The IPL (Indian Penal Laughs)

Funny facts about the Indian Penal Code

The IPL (Indian Penal Laughs)

Tagged: cricket, entertainment, TV

Posted in Articles By DaveDevil

May 9th 2010, 02:58

The Indian Penal Code was first laid down in 1860.

I'm guessing that's 1860 B.C. Because even Orkut would take more than 150 years to get this outdated. Here's an assortment of the funniest parts of the IPC.

Disclaimer: Lol-land has no legal knowledge. I wish some of the writers of the Code did, though.

1. Awesome clarifications
The IPC starts with clarification of terms used, and some examples.

A intentionally causes Z's death, partly by illegally omitting to give Z food, and partly by beating Z. A has committed murder.
Apparently if you 'fully' beat to death a well fed person, it's cool.

A person is said to "counterfeit" who causes one thing to resemble another thing, intending by means of that resemblance to practice deception.
Legal Lingo is that by which means the aforementioned one hitherto wherefore has been bullshitting.

Whoever shall have been habitually associated with any other or others for the purpose of committing robbery or child-stealing by means of or accompanied with murder, is a thug.
Disappointing showing by chain snatchers, muggers, single robbers and non-child-stealing murderers!!! You losers are not even thugs yet.

A introduces water in to an ice-house belonging to Z and thus causes the ice to melt, intending wrongful loss to Z. A has committed mischief.
This one's obviously lifted from the Eskimo Penal Code, the one that God gave to EskiMoses before delivering them from the harsh winters and sending them over to the promised 'Greenland'.


Whoever commits house-breaking after sunset and before sunrise, is said to commit "house-breaking by night".
Can't think of any reason to include this, other than to pack the IPC with as many names of future Hollywood movies as possible. Watch out for the summer blockbuster starring Tiger Woods and Elin Nordegren: 'House breaking by Night'.

2. Crazy laws
Whoever abets the commission of an offence by ... persons exceeding ten, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
So leading a band of ten crazed killers is perfectly OK; make sure you don't recruit a new guy, unless you are Danny Ocean.

A shakes his fist at Z, intending or knowing it to be likely that he may thereby cause Z to believe that A is about to strike Z. A has committed an assault.
Nice law! Now who should I get jailed first? Help me, he's shaking his fist.

Whoever unlawfully compels any person to labour against the will of that person, shall be punished with imprisonment ... for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.
 
Whoever, having a husband or wife living, marries in any case in which such marriage is void by reason of its taking place during the life of such husband or wife, shall be punished ... for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
So let's see who should be going to jail: Krishna, Draupadi and Dharmendra. Apparently, all three are beyond the reach of the law.

3. Crazy situations
Any 5 of the 'hypothetical' situations presented in the IPC put together seem to make an RGV movie.

A, a jailor, has the charge of Z, a prisoner. A, intending to cause Z's death, illegally omits to supply Z with food; in consequence of which Z is much reduced in strength, but the starvation is not sufficient to cause his death. A is dismissed from his office, and B succeeds him. B, without collusion or co-operation with A, illegally omits to supply Z with food, knowing that he is likely thereby to cause Z's death. Z dies of hunger. B is guilty of murder, but, as A did not co-operate with B. A is guilty only of an attempt to commit murder.
Sucks to be Z, huh?

A without any excuse fires a loaded cannon into a crowd of persons and kills one of them. A is guilty of murder.
Hey thanks guys, its really difficult to watch out for cannonballs when you're in the morning office rush. Keep up the good work.

A, by shooting at a fowl with intent to kill and steal it, kills B, who is behind a bush; A not knowing that he was there.
Remember kids, a bird in the hand is worth more than 'God-knows-who' in the bush. Also, I recommend that the police investigate what B was doing with a hen behind the bush.

Z is riding in a chariot. A lashes Z's horses and thereby causes them to quicken their pace. Here A has caused change of motion to Z by inducing the animals to change their motion. A has therefore used force to Z.
Assuming force is purely gravitational, if Z travels 2 km in 15 seconds, find the height of A? Ignore air resistance.
And horse chariots? Hence proved, 1860 BC it is.

A is the paramour of Z's wife. She gives a valuable property, which A knows to belong to her husband Z, and to be such property as she has not authority from Z to give. If A takes the property dishonestly, he commits theft.
Wow, so A is arrested for being too horny and too dumb, but Z's wife, guilty of adultery, stealing and falsely framing A is free to go manhunting again? Not fair!

A meets Z and Z's child on the high road. A takes the child, and threatens to fling it down a precipice, unless Z delivers his purse. Z, in consequence, delivers his purse.
Now when MithunDa comes to the rescue and flies down the cliff to save the child, A must kill Z according to MithunDa Laws of B-movies. A is then guilty of homicide, and after being allowed to kill the rest of MithunDa's family one by one, is liable to be punched and kicked till he dies or the police arrive, whichever is earlier.

Whoever commits mischief and thereby causes loss or damage to the amount of fifty rupees or upwards, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
We are the latest mafia racket in town. You better pay us or we're going to destroy this town, Rs 49 at a time.

A says-"Z is an honest man; he never stole B's watch", intending to cause it to be believed that Z did steal B's watch. This is defamation.
And how will they prove it? Does A have an evil face?

And the code doesn't even say anything about the 'To stop train pull chain' notice in Indian trains and its deadly consequences.

Comments

Get our latest posts in your mail box!

Email Subscription »

Associates

Lolland on Facebook