Shodhganga : a reservoir of Indian theses @ INFLIBNETshodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/63023/11/11.../ 0 1 $ # ' ! 2 " $ # / " % 3456 3455 3443 " # $ 344 +

1 ,

CHAPTER-IV

ANALYSIS OF PUNISHMENTS MENTIONED IN INDIAN

PENALCODE WITH THE OTHER PENAL CODES OF SELECTED

COUNTRIES

j

222

CHAPTER-IV

ANALYSIS OF PUNISHMENTS MENTIONED IN INDIAN PENALCODE WITH THE OTHER PENAL

CODES OF SELECTED COUNTRIES

4.1. Introduction

New sanctions have been devised, new correctional treatment methods

have been invented and in number of countries punishments have been tailored to

meet the present needs of the society. In the course of time, concept of

punishment was changed. The idea of causing some deliberate harm to another

was not a part of its original character. It was simply a defensive reaction.

However, with the passage of the time defensive reaction achieved a value of its

own and to justify it, all sorts of theories have been put forward.

In England, till the period of Norman conquest there was no true criminal

procedure. There is no clear indication as to what are the factors that should be

taken into account in the matter of assessing the sentences to be imposed. In

many countries there are laws prescribing sentencing guidelines. The

establishment of a permanent Statutory Committee for the purpose of prescribing

sentencing guidelines is required in India. As the fines were prescribed more than

one and half century ago and the value of the rupee has since gone down

considerably, the continuing with those amounts as fine seriously effects the

object of punishment. The practice of jailing women who are pregnant or having

223

young child is cruel and most unreasonable to virtually put the innocent child in

prison for no fault of the child which will also affect his future life. Therefore

pregnant women or women with child should, instead of being sent to prison, be

ordered to be under house arrest like other developed countries.

4.2. The Indian Penal Code

The Code contains 511 sections and 32 chapters. It was prepared in

between the years1834 and 1837. It was kept in abeyance about 25 years. It was

verified by several eminent English legal luminaries. The code was finally enacted

as law on 1-5-1860. But, actually it came in to operation on 1-1-1862 since then it

has been in force subjecting to some occasional modifications through

amendments. In Indian Penal Code several offences were defined and

punishments were prescribed. In all the sections of the code 35 sections denote

only punishments. In the code nearly 48 new sections were added and 11

sections are repealed and 10 sections are omitted .It is true that the list of

offences provided in India Penal code is incomplete. Many offences are not

included as per the aspirations of the people and the progress of the society.

No punishment can be said to attain its true purpose which is

disproportionate and unjust. This implies a close examination and view of crime

in its true perspective. Really speaking, there is no absolute criterion or measure

of crime. It varies with age, locality and circumstances and prohibited by whom

but by the public opinion of society of which the Legislature is but a spokesman

and the external embodiment. Such prohibitions have varied from time to time,

but there are certain prohibitions which the intuition of man has condemned at all

times and in all places, these forms are the backbone of criminal law. They are

224

offences which by the consensus of mankind are regarded as evils of the highest

degree, and both as destructive of society and its well-being. The offences such

as treason, murder, rape and robbery belong to this class. Next to them fall

other offences which law reprobates as grave and which the moralist condemns

as true manifestation of an evil nature. Such are the offences of hurt, adultery,

defamation and acts involving fraud. Next below them fall offences which are

constituted for the preservation of the State and to protect its revenues. Such

offences are those against the revenue and servants. The offences which would

be called as quasi-delicates, and which are offences not implying any moral

turpitude, but are nonetheless punishable on account of the injury they do or

threaten to the Sate or its subjects. Such are the offences called public

nuisances and those allied thereto and made punishable by Secs.304-A,336-338.

Into the same category fall other offences such as those relating to the breach of

contract and of marriage obligations. It is not an easy task to classify offences

according to their gravity, but the maximum punishment provided in each case is

an indication of the place the Code intends to assign to each offence in the cadre

of criminality.

4.2.1. Scheme of the Indian Penal Code

It opens with a chapter of general explanations, and interpretations of the

terms used throughout the Code. It then describes the various punishments to

which offenders are liable; follows with a list of the exception regarding criminal

responsibility under which a person who otherwise would be liable to punishment

225

is exempted from the penal consequences of his act, such as offences committed

by children1, by accident2 or misfortune without any criminal intention3, offences

committed by lunatics and offences committed in the exercise of the right of

private defence.

The next chapters deal with offences against the public, criminal

conspiracy including the state, the army and navy, public tranquility, public

servants, contempt of the lawful authority of public servants, offences relating to

elections perjury: offences relating to coin and Government stamps, to weights

and measures; offences affecting the public health, safety, convenience, decency

and morals; offences relating to religious; and offences relating to the human

body, dowry death from murder down to the infliction of any hurt.

The Code then passes on to offences against property; offences relating to

forgery, including trade mark, criminal breach of contracts for service, offences

relating to marriage, offences of cruelty by husband or relatives of husband,

defamation, criminal intimidation, insult and annoyance.

Under this last head is included an attempt to cause a person to do

anything which that person is not legally bound to do, by inducing him to believe

that he would otherwise become subject to divine displeasure.

The First Schedule of the Information Technology Act, 2000 has amended

certain provision of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The scope of the amended

provisions has been widened to include offences relating to documents and

paper based transactions. By virtue of the Amendments made now, all the

amended provisions will include offences relating to documents as well as

electronic records.

1 Sec. 82 & 83 of IPC2 Sec. 803 Sec. 81

226

4.2.2. Types of punishments mentioned in I.P.C.

Section 53 of Indian Penal Code has prescribed six types of punishments,

namely, death, life, imprisonment, rigorous imprisonment, simple imprisonment,

forfeiture of property and fine. Indian Penal Code is in fact a catalogue of

offences and punishments. Out of the above punishments, most common are

‘imprisonment’ of both description and fine. Sections 53 to 75 of the I PC

incorporate general provisions relating to punishment for different offences,

Chapter III of IPC titled ‘Of Punishments’ contains Ss 53-60 dealing with different

types of punishments, including death sentence, life imprisonment and

imprisonment for certain periods, whether the sentence, should be served as

rigorous or simple imprisonment and so on. Provisions relating to imposition of

fines, including provisions for alternative sentences, if fines are not paid are

incorporated in Ss. 63-70, IPC; nature of punishment for offences made up of

several offences is provided for in Ss. 71 and 72. Solitary confinement as

punishment and limits of its imposition are spelt out in Ss. 73 and 74 of the Code.

Section 751 provides for enhanced punishment for the offences defined under

chapter XVI or Ch. XVII of the code for repeat offenders.

4.2.3. The Code in the changing Society

Since Lord Macaulay has drafted the Indian Penal Code, the world

has undergone a complete change in the criminological thinking and also in the

basic fiber of ‘rule of law’. It is important to observe that the Act has not

attempted to define the word, ‘criminal’ or ‘offender1 even though it is used several

1 Substituted by The Indian Penal Code( Amendment) 1910, Act No.lll of 1910.

227

times in the Code. That is the background of the Code not providing any clear

understanding of the word crime or criminal and simply explaining the term in

simplistic manner. It is true, in the fitness of things to the current understanding of

the philosophy behind, some modern statutes like Children Act, Drug Act, Arms

Act, etc. have identified some stray syndromes of crime and delinquency behavior,

as the case may be. But the Code is such an over-simplification that

individualized treatment and ‘therapeutic’ approach is inapplicable. The only way is

to individualize the punishment by maneuvering the scale of punishment, since the

Code has prescribed only maximum punishment.

Though Law is backdated, it is heartening to note that the scientists and

sociologists have come forward to unfurl a correct understanding of the situation.

To them, crime an act of a deviant who in response to a given phenomena

personal to him, violate the normative social prescription endangering the social

life and living. Thus, crime is an act of deviance, an act in response to a given

situation and an act which is a product of personal reaction to a given situation.

This attitude gives ample scope for deep studies to unearth causative factors in

each species of crime. In a word, the present framework of the Code does

not incite people to unearth truth.

4.2.4. Role of Law Commission of India

The Indian Government has been constituting Law Commissions from time

to .time since Independence. The period of each Commission is 3 years. The

reports of the Law Commissions are considered by the Ministry of Law in

consultation with the concerned administrative Ministry and are submitted to

Parliament from time to time. The Law Commission of India has forwarded

228

reports so far on different of subjects of Law. The recommendations of the Law

Commission regarding the provisions of Indian Penal Code is laudable. The I.L.C.

stated through its reports to amend several provisions of the Code regarding the

change of punishment for several sections. Some important suggestions of the

I.L.C or explained below.

The Law Commission of India in its 5th Report stated that about the British

statues applicable to India, in its 29th Report it stated about the proposal to

include certain social and economic offences in I.P.C., in its 39th Report1 2 it gave

important suggestions about the imprisonment for life under the Code, in its 47th

Report mentioned about the trial and punishment of social and economic

offences. In its 51st Report it recommended to the Government about the

compensation for injuries caused in hit-and-run cases, its 84th Report it

mentioned about rape and alleged offences, its 91st2 Report mentioned about

Dowry death and other Law Reforms. In 109th Report the 10th Law Commission

on 1985 explained the new outlooks in obscene and indecent advertisement and

displays. In 142nd Report the 19th Law Commission mentioned about the

concessional treatment for offenders. In 146th Report the 13th Law commission

recommended to the Government to add new section i.e., 373-A to the Indian

Penal Code to curtail the sale of women and children.

In 156th Report, the 14th Law Commission under the Chairmanship of

K.G.Reddy suggested some Reforms to the Government. In 172nd Report the 15th

Law Commission under the Chairmanship of B.P.Jeevan Reddy stated about the

Review of Rape Laws. In 187th Report the 17th Law Commission mentioned mode

of execution of death sentence and incidental matters and submitted to the

1 Fifth Law Commission under the Chairmanship of Mr. K.V.Sundaram 1969-1971.2 10th Law Commission under the Chairmanship Mr. Justice K.K.Mathew 1981-85

229

Government. In 202nd Report, 18th Law Commission in the year 2007 under the

Chairmanship of Justice A.R.Lakshman proposed the amendment of Sec. 304 B

of IPC.

.The Law Commission of India1 in its 156th Report, submitted in 1997

affirmed the changes in the IPC as accepted in the1978 Bill, except that new

section 304B was recommended to be inserted as sub-Section (2) in section

304A because the number could not be ‘304B’ in view of the amendment of the

IPC by Act 43 of 1986 inserting section 304B relating to dowry death. The Law

Commission reaffirmed the changes in the IPC as carried out by clauses 118,

119,127,128,141,142 and 143 of the IPC (Amendment) Bill, 1978 as passed by

the Council of States on 23.11.1978, subject to the following modifications.

The Law Commission of India2 now feels that even the maximum term of

imprisonment of five years in section 304A, IPC would not be adequate on the

touchstone of the theory of deterrence keeping in view the present days’ practical

reality and the same should be increased to ten years. It is also felt that the

offence under section 304A, IPC should be non-bail able. Causing death of any

person through driving under the influence of drink or drugs should be punishable

with the minimum term of imprisonment of two years. Any second or subsequent

offence under section 304A, IPC, if the rash or negligent act involved is the act of

driving other than driving under the influence of drink or drugs, should be

punishable with the minimum term of imprisonment of one year.

The maximum term of imprisonment in section 279 (proposed) section

279A, IPC should be increased to five years and any second or subsequent

1 http://www.lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/main.htm

2 http://www.lawcommmissionofmdia.nic.in/main.htm

230

offence there under should be punishable with the minimum term of

imprisonment of six months. Any second or subsequent offence under section

336, IPC, if committed within three years of the commission of the previous

similar offence and the rash or negligent act involved is the act of driving should

be punishable with the maximum term of imprisonment of two years.

Any second or subsequent offence under section 337, IPC, if committed

within three years of the commission of the previous similar offence and the rash

or negligent act involved is the act of driving, should be punishable with the

maximum term of imprisonment of three years. Any second or subsequent

offence under section 338, IPC, if the rash or negligent act involved is the act of

driving, should be punishable with the maximum term of imprisonment of five

years.

The Law Commission, headed by Justice A.R.Laxman in its 234th report

submitted to the Government that causing death by driving under the influence of

alcohol or drugs should be punished with a minimum provision term of 2 years. In

its report on legal reforms to combat road accidents the Commission said: India

has one of the largest net works in the world, of 3.314 Million Kilometres

consisting of National High Way, Express ways, State High Ways major district

roads and village roads. More than 1 lakh Indians are dying every year in road

accidents. More than a Million are injured or maimed1. The 18th Law Commission

has recommended increasing the minimum sentence from 7to 10 years in Dowry

death cases. It has however, declined the suggestion to increase the maximum

punishment from life imprisonment to death sentence. The Commission says”.

There is no justification for amending the Section 304-B I.P.C. to provide for death

1 The Hindu 23rd Aug.2009- Law Panel for 10 years’ imprisonment for death caused by rash driving.

231

penalty. Such penalty will also not the inconformity with the principles of

proportionality

4.2.4.1. Proposed Chapter on Attempts

The Law Commission of India1 proposed deletion of S.511 and insertion of a

new Chapter VB1 entitled ‘ Of Attempt’ consisting of the two Ss. 120C and 120D

after Chapter VA dealing with ‘Criminal Conspiracy’ with a view to group inchoate

crimes together. The proposed S 120C gives a comprehensive definition of

attempt as shown below.

120C. Attempt.- A Person attempts to commit an offence punishable by this

Code, when -

(a) with the intention or knowledge requisite for committing it does any act

towards its commission;

(b) the act so done is closely connected with, and proximate to, the

commission of the offence; and

(c) the act fails in its object because of facts not known to him or because of

circumstances beyond his control.

120 D. Punishment for attempt. - Whoever is guilty of an attempt to commit an

offence punishable by this Code with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment

for specified term, shall, where no express provision is made by this Code for the

punishment of such attempt, be punished with imprisonment of any description

provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-half of the

imprisonment for life, or as the case may be, one-half which may extend to one-

half of the imprisonment for life, or, as the case may be, one-half of the longest

1 The Law commission of India, 42nd Report on Indian Penal Code, (Ministry of Law) (1971), PP.138-139.

232

term of imprisonment provided for that offence, or with such fine as is provided

for the offence, or with both.

The Supreme Court of India has also dealt with these aspects while

determining the scope of Ss 511 and 307 of Indian penal code1. Revision of our

law on the lines of Criminal Attempt Act, 1981 may help the Indin courts resolve

the conflicts and strengthen the law of criminal attempts.

The 42nd Report of the Law Commission of India, submitted in June, 1971,

examined the provisions of the IPC, regarding negligence.2

History of section; “The provision in Macaulay’s Draft Penal Code was as

follows:-

304, whoever causes the death of any person by any act or any illegal

omission, which act or omission was so rash or negligent as to indicate a want of

due regard for human life, shall be punished with imprisonment of either

description for a term which may extend to two years, or fine, or both.’

The clause was inadvertently or otherwise, left out in the final draft. The

present section 304A was subsequently inserted at the instance of the then Law

Minister, Sir James Stephen, by Act 25 of 1870. It was stated in the Statement of

objects and Reasons:-

‘The Code, as it stands, contains no adequate provision for the

punishment of what English lawyers call manslaughter by negligence. This was

provided for in the draft Code, section 304, and the present Bill supplies the

omission.”

1 The Supreme Court has held in Om Prakash v. The State of Punjab. (1962(1) S C J 189.

2 Fifth Law Commission under the Chairmanship of Mr. K.V.Sundaram 1969-1971.

233

4.2.5. Inadequate Punishment

The Law Commission of India in number of times emphasized the need to

enhance the punishment to different offences in the Code. The important

recommendations of the ILC are mentioned below. This is desirable, in view of

the greater importance of the offence under Section 304A as assumed since the

section was inserted due to the wide use of fast moving mechanically propelled

vehicles and the frequency in the commission of the offence, accompanied by

callousness of the offender towards the victim; often there are cases tried under

this section which are very near to culpable homicide and deserve a severe

sentence. In the views expressed by various kinds of people, organization and

institution as to the quantum of punishment under the Code, there has been a

strong demand for increase in the punishment under this section. The

suggestions vary from three years to seven years. There is also a suggestion to

increase the period to seven years if more than one death has been caused.

After taking into account of the proposal of Law Commission to fix the

maximum punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder at ten

years, these Commission recommend that the maximum punishment for causing

death by negligence may be half that period, namely five years."

4.2.6. Process of Sentencing under India Penal Code

In India, the sentencing process is totally a judicial determination and the

Court can pass a sentence in a ‘definite form’. Law normally indicates the

maximum punishment to be awarded for an offence and then leaves it to the

discretion of the sentencing Courts to pass an appropriate sentence within the

prescribed maximum limit. The Indian Penal Code provides the general penal

234

code of India, impliedly assuming the possibility of existence of special Statutes

defining offences and prescribing punishments

Section 304A, which was inserted in the IPC by Act 25 of 1870, postulates

a rash and negligent act entailing death of another. Dealing with sentencing of a

convict for offences under sections 279 and 304A, IPC, the Supreme Court in

Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana1 held.

“When automobiles have become death traps any leniency shown to

drivers who are found guilty of rash driving would beat the risk of further

escalation of road accidents. All those who are manning the steering of

automobiles, particularly professional drivers, must be kept under constant

reminders of their duty to adopt utmost care and also of the consequences

befalling them in case of dereliction. One of the most effective ways of keeping

such drivers under mental vigil is to maintain a deterrent element in the

sentencing sphere. Any latitude shown to them in that sphere would tempt them

to make driving frivolous and a frolic.

While considering the quantum of sentence to be imposed for the offence

of causing death by rash or negligent driving of automobiles, one of the prime

considerations should be deterrence. He must always keep in his mind the fear

psyche that if he is convicted of the offence for causing death of a human being

due to his callous driving of the vehicle he cannot escape from a jail sentence.

This is the role which the courts can play, particularly at the level of trial courts, for

lessening the high rate of motor accidents due to callous driving of automobiles”

113 (2000) 5SCC82

235

4.2.7. Need to Change of Punishments

The change in the outlook of punishments with the emphasis being shifted

form the offence to the offender will naturally lead to recasting of the provisions of

substantive law relating to definition of offences as well as responsibility. On the

question of responsibility, Friedman observes ’’Clearly the development of

modern psychiatry which between the fully normal and the fully abnormal person

recognizes an infinite variety of shades of disturbances lessening to a varying

degree the emotional powers and capacities of self-control rather than intellectual

discernment calls for a corresponding elasticity in the legal approach to and

problem of responsibility. But this very development makes it obviously very

difficult to devise precise legal formulate by either statutory or judicial

legislation.”1

The Penal Code today provides for a gradation of punishments according

to specific criminal acts and the criminal intent demonstrated by them. The

meticulous setting down of supposedly appropriate dosage of punishments based

upon degrees of vicious will lose most of its significance. The new approach to

punishments would necessitate a re-examination of the splitting up of offences

into degrees. This will have the added advantage of the reduction of the size of

the penal code Over elaboration has been the besetting sin of the entire Code.

Section have been multiplied beyond necessity. Different circumstances of the

commission of a single offence have been considered for new section although

they are really to be considered in each case by the trying court for apportioning

the punishment under the original offences’’2. The revision of two codes recently,

the Canadian Criminal Code(1955) and the Criminal Code of Louisiana (1942)

1 Friedman, Law in a changing Society (1959) P.1712 Abdul Hasanat: “ crime and criminal Justice” (Appendix B) p.124

236

proceed chiefly on the principle of reduction of the size of the code by eliminating

such distinctions1.

4.2.8. Division of Offences basing on the Punishments

The offences in the Indian Penal Code are divided in to 14 categories

basing on the punishments prescribed to them in the following manner. The

punishments mentioned for all the offences in Indian Penal Code are not in

particular order. The minimum sentence is not fixed to any of the offence to most

of the affiances except in three occasions

1. In this category there are 7 offences which are punishable with death or

imprisonment for 10 years imprisonment life and shall also liable to fine and one of

the section i.e. Sec.303 is only punished with death. In this category two sections

they are Sec.376, Sec. 397 & 398 specifically provided with rigorous imprisonment

. All these offences are mentioned in the following table.

SL.No.

Section Offence Punishment

1 121 Waging, or attempting to wage war, or abetting waging of war, against theGovernment of India

Shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life and shall also liable to fine

2 132 Abetment of mutiny, if mutiny is committed in consequence there of.

Death or imprisonment for life, or10 years and fine.

3 194 Giving or fabricating false evidencewith intent to procure conviction of capital offence

Shall be punished either with deathor imprisonment for life or rigorousimprisonment for a term which mayextend for 10 years and shall also liable to fine.

1A J McLeod and J C Martin, “ The Revision of the Criminal Code’ Canadian Bar Review, p.3 (1955); J.Denton Smith, “How Louisana prepared and Adopted a Criminal Code’ 41 Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology p. 125.

237

4 302 Punishment for murder Shall be punished with death orOr imprisonment for life and shall Also liable to fine

5 303 Punishment for murder by life convict

Shall be punished with death.

6 364A Kidnapping for ransom, etc. Death or Imp. for life and fine.7 396 Dacoity with murder Death, Imp. for life or rigorous

Imp. for 10 years and fine.

Table No:l, The offences punishable with death alone and life imprisonment and fine

2. There are 34 Sections in the Code which are punishable with

Imprisonment for life. The punishments for all these offences did not contain any

minimum limit. The above 7 sections are specially provided with rigorous

imprisonment. There are three options of punishments to the conviction court but

did not contain any minimum limit. All these three options such as life, 10

years/7years of imprisonment and fine. In this category of punishments also

there is no uniformity. Some of the offences are provided with punishment of life

or 10 years Imp. and fine, some others are punishable with life or 14 years Imp.

and with or without fine, some others are punishable with life or 10 years

Rigorous Imprisonment. Though the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1983 the

Punishment to Sec. 376 in substituted by fixing minimum punishment. Thus in

this category of offences even though all are contain life as primary punishment,

optional punishments are different.

SL.No.


1, 121-A1 Conspiracy to commit offences punishable by section 121

Shall be punished with imprisonment for life or imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding 10 years and shall also liable to fine.

2 122 Collecting arms, etc., with intention of waging war against

Life or 10 years imprisonment and fine imprisonment to which

238

the Government of India. may leaded3 125 Waging war against any Asiatic

Power in alliance with the Government of India

Life and Fine & Imp. for 7 years to which fine may be added.Fine or fine.

