Sanjay Rawat : Section 25 To 33 Of IPC
The Indian Penal Code is the official criminal code of India and is applicable to all the citizens of India who commits crime or action suggesting misconduct in the Indian territory. The draft of the Indian Penal Code was prepared by first law commission in 1835 and has been submitted to the governor-general of Indian Council in 1837. At present IPC is divided into 23 chapters and contains 511 sections. The Indian Penal Code in its basic structure is a document that consists of all the list of punishments.
The Indian penal code drafted by Lord Macaulay was introduced in 1860 in India. The crimes provided in the IPC are mainly based on guilty intention or mens rea. But this word that is mens rea is nowhere mentioned or defined in IPC. This lack of particular definition raises several questions like what is mens rea, how to determine mens rea of a person, what‟s the nature of mens rea etc.
Various terms have been used in IPC to denote the term mens rea. M.C. Setalvad states that 1 “What the Indian Code (Indian Penal Code) seem to have done is to incorporate into the common law crimes the mens rea needed for that particular crime, so that the guilty intention is generally to be gathered not from the Common Law but from the statute itself”.
This view seems to be true as imports of mens rea have been indicated by the words such as “dishonestly”, “fraudulently”,” voluntarily”, “intentionally” etc. in the statute i.e. IPC and one such term is “reason to believe”.
The objective of this Act is to provide a general Penal Code for India. Though this Code consolidates the whole of the law on the subject and is exhaustive on the matters in respect of which it declares the law, many more penal statutes governing various offences have been created in addition to this code.
The Indian security system has been one that has gone through a lot of tests and examinations throughout the time. This is due to the political as well as the social situation of the country. India is a land of diverse cultures and traditions and it is a place where people from various religions as well as ethnic backgrounds live together.
Under Penal Code the term ‘fraudulently’ is defined under section 25 as the fraudulent act of a person can cause loss to another person or gain to another person and is frequently used in entire code. And the most important is to know that the intention to deceive is the most important element to constitute fraud. The person deceiving does it for personal advantage Even when there is no wrongful loss to the person, the offence of fraud is committed. This very point distinguishes it from the term ‘dishonestly’ where the wrongful loss and wrongful gain is an essential element to prove it for criminal purposes. And it is this difference in the meaning of both terms in legal language, that they are used together in the provisions to give them wider scope and definite meaning Under section 26 it talks about reason to believe where “Reason to Believe” is another facet of the state of mind. It is not the same thing as “suspicion” or “doubt” and mere seeing also cannot be equated to believing. It is a higher level of state of mind. It means that a person must have reason to believe if the circumstances are such that a reasonable man would, by probable reasoning, conclude or infer regarding the nature of the thing concerned.
Section 27 of IPC talks about Under this section property in the possession of a person’s wife, clerk, or servant, is deemed to be in that person’s possession. The possession must be conscious and intelligent possession and not merely the physical presence of the accused near the object.
Under section 28 of IPC, it talks about manufacture of false money for gain, a kind of forgery in that something is copied so as to defraud by passing it for the original or genuine article. Because of the value conferred on money and the high level of technical skill required to imitate it, counterfeiting is singled out from other acts of forgery and is treated as a separate crime.
Section 29 of IPC describe about the definition of ‘document’ in this section seems to have a wide ambit in the sense that any matter expressed or described on any substance by means of letters, figures or marks or by more than one of those means is a document provided there is intention to use it as evidence of that matter, or which may be so used.
Under section 30 of IPC the words “valuable security” also occurs in sections 329–331, 347, 348, 420, 467 and 471. Account books containing entries not signed by a party are not “valuable security.” A copy of a valuable security is not a valuable security. An ‘order of assessment’ is a ‘valuable security’.
Under section 31 of the Indian penal code, it ‘Will’ is the legal declaration of the intention of a testator with respect to his property which he desires to be carried into effect after his death.
