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

Report No. 156

Annexure IX

Proceedings of the Workshop on Proposed Amendments to Indian Penal Code Held Jointly by the Law Commission of India and the Andhra Pradesh Judicial Academy on 14th December, 1996 at A.P. Judicial Academy, Secunderabad

The first session was the inaugural Session where Hon'ble Sri Justice K. Jayachandra Reddy, Chairman, Law Commission of India presided over the function. Hon'ble Sri Justice Prabha Shanker Mishra, Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh was the Chief Guest. Sri H.J. Dora, IPS, Director-General of Police of the State of Andhra Pradesh, addressed the gathering.

Actual business commenced from the 2nd session onwards. The second session concerns Amendments in respect of offences relating to Human Body.

Hon'ble Sri Justice Y. Bhaskar Rao, Judge, High Court of Andhra Pradesh opened the Session. He referred to 42nd Report of Law Commission as well as 1978 Bill. He first explained the offences relating to Human Body. He read quotation from Manu with reference to the aspects to be borne in mind in the imposition of sentence.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Y. Bhaskar Rao, pointed out that the guilty must be punished. He declared that the crime is in the increase in geometric progression since independence in 1947, whereas punishment has been on the decline and that only 2% of the cases tried by the courts are ending in conviction.

Shri C. Padmanabha Reddy, Senior Advocate of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, spoke next. He pointed out the opinion of Sir James Fitzerald Stephen's remark that section 299 and section 300, I.P.C. are the weakest part of the gamut of the Indian Penal Code. He made reference to the famous Govinda's case decided by the Bombay High Court as well as the 42nd Law Commission Report. He pointed out that there is confusion between section 304 first limb and section 304, second part I.P.C.

Shri C. Padmanabha Reddy suggested that Indian Penal Code may be suitably amended to punish the guilty under section 302, I.P.C. only when the offence is premeditated. He further suggested that if the case falls in one or the other exception of section 300, the punishment should be under section 304 first limb and other offences of murder shall be punished under the second part of section 304, I.P.C.

He criticised section 304B and pointed out that dowry within the meaning of section 304B, I.P.C. shall be given the same meaning as section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act defines dowry.

He further stated that fine should be imposed compulsorily for the offence under section 304B, I.P.C. and that such fine shall be made payable to the victim.

He suggested that section 309, I.P.C. shall be removed from the statute book making reference to section 303, I.P.C. as one which is (practically) removed from the statute book. With regard to section 354, I.P.C. Shri C. Padmanabha Reddy suggested that the State Amendment of the Andhra Pradesh shall be carried out in the central enactment also.

Shri M.E.N. Patrudu, Registrar (Vigilance), High Court of A.P. spoke next pointing out that if a person kills one person by mistake instead of killing another person, such an offence shall be made punishable under section 302, I.P.C. if there is premeditation. He further suggested that gruesome murder, or murder by hired assassin shall be compulsory punishable with death.

He suggested that there shall be a minimum sentence of 5 years for offences punishable under section 304A first limb or the second limb, he also suggested minimum punishment of 5 years for the offence under section 304A, I.P.C. and that if both rashness as well as negligence are established, the punishment for 304A, I.P.C. shall be a minimum of 10 years. The further recommended minimum punishment for section 306, I.P.C.

Shri M.E.N. Patrudu pointed cut that section 207, I.P.C. is grossly misused by the prosecution agency. Regarding the offences of rape and outrage of the modesty of woman covered by the sections 376 and 354, I.P.C., Shri M.E.N. Patrudu considered that the attempt of the said offences do not carry clear definition and suggested proper definition of the attempt of rape and for the attempt to outrage the modesty of a woman.

Shri M.E.N. Patrudu also suggested for a provision in the Indian Penal Code for the punishment of sexual harassment of lady employees by the concerned employer pointing out that such harassments have been on the increase.

