Ipc Law Book In Tamil Pdf 11
The issue of false cases and misuse of the Act found its way into the March 2018 decision of a two judge bench of Justices UU Lalit and AK Goel of the Supreme Court of India in Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. In addition to questioning Section 18 of the Act, which prohibits grant of anticipatory bail for offences committed under the Act, the court laid down guidelines, substantially diluting the provisions of the Act. The court granted additional powers to the investigating officer to conduct a preliminary inquiry before lodging a complaint. Further, written permission of the appointing authority for all public officials and of the District Superintendent of Police for other persons is required before a complaint is registered. - wilfully ignorant of the fact that all FIRs under this Act can only be filed after the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police visit the spot and conduct a preliminary enquiry (Rule 12(1)), and only then can the Superintendent of Police order an FIR to be filed (Rule 12(2)). Further, it also ignored the fact 'that the charges in this regard against the public servant shall be booked on the recommendation of an administrative enquiry (Section 4(2)) - so the question of not conducting a preliminary inquiry does not arise. In fact, the law was clear that the FIR can be filed only after a spot visit and inquiry has been done by the senior-most police official in the district (in the case of civilians) [Rule 12(2)] and only after an administrative enquiry (in the case of public servants)[Section 4(2)].
ipc law book in tamil pdf 11
Note : 25% cost (approx Rs. 50/- each) of Paperathon Booklet is being born by Tansukh Paliwal Sir personally for first 500 paperathon booklets. This special price of Rs. 149/- is for first 500 copies only . After 500 copies sold , Actual Price Rs.198/- will be there for buying such Paperathon Booklet.
Description: AIBE Paperathon Booklet This Booklet is smartly designed for ALL INDIA BAR EXAMINATION . Special features of this booklets are as follows : 1. Subject wise coverage of Last fourteen examinations (AIBE 3 to AIBE 16). 2. Weightage Analysis (Year wise and subject wise ) have been provided 3. QR code as to video solution of 60% syllabus is given . 4. Separate QR code for Linked Provisions and relevant notes in E-PDF format . 5. Tabular presentation od Major Laws Amendments till date of publication have been provided in this booklet . Disclaimer : 1. Language of Content is in English only . 2. It will cover 75% portion of AIBE syllabus which is strategically suggested to clear AIBE exam
The term "cyber-crimes" is not defined in any statuteor rulebook. The word "cyber" is slang for anythingrelating to computers, information technology, internet and virtualreality. Therefore, it stands to reason that"cyber-crimes" are offences relating to computers,information technology, internet and virtual reality.
The provisions of sections 292 and 294 of the IPC would also beapplicable for offences of the nature described under sections 67,67A and 67B of the IT Act. Section 292 of the IPC provides that anyperson who, inter alia, sells, distributes, publicly exhibits or inany manner puts into circulation or has in his possession anyobscene book, pamphlet, paper, drawing, painting, representation orfigure or any other obscene object whatsoever shall be punishableon a first conviction with imprisonment of either description for aterm which may extend to 2 (two) years, and with fine which mayextend to Rs. 2,000 (Rupees two thousand) and, in the event of asecond or subsequent conviction, with imprisonment of eitherdescription for a term which may extend to 5 (five) years, to beaccompanied by a fine which may extend to Rs. 5,000 (Rupees fivethousand).
Offences under sections 463 and 465 (forgery), sections425 and 426 (mischief), section 468 (forgery for thepurpose of cheating), section 469 (forgery for the purposeof harming reputation) and section 292 (sale, etc., ofobscene books, etc.) of the IPC are non-compoundable offenceswhile offences under sections 378 and 379 (theft), 420(cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property),sections 425 and 426 (mischief when the only loss or damagecaused is loss or damage to a private person), section 509(word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of awoman), section 411 (Dishonestly receiving stolenproperty) and section 419 (Punishment for cheating bypersonation) of the IPC are compoundable offences. Of these,offences under sections 420 and 509 can be compounded only with thepermission of the court. Most of the cyber crimes under the IPC arecognizable other than the offences under sections 425 and 426(mischief) and sections 463 and 465 (forgery)which are non-cognizable.
