Deposit Amount Of Damaged Public Property For Bail : Law Commission Gives Recommendations On Tightening PDPP Act

The 22nd Law Commission has come out with a suo-motu Report (No.284) titled "Revisiting the Law on Prevention of Damage to Public Property", recommending amendments in the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.

To recap, initially, the Supreme Court had constituted two Committees to look into the issue of destruction of public property. These Committees had submitted their reports and the Court issued certain guidelines, which were given effect to immediately. Subsequently, in 2015, the government proposed the Prevention of Damage to Public Property (Amendment) Bill to amend the 1984 law. However, the same never fructified into an enactment.

In this backdrop, considering the rising instances of vandalism and consequent loss to the State exchequer, the Law Commission suo motu decided to prepare the present Report.

Its Report observes that the 1984 law failed in its stated objective, ie to prevent destruction of public property. In fact, the destruction of public property continued unabated, causing gargantuan losses to the public exchequer and inconvenience to the general public.

Therefore, the Commission recommends inter-alia:

(A) Presumption Against Accused: There shall be a rebuttable presumption against a person accused of damaging public property, if it is shown that the property was damaged as direct consequence of the offence and the accused participated in the commission of the offence.

(B) Prosecution for Abetment of Mischief: When public property is damaged as a consequence of demonstrations, hartals or bandh called by any organization, the office bearers of the organization shall be deemed guilty of abetment of the offence and punished accordingly. An office bearer, however, who proves that he had no knowledge of the activity or exercised due diligence in trying to prevent it, is to stand protected.

(C) Punishment for Abetment: The punishment for abetment shall be the same as that for the offence abetted.

(D) Definition of Fine: Fine be defined for the purposes of the law. It shall mean and include an amount equivalent to market value of the public property damaged. If such value cannot be assessed in terms of money, a Court may fix the amount taking into account the facts and circumstances.

(E) Special Reasons for Lesser Punishment: For mischief of damage to public property, if a court awards a sentence of imprisonment for less than 6 months, it must record "special" reasons and not just any reasons.

(F) Videography of demonstrations, etc.: In case there is prior information of events where damage to public property may be caused, officer-in-charge of the concerned police station shall make arrangements for videography of the area.

(G) Bail: Before a person accused or convicted for damaging public property is released on bail, the court must satisfy itself that there are reasonable grounds to believe that he is not guilty of the offense. One of the conditions for bail should be the deposit of an amount equivalent to the estimate value of the property damaged.

Significantly, the Report considers that the 1984 law did not deal with prolonged obstruction of public property. It states that only some States have provisions for dealing with obstructions on public pathways, but even in those cases, the penalty prescribed is inadequate. Calling for a consideration as to whether prohibitions of obstruction can also be enforced for public properties apart from national/state highways and railways, the Report says, 

"Such prolonged obstructions often end up causing huge inconvenience to the smooth movement of even essential and emergency services such as availing of medical facilities, mobility of ambulance and fire brigade, efficient discharge of administrative and judicial functions, schools, colleges, etc"

To tackle the issue, the Commission recommends enactment of a separate law dealing with the issue or making of necessary amendments in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (which is set to replace the Indian Penal Code).

"Wherever, such protests are not in designated places and tend to create wilful obstruction and blockade of public spaces and roads for prolonged periods, a comprehensive law should be put in place to address them so that they cannot get ignored and continue to cause tremendous hardships to the general public in the guise of absence of legislation."

The Report is prepared and signed by the following 7-member panel, besides Chairperson Ritu Raj Awasthi (former Chief Justice, Karnataka High Court):

1. Justice KT Sankaran, Member

2. Prof.(Dr.) Anand Paliwal, Member

3. Prof. DP Verma, Member

4. Dr. Niten Chandra, Member (ex-officio)

5. Dr. Rajiv Mani, Member (ex-officio)

6. Mr. M Karunanithi, Part-time Member

7. Prof.(Dr.) Raka Arya, Part-time Member

The report can be read here