Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

         मैं इस सम्मानित सदन के सदस्यों से अनुरोध करता हूं कि इस विधेयक को समर्थन देते हुए पारित करने की कृपा करें।
 
HON. DEPUTY SPEAKER:  Motion moved:
“That the Bill further to amend the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, be taken into consideration.”   DR. A. SAMPATH (ATTINGAL): Sir, I am on a point of order under Rule 110. 
          The Bill which has been initiated by the hon. Minister is absolutely unconstitutional.  There is a reason for why I am saying that it is absolutely unconstitutional.

          The entire spirit of the Bill goes against the spirit of the present Government.

 

HON. DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is not allowed.

Dr.  A. Sampath.

DR. A. SAMPATH (ATTINGAL): Deputy Speaker, Sir,  I will confine my speech to the complications and the questions that have been raised in the introduction of this Bill. Nothing political I want to say because all of us are politicians in this House.

          Why  am I objecting to the introduction of this Bill? I was begging for your kindness for pointing out that this Bill is an unconstitutional one. Article 20(1) of the Constitution says that no person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of a law in force at the time of the commission of the act charged as an offence, nor be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence.  Article 20(2) says that no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. Article 20 (3) of the Indian Constitution declares that no person accused of an offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.  Every Member of Parliament believes and know. Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950 provides, “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”       Sir, many of the Members on that and this side, including myself have practised in the courts of law. I am not questioning any of the intentions of the hon. Minister because of his sheer innocence.  I agree that he has a smiling face.

DR. A. SAMPATH (ATTINGAL): Yes, Sir, I beg to move:
         Page 2, lines 11,- 

                       for “sixty”  

                        substitute “thirty”.                        (18)  

   

         Page 2, after line 18,-  

insert “(7) Sub-sections (1) to (6) shall be applicable for commercial transactions only, that is, if the cheque is issued against valid invoices and bills and where the consideration in question is for transfer of money from one bank to another bank.”            (19)