Question: A has an inkpot with him. B wants to fill his pen from that inkpot. A does not allow, still, B takes ink from it. Has B committed any offence? [RJS 1976] Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [A has an inkpot with him. B wants to fill his pen from that… Read More »

Question: A has an inkpot with him. B wants to fill his pen from that inkpot. A does not allow, still, B takes ink from it. Has B committed any offence? [RJS 1976] Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [A has an inkpot with him. B wants to fill his pen from that inkpot. A does not allow, still, B takes ink from it. Has B committed any offence?] Answer Section 95 in the Indian Penal Code talks about trivial offences i.e. act causing slight harm. It states that nothing is...

Question: A has an inkpot with him. B wants to fill his pen from that inkpot. A does not allow, still, B takes ink from it. Has B committed any offence? [RJS 1976]

Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [A has an inkpot with him. B wants to fill his pen from that inkpot. A does not allow, still, B takes ink from it. Has B committed any offence?]

Answer

Section 95 in the Indian Penal Code talks about trivial offences i.e. act causing slight harm. It states that nothing is an offence by reason that it causes, or that it is intended to cause, or that it is known to be likely to cause, any harm if that harm is so slight that no person of ordinary sense and temper would complain of such harm.

Section 95 incorporates the common law maxim, de minimis non-curat lex, which means the law does not care about trifles. The provision expressly discards the conviction of the accused in matters which are trivial and petty in nature and no man of prudence and ordinary nature would seek to complain against such acts before the court of law. The term ‘harm’ used under the provision of Section 95 of IPC has wide-ranging connotations.

Therefore, the harm caused to a person is so slight in nature that no person of ordinary prudence would complain about it before the police or the court of law.

In Bindeshwari Prasad Sinha v. Kali Singh[2], the claim against the defendant was that by signing his name, he had taken away a certified copy of the judgment intended for the complainant. The plaintiff subsequently received another edition. The court found this to be a case protected by Section 95.

In the present case, A does not allow B to take the inkpot and fill his pen from A, still, B takes it. So, the case is of a trivial act and hence B has committed no offence.


Important Mains Questions Series for Judiciary, APO & University Exams

  1. IPC Mains Questions Series Part I: Important Questions
  2. IPC Mains Questions Series Part II: Important Questions
  3. IPC Mains Questions Series Part III: Important Questions
  4. IPC Mains Questions Series Part IV: Important Questions
  5. IPC Mains Questions Series Part V: Important Questions
  6. IPC Mains Questions Series Part VI: Important Questions
  7. IPC Mains Questions Series Part VII: Important Questions
  8. IPC Mains Questions Series Part VIII: Important Questions
  9. IPC Mains Questions Series Part IX: Important Questions
  10. IPC Mains Questions Series Part X: Important Questions
Updated On 2021-07-07T07:52:53+05:30
Admin LB

Admin LB

Next Story