Harm is not defined in the IPC.

Its dictionary meaning connotes hurt, injury

impairment, moral wrong or evil. The word 'harm is used in many sections in the
meaning would vary depending on the context in which it is used. For instance Trivial Acts

81. 87-89, 91, 92, 100, 104 and 106, IPC, can only mean physical injury. In 59
means an injurious mental reaction. In s 415. it means injury to a person in body, mind
reputation or property. In ss 469 and 499 'harm' means harm to reputation of the aggrieved
arty. The expression 'harm' used in s 95 is of wide amplitude. It connotes hurt, Injury
insult,7 damage, impairment, moral wrong or evil. including intentional physical injury
financial loss or loss of reputation.1
In Verda Menezes v Yusuf Khan 20 Yusuf Khan was a tenant of Mrs Veeda Mencies
Robert, the servant of Mrs Menezes called Yusuf's wife a thief. Next day, Yusuf slapped
Robert due to which heated exchange of abusive words followed between Yusuf and Mr
Menezes. Yusuf threw a file at Mr Menezes, though it did not hit him, but scratched
Mrs Menezes elbows. A complaint was launched at the Bandra Police Station by Mrs
Menezes stating that Yusuf committed house trespass in order to commit an offence
punishable with imprisonment, threw a shoe at her, slapped the face of her servant
Robert and also caused her a bleeding incised wound on the forearm Yusuf was
charged under s 323, IPC. A special public prosecutor was appointed to prosecute him.
The trial court convicted Yusuf and sentenced him to a fine of Rs 10 on cach count of
assault against Robert and Mrs Menezes. The high court acquitted Yusuf on the ground
that the offence committed was trivial and was covered by s 95. IPC. Mrs Menezes took
up the case on appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court observed that the
offence was petty, but was given undue importance. The version of Mrs Menzies as to
the incident was a gross exaggeration. The Supreme Court upheld the verdict of the high
court that the injuries caused to Mrs Menetes and Robert were trivial, and the case was
one in which the injury intended to be caused was so slight that a person of ordinary
sense and temper would not complain of the harm caused thereby
In Keki Hormusji Gharda v Mohertan Rustom Irani the Supreme Court observed that
the Bombay High Court ought to have exercised its jurisdiction under s 482 of the CrPC as
the inconvenience caused due to the construction of an access road was trivial in nature.

In Bindeshwari Prasad Sinha v Kali Singh?2 the allegation against the accused was that
he took away a certified copy of judgment meant for the complainant by signing his
name. The complainant obtained another copy thereafter. The court held that this was a
case which was covered by s 95.

Where the offence complained of is in respect of outraging the modesty of a woman, the
harm caused can never be said to be trivial, in view of the ignominy and trauma caused to
the
woman. In Rupan Deol Bajaj v KPS Gill 2s the petitioner was an officer of the Indian
Administrative Service (IAS) belonging to the Punjab cadre. She was posted as Special

15 Verda Menezes v Yusuf Khan AIR 1966 SC 17731966 Cr LJ 1489 (SC),

16 Veeda Menezes v Yusuf Khan AIR 1966 SC 17731966 Cr LJ 1489 (SC); Devendrappt v
State of
Mysore (1970) Cr LJ 1188 (Kant).
17 Phillip Rangel v Emperor AIR 1932 Bom 193.
18 Re Ethinajan AIR 1955 Mad 2641955 Cr LJ 816 (Mad); Ganesh Dutt Bharu Kebar Dan
(1991) 3 Crimes 773 (HP); Ranjit Singh State of Bihar (1991) 1 Crimes 867 (Pat).
19 Bheema y Venkata Rao AIR 1964 Mys 285: Juraj Jaga v Emperor AIR 1929 Lah 234; MS
Sharif
Ahmed B Quabul Singh AIR 1921 All 30.
20 AIR 1966 SC 17731966 Cr LJ 1489 (SC).
21 (2009) 6 SCC 475, AIR 2009 SC 2594.
22 AIR 1977 SC 24321978 CLJ 187 (SC).
23 AIR 1996 SC 30919956 SCC 194.

