IPC

Anil khanna

Coaching notes
ABABA
State -

want you

/ to follow its lows -

Law will be about

Prohibited
only Then it will
1) which Acts are

Protect your life

liberty
] -

QuidRg9uo_ { 2) what

That
will be the Punishment

Property Give and Take is called an

offence .

Need for a Social order

is a Basic need .

-
1st Gnterced - Bring Concept
By Religion of morality

a Punishment

Slowly
,
Beings Given divine
Human
By
power
decided to implement
.

morality Through Some Acts .

and named it a Crime

1-
Genus in which
Become
-

Aspects of
/ morality was there .

only Those Crime , Which

were
accepted by Sovereign
as Acton save Punishment of it
-
Became 0ffe
A crime is Act is
on which
prohibited by morality .

An offence which is an
Agt
Prohibited Punishable
By
Lang

Preamble of I. Pc

"

whereas -
it is expedient to Provide a General
"
Penal Code for India .

(Applicable all)

earlier there was no Uniform Penal Code .

Purpose -
was to make a New Law .
-

only Preamble Which

Say That
it is
making a new

General Applicable to
Every
Lowly
one
-

1
Indians foreigners • No Hindu law
-
what was
°
No Muslim low
That -
Go To
History .

0
No Common law .

General law which came

-
was not
Suddenly out
of a Blue .

: in
history
-

o
we have to
go .

Kindly IPC -
Substantive low .

There Penal
Was Was
Any Substantive low

As Arthashastra by Coldest Source

Early Kautilya
-

as -
.

of Criminal

substantive low)
Manu Smriti -
Gave 18 Heads of law .

,
I tread -
Criminal law

often ! were mentioned Assault, theft Gambling, Violence to Body

-

/ . . . . etc .

Punishment were also given -

Rebuff CSI IT)
- /
In Crpc There is Rebuke
Forfeiture of Property
.

,
•
/
•
Fine it is called as

Throw Admonition
"
"
- •
Todipaar
From -
0
Corporal Punishment only - 360 Crpc
Kingdom
.

Imprisonment Punishment not in IPC

,

•
Death Penalty But in
Crpc .

• Mutilation
•
Concept of Compensation .

Costist
Many was in nature
-
.

lower
•
Caste were treated more in a
derogatory way .

and so were women .

Kereta Travancore
-
-
mode first state Penal Code
L Richest state /
of India
[
Spice
•
Bowl of India
Derogatory with lower caste
-

•
Adultery By lower Caste with

upper Caste -

Death Penalty .
 lower Caste were always Singled and Penal Code
gave more Punishment

to them Manu
.

Everybody followed ,
hence
many were biased to lower Caste .

Warren Hasting -177s

I Hindu Code
make a Common .

Brchemons
Call
of
Benares They made
fentode
-
a .

But .
not Brought into

Action .

Advents of Rule of
Mughals
Sheil
The
-

/ is a Code of Conduct .

Teaching of most progressive laws of the world is Islam .

o
Allen Quran)
•
Sunna (Prophet)

ljma
•

Kiiiyas
•

Shariat

¥ .

Entire Penal law in Islam is written Islam

as per punishment in .

1) Kisas -
Retaliation Center
eye )
it include Blood
money .

2) Hud -3 Whose Punishment has been

given in Holi Quran

Qazi .

3) Tazeer -

judge has discretion to

Give Punishment as Per

need of case
Strength of Ipc -
Based on
Culpa de

Aspect was
given in §HARin Also include

/ Death By negligence
•
.

1) total -
e- amod

L
wilfully murder

2) total -
e -
Shaban -
homocide with knowledge
without desire
any .

3) total -
e- theta -

Accidental death .

4) Negligence
Intention
Believe
jy ,ndÉeReesonH
.

Lord Mealey -
Break up of
isfound in Islamic low

Advent
of British
Lahey started with Calcutta
/ Common law
Bombay of England was
-
Madres operating .

-
E. 1. c- Come into Rule
-

Regulating Act 1773

7-
/ Come .

have fallout
now we
important ] ,
criminal .

Separate Criminal
District fonts were

Courts in I made
Gery known as
prelims

taydori
" "
district . Court
Criminal "

Diwgni Courts
"

civil
 First time in India
"

a Supreme Court comes

up
-

Nizemot Sodor Adalat

-
Started in Calotte
-
26 merch 1774 .

Need
of 2 more Supreme Court
in Madras -
1800

in 1823
Bombay
-

They Continued till 1861 -

High Court
Act was

passed .

No Se -

186-1 -

Got Act
"

/ Cavitt
madras "
tie Act made -
All Sc cancelled f- Bomb
-

charter
new tee were made
By of
1935 -
Federal Court queen
was made -

Again mode

to
Supreme Court was made .