4 130 Aiding escape of, rescuing or harboring such prisoner

Life or 10 years imprisonment

5 131 Abetting mutiny, or attempting to seduce a soldier, sailor or airman from his duty

Imp.for life or Imp. for 10 years and fine

6 194 Giving or fabricating false evidence with intent to procure conviction of capital offence

Imp. for life or rigorous Imp. for 10 years and fine.

7 222 Intentional omission to apprehend on the part of public servant bound to apprehend person under sentence or lawfully committed.

Imp. for life or imp. for 14 years or with or with out fine.

8 225 Resistance or obstruction to lawful apprehension of another person

Life or 10 years imprisonment fine and fine

9 232 Counterfeiting Indian coin Imprisonment for life & Imprisonment for 10 years and fine.

10 238 Import or export of counterfeits of the Indian coin j >

11 255 Counterfeiting Government stamp > >

12 311 Being a thing Imprisonment for life or Imp. for 10 years and fine.

13 313 Causing miscarriage without woman’s consent

Imprisonment for life or Imp. for 10years and fine

14 314 Death caused by act done with intent to cause miscarriage

Imprisonment for life or Imp. for 10 years and fine

15 326 Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means

Imprisonment for life or Imp. for 10 years and fine

16 329 Voluntarily causing grievous hurt to extort property, or to constrain to an illegal act

Life or 10 years Imp. and fine

17 364 Kidnapping or abducting in order to murder

Life or rigorous imp. for 10 years and fine

18 371 Habitual dealing in slaves Life or 10years and fine19 376 Punishment for rape Life or 10years and fine20 377 Unnatural offences Life or 10years and fine21

389

Putting a person in fear of an accusation of an offence punishable with death or imp. for life or imp. for 10 years in

Imp. for life or imp. for 10 years and fine.

239

order to commit an extortion22 394 Voluntarily causing hurt in

committing robberyLife or rigorous imprisoment for 10 years and fine

23 395 Punishment for dacoity. Life or rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine

24 400 Punishment for belonging to gang of dacoits

25 412 Dishonestly receiving property stolen in the commission of a dacoity.

Life or Rigorous Imp. for 10 years and fine

26 413 Habitually dealing in stolen property


27 436 Mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to destroy house, etc.

Life or 10years Imp. and fine

28 438 Punishment for the mischief described in section 437 committed by fire or explosive substance


29 449 House-trespass in order to commit offence punishable with death


30 459 Grievous hurt caused whilst committing lurking house- trespass or house-breaking.


31 460 All persons jointly concerned in Lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night punishable where death or grievous hurt caused by one of them.


32 467 Forgery of valuable security, will etc.


33 472 Making or possessing counterfeit seal, etc


34 477 Fraudulent cancellation, destruction, etc. of will, authority to adopt, or valuable security


35 489A&B 489 D

Counterfeiting currency-notes or bank-notesUsing as genuine, forged or counterfeit currency-notes or Bank-notesMaking or possessing instruments or materials for forging or counterfeiting currency notes or bank-notes


Table No:2 Showing the offences punishable with 14 years imprisonment and fine.

240

3. In this category there are four offences in which one offence i.e.,roberry with

rigorous punishment for 14 years and fine and the same is also punishable with

rigorous punishment for 10years and fine. The conviction court can exercise the

discretion only regarding to the quantum of imprisonment and fine but it ought to

inflict both fine and imprisonment.

SL.No.


1. 115 Abetment of offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life if offence not committed

Imprisonment for 14 years and fine

2 392 Punishment for robbery 14 years imp. and fine or Rigorous imp. for 10 year and fine.

3 457 Lurking house-trespass or housebreaking by night in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment.


4 458 Lurking house-trespass or housebreaking by night after preparation for hurt, assault, or wrongful restraint.


Table No:3 Showing the offences punishable with 14 years imprisonment and fine.

4. In this category there are 26 offences which are all punishable with 10

years imprisonment and fine. The two offences are specially provided with

rigorous imprisonment It is peculiar that for Sec.397 and 398 minimum

punishment is mentioned except these two sections no other section contain it in

entire Code.

S.No. Section Offence Punishment1 235 Possession of instrument or material for

the purpose of using the same for counterfeiting coin.

10 years and fine(3years and fine)

2 240 Delivery of Indian coin, possessed with knowledge that it is counterfeit

10 years and fine

3 306 Abetment to suicide 10 years and fine

241

5 315 Act done with intent to prevent child being born alive or to cause it to die after birth

10 years and fine

6 316 Causing death of quick unborn child byu act amounting to culpable homicide

10 years and fine

7 327 Voluntarily causing hurt to extort property, or to constrain to an illegal act

10 years and fine

8 328 Causing hurt by means of poison, etc., with intent to commit an offence

10 years and fine

g 331 Voluntarily causing grievous hurt to extort confession, or to compel restoration of property

10 years and fine

10 333 Voluntarily causing grievous hurt to deter public servant

10 years and fine

11 366 Kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel her marriage etc.

10 years and fine

12 366A Procuration of minor girl 10 years and fine13 366B Importation of girl from foreign country 10 years and fine14 367 Kidnapping or abducting in order to subject

person to grievous hurt, slavery, etc10years and fine

15 372 Selling minor for purposes of prostitution, etc.

10 years and fine

16 373 Buying in or for purposes of prostitution, etc

10 years and fine

17 382 Theft after preparation made for causing death, hurt or restrain in order to the committing of the theft

Rigorous imprisonment 10 years and fine

18 386 Extortion by putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt

10 years and fine

19 388 Extortion by threat of accusation of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, etc.

10 years and fine.

20 437 Mischief with intent to destroy or make unsafe a decked vessel or one of twenty tons burden

10 years and fine

21 439 Punishment for intentionally running vessel aground or ashore with intent to commit theft, etc

10 years and fine

22 454 Lurking house-trespass or house-breaking in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment

10 years and fine3 years and fine

23 493 Cohabitation caused by a man deceitfully inducing a belief of lawful marriage.

10 years and fine

24 495 Same offence with concealment of former marriage from person with whom subsequent marriage is contracted.

10 years and fine.

Table No:4 Showing the offences punishable with 10 years imprisonment and

fine.

242

5. In this category there are 50 offences which are all punishable with 7 years

imprisonment and fine. Sec. 174A, Sec. 195A, Sec. 293 and Sec. 477A are

amended by Act no. 25 of 2005.1 Act no. 2 of 20062. Act no. 8 of 19253 and Act

no. 3 of 18954 respectively. The two offences are specially provided with

additional punishment of forfeiture of property and four offences are punishable

with rigorous imprisonment 7 years and fine.Sec.193 of the Code replaced the

old section through Amendment Act No:8 of 1925 by enhancing the punishment

as 7 years and Rs.5000 as fine in case of subsequent commission of the offence.

But there is no minimum punishment to any of these offences.

S.No. Section Offence Punishment1 126 Committing depredation on territories

of Power at peace with theGovernment of India

7 years and fine and forfeiture of certain property.

2 118 Concealing design to commit offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life

7 years and fine / 3 years and fine.

3 127 Receiving property taken by was or depredation mentioned in sections 125 and 126

7 years and fine and forfeiture of certain property

4 134 Abetment of such assault, if the assault is committed

7 years and fine

5 174 (A) Non-attendance in obedience to an order from public servant

7 years and fine or both

6 193 Punishment for false evidence. 7 years and fine7 195(A) Threatening any person to give false

evidence7 years and fine certain property

8 201 Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender

7 years and fine

7 211 False charge of offence made with intent to injure. If the offence charged be punishable with Imp. of 7 years or upward..

7 years imprisonment and fine.

1 The Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005.2 Criminal law (Amendment) Act, 20053 The Obscene publication Act, 1955.4 The Indian Criminal (Amendment) Act, 1895.

243

9 213 Taking gift, etc., to screen an offender from punishment

7 years and fine (3 years and fine)

10 214 Offering gift or restoration of property in consideration of screening offender

7 years and fine

11 231 Counterfeiting coin 7 Years and fine12 234 Making or selling instrument for

counterfeiting Indian coin7 years and fine(3 years and fine)

13 243 Possession of Indian coin by person who knew it to be counterfeit when he became possessed thereof

7 years and Fine

14 244 Person employed in mint causing coin to be of different weight or composition from that fixed by law.

7 Years and Fine

15 245 Unlawfully taking coining instrument from mint

7 years and Fine

16 247 Fraudulently or dishonestly diminishing weight or altering composition of Indian coin.

7 years and fine

17 249 Altering appearance of Indian coin with intent that it shall pass as coin of different description

7 Years and fine

18 256 Having possession of instrument or material for counterfeiting Government stamp

7 Years and fine

19, 257 Making or selling instrument for counterfeiting Government stamp

7 years and fine

20 258 Sale of counterfeit Government stamp 7 Years and fine21 259 Having possession of counterfeit

Government stamp7 years and fine

22 260 Using as genuine a Government stamp known to be a counterfeit

7 years or fine and both

23 293 Sale, etc., of obscene objects to young person

2nd or subsequent conviction imp.of 7 years and fine upto Rs.5000

24 308 Attempt to commit culpable homicide.If such act causes culpable homicide to any person.

Imp. for 7 years orFine or both.

25 325 Punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt

7 years or fine

26 330 Voluntarily causing hurt to extort confession, or to compel restoration of property

7 years and fine

27 363 Punishment for kidnapping 7 years and fine28 365 Kidnapping or abducting with intent

secretly and wrongfully to confine person

7 Years and fine

29 369 Kidnapping or abducting child under ten years with intent to steal from its

7 years and fine

244

person30 370 Buying or disposing of any person as a

slave7 Years and fine or both

31 380 Theft by clerk or servant Imp. for 7 years and fine

32 381 Theft by clerk or servant of property in possession of master

7 years and fine

33 397 Robbery, or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt

Rigorousimprisonment not less than 7 years.

34 398 Attempt to commit robbery or dacoity when armed with deadly weapon

RigorousimprisonmentNot less than 7 years

33 401 Belonging to 9 wandering gang of persons associated for the purpose of habitually committing thefts.

7 years rigorous Imp. and fine.

35 402 Assembling for purpose of committing dacoity

Rigorousimprisonemnt for 7 years

36 404 Dishonest misappropriation of property possessed by deceased person at the time of his death.

7 years and Fine

37 407 Criminal breach of trust by carrier, etc. 7 years and Fine38 408 Criminal breach of trust by clerk or

servant7 Years and Fine

39 420 Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property

7 years and Fine

40 433 Mischief by destroying, moving or rendering less useful a lighthouse or sea-mark

7 years or fine orBoth

41 435 Mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to cause damage to amount of one hundred(incase of agrl. produce) or ten rupees

7 years or Fine

42 451 House trespass in order to the commitment an offence punishable with imprisonment, If the offence is theft

7 years Imprisonment and fine.

43 452 House trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint.

7 Years and fine

44 466 Forgery of record of Court of public register, etc.

7 years and fine

45 468 Forgery for purpose of cheating 7 years and fine46 473 Making or possession counterfeit seal,

etc., with intent to commit forgery publishable otherwise

7 years and fine

47 474 Having possession of document described in section 466 or 467, knowing it to be forged and intending to

7 years and fine

245

use it as genuine48 476 Counterfeiting device or mark used for

authenticating documents other than those described in Section 467, or possessing counterfeit marked material

7 years and fine

49 477A Falsification of accounts. 7 Years or fine or both50 489-C Possession of forged or counterfeit

currency-notes or bank- notes7 years or fine or both

51 496 Marriage ceremony fraudulently gone through without lawful marriage

7 years and fine

Tab e No: 5 Showing the offences punishable with 7 years imprisonment andfine.

6. Sec. 153A, Sec. 153B, Sec. 292 and Sec. 505 are amended by Act no. 35

of 1969,1 Act no. 25 of 20 052 Act no. 8 of 19253 and Act no 4 of 1898.4 In this

category there are 12 offences punishable with 5 years imprisonment and fine

.There is no either maximum or minimum limit to the fine, but in one case there is

maximum limit to the fine .In this category there are two options to the conviction

court for some offences and to some other offences three options are available.

S.No. Section Offence Punishment1 153A Promoting enmity between different groups on

grounds of religion race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony.

5 years and fine3 Years and fine or both

2 153B Imputations, assertions prejudicial to national integration. If committed in lace of public worship etc.

Imp. to 5 years and fine.

3 212 Harboring offender 5 years and fine

(3 years and fine)

4 250 Delivery of coin, possessed with knowledge that it is altered

5 years and fine

5 253 Possession of Indian coin by person who knew it to be altered when he became possessed thereof.

5 years and fine

6 292 Sale etc. of obscene books etc. On the 2nd or subsequent

1 The Criminal and Election Laws Amemdment Act, 1969.2 The code of Criminal Procedure Amendment Act, 2005.3 The Obscene Publication Act, 1925,4 The Indian Penal code amendment Act, 1898.

246

conviction,5 years imp. or fine of Rs.5000/-

7 429 Mischief by killing or maiming cattle, etc., of any value or any animal of the value of fifty rupees

5 years or, fine or, both.

8 430 Mischief by injury to works of irrigation or by wrongfully diverting water

5 years or, fine or, both

9 431 Mischief by injury to public road, bridge, river or channel

5 years and fine or both

10 432 Mischief by causing inundation or obstruction to public drainage attending with damage

5 years, or fine, or both

11 440 Mischief committed after preparation made for causing death or hurt

5 years and fine

12 497 Adultery. 5 years and fine or Both

13 505 False statements, rumors etc. circulated with intention to cause making or offence against the public peace, If made in place of worship

Imprisonment for 5 years and fine.

Table No: 6 Showing the offences punishable with 5 years imprisonment and fineor both

7. There is only one offence in Chapter XVI of the Code that is Sec.335

which is punishable with imprisonment of 4 years or fine of Rs.2000/-. Or both.

8. In this category there are 34 offences punishable with 3 years

imprisonment and fine or both and 3 years imprisonment or fine or both .There is

no either maximum or minimum limit to the fine, but in one case i.e,, for Sec. 129

simple imprisonment is provided .In this category there are three options to the

conviction court for some offences both and to some other offences any one

either fine or imprisonment.

S.No. Section Offence Punishment1 117 Abetting commission of offence by the

public or by more than ten persons3 Years or fine or both

2 129 Public servant negligently suffering such prisoner to escape

Simple imp. of 3 Years and Fine

3 148 Rioting, armed with deadly weapon 3 years or, fine or both

4 152 Assaulting or obstructing public servant when suppressing riot etc


5 167 Public servant framing an incorrect 3 years, or fine, or

247

document with intent to cause injury both6 218 Fraudulently or dishonestly diminishing

weight or altering composition of Indian coin.


7 225 (A) Omission to apprehend, or sufferance of escape, on part of public servant, in cases not otherwise, provided for.

3 years or fine or both(simple 2 years and fine or both

8 233 Making or selling instrument for counterfeiting coin

3 Years and fine

9 237 Import or export of counterfeit coin 3 years and fine10 242 Possession of counterfeit coin by person

who knew it to be counterfeit when he became possessed thereof

3 years and fine

11 246 Fraudulently or dishonestly diminishing weight or altering composition of coin

3years and fine

12 248 Altering appearance of coin with intent that it shall pass as coin of different description

3 years and fine

13 261 Effacing writing from substance bearing Government stamp, or removing from document a stamp used for it, with intent to cause loss to Government

3 years, or fineOr both.

14 263 Erasure of mark denoting that stamp has been used

3 years, or fine or both

15 324 Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means


16 332 Voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from his duty


17 344 Wrongful confinement for ten or more days 3 years and fine18 347 Wrongful confinement to extort property, or

constrain to illegal act3 years and fine

19 348 Wrongful confinement to extort confession, or compel restoration of property

3 years and fine

20 384 Punishment for extortion 3 years or fine or both

22 404 Dishonest misappropriation of property possessed by deceased person at the time of his death.

3 years and fine

23 414 Assisting in concealment of stolen property 3 years, or fine or both

24 418 Cheating with knowledge that wrongful loss may ensure to person whose interest offender is bound to protect

3 years or fine or both

25 419 Punishment for cheating by personation 3 years orfine or both

26 456 Punishment for lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night

3 years and fine

27 462 Punishment for same offence when 3 years and fine

248

committed by person entrusted with custody.

or both

28 469 Forgery for purpose of harming reputation. 3 years and fine29 484 Counterfeiting a mark used by a public

servant.3 years and fine

30 485 Making or possession of any instrument for counterfeiting a property mark


31 487 Making a false mark upon any receptacle containing goods


32 488 Making use of any such false mark. 3 years or fine or both

33 498 A Husband or relative of husband of a wife subjecting her to cruelty.

3 years and fine

34 505 Statements conducting to public mischief. 3 years or fine or both.

Table NO: 7 Showing the offences punishable with 3 years mp. or fine or both

9. In this category there are 46 offences punishable with 2 years

imprisonment and fine or both and 2 years imprisonment or fine or both .There is

maximum limit to the fine for 7 offences as Rs.1000/-, for eight offences simple

imprisonment is provided .In this category there are three options to the

conviction court like for some offences both and to some other offences any one

either fine or imprisonment .In one case along with these punishments there is

confiscation of the property also provided. In this category maximum fine amount

is fixed to some of the offences asRs.1000/- and all sections did not contain any

minimum limit.

S.No. Section Offence Punishment1 135 Abetment of desertion of soldier,

sailor or airman.2 years or, fine or both

2 136 Harboring deserter 2 years or fine or both3 144 Joining unlawful assembly armed

with deadly weapon2 years or fine or both

4 145 Joining or continuing in unlawful assembly, knowing it has been commanded to disperse


5 147 Rioting 2 years or fine or both6 169 Public servant unlawfully buying or

bidding for propertySimple imp. for 2 years and fine or both and

249

confiscation of property if purchased.

7. 170 Personating a public servant 2 years or fine or both177 Knowingly furnishing false

information to public servant. If the information required respect the commission of an offence etc.

2 years Imprisonment or fine or both.

8 203 Giving false information respecting an offence committed

2 years or fine or Both

9 204 Destruction of document. 2 years or fine or both.10 206 Fraudulent removal or concealment

of property to prevent its seizure as forfeited or in execution.


11 207 Fraudulent claim to property to prevent its seizure as forfeited or in execution.

2 years or fine or Both

12 208 Fraudulently suffering decree for sum not due


13 209 Dishonestly making false claim in Court


14 210 Fraudulently obtaining decree for sum not due


16 223 Escape from confinement or custody negligently suffered by public servant.

Simple imp. for 2 years or fine or both

17 224 Resistance or obstruction by a person to his lawful apprehension


18 225 Resistance or obstruction to lawful apprehension of another person

2 years or fine or both( 3 Years and fine) (7 years and fine)

19 228A Disclosure of Identity of the victim of certain offences.

2 years imp. and fine.

20 241 Delivery of coin as genuine, which, when first possessed, the deliverer did not know to be counterfeit

2 years fine - 10 times the value of the coin counterfeited or both

21 229 Personation of a juror or assessor 2 years or fine or both22 254 Delivery of coin as genuine, which,

when first possessed, the deliverer did not know to be altered

2 years or fine or 10 times of the value of the coin

23 262 Using Government stamp known to have been before used


24 270 Malignant act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life

2 years or fine

25 295 Injury or defiling place of worship with intent to insult the religion of any class


26 304-A Causing death by negligence 2 years or fine or both

250

27 318 Concealment of birth by secret disposal of dead body.


28 338 Causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others

2 years or fine ofRs.1000/- or both

29 343 Wrongful confinement for three or more days


30 353 Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty


31 354 Assault or criminal force to woman with intend to outrage her modesty


32 385 Putting person in fear of injury in order to commit extortion


33 403 Dishonest misappropriation of property

2 years or fine Rs.1000/- or both

34 422 Dishonestly or fraudulently preventing debt being available for creditors

2 years or fine Rs.1000/- or both

35 423 Dishonest of fraudulent execution of deed of transfer containing false statement of consideration


36 424 Dishonest or fraudulent removal or concealment of property


37 427 Mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees


38 428 Mischief by killing or maiming animal of the value of ten rupees

2 years or or both

39 451 House-trespass in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment

2 years and fine

40 461 Dishonestly breaking open receptacle containing property


41 465 Punishment for forgery. 2 years or fine or both42 483 Counterfeiting a property mark used

for another2 years or fine or both

43 498 Enticing or taking away or detaining with criminal intent a married woman


44 500 Punishment for defamation. 2 years simple imp. or fine or both

45 502 Sale of printed or engraved substance containing defamatory matter.

2 years Simple imp. or fine or both

46 504 Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace.

2 years Simple imp.or fine or both

47 506 Punishment for criminal intimidation ,2 years Simple imp or fine or both

251

Table No:8 Showing the offences punishable with 2 years and fine and with bothor any one.

10. In this category there are 25 offences punishable with one years

imprisonment and fine or both and one years imprisonment or fine or both .There

is no minimum limit to the fine and the maximum is fixed as Rs.1000/- but in 3

cases simple imprisonment is provided .In this category there are three options

to the conviction court for some offences both and to some other offences any

one either fine or imprisonment.

S.No. Section Offence Imprisonment1 153 Wantonly giving provocation with

intent to cause riot if rioting be committed if not committed

1 year or fine or both

2. 166 Public servant disobeying law, with intent to cause injury to any person

Simple 1 year or fine or both

3 168 Public servant unlawfully engaging to trade

Simple 1 year or fine or both

4 171(B) Bribery 1 year or fine or both5 171(F) Punishment for undue influence or

personation at an election1 year or fine or both

6 190 Threat of injury to induce person to refrain from applying for protection to public servant.


7 229(A) Failure by person released on bail or bond to appear in Court


8 265 Fraudulent use of false weight or measure


9 266 Being in possession of false weight or measure


10 267 Making or selling false weight or measure


11 296 Disturbing religious assembly 1 year or fine or both12 297 Trespassing on burial places, etc. 1 year or fine or both13 298 Uttering words, etc., with deliberate

intent to wound the religious feelings of any person


14 309 Attempt to commit suicide 1 year or fine or both15 323 Punishment for voluntarily causing

hurt1 year or fine and 100/- or both

16 342 Punishment for wrongful confinement 1 year or fine or both17 357 Assault or criminal force in attempt

wrongfully to confine a person1 year or fine 1000/- or both

252

18 417 Punishment for cheating 1 year or fine or both19 434 Mischief by destroying or moving etc.,

a land-mark fixed by public authority1year or fine or both

20 498 Enticing or taking away or detaining with criminal intent a married woman

1 year or fine 1000/- or both

21 482 Punishment for using a false property mark


22 486 Selling good marked with a counterfeit property mark


23 489 Tempering with property mark with intent to cause injury

1 year or fine or both.

24 508 Act caused by inducing person to believe that he will be


25 509 Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman.

Simple imprisonment 1 year of fine or both.

