30. Section 375 - No appeal in certain cases when accused pleads guilty.

Where an accused
person has pleaded guilty and has been convicted on such plea, there shall be no appeal.

And Section 376

31. Section 107 - Abetment of a thing. —A person abets the doing of a thing, who— First. —
Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly. —Engages with one or more other person or
persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in
pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly. —Intentionally
aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

32. Section 109 If the offence abetted is committed?

Punishment of abetment if the act abetted is committed in consequence and where no express
provision is made for its punishment. —Whoever abets any offence shall, if the act abetted is
committed in consequence of the abetment, and no express provision is made by this Code for
the punishment of such abetment, be punished with the punishment provided for the offence.

If Some other offence is committed?

Section 111 - Liability of abettor when one act abetted and different act done. —When an Act is
abetted and a different act is done, the abettor is liable for the act done, in the same manner and
to the same extent as if he had directly abetted it: Provided the act done was a probable
consequence of the abetment, and was committed under the influence of the instigation, or with
the aid or in pursuance of the conspiracy which constituted the abetment.

33. Criminal Conspiracy - When two person agrees to do an act or cause to be done a illegal act.
Punishment defined under 120B (1).

On the other hand, Abetment of conspiracy one person abets the offence (instigate, engages or
intentionally aid). Punishment defined under 120B (2).

34. Natural Justice

35. Audi Alteram Partem and Nemo Judex in Causa Sua

36. Deceiving

37. Gina case - Section 420, Indian Penal Code, one of the counts on which the Petitioner has
been convicted, no doubt, is a compoundable offence with permission of the Court in view of
Section 320, Code of Criminal Procedure. but Section 120B Indian Penal Code, the other count
on which the Petitioner has been convicted, is a non-compoundable offence. Section 120B
(Criminal conspiracy) is a separate offence and since it is a non-compoundable offence, we
cannot permit it to be compounded.

38. Cannot be quashed under Section 482 - The law stated in B.S. Joshi simply indicated the
powers of the High Court to quash any criminal proceeding or first information report or
complaint whether the offences were compoundable or not. Altamas Kabir, J. further observed,
"The ultimate exercise of discretion Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure or under
Article 226 of the Constitution is with the court which has to exercise such jurisdiction in the
facts of each case.

39. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc.
cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have
settled the dispute.

40. It has been explained that the said power is in no way limited by the provisions of Section
320 Code of Criminal Procedure. We are unable to disagree with such statement of law. In any
event, in this case, we are only required to consider whether the High Court had exercised its
jurisdiction Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure legally and correctly." Then in
paragraphs 8 and 9 (pg. 5) of the Report, Altamas Kabir, J., inter alia, held as under:

Once the complainant decided not to p pursue the matter further, the High Court could have
taken a more pragmatic view of the matter. We do not suggest that while exercising its powers
under Article 226 of the Constitution the High Court could not have refused to quash the first
information report, but what we do say is that the matter could have been considered by the High
Court with greater pragmatism in the facts of the case.

In the facts of this case, we are of the view that continuing with the criminal proceedings would
be an exercise in futility.
41. What is the difference between section 34 and 149 of IPC? Cite 3 difference.

Under the IPC, both Section 34 and Section 149 impose vicarious liability on each individual for
acts which are not necessarily done by them. There is, however, a distinction in the scope and
nature of operation of both offences.

• The charge under Section 149 is replaced by Section 34 of the IPC, particularly if some of the
accused are acquitted and the number of the accused drops below 5. In this case, the tribunal
would have to scrutinise the proof closely to see if there is some aspect of common intention for
which it can be held responsible under Section 34.

• Section 34 does not constitute a particular offence but sets out only the principle of joint
criminal culpability. Whereas Section 149 generates a particular offence and being a member of
an unlawful assembly is itself a criminal offence punishable under Section 143.

• ‘Common intent’ used in S.34 has not been defined anywhere in the IPC, whereas’ common
object’ must be one of the five ingredients defined in Section 141 of the IPC.

• Common intention needs a preliminary meeting of mind and unity of purpose, and open action
has been taken to promote the common intention of all. If the common object of the members of
the unlawful assembly is one but the participants’ intention is different, a common object can be
formed without a prior meeting of mind. It only needs a criminal act to promote a common
purpose.

• For invoking S.34, it is adequate that two or more individuals were involved. However, to
impose section149 there must be at least 5 people.

• ‘Participation’ is a key factor for S.34, whereas active involvement in S.149 of the IPC is not
required.

• Section 34 requires common intention of any kind. One of the items listed in Section 141 must
be a common object under Section 149.
• Section 34 requires some active involvement, particularly in the case of a crime involving
physical abuse. Section 149 does not involve active involvement and the responsibility comes
from the mere membership of the unlawful assembly with a common objective.

42. How can you prove common intention as required under section 34 of IPC?

Common Intention is known as a prearranged plan and acting in concert pursuant to the plan. It
must be proved that the Criminal act was done in concert pursuant to the pre-arranged plan. It
comes into being prior to the Commission of the act in point of time, yet it need not be a long
gap. The gap need not be long sometimes common intention can be developed on the spot. The
fundamental factor is a pre-arranged plan to execute the plan for the desired result. Each of such
person will be liable in an act done in furtherance of common intention as if the act was done by
one person. To constitute common intention, it is necessary that the intention of each one of them
be known to the rest of them and shared by them.

Therefore, proof of common intention has to be culled out from the facts and circumstances of
the case (Ram Kumar v. State of MP (2014) 13 SCC 128). In the case of Sachin Jana and
Another v. State of West Bengal the Supreme Court held that since there rarely is substantial
proof of common intention and hence, such intention can only be inferred by the facts and
circumstances of the case. Further, the Court also mentioned that Section 34 is a rule of evidence
and does not create a substantive offence.

43. What is the difference between common intention and similar intention?

In Mahboob Shah v. Emperor, it was held that common intention implies a pre-arranged plan and
it should be proved that the criminal act was done in concert pursuant to the pre-arranged plan.

Though common intention implies a pre-arranged plan, it can also be formed in the course of
occurrence of the act. In Hari Om v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court highlighted the
same. In this case, the Court mentioned that even when relatives came to save the victim, the
accused started wielding knives and caused injuries and this was because the intention of the
group was sudden and formed in the course of occurrence.
Whereas, similar intention does not need a prior meeting of minds, that even though the act takes
place with a similar intention to cause harm, it is not pre-planned by the group members. There is
“no prior meeting of minds” before the act committed. The persons who actually participated in
committing the criminal act having similar intention are punished according to the nature of their
acts. The persons who facilitated in committing the crime are punished as abettors.

44. What is the difference between common intention and common object?

[same as Ans. 41]

45. What is unlawful assembly as per IPC?

Dispersal of Unlawful Assembly - An Overview - iPleaders

46. Cite the essentials of offence of theft.

Section 378 of the IPC defines theft as, “Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any movable
property out of the possession of any person without that person’s consent, moves that property
to such taking, is said to commit theft”.

Theft has the following defining ingredients which must be proved in a given case, namely:

• Dishonest intention to take the property;

• The property must be moveable;

• It should be taken out of the possession of another person;

• It should be taken without the consent of that person;

• There must be some moving of the property to accomplish it’s taking.

In the K.N Mehra case, it was held that it is not important that the offender takes the property
permanently, even temporary taking of the property may be defined as theft under the section.

47. Define dishonesty as per IPC.

In order an act to be a dishonest act following ingredients are necessary—

(i) Some act has been done;

(ii) This has been done with intention to cause wrongful gain or wrongful loss.

So far as the Penal Code is concerned, the word “dishonestly” does not carry the popular sense of
the term. When a person acts with the intention of causing “wrongful gain”, i.e., gain by
unlawful means, of property to which the person gaining is not entitled, or when a person acts
with the intention of causing “wrongful loss”, i.e., loss by unlawful means, of property to which
the person losing is legally entitled, he acts dishonestly.

In order to ascertain the existence or otherwise of dishonest intention as defined in Section 24 of

I.P.C., it is not necessary that there must be wrongful gain to the thief, it is sufficient if the
removal of movable property causes wrongful loss to the owner.

48. What is the difference between theft and extortion?

• In theft, the offender takes the moveable property without the owner’s consent. In extortion,
such consent is wrongfully obtained, by putting that person or any other person in the fear of
injury.

• In case of theft, the question of overpowering of will does not even arise because the property
is taken out of the possession of the owner deceitfully however there is overpowering of will
in case of extortion.

• Theft can only be committed with regards to moveable property, whereas extortion can also
be committed in case of Immovable property.

• In theft, there is no delivery of property as such, whereas delivery of property exists in case of
extortion. 

49. What is the difference between theft, extortion, robbery and dacoity?

• In case of theft, movable property is taken away without owner’s consent; in case of
extortion, consent of the person is obtained wrongfully by coercion; in case of robbery, the
 offender takes property without consent, robbery being the aggravated form of theft or
extortion and in the case of dacoity also, there is no consent or it is obtained wrongfully.

• Theft may occur only of movable property whereas, extortion may occur of movable or
immovable property, and in the case of both robbery and dacoity, it may be committed with
respect to immovable property, where it is in the form of extortion and not otherwise. There is
no element of force or compulsion, in case of theft; force or compulsion exist in extortion, the
person being put in fear of injury to himself or to any other persons.