Hon'ble Shri Justice K.S. Srivasthava, who spoke thereafter pointed out that section 303, I.P.C. shall be deleted from the statute book. He pointed out that the definition of wife shall include even a second wife even while the first marriage is subsisting within the meaning of section 304B, I.P.C. by providing explanation to section 304B, I.P.C. so that a husband who contracted a second marriage can not have licence to treat the second wife cruelly. Shri Justice K.S. Srivasthava further pointed out that a even a concubine known to public as the wife shall also be treated as a wife for the purpose of section 304B, I.P.C.

He pointed out that abduction simpliciter is not punishable at present and that such abduction should also be made punishable.

He further suggested that even if a wife is living separately from the husband without a forma decree of judicial separation, a husband who forces such separated wife for carnal knowledge shall be considered to be a rapist and punished suitably, by suitably amending section 376A, I.P.C.

With reference to section 320, I.P.C. Shri Justice K.S. Srivasthava pointed out that disfigurement of any exposed part of human body by an act of the accused such as acid throwing shall be considered to be grievous hurt, not necessarily confining the definition of grievous hurt to cases of disfigurement of face or head. He suggested that the definition of cruelty under section 498A, I.P.C. shall be suitably amended to include every variety of cruelty against the wife by the husband.

He considered that section 354, I.P.C. is well defined and needs no amendment. He expressed fear that any attempt to amend section 354, I.P.C. may lead to disastrous results. Regarding section 309, I.P.C., he opined that if a girl commits suicide on account of cruelty on the part of her paramour, it shall be considered to be an abetment to commit suicide of such girl. Finally he suggested that ragging should be punished.

Hon'ble Shri Justice R.M. Bapat stated that sections 239 & 300, I.P.C. are well defined and they need no amendment. He disagreed with the opinion of Shri C. Padmanabha Redd/ that intention and the knowledge shall be separately punishable under the first, and second limbs of section 304, I.P.C. pointing out that intention and knowledge are not tangible objects. He also pointed out that there is no need to amend section 353, I.P.C. on the ground that the concept of modesty of women changes from class to class, from place to place and from society to society.

He considered that the offence of section 354, I.P.C. need not be defined so that the judge shall have a leeway to decide in each case, there was outrage of modesty. He pointed out that shaking hands with a woman of economically highclass society may not be outraging the modesty of that woman, in a metropolitan city like Bombay, whereas it might be outrage of the modesty of the woman in a small town.

Shri D. Subrahmanyam, the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, agreed with the suggestion of Hon'ble Shri Justice Srivasthava, that section 320(6), I.P.C. shall include every part of the body in respect of the definition of grievous hurt and that section 309, I.P.C. shall be deleted. Shri G. Yethirajulu, the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, suggested that in cases of adultery, the wife also shall be made punishable. At that stage Hon'ble Shri Justice K. Jayachardra Reddy , the Chairman of the Law Commission of India intervened to state that it is new proposed to punish even the woman in cases of adultery.

Shri G. Bhavani Prasad, Secretary, Department of Law (Legislative Affairs), Government of Andhra Pradesh, who is a Distrct Judge, submitted that the distinction between sections 299 & 300, I.P.C. is very thin in practice. He submitted that the case proposed by Shri M.E.N. Patrudu, is covered by the doctrine of Transferred Malice enunciated under section 301, I.P.C..

He contended that a person who is guilty of murder as defined under section 300, I.P.C. falls in one or the other exceptions mentioned in section 300, I.P.C. is considered to have committed the lessor offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Shri G. Bhavani Prasad considered it unjust and suggested that for all offences, lesser punishment should be provided when the offence falls within the exceptions provided under section 300, I.P.C.

Shri G. Bhavani Prasad considered that severe punishments should be imposed for grave industrial negligence involving danger to the life of more than one individual such as Bhopal gas tragedy. He also suggested that domestic violence against the servants and servant-maids which is made punishable all over the world shall also be punished with severe sentence. He also suggested that marital rape is punishable even in a conservative society like England and shall be made punishable even in India.

