Skip to main content

Sec 294

                                              Section 294 of IPC


Introduction


Obscenity is a global and complex issue because it is linked to other issues such as decency and morality, which differ from society to society. What is immoral for one person may not be immoral for another. In terms of the meaning and definition of obscenity, it is difficult to provide a precise and specific definition given the society’s cultural, religious, and social diversity. It is true that the definition of obscenity varies from time to time. What is obscene today should not be considered obscene in the future. Indian laws, as well as the Supreme Court, have been unable to precisely define obscenity. The Indian legal system, on the other hand, contains a number of statutes that deal with obscenity and how it is punished. One such law is Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). It is used to penalize people who commit indecent activities, songs, ballads, or words. According to the Section, anybody who does an obscene act in any public place, or specifically commits to things like reciting, singing, or uttering an obscene song, ballad, or words near or within any public place, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term up to 3 months, or a fine, or both.


Essential ingredients 

The following points can be identified as the essentials of Section 294:

  • Performing any obscene act in a public place, or 

  • Anyone sings, recite or utters any obscene song, ballad or words in or near any public place

  • An annoyance is caused to a particular person or people in general by such an act.

A person cannot be punished under this Section if all the above-mentioned essentials are not fulfilled. If even one of the factors is missing, the act or song will not qualify as obscene.


Nature of Section 294 IPC


Bailable offence

Bailable offences are offences that can be granted bail in their entirety; it is purely a matter of right, and the arrested person is released after bail is granted. It can be given by a police officer who is in the custody of the accused in the course of law. Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code provides for bail. When compared to non-bailable offences, bailable offences are comparatively less serious.

Cognizable offence

A cognizable offence is one in which a police officer may, under or in accordance with the law, arrest without a warrant, whereas a non-cognizable offence is one in which the police officer responsible for that case will have no authority to arrest the person involved without a warrant. They are regarded as less serious than cognizable offences, which include cases in which the Police are given the authority to arrest someone without a warrant. The violation of Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code is a cognizable offence.

Non-compoundable offence

Compoundable offences are those that can be compromised, i.e. the complainant can agree to withdraw the charges levied against the accused, whereas non-compoundable offences are those that cannot be compromised. Section 294 is non-compoundable in nature.



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

Effects of Non-Registration

 Effects of Non-Registration The Companies Act, 2013 evidently highlights that the main essential for any organization to turn into a company is to get itself registered. A company cannot come into existence until it gets registered. But no such obligation has been imposed for firms by the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. If a firm is not registered it does not cease to be called as a firm, it still exists in the eyes law. Certainly, such a big advantage is not absolute but is subjected to a lot of limitations which we will study further. Non-registration of a firm simply means that the business skips the formalities of incorporation and ceases to exist in the eyes of the law. section 58 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 deals with the procedure of incorporation. Likewise, the meaning of non-registration is the exact opposite of registration, meaning when a firm does not go through the procedure of incorporation or start carrying on activities without getting registered. Effects of Non-