1. Adv. Vijay Jayshwal
Kathmandu University School of Law
Offenses relating to Public Order
Or
Offences against Public Tranquility

2. Perspectives
 Public order crimes are sometimes called
“victimless” or “complaintless” crimes. Public
order is derived from French designate order
publique and it is something more than ordinary
maintenance of law and order.
 Such acts are considered crimes not because
there is a discernable offender and victim, but
because the larger community, or at least a vocal
and powerful segment of it, is offended and
therefore victimized by such acts.
 The legal status of public order crimes varies from
jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Because there is often
no complainant in such offenses.
 They are detected only as a result of proactive

3.  Crimes against public order are violations that
interfere with the normal operations of society. These
crimes go against publicly shared values, norms, or
customs.
 A public order crime does not require an identifiable
victim. Individuals can be charged with public order
crimes if their conduct or acts are considered “harmful
to society.” Public order crimes primarily focus on the
offensive conduct.
 Public order crimes are a smorgasbord of offenses,
some of which have been variously called vice
offenses, consensual offenses, victimless crimes, or
even nuisance offenses.
 Some public order crimes are considered very
seriously (the sale of drugs), and some are dismissed
with a shrug of the shoulders or a look of disgust
(drunken and disorderly behavior).
 Public order crimes are better conceived of as

4.  According to Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes’
formulation of liberty is that “each individual should
have the maximum liberty consistent with the equal
liberty of all other individuals”.
 According to Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes,
Concentrating more on public order than individual
rights would decrease the crime rate, fear of crime,
and terrorism in the United States.
 Greater public order lowers crime but limits individual
rights; laws concentrating on individual rights tend to
create public disorder and high fear of crime.
 The 'public order' is essentially the absence of
disorder in quiet and orderly behaviour of people in
public space. It involves people behaving sensibly
and rationally, and respecting others.

5. Broken Windows Approach
 The broken windows theory is a criminological theory that
states that visible signs of crime, anti-social behavior, and
civil disorder create an urban environment that encourages
further crime and disorder, including serious crimes
 It maintains that allowing or ignoring public order offenses
can only lead to more serious crimes because it signals
that nobody cares for the community.
 The broken windows model of policing was first described
in 1982 in a seminal article by Wilson and Kelling. Briefly,
the model focuses on the importance of disorder (e.g.,
broken windows) in generating and sustaining more
serious crime.
 Disorder is not directly linked to serious crime; instead,
disorder leads to increased fear and withdrawal from
residents, which then allows more serious crime to move in
because of decreased levels of informal social control.

6.  Promoting higher levels of informal social control
will help residents themselves take control of their
neighborhood and prevent serious crime from
infiltrating.
 The police can play a key role in disrupting this
process. If they focus in on disorder and less
serious crime in neighborhoods that have not yet
been overtaken by serious crime, they can help
reduce fear and resident withdrawal.
 “Broken windows” policing, is an approach to law
enforcement based on the theory that cracking
down on minor crimes helps to prevent major
ones.

7. Collective Efficacy concept/Approach
 In the sociology of crime, the term collective
efficacy refers to the ability of members of a
community to control the behavior of individuals
and groups in the community.
 Control of people's behavior allows community
residents to create a safe and orderly
environment.
 Self-efficacy focuses explicitly on the efficacy
expressed by an individual, and is defined as “the
belief in one's capabilities to organize and
execute the courses of action required to manage
prospective situations.
 Bandura noted that “perceived collective efficacy
will influence what people choose to do as a
group, how much effort they put into it, and their

8. Developmental Life Course Theory
(DLC)
 According to Laub and Sampson (2001:2) life-
course perspective offer the most compelling
institutional sources of desistance and dynamic
social processes inherent in stopping crime.
Developmental and life-course-perspective,
designed to influence onset, persistence and
desistance.
 DLC are the development of antisocial and
offending behaviour, the risk factors involved at
different ages, and the effects on the course of
development .
 There are 10 accepted concepts within DLC :-

