hackTheBox/cv · Datasets at Hugging Face

Text stringlengths 1 112
Scale 128 [LNIND 2008 SC 897] : (2008) 11 SCC 439 [LNIND 2008 SC 897] .
32. UOI Republic of Italy through Ambassador v UOI, (2013) 4 SCC 721 : 2013 (1) Scale 462
[LNINDORD 2013 SC 9114] .
33. British India Steam Navigation Co Ltd v Shanmughavilas Cashew Industries, 1990 (3) SCC
481 [LNIND 1990 SC 150] : JT 1990 (1) SC 528 [LNIND 1990 SC 150] : 1990 (1) SCR 884 .
34. World Tanker Carrier Corp v SNP Shipping Services Pvt Ltd, AIR 1998 SC 2330 [LNIND 1998
SC 461] : 1998 (5) SCC 310 [LNIND 1998 SC 461] .
35. Aban Loyd Chiles Offshore Ltd v UOI, (2008) 11 SCC 439 [LNIND 2008 SC 897] : JT 2008 (5)
SC 256 [LNIND 2008 SC 897] : 2008 (6) Scale 128 [LNIND 2008 SC 897] .
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 3] Punishment of offences committed beyond, but which by law may be tried
within India.
Any person liable, by any 36.[Indian law], to be tried for an offence committed beyond
37.[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 38.[India].
COMMENT—
This section and section 4 relate to the extraterritorial 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, 1929 by a
citizen of India beyond India is not an offence which can be punished in India.39. This
section only applies to the case of a person who at the time of committing the offence
charged was amenable to an Indian Court.40. Thus, an Indian citizen who committed an
offence outside India which was not an offence according to the laws of that country
would still be liable to be tried in India if it was an offence under the Indian law.41. An
Indian citizen was murdered by another Indian citizen in a foreign country and the
police refused to register an FIR on the ground that the offence was committed outside
India. The Court held that the refusal was illegal and directed the police to register the
crime and proceed with investigation in accordance with the law. The Court observed
that section 3 of the IPC, 1860 helps the authorities in India to proceed by treating the
offence as one committed within India. No doubt it is by a fiction that such an
assumption is made. But such an assumption was necessary for practical purposes.42.
In a series of cases43. it was also held that an offence committed outside India by a
citizen of India can be investigated by the local police even without prior sanction of
the Central Government. Where both husband and wife are Indians residing at USA, a
complaint against the husband alleging cruelty is maintainable.44.
The operation of the section is restricted to the cases specified in the Extradition Act,
1962 and the Cr PC, 1973, sections 188 and 189.
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).
36. Subs. by the A.O. 1937 for "law passed by the Governor General of India in Council".
37. The original words "the limits of the said territories" have successively been amended by
the A.O. 1937, the A.O. 1948, the A.O. 1950 and Act 3 of 1951, section 3 and Sch (w.e.f. 3 April
1951), to read as above.
38. The original words "the said territories" have successively been amended by the A.O. 1937,
the A.O. 1948, the A.O. 1950 and Act 3 of 1951, section 3 and Sch, (w.e.f. 3-4-951) to read as
above.
39. Sheikh Haidar v Syed Issa, (1939) Ngp 241.
40. Pirtai, (1873) 10 BHC (Cr C) 356.
41. Pheroze v State of Maharashtra, 1964 (2) Cr LJ 533 (Bom).
42. Remia v Sub-Inspector of Police, Tanur, 1993 Cr LJ 1098 (Ker). The court referred to State of
WB v Jugal Kishore, AIR 1969 SC 1171 [LNIND 1969 SC 8] : 1969 Cr LJ 1559 .
43. Souda Beevi v Sub Inspector of Police, 2012 Cr LJ 58 (NOC) : 2011 (4) Ker LT 52 ;
Muhammad Rafi v State of Kerala, 2010 Cr LJ 592 : 2009 (1) Ker LT 943 ; Vijaya Saradhi Vajja v
Devi Sriroopa Madapati, 2007 Cr LJ 636 (AP); Samarudeen v Asst. Director of Enforcement, (1999
(2) Ker LT 794 [FB]); S Clara v State of TN, 2008 Cr LJ 2477 (Mad).
44. Harihar Narasimha Iyer v State of TN, 2013 Cr LJ 378 ; Rajesh Gupta v State of AP, 2011 Cr LJ
3506 : 2011 (3) Crimes 236 .
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.
45.[s 4] Extension of Code to extraterritorial offences.
The provisions of this Code apply also to any offence committed by—
46.[(1) any citizen of India in any place without and beyond India;

Scale 128 [LNIND 2008 SC 897] : (2008) 11 SCC 439 [LNIND 2008 SC 897] .

32. UOI Republic of Italy through Ambassador v UOI, (2013) 4 SCC 721 : 2013 (1) Scale 462

[LNINDORD 2013 SC 9114] .

33. British India Steam Navigation Co Ltd v Shanmughavilas Cashew Industries, 1990 (3) SCC

481 [LNIND 1990 SC 150] : JT 1990 (1) SC 528 [LNIND 1990 SC 150] : 1990 (1) SCR 884 .

34. World Tanker Carrier Corp v SNP Shipping Services Pvt Ltd, AIR 1998 SC 2330 [LNIND 1998

SC 461] : 1998 (5) SCC 310 [LNIND 1998 SC 461] .

35. Aban Loyd Chiles Offshore Ltd v UOI, (2008) 11 SCC 439 [LNIND 2008 SC 897] : JT 2008 (5)

SC 256 [LNIND 2008 SC 897] : 2008 (6) Scale 128 [LNIND 2008 SC 897] .

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 3] Punishment of offences committed beyond, but which by law may be tried

within India.

Any person liable, by any 36.[Indian law], to be tried for an offence committed beyond

37.[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 38.[India].

COMMENT—

This section and section 4 relate to the extraterritorial 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, 1929 by a

citizen of India beyond India is not an offence which can be punished in India.39. This

section only applies to the case of a person who at the time of committing the offence

charged was amenable to an Indian Court.40. Thus, an Indian citizen who committed an

offence outside India which was not an offence according to the laws of that country

would still be liable to be tried in India if it was an offence under the Indian law.41. An

Indian citizen was murdered by another Indian citizen in a foreign country and the

police refused to register an FIR on the ground that the offence was committed outside

India. The Court held that the refusal was illegal and directed the police to register the

crime and proceed with investigation in accordance with the law. The Court observed

that section 3 of the IPC, 1860 helps the authorities in India to proceed by treating the

offence as one committed within India. No doubt it is by a fiction that such an

assumption is made. But such an assumption was necessary for practical purposes.42.

In a series of cases43. it was also held that an offence committed outside India by a

citizen of India can be investigated by the local police even without prior sanction of

the Central Government. Where both husband and wife are Indians residing at USA, a

complaint against the husband alleging cruelty is maintainable.44.

The operation of the section is restricted to the cases specified in the Extradition Act,

1962 and the Cr PC, 1973, sections 188 and 189.

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).

36. Subs. by the A.O. 1937 for "law passed by the Governor General of India in Council".

37. The original words "the limits of the said territories" have successively been amended by

the A.O. 1937, the A.O. 1948, the A.O. 1950 and Act 3 of 1951, section 3 and Sch (w.e.f. 3 April

1951), to read as above.

38. The original words "the said territories" have successively been amended by the A.O. 1937,

the A.O. 1948, the A.O. 1950 and Act 3 of 1951, section 3 and Sch, (w.e.f. 3-4-951) to read as

above.

39. Sheikh Haidar v Syed Issa, (1939) Ngp 241.

40. Pirtai, (1873) 10 BHC (Cr C) 356.

41. Pheroze v State of Maharashtra, 1964 (2) Cr LJ 533 (Bom).

42. Remia v Sub-Inspector of Police, Tanur, 1993 Cr LJ 1098 (Ker). The court referred to State of

WB v Jugal Kishore, AIR 1969 SC 1171 [LNIND 1969 SC 8] : 1969 Cr LJ 1559 .

43. Souda Beevi v Sub Inspector of Police, 2012 Cr LJ 58 (NOC) : 2011 (4) Ker LT 52 ;

Muhammad Rafi v State of Kerala, 2010 Cr LJ 592 : 2009 (1) Ker LT 943 ; Vijaya Saradhi Vajja v

Devi Sriroopa Madapati, 2007 Cr LJ 636 (AP); Samarudeen v Asst. Director of Enforcement, (1999

(2) Ker LT 794 [FB]); S Clara v State of TN, 2008 Cr LJ 2477 (Mad).

44. Harihar Narasimha Iyer v State of TN, 2013 Cr LJ 378 ; Rajesh Gupta v State of AP, 2011 Cr LJ

3506 : 2011 (3) Crimes 236 .