ABOUT THE ORGANISER

Rayat College of LawRailmajra(Affiliated to Panjab UniversityChandigarh) under the guidance of Dr Monika Sharma(Principal-Rayat College of Law) are geared up to organize yet another illuminating and enriching virtual session for augmenting legal and practical knowledge.

DATE & TIME

24th June 2020 04:00 pm to 06:00 pm

TOPIC

INDIA ON ITS LONG WAY TO VICTIM PROTECTION SCHEME

SPEAKERS

JUSTICE SD ANAND (Former judge)

JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA (Former judge)

ADV. VARUNA BHANDARI (Supreme Court Of India)

ADV. UTSAV BAINS (Supreme Court Of India)

DR. MONIKA SHARMA(Principle, Rayat College)

REGISTRATION DETAILS

No Registration Fees

E-Certificate shall be provided

REGISTRATION LINK

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeNt5IW6ZPzC6J5BHZM-JA4kDRW6oe-s-i_fCY9tqFYcfGVwQ/viewform

PARTNERS OF THE EVENT

LEXPEEPS.IN, LawKit and Kanuni Sahara

CONTACT DETAILS

For any queries

contact:-Saksham 4th Year (9780313669)


NAME OF THE ORGANISER

Lawshastra in association with Manulegal

NAME OF THE EVENT

Webinar

TOPIC

MURDER AND CULPABLE HOMICIDE FROM THE POINT OF PRACTICAL APPROACH

DATE AND TIME OF THE EVENT

20th June 2020

12:00 to 01:00 p.m

LAST DATE TO REGISTER

19th June 2020

REGISTRATION LINK

https://forms.gle/2XEShm8kW7CdTk729

SPEAKER

Mr.ABHIMANYU SINGH (Founder – Manulegal, Research Scholar University of Rajasthan)

CONTACT DETAILS

Keshav Baheti: 7693038125

1st Lawschole Essay Writing Competition: Participation Certificate to all, Merit Certificates to Top 15; Register by July 10.

About the Organisation

From the beginning, Lawschole has been driven by the interests and involvement of our incredible and engaged law students. We are a growing law-student forum focused on improving our collection of law school news and opportunities, and enhancing the forum experience. We are a great resource, offering opportunities for students to be active in a variety of topics and to engage with each other in an interesting and safe online environment. It is a forum where law students can share thoughts, seek opinions and advice, and learn something new from other members of the forum.

About the Competition

In an effort of improving the creation and dissemination of legal writing, Lawschole is organising 1st Lawschole Essay Writing Competition to bring into light the views of students on varied aspects of day-to-day life. While pursuing our goals, we commit to engaging with law students so as to ensure the involvement of law students.

Themes

  • Authors may select the topic of their choice on any current legal topic.

Guidelines to Authors

  • The word limit is 1500 words, exclusive of footnotes.
  • Co-authorship is allowed to a maximum of 2 authors only.
  • The essay writing competition is open to students enrolled in any graduate or postgraduate course.
  • The submission must be made in .doc or .docx format only.
  • The content should be the original work of the writer and should not have been given to any other competition or for any publication. Plagiarised content shall not be entertained.
  • Judgment shall be based on the quality of the content and uniqueness.
  • No extension in deadline shall be allowed.

The formatting guidelines to be followed are:

  • Font size: 12
  • Font: Times New Roman
  • Alignment: Justified
  • Line spacing: 1.15

Registration

Registration amount is Rs. 100 for Single Author and Rs. 150 for Co-authorship. Co-authorship is allowed to a maximum of 2 authors.

Participants can submit the Registration fee via PayTm UPI Money Transfer, Bhim UPI, or Gpay by scanning the following QR code:

After the payment, all the participant(s) must fill the registration form attached and attach a screenshot of the payment receipt, and mail it at lawschole@gmail.com.

Submission Details

Submission can be made at lawschole@gmail.com

The last date for submission of the essay is 15th July 2020.

Awards and Merit

  • 1st Prize: Rs. 500 + e-Certificate of Achievement + Free Publication of Essay on our website + an opportunity to get an article published in the Lawschole’s E-Magazine for free.
  • 2nd Prize: e-Certificate of Achievement + Free Publication of Essay at our website + an opportunity to get an article published in the Lawschole’s E-Magazine for free.
  • Top 15 Essays will be provided with the e-Merit Certificate and an opportunity to get an article published in the Lawschole’s E-Magazine for free.
  • All participants are entitled to receive e-participation certificates..

