Skip to main content

Offence of Mischief under Indian Law

 OFFENCE OF MISCHIEF UNDER INDIAN LAW

  • Introduction

Mischief is determined under section 425 of IPC. In fact, the section correlates to the offense in English law known as "malicious injury to property" in which malice is assumed from the nature of the act commissioned and its illegitimacy. Section 425 of the IPC established on the principle specified in the maxim "Sec utare two ut allenum non leadus" which refers to using your own property, so as to not harm your neighbour’s or any other person's property.

As per section 425 of the IPC, the mischief is described as:

Whoever with intent to cause, or knowing that he is likely to cause, wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any person, causes the destruction of any property, or any such change in any property or in the situation thereof as destroys or diminishes its value or utility, or affects it injuriously, commits “mischief”.

Examples:

  1. A voluntarily hits costly security belonging to X with the intention to cause wrongful harm to X. A has commissioned mischief.

  2. Causes cattle to get inside a field who is the owner was X, with an intention to cause and aware that he is likely to cause harm to X's crops. A has commissioned mischief.


  • Essential Ingredients:

  1. A knowledge or intention of likelihood to cause wrongful damage or loss to:

  1. the public,

  2. any individual (mens rea of mischief);

2. Creating destruction to some property oy any modification in it or in its position, and

3. Such modification must diminish or destroy its utility or value or affect it injuriously.


  • Detailed Analysis of Mischief under Indian Law:

1. Knowledge or Intention to cause wrongful damage or loss;


a) The bare fact that any damage or loss was caused to the property would, by itself be not adequate cause to establish mischief unless the intention of the culprit was to cause wrongful damage or wrongful loss to the individual treated. For example, where either knowledge or intention is present, then the act will be lead to mischief such as;

  1. Where the intention is present:

A voluntarily threw a ring belonging to Z into the river with an intention to cause wrongful loss to Z. A has commissioned mischief.


  1. Where knowledge is present:

A was aware by blocking the canal through which B has a right to draw water to his land will cause wrongful loss to B and still A blocks it. A has commissioned mischief.


  1. When neither knowledge nor intention is present:

Where the accused thought in good faith that he had a right to do the act, even if in law he did not have that right, it was established that he lacked the knowledge or intention that he was likely to cause wrongful damage or wrongful loss, hence no mischief is commissioned.

b) Wrongful damage or loss:

The incorporation of the term 'damage' combined with wrongful loss makes it evident that the laws wanted to bring within the scope of the offense, not just the actions that outcomes in wrongful loss but also examples of all kinds of damage by unlawful means which involves diminishing of value or property invasion of right, etc.

 

2. Causing destruction of any property or any change in it;

a) To establish the offense of mischief there must be the presence of destruction of property. It was laid down by courts, even the small damage is adequate to establish the offense of mischief if other elements are established. For example, X causes a shop to be emptied, intending thereby to cause harm o Y who has lent money on bottomry on the shop. X has commissioned mischief.

 

b) The term "change" given in section 425 refers to a physical change in the form or composition of the property. It considers harm to property from a physical cause.

 

3. Diminishes or Destroys the utility or value:

The phrase "change in property" so as to diminish or destroy its utility or value does not essentially refer to a change in character, form, or composition. If something is done to the property opposite to its natural serviceability and usage that diminished or destroys its utility or value, it will amount to mischief.

 

  • Punishment for mischief is provided in section 426

Whoever commissions mischief shall be punished with imprisonment of either a term which may be more than 3 months or with a fine or both. 

Mischief, like other offenses under IPC, constitutes of the mental aspect, mens rea, and physical aspect actus rea. The first lies in the offender's intent to cause or knowing that he is most likely to cause wrongful damage or loss to any individual or the public, while, actus rea for mischief is the destroying of property to any change in its composition that diminishes or destroys its utility or value.

 


Written by Parul Sharma


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree