THE NDIAN PENAL CODE (ACT XLV OF 1860) [Received the assent of the Governor-General on October 6, 1860.) CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION WHEREAS it is expedient to provide a general Penal Preamble. Code for India; It is enacted as follows >— n Penal Code, . 1. This Act shall be called the. Indiat pt the State of Title and extent of 7 operation of the Code. and shall extend to the whole of India exce Jammu and Kashmir. n Penal Code was drafted by the first Indian Law Lord) Macaulay was, the President. and afterwards I Mi nor-General of India in Council in 1837; but it was s place on the Indian Statute Book. al law, as modified by several Acts,’ was ad- ministered in the Pre: yns of Bombay. Calcutta and Mad. But in the mofussil, the Courts were prin ipally guided by the Mohamedan criminal law, the glaring defects of which were partly removed by Regulations ‘of the local Gov- ernments. In 1827. the Judi system of Bombay was thoroughly revised and from that time the Jaw which the cr minal Courts ‘administered was set forth ina Regulation’ defining offences and specifying punishments. But in the Bengal and Madras Presidencies the Mohamedan criminal Jaw was in force till the Indian Penal Code came into operation. Offences committed prior to operation of Code.—Such offences were still punishable under the ‘old Acts and Regulations.” Where there is some overlapping between offences Overlapping Offenc contained in IPC and other enactments, the Supreme Court said that it would not COMMENT.—The Indias Commission of which Mr. was submitted to the Gov not until 1860 that it took Before 1860, the En jency-tow Act XXXI of 1838; Acts, XXL, e Pra Ke , ie and “ Act XXXL of 1838: Acts XMM and XXX0 of 1839, —_—_ 1. 9 Geo, IV, 74: Acts VII and XIX or Ie f joint Select Committee Report—Some Com mments, ‘Acts VII and X of 1844; Act XVI Ieihn Porat Cade and Reflections ont (1980) 22 JIL 307. 2. XIV of 1827. 43.) Mulua; (1878) |All 599, contra Diljour Mi jisser, (1877) 2 Cal 225, (FB). 1| 2 THE INDIAN PENAL CODE [CHAP 1 ler IPC, The court concerned can | mean that the offender could not be tried uns in | pronounce on such issues on the basis of evidence produced before it The mere \ Pact that the offence in question was covered by the Cust {°° ae | er IPC if it also falls under Ht mean that it could not be tried und bic to punishment un. ; < 'g e lial 1 Punishment of of 2,Aévery person shall be liabic 1 | : fences conte wie-7 gr Thi Code land not otherwise for every eee a inne de untrary to dire provisions (er au be guilty within India. with the intra-territorial operation of the } COMMENT. ot very person in any par Code. It makes the Code universal in! application er penne Co ay maf Tadia for every act or omission contrary (0, the Peo be launched, as it follows scribes no fixed time within which prosecution ea ig i cwevel, does not hold the maxim nullum fentpus occurril PEs rsition, iS wed in its entirety as Chapter XXXVI (ss. 461 Oe oa ceptions e i a o limita z Tode. 1973 has introduced the concep! © it cee for a term ex. es which are not punishable with impri oF a | x TEE eA q Nections is, therefore, necessary (0 sce if ceeding three years. A reference to these the prosecution 1s time-barred or not. ; E de liable to punishment, without dis- £ y person’. ry person is mia \ sitiion oF nation, ery Perveed, provided. the offence with which he is charged has been commited in some part of India A foreigner who enters the Indian territories and thus accepts the protec 100) of Indian laws virtually gives an , assurance of his fidelity and obedience to them and submits himself to their op- eration. It is no defence on behalf of a foreigner that he did not know he was-da- ing wrong, the act not being an offence in bis own country. Though this is no defence veritis a matter to be considered in mitigation of punis! A person defer sjoted for an unnatural offence committed on board an bast India ship, Iying in St. Katherine's Dock. It was argued that he was a native of Baghdad where his act would not have amounted to an offence, but it was held that that was not a legal defence. —This section deals, J foreigner who commits an offence within India is guilty and can be punished Zs such without any limitation as to his corporal presence in India at the time.’ any cannot be indictable for offences whicl can be committed by 4 human individual alone, like