In the case of Sharat Babu Digumarti v. Government of NCT ofDelhi3, the conflict between provisions of the IPCand the IT Act came to the fore. In this case, on November 27,2004, an obscene video had been listed for sale on baazee.com("Bazee"). The listing was intentionally made under thecategory 'Books and Magazines' and sub-category'ebooks' in order to avoid its detection by the filtersinstalled by Baazee. A few copies were sold before the listing wasdeactivated. Later Delhi police's crime branch charge-sheetedAvinash Bajaj, Bazee's managing director and Sharat Digumarti,Bazee's manager. The company Bazee was not arraigned as anaccused and this helped Avinash Bajaj get off the hook since it washeld that, vicarious liability could not be fastened on AvinashBajaj under either section 292 of the IPC or section 67 of the ITAct when Avinash's employer Bazee itself was not an accused.Later changes under section 67 of the IT Act and section 294 of IPCagainst Sharat Digumarti were also dropped, but the charges undersection 292 of the IPC were retained. The Supreme Court thenconsidered if, after the charges under section 67 of the IT Act wasdropped, a charge under section 292 of the IPC could be sustained.The Supreme Court quashed the proceedings against Sarat Digumartiand ruled that if an offence involves an electronic record, the ITAct alone would apply since such was the legislative intent. It isa settled principle of interpretation that special laws wouldprevail over general laws and latter laws would prevail over priorlegislation. Further, section 81 of the IT Act states that theprovisions of the IT Act shall have effect notwithstanding anythinginconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the timebeing in force.
The sum and substance of the Supreme Court's ruling in theSharat Babu Digumarti case is that no individual may becharged under the IPC for an offence arising out of certain acts oromissions if the IT Act could also be applied to the same acts oromissions. Though we are in full agreement with the SupremeCourt's ruling, it is our contention that all cyber offencesought to be housed in the IPC and not in the IT Act. The"cyber" component of an offence is not sufficient reasonfor differential treatment of sub-categories of the offence. Eventhough the supreme court's ruling in the Sharat BabuDigumarti case has ensured that no individual may be chargedunder the IPC for an offence arising out of certain acts oromissions if the IT Act could also be applied to the same acts oromissions, it is a fact that offences such as theft and obscenitywill be punished differently if they involve a 'cyber'element. Currently, an individual who distributes a hard copy bookcontaining obscene materials will be punished under the IPC whilstan individual who distributes obscene materials through theinternet will be punished under the IT Act, though the underlyingoffence is the same. A person who steals a car will be punishedunder the IPC whilst an individual who indulges in theft of onlinedata will be punished under the IT Act.
