What is basic concept of Continuous offence with reference to Indian criminal law?

 The concept of a "continuous offence" in Indian criminal law refers to an act or a series of acts that constitute a single offence, which continues over a period of time. This is different from a series of separate offences. In the context of criminal law, understanding continuous offences is important for determining issues like the statute of limitations and jurisdiction.

Key Characteristics of a Continuous Offence:

1. Ongoing Nature: The offence persists over a period of time and does not culminate at a single point.
2. Single Transaction: It is considered as one continuous act rather than separate acts.
3. Single Charge: Typically, the offender is charged for a single continuous offence rather than multiple separate offences.

Print Page

Whether tenant in possession of the tenanted property after termination of tenancy can be held guilty for the offence of criminal trespass?

On the basis of the discussions made in the preceding paragraphs, we are of the opinion that the rigors of section 441, . I. P. C. as amended by the Orissa Act 22 of 1986 shall not be applicable to the following cases :

(i) Statutory tenants whose tenancy is governed by any statute.

[They are protected by tenancy laws like. Public Premises Eviction Act, etc.]

(ii) Tenant who has entered into possession by virtue of a lease.

[Rights of such tenant is governed under the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act and the Specific Relief Act and he acquires a right of possession. After determination of tenancy by notice, he would become "Tenant holding •over", "Tenant on sufferance" or "Tenant at will" as the case may be. His possession being juridical, is protected He can be evicted only in due process of law. The possession of such tenant cannot be equated with that of trespassers.]

(iii) Person who has entered into possession by virtue of some covenant like, agreement to sell, will etc. and/ or put forth a genuine right over the property possessed.

[If a person claims a right of title coupled with possession, till the dispute is adjudicated, his possession cannot be conclusively said to be that of a trespasser and his right to possess would be subject to the result of the suit or legal proceeding.]

However, the said section shall be applicable to the following category of persons ;

(i) Person who was permitted to possess a property for a particular period and after lapse of the said period, he was called upon to handover possession by issuance of quit notice,

(ii) Person who was put in possession by means of a 'licence' and who fails to handover possession after expiry of the term of licence and/or after receiving quit notice from the landlord,

(iii) Persons who was in "permissive possession" and who fails to handover possession even after receiving a notice to quit ]

The reference made by the learned Single Judge is answered accordingly.

Before parting, we feel constrained to observe that there cannot be an iron tight jacket to fit in all cases or tenants. It should be borne in mind that judicial process should not be permitted to be used as an instrument of oppression or needless harassment. The court should be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all the relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process, lest it would be an instrument in the hands of private complainant as vendetta to harass the persons needlessly. In a given case, the court adjudicating the dispute has to take a pragmatic view keeping in mind the discussions made in this judgment and other provisions of law and arrive at a subjective satisfaction as to whether the mischief as stipulated under section 441, I. P. C. (Amended) has been intentionally committed or not and pass necessary orders.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA

Criminal Misc. Case No. 334 of 1994

Decided On: 14.03.2001

 Akapati Bhaskar Patro  Vs.  Trinath Sahu and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

P.K. Mohanty and A.S. Naidu, JJ.

Citation:  2001 I OLR 502,MANU/OR/0089/2001

Print Page

Important Notes on Indian Penal Code

1) Notes on S 34 and S149 IPC- Principle of constructive liability

https://www.lawweb.in/2018/08/notes-on-s-34-and-s-149-ipc-principle.html

2) Notes on offence of Forgery

https://www.lawweb.in/2018/08/notes-on-offence-of-forgery.html

3) Notes on offence of Mischief and Criminal Trespass

https://www.lawweb.in/2018/08/notes-on-offence-of-mischief-and.html

4) Notes on offence of receiving of stolen property

https://www.lawweb.in/2018/08/notes-on-offence-of-receiving-of-stolen.html

5)Notes on offence of Mischief and Criminal Trespass

Print Page

Notes on offence of Mischief and Criminal Trespass

Mischief(S 425 of IPC)

Under S 425,a person commits mischief if he-

1) with intent to cause or knowing that he is likely to cause wrongful loss or damage to public or any person-

2) Causes destruction of any property or any such change in any property( or in the situation therof),as destroys or diminishes its value or utility,or affects it injuriously.

Criminal Trespass(S 441 of IPC)

Ingredients;

1)Entry into or upon the property in the possession of another.

2) If such entry is lawful,then unlawfully remaining upon such property,

3) Such entry or unlawful remaining must be with intent-

Print Page

Bombay HC: Precaution to be taken by the court before the issue of process for the offence of criminal trespass

It is clear that to constitute criminal trespass the entry in

the property in possession of another must be;

(i) with intend to commit an offence;

 or

(ii) to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of the such

property. It is trespass with the requisite intention, as mentioned in the

said section, that would amount to criminal trespass. Here, the case of

the complainant itself is that the trespass allegedly committed by the

accused persons is for the sake of trespass. In other words, the trespass

has, allegedly, been made with the object of grabbing the property by

falsely asserting a right or claim over the same. Whether the right

actually exists or not, is quite immaterial in the context of the

correctness of issue of process. Thus, the acts attributed to the

accused persons would amount to only civil trespass and not criminal

trespass. Unlawfully taking possession of the property in somebody

else's possession, simpliciter, has not been made an offence punishable

under the Indian Penal Code. It is for the Legislature to decide

whether such cases should be made punishable. (There have been

State amendments (Orissa & U.P.) to Section 441 to make trespass

with the intention of taking unauthorised possession of property an

offence). The learned counsel for the complainant attempted to

suggest that even under section 441 of the IPC, as it stands, such

trespass would amount to criminal trespass, but I am unable to agree

with him. If this theory is accepted, the distinction between civil

trespass and criminal trespass would be abolished and every trespass can be termed as 'criminal trespass'.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2827 OF 2013

Shrikant Purshottam Paranjape & Ors.Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. 

 CORAM : ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.

DATED : SEPTEMBER 30, 2014.

Citation;2016 ALLMR(CRI)1394

Print Page