Important Dates

  • Deadline for registration: 10th July 2020
  • Deadline for submission: 15th July 2020
  • Declaration of the result: 19th July 2020
  • Issuance of e-certificate: 25th July 2020

Contact Information

For any further queries please feel free to reach us at lawschole@gmail.com.

Website address- https://lawschole.wixsite.com/lawschole


This article has been written by Nimisha Mishra, a second-year student of NALSAR University of Law. In this article, the author has explained the sedition law and has drawn the parallel comparison between the US and India. 

INTRODUCTION

Sedition refers to an act of inciting and invoking violence against the state. Sedition is a serious offence or felony since it involves revolt against the state, which can create a serious law and order situation. The purpose of sedition is that it incited violence against a lawful authority to overthrow or destroy it. Sedition law is punishable to 20 years of imprisonment and fine. 

Brief history of Sedition

Sedition as a law emerged from Elizabethan England, at that time if anyone criticised the king and insight a rebellion it was considered as a crime against the state. When Britishers were ruling India, they had a constant fear of rebellion, especially the Wahhabi rebellion. So as a protective mechanism they introduced sedition law which was applicable to freedom fighters especially. Great leaders like Mahatma Gandhi and Bal Gangadhar Tilak were tried under this law. Originally the sedition law was drafted in 1837 by Thomas Macaulay but it was not included in Indian Penal Code in 1860. Section 124A was later inserted in 1870 through an amendment. 

In recent times, the rise in sedition cases can be seen around the world whether it is US or India. Professions like intellectuals, students, human rights activists, journalists, filmmakers and universities are the common victims of sedition charges. 

Sedition law in India

Sedition law in India is defined under section 124A of the Indian Penal Code. It states that Whoever, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards, the Government established by law in India, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine.”

The sedition law in India is broader than the sedition law in the US. In India, the no. of people required to constitute sedition is also not defined, which means that even one person alone can constitute sedition. 

Sedition is an offence since the colonial period; it has existed in the Indian Penal Code. It was so because the Britishers could not tolerate any dissent opinion raised by the people. 

But even after independence, the sedition law was severely criticized on the point that it strictly curbed the freedom of speech and expression and hence free speech. There were proposals made by the then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru to handle the sedition related content through other means. Mahatma Gandhi section 124 is “the price among the political sections of the IPC designed to suppress the liberty of the citizens

Sedition in India is a non-bailable offence. There are other restrictions imposed on a person charged with sedition like he cannot apply for any government job after that. The major restriction was that they have to live the rest of their life without a passport and have to appear in the court of law as and when required. 

Sedition also has the same effect on people as the chilling effect. It deters people from raising any dissent opinion against the ruling government. It has become a tool for the government to terrorise its citizens which is a very serious loophole of democracy. 

The Supreme Court of India interpreted Section 124 and stated the difference as to when sedition is committed and when it is not committed. The court said that sedition is a crime against the state and not the government. So if citizens are criticizing any particular party or a politician, it will not be considered as sedition. For the crime of sedition to be committed a person must insight violence against the state or the Constitution of India which is detrimental to the peace of society. Recently it has been seen that sedition is used to terrorise citizens from raising their voices. And it is necessary for the government to realise the difference of when the sedition is committed and when is not before prosecuting or convicting an individual. 

Sedition law in the US

In the United Nations, the sedition law is defined under Title 18 of the US Code, as engaging two or more people to commit sedition within the jurisdiction of the United States. Sedition includes treason, rebellion and other similar offences. As per the 18th code, sedition is defined as a conspiracy of two or more people to destroy or overthrow the United States government. 

Sedition cases are usually rare in the US because of the First Amendment. Sedition in the US has been illegal since time immemorial. 

During the late 1820s and early 1830s, the rise of slavery was at peak. There were huge protest and movements to abolish slavery, which forced the state to enact sedition law. Even the US Supreme Court was reluctant to help till late 1927. In a popular case of Whitney v. California the court ruled that it is unjustified to deny the freedom of speech and expression only because of the fear of dissent.  

