Section 144 IPC The Code of Criminal Procedure

The Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC ) is the principal enactment on the procedure for administration of substantive criminal law in India. It was established in 1973 and came into power on 1 April 1974.

It gives the machinery to the examination of crime, apprehension of suspected criminals, gathering of evidence, assurance of guilt or innocence of the accused individual and the determination of punishment of the guilty. Furthermore, it additionally deals with open public nuisance, prevention of offences and maintenance of wife, child, and parents.

What is Section 144 IPC

Section 144 of the Criminal Code Procedure states the power to issue an order in dire instances of nuisance or apprehended risk.

As indicated by 141-149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the maximum punishment for engaging for taking part in rioting is rigorous imprisonment for 3 years or/and fine. Each individual from an unlawful assembly can be considered responsible for wrongdoing committed by the group. Blocking an officer attempting to disperse an unlawful gathering may pull in further punishment.

In about 1861, Officer Raj-Ratna E.F. Deboo IPS were the creator and draftsman of section 144, which lessened by and large crime in that time in the state of Baroda. He was perceived for his drive and granted a gold medal by the Maharaja Gaekwad of Baroda for setting up Section 144 and lessening by and large crime rate.

The section was imposed for the first time in 1861 by the British Raj, and thereafter turned into a critical instrument to stop every single nationalist protest amid the Indian freedom movement, and its utilization in independent India stays controversial as not much has changed. Usually used to avert freedom of expression by quiet protests or demonstrations, even the law does not utilize the terms, however, it mentions “riot”. Section 144 applies amid mobs and election continuing after the announcement of the election.

144 Section Rules and Conditions

(1) In situations where, in the opinion of a District Magistrate, a Sub-divisional Magistrate or some other Executive Magistrate exceptionally enabled by the State Government for this sake, there is adequate ground for continuing under this section and prompt prevention or speedy remedy is alluring, such Magistrate may, by a written order expressing the material facts of the case and served in the way given by section 134, guide any individual to abstain from a specific act or to take certain order concerning certain property in his ownership or under his management, if such Magistrate thinks about that such course is probably going to prevent, or will in general avert, deterrent, inconvenience or damage to any individual lawfully employed, or threat to human life, health or security, or disturbance of public peacefulness, or an uproar, or an affray.

(2) An order under this section may, in instances of crisis or in situations where the conditions don’t concede to the serving in due time of a notice upon the individual against whom the order is coordinated, be passed ex parte.

(3) An order under this section might be coordinated to a specific individual, or to people dwelling in a specific place or area, or to the general population by and large when frequenting or visiting a specific place or area.

(4) No order under this section will stay in power for over two months from the creation thereof: Provided that, if the State Government thinks so to improve the situation preventing peril to human life, health or security or for keeping an uproar or any affray, it might, by notification, coordinate that an order made by a Magistrate under this section will stay in force for such further period not surpassing a half year from the date on which the order made by the Magistrate would have, yet for such order, lapsed, as it might determine in the said notification.

(5) Any Magistrate may, either on his own or on the use of any individual aggrieved, repeal or alter any order made under this section, by himself or any Magistrate subordinate to him or by his predecessor-in-office.

(6) The State Government may, either on its own or on the use of any individual aggrieved, repeal or change any order made by it under the stipulation to subsection (4).

(7) Where an application under subsection (5) or subsection (6) is received, the Magistrate, or the State Government, by and large, will bear to the applicant an early chance of showing up before him or it, either face to face or by pleader and indicating cause against the order; and if the Magistrate or the State Government, all things considered, rejects the application completely or to a limited extent, he or it will record in writing the reasons behind so doing.

Who enforces Section 144 IPC

The orders for Imposing section 144 have been given to Executive Magistrate when there is a crisis situation.

Limitations enforced when Sec 144 IPC is imposed

• The urgency of the circumstance and the power is to be utilized for keeping up public harmony and peace.
• Private rights might be temporarily superseded when there is a contention between public interest and private rights
• Questions of title to properties or entitlements to rights or disputes of civil nature are not open for adjudication in a procedure under section 144 of Criminal Procedure Code.

