“Know Your Judge”. Justice K. Somashekar. Karnataka High Court.

Hon’ble Mr .Justice K. Somashekar celebrates his 61st birthday today.

Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Somashekar: Born on 15.09.1963. Enrolled as an advocate on 27.01.1990 and practiced in Mysore and Chamarajanagar Districts on both Civil and Criminal sides. Directly appointed as District and Sessions Judge on 17.06.1998 and served as Additional Districts and Sessions Judge at Bijapur(Vijayapura); and City Civil Court, Bangalore and Principal District and Sessions Judge at Uttara Kannada, Karwar District; Hassan; Bangalore Rural District, Chitradurga and Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore and also served as Registrar Judicial and Registrar Vigilance, High Court of Karnataka. Appointed as an Additional Judge of the High Court of Karnataka on 14.11.2016 and Permanent Judge on 03.11.2018.

Important judgments delivered by Justice K. Somashekar. 

Criminal Trial. Wife cannot be dragged into criminal case simply because she is signatory to cheques along with her husband who is involved in illegal business transactions. Such practice should be curtailed. Karnataka High Court.

 

Mere payment of premium amount before occurrence of accident will not cover liability if the insurance policy is issued with effect from the time after the accident. Karnataka High Court.

“Victim compensation is the social philosophy and legislative implication. Failure on the part of the prosecution to secure a conviction is not a ground to deny compensation”. Karnataka High Court orders compensation to minor girl orphaned due to crime. 

Presentation of undated cheque after three years from the date of the transaction by adding the date. Proceeding under Section 138 NI Act will be clearly barred by limitation. Karnataka High Court.

Criminal trial. In a case resting on circumstantial evidence, motive plays a crucial role. Motive is a double-edged weapon, which will cut either side of the case. Karnataka High Court. 

 

Criminal trial. Insistence of plurality of witnesses in proof of any fact will indirectly encourage subornation of witnesses. Karnataka High Court. 

Mining irregularities. Karnataka High Court upholds discharge of the accused involved in alleged illegal mining.

 

“Case of the prosecution in entirety is found to be doubtful and is full of inconsistencies”. Karnataka High Court acquits the accused in RTI activist Lingaraju murder case.

 

An order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and hence the Appellate Court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order. Karnataka High Court. 

 

 

Dowry Prohibition Act 1961. Wife roping in entire family members of husband with ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance. Such proceedings are liable to be quashed. Karnataka High Court.

When the prosecution fails to prove its case, benefit of the acquittal can be extended by the appellate court even to the accused who has not preferred appeal challenging the order of conviction. Karnataka High Court. 

Criminal Law. Though due to passage of time and memory loss, witnesses deviate from their Police Statements, but when such discrepancies make the foundation of the prosecution case shaky, the Court has to take strict note thereof. Karnataka High Court.

 

When proceedings are initiated under the Karnataka SC/ST (PTCL) Act, the authorities are bound to examine whether the grant comes within the purview of the Act. Karnataka High Court.

If deposition of the child witness inspires confidence in the mind of the Court and there is no improvement or tutoring, the Court may rely upon the same. Karnataka High Court.

In determining culpable homicide under Section 299 of IPC, mentality of the accused, nature of the act and its effect upon the victim have to be analysed. Karnataka High Court. 

Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. Competent authority has discretion to reduce the percentage of damages under Section 14B and the same is justiciable. Karnataka High Court. 

When accused are acquitted for the offences under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, conviction for the murder cannot be sustained. Karnataka High Court. 

Lack of intention on the part of the accused and commission of the act in the heat of passion upon sudden quarrel are the mitigating circumstances. Karnataka High Court reduces sentence from Section 302 IPC to Section 304. 

Criminal Law. When trial Court misreads the evidence and arrives at a conclusion erroneously to convict the accused, the appellate Court must intervene to prevent miscarriage of justice. Karnataka High Court. 

 

 

 

Criminal law. To impose the extreme punishment, all the three tests; Crime test, Criminal test and Rarest rare test must be satisfied. Karnataka High Court converts imprisonment till last breath of life to life imprisonment. 

Criminal Law. Subsequent voluntary statement of the accused cannot be admissible in evidence and recovery to that effect amounts to “rediscovery of a fact already disclosed and capable of discovery.” Karnataka High Court. 

Service Law. Court cannot sit on perceptivity of the State Government in posting a person to a particular post except considering the eligibility of the person to occupy the post. Karnataka High Court.

Failure to furnish legible and translated copies of the documents supporting the preventive detention to the detune vitiates the detention order. Karnataka High Court.

Income Tax Act. Proceedings regarding escaped assessment and notices under Section 153C solely based on loose sheets and documents which are termed as ‘diaries’ found during the search are unsustainable. Karnataka High Court.

It is not always mandatory for the State Government to script the reasons for transfer of public servant when the reasonings are reflected in the records for obtaining prior-approval from the Chief Minister. Karnataka High Court.

 

Bar Council demands inclusion of regional Judges in the HC collegium. Legal luminaries support the view.

The Karnataka State Bar Council has addressed a letter to the Chief Justice of India, Prime Minister of India and the Law Minister of India demanding inclusion of Judge/s from Karnataka in the Karnataka High Court collegium.

Speaking to S. Basavaraj, Senior Advocate and Member, Karnataka State Bar Council, Justice Santosh Hegde, former judge, Supreme Court of India and Shri. B. V. Acharya, Senior Advocate and former Advocate General for Karnataka have supported the view of the Bar Council.

Justice Santosh Hegde says “the collegium should not only be aware of the good qualities of an Advocate before recommending his name to be a Judge, but it must also be aware of his drawbacks. The critical assessment of a lawyer or a subordinate judge for elevation as High Court judge is possible only if a local judge is part of the collegium when compared to outsiders.”

Shri. B.V. Acharya minced no words when he said “the entire collegium system is a judge made system. I am of the opinion that the collegium at the High Court level should consist of the local judges from the state. If the collegium consist of outside judges, the chief justice of India should recommend senior most judge outside the collegium and consider his views on the recommendation. ”

The letter of the Karnataka State Bar Council reads as follows:
The Karnataka State Bar Council, representing the legal fraternity of our State, humbly submits this letter to draw your esteemed attention to a matter of significance concerning the composition of the Collegium of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka.
Identified as the State of Mysore during the British Raj, our State has been actively part of the administration of the judicial system be it with the appointment of the Board of Commissioners on 21/10/1831, to the appointment of Maharaja of Mysore as Rajpramukh under the Constitution of India to the current judicial set-up. We have seen it all.

The Karnataka High Court (previously called as the High Court of Mysore) has its principal bench at Bengaluru with circuit/additional benches in Dharwad and Kalaburgi. Few notable judges who have been elevated from the High Court of Karnataka to become Chief Justice of India are Hon’ble Mr. Justice E.S. Venkataramaiah, Hon’ble Mr. Justice M. N. Venkatachalaiah, Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Rajendra Babu and Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.L. Dattu.
Drawing ourselves back to the subject under reference, it has come to our notice that the current Collegium of the Honble High Court of Karnataka does not include any judges whose parent High Court is Karnataka. While we hold the highest regard for the distinguished judges serving in our High Court from other States, we respectfully express our concern regarding the absence of representation from judges who have roots and a deep understanding of the legal traditions, customs, and nuances specific to State of Karnataka. Judges whose parent High Court is Karnataka bring with them an intrinsic understanding of the unique legal landscape of the state, informed by years of practice and experience within its jurisdiction.
Their insights are invaluable in maintaining the balance between the diverse legal challenges that arise in the State of Karnataka and the broader jurisprudential framework of our nation. This balance is crucial for fostering a judiciary that is not only impartial but also deeply connected with the local populace it serves. Furthermore, the inclusion of such judges in the Collegium would bolster the confidence of the legal community and the public in the judicial process, reinforcing the perception that the High Court is attuned to the specific legal, cultural, and social fabric of State of Karnataka. It also serves as a recognition of the contributions and professional development of judges who have dedicated their careers to the judiciary in Karnataka.

We are aware of the complexities involved in judicial appointments and the multitude of factors that the Collegium considers. However, we respectfully urge that this aspect be given due consideration in the ongoing and future appointments to the High Court of Karnataka. In this regard, we place our trust in your office wisdom and discretion to take steps that would address this concern, ensuring that the High Court of Karnataka continues to reflect both the diversity and unity of our judicial system and consider our request to include the judges in the collegium whose parent High Court is Karnataka since regional Judges know about the deep root of practical issues.
We express our profound gratitude for your attention to this matter and remain hopeful that our humble submission will be considered favourably.

“Know Your Judge”. Justice Jyoti Mulimani. Karnataka High Court.

Hon’ble Ms.Justice Jyoti Mulimani celebrates her 56th birthday today.

Hon’ble Miss. Justice Jyoti Mulimani: Born on 15.08.1968. Enrolled as an Advocate on 31.07.1992.

Handled all types of Civil Cases. Hindu Law, Probate, Company, Arbitration. Constitutional, Tax & Tariff. Electricity, Education, Service, Motor Vehicles, and Excise matters.

Served as a Mediator and Trainer in Bengaluru Mediation Centre for the past 12 years.

Appointed as Additional Judge of the High Court of Karnataka and taken oath on 11.11.2019 and Permanent Judge on 08.09.2021.

Important judgments delivered by Hon’ble Miss. Justice Jyoti Mulimani.

