Offence

against
peace
Presented by: Utprerana,
Aakriti and Richa
 INTRODUCTION
“...the planning, preparation, initiation or
waging of a war of aggression, or a war in
violation of international treaties,
agreements or assurances, or
participation in a Common Plan or
Conspiracy for the accomplishment of any
of the foregoing.“

-Nuremberg Charter
 INTRODUCTION TO OFFENCE AGAINST PEACE

● Offences against peace cause disturbances in the peace of the society.

● Usually performed by a group of people sharing common interest.

● The category “Crimes Against Peace” was first employed in legal proceedings at
the Nuremberg and Tokyo Tribunals (1945 and 1946, respectively)

● The crimes below were defined and set punishable under the classified
international crimes:

a) Crimes against peace

b) War crimes

c) Crimes against humanity

EMERGENCE OF
OFFENCE AGAINST
PEACE
 EMERGENCE OF OFFENCE AGAINST PEACE

● The principle VI under the principles of Nuremberg mentions crime against

peace as a crime punishable under the international law.:

(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in

violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;

(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any

of the acts mentioned under (i).
 EMERGENCE OF OFFENCE AGAINST PEACE

● The article 6 of the charter of the international military tribunal mentions crimes
against peace as the crimes coming within the jurisdiction of the tribunal of which
there will be individual responsibility.

● Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter sets out the UN Security Council's
powers to maintain peace.

● Examples include Italian attack against Ethiopia in 1935, Japanese attack against
China in 1937, two secretly negotiated treaties between Stalin and Hitler on the
partition of Poland and annexation of Baltic States, Soviet attack against Finland in
1939, German conquests in Europe during World War II, the invasion of South
Korea by North Korea in 1950, and the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq in 1990.

●
 “
“Offences against the peace and security of mankind
are crimes under international law, for which
responsible individuals shall be punished”

—Article 1 of the Draft Code of Offences against the

Peace and Security of Mankind (1954)
● War of aggression.
● In case of Nepal, offence against peace consists of the provisions on the
prohibition of unlawful assembly, rioting, obstructing public services or
movements in public place, violating curfew and many more.
 National laws regarding offence against peace:
Muluki Criminal Code 2074, Chapter 2

According to Section 60: No person shall be engaged in an unlawful assembly.

Any person with the knowledge joins unlawful assembly shall be liable to a
sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months and fine not
exceeding five thousand rupees where he/she has joined it with arms.

Any person who himself or herself doesn’t join assembly but hires, induces or
overawes others to join such assembly shall be liable to sentence of
imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months and fine not exceeding ten
thousand rupees.
 Muluki Criminal Code 2074, Chapter 2

Section 61 states whenever a competent authority renders an order to prevent or

disperse an unlawful assembly, no one shall participate in such assembly. A person not
obeying such order of competent authority shall be held liable with imprisonment for a
term not exceeding one year or a fine not exceeding Rs 10000 or both.

Section 63 Prohibition of rioting: No person shall commit or cause to be committed, the

offence of rioting. Every person who commits the offense referred to in sub section (1)
shall be liable to a sentence of imprisonment not exceeding two years and fine not
exceeding twenty thousand rupees if he/she is armed with deadly weapons to a
sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year and fine not exceeding ten
thousand rupees if he/she is not armed with a deadly weapon.
 Muluki Criminal Code 2074, Chapter 2

Section 65: Prohibition of acts prejudicial to public tranquility. No person, by words

either, either spoken or written or by signs or otherwise shall do any act which, on the
ground of religion, color, caste, race community or language, is prejudicial to
harmonious relationship between peoples of different classes, regions or communities
of Nepal. A person commits or cause to be committed, the offence referred to sub
section(1) shall be liable to a sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding one
year and fine not exceeding ten thousand rupees.

A person who commits the offence referred to sub section (1) in any shrine, deity place,
place of worship or in any assembly engaged in the performance of a religious or
cultural festival or ceremony shall be liable to an additional sentence of imprisonment
for a term not exceeding one year in addition to the sentence referred to sub section
(2).
 Muluki Criminal Code 2074, Chapter 2

Section 67 mentions that no person by show of any kind of fear or terror, shall close the operation of a
public road , way, rope- way, cable- car, airport, railway, water transportation route and other public
service, or obstruct, in a way the movement of pedestrians, motor vehicles or animal by obstructing, in
any way, a public road, rope-way, cable car way, airport or water transportation route or impede or
obstruct, in any way, any person in entering into any public place except in accordance with the other
of a competent authority under a law.

If any person commits or cause to committed such offense shall be liable to a sentence of
imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or fine not exceeding thirty thousand rupees or
both the sentences.

Section 68: Prohibition of obstructing public services: No person shall, by show any kind of fear or
threat, close or obstruct in any way, the operation of public electricity, telecommunication or other
public services of similar nature or public services specified in law. If any person who commits, or
cause to be committed such offence shall be liable to a sentence of imprisonment for a term not
exceeding three years or a fine not exceeding thirty thousand rupees.
 Muluki Criminal Code 2074, Chapter 2

Section 70 mentions that no person shall, with the intent to breach public tranquility, committing
rioting or undermine or jeopardize the sovereignty, geographic or territorial integrity of Nepal or
harmonious relation between different races, castes or communities, spread or propagate rumors or
hold a procession with slogans, in a manner to provoke any one.

Any person who commits or causes to be committed such offence shall be liable to a sentence of
imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year or fine not exceeding ten thousand rupees or both
the sentences.