1 M.C.Setalvad, The Common Law of India, p. 139
Section 32 and section 33 states about an omission is sometimes called a negative act, but this seems dangerous practice, for it too easily permits an omission to be substituted for an act without requiring the special requirement for omission liability such as legal duty and the physical capacity to perform the act. Criminal liability for an omission is also well accepted where the actor has a legal duty and the capacity to act. It is said that this rather fundamental exception to the act requirement is permitted because an actor’s failure to perform a legal duty of which he is capable, satisfies the purposes of the act requirement or at least satisfies them as well as an act does. Specifically, these two special requirements for omission liability help to exclude from liability cases of fantasizing and irresolute intentions, important purposes of the act requirement. The effect of section 32 and this section taken together is that the term ‘act’ comprises one or more acts or one or more illegal omissions. The word ‘act’ does not mean only any particular, specific, instantaneous act of a person, but denotes, as well, a series of acts.
Thus, this paper explains the general explanation of the Indian Penal Code of 1860 that is from section 25 to 33 with illustration and case law.
SECTION 25 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860
“Fraudulently”. —A person is said to do a thing fraudulently if he does that thing with intent to defraud but not otherwise.
1. EXPLANATION OF THE SECTION
The definition of ‘fraudulently’ in this section is rather peculiar as it simply says that an element of ‘intent to defraud’ must be present. What is an intent to defraud has nowhere been explained? The Supreme Court is of the opinion that the word ‘defraud’ presupposes deceit and injury to the person deceived. Deceit normally means a false representation or statement of fact made with knowledge of falsity or recklessly with the intent that the person would act upon it and who does act upon it and suffers damage.
The fraudulent act of a person can cause loss to another person or gain to another person. The word ‘defraud’ contains two elements, namely, deceit and injury to the person deceived. ‘Deceit’ means an intentional misrepresentation or concealment of the fact and as per IPC, the injury should be illegally caused to any person in body, mind, reputation or property. In Section 25 of the Code the word ‘defraud’ has been applied to deprive someone with the intention either by obtaining something by deception, or by taking something wrongly without the knowledge or consent of the owner.
- Fraud can be done in 3 ways
1. By depriving a man of his rights, either by obtaining something by deception or by taking something wrongfully without the knowledge or consent of the owner.
2. By wrongfully withholding something from another what is due to him or by wrongfully preventing someone from detaining what he may justly claim.
3. By wrongfully defeating or frustrating another’s right to property.
- Elements of Fraudulently:
In order that an act to be a fraudulent act following elements are necessary: (i) A person has done something, and
(ii) The act must be done intending to defraud.
(iii) intent and injury are essential
(iv) ‘Deceit’ is a necessary ingredient of fraud
(v) It is a non-economic or non-pecuniary loss.
(vi) By construction, ‘fraudulently’ excludes the elements of monetary or economic gain or loss.
(vii) Innocence cannot be in fraud in any circumstance.
The word fraudulently has been used in various sections of the code, viz., offences against public justice (section 206 to 210, IPC), of offences relating to coin and government stamps(section 246 and 247,IPC), of offences relating to weights and measures(section 264 and 265, IPC) and offences relating to documents and property marking including electronic records (section 463 to 464 ,IPC), etc.
A sell his sick horse to B, pretending that it is a healthy horse. Such action of A will be a fraudulent act, committed with an intention to defraud B.
A who is a tenant in a house, pretends himself to be the owner of the house and sub-lets the house to B at a higher rent, In this case A is committing an act fraudulently and as A is living in that house, that gives a reason to B to believe that A is the owner of the house.
3. CASE LAW
In another case of Dr. Vimla v. Delhi Administration,2the supreme court observed that the expression ‘defraud’ involves two elements, namely, deceit and injury to the person deceived. And even in the rare cases, where there is a benefit or advantage to the deceiver, but no corresponding loss to the deceived, the second condition is satisfied.
In this case, Dr. Vimla was guilty of deceit, for though her name was Vimla, she signed in all the relevant papers as Nalini, and made the insurance company believe that her name was Nalini, but the said deceit did not cause any advantage or any non-economic loss, or injury to the insurance company. As a result of which she was held guilty for committing fraud. Held, she was not guilty of forgery under section 467 and 468, IPC because there was no injury to the insurance company nor advantage to the accused.
