1. Ipc 425 426 Standard
2. Ipc 425 426 Manual
3. Ipc 425 426 Pdf

Jahan tak ki hamen pata hai IPC Indian penal court hota hai. Jismein mein Bhartiya sanvidhan ke bare mein jankari milati hai.#Jay Ho unity #. Section 425 in The Indian Penal Code 425. Mischief.—Whoever with intent to cause, or knowing that he is likely to cause, wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any person, causes the destruction of any property, or any such change in any property or in the situation thereof as destroys or diminishes its value or utility, or affects it. (IPC) – Ss 425, 427 & 447 – Prevention of Damage of Public Property Act 1984 – S 3(1) – (CrPC) – S 321 – Allowing the prosecution to be withdrawn would only result in a singular result, which is that the elected representatives are exempt from the mandate of criminal law. 425-426-5269 Irvon Randhawa. 425-426-8118 Chrissti Reber. 425-426-4241 Henke Cassino. 425-426-9630 Jayson Wheatcraft. 425-426-4831 Mariasha Witzman. 425: Plastic article or earthenware shaping or treating: apparatus: 426: Food or edible material: processes, compositions, and products. (ipc) 720: Dynamic.

Mischief

Author: Amit Singh

Introduction

Mischief is defined in Section 425 and of the Indian Penal Code. Section 426 prescribes the punishment thereof. Section 427 to 440, in which gravity of the offense is aggravated owing to the greater value of wrongful loss or damage of the property than in ordinary cases of mischief. In a common man understanding mischief is interfering with a person from the enjoyment of their property by making demolition of the property in one way or the other. In mischief is done with the intentionally causing wrongful damage of loss to the public or any person.

Mischief under IPC

According to IPC section 425 Mischief is “Whoever with intent to cause, or knowing that he is likely to cause, wrongful loss or damage to the public or any person, causes the destruction of any property, or any such change in any property or the situation thereof as destroys or diminishes its value or utility, or affects it injuriously, commits “mischief”.

Explanation 1. — It is not essential to the offense of mischief that the offender should intend to cause loss or damage to the owner of the property injured or destroyed. It is sufficient if he intends to cause, or knows that he is likely to cause, wrong­ful loss or damage to any person by injuring any property, wheth­er it belongs to that person or not.

Explanation 2.—Mischief may be committed by an act affecting property belonging to the person who commits the act, or to that person and others jointly.

Illustrations:

1. A voluntarily burns a valuable security belonging to Z in­tending to cause wrongful loss to Z. A has committed mischief.

• A introduces water into an ice-house belonging to Z and thus causes the ice to melt, intending wrongful loss to Z. A has committed mischief.

• A voluntarily throws into a river a ring belonging to Z, intending to thereby cause wrongful loss to Z. A has com­mitted mischief.

• A, knowing that his effects are about to be taken in execu­tion to satisfy a debt due from him to Z, destroys those effects, intending to thereby prevent Z from obtain­ing satisfaction of the debt, and of thus causing damage to Z. A has committed mischief.

• A, having insured a ship, voluntarily causes the same to be cast away, with the intention of causing damage to the underwriters. A has committed mischief.

• A causes a ship to be cast away, intending thereby to cause damage to Z who has lent money on bottomry on the ship. A has committed mischief.
  • A, having joint property with Z in a horse, shoots the horse, intending thereby to cause wrongful loss to Z. A has committed mischief.

• A causes cattle to enter upon a field belonging to Z, intend­ing to cause and knowing that he is likely to cause damage to Z’s crop. A has committed mischief.

Essential Ingredients of mischief

• Intention / Knowledge to Cause Wrongful Loss or Damage to the general public and person

According to section 425, Mischief requires the intention of a person to cause wrongful loss or damage to the general public or any person or criminal intent to commit any offense. Mischief may also be created by a person with a change of situation of a property with the intention to injure another person. Like other offenses Mens rea is the most important element of any act to establishing mischief. The other essential is that accused should have an intention or knowledge of causing damage to any property or wrongful loss to any person. The intention of causing damage or wrongful loss alone is enough to constitute mischief. The act may or may not be directed straight towards the owner of the property. Every act in order to fall under the ambit of the definition of mischief is not criminal unless there is an element of “mens rea”. Mischief involves a mental activity with a destructive animus.

• Nagendranath Roy vs dr. Bijoy Kumar Dasburma^[1]:- In this case Court held that mere negligence is not mischief. Negligence followed with the intention to cause wrongful loss or damage will amount to mischief.

