LLM Notes: The criminal liability of public utilities in India

 The criminal liability of public utilities in India involves holding these entities accountable for criminal acts related to corruption, environmental violations, service deficiencies, and administrative misconduct. Public utilities like electricity, water supply, and telecommunications serve the public interest but often function as corporate entities with a quasi-governmental character, which poses unique challenges in enforcing criminal liability.

Constitutional and Legal Basis

Print Page

LLM Notes: Criminal Liability of Public Utilities: Scope and Challenges in Indian Law

 Introduction

The criminal liability of public utilities represents a complex intersection of administrative law, corporate criminal responsibility, and public accountability mechanisms in the Indian legal system. Public utilities, as entities providing essential services such as electricity, water supply, telecommunications, and gas distribution, occupy a unique position where they serve the public interest while operating as corporate entities. This dual nature creates distinct challenges in establishing and enforcing criminal liability, particularly given their quasi-governmental character and the critical services they provide to society.

Print Page

Bombay HC: Section 377 IPC and Marital Disputes: Distinguishing Grounds for Divorce from Criminal Offence

Heard submissions and pursued the FIR and other documents. The complainant has grievance against her husband, who is a gay and kept sexual relations with male friends i.e., the petitioner. The Supreme court in the case of Navtej Singh Johar & Ors. vs. Union of India1 has held section 377 of the Indian Penal Code insofar as it criminalises consensual sexual conduct between the adult of same sex, as unconstitutional. In the present case, both were having an extra marital consensual sexual relationship. Though it may be a ground for divorce on the ground of cruelty to the complainant, it does not constitute offence under section 377 because both are adults and had sexual relationship by consent. In this case, there is no victim. The complainant wife is an aggrieved person but she cannot be called as a victim under section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. There are allegations against the husband having unnatural sexual intercourse with her. {Para3}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Criminal Writ Petition No. 4470 of 2012

Decided On: 30.01.2019

Daniel Crasto Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Mridula Bhatkar, J.

Citation: MANU/MH/0239/2019,AIRONLINE 2019 BOM 195.

Print Page

Can a Wife Prosecute Her Husband’s Male Partner for Unnatural Offence under Section 377 IPC?

Bombay High Court Discharges Accused from Section 377 IPC After Navtej Singh Johar Judgment: A Landmark Application of LGBTQ Rights

Article:

The Bombay High Court, in the case of Daniel Crasto vs The State of Maharashtra (judgment dated 30 January 2019),citations: AIRONLINE 2019 BOM 195 delivered a significant ruling that directly applied the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Navtej Singh Johar & Ors. vs. Union of India to ongoing criminal proceedings under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Print Page

What is the difference between motive and intention of crime as per indian law?

 In Indian criminal law, motive and intention are distinct concepts that serve different purposes in determining criminal liability. While often used interchangeably in casual conversation, they have specific legal meanings and implications.

Definitions

Intention refers to the immediate, explicit purpose or goal behind an act—the conscious decision or objective that drives an individual to perform a particular action. It represents the deliberate mental state that accompanies an action at the moment it is undertaken. For example, when someone buys a knife, the intention might be to use it for cooking, self-defense, or causing harm.

Print Page

Can You Commit Mischief by Destroying Your Own Property? Understanding Section 425 of the Indian Penal Code

 Introduction

In criminal law, the concept of mischief typically involves damaging someone else's property. However, a fascinating and counterintuitive aspect of Indian criminal jurisprudence is that you can actually commit the offense of mischief by destroying your own property. This principle, enshrined in Section 425 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), challenges our conventional understanding of property rights and criminal liability.

The Legal Framework: Section 425 IPC

Core Provision

Print Page

How to prove breach of injunction?

 For finding a person guilty of willful disobedience of the order under XXXIX Rule 2A Code of Civil Procedure there has to be not mere "disobedience" but it should be a "willful disobedience". The allegation of willful disobedience being in the nature of criminal liability, the same has to be proved to the satisfaction of the court that the disobedience was not mere "disobedience" but a "willful disobedience". As pointed out earlier, during the second visit of the Commissioner to the Appellant's shop, tea cakes and masala cakes were being sold without any wrappers/labels. The only thing which the Commissioner has noted is that "non removal of the hoarding" displayed in front of the Appellant's shop for which the Appellant has offered an explanation which, in our considered view, is acceptable one.

8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any "willful disobedience" on the part of the Appellant warranting invoking Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure and sentencing the Appellant to one week civil imprisonment.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 5775 of 2019 

Decided On: 22.07.2019

 U.C. Surendranath   Vs.  Mambally's Bakery

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R. Banumathi and A.S. Bopanna, JJ.

