Sunday 31 May 2020
20 day to day useful laws which every Indian Citizen must know
Our country is the biggest democracy in the entire world and the
Indian constitution provides many legal rights to its citizens. But most of us
are not aware of these rights. Here are 20 legal rights every citizen of India
should know;
1. According
to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 185 & 202, the Police
can arrest you without a warrant on the charges of drinking & driving if
your alcohol consumption is more than 30mg per 100ml of blood.
2. According
to CRPC, Section 46, no women can be arrested after 6
in the evening or before 6 in the morning.
3. According
to IPC, Section 166A, a police officer under any situation can not
refuse to write a FIR. This is a punishable crime that may lead to a police
officer being jailed between 6 months to 1 year.
4. According
to Indian Series Act 1887, Any kind of hotel doesn't matter how
big it cannot refuse you from using their washroom or drink their water.
5. According
to IPC, Section 498, if a married man gets involved in a physical relationship
with a widow or unmarried girl by their consent then it is not treated as a
crime.
6. According
to Domestic Violation Act, 2005, if an adult boy and an adult girl
want to be in a living relationship with their consent then this relationship
is not illegal. The child born in this relationship is also legal and will get
part of its father's property.
7. According
to Police Act, 1861 a police officer is always on duty
irrespective of whether he wears a uniform. If anyone seeks the help of a police
officer, then they cannot refuse by saying they are not on duty.
8. According
to the Maternity Benefits Act 1961, no company can fire a
pregnant woman. This offence can be punished up to 3 years in jail.
9. According
to the Income-tax Act, 1961, in matters of tax violation the tax
collection officer has the authority to arrest the violator but before
arresting he needs to send a notice. Only the tax commissioner decides how long
anyone stays in custody.
10. According
to the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 13, any spouse can file a
divorce in the court on the following grounds; Adultery, domestic violence,
impotence, leaving the spouse with no information, a change in religion, mental
abnormality, if the spouse is suffering from an incurable disease, missing for
7 years.
11. According
to the Motor Vehicles Act, Section 129, anyone driving a
vehicle is mandatory to wear a helmet. According to Section 128, only two
people can sit in a two-wheeler. But, a traffic constable taking keys from your
vehicle is illegal. You can even charge the traffic constable for this offense.
12. According
to CRPC 1973, Only female police officers have to authority to arrest women
and bring them to the police stations. Male police officers don't have the
authority to arrest women. Only with any serious crime, a male officer can
arrest women with the help of a written order by the magistrate.
13. Very few
people know that if your gas cylinder blasts while cooking,
then you can sue the gas company for an amount as high as 40Lakhs.
14. It will
shock you to know that during any festivals if you take
any gifts from any company then this comes under bribe. According to FCRA,
2010, you can also be punished for this crime.
15. According
to Motor Vehicle (Amendment) Bill, 2016, if you are fined
for any traffic violations then for the same reasons you can be fined again on
the same day.
16. Shopkeeper
cannot charge the consumer more than the printed price of the product but
a consumer can bargain with the shopkeeper to get the product below the printed
price.
17. According
to the Limitation Act, 1963, if your office doesn't pay you
a salary then you can file a report against it within 3 years. But if you file
the report after three years, then it won't be of any use.
18. According
to IPC Section 294, doing obscene acts in public places is a
punishable crime. As the definition of an obscene act is not provided this law
is mostly misused by the police.
19. According
to the Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act, 1956, If you
are a Hindu and you have a child, grandchild or great-grandchild then you are
not eligible to adopt another child. With adoption, the difference between the
age of the child and adult must be over 21 years.
20. If you are
a resident of Delhi then your house owner cannot forcefully remove
you from the house without giving advance notice.