How the requests of Sec 144 should be passed?

It must be in written form. Prior to enforcing Section 144, Executive Magistrate needs to guarantee whether there is a need to enforce section 144. For this, he/she have to request material facts.

Duration of Order

• Section 144 would be valid just for a time of two months.
• The state government can expand the validity for two months and maximum up to a half year.
• It can be withdrawn any time of time if the circumstance turns normal.

Section 144 IPC at Kerala

The Pathanamthitta district authority in Kerala has forced Section 144 of the CrPC in Sabarimala and close-by regions ahead of the Chithira Avittom Pooja. The hill shrine in Sabarimala was opened for devotees on November 5 and 6. Prohibitory orders will be set up until November 26.
In the wake of violent protest amid the last monthly pooja, the state police have likewise chosen to increase deployment of forces in Sabarimala area.
Then again, state police keep on taking action against protesters in Pamba and Nilakkal. As per the most recent data, 3,701 individuals have been captured in 543 cases by the police.

At the point when the temple was opened for devotees, at least five ladies attempted to visit the main place of worship. In any case, owing to huge protests at the temple and the police’s failure to give adequate security, the ladies couldn’t enter the shrine.

In conclusion, the article aimed at discovering all the aspects of Section 144 of the CrPC. This Section can be misused at times for political gains and can restrain the freedom of movement of people. Therefore, this section before being imposed should be deliberated upon and if imposed, it should be done with the utmost care and precision.

Key differences between IPC and CrPC

As citizens of India, it is important to be well versed with the laws of our country, more so, when it comes to society at large. The criminal laws impact not just individuals but the entire society. The Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) are two of the most important legislation governing crimes in India. Besides these, the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is the third legislation under criminal law in India.

The Indian Penal Code (IPC)

The Indian Penal Code is the official criminal code of India, which was drafted way back in 1860. It’s objective is to provide a general penal code for the country. It has 511 sections across 23 chapters, providing the list of crimes along with their definitions and punishments. The IPC has been amended several times and is now supplemented by other Acts. Its jurisdiction extends to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir.

Here is the detailed overview of the important provisions of the CrPC –

• Chapter 1 – Introduction (Section 1 – 5)
• Chapter 2 – General Explanations (Section 6 – 52A)
• Chapter 3 – Of punishments (Section 53 -75)
• Chapter 4 – General Exceptions (Section 76 – 106)
• Chapter 5 – Of Abetment (Section 107 – 120)
• Chapter 5A – Of Criminal Conspiracy (Section 120A and 120B)
• Chapter 6 – Of offenses against the State (Section 121 – 130)
• Chapter 7 – Of offences relating to the army, navy and air force (Section 131 – 140)
• Chapter 8 – Of offences against the public tranquillity (Section 141 – 160)
• Chapter 9A – Of offences relating to elections (Section 171A – Section 171I)
• Chapter 10 – Of contempts of the lawful authority of public servants (Section 172 – 190)
• Chapter 11 – Of false evidence and offences against public justice (Section 191 – 229)
• Chapter 12 – Of offences relating to coin and government stamps (Section 230 – 263A)
• Chapter 13 – Of offences relating To weights and measures (Section 264 – 267)
• Chapter 14 – Of Offences Affecting The Public Health, Safety, Convenience, Decency And Morals (Section 268 – 294A)
• Chapter 15 – Of Offences Relating To Religion (Section 295 – 298)
• Chapter 16 – Of Offences Affecting The Human Body (Section 299 – 377)
• Chapter 17 – Of Offences Against Property (Section 378 – 462)
• Chapter 18 – Of Offences Relating To Documents And To Property Marks (Section 463 – 489E)
• Chapter 19 – Of The Criminal Breach Of Contracts Of Service (Section 490 – 492)
• Chapter 20 – Of Offences Relating To Marriage (Section 493 – 498)
• Chapter 20A – Of Cruelty By Husband Or Relatives Of Husband (Section 498A)
• Chapter 21 – Of Defamation (Section 499 – 502)
• Chapter 22 – Of Criminal Intimidation, Insult And Annoyance (Section 503 – 510)
• Chapter 23 – Of Attempts To Commit Offences (Section 511)

The Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) –

The Code of Criminal Procedure is the main legislation on the procedure for the regulation of criminal law in India. The CrPC details the procedure for the investigation of the crime, presenting criminals before the court of law, collection of evidence, determination of guilt or innocence of the accused, imposition of penalties or punishments etc. It further lays down the hierarchy of the courts competent to try criminal lawsuits. In descending order it is the High Court at the top followed by Sessions Court, First Class Judicial Magistrate, Second Class Judicial Magistrate and Executive Magistrate. There is a limit affixed for sentences which these courts can pass against the accused. The Supreme Court is the apex court, and it has the ultimate power. The code was enacted in 1973. At present, the CrPC contains 484 sections cut across 37 chapters. It also has two schedules and 56 forms.

Here is the detailed overview of the important provisions of the CrPC –

• Chapter 1 – Preliminary (Section 1 – 5)
• Chapter 2 – Constitution of Criminal Courts and Offices (Section 6 – 25)
• Chapter 3 – Power of Courts (Section 26 – 35)
• Chapter 4 – Powers of Superior Officers of Police (Section 36 – 40)
• Chapter 5 – Arrest of Persons (Section 41 – 60)
• Chapter 6 – Processes to compel Appearance (Section 61 – 90)
• Chapter 13 – Jurisdiction of the Criminal Courts in inquiries and trials (Section 177 – 189)
• Chapter 14 – Conditions requisite for initiation of proceeding (Section 190 – 199)
• Chapter 15 – Complaints to Magistrates (Section 200 – 203)
• Chapter 16 – Commencement of proceedings before magistrates (Section 204 – 210)
• Chapter 17 – The Charge (Section 211 – 224)
• Chapter 18 – Trail before a court of session (Section 225 -237)
• Chapter 19 – Trial of warrant-cases by magistrates (Section 238 – 250)
• Chapter 20 – Trial of summons-cases by magistrates (Section 251 – 259)
• Chapter 21 – Summary Trials (Section 260 – 265)
• Chapter 22 – Attendance of persons confined or detained in prisons (Section 266 – 271)
• Chapter 23 – Evidence in inquiries and trials (Section 272 – 299)
• Chapter 24 – General provisions as to inquiries and trials (Section 300 – 327)
• Chapter 25 – Provisions as to accused persons of unsound mind (Section 328 – 339)
• Chapter 26 – Provisions as to offences affecting the administration of justice ( Section 340 – 352)
• Chapter 27 – The Judgement (Section 353 – 365)
• Chapter 28 – Submission of death sentences for confirmation (Section 366 – 371)
• Chapter 29 – Appeals (Section 372 – 394)
• Chapter 30 – Reference and Revision (Section 395 – 405)
• Chapter 31 – Transfer of criminal cases (Section 406 – 412)
• Chapter 32 – Execution, Suspension, Remission and Commutation of Sentences (Section 413 – 435)
• Chapter 33 – Provisions as to bail and bonds (Section 436 – 450)
• Chapter 34 – Disposal of Property (Section 451 – 459)
• Chapter 35 – Irregular Proceedings (Section 460 – 466)
• Chapter 36 – Limitation for taking cognizance of certain offences (Section 467 – 473)
• Chapter 37 – Miscellaneous (Section 474 – 484)

Major Difference between IPC and CrPC –

1.  The IPC provides a substantive list of all crimes and lays down the punishment for each one of them. For example, Section 378 defines Theft as “Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any moveable property out of the possession of any person without that per­son’s consent, moves that property in order to such taking, is said to commit theft.” The punishment for the offence of theft is spelt out under Section 379 in the following words, “Whoever commits theft shall be pun­ished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.” On the other hand, CrPC is a procedural law, and it lays down the ways or methods to be followed in a criminal case. So if a person is charged with ‘theft’, it is the CrPC which provides further details as to how the investigation would be carried out, how evidence will be collected etc. So CrPC concerns itself with the procedural aspect of the crime.
2. The primary purpose of IPC is to provide a general penal code for India which prescribes punishments to wrong-doers. The primary goal of CrPC is to consolidate the criminal law in the country.
3. The Indian Penal Code is a substantive law whereas, the Code of Criminal Procedure is procedural law.

