GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY

 DRAFTING OF IPC:
o The IPC was drafted by 1st Indian Law Commission constituted in 1834.
o Member:
 President- Lord Macaulay
 Members- Lord Mcloed, Anderson and Millet.
o Draft code was revised twice and then finally passed on Oct 6 1860.
o Became operational from Jan 1, 1862.

CONCEPT OF CRIME
 It does not define crime rather uses the term ‘offence’ (sec. 40)
 SEVAKA PERUMA V. STATE OF TN:
o SC observed that crime is social phenomena which arises first when a state is
organized, people set up rules and breaking of which is called crime.
 AUSTIN:
o A wrong which is pursued at the discretion of the injured party is a civil injury
and a wrong which is pursued by sovereign or his subordinates is a crime.
 BLACKSTONE:
o It is an act committed or omitted in violation of public law forbidding or
commanding it. It is a violation of public rights and duties due to visible
community.
 SIR JAMES STEPHEN:
o Crime is an act which both forbidden by law and revolting to the moral
sentiments of the society.
 PROF KENNY:
o Crimes are wrongs whose sanction is punitive and is in no way remissible
(capable of being pardoned) by any private person but is remissible by the
crown alone if remissible at all.
 HUDA:
o It is an act that we consider worthy of serious condemnation.

ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS:
PERSON:
 ACC to sec 11 of IPC, 1860:
o The word person includes any company or association or body of persons,
whether incorporated or not.
 IPC contemplates crimes being committed not only by natural persons but even by
those artificial entities that cannot think or act on their own, but do so through their
agents/servants.
LIABILITY OF CORPORATION
 Earlier view was that corporation does not entail any criminal liability because:
o Not a physical entity therefore it cannot be punished.
o It has no mind of its own therefore, no question of guilty mind.
o There is no existence of vicarious liability concept in crimes.
 LENNARD C CO LTD V. ASIATIC PERTOLEUM CO LTD:
o Viscount Haldare gave the alter ego theory.
 Acc to this a corporation is an abstract thing having no mid of its own.
Its action and directing will be sought in person of somebody who is
directing the mind of the corporation; the very ego and centre of
personality of the corporation. Therefore fault of corporation is fault
of the superior officers who are directing the will of the corporation
 This alter ego theory was finally extended to the field of criminal law
in the case given below.
 R V. HAULAGE LTD:
o It was held that a limited corporation can be indicted at common law for a
conspiracy to fraud.

INDIAN POSSITION:
 Earlier the notion was that a corporation would generally be liable for those acts
where no mens rea is required and only fines are imposed.
 STATE OF MAHARASHTRA V. SYNDICATE TRANSPORT CO. LTD:
o Bombay HC held that a corporation could be prosecuted under sec 420
(cheating), 403 (criminal misappropriation) and 406 (criminal breach of trust).
o Reason being that person under Sec 11 includes even a corporation.
o The court further said that the company cannot be indicted for offence like
murder, bigamy, rape etc.
 MUNICIPAL CORPORATION V. J.B. BOTTLING CO:
o The SC answered the question that what will happen in the cases where both
monetary punishments and imprisonment are mandatory.
o It further said that a company did not enjoy immunity from prosecution and
in a case like this it will be fined only.
o Criminal liability is an imputed liability and not vicarious liability. So, the
corporation itself cannot be punished, the liability is to be impuned to its
managers/agents who are responsible for conduct of its policy and business.
 S. 17 of prevention of food adulteration act, 1954 is a good example of this as it says
that whosoever is the in-charge for the conduct of business of the firm, shall be
deemed guilty.

MENS REA
 ACTUS NON FACIT REUN NISI MENS SIT REA: The intent and the cat both concur to
constitute a crime.
  The above principle developed because of the proposition:
o ACTUS ME INVITO FACTUS NON EST MENS ACTUS: an act done by me against
my will is not my act.
 Mens rea has not been defined anywhere in the IPC or any other statue for that
matter, but we gather the Mens rea from the use of words such as intention,
dishonestly, fraudulently etc.
 The literal meaning of Mens rea is guilty mind. (Mens- mind, Rea- prohibited)

INTENTION:
 Means having a fixed purpose to produce a particular result.
 This is the state of mind which not only forsees but also desires the consequences of
the act.

