Skip to content

Advocatetanmoy Law Library

Encyclopedia & Legal Research

Afghanistan Albania Algeria Andorra Angola Antigua & Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia & Herzegovina Botswana Brazil British V. Islands Brunei Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Carrib. Netherlands Cayman Island Chile China Colombia Congo DRC Congo Republic Costa Rica Cote d’Ivoire Croatia Cuba Curaçao Cyprus Czechia Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El alvador Estonia Ethiopia Fiji Finland France French Polyn Gabon Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guernsey Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran ​Iraq Ireland Isle of Man Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kosovo Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Laos Latvia Lebanon Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Martinique Mauritius Mexico Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Morocco Mozambique Myanmar/Burma Namibia Nepal Netherlands New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria North Macedonia Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palestine Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Réunion Romania Russia Rwanda Saint Lucia St Vincent & Grenadines Samoa Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Somalia South Africa South Korea Spain Sri Lanka St. Kitts & Nevis Sudan Suriname Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syria Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand Togo Trinidad & Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan UAE U.S. Virgin Islands Uganda Ukraine UK United States Uruguay Uzbekistan Vatican City Venezuela Vietnam Yemen Zambia

  • Home
    • SITE UPDATES
  • Constitutions
  • Dictionary
  • Law Exam
  • Pleading
  • Index
  • Notifications
  • Indian Law
  • Articles
  • Home
  • 2021
  • March
  • 21
  • Sec 491 IPC-Breach of contract to attend on and supply wants of helpless person
  • Criminal

Sec 491 IPC-Breach of contract to attend on and supply wants of helpless person

Whoever, being bound by a lawful contract to attend on or to supply the wants of any person who, by reason of youth, or of unsoundness of mind, or of a disease or bodily weakness, is helpless or incapable of providing for his own safety or of supplying his own wants, voluntarily omits so to do, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees, or with both.
1 min read

© Advocatetanmoy Law Library

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
  • More
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
image_printPrint

491. Breach of contract to attend on and supply wants of helpless person

Whoever, being bound by a lawful contract to attend on or to supply the wants of any person who, by reason of youth, or of unsoundness of mind, or of a disease or bodily weakness, is helpless or incapable of providing for his own safety or of supplying his own wants, voluntarily omits so to do, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees, or with both.


NOTE:

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of W.B. v. Mohammed Khalid [(1995) 1 SCC 684]. The facts in the aforesaid case are quite distinguishable from the present case. In the present case, the petitioner is a Government employee. He is paid a salary to treat all the patients approaching to the Government Hospital. The case of the Government Doctor stands on a different footings to that of the private doctor. The doctor in the Government Hospital is duty bound to attend all the patients approaching to the Hospital for their treatment and the Government pays salary to the doctors appointed in the Government Hospital to treat these patients who cannot afford to engage a private doctor to treat themselves. The doctor in the Government Hospital cannot refuse to examine or treat a patient approaching the Government Hospital.

image_printPrint

Related

Tags: IPC

Continue Reading

Previous: Sumedh Singh Saini Vs. State of Punjab and Anr- 3/12/2020
Next: Sec 268 Public Nuisance

Latest

  • Interpretation NO.748  [ Same-Sex Marriage Case ]-Judicial Yunan-24/05/2017
  • Fake letters of St Paul to Seneca and fake letters of Seneca to St Paul (1863)
  • পতিতার আত্মচরিত – কুমারী শ্রীমতী মানদা দেবী প্রণীত (Autobiography of a prostitute by Manada Devi-1929)
  • U.S strategy towards sub-saharan Africa-08/08/2022
  • Epistle of Epicurus to Herodotus (260BCE)

CONSTITUTION IPC CRPC CPC EVIDENCE DV POCSO IT IP TP JUVENILE CONTRACT SPECIFIC RELIEF CONSUMER ARBITRATION COMPANY LIMITATION FAMILY LAWS POLLUTION CONTROL BANKING INSURANCE

DOCUMENTS GLOSSARIES JUDGMENTS

  • E-Books 2022  More Documents

Search Google

  • BIBLIOGRAPHY
  • HISTORY
  • PHILOSOPHY
  • RELIGION
  • ENVIRONMENT
  • MEDICAL
  • Contact Us
  • About
  • Disclaimers
  • RSS
  • Privacy Policy
Encyclopedia & Legal Research-Database Support.... Copyright © by Advocatetanmoy.