Skip to main content

Criminal Trespass

 Criminal Trespass

Entering into somebody else's property or land without the permission of the owner or the person reciding their, this act would amount to trespass or tort or civil wrong.

Section 441 speaks about Criminal trespass means,it unlawfully entering into to a land or property of others with intention of committing an offence inside the property ,on the property or land or to intimidate insult or to annoy the person.

It should have both mens rea and actus rea ingredients .

Illustration- Mr.A is entering Mr.B House with the permission of B , this act of A would amount to trespass or civil wrong or tort. While, If A has the intention to commit a theft inside the house and run away with valuables of Mr B house or insult Mr.B or family.This would amount to criminal trespass .

On the contrary some entries are lawful , In case B throws a birthday party in his house and invite multiple guest , till the party is alive , it won’t amount to trespass , but if Mr. A decides to stay back at B’s house even if the birthday is over with any intention to insult or malicious mindset would amount to criminal trespass .


Section 442 , 443 , 444 are aggravated forms of Section 441

Section 442 speaks about house trespass , it means if anyone unlawfully enters into a property of worship , human dwelling(building  tent , vessel) ,place for the custody of property . It also says if anyone lawfully enters and starts to stay back and remain their unlawfully with malicious intentions .

Section 443 speaks about lurking house trespass  it means if a person enters unlawfully and decides to hide himself in the property or conceal himself from the eyesight of everybody would amount to lurking house trespass . But if the same act is committed between sunset to sun rise it would be called lurking house trespass by night .
The serious and frequency of the offence and order of punishment changes with the time difference in such act.

Section 444 speaks about house breaking , in this particular section it is explained that if a person enter and exists into a property or land himself or with the help of abettor in 6 six different way as mentioned would amount to house breaking .
1-Passage made by themselves

2-By scaling or climbing building or wall

3-Passage which was not supposed to be kept open. For example – If abettors keeps the back door open so that a person could enter unlawfully could enter .

4-Opening a lock

5-Using criminal force or committing an assault or by threatening any person with assault

6-Usage of fastened passage

If a person by any of such ways enters or quits into a property by himself or with the help of abettor with wrong intention between sunset and sunrise the punishment for the sae offence would be increased and the seriousness of the offence too, all of it would amount to house breaking by night.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

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
Post a Comment
Read more

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
1 comment
Read more

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
Post a Comment
Read more