Criticism of Telengana state not intimidation

Hyderabad: Law experts felt speaking against the government and ruling party leaders would not fall under the definition of either criminal intimidation or defamation and the law could not permit state governments to directly book cases under criminal intimidation without the court consent. 

The top court of the country and various High Courts in catena of cases had struck down such moves of state governments. 

In the wake of proposed move of Telangana government to declare the Sections 506 and 507 of IPC as cognisable without having to take the permission of the courts, legal experts said such declaration without the support of amendment to the criminal law could not be sustained before constitutional courts. 

They reminded that the notification issued by the Delhi government by making Section 506 as a cognisable offence was quashed by Delhi High Court on January 13, 2003, and its second attempt in 2004 was also struck down on January 18, 2016. 

According to the lawyers, Section 506 IPC prescribed punishment for the offence of criminal intimidation and this was defined in Section 503 IPC where it said: “Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation.” 

Hyderabad High Court crime lawyer Pradyumna Kumar Reddy said, Section 506 of IPC contained two parts and the first dealt with the non-cognisable offence which said: “Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc.” 

He said the second part dealt with cognisable offences under the Section where it stipulated: “If the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute, unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.” 

He said Section 507 was purely a non-cognisable offence that too relating to criminal intimidation by an anonymous communication and punishment for this was for a term that could be extended up to two years. 

Another leading crime lawyer of the High Court, Pappu Nageswara Rao, said that as per Section 155 of Cr PC no police officer should investigate a non-cognisable case without the order of a magistrate of the first or second class, having power to try such case or commit the same for trial, or of a presidency magistrate.