CS Executive JIGL Notes

CS Executive JIGL Notes of Important Chapters – IPC, 1860

CS Executive JIGL Notes of Important Chapters

Indian Penal Code, 1860

CS Executive JIGL Notes of Important Chapters

What is IPC all about?

  • The Indian Penal Code, 1860 is the substantive law of crimes.
  • It defines acts which constitute an offence and lays down punishment for the same.
  • It lays down certain principles of criminal law.
  • The procedural law through which the Indian Penal Code is implemented is the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

Indian Penal Code consists of 23 chapters and more than 511 sections. It has two parts-

  • general principles and defences and
  • specific offences.

Applicability of Law of Evidence

  • It extends to whole of India except J&K
  • The Indian Penal Code was passed in the year 1860 but it came into force on 1st January 1862

Jurisdiction of Criminal Courts

Intra-territorial jurisdiction
According to Section 2, every person shall be liable to punishment under this Code and not otherwise for every act or omission contrary to the provisions thereof, of which, he shall be guilty within India.

Extra-territorial jurisdiction
According to Section 3, any person liable, by any Indian law to be tried for an offence committed beyond India shall be dealt with according to the provisions of this Code for any act committed beyond India in the same manner as if such act had been committed within India.

Further, according to Section 4, the provisions of this Code apply also to any offence committed by-

  1. any citizen of India in any place without and beyond India;
  2. any person on any ship or aircraft registered in India wherever it may be.
  3. any person in any place without and beyond India committing offence targeting a computer resource located in India.

Explanation- In this section the word “offence” includes every act committed outside India which, if committed in India, would be punishable under this Code.

Illustration
A, who is a citizen of India, commits a murder in Uganda. He can be tried and convicted of murder in any place in India in which he may be found.

Thus, under IPC, Criminal Courts have Intra-territorial jurisdiction for crime committed within India as well as Extra-territorial jurisdiction crime committed outside India if conditions of Section 3 and Section 4 are satisfied.

Intra-territorial jurisdiction over foreigners
It should be noted that it is not a defence that the foreigner did not know that he was committing a wrong, the act itself not being an offence in his own country.

In this regard the Supreme Court in Mobarik Ali Ahmed v. State of Bombay, held that it is obvious that for an Indian law to operate and be effective in the territory of India, it is not necessary that the laws should either be published or be made known outside the country in order to bring foreigners under its ambit. It would be apparent that the test to find out effective publication would be publication in India, not outside India so as to bring it to the notice of everyone who intends to pass through India.

Thus, a foreigner is still liable in India (for a crime committed in India) under IPC

  • even if he does not know that he act is a crime under the code, and
  • even if the same act is not a crime in his own country

Exemption from intra-territorial jurisdiction of IPC

  1. Article 361(2) of the Constitution protects criminal proceedings against the President or Governor of a state in any court, during the time they hold office.
  2. In accordance with well-recognized principles of international law, foreign sovereigns are exempt from criminal proceedings in India.
  3. Further, the ambassadors and diplomats of foreign countries, who have official status in India, are exempt from criminal proceedings in India. This protection is extended to all secretaries and political and military attaches, who are formally part of the missions.

CS Executive JIGL Notes of Important Chapters

Crime

what is crime
what is crime

Note:

  1. The concept of crime changes from time to time and as per the society.
  2. Civil wrong is a wrong done to an individual; Criminal wrong is considered a wrong against the society
  3. What is criminal or illegal may still be a socially acceptable practice. Similarly, what is socially acceptable may still be crime in the eyes of Law.
  4. The word “Crime” is not defined under the code, but anything made punishable by the Code is crime.

The Fundamental Elements of Crime

Fundamental Elements of Crime
Fundamental Elements of Crime
1Human Being
The first requirement for commission of crime is that the act must be committed by a human being.
Only a human being under legal obligation and capable of being punished can be the proper subject of criminal law.
2Mens rea
Mens rea means “guilty mind”.
This principle is based the the maxim ‘actus non facitreum, nisi mens sit rea’ which means ‘the act alone does not amount to guilt; the act must be accompanied by a guilty mind’.
It is the attitude of mind which accompanies and directs the conduct which results in the ‘actusreus’ (act).
It should be noted that the act is judged not from the mind of the wrong-doer, but the mind of the wrong-doer is judged from the act.
Intention, Negligence and Recklessness are the important forms of mens rea.
  Intention
It may be defined as
  • the purpose or design with which an act is done,
  • position of mind,
  • condition of someone at the particular time of commission of offence and
  • will of the accused to see effects of his unlawful conduct.

Criminal intention includes the generic intention as well.

For example: A poisons the food which B was supposed to eat with the intention of killing B. C eats that food instead of B and is killed. A is liable for killing C although A never intended it.

Negligence
It means “not taking care, where there is a duty to take care.” It indicates a state of mind where there is absence of a desire to cause a particular consequence.

Recklessness (bina soche samje kerna)
Recklessness occurs when the actor does not desire the consequence, but foresees the possibility and consciously takes the risk. It is a total disregard for the consequences of one’s own actions.

3Actus Reus (act or omission)
It can be defined as ‘Such voluntary human conduct which is prohibited by law’.
A human being and an evil intent are not enough to constitute a crime for one cannot know the intentions of a man.

CS Executive JIGL Notes of Important Chapters

Stages of Crime

Stages of Crime
Stages of Crime

1. Criminal Intention (First Stage)
Intention may be defined as

    • the purpose or design with which an act is done,
    • position of mind,
    • condition of someone at particular time of commission of offence and
    • will of the accused to see effects of his unlawful conduct.