treason, murder. perjury ctc., or for offences which gre compulsorily punishable with imprisonment of corporal punishment. There is no exception in favour of anyone in the Penal Code, but the following persons are always exempted from the jurisdiction of criminal Courts of ever! country:— ‘~ company SSS 4. Natarajan ¥. State, (2008) SCC 413. S. Bsop, (1836) 7 C. & P. 456: Jitendranath Ghosh yv. The Chief Secretary to the Governoer Bengal; (1932) 60 Cal 364: Mobarik Ali v. State of Bombay, (1 : SC 857: 1957 CrLJ 1346 (SC) RAMI, State of Bombay, (1957) 61 Bom LR 38 : AIR 1 of | AIR 1957 SC 857: 1957 Cr LJ IMOSEC.2]) INTRODUCTION 3 1. Foreign Soverei possessing equal ereians.— The World being c moted by intercourse with wen independence heuer ence sovereigntios which humanity dicta sea le, al by ann whose mutual benefit s_pro- felaxation in practice as nid its wants tequye. all cecen of those good offices solute and complete juri Aves under certain peculiar circu lave consented toa eignty confers, One soy i iction within (heir r spect ces of that a Ci eae one Sovereign being. in no re espective territories which sover- ind by obligations OF ie hag ye Fespect aneenable to another and bein Oa Be Te et ANE highest character otto degra the dignity of tis other. ean Be supposed to ene S sovercign rights within the jurisdiction of an- other cane supposed to enter a freign trsitory only under an express licence, station. though npt expressly imununiis belonging t his independent sovesign seed to aa The ea teary reserved by inplcation ‘and will be from the jurisdiction of ever Cae le on which the exemption, of every sovereign Jurisdiction would be incompatible with ne esel anil tha he eC absolute independence of every supe eae dijgnity.—that is to say, Wits 2. Ambassadors.—The i ‘ the Courts of the pie iment of an ambassador from the jurisdiction of f e try to which he is accredited is based upon being the representative of the independ sed ne hi i Sends him upon the fai pendent Sovereign or State which sends him, and which ondence " 1 he faith of his being ‘admitted to be clothed with the same inde- Pp of and superiority to all adverse jurisdiction as the sovereign authority whom he represents would be.!! He does not owe even a tempor -y allegiance to the Sovereign to whom he is accredited, and he has “at Teast as reat privileges from suits as the Sovereign whom he represents. He is not supposed even to live within the territory ‘of the Sovereign to whom he is accredited, and, if he has done nothing to forfeit or to waive his privilege. he is for all juridical purposes sup- osed still to be in his own country." In England the Diplomatic Privileges Act. i “ gan’ iplon 7 1964, enacts that a diplomatic agent shall enjoy immunity from the criminal ju- risdiction of the receiving State ‘and shall not be obliged to give evidence as a witness and such immunity extends to the members of his family. Privileges and immunities are ‘conferred on United Nations and its Representatives as well as on i jonal org: heir representatives by the United Nations other internation: ga i y anisations and tl (Privileges and Immunities) Act, 1947. 3, Alien enemies.—In respect of acts of war alien enemies cannot be tr ied by criminal Courts, If an alien enemy commits a crime unconnected with war. & theft, he would be t able by ordinary criminal Courts. Fore: , e State are by consent on the soil if 4. Foreign army- ies of one SI are by soil of a foreign State they are diction Of the State on whose soil they are. _8. Warship jurisdiction of tic Courts, in Toomer Exchange ¥. M'Facklon, (1812) 7 Chanch 116, 136, 137, 9, Per MARSHALL. Cin 3, in Sc Helge, 1880) 5 PD 197, 207. 10. fer Bee Gs. in The Poartment fee, (1880) 5 PD 197, 207 se er Tord CoMPBEL Cin ment Paar sieam Navigation Company v. Martin, (1859) 2 E & 94, MBaee I. | ks we 1047. —When armi e St ‘exempted from the juris ar of a State in foreign waters are exempt from the in whose territorial jurisdiction they are. The domes- s.—Men-of-W wn Mtineiples of international law, will accord (0 the the State will accordance W'4 THE INDIAN PENAL CODE (CHAP), ship and its crew and its contents certain immunities. The immynities-can, in any case, be waived by the nation to which the public ship belongs. Merchant Shipping Act—Where offences were committed by a. shippin, company which fell under the Indian Penal Code, it was held that the Merchan, Shipping Act, 1958 did not bar proceedings ander the Criminal Procedure Coge. 1974." 