hackTheBox/cv · Datasets at Hugging Face

Text stringlengths 1 112
THE INDIAN PENAL CODE
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
The Indian Penal Code was drafted by the First Indian Law Commission presided over
by Lord Thomas Babington Macaulay. The draft underwent further revision at the hands
of well-known jurists, like Sir Barnes Peacock, and was completed in 1850. The Indian
Penal Code was passed by the then Legislature on 6 October 1860 and was enacted as
Act No. XLV of 1860.
Preamble. WHEREAS it is expedient to provide a general
Penal Code for India; It is enacted as follows:—
COMMENT.—The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, 1860) exhaustively codifies the law
relating to offences with which it deals and the rules of the common law cannot be
resorted to for inventing exemptions which are not expressly enacted.1. It is not
necessary and indeed not permissible to construe the IPC, 1860 at the present day in
accordance with the notions of criminal jurisdiction prevailing at the time when the
Code was enacted. The notions relating to this matter have very considerably changed
between then and now during nearly a century that has elapsed. It is legitimate to
construe the Code with reference to the modern needs, wherever this is permissible,
unless there is anything in the Code or in any particular section to indicate the
contrary.2.
[s 1] Title and extent of operation of the Code.
This Act shall be called the Indian Penal Code, and shall 3.[extend to the whole of
India 4.[except the State of Jammu and Kashmir].]
COMMENT—
Before 1860, the English criminal law, as modified by several Acts,5. was administered
in the Presidency towns of Bombay, Calcutta and Madras. But in the mofussil, the
Courts were principally guided by the Mohammedan criminal law, the glaring defects of
which were partly removed by Regulations of the local Governments. In 1827, the
judicial system of Bombay was thoroughly revised and from that time the law which the
criminal Courts administered was set forth in a Regulation6. defining offences and
specifying punishments. But in the Bengal and Madras Presidencies the Mohammedan
criminal law was in force till the Indian Penal Code came into operation.
[s 1.1] Trial of offences under IPC, 1860.—
All offences under IPC, 1860 shall be investigated, inquired into, tried and otherwise
dealt with according to the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr PC,
1973).7.
[s 1.2] Overlapping Offences.—
Where there is some overlapping between offences contained in IPC, 1860 and other
enactments, the Supreme Court has held that it would not mean that the offender could
not be tried under IPC, 1860. The Court concerned can pronounce on such issues on
the basis of evidence produced before it. There may be some overlapping of facts in
the cases under section 420 IPC, 1860 and section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act, 1881 but ingredients of offences are entirely different. Thus, the subsequent case
is not barred.8. A "terrorist act" and an act of "waging war against the Government of
India" may have some overlapping features, but a terrorist act may not always be an act
of waging war against the Government of India, and vice versa. The provisions of
Chapter IV of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and those of Chapter VI of
the IPC, 1860 including section 121, basically cover different areas.9. The mere fact
that the offence in question was covered by the Customs Act, 1962 did not mean that it
