While replying on a facebook query

Rahul Kumar

3 hrs · 

While replying on a facebook query-

Query:-किसी घर में चार भाई हो , बाकी तीन भाइयों की पैदाइश से पहले उसके पिता ने सिर्फ अपने बड़े बेटे के लिए कोई जमीन अथवा प्रोपेर्टी खरीदी , जबकि उस वक़्त उसके बेटे को अक़्ल भी नहीं थी मतलब नाबालिग था अब बाप की मौत हो चुकी ऐसे में उस प्रॉपर्टी में बाकि तीनों भाइयों का शेयर बनता है या नहीं .........?

My reply-यदि पिता ने सम्पति खरीदी तो जिसके लिये खरीदी,उसी का उस सम्पति पर अधिकार होगा।खरीदी गयी सम्पति का पुत्रों के बीच में समान रूप से विभाजन नहीं होता।यदि पिता किसी खास पुत्र को खरीदी गयी सम्पति नहीं लिखता और सम्पति पिता ने अपने नाम से खरीदी होती तो पिता के मृत्यु के बाद सभी को उस सम्पति में बराबर हिस्सेदारी मिलता।पिता का यदि पैतृक सम्पति होता,जो पूर्वज से प्राप्त होता है,तो किसी एक पुत्र के नाम नहीं लिखा जा सकता था और सभी का बराबर हिस्सा होता।ख़रीदी गयी सम्पति और पैतृक सम्पति के उत्तराधिकार नियम में यही मौलिक अंतर है।

LikeShow more reactions

Comment

Share

14You, Nitin Pawan, Arif Ahamad and 11 others

1 share

Comments

Rahul Kumar 

Privy Council ne Sri Kakulam Subrahmanyam vs Kurra Subba Rao, (1948) 50 BOMLR 646, ke case me Guardian ke dwara minor ke behalf me kiye gye contract ko valid mana hai.sale deed bhi ek contract hai..esliye father apne nabalig beta ke naam jamin kharid sakta hai. 

kharidi gyi sampati par father ya kisi ka bhi absolute ownership hota hai...wo kisi ko bhi likh sakta hai,will kar sakta hai ya gift kar sakta hai...chahe wo beta ho ya naukar ya koyi aur...kharidi hui sampati kisi ko bhi de sakta hai...kharidi hui sampati ke liye ye baat mayne nahi rakhte ki three beta paida nahi hue the.ye baat paitrik sampati ke liye mayne rakhta hai...paitrik sampati ko father kisi beta ya kisi aur ko nahi likh sakta.chahe beta paida hua ho ya nahi,wo paida hoga to paitrik sampati me usko right milega hi...

Like · Reply · 1 · 2 hrs

What works are supposed to be assigned or performed?

It is not supposed to perform all creative and helpful works assigned or suggested.

Take some examples-

1.A student asked me whether i am organizing creative activities like essay writing,quiz competition, debate etc what i was doing in JNV Samastipur.

I think that organizing such activities of words are inferior than activities of actions like legally aiding people free of cost,helping legally to social activists in filing grievances and RTI Applications,filing RTI Applications and grievances by me on law and court directions related issues and fighting for issues like prolonged delay in land acquisition and thereby constructing embankment on farmers land without paying compensation.I have shifted myself from the activities of words to the activities of actions and latter is greater than former.

2.There was the inspection of the NAAC Team in CM College, Darbhanga.Considering that my two research articles in Economics have been published in the College Magazine and was also regularly class attending and good marks obtaining students,i was assigned by a professor of Economics to prepare a Wall Paper on Nobel Laureates in Economics in order to display it on the wall of Economics Department. I was not supposed to prepare Wall Paper.However,i included some students in this project and make prepared and was displayed.In the preparation of same inspection,one another professor of Economics assigned me to collect detailed data as to Socio-economic status of Darbhanga in all fields and it was the work supposed to be assigned to me and i submitted detailed data.

3.Legal Aid Clinic is run by Law School,BHU.It is the first Legal Aid Clinic in India opened by any Law College.Law Students are selected through Written Test,Computer Test and Interview to be member of this Clinic. Due to unavoidable reasons,this year Computer Test could not be conducted. I was selected in written test and called for interview. Legal Aid Works are very rarely assigned to students,rather they are assigned to assist in other activities like preparation of Seminar,volunteering in programmes,working on Computer for various data entries etc.These works are not supposed to be always assigned only to members of Legal Aid Clinic.These works should be assigned to other students too and there should be some rules for same,like assigning these works class wise on rotation basis.I didn't appear in interview considering that legal aid works are very rarely assigned.In such circumstances, it is better to legally aid people independently.