At that stage Hon'ble Shri Justice K. Jayachandra Reddy intervened and asked the delegates to consider the possibility of punishing a woman for committing rape. Shri G. Bhavani Prasad concluded his submission pointing out that ragging should be punished and pointed out that section 302 and section 309, I.P.C. shall be deleted.

Once again Hon'ble Shri Justice K. Jayachandra Reddy intervened and pointed out if attempt to commit suicide is not made punishable, perhaps the abetment of the same can not be punished and suicide squads like LTTE squads may go scot free. Shri G. Bhavani Prasad submitted that whereas committing suicide is not punishable the attempt to commit suicide is made punishable; and that on the same analogy though the attempt to commit suicide is not punishable, the abetment of the same may be made punishable.

Hon'ble Shri Justice K.S. Srivasthava tried to synthesise suggesting that an explanation to section 309, I.P.C. maybe incorporated punishing the abetment while not punishing the attempt to commit suicide,

Shri Narayanarao Deshmukh, the Director of Prosecutions suggested that in case section 309, I.P.C. is to be removed from the statute book, activities like self immolation and commission of suicide by jumping from roof tops should be taken care of.

Hon'ble Shri Justice S.S.M. Quadri considered that the commission of suicide is only a process of self destruction but is not a weapon and that is therefor desirable for section 309, I.P.C. to continue to hold sway.

Shri M.V. Krishna Rao, the Director of Andhra Pradesh Police Academy considered that section 309, I.P.C. should remain in the statute book, in order to protect persons from attempting to commit suicide. He also felt that a lover, a paramour or a husband of a lady might not actually abet the lady to commit suicide but might create a situation where the lady becomes inclined to commit suicide and that such cases shall be brought under section 306, I.P.C.

At that stage Hon'ble Shri Justice K. Jayachandra Reddy intervened and pointed out that the situation referred to by Shri M.V. Krishna Rao squarely falls within the ambit of abetment to commit suicide. He further pointed out that there are people who tend to commit suicide on the slightest provocation whereas some persons do not tilt towards the commission of suicide in whatever difficulties they be He considered that the question will be a question of fact from case to case and there is no need for the amendment of section 306, I.P.C. on this count.

Shri Ramakrishna Rao, C.B.I. Prosecutor, pointed out that a Hindu woman who is deserted by the husband suffers from mental harassment by the act of desertion and that such cases shall be made to fall within the section 498A, I.P.C.

Shri P.V. Ramakrishna, C.B.I. Prosecutor, submitted that in case capital punishment is to be abolished by and large, exceptions shall be provided for imposition of capital punishment in extreme cases. He also pointed out that the headnote of section 304A, I.P.C. deserves to be altered to include rashness and negligence in the headnote. Hon'ble Shri Justice K. Jayachandra Reddy intervened and pointed out that rashness involves a positive act whereas negligence can be by mere omission also. He further pointed out that headnotes of many sections are incorrect and should suitably be amended.

Shri P.V. Ramakrishna further pointed out that a distinction should be drawn between a rash act and a negligent act and that the offence under section 304A, I.P.C. deserves much more severe maximum punishment. He also opined that section 309, I.P.C. deserves to be repealed and section 354, I.P.C. deserves to be redefined.

Shri Seethapathi, a senior criminal lawyer, later pointed out that there is every need to punish the offence of putting any person to indignation. He submitted that a new section as section 354A, I.P.C. shall be incorporated to punish the offence of indignity of a man on the ground that self-esteem of every human being in India, which is in crisis shall be protected.

Hon'ble Shri Justice K. Jayachandra Reddy pointed out that putting any person to indignation might be a violation of the Human Rights and is punishable under the provisions of Human Rights Act.

Shri G. Vithal, a Prosecuting Officer submitted that causing mental pain or mental hurt to a woman by the husband shall also be made punishable by suitably amending section 498A, I.P.C.

