Hi friends, I would like to put your attention on one legal maxim i.e De Minimis Non-Curat Lex. To understand this maxim I will put your attention to one very interesting question. With this interesting question, I will deeply explain to you this maxim. I will also try to explain to you the answer to that question by which you can understand the maxim named De Minimis Non-Curat Lex in a simple language. Let us see the meaning of this maxim in question and answer forms.
A has an inkpot with him. B wants to fill his pen from that inkpot. A does not allow, still, B takes ink from it. Has B committed any offence?.
This question is directly related to Section 95 of IPC. And also directly related to the abovementioned maxim, i.e., “De Minimis Non-Curat Lex.”
I can not explain deeply and everything about this maxim on this topic. But I will definitely try to explain it in my next topic in a few days. It is a Latin maxim and the meaning of this maxim is, the principle that the law is not concerned with insignificant or minor matters. “The law is not concerned with small things”/”the law does not take account of trifles“. And it comes in Section 95 of IPC.
Section 95 of the IPC
Act causing slight harm.—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.
In the present problem, the damage was done to A because B has taken some ink from the inkpot of A. The damage is so small that no sane person would complain about it. So even though A did not allow B to take ink from his inkpot, the damage done to A is very small and therefore B will get the defence of Section 95 of IPC. And B will not be punished by law. In view of the provision made in Section 95 of IPC, person B has not committed any offence. And Person B will not be legally punished.