Ch. 1-1..Judge: Sn. 19.
Judge denotes every person who is officially designated as a Judge. It also includes a person or a body of persons empowered to give definitive judgments in any legal proceeding. The test is that such a person or body should have the right to give judgment.
Eg. (i) A Magistrate who commits a person to the sessions is not a 'judge' in that circumstance.
(ii) A Magistrate conducting a summons-case is a judge. The definition is only inclusive and not exhaustive. Legislature may empower a sarpanch or panch under the Panchayat to act as a judge. An arbitrator is not a judge, as he cannot give a definitive judgment.
Ch. 1-2. Wrongful gain and Wrongful loss :
Sn. 23. Wrongful gain is the gain of property made by unlawful means. The test is that such a person is 'not legally entitled to such property. Wrongful loss is the loss of property incurred by unlawful means. The test is that such a person, so losing is legally entitled to such property.
E.g. : Husband H had taken loan from C. When H died, C forcibly and illegally seized the bullocks of the widow of H. This is in satisfaction of the debt. C makes a wrongful gain but W has wrongful loss. Wrongful gain is only an ingredient of an offence and therefore it is part of an offence. E.g. Theft, Sn. 378. But In Mischief, [Sn. 425] there is wrongful loss, no wrongful gain.
Ch. 1-3. Dishonestly, Fraudulently: Sns. 24 & 25.
If a person does an act with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another he is doing that act dishonestly. If a person does a fraudulent act with intention to defraud, he is said to have done the act fraudulently. The intention of the person is important.
Ex : In theft Sn. 378, there is no fraud but there is the intention to cause wrongful loss or wrongful gain. Under Sn. 411, receiving stolen property, the person is punishable if he dishonestly received property. In Cheating Sn. 415 there may be a fraudulent or dishonest intention. In forgery, Sn. 463 there is the fraudulent intention or intention to commit fraud.
Defraud has two elements (i) Deception and (ii) Injury to the person deceived. The difference between fraudulently and dishonestly is that in 'Dishonestly' there will be no intention to
defraud. But in 'fraudulently' fraud is an essential ingredient. Dr. Vimala V. Delhi Administration, the Accused had bought a car in her minor daughter's name & had made claims by signing minor's name. Held, deceit but no injury. Hence, not liable under
Sn. 467 (Forgery.)
Ch. 1-4. Valuable security: Sn.30.
It is a document or one which purports to be a document. It creates, transfers, restricts, extends or extinguishes a legal right of a person. An acknowledgement of legal liability under a document is a valuable security.
E.g. : Pronote, Bill of exchange. Cheque , sale deed, mortgage or lease deed. A endorses a cheque in favour of B. The endorsement is a valuable security. Further "Under purports to be a document", unstamped or blank documents or incomplete documents to be filled up later are valuable security A deed of divorce is a valuable security. Account books are not valuable security.
Ch. 1-5. Voluntarily: Sn. 39.
A person is said to do an act voluntarily when he intends to cause an effect or at the time of employing those means he. knows or has reason to believe that he is likely to cause it. This, is defined, taking the relation of the causation and effects. Therefore it differs from the ordinary meaning. The result is that if a person does an act voluntarily, he is deemed to have known the consequences as well.
E.g. A sets fire to the house of B, to commit robbery but causes the death B. A had not intended to cause the death of B, but if, he knows that by setting fire to the house, it was likely that B would be killed, he has "caused death voluntarily".
Ch. 1-6. Act, Omission : Sn. 33.
The word act denotes aperies of acts or a single act. The word omission includes a series of omissions, including a single omission. These words are not defined in the I.P.C. but are used in the definition of offences.
(i) Culpable homicide is murder if the act by which the death caused is done with the intention of causing death (Sn. 300 murder).
A person is guilty of an illegal omission when that causes common injury (Public nuisance Sn. 268).
Ch. 1-7. Good faith: Sn. 52.
