SUKUNA LAW ACADEMY, K.PUDUR, MADURAI | Tamilnadu | 98421 31226

SUKUNA LAW ACADEMY,

K.PUDUR, MADURAI -7

WEEKEND LIVE CLASSES

FOR

CIVIL JUDGE EXAM ASPIRANTS

Starts from tomorrow 13-11-2022

Timings: 10.00 am

Topic: How to prepare for Civil Judge Exam

Address:

SUKUNA LAW ACADEMY,

No.6,

Lourdhu nagar East 2nd Street,

K pudur, Madurai -7. 98421 31226

IPC - 01 | Title and extent of operation of the IPC

 Title and extent of operation of the Code. —This Act shall be called the Indian Penal Code, and shall 1 [extend to the whole of India 2 [except the State of Jammu and Kashmir]

What is the extent and operation of IPC?

It extends to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir and applies to all judicial proceedings in or before any Court, including Courts-martial, other than Court-martial convened under the Army Act 

What are the main sections of IPC?

Of Theft (Sections 378 to 382)

Of Extortion (Sections 383 to 389)

Of Robbery and Dacoity (Sections 390 to 402)

Of Criminal Misappropriation of Property (Sections 403 to 404)

Of Criminal Breach of Trust (Sections 405 to 409)

Of the Receiving of Stolen Property (Sections 410 to 414)

Of Cheating (Section 415 to 420)

How many types of IPC are there?

Sections in IPC (576 total)

How many parts are there in IPC?

It is applicable to all the citizens of India. The IPC has been amended numerous times since then and is now supplemented by various other criminal provisions. At present, the IPC is divided into 23 chapters and contains 511 sections in total.

What is the first IPC section?

1. Title and extent of operation of the Code. —This Act shall be called the Indian Penal Code, and shall 1 [extend to the whole of India 2 [except the State of Jammu and Kashmir].]

What is IPC first chapter?

Section 1 -Title and extent of the operation of the Code

According to the laws, this act shall be called the Indian Penal Code and shall extend to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir.

What is the extent of the code of IPC?

—This Act shall be called the Indian Penal Code, and shall 1 [extend to the whole of India 2 [except the State of Jammu and Kashmir].] 

Who is the founder of the IPC?

In 1860, the Indian Penal Code was introduced into India, the brainchild of Thomas Babington macaulay who had drafted the code during his time in Bengal in the 1830s.

How many IPC are there in India in 2022?

Indian penal code has 511 sections which are divided into 23 chapters

Is IPC part of constitution?

Indian Penal Code is not part of the constitution. The code was drafted in 1860 on the recommendations of the first law commission of India established in 1834. It is the principal criminal code of India that defines crimes and provides punishments for almost all kinds of criminal and actionable wrongs.

What is the section 4 of IPC?

Section 4 IPC states the extended operation of the Code on the acts committed outside the territorial boundaries of India. Any person on any ship or aircraft registered in India wherever it may be. Any person in any place without and beyond India committing offence targeting a computer resource located in India.

Is 420 a bailable offence?

Punishment for committing the offence of cheating is provided under the purview of this section. This section makes a person criminally liable for imprisonment for a term which may extend to 7 years and also liable to fine. The offence committed under section 420 is a Cognizable as well as a Non-bailable offence.

What is IPC explain briefly?

Inter-process communication (IPC) is a mechanism that allows the exchange of data between processes. By providing a user with a set of programming interfaces, IPC helps a programmer organize the activities among different processes.

What are the two types of IPC?

A process can be of two types: Independent process. Co-operating process

Applicant when the first information report has not been entered/registered/recorded?

 If any person is aggrieved by refusal of the Officer-in-charge of a Police- Station to record the information, may send the written substance of such information, by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned, who, if satisfied that such information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any of his subordinate police officer. [Section 154(3), Criminal Procedure Code, 1973]

What do you mean by police diary? When can a Magistrate, police officer and accused person make its use?

The investigating police officer shall day by day enter his proceedings in the investigation in the police-diary, setting forth therein the time and date of receipt of the information, the time, date and place of beginning and closing of the investigation and details of the facts and circumstances of the case.

