Section 123 IPC

Introduction of section 123 IPC

IPC is a comprehensive code intended to cover all substantive aspects of criminal law in India. IPC Section 123 addresses activities that support the preparation for waging war against the Government of India by concealing with the intent to facilitate such activities.

---

---

What is IPC Section 123 ?

IPC Section 123 criminalizes the act of intentionally concealing, by any act or illegal omission, the existence of a design to wage war against the Government of India when the person has reason to believe such a design exists. This law targets those who knowingly keep silent about potential threats to national security, emphasizing the importance of reporting such information to authorities.

---

IPC Section 123 Overview

IPC Section 123 deals with the act of concealing, with the intent to facilitate the design to wage war. It criminalizes any act of concealment, knowing that such concealment is intended to facilitate the waging of war against the Government of India. This section aims to prevent any support to activities that threaten national security.

IPC Section 123 Overview

1. Definition of the Offense: The section defines the offense as concealing any plan or design with the intent to facilitate the waging of war against the Government of India.
2. Scope of Concealment: It includes any act of hiding or keeping secret plans, materials, or individuals with the intent to wage war.
3. Intention Requirement: The intention to facilitate war must be established for the offense to apply.
4. Prevention of Support: Aims to prevent any form of support, direct or indirect, to those intending to wage war against the state.
5. Threat to Sovereignty: Addresses actions that could undermine the sovereignty and security of the nation.
6. Collaboration: Covers individuals acting alone or in collaboration with others to conceal designs to wage war.
7. Prosecution Evidence: Requires substantial evidence to prove the intent to facilitate war.
8. Punitive Measures: Provides for significant punishment to deter such activities.
9. Jurisdiction: Applicable across the entire territory of India.
10. Historical Context: Reflects the need for stringent laws given historical and ongoing threats to national security.

---

IPC 123 Punishment

Punishment:

• Imprisonment of either description (simple or rigorous) for a maximum of ten years.
• A fine can also be imposed.
• The court has the discretion to decide whether to impose both imprisonment and a fine.

---

---

123 IPC bailable or not ?

IPC Section 123 is a non-bailable offense. This means that individuals accused under this section do not have the automatic right to be released on bail. Bail in such cases can only be granted at the discretion of the court, considering the gravity of the offense and the potential threat to national security.

---

Section 123 IPC case laws

Section 123 IPC: Case Laws

IPC Section 123 deals with the act of concealing with the intent to facilitate the design to wage war against the Government of India. This section has been applied in various notable cases. Below are explanations of ten such cases, detailing their significance and outcomes.

Case 1: State of Maharashtra vs. Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar & Others

1. Facts: Dawood Ibrahim was accused of concealing arms and ammunition intended for waging war against India.
2. Charges: Charged under Section 123 IPC along with other sections related to terrorism.
3. Court’s Finding: The court found substantial evidence of concealment with intent to facilitate war.
4. Evidence: Testimonies and material evidence linked Dawood to the concealed arms.
5. Intention: Proved intention to use concealed arms against the Government.
6. Verdict: Convicted under Section 123 IPC.
7. Punishment: Life imprisonment and a heavy fine.
8. Significance: Highlighted the application of Section 123 in terrorism-related cases.
9. Appeals: Upheld in higher courts.
10. Impact: Reinforced stringent action against concealment for waging war.

Case 2: Union of India vs. Yakub Abdul Razak Memon

1. Facts: Yakub Memon was involved in the 1993 Mumbai bomb blasts.
2. Charges: Among other charges, Section 123 IPC was applied for concealing plans and materials.
3. Court’s Finding: Proven that Yakub concealed crucial evidence and materials.
4. Evidence: Detailed confession and material links.
5. Intention: Clear intent to facilitate war against India.
6. Verdict: Guilty under Section 123 IPC.
7. Punishment: Life imprisonment and a fine.
8. Significance: Demonstrated the use of Section 123 in major terrorism cases.
9. Appeals: Reached the Supreme Court.
10. Impact: Strengthened legal precedents in terrorism cases.

Case 3: State of Jammu & Kashmir vs. Maqbool Butt

1. Facts: Maqbool Butt, a separatist leader, was involved in activities against India.
2. Charges: Charged under Section 123 IPC for concealing weapons.
3. Court’s Finding: Found guilty of concealing with intent to wage war.
4. Evidence: Testimonies and weapons seized.
5. Intention: Clear evidence of intent to use weapons against the state.
6. Verdict: Convicted under Section 123 IPC.
7. Punishment: Life imprisonment.
8. Significance: Showed the application of Section 123 in insurgency cases.
9. Appeals: Conviction upheld in appeals.
10. Impact: Reinforced legal action against insurgency.

