Text
stringlengths 1
133
⌀ | INDIAN POLITY
stringlengths 1
95
⌀ |
|---|---|
2. Mobarik Ali v State of Bombay, AIR 1957 SC 857 [LNIND 1957 SC 81] : 1957 Cr LJ 1346 (SC). | null |
45. Subs. by Act 4 of 1898, section 2, for section 4. | null |
46. Subs. by the A.O. 1950, for clauses (1) to (4). | null |
47. Ins. by the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 (10 of 2009), section 51(a)(i) | null |
(w.e.f. 27-10- 2009). | null |
48. Subs. by the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 (10 of 2009), section 51(a)(ii), | null |
for Explanation (w.e.f. 27-10-2009). Explanation, before substitution, stood as under: | null |
"Explanation.—In this section the word "offence" includes every act committed outside India | null |
which, if committed in India, would be punishable under this Code." | null |
49. Subs. by Act 36 of 1957, section 3 and Sch II, for "Illustrations" (w.e.f. 17-9-1957). | null |
50. The brackets and letter "(a)" omitted by Act 36 of 1957, section 3 and Sch II (w.e.f. 17-9- | null |
1957). | null |
51. Subs. by the A.O. 1948, for "a coolie, who is a Native Indian subject". | null |
52. Subs. by the A.O. 1950, for "a British subject of Indian domicile". | null |
53. The words "British India" have been successively amended by the A.O. 1948, the A.O. 1950 | null |
and Act 3 of 1951, section 3 and Sch (w.e.f. 1-4-1951), to read as above. | null |
54. Illustrations (b), (c) and (d) omitted by the A.O. 1950. | null |
55. Muhammad Rafi v State of Kerala, 2010 Cr LJ 592 Ker DB. | null |
56. State of WB v Jugal Kishore More, (1969) 3 SCR 320 [LNIND 1969 SC 8] : 1969 Cr LJ 1559 : | null |
AIR 1969 SC 1171 [LNIND 1969 SC 8] . | null |
57. Abu Salem Abdul Qayoom Ansari v State of Maharashtra, JT 2010 (10) SC 202 [LNIND 2010 | null |
SC 858] : 2010 (9) Scale 460 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cr) 125 : (2011) 11 SCC 214 [LNIND 2010 SC 858] . | null |
58. Ajay Aggarwal v UOI, 1993 (3) SCC 609 [LNIND 1993 SC 431] : AIR 1993 SC 1637 [LNIND | null |
1993 SC 431] : 1993 Cr LJ 2516 . | null |
59. Central Bank of India Ltd v Ram Narain, (1955) 1 SCR 697 [LNIND 1954 SC 126] : 1955 Cr LJ | null |
152 : AIR 1955 SC 36 [LNIND 1954 SC 126] . | null |
60. Maganlal v State, (1882) 6 Bom 622. | null |
61. Lopez and Sattler, (1858) 27 LJ (MC) 48. | null |
62. Vinayak D Savarkar, (1910) 13 Bom LR 296 , 35 Bom 225. | null |
63. Supra. Also see Om Hemrajani v State of UP, (2005) 1 SCC 617 [LNIND 2004 SC 1181] : AIR | null |
2005 SC 392 [LNIND 2004 SC 1181] . | null |
64. Thota Venkateswarlu v State of AP, AIR 2011 SC 2900 [LNIND 2011 SC 850] : (2011) 9 SCC | null |
527 [LNIND 2011 SC 850] : 2011 Cr LJ 4925 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cr) 772. | null |
65. Rambharthi, (1923) 25 Bom LR 772 [LNIND 1923 BOM 115] : 47 Bom 907; Sheikh Haidar v | null |
Syed Issa, (1939) Nag 241. | null |
66. Moulivie Ahmudoollah, (1865) 2 WR (Cr) 60. | null |
67. See Kamalakar Mahadev Bhagat v Scindia Steam Navigation Co Ltd, AIR 1961 Bom 186 | null |
[LNIND 1960 BOM 71] : (1960) 62 Bom LR 995 ; Sahida Ismail v Petko R Salvejkov, AIR 1973 Bom | null |
18 [LNIND 1971 BOM 74] : (1972) 74 Bom LR 514 ; Jayaswal Shipping Co v SS Leelavati, AIR | null |
1954 Cal 415 [LNIND 1953 CAL 202] ; Reena Padhi v 'Jagdhir', AIR 1982 Ori 57 [LNIND 1981 ORI | null |
93] . | null |
68. M V Elisabeth v Harwan Investment and Trading, 1993 Supp (2) SCC 433 : AIR 1993 SC 1014 | null |
[LNIND 1992 SC 194] ; MV Al Quamar v Tsavliris Salvage (International) Ltd, AIR 2000 SC 2826 | null |
[LNIND 2000 SC 1119] : (2000) 8 SCC 278 [LNIND 2000 SC 1119] : 2000 (5) Scale 618 [LNIND | null |
2000 SC 1119] ; MV Free Neptune v DLF Southern Towns Private, 2011 (1) Ker LT 904 : 2011 (1) | null |
KHC 628 . | null |
69. MG Forests Pte Ltd v "MV Project Workship", Gujarat High Court Judgement dated 24 | null |
February 2004. | null |
70. Article 100. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), 1982. | null |
71. Aban Loyd Chiles Offshore Ltd v UOI, JT 2008 (5) SC 256 [LNIND 2008 SC 897] : 2008 (6) | null |
