AIM LAW Academy

REGISTER YOUR BUSINESS AS PRIVATE COMPANY SOON!
AVAIL OFFERS NOW
SEND US YOUR DOCUMENTS WE SHALL DO THE COMPLIANCE FOR YOU WITH EASE!
CONTACT: 62386 35320, 86680 25089

Preparing for AIBE 2022
It’s the right time to hire a tutor
Join us in fast pace coaching for AIBE 2022
Call us +91 70102 11088

Admission open
Call 91716 08700

Admission open 3 year LLB / 5 year LLB
Hurry up

Crime means wrongs done by human beings. It authorizes the infliction of State punishment. A human conduct that is believed to be inimical to the social interests is considered as crime. The purpose of criminal law is to express a formal social condemnation of forbidden conduct, supported by sanctions to prevent it.

According to *Blackstone*, ‘a crime is an act committed or omitted, in violation of a public law either forbidding or commanding it’. A crime is basically an act which a particular social group regards as sufficiently harmful to its fundamental interests.

The maxim *actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea* (the act does not amount to guilt, it must be accompanied by guilty mind) is considered as the basic condition to charge someone against penal liability i.e. mere guilty act and mere guilty mind are independently not sufficient, there has to be a nexus between the two.

*Following are the essential elements to constitute crime:*

*Actus Reus*- it is such result of human conduct which law prohibits i.e. the guilty act. An act may be positive or negative (omission). Wrongful act which inflicts harm or destruction to any person or property is read as guilty act.

*Mens Rea*- it is the guilty mind required for the commission of an offence. Mens Rea is the evil intention or knowledge to do a wrongful act voluntarily in conscious state of mind. It is the natural result of a man’s external act and not the condition of his mind. There must be a concurrence of mens rea and actus reus to constitute a crime.

*Punishment*- in order to call a wrongful act as crime it should not only be prohibited by the law but should also be punishable by the State. The chief aim of criminal law is to punish the offenders. The purpose of punishment is to prevent a criminal from repeating the offence.

In the case of *NATHUNI YADAV VS. STATE OF BIHAR* it was held that motive is not a perquisite for conviction of an offence; it has mere evidentiary value and mere absence or presence of motive will not make a person guilty or innocent.

*Legal Maxims*

1. *Boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem* - It is the part of a good judge to enlarge his jurisdiction, i.e. remedial authority.
Term that designates it is the duty of the judge to enlarge its jurisdiction. This maxim is to amplify the remedies and to apply its rules to the advancement of substantial justice. It denotes that a good judge’s duty is to develop the remedies of the law. If a party to the case drew support of the maxim Boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem, a judge has the power to develop the remedies and to provide remedial justice.
*Case Reference* - Brij Mohan Lal v. Union of India (2012) 6 SCC 502

2. *Casus fortuitus non est sperandus ; et nemo tenetur divin* - A fortuitous event is not to be forseen, no person is understood to be divine.
The term Et Nemo Tenetur Divinare is a latin term and it literally translate into No one is bound to foretell. The maxim is based on the principle that states that no one is bound to divine the future. Similarly the term Casus Fortuitus Non Est Spectandus also states that no person can foresee the future events. The maxim aims to describe a situation which has occurred due to certain unforeseen circumstances which couldn’t have been predicted by any individual. It describes act of God. Anything which has occurred due to certain acts beyond the control of the people are referred.
*Case Reference* - Morrice v Baker and Elizabeth, [1612] 1 WLUK 84

3. *Caveat Emptor* - Let the purchaser beware.
The expression is an old rule that is expected to determine debates emerging from data asymmetry, the inescapable circumstance wherein the dealer knows more than the purchaser about the nature of a decent or administration. The precept of Caveat Emptor is a vital piece of the Sale of Goods Act. It means “let the purchaser be careful”. This implies it lays their preferred obligation on the purchaser themselves. A dealer makes his merchandise accessible in the open market. The purchaser sees every one of his choices and after that as needs be settles on his decision. This regulation says that the merchant won’t be in charge of this. The purchaser himself is in charge of the decision he made. So the tenet endeavors to make the purchaser increasingly aware of his decisions. It is the obligation of the purchaser to check the quality and the convenience of the item he is buying. In the event that the item ends up being faulty or does not satisfy its potential, the vendor won’t be in charge of this.
*Case Reference* - Mariappan v Inspector General of Registration, Department of Registration, Chennai and others, 2018 Indlaw MAD 13663

