Indian Penal Code (IPC 1860)

273. What is the difference between Sc. 34 and 149?

A. While active participation is needed in Sec. 34 while not necessary in Sec. 149.
B. Sec. 34 does create specific offence while Sec. 149 does not.
C. Both (a) and (b).
D. None of the above.
✅ The correct answer is option A.

274. Give correct response. In J.M. Desat v. State of Bombay, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 889, Mr. Desai was the Managing Director of a Dying Company, the company entered into a contract with the textile Commissioner undertaking to dye a large quantity of cloth. Out of the lot some were returned back to the commissioner by the company while others, even after repeated demand, remained undelivered. Therefore, the Managing Director was charged for an offence and he pleaded that the clothes were eaten up by white ants and that he was not personally responsible for damage done to them and their nondelivery.

A. In order to punish a person by application of section 34 mental as well as physical participation was necessary, therefore, in absence of actual physical participation the Managing Director was not liable.
B. Since the act was not done in furtherance of a common intention, therefore, Managing Director cannot be punished for any offence, in the absence of evidence that the offence was committed with his consent or knowledge.
C. The Managing Director would be vicariously liable for the offence of criminal misappropriation under section 409 IPC because he was responsible for supervision and control of the servants of the company who might have caused the loss negligently.
D. The Managing Director would be liable under section 409 read with section 34 I.P.C. because physical presence is not necessary in offences involving diverse acts which may be done at different time and places.
✅ The correct answer is option D.

275. Point out incorrect response. The following principles were laid down in Mahboob Shah v. Emperor 72 I.A. 148.

A. Under section 34 the essence of liability is to be found in the existence of a common intention animating the accused leading to the doing of a criminal act in furtherance of such intention.
B. It is difficult if not impossible, to procure direct evidence to prove the intention of an individual; in most cases it has to be inferred from his act etc. Such an inference should never be reached unless it is necessary inference deducible from the circumstances of the case.
C. Common intention within in the meaning of section 34 implies a prearranged plan, and to convict the accused of an offence applying this section, it should be proved that the criminal act was done in concert pursuant to the prearranged plan.
D. Even though a person has not done anything but was only standing where the crime was committed by his co-conspirators the rule is that ‘they also serve who only stand and wait.’
✅ The correct answer is option D.

276. Point out incorrect response. In Barendera Kumar Ghose Vs. Emperor, 52 I.A. 40, the appellant was charged under section 302 read with section 34 of the I.P.C. with the murder of a sub-postmaster. Sub-postmaster was counting money in the backroom. Several persons appeared at the door of the office and demanded the post master to give up the money and immediately afterwards fired pistols at him. Postmaster died immediately and the assailants fled in different directions without taking money. On of them was chased and caught with a pistol in his hand. It was not clear as to who fired the fatal shot. While holding the appellant liable for murder the Privy Council laid down the following principles:

A. “Criminal act” means that unity of criminal behaviour which results in something for which an individual would be liable if it were all done by himself alone, in a criminal offence.
B. Even if the appellant did nothing as he stood outside the door, in crimes they also serve who only stand and wait.
C. Section 34 deals with the doing of separate acts, similar or diverse, by several persons ; if all are done in furtherance of a common intention, each person is liable for the result of them all, as if he had done them himself, for ‘that act’ in the latter part of the section must include the whole action covered by a “criminal act” in the first part because they refer to it.
D. Care must be taken not to confuse same or similar intention with the common intention.
✅ The correct answer is option D.

277. The difference between Section 34 and Section 149 of Indian Penal Code:

A. That whereas in Section 34 there must at least be five persons, Section 149 requires only two persons
B. That Section 149 is only a rule of evidence whereas Section 34 creates a specific offence and provides for its punishment.
C. That Section 34 requires active participation in action whereas Section 149 requires mere passive membership of the unlawful assembly
D. That Section 34 need not be joined with the principle offence, whereas Section 149 must be combined with the principle offence.
✅ The correct answer is option C.

278. Section 34 of IPC:

A. Creates a substantive offence
B. Is a rule of evidence
C. Both (a) and (b)
D. Neither (a) nor (b).
✅ The correct answer is option B.

279. Section 34 of I.P.C. provides for liability based on common intention. Consider the following situations: 1. The weapon used in the offence was found in A’s house. 2. A has procured the weapon of offence voluntarily to aid the criminal gang. 3. A was compelled under threat to his life to procure the weapon of offence. 4. The weapon was supplied on receipt of value of the weapon (sale). Which of the situation given above reflect (s) the correct ingredients with regard of Section 34?

A. 1 and 2
B. 2 and 3
C. 2 only
D. 4 only.
✅ The correct answer is option C.
Scroll to Top