Criminal Law

Secretary (Finance) at the relevant point in time. She filed a complaint allein
of offences under ss 341342352354 and 509 of the Penal Code by KPS Gill, dhe dhes
Director General of Police, Punjab. According to the petitioner, she was invited
party in the house of her colleague. KPS Gill was also present at the party. He cila
her and asked her to come and sit next to him. When she went, he pulled the chair
she was going to sit dose to his chair. The petitioner, surprised at this act, pulled
back to its original place and when she was about to sit down, he once again pulled the dui
dose to his chair. Realising that something was wrong she immediately left his
minutes later, KPS Gill got up from his seat and came and stood dosc to her. Het
action with a crook of his finger and asked her to come along with him. The te
objected to his obnoxious behaviour and asked him to leave. He once again repeated the
should accompany him and this time in a commanding voice. The petitioner
apprehensive and frightened as the accused had blocked her way and she could not
from the chair without touching him. She immediately drew her chair back about a foe
a half, and quickly got up and turned to get out. At this point, the accused, KPS Gill, c
Mrs Bajaj on her posterior. This was done in the full presence of the other ladies and
The petitioner made a complaint against KPS Gill and registered a First Information Re
(FIR) against him. The accused moved the high court for quashing the FIR The high c
allowed the application and quashed the FIR on the ground that the allegations made therein
did not disclose any cognisable offence and the nature of harm allegedly caused to Mn Ba
did not entitle her to complain about the same in view of s 95, IPC. On appeal, the Supreme
Court disagreed with the high court. The apex court held that s 95 has no application to the
allegations made in the FIR Mr Gill, the top most official of the state police, indecency
behaved with Mrs Bajaj, a senior lady IAS officer, in the presence of other officers, in spite of
her raising objections continued with such behaviour. The apex court held that when
offence relates to the modesty of a woman, under no circumstances can it be termed trivial

Adler
affect
iers
ball ha
1955.
ight

Sim

ailey
bould

Madic

collect
respect
low th
would
The h

OFFENCES UNDER PUBLIC WELFARE ENACTMENTS

In the chapter on mens rea, we have noticed that there are certain offences under various
social welfare legislations, wherein strict liability is imposed on persons. Now, the
question arises as to whether in respect of such offences, the plea of triviality can be
accepted. For instance, violation of traffic rules such as parking a vehicle in a no parking
area or exceeding the speed limit marginally etc, may by themselves result in no harm of
negligent harm. However, the plea that the harm caused is trivial, may not be accepted
in such cases and the persons concerned are liable to pay the fine imposed.

be

The
hen
of
a fir

In Jagdish Prasad v State of Uttar Pradesh it was contended that the Prevention of
Food Adulteration Act 1955 imposed a heavier punishment for a second offence unde
the Act, and where the first offence was of a serious nature and the second trivial one
it would render the provisions strange, as it would punish a smaller offence with
harsher punishment. The Supreme Court rejected the contention and labeled the en
argument as fallacious. It held that there was no foundation in the Act for distinguish
trivial and serious offences, for the Act provided the same punishments for both. If

24 AIR 1966 SC 290, (1966) CLJ 194 (SC).

Trivial Acts

punishment is the same, it would follow that the statute considered them to be of the
mc seriousness bad
the accused, who was
on s 95, IPC, acquitted
In State of Maharashtra
prosecuted for an offence punishable under Prevention of Food
Adulteration Act 1955. The Two accused were found selling hard boiled sugar
shall have no
sellers of confectionery purchased from others. The Bombay High Court held that s 95
Confectionery and the magistrate had acquitted them on the ground that they were only
application to any offence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act
1955. A slight deviation from the standard fixed under the Act is not going to cause
acquittal and remanded the matter to the magistrate for trial.
slight harm as contemplated under s 95, IPC. The high court set aside the order of
Similarly, the Andhra Pradesh High Court also held that where the accused was found
should not be given to the accused, because misbranding is a serious offence 7
guilty of misbranding under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1955, benefit of 95
Kamataka v Lobo Medicals a firm running under the name and style of M/s Lobo
is trading in drugs. One day, one of the drug inspectors found that the accused sold 6
ml ampules of Neurobion Merc for Rs 15 plus taxes, and 3 x 20' tablets of Solerobion for a
FR: 22.05 plus taxes. On verification from the price list, it was found that the accused had
Rs 1.69 in excess for the Neurobion Merc ampules and a sum of Rs 0.60 in excess in
of the Solerobion tablets, It was contended that the amount involved in this case was so
that it should attract 95, IPC. The Karnataka High Court rejected this contention. It held
I. if this was an offence of the classical type, say for example, theft of a few paise, then s95
aald certainly have been applicable. But this was a case dealing with a socio-economic
offence.
The high court quoted the Forty-seventh Report of the Law Commission of India:
0n the case of social and economic offences, ...what has been detected and brought
before the Court is, more often than not, a surface manifestation of a poisonous spring of
habitual misconduct running underground. Detection is particularly difficult in the case of
social and economic offences. Gathering of information leading to prosecution is equally
difficult and conviction much more so. Whatever may be the position as regards
conventional crimes, the odds here are that it was by sheer luck that the offender has
Ccaped detection for other crimes."
o
The high court held that the offence under the Act was a strict liability offence, and
lens cannot be considered as a trifling offence. However, in view of the minor nature
of the offence, it took a lenient view in imposing the punishment and sentenced him to
ancor Rs 100 in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a week.
n Bichitrananda Naik v State of Orissa, 30 the accused was prosecuted for selling
adulterated mustard oil. A sample of the mustard oil revealed that the saponification
value and the Bellier Test value were in excess of the permissible limit. It was contended

25 See also State of Maharashtra Champalal Punjaji Shah AIR 1981 SC 167519813 SCC
610,
(1981) Cr LJ 1273 (SC).
26 (1978) Cr LJ 820
Kala
27 Public Prosecutor u Kalavala Satyanarayana (1975) Cr LJ 1127 (AP).
(1978) Cr LJ 1837 (Kant).
29 Law Commission of India, 'Forty-Seventh Report: The Trial and Punishment of Social and
Economic
Offences Government of India, 1972, para 7-49%
(1978) Cr LJ 1050 (Ori)

151
Criminal Law

that the excess was very slight and hence s 95, IPC, would afford protection
petitioner. The Orissa High Court rejected this contention and held that the a
the mustard oil is not of the standard purity required by the statute and hen
conviction of the accused was upheld
Nevertheless, one finds a couple of judicial pronouncements taking the one
IPC, is applicable to offences under special Acts. Doctrine of de minimis non curt
cample, was applied by the Bombay High Court for acquitting persons accu
omitting acts contrary to the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988.32 Revering the oten
conviction of the convict under s 13(1)(c) & (d), read with s 13(2), of the Prevetzion
Corruption Act, 1988 and under ss 409, 471 and 477 of the IPC G
the post-office 21 days after the due date but showing as it was paid
misappropriating of a meagre amount (of telephone bill of Rs. 1839 by remiti
che due date,
Supreme Court ruled that no offence under the PC Act is made out against him and
offences for which he was convicted under the IPC are of trivial nature. It
convict by giving him the benefit of s 95, IPC3 The Madhya Pradesh High Court
relied upon s 95 to quash a conviction for illegally possessing insignificant railway
COMPOUNDING OF TRIVIAL OFFENCES

Compounding of offences means settling or condoning matters between the

Section 320,CrPC, provides a schedule of offences that may be compounded by the
In one case5 person by the name of Hazarika was the holder of a firewood mahal
Under the licence, he was entitled to cut and collect firewood from dead and fillen
mistake, he had illegally felled some green trees and converted them into fire
Admitting his mistake, he paid Rs. 50 as compensation and compounded the offence T
question arose as to whether such a compounding was permissible under the law. It
contended that the wrong done was of such a trivial nature that the renderine
compensation was in the eyes of law sufficient to redress it and to put an end to the man
thought and reflection on the character of the person charged with having done the WTO
court rejected this contention and held that when a person charged with an offence
how trivial it may be, unless there is some provision in law to compound it, the law is
take it purse and the charge enquired into resulting in either conviction or acquittal.
PROPOSALS FOR REFORM

The Fifth Law Commission of India, expressing its satisfaction with the legislative intr
of $ 95, ommended no changes in the law relating to triviality.

31 H man Muryappa Vijapure (nce deceased by L Reps) State of Maharashtra (2004) Cr LJ

3001 (Bo
Prahlad Kale State of Maharashtra (1992) GL 1142 (Bom): Bhanu Jatinu Bhoir S
harashtra (1992) CLJ 1144 (Bom); Shivchalappa Gurumornappa Loni v State of
Maharashtra (1993)
573
32he Punjab High Court also took a similar view. See Municipal Committee, Amritsar Arjan
1972) 74 Punj LR 793.
NK Illiya v State of Kerala AIR 2012 SC 3790201212 SCC 7482012 Cr LJ 2418 (SC)
State of Madhya Pradesh Mahadeo (1972) Cr LJ 1297 (MP); but see, Mahendra Singh Sute
o
Bihar (1987) 2 Crimes 173 (Pat).
35 Binwabahan Gopen Chandra AIR 1967 SC 895.
p 100.
36 Law Commission of India, 'Forty Second Report The Indian Penal Code, Government of
India, 1971,

152

Chapter IV-General Exception

424 Sec. 95, Syn 2

as found expression in Section 95 1P.C.Intercourse in civilised society will come to an end if
for
As observed in a Calcuta case one of the ftt principles of law is deminimis non cr lex This
certain words ttered a person found himself a posed to all the trouble and worry of a criminal
trial
for composition of it the law must take its course and charE inquired into resulting either in
conviction
Ifa person is charged with an offence however trivial it may be, then unless there is some
provision
or acquittal. Of composition of an offence was permissible under the law, the effect of soch
composition
Woold depend on what the law provided for. If effect of composition is to amocat to an
acquittal then it
may be said that no stigma should attach to the character of the person but unless this is
expressly
provided for the mere rendering of compensation would not amont to the vindication of the
character of
the person charged with the offence
pods, almost valucless, from a tree standing on Government w2ste land where the accused
committed
2. Acts regarded as trivial This section w2s applied where a person was convicted for taking
theft of a cheque if no value and where the plaintiff complaint of the harm caused to his
reputation
travelling with a wrong ticketS also an offence of misbranding and
b ilny language in course of cross-examination were treated as triVial
Bombay case at the meeting of shareholders of a company somebody proposed that
accused should
be spelled from the company Infuriated accused left the room and while leaving, he is
alleged to have
cam bloody bastards and cads On a prosecution of the accused under Section 504
entional insult, the High Court acquitted him holding that even if a technical offence is
committed, it is clearly not case in which the Criminal Courts should have been approached
and the
circumstances are covered by the provisions of Section 95 1P.C
Is another case in course of a trial during argument the complainant's Counsel apparently
cited some
authorities in support of his contention including one which was reported in a book borrowed
by him
from another Legal Practitioner. It seems that after the arguments were over the book could
not be found
by the Counsel and a search was made for it but without success. The next day when the
accused
appeared in the Court of the same official who heard the election petition on the previous
day, the
complainant asked his Counsel in the hearing of the accused to enquire from the latter
whether the
missing book had been mixed up in his own books. The accused, a Leader did not wait for
the enquiry
by the complainant's Counsel but as the suggestion to make one had been made in his
hearing he replied
direct to the complainant stating that he was not in the habit of stealing like him (the
complainant). The
complainant thereupon filed a complaint under Section 500, IPC, against the accused
complaining that
he had been defamed by the imputation conveyed by the words used by the accused that he
was habitual
thief. The Court held the complaint is trivial and set aside the conviction Plaintiff's lawyer in a
case
asked the status of the person who was signing vakalatnama for the defendant. Then
accused expressed
applicable.
that the agent's status is higher than that of the lawyer. In such a situation Section 95 I.P.C.
was held
In a case the offence of wrongful confinement committed by the accused was established.
The
accused and the victim were relatives of each other. But the duration of wrongful
confinement was very
short and in the process only minimal hurt was caused. In view of Section 95, I.P.C the
accused was
acquitted. In a case Health Officer directed the accused not to enter an area infected by
epidemic
disease. But accused pushed him and entered. The prosecution did not show that accused
was asked not
to remain in area without getting inoculated as intended by order. It was held offence if any is
liable to be

58. Sadananda Jash v.Shibkali Hazra, AIR 1954 Cal 288: 1954 C J 800.
59 Binwabahan Das y.Gopen Chandra Hazarika, AIR 1967 SC 8951967 CILJ 82821967 I
SCR 447
60. Karyabin Pavji,(1868) 5 BHC (Cr) 35.
61. Exhirajan, 1955 CrLJ 816
62 South Indian Railway Co. v. Ramabrina, (1889) 13 Mad 34
63. Public Prosecutor. V. Satyanarayana, 1975 CL 1127.(AP).
64 Bheema, 1964 (2) CrLJ 692 (AP)
65. Philip Range y Emperor, AIR 1932 Bom 193
66. Jasraj Jagga V. Emperor. AIR 1929 Lah 234-30 CrLJ 379
67. MS Sharif Ahmed v. B. Qabul Singh, 22 CrL 715:63 IC 875: AIR 1921 All 30
68. Anoop Krishna Sharma State of Maharashtra, 1992 CrLJ 1861 (Bom).

