Question

De minimus non curat lex implies

• A. Every person is liable for his own acts
• B. Trifling acts do not constitute an offence
• C. Necessity knows no law
• D. Nothing is an offence which is done in private defense

Hint:

Associate key Latin maxims with their corresponding sections in the IPC. \textit{De minimis non curat lex} corresponds to Section 95 (Trivial Acts). \textit{Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea} is the basis for the requirement of mens rea.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is B

Step 1: Understanding the Concept:
The question asks for the meaning of the Latin legal maxim "\textit{De minimis non curat lex}".
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
The maxim literally translates to "The law does not concern itself with trifles". It is a legal doctrine by which a court refuses to consider trivial or insignificant matters. In the context of criminal law, it means that even if an act technically fits the definition of an offence, it will not be treated as a crime if the harm caused is extremely slight or negligible.
This principle is embodied in Section 95 of the Indian Penal Code, which states, "Nothing is an offence by reason that it causes, or that it is intended to cause, or that it is known to be likely to cause, any harm, if that harm is so slight that no person of ordinary sense and temper would complain of such harm."
The other options relate to different legal principles:
- (A) is the general rule of liability.
- (C) relates to the defense of necessity (\textit{Necessitas non habet legem}).
- (D) relates to the right of private defense.
Step 3: Final Answer:
The maxim implies that Trifling acts do not constitute an offence.

Answer 2

The question asks for the meaning of the maxim de minimis non curat lex. Let's test each option.

1. Every person is liable for his own acts: This states a general principle of personal responsibility in criminal law, but it is unrelated to the specific idea of the law ignoring trivial matters.
2. Trifling acts do not constitute an offence: The maxim literally translates to the law does not concern itself with trifles. Section 95 of the Indian Penal Code embodies exactly this idea, providing that an act causing harm so slight that no person of ordinary sense and temper would complain of it is not an offence. This matches the maxim precisely.
3. Necessity knows no law: This is the separate maxim necessitas non habet legem, relating to the defence of necessity, not to trivial harm.
4. Nothing is an offence which is done in private defense: This describes the right of private defence under Sections 96 to 106 IPC, a completely different principle from the trifles maxim.

Since the maxim specifically addresses the law's disregard for trivial harm, matching Section 95 IPC, only the second option is correct.

Therefore, the correct answer is Trifling acts do not constitute an offence.