Civil court cannot enhance compensation under the Indian Telegraph Act towards diminution value if the Deputy Commissioner has already awarded under a particular head. Karnataka High Court.

 

Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act can invalidate Gift only if the Gift has condition that the transferee shall provide basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor. Karnataka High Court.

Hindu Law. Gift by a coparcener of his undivided interest in the coparcenary property either to a stranger or to his relation without the consent of the other coparcener is void. Comprehensive Judgement of the Karnataka High Court.

 

Agreement of sale in violation of Section 61 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 is void and cannot be enforced. Karnataka High Court.

Mysore Religious and Charitable Inams Abolition Act. Applies even to non-agricultural lands.

 

Recognition of Trade Union cannot be demanded as a matter of right. Recognition depends on the discretion of the employer which cannot be imposed by invoking Articles 226 of the Constitution of India. Karnataka High Court.

 

Where title of the plaintiff is disputed by the defendant, mere suit for bare injunction without supporting prayer for declaration is not maintainable. Karnataka High Court.

Transfer of property in violation of law against fragmentation is void and does not confer title. Suit based on such transfer is liable to be dismissed. Karnataka High Court.

Market value in a suit in respect of agricultural lands shall be twenty-five times the revenue assessed. Karnataka High Court reiterates.

When an officer is entrusted with the duty to decide the issue, detailed order and not an official memorandum is required to be passed. Karnataka High Court.

Though mortgage by deposit of title deeds can be created by handing over title deeds to lender, if the parties reduce the contract to writing, the document alone would be the sole evidence of its terms. Karnataka High Court.

Corporation cannot cancel khata without passing a speaking order and without giving an opportunity to person who may adversely be affected. Karnataka High Court.

Prohibition of transfer of land under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act applies even to agreement of sale. Specific performance of such agreement cannot be granted. Karnataka High Court.

Badli worker (replacement worker) is not entitled to the protection under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. Karnataka High Court.

 

 

 

 

KIADB Act. Terms of lease-cum-sale agreement prevail over Regulations governing disposal of lands. Once a lease-cum-sale agreement is executed, the Board cannot revoke the allotment citing the Regulations. Karnataka High Court.

Payment of Gratuity Act. Controlling Authority cannot entertain application claiming gratuity after inordinate delay beyond the period of limitation. Karnataka High Court.

Senior Citizens Act. Petition against non-relatives is not maintainable especially when the gift deed is silent about maintenance. Karnataka High Court.

 

“Know Your Judge”. Justice Ramachandra D. Huddar. Karnataka High Court.


Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ramachandra D. Huddar celebrates his 61st birthday today.

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ramachandra D Huddar. [13-08-1963]

Honble Mr. Justice Ramachandra Dattatray Huddar: Born on 13.08.1963. Native of Gokak, Belgaum District. Graduated in Law from R.L. Law College, Belagavi. Enrolled as Advocate and practiced at Gokak. Appointed as Munsiff on 08.02.1995. Appointed as District Judge on 02.07.2009. Served as Registrar (Review & Statistics), Registrar (Administration), Addl. Registrar General, Dharwad Bench, Registrar (Infrastructure & Maintenance) & Registrar (Computers). Served as Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Dharwad, Mysuru. Worked as Director, Karnataka Judicial Academy, Bengaluru. Served also as Prl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru and Sworn-in as Additional Judge of the High Court of Karnataka on 24.01.2023.

Important Judgments delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ramachandra D Huddar.

Money belonging to a citizen is his property. If that is retained by the State, that amounts to temporary acquisition of property for which compensation has to be paid going by Article 300A of the Constitution of India. Karnataka High Court.

https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/7unzwn3DRZRnMGT8yhFZBtpcv

Banking Regulation Act. Bank can discontinue employment of a person who is convicted for an offence involving moral turpitude, whether he is sentenced or not. Karnataka High Court.

https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/5l9ccvxsMuj0kf9sjmVcBIcES

‘’Judges cannot act like Mughals of bygone era’’. High Court cannot issue writ in derogation of law or transcend the barriers of law. Karnataka High Court.

https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/ZDUU3SOJEDFDD6Mu1Vjs3bn81

Negotiable Instruments Act. When cheque is returned with the endorsement ‘’payment stopped by drawer’’, the penal provisions of the Act are attracted. Karnataka High Court.

https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/ZGFXG0rHghbjQ46g01uSAb9X3

Land acquisition. Denotification and rescinding the denotification has to be gazetted so that the stakeholders challenge it; and the unscrupulous landowners would not prey the potential buyers on the basis of Denotification. Karnataka High Court.

https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/VjGy8NBSNUjxzRn824jH7RVDP

UAP Act. Informal body of individuals ‘concerned’ with the terrorist act, though not actually involved in terrorist act, is also covered under the definition of ‘terrorist gang’. Karnataka High Court.

https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/uGaf6mIY8LqirEHQlLzHbvugL

Mere usage of the words ‘Khayam’ or ‘Nirantara’ in a collateral document does not make lease of immovable property a ‘permanent lease’. Karnataka High Court.

https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/OKg4Ik27s69iGtAuYBcZ9bu0U

Relief of declaration in a title suit to property benefits even those who are not impleaded as plaintiffs. Karnataka High Court.

https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/sFiRJp25kNW7FEvJyVLdRtiVb

When the appellate Court receives additional evidence such as expert opinion which requires to be analysed by the trial Court, the matter can be remanded to the trial Court. Karnataka High Court.

https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/TFgbfu3VdzFs4eebEakV8PDFn

Not every application under Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC requires detailed enquiry. Courts must reject frivolous application at the threshold to enable the decree holder to reap the benefits of the decree. Karnataka High Court.

https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/J9Tq8shxB0B5uNlvEvi2sDbZc

Hindu Succession Act. Failure on the part of daughters to claim share in house property in a family partition does not amount to abandonment of claim under the unamended Section 23. Karnataka High Court.

https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/shiM2xZRtU9qKOzSvxZjs1vCT

Criminal Law. Circumstantial evidence. Proved circumstances must be consistent only with hypothesis of guilt of accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence. Karnataka High Court.

https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/sxJoNs2bVWIfBOqusAhxRrEY7

Industry showing payment of overtime wages as conveyance charges to evade the ESI contribution. Karnataka High Court imposes exemplary cost on the appellant industry.

https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/0I7Ub7xrWjtqw1kh5hnvFyfHJ

Though earlier suit for injunction does not operate as resjudicata, specific issues framed in the earlier suit and the decision rendered therein would certainly operate as resjudicata. Karnataka High Court.

https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/BrfRXw0Mrpg9B3JVkA4gg1yjt

Plaintiff is bound by law of limitation when he files a fresh suit under Order 23 Rule (1) CPC. If liberty is granted at the appellate stage, the cause action for fresh suit must be different than the earlier one. Karnataka High Court.

https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/ZQpRA6DWuJhQzjfMeBQW04rk6

Specific performance. Subsequent escalation in market value is not a ground to refuse specific performance of the agreement when all other factors are proved. Karnataka High Court.

https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/MrJhfKVyNDG4CljLrTRFUpEF2

“Once the forest, always forest”. Karnataka High Court orders preservation and protection of Chamundibetta State Reserve Forest.

https://www.dakshalegal.com/articles/actionView/hr2MDgJ5vRsKKRvvNeIpwr0kR

Income earned by educational institutions through non-educational activities and sources is liable for Service Tax. Karnataka High Court.

https://www.dakshalegal.com/articles/actionView/jX09eINcCVcHyG9NkXvPrp4Q3

“Know Your Judge”. Justice V Kameswar Rao. Karnataka High Court.

Hon’ble Mr. Justice V. Kameswar Rao celebrates his 59th birthday today.
Justice V. Kameswar Rao was born on 7 August 1965. He did his BA (Hons.) Geography and LL.B from Delhi University in the years 1987 and 1990 respectively. Awarded Certificate of Merit for standing second in College in the year 1985-86.

He enrolled as an Advocate in March, 1991 with Bar Council of Delhi. Practiced in the Supreme Court of India, Delhi High Court, Central Administrative Tribunal (Principal Bench), New Delhi. Also appeared in other High Courts like at Madras High Court, Port Blair (Circuit Bench of Calcutta High Court). Conducted cases relating to Service Law, Labour Law, Arbitration, Constitution and Administrative Law. Represented various Public Sector Undertakings, Banks & Autonomous Bodies. Was Member Executive of the Central Administrative Tribunal Bar Association (Principal Bench), New Delhi.

He was designated as Senior Advocate by the Delhi High Court in January, 2010.
Justice V Kameswar Rao was elevated as Additional Judge of High Court of Delhi on 17 April, 2013 and as Permanent Judge on 18th March, 2015 (F/N) and was transferred as a Judge of Karnataka High Court and assumed office on 01.06.2024.

Important and latest judgements delivered by Justice V. Kameswar Rao.

Period treated as ‘not spent on duty’ will be counted for the purpose of seniority, and also for all consequential benefits. The period treated as ‘not spent on duty’ must be construed for the purposes of back wages only and not for the purposes of seniority, promotion etc. Vinod Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6011. Delhi High Court.

When an employee gets involved in a crime, disabling himself from rendering his services on account of conviction or incarceration, even if he is acquitted subsequently on appeal and re-instated in service, he cannot, as a matter of right, claim back wages for the period when he was not in service. Vinod Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6011. Delhi High Court.

