Remember | Register | Forgot Password?
Bookmark This Page   RSS Feeds  Follow On Twitter

 

Search for Lawyers          
    

Home > Experts > Criminal Law > Basic difference between section 436 and 435 of IPC.



Please Wait ..

Basic difference between section 436 and 435 of IPC. (Criminal Law)

Report Abuse
This query is : Resolved


Author : ambrish

Posted On 15 November 2010 at 02:54

Dear Friends

Need some case references wherein these above mentioned two sections have been discussed in detail.

I have gone through:
http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/366951/
http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/647874/

Please provide me references of some latest cases decided in recent past and same was discussed therein.






Expert : R.Ramachandran

Posted On 15 November 2010 at 08:06

While Sec. IPC 435 relates to destruction of property (more in the nature of movables), the Sec. 436 relates to destruction of immovable property like building, temple, godown etc.



Author : ambrish

Posted On 15 November 2010 at 08:52

Sir

case: fire incident took place in uncovered pillared structure covered by Tin/Es-bastes sheet. Police has booked accused under sec 436 saying that it comes under building defined in Sec 436.

I need case references wherein it has been discussed that shelter (without wall and door)standing on pillars/brick pillars just saving from sun/rain is not building defined in sec 436.



Expert : aman kumar

Posted On 15 November 2010 at 10:27

Section 435. Mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to cause damage to amount of one hundred or (in case of agricultural produce) ten rupees
Whoever commits mischief by fire or any explosive substance intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, damage to any property to the amount of one hundred rupees or upwards 1[or(where the property is agricultural produce) ten rupees or upwards], shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

1. Ins. by Act 8 of 1882, sec. 10.Section 436. Mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to destroy house, etc.
Whoever commits mischief by fire or any explosive substance, intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, the destruction of any building which is ordinarily used as a place of worship or as a human dwelling or as a place for the custody of property, shall be punished with 1[imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

1. Subs. by Act 26 of 1955, sec. 117 and Sch., for "transportation for life" (w.e.f. 1-1-1956).



Author : ambrish

Posted On 15 November 2010 at 10:34

Aman SIr

Fire took place in open shelter and case has been booked under sec 436. FIR was against anonymous.



Expert : raj kumar makkad

Posted On 15 November 2010 at 14:37

1. Amar nath Shukla versus State of Uttranchal 2009 (4) RCR (Criminal) 488 (SC)

2. Sawinder Singh versus State of Punjab 2007 (1) RCR (Criminal) 973 (P & H).



Author : ambrish

Posted On 15 November 2010 at 18:02

Dear Sir

Open shelter( chapar/chaan) cannot be treated as building nor as place for custody of property so accused cannot be booked under sec 436 as Open shelter neither comes in definition of building/dwelling place or nor in as place for custody of property.

I need case references wherein difference between sec 436 & 435 or above mentioned points have been discussed.



Expert : ajitabh acharya

Posted On 15 November 2010 at 20:38

Mr Ambrish.... if a poor villager living in open shelter ( chapar/chaan) then its the building for him..and if someone put the fire on it then its the offence punishable under section 436..... offence falls in sec 435 or 436 is based on the facts of each case....





Author : ambrish

Posted On 15 November 2010 at 20:45

Dear Ajitabh

The place i am referring is not used for residential purpose. Its case of fire in TAKHT (only shelter is there) of a lawyer. Fire broke out in early morning so nobody was there neither any valuable item was there.



Expert : ajitabh acharya

Posted On 16 November 2010 at 08:17

then it's not the offence of sec 436 IPC.


Previous

Next

You need to be the querist or approved Lawyersclubindia expert to take part in this query .


Click here to login ( Members Login ) now







Similar Queries :










Quick Links



Browse By Category



Subscribe to Experts Feed
Enter your email to receive Experts Updates: