No arrest for offences with maximum penalty of 7 yrs or less

mail4loys · 31st December 2008, 10:18

Quote:

No arrest for offences with maximum penalty of 7 yrs or less

The eight Bills passed by Lok Sabha on December 23 without a debate in 17 minutes included a radically revamped Criminal Procedure Code, which divests the police of the usual arrest powers in all cases where the maximum possible sentence is seven years or less….

Instead of arresting the accused, the police will now be obliged to issue him a "notice of appearance" for any offence punishable with imprisonment up to seven years, which — as it happens — is the maximum penalty prescribed under Section 124 of Indian Penal Code for assaulting a President.

Seven years or less is also the maximum penalty for a host of other offences, including attempt to commit culpable homicide (Section 308) or robbery (Section 393), voluntarily causing grievous hurt (Section 325), cheating (Section 420), outraging a woman's modesty (Section 354) and death caused by negligence (Section 304A).

The notice of appearance casts a duty on the accused person to appear before the police and "cooperate" with the investigation. It is only if he fails to comply with the terms of the notice that the question of arresting him will arise….

This is how the new law liberalises the arrest provisions:

* Section 41A (1) says that in all cases punishable with imprisonment up to seven years, "the police officer may, instead of arresting the person concerned, issue to him a notice of appearance."
* Section 41A (3) conveys the import of this far-reaching devise by saying, "Where such person complies and continues to comply with the notice, he shall not be arrested in respect of the offence referred to in the notice unless, for reasons to be recorded, the police are of the opinion that he ought to be arrested."
* Section 41A (4) explains the remedy that is available to the police whsen the accused does not honour his part of the deal: "Where such person, at any time, fails to comply with the notice, it shall be lawful for the police officer to arrest him..."

No arrest for offences with maximum penalty of 7 yrs or less-India-The Times of India

Will this really help the citizen or are we provinding another loop-hole to criminals?

vikram_d · 31st December 2008, 10:41

This in my opinion is definitely not going to help. Seems like just another loop-hole. All the bribed eating officials, after this law can not be arrested officially.

sidkun · 31st December 2008, 13:14

Is this a case of an over-enthusiastic reporter interpreting stuff on his own?

The line says "the police officer may, instead of arresting the person concerned, issue to him a notice of appearance."

To me, it seems that the new amendment gives an OPTION to the officer to issue a notice instead of arresting the accused. If the word "shall" was used, that would have made the requirement mandatory, IMO.

vivekiny2k · 31st December 2008, 20:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by sidkun

Is this a case of an over-enthusiastic reporter interpreting stuff on his own?

The line says "the police officer may, instead of arresting the person concerned, issue to him a notice of appearance."

To me, it seems that the new amendment gives an OPTION to the officer to issue a notice instead of arresting the accused. If the word "shall" was used, that would have made the requirement mandatory, IMO.

That's what makes it a loop hole.

hkanitkar · 31st December 2008, 22:20

This, in my opinion, is a just a loop-hole for the criminals and mainly, criminals-turned-politicians. Also what this transforms the 'Police' forces to is just a 'Notice issuing' force.

In a country where people forget their responsibility to follow simplest of traffic rules, how much of importance will be given to a 'Notice of appearance' and 'Co-operating' with police ?

PS : Can someone with a law background elaborate on this, please ???

sidkun · 2nd January 2009, 11:22

Yes, someone who's a lawyer is requested to clarify..... because, IMO, it's nothing but an option given to a police officer..... i.e. he/she may choose to either arrest OR issue a notice..... and probably would only choose to issue a notice if he/she is reasonably confident that the accused would indeed report at the notified time.... this would reduce the overcrowding of police station jail cells.

aaggoswami · 2nd January 2009, 13:08

Nice joke of law. We have just created a new loop hole on which anyone can get away from almost any crime that can be mental torture for others.

appuchan · 2nd January 2009, 13:18

"the police officer may, instead of arresting the person concerned, issue to him a notice of appearance."

That "may" word gives a terrific option for policemen to make more money, and the option taken (arrest or notice) would depend upon the "capability" of the offender and nothing else.

mail4loys · 2nd January 2009, 13:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by appuchan

"the police officer may, instead of arresting the person concerned, issue to him a notice of appearance."

That "may" word gives a terrific option for policemen to make more money, and the option taken (arrest or notice) would depend upon the "capability" of the offender and nothing else.

We know in the past how MP / MLA their Sons / relatives flouted the law and were roaming in public inspite of having an arrest warrant! God save India.

sudev · 2nd January 2009, 14:08

Okay here is going against the grain....

Remember headline grabbing Arushi murder case. Father / servant was arrested to be eventually let off. Now such amendments will balance the tendency of police to capture people on knee jerk reaction only to realize that they have erred or do not have sufficient evidence for bringing a successul trial.

Also case of two Kashmiri youths who languished in jail for two years only to have CBI scrutiny let them off. There are many such cases where innocent have been arrested and kept as undertrials for lenghts of time which ended up being more that even the maximum punishment prescribed for the offence.