Earlier great leaders of the US such as Wilson regarded sedition as a very essential for the governance of the country. They considered it crucial in order to suppress the dissent for the smooth functioning of the governance. However, the modern legal scholars are of the contrary view as they consider the Sedition Act as against the spirit of the First Amendment of the US Constitution. 

There should be substantial evidence that sedition could be committed before convicting anyone since there are very serious repercussions of it. 

Conclusion

Sedition in democratic countries gives excessive power to the ruling government to suppress the opinion of the citizens and maintain its image. It is high time now for the government of a democratic country to realise that for the citizens to fully enjoy democracy, they should be given protection to exercise their rights.      

Latest Posts


Archives

ABOUT THE ORGANISER 

IMS Law College produces the best legal professionals for serving society. This institution is recognized by the University Grants Commission (UGC). This is the First College in Noida to start B.A., LL.B. 5-year integrated degree course followed by LL.B. 3-year degree course and B.Com., LL.B. 5-year integrated course. All courses are approved by the Bar Council of India. This College is committed to providing the best education and training of global exposure to the students in the legal arena. IMS LAW COLLEGE has an affiliation to CCS University, Meerut. 

TOPIC

“Professional Ethics, Accountability of Lawyers, Bar and Bench Relations & BCI Rules: Multiple Perspectives in light of Advocates Act, 1961”

CONTACTS DETAILS

info@imsnoida.com 

A-8B, IMS Campus Sector-62 Noida-201303 

+91-120-4798800-02 

imslawcollege.com 

SPEAKERS 

Hon’ble Guests for Session I (11:00 am) 

  • Hon’ble Justice Sudhir Narain Agarwal “Former Judge, Allahabad High Court”
  • Dr K S Chauhan 
  • Prof. (Dr.) Satya Prakash Garg “Former Dean, Faculty of Law CCS University, Meerut” 
  • Adv. Ved Prakash Sharma “Member, Bar Council of India” 
  • Adv. Vishnu Sharma “Honorary Secretary, Bar Council of Delhi” 

Hon’ble Guests for Session II (02:30 pm) 

  • Hon’ble Mr Justice Sudhir Narain Agarwal, 
  • Dr. K S Chauhan 
  • Prof. (Dr.) Satya Prakash Garg 
  • Adv. Ved Parkash Sharma 
  • Adv. Vishnu Sharma 
  • Hon’ble Justice S N Dhingra “Former Judge, Delhi High Court” 
  • Prof. (Dr.) A K Bansal “Former Dean-Law Delhi University” 
  • Prof. (Dr.) Afzal Wani “GGSIPU” 
  • Adv. Amarjeet Singh Chandhiok “Senior Advocate, Delhi High Court” 
  • Adv. D K Sharma “Member, Bar Council of Delhi”


REGISTRATION FORM

https://forms.gle/KFZkcSXQR9uEkjZo6

(Certificate will be issued to all registered participants.) (Prizes for top 3 paper presenters) 

DEADLINES

Last date of registration 05th July 2020. Webinar link will be shared on 08th July.2020 

93159 49750 Email:- rkdevadvocate@gmail.com

ABOUT THE ORGANISER

Center for legal studies has been set up by Gitarattan International Business School in the year 2016 for imparting legal education. CLS-GIBS has been emerging as one of the prominent law schools of the country providing 5 years integrated programmes in BA LLB and BBA LLB.

Gitarattan International Business School (GIBS) was established in the year 2004. GIBS is affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, Delhi and is approved by All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), Ministry of HRD, Government of India for technical programmes and Bar Council of India for Law programmes.

TOPIC OF THE EVENT

ARE FREE TRAIL FEASIBLE IN TODAYS WORLD OF SOCIAL MEDIA: IT’S ESCALATING INFLUENCE ON JUDICIARY

DATE OF THE EVENT

20th June 2020

TIME OF THE EVENT

04:00 P: M TO 05:30 P: M

SPEAKER

Hon’ble Justice G.S Singhvi (FORMER JUDGE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA)

REGISTRATION LINK

https://event.webinarjam.com/register/9/10zr3tl


ABOUT THE ORGANISER

Center for legal studies has been set up by Gitarattan International Business School in the year 2016 for imparting legal education. CLS-GIBS has been emerging as one of the prominent law schools of the country providing 5 years integrated programmes in BA LLB and BBA LLB.

Gitarattan International Business School (GIBS) was established in the year 2004. GIBS is affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, Delhi and is approved by All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), Ministry of HRD, Government of India for technical programmes and Bar Council of India for Law programmes.

TOPIC OF THE EVENT

PANDEMIC AND CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES: A CURRENT PERSPECTIVE

DATE OF THE EVENT

23 rd June 2020

TIME OF THE EVENT

11:00-12:00 Noon

SPEAKER

Hon’ble justice Swatenter Kumar (FORMER JUDGE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA)

REGISTRATION LINK

https://event.webinarjam.com/register/9/10zr3tl



Hey, this is Pranit Bhagat pursuing III BA LLB from ILS Law College, Pune. In this article, we shall discuss the various dimensions regarding the rights of women and personal laws in India.

INTRODUCTION

The concept of equality, however, requires equity. The history of social development is also a history of inequality. Inequality between nations, religions, ethnicity, class, caste, race, and sexuality. However, the question of women’s rights looms large, cutting through all the layers of social stratification. The feminist struggle for equal rights has been paved through legislation, be it the Suffragette movement and the right to vote, to employment rights, property rights, rights governing divorce and marriage to child-care and medicine – legislation based on equal rights affects the very values of society, impacting not just the way we vote, but the way we work, live and function as a family, the way we access education, healthcare, and justice. In India, the constitutionally guaranteed equality for women is often contradictory to the harsh social reality of the land and its cultural norms. The struggle for women’s equality began in India in the 20th century, during the struggle for Independence. In the fight against the British, western-educated leaders like B.R.Ambedkar, Mahatma Gandhi, Raja Ram Mohan Roy, and Savitribai Phule encouraged women to step away from their homes and hearths and enter the public sphere in the fight for Independence. Indian values, nationalism, and cultural heritage were glorified through the symbolism of ‘Mother India’. Perhaps for the first time in India, the idea that a woman is part of the larger Indian tapestry as a legal citizen took root. The inclusion of the female citizen into the public sphere necessitated citizenship rights and changes in the law such as the right to education, inheritance rights, the abolition of sati and polygamy as well as the allowance for the widow- remarriage. While a struggle for nationalism changed the legal landscape of women’s rights through the colonial era, the post-colonial era in India has been marked by sweeping changes such as globalization, neo-liberal policies, and the leaps and bounds in technological development. This has expanded women’s participation in the public sphere. More Indian women are engaged in business enterprises, international platforms, multi-national careers like advertising and fashion, and have better opportunities than ever because of the free movement of goods, capital, and ideas. Ideas that question the very nature of laws. Has our legal system kept up with social change? Does our constitution have provisions for equality or equity? Do rights guarantee justice? Is citizenship gendered? The following article gives a brief overview of the current spate of women-centric legal reform in India and concludes with a discussion on its socio-cultural impact on the very fabric of Indian citizenship.

Judicial Protection for Women’s Rights

The nation-wide outrage over the brutal gang rape and subsequent death of Jyoti Singh in New Delhi was the driving force behind the promulgation of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 (“Criminal Law Amendment Act“). The Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013 that came into force on February 3, 2013, amended as well as inserted new sections in the Indian Penal Code concerning sexual offences. Some of the new offences recognized by the Criminal Law Amendment Act are acid attacks, voyeurism, stalking, intentional disrobing of women, and sexual harassment. In 2013, India adopted its first legislation specifically addressing the issue of workplace sexual harassment; the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (“POSH Act“) enacted by the Ministry of Women and Child Development, India. Workplace sexual harassment is a form of gender discrimination that violates a woman’s fundamental right to equality and right to life, guaranteed under Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution of India. The POSH Act had been enacted to prevent and protect women against workplace sexual harassment (which includes the creation of a hostile work environment) and to address complaints of sexual harassment.

Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act, 2017 (“Maternity Amendment”)

2017 witnessed the bold amendment to the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 (“Maternity Act“). The Maternity Amendment extends paid maternity leave for women employees with less than two surviving children, from the original twelve (12) weeks to twenty-six (26) weeks. A maximum of eight (8) weeks can be taken before the expected delivery date and the remaining after childbirth. Women expecting their third child were also provided with the right to take twelve(12) weeks of paid maternity leave—six (6) weeks before childbirth and six after. The Maternity Amendment provided for mothers adopting a child below three months of age, or “commissioning mothers” to take twelve (12) weeks of maternity leave from the date of receiving the child. The Maternity Amendment enables mothers to work from home after completing twenty-six (26) weeks of leave subject to their work profiles and the employer’s consent. The Maternity Amendment also mandates establishments employing 50 or more employees to have a creche which is required to have prescribed facilities and amenities. Women employees have a right to visit the crèche four times a day, including during their rest interval.

Decriminalizing of Adultery

On September 27, 2018, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court“) struck down another colonial-era law, Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code that prescribed maximum imprisonment of five years to men for adultery.

Unlike India’s sexual assault laws, which are linked with the consent of the woman, the 158-year-old adultery law did not consider the woman’s will. A husband can prosecute the man who had sexual relations with his wife, even if the wife was a voluntary participant in the act. Though, the women can’t be punished under this provision.

A petition to strike down this law was argued in the Supreme Court. It said that the law discriminated against men by only holding them liable for extra-marital relationships while treating women like objects. All five Supreme Court judges after hearing their case said that the law was archaic, arbitrary, and unconstitutional. However, The Court clarified that adultery will be a ground for divorce.

Dipak Misra, the then Chief Justice of India said that it’s time to say that (a) husband is not the master of (his) wife. Women should be treated equally along with men. Justice R F Nariman wrote a separate judgment to concur with the judgments of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justice Khanwilkar, stating that Section 497 was an archaic provision that had lost its rationale. Justice Nariman observed that Ancient notion of man being the perpetrator and woman being a victim of adultery no longer holds good.

Justice Chandrachud in his separate but concurring opinion said that Section 497 was destructive to woman’s dignity and also emphasized that “Respect for sexual autonomy must be emphasized”.”Section 497 perpetrates subordinate nature of woman in a marriage”, were his concluding remarks. Justice Indu Malhotra noted in her judgment that Section institutionalized discrimination.

This was the second colonial-era law struck down by the Supreme Court after it struck down the 157-year-old law which criminalized gay sex in India.

Triple Talaq 

Triple Talaq” or Instant Talaq or “Talaq-e-Biddat” are the different forms of Islamic practices which allow men to divorce their wives immediately by just saying the word “talaq” (divorce) three times before their wives. The Supreme Court, once again in its recent landmark judgment of Sayarabano Vs. Union of India pronounced on August 22, 2017, set aside the practice of “Triple Talaq”. The bench declared Triple Talaq as unconstitutional by a 3:2 majority. The Judgment by the minority bench also further directed the Government of Union of India to lay proper legislation in order to regularize the proceedings of divorce as per Shariat law. Taking into consideration the views of the Supreme Court, the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Bill, 2018 (“Triple Talaq Bill“) was introduced in Lok Sabha by the Minister of Law and Justice, in December 2018. Better known as the Triple Talaq Bill, the bill makes all declaration of talaq, including in written or electronic form, to be void (i.e. not enforceable in law) and illegal. The Triple Talaq Bill made a declaration of talaq being a cognizable offence, attracting up to three years’ imprisonment and a fine. 

The offence will be considered as a cognizable offence only if information relating to the said offence is given by 

  1. the married woman (against whom talaq has been declared), or 
  2. Any person related to her by blood or marriage.

The Triple Talaq Bill is pending the nod of the Rajya Sabha. In the interim period, an ordinance penalizing the act of triple talaq has been promulgated. The ordinance making the practice of instant triple talaq, a penal offence has been issued for a third time in February 2019.

Sabrimala Issue

The Supreme Court on September 28, 2019, delivered one of the most keenly awaited judgments in the Sabarimala case. The Supreme Court permitted entry of women of all age groups to the Sabarimala temple by a 4:1 majority stating that ‘devotion cannot be subjected to gender discrimination’. The lone woman on the bench, Justice Indu Malhotra, dissented. Then Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice R F Nariman, Justice AM Khanwilkar and Justice DY Chandrachud constituted the majority. “Woman is not lesser or inferior to man. Patriarchy of religion cannot be permitted to trump faith. Biological or physiological reasons cannot be accepted in freedom for the faith”, said Chief Justice Dipak Misra while reading portions of the judgment written out for himself and Justice AM Khanwilkar. This stigmatizes and stereotypes women, he analyzed. Justice R F Nariman held that the customs and usages of Sabarimala temple must yield to the fundamental right of women to worship in the temple.

Women’s Reservation Bill 

Women’s Reservation Bill or the Constitution (108th Amendment) Bill proposes to amend the Constitution of India to reserve 33 per cent of all seats in the Lower House Lok Sabha, and in all state legislative assemblies for women. The seats to be reserved in the rotation will be determined by a draw of lots in such a way that a seat shall be reserved only once in three consecutive general elections. The Upper House, Rajya Sabha passed the bill on March 9, 2010. As of today, the Lok Sabha has not yet voted on the bill and the bill still remains in limbo. If Lok Sabha were to approve the bill, it would have to be passed by half of India’s state legislatures and signed by the President.

CONCLUSION

Subsequent to the year 2013 that witnessed the promulgation of the Criminal Law Amendment Act and the POSH Act, there have been several other changes in the law that have been for the welfare, security, and benefit of women as well as with the aim to eliminate gender-based discrimination, one of the fundamentals of the Constitution of India. As we have seen the Supreme Court, has taken several initiatives and in some cases issued directions to the Government as well, but it is the practical implementation of these laws that is required to ensure equality of women.There are a great many difficulties that many Indian women face, which include poverty, female feticide, sexual harassment, lack of education, job skill training. India still ranks 108th among 149 countries in the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) Global Gender Gap Index, 2018. A lot needs to be done to ensure that Indian women have equal rights and we see an India defined by inclusive citizenship rather than exclusive.

This article is written by Ishika Gupta pursuing BBA L.LB from Gitarattan International Business School. This article aims to highlight the basic difference between criminal misappropriation and criminal breach of trust.

INTRODUCTION

The English word ‘embezzlement’ means ‘theft or misappropriation of funds placed in one’s trust or belonging to one’s employer’. The same act has been recognised as an offence under The Indian Penal Code,1860. As per section 405 when a person is entrusted with property or has dominion over it and he dishonestly misappropriates it or converts it for his own use in violation of any direction in which the trust is to be discharged he is liable for criminal breach of trust.

To constitute the offence under section 405 it is necessary that the property must have been entrusted with the accused or the accused must have dominion over the property, without this essential the offence can’t be covered under section 405 as said in Chelloor Mankkal Narayan vs State Of Travancore-Cochin (AIR 1953 SC 478). It must be proved that the person other than the accused had a beneficial interest in the property and the accused represents the property on his behalf. The person who owns the property is the transferor and who holds that property is called transferee. There is an implied relationship between both. The transferor is the legal owner of the property whereas the transferee has the custody for benefit of the transferor only.

For instance, X owns a travel agency and has several drivers under him. He has handed over each driver a car for the business purpose but one of them uses that car as his private taxi also. This way the driver has committed criminal breach of trust. Both requirements are fulfilled i.e. the car was entrusted to him and secondly, he converted it for his own use.

The punishment for criminal breach of trust has been prescribed under section 406. Section 407 talks about the criminal breach of trust by carrier, warehouse-keeper, Section 408 about the criminal breach of trust by clerk or servant, Section 409 about the criminal breach of trust by a public servant, banker etc.

Furthermore, in 1973 an explanation was added to section 405, later in 1975 one more explanation was added to this section. The offence under this section is non-cognizable, bailable, and triable by a magistrate. 

Essential Ingredients

(i) The property must be entrusted with the accused or the accused must have dominion over it.

(ii) The accused must have either dishonestly misappropriated or converted to his own use or dispose of that property or wilfully suffer any other person to do so by violation any legal prescription made by the contract regarding the discharge of the trust or by the violation of any law.

Hence, two main principles are entrustment and dishonest misappropriation. However dishonest misappropriation or conversion to own use is covered under Section 403 also in the form of criminal misappropriation.  

Entrustment

The word entrustment has not been specifically defined under Indian Penal Code, 1860. But in general, the meaning of entrustment is to give to another for care, protection or to commit something trustfully or play trust upon a person i.e. to hand over the property to some other person. Such transfer of property does not result in alienation of ownership or any proprietary other. This is one of the most important parts to constitute an offence of criminal breach of trust. The scope of entrustment under this article is very wide. It covers all kinds of entrustment whether it is to a clerk, banker, wharfinger etc. 

Also, the entrustment can be of any property be it movable or immovable. The Supreme Court in R.K. Dalmia v Delhi Administration said that the word property under Section 405 is not only limited to movable property. It is the court that will decide that the concerned property can be covered under the acts mentioned in the section.

Case Laws

The court has also said in Jairani Devi v Krishna Kumar Jauhari ((1985) Cr LJ 64 (All)) that, mere payment of money by X to Y would not amount to entrustment unless there are desired circumstances. In the case of loan even if the companies are mentioning it as trust it would not amount to criminal breach of trust.

For entrustment to be accounted the accused must be handed over with the property on the behalf of another person and also in this manner he should be a trustee of that property as held in Gul Bahan v W.E. Farquhar (AIR 1950 Cal 35). In simple words, there must be a fiduciary relationship between the two. Such an act should not be accidental but intentional.

The term entrustment comes along with the words ‘dominion over the property’. The word dominion in its general sense means having a position of control over something. In a company a direction is in the position of trustee and hence has the dominion over the company’s assets as mentioned in Shivnatrayan vs State of Maharashtra (AIR 1980 SC 439).

In State of Gujarat vs Jaswantlal Nathalal (AIR 1968 SC 700) the government provided cement to a person to use it for construction however, some part was given to a warehouse. But the court held that there was no fiduciary relationship and hence no entrustment. Mere sale cannot be covered under this section. 

Stridhan is under the ownership of a wife and when she entrusts it to her husband or any other family member and he dishonestly misappropriates he has committed criminal breach of the trust said the court in Rashmi Kumar vs Mahesh Kumar Bhada ((1997) 2 SCC 397).

As per explanation (i) and (ii) when an employer deducts money from the wage of an employee that is to be paid as a provident fund but he fails to pay it the same would amount to criminal breach of trust.

Dishonest Misappropriation

As per section 24 dishonesty is defined as wrongful gain or loss incurred to a person. To constitute the offence not only it has to be proved that property has been misused but also it has to be proved that there was a dishonest intention behind the act. Without proving mala fide intention i.e. mens rea the act cannot be constituted as criminal breach of trust. 

Section 403 and Section 404 talk about dishonest misappropriation and its punishment. However, under these sections, only the movable properties are covered unlike Section 405. When the accused uses the property for his own use or misappropriates with mala fide intention it is called criminal misappropriation.

In Surendra Prasad Verma vs State of Bihar (AIR 1973 SC 488) the accused was the sole person who had the access to keys of the safe and without his permission no one could open the safe. It was held that even a temporary misappropriation is covered under Section 403.

As per explanation (ii) of section 403 says that a finder of goods has kept the goods for a reasonable time period to return it its owner but has not found him, the finder may use them for his own use but if he instantly uses them it will amount to dishonest misappropriation.

In P. Dumgappa v State of Mysore (AIR 1956 Mys 40) the meaning of ‘ appropriate’ was stated as setting apart or assigning the property to oneself or to another by the exclusion of the owner.

CONCLUSION

Hence the crux of the above matter is that there is a basic difference between Section 403 and 405 i.e. between criminal misappropriation and criminal breach of trust. In criminal misappropriation, the property is movable however no such thing is mentioned in the case of criminal breach of trust. 

Another difference is that in criminal breach of trust the accused is entrusted with the property already but not in criminal misappropriation. Under Section 405 there must be a fiduciary relationship between the people.

Latest Posts


Archives


This article is written by Samridhi Sachdeva pursuing BBA LLB from Gitarattan International Business School, GGSIPU. In this article, the author tries to define the judicial and quasi-judicial acts for the readers to understand better and also the distinction between both has been explained.

INTRODUCTION

There are three organs of the government that perform various functions individually. The legislative organ creates or makes changes in the law; the executive ensures that the laws passed by the legislative are enforced accordingly and the function of the judiciary is to make sure that the laws executed are implemented correctly in every situation.