Supreme Court work done was done

By Privy Council in
England .

1793 -
lord Cornwallis
-
-2
"" ""

Started Zilla Courts -4

Appetizers
were made
Tproper District Court

|
.

1) Europeanjudge ° "" ""

y hind , g) muslim g) {✗ pen .

•
Dhaka
• Murshidabad
• Patna
Till
yyggygy
.
 (Renewed
I years)
After 20

Charter of 1833

L 1St low Commission India

of cues setup in 1834 .

/
Headed
by
Thomas
Bebington Macaulay .

given a first task

of writing a first Common Penal

Code

1837 -
Wrote whole IRC
OF India .

(
unable to operate
1857 -
Great Indian Revolt

Mughal Rule End -

B. D. 211 -

Rangoon .

1858 -

foI Act
✓
British Rg -
India .

1st law 1857

implement
-

L
6 oct 1860 -

Sau General Assented .

However
, People need time to Adopt and understand .

Enforcement till 1st

o o was deferred may 1861

Then 8 month Extended

again .

Come
1st
January into
-

1862 .

Effect

IPC

3 chapters have been Added Since 1837 .

•
Criminal Conspiracy 5A
•
Elections 9A

•
Cruelty against married women
2o④
Principles of Criminality
Principle Accused Presumed
lost is to be innocent unless
prooued Guilty, Beyond
-

Reasonable

Presumed to innocent A- why Prove ? Doubt

① be Should the Accused Be made to .

/
Presumption of Innocence
Ancient
/ Roman low
f-
.

-
Let too accused Go Free Rather than 1 innocent suffer .

B.op -
was on Accused Earlier .

I
had to
proved his innocence .

Landmark judgment come

•
Woolmington 4s Director of Public Prosecution 493 5) England
.

to
Petn Breaking judgment -
it was now held that the B. op

to Proving guilt of Accused is

always on
Prosecution neuerShif
,

f .

Affirms -
Accused has done Crime
L
B. op -
is on him .

"

onus of Proving Accused

Guilty
-
is
Always on

prosecution "

-
"

Right from Beginning .

The End
"

This law enemetes to .

from .

Basic Principle of Jurisprudence

"
He who moves the Court Proves the Point !
,

Ancient lime -
There was
But Still He has to
Principle ,
-

his innocence
a .

/ Prone
let too Accused .
Released .
 I

Woolmington
-

Become the first landmark

judgment .

(1935) -
Boo .P -

always on prosecution
<
it never shifts .

What will Be The Standard of Proof ?

To what Extent Do I Proove ?
,

There are 4 Standards of Proof

D Beyond Shadow of doubt -

most strict

(2)
a

Beyond Reasonable doubt -

mere Doubts But Evidence are
,

"°"
well -

3) Preponderance of Probability -

Civil law sufficient .

not "" """ " "" " " "" "" "
" "
"

° "

ever L minimum
probability
sirs

S.one.by Prudent
Doubt of a Re man .

Case Evidence
•
In no
, pitchure perfect
Are
found .

fmere misplaced Sun

]
③
But All other Evidence ere found
☐ ↳ Sufficient to convict

Hiiiii] Prosecution -
will prove
9s -1 the at
guilt
-
.

Lmore
Probability -
Civil low Beyond
Then Yes ! Reasonable
doubt

-
.
?⃝
In India , Wodminglon Principle -
Was Also Been Seen
in

• SL Goswami v. state of MP

(197-2) Sc

tip Admin . v. om Prakash

(191-2) Sc

It was held that Reasonable doubt is not suspicion ; Conviction has to

Be made on

So Court Cannot Based it Reason

judgment on •

Suspicions
0
Conjectures -
If this is

Everything to Be Proved o
Surmises .
Situation,
"

By Fact" This might

ppen
Not
Allowed .

Exqepti.cn#- Evidence
Indian Act .

5113 A -
Court takes a
presumption ,

if tact is Proved

yE×cePtions_
• one .

Then B. op shifts to Accused .

iizsa
]
G- wife died
-

within Cruelty is
7-
year BOP
113 B
-

was There
of
marriage µ A
shift

111A
] To
B. OP -

Shift .

to Accused
Accused .

f) Dowry -
Cruelty = B- OP
shift to Accused .

Demand
 All These Exceptions Based ,
on
Public Policy •
Dowry Cases increasing
• Women Empowerment .

B. O' P The Accused Guilty is always on

Prosecution and it never shift .

Discuss it with Case laws and Critical Examine

?

The Age old maxim Let the too Accused go Free , Rather than 1 innocent
,

suffer is Basis of Criminal This Aspect laid down

the
jurisprudence .
was in

Ancient Criminal
jurisprudence , however Accused has to Groove his innocence which

was Against the age old principle .

Realising this a landmark judgment Woolmington

-
The B. OP the Accused is always on
,

Prosecution -
And never Shift

Standard of - Beyond Reasonable

Having doubt
✓
.

Dome Principle
held
by Sc -
in flfoswemi v. State of MP ( 1972)Sc
and in other
many
judgments .

(MA ) Sc
Another one
Being Rabinder Dey State of orissa
-

v .

also in tip Administration v. Om Prakash (197-2) Sc Where

,
Woo /minion was Reiterated .

And it Held BOP all the

was
, ingridienbg Offence is

always prosecution this Burden Shifts The Standard

on and never ,
of
Roaring Being Beyond Reasonable doubt .

Public Constitution
However as Per demand
of Policy and our
,
There were Certain Exceptions laid down in our

Evidence act in Certain sections

H3B,h3A,ll1A,lM
-

105

once a Fact is Proved -

Court takes
,

Presumption Then - B. of Shifts to

Accused ,
No Doubt This Aspect
Seemingly negates wool minion
,
But Then
it is Based on Public Policy and

The Principle enshrined in our Constitution .

Actus Mon Fecit Reum nisi mens sit Rec

,
.

Act
itself does not make a
person Guilty Unless his intentions were

so
-7
Criminal
Basis of
jurisprudence
-
Basically Aspects
has 2

--
Acts mens
-
¥0S Prohibited Rea
EY
-

not
defined _
dictionary meaning
In IPC involve #a movement of muscles "

Act Prohibited Actus Reus

By Law =
.

Actus - Can
,
be Continuing
Reus
Called
Series of
They
-

an Act . are as

Tie-in
"
"

Every Actus Reus -

Be a separate charge

( /
"

Be Treated Separately Contains

many Actus Reus
"

Tried
Separately
Punished Separately .
7 But
 (RPC Allows joinder
ct-A-R.us
-

Charge -
Court Accepted That yes This Actus Reus has
,
/ Been done .

On That only, Trial will Be done .

'

I
to

Since a Port of One Transaction

= one Trial .

c-
Hangman -

tomoeide -
Not Prohibited Because of
"
Individual
-
homocide .
-
Prohibited Joinder of Charges ?
I
Actus Punishable
prohibited
-

it law
Reus
only by .

"

Votary
"
•
Actus -
must Be
Reus
Base
539 -

Word
A Person is said
→
of

t-test IPC

voluntarily he Causes
By
/
when
,

he intended it
whereby to loose
means "
,

④ By the time employing Those

if my Act
at
means
of means .

which he knew Actus me

•
not voluntary
④ he had invited ,
foetus
Reason to Believe non est mens
=☒ Then not

to be
my Act
Cause it
likely to . Actus .

(
Done Against my

]
Intention = Black will .

wherever word
Knowledge = Dark grey
Reason to Believe =
light Grey .
voluntarily is used

( it w, ,, include These three .

 -

21 June

light Srey Be
Reason to Believe -
A
certain probability (Rolex Example )
. ,

☒ out edge -

High Probability -
Forsee
ability of Cons even ' 's
Za (paper knife Example )
, ne , ,
by Supreme Court .

Derk Grey BE
not
may or
may
have -

Desire
"

Paper Knife Attack 25 times At Heart

"
-

Showing Desire
to
kill
Black E-
/

Intention = Forsee
ability of Consequences
/ -* .

Highest Probability Desire

That Act will
my
follow .

Sigmund Freud -

(Austrian Psychologist)
Had
Mind has 3 Parts -
• Conscious
•

Sub Conscious
-
-

if I am
doing An
•
I am -

Act of Stabbing
not •
Unconscious
Aware

/
Consequences Sub Conscious
my knowledge ; Forsee
ability of my
-

to

wants it
But
.

Consciousness does not want it

my

if there is a
Desire ; then Consciousness wants it
my
.
-

Conscious Desire /
-

Knowledge .

Does not Give Any

Sub Conscious
-

Benefit -
Whether your Act is F-
B-
og
- no desire

only knowledge
Voluntary "
still it is

11
"

Voluntary
.

Desire least of all

only
1- Forsee ability Probable Reason is
torse
ability ot
it must happen
OF
consequences
consequences (Reason to
(knowledge)
Believe)
intention (intention )
Voluntary = Grade 2

(Grade )
or

Grade 1
:S
knowledge
or

Reason to Believe -

5.3.6 IPC
 ⑦ ④ Freindsi
-
-

Pushes ⑤
¥qGs3I
_É
-m£
tells down -

There is a stone

⑨ hit her head and dies .