Table NO :9 Showing the offences punishable with one year imp. or fine or both.

11. In this category there are 22 offences punishable with 6 months

imprisonment and fine or both , six months imprisonment or fine or both and six

months imprisonment or fine of Rs.1000/- or both .There is no minimum limit to

the fine. In this category there are three options to the conviction court for some

offences both and to some other offences any one either fine or imprisonment.

S.No. Section Offence Punishment1 138 Abetment of act of insubordination by

soldier, sailor or airman6 months or fine or

with both2 143 Being a member of unlawful assembly 6 months or fine or

with both3 151 Knowingly joining or continuing in

assembly of five or more persons after it has been commanded to disperse

6 months or fine or with both

4 178 Refusing oath or affirmation when duly required by public servant to make it.

Simple imp. 6 months or Rs.1000 fine or

both5 179 Refusing to answer public sen/ant

authorized to question.Simple imp. 6 months

or Rs.1000 fine or both

6 182 False information, with intent to cause public servant to use his lawful power to the injury of another person.

6 months Imp. or Rs.100 fine or both

7 183 Resistance to the taking of property by the lawful authority of a public servant.

6 months imp. or Rs.1000 fine or both

8 269 Negligent act likely to spread infection imp. 6 months or

253

of disease dangerous Rs. 1000 fine or both9 271 Disobedience to quarantine rule imp. 6 months or fine

or both10 272 Adulteration of food or drink intended for

saleimp. 6 months or

Rs. 1000 fine or both11 273 Sale of noxious food or drink imp. 6 months or

Rs. 1000 fine or both12 275 Sale of adulterated drugs imp. 6 months or

Rs. 1000 fine or both13 279 Rash driving or riding on a public way imp. 6 months or

Rs.1000 fine or both14 282 Conveying person by water for hire in

unsafe or overloadedimp. 6 months or

Rs.1000 fine or both15 284 Negligent conduct with respect to

poisonous substanceimp. 6 months or

Rs.1000 fine or both16 285 Negligent conduct with respect to fire or

combustible matterimp. 6 months or

Rs.1000 fine or both17 286 Negligent conduct with respect of

explosive substanceimp. 6 months or


machineryimp. 6 months or


pulling down or repairing buildingsimp. 6 months or


animalimp. 6 months or

Rs.1000 fine or both21 291 Continuance of nuisance after injunction

to discontinue6 months imp. or fine

or both22 294A Keeping lottery office 6 months imp. or fine

or bothTable No:10 Showing the offences punishable with one year imp.or fine or both.

12. In this category there are 9 offences punishable with 3 months

imprisonment and fine or both, 3 months imprisonment or fine or both and 3

months imprisonment or fine of Rs,500/- or both .Two offences defined under

Sec.171,Sec. 491 provided with thee months imp .or fine of Rs.200/-or both.

There is no minimum limit to the fine, but there is maximum to fine and

imprisonment .In this category there are two options to the conviction court.

S.No. Section Offence Punishment1 140 Wearing garb or carrying token used by

soldier, sailor or airman3 months or fine Rs.500 or both

2 171 Wearing garb or carrying token used by public servant with fraudulent intent

3 months or Rs.200 or both

3 180 Refusing to sign statement 3 months or fine

254

Rs.500 or both4 186 Obstructing public servant in discharge

of public functions3 months or fine Rs.500 or both

5 294 Obscene acts and songs 3 months or fine Rs.500 or both

6 352 Punishment for assault or criminal force otherwise than on grave provocation

3 months or fine Rs.500 or both

7 426 Punishment for mischief 3 months or fine of Rs.500 or both

8 447 Punishment for criminal trespass 3 months or fine Rs.500 or both

9 491 Being bound to attend on or supply the wants of helpless person.

3 months or fine of Rs.200,or both

Table NO:11 Showing the offences punishable with three months imp.or fine ofRs.500 or both.

13. In this category there are 6 offences punishable with one month

imprisonment and fine or both , one months imprisonment or fine or both and

one months imprisonment or fine of Rs.500/- or both .There is no minimum limit

to the fine, but there is maximum to fine and imprisonment .In this category all

are punishable with simple imprisonment. There are three options to the

conviction court for some offences both and to some other offences any one

either fine or imprisonment.

S.No Section Offence Punishment1 173 Preventing service of summons or

other proceeding or preventing publication thereof

Simple imp. 1 month or fine Rs.500 or both.(6 months ,Rs.1000 or both

2 174 Non-attendance in obedience to an order from public servant

Simple imprisonment for 1 month or Rs.500 fine or both.(6 months.Rs.1000/- or both)

3 175 Omission to produce document or electronic record to public servant by person legally bound to produce it

Simple imp. 6 month or fine Rs.1000orboth.(6 months ,Rs.1000 or both

4 176 Omission to give notice or information to public servant by person legally bound to give it

Simple imp. 1 month or fine Rs.500 or both (6 months ,Rs,1000 or

255

both5 188 Disobedience to order duty

promulgated by public servantSimple imprisonment for 1 month or Rs.200 fine or both.(6 months, Rs.1000/- or both}

6 187 Omission to assist public servant when bound by law to give assistance.

Simple imprisonment for 1 month or Rs.200 fine or

both.(6 months, Rs.1000/- or

both)TableNo:12 Showing the offences punishable with one month .imp or fine of

Rs.500/-or Imprisonment of one month or 200 fine or both.

14. In Indian Penal Code there are 9 offences which are punishable with fine

only. In this category maximum limit prescribed to some offences but there is no

minimum limit to all the offences. There are two offences under Sec. 155 and 156

provided with fine without any limit.

S.No. Section Offence Punishment

1 154 Owner or occupier of land on which an unlawful assembly is held

Fine up to Rs.1000/-

2 155 Liability of person for whose benefit riot is committed

Fine

3 156 Liability of agent of owner or occupier for whose benefit riot is committed

Fine

4 171-H Illegal payments in connection with an election

Fine up to Rs.500/-

5 171-1* Failure to keep lection accounts Fine up to Rs.500/-

6 263-A2 Prohibition of fictitious stamps Fine up to Rs.200/-

7 290 Punishment for public nuisance in cases not otherwise provided for

Fine up to Rs.200/-

8 489E3 Making or using documents resembling currency-notes or bank-notes

Fine up to Rs.100/-

9 490 Breach of contract of service during voyage or journey.

Fine up to Rs.200/-

1 The Indian Elections Offences and Inquiries Act,1920( 39 of 1920)

Through this amendment the new chapter 9A with the title of offences relating to Elections is added to Indian Penal Code by inserting new sections from 171A to 171-1 expanding the scope of Sec.171

Inserted by the Indian Criminal Law Amendment Act 1895 ( 3 of 1895).3 Ins. by The Indian Penal Code (Amendment) Act 1943 ( 6 of 1943).

256

Table NO: 13 Showing the offences punishable with fine only.

According to Sec.67 of the Code if the offence is only punishable with fine,

in default of payment of fine the punishment shall not shall not over look the

following scale;

1. If fine amount is Rs.50-00,in default the imprisonment shall be two months or

less,

2. If fine amount is Rs.100-00,in default the imprisonment shall be four months or

less,

3. If fine amount is more thanRs.100/-,in default the imprisonment shall be six

months or less,

This scale is very old as the amount and above said appropriate

imprisonment is not at all suitable to the present society. Due to this restriction

the Courts which acts with in the boundaries, could not impose proper

punishment to the offenders of this category. As for this scale Rs.25/- is equal to

one day imprisonment.

15. In Indian Penal Code misconduct of a drunken person in public is an

offence u/s.510 punishable with simple imprisonment for a term which may

extend to 24 hours or with fine which may extend to Rs.10/-or both.

This is the only one section which is punishable with least punishment in the

entire Code. The punishment of this section alone is enough to say that the

punishments in the Code have to be reshuffled.

4.2.8. Re-grouping of similar sections

In Indian Penal Code there are several similar offences denoted by a

separate sections. Those offences can be re-grouped by giving one section and

one punishment for set of similar offences. This kind of arrangement diminishes

257

the complication regarding the attribution of punishments and lessens the un

necessary bulkiness of the Code .All the sections are arranged as 34 sets basing

on their similarity in nature and mentioned in the following table.

S.NO: OFFENCE RELATED SECTIONS1 Abetment of mutiny and its related

offencesSec. 131 to 135

2 intentional omission to apprehend Sec. 22land Sec.2223 Resistance or obstruction Ss. 224, 225 and 225 (b);4 Counterfeiting coin Ss. 231 and 232.5 Making or selling instrument for

Counterfeiting coinSs.233 and 234

6 Import and export of Counterfeiting coin Ss. 237 and 2387 Delivery of coin knowing that it is

counterfeitSs. 239, 240 and 241.

8 Possession of Counterfeit Coin Ss. 242,243 and 244.9 Fraudulently or dishonestly diminishing

the weight or composition of coinSs. 246 and 247.

10 Altering the appearance of the coin Ss. 248 and 249.11 Delivery of coin knowing it as altered Ss. 250 and 25112 Possession of coin knowing it as altered Ss. 252 and 25313 Counterfeiting the Government Stamp

and Prohibition of fictitious stampsSs. 255 and 263A

14 Fraudulent use of false weights andMeasures.

Ss. 264 to 267

15 Negligent conduct with respect todifferent things

284 to 289.

16 Sale etc., of obscene books and objects Ss. 292 to 293.17 Miscarriage Ss. 312 and 31318 Causing hurt and its related offences Ss. 324 327, 328, 330, 332,

334 and 337.19 Various forms of grievious hurt. Ss. 325, 329, 326,331, 335

and 338.20 Wrongful confinement and its related Ss. 343 to 348.

258

offences.

21 Different forms of Assault Ss. 352 to 358.

22 Kidnap Ss. 359 to 361

23 Offences relating to kidnap Ss. 364, 365, 366, 367 and

369.

24 Theft related offences Ss. 380 to 382

25 Offences relating to Extortion Ss 385 to 389.

26 Misappropriation of property Ss. 403 and 404

27 Criminal Breach of Trust Ss. 406 to 409,

28 Offences relating to stolen property Ss. 411 to 414

29 Different forms of Mischief Ss. 426 to 437 and S. 440,

30 Different kinds of tresspasses Ss. 442 to S.460

31 Forgery related offences Ss. 464 to 471

32 Offences relating to counterfeit Ss. 472 and 473,

33 Counterfeit device or mark Ss. 475 and 476,

34 Property mark and its related offences. Ss. 478 to 483, S. 485, S.486

and S. 489

Table No: 14 Showing the arrangement of similar offences as sets

If such regrouping1 is done, in some cases the punishments prescribed

have to be re-examined and one punishment have to be laid done for that group

of offences. For example Sec. 427 provides the punishment of two years

imprisonment of either description, or fine or both, for mischief causing loss or

damage to the amount of Rs.50/- Section 428 provides the punishment of

imprisonment of either description of two years or fine or both for mischief by

killing, poisoning, maiming or rendering useless any animal or animas of the

value of ten rupees or upwards, while S. 429 prescribes the punishment up to five

years’ imprisonment of either description, or fine, or both, for the offence of

1 Chandrasekaran Pillai, K.N. Essays on the Indian Penal Code.p.37 335 to337.

The Indian Law Institute 2005.

259

mischief by killing, poisoning, maiming or rendering useless, an elephant, camel,

horse, mule, buffalo, bull, cow or ox, whatever may be the value thereof, or any

other animal of the value of Rs.50/- or upwards. Then S. 430 prescribes the

punishment of five years’ imprisonment of either description, or fine, or both, for

mischief by doing any act which causes, or which he knows to be likely to cause,

a diminution of the supply of water for agricultural purposes, or for food or drink

for human-beings or for animals which are property or for cleanliness or for

carrying on any manufacture. Similarly S. 431 prescribes imprisonment of either

description for a term which may extend to five years, or fine or both for mischief

by doing any act which renders or which he knows to be likely to render any

public road, bridge, navigable river or navigable channel, natural or artificial

impassable or less safe for traveling or conveying property. S. 432 prescribes the

punishment for the mischief by doing 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. S. 433 prescribes seven years’ imprisonment of either

description, or fine, or both for mischief by destroying or moving any light house

or other light used as a sea-mark, or any sea-mark or buoy or other things placed

as a guide for navigators, or by any act which renders any such light house, sea

mark, buoy or other such things as aforesaid less useful as a guide for

navigators.

S. 434 prescribes one year’s imprisonment of either description or fine or

both for 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.

Then S. 435 prescribed seven years’ imprisonment of either description and also

fine, for mischief by fire or any explosive substance intending to cause, or

260

knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, damage to any property to the

amount of one hundred rupees or upwards or where the property is agricultural

produce ten rupees or upwards. Then in S. 436, life imprisonment or

imprisonment of either description up to ten years and fine is prescribed for

mischief by fire or any explosive substance, intending to cause or knowing it to be

likely that he will thereby cause the destruction of any building which is ordinarily

used as a place of worship or as a human dwelling or as a place for the custody

of property. S. 437 prescribes ten years’ imprisonment of either description and

fine for mischief to any decked vessel or any vessel of a burden of 20 tons or

upwards, intending to destroy or render unsafe, or knowing it to be likely that he

will thereby destroy or render unsafe, that vessel. Then finally, S. 440 prescribes

five years’ imprisonment of either description or fine for mischief, having made

preparation for causing to any person death, or hurt or wrongful restraint. In these

circumstances the legislature can either provide one maximum punishment for all

the above mentioned kinds of mischief in the one section or provide two or more

punishments depending upon the gravity of the offence.

S.No. Section of the IPC Imprisonment Fine

1 Sec. 187 One month Imp. Rs. 200

2. Sec. 175,176,173 etc., One month Imp. Rs. 500

3. Sec. 171,491,etc., Three Months Rs, 200

4. Sec. 180,186, etc., Three Months Rs. 500

5. Sec. 174, 181 Six Months Rs. 500

6. Sec. 342, 357 One Year Rs. 1000

7. Sec. 354,385,403 etc., Two Years Rs. 1000

8. Sec. 292 Five Years Rs. 5000

261

Table No: 15 Showing in the difference between fine and imprisonment

The above table clearly indicates that there is no meaningful

proportionality to the fine and imprisonment which are provided for various

offences in Indian Penal Code.

4.3. Criminal Law of England

In England till the period of Norman conquest there was no true criminal

procedure. The earliest methods of conducting a law suit adopted by Royal

Courts from the practice of local courts, involved Almighty. The plaintiff was

required to state his claim in the appropriate form. The defendant would make a

formal denial of the claim.

In United Kingdom there is no specific code to define offenses and

prescribe punishments. . In the first eighty years of the twentieth century there

were only four statutes entitled Criminal Justice 1948, 1967, and 1972. The rate

of change increased with Criminal Justice Acts in 1982,1988,1991, major piece of

criminal legislation in each year since 1994: Criminal Appeal Act 1995, Criminal

Proceedings Investigations Act 1996, Crime (Sentences) Act 1997, Crime and

Disorder Act 1998, and the Youth Justice Evidence Act 1999.

The criminal law of the England is that branch of public law which relates to

offences that may be the subject of criminal proceedings instituted for the

punishment of the offender1.

Huntington vs. Attrill2. Any Act or omission which may be the subject of

such proceedings is a criminal offence3. There has not been codification of

criminal law in England and there have been attempts at codification by Royal

1 Burdett vs. Abbot [ 1811] 14 east at p.1622 (1893) A.C.150.3 Horse Field Vs. Brown (1932) 1 K.B. at P.367,

262

Commission in 1844, later James Stephen vigorously fought for codification. In

1878,1879 and 1880 Bill was introduced in Parliament. In 1989 a Criminal Code

of England and Wales was published1.

The criminal law in England is not as is the case in some countries

contained in a single code promulgated by a legislative body. It is on the

contrary, a conglomerate mass of rules based upon the ancient common law of

England as modified and extended by the authoritative decisions of the judges in

the long passage of history, and vastly enlarged by the addition of statutory

enactments made by parliament from time to time, to meet the needs of the

moment. Statutes also are either declaratory of the common law, or remedial of

some defects therein.

4.3.1. Ancient Penal Law of England

The penal Laws grew out of the English Reformation and specifically from

those acts that established royal supremacy in the Church of England in the

reigns of Henry VIII and Elizabeth-I. Under Henry VIII and Edward VI civil

disabilities were imposed on those who remained in communion with Romans,

those denying the king’s spiritual headship. Elizabeth I make it impossible for

Catholics to hold civil offices and imposed severe penalties upon Catholics who

persisted in recognizing papal authority. Fines and prison sentences were

prescribed for all who did not attend Anglican services, and the celebration of the

Mass was forbidden under severe penalties.

The excommunication of Elizabeth by Pope Pius V, the Catholic plots to

place Mary Queen of Scots on the English throne, and the attempted Spanish

invasion by the Armada roused the government and public opinion to an intensely

1 http:// freepages.genealogy.rootweb.ancesty.com)

263

anti-Catholic pitch, and the Penal Laws were extended. Prisons in England during

the 18th century were filthy and overcrowded. They were unruly places where

prisoners often were herded together with no privacy. Prisoners had to provide

their own food, and had little access to fresh water. They had to pay the gaoler

for every service, even for putting them in irons as a punishment. Those who had

no money were forced to beg from local people passing the prison. There was

no protection against other prisoners. Those who caused most trouble were

shackled in irons or whipped. Prisoners could be released early if they behaved

well, as long as they were not in debt.

264

4.3.2. Crime and Punishment in Elizabethan England

When Queen Elizabeth I assumed the throne of England in 1558 she

inherited a judicial system that stretched back in time through the Middle Ages to

the Anglo-Saxon era. The concept of incarcerating a person as punishment for a

crime was a relatively novel idea at that time. Most prisons were used as holding

areas until trial and subsequent sentencing. Trials were skewed in favor of the

prosecution, for example, defendants accused of a felony or treason were not

allowed legal counsel. Justice was usually swift and often brutal .William Harrison

set himself the task of chronicling everyday life in Renaissance England during

the late 1500s. Among his observations he included an overview of crime and

punishment

4.3.2.1. Varying Punishment for Commoner and Nobility

In there was a practice of treating the offenders differently basing on the

social status in ancient days. There were very sever punishments were in

practice in those days. For instance if any body commits the offence of trespass,

they have to be suffered to hang till they be quite dead as a punishment. When

ever any of the nobility are convicted of high treason by their peers, that is to say,

this manner of their death is converted into the loss of their heads only. In trial of

cases concerning treason, felony, or any other grievous crime not confessed, the

party accused doth yield, if he be a noble man, to be tried by his peers, if a

gentleman by gentlemen; and an inferior, by God and by the country, condemned

of felony, manslaughter, etc., he is hanged by the neck till he be dead, and then

cut down and buried. But if he be convicted of willful murder, done either upon

pretended malice or in any notable robbery, he is either hanged alive in chains

265

near the place where the act was committed or else upon compassion taken,

first strangled with a rope and so continue till his bones consume to nothing.

When willful manslaughter is perpetrated, beside hanging, the offender his right

hand commonly stricken off before or near unto the place where the act was

done, after which he is led forth to the place of execution, and there put to death

according to the law.

4.3.2.2. The Greatest Punishment

The greatest and most grievous punishment used in England for an

offence against the State is drawing from the prison to the place of execution

upon an hurdle or sled, where they are hanged till they be half dead, and then

taken down, and quartered alive, after that, their members and bowels are cut

from their bodies, and thrown into a fire provided near hand and within their own

sight.

4.3.2.3. Imprisonment in the 18th century

There was no protection against other prisoners. Those who caused

most trouble were shackled in irons or whipped. Prisoners could be released

early if they behaved well, as long as they were not in debt.

In ancient days of England the prisoners were uncomfortably lodged, their

gaolers treated them roughly, their companions were criminals; sometimes they

were kept in solitary confinement, occasionally they were put in chains. They

were subjected to lengthy interrogation, even under torture, to extract from them

information about fellow Catholics. When brought to court for trial the dice was

loaded against them. They had little chance of being acquitted unless they <

266

agreed to renounce their faith and conform to the Established Church. Finally

there was the terrible suffering of execution, carried out in public in the presence

of a mostly hostile crowd, particularly brutal when the victim had been

condemned for treason and was cut down alive and then disemboweled and

quartered.

The martyrs went to their deaths bravely, often joyfully blessing God for

the privilege he was about to confer on them. Many of the priests addressed the

people from the scaffold, proclaiming their priesthood and asserting that they laid

down their lives willingly for the Catholic faith. Their heroic perseverance to the

end, their readiness to make the supreme sacrifice of life itself for their beliefs,

must surely be an example and an inspiration for all Christians and indeed for all

people of goodwill.

4.3.2.4. Types of Punishment during the 19th century in England

During the 18th century the number of crimes punishable by death rose to

about 200. Some, such as treason or murder were serious crimes, but in other

cases people could be sentenced to death for minor offences. For example, the

death sentence could be passed for picking pockets, stealing bread or cutting

down a tree. These were the kinds of crime likely to be committed by those in

most desperate need.

In 1823 Sir Robert Peel reduced the number of offences for which convicts

could be executed by over 100, Lord John Russell abolished the death sentence

for horse stealing and house breaking in 1830.Any one can notice in the date file

that often the death of the prisoner was recorded after the guilty verdict, but the

actual sentence was transportation or imprisonment. This happened by the start

267

of the 19th century because the magistrates felt that the compulsory death

sentence was too harsh. For about 60% of capital offences they recorded that it

had been carried out, then gave a less serious punishment. Between 1801 and

1837, 13 executions took place in Bedford, but between then and 1878 there

were only 4.The prominent punishments which were in vogue are sending the

offenders to the Armed forces, Transportation, and Imprisonment on the Prison

Hulks.

i. Sending to the Armed forces:

In time of war it was often difficult to recruit, especially to the navy, as

people knew how hard the conditions were on board ship. Some prisoners were

therefore sentenced to serve in the forces. Other prisoners were occasionally

sent to the forces part of the way through their sentences.

ii. Transportation:

During the 18th century the government had started to send prisoners to

penal colonies, at first in America, for a fixed period, usually seven years, or for

life. This was stopped when the American War of Independence broke out in

1775. The government then began sending people, both men and women, to

new penal colonies in Australia. Over the years, about 160,000 people were

sent, both men and women, sometimes as young as nine years old. Many died

on the journey, which took between four to six months If they survived, they were

set to work as servants or labourers fort the settlers.

Those who worked hard were sometimes able to save money to set

themselves up as settlers of to return home to Britain. If convicts continued to

cause trouble in Australia, however, they were sent to the penal settlements.

