Login : Advocate | Client
Home Post Your Case My Account Law College Law Library

Report No. 60

14.7. Two situations to be considered-Actually constituting the same offence.-

It may be stated that these three ambiguities1 are really facets of the obscurity which exists on the major question whether prosecution and punishment under both the enactments are permissible. In this context, two situations have to be considered separately2. The first situation is where an act made by two more statutory provisions ("enactments"), really constitutes the "same offence",-Here, though the legal labels given to the offences are different, the ingredients thereof are indentical3.

It is by reason of the accidents of legislation that the act happens to fall under two or more enactments4. Such cases, though infrequent, can arise because of the fact that one aspect of the act is dealt with more prominently in one enactment, while another aspect is given prominence by another enactment. Essentially, there is only one culpable act; and, though different legal labels lead to two or more "offences", the offender should not receive punishment for more than one of them. They are not distinct.

1. Para. 14.6, supra.

2. Cf 42nd Report (Penal Code), p. 75, para. 3.72, (discussing section 71, Penal Code),

3. (a) Cf. Emp. v. Bhogilal, AIR 1931 Born 499;

(b) Durga Charan v. Issmussin, AIR 1948 Cal 6 (7), (wrongful confinement for purpose of extortion-sections 347 and 384, IPC).

4. See also (a) Baliah v. Rangochari, AIR 1969 SC 701;

(b) Hari v. State of Maharashtra, 73 Born LR 891.

General Clauses Act, 1897 Back

Client Area | Advocate Area | Blogs | About Us | User Agreement | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Media Coverage | Contact Us | Site Map
powered and driven by neosys