What is
liability of ④
There are 2 Acts

]
•
Pushing of ⑨
-

cause
•
④ dies
.
.

of death is not
Voluntary

④ however hurt her as intention was

just to
push ⑨ ,

/ howsoever ⑨ has died . was

just
to Cause
never thought ⑨ could fell down at Stone .

.
Simple hurt .

Hence offence must be the direct Consequence of Act

my .

Act must Be -
•
natural -

•
direct -
Then
only I can Connect ④ with an offence .

immidiate The
§⑨
death
of
•
.

not
Direct Consequence
-
was a •

of AO's Act

why ④ not liable for Murder .

•
not also An immediate

]
bcz A does not have intention
any
- -
•

reflection of ④
1) intention
•

Knowledge ,

•
Reason to Beilieve .

Act

]
was hence not
naturally
-
•

immidiale Because of the lack These

of 3
•

Directly result
matter
④

④ -

Eats ⑨
(☒)-in his chest

-
lungs
Are
Resulted in ⑨ -

Serious injury
punctured .

Ambulance met with An • Accident

17%1
Bt
-
Public Colts Ambulance B dies As a

ftp.OF-G-IE.TT -

later an
Result of An

Accident .

a- 0
1)④ -

liable for
•
murder ☐
or

•
Attempt for murder ☐

later an
②
A- GAG -

Shoots 0 Ambulance met with An • Accident

¥# ③ in Arms
g.
intention to B dies As
with An kill .
Dope a

17%1
•
-
Public Colts Ambulance Result of An

ftp.OIG-LF.dz -
Accident .

Q -
what is ④ liability
•
murder ☐
or
•
Attempt for murder ☐

①3
o
G- ¥ A ⑨ -
in his -

⑨ taken to

⑦ Shoot?
Abdomen -

③ Recover in 3 month

But wound open

get
-

it Become
and again

A- Discuss the liability of ④! Septic

-

⑨ -
dies
in all these ③ questions There are 2 Causes An
intervening Cause
'

,
.

Theory of intervening cause

Given by Criminal
jurist
-

•
H.LA Hart
-

Bring a Paper -

Causation in law
Honor É
°

Glanville William -
Geber present in

Cambridge University)
"
Criminal law Causation "
.

They Both Together Became the

"
Theory of Causation
"
.

This Theory will be applied if

only
there are more than one causes .

Whenever we apply The theory of causation:

It means that there are more than one causes and we have to now see
which is that cause, which has actually resulted in the offence.

Summary: The theory of causation as propounded by H.L.A Hart and Honoré and Glanville
Williams which basically propounded the theory of intervening cause . This theory means that it
is to be presupposed there are more than one causes , After that we have to see which cause has
actually effected or resulted in an offence.

Case ± Cause
"

Causa Gogan
"

Punctured loose 1- Major

④
-
Eon, ⑨ lungs were
Answer -

f-
(§)-in his chest
1 I

B About to die
2- minor Cause Causa Sine
.

0
fuse
-

' '

1)④ qua non

liable for
-

Ambulance met with An • Accident

•
murder BBQ
or B dies As a
•
Attempt for murder ☐
Result of An

Accident
BdT .
Case 2

O
1) ④ 0 r needs Dressing only
-

Shoots
¥# ③ in Arms
HE
with An intention to him
-
minor Cause

•
Bullet touched and Escaped .

later an

Ambulance met with An • Accident

B dies As a
Cause
-

Major
Result of An

Accident .

-0
1)④ -

liable for
•
murder ☐
or

Attempt BBQ -307

Case 3
•
for murder

o
G- ¥ A ⑨ -
in his -

⑨ taken to
-

cause
major
⑦ Shoot?
Abdomen -

③ Recover in 3 month -0
1)④ -

liable for
But wound open
get
-

minor Cause
murder Bka
-
•

it Become
and again
or

•
Attempt for murder ☐
Septic
-

⑨ -
dies

Theory of Ordinary Hazard

in this
hospital,
-

There are Covid Patients

0
A- This Person gets a Bullet .
liability of ④
-
307

Admitted Covid tie dies of Corona

to weird
;
'

Lordi nary hazard .

 🏨
🤢

Case

goes to Hospital

/ -

But there is XYZ flu .

Got enough to kill )

( Few person are

dying ]
Because
liability of ① -

murder

of Blood loss
by fun Fire
,
He became
very weak

And that Xyz

catches -
infection and died .

Because of

Blood loss .

22 June Actus Reus

• Time •
Fact

•
Place • Person

Time -
S -
392 IPC
y
Sunset Punishment ordinary Robbery
Robbery btw Sunrise more then
-
-
.

Actus Reus with Relation to time .

