Crpc pdf in tamil

If any provision of a law made by the Legislature of a State is repugnant to any provision of a law made by Parliament which Parliament is competent to enact, or to any provision of an existing law with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List, then, the law made by Parliament, whether passed before or after the law made by the Legislature of such State, or, as the case may be, the existing law, shall prevail and the law made by the Legislature of the State shall, to the extent crpc pdf in tamil the repugnancy, be void. Provided that nothing in this clause shall prevent Parliament from enacting at any time any law with respect to the same matter including a law adding to, amending, varying or repealing the law so made by the Legislature of the State. States for the use of prisons and other institutions. Parliament to be of national importance.

Entry 56 of List I. Protection of wild animals and birds. Regulation of mines and mineral development subject to the provisions of List I with respect to regulation and development under the control of the Union. Entries 7 and 52 of List I. State subject to the provisions of Entry 33 of List III. Entry 33 of List III.

Weights and measures except establishment of standards. Works, lands and buildings vested in or in the possession of the State. Acquisition or requisitioning of property, except for the purposes of the Union, subject to the provisions of entry 42 of List III. Chairman and Deputy Chairman thereof.

Salaries and allowances of Ministers for the State. State or out of the Consolidated Fund of the State. Taxes on lands and buildings. Taxes on mineral rights subject to any limitations imposed by Parliament by law relating to mineral development. Entry 35 of List III . Taxes on animals and boats. Taxes on professions, trades, callings and employments.

Taxes on luxuries, including taxes on entertainments, amusements, betting and gambling. Taxes on entertainments and amusements to the extent levied and collected by a Panchayat or a Municipality or a Regional Council or a District Council. Offences against laws with respect to any of the matters in this list. Fees in respect of any of the matters in this list, but not including fees taken in any court.

This page was last edited on 27 November 2017, at 20:25. An Act to make provisions for the prevention of, and for dealing with, the terrorist activities and for matters connected therewith. The Act defined what constituted a “terrorist act” and who a “terrorist” was, and granted special powers to the investigating authorities described under the Act. In order to ensure that discretionary powers granted to the investigating agencies were not misused and human rights violations were not committed, specific safeguards were built into the Act. It also allowed law enforcement agencies to withhold the identities of witnesses, and to treat confessions made to the police admissible in evidence. Under the provisions of criminal law in India, a person could deny such confessions, in court, but not under POTA. However the law did have some safeguards.

Any decision on bail petitions or the verdict of the special courts constituted under this Act could be appealed from, to a division bench of the High Court having jurisdiction. Also unlike TADA, it had no provision to allow preventive detention. The provisions in the Act mentioned the possibility of both state and central review committees, but offered few details as to their formation or use. As the Act began to be widely misused by the state governments, the central government finally established a review committee to hear individual cases related to this Act. At first, the committee functioned in a purely advisory capacity. In December 2003, by an overwhelming majority, India’s legislature amended the Act with an ordinance designed to expand the scope of judicial review. The new ordinance gave review commissions the authority to review the prima facie case of an “aggrieved person” and issue orders binding on the state government and police.

Though the amendment was an improvement on the purely advisory capacity of the initial review committee because it enhanced the power of judicial review, the central review committee remained largely impotent, as it could not initiate an investigation absent an initial complaint and lacked clearly delineated investigatory powers. Moreover, the review committee’s resources were limited, and it operated under no regulated time-frame. Without sufficient autonomy, resources, or guidelines, the committee was an illusory safeguard. Given the review committee’s limitations, only the grievances of those persons with political connections to the central government were likely to be heard. Once the Act came into force, many reports surfaced of the law being grossly abused. POTA was alleged to have been arbitrarily used to target political opponents.

Only four months after its enactment, state law enforcement officers had arrested 250 people nationwide under the Act, and the number was steadily increasing. A mere eight months later, seven states where POTA was in force, had arrested over 940 people, at least 560 of whom were languishing in jail. NDA asked UPA to introduce the Act again, but Congress criticized it and did not pass the Act. Geelani, a lecturer at Delhi University, was sentenced to death by a special POTA court for his alleged role in the 2001 attack on the Indian Parliament. He was later acquitted on appeal by the Delhi High Court on a legal technicality.