Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Section 103 is often invoked in the context of criminal investigations and prosecutions for violations of the Samhita.
Analysis and Conclusion:
The section is limited to appeals against administrative or revenue orders, not criminal offences.
Analysis and Conclusion:
References:- Section 20 of the Act is para material with that of Sec.101 of the Representation of peoples Act, 1951 and therefore, the principles laid down by the Courts under Sec.101 of the Representation of Peoples Act apply to Sec.20 of the Act. ["K. K. Banu VS R. Bhagirathy - Karnataka"]- Sec.104-G thus does not even remotely make any mention of S.103 or any appeal against orders passed in any one of its Sub-Sections. ["IND00800006604"]- No. 11184001241704 of 2024 registered with Bodeli Police Station, District: Chhotaudaipur for the offence punishable under Sections 103(1), 238, 54 of the Bhartiya Nyay Samhita , 2023... ["RINKESHBHAI @ RAKESHBHAI RAVJIBHAI BHIL vs STATE OF GUJARAT - Gujarat"]- This is the second application filed under Section 482 of the Bharathiya Nagarik Suraksha Samhita... ["K.P.BEENA vs STATE OF KERALA - Kerala"]
In conclusion, Section 103 addresses criminal violations, while Section 104 provides a procedural framework for appeals against revenue orders, with no overlap between the two functions.
In the evolving landscape of Indian criminal and civil law, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) has introduced nuanced provisions that build on legacy statutes. A common query among legal practitioners, workers, and landowners is: what is the difference between Sec 103 and 104 of Bharathiya Nayyar Samhita? (Note: This refers to the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, often abbreviated as BNS.) These sections, while sharing numeric proximity, operate in entirely distinct domains—one rooted in employment presumptions akin to the Factories Act, and the other in appellate procedures under tenancy laws like the Bihar Tenancy Act. This blog post breaks down their purposes, scopes, and applications, drawing from judicial interpretations to provide clarity.
This article offers general information based on available legal precedents and is not a substitute for professional legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for case-specific guidance.
These provisions do not overlap; Section 103 supports labor rights in industrial settings, while Section 104 safeguards tenancy interests through administrative appeals.
Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita echoes presumptions found in the Factories Act, 1948. It creates a legal assumption that a person qualifies as a 'workman' in employment disputes, which the employer can rebut with evidence. This is particularly relevant in factories or industrial units where worker classification is contested.
In a key case, the court clarified: the presumption under Section 103 of the Factories Act is described as a rebuttable presumption that applies specifically to employment status. Factory Manager, Cimmco Wagon Factory VS Virendra Kumar Sharma - 2000 5 Supreme 632 The ruling emphasized its limited scope, holding it inapplicable to broader industrial disputes under the Industrial Disputes Act. This ensures the presumption facilitates quick adjudication without extending to unrelated labor conflicts.
Recent contexts under BNS further illustrate its application. For instance, in a bail matter involving allegations of assault resulting in death, Section 103 was invoked alongside others (Sections 103, 115(2), 351(3), and 352). The court granted bail considering the petitioner's age, lack of priors, and the spontaneous nature of the incident, balancing personal liberty with justice. SANGAYYA S/O SHEKHAYYA PUJAR vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 21073 Here, the court ruled in favor of granting bail, emphasizing on the petitioner's age, lack of criminal antecedents, and the necessity to balance personal liberty with the state's interest in justice. SANGAYYA S/O SHEKHAYYA PUJAR vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 21073
Key Features of Section 103:- Rebuttable by evidence from the opposing party.- Specific to employment status in industrial law.- Not applicable to general criminal or non-factory disputes.
Contrastingly, Section 104 governs appeals against Revenue Officers' orders under the Bihar Tenancy Act. It provides a structured pathway for challenging decisions on land rights, tenancy, or revenue matters, ensuring administrative fairness.
Judicial scrutiny reveals its boundaries. In analyzed cases, the right of appeal conferred by Section 104-G of the Bihar Tenancy Act was not applicable to orders under Section 103A(1) of the Act. Ram Kishun Mandal And Etc. VS State Of Bihar - 1987 0 Supreme(Pat) 5Vinod Kumar Proprietor Of Kunal Trading Corporation VS State (NCT of Delhi) - 2020 0 Supreme(Del) 991 The court in Shivlal VS State of Rajasthan - 2013 0 Supreme(Raj) 1301 reinforced: the provisions relating to appeals under the Bihar Tenancy Act (Section 104-G) do not extend to orders under Section 103A(1). This highlights context-specific limitations—appeals are confined to enumerated order types, preventing misuse.