Source:-
https://latestlegalarticles.blogspot.com/2019/08/top-20-legal-laws-rights-every-indian.html
Saturday 30 May 2020
Recorded Webinars relating to Civil law on Youtube (updated)
|
|
Topic
|
Speaker |
Link |
|
1. |
Civil Procedure Code |
Mr. Vikas Singh, Senior Advocate
|
|
|
2. |
Specific Performance of Contract
|
Adv. Anil Sapra
|
|
|
3. |
Basics of Drafting and Pleading
|
|
|
|
4. |
Documentary
Evidence in Civil Trials
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMiZb7LD0xE&list=WL&index=31&t=0s |
|
5. |
Structuring of Pleadings
|
Justice N Anand Venkatesh
|
|
|
6. |
Law of Evidence - Examination of
Witnesses
|
Justice N Anand Venkatesh
|
|
|
7. |
Statements, Admissions and
Confessions
|
Justice N Anand Venkatesh
|
|
|
8. |
Hindu Law
|
Sr. Adv. Ravi Gupta
|
https://www.facebook.com/ravigupta.lawyer/videos/2869758686464279/ |
|
9. |
Concept of Civil Law
|
Sr. Adv. Anil Ari
|
https://www.facebook.com/anil.airi.5/videos/3175009725919631/ |
|
10. |
Law of Injunction
|
Sr. Adv. Rakesh Tiku
|
https://www.facebook.com/rakesh.tiku.9/videos/10220391331285840/ |
Latest Webinars On Criminal law (Updated)
|
|
Topic
|
Speaker
|
Link
|
|
1.
|
Discussion on Indian
Evidence Act
|
Adv. Sudeep Pasbalo
|
|
|
2.
|
Law of FIR and Investigation
|
Justice Nagmuthu
|
|
|
3.
|
Bails in Economic offences
|
Sr. Adv. Vikas Pahwa
|
|
|
4.
|
Session on
Investigation & Criminal Trial
|
Sr. Adv. Vikas Pahwa
|
|
|
5.
|
How to Successfully
Defend NI cases
|
Sr. Adv. Sidharth Luthra
|
|
|
6.
|
Use & Misuse of
Provisions of Section 156 (3) & 173 (8) of Cr.P.C.
|
Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Sr.
Advocate
|
|
|
7.
|
Criminal investigation
do's and don't
|
Sr. Adv. Sidharth Luthra
|
|
|
8.
|
How to deal with police
as a lawyer?
|
Adv. Amish Aggarwala
|
|
|
9.
|
Journey from
Investigation to Trial (CrPC)
|
Sr. Adv. Rebecca John
|
|
|
10.
|
Cognizance to Framing
of Charges
|
Sr. Adv. Rebecca John
|
|
|
11.
|
The Art of Cross
Examination & Criminal Trials
|
Sr. Adv. Rebecca John
|
|
|
12.
|
Criminal appeals and
revisions-webinar
|
Sh. Mohit Mathur, senior advocate
|
|
|
13.
|
Law of Bail &
Drafting Bail Applications
|
Mr Bharat Chugh
|
Thursday 28 May 2020
Sec 378 of Code of Criminal Procedure
378. Appeal in case of acquittal.—[(1) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (2), and subject to the provisions of sub-sections (3) and (5),—
(a) the District Magistrate may, in any case, direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal to the Court of Session from an order of acquittal passed by a Magistrate in respect of a cognizable and non-bailable offence;
(b) the State Government may, in any case, direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal to the High Court from an original or appellate order of an acquittal passed by any Court other than a High Court [not being an order under clause (a)] or an order of acquittal passed by the Court of Session in revision.]
(2) If such an order of acquittal is passed in any case in which the offence has been investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment constituted under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946) or by any other agency empowered to make investigation into an offence under any Central Act other than this Code,[the Central Government may, subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), also direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal—
(a) to the Court of Session, from an order of acquittal passed by a Magistrate in respect of a cognizable and non-bailable offence;
(b) to the High Court from an original or appellate order of an acquittal passed by any Court other than a High Court [not being an order under clause (a)] or an order of acquittal passed by the Court of Session in revision.]