Is Litigation an effective way of dispute resolution?

A question was put before me,"Is Litigation an effective way of dispute resolution?"

What i observed-

Litigation is not an effective way of dispute resolution.

"Prevention is better than Cure."
In law Cure stands for legal remedy.

Our endeavours should be to prevent the dispute,not to cure the dispute.

Is there any effective mechanism to prevent the dispute from being created?Obviously Not.Most of land disputes are the result of Govt failure in fair registration of Sale Deed,fair execution of mutation,fairly surveying land of farmers and accordingly allotting their lands etc.A large portion of criminal cases are originated from land disputes.So land disputes not only give rise to civil disputes,but also to criminal disputes.

By adopting effective method of prevention,many disputes can be stopped to borne.But the existence of disputes,whether this existence be in small numbers,can't be fully stopped to borne.

Whenever we refer to litigation, it's meaning is only to file litigation before the Police or Competent Court of Civil and Criminal Jurisdictions for an inquiry, verdict,decision or judgement.Arbitration, Conciliation,Compromise etc don't form the part of our meaning of litigation.There are many cases where there are great opportunity of arbitration, conciliation or compromise etc,which are also justified according to law but cases are left only for inquiry,verdict,decision or judgement.

For the example,a woman victim of domestic violence may use the provisions of the Protection of Women from the Domestic Violence Act,2005 for bounding her husband and other relatives to not harass her,to get monetary relief,maintainance, shelter etc,but section 498A IPC is more preferred by such women than the Domestic Violence Act and criminal case is lodged instead of a case for alternative dispute resolution.

A large portion of civil and criminal matters are of very trivial in nature and such cases can be resolved even by the Gram Kachahari provided that the Gram Kachahari works effectively.Such cases can be resolved through Arbitration, Conciliation or Compromise etc. The function of Gram Kachahari in legal sense also comes under the purview of Arbitration, Conciliation or Compromise etc.Lok Adalats are held for compromise of compoundable cases,Arbitration and Conciliation Act is in existence for arbitration and conciliation of financial matters etc and Arbitration and Conciliation centres in each district court works for arbitration and conciliation of family disputes.The effectiveness of these institutions are too weak and participation of public in these institutions are very unsatisfactory.

In short,prevention is the greatest method of dispute resolution.Methods of
Alternative Dispute Resolution is the second most effective way of dispute resolution and litigation is most inferior.

Sakiri Basu vs State of Uttarpradesh & Ors-AIR 2007 SC 2739

I have gone through some important case laws while discussing with a person on certain issues.These case laws relate to legal remedies against unfair investigation by Police or other Agency,unjustified changing of Investigating Agency etc.

1.Sakiri Basu vs State of Uttarpradesh & Ors-AIR 2007 SC 2739

इस केस में सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने कहा है कि कोर्ट के मजिस्ट्रेट के पास CrPC की धारा 156(3) के तहत यह शक्ति है कि वो पुलिस या जाँच एजेंसी के जाँच पर निगरानी रखे,जाँच को सही ढंग से संचालित करने के लिए निदेशित करे।

यदि आपको लगता है कि पुलिस या अन्य जाँच एजेंसी जाँच करने में पक्षपात कर रही है और आपके साक्ष्य और बिंदुओं को विवेचना में शामिल नहीं कर रही है तो आप जाँच की निगरानी करने और विवेचना में आपके साक्ष्य और बिन्दुओं को शामिल करवाने के लिए सीधे हाई कोर्ट जाने के बजाय सुप्रीम कोर्ट के इस निर्देश के अनुसार आप मजिस्ट्रेट के पास आवेदन दायर कर सकते हैं।

2.Sharafat Alias Bhure vs The Station Officer-1999 CriLJ 283(AL)-
इस केस में इलाहाबाद हाई कोर्ट ने कहा है कि "जहाँ मामले का विवेचना पुलिस ने किया था और पुलिस ने आरोप-पत्र(Charge-sheet)भी दायर कर दिया था और तत्पश्चात राज्य सरकार ने CB-CID द्वारा विवेचना करने का निर्देश दे दिया था,इससे तथ्यतः पुलिस द्वारा किया गया विवेचना अवैध नहीं हो जायेगा।"

