CONTENTS

TOPICS Page No.

Limitations 2
Introduction
Good Faith 4
Good Faith-Defense 5
Case Laws 6
Conclusion 8

1|P ag e
LIMITATIONS
The research on the topic “Good Faith” is limited to the below mentioned areas:

1. Indian Penal Code- Meaning and Objectives

2. Good Faith- Meaning and Law
3. Good Faith- Defense
4. Case Law

2|P ag e
INTRODUCTION
The Indian Penal Code (IPC) is the official criminal code of India. It is a comprehensive code
intended to cover all substantive aspects of criminal law. The code was drafted in 1860 on the
recommendations of first law commission of India established in 1834 under the Charter Act of
1833 under the Chairmanship of Lord Thomas Babington Macaulay.[1][2][3] It came into force
in British India during the early British Raj period in 1862. However, it did not apply
automatically in the Princely states, which had their own courts and legal systems until the
1940s. The Code has since been amended several times and is now supplemented by other
criminal provisions.
After the partition of the British Indian Empire, the Indian Penal Code was inherited by its
successor states, the Dominion of India and the Dominion of Pakistan, where it continues
independently as the Pakistan Penal Code. The Ranbir Penal Code (R.P.C) which is applicable
in Jammu and Kashmir is also based on this Code, However, after the successful passage of
the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Bill, 2019 in the Rajya Sabha and the Lok
Sabha respectively, the Ranbir Penal Code will be repealed on 31 October 2019, henceforth the
Indian Penal Code will be extended in the region from the aforementioned date. After the
separation of Bangladesh from Pakistan, the code continued in force there. The Code was also
adopted by the British colonial authorities in Colonial Burma, Ceylon (modern Sri Lanka),
the Straits Settlements (now part of Malaysia), Singapore and Brunei, and remains the basis of
the criminal codes in those countries.

OBJECTIVE
The objective of this Act is to provide a general penal code for India.[5] Though not the initial
objective, the Act does not repeal the penal laws which were in force at the time of coming into
force in India. This was done because the Code does not contain all the offences and it was
possible that some offences might have still been left out of the Code, which were not intended
to be exempted from penal consequences. Though this Code consolidates the whole of the law on
the subject and is exhaustive on the matters in respect of which it declares the law,many more
penal statutes governing various offences have been created in addition to the code.

3|P ag e
GOOD FAITH- Meaning and Law

Good faith has not been defined in the Indian Penal Code in positive terms. Section 52 of the
Code gives only a negative definition by saying that “nothing is said to be done or delivered in
“good faith’ which is done or delivered without due care and attention.”

Absence of good faith, according to the Code, only means carelessness or negligence. Mere good
faith in the sense of simple belief with any grounds for believing is not sufficient; the belief must
be some reasonable, not an absurd belief; that is, there must be some reasonable ground for it.
Good faith requires due care and attention.
The phrase “due care and attention” implies genuine effort to reach the truth and not ready
acceptance of an ill-nurtured belief.

It has been held that when a question arises as to whether a person acted in good faith, and then it
devolves upon him to show not merely that he had a good insertion but that he exercised such
care and skill as the duty reasonably demanded for its due discharge.

The question of good faith varies in different cases and must be considered with reference to the
circumstances of the case and the capacity and intelligence of the person whose conduct is in
question.

The law does not expect the same care and attention from all persons regardless of the position
they occupy.

It varies in different cases. Thus, where a police constable suspected bona fide that a person was
carrying stolen property and he arrested the accused on getting an unsatisfactory reply, it was
held that the constable acted in good faith and was protected under Section 79 of the Code.

The above negative definition of “good faith” differs materially from its ordinary connotation
where a thing is deemed to be done in good faith when it is done in fact honestly. Even Section
3(20) of the General Clauses Act gives expression to popular connotation by defining “good
faith” as under: “A thing shall be deemed to be done in “good faith” where it is, in fact, done
honestly whether it is done negligently or not.”

4|P ag e
But we have seen above that under the Indian Penal Code this definition is inapplicable, as,
according to the Code, if a thing is done honestly but negligently without due care and attention
it is not done in good faith. In fact, under the definition in the Code, the question of honesty is
immaterial.

(b) The facts have been taken from the case of Sukaroo Kobiraj, [1887, 14 Cal. 566], according
to which the Kaviraj was held guilty of an offence punishable under Section 304-A of the Indian
Penal Code for causing death by doing a rash and negligent act as he was admittedly uneducated
in matters of surgery and his undertaking to perform a dangerous operation was not an act done
in good faith, i.e., done with due care and attention.

(c) The accused has rightly been charged under Section 304-A for, though he was under a
mistake of fact, he had acted without due care and caution and hence could not be held to have
acted in good faith.

Plea of good faith as defense:

The Code recognizes plea of “good faith” as good defence in the following cases:

1. Act done by a person who, by reason of mistake of fact, in good faith, believes himself to be
bound by law to do it (S. 76);

2. Act of a judge when acting judicially in the exercise of any power which, in good faith, he
believes to be given to him by law (S. 77);

3. Act done pursuant to the judgment or order of a court, if done whilst such judgment or order
remains in force, notwithstanding the court may have had no jurisdiction to pass such judgment
or order, provided the person doing the act in good faith believes that the court had such
jurisdiction (S. 78);

4. Act done by a person who, by reason of a mistake of fact, in good faith, believes himself to be
justified by law in doing it (S. 79);

5. Act done in good faith for the benefit of a person even without that person’s consent (S. 92);

6. Communication made in good faith even though harm may ensue to the person to whom it is
made for the benefit of that person (S. 93);

5|P ag e
7. Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender being a public servant or aiding a public
servant or acting for the advancement of public justice exceeds the power given to him by law
and causes death by doing an act which he, in good faith, believes to be lawful and necessary for
the due discharge of his duty (S. 300, Exception 3);

8. Obstruction of a private way over land or water which a person, in good faith, believes himself
to have a lawful right to obstruct is not an offence of wrongful restraint (Exception to S. 339) and

9. Expression in good faith of any opinion respecting the conduct or character of a public
servant, in the discharge of his public duties, respecting the conduct or character of any person
touching any public question, respecting the merits of any case decided by a court or of conduct
of witnesses and respecting the merits of any performance of an author, censure passed in good
faith by person having lawful authority over another, accusation preferred in good faith to an
authorized person, imputation made in good faith by a person for protection of his or other’s
interests and caution conveyed in good faith for the good of the person to whom conveyed or for
public good. (S. 499).

CASE LAWS

1. M.A.Rumugam Vs. Kittu1, the Court held that:

Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code reads, thus,

"499 - Defamation Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by

visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to
harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of
such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter expected, to defame that person."
Exceptions, to which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel, read as under:
Exception.--Accusation preferred in good faith to authorised person. It is not defamation to
prefer in good faith an accusation against any person to any of those who have lawful authority
over that person with respect to the subject-matter of accusation.
Exception.--Imputation made in good faith by person for protection of his or other's interests. It
is not defamation to make an imputation on the character of another provided that the imputation
be made in good faith for the protection of the interests of the person making it, or of any other
person, or for the public good."

1
SC 1894, (7th November, 2008)

6|P ag e
The word "good faith" has been defined in Section 52 of the Indian Penal Code to mean:
"52 - "Good faith"
Nothing is said to be done or believed in "good faith" which is done or believed without due care
and attention."

2. In Sukaroo Kabiraj v. Emp., the accused operated upon the deceased for internal piles by
an ordinary knife resulting in his death from haemorrhage and blood loss. It was held that
even though he had performed similar operations before, his act could not be held to have
been done in good faith because he did not hold any degree in surgery which would make
him legally entitled to perform operations.

3. In Hayat v. Emp., the accused saw a stooping child at a place which was believed by him
and other villagers to be haunted. He killed the child before discovering his mistake. It
was held that his act could not be held to have been done in good faith.

7|P ag e
CONCLUSION

The section gives a negative definition of the expression ‘good faith‘ as is clear from its
language. It does not state as to what is meant by the term. It merely says that if something is
done or believed without due care and attention it is not done or believed in good faith. The term
‘good faith’ has also been defined under section 3(22) of the General Clauses Act, 1897. That
definition, however, has no application in matters under the Indian Penal Code since the
expression has been defined under this section by the Code itself. The expression has been used
extensively in the Code and at all places it has the same meaning as provided under this section.
The expression ‘due care and attention’ used in this section has nowhere been defined in the
Code. The Courts have tried to explain it on the basis of their own judgment based on logic and
reason. A good intention and reasonable care and skill are important factors to be taken into
account to determine as to whether an act has been done in good faith. General circumstances
and the capacity and intelligence of the concerned person must be kept in mind.

8|P ag e