NEW DELHI: Is the controversy over death sentence linked to class bias? Many might think so after going through the background of those who were ordered to be hanged by different courts.
The case of Dhananjoy Chatterjee, a former security guard of a Kolkata apartment complex, the latest to be on the death row, has a lot in common with others sentenced to death for committing the "rarest of rare crimes".
Om Prakash, who killed all four members of his employer Brigadier S Khanna's family, was ordered to be hanged. "He who meticulously planned the murder is liable to death sentence," said the court while ordering the extreme penalty for Om Prakash.
<!--emo&:unsure:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/unsure.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='unsure.gif' /><!--endemo--> One Kheraj Ram also met with the same fate for killing his wife, his son and brother-in-law in a Rajasthan village.
<!--emo&<_<--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/dry.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='dry.gif' /><!--endemo--> The apex court also upheld the extreme penalty given to one Prakash Dhawal who had killed his mother, brother and his wife and three children in a Maharashtra village.
<!--emo&:o--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ohmy.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ohmy.gif' /><!--endemo--> But in 1995, the apex court saved a death convict, who had raped and murdered a two-year-old girl, from the gallows by commuting the capital punishment to a life term sentence. <!--emo&:o--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ohmy.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ohmy.gif' /><!--endemo-->
"Humanist approach should be taken," said the court while giving reprieve to accused Mohammad Chaman.
Though the gravity of offence and the diabolic manner in which it was executed could be crucial factors to determine the quantum of sentence, former Supreme Court Chief Justice P N Bhagwati had declared the extreme penalty as unconstitutional for it was arbitrary and had a "class bias".
Though four other judges - the then Chief Justice Y V Chandrachud, Justices N L Unthawalia, R S Sarkaria and A C Gupta (all retired) - unanimously upheld the constitutionality of the death sentence, Justice Bhagwati dissented from them.
"There is also one other characteristic of death penalty that is revealed by a study of the decided cases and it is that death sentence has a certain class complexion or class bias inasmuch as it is largely the poor and the down-trodden who are victims of this extreme penalty," Justice Bhagwati said in his verdict on August 16, 1982.
He elaborated to substantiate his charge. "We would hardly find a rich or affluent person going to the gallows."
Capital punishment, as pointed out by Warden Duffy is 'a privilege of the poor', he said.
Munna..Sanjay Dutt is a Hindu <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tongue.gif' /><!--endemo-->
> Munna..Sanjay Dutt is a Hindu <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tongue.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Whenever you are through with playing with your weweee and finished your bottle of milk , let us know what does ur stmt above has anything to do with my port ?
Human rights activists hold vigil
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->August 14, 2004 04:59 IST
Last Updated: August 14, 2004 05:38 IST
<b>Manab Adhikar Suraksha Manch activists and a group of students from
the Bishop's College held a vigil near the Alipore jail on Saturday
morning, about an hour before to the execution of rapist-murderer
Dhananjoy Chatterjee.</b>
Though the road leading to the jail was cordoned off, MASUM members
holding candles and placards stood by the barricades and sang 'We
shall overcome'.
'Death sentence is against the will of god. Tooth for a tooth, eye
for an eye, there will be no eye and no tooth left
in the world,' read a Bishop's College placard.
MASUM spokesman Kirti Roy said: "This is not the way to deal with
crime. The killers of Indira Gandhi were hanged, but it failed to
stop Rajiv Gandhi from being assassinated.
"It is not as if Dhananjoy wants to die, but the court, the
government and the police are putting him to death. <b>Will hanging him
stop rapes? Every day rapes are taking place, even three-year-olds
are being raped. Will the hanging stop this?"</b>
Asked what could be the solution, Roy said, "We don't know. But we
are against people being put to death."
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
When was the last time these dolts held a vigil for the rape victims or fought for their rights or justice. <!--emo&<_<--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/dry.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='dry.gif' /><!--endemo-->
hubby: Seems the journos at ToI had to come up with the space filler to beat the deadline and came up with half hearted attempt with "Is capital punishment class-specific?" Anyone can take some statistics and show that the capital punishment is gender specific, or race specific or ethnicity specific. Beat the numbers enough and it'll sing the tune you like - a statistican friend had mentioned.
