The nature of the mischief in cases of strict liability is deduced based on the facts

The nature of the mischief in cases of strict liability is deduced based on the facts has been written by Sabareesh Pillay student of School of Law, University of Mumbai Thane Sub-Campus

State Of Maharashtra Vs Mayer Hans George

FACTS:

In this case, Mayer Hans George- Respondent, was found with 34kg of gold in his bank when he was travelling Zurich to Manila on 27^th November 1962. He was a German by Nationality. As bringing such large amount of gold was not allowed in the country without the prior permission of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI). As if someone was to be found with more gold than allowed in the country, it would amount as smuggling under foreign exchange regulations act of 1947. Initially acquitted by high court, the respondent was sentenced to jail by the supreme court after an appeal was filed in the court.

ISSUE:

Section 168 (8) (1) of the Sea Customs act and Section 8(1), 23 (1-A) of Foreign Exchange Regulations act,1947.

PETITIONER CONTENTION:

The petitioner- The state of Maharashtra Contended that, there was complete intention of the Respondent to bring the Gold bars in his cargo and he wanted to smuggle the gold to Manila which was his ulterior destination. Further, looking at the importance of the act it can be said that the Mens rea is an irrelevant element in assuming the culpability of the offender. The strict adherence of the act refutes any such assumptions and shows that mens rea is not a fundamental element of the offence. The petitioner said that the government had published official gazettes two times in 1962 to create awareness in the general public. And the earlier gazette which was published in early November which was erroneous was clarified by a second gazette published in November end, so the contention that the government had not notified the public could not be held valid

RESPONDENT CONENTION:

The respondent- Mayer Hans George contended that, mens rea is a fundamental element of any criminal offence and the respondent was not aware of the notification published by the Reserve Bank. The notice could be said to be enforceable when it comes to the knowledge of the people who is has read it and is affected by it. The main contention of the respondent was that he had no knowledge at all of the law and regulations of the country and so the petitioner saying that all information was published was not fair to him thus, as he was not aware of the Indian Penal codes and laws. He had no intention to bring gold in India cannot be said to possess the intent to break the law and hence should not be prosecuted under the act.

JUDGEMENT:

The bench of Justice K. Subbarao, Justice Rajagopala Ayyangar and Justice J.R. Mudholkar said that to read the sections of the foreign exchange regulations act and apply it to the respondent- Mayer Hans George would be unfair and cruel towards him, the bench acknowledged that mens rea is a necessary element to prove a crime but it can be excluded by the words of the statute. The court further said that the high court failed to establish a precedent and thus the appeal was allowed in the supreme court and the 1-year conviction of the Respondent- Mayer Hans George was restored.