Skip to main content

Law Enforcement Agencies - By Isha

 Law Enforcement Agencies – By Isha


Introduction

The backbone of every civilized society are law enforcement agencies. The main work of these agencies is to provide safety and security to the people. 

There are various law enforcement agencies in India, of which some are under the Central Government while some are under the State Government. Some of them are CBI, RAW, National Investigation Agency (NIA), BSF, NSG etc.

The word investigation means “systematic finding of facts and reporting process and step by step enquiry.”


The three main Central Investigating Agencies are:


  1.  Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB)

  • It was established in the year 1986. 

  • The headquarters of NCB are situated in Delhi. 

  • It is affiliated with the Ministry of Home Affairs.

  • The current Chief of NCB is Satya Narayan Pradhan.

  • This agency was formed to fulfill the objectives of NDPS Act (Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act) , 1985. The objectives of this are also mentioned in Article 47 of the Constitution of India, which gives the responsibility of prohibiting illegal drugs and drinks to the State Government.

  • According to the report of AIMS 2019, there are more than 5 Crore people in India who have consumed cannabis and opium and Punjab, Assam, Sikkim, Delhi and UP are among the top drugs consuming states.

The initiatives of the Government for drug abuse aim at two main things:

Education- Like sex education, there should be awareness regarding drug abuse because  children are the main victims of drug abuse.

Counselling – Victims of drug abuse needs to get proper guidance and counselling regarding the ill effects of consuming drugs.  


Powers and Functions of NCB 

  1. NCB works with

  • Central Economic Intelligence Bureau

  • Customs and Central Excise 

  • CBI

  • State Police Departments

  • Other Intelligence and law enforcement agencies


India is signatory to various UN conventions

  • 1961- UN Convention on Narcotic Drugs

  • 1971- UN Convention on Psychotropic Substances

  • 1988- UN Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances

  • 2000- Transnational crime convention


  1. Crime Investigation Bureau (CBI)

It is the main law enforcement agency of the central government. CBI is the investigating agency with a prime focus on the investigation related to corruption. It deals with crimes of serious nature which have national or international importance but on the request of the State Government CBI can investigate those cases which have public importance.

Establishment

  • After Second World War, to investigate the cases of corruption special police was established.

  • Then Santhanam Committee on Prevention of Corruption was constituted which recommended the establishment of the CBI.

  • CBI was founded by D.P Kohli who served as its director from 1963-1968.

  • The current Chief of CBI is Subodh Kumar Jaiswal.

  • It’s headquarters are situated in Delhi.

  • Earlier it was under the Ministry of Home Affairs, but now it is under the Ministry of Personnel and Training.

  • CBI is exempted from the ambit of RBI.

  •  CBI which acts as National Central Bureau is the touchpoint of Interpol which is responsible for Crime Control worldwide.


Structure of CBI

  • CBI being affiliated to the Ministry of Personnel and Training comes under the Prime Minister’s Office  (PMO) but when it deal in matters of Prevention of Corruption Act then it comes under the Central Vigilance Commission.

  • CBI has three main divisions

    • Economic Offences Division

    • Anti Corruption Division

    • Special Crime Division


Appointment Committee of CBI

It constitute of

  • Prime Minister

  • Chief Justice of India or any other judge recommended by CJI

  • Leader of Opposition/ Leader of Single Largest Part of Lok Sabha


Main problem of CBI

CBI has a very important role in the criminal justice system of India. But the main problem of CBI is its autonomy and independence.

In the case of Vineeta Narayan vs Union of India (1997) Supreme court has questioned the autonomy of the CBI.

This case was related to the Hawala Scam in which many high ranking officials and bureaucrats were charged of corruption and bribery.

It was stated in this case that “No investigation was done against Government’s extremely influential people.

Hence the Supreme Court stated that

“ CBI has failed in its responsibility to investigate allegations of public corruption

Further, court issued guidelines to ensure CBI’s autonomy and put it under CVC for supervision.


Enforcement Directorate  (ED)

  • ED is India’s main economic investigating agency.

  • It is affiliated to Department of Revenue which comes under the Ministry of Finance.

  • It’s headquarters are situated in Delhi.

  • It’s current Chief is Sanjay Kumar Mishra.

  • It’s main work is to enforce the provisions of these laws:

  • FEMA ( Foreign Exchange Management Act) – It deals with exchange control laws. ED has the power under this Act to impose upto 3 times penalty of the amount involved in a scam.

  • PMLA ( Prevention of Money Laundering Act)- It deals with money laundering cases. Ed has the right under this Act to attach and cease the property. 

  • FEO (Fugitive Economic Offenders Act)

  • COFEPOSA Act


History of ED

  • In 1947, under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA) and to control exchange control law violation, a body was formed under the Department of Economic Affairs known as Enforcement Unit which was renamed as Enforcement Directorate in 1957 and it was transferred from department of Sconomic Affairs to Department of Revenue under the Ministry of Finance.


Leading Cases of ED

  • INX Media Scam charged P. Chidambaram – It was investigated by CBI and ED jointly.

  • 2G Scam

  • Yes Bank Scam

  • Mumbai Airport Development Scam












 
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more