9. 1. Prevalence of offending peaks late teens 15-19
2. Onset begins around 8-14
3. Early onset in an indicator of a relatively long criminal career
and offences
4. There is continuity of antisocial and offending behaviour
throughout childhood, adolescence and adulthood.
5. Small population of offenders commit large portion of all crime.
6. Offending more versatile then specialised (wide range of
offences)
7. Acts defined as offences usually part of larger syndrome of
antisocial behaviour, binge drinking, promiscuous sexual
activity, lack of concern for others, reckless driving.
8. Teen offences more likely to be committed within or
perpetrated by a group, compared to adult offences which are
largely solo events.
9. Reasons by teen offenders given for offending include (but are
not exclusive) are fun/excitement/something to do, emotional
and utilitarian, as the offender matures utilitarian motives
become the primary motivating factor.
10. Progression of seriousness of offending linked to age, usually
follow the route for example of shoplifting, personal theft,
burglary, as they mature and learn more specialized skills

10. Unlawful Assembly
 An assembly of five or more persons is designated an "unlawful
assembly," if the common object of the persons composing that
assembly is:-
 First :-To overawe by criminal force, or show of criminal force,
Government or Legislature, or any public servant in the exercise
of the lawful power of such public servant; or
 Second :-To resist the execution of any law, or of any legal
process; or
 Third.:-To commit any mischief or criminal trespass, or other
offence; or
 Fourth :-By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to
any person to take or obtain possession of any property, or to
deprive any person of the enjoyment of a right of way, or of the
use of water or other incorporeal right of which he is in
possession or enjoyment, or to enforce any right or supposed
right; or
 Fifth:-By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to

11. 60. Prohibition of unlawful assembly: (1) No person shall be engaged in an
unlawful assembly. (2) An assembly of five or more persons with the objective of
doing any of the following acts shall be considered to be an unlawful assembly:
(a) By means of force or show of force or show of a
deadly weapon:
(1) to prevent any public servant from exercising the
lawful functions or duties,
(2) to take or obtain possession of anyone’s property,
(3) to deprive any person of the enjoyment of the right
of way, use of water, public transport or
communication or similar other utilities,
(4) to compel any person to do what he or she is not
legally bound to do or to omit to do what he or she is
legally entitled to do.
(b) To hinder, resist the execution of any law, or of any
legal process,
(c) To commit any offence punishable by a sentence of
imprisonment.

12. (3) Any person who, with the knowledge that it is an
unlawful assembly, joins the assembly shall be
liable to a sentence of imprisonment for a term
not exceeding six months and a fine not
exceeding five thousand rupees where he or she
has joined it without arms, and imprisonment for a
term not exceeding one year and a fine not
exceeding ten thousand rupees where he or she
has joined it with arms.
(4) Any person who himself or herself does not join
an unlawful assembly but hires or otherwise
induces or overawes another to join such
assembly shall be liable to the sentence referred
to in sub-section (3) as if he or she himself or
herself had joined such unlawful assembly

13. 61. Prohibition of breach of order issued to
prevent or disperse unlawful assembly: (1)
Where a competent authority makes an order to
prevent or disperse an unlawful assembly, no
person shall participate or continue in such
assembly.
(2) A person who continues in, participates in, or
joins an unlawful assembly under sub-section (1)
shall be liable to a sentence of imprisonment for a
term not exceeding one year or a fine not
exceeding ten thousand rupees or with both.

14. 62. Every member to be considered to have
committed offence: Where any member of an
unlawful assembly commits any offence in the
achievement of the object of such assembly,
every member of such assembly who aids and
assists knowingly at the time of the commission of
offence shall be considered to have committed
the offence.

15. 63. Prohibition of rioting: (1) No person shall commit,
or cause to be committed, the offence of rioting.
(2) Where an unlawful assembly or a member thereof
uses force or destroys, damages or causes loss to
any public or private property in the course of
achievement of the object of such assembly, every
member of such assembly shall be considered to
have committed the offence of rioting.
(3) Every person who commits the offense referred to in
sub-section (1) shall be liable to a sentence of
imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years and
a fine not exceeding twenty thousand rupees if he or
she is armed with a deadly weapon, and to a
sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding
one year and a fine not exceeding ten thousand
rupees if he or she is not armed with a deadly
weapon.
74. Statute of limitation: No complaint on an offence

16. Thank you