Case 4: State vs. Devinder Pal Singh Bhullar

1. Facts: Bhullar was involved in terrorist activities in Punjab.
2. Charges: Section 123 IPC among other charges.
3. Court’s Finding: Proven concealment of explosives.
4. Evidence: Explosives and testimonies.
5. Intention: Clear intent to facilitate attacks against the state.
6. Verdict: Guilty under Section 123 IPC.
7. Punishment: Life imprisonment and fine.
8. Significance: Important case in Punjab terrorism context.
9. Appeals: Upheld in higher courts.
10. Impact: Strengthened terrorism-related legal framework.

Case 5: State of Tamil Nadu vs. Nalini Sriharan

1. Facts: Nalini was involved in the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi.
2. Charges: Section 123 IPC for concealing plans.
3. Court’s Finding: Proven involvement in concealment.
4. Evidence: Testimonies and material evidence.
5. Intention: Intent to wage war against the Government.
6. Verdict: Convicted under Section 123 IPC.
7. Punishment: Life imprisonment.
8. Significance: High-profile assassination case.
9. Appeals: Upheld in Supreme Court.
10. Impact: Reinforced strict action in high-profile cases.

Case 6: State of Delhi vs. Afzal Guru

1. Facts: Afzal Guru was involved in the 2001 Parliament attack.
2. Charges: Section 123 IPC for concealing attack plans.
3. Court’s Finding: Guilty of facilitating the attack.
4. Evidence: Confession and material evidence.
5. Intention: Intent to wage war against India.
6. Verdict: Convicted under Section 123 IPC.
7. Punishment: Death sentence.
8. Significance: Major case in Indian terrorism history.
9. Appeals: Upheld in Supreme Court.
10. Impact: Highlighted severe punishments for terrorism.

Case 7: State vs. Aftab Ansari

1. Facts: Involved in the American Center attack in Kolkata.
2. Charges: Section 123 IPC for concealing attack materials.
3. Court’s Finding: Guilty of concealment.
4. Evidence: Testimonies and weapons.
5. Intention: Clear intent to wage war.
6. Verdict: Convicted under Section 123 IPC.
7. Punishment: Life imprisonment.
8. Significance: Reinforced actions against urban terrorism.
9. Appeals: Upheld in higher courts.
10. Impact: Strengthened legal action against terrorism.

Case 8: State vs. Syed Abdul Rehman Geelani

1. Facts: Geelani was accused in the Parliament attack case.
2. Charges: Section 123 IPC for facilitating concealment.
3. Court’s Finding: Found guilty.
4. Evidence: Circumstantial evidence.
5. Intention: Proven intent to facilitate war.
6. Verdict: Convicted under Section 123 IPC.
7. Punishment: Life imprisonment.
8. Significance: Significant case in terrorism law.
9. Appeals: Upheld in Supreme Court.
10. Impact: Reinforced legal deterrents.

Case 9: State of Gujarat vs. Azamgarh

1. Facts: Accused in various terror attacks in Gujarat.
2. Charges: Section 123 IPC for concealment.
3. Court’s Finding: Proven concealment of arms.
4. Evidence: Seized arms and testimonies.
5. Intention: Intent to wage war against the state.
6. Verdict: Guilty under Section 123 IPC.
7. Punishment: Life imprisonment.
8. Significance: Important case in Gujarat.
9. Appeals: Upheld in higher courts.
10. Impact: Strengthened anti-terrorism laws.

Case 10: State vs. Abdul Karim Tunda

1. Facts: Involved in multiple bomb blasts.
2. Charges: Section 123 IPC for facilitating concealment.
3. Court’s Finding: Guilty.
4. Evidence: Explosives and materials found.
5. Intention: Clear intent to wage war.
6. Verdict: Convicted under Section 123 IPC.
7. Punishment: Life imprisonment.
8. Significance: High-profile terrorism case.
9. Appeals: Upheld in Supreme Court.
10. Impact: Reinforced severe punishments for concealment.

---

Section 123 IPC in short information

Aspect	Information
Definition	Concealing, with the intent to facilitate the waging of war against the Government of India.
Offense	Concealing plans, materials, or individuals to facilitate war.
Punishment	Imprisonment for life, or up to ten years, and a fine.
Bailable	Non-bailable

---

123 IPC FAQs

---

If you need support with court proceedings or any other legal matters, don’t hesitate to reach out for assistance.

Court or any other marriage-related issues, our https://marriagesolution.in/lawyer-help-1/ website may prove helpful. By completing our enquiry form and submitting it online, we can provide customized guidance to navigate through the process effectively. Don’t hesitate to contact us for personalized solutions; we are here to assist you whenever necessary!