9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (1) TMI 723X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rification of Sati Whoever does any act for the glorification of Sati shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to seven years and with fine which shall not be less than five thousand rupees but which may extend to thirty thousand rupees. Part III Power of Collector and District Magistrate to prevent offences relating to Sati 6. Power to prohibit certain acts (1) Where the collector and District Magistrate is of the opinion that Sati is being or is about to be committed in any area, he may, by order, prohibit the doing of any act towards the commission of Sati in such areas and for such period as may be specified in the order. (2) The Collector and District Magistrate may also, by order, prohibit the glorification in any manner of the commission of sati by any person in any area or areas specified in the Order. (3) Whoever contravenes any order made under sub-sec (1) or sub-sec (2) shall, if such contravention is not punishable under any other provisions of this Ordinance, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to seven years and with fine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Jaipur Station of All India Radio on 07.10.1987 in Hindi at 7.10 PM and 8.05 in Rajasthan by Smt. Ujjwala and Shri Ved Vyas respectively is stated in a letter produced on 06.11.1987. Three incidents took place leading to the registration of three offences pursuant to the FIRs recorded and registered at local police stations. On 08.10.1987, a mass rally was organised which, according to the prosecution, contravened the prohibitory order issued by the Collector. FIR No. 270/87 was registered at Police Station Moti Doongri, Jaipur u/s 6(3) of the Ordinance in which Section 5 was also added later. On 20.10.1987, Hindi Dharam Raksha Samiti , Kotputli Branch, contravened the prohibitory order of the Collector at Kotputli. FIR No. 238/87 was registered at Police Station Kotputli. On 28.10.1987, Dharam Raksha Samiti demonstrated against the Ordinance and thereby contravened the Collector's prohibitory order. In that regard FIR No. 451/87 was registered on 30.10.1987 at Police Station Manakchowk. Several accused persons were arrested and investigation commenced. Some of the persons filed petitions from jail, which were treated by the High Court as petitions seeking the writ of Habeas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Section 6 as having contravened an order made either under sub- section (1) or sub-section (2). Inasmuch as, in the opinion of the High Court, the prohibitory order of the Collector was not published in accordance with law, the prosecution u/s 6(3) was not maintainable, and, therefore, could not be proceeded with. All the prosecutions were, therefore, directed to be quashed. Before this Court none of the parties has made any submissions regarding the constitutional validity of Section 19 of the Act and, therefore, we are not called upon to express any opinion thereon. The only submission made before this court on behalf of the appellant State was that the High Court was not right in forming an opinion that Sections 5 and 6 are overlapping and, therefore, once a prohibitory order has been made by the Collector under sub-section (1) or (2) of Section 6, then Section 5 ceases to apply. We find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the State. Article 20 (2) of the Constitution provides that no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. To attract applicability of Article 20(2) there must be a second prosecution and punishment for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authority in which the rule against double jeopardy came to be dealt with and interpreted by reference to Article 20(2) of the Constitution is the Constitution Bench decision in Maqbul Hussain v. State of Bombay AIR 1953 SC 325. If the offences are distinct, there is no question of the rule as to double jeopardy being extended and applied. In State of Bombay v. S.L. Apte Another, AIR 1961 SC 578, the Constitution Bench held that the trial and conviction of the accused u/s 409 IPC did not bar the trial and conviction for an offence u/s 105 of Insurance Act because the two were distinct offences constituted or made up of different ingredients though the allegations in the two complaints made against the accused may be substantially the same. In Om Prakash Gupta v. State of UP, AIR 1957 SC 458 and The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Veereshwar Rao AIR 1957 SC 592, it was held that prosecution and conviction or acquittal u/s 409 of IPC do not debar the accused being tried on a charge u/s 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 because the two offences are not identical in sense, import and content. In Roshan Lal Ors. v. State of Punjab AIR 1965 SC 1413, the accused had caused dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s made punishable u/s 5. The Legislature in its wisdom thought fit to enact Section 5, worded very widely, contemplating cognizance post happening and also enact Section 6 which aims at prevention in anticipation of happening. The object sought to be achieved by enacting Section 6 is to empower the Collector and District Magistrate to take preventive action by prohibiting certain acts and enable cognizance being taken and prosecution being launched even before commission of sati or glorification of sati has actually taken place. Thus the sense, import and content of the offence u/s 5 are different from the one under Section 6(3). The gist of the offence under Section 5 is the commission of an act, which amounts to glorification of Sati. It is the commission of act by itself, which is made punishable on account of the same having been declared and defined as an offence by Section 5 of the Ordinance/Act. The gist of the offence under Section 6 of the Ordinance/Act is the contravention of the prohibitory order issued by the Collector and District Magistrate. Section 5 punishes the glorification of Sati. Section 6 punishes the contravention of prohibitory order issued by the Collect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