(3) No appeal [to the High Court] under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be entertained except with the leave of the High Court.
(4) If such an order of acquittal is passed in any case instituted upon complaint and the High Court, on an application made to it by the complainant in this behalf, grants special leave to appeal from the order of acquittal, the complainant may present such an appeal to the High Court.
(5) No application under sub-section (4) for the grant of special leave to appeal from an order of acquittal shall be entertained by the High Court after the expiry of six months, where the complainant is a public servant, and sixty days in every other case, computed from the date of that order of acquittal.
(6) If in any case, the application under sub-section (4) for the grant of special leave to appeal from an order of acquittal is refused, no appeal from that order of acquittal shall lie under sub-section (1) or under sub-section (2).
Notes on Clauses to 2005 Amendment ► In order to guard against the arbitrary exercise of power and to reduce reckless acquittals, Section 378 is being amended to provide that an appeal against an order of acquittal passed by a Magistrate in respect of a cognizable and non-bailable offence filed on a police report would lie to the Court of Sessions, and the District Magistrate will be authorised to direct the Public Prosecutor to file such appeals. In respect of all other cases filed on a police report, on appeal against an order of acquittal passed by any court other than the High Court should lie only to the High Court and the authority to direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal shall continue to be with the State Government.
► Appeal against Acquittal.—It is now
well-settled that the power of an Appellate Court to review evidence in appeals
against acquittal is as extensive as its powers in appeals against convictions.
It is also well-settled that before an Appellate Court can set aside the order
of acquittal, it must carefully consider the reasons given by the Trial Court
in support of its order and must give its own reasons to reject those reasons.
It should bear in mind the presumption of innocence of the accused and the fact
that the Trial Judge had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses. In
brief, the Appellate Court should not disturb an order of acquittal except on
very cogent grounds, Mathai Mathews v. State of Maharashtra, (1970) 3 SCC 772.
See also Chowdikodlu Asuralli Dyavappa v. State of Mysore, 1980 SCC (Cri) 251 : (1980)
1 SCC 468.
Entertainment
of the appeal by the High Court against an acquittal will be justified only
under special circumstances, Umedbhai Jadavbhai v. State of Gujarat, (1978) 1 SCC
228 : 1978 SCC (Cri) 108.
► Appeal against acquittal.—If court below has taken a probable view to acquit accused, fact that another probable view would lead to conviction, is no ground to interfere with acquittal, Union of India v. Pravat Kumar Behuria, (2019) 10 SCC 220.
► Appeal Against Acquittal In Cheque Bounce Cases Can Be Filed Only Before High Court U/s 378(4) CrPC: Madras HC Full Bench
Case name: K.Rajalingam Vs. R.Suganthalakshmi,2020
Tuesday 26 May 2020
Section 13 of Indian Evidence Act - Facts relevant when right or custom is in question
13. Facts relevant when right or custom is in question.—Where the question is as to the existence of any right or custom, the following facts are relevant:—
(a) any transaction by which the right or custom in question was created, claimed, modified, recognized, asserted or denied, or which was inconsistent with its existence;
(b) particular instances in which the right or custom was claimed, recognized or exercised, or in which its exercise was disputed, asserted or departed from.
Illustration
The question is whether A has a right to a fishery. A deed conferring the fishery on A's ancestors, a mortgage of the fishery by A's father, a subsequent grant of the fishery by A's father, irreconcilable with the mortgage, particular instances in which A's father exercised the right, or in which the exercise of the right was stopped by A's neighbours, are relevant facts.
Sec 12 of Indian Evidence Act
12. In suits for damages, facts tending to enable Court to determine amount are relevant.—In suits in which damages are claimed, any fact which will enable the Court to determine the amount of damages which ought to be awarded, is relevant.
Section 11 of Indian Evidence Act - When facts not otherwise relevant become relevant
11. When facts not otherwise relevant become relevant.—Facts not otherwise relevant are relevant—
(1) if they are inconsistent with any fact in issue or relevant fact;
(2) if by themselves or in connection with other facts they make the existence or non-existence of any fact in issue or relevant fact highly probable or improbable.
