SECTION OFFENCE CASES HELD

105 of Burden of proof Woolmington v Director of The burden of proving the existence of
Indian Public Prosecutions 1935 circumstances bringing the case within
Evidence (House of Lords) any of the exceptions is on the
Act accused, this does not absolve the
prosecution of its burden to prove the
guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt. , accused will be entitled to
acquittal in case a reasonable doubt is
created in the mind of the court about
the availability of these exceptions. the
standard of proof required of the
accused is lower than the standard of
proof required of the prosecution to
establish guilt beyond reasonable
doubt
Mistake of law State of Maharashtra v M H Mistake of law is no defence against
George AIR 1965 SC 722 the charge for smuggling gold in India
in violation of statutory prohibition
even by a foreigner who had no
knowledge of the law prohibiting
bringing of gold in India beyond a
certain quantity.
76 Mistake of fact Dukhi Singh v State AIR The police officer was not justified in
1955 Allahabad law to shoot the dead in order to effect
521(Allahabad HC) his re-arrest. This action could be
justified if the deceased was accused
of an offence punishable with death or
imprisonment for life.
79 Varyam Singh v Emperor The accused was protected under S.79
1926 Lahore HC as he believed in good faith at the time
of the assault that the object of his
assault was some ghost and not a
living human being.
79 Kanhai Lal Goala v Queen A court peon who went to execute a
Empress 1897 warrant against the judgment debtor.
So ‘Palki’ with palanquin coming out
of male apartment of the judgment
debtor’s house. The peon believing
that the judgment debtor was effecting
his escape in that palanquin, stopped
and examined it although the persons
accompanying it protested and said
that there was a lady inside. Held-
Having regard to the terms of S.79,
 conviction of the peon is not right.
79 Bhaojivaji v Moolji Dayal, Bombay HC set aside the conviction
Bombay HC and gave the benefit of S.79 to the
accused who had arrested the
complainant and seized the clothes
suspected to be stolen. The action of
the accused was held to be justified by
law as it was in order to clear up the
suspicion.
79 MISTAKE OF Rajrani Gulati v Allahabad HC held that though
LAW Commissioner Of Income ignorance of law is no excuse but it
Tax 2001 can be excused in tax matters.

79 MISTAKE OF P V Devosi v Commissioner “

LAW of Income Tax
78 PROTECTION Delhi Judicial Service The apex court issued directions that
OF JUDGES Association, Tis Hazari if a judicial officer is to be arrested for
Court v State of Gujarat any offence, it should be done under
intimation to the district judge or the
high court. If circumstances
necessitate immediate arrest, a formal
or technical arrest may be effected and
the same be informed to the district
judge and the chief justice of the high
court. On arrest, the judicial officer
shall not be taken to the police station
without prior order of the district
judge. The Supreme Court also
directed that in all instances when a
judicial officer is arrested, handcuffs
should not be used.
78 . In Rachapudi Subba Rao v the Supreme Court held that s 1 of the
Advocate General, Andhra Judicial Officers Protection Act 1850
Pradesh offers an absolute immunity from civil
liability for acts done by a judge in his
judicial capacity and which are within
his jurisdiction.
77 Anowar Hussein v Ajoy The Supreme Court held that since the
Kumar Mukherjee , accused officer acted in his executive
capacity and not in discharge of his
duties as a magistrate, he was not
entitled to any protection from legal
liability
80 accident Tunda v R 1950 CLJ 402 While playing wrestling bout one of
Allahabad HC the friends got injured, resulting in the
fracture of the skull and consequently
 his death. The court of appeal held that
the injury was caused accidently
without any criminal intent and as
there was no proof of any foul play on
the part of the accused his act would
not amount to any offence by reason
of S.80 of IPC.
K M Nanavati v State of Where the act of the accused is itself
Maharashtra criminal in nature, the protection
under S.80 is not available. If the
accused pleads exception within the
meaning of S.80 there is a
presumption against him and the
burden to rebut that presumption lies
on him.
Lallan v State of UP A severe blow with a dangerous
Allahabad HC weapon was given on the neck of the
deceased, the court rightly rejected the
plea of accidental injury.
80 Ram Kumar v State
of Rajasthan HC has said that in spite of
Rajasthan 1970 the fact that the accused did not take
any definitive plea of accident, the
court after minutely examining all the
circumstances on the record may
allow the defence even if the defence
is not specifically pleaded.
82 (absolute King Emperor v Baba Sein In appeal setting aside the conviction,
immunity to the 1938 Rangoon HC the court held that a child under the
child below 7 age of 7 years cannot be held liable
yrs of age) under any penal provision.
Emperor v Wali Mohammad 2 children- one aged 8 and the other 5
1936 were convicted by the trial court for
throwing stones on a moving train
which would be a punishable act under
S.127 of Railways Act, 1890. Upon
appeal the Sind HC said that the
accused aged 8 is entitled to the
defence under S.83 because it was
found that he had not developed
sufficient maturity of understanding in
appreciating the risk involved or in
understanding the nature and
consequence of his act in throwing
stones on a moving train and the
accused aged 5 is entitled to defence
under S.82 of IPC
83 Qualified Emperor v Godi 1896 A girl aged 10 was married off by her
immunity to the mother while her earlier marriage was
child above 7 still subsisting. This would amount to
and below 12. bigamy and bigamy implicates party
to the marriage and not others. So, this
girl all of 10 years was charged for the
offence of bigamy. The court said very
rightly so that a child aged 10 can’t
have maturity of understanding to
understand the very meaning of
marriage, leave aside bigamy.
81 neccessity R v Hickin 1878 An infectious diseases hospital was on
fire and in order to save the patients
from the flames, they were taken into
the crowd. Some of the crowd were
likely to be infected. Yet the persons
responsible for taking the patients into
the crowd were not held guilty of the
wrongful act. They were saved by
virtue of the defence of necessity.
81 R v Dudley and Stephens The leading opinion was delivered by
1884 Lord Coolridge, Principles that can
be deduced from the Dudley and
Stephens are: (1) self-preservation is
not an absolute necessity; (2) no
person has a right to take another’s life
to preserve his own, and (3) there is no
necessity that justifies homicide.