Note:

  • Although, the criminal court does not punish a man for mere guilty intention but it is very important to find out the criminal intention for the establishment of Mens Ria.
  • Intention includes negligence and recklessness.

Example: If a man drives in a rash and reckless manner resulting in an accident causing death of a person, the reckless driver cannot plead innocence by stating that he never intended to cause the death of the person. It may be true in the strict sense of term. But a reckless driver should know that reckless driving is likely to result in harm and can even cause death of the persons on the road.

2. Preparation (Second Stage)
It means making necessary arrangements for executing Criminal Intention. Although mere preparation is not punishable as it is difficult to prove that necessary preparations were made for commission of the offence.

But in the following cases mere preparation to commit offences is punishable:

  • Preparation to wage war against the Government (section 122).
  • Preparation for counterfeiting of coins or Government Stamps (sections 233 to 235, 255 and 257)
  • Possessing counterfeit coins, false weights or measurements and forged documents (section 242, 243, 259, 266 and 474).
  • Making preparation to commit dacoity (section 399).

3. Attempt (Third Stage)
Attempt means the direct movement towards commission of a crime after necessary preparations have been made.

Under IPC, Criminal Attempt has been called as a preliminary crime, and thus punishable.

Under the IPC, the sections on attempt can be divided into four broad categories:

(i)Those sections in which
 a.the commission of an offence and
 b.the attempt to commit
 are dealt within the same section, and
 cthe extent of the punishment being the same for both the offence as also the attempt.
 The examples of this category are
 1.waging or attempting to wage war against the Government of India,
 2assaulting or attempting to assault the President or Governor with intent to compel or restrain the exercise of lawful power,
 3using or attempting to use evidence knowing it to be false,
 4dacoity etc.
(ii)Those offences in which
 athe attempt to commit specific offences are dealt side by side with the offences themselves, but separately, and
 bseparate punishments have been provided for the attempt other than that provided for the offences which have been completed.
 The examples of this category are attempt to commit an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life including robbery, murder etc.
(iii)Attempt to commit suicide specifically provided under section 309 IPC.
(iv)The fourth category relates to the attempt to commit offences for which no specific punishment has been provided in the IPC. Such attempts are covered under section 511.

Attempts to Commit Offences (Section 511)
This section of the Code provides that whoever attempts to commit an offence punishable by IPC with imprisonment for life or imprisonment, or cause such an offence to be committed, and in such attempt does any act towards commission of the offence, shall, where no express provision is made by IPC for the punishment of such attempt, be punished with

  • imprisonment of any description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-half of the imprisonment for life or, as the case may be,
    • one- half of the longest term of imprisonment provided for that offence, or
  • with such fine as is provided for the offence, or
  • with both.

CS Executive JIGL Notes of Important Chapters

Punishments under IPC

1Death or Capital Punishment (judicial killing or taking the life of the accused)
The Supreme Court has ruled that death sentence ought to be imposed only in the ‘rarest of rate cases’. The IPC provides for capital punishment for the following offences:
 aMurder
 bDacoity with Murder
 cWaging War against the Government of India
 dAbetting mutiny actually committed
 eGiving or fabricating false evidence upon which an innocent person suffers death
 fAbetment of a suicide by a minor or insane person;
 gAttempted murder by a life convict.
 The capital punishment is awarded only in two categories of offences, namely
– treason and
– murder.
2Life Imprisonment
Imprisonment for life meant rigorous imprisonment, that is, till the last breath of the convict.
3

Imprisonment:- Imprisonment which is of two descriptions namely –

  1. Rigorous Imprisonment, that is hard labour;
  2. Simple Imprisonment
4Forfeiture of property
The courts are empowered to forfeit property of the guilty under section 126 and section 127 of the IPC.
5Fine
Fine is forfeiture of money by way of penalty. It should be imposed individually and not collectively. When court sentences an accused for a punishment, which includes a fine amount, it can specify that in the event the convict does not pay the fine amount, he would have to suffer imprisonment for a further period as indicated by the court, which is generally referred to as default sentence.

Criminal Conspiracy

criminal conspiracy
Criminal Conspiracy

Definition of criminal conspiracy (Section 120A)
When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done,-

  1. an illegal act, or
  2. an act by illegal means (even if the act is not illegal),

such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy.

Note:

  • It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such agreement, or is merely incidental to that object.
  • The agreement maybe express or implied, or in part express and in part implied.

But no agreement (except an agreement to commit an offence) shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof.

In NCT of Delhi v. Navjot Sandhu, 2005 CrLJ 3950 (SC), (Parliament attack case) the accused had never contacted the deceased terrorist on place but had helped one of the conspirators to flee to a safer place after incident. The accused was not held guilty as conspirator.

Punishment of Criminal Conspiracy (Section 120B)
In case of criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with

  • death,
  • imprisonment for life or
  • rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards,

Whoever is a party to such criminal conspiracy shall, (where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy), be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence.

In case of criminal conspiracy to commit other offences
Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy (other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid) shall be punished

  • with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding 6 months, or
  • with fine or
  • with both.

Criminal Misappropriation of Property

Dishonest misappropriation of property (Section 403)
Whoever dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use any movable property, shall be punished

  • with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or
  • with fine, or
  • with both.

