Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.19 seconds)

Srinivas Mall Bairoliya vs Emperor on 28 April, 1947

8. The proper interpretation of the aforesaid provision is that the owner is liable if he caused or allows a motor vehicle to be used not otherwise. This means that the owner must commit an act leading to the inference that he allowed the use of the vehicle or he should be shown to have brought out that result by some illegal omission. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Hari Prasada Rao v. The State, AIR 1951 SC 204 approved the view taken by their Lordships of the Privy Council In Shrinivas Mall v. Emperor, AIR 1947 PC 135 that unless the statute, either clearly or by necessary implication, rules out mens rea as a constituent part of a crime, a defendant should not be found guilty of an offence against the criminal law unless he has got a guilty mind. In the case before their Lordships clause 22 of the Motor Spirit Rationing Order (1941) was under consideration. It provided that no person shall furnish motor spirit otherwise than in accordance with the provisions contained in the Order. Their Lordships further observed as follows :
Bombay High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 78 - Full Document
1   2 Next