RAJIV GANDHI NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF LAW

GENERAL PRINCIPLE OF CRIMINAL LAW PRESENTATION

CASE COMMENTARY
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA V. M.H. GEORGE 1965 AIR 722, 1965 SCR (1) 123
PRESENTED BY:-
ANUJ SHARMA
ROLL NO 19123
FACTS OF THE CASE

• Government of India issued notification under section 8 of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act that
any person carrying or bringing gold into India or through India to other country should take
permission from reserve bank as manifest it as Cargo otherwise would be liable for smuggling.
• The respondent, a German dealer, left Zurich via plane on 27th November 1962 with 34 kilos of
gold-covered on his person to be conveyed in Manila.
• The plane reached Bombay on next day. Custom authorities after checking manifest of the plane
conducted searched and found respondent in a possession of gold which was not manifested.
• The respondent was initially sentenced by the Magistrate, however, acquitted by the High Court.
The state made a further appeal in the Supreme Court to reinstate conviction.
ISSUES

• Whether mens rea is an essential ingredient regarding an offence under Section 23(1A) of the Act?
• Whether the respondent is liable for bringing gold to India under ss. 8(1) and 23(1A) of the Foreign
Exchange Regulation Act (7 of 1947) which was published in the Gazette of India on 24th
November 1962?
• What was the ban imposed by the Central Government and the Central Board of Revenue in
exercise of the power granted an under section of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act,1947,
against person transporting prohibited goods through the vicinity of India?
RESPONDENT ARGUMENT

• Respondent argued that mens rea is need to be essential ingredient for a crime and quoted the
maxim “actus reus non facit reum nisi men sit rea”. Respondent stats that he did not have
intention contravene the section 23(1) of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act.
• He also argued that he does not have knowledge of the publication of a notification which
required person carrying gold to have requisite permission of reserve bank even the gold is
bound to go outside India. he is familiar with the earlier notification only.
• At last he argued that act mention the bringing of gold and gold article into india but he did not
get outside of the plane at layover in Mumbai and remain in the plane only. So he doesnot fall
under the category of bringing gold in India.
RATIO DECIDENDI

• According to section 8(1) and 24(1) of FERA, the burden of proof is on the accused is to prove that
he has requisite permission to bring gold in India. There is no need of mens rea or intention on the
part of accused other than the act of voluntarily bringing gold or gold particles in India.
• More importantly the main purpose and intent of act is to prevent smuggling of gold and gold
articles into India to ensure stability of country and effectiveness of the statue will nullify if a
condition were to be read into the sections qualifying the plains words of the enactment, that the
accused should be proved to have knowledge that he was contravening the law before he could be
held to have contravened the provision.
JUDGEMENT

• The court held that the very object and purpose of the Act and, its effectiveness as an instrument to
prevent smuggling would be entirely frustrated if a condition were to be read into the Act qualifying the
plain words of the enactment, that the accused should be proved to have knowledge that he was
contravening the law before he could be held to have contravened the provision. So mens rea in statutory
offences was excluded.
• The court also held that law is to be published where it was effected so publication of law in the official
gazette of government of India will suffice no need to publish it outside India.
• The court also held that if the person voluntarily bring gold into India without requisite permission is
liable under the act but no involuntarily act of bringing gold into India make a person liable under the
abovementioned sections.
THANK YOU