Skip to main content

Joint Liability

                            Joint Liability

Sometimes it so happens that an individual does not commit crime alone. Some or in other way, another individual is involved. He or she may share any kind of relationship be it of brother or sister or husband or wife or most commonly friend. The only thing which matters here is the relationship should be present here and the act is done in cognizance to achieve a common aim or objective. If there is a deviance or difference in the objective then that would not constitute as a joint objective. Therefore, when any crime or act is done which is bad in the eyes of law and where it is established that not only one individual is involved then everyone will be held liable who were involved and that will be known as Joint Liability under IPC. This is important to note down here that from any point there is a deviance in the common aim or anything which is done in personal capacity then it will not be known as Joint Liability. And under this, the individuals are called as associates.

The concept of the Joint Accountability is found in the famous case of Ramesh Singh alias Photti Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh. It is a notable case in this regard which happened in 2004.

According to the Indian Penal code, 1860, Section 34 mentions the provision of Joint Liability where it is established that different individuals work for the common objective or aim. It is written as, “Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention’. Here, for the better understanding and concept, Section 33 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 also explains the meaning and significance of ‘act’ and ‘omission’. Also, there is a relation present here which anyone would understand while reading it. While analyzing, it clearly explains the difference between an act and an criminal act. Further, it also mentions the sequence of acts carried out in a way where it cannot be differentiated from one another. It addresses the situations where members or individuals all act in cognizance and it is impossible to differentiate between it. But the three main things should be present in order to held people liable for joint liability under Section 34 OF Indian Penal Code, 1860. They are:

  1. More than one person is involved in an act which is criminal in nature. It is very important because if a single individual does it there would be no case of joint liability. In the name only, it describes it as joint which clearly states that there should be more than one person.

  2. There is a common objective and aim with which the act is done. No personal gain is present. And if that is present then there would be no joint liability and only that particular individual will be held liable

  3. There should be the participation of all the members who are to be held liable for joint accountability. There may not be the case where people only have a shared intention but not participation from everyone’s side. They should be involved in some or the other way or in some or the other process which leads to the main act.

That is how the case of joint liability take place. This is important because if everyone does a criminal act then everyone should be held liable. Why one individual should be held liable. Maybe he or she is the one who initiated the act or presented an idea to initiate it but that does not mean that he or she only have to face the grunt. This is unlawful morally also. This is the reason Court also recognized that when various people with shared intention does a criminal act, they all will be jointly held liable.
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