0
Fact -

0
MAG -
married
1)③
1
to

Falls in

love with 0 Punishable

g) c-
decided -
Bigamous marriage -
015494 IPC .

to

marry
At 10 : Am (Actus Reus )

At 95-5 Am
[ (since wife
③ dies ,
no offence died )

[ now not An Actus Reus

place -
Robber]
Lat highway
/ Smoking At Public
place
Got
039 "
home ) ]-

Actus Reus .

Person Adultery fish Decriminalized Doli incapcx

y
- -
-
•

(wite Actus Reus

/
-

male unsound mind

women
of somebody)
-
o

-
/ not liable

liable
(Person)
?⃝
 ILLEGAL
Act ←* omission

[ includes } •

jail or does not save food to the prisoner

Prisoner die .

Omission
/-
Illegal omission
commission L not ordained LAW
by
.

/
Duty ordained if duty if i omit
f-
does Give
by law not a - NO

any
law That
duty Reus .

Food to
Beggar
•
•
No Care to old Parent
0
I
/ 7- I did not gave -

She died
Duty ordained
by

/
"
"
Senior Citizen Act 2007

if Children -
does not omission -
moral omission

took Care
of [ not Actus Reus .

their Parents
]
•

it
they
-

grandparents have

no means to
fend from themselves .

Offence

Line gal omission .

Rajkumar v. State of Haryana Ga83)Se

0
Atlus bend -

wanted to kill his wife €

Whenever He used to
fo to his office ,
0
A locked her in the Room .

Bread Till
] ,-
•
food -
Half loaf of 3 month

Half Glass water

 Women Became

Weak
Very And was going
to

Die .

One
day B
⑦ Husband left
window open .
(wife Escaped and

file a Case in the

① Police station )

1) Husband liable For •

Attempt to Murder .

[ illegal
• omission .

Mens Rea -
•
Ginty intention
L ti .LA Hart -
mens Ree is a
Blameworthy mental condition .

A④
Free Negligence / Rashness .

will

mind -
G- Hunger -
Bread shop .

/
wish For the ⑧ -

To Eat the Bread .

✓
my Hunger (impulse
Bread will overcome )

Coupled with motive

Impulse -
Person know that Bread will
Fulfill his Wentz .

→
I must have a Motive .

proportionate - most deep Emotion . (Beginning ground)→ with which the

Impulse Motive Foundation of the

1
1 offence start .

no impulse -8
if no motive -

interchangeable

• wish For The End -

Deliberation Start

To do -
To not to do .

Debate Going on

he become ]
determine -
To Do -

(This Final determination to do) -

Intention (Formed ).

1.
 intent.ae may change generally Preparation
poem -
-
in mind - to do
not

punishable .

Intention
f. Do

/
not Who Knows Attempt
Punishable "
whats in the mind "
.
/ Punishable
Successful
( Even the Devil ✓ Act

himself Knoweth not

the mind of men

)

Impulse
1
ofIntention
motive Desire -

most important concept

I
wish For an end ①Husband Shoot ÉwiFe For Good Intention
I
L has no Value in

Deliberation Ipe
I •
Can be useful in Crm

Determination •
Can be taken into Consideration
1 "

Sentencing
"
For
(Free)
Reparation But it cannot Absolve
1
You From
Any offence .

Attempt
1
Act .
Csociessjui ) Side Effect -

Inseparable Effect

0
1) A- Pilot ⑧
( 17 Diamond merchant
-

1- Small Plane done or

Bring Big Polish and cut diamond

diamond unpclisn diamond -

South Africa

(f)
and send Polish diamond

④ deuelob to South Africa .

freed
/ Pot take diamond / and a Bomb
7
🥷 🏚👪 🏘
1
Plane Blast

⑦
1) Pilot dies

[ No Desire
Here Act Become -
to kill him .

I
Inseparable .

]
Iem Insensitive .

Still I Be

liable f-crit
-

Ctcrseecbility of Consequences)
→ • __

Inseparable
Effect
Act was -
A was Finsen sits've

voluntary E Reckless

/
•
To ultimate
effect
.

Liable for death of

Person -

Though it was not desired .

 -
5- zoo (4) IPC

23 :
June
-

Russian roulette •

•
-

Where you expose the victim, To a serious

risk of harm then forceeability of
consequences is there. Therefore the act of
Russian roulette Will also be covered
under the ambit of foreseeability of
consequences.

Mens Rea -
Basic Aspect
Guilty intention

Lys -
food .
intention

After Dark Ages -

There was a Dawn of Reasons .

Everything weigh the Scale

-

was on

Reasons
of .

-
LAW was now Based on Reasons .

"
"
of the offence
why was ←
Covered .

Does that Accused had a

offence

Guilty Intention - was separated from • Accident and

guilty intent:

A- First pronouncement Rea

judicial of mens
!
Fowler Vls Padget .
4798)

(
first Case to
Apply the provisions of mens Rea .

