blogid : 8093 postid : 744948


Posted On: 23 May, 2014 Others में



271 Posts


Arrest of Kejriwal has generated many questions in my mind regarding demerits of the Indian Law which were however made by the British Rule.You ought to know first that the Code Of Criminal Procedure was made by British Rule in 1898 giving brutal power to police and court to exploit Indians by trapping them in false matter , so that no Indian Could dare to speak a single word against British Rule..It was further amended and repealed in 1973 but the provision remained almost same.

1.It is the burning Question of law why the Defamation case against Kejriwal was not dismissed which a magistrate is empowered in exercise of the power conferred under section 202 and 203 of the CrPC,1973.After taking the statement of Complainant Nitin Gadkari and his witnesses, the complaint case ought to have been dismissed on the ground of misuse of law by Nitin Gadkari. Still Gadkari is corrupt,though he has been proved innocent by the Income Tax Department..But you should know that he has been released in the matter of Disproportionate Assets Case, which the Income Tax Department is empowered to investigate..But one leading Indian News Paper The Times Of India disclosed a lot against the same Gadkari which resulted in his quitting from the post of BJP President,but no one observed this case in the legal pretext to prosecute Gadkari..Neither Govt,nor Court took cognizance into the matter.Gadkari was accused of installing fake companies having fake directors and fake addresses. So,Gadkari is still a corrupt man and he is corrupt till the time when he will be proved innocent in this case by the Supreme Court Of India.So,I don’t find any justification behind the Defamation Suit filed by Gadkari under section 500 of the IPC.There was one way to stop such suit which misuses the law ,only to hide the actual and corrupt identity of the person like Gadkari.There must be one amendment in the section 199 of the CrPC which provides perspective on the prosecution of defamation case. It should clearly be written in the section 199 of the CrPC that no court shall take cognizance of the alleged defamation, if the conduct of the complainant appears to be suspicious, doubtful or unworthy of credit whether there should be or should not be evidences against the complainant. This time the conduct of Gadkari is Doubtful because The Times Of India has disclosed a lot against him.Also,he is a person of unworthy of credit as he is one politician and it is well settled observation that mostly politicians and officers are corrupt-whether there should be evidences against them or not.

2.As Kejriwal was not wrong,so it was Non-Judicial to compelling him to furnish bail bond even when he was consistent absent from the Court.If one accused is consistent absent but appears to be guilty, then the furnishing of bail bond appears to be Judicial.There is no provision in the Code Of Criminal Procedure to release an accused on undertaking or serving notice to him. There is one provision under section 41A of the CrPC to serve notice to the accused to ensure his attendance before police officer. An accused is released on serving notice. There should be such similar provision which should be exercised by the court in such cases where it appears to the court that the matter involves false allegation and it will be not in the end of justice to furnish bail bond of the accused rather releasing him on undertaking or serving notice. To secure the human rights of the accused and to meet the end of the justice, after section 41A,another section 41B should be inserted.

3.I find one error in the order of Metropolitan Magistrate that she has admitted that there is no provision in the CrPC to release one accused on undertaking and she has explained very deeply the provision of section 436 and the section 441 of the CrPC to support her claim. If there is no provision of Undertaking, then How Kejriwal was released earlier on the ground of same undertaking at least on four occasions..Under section 151 of the CPC, the court has been provided discretionary power to work in such case where there is no provision in law but the implementation of that thing is essential for the end of justice. For the sake of justice, the Magistrate ought to have applied the power enshrined in the section 151 of the CPC for following the procedure of undertaking for which there is no provision ,but this was essential for the sake of justice.

The Supreme Court Of India should review the section 151 of the CPC and extend the power of court and scope of area to exercise its discretion for the justice.

Rate this Article:

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)
  • Facebook
  • SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

अन्य ब्लॉग