EXTENT AND OPERATION OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE

EXTENT AND OPERATION OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE

Section 1 talks about the tittle and extent and scope of the code. Section 2 talks about criminal liability on the person within the territory of India. Section 3 and 4 discuss about the punishment imposed for the offences committed without and beyond India. Section 5 works as a saving clause. 

SECTION 1 

Title and extent of operation of the code : Section 1 declares the name of the code to be Indian Penal Code and that it will operate throughout the territory of India. 

SECTION 2 

Territorial Jurisdiction : Section 2 deals with the intra territorial operation of the code. The section asserts the principle of criminal liability on the basis of place or locality where the crime is commited. For this section to be in force, it is necessary that the offence should be committed within the territory of India, irrespective of the fact where the offender may be. Supreme court in Mobarak Ali Ahmed v. state of Bombay, hold that it is a well settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the criminal jurisdiction depends upon the locality of the offence committed and not the nationality of the offender. The territory of India includes not only its land, its internal waters but also its maritime territory which extends to twelve maritime miles from the appropriate base line. The territory of a state also includes its ships, whether armed or unarmed, its private ships in the high seas, or in foreign tidal waters and foreign private ships while within its ports. Air above the territory of the state also constitutes the territory of the country. 

Meaning of 'Every person' : The term 'Every person' in the section 2, donates not only the citizens of India but all non citizens also and even foreigners visiting India who are equally liable as citizen of India is. The section held liable for the offence 'Every person' irrespective of his nationality or allegiance or his cast, creed, race etc. However this term does not include non judicial persons such as company or corporation. Nevertheless, the corporation is liable for the criminal acts or omissions of its directors, agents, servants (State of Maharashtra v. Syndicate Transport) and for contempt of court (Aligarh Municipal Board v. Ekka Tanga Mazdoor union) on the principle of vicarious liability. 

A foreigner cannot take the defence of negligence of law (State of Maharashtra v. MH George), nor he can take the defence that the nature of the act in question is not a crime in his country (R v. Esop). A person liable for the criminal offence within a country will be prosecuted according to laws of that country and not according to the laws of his own country (Sardar Gurdayal Singh v. Raja of Faridkot). 

Exceptions : There are general exceptions to the rule of every person being liable. This immunity is based on the principle of expediency or convention or an agreement or  mutual understanding of the nations. For instance, high dignitaries such head of foreign sovereign states (Schoonar Exchange v. M'Faddon), ambassadors, united Nation representatives, The President of India and Governor of states etc are immune from criminal liability. 

Alien enemies in the act of war are also immune to the act. They are tried under the provisions of military law. Foreign army enjoys this privileged if they are in the soil with the consent. Warships and men-of-war are also immune to the act of the state within whose territorial jurisdiction they are found.

SECTION 3

Extra territorial operation : Section 3 gives the criminal jurisdiction to the court in the cases beyond the territory of India provided that the accused be subject to the Indian law. (This section is restricted in the operation only to the cases mentioned in Indian Extradition Act, 1962 and Cr.P.C, 1973, section 187; power to issue summons or warrants for offences commited beyond local jurisdiction). For example, the Indian court has the Jurisdiction over the officer of Indian army who commits murder in Nepal,while in service. The scope of section 3 is much wider that it not only covers the Indian citizens abroad but also those who are covered by any special law bringing them under the jurisdiction of India. 

SECTION 4 

Crimes committed by Indians beyond India : Section 4 clause (1) of the Indian penal code deals with the citizens of India beyond or outside the territory of India who committed a crime. The rationale behind this is that the sovereign state can regulate the conduct of its citizens wherever they may be. 
However in the case of Fatima Bibi Ahmed Patel v. State of Gujarat, Supreme Court cleared that the person who after committing the crime, acquires the citizenship of India cannot be held liable for that offence within Indian Jurisdiction because at the time of offence being committed he was not the Indin citizen or does not subject to any Indian law. Similarly, in the case where the offence was committed after the person relinquished his citizenship, the person will not be fall within the ambit of Section 4 clause (1) of IPC. 

Admiralty Jurisdiction : Section 4 clause (2) deals with the admiralty Jurisdiction of the court in which the criminal jurisdiction extends to the people on the board of ships or aircrafts registered in India and flying the Indian flag, wherever it may be. 

Jurisdiction related to cyber crimes targetting computer resources in India : Section 4 clause (3) which was interested in IPC by Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008, extends the criminal jurisdiction to any person in any place without or beyond the territory of India, targetting the computer resource in India. 

Limitation for launching a prosecution : Earlier under Cr.P.C 1898, there was no limitation. However now in Cr.P.C 1973 , section 468 clause (2) pose a bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation. 

SECTION 5 

Saving clause : Section 5 acts as a saving clause to section 2 of IPC. This section states that the provision of this act is not applicable to the areas where there exist some special or local laws. It is in accordance with the maxim generalia specialibus non derogant, which means that general words do not repeal or modify special legislation. For example, Maharashtra has an enactment namely Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act which is a local law and the principles will be applicable within the territorial jurisdiction of the state only. Later on Delhi Government has also adopted MCOC act. 



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Kailash Wati V. Ajodhia Parkash case summary

Image
KAILASH WATI Vs. AJODHIA PARKASH PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT  19 NOV 1976 CASE UNDER SECTION 9 OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT. Question before the court Whether the hindu marriage act sanctify or recognise (what may be called as) week end marriage as of a right at the unilateral desire of the wife. Facts of the case The appellant smt. Kailash Wati was married to the respondent Ajodhia Parkash in June 1964. Both of them before marriage were posted as village level teachers. Wife at her parental village of Bilga and husband at kot Ise Khan. After marriage the wife was transferred to her husband's station and they lived together in the matrimonial home for 8-9 months. Contention of the parties Husband : The allegation of the husband is that the wife has got herself transferred back to her parental village and ever since has been residing there with her parents against his wish. Therefore he filled an application for the restitution of conjugal rights under section 9 of HINDU MARRIAGE ACT. 
Read more

Savitri Pandey V. Prem Chandra Pandey summary

Image
SAVITRI PANDEY Vs. PREM CHANDRA PANDEY SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  2002 CASE FOR SECTION 13 OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT ON THE GROUNDS OF CRUELTY AND DESERTION Facts of the case :  The appellant - wife approached the court for the dissolution of marriage under section 13 of HMA alleging cruelty and desertion against the husband.  Contention of the parties :  Petitioner : Petitioner plead for the dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion by the husband. Respondent  : Respondent - husband argued that no acts of cruelty were performed to the wife and the petitioner is trying to take advantage of her own wrong.  JUDGEMENT :  The trial court passed the decree in favour of the wife. The court observed that although nothing can establish cruelty against husband, desertion by husband provides sufficient grounds for dissolution of marriage.    High court opined that there was nothing to prove cruelty as against husband and further there was also nothing to prove the desertion by th
Read more

Swaraj Garg V. K. M. Garg summary

Image
SWARAJ GARG  Vs. K.M. GARG DELHI HIGH COURT MARCH 7, 1978 . CASE UNDER SECTION 9 OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT Question before the court : Where will be the matrimonial home located after the marriage when both the parties are gainfully employed and there does not exist any agreement either implied or written before the marriage.  Facts of the case : The wife Swaraj - petitioner lived in her village, Sunam, from 1956 and techer at the the school. She was the head mistress at government high school in 1969. She got married to the respondent in 1964. The husband was not having a satisfactory job and earn only 500 p/m in Delhi where he resides. She came to live with her husband for some time and then grt back to her village and continue living there. The Husband therefore filed the petition under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights.  Contention of the parties :  Petitioner  : The petitioner argued that respondent's condition is not satisfactory that he can maint
Read more