Illustrations
(a) The question is whether A committed a crime at Calcutta on a certain day. The fact that, on that day, A was at Lahore is relevant.
The fact that, near the time when the crime was committed, A was at a distance from the place where it was committed, which would render it highly improbable, though not impossible, that he committed it, is relevant.
(b) The question is, whether A committed a crime.
The circumstances are such that the crime must have been committed either by A, B, C or D. Every fact which shows that the crime could have been committed by no one else, and that it was not committed by either B, C or D, is relevant.
► Plea of alibi — Nature of.—Word alibi means “elsewhere”. Plea of alibi is not one of the General Exceptions contained in Chapter IV IPC. It is rule of evidence recognised under Section 11, Evidence Act. However, plea of alibi taken by defence is required to be proved only after prosecution has proved its case against accused, Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab, (2016) 3 SCC 37.
► Standard of proof.—A plea of alibi must be proved with absolute certainty so as to completely exclude the possibility of the presence of the person concerned at the place of occurrence, State of Maharashtra v. Narsingrao Gangaram Pimple, (1984) 1 SCC 446 : 1984 SCC (Cri) 109.
It is well settled that a plea of alibi has to be proved to the satisfaction of the court, Soma Bhai v. State of Gujarat, (1975) 4 SCC 257 : 1975 SCC (Cri) 515.
|
Monday 25 May 2020
Section 10 of Indian Evidence Act Things said or done by conspirator in reference to common design.
10. Things said or done by conspirator in reference to common design.—Where there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired together to commit an offence or an actionable wrong, anything said, done or written by any one of such persons in reference to their common intention, after the time when such intention was first entertained by any one of them, is a relevant fact as against each of the persons believed to be so conspiring, as well for the purpose of proving the existence of the conspiracy as for the purpose of showing that any such person was a party to it.
Illustration
Reasonable ground exists for believing that A has joined in a conspiracy to wage war against the [Government of India].
The facts that B procured arms in Europe for the purpose of the conspiracy, C collected money in Calcutta for a like object, D persuaded persons to join the conspiracy in Bombay, E published writings advocating the object in view at Agra, and F transmitted from Delhi to G at Kabul the money which C had collected at Calcutta, and the contents of a letter written by H giving an account of the conspiracy, are each relevant, both to prove the existence of the conspiracy, and to prove A's complicity in it, although he may have been ignorant of all of them, and although the persons by whom they were done were strangers to him, and although they may have taken place before he joined the conspiracy or after he left it.
► Ingredients of.—Section 10 provides unique and special rule of evidence to be followed in case of conspiracy. Once conditions given therein are fulfilled, statement made by one conspirator will be taken as evidence against all other co-conspirators, Yakub Abdul Razak Memon v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 13 SCC 1. ► Accused appearing as witness for defence.—An accused cannot be compelled to give evidence as a prosecution witness in view of the expression “in disproof of the charges” in Section 342-A, CrPC, 1898. But once his evidence as a witness for defence is on record, under Section 10 of the Evidence Act, evidence, as to communications between one conspirator and the other during the time that the conspiracy is going on and relating to implementing that conspiracy, is relevant evidence. The statements by one accused to another and the evidence as to the acts done by him disclosing participation by the other accused in the conspiracy are also relevant, Tribhuvan Nath v. State of Maharashtra, (1972) 3 SCC 511 : 1972 SCC (Cri) 604. ► Relevant time.—Statement made by conspirators after they are arrested are not admissible, because by that time conspiracy would have ended, State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu, (2005) 11 SCC 600 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1715. |
Section 09 of Indian Evidence Act _ Facts necessary to explain or introduce relevant facts.
