Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 25 (2.84 seconds)

Srinivas Mall Bairoliya vs Emperor on 28 April, 1947

The judgment of the Judicial Committee insofar as it was in favour of the appellant, was based on two lines of reasoning. The first was that in order to constitute a contravention of s. 6(2) of the Ordinance mens rea was essential. The second was that even if the order of the Minister under s. 9 were regarded as an exercise of legislative power, the maxim 'ignorance of law is no excuse' could not apply because there was not, in Singapore, any provision for the publication, in any form, of an order of the kind made in the case or any other provision to enable a man, by appropriate enquiry, to find out what the law was. Lord Evershed who delivered the judgment of the Board referred with approval to the formulation of the principle as 151 regards mens rea to be found in the judgment of Wright J. in Sherras v. De Rutzen,(1) already referred to. His Lordship also accepted as correct the enunciation of the rule in Srinivas Mall Bairoliya v. King-Emperor (2) in the passage we have extracted earlier. Referring next to the argument that where the statute was one for the regulation for the public welfare of a particular activity it had frequently been inferred that strict liability was the object -.ought to be enforced by the legislature, it was pointed out :
Bombay High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 78 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next