified that i am a student, not a lawyer.I am only a law aspirant.At this juncture, i can only suggest that the parents of Nirbhaya ought to demand compensation from the Appellate Court u/s 357(1) CrPC and u/s 357A(1),(2)& (3) CrPC.The parents ought to also question in the Appellate Court the negligence of police officers and Magistrate in reporting to the Legal Services Authority for compensation for medical treatment u/s 357A(6) of the CrPC.If it is questioned,then it will surely be a landmark Judgement and it will compel police officers and magistrates to report to the Legal Services Authority for compensation for medical treatment in other cases like Nirbhaya and any cases of heinous crimes.

So far that so called juvenile convict is concerned, people are only apprehended about the crime which may be committed by him but people are not at all apprehended about the crime which may be committed by society against that so called juvenile.

I concur with your opinion regarding NOTA.After being 18,i voted first time in the General Election 2014 and pressed NOTA.Again i have pressed NOTA in the Bihar Legislative Election 2015.NOTA can pave the way for revolution but inspite of order of the Supreme Court to the Election Commission to make people aware of NOTA in PUCL Case,by which NOTA was introduced, Election Commission has not taken a single step to aware people about NOTA.I have sent an RTI Application to the Election Commission seeking information as to various programmes initiated by Election Commission to make people aware of NOTA.
Like · Reply · 1 · 2 hrs
Rahul Kumar
Write a comment...

Posted by at No comments:

Sunday, 20 December 2015

TWO CASES AGAINST MAGISTRATES

कई बार कोर्ट के मजिस्ट्रेट,वकील और पुलिस अधिकारी में जरुरी कानूनी जानकारी का भी अभाव पाया हूँ।कानूनी जानकारी के अभाव में एक वकील को दूसरे वकील के खिलाफ किसी व्यक्ति को गलत सलाह देते और एक पुलिस अधिकारी को दूसरे पुलिस अधिकारी के खिलाफ किसी व्यक्ति को गलत सलाह देते पाया हूँ।गलत सलाह पाये व्यक्ति ने जब मुझसे सम्बन्धित प्रावधानों के बारे में जानना चाहा तो मैंने प्रावधानों को उस गलत सलाह के ठीक विपरीत पाया।

ऐसा ही दो केस प्रस्तुत है-

केस सं 1-एक व्यक्ति पर अधिकतम सात साल  तक की सजा वाली धारा में मुकदमा दर्ज किया गया था।पुलिस अधिकारी ने सीआरपीसी का धारा 41A के तहत नोटिस तामिल करके उस व्यक्ति को गिरफ्तार नहीं किया।फिर वरीय पुलिस अधिकारी के पर्यवेक्षण रिपोर्ट के बाद उन्हें गिरफ्तार किया गया।हालाँकि कोर्ट के मजिस्ट्रेट(CJM) ने सात साल तक की धारा वाले अपराध में सीआरपीसी की धारा 41A के तहत पुलिस द्वारा नोटिस तामिल करके छोड़ दिए जाने के आधार पर उस व्यक्ति को जेल भेजने से मना कर दिया कि ऐसी अवस्था में जेल नहीं भेजा जा सकता।फिर कुछ वकील और एक पुलिस अधिकारी ने उस व्यक्ति को सलाह दिया कि धारा 41A के तहत छोड़े जाने के कारण उन्हें गलत गिरफ्तार किया गया था,इसलिए उन्हें गिरफ्तारी के खिलाफ केस करना चाहिए।

मेरा मंतव्य-सीआरपीसी की धारा 41A(3) के तहत नोटिस पर छोड़े जाने और नोटिस के शर्त का अनुपालन करने के बावजूद गिरफ्तार किया जा सकता है यदि गिरफ्तार करने का कारण मौजूद हो और उसे लेखबद्ध किया गया हो।हालाँकि सीआरपीसी की धारा 41(1)(b)(ii) के तहत सात साल तक की सजा वाली धारा में तभी गिरफ्तार किया जा सकता है जब पुलिस अधिकारी के पास किसी व्यक्ति द्वारा अपराध करने के बारे में विश्वास करने का कारण होने के साथ-साथ चेक लिस्ट में दिए गए कारणों में से किसी एक कारण के आधार पर गिरफ्तार करना जरुरी हो।
इस केस में वरीय पुलिस अधिकारी का पर्यवेक्षण रिपोर्ट जो लिखित में गिरफ्तारी का कारण व्यक्त कर रहा था,उस व्यक्ति को नोटिस पर छोड़े जाने के बावजूद धारा 41A(3) के तहत गिरफ्तार करने के लिए विधि-सम्मत था।लेकिन चेक लिस्ट बनाकर और चेक लिस्ट पर दर्ज कारणों में से किसी एक कारण को अंकित कर कोर्ट नहीं भेजा गया जो गलत था।कोर्ट  द्वारा धारा 41A के तहत सात साल तक की सजा वाली धारा में नोटिस तामिल करके पुलिस द्वारा छोड़ दिए जाने को आधार बनाने के  बजाय पुलिस द्वारा  चेक लिस्ट नहीं भेजने को आधार बनाकर आरोपी को जेल भेजने से मना किया जाना चाहिए था।सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar & Anr,Criminal Appeal No.1277 of 2014,decided on 02/07/2014 के मामले में  ठीक ऐसा ही निर्णय दिया है।