6. President and Gov President and Governor 2. ‘Within India’ «Under Art. 361 of the Indian Constitution, the risdiction of Courts nor: are exempt from the If the offence is committed outside India it is not punish. able under the Penal Code. unless it has been made so by means of special proyj. sions such as ss. 3, 4, LO8A, ete... of the Code. Territorial ju n,—The territorial waters of India extend into the sea to adistance of twelve nautical miles measured from the appropriate base line." The territories, stiiethy speaking, of a State include, therefore, not only the compass of and, in the ordinary acceptation of the term, belonging to such State, but also that portion of the sea lying along and washing coast, which is commonly called its maritime territory. fe laws of that State apply to acts committed within them, The Bombay High Court had previously held” that an offence committed on the high seas but within three miles from the coast of India, bein: committed within the territorial limits of India, was punishable under the provisions of the Penal Code. In this case certain of the inhabitants of a village sailed out in boats and pulled up and removed a number of fishing stak Jawlully fixed in the sea within three miles from the shore by the villagers of a neighbouring village. It was held that the local criminal Court had jur Code was the substantive law applica amounted to mischief. diction over the offenders, that the Penal ble to the case, and that the offence Ponishiment of of $3. Any person liable, by any Indian law, to be tried fences committed be-. for an offenc committed beyond India shall be dealt yond, but which by law. ith according to the provisions of this Code for any act may be tied 7 aa 4 India committed beyond India in the same manner as if such act had been committed within India. COMME This section and s. 4 relate to the extra-territorial operation of the Code. The words of this section postulate the existence of a law that an act constituting an offence in India shall also be an offence when committed outside India. Thus taking part in a marriage which is prohibited by the Child Marriage Restraint Act by a citizen of India beyond India is not an offence which can be punished in India.” This section only applies to the case of a person wha et the time of committing the offence charged was amenable to an Indian Court "Ths an Indian citizen who committed an offence outside India which was not an oF fence according to the laws of that country syould still be liable to be tried in In- was an offence under the Indian law.” An Indian citizen was murder 14, Chung Chi Cheung, (1939) A 45. Unnikrishnan vy. Divisional Inspector of Police, 2001 Cr LI 4553 (Ker). 62 Gazette of India Exiraardinary. Part Ill, Sec. 2, published on September 30, 1967. fya Rama, (1871) 8 BHC (Cr C) 63 WF. Syed Issa, (1939) HC (Cr C) 3:SEC)4)>| j INTRODUCTION ! ian citi 5 FIER" onthe ground than ie gee cory ; that the refusal y Mean yohtence Tatty and the ceed with investigation in acc, dtireete of the Penal Code helps the care as one committed within Indi No is made. But stich an in Mohd S side India out prior s he police refused'to register an if Committed outside India. The court held nee with alice {0 texister the crime and pro, Mec th the Fave. The court observed thats. 3 No dol iat €© proceed by treating the offence is by a fiction that such an remy assumption Sie te =o Was necessn cd Kv, State of Kerala i aty [ot practical purposes Eyal as ( a Havas held that an offence committed ou t citizen of hy ne i wt be investigated f Soe , Syitvestigated hy the local police even with- 4 ed to the cas sified i 2 tal hinal Procedure Code. 1973; specified in oe Extradi- [padmeot Extension of Code | S. 4. The provi to extraterritorial off fence committed by— ions of this Code apply also to any of- yout pay a zen of India in-any place without and be- (2) any person on any ship or aircraft registered in India wherever it may be. *[(3) any person in any place wit "i ti : place without and beyond India itting of- fence targeting a computer resource Tocated in India.) ne Se +[Explanation.