4. *Cessante ratione legis, cessat ipsa lex*- The reason of the law ceasing, the law itself ceases.
Many if not all laws are brought in to respond to situations that exist at the time of the law. Society evolves and the time comes when a law, still on the law books, has no relevance to modern society. For example, martial law declared in a time of crisis quickly loses relevance as the society calms down or the crisis goes away and martial law is no longer required the reason for a law ceasing, the law itself ceases. The omission to remove irrelevant laws often creates a situation colloquially known as crazy laws, of which we have an entire collection.
*Case Reference* - Fox v. Snow, 76 A. 2d 877 (1950)

5. *Certum est quod certum reddi potest* - That is certain which is able to be rendered certain
It is a maxim of law, that, that is certain which may be made certain; certum est quod certum reddi potest Co.; for example, when a man sells the oil he has in his store at so much a gallon, although there is uncertainty as to the quantity of oil, yet inasmuch as it can be ascertained, the maxim applies, and the sale is good generally. By certainty is understood a clear and distinct statement of the facts which constitute the cause of action, or ground of defence, so that they may be understood by the party who is to answer them, by the jury who are to ascertain the truth of the allegations, and by the court who are to give the judgment.
*Case Reference* - Vimlesh Kumari Kulshrestha v. Sambhajirao, (2008) 5 SCC 58

https://legalsarcasm.com/news-blogs/court-cannot-appreciate-evidence-while-deciding-bail-application-jammu-kashmir-high-court-while-rejecting-bail-in-murder-case/

Court cannot appreciate evidence while deciding bail application: Jammu & Kashmir High Court while rejecting bail in murder case - Legal Sarcasm BY- HARDIK SINGH RATHORE High Court cannot appreciate the evidence collected by the prosecution against the accused while deciding a bail application, the J&K High Court recently clarified (Amrit Pal Singh v Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir). A single-judge of Justice Puneet Gupta of J&K High Co...

Admission open for 3/5 year LLB
5 year B.COM LLB
5 year BBA LLB
5 year BA LLB
3 year LLB

𝗗𝗔𝗧𝗘 - 𝟯𝟬/𝟭𝟮/𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟬
𝗗𝗮𝘆 - 𝗪𝗲𝗱𝗻𝗲𝘀𝗱𝗮𝘆

𝗖𝗔𝗦𝗘𝗦 𝗟𝗔𝗪𝗦

𝟭. 𝗔𝗞 𝗚𝗼𝗽𝗮𝗹𝗮𝗻 𝗩. 𝗨𝗢𝗜

𝗙𝗔𝗖𝗧𝗦

AK Gopalan was a Communist leader who was kept in the Madras Jail in 1950 under the Preventive Detention Law. By writ of Habeas Corpus in accordance with Article 32 of 𝗜𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗶𝘁𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, he tested his detainment while contending that Sections 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 of the Act abuses Articles 13, 19, and 21 of the Indian Constitution and along these lines, the said Act is ultra vires of the essential thing arrangements as revered under the Constitution of India. The solicitor further represented the issue of the Indian Constitution’s ‘method characterized by resolution’ condition.

𝗛𝗘𝗟𝗗

Then again, while dismissing the applicant’s contentions, the Hon’ble 𝗦𝘂𝗽𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗿𝘁 of India fought that Article 22 of the Indian Constitution is an independent Code and that he was kept by the system set up by law. The court additionally held that if an individual’s freedom is removed by the State as per the system set up by law for example in the event that the detainment was according to the technique of law, at that point it can’t be said that it disregards the arrangements contained in Article 14, 19 and 21 of 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗶𝘁𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝗜𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗮 . In this specific case, the Supreme Court took a restricted perspective on Article 21 of the Constitution of India. While applying the regulation of severability, the zenith court pronounced segment 14 as void as it discovers it to be unconstitutional and violative of the key rights. Court stated the rule of system set up by law and proclaimed the use of fair treatment condition and worldwide common liberties contracts unimportant in Indian premises. Further, the court proclaimed segments 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, and 13 as intra-infection the constitutions, thus legitimate. At long last, the Court found that the detainment was legitimate and thus writ was discarded in like manner.

𝟮. *UNITED STATES V. EICHMAN*

*FACTS*

In 1989, Congress passed the Flag Protection Act which made it a crime to destroy an American flag or any likeness of an American flag which may be "commonly displayed." The law did, however, allow proper disposal of a worn or soiled flag. Several prosecutions resulted from the Act. Eichman set a flag ablaze on the steps of the U.S. Capitol while protesting the government's domestic and foreign policy. Another prosecution (United States v. Haggerty) resulted from a flag-burning in Seattle protesting the passage of the Flag Protection Act.Both cases (Eichman's and Haggerty's) were argued together.