• There is no delivery of property by the victim, in theft; whereas there is delivery in extortion;
in case of robbery and dacoity, there is no delivery if theft occurs during the course of robbery
or dacoity.

• Punishment for theft is imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to
three years, or with fine or with both (Section 379). Punishment for extortion is imprisonment
of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both
(Section 384). Punishment for robbery is rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend
to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if the robbery be committed on the highway
between sunset and sunrise it may be extended to fourteen years (Section 392). Punishment
for dacoity imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend
to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine (Section 395).

50. Essentials of Criminal Misappropriation.

As per section 403 of IPC, essential ingredients of criminal misappropriation are;

A. property must be of another

B. finding of property

C. converts to own use

D. servant or clerk taking his Master’s property

E. dishonest intention.
51. Difference between theft and criminal misappropriation.

• In the case of theft, the intention behind this act is dishonest or malafide with irrational
motive and the person constituting theft is cognizant about the process that he is doing
wrong. Whereas, in the case of criminal misappropriation initially there may be the case
that there is no dishonest intention in the finder of goods for misappropriating the goods
but the offence is committed when after due time the property is detained with the
wrong person illegally without the knowledge of the actual owner of the property. Later
after some time, there might be the wrong intention to commit misappropriation of the
property for his personal use.

• The second difference between the two is that in theft the consent of the true owner is
not known to the party on the other hand in case of misappropriation initially the true
owner gave consent to the person for using the property and later maliciously the person
used it for his own purpose. In theft, the consent is nowhere involved.

• Timing of the offence- In theft, the moment when someone took the property of the
owner dishonestly he committed the offence of theft. Rather in case of misappropriation,
the offence is committed when the person unduly denies giving the property to the true
owner he committed the offence of misappropriation without the consent of the true
owner in his own favour. Then the act of misappropriation is committed.

52. What are the essentials of offence of mischief?

https://bnblegal.com/article/offence-of-mischief-under-indian-law/

53. Cite the maxim on which the offence of mischief is based upon.

Section 425 of IPC is based on “sic utre tuo ut allenum non leadas” which means “use your own
property, so as not to injure your neighbours’ property”.

1. What is probation?

Answer- it  is a period of supervision over an offender, ordered by the court instead
of serving time in prison.the object is to prevent the turning of youthful offenders into
 criminal by their association with hardened criminals of mature age within the walls
of the prison.

2. What are the categories of offences for which provision related to probation can
be applied?

Answer –

1. Offence under IPC (S.45) punishable with not more than two years of
imprisonment

2. Offences punishable with fine only.

3. Which category of people are entitled to probation?

Answer –

1. Women

2. Person below 21 years of age

3. Male of 21 years of age or above who is not guilty of an offence with more than 7
years of imprisonment.

4. Person who has not been previously convicted.

4. Who may withdraw from prosecution?

Answer – the public prosecutor or the assistant public prosecutor, basically whoever
is in charge of the case and is actually conducting the prosecution can alone fie the
application for withdrawal. Though the prosecutor will not have any say if the
complaint is a private complaint.

5. What are the grounds on the basis of which a public prosecutor can withdraw
from prosecution?

Answer –
 1. It should be in the interest of administration of justice.

2. He is not able to produce sufficient evidence to sustain the charge.

3. There is an information before the prosecuting agency which would falsify the
prosecution evidence.

4. In order to further broaden the ends of public justice, public order and peace.

6. When the public prosecutors’ files an application for withdrawal from

prosecution, what are the responsibilities/ duty of the court?

Answer –

1. To apprise itself of the reasons which prompt the public prosecutor to withdraw
from prosecution. To see whether the prosecution has applied in mind while
filing for withdrawal of the case.

2. Duty to protect the administration of criminal justice against possible abuse or

misuse by judicially considering all factors before giving consent or before
rejecting for that matter.

3. The consent must be based on facts and circumstances of case.

60. Who are the stakeholders in restorative justice system?

• The victims

• The offenders

• The community members.

61. https://blog.forumias.com/answereddifferentiate-between-retributive-justice-and-restorative-
justice-discuss-why-restorative-justice-is-as-important-as-retributive-justice/
62. defines "victim" as:

"victim" means a person who has suffered any loss or injury caused by reason of the
act or omission for which the accused person has been charged and the expression
"victim" includes his or her guardian or legal heir.""persons who, individually or
collectively, have suffered harm, including physical or mental injury, emotional
suffering, economic loss or substantial impairment of their fundamental rights,
through acts or omissions that are in violation of criminal laws.