2 AIR 1963 SC 1572: 1963 Supp (1) CR 585: (1963) 2 Cr LJ 434.
4. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DISHONESTLY AND FRAUDULENTLY
Intention to defraud must mean intention to deceive and thereby obtain an advantage. It is not necessary that this advantage should always be economic. There are many provisions in the Indian Penal Code where “fraudulently” and “dishonestly” have been used side by side. This shows a close connection between the two. However, conceptually they have different meanings under the Code and should be so interpreted.
|• Dishonestly is defined under section 24 of IPC which states “whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person, is said to do that thing “dishonestly”||• Fraudulently is defined under section 25 of IPC which states, “A person is said to do a thing fraudulently if he does that thing with intent to defraud but not otherwise.”|
|• Although the word dishonestly means to deceit but in IPC dishonestly includes an intentional act, to cause wrongful gain and wrongful loss in another.||• However, in fraudulent deceit and injury is an essential element.|
|• There must be an intention to cause wrongful gain or wrongful loss to a person.||• In fraudulently, the intention is to defraud others.|
|• Deceit is not an essential ingredient.||• Deceit or dishonestly are vita; ingredients.|
|• In this case, there must be monetary gain or loss.||• In this case, monetary or economic gain or loss is not always so.|
|• Dishonesty may be by innocence. Dishonestly and innocence may overlap||• Fraud and innocence can never overlap. Fraud itself is deception.|
SECTION 26 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860
“Reason to believe”. —A person is said to have “reason to believe” a thing, if he has sufficient cause to believe that thing but not otherwise.
1. EXPLANATION OF SECTION 26
In Indian context “intention” or “knowledge” or “reason to believe” are taken as import of mens rea almost in all the crimes.
This section simply means if a person has enough reasons to believe certain thing and not otherwise it’ll come under reason to believe. It is clear from this definition that suspicion will not be sufficient cause to believe. The word “believe” is a much stronger word than “suspect”.
It involves the necessity of showing that circumstances were such that a reasonable man must have felt convinced that the note with which he was dealing was forged one and it would not be sufficient to show that he was careless or he had reason to suspect or that he did not make sufficient enquiry to ascertain the fact.
A person can be supposed to know where there is a direct appeal to his senses, and he has “reason to believe” under the present section if he has sufficient cause to believe the thing but not otherwise. If the circumstances are such that a reasonable man would be led by a claim of probable reasoning to conclude or infer that the articles found to be stolen then even though the circumstances may fall short of carrying absolute conviction on the point, a person must be held to have reason to believe so.
There are both the subjective and objective standards are taken into consideration in deciding whether the person had “reason to believe” or not. This section talks about whether someone in the position of the accused would have had a reason to believe and whether a third person will also conclude the same thing if placed in similar conditions and circumstances. Hence it can be seen that the “whether a person had the reason to believe will depend on a case to case basis on different facts and different circumstances”
➢ Police have reason to believe upon finding fingerprint match on murder weapon that Mrs X has murdered her husband Mr Y. this is reason to believe.
➢ B comes to my home with blood on his clothes and body and carrying a weapon. Then B may not be sure whether a crime was committed by him or not but that doesn’t mean that B doesn’t has reason to believe it if no other reasonable conclusion can be deduced from the given situation.
➢ B a poor man brings to A for sale valuable gold ornament. B comes at late hours in the night in suspicious circumstance and offer the ornament for much less of the real price. Here A may not know that the ornament for much less of the real price. Here cause to believe that B might stole as he offers them at much low price and at odd hours in the night.
3. CASE LAW
1. Hamid Ali and Anr. Vs. The State3
In Hamid Ali and Anr. Vs. The State4 accused were found in possession of forged notes. It was held in the case that the “suspicion” and “doubt” cannot be at the same level as “reason to believe” and neither can be raised to the level of „reason to believe” to convict an accused. A person is said to have “reason to believe” “if the situations and circumstances are such that “any reasonable man would conclude the nature of the thing concerned by probable reasoning”. The person is punished under the offence that was in fact committed not on the offence that the accused had “reason to believe” was committed.
2. Titu Kumar Deb Vs. State of Tripura5
In Titu Kumar Deb Vs. State of Tripura6the accused had the “reason to believe” that the slips used to withdraw the money were forged even then the accused used them to withdraw money from the bank, resulting into his conviction under 471 of the IPC.
3 Hamid Ali and Anr. Vs. The State 1961 CriLJ 801.
5 Titu Kumar Deb Vs. State of Tripura MANU/TR/0088/2017.
SECTION 27 OF INDIA PENAL CODE, 1860
Property in possession of wife, clerk or servant.—When property is in the possession of a person’s wife, clerk or servant, on account of that person, it is in that person’s possession within the meaning of this Code.
Explanation.—A person employed temporarily or on a particular occasion in the capacity of a clerk or servant, is a clerk or servant within the meaning of this section.
1. EXPLANATION OF SECTION 27 OF IPC
Under this section property in the possession of a person’s wife, clerk, or servant, is deemed to be in that person’s possession. The possession must be conscious and intelligent possession and not merely the physical presence of the accused near the object.
The word ‘possession’ of property within the meaning of this Code has been given a wider connotation by this section. This provision explicitly states that besides self-possession of property, possession of property by one’s wife, clerk or servant will be treated to be his own possession for the purposes of the Code provided they possess the property on account of him. Naturally, if a wife, clerk or servant possesses a separate property, the same cannot be held to be the property of anyone else as it is not on account of the other person.
According to this section any property in the possession of a person’s wife, clerk or servant, is deemed to be in that person’s possession. Possession must be conscious and intelligent possession and not merely the physical presence of the accused in proximity to the object. Corporeal property is in a person’s possession when he has such power over it that he can exclude others from it, and intends to exercise, if necessary, that power on behalf of himself or of some person for whom he is a trustee.
A man’s belonging or goods are in his possession not only while they are in his house or his premises, but also when they are in a place where he may usually send them or in a place where they may be lawfully deposited by him. A permanent mistress is regarded as a wife for the purposes of this section.
Mr A has transferred 3 parts of land in order to evade taxes one in the name of his wife another 2 in name of his 2 servants, all these 3 properties are his own by this code
3. CASE LAW
In Chela Ram v. State,7it was held that the mere fact that the wife of the accused had in her possession illicit liquor and an unlicensed pistol did not ipso facto mean that she was in possession of those things on account of her husband, it, the accused and therefore, merely on the basis of this evidence the accused could not be held liable for an offence under the Prohibition Act or the Arms Act. The Court further told that the mere fact that the accused was the head of the family did not necessarily mean he must be having conscious possession of the incriminatory things found in possession of his wife .
7 AIR 1984 Cr I.J Raj 1143
SECTION 28 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860
“Counterfeit”. —A person is said to “counterfeit” who causes one thing to resemble another thing, intending by means of that resemblance to practise deception, or knowing it to be likely that deception will thereby be practised.
Explanation 1. —It is not essential to counterfeiting that the imitation should be exact. Explanation 2.—When a person causes one thing to resemble another thing, and the resemblance is such that a person might be deceived thereby, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that the person so causing the one thing to resemble the other thing intended by means of that resemblance to practise deception or knew it to be likely that deception would thereby be practised.
1. EXPLANATION OF THE SECTION
When a person causes one thing to resemble another thing with the intention of deceiving thereby or with the knowledge that deception will thereby be practised, he is said to counterfeit.
Explanation 1 makes it clear that it is not necessary that the imitation should be exact. As long as there is such a close resemblance that deception may be practised it is of no importance that, there are differences between the original and the imitation, and if the above mentioned intention or knowledge is proved it will be a case of counterfeiting. Actual deception takes place or not is of no consequence. Where there is no possibility of a deception because the imitation is so different from the original, the case does not fall under this section.