could not be tried under IPC, 1860 if it also falls under it.10.
1. MC Verghese v Ponnan, AIR 1970 SC 1876 [LNIND 1968 SC 339] : (1969) 1 SCC 37 [LNIND
1968 SC 339] : 1970 Cr LJ 1651 .
2. Mobarik Ali v State of Bombay, AIR 1957 SC 857 [LNIND 1957 SC 81] : 1957 Cr LJ 1346 (SC).
3. The original words have successively been amended by Act 12 of 1891, section 2 and Sch I,
the A.O. 1937, the A.O. 1948 and the A.O. 1950 to read as above.
4. Subs. by Act 3 of 1951, section 3 and Sch, for "except Part B States" (w.e.f. 1-4-1951).
5. 9 Geo. IV, section 74; Acts VII and XIX of 1837; Act XXXI of 1838; Acts XXII and XXXI of 1839;
Acts VII and X of 1844; Act XVI of 1852. See Pramod Kumar, Perspectives of the New Bill on
Indian Penal Code and Reflections on the Joint Select Committee Report—Some Comments,
(1980) 22 JILI 307.
6. XIV of 1827.
7. Section 4(1) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Also see commentary under section 3 of IPC
infra.
8. Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel v State of Gujarat, AIR 2012 SC 2844 [LNIND 2012 SC 1473]
: (2012) 7 SCC 621 [LNIND 2012 SC 1473] .
9. Mohammed Ajmal Mohammad Amir Kasab v State of Maharashtra, (2012) 9 SCC 1 [LNIND
2012 SC 1215] : AIR 2012 (SCW) 4942 : AIR 2012 SC 3565 [LNIND 2012 SC 1215] : 2012 Cr LJ
4770 : JT 2012 (8) SC 4 [LNIND 2012 SC 1215] : 2012 (7) Scale 553 [relied on State (NCT of
Delhi) v Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru, AIR 2005 SC 3820 [LNIND 2005 SC 580] : (2005) 11 SCC
600 [LNIND 2005 SC 580] : (2005) 2 SCC (Cr) 1715]
10. Natarajan v State, (2008) 8 SCC 413 [LNIND 2008 SC 1093] : (2008) 3 SCC (Cr) 507.
THE INDIAN PENAL CODE
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
The Indian Penal Code was drafted by the First Indian Law Commission presided over
by Lord Thomas Babington Macaulay. The draft underwent further revision at the hands
of well-known jurists, like Sir Barnes Peacock, and was completed in 1850. The Indian
Penal Code was passed by the then Legislature on 6 October 1860 and was enacted as
Act No. XLV of 1860.
Preamble. WHEREAS it is expedient to provide a general
Penal Code for India; It is enacted as follows:—
COMMENT.—The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, 1860) exhaustively codifies the law
relating to offences with which it deals and the rules of the common law cannot be
resorted to for inventing exemptions which are not expressly enacted.1. It is not
necessary and indeed not permissible to construe the IPC, 1860 at the present day in
accordance with the notions of criminal jurisdiction prevailing at the time when the
Code was enacted. The notions relating to this matter have very considerably changed
between then and now during nearly a century that has elapsed. It is legitimate to
construe the Code with reference to the modern needs, wherever this is permissible,
unless there is anything in the Code or in any particular section to indicate the
contrary.2.
[s 2] Punishment of offences committed within India.
Every person 1 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 11.[India] 12.[***]. 2
COMMENT—
This section deals with the intraterritorial operation of the Code. It makes the Code
universal in its application to every person in any part of India for every act or omission
contrary to the provisions of the Code.
Section 2 read with section 4 of the IPC, 1860 makes the provisions of the Code
applicable to the offences committed "in any place without and beyond" the territory of
India; (1) by a citizen of India or (2) on any ship or aircraft registered in India,