Shri Balakrishna, a C.B.I. Prosecutor, submitted that section 304B, I.P.C. shall include the Act of making demands even after marriage and that a person who indulged in sexual intercourse with a lady on a promise of future marriage shall be made punishable under section 376, I.P.C. Hon'ble Shri Justice S.S.M. Quadri intervened and pointed out that the situation can be covered by suitably amending section 493, I.P.C.. Sri Balakrishna continued that what is modesty covered by section 354, I.P.C. and what is obscenity covered by sections 292 and 294, I.P.C. deserves to be clearly defined. He also considered that section 438B, I.P.C. may be enacted in order to protect human dignity.

Shri Dasaradhi, Retired District Judge and part-time Member of the Law Commission of India opined that section 309, I.P.C. shall be retained in order to punish the persons guilty of abetment to commit suicide. He also pointed out that perceptions of modesty vary from place to place and therefore it is neither desirable nor safe to define modesty under section 354, I.P.C. He agreed with many of the speakers that ragging should be punished with a clear definition of ragging.

He posed a question that should it be necessary to redefine section 299 & section 300, I.P.C. and should it not be left to the discretion of the judge. If section 299 and 300, I.P.C. are to be redefined, Shri Dasaradhi opined that it may be so amended keeping in view the ratio of various cases. He considered that section 304A, I.P.C. requires a minimum sentence, though he did not state as to what shall be the minimum sentence.

Shri Pattabhi, Advocate, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, pointed out that the theft of human organs which results in the death of the person shall be brought within the meaning of section 299, I.P.C. at least to create fear in the mind of human organ thieves.

He considered that enhancement of sentence for section 304A, I.P.C. does not meet the ends of justice where accused are acquitted day in and day out. He pointed out that mere enhancement of sentence of the offence under section 304A, I.P.C. would be a mere paper tiger.

He considered that section 498A, I.P.C. is of ten times used to harass honest husbands and that the section should be redefined in order to protect honest husbands. He considered that section 309, I.P.C. shall stand as it is on the ground that euthanasia (mercy killing) is not recognised in India. He also considered that section 306, I.P.C. requires no amendment.

Sri Ramakrishna Rao, CBI Advocate, submitted that section 304B, I.P.C. shall engulf dowry which shall include even an offer by the relatives of the wife to the husband by way of presents for festivals and other occasions. He submitted that section 309, I.P.C. shall be on the statement book.

Sri Pattabhi, once again spoke pointing out that while domestic violence needs to be punished, such cases shall first to be sent for psycho-analysis.

Sri Shivshanker Rao, Trainee District Judge, submitted that the fine that can be imposed for the offence under the Indian Penal Code shall be enhanced and shall be made part of each section, pointing out that circumstances in which the Indian Penal Code was enacted more than 130 years ago cannot. hold good any more. He pointed out that not only ragging but eveteasing should also be made punishable. He further submitted that teasing of male persons by women in places like exclusively women's colleges shall also be punished as Adam-teasing.

Sri M. Seetharama Murthy, another Trainee District Judge, submitted that section 309, I.P.C. shall be retained while exempting mere attempt to commit suicide from the purview of punishment. He further contended that disobedience of the civil decrees shall be punished severely.

Hon'ble Sri Justice S.S.M. Quadri pointed out that so long as the concept of family exists, it may not be possible legally to punish a husband for forcible sexual intercourse with the wife. He opined that the word "decree" in section 376A, I.P.C. was legally and morally correctly incorporated.

Hon'ble Sri Justice Y. Bhaskar Rao, summed up the deliberations and pointed out that the consensus of the deliberations is that section 309, I.P.C. shall continue to be in the statute book. Hon'ble Sri Justice K. Jayachandra Reddy then thanked all the participants. He pointed out that the Law Commission has recommended for making section 498A, I.P.C. a compoundable offence within section 32C of the Criminal Procedure Code.

He also opined that so long as tangible and perceptable difference cannot be brought out between knowledge and intention, it may not be possible to redefine section 299 and 300, I.P.C. He also drew the attention of the delegates to the fact that sections 299 and 300, I.P.C. have a very thin distinction. The second session concluded thereafter at 2.00 p.m.