• Krishna Gopal Singh and Ors. vs the State Of U.P.^[2]:- In this case it was held that the offense of mischief would not be committed if the accused has not committed an act with the intent to cause wrongful loss or damage to any person or the public at large. It also implies that acts done under any pressure, without the free consent of the accused, do not come under the ambit of mischief.

• Wrongful Damage or loss

The essential Mens reus while committing mischief should be directed towards causing ‘destruction to the property’, ‘damage’ or ‘wrongful loss’ to the public or person which will constitute the actus reus for the offense of mischief. In mischief the intention of the accuser can be that of causing wrongful loss or damage to any person.

For example- tearing off some important documents relating to property or finances.

• R. Gandhi vs. Union Of India^[3]: – In this case, Supreme court held that When a person conies to us with the complaint that he has been arrested and imprisoned with mischievous or malicious intent and that his constitutional and legal rights were invaded, the mischief or malice and the invasion may not be washed away or wished away by his being set free. Inappropriate cases we have the jurisdiction to compensate the victim by awarding suitable monetary compensation.

• Causing Destruction of Any Property or Any Change in It

To constitute the mischief it is important that the damage should be a direct consequence of the alleged act. Mischief can also be caused by causing destruction or changes in any property. Which affects the body or meaning of the things like- changing the words of a speech or intentionally destroying something owned by somebody.

• Destroys or Diminishes Value or Utility

The third important essential is decreasing the value of something .for example intentionally misplacing important files and utility of the property to be an immediate or proximate consequence of the alleged act of the accused.

• Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd ^[4] :-. In this case the defendant removed the engines of the aircraft hence diminishing its utility and rendering it useless. It was held that the damage caused satisfied all elements of mischief and thus the offense of mischief was constituted. And Court also observed that for the purpose of Section 425, ownership or possession of the property is not relevant. Even if the property belongs to the accused himself, if the ingredients are made out, mischief is committed, as is evident from illustrations (d) and (e) to Section 425.

Punishment for Mischief

Punishment for the offense of Mischief has been prescribed under Section 426 with imprisonment which may extend to a term of 3 months or with fine or with both imprisonment and fine. But this does not apply to all cases if mischief. Like aggravated forms, the punishment has been prescribed in the further sections.

The Aggravated Forms of Mischief

• Based on the nature of the property damage

Whoever commits mischief and thereby causes loss or damage to the amount of fifty rupees or upwards, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both

• Mischief by killing or maiming cattle or any animal value of ten rupees or more

Section 428 to Section 434 of IPC deals with, Whoever commits mischief by killing, poisoning, maiming or rendering useless any animal or animals of the value of ten rupees or upwards, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both .the intention of the legislature here is to stop the cruelty to animals as a result of which cruelty is caused to the owner her the word ‘animal’ means ‘any living creature other than a human being’and ‘Maiming’ does not mean causing wounds or temporary injuries. It has to be an injury of permanently which affecting the use of a limb or other members of the body.

• Mischief by Killing or Maiming Cattle

According to Section 429 of IPC, for killing or maiming of ‘cattle’ which refers to an animal used for commercial purposes. This section tries to analyze the intent and motive behind any crime and thus it is assumed in this section that the accuser had the intention of maiming or killing the cattle with a motive to cause wrongful loss to the owner and the person Shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may be extended for five years, a fine or both.

• Mischief by Injuring Works of Irrigation

Section 430 deals with the punishment for causing damage to the works of irrigation and rendering it useless or wrongfully diverting it to cause mischief. aims of this section are to prevent any sort of disturbance in the supply of water used for commercial purposes such as agriculture, manufacturing or essential needs such as drinking and storage shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both.

• Mischief by Injuring Public Road, Bridge, River or Channel

According to section 431 of IPC says that any person who commits mischief by doing damage to any public road, bridge, navigable river or navigable channel, natural or artificial, impassable or less safe for traveling or conveying property bridge, river or channel and rendering it useless or any less safe for traveling or conveying property.

It assumes that the intention of the accuser to cause wrongful loss to the public at large by destroying or diminishing the value of the property, punishment of section 431 states, imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both.

· Mischief by Obstructing Public Drainage attended with damage

IPC Section 432 deals with the person who done any act which causes or which he knows to be likely to cause an inundation or an obstruction to any public drainage attended with injury or damage It caters to the idea of causing destruction of the property and affecting the public at large for the sole purpose of mischief. The person shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both.