—In this section— (a) the word “offence” includes every act committed outside India which, if committed in’ India, would be punishable under this Code; (6) the expression “computer resouree” shall have: the meaning as- signed to it in clause (k) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Infor- snation Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000)] ILLUSTRATION commits a murder in Uganda. He can be tried and convicted ‘n which he may be found. ‘A. who is a citizen of India. of murder in any place in In COMMENT.—Thi section shows the extent to which the Code applies to of- Fe etminitted outside India. The Code apples '0 ay offence committed by (1) any citizen of India in any place ‘without and beyond India; and (2) any person on any ship or air craft registered in India wherever it may be. Crimes committed out! ide Indi —Where an offence is committed beyond the limits of India but the offender is found within its limits, then n up for tial (I) he may be give! } in the country where the offence was commit- ted (extradition), OF 21. Remia v, Sub-Inspector of Polic Y WeBe. Jugal Kishore, AIR 1969 22, 1995 Cr LI 3313 (Ker). = fos. by the Information Technolezy (Amendment) Act, 2008 (10 of 2009), 5. 51 (we. anur, 1993 Cr LJ 1098 (Ker). The c : THTL : 1969 CrLJ 1559. court referred to State of 7-10- 2009). + Babe by the Information Technolosy (Amendment) Act, 2008 (10 of 2009), s. $1 (w.e-f. 27-10 2009).6 THE INDIAN PENAL CODE (CHAP; (I) he may be tried in India (extra-territori isdiction). ame an offence was committed by an Indian citizen outside India, it was hely at the offence was punishable under the fndian Pe Code. An investigation such an offence would not requite sanction of the Central ‘Government under the Proviso to s. IRS. CrPC. Baran enquiry as contemplated by s. 202, CrPC couly only be with the sanction of the Central Government. a () Extradition. —Eatradition is the surrender by ong State to another of a per. com deggnad to be dealt with for crimes of which he has been accused OF Convicted and which ave justiciable in the Courts of the other State Surrender of 4 person, within the State to another S| ayhether a citizen or an alicn—is a political acy done in pursvance of a treaty or an rangement ad fioc. Whether an offender should be handed over pursuant to 3 quisition g determined by the domestic Taw of the State on which the requisition is made.’ The procedure for securing the extradition from India is laid down in the Extradition Act, 1962. a ap Extra-territorial jurisdiction —Indian Courts are empowered to try of- fences committed out of India on (A) land, (B) high seas, or (C) aircraft. (A) Land.—By virtue of ss. 3 and 4 of the Penal Code, and s. 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, local Courts can take cognizance of offences committed beyond the territories of India. Where the Court is dealing with an act committed poy de India by a citizen of India which would be an offence punishable under the Penal Code if it had been committed in India, s. 4 constitutes the act an,of- fence and it can be dealt with under s. 188 of the ‘Criminal Procedure Cod ATE however, at the time of commission of the offence the accused person is nota citizen of India, the prov ions of s. 4 of the Penal Code and s. 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have no application.” Section 188 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1 fence is committed outside India— (a) by a citizen of India, whether on high seas or elsewhere, or (b) by any person not being such citizen on Any ip or aircraft registered in Indian, be may be dealt with in respect of such offence as if it had been committed at any place within India at which he may be found. The word ‘found’in s. 188, Criminal Procedure Code, means no! where a per son is discovered but where he is actually present.”” A_man brought to a place against his will can be said to be found there.’ When a man is in the country 20 is charged before a Ma sistrate with an offence under the Penal Code, it will not vail him to say that he was brought there illegally from a foreign country. Bombay High Court has laid down this principle, following English precedents: in Savarkar's case. The accused Savarkar had escaped ‘Mareseilles from the custody of police-officers charged with the duty of bringing him from London Bombay, but was re-arrested there and brought to Bombay and committed.f" 973, provides that when an of- ee 23. Muhammad Raft v. State of Kerala, 10 Cr LJ 592 Ker DB. 34. State of W.B. v. Jugal Kishore More, (1969) 3 SCR $50: 1069 CrLJ 1559 : AIR 1969 SC nT 35, Narayan Mahale, (1935) 37 Bom LR 885. 