CONCLUSION –

The Indian Penal Code, Code of Criminal Procedure and the Indian Evidence Act are the three primary legislation governing criminal law in India. They continue to play an important role in the court of law for the effective administration of justice. Besides, there are other legislations such as the Prohibition of Child Trafficking Act, the Juvenile Justice Act, which supplement the three main legislation. Both the IPC and the CrPC are pan-India in nature and extend to the whole of the State. Jammu and Kashmir are beyond their jurisdiction. IPC is the only substantive law here, and the Indian Evidence Act and the CrPC are the procedural laws.

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

Introduction

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code talks about the joint liability of persons involved in a criminal act. It says that if more than one person is involved in a criminal act done to satisfy a common intention, then each of such persons will be liable in the same way as if it was done by him alone.

The ingredients of Section 34 are as follows

• There should be a criminal act;
• Several persons should do the act;
• The criminal act must be done to satisfy a common intention of all;
• There must be actual participation of all the persons in some way or the other in furthering the common intention.

Common Intention

When the Indian Penal Code was enacted in 1860, Section 34 at that time did not include the provision of common intention, and later an amendment was made in the year 1870 to include it. Intention occupies a very crucial place in criminal law. The term ‘intention’ is not defined anywhere in the Indian Penal Code, but Section 34 of it deals with common intention. It implies a pre-decided plan and acting in accordance to execute that plan. It comes into the picture before the commission of the act.

Section 34 is limited to a situation, where an offense requires a particular criminal intention or knowledge and is committed by more than one person who shares that intention. Each person who participates in the act with such knowledge or intention will be liable in the same way as if it were done by him exclusively with that intention or knowledge. The liability of all the individuals involved in this circumstance is called ‘Joint Liability.’

Joint Liability

Joint liability occurs in the case when there is the existence of common intention in the criminal act done. If it can be shown that it was done by one of the accused persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, then the liability for the act may be imposed on any one of the persons in the same manner as if the act were done by him in his capacity. Court decisions have emphasized on the point that meeting of minds need not be something always very much before the incident, but could be something that may develop on the spot, at the very moment when the crime is being committed.

Proving that every one of the persons was involved in the actual act is irrelevant. The case of Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. King Emperor is one of the most important and earliest cases where the court convicted another person for the act of another done in fulfillment of common intention. A group of armed persons had entered the police station and demanded money from the postmaster, where he was counting it. They fired from the pistol at him, due to which he died on the spot. All of the accused were able to escape without taking money. The Police were able to catch Barendra Kumar Ghosh who was standing outside the post office keeping a check. Barendra on being arrested contended that he was only standing as a guard, but the Calcutta high court convicted him for the murder of the postmaster. His appeal to the Privy Council was also rejected.

There is also a general rule in the criminal jurisprudence that the courts cannot distinguish between the people involved in an activity and it is impossible to see what part is played by whom in the commission of the act, so each person is held jointly liable for the acts of another.

Common intention versus Similar Intention

A common intention can only be said to be formed when the intention of one is known to all others and shared by them. It does not mean the similar intention of several persons formed at the moment. The mere presence of the accused together is not sufficient to form a common intention to commit the offense. It is necessary that the intention of each one of ‘several persons’ be known to each other for constituting common intention; otherwise, it will be a similar intention. Similar intention can happen for several persons at the same time.

The distinction between a common intention and similar intention is a real one and if overlooked by courts, may lead to a miscarriage of justice. Section 34 can be invoked only when the accused shares a common intention and not one a similar intention. Unless the common intention is proved, individuals will be liable for their actions only. If there occurs any doubt, the benefit of the doubt is given to the accused.

Conclusion 

Section 34 does not lay down a separate offense but defines the liabilities. Therefore, it is always read with other sections for framing of charges or while deciding the punishment. The maximum sentence for an offense would depend upon the main offense along with which Section 34 is applied. To bring this section into effect a prior meeting of minds need not necessarily be proved, but it may well develop on the spot as between several persons and could be decided based on the facts and circumstances of each case. There must be an ultimate objective, the fulfillment of which should be the goal of each person involved.

