Approach of Penal Code towards the offences against 3 wings of India - sec 131 - 140 IPC

Section 131 of Indian Penal Code 1860 defines  Abetting mutiny, or attempting to seduce a soldier, sailor or airman from his duty.

Whoever abets the committing of mutiny by an officer, soldier, sailor or airman, in the Army, Navy or Air Force of the Government of India or attempts to seduce any such officer, soldier, sailor or airman from his allegiance or his duty, shall be punished with 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.

Classification of section 131

Punishment—Imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for 10 years and fine— Cognizable—Non-bailable—Triable by Court of Session—Non-compoundable.

Section 132 of Indian Penal Code 1860 defines  Abetment of mutiny, if mutiny is committed in consequence thereof.

Whoever abets the committing of mutiny by an officer, soldier, sailor or airman in the Army, Navy or Air Force of the Government of India, shall, if mutiny be committed in consequence of that abetment, be punished with death or with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Classification of section 132

Punishment—Death, or imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for 10 years and fine-Cognizable—Non-bailable—Triable by Court of Session—Non-compoundable.

Section 133 of Indian Penal Code 1860 defines  Abetment of assault by soldier, sailor or airman on his superior officer, when in execution of his office.

Whoever abets an assault by an officer, soldier, sailor or airman, in the Army, Navy or Air Force of the Government of India, on any superior officer being in the execution of his office, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Classification of section 133

Punishment—Imprisonment for 3 years and fine—Cognizable—Non-Bailable— Triable by Magistrate of the first class—Non-compoundable.

In Municipal Council, Ratlam vs. Vardichan and Ors. It was held that the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ratlam, was moved to take action under Section 133 Cr.P.C. to abate the nuisance by ordering the municipality to construct drain pipes with flow of water to wash the filth and stop the stench. The Magistrate found the facts proved, made the direction sought and scared by the prospect of prosecution under Section 188 I.P.C., for violation of the order under Section 133 Cr.P.C., the municipality rushed from court to court till, at last, years after, it reached this Court as the last refuge of lost causes. Had the municipal council and its executive officers spent half this litigative zeal on cleaning up the street and constructing the drains by rousing the people's sramdan resources and laying out the city's limited financial resources, the people's needs might have been largely met long ago. 

Section 134 of Indian Penal Code 1860 defines  Abetment of such assault, if the assault is committed.

Whoever abets an assault by an officer, soldier, sailor or airman, in the Army, Navy or Air Force of the Government of India, on any superior officer being in the execution of his office, shall, if such assault be committed in consequence of that abetment be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Classification of section 134

Punishment—Imprisonment for 7 years and fine—Cognizable—Non-bailable—Triable by Magistrate of the first class—Non-compoundable.

Section 135 of Indian Penal Code 1860 defines  Abetment of desertion of soldier, sailor or airman.

Whoever abets the desertion of any officer, soldier, sailor or airman, in the Army, Navy or Air Force of the Government of India, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

Classification of section 135

Punishment—Imprisonment for 2 years, or fine, or both—Cognizable—Bailable— Triable by any Magistrate—Non-compoundable.

Keshub Mahindra vs. State of M.P.

It was learned senior counsel for the appellants vehemently submitted that the High Court was in error in invoking Section 135 against the concerned accused. Placing reliance on Esso Standard Inc. v. Viharam Bhagwandas Japanwalla he submitted that, that was a case in which for the individual acts of the directors of the company the company was sought to be made liable by invoking the principle of corporate liability based on the doctrine of directing mind and will.

Section 136 of Indian Penal Code 1860 defines  Harbouring deserter.

Whoever, except as hereinafter expected, knowing or having reason to believe that an officer, soldier, sailor or airman, in the Army, Navy or Air Force of the Government of India, has deserted, harbours such officer, soldier, sailor or airman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

Exception- This provision does not extend to the case in which the harbour is given by a wife to her husband.

Classification of section 136

Punishment—Imprisonment for 2 years, or fine, or both—Cognizable—Bailable— Triable by any Magistrate—Non-compoundable.

Section 137 of Indian Penal Code 1860 defines  Deserter concealed on board merchant vessel through negligence of master.

The master or person in charge of a merchant vessel, on board of which any deserter from the Army, Navy or Air Force of the Government of India is concealed, shall, though ignorant of such concealment, be liable to a penalty not exceeding five hundred rupees, if he might have known of such concealment but for some neglect of his duty as such master or person in charge, or but for some want of discipline on board of the vessel.

Classification of section 137

Punishment—Fine of 500 rupees—Non-Cognizable—Bailable—Triable by any Magistrate—Non-compoundable.

In Narayan Ganpati Patil and Ors. vs. The State it was held that Sections 137 and 138 provide for the manner in which a witness may be examined. Sections 141 to 143 relate to questions, which may be put to witnesses, when they are being examined. Section 145 provides for the manner in which a witness's evidence may be contradicted by reference to his previous statements. These and other provisions in this Chapter, which also contains Section 157, have been relied upon by Mr. Paranjpe in support of his argument that the words "testimony of a witness" in Section 157 mean the evidence of that witness given at the trial of the case, in which he is examined as a witness and not any statement made by him before the trial.

Section 138 of Indian Penal Code 1860 defines  Abetment of act of insubordination by soldier, sailor or airman.

Whoever abets what he knows to be an act of insubordination by an officer, soldier, sailor or airman, in the Army, Navy or Air Force of the Government of India, shall, if such act of insubordination be committed in consequence of that abetment, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.

Classification of section 138

Punishment—Imprisonment for 6 months, or fine, or both—Cognizable— Bailable—Triable by any Magistrate—Non-compoundable.

Section 138A of IPC 1860 defines application of foregoing sections to the Indian Marine Service.

Section 139 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 defines persons subject to certain Acts.

No person subject to the Army Act, the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), or the Naval Discipline Act, the Indian Navy (Discipline) Act, 1934 (34 of 1934), the Air Force Act the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), is subject to punishment under this Code for any of the offences defined in this Chapter.

In State of Punjab vs. Jagjit Singh and Ors.it was stated that the Trial Court for the reasons assigned in its Judgment found all the respondents guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 148, 302 read with 149, I.P.C. and 323 read with 139, I.P.C. and sentenced each one of them to undergo imprisonment for life, besides awarding various terms of imprisonment for other offences. However, the Trial Court acquitted the accused Raghubir Singh. Being aggrieved by the Judgment of the Trial Court all the respondents preferred an appeal before the High Court.

Section 140 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 defines wearing garb or carrying token used by soldier, sailor or airman.

Whoever, not being a soldier, sailor or airman, in the Military, Naval or Air service of the Government of India, wears any garb or carries any token resembling any garb or token used by such a soldier, sailor or airman with the intention that it may be believed that he is such a soldier, sailor or airman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.

Classification of section 140

Punishment—Imprisonment for 3 months, or fine of 500 rupees, or both Cognizable ,Bailable ,Triable by any Magistrate—Non-compoundable.

In Fight for Human Rights vs. Union of India the attention is drawn therein to Section 140 of the Indian Penal Code, which makes wearing the garb or carrying token used by a soldier, soldier or airman, is an offence punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both. We may extract hereunder Section 140 of the IPC in extenso which supports the contention of the petitioner and reads as follows:

"Section 140 - Wearing garb or carrying token used by soldier, sailor or airman.-Whoever, not being a soldier, sailor or airman, in the Military, Naval or Air service of the Government of India, wears any garb or carries any token resembling any garb or token used by such a soldier, sailor or airman with the intention that it may be believed that he is such a soldier, sailor or airman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both."