There they were forced to work from dawn to dusk at backbreaking tasks. If they

268

disobeyed or tried to escape, they were whipped, chained in irons or sometimes

executed.

Transportation became very expensive, and so the government looked for

cheaper solutions to the criminal problems at home. Also, legal settlers in

Australia resented having the prisoner sent to them. The government

remembered the rebellion of the American colonies, and decided to end the

system. The last transportations, took place in 1868, but only a small proportion

of prisoners had been sent to Australia since gold was discovered there in 1851.

iii. Imprisonment on the Prison Hulks:

The hulks were old sailing ships at Portsmouth harbour or on the Thames

at Woolwich, originally used as holding prisons for people waiting to be

transported. The rise in crime at the end of the French Wars caused a shortage

of prisons, and so the hulks were more and more used to house ordinary

prisoners. At one point over two thirds of all prisoners were on the hulks.

Conditions in them were terrible during outbreaks of disease such as cholera

large numbers of prisoners died because of the bad sanitary conditions on board

and the taking of water for all purposes from the polluted Thames. Prisoners

were chained to their bunks at night to prevent them from slipping ashore. During

the day most of them worked ashore, usually hard labour The last of the hulks

was burnt in 1857, but they had been less and less used in the ten years. This,

along with the end of transportation, caused problems locally, as the Bedford

authorities thought that the transportation and prison hulks would always be there

to take surplus prisoners, and so they built the gaol too small for the number of

local criminals.

269

4.3.3. Criminal Law of England - Stephen’s Codes'!877

James Fitzjames Stephen served in India as law member of the governor

general’s council in 1869. He involved in the revision of the Criminal Procedure

Code and the passing of the Indian Evidence Act ad tract Act of the same year.

He was much impressed by the Penal Code. In 1901 Courtney Libert, the

principal government draftsman, lamented that “it was impossible to view degree

of humiliation, the entire cessation during recent years of any effort to improve

the form of empathy with which that cessation has been regarded. He observed

that the lack of a criminal procedure produced practical and substantial

inconveniences. Revised versions of Stephen Codes adopted in Canada, New

Zealand, Queensland, Western Australia, many of the British territories in

England, Cyprus, and Palestine and proved quite satisfactory.

4.3.4. Common Law and Statutory Offences

An offence may be indictable either at common law or by Statute.

Common Law criminal offences consist of such actions and omissions as by

common custom have from early times been considered as of a criminal

character. The definitions of criminal offences of this kind are to be found in a

long series of judicial decisions commencing from the time of the itinerant

justices, to whose declarations of the common custom is due the creation of the

common law. Those which remain at the present time are very few in number

and their punishments and consequences are in most cases now governed by

Statute.

In the case of an act or omission which is already indictable at common

law, a statute prescribes a new mode of proceeding or punishment, without

270

altering the quality of the offense, the new mode is alternative, and the offender

may still be indicated at common law.

4.3.5. Criminal Justice Systems in England

The CJS is one of the major public services in the country. Across the CJS

agencies such as the police, the Crown Prosecution service, the courts and the

National Offender Management Service work together to deliver criminal justice.

The work of these agencies is overseen by three government departments: the

Ministry of Justice, the Home Office and the Attorney General’s office.

In the United Kingdom there are three separate criminal justice systems,

one each for Scotland, North England and Wales. The history of legislative

reform in the field helps to illustrate the growing interest in criminal justice. In the

first eighty years of the twentieth century there were only four statutes entitled

Criminal Justice. The rate of change increased with Criminal Justice Acts in 1982,

1988,1991. The major piece of criminal legislation in each year since 1994:

Criminal Appeal Act 1995, Criminal Proceedings Investigations Act 1996, Crime

(Sentences) Act 1997, Crime and Disorder Act 1998, and the Youth Justice

Evidence Act 1999.The criminal justice system in England and Wales has

evolved over a considerable period of time through and traditional and modern

institutions, agencies, and procedures. The main features of this system will be

followed by more detailed descriptions of policing and prosecutions, criminal

courts, sentencing and the governmental and administrative context of criminal

justice.

In the United Kingdom there is no penal code. The sources and

interpretation of the criminal laws are individual Acts of Parliament and decisions

271

by judicial bodies, in particular the Court. Increasingly, decisions of the European

Court of Justice have an influence on the operation of the criminal justice system

in the states of the European Union, including the United Kingdom. The definition

of many criminal offenses can be found in statutes. New laws introduced as bills

need to accept to place before House of Commons and the House of Lords

before they become Acts of Parliament. Thus the definition of theft maximum

punishment for it is defined in the Theft Act 1968. The other principal source of

criminal law which derives not from legislation but from what originally were the

customs of the people, these were the basis of decisions made by judges in

individual case. Murder and manslaughter, for instance, are common law

offenses. The punishments for these two offenses are also set out in Statutes1.

4.3.6. Sentencing Process in England

In England, the sentencing process has been a judicial-

determination of the appropriate punishment for a specific crime, but extensive

changes in judicial power have taken place in the last century.. In early days

when a judge sentenced an offender for 10 years imprisonment, there was almost

a certainty that the offender would serve 10 years to the day. But with the

increased use of the administrative forms of ‘sentence shortening’- such as ‘good

‘conduct’ and holiday benefits, pardon, parole and clemency. In fact, now-a-days,

there is no co-relation between the judges’ sentence and the actual period of

imprisonment in jail.

The English sentencing courts have now, generally accepted the concept of

indeterminate sentence, which grants discretion to the correctional administrator in

1 Homicide Act 1957

272

individualizing programmes for the individual offenders1. The sentence imposed

by the English Courts, is a statement of the maximum length of time for which the

prisoner can be detained.

4.3.7. Offences and Punishment in U.K.

In United Kingdom there is no specific code to define offenses and

prescribe punishments. The criminal law of the England is that branch of public

law which relates to offences that may be the subject of criminal proceedings

instituted for the punishment of the offender2. Any Act or omission which may be

the subject of such proceedings is a criminal offence.3 In United Kingdom each

offence is defined and prescribed punishment by a separate Statute.

Under English law, the view which formerly prevailed was that a person

cannot be held liable for an attempt to do the impossible4. In Collins case5, R.V

M’Pherson5 ,R.V. Dodd6 the court declared that the attempt to steal from empty

pocket was not held to be an attempt. This line of decision was overruled in R v

Brown7 and finally in R v Ring8 wherein it was laid down that impossibility of

performance does not Per se render the attempt of guiltless. Punishment was

both arbitrary and harsh with the emphasis being very much on the physical

body. This was because the bulk of the population possessed little else on which

the power to punish could be usefully exercised .Moreover, the law was

1 Rupert cross, ‘The English sentencing system’,(1975) 145-50, Vetter, H.G. and Simenson, C.E., ‘Criminal

Justice System in America- The system-The process’ (1976) 229.2 Burdett vs. Abbot [ 1811] 14 east at p.162); Huntington vs. Attrill (1893) A.C.1503 Horse fileld Vs. Brown (1932) 1 K.B. at P.367.4 (1864) 168 E R 1477.

5 (1857), 7 Cox 281;6 (1868) L.T.(N.S.) 89.

7 R v Brown,(1889) 24 Q B D 357.8 (1892) 17 Cox 491.

273

predominantly applied to those many poorer members of society who were not

part of the aristocracy.

From the seventeenth to the early eighteenth century the English ruling

class or aristocracy sought to protect their property interests through the exercise

of the criminal law. Thus, a vast number of property crimes came to be punished

by death in accordance with a body of legislation enacted during that period and

which later came to be known as the ‘the bloody code’. Furthermore, capital

punishment was administered en masse and in public with the intention that this

visual display would strike fear into the hearts of potential miscreants and thus

deter them from offending. Hanging was the standard form of execution and the

typical punishment for offences ranging from murder to stealing turnips, writing

threatening letters or impersonating an outpatient of Greenwich Hospital1

.By1800 there were more than 250 such capital offences. The form of

punishment now permitted by law are death, imprisonment, fine, and, chiefly

in the case of juvenile offenders, detention in approved schools. The penalty

of death is now practically abolished.

The criminal Justice Act, 1948, C.58,s. I (i) abolished the punishment of

penal servitude, which had been created on 1853 7 to take the place of

transportation. The Act also abolished the punishment of imprisonment with hard

labour, Sec. 1(2) So that there is only one form of imprisonment for crime, the

distinctions between imprisonment in the first, second, or third divisions having

also been removed And now by virtue of the Criminal Justice Act, c.39, SS. 2, 3

and 4, no. court may impose imprisonment on a person under seventeen years

1 Radzinowicz,1948.

274

of age for those offenders within the limits of age1 who are qualify for a sentence

of Borstal training no court may exceed a sentence of six months imprisonment,2

but even so the court must not impose this punishment on a person under

twenty-one unless it thinks that no other method of dealing with him is

appropriate. The cumulative effect of the Acts from 1948 to 1961 is that if a

prisoner between fifteen and twenty-one is held to ‘deserved punishment’ the

court can only pass a sentence either of imprisonment of six months or less, or of

three years.

4.3.8. The Classification of Crimes

The Criminal Law Act 1967 divided the crimes historically into three

categories: treason, felonies and misdemeanors in descending order of

seriousness. Each class had special rules of procedure appropriate to it and

certain rules of substantive law peculiar to it.

While making, as has been seen, a new distinction between arrestables

and other offences the C.L.A. abolished the dichotomy between felonies and

misdemeanors and made the law and practice relating to all offences that which

had previously been applicable to misdemeanors. Treason still remains in a

category of its own, the essence of the offence being a breach of that allegiance

due to the Crown from every person under its protection. Sectionl of the

Criminal Law Act 1967, however, abolished all distinctions between felony and

misdemeanor, and provided that from January 1, 1968, the law and practice in

relation to felonies should be the law and practice relating to misdemeanors. The

expression “ felony” is no longer used. The expression “ misdemeanor” although

1 between fifteen to twenty one years2 generally and in special cases or in certain serious cases, three years

275

still in use in certain isolated instances1. It is to all intents and purposes obsolete

and is replaced by the expression” indictable offence” which is found in modern

statutes.

4.3.9. Indictable and Summary Offences

Subject to one exception all criminal offences are either tried on

indictment, that is by a jury at the Crown Court or summarily, that is in a

magistrates court. A criminal offence may be indictable either at common law or

by statute, but no matter is cognizable by a magistrates court unless expressly or

impliedly made so by statute.

Section 2 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 created a new category of offence

known as “an arrestable offence.” An arrestable offence is an offence for which

the sentence is fixed by law or for which a person may under or by virtue of any

enactment be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of five years.

4.3.10. Nature of Punishments

Sentence of death may be pronounced2 only on conviction for treason,

and offences against section2 of the Piracy Act 1837. Sentence of death cannot

be pronounced on a person convicted of such offences if it appears to the court

that at the time when the offence was committed he was under the age of

eighteen years nor upon a woman found to be pregnant. The powers of a

magistrates’ court to impose sentences of imprisonment are limited by statute.

The minimum sentence of imprisonment which may be passed by a magistrates’

1 Indictments Act 1915.S.4.2 in the case of persons not being subject to military, naval or air force law

276

court is one of five days, the maximum sentence depends upon the class of

offence.

A magistrates’ court may not impose a sentence of imprisonment on any

person under seventeen years of age.1 By Section 17(2) of the Criminal Justice

Act 1948, the court may not impose a sentence of imprisonment on a person

under twenty-one years of age unless there is no other appropriate method of

dealing with him. The maximum period of imprisonment depends upon the statute

creating the offence, but the court may reduce the period prescribed unless the

statute, being one passed after 1879, expressly provided to the contrary2. The

Crown Court may not sentence a person to more than the maximum term

provided by the statute creating the offence, unless that person is a persistent

offender who may, in certain circumstances be liable to an extended sentence.

The Criminal Justice Act 1967 gave courts the power to suspend a

sentence of imprisonment. By Section 39 of that Act, a court which passes a

sentence of imprisonment for a term of not more than two years may order that

the sentence shall not take effect unless, during a period specified in the order2

being not less than one year and not moire than two years from the date of the

order, the offender commits in Great Britain another offence punishable with

imprisonment, and thereafter a court having power to do so orders that the

original sentence shall take effect.

4.3.11. Extended Sentences for persistent offenders

Section 37 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 abolished preventive detention

and corrective training. Instead, a person who has committed an offence and

1 Magistrates’ Court Act 1952.S.1072 called the “operational period”

277

who has shown that he is a persistent offender may, in certain circumstances, be

sentenced to a term extended beyond the term which the judge would have

imposed if the section had not been enacted1 Section 37(2) provides that where

an offender is convicted on indictment of an offence punishable with

imprisonment for a term of two years or more and the conditions set out below

are satisfied, then, if the court is satisfied by reason of his previous conduct and

of the likelihood of his committing further offence, that it is expedient to protect

the public from him for a substantial time, the court may impose an extended

term of imprisonment. It has been said2 that the whole object of an extended

sentence and the protection of the public is to be found not merely in the length of

the sentence imposed, but also in the licensing provisions contained in the Act3

Section 7(3) of the criminal Law Act 1967- There is no statutory limit to a common

law fine, except the provisions of Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights against

excessive fines4.Section 8 deals with Fines After Summary Conviction and

Enforcement of All Fines.

A magistrates’ court, trying a person summarily for an indictable offence under

section 19 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1952, may sentence him to a maximum

fine of £400. In the case of a young person the limit is £50, in the case of a child

£10.The maximum fine depends upon the statute creating the offence, but the

court may reduce any fine prescribed by statute unless the statute expressly

provides to the contrary and was passed after 18795. Moreover, whenever a

court has power under any Act passed after 1879 to sentence an offender to

1 D.P.P. v. Ottewell (1970) A.C.6422 R.V.Goody (1970) 54 Cr.APP.R.3283 i.e. in Sec. 594 Sec.also R.V.Morris (1951) 1 K.B.3945 Magistrates’ Court Act 1952 s.27(1)

278

imprisonment for an offence punishable on summary conviction, it may, though

not given authority under the particular Act, impose, instead of imprisonment, a

fine not exceeding £1001 as amended by the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1957,s.5.

A Magistrates’ court may allow time for payment or may order payment by

installments2. Where time for payment has been allowed, the court may, if so

requested, allow further time or order payment by installments3.

4.4. Penal law of America

Law and Order is a powerful conservative theme in U.S.A. In this country

all the offences are devided into mainly two types. All the serious offences are

called as felonies and other offences are called as misdemeanours.The Federal

Government and many States of America defines the felony as a crime

punishable with death or imprisonment in excess of one year. If punishable

exactly one year or less is classified as a misdemeanour. Under the early

common law,the crimes involved moral turpitude are classified as felons, but

later the crimes did not involve moral turpitude also included in the definition of

felony. Broadly the felonies can be categorized as either violent or non violent

offences. Some offences though similar in nature may be felonies or

misdemeanors defending on the circumstances. In some States felonies are also

classified as class A,B, etc. according to their seriousness and punishment. The

felons can receive punishment of life imprisonment, execution to premeditated

murder or other serious crimes. In many parts of the country a convicted felon

has to face long term legal consequences.

Ibid s.27 (3)2 bid. s.63 (1).3 Ibid.s.63 (2)

279

In addition to fines and imprisonment, the federal government and some

States begun to seek the forfeiture of property used in the commission of offence

or gained through criminal activity. In a number of cases, courts have even

allows government to seize the property of persons who were not charged with

any crime.

4.4.1. Early Criminal Justice System of U.S.A.

The Anglo-Saxon system of maintaining public order was a private system,

since the Norman conquest lead by a constable, which was based on a social

obligation for the good conduct of the others, more common was that local lords

and nobles were responsible to maintain order in their lands, and often appointed

a constable, sometimes unpaid, to enforce the law. Also the ancient Romans

played a huge rule in the criminal justice system of America. Even the toga

symbolizes the wig a magistrate wears to enforce the law and defend the

interests of the United States according to the law, to ensure public safety against

threats foreign and domestic, to provide federal leadership in preventing and

controlling crime; to seek just punishment for those guilty of unlawful behavior

and to ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans.

4.4.2. Punishments in colonial America

The colonial America for all the crimes the colonists committed, there were

plenty of punishments which were public and in which heavy use of shame and

shaming was included. Through the method of shaming, the criminal justice

system meant more to teach a lesson that simply punish the offender. The

“criminal” was almost always male. However, punishment for such crimes as

280

witchcraft, infanticide, and adultery fell heavily on the women. In addition, much

of the blame and punishment for crimes was attributed to those in the lowest rank

in society. Whipping was the most commonly used form of punishment,

especially in the south with slaves. Other frequently used punishments were

branding, cutting off ears, and placing people in the pillory. These punishments

were sometimes harsher, depending the crimes committed. In the colonies

executions were a lot less common than back in England. However, when such

a method was going to be used, it was not often a public hanging. Usually capital

offenses, such as murder or rape, or repeated serious offenses constituted a

need for an execution.

Imprisonment was not very common in colonial America since the budding

colonies didn’t have any people to spare in keeping the community in order.

Every person was valuable for their working ability, and losing even one person

was not reasonable on those days. The other citizens in the colony also were not

able to get enough extra money to build a prison and feed prisoners. Since

probation was not yet known to the colonists, they used a system of nods to

guarantee troublemakers would not cause any problems. Courts began to

require many problem-causing people to put up money to make sure they would

stay out of trouble. This system worked especially well in communities where

everyone minded each others’ business.

4.4.3. Sentencing Process in U.S.A

The U.S. conception of punishment is a combination of the utilitarian,

retributive and denunciation theories.The most widely accepted rationale for

punishment in the United States is retribution. The sentence a defendant receives

281

is always, at least in part, a form of retribution. A sentence may, however,

combine utilitarian ideals with retribution Indian legal system shows its adherence

to utilitarian ideals in the creation of systems such as diversion programs. These

systems seek to limit punishment to necessary limit to protect society. The

utilitarian philosophy is also reflected in the assignment of punishments for

different crimes and in the notion that the amount of punishment a convicted

receives should be in proportion to the harm caused by the crime. For example,

the punishment for murder is life imprisonment or even the death penalty. A

simple with no seriousness usually punished with a short jail sentence or

probation and a fine.

The judges generally have the discretion to fashion punishment according

to the needs of both defendant and complainant. This is an expression of

utilitarian tenets. However, there is judicial discretion in sentencing process. In

some cases statutes require judges to impose mandatory minimum prison

sentences as and these laws stand as a monument to the retributive theory. In

the United State of America, the courts award sentence falling under any one of

the categories mentioned below:

(a) Maximum and Minimum sentence fixed by the Court.

(b) Maximum and minimum fixed by the Court, but minimum not to exceed

a certain fraction of maximum.

(c) Maximum fixed by the Statute and minimum by the Court.

(d) Maximum fixed by the Court and minimum by Law.

(e) Statutory maximum minimum to be imposed by the Court.

Increasing use of the discretionary powers of prison management and

correctional authorities tend to restrict the powers of the Sentencing Courts.

282

Further, the Criminal Justice Act, 1967, has considerably decreased the powers

of the Sentencing Courts to deal as they wish with the offenders by its provision

for mandatory suspension of certain short sentences of imprisonment

4.4.4. Change in Penal Philosophy of U.S.A.

The crime rates continued to increase during the middle period of 20th

century and it clearly showed that the crime prevention and rehabilitation

programs had not worked. Critics of the rehabilitation model attempted to show

that high recidivism rates pointed to the failure of rehabilitation programmes.

Robert Martinson and his colleagues published the results of a controversial

study that reviewed 231 evaluations of rehabilitation programs. The evaluations

all ended in the same finding. “The program shows no appreciable effect on

recidivism.” “Nothing works.” Martinson concluded. Criminologists began to

challenge the rehabilitation methods of punishment that had dominated for over

seventy years.

The philosophy and policy of correctional punishment in the United

States is like a swinging pendulum. Recurrent themes of revenge, retribution,

and rehabilitation have each influenced correctional policy and practice. After

long focus on rehabilitation, the pendulum has swung back, and the emphasis in

correctional policy has returned to punishment. Even though the resurgence of

the classical ideas of Beccaria and Bentham has been given credit for reducing

crime rates, these ideas have also been criticized.

4.4.5. ProportionaIity between offence and punishment

The proportionality has become increasingly disfavored approach to penal

policy in the United States. The popularity of minimum sentencing laws during the

283

1990s emphasized this trend. But an analysis of utilitarian critiques of penal law

and an assessment of their relevance to the development of American public law

suggest that this trend is not only misplaced but undermines many of the

foundational assumptions of American penal law and its constitutional influences.

In particular, Jeremy Bentham’s book. “The Rationale of punishment” which was

constructed from separate manuscripts after his death and was last published in

1830, offers a philosophical challenge to this extremely important and

controversial area of American public policy and criminal justice.

4.4.6. Alternative forms of punishment in U.S.A.

The criminal courts in U.S.A have many kinds of sentences as an

alternative to imprisonment. One of them which is more traditional is probation.

Probation allows the person convicted of a crime to remain free, subject to some

restrictions imposed by the court.Another alternative form of punishment is

community service. Community service used to misdemeanor cases, or

occasionally when the criminal has been convict of violent felony, such as

embezzlement. Community service can take a variety of every thing from

cleaning up roadside parks to presenting speeches and seminars about crimes.

Community service is sometimes granted when the convict has a high level

persons in the public. For example, if celebrities such as rock musicians and

movie actors and such other persons convicts any petty offences. They were

usually awarded sentences of community service, because the court believes

that more good can took place to the society through the celebrity’s service than

through his imprisonment1.

1 http.//www. uslaw.com/us_Iaw_artiele,php?a=249

284

4,4.7. The Model Sentencing Act

The objectives of the Model sentencing Act, a product of the National

Council on Crime and Delinquency, are to stabilize sentencing in felonies, to

eliminate disparity, to achieve rehabilitation, and to do away with long prison

sentences except for dangerous offenders who commit crimes of violence. The

policy of the Act is that all defendants, including dangerous offenders, should be

dealt with entirely according to their potential for rehabilitation. Accordingly, the

Model sentencing Act offers a statutory definition of “dangerous offender’ and

enunciates a strong preference for disposing of non-dangerous felons1 through

non-institutional sentences. To reduce disparity, the Act recommends that

Statutes limit the maximum prison term for non-dangerous felonies to five years,

the period within which 80 percent of felony prisoners in state institutions are

actually released. Dangerous offenders who cannot be safely returned to the

community can be sentenced to extended prison terms of up to 30 years, but the

Act emphasizes that such cases would be few. Life sentence are virtually

eliminated except for first -degree murder. Because all prison commitments are

to be rehabilitative, the act rejects the use of minimum prison sentences for both

groups of offenders and would eliminate habitual offender sentences. As of

1976, Oregon was the only state to have adopted the Model Sentencing Act, in

slightly modified form.