इस फैसला का सार यही है कि भले ही जाँच दूसरे एजेंसी को दे दिया जाए लेकिन पुलिस या पहले वाली एजेंसी द्वारा किया गया जाँच रिपोर्ट यदि तथ्यात्मक,साक्ष्यात्मक और विश्वसनीय हो तो कोर्ट अपनी कार्यवाही में पुलिस या पहले वाली जाँच एजेंसी की जाँच रिपोर्ट का भी उपयोग कर सकती है।यदि सरकार ने किसी को बचाने या फसाने के नियत से जाँच एजेंसी बदल दी हो तो आप हाई कोर्ट के इस फैसला का प्रयोग करके मजिस्ट्रेट कोर्ट और ट्रायल कोर्ट के सामने पुलिस या पहले वाली एजेंसी की जाँच रिपोर्ट को तथ्यात्मक,साक्ष्यात्मक और विश्वसनीय बताकर कोर्ट पर बदलकर जिस जाँच एजेंसी को जाँच दिया गया उसके जाँच रिपोर्ट के बजाय पुलिस या पहले वाली जाँच एजेंसी की जाँच रिपोर्ट के आधार पर आगे की कार्रवाई करने के लिए दवाब बना सकते हैं।

3.Bhopal vs State of UP,1997 CrLJ 2363(AL),decided by the Allahabad High Court and B Premanand vs Union Of India,1996 CrLJ 466 (MP),Decided by the Madhya Pradesh High Court-इन दोनों फैसले का सार यही है कि यदि मामला गंभीर किस्म का हो और जाँच में पक्षपात होने का Justified कारण हो तभी सरकार द्वारा जाँच एजेंसी बदला जा सकता है।यदि मामला गंभीर किस्म का नहीं है और पुलिस जाँच या पहले वाली जाँच एजेंसी के जाँच में पक्षपात होने का Justified कारण नहीं है तो जाँच एजेंसी बदलना त्रुटिपूर्ण है।हाई कोर्ट्स के इन दो फैसले और यदि अन्य ऐसे फैसले भी उपलब्ध हो तो इन फैसलों के आधार पर जाँच एजेंसी बदले जाने के आदेश की हाई कोर्ट में चुनौती दी जा सकती है।

4.Scope of Section 173(8) CrPC-धारा 173(8) चार्जशीट दायर करने के बाद उसी जाँच अधिकारी द्वारा Further Investigation से सम्बंधित है,ना कि Reinvestigation और Fresh Investigation से।इसलिए CrPC की धारा 173(8) का प्रयोग करके जाँच एजेंसी नहीं बदला जा सकता है।ऐसा फैसला सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने भी State of Punjab vs CBI,AIR 2011 SC 2962 में दिया है।

हालाँकि पुलिस द्वारा चार्ज-शीट दायर करने के बाद सरकार द्वारा जाँच एजेंसी बदले जाने को ऐसी स्थिति में कोर्ट ने सही बताया है,जहाँ पर जाँच एजेंसी CrPC की धारा 173(8) का प्रयोग करने के बजाय अन्य विधिक शक्ति का प्रयोग करते हुए बदला गया और जाँच एजेंसी बदलना युक्तियुक्त था।मतलब मामला गंभीर किस्म का था और जाँच में पक्षपात होने का Justified कारण था।
Sharafat Alias Bhure vs The Station Officer-1999 CriLJ 283(AL), State of Punjab vs CBI,AIR 2011 SC 2962 ,Punjab and Haryana Bar Association vs State of Punjab,AIR 1994 SC 1023,सुप्रीम कोर्ट के इन तीन फैसलें में चार्ज-शीट दायर करने के बाद जाँच एजेंसी बदले जाना युक्तियुक्त होने के कारण सही बताया गया है।

यदि हाई कोर्ट द्वारा द्वारा दूसरे जाँच एजेंसी द्वारा Further Investigation करने को सही बताया जाए तो यह त्रुटिपूर्ण है क्योंकि दूसरी जाँच एजेंसी Reinvestigation या Fresh Investigation कर सकती है लेकिन Further Investigation नहीं।Further Investigation वही कर सकता है जिन्होंने चार्जशीट दायर किया है।

