LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More


(Guest)

Is this justice ?

A case of cheque bouncing worth Rs.one lakh is being fought. The petitioner says that the cheque was given under a friendly loan,loan was not returned, so cheque was presented and got bounced hence 138 is applicable.
The opponent advocate knowingly or unknowingly never raised the question that whether the petitioner is a money lender and possess a valid license of money lending,he never appealed to the court to get the age of writing checked of signature and date and amount etc.He never appealed that there is a ruling of Bombay High court that cases of Post dated cheques of loans do not fall in 138.

Ultimately petitioner won the case.

Now it is almost impossible that the judge did not know all these questions/appeals which should have been raised by the respondent's advocate but which were never raised.
My query --is this justice that judge does not interfere knowing that a case is being lost just because of mistakes of an advocate
Can't in the end judge himself raise/suggests the questions/appeals left by both the parties ?

And if he does not do that,is this justice?

" Recently a lower court found someone  guilty and fined Rs. 20000/- for some crime,now that person approached Delhi High Court (Court of Justice Shiv Narayan Dhingra) and appealed for reducing that fine.Justice Dhingra was amazed that that person was fined only Rs.20000/- for a crime for which he would have been penalized heavily.

Justice Dhingra asked that person why he should not be penalized more than Rs.20000/- for a heavy crime he had committed."

I mean to say ---why not this type of attitude is shown by all the judges, after all their duty is to cater justice,why not  they themselves use their knowledge also while listening to a case ?

Is not it an example of  pro-activeness of judges--recommended so many times by sociologists ?



Learning

 13 Replies

DEFENSE ADVOCATE.-firmaction@g (POWER OF DEFENSE IS IMMENSE )     17 July 2010

Your questions are hypothetical no justice system can resolve it., in both of above cases if the victims can show the relevant law in their favor they will get justice.

Parmanand Sharma (Advocate)     17 July 2010

for your first question the reply is that the recently a provision has been made by B.C.I. to take the exam for enrolment of new advocates. The court is not supposed to improve the case of any party.

Anil Agrawal (Retired)     17 July 2010

Why the punishment to Rathore was not enhanced to 2 years and awarded only six months? Where was that proactive business? It is all subjective.


(Guest)

Mr Anil Agarwal,about Ruchika case ,I feel that you are right,judge should have been proactive like Justice Dhingra in this case which I have cited.


(Guest)

 

Every rule is drafted by the Bureaucrats.

 

Now see their smartness for facilitation to its interpretation in their favour as per their need ;

 

Every draft including LAW can be used both the sides, like;

 

One can interpret that; "The glass is half full of water"

 

and when they need they will interpret just opposite and will say that; "The glass is half empty"

 

If, a person have information of any crime but he/she do not tell, it is treated as "concealling the facts"

 

But, if a judge know that a right of the petitioner are not represented but the judge keeps quite,

 

"IS IT NOT THE CONCEALLING THE FACTS??????????????"

 

It is hopeless logic to say that the judge do not improve the case of any party.  It is not improving/favouring any party.  IT IS THE DUTY OF EVERYONE TO BRING UP THE TRUTH.

 

Is it justified if a person say that "Since I do not know that doing murder is a crime under IPC 302 or someting like this, so can he/she be left???

 

Similarly, it is a comparatively big mistake if the literate person conceal the information/facts of just.

 

THE QUESTION IS; WHO COMMIT MISTAKES KNOWINGLY CAN THEY DO JUSTICE ???

 

NOT AT ALL.

 

IT IS; NOT JUSTICE

 

IT IS ;

 

INTENTIONAL  IGNORANCE  OF  DUTY

 

UNFORTUNATELY


(Guest)

Wow,Ram Samudre Ji,U have really elaborated the subject logically.Bravo.


(Guest)

 

The “ONLY INTACT ESTBLISHED DRAFT IS”

 

“THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA”

 

WHICH HAS DRAFTED

 

THE DEMOCRACY IN INDIA

 

“RULE OF PEOPLE – RULE BY PEOLE – RULE FOR PEOPLE”

 

AND IT IS INTACT SINCE

 

IT IS THE ONLY DRAFT

 

WHICH IS NOT DRAFTED BY THE BUREAUCRATS.