Nurses working in hospitals provide a very valuable humanitarian service; their duties are manifold – from assisting doctors in carrying out treatment to taking personal care of patients and even sometimes handling bystanders and relatives of the patients. They attend to the needs of the sick and the ailing in the extremely tense atmosphere of hospitals. It would be a travesty of justice, if such people are denied adequate compensation for their services as they are entitled. Sita Mundu v. All India Institute of Medical Sciences, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6216. Delhi High Court.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act. High Court while exercising judicial function under Section 11(6) can determine the issue of maintainability of a petition on any ground including on territorial jurisdiction/res judicata, etc. The principle of res judicata shall be applicable to a petition under Section 11. Otherwise, it would mean, despite a petition under Section 11(6) not maintainable, like, on the ground that the High Court lacks the territorial jurisdiction as the seat of arbitration is elsewhere; the petition needs to be entertained. Such cannot be the position in law. This Court can, if a petition is not maintainable, shall be within its right to dismiss the petition at the threshold. Antique Art Export Pvt. Ltd. v. United India Insurance Company Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine Del 1091. Delhi High Court.

The children room in every District must be kept open on Sundays and second Saturdays also between 10 AM to 5 PM, so that any Court passing an order of visitation can also direct the visitation to be effected in Children Room, Family Court, District Court on every second Saturday and Sunday as well. Necessary directions be issued by the Registrar General of this Court to the District Judge/Principal Judge, Family Courts of every District in that regard. Samrat Singh Rawat v. Poonam Rawat, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7973. Delhi High Court.

Cause of action in a partition suit is recurring one. Dismissal of earlier suit for partition for default is not a bar for the second suit. Srinivas and others Vs M.C. Narayanaswamy and others.

https://www.dakshalegal.com/articles/actionView/I0ljh6xv2LGTCbdkMgrdpfmAL

“Know Your Judge”. Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadav. Karnataka High Court.

Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadav celebrates his 51st birthday today.

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Siddappa Sunil Dutt Yadav: 

Born on 3rd August 1972. Appointed as Additional Judge of the High Court of Karnataka and took oath on 14.02.2018 and Permanent Judge on 07.01.2020.

Important judgments delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sunil Dutt Yadav. 

Compensation towards tortious acts of State entities. Concurrent remedy no bar to exercise writ jurisdiction. Karnataka High Court awards compensation of Rs. 1.19 Crore for death and injury due to electrocution.

Vehicle plying outside permit area. Violation does not absolve insurer of liability. Pay and recover principle applied. 

Judgments cannot be swayed by emotions. Cases should be proved beyond reasonable doubt. 

 

 

Claim to property based on adverse possession. Period starts from the time of giving up the claim based on title. Plea of title and adverse possession are mutually inconsistent. Karnataka High Court.

Unlike access to justice, forum convenience is not a fundamental right. Only the Chief Justice of High Court has power to allocate work to puisne judges of respective benches of High Court. Karnataka High Court clarifies. 

Service Law. Stigmatic termination of an employee cannot be done by following termination simplicotor Rule abandoning disciplinary proceedings. Karnataka High Court. 

Ineligible candidate cannot plead his innocence in the selection process. Permitting ineligibility to triumph would have the effect of perpetuation of illegality which cannot be allowed. Karnataka High Court. 

Speedy conclusion of investigation in criminal cases. Karnataka High Court lays down detailed guidelines.

False allegation of impotency by wife would cause mental disharmony to husband and amounts to mental cruelty, which would enable the husband to seek divorce on the ground of cruelty. Karnataka High Court. 

Proceedings before the mediator are confidential and cannot be relied on by Courts in deciding cases on merits. Karnataka High Court. 

Assessee is entitled for ‘Nil Tax Deduction at Source’ for payments made towards reimbursement of salaries of deputed expatriate employees. Karnataka High Court.

Service Law. Wherever horizontal reservation of eligible candidates are not found, it is the duty of the authorities concerned to then have a vertical reservation. Karnataka High Court.

Service Law. Transfer order, after the period of general transfers without showing place of posting, is not permissible. Place of transfer must be to a vacant post. Karnataka High Court.

Prevention of Corruption Act. Previous sanction is not required before passing an order for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Authoritative pronouncement of the Karnataka High Court.

 

 

 

 

Karnataka Grama Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act. Chief Executive Officer cannot terminate employees of the Grama Panchayat since the competent authority is the Gram Panchayat. Karnataka High Court.

There must be a specific allegation that the action complained of amounts to interference or attempt to interfere with the free exercise of electoral right by undue influence at an election to constitute offence under Section 171C, IPC. Karnataka High Court.

Where driver of vehicle had no valid and effective driving licence, the insurance company shall pay the compensation to the claimant and recover the same from owner of the vehicle. Karnataka High Court reiterates. 

 

 

MVC Act. Amputation of leg need not always result in 100% disability for the purpose of awarding compensation when the claimant can do the work which is not strenuous in nature. Karnataka High Court. 

Borrower of motor vehicle steps into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle and hence the borrower of the vehicle or his legal heirs are not entitled for compensation. Karnataka High Court. 

Reservation in promotion. Evaluation of inadequacy of representation need not be made at every stage of making fresh promotion. Karnataka High Court.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Even non-signatories will be bound by the arbitration agreement, if there is implied consent to be bound and a direct relationship with the signatory. Karnataka High Court.

‘Karnataka High Court rejects the plea of teachers for enhancing age of superannuation.’ Karnataka High Court.

Karnataka Stamp Act. Where possession is not handed over under agreement of sale, levy of stamp duty cannot exceed                        Rs. 20,000/- Karnataka High Court.

Election Law. Purchase of Medi Assist Policies by a candidate prior to nomination but distribution of the same after the nomination would amount to bribery in terms of Section 123 of the R.P. Act. Karnataka High Court.

Escaped assessment under the IT Act. ‘Income chargeable to tax’ is income as arising out of the capital gains and not the entire sale consideration. Karnataka High Court.

 

 

Service Law. Person ineligible for the post cannot question the appointment of another person to the post since Public Interest Litigation is impermissible in Service matters. Karnataka High Court. 

Re-assessment under Section 148A (d) of the Income Tax Act against a Company already merged with another Company is a substantive illegality and without jurisdiction. Karnataka High Court.

Reopening assessment under Section 148 IT Act. Reasons for issuing notice once communicated and objections received, the officer is duty bound to adjudicate upon the same before reassessment order is passed. Karnataka High Court.

 

 

 

“Disputes between the governmental bodies cannot be dragged before the constitutional courts”. Karnataka High Court sets up committee to resolve the dispute between APMC and BMRCL regarding compensation.

Grant of sanction u/s 197 Cr.P.C. is an administrative function and the presumption under Section 114(e) of the Indian Evidence Act that official acts have been performed regularly can be applied. Karnataka High Court.

Grant of NOC from the Ministry of Defence for construction within the vicinity of Defence Establishment can only be as per the provisions of the Works of Defence Act, 1903. Executive instructions cannot be relied on. Karnataka High Court.

 

 

 

Determination of market value under Section 26 of 2013 Land acquisition Act shall be as per the guidelines in Section 26 of 2013 Act and not based on earlier Gazette Notification. Karnataka High Court.

Amendment of pleading cannot be rejected on the ground of delay when the Court exercises power under Section 26 (4) of the Specific Relief Act. Karnataka High Court.

Alternate appellate remedy. If exercise of jurisdiction by a Tribunal ex-facie appears to be an exercise of jurisdiction in futility, it will be permissible for the High Court to interfere in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. Karnataka High Court.

Judicial proceedings initiated by a third party other than the employer cannot be a reason to withhold pension payable to public servant. Karnataka High Court.

Right to privacy of Aadhaar number holder has to be protected. Marriage does not eclipse the right to privacy which is protected by the procedure of hearing under Section 33 of the Aadhaar Act. Karnataka High Court.

Employees Compensation Act. Commissioner is bound to consider the aspect of penalty in accordance with statutory provision when there is delay in payment of even the partial liability. Karnataka High Court.

Re-assessment under the Income Tax Act. Assessee duty to disclose does not extend beyond full and truthful disclosure of all primary facts and does not include inferences. Karnataka High Court.

Income Tax Act. Re-assessment under Section 148. Mere change of opinion cannot be a ground for re-opening concluded assessments. Karnataka High Court.

Whether BBMP can demand full property tax from the Educational Institutions? High Court of Karnataka takes up the issue and grants stay of the demand notice.

Procedure to be followed by BBMP in cases of reopening self-assessment where returns are not filed and in cases of random scrutiny. Karnataka High Court lays down guidelines.

Indian Succession Act. While granting Letters of Administration to the sole legal heir of the deceased, Court has no power to impose condition of non-alienation of the property on the petitioner. Karnataka High Court.

Disqualification to hold Office in local bodies. Work done for the Gram Panchayat at an earlier point of time would not operate as a disqualification. Karnataka High Court.

 

Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act. Disqualification for not clearing loan due to the Society as on the date of election. Subsequent clearing of dues will not wipe out the disqualification. Karnataka High Court.

“Know Your Judge”. Justice Ravi V. Hosmani. Karnataka High Court.

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ravi V. Hosmani celebrates his 54th birthday today.

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ravi VenkappaHosmani: Born on 29.07.1971. Enrolled as an Advocate on 07.07.1995 at Bengaluru. Started practice before the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore both on the Original and Appellate stages in Writ Jurisdiction as well as on the Civil Appellate side. Also appeared before the Trial Courts, Appellate Authorities, Tribunals etc. And from July 2008 practised before the High Court of Karnataka Dharwad Bench. Appointed as Additional Judge of the High Court of Karnataka and taken oath on 07.01.2020 and Permanent Judge on 25.09.2021.

