Legal Language and Legal Writing

including General English

3rd Yr BLS.LLB ( Sem 5)
Prof. Viraj Deshpande
Assistant Professor (Law)
ABACL
Actus Nemnini facit Nemini Injuriam
• It is a legal maxim which means that “no one ought to accuse
himself except in the Presence of God”.
• Essentials of the Latin Legal Maxim are as:-
1.When the event is caused by the occurance of natural calamity, in
such events no person would held responsible
2.The law hold no man responsible for act of god
3.No man can complaint against act of god (“Force majeure”)
4.No man can make god defendant
5.Act of god called as inevitable accident
6.No man can demand compensation for act of god.
7.Court will not entertain the case of act of god
• Illustration:-
• Two parties enter into a contract for the supply of cotton in
another country through the ship. However, the seller to the
contract could not deliver the goods due to a tsunami in that
region. Now the question arises whether the buyer claims
damages from the seller in this case? The answer is ‘No.’
• The reason for the failure on the part of the seller to deliver
goods to the buyer was not because of negligence on part of the
seller but because of the tsunami which is considered as a
natural disaster and an Act of God. Therefore, the defendant
(seller) can take the defence of Actus Dei Nemini Facit Injuriam
to evade liability
• Judicial Precedent
• Shridhar Tiwari vs U.P. State Road Transport: - A bus of
UPBBG was traveling through a village where a cyclist out of
nowhere had suddenly come in front of the Bus.
• In order to save that cyclist, the driver applied brakes as a
result of which the Bus skidded on the wet road and its rear
portion struck against the front portion of another bus. Here
the defendant was not held liable at it was a sheer case of an
inevitable accident.
• Nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria is a Latin
maxim, fairly translating to mean that no one can make gains from
their own wrongs.

• Its relevance is primarily found in Contract Law —reiterating that

when there is a contractual obligation between two parties; neither
party may derive an advantage from its own unlawful acts.
• It is derived from the good faith arrangement that parties
within a contract often undertake.
• By this arrangement, parties mutually agree upon the fact
that in a scenario where, due to an unlawful act on the part of
one party, the other party is not able to fulfil its contractual
duty to the former, the former may not take advantage of the
non-performance condition. They agree to not deceive each
other and operate with ‘clean hands’ and in complete
confidence and cooperation with each other.
• In India, where the common law system prevails, such a
provision is primarily seen in contracts such as partnership
agreements and other agreements prescribing a fiduciary
duty such as insurance contracts
❑Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra (Dead) Through Lrs. &
Ors.
❑In this case, the creditor had declined the acceptance of the loan
when the debtor tried to repay him. The Supreme Court held that,
when such a thing happens, the creditor cannot come to the Court
demanding his money and interest on the principal amount.
❑The debtor is, of course bound to pay the money back to the creditor,
but the extra interest and compensation for non-performance of
contract will not be made.
Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit
rea
❑ This is a very well-known Latin Maxim which translates to “The Act must
be accompanied by the Intent to have constituted a crime”. In simple
terms, an act was done by a person, unless concurred with intent, will not
be considered a crime.
❑The basic principle of Criminal Justice emphasises that two elements aid
in the composition of a crime. A Criminal Act and Criminal Intent are
those two aiding elements. As mentioned in the previous paragraph,
neither an act solely nor the sole intent can be presumed to be sufficient for
constituting a crime.
❑ The legal term for the act is “Actus Reus”, and the corresponding period
for Criminal Intent is “Mens Rea”.
❑ “An act solely does not make the doer guilty, unless and until the mind is
found to be guilty.”
• Mens Rea, in simple terms, is the presence of an intention to convene
a wrongful act with full knowledge of the negative consequences.
• The company of a Mens Rea is considered to be one of the most
crucial elements in a crime. Mens Rea includes both the intention to
commit a crime and the act of abstaining from committing it
whenever required.
• The accused is guilty if proved of his (or) intent to commit the crime.
• But the burden of proof falls on the prosecution, and the presence of
sufficient and convincing evidence is demanded to prove the
existence of intent
There could be certain exceptions:
• Petty offences
• Petty offences are the least serious kind of
offences. When it comes to minor offences like
running a red light, proving the mens rea behind
such an act might be challenging.
• As a result, in such instances, acts such as that of
jumping the red light may be considered criminal.
As a result, it is an exception to the general rule
of actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea
❑Conclusion
❑The Latin maxim actus non facit reum nisi mens sit
rea have been playing the role of a catalyst in criminal law.
❑The very essence of the criminal law system has been
embodied in this maxim.
❑This maxim has not only confined itself in criminal statutes
but also in its practical implementation has been reflected in
several judgments discussed in this article.
❑ Overall, the criminal law system would have been
paralysed if this maxim would not have come into existence.
NEMO DEBET BIS VEXARI PRO UNA ET EADEM
CAUSA
➢It is a rule of law that a man shall not be twice vexed for one and the
same cause
➢Roughly translates as “No one should be tried twice in respect to
the same matter.”
➢This is a Latin saying that expresses what in criminal law is known
as the rule against double jeopardy, ie the notion that a person
should not be “vexed” or have to answer for themselves by being
tried or punished more than once for any particular accusation
brought against them.
➢ In civil law it means a person should not be sued more than once
over the same dispute.
• Under Civil law: Principle of Res Judicata ( Prevention of filing of
case on the same issue:
• Finality of litigation [ CPC, Section 11]