 

AS

IT IS DRAFTED BY OUR EVER GREAT VISHWA VANDANIYA

 

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR

 

BY HIS OWN HANDS AND BY HIS OWN PEN

 

FOR WHICH HE DID NOT SLEEP 14 MONTHS & 11 DAYS

 

*********

 

IF THERE WERE BUREAUCRATS INVOLVED

IN ITS DRAFTING

 

“THEY WOULD HAVE NOT DRAFTED THEMSELVES AS

 

THE BUREAUCRATS

 

ARE

 

SERVANTS OF PEOPLE

 

FOREVER

Anil Agrawal (Retired)     18 July 2010

I know very little about Dr. Ambedkar. He has expressed many thoughts on varied subjects. On Pakistan he is reported to have said:

 

Between 1941 and 1945, Dr. Ambedkar published a number of books and pamphlets, including Thoughts on Pakistan, in which he criticized the Muslim League's demand for a separate Muslim state of Pakistan but considered its concession if Muslims demanded so as expedient.

 In the above book Ambedkar wrote a sub-chapter titled If Muslims truly and deeply desire Pakistan, their choice ought to be accepted. He wrote that if the Muslims are bent on Pakistan, then it must be conceded to them. He asked whether Muslims in the army could be trusted to defend India. In the event of Muslims invading India or in the case of a Muslim rebellion, with whom would the Indian Muslims in the army side? He concluded that, in the interests of the safety of India, Pakistan should be acceded to, should the Muslims demand it. According to Ambedkar, the Hindu assumption that though Hindus and Muslims were two nations, they could live together under one state, was but a empty sermon, a mad project, to which no sane man would agree.[

Ambedkar was also critical of Islam and its practices in South Asia. While justifying the Partition of India, he condemned the practice of child marriage in Muslim society, as well as the mistreatment of women. He said,

No words can adequately express the great and many evils of polygamy and concubinage, and especially as a source of misery to a Muslim woman. Take the caste system. Everybody infers that Islam must be free from slavery and caste.[While slavery existed], much of its support was derived from Islam and Islamic countries. While the prescripttions by the Prophet regarding the just and humane treatment of slaves contained in the Koran are praiseworthy, there is nothing whatever in Islam that lends support to the abolition of this curse. But if slavery has gone, caste among Musalmans [Muslims] has remained.  

He wrote that Muslim society is "even more full of social evils than Hindu Society is" and criticized Muslims for sugarcoating their sectarian caste system with euphemisms like "brotherhood". He also criticized the discrimination against the Arzal classes among Muslims who were regarded as "degraded", as well as the oppression of women in Muslim society through the oppressive purdah system. He alleged that while Purdah was also practiced by Hindus, only among Muslims was it sanctioned by religion. He criticized their fanaticism regarding Islam on the grounds that their literalist interpretations of Islamic doctrine made their society very rigid and impermeable to change. He further wrote that Indian Muslims have failed to reform their society unlike Muslims in other countries likeTurkey. 

 

Anil Agrawal (Retired)     18 July 2010

His views on Gandhi:

 

Ambedkar criticized the Indian National Congress and its leader Mohandas Gandhi, whom he accused of reducing the untouchable community to a figure of pathos.

Fearing a communal reprisal and killings of untouchables in the event of Gandhi's death, Ambedkar agreed under massive coercion from the supporters of Gandhi . This agreement, which saw Gandhi end his fast, while dropping the demand for separate electorates that was promised through the British Communal Award prior to Ambedkar's meeting with Gandhi. Ambedkar was to later criticise this fast of Gandhi as a gimmick to deny political rights to the untouchables and increase the coercion he had faced to give up the demand for separate electorates.


(Guest)

Dear sir, I humbly request you to please continue...

Anil Agrawal (Retired)     18 July 2010

I have reproduced what I read about him. I neither agree nor disagree with what he said nor do I have any intention of joining issue on any of these topics. 


(Guest)

Thanks for 'QUICK' reply as was expected.

girishankar (manager)     30 November 2010

can we approch Radia/ neradia


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register