The current prime suspect in the three-count indictment of excessive

sentences, disparity, and uncontrolled judicial discretion is the indeterminate

prison sentence for felonies that is found in most penal codes. An indeterminate

sentence is one in which the defendant is sentenced to a range of years in

1 Who now constitute the bulk of the prison population

285

prison, that is, 1-5 years, 4-8 years, 10-20 years, 6 months to 15 years, one year

to life, and so on. At the time of sentencing, defendants who are given an

indeterminate sentence do not know when they will probably be released; the

decision is left to the discretion of the parole board, subject only to broad

statutory regulation.

Although the precise statutory provisions of indeterminate sentences vary

by State and crime.” all indeterminate sentences have three elements in

common: (a) the defendant is committed to a substantial range of time in prison,

(b) the convict has little or no knowledge of when release will comes; that is,

there is uncertainty about the amount of time to be served, and (c) the

rehabilitation of the offender is the ostensible goal. Because of the enormous

variation among states in indeterminate sentences for the same crime and in the

discretion allowed the courts in setting minimum and maximum terms, the

indeterminate sentence is considered directly responsible for disparate,

excessive and unfair sentences.

Mandatory sentences are penal code provisions that require the court to

sentence persons convicted of specified crimes to a determinate prison term.

Mandatory sentences are intended to guarantee that career criminals, recidivists,

and violent offenders will face the certainty of punishment.

4.4.8. The model penal code

The resolution of problems was the subject of ten years of intensive study

by the American Law Institute (ALI), undertaken amid widespread prison riots

during the 1950s. The recommendations of the ALI to standardize penalties on

the basis of meaningful classifications of crime seriousness, to make sentences

286

fairer, and “to safeguard offenders against excessive, disproportionate, or

arbitrary punishment" are presented in its publication, the Model Penal Code.

Range of Sentences in Felony convictions.

Type of Felony Minimum Maximum

Sentence Sentence

First-degree felony 1-10 years Life

Second-degree felony 1-3 years 10 years

Third degree felony 1-2 years 5 years

Table NO:16 Showing minimum and maximum sentences of felony

The Key to the Model penal Code is its recommendation that all serious

crimes be classified into one of three degrees of felony and its identification of the

substantive crimes that constitute a first, second or third degree felony. Each

degree of felony carries a penalty that is relatively standardized and generally

more lenient than those specified by many state penal codes for the same crime .

For example forcible rape in which the victim is not otherwise physically injured is

classified by the code as a second-degree felony, which carries a 10 year

maximum sentence. For the identical offense, many states authorize sentences

of 20-30 years in prison.

Unchecked judicial discretion, unwarranted disparity, and excessive

sentences derive from the structure and content of the penal codes. State penal

codes provide a broad range of penalties for most felonies, running the gamut

from probation to lengthy imprisonment, with the choice in the individual case

being left to the judge. There is enormous disparity across jurisdiction in the

penalties authorized for the same or similar crimes. Vastly different penalties

accompany a multitude of not so different crimes. In any instances, statutory

287

penalties are inconsistent with the gravity of the offense. Prior to 1962, the

development of penal codes was haphazard, piecemeal, unsystematic,

unplanned, and almost irrational.

4.4.8.1. Quantum of Punishment

On the subject of quantum of punishment the commentary on Art.1051. of

the American Model Penal Code says as follows:

“If a sentence of imprisonment is authorized as an immediate sanction up

on conviction rather than merely to coerce the payment of penalty, it is

inadmissible semantic manipulation to declare that the offence is not a crime.

Imprisonment, it is submitted, ought not be available as a punitive sanction,

unless the conduct that gives rise to it warrants the type of social condemnation

that ought to be implicit in the concept of crime”.

4.4.9. Federal Sentencing Commission

The United States Sentencing Commission is an independent agency in

1.Tentative Draft No.2 p.8

the judicial branch of government. Its principal purposes are: (1) to establish

sentencing policies and practices for the federal courts, including guidelines to be

consulted regarding the appropriate form and severity of punishment for

offenders convicted of federal crimes (2) to advise and assist congress and the

executive branch in the development of effective and efficient crime policy; and

(3) to collect, analyze, research, and distribute a broad array of information on

federal crime and sentencing issues, serving as an information resource for

1 Tentative Draft No.2, P.8

288

congress, the executive branch, the courts, criminal justice practitioners, the

academic, community, and the public.

4.4.10. Capital Punishment

Historically several States have been without Capital Punishment, the

earliest being Michagan which has not carried out a single execution since it

entered the Union. It abolished the death penalty for ordinary crimes and

became a first English speaking Government in the World. Several States of

U.S.A. abolished death penalty. In modern era of capital punishment two States

have legislatively abolished the death penalty and two have de-facto abolishment

through their State judiciaries. In 2007 New Jercy, in 2009 New Mexico

abolished the death penalty.

The reasons why the community as a whole does not endorse the

humanistic approach reflected in “death sentence in no case” doctrine are not far

to seek. In the first place, the very humanistic edifice is constructed on the

foundation of “reverence for life” principle, when a member of the community

violates this very principle by killing another member, the society may not feel

itself bound by the shackles of this doctrine. Secondly, it has to be realized that

every member of the community is able to live with safety without his or her own

life being endangered because of the protective arm of the community and on

account of the rules of law enforced by it. The very existence of the rule of

lawand the fear of being brought to book operates as a deterrent to those who

have no scruples in killing others if it suits their ends. Every member of the

community owns a debt to the community for this protection. When ingratitude is

shown instead of gratitude by killing a member of the community which protectors

289

the murderer himself from being killed, or when the community feels that for the

sake of sell preservation the killer has to be killed, the community may well

withdraw the protection by sanctioning the death penalty.

Capital punishment was suspended in the United States from 1972 to 1976

primarily as result of the Supreme Court decision in Furman Vs Georjia1. In this

case the court found the imposesion of the death penalty in a consolidated group

of cases to be un constitutional, on the grounds of cruel and un-usual punishment

in violation of the eight amendment to the U S Constitution. In 1976,

contemporaneously with Woodson Vs. North Carolina2 and Robert Vs. Louisiana3

the court decided Gregg Vs. Georgia44284 upholding the death penalty subjected

to certain restrictions.

There are about 250 people added to death row and 35 executed each

year in U.S.A. The death penalty is the harshest form of punishment enforced in

the United State today. Once a jury has convicted a criminal offense they go to

the second part of the trial, the punishment phase. If the jury recommends the

death penalty and the judge agrees then the criminal will face some form of

execution, lethal injection is the most common form used today. There was a

period from 1972 to 1976 that capital punishment was ruled unconstitutional by

the Supreme Court. The reason for this decision was that the death penalty was

cruel and unusual punishment under the eighth amendment. The decision was

reversed when new methods of execution were introduced.

1 408 U.S 238 (1972).2 428 U S 280 (1976)3 428 U S 325 (1976)4 US 153(1976)

290

The United States Supreme Court has upheld the three - drug protocol in

lethal injunction for capital punishment- applied in 36 States besides the federal

Government- thus lifting a 7 months defacto moratorium on executions1.

4.4.11. Classification of Offences in U.S.A

All the offences are divided in to two types basing on the punishment

which may be imposed to them. They are felony and misdemeanor. The common

law divided participants in a felony into four basic categories. They are first

degree principals, second degree principals, accessories before the fact and

accessories after the facts. In the course of the 20th century American

jurisdictions eliminated the distinctions among the first three categories2

.Misdemeanour offence are lesser offences than a felony, but they are not

without penalties. It will effect the person’s personal life including the inability to

obtain certain jobs, quality for bonding, or receive government beneficiaries.

Misdemeanors are classified according to their severity. Person convicted of a

felony will be imprisoned in a Federal prison. Conversely, a person convicted of a

misdemeanor is almost always imprisoned in a local prison or county jail.

4.4.11.1. Felony

A felony is a serious crime characterized under Federal law and many

State Statutes as an offence punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of

one year. Under the early common law, felonies were crimes involving moral

turpitude Article 131-43.e.Later, however, crimes that did not involve turpitude

1 The Hindu, 7lh May 2008 - Qustions remain on death penalty.2 Gonzales v.Duenas-Alwarez,549 U.S 2007.

291

became included in the definition of a felony. Presently many Statutes classified

the various classes of felonies and prescribed with penalties commensurate with

the gravity of the offence. Crimes classified as felonies include among others

treason, arson, murder, rape, robbery, burglary, manslaughter and kidnapping.

4.4.11.2. Misdemeanors

The offences which are exactly punishable by one year or less is classified

as misdemeanor. The felonies and misdemeanours are classified in different

ways by different States but with slight changed all are similar. The general

classification of felonies and misdemeanors of the United States of America are

mentioned below.

Felony MisdemeanourFelony Punishment Misdemeanour Punishment

Class 1 Felony Death, or imprisonment for life & a fine of upto $1,00,000

Class 1misdemeanour

Confinement in

jail for upto 12

months and a

fine of upto

$2500'

Class 2 Felony Imprisonment for

life or minimum of

20 years and a fine

of upto $1,00,000

Class 2

misdemeanour

Confinement in

jail for upto 6

months and a

fine of upto

$1000'

Class 3 Felony Imprisonment 5

to20 years and a

fine of upto

$1,00,000

Class 3

Misdemeanour

Maximum

fine of $500

Class 4 Felony Imprisonment for 2

years to 10 and a

Class 4

Misdemeanour

Maximum

fine of $250

292

fine of upto

$1 ,,00,000

Class 5 Felony The jury or court

may choose imp.

for 1 to 10years or

jail for upto 12

months and a fine

of upto $2500,

either or both.

Class 6 Felony The jury or court

may choose imp.

for 1 to 5 years or

jail for 12 months

and a fine of upto

$2500 either or

both

Table No: 17 Showing the types of Felony and Misdemeanor

4.4.12. U.S.A Being the Leader of the World in Prisoners

There are no European governments sending delegations to learn from

the U.S. about how to manage prisons. Adam Liptak said that “The United States

has less than five per cent of the world’s population. But it has almost a quarter

of the world’s prisoners. The United States leads the world in producing

prisoners, a reflection of a relatively recent and now entirely distinctive American

approach to crime and punishment. The United States has for instance,

2.3.million criminals behind bars, more than any other nation1.

1 According to data maintained by the International Centre for prison Studies at

King’s College London,2007.

293

Prison sentences here have become vastly harsher than in any other

country to which the United States would ordinarily be compared Michael

H.Tonry, a leading authority on crime policy wrote in The Handbook of ‘Crime

and Punishment’. Indeed, said Vivien Stern, a research fellow at the prison

studies centre in London the U.S. incarceration rate has made the United States “

a rogue state, a country that has made a decision not to follow what is a normal

Western approach1.”

4.5. French Penal Code

The Code of Offences and Penalties was adopted in revolutionary France

by the National Convention on October 25, 17952. Containing 646 articles, the

Code deals with judicial organization, criminal procedure as well as penalties. It

is notable for suppressing afflictive penalties, with the exception of the death

penalty, and for creating prison sentences, the harshest of which is known as the

Peine de la Gene, and consists of a fifty-year imprisonment in a windowless cell

without any possibility of communication with either outside persons or inmates.

The French Penal Code of 1791 was a penal code adopted under the French

Revolution between 25 September and 6 October 1791. It was France’s first

penal code.

The principle of legality was foremost in the underlying philosophy of the

1791 Code. In the spirit of the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the

Citizen, of Beccaria summarized the principles that were to be the foundation of

the procedural system. In his words, “every citizen should know what

1 The Hindu, 24th April 2006 - Leading the world in prisoners and sentences.2 The 3rd of Brumaire of the year IV under the French Republican Calendar.

294

punishment he should endure.” As a consequence, the function of the judge was

conceived as being strictly distributive: qualification of an act, infliction of the pre

set sanction. This concept was revolutionary in 1791 and clearly parted from the

Ancient Regime arbitrary procedures. The code of 1791 in this aspect was

simple as most of definitions were clear, leaving little power to the interpretation

of the judge. This principle was reincorporated in the Napoleonic Penal Code of

1810, which replaced the revolutionary 1791 code.

The Code is the product of the influence of English criminal procedure. In

the course of the 19th and 20th centuries, the character of the French procedure

has undergone no fundamental alteration. It took fifty years of agitation to win for

the accused the privilege of assistance of counsel during the preliminary

investigation. Many other laws have altered in detail in procedure, but the main

lines are still as the Napoleonic Commission left it.

4.5.1. The Brief History of French Penal Code

The Legislative Assembly which met for the first time on October 1, 1791,

did not challenge the work of the Constituent Assembly, and adopted the final

text of the code on October 6. The great novelty of this first French Penal Code-

-which represented a break as much radicals ephemeral because the 1810 code

modified its term was the fixed nature of the punishment.

The reformers considered the penal code to be the best instrument for

fighting the arbitrariness of judges, by putting into practice. Beccaria’s syllogism:

“the major must be the general law, the minor the act in relation with the law, the

conclusion will be the acquittal or the sentence.”

295

In spite of the refusal to abolish capital punishment, the French penal code

was influenced by the voluntarism of politics and philosophy that guided the party

of the most learned reformers. The culpability of offense against religious morality

disappeared. The shared belief in the perfectibility of the individual was

perceptible, as much in the retention of old, dissuasive punishments (iron collar,

public exposition, loss of civil rights) as in the new measures taken to rehabilitate

the criminal through work.

The reversal of the debates that took place before the Terror was clear:

The priority no longer was to invent a new society but to preserve it. It was

necessary to re-establish it and maintain social order. The civil code was

followed by the code of civil procedure (1806), the commercial code (1807), the

code of criminal procedure (1808), and, finally, the new code penal (1810). The

preliminary measures and the primary book were presented on the State

Council1 at on October 4, 1808, discussed, and then adopted on October,

1809.On the same day the project was sent to the civil and criminal legislative

commission.. The council adopted this section in January 1810. The same

procedure was followed for each section of the code. It was definitely adopted by

the legislative corps without public debate and promulgated on February 23,

18102.

At the end of the eighteenth century, France was marked by a period of

political and legal transformation that completely changed the problem of how to

manage deviancy. The society that evolved after the great Revolution had a new

way of perceiving the social bonds and the legal character of the right to punish.

1 Counsel d’E.

296

In France at the end of the eighteenth century is the emergence of new

discourses on a criminality that not only to understand to its religious dimensions

but also as a social and political phenomenon. This emergence expressed itself

in the popular literature, as well as in penal policies that were proposed to

prevent the crimes. Enemies and public servants of the absolutist monarchy

attacked the great proliferation of royal laws. In spite of the failure of a last-ditch

attempt as reform in 1788, the will to modify the penal law had been supported by

the Enlightenment philosophers, who applied themselves mostly to the question

of the legitimacy of the right to punish the magistrates, who were anxious to

rationalize their practice.

4.5.1.1. French Criminal Law and Napoleon Code

The Napoleon Penal Code of 1810 in France was oldest code.The

ongoing revisions, undertaken by the Commission Trochee’ are not only of

judicial interest, they carry a political clout. On the other hand, the Penal

\Procedure Code dictates rules on the form of the proceedings. It forms the link

between the offense and the punishment. In this manner, its major function is to

ensure due process or the protection of the individual. Both of these texts have

been the object of recent reforms.

4.5.2. The New Penal Code of France

The new penal code entered into force in 1994 is the third criminal

codification in French history. The present French criminal law is based on the

synthesis of three codes 1791, 1810 and 1992-94. Until the last reforms of 1992-

94, the most important amendments to the 1810 code included the 1975 Act

297

reforming the system of fines and suspended sentences and instituting a number

of alternatives to imprisonment. The 1978 Act introducing the Periode de Surete

during which no release on parole can occur, the 1981 Act abolished the death

penalty and the 1983 Act introduced the community service order. In its format,

the new penal code is similar to its predecessors. On substance, the so called

reforms of 1992-94 show mostly elements of permanence and continuity, in spite

of the introduction of a few new concepts especially in terms of the responsibility

of judicable persons. One of the biggest goals of the reforms was to better

rewrite the existing codification.

4.5.3. Philosophy of Punishment under French criminal law

The philosophy of the sanction found in the texts and adopted by many

French legalists like J.M. Varrault and M. Cusson is that sanction is neither

irrational nor is it unjustified. It is legitimate to want a Penal Code that is a

glossary of clear and precise warning1.

They put a crucial weight on the value of the sanction and on the certainty

that it is the key to reduce criminality. Their underlying assumption, which is also

that of the present codification, is that sanctions serve a preventive function.

Their premise is that criminals act rationally. According to their writings, the

delinquent has the capacity to choose among the means and opportunities to

satisfy his needs2. Sanctions also ensure a symbolic and moral function, fixing

the wrong done to society. It repairs a torn society, it brings back confidence.

‘Varault, like Cusrson, repeats their viewpoint in that the

1 Maurice Cusson, Delinquents. Pourquek? p.105.2 Ibid., Pi06.

298

“Utility of the sanction is not so much in the action it exercises on criminals

but on the action it exercises on society itself. Everything takes place in spiritual

domain: images are opposed to other images, emotions to emotions, forces to

forces.” As a direct consequence of these premises, repression is on the act not

on the perpetrator. The purpose of the law is to protect the social order by

repression of the act. Crimes and, by reverse logic, social order are defined.

The definition of a crime implies the attribution of a penalty. In this way, a penalty

is established for each offense. The negative or at least limiting impacts of such

assumptions are multifold. Stephan identifies the first shortcoming of such

premise by arguing that taking into account only the act and its legal definition.

There is a risk to punish the offender regardless of his/her personality

either with too much rigor or with excessive leniency1. The code of procedure

moderates some of those elements, but aberrations persist. For instance, in

principle the act euthanasia for merciful reasons falls under the same qualification

as a violent murder. The legal text on murder does not establish a difference2

In this perspective the criminal appears like an Animated dummy on whose back

the judge sticks the number of a paragraph of the penal code, before the

penitentiary administration sticks a second one which reads his cell number.

The issues raised from the reading of the law are whether or not social

order is indeed protected by assigning a pre-set sanction to a determined crime.

It seems on the contrary that what threatens the social order is not only the anti

social act defined by the law as an offense, but it is more the individual whose

action has revealed the anti-social nature. The Penal Law which in its conception

1 Fauconnet, La Responsabilite, P.227.2 nouveau Code Penal, art.222-1.

299

solely deals with the offense and its matching sanction does not deal with the

individual.

It comes down to an attack on the manifestations of evil not on its causes1

econdly, it presupposes that the criminal is free to make rational decisions. It

does not take into account the social, economic and political circumstances

affecting his/her decision. Interestingly, the Code does not totally ignore the

“human” aspect of the crime and acknowledges certain cases of irresponsibility,

like mental illness. However, it fails to incorporate new findings on criminology. It

continues in its newest versions to privilege the traditional premise that a list of

sanctions are that many warnings and serve a preventive function, in a realm,

where criminals are mostly rational and can therefore logically weigh the penal

consequence of their decisions. This distorted, and outdated perception, leads to

strong elements of doubt regarding the code’s efficacy in preventing crime.

Four books compose the new penal code. Book 1 summarizes the

general dispositions of the Code. It includes rules of general penal law and most

of the rules on sentencing. This general part of the code, the Partie Generate of

the new penal code, reorganizes rules that were previously dispersed in various

places of the 1810 Code or even in the Procedure Code. Most of these rules had

never been modified since 1810. Some of them had remained untouched since

1791. Criminal law, highlighting the most salient characteristics of the law and its

recent revisions. It presents the law strictly as it appears in the texts, without

taking position on its impact. This section could, if needed, be isolated and used

as an objective set of references on the technicalities of French penal law..

1 Delmas, Archieves de Politique Criminelle

300

4.5.4. Fundamentals of French Penal system

The Code penal and the Code de Procedure Penale1 and their respective

functions underline both the technicalities and the philosophy of the criminal

justice system. The Penal Code defines offenses and assigns sanctions. Its

primary function is to protect society as a whole to ensure social control by

categorizing and defining the offenses that disrupt it. The bulk of its content is

rules on substance what is a crime, what happens to its perpetrator.

The other three books are referred to as the “special part,” or Partie

Special. Book 2 reforms the dispositions of the Penal Code relative to the

repression of crimes and misdemeanors against individuals. Book 3 deals with

offenses against property. Finally, Book 4 focuses on crimes and misdemeanors

against the nation, the state and public order. The new code reiterates a tri-fold

division of offenses. The French penal law has always identified three groups of

criminal offenses: Crimes, Delits and Contraventions. A different trial court has

jurisdiction over each category, and different rules of procedure apply. In

general, more serious offenses are subject to more elaborate procedural

safeguard. Penalties for crimes range from prison terms of at least 5 years to life;

misdemeanors are punishable with a prison term of more than 2 months, not

exceeding 5 years, or by a fine of more than 10,000 Francs (around $2,000).

Contraventions are punishable with a fine up to 10,000 Francs or a jail term

inferior to 2 months. The special part of the code reverses the order of

dispositions but keeps the libel of their headings intact. Permanence of principle

is also paramount. The new code, like its predecessors is based on the

fundamental principle at the core of the use of codification.

1 Code of Penal Procedure

301

4.5.5. Sentencing Process in France

At the end of the trial, if there is no acquittal and if guilt has been proven

the offense will be defined according to the code and the penalty will be

assigned. The police penalties are imprisonment, fines and confiscation of certain

objects seized1. Penalties in correctional cases are imprisonment for a term in

place of correction, suspension for a term of certain civic, civil or family rights and

fines2. Criminal penalties are both affective and infamous. They include penal

servitude for life, criminal detention for life, penal servitude for a term, criminal

detention for a term, banishment or loss of civil rights3. Where criminal

imprisonment for life is applicable to one or more concurrent offences but is not

imposed legal maximum is fed at 30 years criminal imprisonment4. In case of

sever penalties of same nature are incurred, only one such penalty may be

imposed within the limit of highest legal maximum5 6.