Important judgments delivered by Justice Ravi V Hosamani.

 

The specified value and suit valuation in IPR suits below Rs. 3 lakhs shall be examined by the Courts to ensure it is not arbitrary or unreasonable and the suit is not undervalued. Karnataka High Court.

 

N.I Act. Section 138. When a probable defence is set up by accused, burden is on the complainant to explain it. Karnataka High Court.

 

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Death of employee. Amount received by dependents under group insurance scheme is NOT a pecuniary advantage and can NOT be deducted from the MVC compensation. Karnataka High Court.(DB)

Criminal Law. Testimony of a witness who identified the accused for the first time in Court without knowing him before, and in the absence of any Test Identification Parade, would be valueless and unreliable. Karnataka High Court. 

 

 

When suit for specific performance is dismissed and in the absence of prayer against dispossession, defendant/owner has a right to get back possession of the property in accordance with law. Karnataka High Court.

 

 

 

Suit for partition. Défense of prior partition becomes weak when revenue entries do not stand separately and exclusively in the name of the family members. Karnataka High Court.

Defendant cannot be placed expartemerely on process server report unless the court is satisfied that each one of the steps contemplated for service of notice is complied with. Karnataka High Court.

A co-owner cannot seek temporary injunction against another co-owner on the ground of adverse possession unless there is a partition of the property by metes and bounds. Karnataka High Court.

 

Registration Act. When refusal of registration is endorsed on a deed, the only remedy is appeal under Section 72. The refusal cannot be recalled under Section 68(2). Karnataka High Court.

 

“The Purr-fect Crime: Cat’s Mischief Leads to Hilarious Court Case”

Recently the Karnataka High Court had to deal with a Criminal Petition challenging an FIR registered by the Police against a person who took the held the cat in temporary hostage for creating nuisance.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna, Judge, Karnataka High Court while staying the criminal proceedings observed ;

“A Cat by name Daisy owned by the 2nd respondent Complainant goes missing as it jumps from wall to wall of the houses adjacent to it. Therefore, a complaint of criminal intimidation, breach of peace are alleged against the petitioner. The allegation is that the cat was in the house of the petitioner as could be seen from the CCTV. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that cats get in and cats go out through the windows and that cannot mean an offence under Section 504, 506 and 509 of the IPC. Permitting further proceedings in such frivolous cases will clog the criminal justice system. Therefore there shall be an interim order of stay of all further proceedings”

“Infallibility is not known to humanity and therefore at times we Judges are fallible”. Karnataka High Court recalls its Judgment on child pornography.

Inayathulla N vs State by Police Sub Inspector and another
Criminal Petition 13141 of 2023. Order dated 19 July 2024.
Justice M Nagaprasanna.
CRL.P NO. 13141/2023

Learned Additional State Public Prosecutor has moved the matter to recall the order dated 10.07.2024 on the score that the proceedings were quashed at the threshold, notwithstanding the fact that the action of the petitioner does make out an offence and the complainant, the agency – Cyber Tipline was not heard at the time when the matter stood disposed.

There appears to be an error committed by this court in the interpretation of Section 67B Information Technology Act, 2008 (‘the Act’ for short) which mandates that one who publishes, transmits or causes to be published or transmitted any material in any electronic form which depicts children engaged in sexually explicit act or conduct would make it an offence. Since the petitioner had not transmitted or published or intending to publish any such material, the crime came to be quashed.

It punishes a person who creates text or digital images, collects, seeks, browses, downloads, advertises, promotes, any obscene or indecent material depicting children in a sexually explicit manner. The petitioner has admittedly browsed a child pornographic website which would contain sexually explicit material of children, for about 50 minutes. Section 67B(b) makes it an offence against any person who browses child pornographic material. The word ‘browse’ in Section 67B of the Act assumes certain significance as it partakes the character of aiding such material. Therefore, the order that was passed only noticing Section 67B(a) was an error. Making Section 67B (a) applicable to the case at hand led to quashment of the proceedings against the petitioner as even if it is construed to be as true that the petitioner has viewed pornographic material it would not make out an offence under Section 67B(a) of the Act is what was observed while passing the order.

Section 67B(b) as observed hereinabove which makes browsing child pornographic sites also punishable was not noticed. Therefore, merely because the petitioner has not transmitted any child pornographic material, it would not absolve the petitioner from the offence under Section 67B(b) of the Act as the offence alleged is not in particular, but entire Section 67B. Therefore, it is an error apart from the fact that the complainant was not heard.

The issue now would be, whether this Court could review / recall a final order passed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. or it would be a bar under Section 362 of the Cr.P.C. In the considered view of the Court, Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. being inherent powers to prevent injustice, cannot be controlled by other provisions under the Code particularly, of Section 362 of the Cr.P.C.

The Apex Court holds that in exceptional circumstances a final order passed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. can be recalled in exercise of inherent power of the High Court to prevent injustice.

Errors do happen; to err is human; we Judges are also humans, infallibility is not known to humanity and, therefore at times we are fallible. Fallibility is not alien to the functions that judges perform. To rectify the error is the compulsion of the judicial conscience. To eternalize or immortalize the error, after coming to know of it, is no heroism. In the aforesaid circumstances answering the judicial conscience, compelling enough it is, apart from it being legally expedient, I deem it appropriate to recall the order dated 10th July, 2024 passed in Criminal Petition No.13141 of 2023, restore the petition to file for being re-heard.

Read the order here:

ಕಾನೂನು ಬದಲಾವಣೆಯ ಅನಿವಾರ್ಯತೆ.

ಬಿ. ಎಲ್. ಆಚಾರ್ಯ, ಹಿರಿಯ ವಕೀಲರು, ಬೆ0ಗಳೂರು.

ಕೇಂದ್ರ ಸರ್ಕಾರವು “ಅಪರಾಧ ಕಾನೂನು” (ಕ್ರಿಮಿನಲ್‌ ಕಾರ್ಯವಿಧಾನ) ಪರಿಷ್ಕರಿಸಿರುವ ಮಸೂದೆಗಳನ್ನು ಪರಿಚಯಿಸುತ್ತಿದೆ.

ನಮ್ಮ ದೇಶದ ಅಪರಾಧ (ಕ್ರಿಮಿನಲ್) ಕಾನೂನುಗಳನ್ನು ಕೂಲಂಕುಷವಾಗಿ ಪರಿಶೀಲಿಸಿ ಪರಿಷ್ಕರಿಸುವ ಮೂರು ಮಸೂದೆಗಳನ್ನು ಗೃಹ ವ್ಯವಹಾರದ ಸಚಿವಾಲಯವು 2023ರ ಅಗಸ್ಟ್‌ ರಂದು ಲೋಕಸಭೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಮಂಡಿಸಿದೆ.

  1. IPC 1973 (Indian Penal Code,1973) ಬದಲಿಗೆ BNS 2023 (Bharatiya ನಯ್ಯಾ Sanhita 2023).
  2. ದಂಡ ಪ್ರಕ್ರಿಯಾ ಸಂಹಿತೆ (Code of Criminal Procedure) ಬದಲಿಗೆ:
    ”BNS 2023”(ಭಾರತೀಯ ನಾಗರಿಕ ಸುರಕ್ಷಾ ಸಂಹಿತೆ, 2023).
  3. ಭಾರತೀಯ ಸಾಕ್ಷ್ಯ ಅಧಿನಿಯಮ, 1872 (Indian Evidence Act) ಬದಲಿಗೆ “ಭಾರತೀಯ ಸಾಕ್ಷ್ಯ ಅಧಿನಿಯಮ, 2023.

ಇದುವರೆಗಿನ ಭಾರತದ ಕ್ರಿಮಿನಲ್‌ ಕಾನೂನು ವ್ಯವಸ್ಥೆಯು IPC (ಇಂಡಿಯನ್‌ ಪೀನಲ್‌ ಕೋಡ್) ಎಂಬ 163 ವರ್ಷಗಳ ಹಿಂದಿನ ವಸಾಹತುಶಾಹಿಯುಗದ (COLONIAL) ತಳಪಾಯವನ್ನು ಆಧರಿಸಿದೆ.
ಮೂರು ಮಸೂದೆಗಳನ್ನು ಪರಿಶೀಲನೆ ಮತ್ತು ಶಿಫಾರಸ್ಸುಗಳಿಗಾಗಿ ಗೃಹ ವ್ಯವಹಾರಗಳ ಸಂಸದೀಯ ಸ್ಥಾಯೀ ಸಮಿತಿಗೆ ಸಲ್ಲಿಸಲಾಗಿದೆ. ಬಿಜೆಪಿ ಸಂಸದ ಬ್ರಿಜ್‌ ಲಾಲ್‌ ನೇತೃತ್ವದ ಸಮಿತಿಯು ಒಟ್ಟು 30 ಸದಸ್ಯರನ್ನು ಒಳಗೊಂಡಿದೆ.

