Legal Dictionary

Refers to an act, contract, agreement, or statute that is void and treated as never having existed from its inception. In Indian law, frequently used in constitutional challenges and contract cases.

Under Order XXII of the CPC, a suit abates if: (a) a party dies and the legal representative fails to be substituted within 90 days (Order XXII Rule 3); (b) in cases where the right to sue does not survive (purely personal rights — e.g., defamation — abate on death); or (c) in appellate proceedings, where the appeal abates if the respondent dies and no substitution is made. Abatement does not mean the cause of action disappears — the legal representatives can apply to set aside the abatement (Order XXII Rule 9) and revive the suit within the limitation period. Where abatement results from the plaintiff's failure to substitute, the suit is dismissed — but the decree against the defendant may stand unaffected.

The ending of a civil lawsuit due to events like death of a party where the right does not survive. Governed by rules on substitution of parties.

Encouraging or assisting commission of an offence. Punishable independently under criminal law.

Abetment under Section 45 BNS 2023 (formerly Section 107 IPC) consists of three modes: (a) instigation — encouraging, provoking, or commanding another to commit an offence; (b) conspiracy — engaging in a conspiracy with another and an act or illegal omission takes place in furtherance; and (c) intentional aid — facilitating the commission of the offence by any act or illegal omission. Key principle: the abettor is punishable even if the principal does not carry out the offence (Section 48 BNS — abetment of an offence, even if the offence is not committed). An abettor who was present when the offence was committed may be punished as if they committed the principal offence (Section 51 BNS).

Deliberately evading arrest or court process by leaving jurisdiction.

Absolute liability is a distinctly Indian rule — more stringent than the English rule in Rylands v. Fletcher (1868) (strict liability with recognised exceptions). The Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India AIR 1987 SC 1086 (the Oleum gas leak case from a Shriram Foods factory in Delhi) held: (a) if an enterprise is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity and harm results to anyone, the enterprise is absolutely and non-delegably liable regardless of whether the accident was due to their fault; (b) there are NO exceptions — not act of God, not act of a stranger, not consent, not contributory negligence; (c) the enterprise must make absolute reparation; (d) the measure of compensation should be correlated to the magnitude and capacity of the enterprise — larger and more profitable enterprises pay more. This is the 'absolute liability' doctrine.

An accused is the person against whom criminal proceedings have been initiated. The accused's constitutional rights in India are protected under: Article 20(1) — no ex post facto criminal law; Article 20(2) — protection against double jeopardy; Article 20(3) — protection against self-incrimination ('no person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself'); Article 21 — right to life and personal liberty (which includes right to a fair trial); and Article 22 — right to be informed of grounds of arrest, right to counsel, right to be produced before a magistrate within 24 hours. Under BNSS 2023, the accused also has the right to obtain bail under specific conditions, to know the charges, and to cross-examine prosecution witnesses.

Accused found not guilty after trial.

Section 15 BNS 2023 (formerly Section 77 IPC) protects persons who act pursuant to a judicial order. A sheriff who executes a valid death sentence, a bailiff who levies execution on a court decree, a police officer who arrests under a warrant — none of these persons commit an offence even if the underlying order is later found to be erroneous. The maxim 'actus curiae neminem gravabit' (an act of the court shall prejudice no one) supports this: a party acting in good faith on a court order cannot be penalised for the court's error. However, the protection requires that: (a) the act be done in good faith; (b) in conformity with the order; and (c) the court had jurisdiction to make the order (not a court acting beyond its jurisdiction — a void ab initio order gives no protection).

Extraordinary natural occurrence excusing contractual or tort liability.

At common law, this maxim held that all personal actions (as opposed to real property actions) died with the parties. In India, the maxim has been substantially modified by statute: the Legal Representatives Suits Act (and similar state legislation) allows actions for property torts (trespass to property, conversion) to survive. The maxim retains relevance for: (a) defamation — a dead person cannot be defamed (at common law); (b) actions for pain and suffering — some jurisdictions hold these personal; (c) contracts of personal service — cannot be specifically enforced against the deceased's estate. The general Indian position (Section 306 CPC analogy and Law of Torts): actions for damage to property survive; actions for purely personal suffering generally do not.

Claim to unsecured money debt or beneficial interest in movable property not in possession, enforceable by suit.

Non-performance on due date.

Core criminal law maxim requiring both act and intention.

Actus reus (Latin: guilty act) is one of the two foundational pillars of criminal liability in Indian law, the other being mens rea (guilty mind). It refers to the physical conduct, omission, or state of affairs that constitutes the external element of a criminal offence. Actus reus may take three forms: (1) a positive voluntary act — e.g., striking a person (assault under Section 131 BNS); (2) a criminal omission where there is a legal duty to act — e.g., a parent failing to provide food to a child causing death (Section 106 BNS); or (3) a continuing state of affairs — e.g., being in possession of stolen property (Section 317 BNS). The act must be voluntary — an involuntary reflex action does not constitute actus reus. Mere thought or intention, however criminal, without an external act does not attract criminal liability. The prosecution must prove actus reus beyond reasonable doubt. Omission-based actus reus in India is limited to cases where the law expressly imposes a legal duty to act. Causation is also part of actus reus — the accused's act must have factually and legally caused the prohibited consequence.

Interim order granted until final hearing.

Adjournment under Order XVII of the CPC is one of the most significant sources of delay in Indian courts — the systemic over-use of adjournments has been identified as the primary cause of pendency. The CPC provides: (a) courts may grant adjournment if sufficient cause is shown; (b) the court should record in writing why the adjournment is granted; (c) courts should not grant more than three adjournments per suit (Rule 1A — introduced by 2002 amendment); (d) costs may be imposed on parties seeking unnecessary adjournments. The 2002 CPC amendment significantly tightened adjournment provisions — but the cultural practice of routine adjournments in Indian litigation remains persistent.

Authority to confirm attachment of property.

Admissible evidence is evidence that satisfies the requirements of relevancy, and is not otherwise excluded by rules of exclusion — only admissible evidence can be considered by the court in deciding the case.