In land disputes, such as those involving proposed roads or reservations, related procedural insights emerge. For example, a petition under town planning laws noted alternative roads between Survey Nos. 103 and 104, urging revisitation due to changed circumstances. Bhagchandbhai Mulchandbhai Khatri VS State Of Gujarat - 2022 Supreme(Guj) 1316 The court advised approaching appropriate authorities post-government orders, underscoring procedural adherence.
Core Elements of Section 104:- Limited to specific Revenue Officer orders in tenancy.- Procedural, not presumptive.- Amendments may restrict appeal rights, as seen in Sub-Sec. (4) of related provisions. Shivlal VS State of Rajasthan - 2013 0 Supreme(Raj) 1301
| Aspect | Section 103 | Section 104 ||---------------------|--------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------|| Primary Focus | Employment presumption (Factories Act context) | Appeals against Revenue Orders (Tenancy Act) || Legal Domain | Industrial/Employment Law Factory Manager, Cimmco Wagon Factory VS Virendra Kumar Sharma - 2000 5 Supreme 632 | Land/Tenancy Law Ram Kishun Mandal And Etc. VS State Of Bihar - 1987 0 Supreme(Pat) 5 || Nature | Rebuttable presumption | Procedural appellate mechanism || Rebuttal/Appeal | Can be challenged in employment disputes | Limited to specific orders; no employment link || Examples | Worker status in factories; bail in assaults SANGAYYA S/O SHEKHAYYA PUJAR vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 21073 | Land rights challenges Shivlal VS State of Rajasthan - 2013 0 Supreme(Raj) 1301 |
These distinctions prevent cross-application. Invoking Section 103 in tenancy won't aid appeals, nor will Section 104 presume employment.
Courts stress context-dependency. In employment cases, the presumption under Section 103 is intended for industrial disputes but rebuttable. Factory Manager, Cimmco Wagon Factory VS Virendra Kumar Sharma - 2000 5 Supreme 632 For tenancy, appeals under Section 104 are limited to specific types of orders. Ram Kishun Mandal And Etc. VS State Of Bihar - 1987 0 Supreme(Pat) 5
Other precedents enrich understanding. In election disputes involving caste certificates, analogous scrutiny of eligibility mirrors presumptive rigor. K. K. Banu VS R. Bhagirathy - 2009 Supreme(Kar) 344 Similarly, in vehicle confiscation under liquor laws, procedural notices differ markedly, akin to Section 104's specificity: There is a marked difference between Sec.67C of the Kerala Abkari Act and Sec.14(4) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act. NAVARU SWAPNA REDDY, W/O N. SRINIVAS REDDY VS STATE OF KERALA - 2021 Supreme(Ker) 513
In minority education rights, regulatory balance (paras 103-104) ensures excellence without absolute autonomy, paralleling rebuttable presumptions. Sk. Md. Rafique VS Managing Committee, Contai Rahamania High Madrasah - 2020 1 Supreme 609 Bail applications under BNS further contextualize Section 103's criminal overlay, prioritizing custodial needs or settlements. RAJESH vs STATE OF KERALA - 2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 35002
Recommendations:- For employment issues, leverage Section 103's presumption judiciously, preparing rebuttal evidence.- In tenancy disputes, verify order eligibility before appealing under Section 104.- Always assess context—industrial vs. agrarian—to avoid procedural pitfalls.- Stay updated on BNS amendments, as they refine these provisions.
Section 103 and Section 104 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita serve disparate functions: one presumes worker protections in employment realms, the other streamlines tenancy appeals. Understanding these differences is crucial for effective legal strategy, preventing conflation in practice. As courts consistently affirm, interpretation and application... are context-dependent. Factory Manager, Cimmco Wagon Factory VS Virendra Kumar Sharma - 2000 5 Supreme 632Ram Kishun Mandal And Etc. VS State Of Bihar - 1987 0 Supreme(Pat) 5
Key Takeaways:- Distinct domains: Employment vs. Tenancy.- Rebuttable aid vs. Procedural recourse.- Consult precedents like Factory Manager, Cimmco Wagon Factory VS Virendra Kumar Sharma - 2000 5 Supreme 632 and Shivlal VS State of Rajasthan - 2013 0 Supreme(Raj) 1301 for guidance.
For tailored advice, engage a legal expert. Share your thoughts or questions in the comments!
#BharatiyaNyayaSanhita, #Section103vs104, #IndianLaw
ORDER This is the second application filed under Section 482 of the Bharathiya Nagarik Suraksha Samhita, for
Nagarik Suraksha Samhita, for an order of pre-arrest bail. ... ORDER This is the second application filed under Section 482 of the Bharathiya
Nagarik Suraksha Samhita, for an order of pre-arrest bail. ... - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - BA No.7500 of 2024 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 17th day of October, 2024 ORDER This is the second application filed under Section 482 of the Bharathiya
COMMON ORDER The above applications are filed under Section 482 of the Bharathiya Nagarik Suraksha Samhita , for an order of pre-arrest bail.
