Meaning of law for the purposes of section 166 ipc, 187 ipc, 217 ipc
Rajesh Tandon
(Querist) 29 September 2015
This query is : Resolved
Meaning of law for the purposes of section 166 IPC, 187 IPC, 217 IPC
1. Article 13 of the Constitution of India deals with the laws inconsistent with or in derogation of the fundamental rights. Clause(3) to Article 13 mentions, “In this article, unless the context otherwise requires-
Now read Clause(3) to Article 13 along with sub clause (a) to Clause(3) to article 13, which mentions
(a) “ Law” includes any ordinance, order, bye law, rule, regulation, notification, custom or usage having in the territory of India the force of law.
2. Specific Query –
(a) Keeping in view the explanation about the law as covered under article 13 (a) of the Constitution of India, is the meaning of law restricted in context to Article 13 only ? Or similar interpretation of law is drawn by the courts for the purposes of meaning of law for the purpose of offence under section 166 IPC, 187 IPC, 217 IPC.
(b) If there are any rules framed by the government after passing of the act or merely the government rules, departmental policies in the absence of the act to set out the various responsibilities of (various departments and the appointments and designations under the said departments) whereby one omits to provide assistance as per the Departmental policy, would this constitute an offence under section 187 IPC?
(c) Similarly, would disobeying the directions of law ( ie. not a law passed by the legislature but departmental policies, rules and regulations) would constitute an offence under section 166 IPC and 217 IPC ?
SAINATH DEVALLA
(Expert) 29 September 2015
GO THROUGH THE FOLLOWING EXPLANATIONS: Though U are very much aware of them.
Sec. 166 IPC: Whoever, being a public servant, knowingly disobeys any direction of the law as to the way in which he is to conduct himself as such public servant, intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will, by such disobedience, cause injury to any person, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.
Illustration
A, being an officer directed by law to take property in execution, in order to satisfy a decree pronounced in Z's favour by a Court of Justice, knowingly disobeys that direction of law, with the knowledge that he is likely thereby to cause injury to Z. A has committed the offence defined in this section.
CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE
Punishment—Simple imprisonment for 1 year, or fine, or both—Non-cognizable—Bailable—Triable by Magistrate of the first class—Non-compoundable.
Sec. 217 IPC: Public servant disobeying direction of law with intent to save person from punishment or property from forfeiture.
Whoever, being a public servant, knowingly disobeys any direction of the law as to the way in which he is conduct himself as such public servant, intending thereby to save, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby save, any person from legal punishment, or subject him to a less punishment than that to which he is liable, or with intent to save, or knowing that he is likely thereby to save, any property from forfeiture or any charge to which it is liable by law, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE
Punishment—Imprisonment for 2 years, or fine, or both—Non-cognizable—Bailable—Triable by any Magistrate—Non-compoundable.
SAINATH DEVALLA
(Expert) 29 September 2015
Gentleman,
Reply to the question of Adv Goyal?
Rajesh Tandon
(Querist) 29 September 2015
Sir,
With due regards to you, I'm an Army officer, writing to you with my query. Incidentally, I must thank you for the pains you have taken to illustrate the provisions of section 166 IPC and 217 IPC. However, everything what you have explained, I already knew. Probably, you have not understood the larger problem. Since you have asked the actual problem, I am stating it now . I would only request you to kindly bear with me with a lengthy write-up on the problem & be patient in reading to understand the facts since you have asked to state the actual problem .The bigger problem is what is the connotation of law for the courts in the interpretation while making a complaint under section 166 IPC, 187 IPC ,217 IPC. You see Ministry of Defence (MOD) has got couple of different departments under it apart from Army, Navy and Air force. Some of the other departments under MOD are Military Engineering Service (MES), Department of Director-General Of Defence Estate(DGDE) under whom [the appointments like Chief Executive Officer (CEO)s of the Cantonment Boards and Defence Estate Officer (DEO)s work]. There are a lot of places in our dealing with respective DEOs & CEOs where in we are dependent on their support without which we cannot operate. There are government rules, departmental policies which they are supposed to follow but CEOs & DEOs just do not deliver. One keeps writing numerous official letters but they just do not respond. When the matter is taken up with their seniors, they provide them shelter and nothing moves on the ground. It is the only legal recourse, wherein a complaint in front of magistrate where in, the case might be decided purely on the basis of merit, that such a legal recourse is left to us. Especially when I know the legal provisions, I am not inclined to sit quietly and accept the nonsense lying down. The problem is that there are government rules of 1944 by which DEO is required to provide technical advice in the management of defence land. We have approached a particular DEO who has not responded for last couple of months. Similarly there is policy with Army whereby, if the legal proceedings are to be taken in connection with the land matters i.e in case of encroachments, then,the same will be taken up by DEO. The matter was taken up, yet no response. Therefore, I'm interested in invoking the provisions of section 187 IPC against a particular DEO. However, would omission on the part of DEO, (who himself is also public servant) to provide assistance based on merely government rules and departmental policies would constitute the offence under section 187 IPC within the meaning of the law wherein the said government rules and departmental policies are not classically the legislation passed by Parliament. Would government rules, departmental policies be construed as law wherein it will be accepted by the court that DEO was bound by law. This is my query
H.M.Patnaik
(Expert) 29 September 2015
Yes, depttl. rules, notifications, standing orders etc. will also be taken into consideration during the course of any litigation to the extent they are relevant to the subject matter of contest.
