[Intern]

An attempt to commit a crime is an act that is done with the intention to commit the offense and the other acts done without any interruption. The words ‘attempt’ is not itself defined so it is taken in an ordinary sense only. Attempt means an act which if not prevented will result in a crime.

. Preparation in the ordinary sense is just arranging materials to commit the offense. Ordinary preparation is not punishable.
1. It is harmless.
2. It is nearly impossible in most cases to show that preparation was done with evil motive or intent.
3. If preparations were to be punished there would be uncountable offenses.
4. This will also put many innocent people in danger.
Under IPC there are certain exceptions, they are:
1. Section 122 – collecting arms with the intention to war.
2. Section 126 – making preparation to commit depredation.
3. Section 233,234,235 – making or selling instruments for counterfeiting coins.
4. Section 399 – making preparation to commit dacoity.

[Intern]

The principal is generally liable for acts done by the agent within the principal’s authority. Under section 233 of the Indian contract act, 1872, even when the agent is personally liable, the third party can still go on to sue the principal, it is right of dealing with an agent personally liable, in case the agent is personally liable, and the persons deals with an agent, either the agent or principal becomes liable or both agent and principal can be held liable. If an agent enters a contract on his own, then the third party can hold him personally liable and the agent can also sue the third party, if the third party discovers the principal, under section 234 of the Indian contract act then the third party can sue both agent and principal or the liability can be sued individually. The liability of principal to the third parties comes when misrepresentation or fraud done by the agent at the time of contract, and the principal is liable at the time of existence of the contract and liable for the contracts made by his agent and neither principal existence nor undisclosed principal, then the agent can be sued personally. KUTTI KRISHNAN NAIR VS APPA NAIR in this case the plaintiff on a contract to supply timber and he sued two defendants principal and his agent but the liability of both principal and agent are not equal which has been taken from the case Morel brothers vs. the earl of Westmoreland. SK SIKKA VS HINDUSTAN PAPER CORPORATION LMTD, in this case, the supreme court stated that the plaintiff who has acted as an agent and has been founded that the agent has been playing fraud on the respondents and the court held the judgment under the provision of section 233 of Indian contract act, the defendants were held liable, and the repayment has to be done by principal or agent .so when an agent is personally liable, then the third party can still sue the principal.

[Intern]

What is the Personal Liability of Principal and Agent – under the law of Torts.
The concept that is related to the liability between principal and agent is called vicarious liability. Vicarious liability is a concept where a person is liable for the actions of the others. This concept is quite controversial to the actual principle of the law of tort because it says that a person is liable only for the acts performed by him. Examples of various master-servant relationships can be partners of a partnership firm, company, and its directors, etc. In this case, the plaintiff can sue either the principal or the agent or both of them. So, the liability of the principal and agent is joint as well as individual. The principal becomes liable for the acts of the agent only if the act is performed under the scope of employment. For example, A works as a driver under QPR Travels. He was asked to drop ten passengers in a bus from Delhi to Ahmedabad but in the middle of the journey, the bus was looted by 3 robbers, and the passengers were ensured and guaranteed against the happening of such an event. In this case, the passengers can either sue the principal i.e., QPR travels, or the agent who is A or both of them. The other example can be, B is a partner in ABC Ltd. And he has the duty of updating the accounts from time to time about the petty expenses of the firm. In this, B added the amount he spent on buying a hand blender on credit for his own purposes, and upon the due of credit period, he refused to pay the amount saying everybody in the firm was entitled to pay the amount in their respective shares. But, since this is an act out of the scope of employment or the work allotted, the claim of B is wrong, and hence nobody but only he is liable to pay the full amount to the creditor.

– PREYANSI ANAND DESAI

[Intern]

Vicarious liability is that legal concept in torts which allows one party to be held liable, for the actions of another despite having no active involvement in that incident. The law of tort attaches a liability to a principal for the wrongful act of the agent on the ground that it’s the principal who has selected the agent. Agency is defined as the consensual relationship in which the principal appoints the agent to act in his behalf, primarily to make contracts between the principal and the third party. Example of principal-agent relationships include that of an attorney and his client, a contractor hired for repairs or an investment advisor for a businessman.