Operative word is "MAY" and this does not really take away power but only makes it mandatory for police officer to record his reasons for arrest. Okay the law assumes that the police are doing their duty diligently. There has to be safeguard for citizens against harrasment powers that can be used arbitrarily.

All that said and done it still does not bode well for a democracy to funtion in manner where important bills are passed without due consideration or debate (both public and in parliament). This is cause of worry and shame.

Worth discussing and understanding all perspectives.

aaggoswami · 2nd January 2009, 14:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by mail4loys

God save India.

I think that nobody can do this. Its we who are supposed to oppose and if required, we must take law in our hands or else, we will be suffering.
I am very frustrated at this type of law.

We are still running the british laws. A major overhaul is required now.

I will seriously consider settling down is another developed country.

vivekiny2k · 2nd January 2009, 18:09

And how can a police officer decide the penalty? that's for the court to decide, isn't it?

aaggoswami · 2nd January 2009, 20:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by vivekiny2k

And how can a police officer decide the penalty? that's for the court to decide, isn't it?

Pay some bribe to officer or may be use influence and officer can decide everything in India.

2nd January 2009, 13:18	#8
appuchan BHPian Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Bangy Posts: 634 Thanked: 6 Times	"the police officer may, instead of arresting the person concerned, issue to him a notice of appearance." That "may" word gives a terrific option for policemen to make more money, and the option taken (arrest or notice) would depend upon the "capability" of the offender and nothing else. Last edited by appuchan : 2nd January 2009 at 13:19.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
List of Traffic offences and applicable fine. Fines set to increase 10-fold	moralfibre	Street and Travel Experiences	77	22nd May 2012 13:11
They gave him helmet soon after arrest !	Bullfrog	Shifting gears	2	20th September 2007 17:03
6 Months & 5 Lakhs Penalty for Running over People on the Pavement: UPDATE: Now 3 yrs	esteem_lover	Shifting gears	34	14th September 2007 15:38

31st December 2008, 10:41	#2
vikram_d Distinguished - BHPian Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Bangalore Posts: 2,260 Thanked: 653 Times	This in my opinion is definitely not going to help. Seems like just another loop-hole. All the bribed eating officials, after this law can not be arrested officially.

31st December 2008, 13:14	#3
sidkun BHPian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Bangalore Posts: 39 Thanked: 3 Times	Is this a case of an over-enthusiastic reporter interpreting stuff on his own? The line says "the police officer may, instead of arresting the person concerned, issue to him a notice of appearance." To me, it seems that the new amendment gives an OPTION to the officer to issue a notice instead of arresting the accused. If the word "shall" was used, that would have made the requirement mandatory, IMO.

31st December 2008, 22:20	#5
hkanitkar BHPian Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: pune Posts: 619 Thanked: 5 Times View My Garage	This, in my opinion, is a just a loop-hole for the criminals and mainly, criminals-turned-politicians. Also what this transforms the 'Police' forces to is just a 'Notice issuing' force. In a country where people forget their responsibility to follow simplest of traffic rules, how much of importance will be given to a 'Notice of appearance' and 'Co-operating' with police ? PS : Can someone with a law background elaborate on this, please ???

2nd January 2009, 11:22	#6
sidkun BHPian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Bangalore Posts: 39 Thanked: 3 Times	Yes, someone who's a lawyer is requested to clarify..... because, IMO, it's nothing but an option given to a police officer..... i.e. he/she may choose to either arrest OR issue a notice..... and probably would only choose to issue a notice if he/she is reasonably confident that the accused would indeed report at the notified time.... this would reduce the overcrowding of police station jail cells.

2nd January 2009, 13:08	#7
aaggoswami Senior - BHPian Join Date: May 2007 Location: Vadodara Posts: 4,132 Thanked: 334 Times	Nice joke of law. We have just created a new loop hole on which anyone can get away from almost any crime that can be mental torture for others.

2nd January 2009, 14:08	#10
sudev Distinguished - BHPian Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Faridabad Posts: 2,614 Thanked: 405 Times	Okay here is going against the grain.... Remember headline grabbing Arushi murder case. Father / servant was arrested to be eventually let off. Now such amendments will balance the tendency of police to capture people on knee jerk reaction only to realize that they have erred or do not have sufficient evidence for bringing a successul trial. Also case of two Kashmiri youths who languished in jail for two years only to have CBI scrutiny let them off. There are many such cases where innocent have been arrested and kept as undertrials for lenghts of time which ended up being more that even the maximum punishment prescribed for the offence. Operative word is "MAY" and this does not really take away power but only makes it mandatory for police officer to record his reasons for arrest. Okay the law assumes that the police are doing their duty diligently. There has to be safeguard for citizens against harrasment powers that can be used arbitrarily. All that said and done it still does not bode well for a democracy to funtion in manner where important bills are passed without due consideration or debate (both public and in parliament). This is cause of worry and shame. Worth discussing and understanding all perspectives.

2nd January 2009, 18:09	#12
vivekiny2k Senior - BHPian Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: cincinnati, jabalpur,chennai Posts: 1,223 Thanked: 140 Times View My Garage	And how can a police officer decide the penalty? that's for the court to decide, isn't it?