Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 49 (1.06 seconds)
Documents citing Ravula Hariprasada Rao vs The State on 19 March, 1951

State Of Maharashtra vs Mayer Hans George on 24 August, 1964

Mr. Sorabjee is justified in referring us to these rules regarding presumption and construction and it may be pointed out that this Court has, in Ravula Hariprasada Rao v. The State(2), approved of this passage in the judgment of Lord Du Parcq and the principle of construction underlying it. We therefore agree that absolute liability is not to be lightly presumed but has to be clearly established.
Supreme Court of India Cites 26 - Cited by 142 - Full Document

S.A. Qadir vs The Union Of India And Ors. on 26 April, 2000

In Ravula Hariprasada Rao v. The State , the Supreme Court considered whether offence punishable under Rule 81 of the Defence of India Rules requires punishment. In that case the appellant was a licensee of two petrol filling stations at Guntur but he was a resident of Chirala which was 40 miles away. On the petrol filling stations employees had been appointed who were incharge of the petrol filling station. The appellant as well as his employees were tried on the following charges: (1) on 27.6.1945, petrol was supplied to three cars without taking coupons, in contravention of Clause 22 read with Clause 5 of the Motor Sprit Rationing Order, 1941 promulgated under Rule 81(2) of the Defence of India Rules, (2) that on the same day and at the same place, they accepted coupons relating to two other cars in advance without supplying petrol, in contravention of Clause 27 of the Order. In another criminal case, the charges against the appellant and his employees were that in the second petrol filling pump, on 27.6.1945, petrol was supplied to four motor vehicles without taking coupons, in contravention of Clause 22 read with Clause 5 and they accepted coupons of three other vehicles in advance without issuing petrol in contravention of Clause 27 and that they supplied petrol to two other vehicles against coupons but without making necessary endorsements and particulars on the reverse of the coupons, infringing thereby Clause 27A of the said Order. The appellant and his employees were convicted and sentenced. The plea of the appellant was that his employees were incharge of the petrol filling station and the alleged offences were committed by his employees without his knowledge. Clause 22 read with Clause 5 of the Motor Sprit Rationing Order, 1941 impose prohibition against supply of petrol otherwise than in accordance with the provisions contained in the order. The Supreme Court held that only the person who furnishes motor spirit contrary to the provisions of the Order will be affected by the contravention. Mens rea was, therefore, held to be necessary for the first two charges, viz., the charge of supplying petrol without taking coupons and taking coupons in advance without supplying petrol. Regarding the third charge in second case, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction. The reasons were indicated in the following lines:
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 62 - Cited by 0 - N N Mathur - Full Document

Teja Moha vs Mangubhai Mehta And Anr. on 12 August, 1969

The act of an accused resulting in preventing a Food Inspector from takin a sample must be a deliberate act of the accused. Accidental or unintentional act of an accused resulting in such prevention cannot create a criminal liability. The language of Section 16(1)(b) does not lend support to the contention that given an innocent vendor will be criminally liable. As observed by the Lord Chief Justice of England "It is in my opinion of utmost importance for the protection of the liberty of the subject that a Court should always bear in mind that, unless the statute either clearly or by necessary implication rules out mens rea as a constituent part of a crime, an accused should not be found guilty of an offence against the criminal law unless he has got a guilty mind, Brand v. Wood, (1946) 110 JP 317 at p. 318, approvingly, referred to by the Supreme Court in the case of Revula Hariprasad Rao v. State AIR 1951 SC 204." In my opinion, there is nothing in Section 16(1)(b) to show that either by clear intendment or by necessary implication mens rea as a constituent part of the crime is rules out for the offence punishable under clause (b).
Gujarat High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Babu Lal on 8 October, 1976

The Supreme Court referred to its own earlier decision in Hariprasada Rao v. The State and held "what was held in that case is that unless a statute either clearly or by necessary implication rules out mens rea as a constituent part of the crime, a person should not be found guilty of an offence against the criminal law unless he has got a guilty mind. The proposition there stated is well established. Here Section 19(1) of the Act clearly deprives the vendor of the defence of merely alleging that he was ignorant of the nature, substance or quality of the article of food sold by him and this places upon him the burden of showing that he had no mens rea to commit an offence Under Section 7(1) or 16(1)(a) of the Act."
Allahabad High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State Of U.P. vs Babu Lal on 8 October, 1976

The Supreme Court referred to its own earlier decision in Hariprasada Rao v. The State (AIR 1951 SC 204) : (52 Cri LJ 768) and held "what was held in that case is that unless a statute either clearly or by necessary implication rules out mens rea as a constituent part of the crime, a person should not be found guilty of an offence against the criminal law unless he has got a guilty mind. The proposition there stated is well established. Here Section 19(1) of the Act clearly deprives the vendor of the defence of merely alleging that he was ignorant of the nature, substance or quality of the article of food sold by him and this places upon him the burden of showing that he had no mens rea to commit an offence under Section 7(1) or 16(1)(a) of the Act."
Allahabad High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 23 - Full Document

A.P. Misra vs The State on 7 May, 1958

The same view was also taken by the Supreme Court in the case of Hariprasad Rao v. The State, . Mr. Chatterjee on behalf of the State has argued that there is no question of mens rea where ignorance of law is pleaded. It is to be observed that while acquitting the co-accused S.P. Mukherjee the trying Magistrate held that he was careless and the fact that the movement of the goods referred to restricted commodity escaped his notice. In other words, he held that he did not have the necessary guilty mind. In my judgment, the same principle can be applied with greater force to a member of the public when it is found that even the railway officials whose duty it was to despatch the goods could omit to notice that a Control order was in operation. I am of the view that the petitioner cannot be convicted as it has not been, in my judgment, established beyond reasonable doubt that he had the necessary guilty mind.
Calcutta High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Tarak Nath Paul vs Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax on 13 January, 1982

' There is a presumption that mens rea, an evil intention, or a knowledge of the wrongfulness of the act, is an essential ingredient in every offence; but that presumption is liable to be displaced either by the words of the statute creating the offence or by the subject-matter with which it deals, and both must be considered.' The aforesaid view has the stamp of approval by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Hariprasada Rao v. State, , and State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George .
Calcutta High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - S Mukharji - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next