Explanation 2 which deals with the question of presumption, states that when a person causes one thing to resemble another thing and the resemblance is such that there is a likelihood of a person being deceived thereby, the law shall presume that the intention of the person is to practise deception or that he had knowledge that deception would thereby be practised. Putting trade mark of a company on an old article of the same company is not counterfeiting. The Supreme Court has held that since the section nowhere restricts the subject-matter of the offence, imitating foreign currency is also counterfeiting within the scope of this provision.
The following are ingredients of counterfeit:
(1) Causing one thing to resemble another thing sufficient to cause deception (2) Intending by means of such resemblance to practise deception
(3) Knowing it to be likely that deception will thereby be played.
The resemblance of one thing with another must be such as was sufficient to cause deception in absence of such resemblance there cannot be said to be ‘counterfeit, e.g., a counterfeit currency note which would not deceive even a villager. The word counterfeit does not connote a reproduction of the original counterfeited. But the counterfeit must be of such character that it would be possible to pass it off as genuine and unless that a is so, it would not be possible to practi deception which is necessary to constitute counterfeit. In Velayudham it was held that its coins are made to resemble genuine coins and the intention of the makers is merely to use them in order to foist a false case upon their enemies those coins do not come within the definition of counterfeit coins.
The thing may be coin, a piece of metal or some trade mark its value is immaterial. The counterfeit coin may be more valuable in money value than the coin for which it is intended to pass. Altering used stamps so as to resemble genuine stamps amounts to counterfeiting.
A have produce Nike shoe with same logo and style of original Nike brand and sell to B. B was not aware that A was making copy of it as it resembles same as original. Here A having intention and knowledge to deceive the B with Nike shoe.
3. CASE LAW
In the case of K. Hasim v. State Tamil Nadu,8the Supreme Court held that counterfeit in section 28 does not connote an exact reproduction of the original counterfeited. The explanation 2 of Section 28 is of great significance It lays down a rebuttable presumption where resemblance is such that a person might be deceived thereby in such a case the intention or the knowledge is presumed unless contrary is proved.
SECTION 29 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE OF 1860
“Document”. —The word “document” denotes any matter expressed or described upon any substance by means of letters, figures, or marks, or by more than one of those means, intended to be used, or which may be used, as evidence of that matter.
Explanation 1. —It is immaterial by what means or upon what substance the letters, figures or marks are formed, or whether the evidence is intended for, or may be used in, a Court of Justice, or not. Illustrations A writing expressing the terms of a contract, which may be used as evidence of the contract, is a document. A cheque upon a banker is a document. A power
of-attorney is a document. A map or plan which is intended to be used or which may be used as evidence, is a document. A writing containing directions or instructions is a document.
Explanation 2. —Whatever is expressed by means of letters, figures or marks as explained by mercantile or other usage, shall be deemed to be expressed by such letters, figures or marks within the meaning of this section, although the same may not be actually expressed. Illustration A writes his name on the back of a bill of exchange payable to his order. The meaning of the endorsement, as explained by mercantile usage, is that the bill is to be paid to the holder. The endorsement is a document, and must be construed in the same manner as if the words “pay to the holder” or words to that effect had been written over the signature.
8 AIR 2005 CR LJ 143 (SC).
1. EXPLANATION OF SECTION 29
The definition of ‘document’ in this section seems to have a wide ambit in the sense that any matter expressed or described on any substance by means of letters, figures or marks or by more than one of those means is a document provided there is the intention to use it as evidence of that matter, or which may be so used.
Explanation 1 clarifies that means of expression and the substance on which the same is expressed are not material.
It is also immaterial as to whether the evidence is intended for or may be used in, a Court of Justice or not. Explanation 2 creates a fiction to the effect that whatever is so expressed as explained by mercantile or other usages shall be deemed to be so expressed although there may not be an actual expression of it. The word ‘document’ has also been defined by section 3, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and section 3 (18), General Clauses Act, 1897.
The term document includes everything done by the pen, by engraving by printing or otherwise, whereby, on paper, parchment, wood or other substance a representation is made of words or other equivalents addressed to the eye. The definition appears to be faulty. In English law the material on which words are written is said to be a ‘document. Under the Penal Code the matter ‘written and not the ‘material’ on which words are written is called a document, but the matter should be intended to be used as evidence of that matter.