पर्यवेक्षण रिपोर्ट में गिरफ्तार करने के लिए गलत तथ्य दर्शाये गए थे और चेक लिस्ट नहीं भेजा गया था।इन दो आधारों पर गिरफ्तारी को चुनौती दिया जा सकता है ना कि इस आधार पर कि धारा 41A के तहत पुलिस द्वारा छोड़ दिए जाने के कारण पुलिस द्वारा गिरफ्तारी की ही नहीं जा सकती।

केस सं 2-एक आरोपी के जमानतदार(प्रतिभू) ने अपना बेल बांड(बंध-पत्र) प्रभावमुक्त बनाने के लिए कोर्ट में आवेदन दिया।कोर्ट के मजिस्ट्रेट ने  प्रतिभू के वकील को कहा कि आरोपी को साथ में लेते आइए,फिर उस प्रतिभू के बंध-पत्र को प्रभावमुक्त किया जायेगा।लेकिन उस वकील ने आरोपी को इसकी सूचना तक नहीं दी।उस वकील द्वारा कोर्ट के आदेशानुसार आरोपी को सूचना नहीं दिए जाने के कारण अन्य लोगों और कुछ वकील  ने उस वकील को गलत ठहराया और उन्हें  कार्रवाई का हकदार बताया।आरोपी उस वकील के विरुद्ध स्टेट बार कौंसिल में शिकायत दर्ज करना चाहते थे।

मेरा मंतव्य-जमानतदार(प्रतिभू) द्वारा अपना बेल बांड(बंध-पत्र) प्रभावमुक्त बनाने के लिए आवेदन देने के मामले में उस मजिस्ट्रेट ने वकील को गलत आदेश दिया है कि वकील आरोपी को कोर्ट में लेते आये फिर  उस प्रतिभू के बंध-पत्र को प्रभावमुक्त किया  जायेगा।

CrPC का धारा 444(1) के तहत बंध-पत्र को  प्रभावमुक्त  बनाने के लिए किसी प्रतिभू द्वारा आवेदन देने के बाद धारा 444(2) के तहत मजिस्ट्रेट सम्बंधित आरोपी, जिसका वो प्रतिभू था,को अपने समक्ष हाजिर करने के लिए गिरफ्तारी वारंट जारी करेगा।धारा 444(3) के तहत उस व्यक्ति का हाजिर होने के बाद मजिस्ट्रेट प्रतिभू के बंध-पत्र को प्रभावमुक्त करेगा और आरोपी को दूसरा प्रतिभू देने कहेगा और प्रतिभू देने में असमर्थ रहने पर आरोपी को जेल भेजा जायेगा।

अतः प्रावधानों से स्पष्ट है कि आरोपी को हाजिर कराने का काम वकील का नहीं बल्कि मजिस्ट्रेट का है जो उसे गिरफ्तारी वारंट जारी करके करना है।इसलिए वकील Advocates Act,1961 का धारा 35 के तहत Professional Misconduct का दोषी नहीं है।मजिस्ट्रेट ही दोषी है जो  विभागीय कार्रवाई  के साथ-साथ IPC का धारा 166,217 और 219 के तहत कार्रवाई का हकदार है।
Posted by at No comments:

