ANT-ICORRUPTION LAW SERIES-5

ANTI-CORRUPTION LAW SERIES-5

Companies Act, 2013

The Companies Act, 2013 (‘Companies Act’) is India’s law governing companies, and places a strong emphasis on corporate governance and prevention of corporate fraud.  Under the Companies Act, auditors and cost accountants are mandatorily required to report any suspected frauds (above a specified threshold) to the central government.  Certain types of companies are also mandated to establish a vigilance mechanism for reporting of concerns.

The Companies Act defines the term ‘fraud’ quite broadly, and this could encompass acts of private or commercial bribery.  Fraud is a criminal offence under the Companies Act and is punishable with imprisonment ranging from six months to ten years and/or a fine.  The Companies Act also obligates directors and senior management to maintain systems for ensuring compliance with applicable law, as well as accuracy of the books, records and financial statements of the company.  Contravention of such provisions is punishable with fines (which depend upon the quantum of the amount involved in the fraud) and imprisonment.

The Companies Act has also led to the establishment of the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (‘SFIO’), which is empowered to detect, investigate and prosecute white-collar crimes and fraud.  The SFIO has broad powers to conduct inspections, discover documents, search and seize evidence, etc.  Recently, certain additional sections of the Companies Act have been notified, giving the SFIO additional powers to arrest a person who, the SFIO have a reason to believe, has been guilty of specified offences under the Companies Act (including offences relating to ‘fraud’)

If DNA Profiling Isn’t Done Or Held Back In Rape Cases, Adverse Consequence Would Follow For The Prosecution: SC

“We are not going to the extent of suggesting that if there is no DNA profiling, the prosecution case cannot be proved but we are certainly of the view that where DNA profiling has not been done or it is held back from the Trial Court, an adverse con...

In an important ruling, the Supreme Court has observed that if DNA profiling has not been done in a rape case or it is held back from the trial court, an adverse consequence would follow for the prosecution.

“We are not going to the extent of suggesting that if there is no DNA profiling, the prosecution case cannot be proved but we are certainly of the view that where DNA profiling has not been done or it is held back from the Trial Court, an adverse  consequence would follow for the prosecution,” the bench comprising Justice Madan B. Lokur, Justice S. Abdul Nazeer and Justice Deepak Gupta said in Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik vs. State of Maharashtra.

In this case, the samples for DNA test were taken from the body of the accused and sent for DNA profiling, but the result was not produced before the trial court.

Taking serious note of this, the bench said: “There is absolutely no explanation for this and in the absence of any justification for not producing the DNA evidence; we are of the view that it would be dangerous, on the facts of this case, to uphold the sentence of death on the appellant.” While examining this aspect, the bench said: “While Section 53-A of the Cr.P.C. is not mandatory, it certainly requires a positive decision to be taken. There must be reasonable grounds for believing that the examination of a person will afford evidence as to the commission of an offence of rape or an attempt to commit rape. If reasonable grounds exist, then a medical examination as postulated by Section 53-A(2) of the Cr.P.C. must be conducted and that includes examination of the accused and description of material taken from the person of the accused for DNA profiling. Looked at from another point of view, if there are reasonable grounds for believing that an examination of the accused will not afford evidence as to the commission of an offence as mentioned above, it is quite unlikely that a charge-sheet would even be filed against the accused for committing an offence of rape or attempt to rape.”

The court added there have been remarkable technological advancements in forensic science and in scientific investigations which must be made fully use of and the somewhat archaic methods of investigations must be given up.

“For the prosecution to decline to produce DNA evidence would be a little unfortunate particularly when the facility of DNA profiling is available in the country. The prosecution would be well advised to take advantage of this, particularly in view of the provisions of Section 53-A and Section 164-A of the Cr.P.C. We are not going to the extent of suggesting that if there is no DNA profiling, the prosecution case cannot be proved but we are certainly of the view that where DNA profiling has not been done or it is held back from the Trial Court, an adverse consequence would follow for the prosecution,” the court added referring to similar observations made in some other judgments of the apex court.

S.No	Dear Ngo leaders promote activities such as :- (All forms of corruption must be ended to secure the basic rights of all people and ensure a world where everyone can live in dignity)
1.	Organize, communicate, and raise awareness on Anti corruption laws to your target people.
2.	Identify the victims and witnesses of corruption in your working area
3.	Identify the need of Legal consultancy for Consumer rights, women’s rights, Child rights, aged rights, revenue, education, documents registration, social welfare, public and temple property panchayat, forest, insurance, and all government department corruptions related issues etc
4.	Contact for such issues with an affidavit and we will make the difference
	We also know that corruption can’t be rooted out in one big sweep. Rather, fighting it is a step-by-step, project-by-project process.

MANISHANKAR

CEO-Anti-Corruption And Human Rights Movement®-Chennai

Email: anticorruption.org2007@gmail.com.

Mobile:91 9087856137

Follow us on:

Twitter : @anticorp_2007          

G+ : https://plus.google.com/u/0/106945517516951910577