Citation: AIR 2019 SC 3799

Print Page

Whether accused can be convicted for dishonour of time barred undated cheque?

 Under  Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments

Act,  as the validity of a cheque is only for 6 months  from

the  date of issuance, the implied authorisation for filling

up  the cheque should certainly be within the  limitation of

six months and not more than the period of limitation. As it

has  been proved that the undated cheque was handed over one

year and six months prior to the date of the cheque, I am of

the considered view that the dishonour of the same would not

create    any    criminal   liability   on   the    revision

petitioner/accused.  The  courts below  without  considering

the  legal aspect under the Negotiable Instruments  Act  and

also  the  factual circumstances, have given the  concurrent

finding which has to be construed as a manifest error of law

and   to   meet  the  ends  of  justice,  it  warrants   the

interference  of  this  Court.   Accordingly,   I  find   it

reasonable to allow this criminal revision petition.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                      DATED: 23.11.2006

                           CORAM:  MR. JUSTICE S. TAMILVANAN

                   Crl.R.C.No.1439 OF 2004
                              

Ramakannan   Vs Chettiar and Co.,

Print Page

Distinction between Civil Liability and Criminal Liability for Defamation

The view consistently taken by this Court has been that there is a distinction between criminal and civil liability for defamation. Civil liability is to be determined by the principles of English Law, but criminal liability is governed by the provisions of the Indian Penal Code and by those provisions alone. This view was taken by Mr. Justice Aikman in Isuri Prasad Singh v. Umrao Singh 22 A. 234 : A.W.N. (1900) 46 : 9 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 1187, and was re-affirmed by a Full Bench in Emperor v. Ganga Prasad 29 A. 685 : 4 A.L.J. 605 : 6 Cr. L.J. 197 : A.W.N. (1907) 235. The view taken by this Court has quite recently been unanimously approved by a Full Bench of five Judges of the Calcutta High Court in Satis Chandra Chakrabarti v. Ram Dayal De 59 Ind. Cas. 143 : 48 C. 388 : 32 C.L.J. 94 : 24 C.W.N. 982 : 22 Cr. L.J. 31.

Allahabad High Court

Musammat Champa Devi And Anr. vs Pirbhu Lal And Ors. on 14 December, 1925

Equivalent citations: 92 Ind Cas 429

Print Page

When power of attorney holder can be prosecuted for offence U/S 409 or S 420 of IPC?

Admittedly, in this case the accused/petitioner was the power of Attorney Holder of the firm/Kirti Electricals, of which his brother is said to be the proprietor. The petitioner submitted the quotation on behalf of firm for supply of Generator set. Entire quotation amount of Rs. 2,60,000/- was handed over to the accused-petitioner by way of Bank Draft and he received the Bank Draft on behalf of the firm being its power of attorney holder. He himself deposited the amount in the Bank account of the firm which was being operated by him and also withdrew the entire amount, thereafter closed the Bank account. The Generator set, which was supplied, was defective and delivered in broken condition and immediately thereafter when the defective condition of the Generator was brought to the notice, the same was taken back by the supplier. But in spite of repeated requests the petitioner did not take any step for supply of new Generator set by way of replacement of the broken/defective Generator set nor returned back the amount received by him. As such, the petitioner having got himself fully involved in the matter may be as a power of attorney holder, cannot get himself absolved of both his civil as well as criminal liability.

Orissa High Court

Jayendra C. Shah @ Jayendra Ch. ... vs State Of Orissa on 9 November, 2005

Equivalent citations: 2006 CriLJ 847, 2005 II OLR 737,CLT(2006)Supp.Crl.16

Bench: N Prusty

Print Page

How accused can avoid his liability u/s 138 of NI Act?

 It is also to be borne in mind that the requirement of giving of notice is a clear departure from the rule of Criminal Law, where there is no stipulation of giving of a notice before filing a complaint. Any drawer who claims that he did not receive the notice sent by post, can, within 15 days of receipt of summons from the court in respect of the complaint under Section 138 of the Act, make payment of the cheque amount and submit to the Court that he had made payment within 15 days of receipt of summons (by receiving a copy of complaint with the summons) and, therefore, the complaint is liable to be rejected. A person who does not pay within 15 days of receipt of the summons from the Court along with the copy of the complaint under Section 138 of the Act, cannot obviously contend that there was no proper service of notice as required under Section 138, by ignoring statutory presumption to the contrary under Section 27 of the G.C. Act and Section 114 of the Evidence Act. In our view, any other interpretation of the proviso would defeat the very object of the legislation. As observed in Bhaskaran s case (supra), if the giving of notice in the context of Clause (b) of the proviso was the same as the receipt of notice a trickster cheque drawer would get the premium to avoid receiving the notice by adopting different strategies and escape from legal consequences of Section 138 of the Act.
Supreme Court of India

