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

Report No. 156

Question Nos. 30 & 31

Most of the judges responded in the negative. Other persons either offered no comment or are silent on the question. The Law Commission of Himachal Pradesh agreed as suggested in question No. 30 but it is not in favour of any change under section 100 of the Code.

Question Nos. 32 to 35

Majority of the persons responded in the affirmative.

Question No. 36

Except one judge, all the Judges disagreed with the suggestion for the enhancement of the punishment under sections 115 & 116. The Law Commission of Himachal Pradesh and one advocate responded in the affirmative.

Question No. 37

Majority of judges favoured insertion of section 117A but they further suggested to cover the abetment by a child under 15 years of age but not less than 7 years of age. The Law Commission of Himachal Pradesh differs the proposal under this Question.

Question Nos. 38 to 49

Most of the judges including Addl. Registrar, an Advocate, State Law Commission who responded to the Questionnaire have agreed with recommendations. But the State Law Commission is not in favour of insertion of new Chapter VB (Under Question 39) in view of the existing provisions as contained in section 511, I.P.C.

Question No. 50

Six judges are of the view that there is no need of inserting of new provisions vide section 166A. Remaining persons including State Law Commission agreed with the proposal. The police officer feels that the offence under section 166, I.P.C. may be made congnizable and no separate penal section 166A is necessary.



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