THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (AMENDMENT) BILL, 2008

THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (AMENDMENT) BILL, 2008

http://164.100.24.219/BillsTexts/RSBillTexts/PassedRajyaSabha/CrPC%20as%20passed.pdf

The views of Save Family Foundation on these amendments in CrPC are:

 
1. This is an insult to the Honb’le Apex court of India by Lawyers themselve. The amendments in the CrPC, sections 41 to 60A in the present bill are actually the formal introduction of the “guidelines for making arrest” by the Honb’le apex court in its various judgements like:
 
1. “SHRI D.K. BASU VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL [1997] S.C.C. (crl) 92″ and
2. “JOGINDER KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U.P. – 25/04/1994 (CITATION 1994 AIR 1349 1994 SCC (4) 260 JT 1994 (3) 423 1994 SCALE (2)662)”.

2. Lawyers are protesting just because it is a blow to their bussiness of extortion in hand and gloves with the state police. As the guidelines by the apex court were never followed by the investigating agencies and the arrest is just made on the whims and fancies of the concerned investigating officers but now these guidelines are being made a part of the Code of Criminal procedure of India , lawyers and police are feeling cold.
 
3. The amendments in section 41 to 60A are actually the basic human rights of any accused under the human rights convention also worldwide.
 

4. If the bar asociations, as they are saying (that these amendments are anti human and anti society as per them), are really worried about the litingants, they should have protested about the section 21(b) of the proposed amendment, which relates to CrPC section 309, which states that:

 

“the fact that the pleader of a party is engaged in another Court, shall not be a ground for eeking adjournment”.

Although this provision is being to introduced to preed fast in a trial but this will rob the illiterate and the poor litigants from justice as they could not hire a reserve advocate if the advocate hired by them is genuinly busy in another court (more difficult now in Delhi after de-centralization of the district and session courts).

 

4. Compundability of adultery: Adultery. IPC section 497, According to this amendment, “The husband of the woman can compound the offence..- Now here again a woman is being treated as the property of her husband. What if the woman herself do not want to let the accused go, if she is a victim of the offence (as per the present lw woman is still being treated as a victim)?

 

5. The provision of a woman judge everwhere in case of investigation and trial of offences under IPC 376 to 376-D, is just an indirect way of creating gender discrimination in the judiciary as the demand of reservation of the women judges in the higher judiciary was straightforward rejected by the Honb’le CJI.

 

6. Why according to section 1(2) of the act, “different dates may be appointed for different provisions of this Act” for this act to come into the force? So, It is already anticipated by the so called law makers that these amendments will be opposed. So, as per the then political equations and negotiations, individual provisions will be picked up.

 

About these ads

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: