CrPC Amendment Is New Law: No More 498A Arrests for Extortion of Money by Laywers and Police
The amendment to the CrPC is now the law. The President has signed it. Going forth no person can be arrested under 498A as a whole sale free Lincence. Before arrest any one Police have to get sufficent evidence on records.
The scum infesting the ranks of the Indian police force need to get their gravy elsewhere through some other extortion scheme. This is what the new Home Minister had to say:
"Referring to Section 41 of the Act, Chidambaram said in his letter, "This provision was severely criticised as capable of being misused and, in fact, was being misused." To substantiate his point, he advised CMs to refer to reports of the Law Commission and the Malimath Committee and also the judgment of the Supreme Court in D K Basu case which laid down guidelines for effecting arrest. "
Bar associations across the country have been protesting under the pretext that the amendment (in Section 41) doing away with mandatory arrest provisions would remove fear from the minds of criminals who would misuse the provisions under the garb of personal liberty.
That is bullshit and they know it. They fear thier illegal Business to Promote the Legal Terrorism and earn the money thorugh Comission/Brobe etc will reduce by this and those laywers and police are afrid. Sources said more than 70% Laywers who fight the case on merit well come this move , but Few money hungery and those laywers are earning the money by misuse the various law are feeling the heat.
Chief Justice of India should take strong actions against those Laywers who are doing the Strike and making abuse of LAW. In this country Lywers and Bar associations never rise thier voice to make faster justice and increse the number of Judges, as that will lead them the loss of money. The case dragged more and more , they will earn the money more and more by thier dishonest way.
This a country where only Laywers does not get any punishment for taking Bribe,doing Strike, for taking comissions form vicitms, Cheating the Income Tax authority ( Maximum Lywers will even refuse you to give the recipt of Payment they get). In this country if we nned a corroption Free Justice System the next step should be to punish the Laywers for thier Crime.
Even a Doctor, a police also get punished for cheating the People and doing the extortions, for taking the Bribe, doing Strike, but our Great Laywers do not get any Punishemnt , wonder , are they above the LAW?
Join the Revolution and help save your family or your beloved ones from the misuse of this deadly law!
The fact is that this amendment does away with the need to get bails and anticipatory bails, a rich source of revenue for the lawyers, the dirty Indian cops, the filthy lower court magistrates and public prosecutors. It will also signal the end of using 498A for extortion as the cops can no longer use arrests for exortion.
But as alway, remember this, the cops never had the power to arrest you without cause or justification. And hence, almost all 498A arrests have been illegal detentions and hide behind the loop hole was in the existing CRPC amended.
This is a significant win for all Save Family Foundation's memebrs, who are fighting against this law since last 3 years and appeal to People to Stop the Legal Terrorism.
For more reference :
Lawyers strike to bail themselves out-Delhi-Cities-The Times of India
NEW DELHI: For all their public posturing and indignation against the CrPC amendment vesting greater discretionary powers with the police in making
an arrest, lawyers privately admit their opposition to it because the changed law will reduce bail cases.
Though loathe to come on record, lawyers across various district bar associations in Delhi which struck work on Wednesday predicted a drastic fall in bail cases due to the CrPC amendment. Since it gives greater leeway to an investigating officer (IO) to decide if an arrest is warranted or not in offences which carry a maximum sentence of seven years' imprisonment, observers say number of arrests for such crimes is likely to come down and so will the corresponding bail matters ending up before courts.
The bar associations, however, have wrapped their grievances in dire warnings of lawlessness and increased crimes against women, since a molester can now walk away secure in the knowledge that he might not be arrested. Still, was going on strike the solution, given that every judicial authority from the Supreme Court to Delhi High Court has repeatedly directed lawyers to refrain from this option?
"It isn't a strike on principle and policy,'' says senior lawyer Kamini Jaiswal, referring to Wednesday's protest. She said it was the loss of clients due to less bail pleas that was causing heartburn to most district lawyers, "Litigant had nothing to do with the amendment but it is he who suffers the most because of such strikes. Even when SC has termed strike as `gross misconduct' lawyers resort to it, this is extremely unfortunate. If we take a fee we are dutybound to provide legal service to our clients,'' she said.