necessity United States v Holmes 1842 Justice Baldwin while charging the
jury directed the jury members that
when the ship is in danger of sinking
but all sustenance is exhausted, the
sacrifice of 1 person is necessary to
appease the hunger of others. The
selection is by lot. This way the
American court did not altogether rule
out the defence of necessity justifying
killing to save one’s own life provided
that the selection of the victim was not
arbitrary.

R v Pommell 1995 The Court of Appeal held that a

defence of necessity should be open to
the defendant on the facts where he
 had taken possession of the loaded sub
machine gun thereby infringing the
law. But he had done so to prevent
someone else form committing a
greater evil by using it.
Re A (conjoined twins) 2001 The Court of Appeal allowed the
separation of conjoined twins on the
grounds of necessity though there was
a grave danger to the life of the twins.
81 Indian position accused would not be so entitled to the
Dhania Daji v Emperor defence is that because the harm that
1868, was caused was completely
disproportionate to the evil that the
accused sought to be prevented.
Bisambhar v Rumal The HC extended the benefit of
Allahabad HC 1950 defence of necessity to the accused.
 PLEADING ORDER VI

subject Order, rule Case laws held

Throp v. Holdsworth

Ganesh Trading Co.

v. Moji Ram

Virendra Kasinath v.
Vinayak N. Joshi

Ram Prasad v. State

of MP

Union of India v. Sita

Ram

Udhav Singh v.
Madhav Rao Scindia

Virendra Nath v.
Satpal Singh

R.M. Seshadri v. G.
Vasantha Pai

William v. wilcox

Borrodile v. Hunter

Order 6 R 16 Sathi Vijay Kumar v.

Tota Singh
 PLAINT ORDER VII

ORDER, RULE SUBJECT CASE HELD

9 ADMISSION OF
PLAINT

EVENT HAPPENING AFETR THE INSTITUTION OF THE SUIT

ORDER & SUBJECT CASES HELD

RULES

EVENT LACHMESHWAR THE BASIC RULE IS THAT

HAPPENING PRASAD V. KESHWAR THE RIGHTS OF THE
AFETR THE LAL PARTIES SHOULD BE
INSTITUTION DECIDED ON THE BASIS
OF THE SUIT OF THE DATE OF FILING
OF SUIT.
EVENT AMARJIT SINGH V. SUBSEQUENT EVENTS
HAPPENING KHATOON QUAMARIAN CAN BE TAKEN
AFETR THE COGNIZANCE OF IF THEY
 INSTITUTION ARE RELEVANT AND
OF THE SUIT MATERIAL.
EVENT PASUPULETI EQUITY JUSTIFIES
HAPPENING VENKATESHAWARALU BENDING THE RULES OF
AFETR THE V. MOTOR AND PROCEDURE, WHERE NO
INSTITUTION GENERAL TRADERS, SPECIFIC PROVISION OR
OF THE SUIT KRISHNA IYER FAIR PLAY IS VIOLATED
EITH A VIEW TO
PROMOTE SUBSTANTIAL
JUSTICE SUBECT TO
ABSENCE OF OTHER
DISENTITILING FACTORS
AND JUST
CIRCUMSTANCES.
EVENT RAMJI LAL V. STATE OF COURTS DO OFTEN TAKE
HAPPENING PUNJAB NOTICE OF SUBSEQUENT
AFETR THE CHANGES AND ALLOW
INSTITUTION PLEADING TO BE
OF THE SUIT AMENDED INCLUDING
PRAYER FOR RELIEF, TO
AVOID MULTIPLICITY OF
SUITS OR WHERE
PRAYER FOR RELIEF HAS
BECOME
INAPPROPRIATE DUE TO
CHAGE IN SUBSEQUENT
EVEN AND NOT WHERE
PLAINTIFF SUIT BE
WHOLLY DISPLACED BY
PROPOSED
AMENDMENTS AND A
FRESH SUIT BY HIM
WOULD BE BARRED BY
LIMITATION.

Set off and counterclaim

ORDER, RULE SUBJECT CASE HELD

VIII, R 6 SET OFF JAYANTI LAL v. the doctrine of set-off

ABDUL AZIZ (1956), may be defined as “the
extinction of debts of
which two persons are
reciprocally debtors to
one another by the
credits of which they
are reciprocally
creditors to one
another”.

EQUITABLE SET CHISHTOM V. an equitable set-of, can

OFF GOPAL CHANDER be claimed for
(1889) unascertained money
but it must arise from
the same transaction
Order VIII, Rule 6A- COUNTERCLAIM LAXMIDAS V. right to make a
6G NANABHAI
counterclaim statutory.

COUNTERCLAIM ROHIT SINGH V.  A counterclaim can

STATE OF BIHAR be filed even after
the written
statement is filed
but cannot be
raised after
framing of issues
and closure of
evidence.
 counter-claim is
also not
maintainable if
directed solely
against the co-
defendants