The liability between a principal and agent is joint as well as several. The injured party can sue only the principal or only the agent or both. For an agent to make the principal legally responsible for a wrongful act, it is necessary to show that:
• The act was committed by the agent in the course of his employment, even if the principal did not participate directly in the act or authorise it,
• That the act was beyond the scope of the agency, and was expressly ratified or authorised by the principal.
For example, X is a contractor who hires Y, a sub-contractor. Y is found performing the job inadequately. The contractor is held liable for the subcontractors actions, since he employed him.

The Bombay Court held that the test of agency is not physical control but the right to control. When a person does an act with the approval of the principal and that act specifically concerns the principal, he will be held liable for the agents actions. Even if the principal has the right to control, and not actual control of that particular act, he would be held responsible.
~ Vinisha Bhavnani

[Intern]

Can a person dealing with the agent, sue the principal in a case where the agent is personally liable?

The question is primarily related to section 233 of the Indian contract Act, 1872. The section states that “in case where the agent is personally liable, a person dealing with him may hold either him or his principal, or both of them liable.”
The interpretation of this section clearly shows that the person may sue the principal to claim his right. The person going in contract with the agent have the right to sue any of them whether agent or principal. He may also sue both of them at the same time. This motive behind liability of principal is the agent work under the authority of his principal and so if he entered into any deal, the liability of principal will also arise.
Illustration: – A enters in contract with B, to sell him 100 bags of wheat, and later he discovers that B was acting as an agent for C. A, may sue either B or C, or both, for the price of wheat bags.
The Hon’ble Court in Calder v, Dobell, (1871), L.R.6 C.P.486, enumerated that “A person who has made a contract with an agent may, if and when he please, look directly to the principal, unless by the terms of the contract he has agreed not to do so, and that whether he was or was not aware when he made the contract that the person with whom he was dealing was an agent only, and not the less so in the case where the agent is personally liable, for the law which superadds the liability of the agent does not distract from the liability of the principal.
Similarly, the Hon’ble Court in Purmanudass v. Cormach (1881), 6 Bombay 326, said that a loan made to the secretary, treasurer and agent of a company authorized to raise money for the company may be recovered from the company.
Thus, a person dealing with an agent may sue the principal or agent, or both, in case where the agent is personally liable.
~ ASHISH RANJAN

[Intern]

The popular term “Perjury” is defined under Section 191 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as “Giving false evidence”. Under the Section it is stated that whoever, being legally bound by an oath or by any express provision of law to state the truth, or being bound by law to make a declaration upon any subject, makes any statement which is false, and which he either knows or believes to be false, or does not believe to be true, is said to give false evidence. A statement made under this section can be verbally or of any other kind also.
To commit the offence under this section it is required that a person who is giving false evidence must be legally bound by an oath to state the truth, or by any express provision of law, or he must be bound by law to make a declaration upon any matter. The statement must be a false statement and the person who is making the statement must be aware of the fact that the statement is false. The person making the false statement must have malafide intention as he knows that the statement he made will affect the outcome of the proceeding. Anyone is not bound to go to the witness box, but once you decided to go to the witness box and take oath, the person becomes bound to state the truth and he is not entitled to say that he could have chosen not to come on to the witness box .
Any person who identified or proved guilty under this section will be punished under section 193 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 i.e. Punishment for false evidence. If a person has given false statement in any stage of judicial proceeding or presented any false evidence which will be used in any stage of judicial proceeding shall be punished with imprisonment of either description of term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable for fine. In any other case the punishment will be extend to three years and fine.

[Intern]

Firstly section 191 of the Indian Penal Code states that “Whoever, being legally bound by an oath or by an express provision of law to state the truth or being bound by law to make a declaration upon any subject, makes any statement which is false, and which he either knows or be­lieves to be false or does not believe to be true, is said to give false evidence.”

This offence is also called perjury or forswearing. This basically means a person is misrepresenting the truth willfully when under oath. For example, when a witness is produced in court and is kept under oath. But he lies when he was kept in oath because of which a criminal had been set free from prosecution or an innocent man is sent to jail.

Such a person is said to have committed the offence of forswearing or perjury. In court, this is considered as a serious offence as it disrupts the decorum of the court and results in miscarriage of justice.