Any criminal Court may sent for the police diaries of a case under inquiry or trial in such Court, and may use such diaries, not as evidence in the case, but to aid it in such inquiry or trial.

Neither the accused not his agents shall be entitled to call for such diaries, nor shall he/they be entitled to see them merely because they are referred to by the Court; but, if they are used by the police officer who made them to refresh his memory, or if the Court uses them for contradicting such police officer, the provisions of Section 161 or Section 145, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, shall apply. [Section 172, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973]

Correct meaning of the above mentioned expressions used in Article 32 of the Constitution?

Article 32 of the constitution deals with ‘Right to Constitutional Remedies’ in which the Supreme Court can issue directions, orders or writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights.

(a) Habeas Corpus:

Habeas Corpus, a Latin term, means ‘produce the body’. This writ is, generally, issued to produce the body of a person detained illegally. This is one of what are called the “extraordinary”, or “prerogative writs”.

(b) Mandamus:

Mandamus, a Latin term, means ‘we command’. This writ is issued from a court of superior jurisdiction that commands an inferior judicial or quasi-judicial body to do or not to do something in the nature of public duty.

(c) Prohibition:

Generally, this writ is issued to prevent an inferior court/tribunal from exceeding its jurisdiction or acting contrary to the rule of natural justice. This writ is issued when the matter is pending in the court but when the matter has been already decided, the writ of certiorari is issued.

(d) Quo Warranto:

Quo warranto means ‘what is your authority’. This writ is issued against the person who has occupied any public office without authority.

(e) Certiorari:

On the ground of lack of jurisdiction, generally, this writ is issued by the High Courts and Supreme Court.

Short note on Right to Privacy

 Right to privacy, though not specifically mentioned in the Constitution of India, has been recognised by the Indian judiciary by interpreting Article 21. 

The right to privacy is the right to be let alone, in the absence of some “reasonable” public interest in a person’s activities. In R. Rajgopal and another v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1994) 6 SCC 632, Jeevan Reddy, J. speaking for the Court observed that in recent times right to privacy has acquired constitutional status.

The right to privacy as an independent and distinctive concept originated in the field of Tort law, under which a new cause of action for damages resulting from unlawful invasion of privacy was recognised.

This right has two aspects which are but two faces of the same coin –

 (1) the general law of privacy which affords a tort action for damages resulting from an unlawful invasion of privacy

(2) the constitutional recognition given to the right to privacy which protects personal privacy against unlawful governmental invasion. Any right to privacy must encompass and protect the personal intimacies of the home, the family, marriage, motherhood, procreation and child-rearing.

Rule of Double Jeopardy

 The rule of ‘double jeopardy’ proscribes a person from being tried in respect of the same charges for which he has been tried earlier and acquitted or convicted. 

A person accused of an offence is entitled to enter peremptory plea of “autrefois acquit” or “autrefois convict” (autrefois means “previously” in french).

Thereby pleading that the accused has already been acquitted or convicted of the same offence for which he is now been tried and thus cannot be proceeded against for the second time. This rule of ‘double jeopardy’ is embodied in Article 20 (2) of the Constitution of India which reads as- No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once.

Delhi High Court in Bhupinder Singh v. Punjab & Sind Bank, decided on 22 April, 2015 held that the rule of double jeopardy is founded identity of offences and not the commonality of facts. The essential conditions for invoking the rule of’ double jeopardy’ is that the offence for which a person is accused must be the same offence for which he has been tried earlier and acquitted or convicted as the case may be.

‘Arbitrariness is antithesis of Article 14 of the Constitution of India’

 Arbitrariness is the anti-thesis of Article 14. Do you agree with the said statement? If so, give reasons.

The said statement is taken from E. P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu & another, 1974 SCR (2) 348 wherein it is mentioned that equality is a dynamic concept with many aspects and dimensions and it cannot be “cribbed cabined and confined” within traditional and doctrinaire limits.

From a positivistic point of view, equality is antithetic to arbitrariness. In fact equality and arbitrariness are sworn enemies; one belongs to the rule of law in a republic while the other, to the whim and caprice of an absolute monarch. Where an act is arbitrary it is implicit in it that it is unequal both according to political logic and constitutional law and is therefore violative of Article 14.

In Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi, (1981) 1 SCC 722 the court ruled that it must therefore now be taken to be well settled that what Article 14 strikes at is arbitrariness because any action that is arbitrary, must necessarily involve negation of equality.

The doctrine of classification which is evolved by the courts is not para-phrase of Article 14 nor is it the objective and end of that Article. It is merely a judicial formula for determining whether the legislative or executive action in question is arbitraiy and therefore constituting denial of equality.

Wherever therefore there is arbitrariness in State action whether it be of the legislature or of the executive or of “authority” under Article 12, Article 14 immediately springs into action and strikes down such State action. In fact, the concept of reasonableness and non- arbitrariness pervades the entire constitutional scheme and is a golden thread which runs through the whole of the fabric of the Constitution.

In Menaka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978 SCR (2) 621 the Apex Court said that Article 14 strikes, at arbitrariness in State action and ensures fairness and equality of treatment. The principle of reasonableness, which legally as well as philosophically, is an essential element of equality or non-arbitrariness pervades Article 14 like a brooding omnipresence and the procedure contemplated by Article 21 must answer the best of reasonableness in order to be in conformity with Article 14.

Briefly the fundamental rights, Under the Constitution of India

 What are the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India? Distinguish those from the Directive Principles of State Policy conceptually.

Distinguish fundamental rights and directive principles?

The fundamental rights are contained in Part-III of the Constitution. The original Constitution had seven fundamental rights but right to property was deleted from this list by 44th Constitution (Amendment) Act, 1978 and currently there are only six fundamental rights as follows-

1. Right to Equality- Articles 14-18

2. Right to Freedom- Articles 19-22

3. Right against Exploitation- Articles 23-24

4. Right to Freedom of Religion- Articles 25-28

5. Cultural and Educational Rights-Articles 29-30

6. Right to Constitutional Remedies- Articles 32

Some fundamental rights are available only to Indian citizens like Article 15,16,19 and 29 and remaining fundamental rights are available to all the persons.

Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles are essential elements of Indian Constitution. Fundamental Rights are given under Part III (Article 12-35) while Directive Principles are given under Part IV (Article 36-51) of the Indian Constitution.

Describing the importance of DPSP, Dr. Ambedkar said that “if any Government ignores them, they will certainly have to answer them before the electorate”.

The main difference between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles is regarding justiciability. Fundamental Rights are enforceable by law, but Directive Principles are not enforceable by law.

Fundamental Rights are such rights which are essential for the overall development of human being but the Directive Principles are directives which are supposed to be applied by the Sates while framing any policy.

Following are distinction between these both:

i. The DPSP require to be implemented by Legislation, but, at the same time no existing Law or Legal Right can be violated under the colour of following a Directive.

ii. The Courts can declare any law as void on the ground that it contravenes any of the Fundamental Rights.

iii. The Courts are not competent to compel the Government to carry out any DPSP or to make any law for that purpose.

iv. The DPSP per se do not confer upon or take away any Legislative Power from the appropriate Legislature,

v. Although it is the duty of the State to implement the DPSP, yet the State can do so only subject to the limitation imposed by the Constitution itself i.e., Article 13(2) prohibits the State from making any law which takes away or abridges the Fundamental Rights conferred by Part III and the Directive Principles therefore cannot override this categorical limitation.

In Kesvananda Bharati v. State of Kerala AIR 1973 SC 1461, the Supreme Court held that ‘fundamental rights and directive principles aim at the same goal of bringing about a social revolution and establishment of a welfare State and they can be interpreted and applied together.

Justice Bhagawati in Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India MR 1980 SC 1789 observed that ‘the Indian Constitution is founded on the bed-rock of the balance between Parts III & IV. To give absolute primacy to one over the other is to disturb the harmony of the Constitution.

This harmony and balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles is an essential feature of the basic structure of the Constitution. The goals set out in Part IV have to be achieved without the abrogation of the means provided for by Part III.

It is in this sense that Parts III & IV together constitute the core of our Constitution and combine to form its conscience.

Anything that destroys the balance between the two parts will ipso facto destroy an essential element of the basic structure of our Constitution”.