Datasets:

jbp123

/

cvfinal

like 0

93. VG Ramachandran, Contempt of Court, 6th Edn, p 319 quoted in Re MV Jayarajan, 2012 (1)

Ker LT SN 23 : 2011 (4) KHC 585 .

94. V G Peterson v O V Forbes, AIR 1963 SC 692 [LNIND 1962 SC 298] : 1963 Supp (1) SCR 40 :

1963 (1) Cr LJ 633 .

95. HG Rangangoud v State Trading Corp of India, AIR 2012 SC 490 : 2012 (1) SCC 297 .

96. Daroga Singh v BK Pandey, AIR 2004 SC 2579 [LNIND 2004 SC 485] : (2004) 5 SCC 26

[LNIND 2004 SC 485] : 2004 Cr LJ 2084 .

97. [s 228] - Intentional insult or interruption to public servant sitting in judicial proceeding.—

Whoever intentionally offers any insult, or causes any interruption to any public servant, while

such public servant is sitting in any stage of a judicial proceeding, shall be punished with simple

imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one

thousand rupees, or with both.

98. Daroga Singh v BK Pandey, AIR 2004 SC 2579 [LNIND 2004 SC 485] : (2004) 5 SCC 26

[LNIND 2004 SC 485] : 2004 Cr LJ 2084 .

THE INDIAN PENAL CODE

CHAPTER II GENERAL EXPLANATIONS

THIS Chapter is for the most part an elaborate interpretation clause. It is a key to the

interpretation of the whole Code. The leading terms used are here defined and

explained and the meanings thus, announced are steadily adhered to throughout the

subsequent chapters.

[s 6] Definitions in the Code to be understood subject to exceptions.

Throughout this Code every definition of an offence, every penal provision, and every

illustration of every such definition or penal provision, shall be understood subject to

the exceptions contained in the Chapter entitled "General Exceptions", though those

exceptions are not repeated in such definition, penal provision, or illustration.

ILLUSTRATION

(a) The sections, in this Code, which contain definitions of offences, do not express

that a child under seven years of age cannot commit such offences, but the

definitions are to be understood subject to the general exception which provides

that nothing shall be an offence which is done by a child under seven years of

age.

(b) A, a police-officer, without warrant, apprehends Z, who has committed murder.

Here A is not guilty of the offence of wrongful confinement; for he was bound by

law to apprehend Z and therefore the case falls within the general exception

which provides that "nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is

bound by law to do it".

COMMENT—

The "general exceptions" enacted by Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, 1860) are of

universal application and for the sake of brevity of expression, instead of repeating in

every section that the definition is to be taken subject to the exceptions, the legislature

by section 6 IPC, 1860 enacted that all the definitions must be regarded as subject to

the general exceptions. Therefore, general exceptions are part of the definition of every

offence contained in IPC, 1860, but the burden to prove their existence lies on the

accused.1.

Section 6 is a convenient formula to avoid reproduction of lengthy exceptions in the

description of offences. In other words, all the offences must be read subject to

Chapter IV relating to General Exceptions (sections. 76–106 IPC, 1860). So when an act

falls within any one of these exceptions by virtue of section 6 of the Code, the accused

has to be given benefit of the appropriate General Exception even though it is not

specifically stated over again in the description of the offence committed.2. Section 6

of the Indian Penal Code imposes an obligation on the court to consider the case of

exceptions on its own so far as it relates to the burden of proving legal insanity under

section 106 of the Act. If the case of the accused comes within the purview of section

84 IPC, 1860, which is one of the provisions in Chapter IV of the General Exceptions of

the Indian Penal Code, the court is to give due consideration and find out as to whether

at the time of the occurrence the accused had any mental disability so as not to know

what he was doing.3.

The provisions of section 6 should be read as a proviso to section 105 of the Evidence

Act 1872.4. When a person is accused of any offence, the burden of proving the

existence of circumstances bringing the case within any of the General Exceptions in

the Indian Penal Code (XLV of 1860), or within any special exception or proviso

contained in any other part of the same Code, or in any law defining the offence, is

upon him, and the Court shall presume the absence of such circumstances.5.

1. Shankar Narayan Bhadolkar v State of Maharashtra, AIR 2004 SC 1966 [LNIND 2004 SC 1370] :

(2005) 9 SCC 71 [LNIND 2004 SC 1370] .

2. Abdul Latif v State of Assam, 1981 Cr LJ 1205 (Gau); see also Patras Mardi v State, 1982 Cr

LJ NOC 7 (Gau).

3. Khageswar Pujari v State of Orissa, 1984 Cr LJ 1108 (Orissa), see also Smt. Sandhya Rani

Bardhan v State, 1977 Cr LJ NOC 245 (Gau). Subodh Tewari v State of Assam, 988 Cr LJ 223

(Assam).

4. Khuraijam Somat Singh v State, 1997 Cr LJ 1461 (Gau).

5. Section 105 Evidence Act.

THE INDIAN PENAL CODE

CHAPTER II GENERAL EXPLANATIONS

THIS Chapter is for the most part an elaborate interpretation clause. It is a key to the

interpretation of the whole Code. The leading terms used are here defined and

explained and the meanings thus, announced are steadily adhered to throughout the

subsequent chapters.

[s 7] Sense of expression once explained.

Every expression which is explained in any part of this Code is used in every part of

this Code in conformity with the explanation.

COMMENT—

Section 7 of IPC, 1860 provides that 'every expression' which is explained in any part of

the Code, is used in every part of the Code in conformity with the explanation. Let it be

noted that unlike the modern statute, section 7 does not provide 'unless the context

otherwise indicate' a phrase that prefaces the dictionary clauses of a modern statute.

Therefore, the expression 'Government' in section 21(12)(a) must mean either the

Central Government or the Government of a State.6.

6. RS Nayak v AR Antulay, (1984) 2 SCC 183 [LNIND 1984 SC 43] : AIR 1984 SC 684 [LNIND

1984 SC 43] .

THE INDIAN PENAL CODE

CHAPTER II GENERAL EXPLANATIONS

THIS Chapter is for the most part an elaborate interpretation clause. It is a key to the

interpretation of the whole Code. The leading terms used are here defined and

explained and the meanings thus, announced are steadily adhered to throughout the

subsequent chapters.

[s 8] Gender.

The pronoun "he" and its derivatives are used of any person, whether male or female.

COMMENT—

Section 8 of the Indian Penal Code lays down that the pronoun 'he' and its derivatives