This supports the view that the power granted under this section is not arbitrary. For the purposes of section 144, it is only necessary that the Magistrate issuing the order should believe that apprehension of nuisance or danger exists. Ambiguity of any kind should be avoided as much as possible. The threat may be used by one person and the property must be delivered in consequence of such a threat, i. People were saying, 'Twenty plus Four equals Char Sau Bees.
Whenever, an injury is caused to a person the recourse to this section can be taken in those situations. The offence of extortion is not complete until delivery of property by the person put in fear. It was held that the wife was not guilty of abetment by conspiracy, even though her conduct was open to censure. B not believing in good faith that he has a right to stop the path, Z is thereby prevented from passing A wrongfully restrains Z. In the case of Radhe Das v Jairam Mahto and Others the dispute was over a piece of property. This was held in the case of Acharya Jagdisharanand Avadhut v Police Commissioner, Calcutta where the Anand Margis were prohibited from conducting Tandava dance on the streets or carry skulls in their processions, by an order of the Commissioner under section 144 of the code. Such drains shall not be less than 4 inches 102 mm in diameter.
Dishonestly or fraudulently going through a marriage ceremony knowing that no lawful marriage is hereby created Bigamy i. Along with witness or any agent in any such case or respecting the character of such person as far as his character appears in the conduct and no further. It was held by the Supreme Court that the kind of orders mentioned in sec. This order was objected by the pir and his followers as it curtailed their rights to worship. In the absence of such evidence, the Magistrate cannot pass an order merely on the complaint of one party.
Urgency of the situation and the power is to be used for maintaining public peace and tranquility 2. Such hurt must cause bodily pain or disease or infirmity. The section should not be abused by using it for dealing with abusive articles and defamation not likely to lead to a breach of peace. The petitioner in this case was stated to be the greatest Pir of Sind, and held an annual religious festival, which was objected to a large number of Muslims. Specified classes of magistrates may make such orders when in their opinion there is sufficient ground for proceeding under the section and immediate prevention or speedy remedy is desirable. Monghyr, that section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code is not unconstitutional if properly applied and the fact that it may be abused is no ground for it's being struck down.
There were five points enumerated in the judgement, which justified the constitutionality of section 144. Mere defamatory statements, and even highly objectionable abusive articles against prominent officials, cannot be dealt with under this section unless they are likely to lead to a breach of the peace or to a nuisance endangering life or health. A has induced B to give him the blank signed stamp paper. It was suggested that legislation first became necessary at a time when it was usual for those who were on bad terms with one another to go to market at the head of bands of armed retainers. A general order thus may be necessary when the number of persons is so large that mentioned in the section. The petitioner in this case was stated to be the greatest Pir of Sind, and held an annual religious festival, which was objected to a large number of Muslims. If the order is not definite and clear, it becomes extremely difficult for enforcement.
A postmortem was conducted, and the cause of death was determined to be strangulation. Leaders and storm drains connected to a building storm sewer shall not be required to be trapped. It is committed in respect of any person of any age. Discuss the relevance and constitutionality of Section 498-A also. This exception was held to be applicable. A believing in good faith that he can by no other mean, prevent himself from being horsewhipped shoots Z and kills.
Where the order did not state the material facts, it was set aside. The High Court can either quash the order or ask the Magistrate for the material facts, therefore ensuring accountability of the Magistrate. Even where an order under this section deals with a 'nuisance' there must be a danger to life or health involved, or of an affray or riot or breach of the peace. Except where the order is addressed to the public in general as under sub-section 3 , the persons against whom the orders are directed must be specified. If takes the property dishonestly, he commits theft.
Had the police not been informed, this murder would have gone undetected. Constitutional Validity of this section Hidayutallah, C. . Moreover, the increasing cases of riots and other incidents ruining public peace and tranquility has made it mandatory for the Magistrates to have such powers so as to secure the common people the safety and peace which is essential for their living. Monghyr, that section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code is not unconstitutional if properly applied and the fact that it may be abused is no ground for it's being struck down. The reports must be handed over to the police officials after getting them duly received on the duplicate copy of the same. A person who by willful misrepresentations or by willful concealment of a material fact, which he is bound to disclose, voluntary causes or procures or attempts to cause or procures a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that things.
As it has already been remarked earlier, it is not competent to a Magistrate to revive or resuscitate his order from time to time. Fancy yourself a bit of the entrepreneurship? Extortion becomes robbery, if the offender at the time of committing the offence puts the person in fear and commits the extortion by causing fear of instant death, hurt or wrongful restraint. Section 127 of the Communications Act states: 127. However, it is not mandatory for the Magistrate to take evidence before issuing such an order. While explaining the above, judicial pronouncements have been relied upon to substantiate as well as elucidate the meaning of the section. In view of the multitude of cases against the doctors under the Consumer Protection Act, it is advisable to preserve all the inpatient records for a period of at least 5 years and outpatient department records for 3 years. Therefore, if the said procedure were not properly followed, the order made would then be deemed illegal.