The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 prescribes penalties for any person defaulting/avoiding or denying any payment that is to be made under the Act. Under the said Act, a person who knowingly makes false statements for false representations for the purpose of avoiding any payment to be made under this Act, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees or with both. And further any employer who contravenes or defaults in making payments under the Act shall punishable with imprisonment ranging from three months to one year or a fine ranging from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- or with both. Moreover, an employer guilty of non payment of gratuity under the Act shall be punishable with imprisonment ranging from six months to two years unless the court is of the opinion that a lesser term of imprisonment or imposition of fine would meet the ends of justice.

WRITTEN CONSENT OF WOMEN REQUIRED BEFORE ULTRASOUND

The Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulation and Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1994 (PNDT Act) aims to check female foeticide and maintain the balance in the male female ratio. Under the Act, ultrasound tests on pregnant women without valid reason are prohibited. Doctors who are running Ultrasound Clinic have to obtain prior written consent of the concerned women as well as permission from a competent authority before performing ultrasonography. The Act permits these tests only to detect genetic, sex linked or metabolic disorders, chromosomal abnormalities or certain congenital malformations and only by registered genetic clinic or laboratories. Under the said Act, determination of sex of a foetus is a punishable offence and doctors/relatives who encourage such a test including the woman herself can be fined uptoRs. 50,000/- alongwith imprisonment ranging from three to five years.

DELAY IN INVESTIGATION LEADS TO A RIGHT OF THE ACCUSED TO BE RELEASED ON BAIL

There have been umpteen number of cases where delay in investigation has come to light before the courts. In order to straighten up the administration, the courts have passed a number of judgments in the past that would impress the investigating agencies to complete the investigation within the time as stipulated in the concerned Statute. In Hitendra Vishnu Thakur V. State of Maharashtra, (1994) 4 SCC 602, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the investigation must be completed within the specified period under law and where the same is not completed within the prescribed period, the accused would acquire a right to be released on bail and if he is prepared to and does furnish bail, the Magestrate shall release him on bail. The Court has further pointed out that an Application for grant of bail has to be decided on its own merit for the default of the prosecuting agency to complete the agency within the prescribed period and the Court will not be influenced by the merit of the gravity of the case.

Indeed, it is the duty of every concerned with criminal justice to avoid such delays, for persons charged of offences are entitled to expect that case against them should be investigated as quickly as possible so that they may know what they are being charged with. The very delay in investigation make it difficult for the prosecution witnesses to remember the details, with the result that even truthful witnesses would bungle in cross-examination and the prosecution would fail for that reason.

ABETTING SUICIDE OF CHILD OR INSANE PERSON IS A PUNISHABLE OFFENCE

Most of us know that attempting to commit suicide is an offence. However, where a suicide has already been committed, in such a case even the persons who had abetted such commission of Suicide have committed a punishable offence. Section 305 of the Indian Penal Code prescribes a punishment of Death Sentence or Life imprisonment, or imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, for a person abetting the commission of suicide of any person under eighteen years of age, any insane person, any delirious person, any idiot, or any person in a state of intoxication. What is important is that for any person to be punished under this provision of the Code, it is necessary that the suicide is in fact committed.

While formulating the said provision, the Law Commission of India observed that where a person legally bound to take care of the person of another has by illegal omission of his duty intentionally given him the opportunity, or permitted him to obtain the means of killing himself. The said provision is also intended to apply in cases where a person sees other person preparing to destroy himself, say by hanging, and allowing him to accomplish his purpose without any attempt to prevent him, if, as may be expected, the law of procedure makes it a common duty incumbent upon all men to assist in preventing offences about to be committed in their presence.

BY LAWZ BUREAU