6 26, Central Bank of india Ltd. v. Sem Narain, (1955) 1 SCR 697 : 1955 CrLJ 152: AIR 195s SC 3° 27. Maganlal, (1882) 6 Bom 622. Lopes and Satter, (1858) 27 LI (MO) 48.\SEC)-4)]; trial by the Special Magi committal were valig. Section 4 gives ¢: ti 8 extraterritorial jutisdien; committed must amount to an ote tion 1 Ndler the Pe 7 lat the trial and s the Explonati he Explanation says the acts Acts done within Indi chal Cod He 7 " ndian as well ag ve citizen of Inia is table to he tie yan atl Hereltary.—A porson who ia ie Courts of this without the Indian terriv ; under the Code,” (B) Admiralty juris diction.—The the high seas is known as the i that a ship on the high seas she is flying. him, partly within and pacity country for act amount together to an offence ’ Thee iries, provided the acts N—The jurisdietios admiralty jurisdicti a floating isl HV lO tty Offences committed on jon. 1Lis founded on the principle land belonging to the nation whose flag Admiralty jurisdiction extends over— (1) Offences committed on Indian ships on the high seas. (2) Offences committed on foreign ships in Indian territorial waters. (3) Piracy. Admiralty jurisdiction extends over Indian ships; not only on the High seas but also in rivers below the bridges, where the tide ebbs and flows and where great ships go. It extends over Indian ships although they may be at a spot where the municipal authorities of a foreign country might exercise concurrent jurisdiction, if invoked. Ever since the time of Richard II this jurisdiction has extended to where great ships £0 as part of their voyage for the purposes of trading. and all persons, whether citizens of India or foreigners, who happen to be on board such ships, are entitled to the protee- tion of Indian law.” It makes no difference whether the offender comes voluntarily on board the Indian ship or is brought and detained there against his wil nor whethes comes voluntarily within the jurisdiction ofthe pateular Cour by ii ht within that jurisdiction against hts 7 Pe , ae «alty jurisdiction does not extend to any river, creek or port within the aya atte yeti cases the ordinary criminal Courts have jurisdiction, body of a district: In s S inary criminal Courts and the Courts of es = seashore, the ordinary cri andl the Dati Fee note Surisdiction between high and low wa ermark. 1 ee ase iin on the high seas could not be tried at first by ordinary Offences committed on Bry dealt with by, the Admiralty Court, But now by criminal Courts. They wore ences Act, 1849,"° and the Merchant Shipping Act, virtue_of the Admiralty well as in India by ordinary crimi- 1894,” such offences at etriable in England as jurisdi F thos: T they cP committed within the local jurisdiction of those nal Courts, as if th Courts. 5 Bom 225. 1 Sheikh Haidar v. Syed Bsa, (1939) ont LR 296, inatye cavarkar, (1910) 13 Bs mn 206,35 @ yee Pe ci923) 35 Bom LR 772, 47.Bom on BE. Ram an HOS) 2 WHC BE dr RYE Se Won 2 8 35 Ader ia) ears & B32 3Coke 113. og. 12 & 13 Vic. & 20 57 & 58 View e O° ag 241y THE INDIAN ‘PENAL CODE [CHAR eI 8 ‘Piracy —pj —Pira + statute law of England ‘Wo nds, vis piracy jure gentiton, and piracy ty very one commits id. Piracy jure gentium is an offence against all eee the from any State and waleey gts ae nations who, without legal author: any shi rae, an withont any alot of abt ter or attempts to ea the Admiraity eae’ within (he jurisdiction of the Lord High Admiral (ice or (b) attack by Violence of by putting those in possession of such ship in eae Peak) aMtacKs sul ships snl takes and carries away any of the goods thereon ny atta’ Sor by putting those in possession of such ship in fear; or (c) attacks 2 empts to attack such ship with intent to take and carry away any of the Bon, thereon by violence or by putting those in possession of such ship in fear; or < attacks such ship and offers violence to anyone on board thereof oF attacks i to attack 8 ip with intent to offer violence as aforesaid. Stephon that a pet guilty of piracy jure gentiun who, being peaceably tps ip. seizes or attempts to scize her by violence or by putting those in ion of such ship in fear or takes and carries away or attempts to take and carry away any of the goods thereon by violence to those in possession of such ship or by putting them in fear.