Good faith

[manishka_seal]

Section 52 of the Indian Penal Code states: “Nothing is said to be done or believed in ‘good faith’ which is done or believed without due care and attention”.
Section 3 (22) of General Clauses Act, 1870 states: “A thing shall be deemed to be done in good faith where it is in fact done honestly, whether it is done negligently or not.”
Question: Explain the concept of good faith as per IPC and how it is different from General Clauses Act definition.

Topic

[manishka_seal]

Section 52 of the Indian Penal Code defines the term “good faith”. It reads: “Nothing is said to be done or believed in ‘good faith’ which is done or believed without due care and attention.” The term ‘due care and attention’ signifies the standard of care exercised by a reasonable person in the same situation or under similar circumstances. It differs from person to person. Due care denotes the degree of reasonableness and it depends on the position of the person. It is considered as a reference to capacity and intelligence. It shows the degree of reasonableness a person is about to display. If the offence depends on the existence of certain circumstances or knowledge, the failure to make due enquiry would make the person guilty of want of good faith. If a situation requires special knowledge or skill, then not possessing that special knowledge or skill would amount to a lack of good faith.
The term ‘good faith’ as defined in Section 52 is in the negative form. Section 3(22) of the General Clauses Act defines the term in a positive form. It reads: “A thing shall be done in good faith where it is in fact done honestly, whether it is done negligently or not.” The element of honesty is not incorporated in Section 52 of the IPC. Under the General Clauses Act, the stress is on the moral element of honesty and the right motive. If the intention is honest, then even if the act was negligent, it is deemed to be done in “good faith”. Under the IPC, the emphasis is on whether the person has done the act with due care and attention.

[lavika_goyal]

In the Indian Penal Code, the term “good faith” is defined in Section 52. Nothing is stated to be done or thought to be done in good faith if it is not done with due care and attention.
The phrase “with proper care and attention” appears only in this section and is not defined elsewhere.
The Indian Penal Code does not provide a positive definition of good faith. Only a negative definition is given in Section 52 of the Code, which states that “nothing is claimed to be done or delivered in “good faith” that is done or delivered without due care and attention.”

According to the Code, lack of good faith only entails carelessness or negligence. Good faith in the sense of mere belief without any grounds for believe is insufficient; the belief must be reasonable, not illogical; that is, it must have some reasonable basis. Good faith demands appropriate care. The phrase “due care and attention” denotes a sincere attempt to discover the truth rather than a quick acceptance of a misguided assumption.

Essentials
1)A decent intention with logic and a justification
2)due or appropriate care; and
3)With knowledge or a talent.
Are the most important factors in determining whether or not an act was completed.

Good Faith in General Clauses

The following negative definition of “good faith” differs significantly from its common sense, in which anything is considered to be done in good faith when it is done honestly. Even the General Clauses Act’s Section 3(20) expresses popular sentiment by defining “good faith” as follows: “A deed shall be judged to be done in “good faith” if it is, in reality, done honestly whether negligently or not.”
However, as we saw above, this definition is inapplicable under the Indian Penal Code, because the Code states that if something is done honestly but negligently without necessary care and attention, it is not done in good faith.In fact, the topic of honesty is irrelevant under the Code’s definition.

1) The facts are based on the case of Sukaroo Kobiraj, [1887, 14 Cal. 566], in which the Kaviraj was found guilty of an offence punishable under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code for causing death by performing a rash and negligent act because he was admittedly uneducated in matters of surgery and his undertaking to perform a dangerous operation was not done in good faith, i.e., with due care and attention.
2)The accused was properly charged under Section 304-A because, despite making a factual error, he behaved without due care and caution and hence could not be regarded to have acted in good faith.

[abhi_sinha]

The Term ‘Goof Faith’ is defined in a negative manner in IPC. Throughout the IPC the term good faith has been mentioned various time. In any case, the objective of a person is very important, abd that’s when the question of good Faith comes. Either the crime was done with the purpose of good faith or bad faith.

To evince good faith only purpose is not enough. With objective, the person must have taken due care and attention. Solely in Section 52, fue care and attention has been explained. Although various courts have explained it on basis of judgement and interpretation.

In different cases the question of good faith varies and it should be considered with situation if the case.

Under various Sections of IPC, good Faith is made for the purpose of defence.

In section 76, act done by a person bound or by mistake of fact believing himself bound by law is not an offence.

For eg. Ramesh an Police Inspector, is ordered by the court to arrest Suresh but due to some mis-conception he arrest Rakesh, believing he is Suresh. Here, Ramesh has not committed any offence as he arrested Rakesh with good faith believing he’s Suresh under the Rule of Law.

[Author]

Replies