Illustrations

  • A takes property belonging to Z out of Z’s possession in good faith, believing, at the time when he takes it, that the property belongs to himself. A is not guilty of theft; but if A, after discovering his mistake, dishonestly appropriates the property to his own use, he is guilty of an offence under this section.
  • A, being on friendly terms with Z, goes into Z’s library in Z’s absence and takes away a book without Z’s express consent. Here, if A was under the impression that he had Z’s implied consent to take the book for the purpose of reading it, A has not committed theft. But, if A afterwards sells the book for his own benefit, he is guilty of an offence under this section.
  • A and B being joint owners of a horse, A takes the horse out of B’s possession, intending to use it. Here as A has a right to use the horse, he does not dishonestly misappropriate it. But, if A sells the horse and appropriates the whole proceeds to his own use, he is guilty of an offence under this section.

Explanation 1.
A dishonest misappropriation for a time only is a misappropriation with the meaning of this section.

Illustration
A finds a Government promissory note belonging to Z, bearing a blank endorsement. A, knowing that the note belongs to Z, pledges it with a banker as a security or a loan, intending at a future time to restore it to Z. A has committed an offence under this section.

Explanation 2
A person who finds property not in the possession of any other person, and such property for the purpose of protecting it for, or of restoring it to, the owner, does not take or misappropriate it dishonestly, and is not guilty of an offence; but he is guilty of the offence above defined, if he appropriates it to his own use, when he knows or has the means of discovering the owner, or before he has used reasonable means to discover and give notice to the owner and has kept the property a reasonable time to enable the owner to claim it.

What are reasonable means or what is a reasonable time in such a case, is a question of fact.

It is not necessary that the finder should know who is the owner of the property, or that any particular person is the owner of it: it is sufficient if, at the time of appropriating it, he does not believe it to be his own property, or in good faith believe that the real owner cannot be found.

Illustrations

  • ‘A’ finds a rupee on the high-road, not knowing to whom the rupee belong, A picks up the rupee. Here A has not committed the offence defined in this section.
  • ‘A’ finds a letter on the road, containing a bank note. From the direction and contents of the letter he learns to whom the note belongs. He appropriates the note. He is guilty of an offence under this section.
  • ‘A’ finds a cheque payable to bearer. He can form no conjecture as to the person who has lost the cheque. But the name of the person, who has drawn the cheque, appears. A knows that this person can direct him to the person in whose favour the cheque was drawn. A appropriates the cheque without attempting to discover the owner. He is guilty of an offence under this section.
  • A sees Z drop his purse with money in it. A pick up the purse with the intention of restoring it to Z, but afterwards appropriates it to his own use. A has committed an offence under this section.
  • A finds a purse with money, not knowing to whom it belongs; he afterwards discovers that it belongs to Z, and appropriates it to his own use. A is guilty of an offence under this section.
  • A finds a valuable ring, not knowing to whom it belongs. A sells it immediately without attempting to discover the owner. A is guilty of an offence under this section.

Dishonest misappropriation of property possessed by deceased person at the time of his death (Section 404)
Whoever dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use property, knowing that such property was in the possession of a deceased person at the time of that person’s decease, and has not since been in the possession of any person legally entitled to such possession, shall be punished

  • with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and
  • shall also be liable to fine

Further, if the offender at the time of such person’s decease was employed by him as a clerk or servant, the imprisonment may extend to seven years.

Illustration
Z dies in possession of furniture and money. His servant A, before the money comes into the possession of any person entitled to such possession, dishonestly misappropriates it. A has committed the offence defined in this section.

CS Executive JIGL Notes of Important Chapters

Criminal Breach of Trust

Criminal breach of trust (Section 405)
Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property,
dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or
dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation
 oof any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or
 oof any legal contract, express or implied,
 which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or
wilfully suffers any other person so to do,
commits “criminal breach of trust”.
Explanation 1
A person, being an employer of an establishment
 owhether exempted under section 17 of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952) or not
who deducts the employees’ contribution from the wages payable to the employee for credit to a Provident Fund or Family Pension Fund established by any law for the time being in force,
shall be deemed to have been entrusted with the amount of the contribution so deducted by him
 oof any legal contract, express or implied,
and
if he makes default in the payment of such contribution to the said Fund in violation of the said law,
 ohe shall be deemed to have dishonestly used the amount of the said contribution in violation of a direction of law as aforesaid.
Explanation 2
A person, being an employer,
who deducts the employees contribution from the wages payable to the employee for credit to the Employees’ State Insurance Fund held and administered by the Employees’ State Insurance Corporation established under the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948),
shall be deemed to have been entrusted with the amount of the contribution so deducted by him
and
if he makes default in the payment of such contribution to the said Fund in violation of the said Act,
 ohe shall be deemed to have dishonestly used the amount of the said contribution in violation of a direction of law as aforesaid.

Illustrations

a

A, being executor to the will of a deceased person,

  • dishonestly disobeys the law which directs him to divide the effects (property) according to the will, and
  • appropriates them to his own use.

A has committed criminal breach of trust.

bA is a warehouse-keeper. Z, going on a journey, entrusts his furniture to A, under a contract that it shall be returned on payment of a stipulated sum for warehouse-room. A dishonestly sells the goods. A has committed criminal breach of trust.
c

A, residing in Calcutta, is agent for Z, residing at Delhi. There is an express or implied contract between A and Z, that all sums remitted by Z to A shall be invested by A, according to Z’s direction. Z remits a lakh of rupees to A, with directions to A to invest the same in Company’s paper. A dishonestly disobeys the directions and employs the money in his own business. A has committed criminal breach of trust.

But if A, not dishonestly but in good faith, believing that it will be more for Z’s advantage to hold shares in the Bank of Bengal, disobeys Z’s directions, and buys shares in the Bank of Bengal, for Z, instead of buying Company’s paper, here, thought Z should suffer loss, and should be entitled to bring a civil action against A, on account of that loss, yet A, not having acted dishonestly, has not committed criminal breach of trust.

dA, a revenue-officer, is entrusted with public money and is either directed by law, or bound by a contract, express or implied, with the Government, to pay into a certain treasury all the public money which he holds. A dishonestly appropriates the money. A has committed criminal breach of trust.
eA, a carrier, is entrusted by Z with property to be carried by land or by water. A dishonestly misappropriates the property. A has committed criminal breach of trust.

Essential ingredients of the offence of criminal breach of trust
The essential ingredients of the offence of criminal breach of trust are as under;

  1. The accused must be entrusted with the property or with dominion over it,
  2. The person so entrusted must use that property, or;
  3. The accused must dishonestly use or dispose of that property or wilfully suffer any other person to do so in violation,
    • of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or
    • of any legal contract made touching the discharge of such trust.

Points to Note:
The Supreme Court of India in R. Dalal v. Yugendra Naranji Thakkar, has held that the first ingredient of criminal breach of trust is entrustment.

CASE LAW
In S.K. Alagh v. State of U.P. and others, where demand drafts were drawn in the name of company for supply of goods and neither the goods were sent by the company nor the money was returned, the Managing Director of the company cannot be said to have committed the offence under Section 406 of Indian Penal Code. It was pointed out that in absence of any provision laid down under statute, a director of a company or an employer cannot be held vicariously liable for any offence committed by company itself.

Thus, for an offence to fall under this section, all the four requirements are essential to be fulfilled.

  1. The person handing over the property must have confidence in the person taking the property so as to create a fiduciary relationship between them or to put him in position of trustee.
  2. The accused must be in such a position where he could exercise his control over the property i.e; dominion over the property.
  3. The term property includes both movable as well as immovable property within its ambit.
  4. It has to be established that the accused has dishonestly put the property to his own use or to some unauthorized use. Dishonest intention to misappropriate is a crucial fact to be proved to bring home the charge of criminal breach of trust.

Punishment for criminal breach of trust (Section 406)
Whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished

  • with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 3 years, or
  • with fine, or
  • with both.

Criminal breach of trust by carrier, etc. (Section 407)
Whoever, being entrusted with property as a carrier, wharfinger or warehouse-keeper, commits criminal breach of trust, in respect of such property, shall be punished

  • with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 7 years, and
  • shall also be liable to fine.

Criminal breach of trust by clerk or servant (Section 408)
Whoever,

  • being a clerk or servant or employed as a clerk or servant, and
  • being in any manner entrusted in such capacity with property, or with any dominion over property,

commits criminal breach of trust in respect of that property, shall be punished

  • with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 7 years, and
  • shall also be liable to fine.

Criminal breach of trust by public servant, or by banker, merchant or agent (Section 409)

Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property in his capacity of a public servant or in the way of his business as a banker, merchant, factor, broker, attorney or agent, commits criminal breach of trust in respect of that property, shall be punished

  • with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 10 years, and 
  • shall also be liable to fine.

CASE LAWS

  • In Bagga Singh v. State of Punjab, the appellant was a taxation clerk in the Municipal Committee, Sangrur. He had collected arrears of tax from tax-payers but the sum was not deposited in the funds of the committee after collection but was deposited after about 5 months. He pleaded that money was deposited with the cashier Madan Lal, a co-accused, who had defaulted on the same but the cashier proved that he had not received any such sum and was acquitted by lower court. As such the accused was liable under section 409 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
  • In Bachchu Singh v. State of Haryana, the appellant was working as ‘Gram Sachiv’ for 8 gram panchayats. He collected a sum of Rs. 648 from thirty villagers towards the house tax and executed receipts for the same. As he was a public servant, and in that capacity he had collected money as house tax but did not remit the same, he was charged under Section 409 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. It was held that the appellant dishonestly misappropriated or converted the said amount for his own use and his conviction under section 409 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 was upheld by the Supreme Court.

CS Executive JIGL Notes of Important Chapters

Cheating

Cheating (Section 415)
Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived

  • to deliver any property to any person, or
  • to consent that any person shall retain any property, or
  • to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived,

and

  • which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property,

is said to “cheat”.

Explanation.-A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section.

Illustrations

  • A, by falsely pretending to be in the Civil Service, intentionally deceives Z, and thus dishonestly induces Z to let him have on credit goods for which he does not mean to pay. A cheats.
  • A, by putting a counterfeit mark on an article, intentionally deceives Z into a belief that this article was made by a certain celebrated manufacturer, and thus dishonestly induces Z to buy and pay for the article. A cheats.
  • A, by exhibiting to Z a false sample of an article intentionally deceives Z into believing that the article corresponds with the sample, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to buy and pay for the article. A cheats.
  • A, by tendering in payment for an article a bill on a house with which A keeps no money, and by which A expects that the bill will be dishonoured, intentionally deceives Z, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to deliver the article, intending not to pay for it. A cheats
  • A, by pledging as diamond articles which he knows are not diamonds, intentionally deceives Z, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to lend money. A cheats.
  • A Intentionally deceives Z into a belief that A means to repay any money that Z may lend to him and thereby dishonestly induces Z to lend him money, A not intending to repay it. A cheats.
  • A intentionally deceives Z into a belief that A means to deliver to Z a certain quantity of indigo plant which he does not intend to deliver, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to advance money upon the faith of such delivery. A cheats; but if A, at the time of obtaining the money, intends to deliver the indigo plant, and afterwards breaks his contract and does not deliver it, he does not cheat, but is liable only to a civil action for breach of contract.
  • A intentionally deceives Z into a belief that A has performed A’s part of a contract made with Z, which he has not performed, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to pay money. A cheats
  • A sells and conveys an estate to B. A, knowing that in consequence of such sale he has no right to the property, sells or mortgages the same to Z, without disclosing the fact of the previous sale and conveyance to B, and receives the purchase or mortgage money from Z. A cheats.