• Mischief by Destroying of Lighthouse or Seamark

According to Section 432 deals, a person who commits mischief by destruction or disturbance any light-house or other light used as a sea-mark or any sea-mark or buoy or other thing placed as a guide for navigators. It takes into account the intention of misguiding the navigators as a part of mischief by either destroying or moving any sea mark in a way that renders it useless or diminishes its use. The punishment in this section is extended to imprisonment for a term with extension to seven years, fine or both. The increase of the punishment is due to the possibility of huge commercial or personal loss caused due to the mischief.

• Mischief by Destroying of Landmark fixed by public authority

Section 434 of IPC deals with the person who commits mischief by destroying or moving any land-mark fixed by the authority of a public servant, or by any act which renders such land-mark less useful as such, shall be punished. It is a similar category as above, the only difference being the damage of landmarks instead of sea marks. in this case would be less as compared to that of damaging sea marks. And the punishment in this section is reduced to imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year only, a fine or both. The landmark destroyed or diminished should be important and should have been fixed by the authority of a public servant.

• Mischief based upon the method adopted to cause damage: offenses of Arson

From Section 435 to Section 438 deals with aggravated forms of mischief based upon the method adopted to cause damage. These sections are collectively termed as ‘offenses of arson’ which defined as the willful and malicious burning or charring of property. Damaging the property amounting to hundred rupees and above by fire or explosive substances. In the case of agricultural produce, the damage caused by amounting to ten rupees and above is punishable. The person shall be punished imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years and a fine.

Conclusion

In IPC there are 15 sections in all but still doesn’t include all possibilities of the crime itself. It just mentions the definition which is then followed by some scenarios in which ‘mischief’ is punished as a crime. In These few scenarios, mentioned in the IPC, do not suffice the wide possibilities of acts that can be charged with mischief, due to which major cases involving any acts of mischief, which are nowhere mentioned in the IPC, depend upon the discretion of the courts for establishment and punishment of the crime. Thus, it can be inferred that ‘mischief’ as a crime does not have a very solid hold of the procedural law and needs to be detailed further. Hence, a good reform under this section would be to elaborate further upon the acts which could in any possibility constitute mischief

Reference

1. 1992 CriLJ 1871, 1991 II OLR 527
2. AIR 2000 SC 3616
3. AIR 1989 Mad 205, (1988) IIMLJ 493
4. 2003 41 SCL 493 Mad

SECTION 425: MISCHIEF

As per the Section 425 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (hereinafter referred to as IPC) that whenever anyone performs an act either having an intention to cause or is aware that his act is likely to bring, some destruction or damage to any property, destroying or diminishing its value and utility, hence, resulting in an undue loss or damage to the public or any person is said to commit mischief. It is an extension to the legal maxim sic utretuoleadas which means “use your property, but not in a way that can injure your neighbor’s or other’s property.”

ILLUSTRATIONS:

1. “A” intentionally sets X’s home on fire causing him wrongful loss or injury.
2. “A” a doctor deliberately prescribed wrong medicine to “B’s” cattle with an intent to cause wrongful loss or injury.
3. “C” diverts the flow of the canal in such a way to prevent “B” from irrigating his field causing him loss by damage of crops.
4. “B” tears off some important business-related documents of A to cause him financial loss.
5. “A” deliberately burns off the standing crop that was jointly cultivated by “A” and “B”.
6. “B” intentionally damages a “signboard“installed by the order of municipality causing wrongful losses & injury.

INGREDIENTS OF MISCHIEF:

Essentially there are three key elements to establish Mischief as per the definition laid down in section 425 of IPC which are as follows:

• Intention or the knowledge of the act (mens rea);
• The act resulting in destruction, damage, or change in the property or situation thereof; and (actus rea)
• The change must lead to diminishing the value or utility.

In the case of Nagendranath Roy vs. Dr. Bijoy Kumar Dasburma[1]where 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.

In the case ofKrishna Gopal Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh[2], it was stipulated that if the accused has committed an act without any intent or knowledge that the act in question is likely to cause wrongful loss or damage to any person or the public at large, it will not fall under the ambit of mischief as the element of “Mens rea” is absent. Similarly, if an act is committed without free consent i.e. Under some pressure or duress, it will also not amount to mischief.

One very important case in this regard is the case ofSippattar Singh vs. Krishna[3] case, where the court separated the offence of theft from mischief. In this specific case, the respondent was guilty of cutting the sugar cane from the field of the petitioner and taking it away.

The Court found the respondent not to be guilty of the offence of mischief, but he was held guilty of theft, because of two important reasons: first that the respondent had not caused any damage to the remaining field of the sugar cane, & second because the respondent had physically moved certain quantity of sugarcane coupled with dishonest intention to misappropriate it.