Two important matters Came up at the time Rea

!
of mens

Concept of Mala in se
•
= -

Strict liability
/•
Mala in prohibito µ intrinsically wrong .
(
wrong / evil in
itself ]
( An
glory
law it be
wrong )
Act declare
prohibited by the .
is
wrong ,
because law to
R VIS Prince Gs
?s
)
Henry Prince -
was in love with the girl named , Anne Phillips .

( Age)
-

16 years
-

Henry Prince took that

girl and married her
,
Be
living that she is Above ④

in
English law
taking a minor
girl out of

the
Custody of Parents ,
is an
offence

of kidnapping .

Anne 's Father

filed a Case
against they .

[ in his
defence
stated that , he that Anne is
generally thought above 18

as her appearance like that

years ,
was
only .

H’s reasonable belief was therefore no defence,

and the conviction was upheld. Court held that
his act was intrinsically wrong and it was
Mala in Se.
Queen Ms Tolson ( 1889)

P
Tolson -
deserted his wife .

After then he disappeared .

Mrs. Tolson
L Tried her Best to find Mr. Tolson .

later it found that Tolson to America the Ship

was
,
was
leaving from .

But Ship Sank

Mrs Tolson
-

did further inquiries from her end and

,

left no Stones unturned

1
.

She looked him at Race ÷ Snip office

every
•

• Insurance office

•
Police station

o Tolson home .

At last She had a believe that Tolson has been dead .

After that Mrs Tolson.

remarry Before
her 7- years of marriage .

After That
,
Mr Tolson Came Back . and
filed a Case
of Bigamy Against Mrs. Tolson .

Court held that :-. Deserter was Mr Tolson

.

himself .

The Ship sunk Reason to Believe That Tolson had

information of made
everyone a Mr been dead
• .

,
.

•
She tried her level Best to Find Mr. Tolson .

•
No doubt
, offence of Bigamy Can be imposed, But the Act of Mrs Tolson
. was not an Act
of
Mala in Sej it Could be Mala
prohibition .

Acquitted Ms .
Tolson .

Mala in Prohibited -
We Cannot Say ,
That this Could be Applicable in IR .

1- Section
hough we have Some
; we have two
judgments .

Court may in its

-
wisdom ,
may give
maximum
Relief ,
But as we said
,

← Good Intention has no value in IPC

 Mala in se
Nevertheless
,
Basic Principle of •

] - is a law .

• mda Prohibit.o

Case of Strict
State of Bombay
liability UK MH George
-

.
.

fo¥
The respondent, Mayer Hans George, a German smuggler, left Zurich by plane on
27th November 1962 with 34 kilos of gold concealed on his person to be delivered
in Manila. The plane arrived at Bombay on 28th of November. The Customs
Authorities, as a part of their duties, inspected to check if any gold was
dispatched by any traveller and looked through George, seized his gold and
accused him of the offence under sec 8(10) and 23(1-A) of the Foreign Exchange
Regulation Act.

The state of Maharashtra contended that the act was passed keeping in mind the
pirating of gold since it has become the major financial concern of the nation.
Moreover looking at the importance of the act it can be inferred that the mens rea is
an irrelevant element in assuming the culpability of the offender. The strict
adherence of the act refutes such assumptions and demonstrates that mens rea is
not a fundamental element of the offence. It was further contended that the warning
was already given on 8th November, 1962 by the Board of Revenue; therefore it can
be assumed that offender consented to bring old in India. However, in the present
case, George did not mention the quantity of gold with him in the Manifest. The
respondent that is George has, therefore, contradicted the act and hence his offence
should be taken into consideration. 
Stale Contention

It is a general provision that any new rule is published in the Official Gazette. The
purpose of publishing a new act in official Gazette is to create awareness among the
people in large about the passes act. It is to be noted that the particular act was
published on 24th November, 1962 and by 25th November, 1962 the said act was
deemed to be notified to the concerned citizens by then. 

Respondent Defence .

However, the respondents were of the view that mens rea is a fundamental element of
any criminal offence and George was not aware of the notification published by the
Reserve Bank. The notice could be said to be enforceable when it comes to the
knowledge of the people who is influenced and affected by it. Another point raised by
the responded was that the warning requires exposure was not pertinent to the
traveller carrying gold. It was contended that a person who was not aware of the Indian \

Provision and has no intention to bring gold in India cannot be said to possess the
intent to break the law and hence should not be prosecuted under the act.

Ignorance of law is not an Excuse even

by a

foreigner

*•
After hearing the arguments from both the sides, judges were of the
view that any product which has gold attached to it and the person
carrying it will be prosecuted, this whole process seems
superfluously cruel and nonsensical. 
However, the court further said that even though mens rea is an
essential requirement to commit a crime but regardless of that the
statutory provision can exclude the mental element. The express
words of the statute can exclude the mens rea as an essential
ingredient of the crime. This may be done for various reasons, for
instance, to promote public welfare and activities or to eradicate
social evils. The statute which complies strict liability helps the
offender to assist the state in the enforcement of the law.

