Section 1: Defined terms and their meaning
Statutory text (Thai original)
ในประมวลกฎหมายนี้ ถ้าคำใดมีคำอธิบายไว้แล้ว ให้ถือตามความหมายดังได้อธิบายไว้ เว้นแต่ข้อความในตัวบทจะขัดกับคำอธิบายนั้น
English translation
In this Code, if any word has been given a definition, that word shall be taken to have the meaning so defined, except where the wording of a particular provision conflicts with that definition.
This English translation is provided for reference only and has not yet been firm-verified. Always rely on the Thai original.
Firm annotation
Section 1 opens Title 1 (General Principles) and sets the interpretive rule for the whole Code: defined terms carry their statutory meaning throughout, unless a particular provision's text is incompatible with the definition. The Supreme Court has used this rule to hold that the word "injured person" in Section 44/1 need not carry the Section 2(4) definition, because Section 44/1's own wording points to a person entitled to compensation. It interacts closely with the definitions in Section 2.
Why this matters in practice
For litigants, Section 1 explains why the same word can mean different things in different parts of the Code. Do not assume a defined term such as "injured person" always carries its Section 2(4) meaning, because a specific provision may call for a wider or narrower reading. Getting this right decides standing and other threshold issues, so the exact wording of the operative section always has to be checked.
Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 3225/2563 (2020)
Under Section 1, where a provision's wording conflicts with a definition the definition yields; the term "injured person" in Section 44/1 is measured by civil-law entitlement to compensation, not by the Section 2(4) definition.
The Court held that the right to claim compensation under Section 44/1 identifies a person entitled to compensation, a meaning that differs from and conflicts with the "injured person" definition in Section 2(4). Applying the Section 1 rule, whether a person may claim compensation under Section 44/1 is judged by civil-law rights, not by the criminal-law meaning of injured person.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 2412/2562 (2019)
Section 1 permits Section 44/1 to define "injured person" by civil-law entitlement to compensation, and once the public prosecutor has reclaimed property or its value on the victim's behalf, the victim cannot separately claim that same portion.
Applying Section 1, the Court read "injured person" in Section 44/1 as a person with a civil right to compensation, differing from Section 2(4). It added that where the public prosecutor has already claimed property or its value for the victim under Sections 43 and 44/1 paragraph three, the victim cannot file a separate compensation claim for that portion.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 5400/2560 (2017)
Under Section 1, the Section 44/1 compensation right is judged by civil-law entitlement, so criminal-law notions such as being an injured person by operation of law or a representative under Section 5 do not govern who may claim.
The Court held that the meaning of "injured person" in Section 44/1 conflicts with the Section 2(4) definition, so by Section 1 it is not read the same way. Eligibility to claim compensation is determined by the claimant's civil rights, not by criminal-law concepts such as an injured person by operation of law or authority to act under Section 5.
Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.
Cited in 13 Supreme Court decisions (1954 to 2020)
Selected citing decisions
- Decision 2412/2562 (2019)
- Decision 1641/2514 (1971)
- Decision 854/2511 (1968)
- Decision 5400/2560 (2017)
- Decision 5599/2541 (1998)
- Decision 1472/2533 (1990)
- Decision 1552/2512 (1969)
- Decision 1828/2497 (1954)
This list is selected automatically, weighted towards judgments that turn on this section rather than ones that merely recite it when passing sentence. It has not yet been reviewed by the firm.
Most often cited alongside
Sections that appear in the same judgments as this one most often. The figure is the number of decisions.
Counted across the firm's corpus of 83,652 Supreme Court decisions, 1921 to 2026. The count is complete; the stated year range trims rare outliers so it describes where the citations actually sit. These figures are computed by us and are not official court statistics. How we count these, and what we measured
Frequently asked questions
Does a defined word in the Criminal Procedure Code always keep its defined meaning?
No. Under Section 1, a defined term keeps its meaning unless the wording of a particular provision conflicts with that definition, in which case the provision's own sense controls.
Why can "injured person" mean something different under Section 44/1 than under Section 2(4)?
Because Section 1 lets a provision's wording override a definition. The Supreme Court read the "injured person" in Section 44/1 as a person entitled to civil compensation, which differs from the Section 2(4) definition.
Cite this section
-
Plain citation
Criminal Procedure Code, s. 1 (Thailand) -
Academic citation
Criminal Procedure Code (Thailand), s. 1. ThaiLawOnline, https://www.thailawonline.com/thai-criminal-procedure-code/section-1/ (accessed 11 August 2026). -
Thai citation
ป.วิ.อ. มาตรา 1 -
Permalink
https://www.thailawonline.com/thai-criminal-procedure-code/section-1/ -
Embed on your site
<blockquote cite="https://www.thailawonline.com/thai-criminal-procedure-code/section-1/"><p>In this Code, if any word has been given a definition, that word shall be taken to have the meaning so defined, except where the wording of a particular provision conflicts with that definition.</p><footer>Criminal Procedure Code, s. 1 (Thailand) — <a href="https://www.thailawonline.com/thai-criminal-procedure-code/section-1/">ThaiLawOnline</a></footer></blockquote>
The Thai text is authoritative. The English is an unofficial translation by ThaiLawOnline, free to reuse with attribution.