Lucknow: The Mayawati government's decision to drop the UP Control of Organised Crime (UPCOC) Bill, 2008 has come in the right earnest. This is because the legislation, which was being described as a 'draconian law' and feared to be grossly misused, was debatable on technicalities.

The retreat by the chief minister from her uncompromising stand, has brought a sense of relief to the Opposition , which has unitedly opposed the bill, currently awaiting Presidential assent.

The legislation, according to BJP leaders like Hukum Singh and Om Prakash Singh, was aimed at legitimising the state's might against the chosen enemies of the ruling BSP under the garb of the law.

The same was the view of the Samajwadi Party, which had apprehensions about its misuse against its top functionaries.

However, political controversy apart, the bill became a debatable issue . This is because a large number of its provisions clashed with existing laws.

There were countless provisions which were not consistent with existing provisions of the CrPC and various central acts like Indian Penal Code and the Evidence Act.

The law, thus, would have been far more stringent than any other law and provide the police sweeping powers. For instance, there was enhanced punishment for repeated offences .

According to it, a convict already punished with a life term, would be liable to capital punishment, or another term of life and fine up to Rs 10 lakh, for the second offence.

This is inconsistent with provisions of Sections 303 and 161 of the IPC.

Likewise, every offence punishable under the law, would have been deemed to be a cognizable offence.

Under existing provisions of the IPC, maximum durations for the remand are stipulated as 'fifteen days," "sixty days" and "ninety days." But the proposed act had envisaged to increase the period to 60 days, six months and one year respectively .

One of the most questionable provisions was with regard to filing of the charge sheet. Under the existing law, the police is supposed to file its charge sheet in the maximum 90 days even in heinous crimes like murder.

But under the UPCOOC, the police was at liberty to file its charge sheet in one year. This means the accused could be put in lockup for long period even without actual trial.

Similarly, its provisions regarding bail were against the provisions of the CrPC. For this purpose, the provisions of the UPCOOC were far more stringent than that of the Gangster Act under which seeking bail is also difficult.

Other provisions not in conformity with the provisions of the CrPC were setting up of special courts and trial in absentia.

This provision does exist under section 299 of the CrPC, but the difference was that at present the judgment is not pronounced in the absence of the accused.

However, this clause was scrapped under the UPCOOC and the provision for pronouncement of the judgment in absentia of the accused was introduced .

This was why the bill was being described as a 'draconian' law by the Opposition, which unitedly stood against it and tried to stall it with all its might. The result was that the bill passed by the Vidhan Sabha, failed to go through the Vidhan Parishad.

This forced the government to reintroduce the bill in the Vidhan Sabha during its budget session, ended on March 11, to get it passed on a second time in order to forestall the need for the upper house's consent, in compliance with the provisions of the Constitution.

(c) 2008 The Times of India. Provided by ProQuest LLC. All rights Reserved.