63. "The word "heir" has been interpreted by the Supreme Court in several cases which
means all persons who are entitled to the property of another under the law of inheritance.
preceded by the word "legal", it must be construed in the legal sense as that is the clear
intention of the Legislature. The expression "legal heir" in relation to a victim, therefore,
clearly refers to a person who is entitled to the property of the victim under the applicable
law of inheritance.
65. Needs of offenders in RJ
66. Needs of community by RJ

67. Basic Principles and Core Values of RJ

68. Section 358 addresses an unconventional interpretation of who is a ‘victim’ and what would
constitute ‘compensation’ for that purpose. In the context of strictly defining a victim, the
Supreme Court has observed that - “The term 'Victimization' is defined neither by the Central
Act nor by the Bombay Act. Therefore, the term 'Victimization' has to be given general
dictionary meaning. In Section 358 provides for compensation to anyone who would be a victim
of an arrest that is without reason. It states that in such a case, the Magistrate may award
compensation to the extent of ₹1,000/- to the person who is a victim of such an arrest. However,
according to this section, it is necessary for a direct connection to exist between the arrest and the
complainant. In order to attract this provision, the arrest must have been caused by the informant
without any sufficient grounds.

Similarly, Section 359 deals with instances where a complaint for a non-cognizable offence is
made to a court, and the accused is convicted by the court. It provides that a Court of Session, an
Appellate Court, or the High Court while exercising their revisional jurisdiction can order
payment of costs in such situations. In addition to the penalty imposed, the court may also order
the accused to pay to the complainant, either in whole or in part, the cost which is incurred by the
complainant in the prosecution. Further, the court is also empowered to sentence the accused to
a simple imprisonment for a period not more than thirty days in the event he fails to make the
payment.

The CrPC also takes into account instances where the accused may be victim to false allegations.
In light of the same, Sections 237 deals with compensation to such peculiar victims. Section 237
empowers the Court of Session to take cognizance of an office in accordance with section 199
(2) of the CrPC. Further, according to subsection (3) of the same provision “If, in any such case,
the court discharges or acquits all or any of the accused and is of opinion that there was no
reasonable cause for making the accusation against them or any of them, it may, by its order of
discharge or acquittal, direct the person against whom the offence was alleged to have been
committed (other than the President, Vice-President or the Governor of a State or the
Administrator of a Union Territory) to show cause why he should not pay compensation to such
accused or to each or any of such accused, when there are more than one”. If the court should
consider that there is a lack of reasonable ground for the allegation, it is empowered to order the
complainant to pay compensation of an amount not exceeding ₹1,000/- to the victim of false
accusation, after recording reasons for the same. Similar powers are vested under Section 250 of
the CrPC which empowers the Magistrate to order the complainant to provide compensation to
the person against whom baseless allegations were made.

69. Section 357A provides a fresh perspective

addressing the lacuna in allocating responsibility to the State. It obligates state governments to
draw up victim compensation schemes. It defines the role of the District Legal Services
Authority [hereinafter: DLSA] to decide the quantum to be awarded every time either a
recommendation is made by the court for compensation or an application is made under the state
scheme by the victim. It also provides for compensation and measures of rehabilitation

where the order of compensation passed by the courts is inadequate. An application for

compensation under Section 357A can be made even when the offender has not been traced or
identified or in the absence of a trial. In terms of interim assistance, the DLSA is obligated under
Section 357A to make provisions for immediate medical assistance, and such other relief, as the
appropriate authority deems fit. However, the only drawback of Section 357A is that it is
imperative for states to notify a scheme, and allocate budget so that applications may be
processed effectively and victims are given compensation expeditiously.

The parent of Section 357 of the CrPC was Section 545 of the 1898 Criminal Procedure

Code. The scope and application of this Section however extends to any order for

compensation passed either by the trial court, Appellate Court, or by the High Court, or Court

of Session while exercising their revisional jurisdiction. The Hon’ble Supreme Court is also

empowered to order compensation under this provision.

The applicability of this Section is limited in application to four defined instances. Such

compensation may be afforded to the complainant for meeting the expenses incurred during

prosecution. It can also be recovered in the aforementioned competent courts by any person
who has suffered loss or injury by the offence. The courts so empowered, can award such

compensation to a person entitled to recover damages under the Fatal Accidents Act, when

there is a conviction for causing death or abatement thereof. The scope of Section 357

extends to instances of injury to property since courts can order compensation to a bona fide

purchaser of property, which has become the subject of theft, criminal misappropriation,

criminal breach of trust, cheating, or receiving or retaining or disposing of stolen property,

and which is ordered to be restored to its rightful owner. Subsection (3) of Section 357

further enables the court to order the payment of compensation even in cases where the

punishment prescribed does not include payment of fine.

70. Article 142 of consti r/w art 21 (right to life) and art 39A.

Art 39A of consti

Sec 304 crpc 1973