Scale 128 [LNIND 2008 SC 897] : (2008) 11 SCC 439 [LNIND 2008 SC 897] . | null |
72. Republic of Italy through Ambassador v UOI, (2013) 4 SCC 721 : 2013 (1) Scale 462 | null |
[LNINDORD 2013 SC 9114] . | null |
73. M V Elisabeth v Harwan Investment and Trading, 1993 Supp (2) SCC 433 : AIR 1993 SC 1014 | null |
[LNIND 1992 SC 194] . | null |
74. Musst. Kishen Kour, (1878) PR No. 20 of 1878; Jameson, (1896) 2 QB 425 . | null |
75. Chhotalal, (1912) 14 Bom LR 147 [LNIND 1912 BOM 26] . | null |
76. P T Abdul Rahiman v State of Kerala, 2013 Cr LJ 893 (Ker). | null |
THE INDIAN PENAL CODE | null |
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION | null |
The Indian Penal Code was drafted by the First Indian Law Commission presided over | null |
by Lord Thomas Babington Macaulay. The draft underwent further revision at the hands | null |
of well-known jurists, like Sir Barnes Peacock, and was completed in 1850. The Indian | null |
Penal Code was passed by the then Legislature on 6 October 1860 and was enacted as | null |
Act No. XLV of 1860. | null |
Preamble. WHEREAS it is expedient to provide a general | null |
Penal Code for India; It is enacted as follows:— | null |
COMMENT.—The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, 1860) exhaustively codifies the law | null |
relating to offences with which it deals and the rules of the common law cannot be | null |
resorted to for inventing exemptions which are not expressly enacted.1. It is not | null |
necessary and indeed not permissible to construe the IPC, 1860 at the present day in | null |
accordance with the notions of criminal jurisdiction prevailing at the time when the | null |
Code was enacted. The notions relating to this matter have very considerably changed | null |
between then and now during nearly a century that has elapsed. It is legitimate to | null |
construe the Code with reference to the modern needs, wherever this is permissible, | null |
unless there is anything in the Code or in any particular section to indicate the | null |
contrary.2. | null |
77.[[s 5] Certain laws not to be affected by this Act. | null |
Nothing in this Act shall affect the provisions of any Act for punishing mutiny and | null |
desertion of officers, soldiers, sailors or airmen in the service of the Government of | null |
India or the provisions of any special or local law 1 .] | null |
COMMENT— | null |
This section is a saving clause to section 2. Though the Code was intended to be a | null |
general one, it was not thought desirable to make it exhaustive, and hence, offences | null |
defined by local and special laws were left out of the Code, and merely declared to be | null |
punishable as theretofore.78. Thus, the personnel of the Army, Navy and Airforce are | null |
governed by the provisions of the Army Act, 1950, The Navy Act, 1957, and The Indian | null |
Air Force Act, 1950 in regard to offences of mutiny and desertion committed by | null |
them.79. | null |
1. 'Special or local law'.—A special law is a law relating to a particular subject;80. | null |
whereas a local law is a law which applies only to a particular part of the country.81. | null |
The distinction between a statute creating a new offence with a particular penalty and | null |
a statute enlarging the ambit of an existing offence by including new acts within it with | null |
a particular penalty is well settled. In the former case the new offence is punishable by | null |
the new penalty only; in the latter it is punishable also by all such penalties as were | null |
applicable before the Act to the offence in which it is included. The Principle is that | null |
where a new offence is created and the particular manner in which proceedings should | null |
be taken is laid down, then proceedings cannot be taken in any other way.82. However, | null |
a person cannot be punished under both the Penal Code and a special law for the same | null |
offence,83. and ordinarily the sentence should be under the special Act.84. This is, | null |