The article ignores basic premise that rich and affluent people have better resources to mount a stronger defense during trial and couple hundred appeals and legal manuveors. Or maybe even extra-moolah to grease a few judicial/political palms. Sure even Justice Bhagawati quoted in the article would acknowledge it. Also article doesn't discuss the pros or cons of capital punishment or judicial process which decides on the cases being capital punishment specific.
Unless there's some serious discussion on law, process and past precedence, I don't think a mediocre article deserves a thread of it's own.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->On a plea made by Salman's lawyer Dipesh Mehta saying the actor was busy in a film shooting, a Bandra magistrate exempted Salman from appearing today<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wonder if this magistrate will exempt ordinary citizens who have to earn a living to feed family <!--emo&<_<--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/dry.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='dry.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Actually, this magistrate was for sale. <!--emo&:lol:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='laugh.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<b>How long before justice comes</b>?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Look at the figures. In the subordinate courts in the districts there are now as many as 2.8 crore cases. These nearly 3 crore cases involve almost about 10 crore people. A large number of these cases are kept pending for years, sometimes decades. In the supreme court, there were recently 26,750 cases and in the high courts, they number nearly 31,88,000. There are vacancies for about 5000 judges in the countryâs courts. We need ten times the existing number of judges to cope with the work load.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Avoid the political thicket </b>
A Surya Prakash
The "timely" release of an interim report by the UC Banerjee Committee, which is supposedly looking into the cause of the fire that engulfed a compartment of the Sabarmati Express at Godhra on February 27, 2002, and its strange findings, have raised serious questions about the post-retirement conduct of judges.
Mr Lalu Prasad Yadav, the Union Railway Minister, runs the State Government of Bihar by proxy. Holding his political power of attorney is his wife Rabri Devi. Mr Yadav depends heavily on the Muslim vote and is willing to do anything to keep this vote in his bag. The people of the State are to elect a new state government in February. All citizens who have access to the electronic or print media are aware of this political calendar. These are matters of common sense and common knowledge. Yet, a person who was a judge of our Supreme Court at one time, yields to the political time table of Mr Yadav, presents an "interim report" and allows his findings to be used in a crass manner for political gains.
This is not all. There are several other issues involving the conduct of Mr Banerjee which I wish to place before fellow citizens including those in the fields of law and justice. The first is the timing of the so-called interim report. The Godhra carnage happened three years ago. Heavens would not have fallen if Mr Banerjee had chosen to submit his findings a month later. Second, only a summary of the findings have been made public. We, the citizens of India, do not have access to the full text of the interim report. Nor do Mr Yadav's political opponents. So, it is the sole prerogative of Mr Yadav to wave a sheaf of papers in public and talk about the extraordinary findings of Mr Banerjee!
The second issue - and this is truly disturbing - is the committee's findings on what caused the fire. The facts about Godhra, as established by eye witness accounts and media reports, are as follows: A mob of irate Muslims attacked the Sabarmati Express soon after it left the Godhra Railway Station on February 27, 2002, and pelted it with stones. The mob surrounded the train, some persons entered the compartments, pulled the chain and brought the train to a halt. Reports from Godhra that day said the mob set fire to some coaches of this train.
Coach S-6, which bore the brunt, was soon on fire and within minutes the flames engulfed it, and 59 Hindus were burnt alive. The police, who investigated this ghastly act, say a bunch of conspirators met at a guest house in Godhra on February 26 and decided to torch the Sabarmati Express in the early hours of February 27. 140 litres of petrol was procured for this purpose, kept at the guest house and used the next day.
The gory details of this conspiracy are available in the confessional statement made by one of the accused before the chief judicial magistrate. Any one who has heard or read the statements of eye witnesses soon after the event are aware that a mob of Muslims attacked the train. Yet, Mr Banerjee maintains deafening silence about this fact and about what that mob was up to that morning. He now wants us to believe that the 59 Hindus roasted themselves alive or that the flames broke out "accidentally". The Hindu karsevaks were cooking their meals in the coach, he says, to buttress his conclusion that the fire emanated from within the coach. Of course, no Muslim is to be blamed!
