Secs. 510-511.. INDIAN PENAL CODE. 467 conducts himself in such a manner as to cause annoyance to any person (11), shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to twenty-four hours, or with fine which may extend to ten Rupees, or with both. The immunity from punishment which our law, through motives of humanity and justice, allows to persons mentally affected, is not extended to him who commits a felony or other offence through drunkenness; he shall not be excused, because his incapacity arose from his own default, but is answerable equally as if he had been when the act was done in the full possession of his faculties, a principle of law which is embodied in the familier adage, qui peccat ebrius luat sobrius. But although drunkenness is clearly no excuse for the commission of any crime, yet proof of the fact of drunkenness may be very material, as intending to show the intention with which the particular act charged as an offence was committed, and whether the act done was accidental or designed. p. 17, Edn. IV. B. L. M., By the Penal Code, the punishment for being drunk is simple imprisonment for 24 hours, or ten Rupees fine, or both. By Section 34, Clause 6, of Act V of 1861 (Police Act), the offender is liable to imprisonment for 8 days or fine up to Rupees fifty. Cannot give him both fine and imprisonment. It appears that by Section 510, P. C., that the offender must cause annoyance, whereas by Section 34, Clause 6, Act V of 1861, "any person who is found drunk or riotous, or who is incapable of taking care of himself,” is punishable. CHAPTER XXIII. OF ATTEMPTS TO COMMIT OFFENCES. An attempt to commit an offence is not punishable by whipping.Letter No. 425 of 1864, H. Ct., Calcutta. (According as the offence is one in respect of which Police may arrest without warrant or not. According as the offence contemplated by offender is bailable or not.J Punishment for attempting to commit offences punishable with According as an offennce is one in respect of which a summons, or warrant shall ordinarily issue.! [Ct. by which, the offence attempted is triable.] 511. Whoever attempts to commit an offence (40) punishable by this Code with transportation or imprisonment, or to cause such an offence to be committed, and in such attempt does any act (33) towards the transportation or im prisonment. commission of the offence, shall, where no express provision (express provision is made for offences against the State, Chapter VI) is made by this Code for the punishment of such attempt, be punished with imprisonment of any description, provided for the offence, for a term of transportation or imprisonment which may extend to one-half of the longest term (57) provided for that offence, or with such fine as is provided for the offence, or with both. Illustrations. (a). A makes an attempt to steal some jewels by breaking open a box, and finds after so opening the box that there is no jewel in it. He has done an act towards the commission of theft, and therefore is guilty under this section. (b). A makes an attempt to pick the pocket of Z by thrusting his hand into Z's pocket. A fails in the attempt, in consequence of Z having nothing in his pocket. A is guilty under this section. The law as contained in this section is different materially from the English law; there a man cannot be convicted of an attempt to commit a felony, unless if no interruption had taken place, the attempt could have been carried out with success, as ruled in Reg. vs. Macpherson, Reg. vs. Collins. Vide note under Section 376, P. C., and Section 75, P. C., a person who is convicted of an attempt to commit an offence under Chapters XII and XVII cannot, because he has been previously convicted, be subjected to the enhanced punishment. Reg. vs. Moonesawmy. Madras H. Ct., 1865. A conviction on a charge of attempting to obtain a gratification as a reward for influencing a public servant in the exercise of his public functions, was held to be illegal as disclosing no legal offence when the charge omitted to state the person or persons for whom the gratification was obtained, or the public servant to be influenced in the exercise of his public functions. Queen vs. Setul Chunder Bagchce. (3 W. R. C. R., p. 69. Vide note under Section 307, in re Reg. vs. Francis Cassidy, where the apparent inconsistency between the English law with reference to attempts and the provisions of this Section 511 are said to be explained: it is difficult to see that the explanation as to the difference of English law and the provisions of this section being the same, has been satisfactorily established. · PART I. CHAP. I. PROCEDURE IN CRIMINAL COURTS. An Act for regulating the Procedure of the Courts of Criminal Judicature. Preamble. WHEREAS it is expedient to consolidate and amend the law regulating the Procedure of the Courts of Criminal Judicature, other than the High Courts in Presidency towns in the exercise of their original criminal jurisdiction, and the Courts of Police. Magistrates in such towns; It is hereby enacted as follows: PART I. CHAPTER I. PRELIMINARY, REPEAL, LOCAL EXTENT AND DEFINITIONS. Short title. I. This Act may be called "The Code of Criminal Procedure." It extends to the whole of British India, but shall not, except as hereinafter provided, affect the procedure of the High Courts or Police Local extent. Magistrates in Presidency towns; Commencement. And it shall come into force on the first day of September, 1872. The Code of Criminal Procedure, Act XXV of 1861, came into operation on the 1st January, 1862, and was nowise altered previous to 1868 except by three short Acts of the Indian Legislature, viz.: Act XXXIII of 1861, by which three alterations were made in the schedule, with a view to make certain offences triable by officers to whom the power of |