A person who has committed the offence of perjury by lying in any stage of judicial proceeding will be punishable under section 193 of the Indian Penal Code.

Section 193 of the Indian penal code states that “Whoever intentionally gives false evidence in any stage of a judicial proceeding, or fabri­cates false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of a judicial proceeding, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine, and whoever intentionally gives or fabricates false evidence in any other case, shall be punished with imprisonment of either de­scription for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine”.

Basically, it consists of a punishment term which may extend to a period of seven years and shall also be liable for a fine.

Such an offence is considered non – cognizable, bailable, non-compoundable. And, triable by the magistrate of the first class.

[Intern]

Can the minor girl be charged under Perjury i.e. giving false evidence under Section 191 of Indian Penal Code?
Ans- Section 191 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 starts with ‘Whoever’ means it doesnot mentions the gender and the age of the person thsu anybody can be held liable under this section if he/she falls within the essentials of the section i.e.
• If the person is legally bound by a oath or express provision of law to state truth
or
• If the person is bound by law to make a declartion on a subject
Thus, if such person knowingly state the informtion wrong than they will be held laible under prejury. But, if the person falls under the Section 82 and Section 83 of the IPC than there can be change in circumstance.
Section 82 of IPC tells that any act which has been done by a child under 7 years of age is not an offence as it is believed that he is incapable of committing crime i.e. doli incapax and thus he cannot be prosecuted regardless of his crime while section 83 of IPC talks about that a child of above 7 years while under 12 years of age that nothing is an offence done by them if child is not intellectually mature i.e. they have not attained sufficient maturity and are incapable of understanding the nature, circumstances of the crime and the consequences of their act. But if he has the sufficient maturity then he can be held liable.
Thus, a minor girl above 12 years can be held liable for prejury but if her age is under 7-12 years than section 83 of IPC will be applied.

[Intern]

This question is divided into THREE parts i.e., firstly, the minor girl filed a false complaint. Secondly, she was pressured to file a false complaint. Thirdly, against whom the false complaint was filed was innocent, how
1st Part: – As per Section 191 of The Indian Penal Code, any person who makes any statement that is false, and which he either knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true, is said to give false evidence. Concerning Section 193, the person who intentionally gives false evidence in any stage of a judicial proceeding, or fabricates false evidence to be used in any stage of a judicial proceeding, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years.
But in this question, the wrongdoer is a minor girl child. This provision of question will be dealt with keeping in mind Section 22 (2) of the POSCO Act, which states that if a false complaint is made or false information is provided by a child; no punishment shall be imposed on a child.
2nd Part¬- According to Section 195A, any person who threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property or to the person or reputation of anyone in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause that person to give false evidence shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both. Moreover, if an innocent person is convicted and sentenced in consequence of such false evidence, with death or imprisonment for more than seven years, the person who threatens shall be punished with the same punishment and sentence in the same manner and to the same extent such innocent person is punished and sentenced.
3rd Part- The person against whom a false FIR is filed can appeal to the High Court for quashing the false FIR lodged against him under Section 482 of CrPC.

[Intern]

Section 191 Indian Penal Code: Giving false evidence
It is stated in the above section that whoever makes any statement which is false, and which she/he either knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true, is said to give false evidence.
Section 193 Indian Penal Code: Punishment for giving false evidence
Whoever intentionally gives false evidence in any stage of a judicial proceeding, or fabricates false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of a judicial proceeding, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years.

BUT, as stated in Section 2(d) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) – any person below the age of 18 years is a child.
The above case will come under the purview of Section 22(2) of the POCSO Act which states that if a false complaint has been made or false information has been provided by a child; no punishment shall be imposed on a child.

[Intern]

This section incorporates the doctrine of necessity. However, the situation given
includes the action against whom is taken isn’t the wrongdoer. It stresses three conditions to
claim exception from the criminal liability, i.e.
1. The act must have been committed to avoiding other harm.
2. The harm to be avoided must be such as to justify the risk of doing an act likely to
cause harm
3. The act must have been committed in good faith without any criminal intention to
cause harm.