CASE LAWS

  • The Supreme Court in Iridium India Telecom Ltd. v. Motorola Incorporated and Ors., has held that deception is necessary ingredient under both parts of section. Complainant must prove that inducement has been caused by deception exercised by the accused. It was held that non-disclosure of relevant information would also be treated a misrepresentation of facts leading to deception.
  • The Supreme Court in M.N. Ojha and others v. Alok Kumar Srivastav and anr, has held that where the intention on the part of the accused is to retain wrongfully the excise duty which the State is empowered under law to to0020recover from another person who has removed non-duty paid tobacco from one bonded warehouse to another, they are held guilty of cheating.
  • In R. Arya v. State of Punjab, it was held that negligence in duty without any dishonest intention cannot amount to cheating. A bank employee when on comparison of signature of drawer passes a cheque there may be negligence resulting in loss to bank, but it cannot be held to be cheating.

Cheating by personation (Section 416)
A person is said to “cheat by personation” if he cheats by pretending to be some other person, or by knowingly substituting one person for or another, or representing that he or any other person is a person other than he or such other person really is.

Explanation.-The offence is committed whether the individual personated is a real or imaginary person.

Illustrations

  • A cheats, by pretending to be a certain rich banker of the same name. A cheats by personation.
  • A cheats by pretending to be B, a person who is deceased. A cheats by personation.

Punishment for cheating (Section 417)
Whoever cheats shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.

Cheating with knowledge that wrongful loss may ensue to person whose interest offender is bound to protect.

Cheating with knowledge that wrongful loss may ensue to person whose interest offender is bound to protect (Section 418)
Whoever cheats with the knowledge that he is likely thereby to cause wrongful loss to a person whose interest in the transaction to which the cheating relates, he was bound either by law, or by legal contract, to protect, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

Punishment for cheating by personation (Section 419)
Whoever cheats by personation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property (Section 420)
Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

CASE LAWS

  • In Kuriachan Chacko v. State of Kerala, the money circulation scheme was allegedly mathematical impossibility and promoters knew fully well that scheme was unworkable and false representations were being made to induce persons to part with their money. The Supreme Court held that it could be assumed and presumed that the accused had committed offence of cheating under section 420 of the IPC.
  • In Ibrahim and others v. State of Bihar and another, the accused was alleged to have executed false sale deeds and a complaint was filed by real owner of property. The accused had a bonafide belief that the property belonged to him and purchaser also believed that suit property belongs to the accused. It was held that accused was not guilty of cheating as ingredients of cheating were not present.
  • In Shruti Enterprises v. State of Bihar and ors, it was held that mere breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution under section 420 unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of transaction when the offence is said to have been committed. If it is established that the intention of the accused was dishonest at the time of entering into the agreement then liability will be criminal and the accused will be guilty of offence of cheating. On the other hand, if all that is established is that a representation made by the accused has subsequently not been kept, criminal liability cannot be fastened on the accused and the only right which complainant acquires is to a decree of damages for breach of contract.

CS Executive JIGL Notes of Important Chapters

Fraudulent Deeds and Dispositions of Property

Dishonest or fraudulent removal or concealment of property to prevent distribution among creditors (Section 421) – Frauds connected with Insolvency
Whoever dishonestly or fraudulently removes, conceals or delivers to any person, or transfers or causes to be transferred to any person, without adequate consideration, any property, intending thereby to prevent, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby prevent the distribution of that property according to law among his creditors or the creditors of any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

Dishonestly or fraudulently preventing debt being available for creditors (Section 422)
Whoever dishonestly or fraudulently prevents any debt or demand due to himself or to any other person from being made available according to law for payment of his debts or the debts of such other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

This section, like the preceding section 421, is intended to prevent the defrauding of creditors by masking property.

‘Debt’ is not defined under IPC. But in Commissioner of Wealth Tax v G.D. Naidu, it was held that the essential requisites of debt are:

  1.  ascertained or ascertainable,
  2. an absolute liability, in present or future, and
  3. an obligation which has already accrued and is subsisting.

All debts are liabilities but all liabilities are not debt.

The Supreme Court in Mangoo Singh v. Election Tribunal, has laid down that the word ‘demand’ ordinarily means something more than what is due; it means something which has been demanded, called for or asked for, but the meaning of the word must take colour from the context and so ‘demand’ may also mean arrears or dues.

Dishonest or fraudulent execution of deed of transfer containing false statement of consideration (Section 423)
Whoever dishonestly or fraudulently signs, executes or becomes a party to any deed or instrument which purports to transfer or subject to any charge any property, or any interest therein, and which contains any false statement relating to the consideration for such transfer or charge, or relating to the person or persons for whose use or benefit it is really intended to operate, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

Dishonest or fraudulent removal or concealment of property (Section 424)
Whoever dishonestly or fraudulently conceals or removes any property of himself or any other person, or dishonestly or fraudulently assists in the concealment or removal thereof, or dishonestly releases any demand or claim to which he is entitled, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

CS Executive JIGL Notes of Important Chapters

Forgery

Forgery (Section 463)
Whoever makes any false document or part of a document with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery.

Punishment for forgery (Section 465)
Whoever commits forgery shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

The Supreme Court in Ramchandran v. State, has held that to constitute an offence of forgery document must be made with dishonest or fraudulent intention. A person is said to do a thing fraudulently if he does that thing with intent to defraud but not otherwise.

The Supreme Court in Parminder Kaur v. State of UP, has held that mere alteration of document does not make it a forged document. Alteration must be made for some gain or for some objective.

In Balbir Kaur v. State of Punjab, the allegation against the accused was that she furnished a certificate to get employment as ETT teacher which was found to be bogus and forged in as much as school was not recognized for period given in certificate. However the certificate did not anywhere say that school was recognized. It was held that merely indicating teaching experience of the accused, per-se, cannot be said to indicate wrong facts. So the direction which was issued for prosecution is liable to be quashed.

Defamation

Whoever,

  • by words either spoken or intended to be read, or
  • by signs or
  • by visible representations,

makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person

  • intending to harm, or
  • knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm,
    • the reputation of such person,

is said to defame that person.

Explanation 1
It may amount to defamation to impute (represent) anything to a deceased person, if the imputation would harm the reputation of that person if living, and is intended to be hurtful to the feelings of his family or other near relatives.

Explanation 2
It may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a company or an association or collection of persons as such.

Explanation 3
An imputation in the form of an alternative or expressed ironically (in an opposite manner), may amount to defamation.

Explanation 4
No imputation is said to harm a person’s reputation, unless that imputation directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others,

  • lowers the moral or intellectual character of that person, or
  • lowers the character of that person in respect of his caste or of his calling, or
  • lowers the credit of that person, or
  • causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a loathsome (hatred) state, or in a state generally considered as disgraceful.

Illustrations

  1. A says—“Z is an honest man; he never stole B’s watch”;  intending to cause it to be believed that Z did steal B’s watch. This is defamation, unless it fall within one of the exceptions.
  2. A is asked “who stole B’s watch”. A points to Z, intending to cause it to be believed that Z stole B’s watch. This is defamation unless it fall within one of the exceptions.
  3. A draws a picture of Z running away with B’s watch, intending it to be believed that Z stole B’s watch. This is defamation, unless it fall within one of the exceptions.

First Exception
Imputation of truth which public good requires to be made or published
It is not defamation to impute anything which is true concerning any person, if it be for the public good that the imputation should be made or published. Whether or not it is for the public good is a question of fact.

Second Exception
Public conduct of public servants
It is not defamation to express in a good faith any opinion whatever respecting the conduct of a public servant in the discharge of his public functions, or respecting his character, so far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further.

Third Exception
Conduct of any person touching any public question
It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting the conduct of any person touching any public question, and respecting his character, so far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further.

 Illustration
It is not defamation in A to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting Z’s conduct

  • in petitioning Government on a public question,
  • in signing a requisition for a meeting on a public question,
  • in presiding or attending a such meeting,
  • in forming or joining any society which invites the public support,
  • in voting or canvassing for a particular candidate for any situation in the efficient discharges of the duties of which the public is interested.

Fourth Exception
Publication of reports of proceedings of Courts
It is not defamation to publish substantially true report of the proceedings of a Court of Justice, or of the result of any such proceedings.

Fifth Exception
Merits of case decided in Court or conduct of witnesses and others concerned
It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever

  • respecting the merits of any case, civil or criminal, which has been decided by a Court of Justice, or
  • respecting the conduct of any person as a party, witness or agent, in any such case, or
  • respecting the character of such person, as far as his character appears in that conduct,

and no further.

Illustrations

  • A says—“I think Z’s evidence on that trial is so contradictory that he must be stupid or dishonest”. A is within this exception if he says this is in good faith, in as much as the opinion which he expresses respects Z’s character as it appears in Z’s conduct as a witness, and no further.
  • But if A says—“I do not believe what Z asserted at that trial because I know him to be a man without veracity”; A is not within this exception, in as much as the opinion which he express of Z’s character, is an opinion not founded on Z’s conduct as a witness.

Sixth Exception
Merits of public performance
It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion

  • respecting the merits of any performance which its author has submitted to the judgment of the public, or
  • respecting the character of the author so far as his character appears in such performance,

and no further.

Illustrations

  1. A person who publishes a book, submits that book to the judgment of the public.
  2. A person who makes a speech in public, submits that speech to the judgment of the public.
  3. An actor or singer who appears on a public stage, submits his acting or signing in the judgment of the public.
  4. A says of a book published by Z—
    • Z’s book is foolish;
    • Z must be a weak man.
    • Z’s book is indecent;
    • Z must be a man of impure mind.
      A is within the exception, if he says this in good faith, in as much as the opinion which he expresses of Z respects Z’s character only so far as it appears in Z’s book, and no further.
      But if A says—“I am not surprised that Z’s book is foolish and indecent, for he is a weak man and a libertine”. A is not within this exception, in as much as the opinion which he expresses of Z’s character is an opinion not founded on Z’s book.