But not always it may happen that the judicial functions are taken by the judiciary body only, the executive or the administrative authority can also play the judicial role. In some situations, these bodies can acquire the ‘quasi-judicial authority’. 

A judicial act is something that bounds the judiciary of any system to take decision with the proper proceedings of the court. And the quasi-judicial acts don’t bound any body but give decisions without the proceedings of the court.

Judicial Acts

The acts that are done by a particular competent authority, by looking upon the facts and the circumstances of the situation are judicial acts. They are done in the manner of court proceedings and impose the liabilities on the guilty and try to save the rights of the other person. They follow a strict procedure to go on. The acts that are done by a particular competent authority, by looking upon the facts and the circumstances of the situation are judicial acts. They are done in the manner of court proceedings and impose the liabilities on the guilty and try to save the rights of the other person. They follow a strict procedure to go on. These acts are done by the judges of the court when they give decisions on any case using the particular laws or the judges may even create laws while passing judgements. The judges are bound by the law to give decisions by following the complete court procedure. 

There is no liability of the judge in trespass for the want of jurisdiction, the burden of proof of the facts lies completely on the plaintiff in every case. And also, no disputes should be filed against any judge, who acts judicially and in good faith. The decisions taken by the judge in every case, when the judge is acting judicially gives no person the right to fight against the decision taken by that judge in a particular case.

This rule of immunity in the judicial acts is also applied to the members of naval and military courts-martial or courts of inquiry constituted in compliance with the military law and usage and not only to the judges of the ordinary civil courts. Also, to a limited extent, it applies to the arbitrators as well and the persons who are appointed in a position like that of the arbitrator. The person, if acting honestly, is not liable for any faults in the decision. He will be liable if any corrupt or partisan exercises are being done in his office. But he can not be made personally liable if he works in utter use of judicial discretion and he can not be questioned upon the correctness and competence of his decision.

Quasi-Judicial Acts

The word ‘quasi’ holds a Latin origin and means ‘similar to but not exactly’. The quasi-judicial acts are not exactly court proceedings. They may seem to derive the powers and functions of some laws, but they are still not considered as courts. They don’t usually follow any procedure of the court. These acts are done by the persons who are not judge of any court or do not hold a judiciary power under certain laws. The institutions may hire a manager or chief who may act as a judge and pass decisions regarding the working of that institution.

These acts are performed by the person who is not a judge and applied to the action and discretion of the public administrative officers and bodies, who are in charge or duty-bound to investigate facts or prove the existence of facts, hold hearings, weigh the evidence and provide the results and decisions accordingly to exercise their power of judicial nature.

The powers of universities over their officers and graduates and the powers of the colleges of the universities over their students are an example of the quasi-judicial acts. The finance commission also holds a quasi-judicial authority. The General Council of Medical Education has power over the registered medical practitioners. These acts depend on the institution of foundation, provisions of which are binding on persons who are benefitted through them. The partners of a company together hold a quasi-judicial authority when they act upon the recruitment or firing of any partner or taking decisions to build or enhance the functions and working of that company. 

The basic rule of the acts to be quasi-judicial is that the persons who exercise them are protected from civil liability, if they observe the rules of natural justice and also the particular statutory rules which may prescribe their course of action.

Difference between Judicial and Quasi-Judicial Acts 

The judicial and quasi-judicial acts differ from each other as the judicial acts require a proper proceeding of the court and the judge is duty-bound whereas the quasi-judicial acts don’t require the courts and decisions taken under them are by the person, who is not a judge.

The judicial acts are bound by the common law precedents to give decisions whereas the quasi-judicial acts are not usually bound.

In absence of any common law precedent, judicial acts may invent new laws but the quasi-judicial is based on the decisions of the existing laws.

Conclusion

So, the above article has clearly mentioned that the judicial acts are the one that involves a proper court proceeding with a proper judiciary system whereas the quasi-judicial acts are those where the court proceedings are not necessary but they have to be used when the authorities of the institution have landed into a great dispute and the person who takes decisions in the quasi-judicial acts is not a judge of the court. The quasi-judicial acts can be performed by the executive or administrative body of any institution. 

Latest Posts


Archives