Skip to main content

Types of Offences

 Types of offences

Offences can be categorised as serious offence or less serious offence.

Generally cognizable offences are more serious in nature compare to non-cognizable offence..

Non-bailable offence is serious in nature compared to bailable offence.

Non-compoundable offence are more serious in nature compare to compoundable offence.

Warrant case are more serious in nature tham summons case.


So, Cognizable offence is mentioned under section 2(c) of CrPc

It says in this kind of offence the police can arrest without warrant.

When a magistrate orders or gives permission to the police to arrest a particular person for an offence committed is called a warrant.

As we all know, cognizable offences are serious offences .So ,a police does not require permission from the magistrate to arrest the person when the offence is serious . Offences like -Murder , rape , dowry , death etc.


Non-cognizable offences mentioned under section 2 (L) of CRPC and it says police cannot arrest without warrant. The offences are less serious in nature . For example – Assault , cheating , forgery .


Bail can be obtained by the accused or offender in both bailable or non-bailable offences.But under Bailable offence , Seeking bail is available as the right of a person.

Under non-bailable offence bail is not guaranteed or is available as a right of the person but bail is provided according to the discretion of the authority(police or court) . It is mentioned under section 437 of CRPC.

Compoundable offences

Compounding is basically a compromise made between two parties

For example .Robin was robbed by Saina,Saina gets caught and offers a deal to Robin saying that she would pay him Rs.10,000 for the same cause.

They both come to a conclusion and compromise .Thus ,rendering Robin drop the charges on Saina.

Compoundable offences 

Court usually refers friendly settlement between two parties in case of any dispute as the time of the court is saved .It is only available for less serious offences .

While under non-compoundable offences compromise between two parties is not allowed or permitted by the court as under non-compoundable offences the offences are of serious kind.
Summons case is defined under section 2(w) of CrPC.

Warrant cases defined under section 2 (x) of CrPC

It is said to be as summons case when the punishment for the offence committed is up to 2 years or less. They are not so serious offence.

General rule of summons case is that in case the accused or offender is required to be physically present in the court ,summons is sent to him/her.


Warrant case is defined under section 2(x) of the CrPC.

Warrant cases are serious offences, under this, offences with punishment for more than two years are considered.

In case the offender or accused has been ordered to be physically present in the court a warrant is said to him/her.Though it is not a general rule that under summons case summons has to be sent and under warrant case a warrant has to be sent .
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