In another case of E.In Shriram vs Thakurdas [4] case, the complainant alleged that the accused, an officer of Municipal Corporation, demolished his house thus was guilty of the offence of mischief causing him wrongful loss and damage. But upon investigation, it was found that it was an unauthorized construction and the accused took the action only after serving due notices.

The Bombay High Court held that the officer acted in the due course of his duties by demolishing the unauthorized construction as per law, thus this act of his attracts no offence under section 425 of IPC.

SECTION 426: Punishment for Mischief

The punishment for Mischief is prescribed under Section 426 which states that it attracts imprisonment of a term which may extend up to three months, or with fine, or with both, as the court may deem fit. The offence under this Section is non-cognizable, bailable, compoundable, and triable by any Magistrate.

SECTION 427: Mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees

When a Mischief committed results in pecuniary damage of fifty rupees or upwards the person will be subject to the imprisonment of either description of a term with a maximum of two years, or with fine, or with both.

SECTION 428: Mischief by killing or maiming of animals of the value of ten rupees

This section provides the punishment in case of mischief committed upon any animal or animals of the value of ten rupees or upwards which includes killing, poisoning, maiming, or rendering that animal useless.

The object of the legislature to prevent cruelty against animals.The word ‘animal’ used in the statute refers to ‘all living creatures except the human being. By ‘Maiming’ the legislature does not intend causing wounds or temporary injuries but rather It has to be an injury permanently affecting the use of a limb or other parts of the body.The offence under this Section is cognizable, bailable, compoundable with the permission of the Court before which any prosecution of such offence is pending and triable by any Magistrate.

SECTION 430: Mischief by injury to works to irrigation or by wrongfully diverting water

Ipc 425 426 Standard

The section specifically aims at those cases where the act of mischief results in some injury to the work of irrigation or by unduly diverting the flow of water resulting in wrongful losses & damage. This section applies in the cases where weakening or obstructing the supply of water causes wrongful disturbances & losses in commercial activities such as agriculture, manufacturing, or interfering with the drinking and food requirement of human beings or animals.The punishment prescribed in IPC for this offence will be either a description of a term which may extend up to 5 years, fine, or both as the court may deem fit.The object behind the statue is to prevent diminution in the supply of water for agriculture, commercial purposes, or to punish any alteration in the water supply resulting in some sort of interference with the drinking and food requirements of humans and animals.

SECTION 431: Mischief by injury to the public road, bridge, river, or channel

This section deals with the punishment when an individual does an act which has the consequence of or which he knows has the consequence of causing inconvenience to the public. It covers those acts which result in damage to public roads, bridge, navigable river, or navigable channels (natural or artificial) by making them impassable or rendering them less safe for traveling or conveying property.The punishment prescribed under IPC is imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both.The offence under this Section is cognizable, bailable, non-compoundable,

SECTION 435: Mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to cause damage

This section covers those cases where the mischief is committed by fire or any explosive substance with an intent to cause, or the knowledge that the act is likely to cause damage to any property. This section applies when the amount of damage incurred is one hundred rupees or upwards or ten rupees or upwards when the “property” damaged is agricultural produce.The section prescribes imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.The offence under this Section is cognizable, bailable, compoundable, and triable by Magistrate of the first class.

SECTION 436: Mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to destroy the house

Even this section deals with the mischief committed by fire or any explosive substance but specifically applies when the damage is caused to any building which can be a house, place of worship, or as a human dwelling or as a place for the custody of property. Considering the seriousness of the offence the punishment prescribed under this section is graver which may include life imprisonment, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and fine as the court may deem fit.The offence under this Section is cognizable, non-bailable, non-compoundable, and triable by the Court of Session.

One of the most essential requirements to establish an offence under Section 436 of IPC is that there must be some irrefutable evidence that the accused who actively set fire to the dwelling place or building or instigated someone to do it for him. For example- a testimony of direct eye witness against the accused that he/she set the property on fire.

SECTION 440: Mischief committed after preparation made for causing death or hurt

This section describes the punishment for committing mischief by making preparations with an intent to cause or create fear of death, hurt or wrongful restraint. It lays down the punishment of imprisonment for a description of a term which may extend up to five years and a fine.The offence under this Section is cognizable, bailable, non-compoundable, and triable by Magistrate of the first class.

• [1] 1991 II OLR 527
• [2] AIR 2000 SC 3616
• [3] AIR 1957 All 405
• [4] 1978 CriLJ 715

'Loved reading this piece by Apoorva?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!'

Ipc 425 426 Manual

Ipc 425 426 Pdf

Tags :students