Original blog is published in legodesk please do visit the website for legal service and legal help.

IPC 406 – Provision and Punishment for Criminal Breach of Trust

Section 406 IPC is dealing with the punishment clause of Criminal Breach of trust, defined under section 405 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. So basically by its own heading of section 405, it is to be clear that, when any “person” putting their trust on “someone” for transferring the possession of some property to “someone” and that “someone” thereafter breaches the trust of the “person” by retaining the property by some forge way or by any other act, then such type of activities done by any person has come under the ambit of criminal act under the provision of Indian Penal Code, 1860. The offenses of criminal breach of trust, as defined under section 405, is very similar to the offense of embezzlement under the English law.

Furthermore, to constitute the offense of criminal breach of trust under section 405, it must be established that the accused was entrusted with some property or power over the property of other person and that the person with mala-fide intention misappropriated it or converted it to their use. In short, the section reads as ‘dishonest misappropriation’ or ‘convert the property to own use’ some other person’s property. Criminal breach of trust and criminal misappropriation (under Section 403) is distinct from each other in the context of the fact that in the criminal breach of trust, the accused person is entrusted with property or control over the property.

Provisions under IPC: –

That the provision related to Criminal Breach of Trust is mentioned under Chapter VI (of offenses against the body) from section 405 to 409. Whereas section 405 defines Criminal Breach of Trust, section 406 provides punishment of offense defining u/s 405 and section 407-409 sets when some specific people and their punishment commit the wrong of breach of trust.

Although Section 405 has a wide ambit, however ‘entrustment’ of the property is an essential ingredient for an offense to be punished under S.406 of IPC.

Some of the other essential elements of the offense of Criminal Breach of Trust under Sec. 405 are the following: 

1. giving a charge of their property to any person in whom confidence is placed or providing any power over property;
2. Also, the person is entrusted:-
   1. •  With mala-fide intention misappropriates the property or converts the property to his use or,
      • With the mala-fide intention uses or disposes of that property or willfully suffers any person of any contracts which is legal made touching the discharge of such kind of trust.

Section 405 of the IPC extends to the entrustment of all type – whether, to clerks, servants, business persons or some other persons, just one thing is taken into consideration that, they are holding a position of trust. Entrustment need not be express always, and it may be implied.

Read Also: 5 Points To Consider Before Hiring Property Dispute Lawyers

Punishment (Under Section 406 IPC) 

Whoever commits offenses defined under section 405 of IPC shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

Case laws: –

In the State of Gujarat vs. Jaswantlal Nathalal (AIR 1968 SC 700.) Supreme Court held pronounce that the expression ‘entrustment’ carries with it the implication that the person handing over any property or on whose behalf that property is handed over to another person, they continue to be its owner.

Further, the person who is handing over the property must have confidence in the person taking the property. To create a relationship based on trust between them. Only the transaction of sale cannot amount to an entrustment. If the accused had infringed or violated the conditions of purchase, the only legal help is to prosecute him under the law.

Stridhan and Criminal Breach of Trust: –

Basically, In Stridhan it includes all kind of gifts given by the husband to his wife before their wedding; Also, gifts given by the husband or as we can say (groom) and his family, or other guests or persons, and the wife’s (bride) parents to the wife at the time of marriage, and any type of gifts given to her after the marriage by an person including her parents, her husband and his husbands family, or anybody else. In Stridhan it may include jewelry, apartments, vehicles or any other item. Stridhan is considered as the exclusive property of the wife according to the Hindu Marriage Act, and the definition is accepted by judicial authorities for other purposes too.