The word ‘evidence means the proof of the existence of the matter and not proof of the truth or otherwise of the contents of the document. A writing which is not legal evidence of the matter expressed may yet be a document if the parties framing it believed it to be and intended it to be, evidence of such matter. A writing words printed, lithographed or photographed, a map or plan, an inscription on a metal plate or stone document A caricature is is a document. A hammer for making sleepers is a document. Letters or marks imprinted on trees and intended to be used as evidence that the trees were passed for removal by a Ranger of a forest and a currency note are document.
A guarantee whether written or printed of the character or quality of a chattel, is not a document which if false. would be forgery, e.g., the false signature of an artist’s name to a picture or enclosing spurious goods in a wrapper imitating a trade mark. Post-mortem report is a document.
SECTION 29 A Electronic record–
The word electronic record” shall have the meaning assigned to them in clause (t) of sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Information Technology Act, 2000
The definition of electronic record as provided in clause (t) of Section 21) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 is as follows “Electronic records-“Electronic record” means data record or data generated image or sound stored, received or sent in an electronic form or micro film or computer-generated microfiche.” In all those sections of Indian Penal Code in which the term record appears it would also include electronic record.
A writing expressing the terms of a contract, which may be used a evidence of the contract, is a document.
A write his name on the back of a bill of exchange payable to his order. The meaning of the endorsement, as explained by the marchantiid usage, is that the bill is to be paid to the holder. The endorsement is a document and must be constructed in the same manner as if the word ‘pay to the holder’ or words to that effect had been written over the signature.
3. CASE LAW
1. Ramaswami Ayyar v State,9and Boraiah v State 10
In Ramaswami Ayyar v State,11and Boraiah v State,12 it was held that post mortem report which was marked without objection was allowed to be read in evidence without its author being produced. This concluded in the document which describe in section 29 of IPC.
2. Emperor v. Krishtappa Khandappa13
In the matter of Emperor v. Krishtappa Khandappa,14 few persons were charged under the Indian Penal Code for having conspired and abetted each other in the felling and removal of twenty sandalwood trees from a Government reserved forest, and further, with intent to commit forgery, in respect of the trees by impressing thereon certain marks. Accused No. 4 was charged with possession of a counterfeit stamp for the purpose of impressing those
9 Air (1917) 41 Mad 589
10 AIR2003 Cr LJ 1031 (Kant)
11 Ibid note 9
12 Ibid note 10
13 A.I.R. 1925 Bom. 327
marks. In an appeal against the acquittal of the above accused, the question that came up before the Bombay High Court was whether counterfeit seal, plate or another instrument for making an impression could be held to be the one used for the purpose of committing any forgery, punishable under the provisions of the IPC. It was contended that forgery implies the making of a false document and hence, a person counterfeiting marks on a tree would not be making a false document within the meaning of section 464 IPC.
The Apex Court posed itself the question of interpretation of the term document. It was held that the document must necessarily be something which is signed, sealed or executed. It was held that section 29 of IPC denotes, the document as any matter expressed or described upon any substance by means of letters, figures or marks, or by more than one of these means, intended to be used as evidence of that matter.
It noted Explanation 2, which provided that, whatever is expressed by means of letters, figures or marks as explained by mercantile or other usages, shall be deemed to be expressed by such letters, figures or marks within the meaning of this section, although the same may not be actually expressed. It was held that letters, when imprinted on the trees, were intended to evidence that the trees had been passed by the Ranger, and so it could be removed from the place where they were lying in the forest. The letters, therefore, imprinted on the trees would be a document within the meaning of section 29 of the Indian Penal Code. Clearly, the above conclusion of the Bombay High Court was essentially based on the fact that the dispute involved related to the imprint on a tree and not the tree as such. Hence, merely because the seal was imprinted on a tree, the question of the medium on which it was imprinted, loses its significance.