4.5.6. Penalties Applicable to Natural Persons

According to Articles 131.1 of the Code the penalties incurred by natural

persons for the commission of felonies® are;

1. Criminal imprisonment for life or life criminal detention.

2. Criminal imprisonment or criminal detention for a maximum of thirty years;

3. Criminal imprisonment or criminal detention for a maximum of twenty years;

4. Criminal imprisonment or criminal detention for a maximum of fifteen years.

1 Nouveau code Penal, art 464.2 21 Ibid., art9.3 Ibid, art 7-8.4 Art. 132-5 of French Penal Code.

5 Article 132-3 of French Penal Code.

6 .Act No.200-916 of 19, September 2000 Article 3 Official Journal of 22 September 2000 into force 1 January 2002

302

The minimum period for a fixed term of criminal imprisonment of criminal

detention is ten years. As for Article 131-2, the penalties of criminal imprisonment

or criminal detention do not preclude the imposition of a fine and of one or more

of the additional penalties set out under article 131-10.In Article 131-3 the

penalties incurred by natural persons for the commission of misdemeanors are

mentioned. They are:

1. Imprisonment

2. a fine

3. a day-fine

4. Community service:

5. Penalties entailing a forfeiture or restriction of rights, set out under

Article 131.6;

6. The additional penalties set out under article 131-10

According to Article 131-4 of the Code the following additional penalties can be

added to the original punishments.

1. a maximum of ten years;

2. a maximum of seven years;

3. a maximum of five years;

4. a maximum of three years;

5. a maximum of two years

6. a maximum of one year;

7. a maximum of six months.

According to Articles 131-6of the Code where a misdemeanor is punishable by

imprisonment, the court may order a day-fine. This requires the convicted person

to pay the Treasury of a sum, the total amount of which is a daily contribution

303

determined by the judge, multiplied by a certain number of days. The amount of

each day-fine is determined by taking into account the income and expenses of

the accused. It may not exceed € 300. The number of day-fines is determined

by taking into account the circumstances of the offence; it may not exceed three

hundred and sixty1.

According to Articles 131-6 of the Code, where a misdemeanor is punishable by

a sentence of imprisonment, one or more of the following penalties entailing

forfeiture or restriction of rights may be imposed:

1. The suspension of a driving license for a maximum period of five

years. This suspension may be restricted to the driving of a vehicle outside

professional activities, pursuant to conditions to be determined by a Decree in the

Conceal d’Etat;

2. Prohibition to drive certain vehicles for a period not exceeding five

years;

3. The cancellation of the driving license together with the prohibition

to apply for the a new license to be issued for a period not exceeding five years;

4. Confiscation of one or more vehicles belonging to the convicted

person;

5. Immobilization of one or more vehicles belonging to the convicted

person pursuant to conditions determined by a Decree of the Conseil d’Etat for a

maximum period of one year;

6. Prohibition to hold or carry a weapon for which a permit is needed;

such a prohibition may not be imposed for more than five years;

1 1. Act No.92-1336 of 16 December 1992 Article 341 and 373 official journal of 23 December 1992 into

force 1 March 1994.

304

7. Confiscation of one or more weapons belonging to the convicted

person or which are freely available in him;

8. Withdrawal of a hunting license, together with a prohibition to apply

for a new license; such a prohibition may not be imposed for more than a five

years.

9. The prohibition to draw cheques, except those allowing the

withdrawal of the funds by the drawer from the drawee or certified cheques, and

the prohibition to use credit card, for maximum during of five years.

10. Confiscation of the thing which was used in or was intended for the

commission of the offence, or of the thing which is product of it. However this

confiscation may not be imposed for a press misdemeanor;

11. Prohibition, for a maximum period of five years, to exercise any

professional or social activity where the facilities afforded by such activity have

knowingly been used to prepare or commit the offence. Such a prohibition is not

applicable to the holding of an electoral mandate or union stewardship, nor may it

be imposed for a press misdemeanor.

Article 131-7 of the Code says the penalties entailing a forfeiture or restriction or

rights enumerated under Article 131-6 may also be imposed for misdemeanor

which is only punishable by a fine. According to Article 131-8 of the Code where

a misdemeanor is punishable by a sentence of imprisonment, the Court may

order the convicted person to perform for a period of forty to hundred and forty

hours, unpaid community service work in the interest of a public law body or of

an association accredited to set up community service work. Community service

work may not be imposed up on an accused who refuses or who is not present

at the hearing. The president of the court, before passing the sentence, must

305

inform the summoned person of his right to refuse to perform community service

work and record his response.Art.131-9 of the Code says Imprisonment may not

be imposed cumulatively with any of the penalties entailing forfeiture or

restriction set out under article 131-6, nor with community service.

4.5.7. Additional Penalties to certain Felonies or Misdemeanors

As per Art. 131-10 where the law so provides, a felony or a misdemeanor

may be punished by one or more additional penalties sanctioning natural persons

which entail prohibition, forfeiture, incapacity, or withdrawal of a right, the

impounding or confiscation of a thing, the compulsory closure of an

establishment, posting a public notice of the decision or disseminating the

decision in the press or by broadcasting.Article-131-11 says where a

misdemeanor is punishable by one or more of the additional penalties

enumerated under articles 131-10, the court may decide to impose as a main

sentence one or more of the additional penalties.

4.5.8. Penalties for petty offences

As per Article 131-12 of the Code the penalties incurred by natural person

for the commission of petty offences are a fine and the penalties entailing a

forfeiture or restriction of rights set out under Article 131-14 These penalties do

not preclude the imposition of one or more of the additional penalties set out

under Article 131-16 and 131-17.ln Art.131-13 the maximum amount of fine is

prescribed:

The amount of fine is as follows:

1, a maximum of €38 for the petty offences of 1st class;

306

2. a maximum of €150 for the petty offences of 2nd lass;

3. a maximum of €450 for the petty offences of 3rd class;

4. a maximum of €750 for the petty offences of 4th class;

5 a maximum of €1500 for the petty offences of 5th class an amount which

may be increased to €3000 in the case of a persistent offender where the

regulation so provides.

As per Article 131-14 in relation to any petty offence of 5th class one or

more of the other penalties entailing forfeiture or restriction of rights may be

imposed and as per Article 131-15 a fine may not be imposed together with one

of the penalties entailing forfeiture or restriction of rights may be imposed.

4.5.9. Additional penalties for petty offence

Article 131-16 says that where the offender is a natural person, the

regulation which sanctions a petty offence may provide for one or more of the

following additional penalties:

1.Suspension of a driving license for a maximum period of 3 years. The

suspension may be restricted to the driving of the vehicle outside professional

activities;

2. Prohibition to hold or carry a weapon for which a permit is needed, for a

maximum period of 3 years;

3. Confiscation of one or more weapons which the convicted person owns

or which is freely available to him;

4. Withdrawal of hunting license, together with a prohibition to apply for

granting of a new license, for a maximum period of 3 years;

307

5. Confiscation of the thing which used or intended to be used for the

commission of the offence, or of the thing which is its product.

As per Article 131-17 of the Code the petty offence of the 5th class may

also provide the additional penalty of prohibition to draw cheques, except those

allowing the withdrawal of funds by the drawer from the drawee or certified

cheques, for a maximum period of 3 years. The regulation which sanctions a

petty offence of the 5th class may also provide, as an additional penalty, the

imposition of community service for a period of 20 to 120 hours.Art.131-18 of the

Code decides where a petty offence is punishable by one or more of the

additional penalty referred to under Art. 131-16 and 131-17 the court may decide

to impose only the additional penalty or one or more of the additional penalties.

4.5.10. Penalties applicable to Legal Persons

In Art.131-37 of the Code the Penalties for felonies and misdemeanors

incurred by judicial persons are mentioned as below:

1. fine

2. cases set out by Law;

3. The penalties enumerated Under Art 131-39

As per Article 131-38 of the Code the maximum amount of fine applicable to legal

persons is 5 times then the sum laid down for natural persons by the Law that

sanctions the offence. Article 131-39 of the Code says where a statue so

provides against a legal person, a felony or misdemeanor may be punished by

one or more of the following penalties .among them the penalties under 1 and 3

above do not apply to those public bodies which may incur criminal liability. Nor

308

do they apply to political parties or associations, or to unions. The penalty under

1° does not apply to institutions representing workers.

1. Dissolution

2. where the legal person was created to commit a felony, or where the

felony or the misdemeanor is one which carries a sentence of imprisonment of 3

years or more, where it was diverted from its objects in order to commit them.

3. Prohibition to exercise, directly or indirectly one or more social or

professional activity, either permanently or for a maximum period of 5 years;

4. Placement under judicial supervision for a maximum period of 5 years;

5. Permanent close up or closure for upto 5 years of the establishment, or

one or more of the establishments, of the enterprise that was used to commit the

offences in question;

6. Disqualification from public tenders, either permanently or for a

maximum period of 5 years;

7. Prohibition, either permanently or maximum period of 5 years, to make

a public appeal for funds;

8. Prohibition to draw cheques, except those allowing the withdrawal of

the funds by the drawer from the drawee or certified cheques and the prohibition

to use credit cards, for a maximum period of 5 years.

9. Confiscation of the thing which was used or intended for the

commission of the offence, or of the things which is the product of it;

10. The public display of the sentence or its dissemination either by the

written press or by any type of broadcasting.

309

4.5.11. Penalties for petty offences committed by the Legal Persons

According to Article 131-40 of the Code the penalties incurred by legal

persons for petty offences are:

1° a fine

2° the penalties entailing forfeiture or restriction of rights.

These penalties do not preclude the imposition of one or more of additional

penalties set out under Article 131-43.The maximum amount of a fine applicable

to legal persons is five times that which is applicable to natural persons by the

regulation sanctioning the offence1.

In relation to any petty offence of the 5th class, a fine may be replaced by

one or more of the following penalties entailing forfeiture or restriction of rights2.

1° Prohibition to draw cheques, except those allowing the withdrawal of funds

by the drawer from the drawee or certified cheques, and the prohibition to use

credit cards, for a maximum period of one year;

2° Confiscation of the thing which was intended for the commission of an

offence, or of any thing which is the product of it.

The regulation that sanctions a petty offence may provide for the additional

penalty mentioned under 5° of article 131-16 where the offender is a legal person.

In relation to petty offences of the fifth class, the regulation may also set out the

additional penalty referred to under the first paragraph of Article 131-17. Where

petty offence is punished by one or more of the additional penalties set out under

1 Article 131-41 of French Penal Code.2 Article 131-42 of French Penal Code.

310

Article 131-43, the court may decide to impose one or more of the additional

penalties applicable alone1

4.6. Criminal Code of Canada

The Criminal Code of Canada2 is the codification of most of the criminal

offences and procedure in Canada and Section 91 of the Canadian Constitution3

establishes criminal law as under the sole jurisdiction of the federal Parliament.

The Criminal Code also contains some defenses, but most are part of the

common law. Other important Canadian criminal laws are the Fire Arms Act, the

Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Canada Evidence Act, the Food and

Drugs Act, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the Contraventions Act.

It was first enacted in 1892. It was based on a drafted code called “the

Stephen Code” written by Sir James Fitzjames Stephen as part of a Royal

Commission in England in 1879, and influenced by the writings of Canadian

Jurist George Burbidge.

4.6.1. The Brief History of the Code

When the Provinces of Canada were confederated in 1867, the first Prime

Minster, Sri John A. Macdonald was adamant that Canada would not suffer the

disparate criminal law system inherited from England4. Macdonald believed

strongly in the need for a single, uniform regime of criminal law for the entire

country. In fact, the Canadian constitution which he helped to write, gave the

1 Article 131-44 of French Penal Code.2 .long title, An Act respecting the criminal law, R.S.C.1985, c. C-46, as amended.3 The Constitution Act, 1867 formerly called British north America Act, 1867.4 At the time, each province had its own cnminai law.

311

federal government the explicit authority to codify the criminal law. An initial set

of nine statutes was passed by the federal House of Commons in 1869 to at least

consolidate the law for coinage offences, forgery, offences against the person,

larceny, malicious injuries to property, perjury and procedure. A complete criminal

code was finally achieved in July, 1892, under the leadership of the Minister of

Justice and soon-to-be Prime Minister Sir John Thompson.

The 1892 Canadian Criminal Code copied much of the English 1878 bill

and it has since been revised numerous times, to accommodate the needs of

changing times, such as amendments for gun control, the elimination of the death

penalty and of abortion offenses and the creation of drunk-driving offences. In

1955, a major reform was carried out and the Code was reduced from 1100

sections to 753.0ne of the advantages of a codification is the implementation of a

constitutional principle that no person can be convicted of an offence unless it

has been specifically provided for in a statute. This is pivotal if the expression

“ignorance of the law is no excuse” is to have any meaning. But in spite of the

original intentions of the Canadian codifiers to include all criminal offences, many

other federal laws now establish criminal offences as well. A good example is the

Narcotics Act which covers drug offences such as the possession of

cocaine.The Code also sets out the procedure to be followed in criminal cases

but, again, recourse has to be made to other laws in special cases such as the

Extradition Act or the young Offenders Act. Peculiarly, while the Code is a

federal law, the administration of the criminal law justice system is left to the

provinces. It is the latter that hires and supervises the work of public prosecutors

and court officials. There have been many calls for comprehensive reform of

Canada’s Criminal Code, the most scathing is from the now defunct Law Reform

312

Commission of Canada which, in the words of a former president of that

institution:

“It is too complicated, it is too illogical, it is poorly organized. It is not

comprehensive and it is too intrusive. Our Code is no longer worthy of

Canadians. We deserve a Criminal Code that is modem, simple, logical,

coherent, comprehensive, organized, understandable and restrained.” It is true

that the present Criminal Code is extremely complex, a challenge even for

lawyers to understand and to wade their way through during the course of a

criminal trial. Along with the income Tax Act, it is the logest of all federal laws.

But some of the proposals of the Law Reform Commission are quite

controversial and this, more than any other reason, probably explains why the

project for reform has not been pushed by federal politicians in the meantime,

the federal Department of Justice, which supervises all amendments to the

Code, continues to alter Canadian criminal law by bringing amendments to the

existing Criminal Code. So it’s business as usual with the Criminal Code. Any

massive reform such as that envisioned by the Law Reform Commission may

never occur except by the political will of a future Minister of Justice that

espouses the cause or by a slower process of piecemeal legislation. That,

unfortunately, appears, to be the “Canadian way.”

4.6.2. The Structure of the Code

The main body of the Criminal Code is divided into the following major

components. The criminal code of Canada is divided into 28 Parts consisting 841

sections. The main body is followed by schedules relating to some of the above

mentioned parts and a series of proscribed legal forms, such as Form 5 which

313

sets out the proper legal wording for a search warrant. The Canada criminal law

is Federal matter. Traditionally common law offences are co-existed with the

Code.

4.6.3. The Amendments made to the Code

The criminal Code has been revised numerous times including the

consolidation of federal statutes that occurred during 1955 and 1985. One of the

major revisions of the Code occurred with the passage of the Criminal Law

Amendment Act, 1968-69.whose provisions included, among other things, the

decriminalization of homosexual acts between consenting adults, the legalization

of abortion, contraception and lotteries, new gun ownership restrictions as well

as the authorization of breathalyzer tests on suspected drunk drivers. The

Criminal Code, in its present form, is part of the 1985 consolidated statues with

further major amendments since that year.

By means of legal challenges under the Canadian Charter of Rights and

Freedoms, numerous sections of the Criminal Code have been struck down by

the Supreme Court of Canada as infringing on a constitutional right as defined in

this 1982 constitutional document. The offending sections are usually removed

altogether, or heavily qualified, when new laws are passed. In other instances,

such as Section 287 regarding qualified abortions, the Canadian Parliament

makes no move to repeal the infringing section from the text of the Criminal

Code while such as section remains null, void and unenforceable by the police

and the criminal justice system.

Before the terrorist attack against the World Trade Center on September

11,2001, the Criminal Code contained almost no specific reference to terrorism.

314

After that event, the Canadian Parliament passed Bill C-36, the Anti-terrorism

Act1. Which received royal assent on December 18, 2001. This statute added an

entire new component to the Criminal Code. Falling between part II and Part III

is now Part 11.1 - Terrorism, which contains numerous provisions regarding the

financing of terrorism, the establishment of a list of terrorist entities, the freezing

of property, the forfeiture of property and participating, facilitating, instructing and

harboring of terrorism.

Young persons, ages 12 to 17, may be charged with offences under the

Criminal Code, are prosecuted in much the same way as adults under the

Criminal Code, and are subject to the same laws of evidence. However,

sentencing, procedure and evidence law are modified to some extent by the

Youth Criminal Justice Act. The youth may be taken to an adult prison after the

age of 14.

4.6.4. The jurisdiction of the Code

Under Canada’s federal system, the administration of justice is an area of

shared jurisdiction between the federal government and the provinces. The

Department supports the Minister of Justice in his responsibilities for 49 statutes

and areas of federal law by ensuring a bilingual and figural national legal

framework.

4.7. The Comparison of Punishments

The punishments for different offences under the criminal laws of India,

England, America .France and Canada are compared in the following table. The

1 (S.C.2001), C.41.

315

countries India, France and Canada contain their respective Criminal Codes

where as in England there is no specific code like in India. In England several

offences are defined and punishments were prescribed through separate Statues

enacted by the parliament from time to time and some others are governed by

Common Law. In U.S.A there are separate Penal Codes for each State and

offences and punishments are separately defined and prescribed with slight

differences. The American Law institute in 1962 developed Model Penal Code

and it was lastly updated in 1981.The purpose of this code was to stimulate and

assist the legislatures in making an effort to update and standardize penal law of

U.S.A. The Model Penal Code was adopted by 2/3red of States by replacing

their codes and some other States adapted some portions. Some states such as

New Jersey, New York.Pennsylwannia and Oregon have enacted almost all of

the provisions.

The death punishment which is the most fearful punishment in the world

has been in practice in India and America among these selected countries in

spite of repeated outcry of U.N. On July 14,1976 the House of Commons of

Canada passed a Bill C-84 on free vote , abolished the death penalty from the

Canadian Criminal Code and replaced with a mandatory life sentence without

parole for 25 years for all first degree murders. On 20 May 1998 the House of

Commons of England voted to ratify the 6th Protocol European Convention on

Human Rights prohibiting the capital punishment. On 10 October 2003 which

came into effect from 1-2-2004 the U.K acceded to the 13 th Protocol which

prohibits the death penalty under all circumstances. In India the death

punishment is restricted to rarest of rare cases doctrine designed and developed

by the Apex Court.

316

The second punishment is the imprisonment for life time. In India and

other countries the imprisonment for life means until death. But there are

different practices are in vogue in all over the world regarding to the quantum of

this punishment. In the countries like Canada, U.S.A and France the life

sentence made more sever by closing the opportunity to get parole within

stipulated time. The quantum of incarceration is higher in U.S.A than the other

countries. In India the length of imprisonment and quantum of fine is very low

when compare with these countries.

1-MURDERCOUNTRY OFFENCE SECTIONOF

LAWPUNISHMENT

1. INDIA 1. Punishment for Murder Sec.302 ofI.PC

Shall be punished with Death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also liable to fine.

2. Punishment for murder by life convict

Sec. 303 ofIPC

Shall be punished with death.

3. Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder

Sec. 304 ofIPC

Shall be punished imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 10 years and shall; also liable to fine.

4. Attempt to Murder Sec.307 ofIPC

Shall be punished with imprisonment either description for a term which my extend to 10 years, and shall also liable to fine.

5. Attempt to commit culpable homicide.

Sec. 308ofIPC

Shall be punished with imprisonment

317

2. U.S.A. 1. Murder U.S.Code

either description for a term which may extend to 3 years, or with fine or with both, and if hurt is causedShall be punished with imprisonment either description for a term which my extend to 7 years or with fine or with both.

1.a) shall bea) Who ever is guilty of Sec.1111 punished by death ormurder in the first degree

b) whoever is guilty of murder in the second degree

2. Manslaughter Sec.1112 of

imprisoned for life.

1.b) Shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life.

Shall be fined or imprisoned not more

3. Attempt to commit

U.S.Code

U.S.Code

than 6 years or both.

Imprisoned not more than 20 years or

murder or manslaughter Sec.1113 fined.

4. Protection of Sec. 1114 ofshall be punished by death or imprisoned

Officers and employees U.S.Code for life.of the United States

5. Misconduct or Sec.1115 ofFined or imprisoned not more than 10

Neglect of ship officers US code. years or both.

5(i) When the owner or Sec.1115 ofFined or imprisoned

not more than 10character of any sea boat US code years or both.or vessel is a corporation

6. Murder or Man Sec.116 ofShall be Punishable by death or imp. for

slaughter of foreign US code life. (This punishmentofficials, official guests, or internationally protected persons

6(i) Two or morePersons conspire to

is same u/s 111,112 &113 of U.S.Code)

6(l)Each shall be punished by imprisoned for any

318

Violatesec.111,114,116,119

term of years or for life.

7. Murder by a federal prisoner

8. Foreign murder of United states nationals

9. Murder by escaped prisoners

Sec.1118 of U.S.Code

Sec.1119 of U.S.code

Sec. 1120 of U.S.Code

Shall be punished by death or by life imprisonment, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for life.shall be punished by death or imprisoned for life.

•10. Killing persons aiding Federal investigation or State correctional officers


Imp. which shall not be less than 20 years, and may be sentenced to life imp. or death.

11, Protection against the Human Immuno deficiency virus


Fine under this title not less than $10, imprisoned for not less than 1 year nor more than 10 years or both.

3.ENGLAND 1. When an accused person is found guilty of murder.

Section 1 of Murder (Abolition of Death Penality Act.1965.

Must be imprisoned for life(court will decide minimum period of sentence and recommends to the Secretary of theState.)Imp. for life

2. Manslaughter Section 5 of Offences against the person Act 1861.

Punishable with life imprisonment.

3 Attempt to Murder. Section 7 (2) of CriminalLaw Act 1867

Punishable with life imprisonment

4. Any person maliciously send, deliver, utter, or directly or indirectly cause to

Section 16 of the offences against the Person Act

Punishable with life imprisonment

319

receive any letter knowing the contents threatening to kill or murder any person.

1861.

5. To conspire to murder any person or to solicit, encourage, persuade or endeavour to persuade, or to propose murder of any person.

Section 4 of the Offences against the Person Act, 1861.

Imp. for 10 years.

4. FRANCE 1 .The willful causing of death of another person is murder.

Art.221-1 30 years criminal imprisonment.

2. A murder which precedes, accompanies or succeeds another felony.

Art.221-2 Criminalimprisonment for life.

3. Making an attack against the life of another by the use or administration of substances liable to cause death.(Poisoning).

Art.221-5 30 years Criminal imprisonment.

CANADA 1. Every person who commits first degree or second degree murder is guilty of an indictable offence.

Sec.235.(1) of C.P.C

Shall be sentenced to imprisonment for life.

2. Every person who commits manslaughter is guilty of an indictable offence.

Sec.236 of C.P.C.

Where Fire Arm is used imprisonment for life minimum Imp. is 4 years.2) in other case to imprisonment for life.

3. Every female person who commits infanticide is guilty of indictable offence.

Sec.237 of C.P.C.

Imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years.