When the provision of the act clearly and explicitly prohibits carrying a certain
amount of gold and then if a person chooses to carry gold more than the specified
amount without disclosing it in the manifest than he will be held liable. 
The further said that it cannot interfere with the sentenced passed by the lower
courts unless they are in violation of the principle or are illegal. But since this
case has some unusual characters therefore George was convicted but his years
of imprisonment was reduced.  

Nathu Lal v. State of Madhya pradesh ( 1966 ) Sc

male in prohibit was There

But inherent Power were used .

Earlier in our country, there were no food grains, due to which

people used to do smuggling of foodgrains.
There were foodgrain prevention act to prevent the smuggling of
grains.
As per those acts, if you have had to sell grains, You were required
a license for it.
After independence, India relied on food crop supplies from the United
States under Public Law 480 (PL-480) against rupee payments. Later
this measure was considered as a folly.

The P. L. 480 agreements aim at supply of surplus agricultural

commodities from the U.S.A
America used to give us the expired commodities And unfortunately
we have to use it. The conditions were very poor but luckily in 1969
Green Revolution in India came and we became self-sufficient in
food.

At the time, one person demanded for a licence to sell wheat,

Although he had applied for it within the time period but since our
nation is an example of red tapism, therefore it was very difficult
for the accused to get the licence. There was an unnecessary delay in
the giving of licence to the person.
After around one and half year of constant nagging and
struggling, The authorities finally made the license for him, but
they said that the license will reach to you by the post. He came home
and in the anticipation of the license, he brought a ton of wheat.

He Stored the wheat in his home, but before the license could came,
The officials raided the house. He was caught for the offence of
smuggling food grains.

The matter went to the Supreme Court, supreme Court said that
although he had committed an offence of having the wheat without
the license and hence it could be an act of “Mala prohibitio”, but it
could not be said to be an act of “Mala in se” at all.

Supreme Court accepted to give relief to the accused, and thus it

Become a rare case in which despite the fact, accused had done an act
against the law, he was acquitted and it was ordered to give the fine
back if any submitted.

Supreme Court used its inherent power u/a 142 to give justice to the
accused.
Role of mens rea in IPC
Earlier
It was the duty of the judge to find out the mens rea. Now it was a
difficult thing to say which mens rea would apply on which case as
there are so many shades of mens rea. Law at that time does not tell
us, which mens rea would make the offence an offence.
Now
Now, every section of Indian penal code gives its own requisite mens
rea. For eg.
Whosoever dishonestly -

if This is not there mens Rea

.
-

Commits theft C. dishonestly

Robbery
/
These Could be
never
offence Fraudulently
•
an . .

Extortion
in Cases Where no mens
,

Rea is
given Cg Rape
-
.

Here Strict

IPC liability is imposed .

mens Rea no
mens

Rea given
given
Dishonestly
Maliciously
Negligently
if They
f- strict
liability
are A " other matter of
Corruptly
-
are .

Fraudulently no , given
Recklessly Ranjit udeshi 4s State
of
Maharashtra 696s)
s!

*
In this case, a boy was selling A pornographic based novel by D.H
Lawrence.
It was banned in India, and he was arrested u/S 292 IPC, for sale
of obscene books.

Matter went to Supreme Court.

The appellant, a bookseller, sold a copy of the unexpurgated edition

of "Lady Chatterley's Lover".
Be not stated by Sir .

In his appeal to the Supreme Court he contended that :

(i) the section was void because it violated the freedom of speech and
expression guaranteed by Art. 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.,
(ii) even if the section was valid, the book was not obscene and
(iii) it must be shown by the prosecution that he sold the book with the
intention to corrupt the purchaser, that is to say, that he knew that the
book was obscene.

Respondent Contended that -

Accused is illetrate ,
he have no
knowledge About the Book .

SC court held that, In section 292 there is a word whosoever not

whosoever knowingly, hence the law strict liability will apply to the
accuse.

A- is Rea to IPC
mens
Apply offences .

State of Bombay versus M.H George

State of Gujrat v. A.D pandey (197-1)
( 196s )
] -
Common

Actus non
law
of England
facet Reum, nisi mens
,

sit

Rea does Indian

not
Apply to
-

LAW .