हालाँकि जब चार्जशीट दायर करने के बाद निचली कोर्ट ने संज्ञान (Cognizance) भी ले लिया हो तो क्या सरकार द्वारा जाँच एजेंसी बदला जा सकता है,ये एक Substantial Question of Law है,जिसपर बहस की जरुरत है।इसमें कोई दो राय नहीं है कि निचली कोर्ट द्वारा संज्ञान लेने के बाद भी हाई कोर्ट और सुप्रीम कोर्ट द्वारा संज्ञान को ख़ारिज करके जाँच एजेंसी बदला जा सकता है लेकिन जब सरकार के पास कोर्ट के संज्ञान को खारिज करने का शक्ति नहीं है तो क्या संज्ञान के बाद सरकार द्वारा जाँच एजेंसी बदला जा सकता है।इस विषय पर शायद ही कोई निर्णय किसी हाई कोर्ट और सुप्रीम कोर्ट की आयी है।हालाँकि मैं इस विषय पर विशेष शोध करने के बाद ही अंतिम राय दे पाऊंगा।

THE HC JUDGE OVERRULES

Rahul Kumar

Yesterday at 12:48pm · 

THE HC JUDGE OVERRULES

Section 389(1) of the CrPC reads as follows-

"Pending any appeal by a convicted person,the Appellate Court may,for reasons to be recorded by it in writing,order that the execution of the sentence or order appealed against be suspended and,also,if he is in confinement, that he be realeased on bail,or on his own bond."

From the plain reading of the section 389(1) CrPC,it can be concluded that-

(i) The Appellate Court,which is the High Court of Patna in the present case in question,may suspend the execution of sentence during pendency of appeal before it for which convicted person has been sentenced,whether or not the convicted person is in confinement i.e.imprisonment.

(ii) If the convicted person is in confinement, then the Appellate Court may also order that the convicted person be released on bail,or on his own bond.

The well settled principle which can be extracted from this section is that firstly the suspension of sentence is must whether the convicted person is in confinement or not.So,before granting bail to the imprisoned person,his sentence must be suspended.

Now come to what has happened in one Case.One Judge of the Patna High Court granted bail to the convicted person,but without suspending sentence.Since the convicted person wanted to be reinstated in his job,he again approached to the Court and prayed to stay the conviction and sought reinstatement of job as well.Stay of conviction should actually be termed as suspension of sentence in view of section 389(1) CrPC.The Judge rejected the plea asserting that there is no cogent,sound reason to suspend the sentence.On what reasons bail is granted,sentence must be suspended first on the same reasons before granting bail.There is no need of any specific reason for suspending sentence.Specific reason must be required for reinstating job of the convicted person if possible according to law,not for suspending sentence.

What must have been done by the Judge at the time of grating bail to the convicted person,have not been done even after approaching again.The Judge has overruled.It shows lack of merits in the Judge,for which a person has to suffer.

LikeShow more reactions

Comment

Share

8Om Saini, Arbaz Alam and 6 others

Comments

Arbaz Alam 389. Suspension of sentence pending the appeal; release of appellant on bail. (1) Pending any appeal by a convicted person, the Appellate Court may, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, order that the execution of the sentence or order appealed against be suspended and, also, if he is in confinement, that he be released on bail, or on his own bond. (2) The power conferred by this section on an Appellate Court may be exercised also by the High Court in the case of an appeal by a convicted person to a Court subordinate thereto. (3) Where the convicted person satisfies the Court by which he is convicted that he intends to present an appeal, the Court shall,- (i) where such person, being on bail, is sentenced to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years, or (ii) where the offence of which such person has been convicted is a bailable one, and he is on bail, order that the convicted person be released on bail, unless there are special reasons for refusing bail, for such period as will afford sufficient time to present the appeal and obtain the orders of the Appellate Court under sub- section (1); and the sentence of imprisonment shall, so long as he is so released on bail, be deemed to be suspended. (4) When the appellant is ultimately sentenced to imprisonment for a term or to imprisonment for life, the time during which he is so released shall be excluded in computing the term for which he is so sentenced

Unlike · Reply · 1 · Yesterday at 3:30pm

Arbaz Alam 389. Suspension of sentence pending the appeal; release of appellant on bail. (1) Pending any appeal by a convicted person, the Appellate Court may, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, order that the execution of the sentence or order appealed...See More

Unlike · Reply · 1 · Yesterday at 3:30pm

Write a comment...