THE INDIAN PENAL CODE

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

The Indian Penal Code was drafted by the First Indian Law Commission presided over

by Lord Thomas Babington Macaulay. The draft underwent further revision at the hands

of well-known jurists, like Sir Barnes Peacock, and was completed in 1850. The Indian

Penal Code was passed by the then Legislature on 6 October 1860 and was enacted as

Act No. XLV of 1860.

Preamble. WHEREAS it is expedient to provide a general

Penal Code for India; It is enacted as follows:—

COMMENT.—The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, 1860) exhaustively codifies the law

relating to offences with which it deals and the rules of the common law cannot be

resorted to for inventing exemptions which are not expressly enacted.1. It is not

necessary and indeed not permissible to construe the IPC, 1860 at the present day in

accordance with the notions of criminal jurisdiction prevailing at the time when the

Code was enacted. The notions relating to this matter have very considerably changed

between then and now during nearly a century that has elapsed. It is legitimate to

construe the Code with reference to the modern needs, wherever this is permissible,

unless there is anything in the Code or in any particular section to indicate the

contrary.2.

[s 1] Title and extent of operation of the Code.

This Act shall be called the Indian Penal Code, and shall 3.[extend to the whole of

India 4.[except the State of Jammu and Kashmir].]

COMMENT—

Before 1860, the English criminal law, as modified by several Acts,5. was administered

in the Presidency towns of Bombay, Calcutta and Madras. But in the mofussil, the

Courts were principally guided by the Mohammedan criminal law, the glaring defects of

which were partly removed by Regulations of the local Governments. In 1827, the

judicial system of Bombay was thoroughly revised and from that time the law which the

criminal Courts administered was set forth in a Regulation6. defining offences and

specifying punishments. But in the Bengal and Madras Presidencies the Mohammedan

criminal law was in force till the Indian Penal Code came into operation.

[s 1.1] Trial of offences under IPC, 1860.—

All offences under IPC, 1860 shall be investigated, inquired into, tried and otherwise

dealt with according to the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr PC,

1973).7.

[s 1.2] Overlapping Offences.—

Where there is some overlapping between offences contained in IPC, 1860 and other

enactments, the Supreme Court has held that it would not mean that the offender could

not be tried under IPC, 1860. The Court concerned can pronounce on such issues on

the basis of evidence produced before it. There may be some overlapping of facts in

the cases under section 420 IPC, 1860 and section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments

Act, 1881 but ingredients of offences are entirely different. Thus, the subsequent case

is not barred.8. A "terrorist act" and an act of "waging war against the Government of

India" may have some overlapping features, but a terrorist act may not always be an act

of waging war against the Government of India, and vice versa. The provisions of

Chapter IV of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and those of Chapter VI of

the IPC, 1860 including section 121, basically cover different areas.9. The mere fact

that the offence in question was covered by the Customs Act, 1962 did not mean that it

could not be tried under IPC, 1860 if it also falls under it.10.

1. MC Verghese v Ponnan, AIR 1970 SC 1876 [LNIND 1968 SC 339] : (1969) 1 SCC 37 [LNIND

1968 SC 339] : 1970 Cr LJ 1651 .

2. Mobarik Ali v State of Bombay, AIR 1957 SC 857 [LNIND 1957 SC 81] : 1957 Cr LJ 1346 (SC).

3. The original words have successively been amended by Act 12 of 1891, section 2 and Sch I,

the A.O. 1937, the A.O. 1948 and the A.O. 1950 to read as above.

4. Subs. by Act 3 of 1951, section 3 and Sch, for "except Part B States" (w.e.f. 1-4-1951).

5. 9 Geo. IV, section 74; Acts VII and XIX of 1837; Act XXXI of 1838; Acts XXII and XXXI of 1839;

Acts VII and X of 1844; Act XVI of 1852. See Pramod Kumar, Perspectives of the New Bill on

Indian Penal Code and Reflections on the Joint Select Committee Report—Some Comments,

(1980) 22 JILI 307.

6. XIV of 1827.

7. Section 4(1) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Also see commentary under section 3 of IPC

infra.

8. Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel v State of Gujarat, AIR 2012 SC 2844 [LNIND 2012 SC 1473]

: (2012) 7 SCC 621 [LNIND 2012 SC 1473] .

9. Mohammed Ajmal Mohammad Amir Kasab v State of Maharashtra, (2012) 9 SCC 1 [LNIND

2012 SC 1215] : AIR 2012 (SCW) 4942 : AIR 2012 SC 3565 [LNIND 2012 SC 1215] : 2012 Cr LJ

4770 : JT 2012 (8) SC 4 [LNIND 2012 SC 1215] : 2012 (7) Scale 553 [relied on State (NCT of

Delhi) v Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru, AIR 2005 SC 3820 [LNIND 2005 SC 580] : (2005) 11 SCC

600 [LNIND 2005 SC 580] : (2005) 2 SCC (Cr) 1715]

10. Natarajan v State, (2008) 8 SCC 413 [LNIND 2008 SC 1093] : (2008) 3 SCC (Cr) 507.