Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.82 seconds)Section 42 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 123 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 38 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 125 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 114 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 41 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Srinivas Mall Bairoliya vs Emperor on 28 April, 1947
In Hari Prasad Rao v. State approving the view of the Privy Council in Shri Niwas Mall v. Emperor AIR 1947 PC 135, the Supreme Court observed 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.
Bucha Lal vs Rex on 8 July, 1948
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 .
1