Seventh Exception
Censure (severe disapproval) passed in good faith by person having lawful authority over another
It is not defamation in a person having over another any authority, either conferred by law or arising out of a lawful contract made with that other, to pass in good faith any censure on the conduct of that other in matters to which such lawful authority relates.

Illustration

  1. A Judge censuring in good faith the conduct of a witness, or of an officer of the Court;
  2. A head of a department censuring in good faith those who are under his orders;
  3. A parent censuring in good faith a child in the presence of other children;
  4. A school-master, whose authority is derived from a parent, censuring in good faith a pupil in the presence of other pupils;
  5. A master censuring a servant in good faith for remissness in service;
  6. A banker censuring in good faith the cashier of his bank for the conduct of such cashier as such cashier
    are within this exception.

Eighth Exception
Accusation (charge or claim) preferred in good faith to authorised person
It is not defamation to prefer in good faith an accusation against any person to any of those who have lawful authority over that person with respect to the subject-matter of accusation.

Illustration

  • If A in good faith accuse Z before a Magistrate;
  • If A in good faith complains of the conduct of Z, a servant, to Z’s master;
  • If A in good faith complains of the conduct of Z, a child, to Z’s father

A is within this exception.

Ninth Exception
Imputation (charge or claim) made in good faith by person for protection of his or other’s interests
 It is not defamation to make an imputation on the character of another provided if the imputation be made in good faith for the protection of the interests of the person making it, or of any other person, or for the public good.

Illustrations

  1. A, a shopkeeper, says to B, who manages his business—“Sell nothing to Z unless he pays you ready money, for I have no opinion of his honesty”. A is within the exception, if he has made this imputation on Z in good faith for the protection of his own interests.
  2. A, a Magistrate, in making a report of his own superior officer, casts an imputation on the character of Z. Here, if the imputation is made in good faith, and for the public good, A is within the exception.

Tenth Exception
Caution intended for good of person to whom it is conveyed or for public good
It is not defamation to convey a caution, in good faith, to one person against another, provided that such caution be intended for the good of the person to whom it is conveyed, or of some person in whom that person is interested, or for the public good.

Punishment for defamation (Section 500)
Whoever defames another shall be punished

  • with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or
  • with fine, or
  • with both.

Printing or engraving matter known to be defamatory (Section 501)
Whoever prints or engraves any matter,

  • knowing or having good reason to believe that such matter is defamatory of any person,

shall be punished

  • with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or
  • with fine, or
  • with both.

In Sankaran v. Ramkrishna Pillai, the defamatory matter was printed in Malayalam and the accused did not know the language, his mens rea was absent and he was not guilty.

Sale of printed or engraved substance containing defamatory matter (Section 502)
Whoever sells or offers for sale any printed or engraved substance containing defamatory matter, knowing that it contains such matter, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both

Kinds of Defamation
The wrong of defamation is of two kinds

  • Libel (defamatory statement is made in some permanent and visible form, such as writing, printing or
  • pictures) and
  • Slander (defamatory statement is made in spoken words or in some other transitory form, whether visible or audible, such as gestures or inarticulate but significant sounds)

CS Executive JIGL Notes of Important Chapters

General exceptions (Defences) under IPC

1Act done by a person bound, or by mistake of fact believing himself bound, by law (Section 76)
Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is, or who by reason of a mistake of fact and not by reason of a mistake of law in good faith believes himself to be, bound by law to do it.

Illustrations

  1. A, a soldier, fires on a mob by the order of his superior officer, in conformity with the commands of the law. A has committed no offence.
  2. A, an officer of a Court of Justice, being ordered by that Court to arrest Y, and after due enquiry, believing Z to be Y, arrests Z. A has committed no offence.
2Act of Judge when acting judicially (section 77)
Nothing is an offence which is done by a Judge when acting judicially in the exercise of any power which is, or which in good faith he believes to be, given to him by law.
3Act done pursuant to the judgment or order of Court (section 78)
When any act is committed on judgment or order of the Court of Justice which is in force, it is no offence even if the judgment or order of the Court is without any jurisdiction, though the person who executes the judgment and order must believe that the Court has the jurisdiction.
4Mistake of Fact-justified by law (Section 79)
Nothing is an offence which is done by any person who is justified by law, or who by reason of a mistake of fact and not by reason of a mistake of law in good faith, believes himself to be justified by law, in doing it

Illustration
A sees Z commit what appears to A to be a murder. A, in the exercise, to the best of his judgment exerted in good faith, of the power which the law gives to all persons of apprehending murderers in the fact, seizes Z, in order to bring Z before the proper authorities. A has committed no offence, though it may turn out that Z was acting in self-defence.

5Accident in doing a lawful act (Section 80)
Nothing is an offence which is done by accident or misfortune, and without any criminal intention or knowledge in the doing of a lawful act in a lawful manner by lawful means and with proper care and caution.

Illustration
A is at work with a axe; the head flies off and kills a man who is standing by. Here, if there was no want of proper caution on the part of A, his act is excusable and not an offence.

6Act likely to cause harm, but done without criminal intent, and to prevent other harm (section 81)
Any act done by anyone without any criminal intent for saving or preventing harm to third person or property in good faith is no offence.

Explanation – It is a question of fact in such a case whether the harm to be prevented or avoided was of such a nature and so imminent as to justify or excuse the risk of doing the act with the knowledge that it was likely to cause harm.