Mr Banerjee's conclusions are so wide off the mark that the special investigation team of the Railway Police has immediately contradicted him and said it had evidence of a conspiracy hatched by a group of people in Godhra to carry out the attack. Further, the day after Mr Lalu Prasad Yadav began touting his committee's findings, Mr Noel Parmar, Deputy Superintendent of Police (Railways) and chief investigator in the case, told the Commission of Inquiry headed by Justice GT Nanavati and Justice KG Shah that the incident was the result of a "pre-planned conspiracy" and not an accident. He also said police investigations had thrown up terrorist links.
The third issue is the fact that two of Mr Banerjee's brothers from the judicature - Justice GT Nanavati and Justice KG Shah - are currently probing the Godhra carnage and are scheduled to complete their work this year. If at the end of the day justice is to be done, what should be the work ethic among the justices examining the same incident or different aspects of the same incident? If truth be the singular pursuit of judges inquiring into a matter, is it proper for one judge to surprise another with his findings? Despite the surprise element, Justice Nanavati has kept his cool and said Godhra "could be an act of terrorism". Further, as he has pointed out, "the role of the mob cannot be ignored".
How is it that retired judges allow politicians and governments to fool around with their findings? At times governments have displayed gross contempt for the findings of commissions headed by retired judges of the supreme court. Here are a few examples:
<b>The Thakkar Commission, which investigated the assassination of Indira Gandhi, concluded that it had reasonable grounds to suspect the involvement of RK Dhawan, her special assistant, in the assassination of the prime minister. In fact, Justice Thakkar saw him as a key conspirator</b>. The Rajiv Gandhi Government tried unsuccessfully to keep Justice Thakkar's report away from Parliament. Finally, when Arun Shourie, then Editor of the Indian Express, scooped Justice Thakkar's findings, the Government was forced to make the report public. It, however, said no action was contemplated against Mr Dhawan because a team of police officers had examined the charges and cleared him!
<b>Mr Dhawan went on to become an MP and a Union Minister after Justice Thakkar's report was made public. What are we to make of all this?</b> Can there be anything more galling for a judge than the elevation of the person he saw as the chief conspirator in the assassination of a Prime Minister, to responsible positions in Government? Where does this leave the judge? Then came the commissions of inquiry relating to the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi.
The panel headed by <b>Justice JS Verma held the Union Government responsible for failing to provide adequate protection to Rajiv Gandhi after he ceased to be Prime Minister. The Congress, which was in power, rejected this conclusion and claimed that the security cover "was comprehensive and adequate to meet the perceived high level of threat"</b>. The Government told Parliament that it had been acknowledged by the commission that if the prescribed security arrangements had been strictly enforced, the assassination could have been averted. "This makes it clear that the prescribed arrangements were adequate," it said. The Government also rejected the commission's findings in regard to conduct of the Intelligence Bureau.
<b>The Congress is, however, in the habit of temporarily utilising the findings of such commissions to achieve political objectives.</b> The party adopted this strategy vis-a-vis the MC Jain Commission which probed the sequence of events leading to the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi.<b> The most shocking part of the report was the accusation made by the commission against all Tamil speaking people and the State Government.</b> The Congress, however, used these vague generalisations and innuendoes in the report to condemn the DMK, which was a constituent of the United Front, and to pull down the Gujral Government.<b> The Congress and the DMK are currently partners in the United Progressive Alliance. Where does that leave Justice MC Jain?</b>
<b>Retired judges who are called upon to head commissions and committees need to take stock of the fate that befell reports produced by their predecessors and avoid situations in which their assignments and labours are seen as part of somebody's political agenda. In other words, they must clearly avoid the political thicket</b>. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
RJD MP running durbar from his jail cell
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The EC's action comes in the wake of reports alleging that Shahabuddin was holding 'durbars' in the jail premises itself<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Title: Colour of the blood is the same but the colour of justice is different
Author: Ravindra Dani
Publication: Mumbai Tarun Bharat
Date: February 12, 2005
Although the colour of the blood of all i.e. of Prof. Gilani who was wounded two days ago, Stephens Lawrence of Britain, Stains from Manoharpur, Karsevaks in the Sabarmati Express and the three thousand Sikhs in the Capital is the same, the colour of the justice meted out to them is different. Tuesday night (7th Feb.) Prof. Gilani was attacked and on Wednesday morning itself, taking cognizance of it, Supreme Court asked of the Delhi Police a report. Home Minister called the Police Commissioner and questioned him. A number of capable honest Police Officers have been severely attacked or even killed. But the SC has never taken cognizance of them and asked Police for their report. Which means that the justice for the accused in the case of attack of Parliament is different one and the justice for the wounded Police Officers is different.