4. Every one who causes the death, in the Act of birth of any child.

Sec.238 (1) of C.P.C.

Liable toimprisonment for life

320

2. KIDNAPPINGCOUNTRY OFFENCE SECTIONOF PUNISHMENT

LAW

INDIA 1. Kidnapping Sec.360 of Shall be punished withI.P.C imprisonment of either

description for a term which extend to 7 years and shall also liable to fine.

2. Kidnapping or Sec.363-A of Shall be punished withmaiming a minor I.P.C imprisonment of eitherfor purpose of description for a termbegging which extend to 10

years and shall also liable to fine.

2(i) Maiming any Sec.363-A Shall be punishableminor in order that with imprisonment forsuch minor may be life, and shall also liableemployed or used for the purpose of begging

to fine.

3. Kidnapping or Sec.364 of Shall be punished withabducting in order I.P.C imprisonment for life, orto murder rigorous imprisonment

for a term which may extend to 10 years, and shall also liable to fine.

4. Kidnapping for Sec.364-A ofRansom, etc. I.P.C Shall be punishable with

death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also liable to fine.

5. Kidnapping or Sec.365 ofAbducting with I.P.C Shall be punished withintent secretly and imprisonment of eitherwrongfully to description for a termconfine person which extend to 7 years

and shall also liable to fine.

6. Kidnapping, Sec.366 ofabducting or I.P.C Shall be punished with

321

inducing women to compel her marriage, etc.

imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend 10 years and also be liable to fine.

7. Kidnapping or abducting in order to subject person to grievious hurt, slavery, etc.

Sec. 367 ofI.P.C

Shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend 10 years and also be liable to fine.

8. Wrongfully concealing or keeping in confinement, kidnapped or abducted person.

Sec.368 ofI.P.C

Shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which extend to 7 years and shall also liable to fine.

9.. Kidnapping or abducting child under 10 years with intent to steal from its person

Sec.369 of I.P.C.

Shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend7years and shall also liable to fine.

ENGLAND Kidnapping Sec. 5 of the offences against the PersonAct1861.

Punishable by fine or imprisonment for life.

FRANCE 1. The arrest, abduction, detention or imprisonment of a person without an order from an established authority and outside the cases provided by Law.

Article 224-1 of code penal.

20 years criminal imprisonment.

2. The offence set out in Art.222-1 is accompanied with mutilation or permanent disability.

Article224-2 Punished with 30 years imprisonment.

322

2(i) If the victim died.

Art.224-2 Imp. to life.

CANADA 1. To cause the person to be confined against his will.

Sec.279(i) of C.P.C.

1. imprisonment for life and to a minimum in case of 1st offence 5 years, 2nd subsequent offence 7 years

2. Unlawfully sent the person out of Canada.


2. Imp. for life and to a minimum of 4 years.

3. To hold the person for ransom against the persons will.


3.Imp. for life

4,1 .Every one who without lawful authority, confines impression or forcibly seizes another person in guilty of indictable offence (or)

Sec.279(2)Of C.P.C.

(1) Liable to imp. for a term not exceeding 10 years.

An offence punishable under summary conviction.

Liable to imp. for term not exceeding 18 months.

U.S.A. 1. Kidnapping Sec. 1201 of U.S.code

Shall be punished by imp. for any term of years of for life, if death results, shall be punished by death or life imprisonment.If the victim is not attained the age of 18 years and the offender is his nearest relative the punishment shall be not less than 20 years.

2. Ransom money Sec.1202 of US.code

Shall be fined or imprisoned not more than 10 years or both.

323

3. Hostage taking. Sec. 1203 of U.S.code

Shall be punished by imprisonment for any term of years for life and if the death of any pOerson results, shall be punished by death or life, imprisonment.

4. International Sec. 1204 of Shall be fined orparentalkidnapping

U.S.Code imprisoned not more than 3 years or both.

3. ASSAULT

COUNTRY

OFFENCE SECTIONOFLAW

PUNISHMENT

INDIA 1. Punishment for assault or criminal force otherwise than on grave provocation

Sec. 352 ofIPC

Shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extent to 3 months, with fine which may extend to Rs.500 or both

2. Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty

Sec. 353 ofIPC

Shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 2 years or with fine or with both.

3. Assault or criminal force to women with intend to outrage her modesty

Sec.354ofIPC


4. Assault or criminal force with intent to dishonour person, otherwise than on grave provocation

Sec.355 ofIPC

Shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 2 years or with fine or with both

5,Assault or criminal force in attempt to commit theft of property carried by a person

Sec.356of IPC Shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 2

324

years or with fine or with both.

6. Assault or criminal Sec.357 of Shall be punished withforce in attempt IPC imprisonment of eitherwrongfully to confine a description for a termperson which may extend to 1

year or with fine which may extend to Rs. 1000,or with both.

7. Assault or criminal Sec.358 of Shall be punished withforce on grave IPC imprisonment of eitherprovocation description for a term

which may extend to 1 month or with fine which may extend to Rs.200 or with both.

1. Assaulting, resisting or Sec. 111 of Be fined under this title orU.S.A impeding U.S.Code. imprisoned not more

Certain officers or than 1 year, both. Inemployees. other cases be find under

this title or imp. not more than 8 years or both.

2. Protection of foreign Sec.112 of Shall be fined under thisofficials, official guests U.S.Code title or imprisoned notand international more than 20 years orprotected persons. both.

2-a. Violation of the other Shall be fined under thisprovisions of this section. title or imprisoned not

more than 6months or both.

3. Assault within maritime Sec.113 of Shall be fined under thisand territorial jurisdiction. U.S.Code title or imprisoned not

more than 10 years or both.

3(a) Assault with intent to The imp. not more thancommit murder. 20 years.

3(b) Assault with intent to Fined under this title orcommit any felony. imp. for not more than 10

years or both.

3( c) Assault with Fined or imp. not moredangerous weapon. than 10 years or both.

3(d) Assault by striking, Fined or 6 months imp. or

325

beating or wounding. both.

3(e) Simple Assault. Fined or imp. for 6 months or both.(if victim is not attained the age of 16 years fine and imp. nor more than 1 year or both.

3.{f) Assault resulting in serious bodily injury.

Fine or imp. for not more than 10 years or both.

3(g) Assault resultingIn substantial bodily injury.

Fine or imp. not more than 5 years.

4. Maiming with in maritime and territorial jurisdiction.


Shall be fined under this title or imp. not more than 20- years or both.

5. Influencing, impeding, or relating against a federal official by threatening or injuring a family member.

Sec.115 of U.S.Code

Shall be fined as provided in Sec.111 i.e. fine or 8 years imp./ fined or not more than 20 years.

5(1) If a threat made in violation of the section.

Shall be punished or imp. for a term not more than 10 years or both.

6. Female genital mutilation.

Sec.116 of U.S.Code

Shall be fined under this title or imp. not more than5 years or both.

7. Domestic assault by an habitual offender.

See.117 of U.S.code

Shall be fined under this title imp.for a term not more than 10 years.

ENGLAND1. If any deadly or dangerous weapon is used to unlawfully assault a person.

Sec.42 of Offences against the person Act 1861 (As amended by the criminal justice Act1925&1967,Schedu.3)

A fine of £50 or imprisonment for 2 months in addition to any costs which may ordered him to pay.

326

2. Where any person Unlawfully assaults or beats any person

Sec.43 of the offences against the personAct. 1861

Fine of £100 or imp. for six months in addition to any cost which may be ordered.

3 Common Assault Sec.47 of the offences against the Person Act 1861

Imprisonment for 1 year

3. i)Assault occasioning actual bodily harm

Imprisonment upto 5 years.

4. Causing grievously bodily harm

Sec. 18 of the offences against the Person Act 1861.

Imp. for life

5. Causing bodily harm with or without weapon.

Sec.20 of the offences

Imp. for 5 years.

6. Strangling.Sec. 21 of Offences against the Person Act 1861.

Imprisonment of life.

7. Administration of drugs and poisons etc.

Sec.22 of offences against the persons Act 1861.

Imprisonment of life.

8. Unlawfully and maliciously to place or throw on, upon, against or near any building, ship or wind.

Sec,.30 of Offences Against the Persons Act 1861.

Upto 14 years Imp.

9. In possession of dangerous, explosives and noxious things.

Sec. 64 of Offences Against the Persons Act 1861.

2 years Imp.

10. Offences concerning Sec. 32 Imp. for life.

327

railways. Offences Against the Persons Act 1861

4FRANCE 1. Acts of violenceCausing unintended death.

2. (i) The offence defined under Art.227-7is punished with 20 year imp. in the following occasion

Art.227-7 15 years criminal imp.

a) against the minors under 15 year of age

Art.222-8 20 years imprisonment.

b) against the person who is particularly vulnerable due to age etc.

Art.222-8 20 years imp.

c) against natural or legitimate ascendant.


d) against the judges, prosecutor etc.


e) against the victim, witness etc.


f) by the spouse or cohabitee of the victim.g) by a person holding


public authority

h) by several persons


acting as perpetrators Art. .222-8 20 years imprisonment

i) with premeditation Art..222-8 20 years imp.

j) with the use or threatened use of weapon

Art..222-8 20 years imp.

2(2) If offence committed defined under Art.222-7 against a minor by natural adoptive

Art. 222-8 30 years criminal imprisonment.

328

ascendant or any other person having authority over the minor.

3. Violence causing mutilation or permanent disability.

Art.222-9 10 years imp. and a fine of €1,50,000

4. Acts of violence causing a total incapacity to work more then 8 days.

Art.222-113 years imp. and a fine of €45,000

CANADA 1. Every one commits an offence who, any manner, knowingly utters, conveys or causes any person to receive a threata) to cause death, bodily harmb) to burn, destroy or

damage a personal property or

Section 264-1 ofC.P.C.

a) An indictable offence and punishable with imp. for a term not exceeding5 years.

b) Punishable on summary conviction and liable to imp. for a term not exceeding 18 months.

c) to kill poison or injure animal or bird i.e. the property of any person.

c) Punishable on summary conviction and liable to imp. for a term not exceeding 18 months.

2. A person commits an assault a) without the consent of the another person b) he attempts or threatens by an act or gesture c) while openly wearing weapon.

Section265-1 ofC.P.C.

An indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or an offence punishable on summary conviction.(f. Art.Sec.266 ofC.P.C)

3. Aggravated assault. Section268-1 ofC.P.C.

An indictable offence and liable to imp. for a term not exceeding 14 years.

4. Unlawfully causing bodily harm.

Section269 of C.P.C.

An indictable offence and liable to imp. for a term not exceeding 10 years or punishable on summary conviction and liable to imp. for a term not exceeding 18 months.

329

5. Assaulting Peace Section An indictable offence andOfficer.. 270 of C.P.C. liable to imp. for a term

not exceeding 5 years or punishable on summary conviction.

6. Sexual Assault Section 271 of C.P.C.

An indictable offence and liable to imp. for a term not exceeding 14 years and a minimum punishment of imp. in case of 1st offence is 5 years, in case of 2nd offence 7 years, if used any fire arm 14 years imp.

330

4. FORGERY

1.Punishment for Shall be punishedINDIA forgery

2. Forgery of record of

Sec.465 of IPC with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 2 years or with fine or with both.

Shall be punishedCourt or of public register etc.,,

3. Forgery of valuable

Sec.466 of IPC with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 7 years and shall also liable for fine.

Shall be punishedsecurity, will, etc., Sec.467 of IPC with imprisonment

for life or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 10 years and shall also liable to fine.

4. Forgery for the Sec.468 of IPC Shall be punishedpurpose of cheating

5. Forgery for the

with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 7 years and shall also liable to fine.

purpose harming Sec.469 of IPC Shall be punishedreputation

6. Using as genuine a forged document

with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 3 years and shall also liable to fine.

Shall be punished

331

Sec.471 of IPC which may extend to 2 years or with fine or with both.

7. Making or Shall be punishedpossessing with imprisonmentcounterfeit seal, etc. Sec.472 of IPC for life or withwith intent to commit imprisonment offorgery, punishable either descriptionunder Sec.467 for a term which

may extend to 7 years and shall also liable to fine.

8. Making or possessing counterfeit Shall be punishedseal, etc. with intent to Sec.473 of IPC with imprisonmentcommit forgery of eitherpunishable otherwise. description for a

term which may extend to 7 years and shall alsoliable to fine.

9. Having possession of document Sec.474 of IPC Shall be punisheddescribed in Sec.466 with imprisonmentor 467, knowing it to for life or withbe forged and .imprisonment ofintending to use it as either descriptiongenuine. for a term which

may extend to 7 years and shall also liable to fine.

10. Counterfeiting Shall be punisheddevice or mark used with imprisonmentfor authenticating Sec.475 of IPC for life or withdocuments described imprisonment ofin Sec.467 or either descriptionpossessing counterfeit for a term whichmarked material. may extend to 7

years and shall also liable to fine.

11. Counterfeiting Shall be punisheddevice or mark used with imprisonmentfor authenticating documents other than Sec.476 of IPC of either

description for athose described in term which maySec.467, or extend to 7 years,

332

possessing counterfeit and also shallmarked material. liable to fine.12. Fraudulent Shall be punishedcancellation, Sec.477 of IPC with imprisonmentdestruction etc. of will for life or withauthority to adopt or imprisonment ofvaluable security. either description

for a term whichmay extend to 7 years and shall also liable to fine.

Shall be punished13. Falsification of Sec.477-A of with imprisonmentaccounts of either

IPC description for a term which may extend to 7 years or with fine orboth.

1 Obligations or Shall be fined

2. U.S.A Securities of United States Sec.471 of under this title or

imprisoned notU.S.C more than 20

years, or both.

2.Uttering Counterfeit Shall be finedobligations or U.S.C-Sec.472 under this title orSecurities imprisoned not

more than 20 years, or both.

3.Dealing in counterfeit obligations U.S.C-Sec.473 Shall be finedor securities under this title or

imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

4 Plates, stones, or Imp. for life oranalog, digital, or minimum of 20electronic images for U.S.C-Sec.474 years imp. andcounterfeiting fine upto $obligations or securities.

1,00,000

6 Deterrents to Imp. for life orcounterfeiting of minimum of 20obligations and years imp. and

333

securities. U.S.C-Sec.474A fine upto $1,00,000.

7.. Imitating obligations or securities; advertisements

U.S.C.Sec.475

Shall be fined.

8. Taking impressions of tools used for obligations or securities.

U S.C.Sec. 476

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 25 years or both.

9. Possessing or selling impressions of tools used for obligations or securities.

U.S.C.Sec.477


10. Foreign obligations or securities.

U.S.C.Sec. 478


11. Uttering counterfeit foreign obligations or securities.

U.S.C.Sec. 479

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years or both

12. Possessing counterfeit foreign obligation orSecurties.

U.S.C.Sec. 480

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years or both

13.. Plates, stones, or analog, digital, or electronic images for counterfeiting foreign obligations or securities.

14. Foreign BankNotes

U.S.C.Sec. 481

U.S.C.Sec. 482



334

15. Uttering counterfeit Foreign Bank Notes.

U.S.C.Sec.483


16. Connecting parts of different Notes. U.S.C-

Sec.484


17. Coins or BarsU.S.C.-Sec.485


18. Uttering coins of Gold, Silver or other metal.

U.S.C.Sec.486


19. Making or possessing counterfeit U.S.C. Sec.487


3.ENGLAND 1. The Forgery of the specific documents, if committed with intent to defraud.

Sec.2 of Forgery Act, 1913

Imprisonment for life.

1(a). Forgery of any certificate of Commissioners of inland revenue or any other Commissioners acting under theIncome Tax Act.

Upto 14 years imprisonment.

3. The Forgery of large number of public documents, if committed with intent to defraud or deceive.

Sec. 3 of Forgery Act,1913

Upto 14 years imprisonment.

335

4. The Forgery of any document, if Sec.4 of Imprisonment uptocommitted with intent Forgery Act, 1913 2 years.to defraud or in the as amended bycase of public Criminal Law Actdocument, with intent to defraud or deceive.

1967

5. Demanding money Upto 14 yearson forged instruments. Sec. 7 of

Forgery Act,1913imprisonment.

6. Forged wrapper or Upto 14 yearslabel provided by or Sec. 8 of Forgery imprisonment.under the authority of the Commission of

Act, 1913.

inland Revenue or of customs and excise.

1 .Any fraudulent Forgery and use4. FRANCE alteration of the truth Article 441-1 of forgeries is

liable cause harm and punished by 3made by any means, years imp. and ain a document, other medium for

fine of €45,000

expression of which the object is, or effect may be to provide evidence of the right or of a situation carrying legalconsequences.

5 years imp. and a2. Forgery committed in a document Art.441-2

fine of €75,000.

delivered by a public body for the purpose of establishing a right, identity or a capacity or to grant an authentication.

7 years imp. and a2(i) If forgery is committed by a person holding public authority, habitually, or with intent to facilitate the commission of any

fine of €1,00,000.

336

felony or to gain impunity for the perpetrator.

3. The unlawful possession of any forged document.

Art.441-3Punishment 2 years imp. and fine of €30,000.

3(i) More than one forged documents are in unlawful possession.

5 years imp. and a fine of €75,000.

4. Forgery in an authentic or public document.

Art.441-410 years imp. and a fine of €1,50,000.

4{i) If forgery is committed by a person holding public authority.

15 years imp. with a fine of €225,000.

5. Unlawfully procuring for another person a document delivered by a public body.

5(i) If offence is committed by a person holding public authority, habitually or with intent to facilitate the Commission of felony.

Art.441-55 years imp. and a fine of €75,000.

7 years imp. and to a fine of €1,00,000

6. Unlawfully obtaining from a public administration or from an institution discharging a public service mission, by any fraudulent means, any document intended to establish a right etc.

Art. 441-6Punishable by 2 yearsimprisonment and a fine of €30,000

7. Offence was committed with a view to prejudice the public

Art.441-73 years imp. and a fine of €45,000.

337

treasury or the estate of another person,8. Any person acting in the exercise of his profession either directly or indirectly makes offers, promises etc to produce an attestation or certificate stating facts but are materially inaccurate.

Art.441-8.

A penalty of 2 years imp. and a fine of €30,000.

9. Any alien convicted any of the offence relating to forgery.

Art 441-11Banished from the French Territory either permanently or maximum period of 10 years.

5. CANADA1 1. Every one commits forgery who makes a false document, knowing it to be false.

Section 366(1) of C.P.C.

Liable toimprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

2. Use, trafficking or possession of forged document.


Is guilty of as an indictable offence and liable to imp. for a term not more than 10 years, or punishable on summary conviction.

1 http;//laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-46/

338

5. SEXUAL OFFENCES

COUNTRY OFFENCE SECTION OF PUNISHMENT

LAW

INDIA 1 .punishment for rape Sec 376 ofI.P.C.

1.Shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than 7 years but which may be for life or for a term which may extend to 10 years and shall also liable to fine.

2. Intercourse by a man with his wife during separation.

Sec.376-AOf I.P.C.

2. If woman raped by his own husband shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 2 years or with fine or with both.

3. Intercourse by public servant with woman in his custody.

Section 376-B of I.P.C

Shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 5 years and shall also liable to fine.

4. Intercourse by Supdt. of Jail,Remand home etc.

Section 376-C of I.P.C.


5. Intercourse by any member of the Management or staff of a hospital with any woman in thatHospital.

Sec. 376-D of I.P.C.


6. Whoever voluntarily as carnal intercourse against the order of the nature with any man, woman or animal.

Sec.377 ofI.P.C.

Shall be punished with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 10 years and shall also liable to fine.

339

U.S.A. 1, Aggravated sexual abuse1(a) By administering any drug forcibly without the knowledge engages in a sexual act with other person.

USC Code Sec.2241

1 .(a) Shall be find under this title, imprisoned for any term of years or life or both.

1 (b) Any person knowingly engages in a sexual act with another person who has not attained the age of 12 years.

U.S.C.CodeSec.2241

1(b). Shall be find under this title imprisoned for any term of years or life or both.

1 (c) If the defendant previously convicted under this section

U.S.C.CodeSec.2241

1( c)Shall be sentenced to life in prison.

2. Sexual abuse U.S.CodeSec.2242

Shall be fined or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

3. Sexual abuse of minor or ward

U.S.CodeSec.2243

3.(1) Of a Minor U.S.CodeSec.2243

(i) Fined or imprisoned not more than 15 years or both.

3(2) Of a Ward U.S.CodeSec.2243

(2) Fined or imprisonedNot more than 5 years or both.

4. Abusive sexual contact

U.S.CodeSec.2244

1. Under Sec.2241 sexual contact been a sexual act fined or imprisoned not more than 10 years or both.2. U/S 2242 sexual contact in sexual Act shall be fined or imp. not more than 3 years or both.3. U/S 2243 and sub-section (a) or b) sexual contact been a sexual act shall be fined or imprisoned not more than 2 years or both.4. In other circumstances shall

340

Offences involving young children.

be fined or imprisoned not more than 2 years or both.5. The maximum term of imprisonment that may be imposed for the offence shall be twice.

5. Sexual abuse resulting in death

U.S.CodeSec.2245

Shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years.

ENGLAND 1. If any person has sexual intercourse with a woman without her consent by force, by fraud and when she is asleep

Sec. 1(1) of the Sexual Offence Act 1956(as amended by Criminal Act1967)

1 .a) Attempt to rape Imprisonment upto 7 years

2. Indecent assault

3. Unlawful sexual Intercourse with a girl under the age of13 years.

Sec. 6 ofCriminal Law Act 1967Sec. 5 of the Sexual Offence Act 1956

Imp. 7 years

Imprisonment for life, in case of attempt.

4.Any male person who has sexual intercourse with a female who is to his knowledge, his grand daughter etc.

Section 10 of the Sexual offences Act 1956

Imprisonment up to 7years and if female is under 13, imprisonment t for life.

5. A female of or above the age of 16 years who permits her grand father, brother or son to have sexual intercourse with her.

Section 11 of the Sexual offences Act 1956.

Imprisonment upto 2 years for attempt.

6. Any person male or female to make an indecent assault upon a female.

Section 14 of the Sexual offences Act 1956

Imprisonment upto 5 years if the girl is under 13 years .other-wise 2 years imp.

7. Any person who commits an act of

Section 1 of Indecency with

Punishable upto 2 yearsOn summary conviction 6

341

gross indecency with or towards a child under age of 14.

Children Act1960.

months imp and £400.

8. Any person having the custody, or charge or care of a child between 14 &19. to allows it to reside in or frequent, brothel

Section 3 of the Children & young persons Act, 1933.

On indictment upto 2 years or on summary conviction 6 months imp. and 400 Pounds fine.