The Third Session was chaired by Hon'ble Sri Justice R.M. Bapat, Hon'ble Sri Justice K.S. Srivasthava, Hon'ble Sri Justice S.S.M. Quadri, Hon'ble Sri Justice Y. Bhaskara Rao and Hon'ble Sri Justice K. Jayachandra Reddy participated. The remaining aspects pertaining to Offences against the Property. Offences against Public Justice and General Exceptions, General Explanations and other topics were dealt in the session.

Hon'ble Sri Justice R.M. Bapat, initiated discussion in respect of Offences against Property. He pointed cut that Chapter 17 of the Indian Penal Code dealing with offences against property also includes some offences against human body also like decoity coupled with murder covered under section 396, I.P.C. He pointed out that decoity coupled with murder is a duel offence and such offence shall be made punishable with capital punishment compulsorily.

He referred to various scandals and scams and opined that I.P.C. needs to have a separate Chapter to punish the guilty in the scams and scandals.

Sri Narayanarao Deshmukh pointed out that in cases of decoity coupled with murder, if the decoits have knowledge that murder is part of the offence, all the persons shall be made guilty of murder not confining only to the person who committed the murder. He cautioned that this situation should exist only where all the decoits have knowledge that murder was also part of the offence. Thus he pointed out that conjoint responsibility shall be the hallmark for punishing offenders under section 396, I.P.C.

With reference to mischief, Sri Narayanarao Deshmukh pointed out that mischief, at present is limited to damage to the property only and that mental injury owing to the damage to the property shall also be included in the definition of mischief. He considered that ragging could be included in the definition of mischief in this back drop. He is of the opinion that separate section dealing with blackmail is not necessary on the ground that section 383, I.P.C. defining extortion includes blackmail. He criticised section 380A, I.P.C. pointing out that it is unjust to punish the persons when the loss results owing to the natural calamities and accidents.

He requested for incorporating a new section as section 420A, I.P.C. to punish scams. He agreed with suggestion of the Law Commission that persons collecting money allegedly for securing employment are correctly proposed to be punished.

Sri Seethapathy pointed out that offences against property took the dimension of corporate offences like scams. He also cautioned that bank frauds are in the increase. He considered that decoit shall be made punishable in order to curb these tendencies. He also pointed out that criminal breach of trust shall be extended to scams and shall be rated as a grave crime, as grave as murder.

He pointed out that such offences shall be punished with not less than 7 years' imprisonment and that cheating and criminal breach of trust shall be punished with life imprisonment. Sri Seethapathy further pointed out that section 320 Cr. P.C. needs to be amended to include the offence of cheating within the list of compoundable offences. He also suggested that special rules shall be made for expeditious trial of cases like cases of Harshad Mehta where the scams involve more than one crore rupees.

Sri Seethapathy also contended that real estate business is in the hands of unsocial elements and that Criminal Courts shall be able to provide interim relief as well as financial relief in such matters. He also highlighted the fact that courts are not releasing converted properties such as article committed theft of being converted into money and items like money in extortion being converted into jewellery, carts etc., and that the law should provide for the return of even such converted properties to the real owners.

Sri M.V. Krishna Rao asked the Chairman where it was going to retain 1978 Bill and Hon'ble Sri Justice K. Jayachandra Reddy responded by stating that the. covering letter to 1978 Bill itself has indicated that the Bill can be modified in accordance with the suggestions. Sri M.V. Krishna Rao pointed out that cheating as defined in the 1978 Bill is very sound where upon Hon'ble Sri Justice K. Jayachandra Reddy pointed out that burgalery and theft are also clearly defined in the 1978 Bill.

Sri G. Yethirajulu pointed out that the amount involved in the Criminal Breach of Trust cases deserves to be confiscated and that maximum punishment of death sentence is warranted for the offence of Criminal Breach of Trust. He contended that Criminal Breach of Trust shall be treated as a grave offence.