All Rea ( intention )

mens
guilty
( which will be
given the
Benefit
it it was allowed

will be
having a Specific chapter -

Decided
by
LAW .
Court will be
given benefit

list Those Acts To decide he

of has
" whether

General Exceptions
"

intention Bad
•
where mens Rea Excluded . G- g- too) good or

" intention
its mola in se
"
determine whether
Court will
•
not

or not .
will be a total Ceos
 "
which Makin Se to Mens Rea
"
All the Rea not
Exceptions
are
• mens -
•

• Which are not punishable

capable
]
where not
you are
•

in
making mens Rea
•

Justified
•

Anything Fall in This

Every
will the
Benefit
•
Section will create get
from the All Criminal

Generally) laws /
.

It mens Rea .

524
HE Dishonestly In
-

wrongful loss
/ wrongful gain
-
823 .

Just prove my Act was not

dishonestly .

if it is not
dishonestly - it would not be An
offence .

"

Taking a book with an intention to Return

-
( not
dishonestly
Be
-

IIa no
offence
All Sections Sections which
I
are given
-

Requisite does not have Mens Rea

mens Rea
All Which
.

Excusable /
Dishonestly Only - Whoever
are
Justified Maliciously Prosecution
only not -
Whoever
Negligently
-

By Law
Corruptly have to dishonestly
Exceptions (76-106) Fraudulently
general
-

Recklessly Prove this .

Bo

strict liability will be

imposed upon him .

Actus non tacet Reum , nisi Sit Rea -

Eg Ranjit bdeshi Case IPC

mens
29,2
-
-

hence no need to
AMY ,
Because IPC Sale of obscene
has given a Complete Treatment Books
to mens
.

sea

by distinguishing it
•
Rape
to dijjrent Parts
'

mind
waging war no
•

Court need not to Apply own mind

,
when
aspect is

to Rea and to not

give mens when .
taken into
State of Bombay versus M.H George ( 196s )
State of Gujrat v. A.D pandey Consideration
(191-1) .

"

L common law doctrine Actus

nonje.ee/-Recm
"

is not Applicable to
Statutory Crime in India because
,
.

"
such a Maxim is wholly out
of Race in Indian Criminal law .

mind i e
also the state
of
-

"
State not Accused must have done, But
Gery offence is defined and the
definition only what
mens Rea !

Hence there is no need of Court to Apply own mind regarding the Application of "
mens Rea " .
Court will
only Apply
: Mala in prohibit
The the
Court Standi
Benefit if
"
has locus to give
"
Mala in se it is under the
no
g an
offence
"

letter and Spirit

"
law
of .

Punishment -

upto -
"
Mala in se
"
-

Benefit can

/ Be given in
Sentencing .

Punishment
can be given till
Similarly in Nathu 1h Case Also -
it was an Exception
the of the /
Rising
Court .
Where Sc used

Power
of A¥ 14¥
Can Reduce Punishment lower Court
in
sentencing .

Cannot have

this Power
But t
they
have to do

justice as well .

The Latin maxim, “actus non facet reum nisi mens sit rea” is not
applicable to Indian criminal courts, as was held in the two
judgements of the Supreme Court MH George and A.D Pandey case .
The reason being:
1. All the mens rea which are excusable or Justifiable are laid down
in a single chapter “General exceptions”
2. These are applicable to all criminal laws of the country
Certain sections have been appended with the requisite mens reas eg:
dishonestly, fraudulently etc..

in all these matters,these mens reas have to be prove by The

prosecution in order to secure a conviction or by the accused to
disprove in order to prove in order to secure an acquittal.

Third category where no mens rea is been provided all the matters of
strict liability in which the case of Ranjit Udeshi was a classic
example. In other words, the court need not discern the mens rea.
Only matter is that the act has been done voluntarily.
 Transfer of mens rea or transfer of malice
Murder
He cannot take
Benefit of Fact that he intends ②
-

never to kill
⑨ Milled ②
noon

moment there is malice against

murder rnesañue intention
was
a
only ,
"

⑦ mistake ⑨
For
"
'y kills
⑨ Believing ;+ to Be @ But ij Else Suffered The negative
- But

Transfer
- Anybody ,
to

⑦ -
Shoots At ⑨ Hills
,
c intention en block
transferred to Second Person .

¥
murder his Children ④ will be equally liable had killed
ow n
,
as
if he

liability win
•* •
be fame the intended person ⑨ .

Death

①
Ere
a
e¥→•I§¥ -
By Negligence
304 A

1 Lmiscneij (Attempt)
⑦ Shoots at
Dog But bullet hits ② -

lady
[
no
Transfer of malice From an Animal to a human But, its A Negligent / Rash Act
or vice versa .
,
f.
304A
•
Death =
Death of a human Being .
-
Cannot be used Against An Animal .

Animal = than human

other
Being
•
a .

•
Attempt to -
3o7#
E- murder

in ⇐
Dog killed
instead a women
/ of
intention to

kill
lady But
Dog Killed .
?⃝
?⃝