Supreme Court of India

State of Maharashtra v Mayer Hans George

(1965) 1 SCR 123; 1964 INSC 17919651 min read
The case in brief30-second read
Facts
A German passenger flying from Zurich to Manila via Bombay carried 34 kg of gold concealed on his body. A recent RBI notification required such gold to be declared in the manifest. He said he did not know of it.
Issue
Whether mens rea, including knowledge of the notification, was required for the offence under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act and the Sea Customs Act.
Held
By majority, mens rea was excluded by necessary implication from the object and scheme of the statute, and ignorance of the notification was no defence. His conviction was restored. Subba Rao J dissented.
Principle
Mens rea is presumed, but it can be excluded by the language and object of a regulatory statute; ignorance of law is no excuse.
Cite this

Facts

  • A German passenger flying from Zurich to Manila via Bombay carried 34 kg of gold concealed on his body. A recent RBI notification required such gold to be declared in the manifest. He said he did not know of it.

Issue

  1. Whether mens rea, including knowledge of the notification, was required for the offence under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act and the Sea Customs Act.

Held

  • By majority, mens rea was excluded by necessary implication from the object and scheme of the statute, and ignorance of the notification was no defence. His conviction was restored. Subba Rao J dissented.

Cite this

Citation

State of Maharashtra v Mayer Hans George (1965) 1 SCR 123; 1964 INSC 179

Reported: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1564263/. This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.