Sunday, Jun 15, 2003
Sunday, Jun 15, 2003 |
| Southern States | ||||
|
News:
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Obituary | Southern States
-
Tamil Nadu
By K.T. Sangameswaran
Coming as it does in the wake of the suicide by the film producer, G. Venkateswaran, (the cause is yet to be ascertained), the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Ordinance is seen more as a hasty exercise in overcoming a specific situation. "It may be yet another measure, like several other special legislation, sans implementation," says an advocate. As per the new legal measure, those charging "exorbitant rates" on loans or molest or abet in molestation of a debtor for recovery, shall be punished with imprisonment for which a maximum of three years, and with a fine, which may extend to Rs. 30,000. Thus, the offence has been made a "cognisable one" in sharp contrast to the `outdated' Tamil Nadu Money-Lenders Act (TNMLA), 1957. Police sources say it is not clear who should take cognisance of the offence when in the TNMLA, it has been laid down that no court take cognisance of an offence punishable under the Act except on a complaint in writing made by any prescribed authority — a tahsildar or an "independent deputy tahsildar". That the ordinance has been brought in only in the wake of the G.V. episode is amply clear in the provision relating to the charge of "abetment of suicide" by debtors. A new clause which should bring relief to loanees is the provision of "restoration of possession of property" forcibly taken by loaners towards repayment of loan or interest. Though the police are not the "prescribed authority" as per the moneylenders Act, a police officer points out that the ordinance is not clear how its provisions are to be used, particularly when IPC offences such as extortion, intimidation, assault and kidnappings are involved in the present day "speed money" transactions. The situation is more serious than the definition given for "molestation" in the TNMLA. In such offences should the revenue official file complaints directly with court or the police? Can the victims file complaints with the police directly? The victims hesitate to prefer complaints, fearing repercussions, and suffer in silence. Further, as per the TNMLA, moneylenders should obtain licence for conducting business. But, at present, several "speed money" loaners do not possess licence for obvious reasons, and this itself constitutes an offence. Further, transactions may not be in black and white, in a bid to avoid evidence being tendered before courts. "Still worse, written documents, if any, may not reflect the exact transaction." When the police in Madurai arrested two `kandu vatti' loaners recently, they were booked only under IPC provisions. Similar was the case in the arrest of two persons in Chennai today. Another version is that notwithstanding any handicap, a law will deliver the goods only if those enforcing it do the job sincerely, keeping the public interest in mind. "Any law will be effective only if the enforcing agency is honest," points out K.S. Dinakaran, a city advocate. Human rights activists are worried that when the police begin to understand the nuances of the new law, they could begin to "misuse" it to harass people. Meanwhile, the Tamil Film Producers Council has welcomed the ordinance and thanked the Chief Minister for promulgating it.
Printer friendly
page
News:
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
|
|
|
The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription Group Sites: The Hindu | Business Line | The Sportstar | Frontline | The Hindu eBooks | Home |
Copyright © 2003, The
Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of
The Hindu
|