*ISSUE*

Did the Act violate freedom of expression protected by the First Amendment?

*JUDGMENT*

In a 5-to-4 decision, coming on the heels of a similar holding in Texas v. Johnson (1989), the Court struck down the law because "its asserted interest is related to the suppression of free expression and concerned with the content of such expression." Allowing the flag to be burned in a disposal ceremony but prohibiting protestors from setting it ablaze at a political protest made that clear, argued Justice Brennan in one of his final opinions.

𝟯. *AZAD V. BERGMAN*

*FACTS*

David Bergman, a British journalist, published three separate articles in his personal blog on issues surrounding the Bangladesh Liberation War of 1971, particularly about the country’s International Crimes Tribunal, a domestic judicial mechanism with the mandate to punish individuals responsible for atrocities committed during the war.

In two articles, Bergman questioned the exact number of people who died during the war, and criticized the Tribunal for its failure to make an independent inquiry about the matter. In another article, he questioned the validity of adjudicating a case in absentia by the Tribunal.

Following the publication of articles, a contempt proceeding was brought against Bergman under Section 11(4) of the International Crimes Tribunal Act. The Applicant alleged that Bergman intended to demean, disparage and lower the Tribunal’s authority and that his article on the issue of death figures was aimed to hurt the emotion and aspiration of the public.

*JUDGEMENT*

The court ruled that a public criticism of an issue that is under judicial consideration amounts to contempt of the court. It found that even though the issue of death figures did not directly relate to the merits of pending cases, Bergman’s articles created confusion in the mind of the public and undermined the Tribunal’s authority in making its own observation concerning the matter.

With regard to the other article, the Court held that Bergman’s criticism was a deliberate attempt to “lower down and demean the tribunal’s authority and ability that finally tends to shake the public confidence upon the judicial machinery of the Tribunal and its governing Statute.”

It ruled that the freedom of speech does not protect a criticism, even a post judgement criticism, that “create debate and mystification in the mind of the public as to fairness, dignity, image, judicial process and independence of the Tribunal.”

𝟰. 𝗕𝗿𝗼𝘄𝗻 𝘃. 𝗞𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗮𝗹𝗹 ( 𝟲𝟬 𝗠𝗮𝘀𝘀 𝟮𝟵𝟮 𝟭𝟴𝟱𝟬)

𝗙𝗔𝗖𝗧𝗦
I'm this case defendant was waiting by a railroad crossing on his wagon which was loaded with grain and drwan by two horses.
Later on engine in the railroad frightened the horses and defendant horses become rampant the horses struck a stone in the rest with the street lamp own by pantiff and defendant take all due care but plantiff sued the defendant.

𝗜𝗦𝗦𝗨𝗘

𝗜𝘀 𝗱𝗲𝗳𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗳𝗳 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗱𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗹𝘆 𝗔𝗰𝘁 𝗱𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗳𝗳𝘀 𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗱?

𝗛𝗘𝗟𝗗
Court held that the No plantiff cannot sued the defendant abandoned the Rule of Ryland V. Fletcher where defendant had no negligence on his part until unless he is not negligent and not caused the damage.

𝟱. *IBP, INC. V. ALVAREZ*

*FACTS*

In two separate cases, employees sued Barber Foods and IBP in federal district court. The employees alleged the companies violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by not paying them for time spent walking to the worksite after putting on required equipment. The district court and later the First Circuit ruled against the Barber employees. A separate district court ruled IBP must compensate its employees for the disputed time. The Ninth Circuit agreed. The U.S. Supreme Court consolidated the cases.

*ISSUE*

Did the Fair Labor Standards Act require employers to pay employees for time spent walking to and from stations that distributed required safety equipment?

*JUDGMENT*

Yes. Justice John Paul Stevens, for a unanimous Court, wrote that putting on required safety equipment qualified as a "principal activity" under the FLSA. The workday began when employees started that activity and therefore included the subsequent time spent walking to the worksite. The time spent waiting to put on safety equipment before that, however, was not included in the workday because it was a "preliminary" activity under the Portal-to-Portal Act

ADMISSION OPEN

Also introducing BE AGRICULTURE ENGINEERING and BE CYBER SECURITY