top of page
Search

Why Destroying Public Property Is a Punishable Offence

  • Writer: lead India
    lead India
  • Jul 6, 2023
  • 3 min read

Property, which is defined as possession, is essential to human existence since it is practically impossible to survive without the use of the material possessions that make up the subject matter of property. The idea of ownership is another thing that is closely tied to property; the two are interdependent, and neither can exist without the other.


In modern contexts, the word "property" is frequently employed in a broader sense. It encompasses everything about a person's personal freedoms that tie their property to their life, liberty, and good name. In terms of economics and politics, there are three main categories of property based on who owns them: private property, public property, and collective property.


The land set aside for public use is known as public property. As an illustration, consider the roads we travel on, the electricity we use, public hospitals, parks, and offices of the government. They were constructed with public funds.


This type of property is not owned privately; rather, it is owned collectively by the people living in a state. The state's wellbeing, not the welfare of any one person or group of people, is what this property is invested in.


Legal Provisions:

  • Act of 1984 Preventing Damage to Public Property:

  1. According to Section 3, anyone who attempts to cause mischief or harm to public property will be sentenced to a 5-year prison term and a fine. Thus, "public property" refers to any building, infrastructure, access to water, electricity, lighting, etc.

  2. According to Section 4, mischief that results in fire damage or other similar substance damage Anyone who makes an attempt or does so will be penalized with a fine and a one-year sentence, with the possibility of an additional ten years based on the severity of the harm they inflict.

  3. A person can be deemed to have committed "mischief" if they willfully or knowingly cause harm to or unjustifiable loss of public property, according to Section 425 of the Indian Criminal Code.

  4. The cost of maintaining public properties is heavily subsidized by the government. The Constitution's Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) and Article 19 of the Fundamental Rights provide remedies.

  • Committees:

  • Thomas Committee:

  1. Justice K. T. Thomas, a former judge on the Supreme Court, presided over it.

  2. It was argued that the prosecution should be required to show that the accused took part in a direct action that caused damage to public property. This direct action was called for by an organization.

  3. The court agreed with the idea and added that the legislation needed to be changed so that it would be possible for the accused to refute any presumptions made by the court that they were guilty of harming public property.

  4. This shift in the burden of proof is applicable, among other things, to sexual assault proceedings. Unless the prosecution provides evidence to the contrary, the accused is typically presumed innocent under the law.

  • Nariman Committee:

  1. Leading the group was veteran attorney Fali Nariman.

  2. This committee's proposals focused on recovering damages from destruction.

  3. The court agreed with them and decided that the rioters should be held strictly accountable and that damages must be compensated.

  4. In addition, the Supreme Court instructed the High Courts to issue orders on their own initiative and to set up a system to assess the harm done and grant compensation in cases where protests cause widespread property damage.

Case Laws:

The Allahabad High Court ruled in Mohammad Shajauddin v. The State of UP that if any public property is damaged due to the actions of a political party, the police may file a report on him by disclosing his name and the party to which he is a member.


According to the high court, the government will designate a person who is qualified to assess the harm done and gather claims from the general public who have suffered losses as a result of this violence perpetrated by the political parties.


Although the Supreme Court has established instructions, their effectiveness is limited because it is still difficult to identify demonstrators, particularly in unorganized demonstrations. Even if a person has been identified, there must be proof that they called for violence before they can be held responsible for damage to property.


A Criminal lawyer in Kolkata can be appointed if the cause of action has occurred in Kolkata. If the cause of action has occurred in Delhi, then a Criminal lawyer in Delhi can be appointed. Criminal lawyers in Delhi can also be searched.


We provide a variety of professional and legal services at Lead India. You can ask a legal question here. Get the finest guidance in this situation and talk to a lawyer. Our legal staff will assist you in making wise choices. We also provide free legal advice online.


Call Us: +91–8800788535


 
 
 

Comments

Thelila059

info@mysite.com

©2023 by Thelila059. Proudly created with Wix.com

bottom of page