Introduction
“All crimes are offences but all offences are not a crime”
Offence generally means an act which results in the breach of law. Offence is a term that leads to punishment. Did you ever ponder about, which statute or statutes in India define the term “offence”?
Well, offence can be significantly spotted in two criminal statutes and General clauses Act, 1897. Which will be further discussed in the article.
Statutes
1. The General clauses act, 1897: All the definitions under this act, is applicable to central acts and legislations, in which the definition of the offence is not mentioned. Section 3 clause 38 of the general clause act defines the offence as any act, or any omission conducted or made by a person, which is punishable under any law, in force, at that contemporary scenario.
2. The code of criminal procedure, 1973: CrPC is a procedural law for the administration of criminal law in India. Being a criminal statute, offence is an integral part of this code. Considering that, offence is defined in section 2 (n) of the code, which says that any act or omission conducted or made by a person, is punishable under the law, which is active or in practice, in the contemporary scenario.
It also includes any act, whose complaint is made under section 20 of the cattle trespass act, 1871[1].
3. Indian penal code, 1860: The IPC is the official code which deals with crimes or offences in India. It tends to cover all the aspects surrounding criminal law. Section 40 of the Indian penal code defines offence as, anything which is mentioned in this code as illegal or against the law and is punishable thereto.
Also, if any act is punishable under a special law or local law and pertains a punishment under such law, for 6 months or more, with or without fine, will have the same meaning as mentioned above.
Relevant Case Laws
1. Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Desiccant Rotors International Pvt. Ltd[2].
Facts: The respondent, in this case, is engaged in the manufacturing business of the environmental control system. They filed their income tax return along with the necessary documents which included the profit and loss account to the income tax department. Those books were assessed by the assessing officer. While assessing it he noticed that a huge amount is paid as compensation for settlement of a dispute. To clarify this situation, the respondent presented a note with other relevant documents. Which stated that the respondent has exported its products to Venmar ventilation Inc., which is one of its customers in Canada for selling their products.
Following which a US-based company called SEMCO INC. filed a suit against Venmar, claiming that their patent rights have been infringed by Venmar by selling the respondent’s company’s products. Considering which Venmar paid compensation to Semco Inc. and settled the dispute.
After which Semco Inc. filed a suit against the respondent’s company in a court in the USA, saying that selling of products by the respondent to Venmar is infringing their patent rights. To avoid the huge cost of litigation, the respondent’s company settled the dispute by making a payment to them in their currency.
So, the respondent claims that the payment was compensatory. For the loss of goodwill. But the AO was adamant to believe that the payment has been made as a suit for damages due to infringement of SEMCO’s patent right by Venmar. And it was a penalty.
Issues: The question that remains here is whether the expenditure occurred by the respondent was in the form of penalty? Will it be treated as offence or prohibited by law?
Judgment: In this case, the court referring to section 3 (38) of the general clause act held that “offence” defined under this act means any act or omission, which is made punishable by law in force at that time.
And the patent is valid only at the territory of registration. So, the patent which is registered in the USA or Canada is not recognized by the Indian patent act as defined under section 2(m) of the Indian patent act, 2005. Therefore, as mentioned in section 3(38) of the general clauses act, 1997, any law in force at that time denoted any law in India. And it has no link to any law outside India.
2. Ippagunta Koteswari vs State Of A.P. [3]
Facts: The facts of the case are, the sarpanch of a gram panchayat filed a complaint under Andhra Pradesh gram panchayat act, 1964, claiming house tax from Siri cold storage, puttepalem village, Nellore Rural Mandal, for 3 years. A notice was served on the petitioner demanding the house tax. The petitioner willfully omitted to pay the amount towards house tax. Due to which he is said to have committed an offence under the A.P. Gram panchayat act, 1964. Considering which the magistrate issued the process against him under the act mentioned above. Answering which the petitioner invoked section 482 of Crpc, which deals with the jurisdiction of the court, requesting to quash the proceedings upheld by the magistrate court. Saying that not paying house tax to the gram panchayat is not an offence under the provisions of the act, therefore the prosecution has no reason to file the case.
Issues: Whether nonpayment of house tax is an offence under the Andhra Pradesh panchayat raj act, 1994?
Judgment: The court held that no provision was presented in the case which dealt with non-payment of the house tax to gram panchayat as an offence punishable under the provisions of the gram panchayat act. Adding to which section 2(n) of the CrPC defines offence as any act or omission which is made punishable by law in force at that time being. That means the cognizance was made under the old act, which later was repealed by the new act. Hence it is not an offence, under CrPC.
Conclusion
Offence has a very distinctive character to play in every statute mentioned above. The definition of offence varies with the change of scope, as the general clause act and CrPC mentions “any act or omission”, conducted by a person, is punishable under the active law, the scope of IPC is very individual when it says, “anything” mentioned in the code as illegal is punishable. It can be concluded that the general clauses act and the CrPC deal with a wider scope of the definition of offence as compared to IPC.
References:
[1] The civil procedure code 1973.
[2] [2012] 347 ITR 32 (Del)
[3] 2007 (1) ALD 351
4. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
5. General Clauses Act, 1897.
6. Indian Penal Code, 1860.
7. Commissioner of Income Tax vs Desiccant Rotors International Pvt. Ltd. [2012] 347 ITR 32 (Del)
8. Ippagunta Koteswari vs State of A.P.2007 (1) ALD 351
0 Comments