ಉದ್ದೇಶ:
a) ವಶಪಡಿಸಿಕೊಂಡಿರುವ ಲ್ಯಾಪ್‌ಟಾಪ್‌ ಗಳು, ಫೋನ್‌ಗಳು ಮತ್ತು ಇತರೆ ಎಲೆಕ್ಟ್ರಾನಿಕ್‌ ಸಂಪರ್ಕ ಸಾಧನಗಳನ್ನು ತನಿಖಾ ಸಂಸ್ಥೆಗಳು (ತನಿಖಾ ಪ್ರಕ್ರಿಯೆಗಳಿಗಾಗಿ) ಬಳಸಿಕೊಳ್ಳಬೇಕು. ಇವರೆಗೆ ಪ್ರಚಲಿತವಿರುವ ಕಾನೂನುಗಳು “ಎಲೆಕ್ಟ್ರಾನಿಕ್” ಮತ್ತು “ಡಿಜಿಟಲ್” ಪದಗಳನ್ನು ಒಳಗೊಂಡಿಲ್ಲ ವಾದುದರಿಂದ ನಿಖರವಾಗಿ ಯಾವ ವಸ್ತುಗಳನ್ನು ವಶಪಡಿಸಿಕೊಳ್ಳಬೇಕು ಮತ್ತು ಎಲೆಕ್ಟ್ರಾನಿಕ್‌ ಪುರಾವೆಗಳನ್ನು ವಶಪಡಿಸಿಕೊಳ್ಳುವಾಗ ಅನುಸರಿಸಬೇಕಾದ ಕಾರ್ಯವಿಧಾನಗಳೇನು ಎಂಬುದರ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಅನಿಶ್ಚಿತತೆಯಿದೆ.

b) ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯಗಳಲ್ಲಿನ ಎಲೆಕ್ಟ್ರಾನಿಕ ಸಾಕ್ಷ್ಯ:
ನೂತನವಾಗಿ ಅನುಷ್ಠಾನಗೊಳ್ಳುತ್ತಿರುವ ಭಾರತ ಸಾಕ್ಷ್ಯ ಕಾಯಿದೆಯು ಇಮೇಲ್‌ ಗಳು, ಸರ್ವರ್‌ ಲಾಗ್ ಗಳು, ಎಲೆಕ್ಟ್ರಿಕ್‌ ಮಸೇಜ್ ಗಳು ಇತ್ಯಾದಿಗಳನ್ನು ಮುದ್ರಿತ (ಕಾಗದದ) ದಾಖಲೆಗಳಂತಯೇ ಅದೇ ಕಾನೂನು ಪರಿಣಾಮದೊಂದಿಗೆ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿಯಾಗಿ ಪರಿಗಣಿಸಲು ಅನುಮತಿಸುತ್ತದೆ. ಪ್ರಸಕ್ತ ಕಾನೂನುಗಳ ಅಡಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಇದನ್ನು ಸರಿಯಾಗಿ ಉಚ್ಛರಿಸಲ್ಲವಾದ್ದರಿಂದ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಅಂತಹ ಪುರಾವೆಗಳ ಸಂಗ್ರಹಣೆ ಮತ್ತು ಪ್ರಸ್ತುತಿ ಪ್ರಕ್ರಿಯೆಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ನಿರಂಕುಶತೆಯುಂಟಾಗುತ್ತದೆ.

c) Digitalisation (ಡಿಜಿಟಿಲೀಕರಣ):
ಹೊಸ ಕಾನೂನುಗಳಿಗೆ ಎಫ್. ಐ. ಆರ್‌ (ಇ-FIR) ನೋಂದಣಿಯಿಂದ ಚಾರ್ಜ್‌ಶೀಟ್ ಸಲ್ಲಿಸುವವರೆಗಿನ ಹಾಗೂ ತೀರ್ಪು ನೀಡುವವರೆಗಿನ ಸಂಪೂರ್ಣ ಪ್ರಕ್ರಿಯಗಳ ಡಿಜಿಟಲೀಕರಣದ ಅಗತ್ಯವಿರುತ್ತದೆ. ಈ ಕಾನೂನು-ಸಾಕ್ಷಿಗಳು, ಆರೋಪಿಗಳು, ತಜ್ಞರು, ಸಂತ್ರಸ್ಥರು ಇವರುಗಳು ಎಲೆಕ್ಟ್ರಾನಿಕ್‌ ಮಾಧ್ಯಮದ ಮೂಲಕ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಕಾಣಿಸಿಕೊಂಡು ಪ್ರತಿಕ್ರಯಿಸಲು ಅನುಮತಿ ನೀಡುತ್ತದೆ. ಈ ಕಾರ್ಯಗಳನ್ನು ಸಕ್ರಿಯಗೊಳಿಸಲು 2027 ರ ವೇಳೆಗೆ ಎಲ್ಲಾ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯಗಳನ್ನು ಗಣಕೀಕರಣ (ಕಂಪ್ಯೂಟರೀಕರಣ) ಗೊಳಿಸಲು ಬೇಕಾಗುತ್ತದೆ.

d) ಅಸ್ತಿತ್ವದಲ್ಲಿರುವ ಪ್ರಕರಣಗಳ ಹೊಂದಾಣಿಕೆ:
ಹೊಸಕಾಯಿದೆಗಳು ದೇಶದಾದ್ಯಂತ ಈಗಾಗಲೇ ಬಾಕಿಯಿರುವ ಪ್ರಕರಣಗಳ ಅಡಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ನಿಬಂಧನೆಗಳನ್ನು ತಿಳಿದುಕೊಳ್ಳಲು ಪೋಲಿಸರಿಗೆ ಮತ್ತು ನ್ಯಾಯಾಂಗ ವ್ಯವಸ್ಥೆಗಳಿಗೆ ಮರುತರಬೇತಿ ನೀಡುವ ಅಗತ್ಯವಿದೆ.
ಕ್ರಿಮಿನಲ್‌ ಕಾನೂನುಗಳ ಮೂಲಕ ನ್ಯಾಯ ಒದಗಿಸುವ ಪ್ರಕ್ರಿಯೆಗಳ ಸುಧಾರಣೆಯ ಉದ್ದೇಶದಿಂದ ಹೊಸ ಕಾನೂನು ಮತ್ತಷ್ಟು ಹೊಸ ನಿಬಂಧನೆಗಳನ್ನು ಹೊಂದಿದೆ. ಉದಾ: FIR ನ ಎಲೆಕ್ಟ್ರಾನಿಕ್‌ ಸಲ್ಲಿಕೆ (e-filing of FIR) ಸಂತ್ರಸ್ಥರಿಗೆ ಸಹಾಯವಾಗುವಂತೆ ತ್ವರಿತವಾಗಿ ಅಪರಾಧವನ್ನು ವರದಿ ಮಾಡುವ ಉದ್ದೇಶದಿಂದ ಶಾಸಕಾಂಗವು ಇ-ಫೈಲಿಂಗ್‌ FIR ವ್ಯವಸ್ಥೆಯನ್ನು ಮಾಡಿದೆ. ಉದಾಹರಣೆಗೆ ಒಬ್ಬ ಮಹಿಳೆ ದೈಹಿಕ ಹಲ್ಲೆಗೊಳಗಾದ ಸಂದರ್ಭದಲ್ಲಿ ಸಂತ್ರಸ್ತೆಯು ತನ್ನ ದೈಹಿಕ ಗಾಯಗಳಿಂದ (ಅಥವಾ ದುರ್ಬಲತೆಯಿಂದಾಗಿ) ಹತ್ತಿರದ ಪೋಲಿಸ್‌ ಠಾಣೆಗೆ ಭೇಟಿ ನೀಡಲು ಅಶಕ್ತಳಾಗಿದ್ದರೆ, ಆಕೆ ತನ್ನ ಫೋನ್‌ ಮೂಲಕ ಪೋಲಿಸರಿಗೆ ಇ-ಮೇಲ್‌ ಕಳಿಸಬಹುದು. ಇಂತಹ ಸಂದರ್ಭಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟ್ಟ ಪೋಲಿಸರು ಮೂರು ದಿನಗಳವರೆಗೆ ಕಾಯಬೇಕಾಗಿಲ್ಲ. ತಕ್ಷಣ ಅಪರಾಧದ ಸ್ಥಳಕ್ಕೆ ಭೇಟಿ ನೀಡಬಹುದು ಮತ್ತು ಅಗತ್ಯವಿದ್ದರೆ ಸಂತ್ರಸ್ಥರನ್ನು ಆಸ್ಪತ್ರೆಗೆ ಸ್ಥಳಾಂತರಿಸಬಹುದು. ಈ ವಿನೂತನ ಕಾನೂನು ಅತ್ಯಂತ ಸ್ವಾಗತಾರ್ಹ.

“ಭಾರತ ನ್ಯಾಯ ಸಂಹಿತಾ“–

ಇದು ಮುಖ್ಯವಾಗಿ ಕ್ರಿಮಿನಲ್‌ ಅಪರಾಧಗಳ ಮೇಲಿನ ಕಾನೂನು ಆಗಿದೆ.

ಲಘು ಅಪರಾಧಗಳಿಗೆ ಸಮುದಾಯ ಸೇವೆಯನ್ನು ಒಂದು ದಂಡವಾಗಿ ಶಿಕ್ಷೆ ವಿಧಿಸಬಹುದಾದ ವಿಧಾನವನ್ನು ಪ್ರಪ್ರಥಮ ಬಾರಿಗೆ ಇದರಲ್ಲಿ ನಮೂದಿಸಲಾಗಿದೆ.
ಭಾರತ ನ್ಯಾಯ ಸಂಹಿತೆಯು ಭಾರತ ಗಣರಾಜ್ಯದ ಅಧಿಕೃತವಾದ ಕ್ರಿಮಿನಲ್‌ ಸಂಹಿತೆಯಾಗಿದೆ.