Though Misappropriation of Stridhan by the husband or husband’s side is a punishable crime by the provision of law defined in IPC u/s 406 (“punishment for criminal breach of trust“), the definition is given u/s 405, while sections 407- section 409 defines the penal provision for breach of trust in some specific relationships. The spectrum of relationships covered by these sections which include the relationship between sender and carrier of property or goods, and between an owner of the property and their employee, and between the owner of property and banker, and between public and public officials, and between an owner of the property their attornies or agents. Section 406 provides three years simple or rigorous imprisonment, both part, i.e., 407 and section 408 provides seven years simple or rigorous imprisonment, and section 409 prescribes severe punishment from ten years – life imprisonment. By some section 406 can be more correctly described as “punishment for criminal breach of trust simpliciter” in the light of these undoubtedly severe sections. There are many contradictory views regarding that the components of the Stridhan which has been gifted by the husband or the husband’s side. Some experts say that taking back such kind gifts creates only civil liability, while some of in the opinion that this may attract IPC section 406 (Criminal Breach of Trust), which is a criminal provision.

If we talk about some other aspect of the term Stridhan, any gifts given by the wife’s side to the husband or husband’s family are to be returned if and when the marriage collapses. Because If these kinds of gifts are deemed by the court to have been given “in consideration of marriage” (or as we can say as a price for marriage), then this is considered as dowry, and the husband’s side may be liable under the provision of Dowry Act for the imprisonment and /or a fine or both for demanding these items or accepting these items.

The Apex Court of the country i.e., Supreme court quoted that the sections under 498a and 406 under the Indian penal code are widely misused, and for no reason, the husband and his family members are prosecuted and send behind bars thereby, tarnishing the reputation of the family, these sections are termed as a “legal terrorism”. Hence the apex court in a very recent judgment of “Arnesh Kumar Vs. The state of Bihar” has given some compulsory or obligatory proposal of guidelines which are as follows: –

1. All the State Governments to instruct its police officers not to directly arrest when a case under Section 498-A of the IPC is lodged but it’s necessary to satisfy themselves about the requirements for arrest under the framework laid down above flowing from Section 41, Cr.PC;
2. The police officer or in charge may provide a check-list under section 41(1)(b)(ii) of the Criminal Procedure Code which shall forward  and furnish the reasons and materials which necessitated the arrest while producing the accused person before the Magistrate for further detention;
3. The magistrate may pursue the report furnished by police, and only after recording its satisfaction, the magistrate authorizes detention.
4. Notice send (for appearing in court) in terms of Section 41A of Cr.P.C.must be reach before accused within 14 days from the date of filing the case.
5. Giving detention without recording any reason by Judicial Magistrate shall be liable for a departmental inquiry by the appropriate HC.
6. Once FIR under 498a/406 is lodged the apprehension of arrests may create even with the guidelines and safeguards as to be mandatorily implemented by the police officials. The police officer can follow the guidelines and can arrest the person.

Read Also: 8 Legal Documents to Check Before Buying Property

Conclusion

Lastly, I will conclude this article with If we have to make a person liable under the discussed provision, it is not only sufficient to establish that the property has not been mismanaged, also, It has to be established that the accused has put the property to his use with the mala-fide detention or to some unauthorized use. And Negligence does not come under the ambit of ‘dishonestly keeping the property in possession,’ it’s an exception.

The wrong of breach of trust under Section 406 is cognizable, and a warrant should, ordinarily, an issue in the first aspect. The wrong is not bailable. It is only compoundable with Court permission when the value of the property does not exceed Rs. 250 and not compoundable otherwise, and is triable by a Magistrate of the first or second class.

Seven Things You Need To Know About Section 467 IPC : Provision And Punishment Today

Introduction To Section 467

Section 467 is an essential part mentioned under the chapter 18th of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, titled “Offenses related to the property and the documents.” Section 467 basically deals with forgery of a valuable security or a will etc. but before going further first, we need to understand the meaning of the term “Forgery.” So basically it’s a kind of white-collar crime which is generally referring to the false making of an any legal data with the mala-fide intention to defraud a person other than himself or herself. The offense is not an offense until the false document or legal instrument was actually used in the commission of a crime to defraud the person other than himself or herself.

Section 463 of the penal code explains the term “Forgery” in detail, i.e., Any Person who creates or makes –

1. False Document (wholly or partly)
2. False E- Record (electronic record)
3. with the mala – fide intention to cause injury
4.  to the public at large or any person other than himself or herself.

