Skip to main content

Criminal mischief

 Criminal mischief


Criminal law is the body of the law. These types of laws govern the crime in the state. Such laws

prescribe the conduct perceived as threatening, harmful otherwise endangering to the property, health,

safety, and moral welfare of people inclusive of one's self. Criminal law is way different from civil law,

this law's emphasis is more on dispute resolution and compensation, rather than on punishment or

rehabilitation.

Indian criminal is governed by the Indian Penal code. There are various types of crimes that are

mentioned in these sections but this article covers section 425, which talks about criminal mischief .this

section state if a person’s intention to cause or is liking to cause damage it is known as criminal mischief.

For example; B voluntarily burns a valuable security belonging to C, intending to cause wrongful loss to

c. B has committed mischief

For example; B has committed mischief if B causes his /her cattle to enter a field belonging to C,

intending to cause and knowing that he is likely to cause damage to C's crop.

Example: B has committed if B voluntarily throws into a river a ring that belongs to c, with the intention

of thereby causing wrongful loss to C.

The scope of mischief is very wide as it covers both public and private damages. it should be noted that

this section will not be applied if there is a lack of intention in the case.

The ingredients of the mischief are very important as it helps us to distinguish them from other crimes

as well as help us identify in which category they fall. Ingredient of mischief states that,

 Intention or the knowledge of the act

 The act resulting in destruction, damage, or change in the property or situation thereof

 The change must lead to diminishing the value or utility

 Intention or the knowledge of the act may result in wrongful loss or damage

The most important ingredient is men's res which means there should be some intention. This

ingredient is sufficient to punish the concerned person.

Case; Nagendreanath Roy v. Bijoy Kumar Dasburma, in this case, the court observed that mere

negligence does not constitute mischief. However in certain situations when facts indicate that

intention to cause wrongful loss was present along with the negligence causing damage will amount

to mischief

Case; of Arjun Singh v. The State, the court observed that to establish the offense of mischief, the

prosecution needs to establish that the accused must have an intention or the knowledge of the

likelihood to cause wrongful loss or damage to the public or any person.


The punishment of such an offense is imprisonment until months or fine or both and it should be

considered that it is non-cognizable a bailable offense.

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