Sri M.E.N. Patrudu pointed out that the property of the culprits should be attached in Criminal Breach of Trust cases by suitably amending sections 406, 409 and 410, I.P.C.

Sri P.V. Ramakrishna pointed out that Criminal Law Amendment Act provides for attachment of properties is Criminal Breach of Trust and cheating cases. He also pointed out that the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance Provided for clarification of attached property.

By referring to section 16, I.P.C. Act, Sri P.V. Ramakrishna pointed out that matters to be taken note of by that courts in fixing the quantum of fine shall be stated in cases of misappropriation, Criminal Breach of Trust and cheating. Hon'ble Sri Justice K. Jayachandra Reddy intervened and pointed out that section 53, I.P.C. includes forfeiture of property as one of the modes of punishment. Sri M.E.N. Patrudu intervened and submitted that the forfeiture cannot be resorted to unless the property is received in the court.

Sri Balakrishna pointed out that section 452(5), Cr. P.C. can be taken advantage of in cases of forfeiture and that Criminal Law Amendment Act is not of much help. Sri P.V. Ramakrishna interfered and pointed out that forfeiture can be made a part of punishment for every offence against property including cheating. Hon'ble Sri Justice S.S.M. Quadri intervened and pointed out that the concept of forfeiture deprives the owner from getting back his property and therefore forfeiture cannot be resorted to in every property offence.

Sri Ramakrishna Rao pointed out that NDPS Act and prevention of Corruption Act provided for attachment as well as forfeiture of property of the accused. Sri P.V. Ramakrishna intervened and pointed out that properties are forfeited even under Essential Commodities Act.

Sri Vithal submitted that transactions relating to securities act, 1992 provides for the attachments of property automatically and that such a provision be incorporated in the Indian Penal Code. He also suggested that the presumption of quilt can be created in cases of scams, cheating and Criminal Breach of Trust.

Sri Pattabhi pointed out that the Indian Penal Code did not define property but merely defined movable property. He cautioned that creation of general forfeiture would be playing with the fine and submitted that no special provision of forfeiture is needed in view of section 53, I.P.C. He opined that the judicial discretion can be used whether to forfeit or not to forfeit property so that the provisions of forfeiture are not abused.

Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy pointed out that at present there shall be a dishonest intention at the time of the commission of the offence for making the offender punishable for the offence under section 420, I.P.C. should be suitably amended to punish those persons who develop dishonest intention at a later point of time albeit not at the time of the actual transaction.

Sri Ramakrishna suggested that electricity should be brought within the definition of movable property for being punished under section 379, I.P.C. Hon'ble Sri Justice K. Jayachandra Reddy opined that electricity is part of movable property whereupon Sri Ramakrishna submitted that judicial opinion is that electricity is not movable property and consequently its theft is not punishable under section 379, I.P.C.

Hon'ble Sri Justice S.S.M. Quadri pointed out that electricity is movable property as per the Sale of Goods Act whereupon Sri Ramakrishna submitted that a clarification may be incorporated in the Indian Penal Code to include electricity within the meaning of movable property.

Hon'ble Sri Justice K.S. Srivasthava pointed out that section 27, I.P.C. provides that possession by wife or servant shall be the possession of the husband or a master as the case may be, which deserves to be reconsidered, Sri Vithal that suggested that the freezing of the properties of accused in cases of cheating, misappropriation and Criminal Breach of Trust might be considered.

The session that took up Offences relating to the Public Justice. Hon'ble Sri Justice K.S. Srivasthava opened the discussion pointing out that Chapter XI, I.P.C. contains 41 sections. He pointed out that while false evidence leads to devastating results, the sanctity of oath is lost. He pointed out that sections 463 & 464, I.P.C. dealing with forgery should be redefined clearly and that sections 466 and 467, I.P.C. deserve to be combined.

He requested for a severe punishment of the offence under section 228, I.P.C. in order to discourage cowing down of judges and that the sentence for section 228, I.P.C. shall be a maximum of 2 years imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10.000. He pointed out that section 229, I.P.C. is redundant. He requested that section 276, I.P.C. should be amended and that 275, I.P.C. shall be amended deleting the word "knowingly".