Reasons prescribe for creating such false legal documents:

1. to give legal support to any type of claim or any type of title, or
2. to take part in the person’s property, or
3. to enter into any agreement, enforceable by law (implied or express), or
4. with the intention to defraud someone.

So basically, forgery simply means any kind of a false document which is much essentially concerned with an altered object. Counterfeiting is a similar term which is used in the context of forging a currency or money. And in addition, it’s not only about forging money or currency but consumer goods some times also be counterfeits with a specific reason if those goods aren’t manufactured by the designated manufacturer who has given or flagged by the trademark symbol or given any kind of label with the same.

SECTION 467 – Indian Penal Code – Forgery of valuable security

It states that, Any person who creates a false legal instrument,

1. Which appears to be valuable security, or
2. A  Will, or
3. A legal authority to adopt a son, or
4. which purports or appears to be giving legal authority to the person other than himself or herself to make any valuable security, or
5. to transfer any valuable security, or
6. to receive or deliver any property (movable, immovable, money), or valuable security, or
7. Any legal instrument which appears to be receipt of money acknowledging the payment, or
8. A receipt acknowledging the delivery of any property(movable in nature) or valuable security.

So, Section 467 of IPC  is a forgery of valuable will, etc. (mentioned above in detail). Under Sec. 467 – merely forging that legal instrument or document is sufficient for punishment under this, even if that legal instrument may not be used for forgery and no money is obtained by that document. In simple term, possession of that legal instrument or any document and their intention to use that is more than sufficient to convict the person. E.g.,  if any type of forged treasury bond is found with a person for Rs. 25 Lacs, then, it should be seen as, the law will assume that the Bond was forged with the mala – fide intention is to gain Rs.25 Lacs, in process that person should come under the ambit of section 467, convicted and got punished under the said provision. For example, fake treasury bonds, fake wills, etc.

The offense under this section (section 467) is considered as an extended form of forgery or aggravated form. By seeing the punishment itself, one can determine the seriousness of this offense. Where any person other than himself or herself, who falsely signs an instrument which is legal in nature or document for the purpose of creating it a valid document in the eyes of the law, then he or she is guilty and may be convicted for signing a false legal document. As such copying, any legal database or taking the signature of an agent on a blank draft form was held to be an offense under section 467. Also, getting registered a sale deed by impersonating the real owner is punishable under this section. The first and foremost condition to convict under this section is that person forged anything which could be considered as valuable security like Any certificate forged by a candidate seeking admission in any institution was held to be not guilty as the certificate does not come under the ambit of a term “valuable security.” Dishonestly or fraudulently collecting the money sent by any means (includes online transaction + Money orders) personating as the payee (the person who pays) is punishable and under this section (section 467).

One more section under this chapter, which has a significant place in Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with “Forgery with the purpose of Cheating.”The reasons for discussing this section under this as many of the personality or legal fraternity were in the opinion that both the section (Section 467 and 468) are similar but they are not, the only thing which is absent and should be considered while convicting a person is, the person who is doing this is doing with any valuable security, and in another with the purpose of cheating only, the reason is under section 467 there must be a false representation which deals with the “valuable security” and will but under section 468, with the purpose of cheating only is the essential criteria and in authors opinion the distinction is must because there is a vast difference between both the section when one examines their punishment clause because under this (section 468) the punishment prescribed by the lawmakers is imprisonment which may extend up to 7 year or fine or both and in other (section 467) the offense is considered more heinous than Section 468.

Punishment 

Imprisonment for Life or 10 Years or Fine or Both. The offense under this (section 467) is Non-cognizable and non-bailable (this only signifies the seriousness of this particular section) and triable by Judicial Magistrate First Class.

Simple Guidance For You In Section 323 Of The Indian Penal Code, 1860

INTRODUCTION TO IPC 323

The Indian Penal Code covers the offense of hurt under Chapter XVI, i.e., “Offences Affecting Life.” Section 323 punishes voluntary causing of hurt under the same.

The provision laid under Section 319 reads as: “Whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt.”

The important points for establishing an offense of under Section 319 are:

• Firstly, bodily pain caused should be physical. In other words, such pain should not be emotional or mental.
• Secondly, infirmity includes temporary mental impairment, hysteria, or terror.
• Thirdly, communicating diseases is also a cause of ‘hurt.’