Justice for the Stains burning case of Manoharpur is one and the justice for the Godhra carnage is different one. Justice Banerjee says that the fire to the Sabarmati Coach could be due to a small cigarette butt, but Justice Wadhwa says the fire to the Motor of Stains cannot be lit without some inflammatory substance like Petrol or Diesel.
151 Vs 7432
The distance between 151 and 7432 is really vast. The report of killing of Staines was presented in 151 days i.e. 5 months. But the report of 1984Â Delhi riots took 7,432 days i.e after full twenty years. Three people were killed in Staines killings but there were 3,000 killings in Delhi riots. Darasingh was awarded punishment of death by hanging. No one has been punished for Delhi riots.
Attack of Parliament was carried out on 13th December 2001. SC did not ask any report on it. But the swiftness shown by SC in asking report on attack on Gilani is astounding. Gilani had submitted an affidavit in the SC stating that there was a danger to his life from Delhi Police in the SC. Gilani case was to come for hearing on 9th February. It is beyond comprehension that 1 day before it, the Delhi Police will attack him just near the house of his advocate. But for Gilani, the colour of justice is different.
Darasingh in Staines killings was hanged. It is said that Darasingh was a notorious criminal. But people more notorious than Darasingh are today in the Union Ministry. The judiciary is more concerned about the criminals like Darasingh, but the judiciary has refused to interfere about the criminals in the Central Ministry. Because, the justice for Darasingh is different and for Taslimuddin Shahabuddin it is different. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Nikhil+Feb 22 2005, 11:35 AM-->QUOTE(Nikhil @ Feb 22 2005, 11:35 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Darasingh in Staines killings was hanged.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hello K.Ram..
When this happened?? I think he was punished only, there is some appeal going on, and he is yet to be hanged. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nikhil,
That was news to me as well when I read it. Have no idea what the status of Dara's case is.. <!--emo&:o--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ohmy.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ohmy.gif' /><!--endemo-->
May be "hanged" has been used figuratively and not literally, for the treatment meted out to Dara in particular, and any anti-missionary stances in general.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->
This very month, three years ago, Hindu pilgrims returning to Gujarat from Ayodhya were burnt alive in a bogey of the Sabarmati Express, in what was widely perceived as an act of communal aggression. Secular apologists of Islamic fundamentalism were quick to explain to a shocked nation that there were good (that is, legitimate) reasons for that gory action.
The Muslim mob at the Godhra station, they said, had been "provoked" by Hindu acts of commission. To begin with, the kar sevaks wanted to rebuild the Ram Mandir at Ayodhya. Now, that may be a heinous crime, but I fail to understand how pilgrims returning home without having done anything to erect the mandir in Ayodhya, could be considered guilty of a crime that warranted roasting alive.
For the sake of communal amity, however, we may let that pass. A second reason advanced was that an unidentified kar sevak got into a squabble with a tea vendor at Godhra station. Another version said that many pilgrims had tea at the stall and returned to the train without settling their dues. Hence the irate vendor rounded up members of his community; they managed to catch up with the train and set it on fire.
A third version was that some kar sevaks forced a Muslim girl at Godhra station into the train and made off with her. No family member of the alleged victim ever came forward to validate the story, nor was a police report filed. Yet this was repeated ad nauseum as if repetition can transform lies into truths.