Nothing is said to be done or believed, in good faith, which is done or believed, without due care and attention. The belief must be reasonable and well founded. The expression "good faith" is used in many sections of the I.P.C. Sn. 76, 79, 77, 78, 300, 339, etc. A quack conducted an operation for piles with an ordinary knife but the patient died. The plea of good faith was rejected by the court (Kaviraj's case). When a villager, returning home late in the night found near the entrance of his village, a devil, he hit hard on its head. In reality he had killed a child. The place was known for devils according to the villagers. The plea of good faith was rejected by the court. The person must act honestly. This means he must act with fairness and uprightness. This is judged on the facts and circumstances of each case. There is no good faith if a person acts negligently or with lack of fairness. . A Sub-inspector saw a horse tied by B, and arrested B. He had jumped to the conclusion that the horse was the one his father had lost a few days ago. In reality, it was not the same horse. Held, that the officer had acted without "good faith" in arresting B.
Ch. 1-8. Harbour : Sn. 52 A.
Harbour according to I.P.C includes supplying a person with shelter, food, drink, money, clothes, ammunition and means of conveyance or any means to evade apprehension. There is one exception to this. It is no harbour for the wife or the husband to give shelter, food, etc., to the other spouse. Harbouring deserter (Sn. 136) is an offense. A deserter from the Army, Navy, or Air Force may obtain the help of another to conceal himself. A person who knowingly harbours him is guilty of this offence. In harbouring offender (Sn. 212) a person who harbours, knowingly an offender is guilty of the offence.
Ch. 1.9. Counterfeit: Sn. 28
A person is said to counterfeit, when he causes one thing to resemble another thing with an intention to cause deception or with the knowledge that deception is thereby practised. The imitation need not be exactly the same.. There is a presumption that when a person causes one thing to resemble another he has the intention to practice deception but this is a rebuttable presumption. Counterfeiting coin is an offence and is punishable under Sn.231
Ch. 1-10. Common intention: Sn. 34.
When a criminal act is done by several persons, in furtherance of the common intention of all, then each person is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.
The gist of this definition is that there is a joint liability, in the doing of the criminal offence. This liability is based on the existence of a "common intention''. For this, there must be prior consent or prearranged plan. There must be a prior meeting of minds. Several persons may
attack ^A' each with an intention to kill A, but this is not common intention as there is no "meeting of minds". In such a case each is liable for whatever injury he has caused. The leading case is Krishna Govind Vs. State of Maharastra. This section is only a rule of evidence, and does not create any offence. Sn. 34. read with Sn. 302 In Bahu! Singh V. Emperor, it was held that there must be a pre-arranged plan- a meeting of minds. to convict both the accused. In this case, Mala Singh had given one blow to the deceased Dala Singh, but Bahu! was responsible for killing. There was no plan or meeting of minds to make them
both liable for murder. Held Mala Singh was liable for causing grievous hurt. In Ishwari V. state, two brothers A & B had attacked D and killed him at the dead hour of the night at D's residence. A had attacked with a sharp weapon, & B had attacked with lathi. Held there was common intention.
Ch. 1-11. Document : Sn. 29.
It denotes any matter expressed or described on any substance, by means of letters, figures or marks intended to be used as "evidence".A cheque, a power of attorney, all agreements, a map or a plan to be used as evidence, are documents. A currency note is a "document".A printed wedding invitation is a document. In using any letters, figures or marks, the same meaning that is in usage or in mercantile transactions is to be given. A endorses a B/E payable to P. The bill as per mercantile usage means payable to P or to his order.
Ch. 1-12. Offence : Sn. 40.
"Offence", according to the I.P.C. denotes a thing punishable under this code, or under any special or local law. The "thing" is comprehensive and includes the doer or the dead, or the subject or the object. It includes the acts or omissions made liable under the code. Though mens rea is part of the offence, the I.P.C. has specified the nature of the intention in the definitions of the various offences: Using "voluntarily" "dishonestly'' fraudulently etc Hence, the English rule Actus non facit reum. .nisi mens sit rea is not applicable in India. The nature of the intention of the act to be established is defined in the various sections of the I.P.C.