® Actual robbery is not an essential clement of the crime of piracy jure gentium,, ‘A frustrated attempt to commit a piratical robbery is equally piracy jure gentium. 7 If the subjects of the same State commit robbery upon each other, upon the high seas, it is piracy. If the subjects of different States commit robbery upon each other, upon the high scas, if their respective States be in amity, it is piracy; if at enmity, it is not; for it is eneral rule, that enemies can never commit piracy on each oiher, their depredations being deemed mere sets of hostility. i The admiralty jurisdiction extends to pirates who are foreigners in the case of piracy jure geniium only. Jurisdiction of Indian High Courts.—The High Courts of Bombay, Calcutta and Madras have the same admiralty jurisdiction as that of the late Supreme Courts. ‘The jurisdiction of the Supreme Courts was that of the High Court of Ad- iairalty in England as it stood in 1823. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Courts in ey fmiralty was created by commission trom the High Courts of Admiralty in England in 1843. Under Act XVI of 1891, the High Cou of Bengal, Madras and Bombay were declared to be Colonial Courts of Admiralty within the meaning of Statutes 53 and 54 Vic. c. 27. The effect of these Statutes is to confer upon these High Courts the same jurisdiction as is vested in the Admiralty Courts of England. ‘The offences which come within the admiralty jurisdiction are now defined by the Merchant Shipping Act. 1894 Jurisdiction of mofus: 1 Courts.—The jurisdiction to try offenct on the hi was conferred on mofussil Courts by 12 & 13 Vic., ¢. 96 clared applicable to India by section | of 23 & 24 Vic., c. 88. Prior to the passing CF the Inner Statute these Courts had no such jurisdiction. This jurisdicye® Siso heen conferred by section 686 of the Merchant Shipping Act of 1894. Presidency Magistrates’ Courts.—The Bombay High Court has held that ® Precidency (now Metropolitan) Magistrate has ‘jurisdiction to try offences 0” es committed in. p- 101 EN DIGEST OF CRIMINAL LAW, 910 jure gentiuun, (1934) AC 586.SEC. 4)! mitted’ ona British shi ‘i Court is of opinion nie Merchant Shipping Act,** Law and proced 96, extended to Inalia by oy tow ed high sens may be proceeded a offence had been committed : ues Ei cvithin the Tits ot the Wee ea ay waters sate we ame ea the maybe punished as if thet ee tietion oF its eriminal Cont, art a dia ane way ‘tas if their crimes had beets Ctittinal Courts, and on convietio held that the Lugtish fave shoud be dhe suka eatet An Engtand, Hence tae cognizable by the local tribunals by ving Substantive law of decision in cases made of 47 & 38 Vie. ©. 27. that a person conn vit itt. Haut i is provided hy 8. 3 upon conviction, be liable 14 ees, CoMmnitting an offence on the high seas shal, him if the offence had been commie nent as might have been inflicted upon the offence is not punishable the ne within the limits of India : Provided that if liable 10 such punishment (other than capil pueden, hall on conviction: be Court most nearly to contesponil wa capital punishment), as shall seem to the have been liable in case such offence had been tea raat. tie State, there! fore. applied local punishment, thers had been tried in England. The Statute, there- Ao’ roca punishment, that is, punishment under the Indian Penal Code, in nec. The procedure to be followed in such cases is the ordinary crimi- nal procedure” and the offence charged must be an offence under the English law.” Thus we have the three following conditions — (1) The offence must be an offence under the English law. (2) The trial must be conducted under the Code of Criminal Procedure. (3) The punishment must be regulated by the Indian Penal Code. (C) Aircraft.—The provisions of the Code are made applicable to any offence committed by any person on any air-craft registered in India, wherever it may be. Liability of foreigners in India for offences committed outside its limits. ‘The acts ofa foreigner committed by him in territory beyond the limits of Thdia do not constitute an offence against the Penal Code. and, consequently. a fore eigner cannot be held criminally responsible under that Code by the tribunals of India for acts committed by him beyond its territorial limits. Tt is only for acts done when the person doing them is within that territory over which the authority of Indian law extends, that the subject of a foreign State owes