To his credit, Justice UC Banerjee - though handpicked by Union Railway Minister Lalu Yadav to serve a political agenda - did not waste energy trying to prove these puerile excuses. <b>As a former judge of the Supreme Court, Justice Banerjee realised that the first reason exposed Muslim intolerance; while the second and third reasons were both difficult to prove and impossible to justify. What is more, they seriously incriminated the Muslim community as they showed planning and motivation to commit a grave offence.
So, notwithstanding his defective report, the judge was wise enough to avoid the most obvious pitfalls on his route. This is why he went for the "safe" option of accidental fire: He showed sympathy for the victims (since he could not say the fire never took place); shifted the blame away from the accused; and kept the burden of responsibility for the subsequent Gujarat riots on the shoulders of the Hindu community.</b>
This is by no means a poor achievement for a judge whose appointment failed to attract confidence because he was not nominated by the Supreme Court, but handpicked by Mr Yadav. Mr Banerjee submitted his interim conclusions exclusively to Mr Yadav in the form of a double-edged boon, useful for indicting community-minded Hindus and for consolidating "secular" Muslim voters.
Examining the press reports, what most upsets me is Mr Banerjee's failure to produce the remains of a gas or kerosene stove from the embers of S-6, to back his claim that the apocalyptic fire that consumed 59 persons within seven minutes was caused by passenger fault. Prima facie, it is difficult to believe that anyone could have the luxury of cooking in a bogey with a capacity of 72 passengers, but actually packed with 150 persons. Anyone with a nodding acquaintance with Gujarati culture could have told the learned judge that Gujarati women are notoriously gifted in the art of making dry snacks; the women in that ill-fated bogey would have been well-stocked for the journey and would certainly not cook on the train.
Justice Banerjee lacks credibility because he is perceived to have walked a path staked out by others, instead of scrupulously following the evidence. He did not even glance at the evidence collected by Gujarat's special investigation team (SIT), and disregarded the findings of forensic laboratories that opined that nearly 60 litres of petrol was used to start the conflagration. <b>His decision to submit an interim report the day before he was scheduled to meet the SIT has already attracted adverse attention; his contention that he was unaware that elections were scheduled in the home state of the Minister who appointed him is shameful.</b>
Justice Nanavati has wisely suggested that the nation await his findings. But since the Banerjee report was obviously intended to preempt and discredit the Nanavati-Shah probe, it deserves careful examination. Banerjee suggests that the fateful fire began somewhere in the middle of bogey S-6, and was probably triggered by a cooking stove, or a match or lighter. If the fire did start off accidentally, why didn't the passengers extinguish it, and why wasn't it contained in the section where it started? <b>Since the train was a sleeper, only six persons could have been sitting in that section, since persons occupying the side berths would hardly cook in the passageway. Even if more people were seated in the section, it does not explain the failure to cry for help or warn other passengers about the danger</b>.
<b>The SIT claims the coach was built in 1993 with fire-retardant and self-extinguishing materials. This means that only a very volatile and highly inflammable substance (like petrol) could have caused the kind of inferno that enveloped the entire coach and took 59 lives in seven minutes. Neither a matchstick nor a portable kerosene stove could explain this kind of fire.</b>
<b>The judge has completely evaded the issue of why the passengers failed to open the doors at both ends of the compartment and either escape into the adjoining bogeys S-7 or S-5, or jump off the train once smoke spread in the compartment</b>. Who or what impeded these obvious escape routes when the train was at a standstill? This issue will seriously erode Banerjee's credibility if he does not address it in his final report.
I am equally anxious for the results of the Supreme Court probe into Zaheera Sheikh's contention that despite the verbose activism of Begum Teesta Setalvad, she (Zaheera) had not filed any affidavit seeking transfer of the Best Bakery trial outside Gujarat. I shall briefly recapitulate facts for readers who have not understood the importance of this disclosure.