1. Discovery by interrogatoriesIn any suit the plaintiff or defendant by leave of the Court may deliver interrogatories in writing for the examination of the opposite parties or any one or more of such parties and such interrogatories when delivered shall have a note at the foot thereof stating which of such interrogatories each of such persons is required to answer: Provided that no party shall deliver more than one set of interrogatories to the same party without an Order for that purpose : Provided also that interrogatories which do not relate to any matters in question in the suit shall be deemed irrelevant, notwithstanding that they might be admissible on the oral cross-examination of a witness.2. Particular interrogatories to be submittedOn an application for leave to deliver interrogatories, the particular interrogatories proposed to be delivered shall be submitted to the court 1[and that court shall decide within seven days from the day of filing of the said application]. In deciding upon such application, the Court shall take into account any offer, which may be made by the party sought to be interrogated to deliver particulars, or to make admissions, or to produce documents relating to the matters in question, or any of them, and leave shall be given as to such only of the interrogatories submitted as the Court shall consider necessary either for disposing fairly of the suit or for saving costs.1. Ins. by Act No. 46 of 1999, section 21 (w.e.f. 1-7-2002).3. Costs of interrogatoriesIn adjusting the costs of the suit inquiry shall at the instance of any party be made into the propriety of exhibiting such interrogatories, and if it is the opinion of the taxing officer or of the Court, either with or without an application for inquiry, that such interrogatories have been exhibited unreasonably, vexatiously, or at improper length, the cost occasioned by the said interrogatories and the answers thereto shall be paid in any event by the party in fault.4. Form of interrogatoriesInterrogatories shall be in Form No. 2 in Appendix C, with such variations as circumstances may require.5. CorporationsWhere any party to a suit is a corporation or a body of persons, whether incorporated or not, empowered by law to sue or be sued, whether in its own name or in the name of any officer or other person, any opposite party may apply for an Order allowing him to deliver interrogatories to any member or officer of such corporation or body, and an Order may be made accordingly.6. Objections to interrogatories by answerAny objection to answering any interrogatory on the ground that it is scandalous or irrelevant or not exhibited bona fide for the purpose of the suit, or that the matters inquired into are not sufficiently material at that stage, 1[or on the ground of privilege or any other ground], may be taken in the affidavit in answer.1. Subs, by Act No. 104 of 1976, for certain words (w.e.f. 1-2-1977).7. Setting aside and striking out interrogatories.Any interrogatories may be set aside on the ground that they have been exhibited unreasonably or vexatiously, or struck out on the ground that they are prolix, oppressive, unnecessary or scandalous; and any application for this purpose may be made within seven days after service of the interrogatories.8. Affidavit in answer, filing.Interrogatories shall be answered by affidavit to be filed within ten days or within such other time as the Court may allow.9. Form of affidavit in answerAn affidavit in answer to interrogatories shall be in Form No. 3 in Appendix C, with such variations as circumstances may require.10. No exception to be takenNo exceptions shall be taken to any affidavit in answer, but the sufficiency or otherwise of any such affidavit objected to as insufficient shall be determined by the Court.11. Order to answer or answer furtherWhere any person interrogated omits to answer, or answer insufficiently, the party interrogating may apply to the Court for an Order requiring him to answer, or to answer further, as the case may be. And an Order may be made requiring him to answer or answer further, either by affidavit or by viva voce examination, as the Court may direct.12. Application for discovery of documentsAny party may, without filing any affidavit, apply to the Court for an Order directing any other party to any suit to make discovery on oath of the documents which are or have been in his possession or power, relating to any matter in question therein. On the hearing of such application the Court may either refuse or adjourn the same, if satisfied that such discovery is not necessary, or not necessary at that stage of the suit, or make such Order, either generally or limited to certain classes of documents, as may, in its discretion be thought fit:Provided that discovery shall not be Ordered when and so far as the Court shall be of opinion that it is not necessary either for disposing fairly of the suit or for saving costs.13. Affidavit of documentsThe affidavit to be made by a party against whom such Order as is mentioned in the last preceding rule has been made, shall specify which (if any) of the documents therein mentioned he objects to produce, and it shall be in Form No. 5 in Appendix C, with such variations as circumstances may require.14. Production of documentsIt shall be lawful for the Court, at any time during the pendency of any suit, to Order the production by any party thereto, upon oath of such of the documents in his possession or power, relating to any matter in question in such suit, as the Court shall think right; and the Court may deal with such documents, when produced, in such manner as shall appear