ಭಾರತ (ಇಂಡಿಯಾ) ಎಂದರೆ ಸಾಮಾನ್ಯವಾಗಿ ಒಂದು ಉಪಖಂಡ ಎಂದೇ ಕರೆಯಲಾಗುವ ದೊಡ್ಡ ಪರ್ಯಾಯ ದ್ವೀಪದ ಪ್ರದೇಶವಾಗಿದೆ. ಇದು ದಕ್ಷಿಣ ಏಷ್ಯಾದಲ್ಲಿ ಹಿಮಾಲಯದ ದಕ್ಷಿಣಕ್ಕೆ ಬಂಗಾಳ ಕೊಲ್ಲಿ ಮತ್ತು ಅರಬ್ಬೀ ಸಮುದ್ರದ ನಡುವೆ ಇದೆ ಹಾಗೂ ಪಾಕ್‌, ಬಾಂಗ್ಲಾದೇಶಗಳು ಆಕ್ರಮಿಸಿಕೊಂಡ ಪ್ರದೇಶಗಳು ಮತ್ತು ಹಿಂದಿನ ಬರ್ಮಾ ದೇಶವನ್ನು ಒಳಗೊಂಡಿದೆ.

ಭರತ ಎಂಬುದು (ಭಾರತ ದೇಶದ ವಿವಿಧ ಹೆಸರುಗಳಲ್ಲೊಂದು) ಭಾರತೀಯ ಮೂಲದ ಒಬ್ಬ ಹುಡುಗನ ಹೆಸರು ಆಗಿದೆ. ಇದು ಸಂಸ್ಕೃತದ ʼತಡೆದುಕೊಳ್ಳುವ ಅಥವಾ ಹೊತ್ತುಕೊಳ್ಳುವʼ (ಬೆಂಕಿಗೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಿಸಿದಂತೆ) ಎಂಬ ಅರ್ಥವುಳ್ಳ ಶಬ್ಧವಾಗಿದೆ ʼಭಾರತʼ ಎಂಬುದು ಸಂಸ್ಕೃತ ಭಾಷೆಯ ಪ್ರಾಚೀನ ಗ್ರಂಥಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಕಾಣಬಹುದಾದ ಶಬ್ಧವಾಗಿದೆ. ಇದರ ಆಧ್ಯಾತ್ಮಿಕ ಅರ್ಥವು ಭಾರತೀಯ ಸಂಸ್ಕೃತಿಯ ಜಾಗತಿಕ ಚೇತನವಾಗಿದೆ. ಭಾರತ ಎಂಬುವುದರ ಅಕ್ಷರಶಃ ಅರ್ಥವು “ಪ್ರಕಾಶಕ್ಕಾಗಿ ಶ್ರಮಿಸುವವರು” ಎಂಬುದಾಗಿದೆ, ಅಂದರೆ ಯಾವುದೇ ಜನಾಂಗ, ರಾಷ್ಟ್ರೀಯತೆ, ಧರ್ಮ, ಲಿಂಗ, ಜಾತಿ ಇತ್ಯಾದಿಗಳ ಭೇಧವಿಲ್ಲದ ಅತ್ಯಂತ ಶ್ರೇಷ್ಠ ಮಟ್ಟದ ಮಾನವೀಯ ಪರಿಪೂರ್ಣತೆಯಾಗಿದೆ.

ನೂತನ ಹೆಸರಿನ ಅನಿವಾರ್ಯತೆ
IPC (ಇಂಡಿಯನ್‌ ಪೀನಲ್‌ ಕೋಡ್) ಎಂಬುದು ಭಾರತದ ಅಧಿಕೃತ ಅಪರಾಧ ಕಾನೂನು ಆಗಿದ್ದು, ಇದು ಸ್ವಾತಂತ್ರ್ಯದ ನಂತರ ʼಬ್ರಿಟೀಷ್ ಇಂಡಿಯಾʼ ದಿಂದ ಪರಂಪರಾಗತವಾಗಿ ಪಡೆದುದಾಗಿದೆ. ಅಪರಾಧಗಳಿಗೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಿಸಿದ ಕಾನೂನುಗಳನ್ನು ಕ್ರೊಢೀಕರಿಸಲು ಮತ್ತು ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿ ಮಾಡಲು IPC ಯನ್ನು ರದ್ದುಗೊಳಿಸಲು BNS (ಭಾರತೀಯ ನ್ಯಾಯ ಸಂಹಿತೆ) ಯನ್ನು ಆಚರಣೆಗೆ ತರಲಾಯಿತು. ಅಧಿಕ ಅಪರಾಧೀಕರಣ ಹಾಗೂ ನಿರಪರಾಧೀಕರಣಗಳ ನಡುವೆ ಒಂದು ಸಮತೋಲನವಾಗುವಂತೆ BNS ಪರಿಣಮಿಸುತ್ತದೆ. IPC ಯ ವಸಾಹತುಶಾಹಿತ್ವವನ್ನು ತೆಗೆದು ಹಾಕಲು ಈ ಬದಲಾವಣೆ ಅಗತ್ಯವಾಯಿತು. ಅಂದರೆ ಪರ್ಯಾಯವಾಗಿ ಇದೊಂದು ಭಾರತೀಯ ಕ್ರಿಮಿನಲ್‌ ನ್ಯಾಯ ವ್ಯವಸ್ಥೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಒಂದು ಮಹತ್ತರವಾದ ಬದಲಾವಣೆಯಾಗಿ BNS (ಭಾರತೀಯ ನ್ಯಾಯ ಸಂಹಿತೆ) ಯಲ್ಲಿ “ನ್ಯಾಯ” ಎಂಬ ಕಲ್ಪನೆಯನ್ನು ಹೊಂದಿದೆ. ಭಾರತಕ್ಕೆ ಒಂದು ಸಾಮಾನ್ಯ ದಂಡ ಸಂಹಿತೆಯನ್ನು ಒದಗಿಸುವುದು ಇದರ ಉದ್ದೇಶವಾಗಿದೆ ಎಂಬುದನ್ನು IPC ತನ್ನ ಪೀಠಿಕೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ತಿಳಿಸಿದೆ. IPC ಎಂಬ ಶೀರ್ಷಿಕೆಯು ಶಿಕ್ಷೆ ಎಂಬುದನ್ನು ಸೂಚಿಸುತ್ತದೆ. ಪೀನಲ್‌(Penal) ಎಂಬ ಶಬ್ದವು ಅಪರಾದ ಮಾಡಿದವರನ್ನು ಶಿಕ್ಷಿಸುವುದು ಎಂಬುದನ್ನು ಒತ್ತಿ ಹೇಳುತ್ತದೆ.

ಮೇಲೆ ತಿಳಿಸಿರುವ ವಿಷಯಗಳನ್ನು ತುಲನೆ ಮಾಡಿ ನೋಡಿದರೆ, ಹೊಸ ಕಾನೂನು ನಾಗರೀಕರಿಗೆ ಶಿಕ್ಷೆ(ದಂಡನೆ) ವಿಧಿಸುವುದೆಂಬ ಎಣಿಕೆಯ ಬದಲು “ನ್ಯಾಯ ಒದಗಿಸುವುದು” ಎಂಬುದಾಗಿ ಸೂಚಿಸುತ್ತದೆ.