Illustrations
A, in a great fire, pulls down houses in order to prevent the conflagration from spreading. He does this with the intention in good faith of saving human life or property. Here, if it be found that the harm to be prevented was of such a nature and so imminent as to excuse A’s act, A is not guilty of the offence

7Act of a child under seven years of age (section 82)
If any child who is below seven years of age commits any offence, he is not guilty because it is the presumption of law that that a child below 7 years of age is incapable to having a criminal intention (mens rea) necessary to commit a crime.
8Act of a child above seven and under twelve of immature understanding (section 83)
If any minor child
  • is in between 7 and 12 years of age and
  • has not attained the maturity of what is wrong and contrary to law at the time of commission of offence

he is not liable to be convicted and punished.

9Act of a person of unsound mind (section 84)
Nothing done by any person of unsound mind is an offence if at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law
10Act of a person incapable of judgment by reason of intoxication caused against his will (section 85)
Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, is, by reason of intoxication, incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong, or contrary to law.

Provided that the thing which intoxicated him was administered to him without his knowledge or against his will.

11Offence requiring a particular intent or knowledge committed by one who is intoxicated (section 86)
In cases where an act done is not an offence unless done with a particular knowledge or intent, a person who does the act in a state of intoxication shall be liable to be dealt with as if he had the same knowledge as he would have had if he had not been intoxicated, unless the thing which intoxicated him was administered to him without his knowledge or against his will. If the accused himself takes and consumes intoxicated thing or material with knowledge or intention and under intoxication he commits any offence he is liable for punishment
12Act not intended and not known to be likely to cause death or grievous hurt, done by consent (section 87)
When anyone commits any act without any intention to cause death or grievous hurt and which is not within the knowledge of that person to likely to cause death or grievious hurt to any person who is more than 18 years of age and has consented to take the risk of that harm, the person doing the act has committed no offence.

This section is based on the principle of ‘volenti-non-fit injuria’ which means he who consents suffers no injury. The policy behind this section is that everyone is the best judge of his own interest and no one consents to that which he considers injurious to his own interest. (Saamne wale ki consent se kaam kerna)

13Act not intended to cause death, done by consent in good faith for person’s benefit (section 88)
Nothing, which is not intended to cause death, is an offence by reason of any harm which it may cause, or be intended by the doer to cause, or be known by the doer to be likely to cause, to any person for whose benefit it is done in good faith, and who has given a consent, whether express or implied, to suffer that harm, or to take the risk of that harm.

Section 88 extends the operation of consent to all acts except that of causing death intentionally provided that the act is done in good faith for the benefit of the consenting party.

For example:- A, a surgeon, knowing that a particular operation is likely to cause the death of Z who suffers under the painful complaint but not intending to cause Z’s death and intending in good faith Z’s benefit, performs that operation on Z with Z’s consent. A has committed no offence. But if surgeon while performing the operation leaves a needle inside the abdomen of the patient who die due to septic- He would be liable criminally for causing death by negligence because he did not perform the operation with due care and caution.

14On consent of guardian if any act is done in good faith to it (section 89)
This section gives power to the guardian of a child under 12 years of age or a person of unsound mind to consent to do an act done by a third person for the benefit of the child or a person of unsound mind. Anything done by the third person will not be an offence provided that it is done in good faith and for the benefit of the child or a person of unsound mind. This section gives protection to the guardians as well as other person acting with the consent of a guardian of a person under 12 years of age or a person of unsound mind.
15

Acts done with the Consent of a person (section 90)

  • The consent is not valid if it is obtained from a person who is under fear of injury, or under a misconception of fact and if the person doing the act knows, or has reason to believe, that the consent was given in consequence of such fear or misconception.
  • The consent is also not valid if it is given by a person who, from unsoundness of mind, or intoxication, is unable to understand the nature and consequence of that to which he gives his consent.
  • The consent is given by a person who is under12 years of age is also not valid unless the contrary appears from the context.
16Exclusion of acts which are offences independently of harm caused (section 91)
The exceptions in sections 87, 88 and 89 do not extend to acts which are offences independently of any harm which they may cause, or be intended to cause, or be known to be likely to cause, to the person giving the consent, or on whose behalf the consent is given.
17Act done in good faith for benefit of a person without consent (section 92)
Nothing is an offence by reason of any harm which it may cause to a person for whose benefit it is done in good faith, even without that person’s consent, if the circumstances are such that it is impossible for that person to signify consent, or if that person is incapable of giving consent, and has no guardian or other person in lawful charge of him from whom it is possible to obtain consent in time for the thing to be done with benefit. (Bhalai me kaam kerna chahe saamne wale ki consent hai ya nahi)
18Communication made in good faith (section 93)
No communication made in good faith is an offence by reason of any harm to the person to whom it is made, if it is made for the benefit of that person. For example: A, a surgeon, in good faith, communicates to a patient his opinion that he cannot live. The patient dies in consequence of the shock. A has committed no offence, though he knew it to be likely that the communication might cause the patient’s death. (Bhalai me koi baat kehna)
19Act to which a person is compelled by threats (section 94)
Except murder, and offences against the State punishable with death, nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is compelled to do it by threats, which, at the time of doing it, reasonably cause the apprehension that instant death to that person will otherwise be the consequence. For this defence to be valid the person acting under threat should not have himself put under such a situation. (Jaan jane ke darr se kuch kerna
20Act causing slight harm (section 95)
Nothing is an offence by reason that it causes, or that it is intended to cause, or that it is known to be likely to cause, any harm, if that harm is so slight that no person of ordinary sense and temper would complain of such harm. (Na barabar harm)

CS Executive JIGL Notes of Important Chapters

Leave a Comment