Every law
that is in force today was made with an objective that it covers every field
where there is scope of occurrence of any legal issue. When we look at these
laws with a bird view we see that these laws can be categorized into two
categories i.e. criminal and civil. To understand civil law it becomes
important to understand the line that differentiates civil law from criminal
law. Various Statutes under Criminal law were formed to deal with all those
acts that impose a grave and immediate threat to human life and deeply impacts
society at large and thus require immediate attention. However, law framers also thought about other
activities that do not impose grave and immediate danger on the life of people
in society at large but are needed to be bound within the provision of some
laws. All such activities are taken care of by civil law. The common objective of both the laws- civil
and criminal is to maintain discipline in society but, there is a vast
difference in their functioning.
There are
two sets of laws one is substantive and one is procedural law. Substantive laws define the rights and
liability of a person. It tells about the dos and don’ts that a citizen has to
bring into his consideration whereas, procedural laws lays down the
systematic procedure through which they get enforced. For instance in criminal
law under substantive law, we have IPC which got enforced in the year 1860. IPC
gives information about the acts that are unlawful in eyes of law. And to
enforce the provisions under IPC there is CrPC which is procedure criminal law.
It lays down provisions which inform a person about the systematic procedure
that he has to follow to solve his/her grievances under IPC. In civil law,
there is CPC –Code of Civil Procedure 1908. CPC lays down the procedure to
solve grievances related to civil law. And under substantive law, we have
various acts like contract Act, Partnership Act, family law, tax law, corporate
law and many more.
The second
difference here is that the civil law majorly focuses on the principle of
restitution. The principle of restitution aims at bringing the victim at the
same position as he would have been before suffering loss due to the wrongful
act of the defendant. The punishments in civil cases are generally in the form
of compensation. For instance, on breach of contract, the defendant is supposed
to restore the loss of the plaintiff by paying monetary compensation. Same is
the case with consumer protection law, property law issues, motor vehicle law,
and entertainment law. However, in criminal law, the mode of punishment is not
restricted only to compensation. When a person is convicted for a crime, his
punishment varies according to the gravity of crime he has committed; he can be
sentenced to jail or life imprisonment or in rarest of rare case he can be
given the death penalty.
The third
difference is that, in a civil case the aggrieved party is called the plaintiff
and the wrongdoer is called as the defendant whereas, in criminal law the
former is called complaint and the latter is called the respondent. Apart from
the different term that is used to refer to victim and wrong doer, the fourth
difference is that there are different legal establishments that deal with
cases in civil and criminal law respectively. District court deals with civil cases and session court deals with
criminal cases.
When we try to understand the differences
between civil and criminal law we cannot move forward without understanding the
concept of burden of proof which is the major difference between the two.
Burden of proof means the duty on the party to prove his side of arguments. In
civil cases the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff i.e. the plaintiff has to
prove the claims made from his side for the wrong done to him whereas, in
criminal cases the burden of proof is on the state i.e. prosecution. The
prosecution has the burden to prove its side of the case. The reason for this
difference is that in a criminal case, the threat is to the society at large
even though the crime is committed against an individual. Hence, it is the duty
of the state to prove all the claims made from its side for the good of the
society. Whereas, in civil law the offence is committed against an individual
and the harm is only limited to that individual and hence the person who files
the plaint has to fight for proving his claims in court. When a civil wrong is
done to an individual (plaintiff) he first files the plaint and then submits
vakalatnama mentioning the details of the legal representative of his own
choice (or in case if he is handling his own case then no vakalatnama is
required). On the first day of the hearing when the court finds that the case
has merits then the court sends notice to the opposite party and then the legal
process starts. On the other hand when a crime is committed the person against
whom crime is committed first files the FIR. When the police suprident is
satisfied with the complaint, the police start the investigation. Once the
investigation is complete the police make a charge sheet. The charge sheet is
filed in court. When the court accepts the charge sheet then the case is filed
by the state and it is stated that it will fight the case from the side of
complaint, unlike the civil cases where the burden of proof is on the
plaintiff. The best way to understand a law is to understand its purpose of
establishments and its individuality. Our legal system tries to cover every bit
of legal issue that can create a hurdle in the functioning of life of every
person with various civil laws and with day to day modifications it is trying
to bring in already established laws and it is leaving not a single stone
unturned.
No comments:
Post a Comment