Privy Council

Srinivas Mall Bairoliya v King-Emperor

[1947] UKPC 3219471 min read
The case in brief30-second read
Facts
The appellant's servant sold goods above the controlled price in breach of the Defence of India Rules, without the appellant's knowledge. The appellant was convicted as the master.
Issue
Whether a master can be criminally liable, without mens rea, for his servant's breach of a price-control rule.
Held
The conviction was set aside. Mens rea is an essential ingredient of an offence unless the statute excludes it expressly or by necessary implication, and the Rules did not do so. A master who did not know of the act could not be imprisoned for it.
Principle
The presumption of mens rea applies to statutory offences; vicarious criminal liability needs clear words.
Cite this

Facts

  • The appellant's servant sold goods above the controlled price in breach of the Defence of India Rules, without the appellant's knowledge. The appellant was convicted as the master.

Issue

  1. Whether a master can be criminally liable, without mens rea, for his servant's breach of a price-control rule.

Held

  • The conviction was set aside. Mens rea is an essential ingredient of an offence unless the statute excludes it expressly or by necessary implication, and the Rules did not do so. A master who did not know of the act could not be imprisoned for it.

Cite this

Citation

Srinivas Mall Bairoliya v King-Emperor [1947] UKPC 32

Reported: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1712115/. This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.