AdvocateKhoj
Login : Advocate | Client
Home Post Your Case My Account Law College Law Library
    

Report No. 156

Question No. 11

All the Judges & Addl. Registrar, an Advocate, Law Commission of Himachal Pradesh who responded to the Questionnaire, have agreed with the suggestion.

Question No. 12

For the omission of definitions of the words "A Will". , illegal omission", "act/ omission" under sections 31, 32 and 33 all the Judges, an Advocate including Law Commission of Himachal Pradesh responded in the affirmative.

Question No. 13

Two Judges and one Addl. Registrar replied in the affirmative but five judges are of the view that there is no need of amendment. The law is well-settled that even a single person can be convicted if court comes to the conclusion that apart from him others have also conjointly committed the offence. So far amendment of sections 34, 36 & 38 is concerned, the existing words should continue. Remaining persons are silent on the issue.

Question No. 14

Majority of the judges who responded to this question, are of the view that the definition of the word "offence" should remain as it is and the definition of the "Capital Offence" should be inserted as section 40A. Law Commission of Himachal Pradesh agreed to the proposal.

Question No. 15

Six Judges out of eight are of the view that the definition is comprehensive and there is no need of amendment or substitution of section 43. The Law Commission of Himachal Pradesh and an Advocate agreed to the proposal.

Question No. 16

Most of the persons who responded to the Questionnaire do not support the omission of the definition of the words 'vessel', 'year'/'month' and 'section' under sections 48, 49 and 50. Law Commission of Himachal Pradesh agreed as proposed under this question.

Question No. 17

Majority of persons who responded to the questionnaire have disagreed with the proposal. The Law Commission of Himachal Pradesh suggested to include the words "means of Communication" after the words "means of conveyance" under proposed section 52A.

Question No. 18

Most of the people who responded to our Questionnaire agreed with the recommendations with some exceptions and suggestions. Five judges are of the view that the new form of punishment proposed should not apply to the economic and social offences. The punishment of community service should be made applicable only to serious cases and the victim should be compensated by the trial court itself and maximum amount of compensation should be fixed. Some of them feel that "Community Service" may not be relevant and applicable to Indian condition and secondly, the amount of compensation to victim of crimes should be left to the discretion of the court.

The Advocate has not favored the punishment of "Community Service".

The police officer suggested to prescribe the minimum and maximum punishment for each penal section.

State Law Commission of Himachal Pradesh also supported the view to introduce the new forms of punishment for all offences except the heinous ones like murder, rape and offences involving moral turpitude.

Question Nos. 19 to 29

Majority of persons including State Law Commission who responded to our Questionnaire, agreed with the proposals under above mentioned questions.



The Indian Penal Code Back




Client Area | Advocate Area | Blogs | About Us | User Agreement | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Media Coverage | Contact Us | Site Map
powered and driven by neosys