Principle of Mens Rea and Strict Liability

Definition of Crime
1. A crime can be defined as the commission of an act that is prohibited by law, or
an omission of an act that is obligated by the law.
2. Crime is considered as social wrong committed by an individual.
3. Criminal law defines the acts which are illegal and prohibited by law.
4. Crime threatens and harms public welfare and safety.
5. Austin:- “A wrong which is pursued at the discretion of the injured party and
his representatives is a civil injury; a wrong which is pursued by the sovereign
or his subordinates is a crime.”
6. Blackstone:- "Crime is a violation of public right or duties due to the whole
community, considered as a community, in its social aggregate capacity."
7. Keeton:- "A crime would seem to be any undesirable act which the state finds it
most convenient to correct by the institution of proceeding for the infliction of a
penalty, instead of leaving the remedy to the discretion of the injured party."
8. Supreme Court of India:- "Crime is a revolt against the whole society and an
attack on the civilisation of the day"—Mrs Harpreet Kaur Harvinder Singh Bedi v.
State of Maharashtra & Anr."

On the basis of the definition of as crime has three attributes-

1. Harm from an anti-social act,
2. State prevention through punishment,
3. Legal proceedings follow criminal law and evidence rules.
Distinction between Crime and Civil Wrong
Criminal Wrong: Criminal wrongs are offenses against the state, prosecuted by the
government. The aim of criminal law is to punish offenders and deter future crime,
categorized as felonies (serious) or misdemeanors. Examples: murder, assault, theft, robbery,
and drug offenses.
Civil Wrong: Civil wrongs, or torts, violate legal rights, leading to civil cases. The aim of civil
law is to compensate victims for damages, with examples like breach of contract,
negligence, defamation, and personal injury.
It is important to note that some actions can be both a crime and a civil wrong. For
example, if someone assaults you, you may be able to file a criminal charge against
them and also sue them in civil court for damages.
• Crimes defined by statutes/laws passed by legislatures.
• Civil wrongs defined by common law/developed by judges over time.
• Higher standard of proof in criminal cases than civil cases.
• More severe outcomes in criminal cases than civil cases.
Here is a table summarizing the key differences between crimes and civil wrongs:

Feature

Crime

Civil Wrong

Punish offenders and deter Compensate the victim for

Purpose
future crime their damages

Party that brings

Government Victim
the case

Preponderance of the
Burden of proof Beyond a reasonable doubt
evidence

Possible Imprisonment, fines, Monetary damages,

outcomes probation, restitution injunctions

Breach of contract,
Murder, assault, theft,
Examples negligence, defamation,
robbery, drug offenses
personal injury

Distinction between Crime and Moral Wrong

Crime: Crimes are legal offenses violating society's laws, defined by statutes and prosecuted
by the government. Criminal law aims to protect society through punishment and
deterrence of future crime. Offenses vary from minor, like traffic violations, to severe, like
murder and rape.
Moral Wrong: Moral wrongs violate our sense of right and wrong, aren't always illegal but
are considered wrong by most people. Not enforced by the government, they can lead to
social disapproval and sanctions. Examples: lying, cheating, breaking promises.
Not all moral wrongs are crimes, and not all crimes are morally wrong. For instance, lying to
protect someone from harm may be a moral wrong but not illegal. Distinction between crimes
and moral wrongs is complex, debated by philosophers and legal scholars for centuries. No
easy answer to defining crime or moral wrong. Ultimately, it's a matter of social and moral
judgment.
• Definition of crimes evolves with changing societal values.
• Enforcement varies by jurisdiction and available resources.
• Perception of moral wrongs changes with evolving societal norms.
Here is a table summarizing the key differences between crimes and moral wrongs:

Feature

Crime

Moral Wrong

Nature Legal offense Violation of moral principles

Enforcement Government Social disapproval

Protect society and deter Promote good behavior and

Purpose
crime uphold moral standards

Murder, theft, assault, Lying, cheating, breaking

Examples
robbery promises

Elements and Stages of Crime

Fundamental Elements of Crime
1. Human beings
2. Mens rea: Guilty mind
3. Actus reus: Illegal act or omission
4. Injury to another human being

1. Human being
• The first element of crime is a human being who- must be under the legal
obligation to act in a particular manner and should be a fit subject for
awarding appropriate punishment.
• Section 11 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860(IPC) provides that word ‘person’
includes a company or association or body of persons whether incorporated or
not. The word ‘person’ includes artificial or juridical persons.
• Iridium India Telecom Ltd v. Motorola Incorporated & Ors. (Principle of alter
ego‘) Complaint: Cheating allegations against the company under Sections 420 and 120B
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Supreme Court notes corporations can be convicted like
individuals for common law and statutory offenses, including those requiring mens rea.
2. Mens Rea
• The second important essential element of a crime is mens rea or evil intent or
guilty mind. Mens Rea is the evil intention of knowledge to do a wrongful act
voluntarily in conscious state of mind. It is the guilty mind required for the
commission of an offence.
• Every crime requires a mental element and that is considered as the fundamental
principle of criminal liability.
• The basic requirement of the mens rea principle is that the accused must have
been aware of those elements in his act which make the crime with which he is
charged. There is a well-known maxim in this regard, i.e., “actus non facit reum
nisi mens sit rea” which means that, the guilty intention and guilty act together
constitute a crime (Means the act itself does not make a man guilty unless the
mind is also guilty).
• It comes from the maxim that no person can be punished in a proceeding of
criminal nature unless it can be showed that he had a guilty mind.
• Mens Rea as such not punishable: Mens rea, guilty intention, not punishable alone.
Intent to kill is not enough for legal action; it must manifest in a criminal act. Mere
intention is not a crime unless it leads to action. However in some cases law awards
a punishment even though the actus reus is not consummated e.g. conspiracy,
attempt etc.
• Exceptions - There are certain cases in which human beings can be punished even
without a guilty mind. Such types of offences come under the Principle of strict
liability. For examples sedition, kidnapping, bigamy, economic offences etc. Related
Cases are - R. v. Prince, Hobbes v. Winchester Corporation, and State of Maharashtra
v. M.H. George.
3. Actus reus
• Actus connotes a deed or physical result of human conduct, while reus means
forbidden by law. Actus reus is the result of human conduct that the law seeks to
prevent. When a country's criminal policy deems a deed harmful, it prohibits and
punishes it to prevent its occurrence, labeling it as actus reus.
• The third essential element of a crime is actus reus. In other words, some overt act
or illegal omission must take place in pursuance of the guilty intention. Actus
reus is the manifestation of mens rea in the external world.
• Merely possessing a guilty mind and thinking of committing a crime is not enough.
The accused person must also act on that intention and do something in its
furtherance.
• Prof. Kenny was the first writer to use the term ‘actus reus’.
• According to section 32 of IPC, 'Act' includes an omission. In the case of Suresh v.
State of U.P. (2001) Supreme Court held that either overt or covert act is sufficient.
• According to section 33 of IPC, 'Act' also includes a series of acts. The husband
locked his wife in a room. He and his family did not provide food to her. She
escaped and reached to hospital. He was prosecuted for an attempt to murder.
Supreme Court held that act included omission and series of acts. In this case
Supreme Court interpreted Section 33, IPC also.
4. Injury
• There can be no crime if no person faces some kind of an injury.
• According to Section 44 of IPC, “injury” means any harm caused to a person
illegally either in mind, body, reputation or property.
• However, there can be some crimes which might not require injuries to
anybody. For example, driving without a driving license is a crime even if it may not
harm anybody.

Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea

Introduction
• Latin maxim: "Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea" translates to "an act does
not render a man guilty of a crime unless his mind is equally guilty."
• Foundational principle in criminal law emphasizing the need for both actus reus and
mens rea to establish legal responsibility for a crime.
Actus Reus and Mens Rea
• Actus Reus: Physical act or omission constituting the physical elements of a crime
as required by law.
 • Mens Rea: Mental element of a crime, indicating guilt only when the conduct is
committed with the intention to commit a crime.
Legal Precedent in India
• Supreme Court of India in C.K. Jaffer Sharief vs State (Thr C.B.I.) (2012) asserted that
an individual's criminal culpability is tied to breaking the law, but subject to the
constraints of "actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea."
Guiding Principle
• Assists in discerning the legality of actions.
• Not all offenses have the same mens rea; "One mens rea for all" does not exist.
• Mens rea should not be confused with motive; motive precedes intention and is
distinct in legal terms.
Conclusion
• The Latin maxim underscores the importance of both the physical act and the guilty
mind in establishing criminal liability.
• Essential in the interpretation and application of criminal law, ensuring a nuanced
understanding of intent and action in legal proceedings.
• Exceptions of Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea is "Principle of Strict Liability."

Principle of Strict Liability in Criminal law

The principle of strict liability in criminal law holds a defendant responsible for a crime
regardless of intent or mental state at the time of the offence. Offenses can be committed
unintentionally or unknowingly. Also known as exceptions of Actus non facit reum, nisi
mens sit rea, it is applied when statutory provisions are silent about the accused's
mental state or mens rea. Regina v. Woodrow was an early case interpreting strict liability.
Application depends on judges' logic and discretion.
How to decide which offence should come under Strict Liability?
If a statute is silent on the accused's guilty mind, the question arises whether conviction is
possible without guilty mind. Judges cannot arbitrarily categorize offenses as strict liability.
Courts follow established rules to determine strict liability. Enacted laws don't specify which
offenses come under strict liability.
Key Points about Strict Liability
• Absence of Mens Rea: Strict liability offenses do not require mens rea, or a “guilty
mind”, to convict a defendant. This is a departure from the fundamental principle of
criminal liability, which usually requires both a wrongful act (actus reus) and a
wrongful intention (mens rea).
 • Types of Offenses: Strict liability is typically applied to Waging war, Sedition,
Kidnapping, Bigamy, Offences under FERA (Foreign Exchange and Regulation Act),
1947, Public Health, Public Safety, Rape, Public Nuisance. These are offenses where a
defendant can be convicted even though they did not have any mens rea.
• Purpose: The doctrine of strict liability emerged in the 19th century to improve
safety and working standards in factories. It is often applied in regulatory offenses
enforcing social behavior where minimal stigma attaches to a person upon
conviction, or where society is concerned with the prevention of harm.
• Related Cases:
◦ State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George, (1965) 1 SCR 123 AIR 1965 SC
722
◦ R. v. Prince (1875)
◦ State of M.P. v. Narayan Singh, (1989) 3 SCC 596
◦ In Sherras v. De Rutzen23 (1895) Justice Wright observed, "There is a
presumption that mens rea, an evil intention, or a knowledge of the
wrongfulness of the act, is an essential ingredient in every offence; but that
presumption is liable to be displaced either by the words of the statute creating
the offence or by the subject-matter with which it deals, and both must be
considered."
• Criticism:
◦ The imposition of strict liability can operate very unfairly in individual cases, as
seen in the case of Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Storkwain.
◦ To inflict substantial punishment upon one who is morally entirely innocent, who
caused injury through reasonable mistake or pure accident, would so outrage the
feelings of the community as to nullify its own enforcement.45 It is against Anglo-
American, and, indeed, any civilised jurisprudence.

