Nothing is said to be done or believed in good faith which is done or believed without due care and attention.
Image Source: 3ae550402fda64309968-ed10b3f81fdfcd75244e208b3e9cac2c.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com
This definition of ‘good faith’ given here is merely a negative one. It does not define “good faith”. In the General Clauses Act (X of 1897) “good faith” has a positive definition and is defined as follows: “A thing shall be deemed to be done in ‘good faith’ where it is in fact done honestly, whether it is done negligently or not”.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
The element of honesty which is introduced by the definition under the General Clauses Act, is not introduced by the definition of the Code. The simple belief by itself is not enough. It must be shown that the belief had a rational basis and was not just a blind simple belief.
That is where the element of due care and attention plays an important role. But it must be remembered that good faith does not require logical infallibility. The proper point to be decided is not the truth of the allegation but whether the accused was informed and had good reason after due care and attention to believe the allegations.
The definition in I.P.C. is different and it requires due care and attention. Section 52 makes no reference to the moral elements of honesty and right motive which are involved in the popular significance of good faith and which are predominant in the positive definition enacted in the other Acts of the Legislature.
Therefore, while an honest blunderer acts in good faith within the meaning of the General Clauses Act, an honest blunderer can never act in good faith for being negligent. In a case Kabiraj, operated a man for internal piles by cutting them out with an ordinary knife, in consequence of which patient died from haemorrhage. Plea of good faith was denied to Kabiraj and he was held guilty of an offence punishable under Section 304-A of the Code.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
The two definitions are in apparent conflict with each other but the conflict goes only to the extent that while a thing may be done honestly but if it is done negligently, it would not be deemed to have been done in good faith under the Penal Code.
The definition in the General Clauses Act lays stress on one aspect only but the Penal Code places emphasis on two aspects, namely, the honesty of intention along with due care and attention as otherwise the term will lose its real meaning.
Good faith implies not only an upright mental attitude and clear conscience, but also the doing of an act, showing that ordinary prudence has been exercised according to the standards of a reasonable person.
The law does not expect the same degree of care and attention from all persons. It varies with the position they occupy. Thus, where a constable questioned a person endeavouring to satisfy himself whether his suspicions were well-founded or not, was not satisfied by the answers he received, though such answers would have satisfied a more intelligent man, or one in a higher position, it was held that the law does not exact the same care and attention from persons regardless of the position they occupy.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
If the same intelligence were required from a constable as from a Commissioner of Police, it would be impossible to obtain the services of constable on the salaries which the State gives them for such duties as are performed by them.
In this sense the question of good faith is always a question of fact to be determined in accordance with the proved facts and circumstances of each case the standard of “due care and attention” is not the standard of the hypothetically “reasonable man.” It is the standard of a man whose “good faith” is on trial.
The “due care required must depend upon the nature of the act, its magnitude and importance, and the convenience a person has for the exercise of due care and attention”. Good faith requires due care and attention, i.e., care and attention expected from a reasonable man. In the case of publication of a defamatory matter, actual source of information on which the accused has acted ought to be considered. Where the publication is based upon flimsy materials and there is no evidence, that the accused made any enquiries before publication, the publication cannot be said to have been made in good faith.
“Good faith” in law differs from “good faith” of the layman which means by it only honesty of intention. In the Penal Code the term has no reference to the moral elements of honesty and right motive. If a man takes upon himself an office or duty requiring skill or care he must show not merely a good intention but such care and skill as the duty reasonably demands for its due discharge.
The phrase “due care and attention” implies genuine effort to reach the truth and not the ready acceptance of an ill-natured belief. The question of good faith is a question of fact and must be gathered from the surrounding circumstances. Mere actual belief without any reasonable grounds for believing is not simultaneous with good faith; but good faith does not require logical infallibility but due care and caution which must in each case be considered with reference to the general circumstances and the capacity and the intelligence of the person whose conduct is in question.
The law does not expect the same care and attention from all persons regardless of the position they occupy. A hasty surgical operation may not be in good faith though it was done to save life. A person who allowed his coolies to work at a considerable distance from the licensed area of work was held to be not acting in good faith.
Good faith is not possible if any act is done without due care and attention. The standard of due care and attention will be examined upon the standard of reasonable man. Good faith depends upon three basic factors.
(i) The nature of the act done by the accused.
(ii) Magnitude and importance of the act done by the accused.
(iii) Due care and attention done by the accused.
Guilty intention or knowledge being a principal element in a crime, “good faith” is a good defence for which the sole test is the observance of “due care and attention”. Good faith is relative to a certain extent and must be determined by the circumstances under which an imputation is made.
The fact that the imputation is not established to be true does not mean an absence of good faith. The insistence is upon the exercise of due care and attention. Recklessness and negligence are ruled out. The standard of care and attention of course varies from case to case.