just.15. Inspection of documents referred to in pleadings or affidavitsEvery party to a suit shall be entitled 1[at or before the settlement of issues] to give notice to any other party, in whose pleadings or affidavits reference is made to any document 2[or who has entered any document in any list annexed to his pleadings] or produce such document for the inspection of the party giving such notice, or of his pleader, and to permit him or them to take copies thereof; and any party not complying with such notice shall not afterwards be at liberty to put any such document in evidence on his behalf in such suit unless he shall satisfy the Court that such document relates only to his own title, he being a defendant to the suit, or that he had some other cause or excuse with the Court shall deem sufficient for not complying with such notice, in which case the Court may allow the same to be put in evidence on such terms as to costs an otherwise as the Court shall think fit.1. Subs, by Act No. 46 of 1999, section 21 for certain words (w.e.f. 1-7-2002).2. Ins. by Act No. 104 of 1976 (w.e.f. 1-2-1977).16. Notice to produceNotice to any party to produce any documents referred to in his pleading or affidavits shall be in Form No. 7 in Appendix C, with such variations as circumstances may require.17. Time for inspection when notice givenThe party to whom such notice is given shall, within ten days from the receipt of such notice, deliver to the party giving the same a notice stating a time within three days from the delivery thereof at which the documents, or such of them as he does not object to produce, may be inspected at the office of his pleader, or in the case of bankers books or other books of account or books in constant use for the purposes of any trade or business, at their usual place of custody, and stating which (if any) of the documents he objects to produce, and on what ground. Such notice shall be in Form No. 8 in Appendix C, with such variations as circumstances may require.18. Order for inspection(1) Where the party served with notice under rule 15 omits to give such notice of a time for inspection or objects to give inspection, or offers inspection elsewhere than at the office of his pleader, the Court may, on the application of the party desiring it, make an Order for inspection in such place and in such manner as it may think fit:Provided that the Order shall not be made when and so far as the Court shall be of opinion that, it is not necessary either for disposing fairly of the suit or for saving costs.(2) Any application to inspect documents, except such as are referred to in the pleadings, particulars or affidavits of the party against whom the application is made or disclosed in his affidavit of documents, shall be founded upon an affidavit showing of what documents inspection is sought, that the party applying is entitled to inspect them, and that they are in the possession or power of the other party. The Court shall not make such Order for inspection of such documents when and so far as the Court shall be of opinion that it is not necessary either for disposing fairly of the suit or for saving costs.19. Verified copies(1) Where inspection of any business books is applied for, the Court may, if it thinks fit, instead of Ordering inspection of the original books, Order a copy of any entries therein to be furnished and verified by the affidavit of some person who has examined the copy with the original entries, and such affidavit shall state whether or not there are in the original book any and what erasures, interlineations or alterations:Provided that, notwithstanding that such copy has been supplied, the Court may Order inspection of the book from which the copy was made.(2) Where on an application for an Order for inspection privilege is claimed for any document, it shall be lawful for the Court to inspect the document for the purpose of deciding as to the validity of the claim of privilege1[unless the document relates to matters of State.](3) The Court may, on the application of any party to a suit at any time, and whether an affidavit of documents shall or shall not have already been Ordered or made, make an Order requiring any other party to state by affidavit whether anyone or more specific documents, to be specified in the application, is or are, or has or have at an time been, in his possession or power, and, if not then in his possession when he parted with the same and what has become thereof. Such application shall be made on an affidavit stating that in the belief of the deponent the party against whom the application is made has, or has at some time and, in his possession or power the document or documents specified in the application, and that they relate to the matters in questions in the suit, or to some of them.1. Ins. by Act No. 104 of 1976 (w.e.f. 1-2-1977).20. Premature discoveryWhere the party from whom discovery of any kind or inspection is sought objects to the same, or any part thereof, the Court may if satisfied that the right to the discovery or inspection sought depends on the determination of any issue or question in dispute in the suit, or that for any other reason it is desirable that any issue or question in dispute in the suit should be determined before deciding upon the right to the discovery or inspection, Order that such issue or question be determined first, and reserve the question as to the discovery or inspection.21. Non-compliance with Order for discovery1[(1)] Where any party fails to comply with any Order to answer interrogatories, or for discovery or inspection of documents, he shall, if a plaintiff, be liable to have his suit d