See.95, Syn.4 425

nobstructing peons of Municipality causes slight harm, so slight that no person of ordinary
e and temper would complain of such harm, and where the municipality has not been active
in
the complaint against the accused should be dismissed Using indecent language has
become
the other ones of gravity, namely, evasion of octroi duty and causing hurt to poos
the present behaviour The dividing line between what is decent and what is indecent is so
small
sheet for Court should convict for such offence.
for using indecent language is liable to be overlooked as trivial. The police ought not to

on or empty cartridge, though it is a part of ammunition under Section 4, Arms Act would
m under Section 99. IT It is not suspected that the cartridge would be reloaded and used as
bonIn case between the brother of the complainant a school teacher and the accused there
inal case over a land dispute and in the course of a conversation in connection therewith for
compromise of the case before the Head Master of the school an occurrence took place.
The
Newness in the case was the Head Master who being the head of an educational institution
to be fully believed. The Head Master's version was that in the course of the conversion in a
manner the accused told the school master you are telling a lie". For this the school master
to the Criminal Court and filed a complaint under Section 504. Penal Code. The Court held
that in
of the triviality of the offence, acquittal is justified Where the quantum of amount involved in
the
of cheating and misappropriation is small (here Rs. 25-only) and the harm caused is slight,
then
criminal proceedings do not meant to be kept alive after a lapse of six year 4 In a Patria case
th the customer purchased articles worth Rs. 9.51 P.But the accused charged Rs 10.00anly.
The
is liable to be acquitted as law takes no notice of trivial

Acts not regarded as trivial. Where a blow was given across the chest with an umbrella by a
essed policeman to a District Superintendent of Police because his application to reconsider
his case
wa rejected where the accused tore up a paper which showed a money debt duc from him to
the
to though it was unstamped, and therefore not a legal security and where a respectable man
was taken by the car," it was held that this section did not apply. In a case the non-gazetted
employees
TO strike. The complainant, a non-gazetted employee without taking part in the strike went
to duty
The accused a Panchayat Sewak put a garland of shoes around the neck of employee. The
indignity
osed cannot be brushed aside as trivial

la a case a Hindu, Lohar by caste complained against the opposite parties under Section
499 of the
IPC on the ground that at the time of a feast of the brotherhood the accused persons
declared that the
plant had been outcasted and was not one fit to sit down at the feast with the other members
of
e brotherhood The Court held that among Hindus it would cause the greatest harm to allege
that man
lot of caste. If this was believed a Lohar would have to give a feast to his brotherhood to
come back
aste It was held that the complaint is not or a trivial matter and a complaint for defamation on
such
patient cannot be dismissed summarily under Section 95 of the Penal Code Injuring public
while he is discharging his official duty stands answered by Section 332, LP.C. It cannot be
abandoned as trivial

Insulting the woman-In a case a lady victim belonging to lower caste was dragged by hair
and
by shoes. The Magistrate ignored the offence observing that such occurrences were not
uncommon

Ch Shurm St1965 All CrR S 196S All WR (HC) 6

SIS E . AIR 1929 AIl 94030 CrLJ 1153: 1930 ALI 218 11 LRA Cr 25 1929 CC668 120
C121
O lla v. State of Karnataka, (1975) 1 Kant L 335
S
. Bhyal Song, AIR 1936 A 192: 371271916 A 671621C 912DB
ardalshy.Shad Rau AIR 1954 Ca123 1984 C SO
Gn DBharwlyKshr D(1991)3 Crimes 773 HP
Single Story of Bihar. (1991) 1 Crimes 867 (Pac)
G a lla, (1875) 24 WR (CH) 7.
(ISS) 12 Mad 148.
Seri Wallas (1597) I CWN CR
h ow v. State of Bihar, 1976 Pat LR 1701976 CH 654 1975 BBCI
Mo LaRam Cha AIR 1928 All 213:29 CiLI451 26 All LI 361: 108 IC e9a
0971) 2 A WR 2
 Triviality as a general defense
Sri Lankan criminal law influenced by the Indian penal code have adopted the
general defense of trivialityunder section 88 of the penal code. It provides that

“ Nothing is an offense by reason that it causes or that it is intended to cause, or

that it is known to be likely cause , any harm , if that harm is so slight that no person of
ordinary sense and temper would complain of such harm. “.1

This defense gives the effect to the principle of de Minimis non curalex . In de minis situation
the harm cause, albeit to a minor degree. This rule od de Minimis is based on the
fundamental principle of criminal justice that “ there is no culpability for harmless and
blameless conduct “ 2Imposition of criminal liability in a trivial issue would be unjust and due
to that reason the defense of triviality is introduced in most penal laws world widely. The
defense of de Minimis does not mean that the act is justified, it remains unlawful, but on
account of its triviality it goes unpunished. The loophole in this provision provided under
section 88 is that the doubt whether the committed offense is de Minimis, because the
triviality seen by one person wouldn’t be trivial issue for another individual therefore the
objective of applying this defense is not successful because it has not adopted any definition
for trivial offences.