सिर्फ फरार घोषित होने के आधार पर सम्पति का कुर्की करना गलत है।

सिर्फ फरार घोषित होने के आधार पर सम्पति का कुर्की करना गलत है।कुछ प्रावधान सिर्फ किताब भर ही सीमित रहती है और कानूनी कार्रवाई कानूनी प्रावधान के बजाय कानूनी परम्परा के अनुसार चलती है।कुर्की उस अवस्था में ही किया जाना चाहिए जब अभियुक्त का अन्यथा पकड़ में आने की कोई संभावना ना हो।यदि अभियुक्त या उनका रिश्तेदार अभियुक्त के पक्ष में साक्ष्य को पुलिस के समक्ष पेश कर रहा हो तो कुर्की का आदेश पारित करने/करवाने से पहले उसके साक्ष्य को देखा जाना चाहिए।
एक ऐसे मामले में मेरे द्वारा दी गयी मंतव्य नीचे देखे-
''CrPC का धारा 83(1) के तहत फरार घोषित करने के बाद कोर्ट को कुर्की का आदेश देने से पहले कारण को लिखित में दर्ज करना चाहिए।सिर्फ फरार घोषित होने के आधार पर कुर्की का आदेश नहीं दिया जा सकता।IO(जाँच अधिकारी) को आदेश लेने के लिए ऐसा कारण कोर्ट को बताना चाहिए।आपके द्वारा सारे सबूत दिए जाने के बावजूद(जिसके आधार पर बाद में क्राइम ब्रांच ने आपको निर्दोष बताया) IO कोर्ट में कुर्की का आदेश लेने पहुँच गए जो गलत था।चूँकि कोर्ट ने कारण जाने और दर्ज किये बगैर सिर्फ फरार होने के आधार पर कुर्की का आदेश दे दिया इसलिए कोर्ट दोषी है।चूँकि IO ने आपके साक्ष्य के बारे में बताये बगैर कोर्ट से कुर्की का आदेश जारी करवा लिया इसलिए IO भी दोषी है।कोर्ट का सम्बंधित मजिस्ट्रेट और IO धारा 166,166A(b),167 और 218 IPC के तहत दोषी है।साथ में मजिस्ट्रेट धारा 219 IPC के तहत भी दोषी है।IPC के इन धाराओं के तहत कार्रवाई हेतु प्रकिया CrPC में मौजूद नहीं है।धारा 340 r/w धारा 195 CrPC में जिस तरह की प्रकिया कोर्ट और लोकसेवक के समक्ष की जाने वाली अपराधों के लिए दी गयी है, उसी तरह की प्रकिया लोकसेवक और कोर्ट द्वारा की जाने वाली अपराधो के लिए भी होना चाहिए।ऐसी अवस्था में हाई कोर्ट में रिट याचिका दायर करके ही इन धारों के तहत हुई किसी अपराध को चुनौती दिया जा सकता है जो एकमात्र विकल्प है।कुर्की का गलत आदेश पारित करना/करवाना भी ऐसा ही एक अपराध है।Writ of mandamus के तहत हाइकोर्ट कार्रवाई कर सकती है।"

...............................

ON TODAY'S RELEASE OF SO CALLED JUVENILE
नाबालिगी का उम्र और आपसी सहमति से सेक्स का उम्र घटाकर 16 साल कर ही देना चाहिए।ज्योति सिंह पाण्डेय(निर्भया) के केस का वो तथाकथित नाबालिग लड़का 18 साल से ज्यादा का ही रहा होगा,भले ही कागज पर 18 साल से कम हो।जब मालूम है कि 18 साल के ज्यादातर बच्चे भी प्रमाणपत्र पर 16 साल या इससे कम के ही रहते हैं तो उम्र घटा कर 16 साल कर देने के बावजूद भी तो वास्तव में वो 18 साल या इससे ज्यादा का ही रहते हैं।16 साल कर देने से वास्तव में बालिग हो चुके तथाकथित नाबालिग(अभी के अनुसार) को ज्यादा सजा भी मिलेगी और प्रेम-सम्बन्ध जैसे मामले में अपहरण और रेप में फंसने वाले निर्दोष को बचाया भी जा सकेगा।भागने वाली ज्यादातर नाबालिग लड़की और प्रेम-प्रसंग में शारीरिक सम्बन्ध बनाने वाली ज्यादार नाबालिग लड़की 16-18 साल के बीच की होती है और ज्यादातर मामले में 2 साल ज्यादा की होती ही होगी।पुलिस और कोर्ट पर बोझ का एक बड़ा भाग इन मुकदमों का रहता है लेकिन ये मुकदमा बकवास और Abuse of the process of law के सिवाय कुछ नहीं है।
नाबालिगी के आधार पर कानून का दुरूपयोग करने का स्थिति ये है कि जिन लड़कियों के पास पढ़ी-लिखी नहीं होने के कारण जन्म का कोई स्कूली प्रमाण या जन्म प्रमाणपत्र नहीं होता है तो ज्यादातर मामले में इन लड़कियों के अभिभावको द्वारा लड़कियों का आपसी सहमति से भागने और सेक्स करने पर भी नाबालिग बताकर अपहरण और रेप का झूठा मुकदमा फंसाने के लिए दायर किया जाता है भले ही लड़कियां बालिग हो और 18 साल से ज्यादा की हो।झूठा फंसाने के लिए 19 साल की लड़की को 16-17 साल का बताना आसान है लेकिन 16 साल से कम बताना आसान नहीं होगा।
Posted by at No comments:

POLICE REFORMS:FAR DISTANT DUE TO LACK OF PROVISIONS IN THE CrPC

Due credit has been given to me, by Rahul Kumar ,who himself is an authority on Police-Legal reforms. Happy to be associated with, such brilliant mind. He is also compassionate to needy litigants, who are in need of his help.
After long deliberations, and intensive judicial scrutiny, Complaint Authority has been incorporated.
Kerala and Goa have successfully implemented, bringing massive relief to Aam admi.
Goa Police had to face the brunt, and try to neutralize it. Since Goans had tasted freedom from " tyrannical & highly corrupt " Police, they retained original by all available methods ( media pressure, legal battles, legislative pressure etc.)
CHRI has been a repository of all documentation in Police Reforms.
Rahul Kumar
December 15 at 9:37pm
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)