obedience to that law and can be made amenable to its jurisdiction. Thus, when it is sought to pun- ish a person, who is not an Indian subject, as an offender in respect of a certain act, the question is not ‘where svas the act committed,” but ‘was that person at the act, the question Fos done, within the territory of India,” Por, if he was not, the me, when the acl Witt oer of itis not liable (o be punished as,an offender, and Fee tee efore, not sul sdiction of criminal Courts ject to the ju A foreign subject, resident in a foreign territory ating the commission of an offence which, in ~The Calcutta High’ igh Court under the —Unnder th a 24 View ©, 88, nemesis Of 12. & 13 View, Hst inthe Cour 1S charged with crimes on the consequence, is committed in Indian territory, is not amena- m LR 253, 25 Bom 636. ic 901) 42. Chief O; ficer of Mushiari. (190. $3, Seiatan, (1912) 39 Cal a7. oy 44. Elmstone, (1870), 7 BHC {ert ) Barton, (1889) 16 Cal 238; Guan 3 Garin an Kor (1878) PR No. 20 of 1878; Janieson, (1896) 2 QB 425. : Phompson, (1867) | Beng LR (O CrJ) 1, / (1894) 21 Cal 782,» THE INDIAN PENAL CODE [CHapiy ble to the jurisdiction of an Indian Court if the instigation has not taken plac India.” But if a foreigner in a forcign territory initiates an offence which is ¢ pleted within Indian territory, he is, if found within Indian territory, Table to 42 tried by the Indian Court within whose jurisdiction the offence was completed? CASES.—Admiralty jurisdiction. English Cases-—The accused, an Bp, lish sailor. stole three chests of tea out of @ British vessel when it was lying iq’ river in China. Iwas urged that as the vessel was twenty or thirty miles from (he sea, the offence was not committed on the high seag, [twas held that the offe, aS committed within the admiralty jurisdiction.” An American, serving: gq board a British ship, caused the death of another American serving on the sq ship, under circumstances amounting to manslaughter, the ship at the time bej, jn the river Garonne, within French territory, al a place below bridges where the tide ebbed and flowed and great ships went. IU was held that the ship was within the admiralty jurisdiction, and that the prisoner was rightly tried and convicted the Central Criminal Court,” A foreigner, having committed larceny in England, Wwas followed to Hamburg by an English police-officer who arrested him without a warrant, and brought him against his will on board an English steamer tradin, between Hamburg and London, and there kept him in ct stody in order that he might be tried for the larceny in England. During the voyage, whilst the steamer was on the high seas, he shot the officer out of malice prepense and not with a view to escape. It was held that he was guilty of murder within the admiralty ju- risdiction.” Certain bonds were stolen from’a British ship, whilst she was lying afloat in the river at Rotterdam, moored to the quay. and were afterwards wrong- fully received in England by the accused with a knowledge that they had been stolen. The place where the ship lay at the time of the theft was in the open river sixteen or eighteen miles from the sea, but within the cbb and flow of the tide, and where large vessels usually lay. It did not appear who the thief was, or under what circumstances he was on board the ship. It was held that the larceny took place within the admiralty jurisdiction.” Where the accused and the deceased were foreigners, and the latter died at Liverpool from injuries inflicted by the accused on board a foreign ship on the high seas, it was held that the Eng! ish Counts had no jurisdiction to try the accused.”'. ily Cenain laws not to §, 5, Nothing in this Act shall affect the provisions of be affected by this Ac any Act for puni g mutiny and desertion of officers, soldiers, sailors or airmen in the service of the Govern ment of India or the provisions of any special or local law.’ COMMENT.—Though the Code was intended to be a general one, it not thought desirable to make it exhaustive, and hence offences defined by local and special laws were left out of the Code, and merely declared to be punishable a theretofore.”’ Thus the personnel of the Army, Navy and Airforce are govern® eae ne 48. Pirtai, (1873) 10 BHC (Cr C) 356; Raj Bahadier, (1918) PR No. 23 of 1918, 49, Chhoratat, (1912) 14 Bom LR 147, 50. Thomas Allen, ( 1537) ; Moody: ce 494. 