The courts have taken a mixed approach to the third point. For example, in the case of R v. Clarence[1], there was a transfer of venereal disease from the husband to wife. The husband resisted from informing his wife in spite of knowing about his condition. Because if she had come to see, she would not have agreed for sexual intercourse. Contrarily, the court held that the husband was not guilty of causing ‘hurt.’

It is differentiated from the offense of ‘Grievous-Hurt[2]’. It is of a graver intensity as compared to ‘hurt’ and thus, lesser punishment is applicable in case of hurt.

VOLUNTARILY CAUSING HURT

A small case under Section 319 is not punishable. Thus, IPC demarcates a separate offense for hurting voluntarily or intentionally. Section 321 states: “Whoever does any act to thereby cause hurt to any person, or with the knowledge that he is likely thereby to cause hurt to any person, and does thereby cause hurt to any person, is said, “voluntarily to cause hurt.”

In Hanif Usmanbhai Kalva v. State of Gujarat[3], the court has discussed the essential ingredients which constitute the offense under section 323 IPC. These areas under:

1. “The accused caused hurt to another person;
2. He caused such hurt voluntarily;
3. S. 334 does not protect his act.”

Exception

Furthermore, these provisions under Section 321 is subject to Section 334 of the Indian Penal Code. Anyone who acts unintentionally or without any knowledge and causes hurt to a person who provoked him would have a reduced punishment as a result of lack of intention.

However, it is necessary here that the provocation must be grave and sudden.

Punishment

A person causing hurt voluntarily is punishable with an imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both under Section 323 IPC.

However, this punishment is subject to Section 334 which provides for imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both in case of doing the act under grave and sudden provocation.

Read Also: Voluntary Causing Hurt: Provision and Punishment

Other Forms Of Voluntarily Causing Hurt

1. Voluntarily Causing of Hurt by Dangerous Weapons or Means

Section 324 specifically defines ‘voluntarily causing of hurt by dangerous weapons or means’ as an offense. The special circumstances of voluntarily causing hurt laid down under Section 324 are by means of:

1. an instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or
2. an instrument which, used as a weapon of offense, is likely to cause death, or
3. fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or
4. explosive substance, or
5. the substance which is harmful to the human body to inhale, to swallow, to receive into the blood, or
6. any animal.

Likewise, imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both, is enforceable in case of voluntary hurt by dangerous means.[4] And it is also subject of Section 334.

2. Voluntary Hurt to Extort Property, Or To Constrain To An Illegal Act –

Voluntarily hurting a person to extort any property or valuable security from him or any person interested in him or constraining to do anything illegal is separately punishable with an imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and also relevant fine.[5]

3. Causing Hurt by Means of Poison to Commit an Offence – 

Section 328 of the IPC says that, whoever administers to or causes to be taken by any person any poison or any stupefying, intoxicating or unwholesome drug, or other thing with intent to cause hurt to such person, or with intent to commit or to facilitate the commission of an offence or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause hurt is an offender.

Furthermore, such an offense would be punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.[6]

4. Voluntary Hurt to Extort Confession – 

Voluntarily hurting a person so as to extort any confession or information from either the sufferer or anyone interested, which may lead to the detection of an offence or misconduct and vice versa, is punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and also makes a person liable to fine.[7]

Illustration: Torturing a person in order to induce him to point out where certain stolen property is deposited makes a person guilty of an offense under Section 332.

5. Voluntary Hurt by Endangering Life in Public – 

Whoever hurts any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.[8]

CONCLUSION

Thus, intentional or voluntarily hurting anyone is a punishable offense. Section 323 of the IPC punishes it accordingly. In addition to this, several separate offenses are also formed in furtherance of a voluntary act.

[1] (1889) 22 QB 23.

[2] Section 322, Indian Penal Code 1860.

[3] Criminal Misc. Application No. 3120 of 2014.

[4] Supra note 2, Section 324.

[5] Ibid, S. 327.

[6] Ibid, S. 328.

[7] Ibid, S. 332.

[8] Ibid, S. 337.