RECKLESSNESS:
 There is no desire of evil consequence but there is foresight of them.
 Mens rea not only includes desire of evil consequence but it also includes foresight
of them.
 In recklessness there is foresight but not desire of evil consequence and this absence
of desire make recklessness different from Intention.

MOTIVE:
 It is different from intention.
 It contemplates something that can contribute to give birth to or even to prevent
any kind of action.
 Though be pure, but the act done under it may be criminal act which is unlawful
cannot, in law, be excused on the ground that it was omitted with a good motive.

NEGLIGENCE:
 Consequence neither foreseen nor desired but remaining careless about one’s act
which may cause injury to anyone.

KNOWLEDGE:
 Personal information of the person during the act.

POSITION OF MENS REA IN ENGLAND:

 Mens rea is applied to all common law crimes but confusion prevails in the matter of
statutory law crimes.
 SHERRAS V. DE RUTZEN:
o FACTS:
 Section 16(2) of English licensing act, 1872.
 Prohibited a victualer from supplying liquor to a police constable
while on duty.
o DECISION:
  That section did not apply where a licensed victualer bona fide
believed that the police office was off duty.
o WRIGHT J.
 Presumption of Mens rea is an essential ingredient of the crimes but
the presumption is liable to be displace either by words of the statute
creating the offence or by the subject matter with which it deals and
both must be considered.
o This case asserted that Mens rea is an essential ingredient of every offence
except in three cases:
 Cases are not criminal act in any real sense but which in the public
interest are prohibited under a penalty. Ex. Revenue acts.
 Public Nuisance
 Cases criminal in form but which is really only a summary mode of
enforcing a civil right.
 BREND V. WOOD:
o The court said that the general principle of law is ACTUS NON FACIT REUM
NISI MENS SIT REA.
o Unless statute either expressly or by necessary implications rules out Mens
rea as a constituent part of crime. The court should find a man guilty unless
he has a guilty mind.
 R V. TOLSON:
o FACTS:
 Trial under S. 57 of Offences against the person act, 1861.
 Mrs. Tolson was married to Mr. Tolson in 1880
 After one year of marriage her husband deserted her.
 She made all possible enquires about her husband and came to know
that her husband had died in ship wreck.
 She remarried in the year 1887, later she was prosecuted for Bigamy
o DECISION:
 BONA FIDE belief at the time of second marriage is a good defence in
the offence of Bigamy.
 The court also ruled out that the Doctrine of Mens rea would be
applied in statutory offences also unless the statute rules the same
out either expressly or by necessary implications.

POSITION OF MENS REA IN INDIA:

