Code
Whenever a riot is committed for the benefit or on behalf of any person who is the owner or occupier of any land respecting which such riot takes place, or who claims any interest in such land, or in the subject of any dispute which gave rise to the riot, or who has accepted or derived any benefit therefrom,
the agent or manager of such person shall be punishable with fine, if such agent or manager, having reason to believe that such riot was likely to be committed, or that the unlawful assembly by which such riot was committed was likely to be held, shall not use all lawful means in his power to prevent such riot or assembly from taking place and for suppressing and dispersing the same.
Explanation
This section holds an agent liable for a riot if the riot is committed for the benefit of their principal (owner/occupier). It implies that the agent must have acted with the intention of benefiting the owner/occupier. This section emphasizes the principle of vicarious liability, where an individual can be held responsible for the actions of another if there is a principal-agent relationship.
Illustration
Imagine a scenario where a landlord hires a group of individuals to forcefully evict tenants from their property. This group commits a riot to achieve their objective. In this case, the landlord’s agent (the group hired for eviction) would be held liable under Section 156 of the IPC, as the riot was committed for the landlord’s benefit.
Common Questions and Answers
Q: Does Section 156 apply to all types of riots?
A: Yes, this section applies to all types of riots, provided they are committed for the benefit of the owner/occupier.
Q: What constitutes “benefit” for the owner/occupier?
A: “Benefit” can include any advantage or gain derived from the riot, even if it’s not direct financial gain. For example, a riot to prevent development work on a property could be considered a benefit for the owner.
Q: Can the agent be held liable even if the owner/occupier did not explicitly order the riot?
A: Yes, if the agent knew or should have known that the riot was for the benefit of the owner/occupier, they can still be held liable.