Definition of documents should be amended and should be incorporated in section 464, I.P.C. to include dishonest manipulation of court records according to Hon'ble Sri Justice K.S. Srivasthava.

Sri M.V. Krishna Rao, pointed out that section 198A, I.P.C. and section 198B, I.P.C. suggested by the 1978 Bill are good amendments. He pointed out that section 229A, I.P.C. as proposed by 1978 Bill needs to be further amended to include persons jumping bail even during investigation stage and during pretrial stage. He agreed with the suggestion of Hon'ble Sri Justice K.S. Srivasthava that provisions relating to false evidence and public justice should be used properly.

Sri P.V. Ramakrishna pointed out that since the object of sections 198A and 198B, I.P.C. are intended to prevent falsification of medical certificate, other false certificates like date of birth and community certificates as well as agricultural value certificates deserve to be included in the two sections. Sri Balakrishna pointed out that by omitting the word "Public" in section 218, I.P.C. the purpose may be served.

Hon'ble Sri Justice K. Jayachandra Reddy intervened and pointed out that medical certificates and caste certificates created havoc and that the use of such certificates might amount to cheating whereas the issuance of such, certificates might be covered by sections 198A, 198B, I.P.C. Sri P.V. Ramakrishna submitted that persons who issued such false certificates are out of the purview of cheating whereas Hon'ble Sri Justice K. Jayachandra Reddy opined that the creation of false certificate is punishable under, I.P.C. Sri D. Subrahmanyam pointed out that section 229A, I.P.C. should be made applicable to sureties as well as accused.

Sri M.E.N. Patrudu agreed with the suggestion of Sri D. Subrahmanyam. Sri P.V. Ramakrishna suggested that the proposed section 138A and 198B, I.P.C. deserve to be sections 197B and 197C and that the punishment shall be more than one year. Hon'ble Sri Justice K. Jayachandra Reddy opined that one year's imprisonment for a medical doctor is a grave punishment and that in fact it is very difficult to prove a false medical certificate.

Sri M.E.N. Patrudu submitted that fraud played on court shall be made punishable when it is committed by an advocate and that section 193, I.P.C. is not sufficient to punish hostile witnesses. Sri Pattabhi pointed out that no two doctors ever agree and that section 198A, I.P.C. is not a desirable section where the section 468, I.P.C. adequately takes care of the situation. He opined that medical profession shall be given a leewage. He considered that section 228, I.P.C. as it stands now is an excellent balance of judicial restraint.

The last part of the session was devoted to amendments relating to General Exceptions, General Explanations and other miscellaneous topics. Hon'ble Sri Justice S.S.M. Quadri opened that the discussion pointing out that Chapters II, HI and IV, I.P.C. deal with General Explanations and General Exceptions and that fraud falling within Chapter II, I.P.C. required redefinition.

He also pointed out that many definitions covered in Chapter II are stated in the General Clauses Act and that such of those definitions finding place in the General Clauses Act deserve to be repealed from the provisions of the Indian Penal Code. He cautioned that it is difficult to define fraud. He also pointed out that more severe punishments which are proposed by 1978 Bill deserve to be included in section 58, I.P.C. and that each punishment section however shall specify those newly to be incorporated punishments.

In respect of General Exceptions, he threw open a debate for discussion as to whether all offences which are punishable with a maximum sentence of 3 years imprisonment or more be included in section 75, I.P.C. He opined that Exception to section 99, I.P.C. deserves to be deleted and opined further that the Right of Private Defence covered by section 100, I.P.C. shall be extended to abduction cases also.

Sri M.V. Krishna Rao agreed with the suggestion of Hon'ble Sri Justice S.S.M. Quadri that the restriction imposed by section 99, I.P.C. should be deleted as the concept of the Right of Private Defence which is based on the Right of each person to live should have a leeway. He contended that it may not be possible for the victim at the time of the incident to decide whether to protect himself or to run to a police station for protection.