When Zaheera's testimony in the Vadodara Fast Track court led to the acquittal of 21 accused persons, a bunch of well-connected activists landed in Gujarat, dragged her to Mumbai and sponsored the sensational press conference in which she said the Vadodara testimony was inspired by fear. The publicity-conscious National Human Rights Commission rushed in; accepted voluminous documentation furnished on behalf of Zaheera without any scrutiny; and urged the Supreme Court to transfer the trial to another state (currently going on in Mumbai) as a fair trial was not possible in Gujarat.
To its eternal embarrassment, the Supreme Court has since discovered that Zaheera had not signed a single page presented to the NHRC or the apex court! In other words, there is no legal basis for taking the trial outside Gujarat. The learned judges cannot escape their share of this ignominy, for it is clear that they responded to the hype generated by an ideologically-committed media, rather than perusing the legal record before them. Public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary is at stake; the judges must examine their contribution to this crisis.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>UPAâs answer to communal violence: Army rule, Central rule</b>
Sunday April 24 2005 00:00 IST
NEW DELHI: In the name of ââsuppressingââ communal violence, the UPA Government has drafted <b>a controversial Bill that not only gives the Centre unprecedented powers over states but also equips the armed forces with draconian powers of arrest, search and seizure.</b>
It calls for special courts to try cases and arms them with the power to order externment of people ââlikely to commit a scheduled offence.ââ
The draft Bill, finalised by the Home Ministry is being studied by the Prime Ministerâs Office and the National Advisory Council (NAC) headed by Sonia Gandhi.
According to the preamble to the Communal Violence (Suppression) Bill 2005 - a promise made by the UPA in its Common Minimum Programme - the Bill is in exercise of the constitutional ââduty of the Union to protect States against external aggression and internal disturbance.ââ
However, it turns established constitutional principle on its head by allowing the Centre to ââprevailââ over the State in declaring any area as ââcommunally disturbed.ââ
Once the area is declared ââcommunally disturbed,ââ as per the Bill, the Centre can deploy armed forces and nominate one or more Central officers - not below the rank of Additional Secretary - to ââcoordinate steps taken for dealing with the situation.ââ
But itâs Clause 7 to Clause 10 that reads like a virtual reprint of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, an act which, the Centre - after the Manipur protests - has committed to reviewing.
Under the Bill, ââany commissioned officer, warrant officer, non-commissioned officer or any person of equivalent rank in the armed forcesââ can:
* Fire, even cause death, after ââgiving such due warning as he may consider necessaryââ
<b>* Arrest, without warrant - and use ââsuch force as may be necessaryââ - any one who has committed a cognisable offence or ââagainst whom a reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed or is about to commit a cognisable offenceââ</b>
<b>* ââEnter and search without warrant any premisesââ to make any such arrest or to recover property ââreasonably suspectedââ to be stolen property</b>
* Stop, search, seize any vehicle suspected of carrying any person who is believed to have or has committed or is ââabout to commitââ a non-cognisable offence
* Power to break open any ââdoor, almirah, safe, cupboard, drawer or other thing, if the key thereof is withheldââ
* No legal action, unless the Centre sanctions it, against any person in respect of anything done under the Act
The Bill also provides for setting up special courts either in ââthe judicial zoneââ within the state or outside to try riot cases. This court shall be presided over by a judge appointed by the government with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court
Clause 21 of the Bill gives the special court an extraordinary power to direct - on being satisfied with a complaint or a police report - those likely to commit an offence to ââremove himself beyond the limit of such area not exceeding six months, as may be specified in that order.ââ Failing which, the people may be ââremoved in police custody.ââ
Under Clause 28 of the Bill, if it is proved that an accused has given any money to a person accused or ââreasonably suspectedââ of a scheduled offence, the ââspecial court shall presume, unless the contrary is proved, that such person has abetted the offence.ââ
Similarly, the next clause says that if fingerprints of the accused were found at the site of the offence, the special court ââshall draw adverse inference against the accused.ââ
On the issue of relief and rehabilitation as well, a subject that has so far been the responsibility of a state government, the Centre, under the Bill, will nominate six of the 10 members of a Relief and Rehabilitation Council
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tongue.gif' /><!--endemo-->