Text
stringlengths 1
133
⌀ | INDIAN POLITY
stringlengths 1
95
⌀ |
|---|---|
Scale 128 [LNIND 2008 SC 897] : (2008) 11 SCC 439 [LNIND 2008 SC 897] . | null |
32. UOI Republic of Italy through Ambassador v UOI, (2013) 4 SCC 721 : 2013 (1) Scale 462 | null |
[LNINDORD 2013 SC 9114] . | null |
33. British India Steam Navigation Co Ltd v Shanmughavilas Cashew Industries, 1990 (3) SCC | null |
481 [LNIND 1990 SC 150] : JT 1990 (1) SC 528 [LNIND 1990 SC 150] : 1990 (1) SCR 884 . | null |
34. World Tanker Carrier Corp v SNP Shipping Services Pvt Ltd, AIR 1998 SC 2330 [LNIND 1998 | null |
SC 461] : 1998 (5) SCC 310 [LNIND 1998 SC 461] . | null |
35. Aban Loyd Chiles Offshore Ltd v UOI, (2008) 11 SCC 439 [LNIND 2008 SC 897] : JT 2008 (5) | null |
SC 256 [LNIND 2008 SC 897] : 2008 (6) Scale 128 [LNIND 2008 SC 897] . | 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 |
[s 3] Punishment of offences committed beyond, but which by law may be tried | null |
within India. | null |
Any person liable, by any 36.[Indian law], to be tried for an offence committed beyond | null |
37.[India] shall be dealt with according to the provisions of this Code for any act | null |
committed beyond India in the same manner as if such act had been committed | null |
within 38.[India]. | null |
COMMENT— | null |
This section and section 4 relate to the extraterritorial operation of the Code. The | null |
words of this section postulate the existence of a law that an act constituting an | null |
offence in India shall also be an offence when committed outside India. Thus, taking | null |
part in a marriage which is prohibited by the Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929 by a | null |
citizen of India beyond India is not an offence which can be punished in India.39. This | null |
section only applies to the case of a person who at the time of committing the offence | null |
charged was amenable to an Indian Court.40. Thus, an Indian citizen who committed an | null |
offence outside India which was not an offence according to the laws of that country | null |
would still be liable to be tried in India if it was an offence under the Indian law.41. An | null |
Indian citizen was murdered by another Indian citizen in a foreign country and the | null |
police refused to register an FIR on the ground that the offence was committed outside | null |
India. The Court held that the refusal was illegal and directed the police to register the | null |
crime and proceed with investigation in accordance with the law. The Court observed | null |
that section 3 of the IPC, 1860 helps the authorities in India to proceed by treating the | null |
offence as one committed within India. No doubt it is by a fiction that such an | null |
assumption is made. But such an assumption was necessary for practical purposes.42. | null |
In a series of cases43. it was also held that an offence committed outside India by a | null |
citizen of India can be investigated by the local police even without prior sanction of | null |
the Central Government. Where both husband and wife are Indians residing at USA, a | null |
complaint against the husband alleging cruelty is maintainable.44. | null |
The operation of the section is restricted to the cases specified in the Extradition Act, | null |
1962 and the Cr PC, 1973, sections 188 and 189. | null |
1. MC Verghese v Ponnan, AIR 1970 SC 1876 [LNIND 1968 SC 339] : (1969) 1 SCC 37 [LNIND | null |
1968 SC 339] : 1970 Cr LJ 1651 . | null |
2. Mobarik Ali v State of Bombay, AIR 1957 SC 857 [LNIND 1957 SC 81] : 1957 Cr LJ 1346 (SC). | null |
36. Subs. by the A.O. 1937 for "law passed by the Governor General of India in Council". | null |
37. The original words "the limits of the said territories" have successively been amended by | null |
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 | null |
1951), to read as above. | null |
38. The original words "the said territories" have successively been amended by the A.O. 1937, | null |
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 | null |
above. | null |
39. Sheikh Haidar v Syed Issa, (1939) Ngp 241. | null |
40. Pirtai, (1873) 10 BHC (Cr C) 356. | null |
41. Pheroze v State of Maharashtra, 1964 (2) Cr LJ 533 (Bom). | null |
42. Remia v Sub-Inspector of Police, Tanur, 1993 Cr LJ 1098 (Ker). The court referred to State of | null |
WB v Jugal Kishore, AIR 1969 SC 1171 [LNIND 1969 SC 8] : 1969 Cr LJ 1559 . | null |
43. Souda Beevi v Sub Inspector of Police, 2012 Cr LJ 58 (NOC) : 2011 (4) Ker LT 52 ; | null |
Muhammad Rafi v State of Kerala, 2010 Cr LJ 592 : 2009 (1) Ker LT 943 ; Vijaya Saradhi Vajja v | null |
Devi Sriroopa Madapati, 2007 Cr LJ 636 (AP); Samarudeen v Asst. Director of Enforcement, (1999 | null |
(2) Ker LT 794 [FB]); S Clara v State of TN, 2008 Cr LJ 2477 (Mad). | null |
44. Harihar Narasimha Iyer v State of TN, 2013 Cr LJ 378 ; Rajesh Gupta v State of AP, 2011 Cr LJ | null |
3506 : 2011 (3) Crimes 236 . | 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 |
45.[s 4] Extension of Code to extraterritorial offences. | null |
The provisions of this Code apply also to any offence committed by— | null |
46.[(1) any citizen of India in any place without and beyond India; | null |
Subsets and Splits