ಭಾರತೀಯ ಸಂಸ್ಕೃತಿಯನ್ನು ಪರಿಗಣಿಸಿಕೊಂಡು ಹೊಸ ಕಾನೂನಿನ ಶೀರ್ಷಿಕೆಯನ್ನು ಸರಿಯಾಗಿ ಯೋಚಿಸಿ ಸಮಂಜಸವಾಗಿಯೇ ಹೆಸರಿಸಲಾಗಿದೆ ಎಂದು ನನ್ನ ಅಭಿಪ್ರಾಯ.
ಭಾರತ ನ್ಯಾಯ ಸಂಹಿತೆಯಲ್ಲಿರುವ ಅತ್ಯಂತ ಗಮನಾರ್ಹ ಬದಲಾವಣೆ ಏನೆಂದರೆ ಐಪಿಸಿ ಸೆಕ್ಷನ್‌ 124A ರಲ್ಲಿ ಪ್ರತಿಷ್ಠಾಪಿಸಿದ್ದ ದೇಶದ್ರೋಹದ ವಸಾಹಾತುಶಾಹಿ ಕಾನೂನನ್ನು ತೆಗೆದು ಹಾಕಿರುವುದು. ಆದರೆ ಸೆಕ್ಷನ್‌ 124A ರಲ್ಲಿನ ಸಾರವನ್ನು ಭಾರತೀಯ ನ್ಯಾಯ ಸಂಹಿತೆ ಸೆಕ್ಷನ್‌ 152 ಉಳಿಸಿಕೊಂಡಿರುವುದು ಗಮನಾರ್ಹವಾಗಿದೆ ಮತ್ತು ಅದು ಅಸ್ಪಷ್ಟ ಎಂಬ ರೀತಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ತನ್ನೊಳಗಿನ ಶಬ್ಧರಚನೆಯನ್ನು ಹೊಂದಿದೆ. ಭಾರತೀಯ ಅಪರಾಧ ಶಾಸ್ತ್ರದಲ್ಲಿ ʼದೇಶದ್ರೋಹʼದ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಸರ್ವೋಚ್ಚನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದ 1962ರ ಪ್ರಸಿದ್ಧವಾದ ತೀರ್ಪಿನ ಆಧಾರದಿಂದ ಕಾನೂನು ಆಯೋಗವು ಕೆಲವು ನಿರ್ದಿಷ್ಟ ಮಾರ್ಪಾಡುಗಳೊಂದಿಗೆ 2023ರಲ್ಲಿ (ಈ ಬಗ್ಗೆ) ಮಾಡಿದ ವರದಿಯ ಬಳಿಕ ದೇಶದ್ರೋಹದ ಹಳೆಯ ಕಾನೂನನ್ನು ತೆಗೆದುಹಾಕಲಾಗಿದೆ. ಭಾರತೀಯ ನ್ಯಾಯ ಸಂಹಿತೆಯ ಸೆಕ್ಷನ್‌ 152ರಲ್ಲಿ ʼವಿಧ್ವಂಸಕ ಚಟುವಟಿಕೆಗಳುʼ ಮತ್ತು ʼಸಮಗ್ರತೆಗೆ ಅಪಾಯವನ್ನುಂಟು ಮಾಡುವʼ ಎಂಬ ವಾಕ್ಯಾಂಶಗಳಿಗೆ ಸಮರ್ಪಕವಾದ ವ್ಯಾಖ್ಯಾನವಿಲ್ಲವಾದ್ದರಿಂದ ಈ ಸೆಕ್ಷನ್‌ ಅನ್ನು ಬಳಸುವಾಗ ಸಮಸ್ಯೆಯುಂಟಾಗಬಹುದು. ಭಾರತೀಯ ನ್ಯಾಯ ಸಂಹಿತೆಯ ಸೆಕ್ಷನ್‌ನ ತಪ್ಪು ಗ್ರಹಿಕೆಯಿಂದಾಗಿ ಒಬ್ಬ ವ್ಯಕ್ತಿಯ ಬಂಧನವಾದಲ್ಲಿ ಅಥವಾ ತನಿಖೆಯಾದಲ್ಲಿ ಅಂತಹ ವಿಚಾರವನ್ನು ಪ್ರಕರಣದ ಮೂಲಕವೇ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಂಗವು ಸರಿಪಡಿಸುವ ಪ್ರಮೇಯ ಬರಬಹುದು. ಆದುದರಿಂದ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಂಗದ ನಿರ್ಧಾರದ ಬೆಂಬಲದೊಂದಿಗೆ ಹೊಸ ಕಾನೂನಿನ ಮಿತಿಗಳನ್ನು ಸಮರ್ಪಕವಾಗಿ ವ್ಯಾಖ್ಯಾನಿಸುವವರೆಗೆ ವಿಶಾಲ ಜನಸ್ತೋಮದ ಸ್ವಾತಂತ್ರ್ಯ ಮೊಟಕುಗೊಳ್ಳುವ ಸಂಭಾವ್ಯತೆಯಿದೆ.

ಇತರೆ ಸೇ‍ರ್ಪಡೆಗಳು ಮತ್ತು ಬದಲಾವಣೆಗಳು
ಭಾರತೀಯ ನ್ಯಾಯ ಸಂಹಿತೆಯ ಸೆಕ್ಷನ್‌ 3ರಲ್ಲಿ ಸಂಘಟಿತ ಅಪರಾಧ (ORGANISED CRIMES) ಗಳ ವ್ಯಾಖ್ಯಾನವಿದೆ. ಈ ಅಪರಾಧಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಒಂದು ಗುಂಪಿನಲ್ಲಿಯಾಗಲಿ ಅಥವಾ ಬೇರೊಬ್ಬರ ಪರವಾಗಿಯಾಗಲೀ ಕೈಗೊಂಡ ಅಪಹರಣ, ಭೂ ಕಬಳಿಕೆ ಇತ್ಯಾದಿ ಹಾಗೂ ಇಂತಹ ಇತರ ಅಪರಾಧಗಳು ಸೇರಿವೆ.
ನಿರ್ದಿಷ್ಟ ಉದ್ದೇಶಗಳ ಸ್ಪಷ್ಟಪಡಿಸುವಿಕೆಗಾಗಿ ವಿವಿಧ ವ್ಯಾಖ್ಯಾನಗಳನ್ನು ಬದಲಾಯಿಸಲಾಗಿದೆ. ಉದಾ:- ಐಪಿಸಿ ಸೆಕ್ಷನ್‌ 103ರಲ್ಲಿ ಬರುವ “ರಾತ್ರಿ” ಎಂಬುದನ್ನು ಭಾರತೀಯ ನ್ಯಾಯ ಸಂಹಿತೆಯ ಸೆಕ್ಷನ್‌ 43 ರಲ್ಲಿ “ಸೂರ್ಯಾಸ್ತದ ನಂತರ ಮತ್ತು ಸೂರ್ಯೋದಯಕ್ಕೆ ಮುಂಚೆ” ಎಂಬ ಪದಗಳಿಂದ ಬದಲಾಯಿಸಲಾಗಿದೆ. ಸೆಕ್ಷನ್‌ 41ರಲ್ಲಿ “ಬೆಂಕಿ” ಎಂಬುದನ್ನು “ಬೆಂಕಿಯಿಂದಾಗಿ ಕಿಡಿಗೇಡಿತನ” ಅಥವಾ “ಸ್ಫೋಟಕ ವಸ್ತು” ಎಂಬ ವಿಸ್ತರಣೆಯೊಂದಿಗೆ ಸೇರಿಸಲಾಗಿದೆ.

ಪಿತೂರಿ, ವಿಷಯಾಂತ್ಯಗೊಳಿಸುವಿಕೆ ಮತ್ತು ಅಂತಹ ಪ್ರಯತ್ನಗಳು (ATTEMPT AND ABATEMENT) ಮುಂತಾದ ತೀಕ್ಷ್ಣವಾದ ಅಪರಾಧವೆಲ್ಲವನ್ನೂ ಒಂದೇ ಅಧ್ಯಾಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಸಂಯೋಜಿಸಲಾಗಿದೆ. ಹಿಂದಿನ ಐಪಿಸಿ ಯಲ್ಲಿ ಇವುಗಳನ್ನು ಬೇರೆ ಬೇರೆ ವಿಭಾಗಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಉಲ್ಲೇಖಿಸಲಾಗಿದೆ.

ಭಾರತೀಯ ನ್ಯಾಯ ಸಂಹಿತೆ (BNS) ಯಲ್ಲಿ ಸೆಕ್ಷನ್‌ 69 ಒಂದು ಉಚಿತವಾದ ಸೇರ್ಪಡೆಯಾಗಿದೆ. ಇದು ಐಪಿಸಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಇಲ್ಲ. ಅತ್ಯಾಚಾರವೆಂದು ಪರಿಗಣಿಸಲಾಗದ ವಂಚನೆಯಿಂದ ಲೈಂಗಿಕ ಸಂಭೋಗ ಮಾಡಿದರೆ ಶಿಕ್ಷೆ ನೀಡುವ ಸಾಧ್ಯತೆಯನ್ನು ಒದಗಿಸುತ್ತದೆ. ಇಲ್ಲಿ ʼವಂಚನೆʼ ಎಂಬುದರಲ್ಲಿ ಸುಳ್ಳು ಭರವಸೆಗಳು ಮತ್ತು ಪ್ರೇರಣೆಗಳೂ ಸೇರಿವೆ.
ಸಾಮೂಹಿಕ ಅತ್ಯಾಚಾರದ ಅಪರಾಧಗಳಿಗೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಿಸಿದಂತೆ ಐಪಿಸಿ ಸೆಕ್ಷನ್‌ 376(1)ಎ ಯನ್ನು ವಿಸ್ತರಿಸಿ ಭಾರತೀಯ ನ್ಯಾಯ ಸಂಹಿತೆಯ ಸೆಕ್ಷನ್‌ 70(2) ರಲ್ಲಿ ಸಂಯೋಜಿಸಲಾಗಿದೆ. ಈ ವಿಸ್ತರಣೆಯಲ್ಲಿ “16 ವರ್ಷದ ಒಳಗಿನವರು” ಎಂಬುದನ್ನು “18 ವರ್ಷದ ಒಳಗಿನವರು ಎಂದು ಬದಲಾಯಿಸಿ ಹೆಚ್ಚು ಪ್ರಕರಣಗಳನ್ನು ತನ್ನ ವ್ಯಾಪ್ತಿಗೆ ತರಲಾಗಿದೆ.

ವಿವಿಧ ಅಪರಾಧಗಳಿಗೆ ನೀಡುವ ಶಿಕ್ಷೆಗಳನ್ನು ಗಮನಾರ್ಹವಾಗಿ, ಹೆಚ್ಚಿಸಲಾಗಿದೆ. ಅತ್ಯಂತ ಗಮನಾರ್ಹ ಹೆಚ್ಚಳವೆಂದರೆ ದುಡಿಕಿನ ಮತ್ತು ನಿರ್ಲಕ್ಷ್ಯದ ಚಾಲನೆ (RASH AND NEGLIGENT DRIVING) ಯಿಂದಾಗಿ ಮರಣ ಸಂಭವಿಸಿದಲ್ಲಿ ನೀಡಬಹುದಾದ ಶಿಕ್ಷೆ. ಐಪಿಸಿಯ ಸೆಕ್ಷನ್‌ 304(ಎ) ಯ ಪ್ರಕಾರ ಗರಿಷ್ಠ ಎರಡು ವರ್ಷಗಳ ಶಿಕ್ಷೆಯನ್ನು ಭಾರತೀಯ ನ್ಯಾಯ ಸಂಹಿತೆಯ ಸೆಕ್ಷನ್‌106(1)ರ ಅಡಿ ಯಲ್ಲಿ ಗರಿಷ್ಟ ಐದು ವರ್ಷಗಳಿಗೆ ಹೆಚ್ಚಿಸಲಾಗಿದೆ.

