IPC Section 156 - Agent's Liability For Riot's Benefit

Riots are a situation where public order gets disrupted severely with dangerous consequences such as property damage, human life threats, and breach of peace in society. Under Indian laws, there are provisions that make the perpetrators, as well as those who benefit from such disturbing incidents, accountable equally. Section 156 of the IPC talks about the liability of agents or managers of owners or occupiers of land or property when a riot takes place on their behalf or for their benefit.

Legal Provision

Section 156 of the IPC ‘Liability of Agent of Owner or Occupier for Whose Benefit Riot is Committed’ states:

Whenever a riot is committed for the benefit or on behalf of any person who is the owner or occupier of any land respecting which such riot takes place, or who claims any interest in such land, or in the subject of any dispute which gave rise to the riot, or who has accepted or derived any benefit therefrom, the agent or manager of such person shall be punishable with fine, if such agent or manager, having reason to believe that such riot was likely to be committed, or that the unlawful assembly by which such riot was committed was likely to be held, shall not use all lawful means in his power to prevent such riot or assembly from taking place and for suppressing and dispersing the same.

Key Elements Of Section 156

The key elements of Section 156 of IPC are as follows:

1. Riot For The Benefit Of An Owner Or Occupier

Section 146 of the IPC talks about riots where the unlawful assembly of five or more people with the common objective

A riot is defined under Section 146 of the IPC as an unlawful assembly of five or more individuals with a common objective that escalates into violence. For Section 156 to apply, the riot must directly or indirectly benefit the owner or occupier of the land. This benefit could include:

• Protection of disputed property.
• Strengthening claims over the subject of dispute.
• Eviction of rival claimants or trespassers.

For example, if tenants engage in a riot to assert their landlord’s claim to a property against illegal encroachment, the landlord might indirectly benefit from their actions.

2. Role Of The Agent Or Manager

The provision explicitly targets the agent or manager of the individual benefiting from the riot. These individuals are considered fiduciaries or representatives with a duty to act in the best interests of the owner or occupier while ensuring lawful conduct.

The law recognizes that agents or managers often have significant influence over events leading to or stemming from disputes. Their inaction or negligence in preventing unlawful assemblies or riots, when it is within their capacity to do so, attracts liability under this section.

3. Foreknowledge And Preventive Duty

Section 156 hinges on the agent or manager’s knowledge and capacity to act. The liability arises when:

• The agent or manager has reason to believe that a riot or unlawful assembly is imminent.
• They fail to employ "all lawful means in their power" to prevent or suppress the riot.

This establishes a duty of care, requiring proactive efforts to avert violence. The phrase "all lawful means" suggests that they must employ reasonable measures such as:

• Alerting law enforcement authorities.
• Dispersing crowds using legal and peaceful methods.
• Issuing clear instructions to subordinates or stakeholders to avoid unlawful acts.

4. Deriving Benefit From the Riot

Even if the owner or occupier is not directly involved in the riot, liability may still arise if they accept or derive benefit from it post facto. This provision ensures accountability and prevents influential parties from passively reaping the rewards of unlawful acts without intervention.

5. Punishment

The punishment prescribed is a fine. While seemingly lenient, the imposition of fines underlines the accountability of agents and managers, reinforcing the importance of preventive and corrective action in such scenarios.

Section 156 Of IPC: Key Details

The key details of Section 156 IPC are as follows:

Landmark Case Laws

The landmark case laws based on Section 156 of the IPC are as follows:

Nripendra Bhusan Ray vs Gobinda Bandhu Majumdar

In this case, Nripendra Bhusan Ray, a zemindar, owned a market in Simakhali that faced competition from a nearby rival market in Kholabari, leading to tensions and a riot in 1922. Police accused Nripendra and his manager, Bepin Behari Dutt, of encouraging the violence and charged them under Sections 155 and 156 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). However, the District Magistrate ruled these sections inapplicable, instead framing charges under Section 154 IPC for facilitating unlawful assembly.

The court examined whether the manager had knowledge or reason to believe the unlawful assembly would occur, emphasizing the need for clear evidence to establish criminal liability. The ruling highlighted the importance of proving intent in applying Section 154 IPC.

Anju Chaudhary vs State Of U.P.

The case revolves around the legality of registering multiple FIRs for a single incident. A complaint was filed alleging various crimes, including hate speech, incitement to violence, and property damage. The Magistrate rejected the application, stating that an FIR was already registered for a related incident. The High Court overturned the Magistrate's order, directing the registration of a new FIR. The High Court reasoned that the earlier FIR did not encompass all the allegations in the complaint.

The Supreme Court, while recognizing the importance of efficient investigation and preventing abuse of the system, clarified that multiple FIRs for the same incident are generally not permissible. However, in cases where there are distinct incidents or offences, even if related to the same event, multiple FIRs may be justified. In this particular case, the Court found that the allegations in the complaint were sufficiently distinct from the earlier FIR to warrant a fresh investigation. Therefore, the High Court's order was upheld.

Conclusion

Section 156 of the IPC embodies a crucial principle of accountability, ensuring that those in positions of responsibility act to prevent or suppress riots that may benefit their principals. By placing a legal obligation on agents and managers to take proactive measures, the provision safeguards public order and deters passive complicity in unlawful activities.

FAQs On Section 156 of IPC

A few FAQs based on the Section 156 of IPC are as follows:

Q1. What is the punishment for violating Section 156?

The punishment under Section 156 for failing to prevent a riot or unlawful assembly is a fine. The severity of the fine depends on the circumstances, such as the agent’s knowledge and negligence in taking appropriate actions.

Q2. Who can be held liable under Section 156?

Under Section 156, an agent or manager of the landowner or occupier can be held liable if a riot occurs on the property for their benefit. This includes those who have a vested interest in the land or benefit from a dispute that caused the riot.

Q3. Does Section 156 apply to all riots?

No, Section 156 specifically applies to riots that occur on property or land owned or occupied by someone who benefits from the dispute causing the riot. It doesn’t apply to every riot, only those involving a party with vested interests in the land or dispute.