Kerala HC urges Parliament to address disproportionate punishment for false charges | Latest news India

Justice PV Kunhikrishnan asked Parliament to address the deficiencies in the sentencing provisions for false accusations.

The observation and suggestion from the court came while denying anticipatory bail to a man accused of falsely accusing a woman Sheela Sunny of being in possession of drugs.

The court directed the registry to send the said order to the Union government for further action.

It was said that false accusations can ruin lives and those who make them must be held accountable.

“The consequences of false implications can be devastating for victims in such cases. Therefore, the accused in such cases should be arrested immediately for investigation, if necessary, and should be produced before the court for speedy trial, if there is material. against them to be judged”.

“The court concerned should take up such cases again and if the accused is found guilty after trial, in addition to the substantive punishments as prescribed to be imposed on the accused, the maximum compensation should also be ordered possible,” the order said.

The court made this statement while hearing an anticipatory bail plea filed by Narayana Das, who feared arrest after being charged under Sections 58 and 28 of the NDPS Act on charges related to a dispute in which he was involved Sheela Sunny, her daughter-in-law and contraband hidden in a scooter, leading to Sheela Sunny’s arrest.

Sections 58 and 28 of the NDPS Act deal with punishment for furnishing false information leading to arrest or search and punishment for attempt or accessory to offenses under the Act respectively.

Referring to the case registered against Sheela Sunny, who was jailed for about 72 days on false charges under Sections 8, 22 and 60 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the court observed that a person involved in false way could face severe cases. consequences, including a long prison sentence and large fines.

However, the person responsible for the false accusation could face a significantly lighter sentence of just two years, the statement said.

The court examined the arguments presented by the petitioner’s senior counsel and the chief prosecutor.

The petitioner’s counsel argued that even if the charges were accepted in full, the offense would only fall under section 58 of the NDPS Act, which carries a maximum punishment of two years’ imprisonment, fine or both.

This section applies to persons who knowingly and maliciously provide false information that results in arrest or search.

The case in question involved charges under Section 22 of the NDPS Act, which deals with possession of commercial quantities of contraband.

Convictions under this section carry a minimum sentence of 10 years, extended to 20 years, along with a fine of ₹1 lakh to ₹2 lakhs.

The Court noted the stark disparity between the penalties for falsely implicating someone and the penalties faced by those convicted under section 22.

It noted that a person falsely implicated could face serious consequences, including a long prison term and large fines, while the person responsible for the false accusation could face a significantly lighter sentence of just two years.

The court pointed out that false accusations can destroy lives and referred to the famous quote by American author Mark Twain: “A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still walking.”

It highlighted the difficulty of disproving false allegations and the severe impact such allegations can have on an innocent person.

“The punishment should fit the crime and the sentence should reflect the gravity of the crime. If there is any inadequacy of punishment in such cases, Parliament should seriously consider the same,” the court said and directed the registry. to send a copy of the order of the Union of India to do what is necessary under the law.

The court also rejected the anticipatory bail filed by Das and directed him to surrender before the Investigating Officer within seven days.

“If the petitioner does not surrender within seven days, the investigating officer may take coercive measures to arrest the petitioner,” it said.

This article was generated from an automated news agency feed, with no text modifications.