SECTION 30 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE OF 1860
“Valuable security”.—The words “valuable security” denote a document which is, or purports to be, a document whereby any legal right is created, extended, transferred, restricted, extinguished or released, or where by any person acknowledges that he lies under legal liability, or has not a certain legal right.
1. EXPLANATION OF THE SECTION
In simple terms, we can say that valuable security is a document which is conferred with certain legal rights. It means any document creating, transferring, realising or surrendering any right to, in or over the property, or authorising the payment of money or delivery of any property, or evidencing the creation, transfer, surrender, or release of any such right, or the payment of money or delivery of any property, or the satisfaction of any obligation.
Thus, a “Valuable Security” is a document of some value. That is to say, a document which of itself creates or extinguishes legal rights, or at least purports to create or extinguish them. From legal right we mean any right which is provided, accepted, and protected by law. Such rights are recognized and enforceable by law. It exists under the rule of a particular legal system. It means that any violation of legal right is punishable by law.
Ingredients or essential of valuable security are as follows:
(1) Valuable security is a document;
(2) It is a document whereby any legal right is created, extended, transferred, restricted extinguished or released: or
(3) It is a document whereby any person acknowledges that he lies under legal liability or has not a certain legal right.
Types of documents that can be considered as valuable security.-
The use of the words which is or purports to be” indicates that a document, which, upon evidence being given may be held to be invalid, but on the face of it creates or purports to create a right in immovable property, although a decree could not be passed upon the documents, is contemplated within the purview of the section.
The term “valuable security” applies to original document, and not to a copy. A copy of a valuable security is not a valuable security. Account books containing entries not signed by a party are not valuable security.
The fact that a document has not been stamped or not properly stamped, and is not therefore receivable in evidence, does not prevent being a valuable security A settlement of accounts in writing though not signed by any person and containing no promise to pay a deed of divorce, a promissory note executed by a minor through force, a rent note and a discharge receipt purporting to have been signed by a fictitious nominee in an insurance policy are valuable securities. A postal receipt for an insured parcel,” a copy of a decree passed by a court,” a bill receipt as by a cheque” and the copy of a lease are not valuable security.
A Writes his name on the back of a bill of exchange. As the effect of this endorsement is to transfer the right of the bill to any person who may become the lawful holder of it, the endorsement is a ‘valuable security’
3. CASE LAW
1. Ajhimuddin v Emperor15
In the case of Ajhimuddin v Emperor,16 the honourable court held that a deed of divorce is a valuable security, under section 30 of IPC because it extinguishes a legal right of the parties.
2. Krishn Rao v State of Madhya Pradesh17
In this case it was held by the honorable court that a rent is a valuable security under section 30 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
SECTION 31 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE OF 1860
“A will”. —The words “a will” denote any testamentary document.
1. EXPLANATION OF THE SECTION
A will is a testamentary document. It is a disposition or declaration by which the person making it provides for the distribution or administration of property after his death. It takes effect after the death of the testator. It is always revocable by the testator. Section 2(b) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 defines “Will” as “the legal declaration of the intention of the testator with respect to his property which he desires to be carried into effect after his death.” It occurs in section 467 and 477 of the Code.
A will is a legal declaration of the intention of the testator with respect to his property whether movable or immovable, which he desires to be carried into effect after his demise.
15 AIR (1869) 11WR Cr. 15
17 AIR (1953) Cr. L. J. 979
A have sign a nomination form in the bank of Punjab that if he dismisses by any chance then all his money in the account will be transfer to B and B will have all the right to that money after death of A, hence that form is consider as become will.
SECTION 32 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE OF 1860
“Words referring to acts include illegal omissions.” —In every part of this Code, except where a contrary intention appears from the context, words which refer to acts done extend also to illegal omissions.
1. EXPLANATION OF THE SECTION
This section puts an illegal omission on the same footing as a positive act.
Act: Act includes an illegal omission also. Act means something voluntarily done by a person. Act is determination of the will producing an effect. Any external manifestation is an act. It includes writing and speaking also. Act is not confined under the Code only to some positive conduct of doing something but includes such omission which is illegal.