9. Unnatural offence(buggery).

Section 12 of Sexual Offences Act 1956.

Imprisonment for life if with a boy under 16 years or with a woman or animal. 10 years imprisonment, if with a man who did not consent.

FRANCE 1. Any act of sexual penetration, whatever its nature, committed against another person by violence, constrain, threat or surprise.

Art.222-23 Punishable by 15 years criminal Imprisonment.

2. If this offence is causes mutilation or permanent disability, commits against any minor, against any weak person etc.

Art.222-24. 20 years criminal Imp.

3. If this offence caused death. Art, 222-25 30 years Imprisonment.

4.When the offence is accompanied or followed by a torture or acts of Barbarity.

Art.222-26 Imprisonment for life..

5. Sexual aggression other than Rape.

6. Sexual aggressions other than rape.

7. An indecent sexual

Art.222-27

Art.222-29

5 years Imprisonment and a fine of €75,000.

Seven years imp. and a fine of €75,000.

342

exposure imposed on the view of others in public place.

Art. 222-32 One year imp. and a fine of €15,000.

CANADA 1. Every one who commits sexual assault is guilty of an offence

Section 271-1 of C.P.C.

Imp. for a term not exceeding10 years. On summary conviction liable to imp. not more than 18 months.

2. Every person who commits an offence with a fire arm or without any authority.

Section 271-2 of C.P.C.

Not exceeding 14 years.

2.a) In case of 1st offenceb) In case of 2nd offence.c) In any other case.

Minimum 5 years.

Minimum 7 years.

Maximum Imp. 14 to Min.lmp.4 years.

3. Aggravated sexual assaulta) In case of 1st offence

Section 273 of C.P.C.

Imp. for life.

a)A minimum Imp. for 5 years.

b) In case of 2nd offence.c) In any other case

b) Minimum Imp. 7 years.

c) Minimum Imp. 4 years, Max. 14 years.

6. THEFT

COUNTRY OFFENCE SECTION PUNISHMENT

OF LAW

1. INDIA 1. Punishment for theft Sec. 379 ofI PC

Shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 3 years or with fine, or with both.

2. Theft in dwelling house, etc.

Sec.380 of IPC

Shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term

343

which may extend to7years and shall also liable to fine.

3. Theft by clerk or Sec.381 of Shall be punished withservant of property in IPC imprisonment of eitherpossession of master. description for a term

which may extend to7years and shall also liable to fine punished with imp. for life.

4, Theft after preparation Sec.382 Shall be punished withmade for causing death, of I.P.C. rigorous imprisonment forhurt or restrain in order to a term which may extendthe committing of the to 10 years and shall alsotheft. liable to fine.

Sec.641 Shall be Imprisoned notU.S.A. 1.Public money, property Of U.S.C more than ten years or

or records, if the doesn’t exceed $1000.

both.

2,Tools and materials for Sec.642 Shall be Imprisoned notcounterfeiting purposes. Of U.S.C. more than ten years or

both.

3. Banker receiving Sec.644 of Shall be fined not moreunauthorized deposit of U.S code than the amount sopublic money. embezzled whichever is

greater, or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

4. Court officers depositing registry Sec.645 of Shall be fined not moremoneys. U.S.C than the amount so

embezzled whichever is greater, or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

5. Court officers generally Sec.646 of Shall be fined or not moreU.S.C. than the amount

embezzled, which ever is greater, or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

344

6. Receiving loan from Court Officer

Sec.647 of U.S.C

Shall be filed not more than the amount embezzled which ever is greater or imprisonment not more than 10 years or both, but amount not exceeds $ 1000 Fined or imp. not more than 1 year or both.

7. Custodians, generally misusing public funds.

Sec.648 of U.S.Code

Shall be filed not more than the amount embezzled which ever is greater or imprisonment not more than 10 years or both, but amount not exceeds $ 1000 Fined or imp. not more than 1 year or both.

8. Theft by bank examiner Sec.655 of U.S.Code

Fined or imp. not more than 5 years or both. If the amount not exceed $1000 he shall be fined or imp. not more than 1 year or both and he shall be disqualified from holding office.

9. Theft or embezzlement from employee benefit fund.

Sec.664 of U.S.Code

Fined or imprisoned not more than 5 years or both.

10. Theft of livestock Sec.667 of U.S.Code

Fined or imprisoned not more than 5 years or both.

ENGLAND 1. Theft is an indictable offence if any person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriate property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it.

Sec.7 of Theft Act 1968

Imprisonment for ten years1.

2. A person commits an offence if, when not at his place of abode, he has with him any article for

Sec.25 of Theft Act, 1968

Imprisonment for 3 years

345

use in the course of, or in the connection with any burglary or theft or cheat.

3. Where a person commits offence of burglary.

Sec. 9 of Theft Act 1968

Imprisonment for 14 years (S.9 (4))

FRANCE 1. Theft is the fraudulent appropriation of a thing belong to another person.

Art.311-1 3 years imprisonment and a fine of €45,000. ( Art.311-3).

2. Where theft is committed by several persons, by a person holding public authority, by a person discharging public service, where it is accompanied by violence, where it is felicitated state of vulnerable persons and where it is proceeded, accompanied by any act of destruction, damage or deterioration.

Art 311-4 1. Punished by 5 years imprisonment and a fine of €75,000(The punishment will be increased upto 10 years and a fine of €150,000 basing on the circumstances of the case.

2(i) If theft committed in two circumstances

Sec.311-4 Punished by 7 years imp. and a fine of €100,000

2lii) Where the theft is commited in 3 of the circumstances mentioned in Art. 311-4

Sec. 311-4 The punishment will be increased upto 10 years and a fine of €150,000.

3. Theft is accompanied or followed by act of violence upon other person, causing a maximum total incapacity to work of 8 days.

Art.311-5 Punished by 7 years imprisonment and a fine of €100,000.

4. If theft is accompanied followed by act of violence upon other person, causing a maximum total incapacity to work more than 8 days.


5. When theft is Art.311-7 Punished by 15years

346

proceeded, accompanied or followed by acts of violence upon other persons causing mutilation or permanent disability

imprisonment and a fine of €150,000.

6. If any weapon is used in committing the offence.


7. Theft is committed by an organized Gang.

Art. 311-9 15 years criminal imprisonment and fine of €150,000.

CANADA 8. Theft is committed by causing death.

1 .Every one commits theft who fraudulently and without colour of right takes, fraudulently and without colour of right converts to his use or the use of another person, anything, whether animate or inanimate to deprive, to pledge it, to part with, to deal with it.

Art.311-10

Sec.322(1)ofC.P.C.

Punishment by criminal imprisonment for life and fine of€150,000.Except where otherwise provided by law every one who commits theft is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years if the stolen property is exceeds cost of $5000 or is guilt of indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or an offence . punishable on summary conviction.(S.334 ofC.PC)

2. Taking motor vehicles or vessel or found therein without consent.

Sec.335(1)ofC.P.C.

Punishable on summary conviction.

3. Fraudulently taking cattle or defacing brand.

Sec.338(1) of C.P.C.

Guilty of indictable offence liable to imp. for a term not exceeding 5 years.

4. Taking possession etc. of drift timber.

Sec.339 of C.P.C.

Imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years

5. Theft, forgery, etc. of credit cards

Sec.342(1)ofC.P.C.

Liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or punishable on summary conviction.

347

7. MISCHIEFCOUNTRY OFFENCE SECTION PUNISHMENT

OF LAW

1. INDIA 1. Punishment for mischief

Sec.426 of IPC

Shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 3 months or with fine or with both.

2. Mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees

Sec.427Of I.P.C.


3. Mischief by killing or maiming animal of the value of ten rupees

Sec.428 of I.P.C.

Shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 2years or with fine or with both.

4. Mischief by killing or maiming cattle, etc., of any value or any animal of the value of fifty rupees

Sec.429 of I.P.C


5. Mischief by injury to works of irrigation or by wrongfully diverting water.

Sec,430ofI.P.C.


6. Mischief by injury to public road, bridge, river or channel.

Sec,431ofI.P.C.

Shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 5 years or with fine or

1 At common Law the punishment for a misdemenour was at large. The term of imprisonment or the amount of fine was at

the discretion of the court. R.VS. Morris 1951) 1 K.B. 394.

348

with both.

7. Mischief by causing inundation or obstruction to public drainage attending with damage.

Sec.432 of I.P.C.


8. Mischief by destroying, moving or rendering less useful a lighthouse or sea-mark.

Sec.433ofI.P.C.

Shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 7years or with fine or with both

9. Mischief by destroying or moving etc., a landmark fixed by public authority.

Sec.434ofI.P.C

Shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 1 year or with fine or with both

10. Mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to cause damage to amount of one hundred (in case of agrl produce) or ten rupees

Sec.435ofI.P.C.


11. Mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to destroy house, etc.

Sec.436ofI.P.C

Punishable with life or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 10 years or with fine or with both.

12. Mischief with intent to destroy or make unsafe a decked vessel or one of twenty tons burden

Sec.437ofI.P.C

Shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to10years or with fine or with both.

13. Punishment for the mischief described in section 437 committed by fire or explosive substance

Sec.438 of I.P.C.


349

14.Punishment for intentionally running vessel around or ashore with intent to commit theft, etc.

Sec.439 of I.P.C

Shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 10years or with fine or with both.

2.U.S.A

15. Mischief committed after preparation made for causing death or hurt.

Sec.440 of I.P.C


1. Mischief caused toGovt, property or contracts


If the cost of the property exceeds $1000,shall be punished with fine or imprisonment not more than 10 years, or both.

2. Who ever willfully or maliciously injures or destroys the things relating Communication lines, station or systems



3. Mischief regarding buildings or property within special maritime and territorial jurisdiction.



4. Interference with foreign commerce by violence.



5. Tampering with Consumer products.


a) In case of attempt. Shall be fined or imprisoned not more than 10 years or both.

b) If death of an individual results.

Shall be fined or imprisoned for life or both.

c) If serious bodily injured Shall be fined or

350

caused. imprisoned for more than 20 years or both.

d) In any other case. Shall be fined or

3.ENGLAND

All the offences of the This is the

imprisoned for more than 10 years or both.

public nature , that is, common law Fine and imprisonment.such acts or attempts as tend to the prejudice of the community1

offence.

constitute indictable misdemeanor of public

4.FRANCE mischief at common law.

1 .Any person commits an Art.322-1 Two yearsact with an intention to imprisonment and adestroy, defects, or damage any property belongs to others

fine of €30,000

2.Where the property is Art.322-2 Three yearsintended to public use ,or imprisonment and aoriginal document of public authority, or a classified building or an article of historical value

fine of €45,000

5.CANADA1 .Every one commits Sec.430(1)mischief who willfully destroys or damages property; renders property useless or dangerous etc., a) If causes danger to

ofC.P.C

Imprisonment to life.life.b)in relation to property imprisoned for not

more than 10 years or both.

2.Mischief relating to Sec.430(4) imprisoned for notreligious property. ofC.P.C more than 10 years or

both, or under ofsummary convictionImp. not exceeding 18 months.

3. Mischief relating to Sec.430(4- imprisoned for notcultural property. 2) ofC.P.C more than 10 years or

both, or under of summary conviction .

351

8. CONSPIRACYCOUNTRY OFFENCE SECTION PUNISHMENT

OF LAW

1.INDIA 1. Punishment Of Criminal Conspiracy

Sec.12Q-B(i) of I.P.C

Where no express provision is made in this code for the punishment of such a conspiracy be punished in the same manner as he abetted such offence.

Sec.120-B(ii) of I.P.C.,

Shall be punished imprisonment for a term which may not extending to 6 months or with fine or with both.

2.U.S.A1. Conspiracy toCommit Offences Or To Defraud The United States.


Shall be fined or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

2. Conspiracy to impede or injure officer

Sec.372 of U.S Code

Shall be fined or imprisoned not more than 6 years or both

3. Solicitation to commit a crime of violence.

Sec.373 of U.S.Code

Shall be imprisoned not more than one-half the maximum term of imprisonment or fined not more one- half of the maximum fine prescribed for the punishment of the crime solicited, or both; or if the crime solicited is punishable by life imprisonment or death, shall be imprisoned not more than 20 years.

3.ENGLAND 1. Conspiracy is an indictable offence at common law.

It is common law offence.

Fine and Imprisonment1.

2. Conspiracy to murder

Sec.4 of theOffencesagainst

Imprisonment upto 10 years.

352

Person Act 1861.

3. Any person maliciously to send, deliver, utter, or directly or indirectly cause to be received, knowing the contents thereof, any letter or writing threatening to kill or murder any person.

Section 16 of the offences against the Person Act 1861.

Imprisonment for life.

4.FRANCE 1.A criminal association consists of any group or any conspiracy established with a view to commit any offence.

Art.450-1 Punished with atleast 5 years imprisonment.

2. Where the offences contemplated are felonies or misdemeanors

Art.450-1 Punished by 10 years imp.

3. The participation in criminal association.

Art.450-1 5 years imp. and a fine of €75,000.

5.CANADA Every one who conspire with another to cause murder or to cause to murder another person

Sec.465(1) Liable to a maximum period of Imp. .for life.

a) Every one who conspire with another to prosecute another for alleged offence, knowing that he did not commit that offence

Imprisonment not exceeding ten years or not less than 5 years as the case may be

9.EXT0RTI0N

353

COUNTRY OFFENCE SECTION OF LAW PUNISHMENT

1.INDIA 1.Punishment for extortion

Sec.384 of I.P.C. 1 Shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 3 years or with fine or with both.

2. Putting person in fear of injury in order to commit extortion

Sec.385 of I.P.C. shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to2years or with fine or with both.

3. Extortion by putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt

Sec.386 of I.P.C. Shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to10 years or with fine or with both.

4. Putting person in fear of death or of grievous hurt, in order to commit extortion.

Sec.387of I.P.C Shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to7years or with fine or with both.

5. Extortion by threat of accusation of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, etc.

Sec.388 of I.P.C. Shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 10 years and shall also liable to fine; and, if the offence be one punishable u/s 377 of I.P.C. may be punished with imp. for life.

2.U.S.A

6. Putting person in fear of accusation of offence, in order to commit extortion

Sec.389 of I.P.C Shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 10 years and shall also liable to fine; and, if the offence be one punishable u/s 377 of I.P.C. may be punished with imp. for life

354

1 .Threats against the President and successors of to the Presidency.

Sec. 871 of U.S.C Shall be fined under this title or imprisonment not more than 5 years, or both.

2. Extortion by officers or employees of the UnitedStates

Sec.872Of U.S.C.

Shall be fined under this title or imprisonment not more than 5 years, or both.If extorted amount does not exceed $1000 he shall be fined under this title or imp. not more than one year or both.

3. Blackmail Sec.873 of U.S.C. Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than.....

4. Kick backs from public works employees.

Sec.874Of U.S.C.

Shall be fined under this title or imp. not more than5 years, or both.

5. Interstate communications a) whoever transmits in interstate or foreigncommerce any communication containing any demand request for ransom or reward for the release of any kidnapped person.

Sec.875 of U.S.C Shall be fined under this title or Imp. not more than 20 years or both.

b) Who ever intend to extort from any person, firm association or corporation any money or other thing.

Shall be fined under this tile or Imp. not more than20 years or both.

355

6. Mailingthreateningcommunication

Sec.876 U.S.C. Shall be fined or imprisoned not more than 20 years or both.

i) Whoever with intent to extort any person any money or other thing


ii) Whoever threat to kidnap any person

Fine or 5 year imp. or both.

iii) Anycommunication with or without nameaddressed to any other person containing threat or injury to the property.

Fined or imp. not more than 10 years or both.

7. Mailing threatening communication from foreign country

Sec.877 of U.S.C. Shall be fined or imp. not more than 20 years.

i) containing any threat to kidnap.ii) any threat to injure the person of address.iii) continuing any threat to injure the property or reputation

Shall be fined or imp. not more than 20 years.

Fine or imp. not more than5 years or both.

Fine or imp. not more than2 years or both.

8. Threats under extortion Against foreign official guests or

Sec.878 of U.S.C. Fine or imprisonment not more than 5 years or both.

356

internationallyprotectedpersons.

8(i) Along with violation of 112,1116,1201 makeextortionatedemand.

Fine or imprisonment not more than 20 years or both.

(ii) Threat and extortion against a personprotected by the Secret service U/S 3056A

Fine or imprisonment not more than 5 years or both.

9. Receiving the proceedings of extortion

Sec.880 of U.S.C. Fine or imprisonment not more than 3 years or both.

3.ENGLAND 1 .A person guilty of blackmail

Sec.21 of Theft Act.1968.(f. Replacing ss.29 to31 of the Larceny Act 1916.)

Imprisonment up to 14 years.

4.FRANCE 1. Extortion is the Act of obtaining by violence, by a threat of violence or constraint a signature, a commitment or a renunciation, or the revelation of a secret or the handing over of the funds,securities or of any asset.

Art.312-1 7 years Imp. and a fine of €1,00,000.

2. If it is committed accompanied or

Art.312-2 10 years Imp. and a fine of €150,000.

357

followed by acts of violence or against the persons particularly vulnerable.

3. It iscommitted by causing total incapacity to work in excess of 8 days.

Art.312-3 15years Imp. and a fine of €150,000.

4. If it is committed following a mutation or permanent disability.

Art 312-4 20 years Imp. and a fine of €1,50,000.

5. When it is committed by using weapon

Art.312-5 30 years Imp. and a fine of €150,000

6. When it is committed by the organized gang.

Art. 312-6 20 years Imp. and a fine of €150,000.

7. When it is committed causing death.

Art. 312-7 Imp. for life, and a fine of €150,000.

5. CANADA 1. Every one who commits extortion is guilty of indictable offence.(a) If fire arm is used.


Imprisonment for life and to a minimum imprisonment for a term 5 years in case of 1st offence and 7 years in case of 2nd and subsequent offences.

(b) In any other case.

Imprisonment for life and a minimum of 4 years.

358

- 10. STOLEN PROPERTYCOUNTRY OFFENCE SECTION

OF LAW

PUNISHMENT

1.INDIA 1. Dishonestly receiving stolen property

Sec.411ofIPC


2. Dishonestly receiving property stolen in the commission of a dacoity

Sec.412 of IPC

Shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years, and shall also liable to fine.

3.Habitually dealing in stolen property

Sec,413 of I.P.C.

Shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to10 years, and shall also liable to fine.

4.Assisting in concealment of stolen property

Sec.414 of I.P.C

Shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 3 years, or with fine or with both.

2.U.S.A 1. Transportation of stolen vehicles.

Sec. 2312 of U.S.C.


2. Sale or receipt of stolen vehicles.


Shall be fined or imprisoned not more than10 years or both.

3. Transportation of stolen goods, securities,monies, bv produlent State Tax stamps, or articles used in counterfeit.

Sec.2314ofU.S.Code


359

4. Sale or receipt of stolen goods, securities, monies or fraudulent State Tax stamps,



5. Transportation of Livestock

Sec.2316Of U.S.Code

Shall be fined or imprisonment not more than 5 years or both.

6. Traffiking in counterfeit labels, illicit labels, or counterfeit documentation or packaging.

Sec. 2318 of U.S.Code.


7. Criminal infringement of a Copy Right.

i) In case of 2nd or subsequent offence

Sec.2319OfU.C.Code.

Any person who commits a offence U/S 506(a)(1)A,506 (a)(1)B and Sec.5- 6(a)(1) C of title 17 shall be punished form 1 year to not more than 10 years and fine basing on the nature of the offence.

8. Unauthorised fixation of and trafficking in sound recordings and music videos of live musical performances.

Sec.2319 A of U.S.Code

Shall be imprisoned not more than 5 years or fined the amount set forth.

9. Unauthorized recording of motion pictures in a motion picture exhibition facility.

Sec.2319-B of U.S.Code.

Shall be imprisoned not more than 3 years or fined ithe amount set forth.

a) In case of 2nd offence.

Shall be imprisoned not more than 6 years or fined in the amount set forth.

10. Trafficking in counterfeit goods or services.

Sec.2320 of .U.S.C.

Shall be fined not more than $5,000,000 or imprisonment not more than 20 years or both and if other than an individual,

360

11. Trafficking in certain motor vehicles or motor vehicle parts

Sec.2321 of U.S.C.


3.ENGLAND 12. Chop Shops Sec.2322Of U.S.C

Shall be punished by a fine or imprisonment for not more than 15 years.

lit is an offence punishable on indictment to handle stolen goods.

Sec. 22 (2) of the Theft Act 1968.

Imprisonment up to 14 years

4. FRANCE

2.Where any public advertisement of reward for any return of stolen goods if any person who prints or publish the advertisement unofficially is an offence.

Sec. 23 of the TheftAct, 1968

Punishable under summary conviction upto fine of £100.

1.Receiving a thing knowing that which is obtained from the product of felony or misdemeanour

Art. 321-1 Punished by a 5 years imprisonment and a fine of €375,000.

5.CANADA 2.Where it is committed habitually or it is committed by organized gang

Art. 321-2 Punished by a 10 years imprisonment and a fine of €750,000.

1. Every one commits an offence who has in possession of any property obtained from the commission of offence punishable by indictments

Sec.354(1) ofC.P.C

Imp. for a term not exceeding 10 years where the subject matter exceeds $5000 imprisonment not exceeding 2 years.

361

2.Every one who Sec.357 of Liable to imprisonment forbrings into Canada would have been obtained from theft or some other offence

C.P.C a term not exceeding 10 years.

TableNo: 18,Showing the difference in punishments of the offences in

India, England, America, France and Canada.

4,8. Penal Reform International

Penal Reform International1 was founded in London in 1989, and has

members in five continents and in over 80 countries. PRI is an international non

governmental organization working on penal and criminal justice reform world

wide. The organization’s reform work is based on the development and

implementation of international human rights instruments in relation to law

enforcement and prison conditions; the elimination of unfair and unethical

discrimination in all peal measures, the abolition of the death penalty; the

reduction of the use of imprisonment throughout the world; the use of

constructive non-custodial sanctioned which support the social reintegration of

offenders whilst taking into account the interests of victims.

PRI works with other NGOs and with governments in regional programmes

in sub-Sharan Africa, the Middle East, Central and Eastern Europe and Central

Asia,. South Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean. While the organization

shares best practices and expertise across regions, PRI works to develop and

promote culturally specific solutions to criminal justice and penal reform.

1 Commonly known as PRI.

Documents

Shodhganga : a reservoir of Indian theses @ INFLIBNETshodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/63023/11/11.../ 0 1 $ # ' ! 2 " $ # / " % 3456 3455 3443 " # $ 344 +