PATHIRAKKATTUKAVU ROAD, NORTH KALAMASSERY P.O., P6:- P8:- P9;- TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF SUSHRUTA SAMHITA
The Regional Officer, Bharathiya Cooperative General Insurance Ltd., (PACS), 19/35, V56 First Floor, Mount Road, Little Mount, Chennai – 15. 8. Bharathiya Cooperative General Insurance Ltd. ... The Regional Officer, Bharathiya Cooperative General Insurance Ltd., (PACS), 19/35, V56 First Floor, Mount Road, Little Mount, Chennai – 15. th and 8th respondents to reserve and allot one job to the petitioner for the post of Fasal Bima Assistant before the 7th respondent office by considering the representation of the petitioner on 26.06.2023 sin....
STEEPHENS ROAD FRAZER TOWN BENGALURU – 560 005 PRESENTLY R/AT FLAT NO.6 BEHIND SEC ... NAZIA W/O SAMAD ABDUL ALEEM AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS PRESENTELY R/ AT NO.8 SAMHITA ENCLAVE JAMAAL SHARIFF S/O SHAIK HUSSAIN AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/ AT NO.8, SAMHITA ENCLAVE STEEPHENS ROAD ... HUSNA @ HASNA ARA W/O JAMAL SHARIFF AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/ AT NO.8, SAMHITA ENCLAVE STEEPHENS ROAD W/O MOHAMMED SHARIFF AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS ....
Section 20 of the Act is para material with that of Sec.101 of the Representation of peoples Act, 1951 and therefore, the principles laid down by the Courts under Sec.101 of the Representation of Peoples Act apply to Sec.20 of the Act. ... Kunziram and caste as ‘Bharathiya Hindu Malayali Thiyar.’ In the nomination form Ex.P-7 the petitioner was shown as the daughter of late Kunziram. ... Ex.C-2(a) said to be another school record, as testified by CW-1, is that the caste of the declared candidate was shown as ‘B....
Section 20 of the Act is para material with that of Sec.101 of the Representation of peoples Act, 1951 and therefore, the principles laid down by the Courts under Sec.101 of the Representation of Peoples Act apply to Sec.20 of the Act. ... 13. In Vishwanatha Reddy vs. ... Kunziram and caste as ‘Bharathiya Hindu Malayali Thiyar.’ In the nomination form Ex.P-7 the petitioner was shown as the daughter of late Kunziram. ... Ex.C-2(a) said to be another school record, as testified by CW-1, is that the caste of the declared c....
Nyaya Samhita , 2023, is before this Court under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Samhita , 2023, is before this Court under Section 483 of the Section s 103 , 115(2), 351(3) and 352 of the Bharatiya ... The petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail in S.C.No.5041/2025 pending before the I Additional Sessions Judge, Dharwad, sitting at Hubli arising out of Crime No.5/2021 registered by Kundgol Police Station, for the offences punishable under Section s 103 , 115(2), 351
He has also submitted that even there is other road existing between Survey Nos. 103 and 104. He has submitted that due to passage of time, there is a need of revisitation of the reservation. He has also submitted that in that view of the matter, the road was to be kept open in the land in question. He has submitted that earlier petition was field under Section 20(2) of the Town Planning Act.
As per Sec.14(4) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, what is stated is that while passing an order of confiscation, the owner or the person from whom such animal, vessel, cart or other vehicle is seized, shall be given a notice. There is a marked difference between Sec.67C of the Kerala Abkari Act and Sec.14(4) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937.
These articles do not draw any distinction between an educational institution dispensing theological education or professional or non-professional education. The discussion shows that the matter was considered in the context of the rights of unaided institutions and not with regard to “minority educational institutions receiving State aid” as is evident from para No.123 of the decision. Para No.103 of the decision shows that minority educational institutions were classified in three categories and para No.104 onwards points difference between professional and non-professional educa....
Paragraphs 103 and 104 are reproduced hereunder : “103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice. In the case of Bhajan....
Thereafter, the trial Judge would proceed to ask the accused whether he has any further objection, by virtue of section 103 of the Act. In so far as the objections perceived by section 102 of the Act are concerned, the same can be mainly analysed as objection on the ground which affects the competency of any member to act as an impartial Judge or any other ground, albeit qua the member. Thus, there is qualitative, difference between objections raised under sections 102 and 103 of the Act respectively. In so far as the objections relating to the member as such would fall und....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