Suggestion: If a law is silent regarding mens rea, a person must be convicted under strict
liability only in those cases which are necessary to protect sovereignty and integrity of the
nation, the economic condition of country, health & education of persons and integrity and
dignity of women and suppressed class. In the case of law related to family matters, strict
liability should not be applied.
Defenses to Strict Liability in Criminal Law:
• Mistake of fact: If the defendant genuinely believed that their actions were not
illegal, then they may not be liable.
 • Lack of capacity: If the defendant was not mentally capable of forming the intent
to commit the offense, then they may not be liable.
Conclusion
It’s important to note that the application of strict liability can vary between jurisdictions
and the specific details of the law can differ. For example, at common law, only two
offenses are of strict liability: nuisance and criminal libel.

How to Establish Mens rea?

When a crime is committed and the accused is apprehended, the prosecution usually
works hard to establish mens rea on the part of the accused. It is difficult to provide a
clear picture of the accused's mind or intention at the given moment as intention is an
abstract idea and is not a solid fact like the weapons or instruments of the crime.
Intention is usually inferred from surrounding facts or factors.
The following factors are usually taken into account:
1. Previous relationship between the accused and the deceased or the victim.
2. Any history of hostility between them.
3. Existence of instigation, i.e. whether the accused was hired and what prompted him.
4. Whether the accused had something to gain out of the whole affair.

Intention, Knowledge, Motive, Negligence & Rashness

(Different degree of Mens Rea)
Intention
Intention is the desire and awareness of the consequences. There are two elements of
intention, namely:
1. The desire of consequence
2. Awareness of consequences
In Basdev v. The State of Pepsu, Supreme Court said, knowledge is an awareness of the
consequences of the act. In Emperor v. Mt. Dhirajia, Allahabad High Court observed,
"Some degree of knowledge must be attributed to every sane person. Insane person
can't form desire."
Knowledge
There is only one element of knowledge, namely, awareness of consequences. In
knowledge, the desire of consequences is missing. It is presumed that every sound
person has knowledge.
1. Basdev v. The State of Pepsu - Supreme Court said, "knowledge is an awareness of
the consequences of the act."
 2. Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra - Supreme Court observed,
"Knowledge is awareness on the part of the person concerned of the consequences
of his act of omission or commission indicating his state of mind."

Ground Intention Knowledge

The intention is desire and Knowledge is awareness of

Definition
awareness of consequences. consequences.

If an offence is committed
If offence is committed with
with intention, punishment will
knowledge, punishment will be
be more severe. For example if
less severe. For example if
culpable homicide is
culpable homicide is committed
Gravity committed with intention, a
with knowledge person will be
person will be punished under
punished under Section 304 Part
Section 304 Part I for which
II for which the maximum
the maximum punishment is
punishment is ten years.
imprisonment for life.

If the act is done with If the act is done even with

intention, a person can't take knowledge, a person can get
benefit of some general benefit of some general
exceptions. For example, if an exceptions. For example, if an act
General act is done with intention, he is done with knowledge and
Exceptions can't take benefit of Section other conditions are being
81. (Act likely to cause harm, fulfilled, he can take benefit of
but done without criminal Section 81 and Section 92. (Act
intent, and to prevent other done in good faith for benefit of
harm.) a person without consent.)