9. Facts necessary to explain or introduce relevant facts.—Facts necessary to explain or introduce a fact in issue or relevant fact, or which support or rebut an inference suggested by a fact in issue or relevant fact, or which establish the identity of any thing or person whose identity is relevant, or fix the time or place at which any fact in issue or relevant fact happened, or which show the relation of parties by whom any such fact was transacted, are relevant in so far as they are necessary for that purpose.
Illustrations
(a) The question is, whether a given document is the will of A.
The state of A's property and of his family at the date of the alleged will may be relevant facts.
(b) A sues B for a libel imputing disgraceful conduct to A; B affirms that the matter alleged to be libellous is true.
The position and relations of the parties at the time when the libel was published may be relevant facts as introductory to the facts in issue.
The particulars of a dispute between A and B about a matter unconnected with the alleged libel are irrelevant, though the fact that there was a dispute may be relevant if it affected the relations between A and B.
(c) A is accused of a crime.
The fact that, soon after the commission of the crime, A absconded from his house, is relevant under Section 8, as conduct subsequent to and affected by facts in issue.
The fact that, at the time when he left home, he had sudden and urgent business at the place to which he went, is relevant, as tending to explain the fact that he left home suddenly.
The details of the business on which he left are not relevant, except in so far as they are necessary to show that the business was sudden and urgent.
(d) A sues B for inducing C to break a contract of service made by him with A. C, on leaving A's service, says to A—“I am leaving you because B has made me a better offer”. This statement is a relevant fact as explanatory of C's conduct, which is relevant as a fact in issue.
(e) A, accused of theft, is seen to give the stolen property to B, who is seen to give it to A's wife. B says as he delivers it—“A says you are to hide this”. B's statement is relevant as explanatory of a fact which is part of the transaction.
(f) A is tried for a riot and is proved to have marched at the head of a mob. The cries of the mob are relevant as explanatory of the nature of the transaction.
► Object of Identification Parade.—Object of TI Parade is (i) to enable witnesses to satisfy themselves that the person whom they suspect is really the one who was seen by them committing the offence; and (ii) to satisfy investigating authorities that suspect is the real person whom witnesses had seen in connection with said occurrence, Ankush Maruti Shinde v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 6 SCC 667. ► Process and Nature of Identification Tests/Parade.—The evidence of test identification is admissible under Section 9 of the Evidence Act; it is, at best, supporting evidence. It can be used only to corroborate the substantive evidence given by the witnesses in court regarding identification of the accused as the doer of the criminal act. The earlier identification made by the witnesses at the test identification parade, by itself, has no independent value. Nor is test identification the only type of evidence that can be tendered to confirm the evidence of a witness regarding identification of the accused, in Court, as the perpetrator of the crime. The identity can be fixed by circumstantial evidence also, Sampat Tatyada Shinde v. State of Maharashtra, (1974) 4 SCC 213 : 1974 SCC (Cri) 382. Court cannot accept identification by style of writing, Harasing Charan Mohanty v. Sh. Surendra Mohanty, (1974) 3 SCC 680. ► Validity of Identification Tests/Parade.—Even if identification of accused is by one witness only and other witness who was also present at the crime scene does not participate, investigation is not vitiated, Mohd. Kalam v. State of Rajasthan, (2008) 11 SCC 352. Photograph of accused even if assumed to be published, did not affect validity of parade, even if there was long gap between publication and holding of TI parade, Munna Kumar Upadhyay v. State of A.P., (2012) 6 SCC 174 : (2012) 3 SCC (Cri) 42. |
Section 08 Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct.
8. Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct.—Any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes a motive or preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact.
The conduct of any party, or of any agent to any party, to any suit or proceeding, in reference to such suit or proceeding, or in reference to any fact in issue therein or relevant thereto, and the conduct of any person an offence against whom is the subject of any proceeding, is relevant, if such conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact, and whether it was previous or subsequent thereto.
Explanation 1.—The word “conduct” in this section does not include statements, unless those statements accompany and explain acts other than statements; but this explanation is not to affect the relevancy of statements under any other section of this Act.