He considered that India is a timid society and that section 99, I.P.C. may never be misused even without the exception as it stands now in section 99, I.P.C.. He considered that section 103, I.P.C. shall be retained in the statute as much as section 100, I.P.C. engulfing cases of abduction also. He explained that section 103, I.P.C. is rarely resorted to in India and need not be removed from the statute book.

Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy opined that section 86, I.P.C. shall not only presume knowledge but shall also include a presumption of intention when an act is committed by a person under the influence of intoxication. Hon'ble Sri Justice S.S.M. Quadri intervened and pointed out that intention can be proved from the circumstances of each case.

Hon'ble Sri Justice K. Jayachandra Reddy intervened and questioned as to whethdr section 86, I.P.C. is necessary at all on the face of section 85, I.P.C. He pointed out that the Indian Penal Code wanted is safeguard murderers under intoxication and that the Code merely supplies knowledge to a drunkard which is necessary to be proved otherwise, whereas intention can be inferred from situations like repeated attempts and the like.

Sri Seethapathy pointed out that an explanation needs to be added to section 84, I.P.C. since several offences are committed due to psychological and neurotic causes. He considered that psychopathological aspects need be included in section 84, I.P.C.

Sri Pa ttabhi pointed out that the ingredients of each offence should be grasped by the investigating officers correctly and that provisions should be created making it compulsory for the police to take the help of financial experts, medical experts and other experts in cases of forgery, manipulation of accounts and the like.

Hon'ble Sri Justice K. Jayachandra Reddy summed up the discussion by pointing out that human dignity is involved in the exercise of the Right of Private Defence and that section 99, I.P.C. however is intended to curb the use of Right of Private Defence for situations like possession of vacant barren "and. He questioned the propriety of a victim in not going to lawful authority in ordinary and non-urgent cases pointing out that one's freedom ends where another person's right begins. He declared that no person can kill another person for mere violation of the rights. Hon'ble Sri Justice K. Jayachandra Reddy finally thanked all the delegates for taking active part in the deliberations.

The following persons attended the workshop:

1. Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. Jayachandra Roddy, Chairman, Law Commission of India.

2. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Y. Bhaskar Rao, Judge, A.P. High Court.

3. Justice R.M. Bapat, Judge, A.P. High Court.

4. Justice K.S. Srivasthava, Judge, A.P. High Court.

5. Justice S.S.M. Quadri, Judge, A. P. High Court.

6. Mrs. C. Suseela Devi, Public Prosecutor, A.P. High Court.

7. Shri G. Krishnamurthy, Member, Law Commission of India.

8. Shri C. Padmanabha Reddy, Senior Advocate.

9. Shri Narayanarao Deshmukh, Director of Prosecutions.

10. Shri P. Seethapathi, Advocate.

11. Shri M.V. Krishna Rao, Director of A.P. Police Academy.

12. Shri P. V. Ramakrishna, Advocate.

13. Shri T.S.V. Prasad, Joint Director, National Police Academy.

14. Shri T. Balareddy, Senior Advocate.

15. Shri M.E.M. Patrudu, Registrar (Vigilance).

16. Shri G. Yethirajulu, Chief Judge, City Civil Court.

17. Shri D. Subrahmanyam, Metropolitan Sessions Judge.

18. Shri G. Bhavani Prasad, Law Secretary.

19. Shri H.J. Dora, Director-General of Police, Andhra Pradesh.

20. Shri Aravind Rao, Inspector-General.

21. Shri Dinakara Prasad.

22. Shri G. Vithal, Prosecutor.

23. Shri Ramakrishna Rao, Prosecutor.

24. Shri Balakrishna P., Prosecutor.

25. Shri P. Satyanarayana Raju, Advocate.

26. Shri B. Pattabhi, Advocate.

27. Shri K.G. Shanker, Senior Faculty Member of the A.P. Judicial Academy.



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