• Doctrine of Double Jeopardy ( Article 20[2] of Constitution of India)

• ARTICLE 20(2) OF THE CONSTITUTION
• Article 20(2) provides that “No person shall be prosecuted and fined
for constant offence over once.” The elementary conditions for the
relevance of Article 20(2) square measure that:
• • There should are a previous prosecution,
• • The suspect should are fined at such prosecution,
• • The subsequent proceeding should even be one for the prosecution
and penalization of the suspect, and
• • Proceedings on each the occasions should in reference to constant
offence.
Similar provision:
• SECTION 300 CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973
• On constant lines Section 300 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
give protection against double jeopardy. It says, person once guilty or
innocent to not be tried for same offence
• In Kolla Veera Raghav Rao vs Gorantla Venkateswara
Rao and Ors (2011) 2 SCC 703, has addressed the idea of
'Double Jeopardy’.
• The Supreme Court observed that the provisions of S. 300(1) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is way wider than the
provisions of Article 20(2) of the Constitution of Republic of
India.
CESSANTE RETIONE LEGIS CESSAT IPSA LEX The
reason of the law ceasing, the law itself ceases
• The reason of the law ceasing; the law itself ceases. The maxim
applies to the principles of common law, but not to any considerable
extent to statute law.
• A law does not cease to be operative because it is out of keeping with
the present time. But this principle does not apply where custom
outlines the conditions which gave it birth. (Mirza Raja v. Pushpavathi
Wisweswar [1964] 2 SCR 403.)
• ‘the law itself ceases if the reason of the law ceases,’ a controversial
doctrine that has, on the face of it, reason on its side. The difficulty, e
specially in a casebased system, is to agree upon what is the rationale
of the law.
• The application of the doctrine runs contrary to the fundamental doct
rine of the English common law, STARE DECISIS.
ACTA EXTERIORA INDICANT INTERIORA
SECRETA -Acts indicate the intention
• “Acta Exteriora” means the outward acts or what we do,
“indicant” means indicate, and “Interiora Secreta” means the
inward secret.
• It simply means that external acts indicate the secret within
the intent.
• This maxim denotes that people behave according to their
intentions and what follows via the actions is a natural
consequence. For example – when someone intends to hurt
anyone, he will be acting upon that intention by means of
shouting at that person or slapping or punching. Thus,
certainly, the act indicates the dormant thoughts we are
having.
• Thank you…