Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.42 seconds)
Documents citing Bucha Lal vs Rex on 8 July, 1948

Gur Bux Singh And Anr. vs State on 7 April, 1977

6. It is now settled position in law that mens rea is an essential ingredient of a statutory offence but this may be rebutted by the express words of a statute creating the offence or by necessary implication. In deciding whether mens rea excluded as a necessary constituent of a crime, it is necessary to find whether the offence consists in doing a prohibited act or in failing to perform a duty which only arises if a particular state of affairs exists. If a statute contains an absolute prohibition against the doing of some act, mens rea not a constituent of the offence but where it only imposes a duty to do something on the happening of a certain event, mens rea would be required to be proved. In the instant case an analyst of the various provisions of the Act, the breach of which has been alleged against the applicants, would show that those provisions only impose a duty and did not contain absolute prohibition against doing some act. Hence it does not appear to me to be correct, as urged by Sri V. P. Goel, that in view of the absolute prohibition imposed by the Act. the owner was liable for the act of his servant irrespective of the guilty mind. Hence on consideration of the language of the various provisions of the Act, in my opinion, mens rea is a necessary element of the offence defined in the Act. The view taken by me is supported by an authority of this Court reported in Buchcha Lal v. Rex AIR 1949 All 11 : 50 Cri LJ 20 and State v. Bhagwan Singh .
Allahabad High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

V. Ayodhyaraman vs State Of Mysore on 14 April, 1959

When such proof is not forthcoming the owner of the vehicle cannot be convicted. The question whether mens rea is a necessary element of an offence under S. 72(3) of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act came up for consideration before the Allahabad High Court in Bucha Lal v. Rex, AIR 1949 All 11. His Lordship Seth J. Who considered the matter observed in the course of his order that mens rea was a necessary element in the case of an offence of contravening the provisions of S. 72(3)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Karnataka High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

R.A. Natarajan vs The Regional Transport Officer And Anr. on 4 April, 1956

4. The second point that was urged was that as the conductor was in charge of the vehicle and as it was not proved that the petitioner had any mens rea in permitting the overloading, the cancellation of the permit should not have been ordered. Learned Counsel in this connection relied on a decision of Allahabad High Court reported in Bucha Lal v. Rex A.I.R. 1949 All. 11. The learned Judge there was concerned with the question whether an offence under Section 72 of the Motor Vehicles Act had been committed by an owner who had put on the vehicle a driver who had misbehaved. The Allahabad High Court held that on the language of Section 72(2)(3) mens rea was a necessary ingredient of the offence and that as in the case before it, that has not been established, the conviction was bad. But the present case stands on an entirely different footing. Section 60 of the Motor Vehicles Act enables the transport authorities to cancel a permit on the breach of any condition contained in the permit to quote only the material words of Section 60(1)(a). When one turns to the permit condition relevent to the present context which is condition No. 5 it runs in these terms: "The Vehicle shall not carry more than - passengers including the driver and the conductor." There is thus an absolute prohibition and it is not conditioned by any particular person having knowledge of this contravention. Mens rea is therefore not imported into this rule and it does not matter for the purpose of deciding whether condition No.5 has been contravened or not, whether it was the driver or the conductor who was responsible for the overloading or the owner himself. In each of these contingencies the vehicle would have been overloaded in contravention of condition No. 5 so as to attract the penalty prescribed by Section 60(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1