Mithan Lal vs Emperor on 2 September, 1947
8. It has to be observed that there is not in any of these cases any general discussion as to what is the meaning and effect of the phrase "lawful excuse" as used in Rule 5; all that there is to be found is the pronouncement by the Court that in the particular circumstances of the case before it the accused person had a lawful excuse. Now it appears to me that some meaning must be attached to the word "lawful", for that word, and not "reasonable" or "good" is the adjective which qualifies "excuse." In Cri. Revn. No. 272 of Lalji v. Emperor ('48) 35 A.I.R. 1948 All. Malik J., expressed the opinion that "lawful excuse" meant an excuse which is recognized as a good excuse in law. With great respect, that view, I think is clearly right. Poverty is not a lawful excuse for the theft by a starving man of a piece of bread. It is a circumstance which will properly be taken into account in determining the sentence, but on the question of guilt it is irrelevant. So also in the present case, the inability of an accused person to dispose of the cloth by 31st December 1944, (where that fact is proved) is a circumstance to which full weight will be given in assessing the sentence, but it cannot in my judgment affect the accused's liability under the Control Order and the Defence of India Rules.