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...
Section 34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. -
when a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.
Section 34 is not an offence because there is no classification of offence. no where is written it is bailable, non-bailable or non-cognisable or cognisable offence.
we can say section 34 is mere principal not offence.
for section 34 we are use the word joint liability or group liability or constructive liability.what is the objective of section 34 and why we used it?
why we used section 34 and what is the benefit of this section.
- To discourage group offence, which is preventive in the nature. every law demand that law should work to prevent the offence.
Joint meeting of mind- if meeting of mind is not there and they done the same act than it call similar intention.
if we don't have meeting of mind than we can't use the section 34. that wold be cover under similar intention.
there is two Judgement to clear similar intention and common intention.
Mahboob shah v/s emp. 1943 Privy Council
In this case held that meeting of mind is not there so common intention would not be there. we can say that might be similar intention would be there, however there is not the common intention because meeting of the mind is not there.
Common intention is different from similar intention because of meeting of mind is not there.
In section 34 what is the meaning of in furtherance it is given in the case Shankarala Bhai v/s Gujarat 1965 Supreme Court
In this case they gave dictionary meaning of furtherance that Action of helping forward. it's meaning advancement of promotion or participation in the act.
How to determine common intention, because it was inside the mind. so we consider following factor.
- Conduct of the party.
- Manner they arrive on the spot.
- The manner the attack was made.
- Nature of the weapon used, where weapon carrying from the begging.
Comments
Post a Comment