While the bar associations claim the amendment will lead to increase in crimes like kidnapping, stabbing, forgery etc, lawyers like Ashok Arora see nothing wrong in the amendment, concluding it will in fact "help administration of justice''. He added, "Whether bail matters will be reduced or not shouldn't be concern of any profession. As lawyers our aim should be to help in administration of justice.''
Even the judges, speaking on condition of anonymity, maintained the bar striking work at the drop of a hat on every issue was unacceptable. "In district courts, many lawyers are dependent on fighting cases for anticipatory or interim bail. Therefore this amendment has left them fuming,'' added an HC judge familiar with the workings of lower courts.
It was left to Delhi High Court Bar Association president K C Mittal to stand by his lower court counterparts and back their demands. "Amendment does suffer from many defects which will have consequences like escalation of crime. Giving discretion to police to arrest or not means there will be no deterrence,'' Mittal told TOI. When asked if going on strike was a good way to protest against this change, Mittal claimed it was being done only to warn the public of what trouble lies ahead due to the changed CrPC. "How do we raise a point? We keep shouting, sending representations, letters, etc but no one listens.''
Two recent legal enactments the amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code stipulating stringent grounds of arrest and the Limited Liability
Partnership (LLP) Act have lawyers up in arms. They have got it right in one case and not quite right in the other.
The criminal law amendment requires recording of reasons in writing before a police officer effects arrests. The reasons must show that there is good basis to believe that absence of arrest will lead to the likelihood of commission of further offences, or is necessary for the safety of the accused, or to prevent tampering with evidence, or to prevent threat, inducement or promise to any potential witness, or to ensure the future presence of the accused in court. Otherwise, the police can only issue a notice of appearance. Unless there is breach of the conditions of such a notice by the accused or new facts emerge (necessitating a recording of reasons), the police cannot effect arrest. This applies to offences punishable up to 7 years.
Two salutary and bona fide elements clearly discernible in the legislation to ensure safeguards against police excesses and to minimise the needless filling up of our jails by undertrials may well lead to increased arbitrariness and nepotism in the police forces.
At a time when lack of fear of authority and an ambience of recklessness is prevalent in Indian society, the amendment sends a wrong message. Importantly, the amendment vests much discretion with the police, to subject one person to a notice of appearance while subjecting another identically situated person to actual or threatened arrest.
Those who support the change on the ground that the amendment merely puts in the statute what is already a requirement of arrest and part of police practice ignore the fact that the amendment alters the emphasis significantly, and mandatorily provides that the accused "shall not be arrested in respect of the offence referred to in the notice unless, for reasons to be recorded, the police is of the opinion that he ought to be arrested". The sad truth is that India has a surplus of legislations but a poor record in enforcement.
By contrast, due to a combination of emotional reactions coupled with some jingoistic formulations, the lawyers have clearly got it wrong in their criticism of the LLP Act. The Act seeks to provide for the creation and regulation of LLPs essentially as hybrid entities which retain the partnership model but are closer to corporations in design and function. Based on the Naresh Chandra committee report, the Act seeks to create an institutional vehicle under which different actors can operate. The key innovation is that those who aggregate as an LLP can do business where, in the event of claims, the liability will be limited as in a company (and not unlimited as in partnerships) and yet the venture will retain a partnership flavour.
Critics of the Act fail to realise that it is consistent with a growing international trend: the UK and the US, and a host of other countries, have enacted similar legislations. It is not intended to be specific to the legal profession and hence the criticism that it would facilitate the back-door entry of foreign law firms with a right of audience in Indian courts is misplaced. The enactment is merely enabling. No one is compelled to register as an LLP. An amendment can clarify what is implicit in the Act i.e. aggregations cannot be multi-activity or multi-sectoral.
The Act is in addition to, and does not undermine, existing legislation. It does not seek to repeal the Advocates Act or affect the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Bar Council principal apprehensions in some sections of the legal community. It surely needs to be ironed out but to reject it wholesale would be worse than throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The writer is a Congress MP and jurist.
We wonder whose life is in More Danger in India: Men or Women. · Crime Bure data 2005 : Married Men Sucide : 52k vs Married Women Sucide 28K.Still there is no LAW to Protect Men why? · 2006 Crime Bure Data : Married Men Sucide:55452 vs. Married Women Sucide:29869.
Review Gender Biased LAW to Promote Family Harmony and Stop Legal Terrorism