“Fear or alarm” means that only one of the two is required, not both. Section 38 – “likely to cause a reasonable person to suffer fear or alarm.” sending several threatening letters over the course of various days or weeks). shouting and swearing aggressively at one’s partner during a single argument) or a course of conduct (e.g. S38(3)(b) says that the behaviour in question can either be a singular act (e.g. So, words alone (spoken or written) could be enough. S38(3)(a) makes it clear that the actus reus of this offences is “behaviour of any kind including, in particular, things said or otherwise communicated as well as things are done”. What constitutes a “threat” or “abuse” depends on the particular circumstances of the case. The behaviour only needs to be threatening or abusive, not both. Elements of a Section 38 chargeĪs with the old breach of the peace type cases, there is a wide range of situations that could be threatening or abusive in any given context. As such behaviour was perceived to be an important element of domestic abuse, and given the zero-tolerance approach to such domestic crimes the Scottish Parliament intended s38 to make sure that the perpetrators of domestic crimes could be convicted. In other words, disorderly (but not necessarily physically violent) behaviour taking place in private would not be covered by the common law of breach of the peace. Section 38 was designed to close what was regarded as a technicality or loophole in the law whereby if a disturbance or breach of the peace took place in a private setting for example at home and not in public then the law could not cover that scenario. It held that whether an offence has been committed under this act will be decisive based on the fact of how the word property has been interpreted.A: Section 39 is more stalking and harassment, hanging about peoples houses or work. Dalmia v Delhi Administration The word property was to be interpreted in a wider sense. The court came to the conclusion that immovable property does not fall under the definition and under the word ‘properly’ mentioned in the section. It can be clearly inferred from the wording of section 405, which is similar to Section 403 and includes only movable property. The complainant was not able to prove the entrustment of property within Section 405. : In this case, the learned magistrate gave a clarification that Section 405 and Section 406 only referred to movable property, but immovable property cannot be brought within the purview of Section 405. Tempton Jahangir Frazer v Ranchhoddas Khimji Asher and ors.So, the accused taking money amounts to trust and returning less money amounts to a breach of trust and thus liable to be punished. In the case of State of UP v Babu Ram, the accused is a police constable, when he went for investigation to a village, he found a person running hurriedly to the field, and searched him and found him with a bund of currency notes which was ceased by the police officer and later returned but Rs.The court dishonestly as the misappropriation must be done dishonestly. Sohan Lal v Emperor, this is a case of dishonest misappropriation of property for the own use, Dishonesty is defined in Section 24 and 23 as intentional causing of wrongful gain or loss to the other person.It further helps define the word entrustment as when a person is entitled to hold a property, whereas the owner still remains the same to whom the property belongs. The court held that this amounts to criminal breach of trust. Some portion of cement received was diverted towards a godown. Jaswantlal v State, in this case, the state prima facie sold cement only on the condition that it will be used for the purpose of construction work only.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |