Certainly, the concept of a company as a juristic person, also known as a legal person or legal entity, is a fundamental principle in corporate law. It means that a company is treated as a distinct entity separate from its individual members (shareholders or owners). This principle has several key implications: 1. Separate Legal Existence: A company, once incorporated, is recognized as having its own separate legal existence. It can enter into contracts, own property, sue and be sued, and engage in various legal activities in its own name. This is distinct from the individuals who own or manage the company. 2. Limited Liability: One of the primary advantages of forming a company, especially a corporation, is the concept of limited liability. Shareholders are generally not personally liable for the company's debts and legal obligations. The company itself is responsible for its own debts, which helps protect the personal assets of its members. 3. Rights and Duties: Just like...
A bench of Justice Anish Dayal was hearing a plea seeking quashing of the order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Dwarka Court, New Delhi.
In this case, the petitioner, who is a first year law student, had instructions from Ms. Chandni, an advocate, to appear before the court in two cases to take adjournments.
When she appeared before the Metropolitan Magistrate and was asked some questions about the matter, she remained silent as she was only directed to take an adjournment and was not aware of the matter.
Further, it is alleged by the petitioner that she is a Hindi medium student and has no knowledge of technical legal terminologies and therefore, could not understand what the Metropolitan Magistrate was asking.
The Metropolitan Magistrate by order dated 20th August, 2022 took cognizance under Section 177/179 IPC against the petitioner. An FIR was registered against him under section 419/209 of IPC.
177. Furnishing false information.—Whoever, being legally bound to furnish information on any subject to any public servant, as such, furnishes, as true, information on the subject which he knows or has reason to believe to be false shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both; or, if the information which he is legally bound to give respects the commission of an offence, or is required for the purpose of preventing the commission of an offence, or in order to the apprehension of an offender, with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
Illustrations
(a) A, a landholder, knowing of the commission of a murder within the limits of his estate, wilfully misinforms the Magistrate of the district that the death has occurred by accident in consequence of the bite of a snake. A is guilty of the offence defined in this section.
(b) A, a village watchman, knowing that a considerable body of strangers has passed through his village in order to commit a dacoity in the house of Z, a wealthy merchant residing in a neighbouring place, and being bound under clause 5, section VII, 2 Regulation III, 1821, of the Bengal Code, to give early and punctual information of the above fact to the officer of the nearest police-station, wilfully misinforms the police officer that a body of suspicious characters passed through the village with a view to commit dacoity in a certain distant place in a different direction. Here A is guilty of the offence defined in the latter part of this section. 3
[Explanation.—
In section 176 and in this section the word “offence” includes any act committed at any place out of 4 [India], which, if committed in 3 [India], would be punishable under any of the following following sections, namely, 302, 304, 382, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 402, 435, 436, 449, 450, 457, 458, 459 and 460; and the word “offender” includes any person who is alleged to have been guilty of any such act.]
179. Refusing to answer public servant authorised to question.—Whoever, being legally bound to state the truth on any subject to any public servant, refuses to answer any question demanded of him touching that subject by such public servant in the exercise of the legal powers of such public servant, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
419. Punishment for cheating by personation.—Whoever cheats by personation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
209. Dishonesty making false claim in Court.—Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly, or with intent to injure or annoy any person, makes in a Court of Justice any claim which he knows to be false, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, and shall also be liable to fine.
The Bench noted that the issue was disproportionately raised before the Metropolitan Magistrate, especially considering that the Metropolitan Magistrate has also recorded that the petitioner had objectively disclosed that he was a first year LLB student and was also supported by Ms. Anisha, Advocate who stated that he had also instructed her to take dates.
The High Court observed that from the transcription of the proceedings of that date it appears that the petitioner was either confused or unable to handle the situation presented before her. It is clarified that a law student shall not appear as proxy counsel in any matter before any Court, before he is duly enrolled by the Bar Council and admitted to the Bar.
Comments
Post a Comment