Explanation 2.—When the conduct of any person is relevant, any statement made to him or in his presence and hearing, which affects such conduct, is relevant.
Illustrations
(a) A is tried for the murder of B.
The facts that A murdered C, that B knew that A had murdered C, and that B had tried to extort money from A by threatening to make his knowledge public, are relevant.
(b) A sues B upon a bond for the payment of money. B denies the making of the bond.
The fact that, at the time when the bond was alleged to be made, B required money for a particular purpose, is relevant.
(c) A is tried for the murder of B by poison.
The fact that, before the death of B, A procured poison similar to that which was administered to B, is relevant.
(d) The question is, whether a certain document is the will of A.
The facts that, not long before the date of the alleged will, A made inquiry into matters to which the provisions of the alleged will relate, that he consulted vakils in reference to making the will, and that he caused drafts of other wills to be prepared, of which he did not approve, are relevant.
(e) A is accused of a crime.
The facts that, either before, or at the time of, or after the alleged crime, A provided evidence which would tend to give to the facts of the case an appearance favourable to himself, or that he destroyed or concealed evidence, or prevented the presence or procured the absence of persons who might have been witnesses, or suborned persons to give false evidence respecting it, are relevant.
(f) The question is, whether A robbed B.
The facts that, after B was robbed, C said in A's presence—“the police are coming to look for the man who robbed B”, and that immediately afterwards A ran away, are relevant.
(g) The question is, whether A owes B rupees 10,000.
The facts that A asked C to lend him money, and that D said to C in A's presence and hearing—“I advise you not to trust A, for he owes B 10,000 rupees,” and that A went away without making any answer, are relevant facts.
(h) The question is, whether A committed a crime.
The fact that A absconded after receiving a letter warning him that inquiry was being made for the criminal, and the contents of the letter, are relevant.
(i) A is accused of a crime.
The facts that, after the commission of the alleged crime, he absconded, or was in possession of property or the proceeds of property acquired by the crime, or attempted to conceal things which were or might have been used in committing it, are relevant.
(j) The question is, whether A was ravished.
The facts that, shortly after the alleged rape, she made a complaint relating to the crime, the circumstances under which, and the terms in which, the complaint was made, are relevant.
The fact that, without making a complaint, she said that she had been ravished is, not relevant, as conduct under this section, though it may be relevant as a dying declaration under Section 32, clause (1), or as corroborative evidence under Section 157.
(k) The question is, whether A was robbed.
The fact that, soon after the alleged robbery, he made a complaint relating to the offence, the circumstances under which, and the terms in which, the complaint was made, are relevant.
The fact that he said he had been robbed without making any complaint, is not relevant, as conduct under this section, though it may be relevant as a dying declaration under Section 32, clause (1), or as corroborative evidence under Section 157.
► Motive or preparation.—Where motive is neither alleged nor proved, the same would ipso facto not affect the prosecution case but in case there are other circumstances to create doubt regarding veracity of the prosecution case, this may also become material, Dhananjay Shanker Shetty v. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 6 SCC 596 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 1444. ► Conduct and Subsequent Conduct.—In criminal proceedings a man's character is often a matter of importance in explaining his conduct and in judging his innocence or criminality, Habeeb Mohammad v. State of Hyderabad, AIR 1954 SC 51 : 1954 Cri LJ 338. Conduct admissible under Section 8 of Evidence Act must be such that it has a close nexus with a fact in issue or relevant fact, State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu, (2005) 11 SCC 600 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1715. |
Section 08 Simplified
1. Any fact is relevant which
> shows or constitutes
* a motive or
* preparation for
> any fact in issue or relevant fact.
2. a. The conduct of any party, or of any agent to any party, to
> any suit or proceeding, in reference to such suit or proceeding, or
> in reference to any fact in issue therein or relevant thereto, and
b. the conduct of any person an offence against whom is the subject of any proceeding,
is relevant, if such conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact, and whether it was previous or subsequent thereto.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)