C.C. Alavi Haji vs Palapetty Muhammed & Anr on 18 May, 2007

Author: D Jain

Bench: Cji K.G. Balakrishnan, R.V. Raveendran, D.K. Jain

Citation;2007CriLJ3214, 2007GLH(27)512, 2007GLH(512)27, ILR2007(3)Kerala203, [2007(3)JCR209(SC)], JT2007(7)SC498, 2007(3)KLJ81, 2007(3)KLT77(SC), 2008(3)MhLj115, 2008(1)MhLJ44(SC), 2008MPLJ441(SC), 2007(2)OLR384, 2007(II)OLR(SC)384, (2007)147PLR813, RLW2007(3)SC2120, 2007(7)SCALE380, (2007)6SCC555, [2007]77SCL117(SC), [2007]7SCR326, 2007(2)UJ0675

Print Page

Principles of criminal liability

Characteristics of a crime

• Harm
• Brought about by Human Conduct
• Sovereign state desires to prevent it
• Measure for prevention includes threat of Punishment
• Special proceedings employed to decide whether the accused has caused the harm and inflicting punishment

The place of Criminal Law in Criminal Science

Three branches of Criminal Science:

• Criminology: It deals with the causes of Crime – both Biological and Social
• Criminal Policy: Studies the measures to limit the harmful conduct, Takes measures by setting up social organizations to prevent harmful activities and lays down the principles by which harms are classed as crimes and how criminals are to be treated
• Criminal law: What conduct is considered as tort and what is Crime, Prescribes the punishment. It is an instrument used to implement the Criminal policy

Principles of criminal liability

Print Page

Whether person suffering from mental disease is exempted from criminal liability?

 Next question which needs consideration is as to on whom the onus lies to prove unsoundness of mind. In law, the presumption is that every person is sane to the extent that he knows the natural consequences of his act. The burden of proof in the face of Section 105 of the Evidence Act is on the accused. Though the burden is on the accused but he is not required to prove the same beyond all reasonable doubt, but merely satisfy the preponderance of probabilities. The onus has to be discharged by producing evidence as to the conduct of the accused prior to the offence, his conduct at the time or immediately after the offence with reference to his medical 

condition by production of medical evidence and other relevant factors. Even if the accused establishes unsoundness of mind, Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code will not come to its rescue, in case it is found that the accused knew that what he was doing was wrong or that it was contrary to law. In order to ascertain that, it is imperative to take into consideration the circumstances and the behaviour preceding, attending and following the crime. Behaviour of an accused pertaining to a desire for concealment of the weapon of offence and conduct to avoid detection of crime go a long way to ascertain as to whether, he knew the consequences of the act done by him. Reference in this connection can be made to a decision of this Court in the case of T.N. Lakshmaiah v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 1 SCC 219, in which it has been held as follows:

9. Under the Evidence Act, the onus of proving any of the exceptions mentioned in the Chapter lies on the accused though the requisite standard of proof is not the same as expected from the prosecution. It is sufficient if an accused is able to bring his case within the ambit of any of the general exceptions by the standard of preponderance of probabilities, as a result of which he may succeed not because that he proves his case to the hilt but because the version given by him casts a doubt on the prosecution case.

10. In State of M.P. v. Ahmadull,AIR 1961 SC 998, this Court held that the burden of proof that the mental condition of the accused was, at the crucial point of time, such as is described by the section, lies on the accused who claims the benefit of this exemption vide Section 105 of the Evidence Act [Illustration (a)]. The settled position of law is that every man is presumed to be sane and to possess a sufficient degree of reason to be responsible for his acts unless the contrary is proved. Mere ipse dixit of the accused is not enough for availing of the benefit of the exceptions under Chapter IV.

11. In a case where the exception under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code is claimed, the court has to consider whether, at the time of commission of the offence, the accused, by reason of unsoundness of mind, was incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law. The entire conduct of the accused, from the time of the commission of the offence up to the time the sessions proceedings commenced, is relevant for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether plea raised was genuine, bona fide or an afterthought.

Accused seeking exoneration from criminal liability on the ground of of unsoundness of mind should prove legal insanity and not medical insanity. Even if accused establishes unsoundness of mind IPC will not come to his rescue if it is found that he was knowing that what he was doing was wrong or contrary to law.

Supreme Court of India

Surendra Mishra vs State Of Jharkhand on 6 January, 2011

Author: C K Prasad

Bench: Harjit Singh Bedi, P. Sathasivam, Chandramauli Kr. Prasad

Print Page