Cognizable And Non Cognizable Offences Law Essay

cognoscible And Non Cognizable Offences Law EssayCognizable crimes hire been defined nether plane section 2 (c) of the wretched process enrol as follows knowable discourtesy means an offence for which, and cognizable topic means a suit in which, a legal philosophy law of natureman may, in accordance with the First instrument or at a lower place any(prenominal) separate law for the time being in force, perplex without endorsement.A non-cognizable offence has been defined at a lower place constituent 2 (l) of the pitiful list Code as follows, non-cognizable offence means an offence for which, and non-cognizable slip means a courtship in which, a police officer has no authority to arrest without warrant.Now which offence f tot solelyy tolds under the crime syndicate of cognizable offences and which falls under the category of non-cognizable offences give the axe be determined as per the classification given in the First Schedule of the Criminal act Code. Th e First Schedule has classified all acts penal under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 into Cognizable and non-cognizable offences. Although the Code in itself does non give any reasoning as to this classification, certain patterns wad be traced if the First schedule is studied c arefully. All offences which have a penalisation of to a greater extent than than 3 years under the Indian Penal Code are considered to be cognizable offences and all offences which have a punishment of less than 3 years are non-cognizable offences. Subsequently, it can be deduced that non-cognizable offences are relatively less serious in nature than cognizable offences.Consequently, in drive of cognizable offences, the police officers can arrest the criminate individual without any warrant or authority issued by a magistrate. They can initiate investigation on their own accord and they neednt wait for the precedent permission of a magistrate. In particular, they have a legal employment to initiate inv estigations. This duty has been endowed upon them by Section 156(1) of the Criminal Procedure code which reads Any officer in charge of a police station may, without the enounce of a Magistrate, investigate any cognizable case which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area deep down the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or approximate under the provisions of Chapter XIII. Section 156 (2) further reads, No proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the soil that the case was unmatched which such officer was non empowered under this section to investigate.On the other hand, police officers necessarily need front permission of a magistrate to initiate investigations in cases of non-cognizable offences. Non cognizable offences are considered more in the nature of private wrongs and therefore the collection of evidence and the prosecution of offender are left to the initiative and efforts of private ci tizens.Bailable and Non- permissive offencesSection 2 (a) of the Criminal Procedure Code defines bailable and non-bailable offences as an offence which is shown as bailable in the First Schedule, or which is do bailable by any other law for the time being in force and non-bailable offence means any other offence In here too, the code does not give any reason as to on what criteria has such classification been based upon. It just lays down a seemingly arbitrary classification of the same. However, it can be logically deduced that all serious offences are non-bailable whereas all less serious offences are bailable.Similarly, all offences which have a punishment of more than 3 years under the Indian Penal Code are considered to be non-bailable offences and all offences which have a punishment of less than 3 years are bailable offences. This too is subject to the exception of existence of a contrary law. If a person accused of a bailable offence is arrested or detained without warrant he has a right to be released on bail. In case he is accused of a non-bailable offence, then his bail is subject to the judgment by the authorities.Warrant case and Summons CaseAccording to Section 2 (x) of the Criminal Procedure Code, a warrant-case means a case relating to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term exceeding two years.According to Section 2 (w) of the Criminal Procedure Code, a name case means a case relating to an offence, not being a warrant case.This classification helps to determine the graphic symbol of trial number to be adopted in the case. Naturally, the trial social occasion in case of a warrant case is much more elaborate than that of a summons case. This classification is also useful at the stage of issuing process to the accused person in the prototypic instance.CHAPTER II NEED FOR RECLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCESThe current classification of offences has been a major cook for the high incidence of arbitrary and unnecessary arrest in our country. The lineation of classification is outdated and redundant.There is a serious need for inspection for the classification between cognizable and non-cognizable and bailable and non-bailable offences. The nature and quantum of punishment given over to these offences also needs to be revaluated. It is not that the idea for reclassification has never beget up before, but given the present situation of our judicial system, it becomes all the more relevant that it be make now. For instance, many minor offences against airscrew are still classified as non-bailable, whereas it is evident that classifying them as compoundable offences and relying on methods such as acknowledgment-bargaining may be more effective and conformable to address the injury caused by the same1.Also, it has been noted that the major share of the backlog cases in the courts consists of regulatory offences such as dishonour of cheques, occupation violations, etc. Now, the se acts were made offences under special laws whereby the legislature had felt that in lieu of public policy, these acts were better off classified as outlaw even though they are more akin to civil wrongs. However, the fact that they will create a maximum backlog was envisaged by uncomplete party. Hence, there is a need for an informed study and revaluation of poisonous laws. It has been suggested that the offences be classified into a) The Social Wel utmoste Code, b) The Correctional Code, c) The Criminal code and d) the Economic and other offences code.This approach of classifying the offences as per their nature is considered to be far more useful than a blanket categorization of offences. This re-classification is proposed to be done on the basis of the gravity of the offences, appropriate procedures for investigation and dispute-resolution as tumesce as the proportionate nature and quantum of fines and punishments.CHAPTER III RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE MALIMATH COMMITTEEConsid ering the need for reclassification of offences, the Malimath deputation gave the following recommendations for the same.Its primary recommendation was to remove the distinction between cognizable and non-cognizable offences and make it obligatory on the Police to investigate all offences in respect of which a complaint is made. However, this is not a very operable option as it will lead to a further backlog of cases and will increase the burden on the police.Section 262 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides for the procedure for unofficial trials, Section 263 provides for the record in summary trials and Section 264 provides for judgement in cases tried summarily. The Malimath committee recommended change magnitude the number of cases falling within the category of cases trialable by following the summary procedure presented by Sections 262 to 264.It also recommended increase the number of offences that fall under the category of Petty Offences which can be dealt with by foll owing the procedure decreed by Section 206 of the Code. Section 206 reads If, in the opinion of a Magistrate victorious cognizance of a petty offence, the case may be summarily disposed of under section 260, the Magistrate shall, except where he is, for reasons to be save in writing of a contrary opinion, issue summons to the accused requiring him either to appear in person or by counsellor before the Magistrate on a stipulate date, or if he desires to advance abominable to the charge without appearing before the Magistrate, to transmit before the specified date, by post or by messenger to the Magistrate, the said plea in writing and the amount of fine specified in the summons or if he desires to appear by counselor-at-law and to plead felonious to the charge through such pleader, to authorise, in writing, the pleader to plead guilty to the charge on his behalf and to pay the fine through such pleader Provided that the amount of the fine specified in such summons shall not ex ceed one hundred rupees.(2) For the purposes of this section, petty offence means any offence punishable only with fine not exceeding one thousand rupees, but does not include any offence so punishable under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, (4 of 1939) or under any other law which provides for convicting the accused person in his absence on a plea of guilty.It advocated increasing the number of offences, for which an arrest neednt be made and increasing the number of offences where arrest can be made only with the order of the court and reducing the number of cases where arrest can be made without an order or warrant form the Magistrate.The Malimath committee further recommended increasing the number of offences which are bailable and reducing the number of offences which are not bailable.A compoundable offence is one in which the trial court can compound the offence and dispose the case without trial. A non-compoundable offence is an offence in which the court cannot compound the case without trial. A compoundable offence is everlastingly a lesser degree offence punishable with a shorter toss away term or fine. The Malimath Committee recommended increasing the number of offences that can be brought within the category of compoundable offences, to encourage settlements without trials.CONCLUSION