Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (1.04 seconds)
Documents citing C.T. Prim And Anr. vs The State on 29 April, 1959

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

In the same manner a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in C. T. Prim v. The State(2) accepted as settled law that unless a statute clearly or by necessary implication rules out mens rea as a constituent part of the crime, no one should be found guilty of, an offence under the criminal law unless he has got a guilty mind. The law on the subject relevant to the present enquiry may briefly be stated as follows. It is a well settled principle of common law that mens rea is an essential ingredient of a criminal offence. Doubtless a statute can exclude that element, but it is a sound rule of construction adopted in England and also accepted in India to construe a statutory provision creating an offence in conformity with the common law rather than against it unless the statute expressly or by necessary implication excluded mens rea. To put it differently, there is a presumption 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. But the mere fact that the object of a statute is to promote welfare activities or to eradicate grave social evils is in itself not decisive of the question whether the element of guilty mind is excluded from the ingredients of the offence. It is also necessary to enquire whether a statute by putting a person under strict liability help him to assist the State in the enforcement of the law: can he do anything to promote the observance of the law? A person who does not know that gold cannot be brought into India without a licence or is not bringing into India any gold at all cannot possibly do any- thing to promote the observance of the law. Mens rea by necessary implication can be excluded from a statute only where it is absolutely clear that the implementation of the object of a statute would otherwise be defeated and its exclusion enables those put under strict liability by their act or omission to assist the promotion of the law. 'the nature of mens rea that will be implied in a statute creating an offence depends upon the object of the Act and the provisions thereof.
Supreme Court of India Cites 26 - Cited by 142 - Full Document

Ranjit D. Udeshi And Ors. vs The State on 6 February, 1962

We agree with the observations of the learned Judges in C. T. Prim v. State, where they state disagreeing with the observations of Stable J., in (1954) 2 All ER 683 that "it is difficult to subscribe to the theory of eliminating altogether the effect of a publication on the minds of young persons, for they also constitute the public"- we should say a large part of the English reading public in this country.
Bombay High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1