Section 72: Prohibition of holding torch procession in sensitive public areas: (1) No person shall with
intent to breach peace, hold any torch procession or assembly or procession carrying a fire or
inflammable substance in any place specified as the sensitive public area by order of the competent
authority in view of the sovereignty, geographical or territorial integrity, security of Nepal or public
tranquility or decency. A person who commits such offense shall be liable to a sentence of
imprisonment not exceeding six months or fine not exceeding five thousand rupees or both the
sentences.
 Muluki Criminal Code 2074, Chapter 2

Section 73: Prohibition of destroying or damaging essential commodities. No person shall commit
himself or herself or cause it to be disordered by another person to destroy, damage or set fire the
commodity which is regarded as essential commodity under law or public, private property.

A person who commits such offense shall be liable to sentence of imprisonment not exceeding six
months or fine not exceeding five thousand rupees or both.
 Muskan Paudel and GON v. Raghunath Agrawal NKP 2066, VOL. 8 Decision no. 8212

Decided on 2066/4/15

Muskan Poudel is beaten up by Surendra Agrawal, Raghunath Agrawal and some other people led by
them in front of the office of ward no. 34 in kathmandu. The witnesses also testify that Raghunath
Agrawal and Surendra Agrawal hindered public peace and tranquility. The plaintiff demands action
based on section 2(b) of Some public offences and punishment act, 2027 and demands a
compensation of 63,500.Defendant’s say is that the defendant was not even there at the scene of
offence and denies the accusations. The district administration office, on the basis of the witnesses
and the wounds in the plaintiff’s body declares that the defendant was guilty and a compensation of
5000 is provided to the plaintiff. The case is appealed to patan district court which says that there is
lack of evidence and on fair note, the defendant is not subjected to pay the amount of compensation.
03.

INTERNATIONAL
LAWS
 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

● Breach-of-the-peace laws typically cover conduct that is disorderly and disturbs the public
peace and quiet of a community.
● Most states have breach-of-the-peace laws that criminalize certain speech and conduct,
including use of obscene or abusive language in a public place, engaging in noisy behaviors
(such as firing guns or playing loud music in the late night or early morning), obstructing
vehicular or pedestrian traffic, fighting in a public place, resisting lawful arrest, and disrupting a
lawful assembly or meeting. Some laws extend to vagrancy, loitering, and public intoxication.
● For example:
1) In Nebraska, a person intentionally disturbing the peace and quiet of the community is guilty
of a Class III misdemeanor.
2) In Wyoming, a person breaches the peace if he or she plays unreasonably loud music, uses
threatening language or violent actions, with the reasonable knowledge that such actions will
disturb the peace.
3) Under the Vermont Statutes, a person breaches peace if they make excessive noise between
sunset and sunrise, assault another person, use telephonic communication to harass another
people, etc.
 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (CASE LAWS)

● Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942): While distributing Jehovah’s Witness literature in

Rochester, New Hampshire, Walter Chaplinsky attracted a crowd. He was confronted by a city
marshal who warned him that his activities were disturbing some citizens. In response,
Chaplinsky called the city marshal a “God damned racketeer” and a “damned Fascist.”
● He was subsequently charged and convicted under a city ordinance that prohibited use of
offensive language toward persons in public places.
● Courts have however, where necessary, differently interpreted, breach of peace laws. During
the 1960s, civil rights activists were frequently arrested under breach of the peace statutes that
came under review in cases appealed to the Supreme Court. In Garner v. Louisiana (1961),
African American protestors were arrested and charged with disturbing the peace for sitting
quietly at a “white only” lunch counter. The Court overturned their convictions, holding that
the city lacked sufficient evidence to support a breach of the peace charge.
 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (CASE LAWS)

● Similarly, in Brown v. Louisiana (1966), five African-Americans who sat in a public library,
peacefully protesting segregation, were convicted of intent to breach the peace. The Court
invalidated the convictions, stating that no “intent” to breach the peace had been substantiated
and that peaceful assembly was protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
 INDIA

● Chapter 8 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) deals with public offences. These offences could be
categorized into:
a) Unlawful assembly;
b) Rioting;
c) Affray (an instance of group fighting in a public place that disturbs the peace)
● Furthermore, Chapter X of the Criminal Procedure Code 1973 gives legal guidelines for the
maintenance of public peace and order and also delineates duties, responsibilities, functions,
and power of the Executive and the Police in this matter.
● In Mohan Singh v State of Punjab (AIR 1963 SC) it was held that an assembly will be deemed
lawful only when it has five or more than five people that share the same intention and the
requirements of Section 141 are satisfied.
 INDIA

Their objective for assembly however, must not be to (a) overawe by; (b) criminal force (Section 350 of
IPC); (c) Government/Parliament/State body/Public servant any act which;

1. Prevent execution of any legal process or law

2. Cause mischief (Section 425 of IPC) or criminal trespass (Section 441 of the Indian Penal
Code).
3. By the means of using (a) criminal force; (b) obtain property or deprive enjoyment of such
property which the person is lawfully entitled to.
4. By forcing one to do/omit to any act which he is not legally bound to.

In Ananta Kathod Pawar v. The State of Maharashtra, (1997) 11 SCC 564, it was held by the Court
that if for any lawful reason a number of persons assembled unexpectedly quarrelled without any
prior intention or arrangement, they would not be liable for riot. In such a case, the guilty would be
liable for their particular actions and would not be vicariously responsible.
THANK YOU!