Saturday, 23 January 2021

Whether the court can reduce punishment imposed on accused in the non-compoundable offence if there is a settlement between the parties?

In our considered opinion, it would not be appropriate to order

compounding of an offence not compoundable under the Code

ignoring and keeping aside statutory provisions. In our judgment,

however, limited submission of the learned counsel for the

appellant deserves consideration that while imposing substantive

sentence, the factum of compromise between the parties is indeed a

relevant circumstance which the Court may keep in mind.

 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.24/2021


Murali  Vs State rep. by the Inspector of Police

 DATED : 05-01-2021

Print Page

Friday, 22 January 2021

Bombay HC: Prostitution, not an offence, the court can not permit detention of Adult woman in the protective home without her consent

  It is interesting to note the relevant provisions of the said

Act, which go to show that the purpose and the object of the Act is

not to abolish the prostitution or the prostitute. There is no

provision under the law which makes prostitution per se a criminal offence or punishes a person because he indulges in prostitution.

What is punishable under the Act is sexual exploitation or abuse of person for commercial purpose and to earn the bread thereby,

except where a person is carrying on prostitution in a public place

as provided in Section 7 or when a person is found soliciting or

seducing another person in view of Section 8 of the said Act. The

record does not reveal nor there is a charge against the victims –

petitioners that they were indulged in prostitution as defined in

Section 2(f) of the said Act. There is nothing on record to show

that the petitioners were seducing any person for the purpose of

prostitution nor there is any material to show that they were

running a brothel. It seems that the learned Magistrate has been

swayed away while passing the impugned order by the fact that

the petitioners belong to a particular caste. It is equally important

to note that the petitioners victims are major and, therefore, have

a right to reside at the place of their choice, to move freely

throughout the territory of India and to choose their own vocation

as enshrined in Part III of fundamental rights of the Constitution of

India. The learned Magistrate, before passing the impugned order

ought to have considered the willingness and consent of the

victims before ordering their detention in the protective home.

The orders impugned dated 19.10.2019 by the Metropolitan

Magistrate, Mazgaon and the order dated 22.11.2019 passed by

the Additional Sessions Judge, Dindoshi therefore, need to be

quashed as the same are bad in law.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

RIT PETITION NO. 6065 OF 2020

 Petitioners  Vs. The State of Maharashtra (Through the Inspector-in-charge of Malad Police Station)


CORAM : PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J.


PRONOUNCED ON : 24th SEPTEMBER, 2020.

Print Page

Wednesday, 20 January 2021

Questions and Answers on law Part 17

Q 1:- Whether Judgments and orders passed by Civil court are executable throughout the territory of India?

Ans:-Yes, as per Article 261(3) in The Constitution Of India 1949

(3) Final judgments or orders delivered or passed by civil courts in any part of the territory of India shall be capable of execution anywhere within that territory according to law.
Print Page

Monday, 18 January 2021

Main features of Arms Act (Amendment) 2019


 By amending Section 3, the Act reduces the number of permitted firearms from three to one.

As per the Act, those who own more than two firearms will have to deposit the third one with authorities or authorised gun dealers within 90 days for de-licensing once the amendment is approved by the Parliament.

Print Page