Pages :
1,
|
|
By :
SANJAY DIXIT
Lawyer
[ Scorecard : 6867]
|
ON : 5/10/2008 1:27:33 PM
|
|
Indian Penal Code has been drafted in 1860, whether fines provided therein are justified because Rs.500 had great value in that period & not have that much value in this period ?
Please give your views.
|
|
|
By :
D.V.RamaKrishna
Advocate
[ Scorecard : 52]
|
ON : 5/10/2008 7:34:20 PM
|
Mr.Sanjay,
The main aim of levying fine on any person convicted of any offence is to see that that person does not repeat the commission of such or any other offence and also to warn the public in general about the consequence of commission of any offence. As such the quantum of amount of fine is not of much importance. But one thing that everyone of us should know is that it is better not to commit any offence rather than pay fine upon conviction.
|
|
|
|
.jpg)
By :
Kiran Kumar
Lawyer
[ Scorecard : 479]
|
ON : 5/11/2008 8:40:38 AM
|
|
Just wait for few days, Criminal Law Amendments have been approved by the cabinet, lets c how much change in fines is introduced.
|
|
|
|
By :
Ajay kumar singh
Advocate
[ Scorecard : 182]
|
ON : 5/11/2008 9:26:39 PM
|
|
Fine/punishment is meaningless if it fails to create fear of law.The fines provided in the I.P.C. are of meagre amounts in context with the present time. Appropriate enhancment must be made.
|
|
|
By :
Kuljit Pal Singh
Service
[ Scorecard : 31]
|
ON : 5/12/2008 2:36:59 PM
|
|
The quantum of fine doesnot matter in Criminal Cases but it is penalty imposed on an acccused and declare him as an accused that matters
|
|
|
|
By :
Sanjay K Jha (Guest)
|
ON : 5/13/2008 11:03:53 AM
|
|
move on boss. let it be there for the time being. let the system mature first. Or else, the poor will be in bigger problems.
|
|
|
|
By :
Shree.
Advocate.
[ Scorecard : 1748]
|
ON : 5/13/2008 6:32:59 PM
|
Fine is the most common punishment in every part of the world
and it is a punishment the advantages of which are so great and obvious
that we propose to authorize the courts to inflict it in every case…
Imprisonment, transportation, banishment, solitude, compelled labour
are not equally disagreeable to all men. With fine the case is different. In
imposing a fine it is necessary to have regard to the pecuniary
circumstances of the offender, as to the character and magnitude of the
offence. The mullet which is ruinous to the labourer is easily borne by a
tradesman and is absolutely unfelt by a rich zamindar.
The imposition of fines may be made in four different ways as
provided in the IPC. It is the sole punishment for certain offences and the
limit of maximum fine has been laid down; in certain cases it is an
alternative punishment but the amount is limited; in certain offences it is
imperative to impose fine in addition to some other punishment and in
some it is obligatory to impose fine but no pecuniary limit is laid down.
Fines can be an effective punishment in cases of traffic offences or
offences against property. But where the offence is grave, in the sense of
murder or rape or kidnapping for death etc., it is questionable whether
fine can achieve the object of punishment. Another shortcoming of this
form of punishment is that it pins the poor and eases the rich. The rich
can easily get away by paying a huge fine while the poor may have to toil
hard even to get a hundred rupees. Nevertheless, its efficacy in specific
crimes has made it a necessary mode of sanction. This shows that
biggest drawback in restricting fine as the sole form of punishment to
corporates since with their massive bank accounts, it is easy for them to
get away with the criminal liability and it also does not solve the purpose
of punishment since neither the corporates would be deterred nor would
they be retributed for the crimes like corporate killings that they have
committed (for instance: using poor quality of material in building dams
which would soon collapse thereby dislocating and even killing
inhabitants around the area or the labourers themselves).
Looking into the above drawbacks, there is a need to evolve new
forms of punishments which could effectively deter the corporates from
engaging into any criminal activity.
|
|
|
|
By :
SANJAY DIXIT
Lawyer
[ Scorecard : 6867]
|
ON : 5/14/2008 11:31:25 PM
|
Thanks to one & all of you for sharing your views in this regard, but in my views the fine should be increased according to the depriciation in Indian Rupee Value.
Thanks once again.
|
|
|
By :
HemantAgarwal
n/a
[ Scorecard : 74]
|
ON : 5/30/2008 3:04:47 PM
|
Dear All,
MY "humble" VIEWS, on the captioned subject :
- MONE'tary Fine or Imprisonement, in legal parlance is a "Detterent" and/or for the purpose of "Social REFORM" (atleast in Free Democratic India)
- Fine or Punishment, was never meant to be given for causing an "Social" .or. "Legal" stigma.
- Fine or Punishment, was never meant to be given for selective class of people (i.e. Poor or Rich).
- Fine or Punishment quantum, was never meant to be given, taking into consideration the economy/inflation/deflation of the country.
eg.
- "xyz", is ordered to pay a Fine of 100/-, by a Court of Law, in 1951.
- - xyz, is not capable of paying the Fine of 100/-
- - - in lieu Court sentences him, say, one day imprisonment, in 1951.
(PLEASE NOTE THE YEAR)
NOW, if we reasonalise that the Fine was sufficient in 1951 and now in 2008 it seems "too meagre" .or. not in line with "depreciating rupees" and we justify this contention and increase the Fine amount to say 10 times (i.e. 1000/-)
NOW, cirtical question :
1. WILL the court sentence him TO 10 DAYS imprisonment (instead of one day as in 1951), in lieu of the logic of "too meagre" and "depreciating rupees", if xyz does not pay the fine of 1000/- (in 2008)
(BY logic of proportionate imprisonment, in ascendence)
2. If India gets lucky (and that's not a remote chance, since our rupee is actually appreciating presently against other major currencies) AND the rupee starts appreciating to such level that Rs. 100/- of 1951 becomes Rs. 10/- in 2020.
Question : Should the original fine of Rs.100/- (in 1951) which got amended say in 2008 to Rs. 1000/- AND which COULD again be amended to Rs. 10/- say in 2020.
i.e.
year 1951 = Fine amount is 100/-
year 2008 = Fine amount is 1000/- (increased in lieu of inflation / DEPRECIATION of rupee)
year 2020 = Fine amount is 10/- (DECREASED in lieu of deflation / APPRECIATION of rupee)
THEN would the Act (Fines & Punishment) be amended according to the monetary inflations (country's economy) , AND imprisonment quantum (not fine) be amended accordingly to the following eg.
year 1951 = Fine amount is 100/- .or. Imprisonement is one day.
year 2008 = Fine amount is 1000/- .or. Imprisonment is 10 days.
year 2020 = Fine amount is 10/- .or. Imprisonment is just one hour.
(all above, when in Context to the preamble of the original Section / Act)
WHEREAS, As it is, a fine of Rs. 1/- or a Fine of Rs. 100,000/-, is of no consequence to the Countries Economy or Inflation / deflation trends. WHAT is important is "Conviction" of the offender for natural and just justice.
A QUOTE :
"It requires a very unusual mind to undertake the analysis of the obvious"
– Alfred North Whitehead, 1861-1947, British Philosopher and Mathematician
Keep Smiling ... Hemant Agarwal
|
|
|
|
|