51. Anderson, (1868) “ ol. 32, ‘Lopez and Sattler, (1858) Dears & B 525. 53. Carr, (1882) 10 QBD 76. 1857 |, Dears & B 182. . Med i ta 349% ‘Motilal Shah, (1930) 32 Bom LR.1502, 55 Bom 89 .SEG.'5)) c INTRODUCTION f the Army Act, 1 regard to offer aT Navy Act, 195° S$ of Mutiny and teseron cone nian y by the provision: Airforce Act, 1950 them. ‘ : . 1. peed oF local law.—A neq; ject; whereas a local law ig a ta ou country. Although an offence vw, F Ww law relatin law which a ly iia e Ipplies only to a Particular pant of the jar part 0 law, yet it will be i make ressly ani ne a " saints SEXpressly made py punishable under the Penal Cade. if the ei i ey thin fe + If the facts come within th C definitions of the Code” No uel the whole frame of the special Nop resection is: admi jnself. and to be cnforeed ouke (ey tet iL was intended na pe i i appees upom ce thang ira opeedey gly By the penalties ereated by it nt he eee the part of the Legisiature to exclee itls, Operation of the Code an intention of between a statute creating a now offe it should not be inferred.” The distinetion enlarging the ambit of an existing offence with a particular penalty and a statute particular penalty is well settled ‘ ence by including new acts within it with a Pethe mete penalty Oniy if the former case the new offence is punishable were applicable before the Act to fort is punishable also by all such penalties as ple is that where a new offence is eres ence in which it is included. The Princi- proceedings should be taken is laid owe en the particular manner in which py other way However, a pemon com hen proceedings cannot be taken in Code and a special law f,@ pers cannot, be punished under both the Penal pecial law for the same offence,” and ordinarily the sentence should be under the special Act."' This,is, however, confined to cases where the offences are coincident or practically so.* Punishment for contempt under common law.—This section did not affect the common law principles introduced into the Presidency-towns (now Metro- politan-towns) when the late Supreme Courts were established. The High Courts bf Bombay. Calcutta and Madras had power to punish the offence of contempt on a summary proceeding in relation to proceedings before them nor by virtue of the Penal Code but by virtue of the common law of England.” The Rangoon High Court has held that the High Court has power to deal with contempts summarily, instead of acting under s. 476 (now s. 340) or s. 480 (now s. 345) of the Code of Cee al Procedure or under Order XVI. R. 17, of the Code of Civil Procedure.” Being a court of record within the meaning of Art. 215 of the Constitution of India every High Court has power to punish for its contempt summarily. San Chana Persad y. Ande Raat (1894) 22 Co 131 So here Ma CADE) MO) or rays, . Biatcheandirs Rarutive, (1929 Bot st ieiice Mo Ga a wirenddea Nath Banerjee v. The Laat emer ee Cat USS) 10 Cal 10D DCs Montel Chose (1917) 8 Cal Che aie a Suey Se han Li SO Sed, 0922) oT 9: Marmadke Pickrhalt, (1922) 25 Bony, LR 8 rma re iba! (No. 2 (i02 om LR oes Mamhadite h ravanital, (1923 om : Ponnuswami Iyer v. Ganapathi Iyer, Ny 7a: Nay 1023) © gh 528 SB Herkishen La (1936) 18 ee ee 5 omojee, (1920) 4 Ran 1 gavebrati Mamodhes jee, 1984) SCR 454 (463) : AIR 1954 SC 186 : 1954 CrLt 46012 ‘THE INDIAN PENAL‘CODE (CHAP, The High Court has power to punish, by commitment for contempt, a yi, published while the Court is not sitting. © aedtation|to-commi y The Calcutta High Court laid down that it had 1 MSs rn bay i rie son for contempt of a criminal Court in the mofuss Maat the High Court had i and the Allahabad High Court” were of opinion ampt of Courts Act, 197 sich power. The latter view has been adopted in ie on 3h Which in its tum.i¢ Me As : 2, S. 2, replaced by the Contempt of Cours Act, Goof 1971), s. 10. placed by the Contempt of Courts Dees es ; i ssioners’ Courts can only ¢ All other Courts including the Judie cemne Penal Code and $. 480 ae oe) . action for contempt of Court und 2 345) of the Code ‘of Criminal Procedure. / 66. William Tayler, (1869) 26 CLJ 345; Banks, (1869) 26 CLJ 401. 67. Amrita Bazar Patrika, (1913) 17 CWN 1253, 1282. 68. Batkrishna, (1921) 24 Bom LR 16. 69. Aula! Hasan Jauhar. (1926) 48 All 711 (FB). 70. Bennett, Coleman & Co. Ltd. v. G.S. Monga, (1936) 18 Lah 34. = of TE, Venkaitao (1922) 24 Bom LR 386, 46 Bom 973, Now see the provisions of the Contem? Courts Act. 1971. s. 10.