 Though the word Mens rea has not been used anywhere in IPC but, it has been
applied in two different way:
o Positively- in definitions words like fraudulently, dishonestly etc denote
criminal intentions.
 o Negatively- general exception indicated circumstance where there is absence
of guilty mind.
 STATE OF MAHARASHTRA V. M.H GEORGE:
o FACTS:
 24th NOV. 1962 RBI places some restrictions on the entry of gold in to
India, thus superseding its earlier notification that golf can be brought
into India if it was on transit to place outside India.
 2nd notification provided that gold can be brought in India on a transit
provided that such gold was declared in the ‘manifest’ for transit in
the same bottom cargo.
 The accused left Zurich on Nov 27, 1962 and reached Bombay (on the
way to Manila).
 The plea of the accused was that he had not Mens rea and had no
Knowledge about the notification of RBI.
o The very object of FERA would be frustrated if the accused should be proved
to have knowledge that he was contravening the law.
o DECISION:
 There is not place scope for the invocation of the doctrine of Mens
rea.
 Mere bringing or sending the gold constitute the offence and no
further mental condition is postulated as necessary to constituted an
offence.
 Generally offences created by FOOD ADULTERATION acts etc. Are in terms of
absolute prohibition and the offender is liable without proof of guilty mind.
 INDER SAIN V. STATE OF PUNJAB:
o FACTS:
 S. 10 of Opium act, 1978: in the prosecution under s. 9 it shall be
proved, until the contrary is proved that all opium for which the
accuse person is unable to account for satisfactory is the opium in
respect of which he has committed an offence under their act.
 Accused got parcel of apples from the railways and along with apples
in the parcel; opium was also found in that.
 He was held guilty.
 SRINIVAS MALL V. KING EMPEROR:
o The accused was prosecuted for adulteration of petroleum.
o Law he was acquitted on the ground that he had no knowledge about this
guilty acts of his servant.
 NATHULAL V. STATE OF MP::
o FACTS:
 Accuse was a food grain dealer, applied for license and paid the
license fees.
  Without the knowledge of rejection of his application he purchased
food grains and sent the return to licensing authority.
 The licensing officer found that the quantity of food grains was in
excess of the quantity that was permitted.
o DECISION:
 The accused was acquitted on the ground that he had no guilty mind.
 The court said that the accused was in a bona fide belief that the
license was issued to him though not sent to him.
 STATE OF GUJARAT V. V.D. PANDEY:
o It is usually understood as silently requiring that the element of Mens rea
should be imported in the definition of crime unless a contrary intention is
expressed or implied.
o Then reiterated the 3 principles of Sheraz v. De Rutzen
 Mens rea is an essential element of crime in every penal statute provided the same
statue expressly or by necessary implications rules either out.
 CASES OF STRICT LIABILITY: where Mens rea is not an essential requisite
o Socio economic offence; Drugs act etc.
o Statutory offence- was against State (sec 121), Sedition (124A)
o Public Nuisance, libel
o Offences where the proceedings are criminal in nature but it is really a mode
of enforcing a civil right.

ACTUS REUS:
 IT means an act prohibited by law.
 IT is constituted by the event and not by the activity which cause the event.
 Prof. JEROME HALL- ‘it is something in addition to Mens rea which is required to
produce criminal harm.
 Prof. Kenny-
o Was the 1st to use this term
o It is such result of human conduct as the law seek to prevent.
 Russel called it physical element of crime.

INJURY:
 Defined under S. 44 as follows:
o The word injury denotes any harm, illegally caused to any person in body,
mind, reputation or property.

OBJECT AGAINST WHOM THE CRIME IS COMMITTED:

 It is the person or the society as whole against whom the crime is committed and
injury is caused.
STAGES OF CRIME:
MENTAL CONTEMPLATION-
 JAMES STEPHEN:
o It is the direction of the conduct towards the object chose upon considering
the motive which suggests the choice.
o It is not punishable because it is not possible to read the mind of a person
and it is absolutely difficult to define contemplation in mind of a person.

PREPARATION:
 It means arranged means and measures necessary for commission of a crime.
 Generally it is not punishable because it is not possible to show that preparation was
directed towards wrongful act.
 But this is not an absolute rule. Exceptions are:
o Section 233: making or selling instruments of counterfeiting coins.
o Section 234: making or selling instruments of counterfeiting Indian coins.
o Section 235: possession of instrument or material for the purpose of using
the same for counterfeiting coins.
o Section 399: making preparation to commit dacoity.

ATTEMPT:
 Chapter 23 (section 511) deals with attempt to commit offences.
o Would apply to such sections in which punishment is imprisonment for life or
imprisonment for any other therm.
o Would not apply to:
 Local or special laws.
 Where express provisions are made for attempt of offence, Ex. Sec
307 attempt to murder is specific provision
o It means direct movement towards the commission of the crime after
necessary preparation.
o Acts having direct relations are considered here, and those which are
remotely related are not considered.

ACCOMPLISHMENT:
 This is the final stage of the crime.