Criminal conspricay

CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY
Conspiracy differs from oter offences in this respect that in other offences the intention to do a criminal act is not a crime of itself untill something is done amounting to the doing or attempting to do some act to carry out the intention, conspiracy on the other hand consisit simply in the agreement or confederacy to some act, no matter whether it is done or not.

 When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done:

 (i) an illegal act

 (ii) or a legal act by illegal means

such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy, provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit shall amount to criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof...... section 120-A PPC.

 PUNISHMENT OR CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY

As regards punishment section 120-B P.P.C provides that one who is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life, or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shal, where there is no provision for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished as an abettor of such offence, in other cases he shall be liable to a punishment that may extend to six months , or with fine or with both.

ABETMENT AND CONSPIRACY

As regards the difference between abetment and conspiracy the former is the wider of the two, it is a genus of which the offence of conspiracy is a species. Abetment may be committed in various ways enumerated in section 107 and 108 and conspiracy is one of them. Abetement per se is not a substantive offence, while criminal conspiracy is a substantive offenceby itself and is punishable as such.

Read More

Difference Between Sections 34 and 149 of PPC

To a certain extent both sections are overlapping and both can be invoked against the accused when there is no difference between the object or intention with which the offence is committed. But it was pointed out in a case by Privy Council that there is such difference in the scope and applicability of section 34 and 149 inspite of their similarity. Section  149 is wider in its sweep and longer in its reach than section 34. The actual participation in action is the essential  element of section 34 but membership of the unlawful assembly is the leading feature of section 149 PPC. Section 34  merely declares a rule of criminal liability but section 149 creates a specific offence. Common object is different than  common intention as it does not require prior concert and a common meeting of minds but an unlawful object is  developed when people assembled together. At least two persons are required to share the common intention under. 

Read More

Common intension and common object

COMMON INTENTION
Section 34 of the pakistan penal code deals with constructive criminality i.e., liability of all for acts done by one or   more. This section was introduced in order to meet the cases in which it may be difficult to apportion the liability of each member according to his participation in the commission of the crime. Since it is difficult to distinguish precisely the part taken by each member of a group, it was thought necessary to declare all the persons equally liable for the acts done. SEction 34 does not create a distinct offence, it only lays down the principle of joint criminal liability. So it is a rule of evidence only and does not create a substantive offence.

The words “furtherance of common intention “have been the subject of much discussion amongst the lawyers and  conflicting interpretations have been put forth.

 One common agreed point has, however, been that furtherance of commonly design is the condition precedent for joint liability under section 34. The words common intention means unity of purpose or a pre-arranged plan.

 INGREDIENTS OF SECTION 34 PPC

 1. Two or more persons.

 2. They must have a common intention to commit an offence.

 3. Participation by all the accused in doing act or acts in furtherance of that common intention.

 COMMON OBJECT

Read More

Offences against the state

The offences against the state may be classified as under.

1. Waging or attempting or conspiring to wage or collecting men and ammunition to wage war against the government of pakistan (sections 121, 121-A, 122 and 123 of pakistan penaal code.)

 2. Assaulting president, or governor of any province with intent to compel or restrain the exercise of any lawful power.( section 124 of pakistan penal code).

 3. Sedition (section 124-A of pakistan penal code).

 4. War against the government of any asiatic power at peace with pakistan or committing depredations on the territories of such power ( sections 123 - 126 of pakistan penal code)

ENHANCED PUNISHMENT
Section 75 of pakistan penal code provides that whoever, having been convicted by a court in pakistan of an offence punishable under chapterXII or chapter XVII of the code with imprisonment of either description for a term of three years or upwards, shall be guilty of any offence punishable under any of those chapters with like imprisonment for the like term, shall be subject for evey such subsequent offence to imprisonment for life , imprisonment for either description for a term which may extend to ten years.

Read More

Extradition

Extardition means the surrender of fugitive offender by one state to another in which the offender is liable to be punished or has been convicted. The law of extradition is founded upon the broad principle that it is to the interest of Civilized communities that crimes, acknowledged to be such, should not go unpunished, and it is part of the comity of the nations that one state should afford to another every assistance towardsbringing persons guilty of such crimes to justice.
Between nation states, extradition is regulated by treaties. Where extradition is compelled by laws, such as among sub-national jurisdictions, the concept may be known more generally as rendition.