A situation like this was dealt in a case the United States v. Holmes, the court held that
“When the ship is in danger of sinking, but all sustenance is exhausted, and the sacrifice of
one person is necessary to appease the hunger of others, the selection is by lot” and was
found guilty of manslaughter but not of murder and sentenced to six months.

[Intern]

The major difference is in the words ‘bound by law’ in section 76 and ‘justified by law’ in section 79.
Section 76 deals with the cases where by reason of a mistake of a fact the person under a mistake considers himself ‘bound by law’ to act in a particular way, although in true facts his act is an offense. For example. If the sub-inspector under the directions of the inspector arrests A in good faith believing that he is a thief then this is a case of ‘bound by law’.
Section 79 deals with cases whereby the reason for a mistake of a fact the person under a mistake considers himself ‘justified by law’ to act in a particular way. For example. If A is punching B and X thinks that he is murdering B and goes there to protect him and later finds out that they were just practicing for boxing, so this is a case of ‘justified by law’.

[Intern]

Section 76 of the IPC states that “ Nothing is an offense which is done by a person who is, or
who by reason of a mistake of fact and not by reason of a mistake of law in good faith believes
himself to be, bound by law to do it.
Section 79 of the IPC states that “ Nothing is an offense which is done by any person who is
justified by law, or who by reason of a mistake of fact and not by reason of a mistake of law in
good faith, believes himself to be justified by law, in doing it.
Both these sections talk about the mistake of fact and mistake of law. The mistake of fact is
excusable whereas the mistake of law is not excusable. Section 76 further talks about “bound
by law” and section 79 talks about “justified by law”.
“Bound by law” means that although the facts show that the offense is committed still the
person under the mistake of fact believes that he was bound by law to act in that particular
way. For instance, if a police officer, arrests a person by the order of his superior officer, he
would be bound by law to act in that way.
“Justified by law” means that the law gives a person the power to act in a particular way. To put
it in simpler terms, it means that the person is empowered by law, the person had sufficient
reasons to act in that way. For instance, X saw Y engaged in inflicting blows on Z. X caught Y in
order to hand him over to the police. But later it was found that Y was exercising his right to
private defense. Here, as X acted in good faith, his act would be justified by law.

[Intern]

Section 76 states that nothing is an offense, which is done by a person who is, or who by reason of mistake of fact and not by reason of mistake of law, in good faith, believes himself bound by law to do so. This means that a person if does any offence, by mistake of fact, and he think he was bound by law to do so, his act will not amount to an offence. For Example a police officer encounters X who was hiding in a room but while doing so he also kills Y who was sitting in the same room thinking him to be a gang member whereas he was just sitting there. Police officer can’t be held accountable of murder.
Section 79 of IPC states that nothing is an offence which is done by any person who is justified by law, or who by reason of a mistake of fact and not by reason of a mistake of law in good faith, believes himself to be justified by law, in doing it. This means that if a person, thinking that his action is justified by law, by mistake of fact does an act, then his act will not amount to offence. For example- A hits B thinking that he was trying to kill D whereas they were just practicing a part of the drama they were participating in. Here A will not be held guilty of Battery.
Thus, in section 76 and 79 the only difference is that in Section 76 the person is bound by law and in 79 the person thinks his action to be justified by law.

[Intern]

Sec. 76 lays down that nothing is an offence which is done by a person, who is, or who by reason of a mistake of fact and not by reason of mistake of law, in good faith, believes himself to be bound by law to do so.

It is derived from legal maxim;
‘Ignorantia facit excusat, ignorantia juris non excusat’
(The ignorance of fact excuses, ignorance of law does not excuse).

Illustration;

(a) A, a soldier, fires on a mob by the order of his superior officer, in conformity with the commands of the law. A has committed no offence.

79. Act done by a person justified, or by mistake of fact believing himself, justified, by law– Nothing is an offence which is done by any person who is justified by law, or who by reason of a mistake of fact and not by reason of a mistake of law in good faith, believes himself to be justified by law, in doing it.

Illustration;

A sees Z commit what appears to A to be a murder. A, in the exercise of good faith, seizes Z, in order to bring Z before the proper authorities. A has committed no offence, though it may turn out that Z was acting in self-defence.
~ Isha Aggarwal

[Author]

Replies