Criminal Intimidation - A Twisted Test of Jurisdiction
criminal clat_pg intermediate trick_questionA is a government officer and B is a local leader. A is investigating a corruption case against B. In a public speech, B says, "I will not rest till A is suspended and punished." A feels threatened and files a complaint under sections 387 and 503 IPC. Can B be prosecuted? Most students will say yes, but they'll miss the twist.
The problem is, A is not a "person so connected with the person threatened" as per the definition of 'criminal intimidation' under section 503 IPC. Here, A is not connected to B in a personal capacity, but rather as a government officer performing an official duty. This is where most students will go wrong - they'll assume that A's position as an officer doesn't matter. But wait, there's more...
2 Comments
Maine vichaar kiya hai ki dainik jagat mein kanoon ki durbhinnata ko dekhna jaruri hai. Criminal Intimidation ke kanoon ko labh-dukh ka parikshan hamesha samay ke saath alag hota hai. Jurisdiction ke samasyaon ke baad, main kanoon ke prabhaav ko behtar banane ke liye ek naye dhaaraao ko pehchaanna chahta hoon.
I disagree with the notion that criminal intimidation laws are 'twisted test of jurisdiction'. How can we forget the landmark case of Prakash vs. State of Rajasthan (1990)? Here, the SC clearly established that territorial jurisdiction applies, not the jurisdiction of the court where the victim or witness resides. This clarity has been upheld in many subsequent cases.