The consensus in international law is that a state does not have any obligation to surrender an alleged criminal to a foreign state as one principle of sovereignty is that every state has legal authority over the people within its borders.

Such absence of international obligation and the desire of the right to demand such criminals of other countries have caused a web of extradition treaties or agreements to evolve; most countries in the world have signed bilateral extradition treaties with most other countries.

 The refusal of a country to extradite suspects or criminals to another may lead to international relations being strained.

 Often, the country to which extradition is refused will accuse the other country of refusing extradition for political reasons (regardless of whether or not this is justified). A case in point is that of Ira Einhorn, in which some US

 commentators pressured President Jacques Chirac of France, who does not intervene in legal cases, to permit extradition when the case was held up due to differences between French and American human rights law.

Read More

Right of Private Defence and Right of private defence of body.

RIGHT OF PRIVATE DEFENCE

 Subject to, certain limitations the law gives a right to every person to defend his body or property, or the body or property of another person against unlawful aggression. He may protect his right by his own force or prevent it from being violated. It is a right inherent in a man. But the kind and amount of force is minutely regulated by law. This use of force to protect one's property and person is called the right of private defence.

RIGHT OF PRIVATE DEFENCE OF BODY :

 Section 97 lays down that every person has a right, subject to the restrictions contained ih Section 99, to defend his own body and the body of any other person, against any offence affecting the human body. Section 102 of the Code provides that the right of private defence of the body commences as soon as a reasonable apprehension of danger to the body arises from an attempt or threat to commit the offence the offence though, the offence may not have been committed; and it commences as long as such apprehension of danger to the body continues. It is clear from the wording of the section that the right commences and continues as long as danger to body lasts. The extent to which the exercise of the right will be justified will depend not on the actual danger but on whether there was reasonable apprehension of such danger. There must be an attempt or threat, and consequent thereon an apprehension of danger, but it should not be a mere idle threat. There must be reasonable ground for the apprehension.

Read More

What is an act excusable on the ground of its being done by accident or misfortune ? Cite illustrations.

ACCIDENT IN DOING A LAWFUL ACT :

Section 80 provides that nothing is an offence which is done by accident or misfortune, and without any criminal intention or knowledge in the doing of a lawful act in a lawful manner by lawful means and with proper care and caution. A is at work with a hatchet; the head files off and kills a man who is standing by. Here, if there was no want of proper caution on the part of A, his act is excusable and not an offence. The essential ingredients to constitute a justifiable plea ofaccident or misfortune are :

 (1) that the act was done by accident or misfortune ;

 (2) that it was done without any criminal intention ;

 (3) that it was the doing of a lawful act ;

 (4) in a lawful manner;

 (5) by lawful means; and

 (6) with proper care and caution.

 If has been held that where two persons went out to shoot animals and agreed to take up certain position in the jungle and lie in wait, but after a while the accused heard a rustle and believing it to be an animal fired in that direction but the shot killed his companion, the Case was held to be one of pure accident, although the gun used was an unlicensed one. But where the accused was engaged in a fight in which a woman intervened, whereupon the accused aimed a blow at her, but it accidentally killed the infant she was carrying, it was held that the. case was not protected by the provisions of Section 80 as the assault on the woman was a wrongful act.

ATTEMPTS TO COMMIT OFFENCES

Read More

Plea of compulsion or necessity

The excuse of necessity or compulsion as a defence for an act cannot be pleaded except as provided in Section 94 of  the Pakistan Penal Code. That section lays down that except murder and offences against the State punishable with  death, nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is compelled to do it by threats which, at the time of doing it,  reasonably cause the apprehension that instant death to that person will otherwise be the consequence: Provided the  person doing the act did not, of his own accord, or from a reasonable apprehension of harm to himself short of instant  death, place himself in the situation by which he became subject to such constraint. This section will not, however, save a person who, of his own accord or by reason of a threat of being beaten, joins a gang of dacoits. But if he is seized by a gang of dacoits and forced by threat of instant death to do a thing which is an offence by law. for example, a smith compelled to take his tools and to force the door of a house for the dacoits to enter and plunder it under pain of instant death, will be entitled to the benefit of this section.

