The Truckers’ Protest Against The Hit-&-Run Law

The ongoing truckers’ protest against the recently enacted criminal law (yet to be notified) relating to the hit-&-run is completely misconceived and absurd by virtue of the following reasons:-

Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nyaya (Second) Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) provides that the act of causing the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide shall be a punishable offence and the offender shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and a fine.

Further, if the offender escapes from the scene of the incident or fails to report the incident to a Police officer or Magistrate soon after the incident, he shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years and a fine.

Misconceptions about the law:-

1. The offender, in case he is a driver, shall be punished in all cases of road accident

2. The compulsory imprisonment shall be ten years

3. The compulsory fine shall be seven lakh rupees

4. The offender shall be compulsorily required to take the victim to the hospital

The reality of the law:-

1. Section 106 says that the offender shall only be punished when he causes the death of a person by doing any rash or negligent act and not otherwise. It does not generalize and penalize all the cases of hit-and-run or road accidents.

2. Ten years imprisonment is the maximum punishment provided by Section 106, however, there is no minimum punishment but the punishment is a must and, therefore, technically there may be imprisonment of one day only.

3. Section 106 does not specify any amount of fine, however, imposition of a fine is mandatory in the event of a conviction and, therefore, any amount of money may be imposed as a fine provided the competence of the Court. Technically, the Court may order the offender to pay One Rupee only as a fine.

4. This law does not demand that the offender compulsorily take the victim to the hospital, instead, the law says that the offender must not escape, and if he has to leave the place of occurrence for any reason, he may leave the spot, however, he has to inform the police or magistrate about the incident. It is not required to remain at the place of occurrence while informing the police or magistrate, it may be done from a distant place too. Information has to be given soon after the incident and not immediately after the incident.

Comments

All Cases of Sexual Intercourse Based on a False Promise of Marriage NOT Covered under Section 69 of the BNS

Recently, a First Information Report (FIR) was registered against Yash Dayal, a Royal Challengers Bangalore (RCB) player, under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) for engaging in sexual intercourse on the false pretext of marriage. The complainant alleged that, relying on Yash Dayal’s false promise of marriage, she consented to sexual intercourse. Notably, the FIR was not registered under Section 64 (rape) of the BNS. This raises the question: Are all cases of sexual intercourse based on a false promise of marriage (vitiated consent) now exclusively covered under Section 69 of the BNS? Prior to the enactment of the BNS, sexual intercourse induced by a false promise of marriage was punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and classified as rape. This classification stemmed from Section 375 of the IPC, which defines rape as, inter alia, sexual intercourse with a woman without her consent, and Section 90, which states that consent given under a misconceptio...

Requirements for Criminal Liability under Sections 406 and 420 IPC

The Supreme Court of India’s judgment in Ashok Kumar Jain v. The State of Gujarat and Another (2025 INSC 614), delivered on May 1, 2025, is a significant exposition on the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), to quash a First Information Report (FIR) in cases where allegations of criminal breach of trust and cheating under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) are deemed to be a misuse of criminal process for civil disputes. The judgment meticulously analyzes the alleged offenses' legal ingredients, the commercial transaction's factual matrix, and the documentary evidence, ultimately concluding that the FIR represents an abuse of the legal process. Factual Background The case arises from a commercial transaction between the appellant, Ashok Kumar Jain, a director of Maayu Import and Export Ltd., a Sri Lankan company, and the second respondent, a proprietor of Ansh Prints, a textile business in Surat, Gujara...

Advocates Vs. CAs/CSs/CMAs

This article deals with the exclusive right to practise law and tribunal representation and the principles relating to a Harmonious Construction of the Advocates Act, 1961 and the Companies Act, 2013 Introduction The ongoing controversy concerning the right of non-advocate professionals, namely Chartered Accountants(CAs), Company Secretaries(CSs), and Cost and Management Accountants(CMAs), to appear and argue matters before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) raises fundamental questions touching the statutory monopoly over the practice of law in India. This post examines the competing statutory claims under the Advocates Act, 1961 and Section 432 of the Companies Act, 2013, applies the doctrine of harmonious construction, and concludes that Section 432 does not, and constitutionally cannot, confer any independent or parallel right to practise law upon non-advocates before tribunals. Background of the Dispute Recently, t...

Legally Sane

Search This Blog