Certainly, the concept of a company as a juristic person, also known as a legal person or legal entity, is a fundamental principle in corporate law. It means that a company is treated as a distinct entity separate from its individual members (shareholders or owners). This principle has several key implications: 1. Separate Legal Existence: A company, once incorporated, is recognized as having its own separate legal existence. It can enter into contracts, own property, sue and be sued, and engage in various legal activities in its own name. This is distinct from the individuals who own or manage the company. 2. Limited Liability: One of the primary advantages of forming a company, especially a corporation, is the concept of limited liability. Shareholders are generally not personally liable for the company's debts and legal obligations. The company itself is responsible for its own debts, which helps protect the personal assets of its members. 3. Rights and Duties: Just like...
85. Act of a person incapable of judgment by reason of intoxication caused against his will.— Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, is, by reason of intoxication, incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong, or contrary to law: provided that the thing which intoxicated him was administered to him without his knowledge or against his will.
Act of a person incapable of judgement by reason of intoxication cause against his will
Maxim Qui Peccat Ebrius Luat Sobrius means he does wrong when drunk must be punished when sober.
intoxication divided into two part 1. voluntary and 2. involuntary
Different between 85 and 86 IPC
In 85 person is intoxicated against his will or knowledge although in section 86 person is intoxicated voluntarily. in 85 person is completely exonerated from the offence and 86 it is partial exonerated. in 85 involuntarily intoxication consider 2 parameter, intoxication should be against the will or knowledge and second the level of intoxication should be so high than person is consider fall under 85 exception and get full immunity.
Jatha Ram V.s MP 1960
"Voluntary drunkenness is no excuse for crime. If a party be made drunk by stratagem, or the fraud of another, he is not responsible." The case law as it developed did not define what voluntary drunkenness meant except in a negative way. According to I Hales Pleas of the Crnwp. page 32, the protection can only be claimed by a person who had been made drunk through stratagem Or the fraud of another or through ignorance, or coercion practised by his friend or foe, as if a person be drugged by his enemies or given to eat or drink such a thing as causes frenzy or his unskilful physician gives him to drink, in all of which cases the person intoxicated may be said not to have been a free agent and therefore not responsible for the consequences of his act.
"If a man chooses to get drunk, it is his own voluntary act : it is very different from a madness which is not caused by any act of the person. That voluntary species of madness which it is in a party's power to abstain from, he must answer for. However, with regard to the intention, drunkenness may perhaps be adverted to according to the nature of the instrument used. If a man uses a stick, you would not infer a malicious intent so strongly against him if drunk, when he made an intemperate use of it, as you would if he had used a different kind of weapon; but where a dangerous instrument is used, which, if used, must produce grievous bodily harm, drunkenness can have no effect on the Jethuram Sukhra Nagbanshi vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 October, 1959 consideration of the malicious intent of the party."
Section 85 and 86 deal with effect of intoxication and whether intoxication available as general exception. if a person is intoxicated involuntary, which means against his will and without his knowledge and intoxicated such a level, he is unable to understand the nature and consequences of his act. than he is completely exonerated from the offence. which we can say he get full immunity. Section 86 is continuation of section 85. In a case of person intoxicated voluntary in such cases, where the offence has separate punishable for knowledge in these cases knowledge of offence is presume and he is made liable as if he was not intoxicated. give partial immunity that no presumption regarding intention. Intention shall have to be proven by precaution. We have land mark case Basudev v.s Pepsu. In this case Hon'ble SC held that after the act is committed, the accused knows what he is doing in that case, we presume he was capable forming the requisite intention. however if after committing the offence accused is proved he don't know the nature and consequence of the act and so intoxication that it is impossible to see his power of reasoning is intend in such case it can be he may not that intention required in that offence.
86. Offence requiring a particular intent or knowledge committed by one who is intoxicated.— In cases where an act done is not an offence unless done with a particular knowledge or intent, a person who does the act in a state of intoxication shall be liable to be dealt with as if he had the same knowledge as he would have had if he had not been intoxicated, unless the thing which intoxicated him was administered to him without his knowledge or against his will.
Comments
Post a Comment