ಭಯೋತ್ಪಾದಕ ಚಟುವಟಿಕೆಗಳನ್ನು ಒಳಗೊಂಡ ಭಾರತೀಯ ನ್ಯಾಯ ಸಂಹಿತೆಯ ಸೆಕ್ಷನ್‌ 113 ಒಂದು ಸೇರ್ಪಡೆಯಾಗಿದೆ. ಪ್ರಾಯಶ: ಇದು ಕಾನೂನುಬಾಹಿರ ಚಟುವಟಿಕೆಗಳ ನಿಯಂತ್ರಣ ಕಾಯಿದೆ (UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT 1967) ಯಿಂದ ಪ್ರೇರಿತವಾಗಿದ್ದಿರಬಹುದು. ಆದರೆ ಯುಎಪಿಎ ಯಲ್ಲಿ ಇಲ್ಲದಿರುವ ದಂಡಗಳ ಮಿತಿಗಳನ್ನು ವಿವಿಧ ಉಪವಿಭಾಗಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ನಿರ್ದಿಷ್ಟವಾಗಿ ಉಲ್ಲೇಖಿಸಲಾಗಿದೆ.

ತಪ್ಪು ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಹರಡುವಿಕೆಯನ್ನು ತಡೆಯಲು ಸರಿಯಾದ ದಿಕ್ಕಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಒಂದು ಹೆಜ್ಜೆಯನ್ನು ಇಡಲಾಗಿದೆ. ಭಾರತೀಯ ನ್ಯಾಯ ಸಂಹಿತೆಯ ಸೆಕ್ಷನ್‌ 353 ಅಪ್ರಾಮಾಣಿಕ ಉದ್ದೇಶದಿಂದ ಸುಳ್ಳು ಮಾಹಿತಿಯನ್ನು ತಯಾರಿಸುವುದು ಪ್ರಕಟಿಸುವುದು ಅಥವಾ ಪ್ರಸಾರ ಮಾಡುವುದಕ್ಕೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಿಸಿದಂತೆ ಶಿಕ್ಷೆಯನ್ನು ಒದಗಿಸಿದೆ. ಅಂತಹ ನಿಬಂಧನೆಗಳನ್ನು ಐಪಿಸಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಸ್ಪಷ್ಟವಾಗಿ ಉಲ್ಲೇಖಿಸಲಾಗಿಲ್ಲ, ಹಾಗಾಗಿ ಇದೇ ಉದ್ದೇಶಕ್ಕೆ ಮೀಸಲಾದ ಇತರ ಕಾನೂನುಗಳ ನಿರ್ವಹಣೆಗೆ ಈ ಹೊಸ ಕಾನೂನು ಪೂರಕವಾಗಿದೆ.
ಕಿಡಿಗೇಡಿತನದ ಅಪರಾಧಗಳಿಗೆ ನಿರ್ದಿಷ್ಟ ಮಿತಿಯ ದಂಡನೆಯ ಮೌಲ್ಯಗಳನ್ನು ಉಪ ಅಧಿನಿಯಮ 324ರ (4) ಮತ್ತು(5)ರಲ್ಲಿ ನೀಡಲಾಗಿದೆ. ಇದರನ್ವಯ ನಷ್ಟಗೊಳಿಸಲಾದ ಆಸ್ತಿಯ ಮೌಲ್ಯವು ಹೆಚ್ಚಾದಂತೆ ಜೈಲುಶಿಕ್ಷೆಯ ಅವಧಿಯೂ ಹೆಚ್ಚಾಗುತ್ತದೆ.
ಸರಕಾರ ಅಥವಾ ಪ್ರಾಧಿಕಾರಗಳಿಗೂ (ಸೇರಿದಂತೆ ) ಅಸ್ತಿ ಹಾನಿಗೆ ಒಂದು ಸಮಗ್ರ ದೃಷ್ಟಿಕೋನವಿರಿಸಿಕೊಂಡು ಒಂದರಿಂದ ಐದು ವರ್ಷಗಳವರೆಗಿನ ಶಿಕ್ಷೆ ಮತ್ತು ಜುಲ್ಮಾನೆ ಸೇರಿಸಿ ದಂಡ ವಿಧಿಸಬಹುದಾಗಿದೆ.
ಅಪಹರಣದ ಅಪರಾಧಕ್ಕಾಗಿ ಸೆಕ್ಷನ್‌ 137ರಲ್ಲಿ ಕಲ್ಪಿಸಲಾದ ಅಧಿನಿಯಮದಲ್ಲಿ ಅಪ್ರಾಪ್ತ ಬಾಲಕ ಮತ್ತು ಬಾಲಕಿಯರ ವಯಸ್ಸಿನ ನಡುವಿನ ವ್ಯತ್ಯಾಸವನ್ನು ತೆಗೆದುಹಾಕಲಾಗಿದೆ. “18 ವಯಸ್ಸಿನ ಯಾವುದೇ ವ್ಯಕ್ತಿ” ಎಂಬ ವ್ಯಾಖ್ಯಾನದಡಿಯಲ್ಲಿ “ಯಾವುದೇ ಮಗು” ಎಂಬ ಶಬ್ಧಗಳನ್ನು ಸೇರಿಸಲಾಗಿದೆ.

ಭಾರತೀಯ ನ್ಯಾಯ ಸಂಹಿತೆ ಮತ್ತು ಐಪಿಸಿಗಳ ನಡುವಿನ ಪ್ರಮುಖ ವ್ಯತ್ಯಾಸ ಏನೆಂದರೆ ಸೆಕ್ಸನ್‌ಗಳ ಸಂಖ್ಯೆಯನ್ನು 511ರಿಂದ 358ಕ್ಕೆ ಕಡಿಮೆ ಮಾಡಲಾಗಿದೆ ಮತ್ತು ದ್ವೇಷ ಅಪರಾಧ (Hate Crime ), ಗುಂಪು ಹತ್ಯೆ ( Mob Lynching ) ಗಳೂ ಸೇರಿದಂತೆ 21 ವಿಧದ ಹೊಸ ಅಪರಾಧಗಳ ಸೇರ್ಪಡೆಯಾಗಿದೆ.
ಉಪಸಂಹಾರ
ಪ್ರಸ್ತುತ ಸಾಮಾಜಿಕ ವಾತಾವರಣ ಮತ್ತು ಚೌಕಟ್ಟುಗಳಿಗೆ ಸರಿಹೊಂದುವಂತೆ ಐಪಿಸಿ (INDIAN PENAL CODE) ಯನ್ನು ಮರುಶೋಧಿಸಿ “ಭಾರತೀಯ ನ್ಯಾಯ ಸಂಹಿತೆ”ಯನ್ನು ಆಚರಣೆಗೆ ತರುವ ನಿರ್ಧಾರವು ಸಕಾರಾತ್ಮಕವಾದುದು ಎಂದು ನನ್ನ ಅಭಿಪ್ರಾಯ. ಇದರಲ್ಲಿ ವಸಾಹತುಶಾಹಿ ಮೂಲವಿರುವ ಬಹು ಹಳೆಯ ಮತ್ತು ಪ್ರಸ್ತುತ ಕಾನೂನಿನ ಸನ್ನಿವೇಶದಲ್ಲಿ ವಿಶ್ವಾಸಾರ್ಹತೆಯನ್ನು ಹೊಂದಿಲ್ಲದ ಕಾನೂನುಗಳನ್ನು ತೆಗೆದು ಹಾಕಿ ವಿವಿಧ ಗಮನಾರ್ಹ ಬದಲಾವಣೆಗಳಿವೆ. ಇದು ಲಿಂಗ ತಟಸ್ಥತೆ (Gender Neutrality) ಯಂತಹ ತತ್ವಗಳನ್ನು ಪ್ರತಿಪಾದಿಸುತ್ತದೆ. ಈ ಕಾನೂನಿನ ಪ್ರಾರಂಭದ ನಂತರ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಹೊಸ ಸವಾಲುಗಳು ಉಧ್ಭವಿಸಿ ಹೊಸ ಪ್ರಶ್ನೆಗಳು ಮತ್ತು ವ್ಯಾಖ್ಯಾನಗಳು ಹುಟ್ಟಿಕೊಳ್ಳುತ್ತವೆ. ಇದರಿಂದಾಗಿ ಹಿಂದಿನ ಕಾನೂನಿನ ಪರಿಷ್ಕರಣೆ ಮತ್ತು ಹೊಸ ಕಾನೂನಿನ ಅಗತ್ಯತೆಗಳನ್ನು ನಾಗರಿಕರು ತಿಳಿಯಲು ಸಾಧ್ಯವಾಗುತ್ತದೆ ಮತ್ತು ಹೊಸ ಕಾನೂನಿನ ಪರಿಣಾಮವನ್ನು ಗುರುತಿಸಲು ಸಾಧ್ಯವಾಗುತ್ತದೆ.