In case of State v Karger3 a court in Mainereversed a conviction of an afghan

immigrant for two counts of gross sexual assault. The defendant had kissed his eighteen
month old son’s sexual organ in a sign of affection that is common in his culture. The court
determined that there was no harm to the infant and the defendant’s act was not intended
for sexual gratification .therefore the harm was de minis and the accused got acquitted.

This defense is most easily granted when wrongfulness of the offence is too trivial to
warrant a conviction because the amount of harm caused is too small to justify the
imposition of criminal liability. The benefit of judicial proceeding involving a de Minimis
principle are denounced as an inefficient use of judicial resources. The social cos of applying
a legal rule to a particular infraction may out weight their benefits and this expectation
allows a criminal justice system to allocate its resources wisely. Justifications for the defense
of triviality can be cooperated as

1. It reserves the application of the criminal law to serious misconduct

1
Penal code 88
2
https://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/De_Minimis2_DHusak.pdf
3
State v kargar 679 A.2 d 81 (1996)
 2. It protects an accused from the stigma of a criminal conviction and from the
imposition ofsevere penalties for relatively trial conduct
3. It saves courts from being swamped by an enormous humbler of trivialcases.4

In case of people v Durham5Justice Robert Steigmann of the Appellate Court of Illinois states

“Litigation like this brings the judicial system into disrepute. Rational citizens (not
connected to the law) would deem this appeal an utter waste of time and resources
for all concerned. The time and money already spent bringing this appeal amounts to
squandered resources. We will not be part of further squandering.”

Canadian foundation for youth v A.G6 a Supreme Court case decided in 2004, justice
B.Willson explains that

“The Chief Justice is rightly unwilling to rely exclusively on prosecutorial discretion to

weed out cases undeserving of prosecution and punishment. The good judgment of
prosecutors in eliminating trivial cases is necessary but not sufficient to the workings of the
criminal law. There must be legal protection against convictions for conduct undeserving of
punishment. And indeed there is. The judicial system is not plagued by a multitude of
insignificant prosecutions for conduct that merely meets the technical requirements of "a
crime because prosecutorial discretion is effective and because the common law defense of
de Minimis non curatlex is available to judges. The application of some force upon another
does not always suggest an assault in the criminal sense. Quite the contrary, there are many
examples of incidental touching that cannot be considered criminal conduct.”

The application of this principle in sri Lankan law is discussed in the case of
Ratnabharty v Gunavardhana7. In this case the complainant entered the accused’s land for
the purpose of measuring it and without the permission. But the accused ejected the
complainant and damaged measuring tape while doing so. It was held that it is justifiable for
evicting the complainant trespasser from his land. Also although the complainant was
entitled to retain hold of his tape, the damage caused fell within the scope of the principle
of de Minimis .

4
http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/D/DeMinimisNonCuratLex.aspx
5
6
(2004] 1 S.C.R. 76, 2004 SCC 4
7
(1893) 6 C.L review 21
 In case of Idroos v Latiff8the accused struck the complainant in public with a sandal
and it was applied with the principle of triviality. Silva v French9a case where the defendant
was was accused for causing hurt. The magistrate refused to issue process on the ground
that the complainant had no marks on his face and that offence was one of the kind
contemplated by section 88.

The application of de triviality is discussed in the case of state v smith where the defendant
has stolen three bubble gums and he was acquitted in the basis of triviality. Further in case
of Davis v Gap10court noted that

“Most honest citizens in the modern worldd frequently engage, without hesitation,
in trivial copying that, but for the deMinimis doctrine, would technically constitute a
violation of law. We do not hesitate to make a photocopy of a letter from a friend to show
another friend, or of a favorite cartoon to post on the refrigerator, it is not that we are
breaking the law.”

This defense is adopted in the model penal code under section 2.12(2) stating that

“the court shall dismiss a prosecution if, having regard to the nature of the conduct charged
to the constitute an offense and nature of the utterantcircumstances, it finds that the
defendant’s conduct did not actually cause or threaten the harm of evil sought to be
prevented by the law defining the offence or did so only to an extent too trivial to warrant
the condemnation of conviction.”11

8
1895 C.L review 79
9
(1920) 21 N.L.R 498
10
(246 F.3d 152 (2d Cir. 2001)
11
Model penal code 2.12(2)