 It is thus clear from the above that a person is excused from the consequences of any act, except murder and offences  against the State punishable with death, done under fear of instant death ;but fear of hurt or even of grievous hurt is not  a sufficient justification. It has been held that the accused was not entitled to the protection of Section 94 of the Code in  the case where the threat of instant death was present at the beginning or even some time afterwards but did not  continue till the end of the commission of an offence. There must be the apprehension of force upon the person and fear  of death, and this force and fear must continue to be present at the time of the act.

Read More

Offences Relating to Religion

OFFENCES RELATING TO RELIGION

 They are provided in section 295 to 298 of pakistan penal code , which are as follow:

 1. Injuring or defiling a place of worship, or any object held sacred by any class of persons, with intent to insult the religion of any class of persons.
section 295
punishment upto two years with or without fine)

 2. Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage the religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs.
section 295-A 
punishment upto three years)

 3. Voluntarily disturbing a religious assembly lawfully engaged in the performance of religious worship, or religious ceremonies.
section 296
punishment upto one year)

 4.Trespassing in any place of worship , or burial place, offering any indignity to a human corpse, with intent to wound the feelings or religion of any person. 
section 297
punishment upto one year)

 5. Uttering words or making signs with the intention of wounding the religious feelings of any person . 
section 298
punishment upto one year.

 6. Using derogatory remarks in respect of the Holy Passenger . 
Section 298-A
punishment upto three years or fine or both.

Read More

Breach of Contract and Remedies

Introduction of Contract and Remedies

• Most Common Remedies:
• Damages.
• Rescission and Restitution.
• Specific Performance.
• Reformation.
• Recovery Based on Quasi Contract.

Damages

Compensatory Damages: direct losses.
Sale of Goods: Difference between contract and market price.
Sale of Land: Specific performance.
Construction Contracts: Varies. Consequential (Special) Damages - foreseeable losses.
Breaching party is aware or should be aware, because the injury party additional loss.
Case: Hadley v. Baxendale (1854).
Punitive Damages punish or deter future conduct.
Generally not available for mere breach of contract.
Usually tort (e.g., fraud) is also involved.
Nominal Damages no financial loss.
Defendant is liable but only a technical injury.

Mitigation of Damages.

When breach of contract occurs, the innocent injured party is held to a duty to reduce the damages that he or she suffered.
Duty owed depends on the nature of the contract.
Case 17.2: Fujitsu Ltd. v. Federal Express Corp. (2001).

Liquidated Damages.

A contract provides a specific amount to be paid as damages in the event of future default or breach of contract.
Penalties.
Specify a certain amount to be paid in the event of a default or breach of contract and are designed to penalize the breaching party.
Case 17.3: Green Park Inn v. Moore (2002).

Rescission and Restitution.

Rescission.
A remedy whereby a contract is canceled and the parties are restored to the original positions that they occupied prior to the transactions.
Restitution. Both parties must return goods, property, or money previously conveyed.
Note: Rescission does not always call for restitution. Restitution is called for in some cases not involving rescission.

Specific Performance.

Equitable remedy calling for the performance of the act promised in the contract.
Remedy in cases where the consideration is:

• Unique (land).
• Scarce
• Not available remedy in contracts for personal services.

Reformation

Equitable remedy allowing a contract to be reformed, or rewritten to reflect the parties true intentions.
Available when an agreement is imperfectly expressed in writing.

Recovery Based on Quasi Contract.

Equitable theory imposed by courts to obtain justice and prevent unjust enrichment.
Party seeking quantum meruit must show the following:

• A benefit was conferred to the other party.
• Party conferring did so with the reasonable expectation of being paid.
• The benefit was not volunteered.
• Retaining benefit without paying for it would result in unjust enrichment of the party receiving the benefit.

Election of Remedies

• Doctrine created to prevent double recovery.
• Nonbreaching party must choose which remedy to pursue.
• UCC rejects election of remedies.
• Cumulative in nature and include all the available remedies for breach of contract.

Waiver of Breach

A pattern of conduct that waives a number of successive breaches will operate as a continued waiver.
Nonbreaching party can still recover damages, but contract is not terminated.
Nonbreaching party should give notice to the breaching party that full performance will be required in the future.

Contract Provisions Limiting Remedies.

Exculpatory clauses. Provisions stating that no damages can be recovered.
Limitation of liability clauses. Provisions that affect the availability of certain remedies.

Read More