Omission: The word omission is generally used in the sense of intentional non-doing Only such omissions are made punishable by the Code which cause, or are intended to cause or are likely to cause certain evil effect. Any neglect or omission of that which a person is required by law to do constitutes a culpable omission.
Thus, Section 32 places acts and omissions on the same plane. An illegal omission, unless a contrary intent appears in Penal Code is prescribed when the act is unlawful.
An ‘act’ generally means something voluntarily done by a person, but in IPC, 1860 the term ‘act’ is not confined to its ordinary meaning of positive conduct of doing something but includes also illegal omission. The effect of sections 32 and 33, IPC, 1860 taken together is that the term ‘act’ comprises one or more ‘acts’ or one or more illegal omissions. The Code (IPC, 1860) makes punishable omissions which have caused, which have been intended to cause or which have been known to be likely to cause certain evil effect in the same manner as it punishes acts provided they were illegal and when the law imposes on a person a duty to act, his illegal omission to act renders (him) is liable to punishment.
Penalty for omission
Maximum penalties applied to active wrongdoing should not automatically be transferred to corresponding omissions; penalties for omissions should be re-thought in each case. Indeed, the Indian Penal Code, 1860 does include explicitly the liability due to omissions. And even Indian courts have affirmed so.
2. CASE LAW
Om Prakash v. State of Punjab18
The appellant and his wife’s relation were strained, she was deliberately starved and was not allowed to leave the house and only sometimes a morsel of bread or grass husk mixed in water after five or six days used to be given. One day availing the opportunity, she went out of the house and manage to reach to the hospital where doctor found her condition critical and informed the police. It was held by the Supreme Court that the appellant’s husband liable under section 307 for attempt to commit murder of his wife, by deliberately and systematically starving her for days together by depriving her of the food necessary for human existence. The act amounts to intentional act of attempt to murder.
SECTION 33 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE OF 1860
“Act”, “Omission”. —The word “act” denotes as well a series of acts as a single act: the word “omission” denotes as well a series of omissions as a single omission.
1. EXPLANATION OF THE SECTION
The word ‘act’ includes not only a single act but a ‘series of acts’ which together constitute one transaction. Similarly, the word ‘omission’ also denotes a series of omission. On a reading of section 32 with section 33 of the Code it is clear that act” comprises one or more acts or one or more omissions
It was held in Om Prakash,19 that the word ‘act does not mean only any particular, specific instantaneous act of a person but denotes a series of acts also.
18 AIR 1961 SC 1782.
19 Supra 12
The general defences enshrined under IPC are of paramount importance in establishing the parameters of criminal offences. Criminal liability makes a person liable for the acts which are prohibited by law. Indian Penal Code took cognizance of fact that all acts are not to be punished. The acts devoid of mens rea are exempted from criminal liability.
The word ‘Mens rea’ hasn’t been used and defined in the Indian Penal Code but it has been used in the code through the words like Fraudulently, Dishonestly, Voluntarily, Corruptly, Malignantly, Wantonly, and Rashly and Negligently etc., which shows that the offences defined under the code had the required criminal intent for the offence Besides it, the code also contains a separate chapter i.e. Chapter IV on General Exceptions from Section 76 to Section 106 which indicates the circumstances where the criminal intent may be presumed. It has been shown that the Mens rea is very useful for the commission of the crime.
Under general explanation that is from section 25 to 33 that is mention above is basically define the term that of various under penal code which is related to the act of the person done and led to various criminal and guilty.
Section 25 To 33 Of IPC Section 25 To 33 Of IPC Section 25 To 33 Of IPC Section 25 To 33 Of IPC Section 25 To 33 Of IPC Section 25 To 33 Of IPC Section 25 To 33 Of IPC Section 25 To 33 Of IPC Section 25 To 33 Of IPC Section 25 To 33 Of IPC Section 25 To 33 Of IPC Section 25 To 33 Of IPC Section 25 To 33 Of IPC Section 25 To 33 Of IPC Section 25 To 33 Of IPC Section 25 To 33 Of IPC Section 25 To 33 Of IPC Section 25 To 33 Of IPC Section 25 To 33 Of IPC