Motive
Neither bad motive nor good motive is relevant to constitute an offence. It is relevant
under section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act. Motive prompts a person to do something.
Sometimes an offence is committed with a motive and sometimes without a motive.
Intention refers to the immediate object, while motive refers to the ulterior object, which
is at the root of intention.
Negligence (Breach of Duty)
Negligence is not taking care, where there is a duty to take care. Negligence or
Carelessness indicates a state of mind, viz. absence of a desire to cause a particular
consequence. It is your duty to check the brake of the car before driving. But you did
not. You do not know that your brake is not doing work. A boy suddenly tried to a
crossroad. You applied your brake. But due to the non-functioning of brake, you killed
that boy. This is criminal negligence.
Recklessness / Rashness (Hasty Act)
Meaning of Rashness- In S.N. Hussain v. State of Andhra Pradesh56 Hon‘ble Supreme
Court observed, "Rashness consists in hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with the
knowledge that it is so, and that it may cause injury. The criminality lies in such a case in
running the risk of doing such an act with recklessness or indifference as to the
consequences.
Recklessness occurs when the actor does not desire the consequence but foresees the
possibility and consciously takes the risk. You are driving your car. But the speed of the
car is not moderate. There was high speed. You hit a pedestrian and killed. This is a case
of recklessness.
Differences between Rashness and Negligence
Rashness and negligence, while similar, have distinct differences in the context of law:
• Rashness: Rashness refers to doing an act with the consciousness of a risk that evil
consequences will follow, but with the hope that they will not. It involves hazarding
a dangerous act with knowledge that it may cause injury, but without the intention
or knowledge that it “will” cause injury. Rash acts are typically done restlessly.
• Negligence: Negligence, on the other hand, is the breach of a duty imposed by law.
It is the omission to do something that a reasonable man, guided by those
considerations which regulate human conduct, would do. Negligent acts refer to a
breach of duty due to omission to do something, which a reasonable man will do.
In essence, the key difference lies in the state of mind of the person committing the act.
Rashness involves a conscious risk-taking, while negligence involves a failure to exercise
reasonable care.
Relation between Intention, Knowledge, Negligence and Rashness
This pyramid denotes that negligence is the lowest mens rea and intention is the highest
mens rea. Punishment for causing of culpable homicide depends upon the gravity of
mens rea. Punishment mentioned under Section 304 and Section 304A support this
argument.
Differences between Motive, Intention and Knowledge.
 Grounds Motive Intention Knowledge

Intention is an
operation of the will
Knowledge is only
Motive is the feeling directing an overt
foresight of
Definition which prompts the act. Intention is the
consequences. Here
operation of the will. combination of
desire is missing.
desire and foresight
of consequences.

A without desire to
kill B and for saving
A with desire to kill B
if a person kills life threw from fourth
threw from fourth
another, the intention floor to
floor to ground. He
directs the act which ground. He
foresighted that
causes death, the foresighted that
throwing from the
Illustration motive is an object throwing from the
fourth floor was
1 which the person had fourth floor was likely
likely to cause death.
in view, i,e., the to cause death. So in
So in this case in the
satisfaction of some this case, in the
presence of desire
desire, such as absence of desire and
and foresight, there
revenge, profit etc. presence of foresight
is intention.
is involved. So it is
knowledge.

It is the ulterior It is an immediate It is the awareness of

2
object. object. the consequences.
 Motive is not part of
the crime. So, either
good motive or bad
motive shall not be
relevant for a
commission of an
The presence or
offence. It means the
absence of intention
presence or absence
is very relevant. The
3 of motive is not It is also relevant.
rule is that "Actus
relevant to constitute
non facit reum, nisi
an offence. It is
mens sit rea.
relevant to decide the
quantum of
punishment. It is
relevant under
section 8 of the
Indian Evidence Act.
 A crime committed
A crime committed
with knowledge is
with intention is
less serious in
Gravity more serious.
comparison to
Example sec. 304
intention. Example
Part One
sec. 304 Part Two.

Stages of crime
There are four stages of crime
1. Intention to commit an offence
2. Preparation to commit it
3. Attempt to commit it
4. The commission of the offence
Intention (1st Stage of crime)
• Intention is the first stage in the commission of an offence and known as mental
stage. Intention is the direction of conduct towards the object chosen upon
considering the motive which suggests the choice.
• Law does not take notice of an intention, mere intention to commit an offence
not followed by any act, cannot constitute an offence.
• The obvious reason for not prosecuting the accused at this stage is that it is very
difficult for the prosecution to prove the guilty mind of a person.
• If a person is unable to form design for commission of an offence, no question
arises for commission of an offence.
◦ For example, a child below the age of 7 years falls under Section 82, IPC, or a
person of unsound mind falls under Section 84, IPC and can't commit an
offence. If the first stage is missing, no question arises for the application of the
second stage. Intention is a mental status, which cannot be traced, so mere
intention is not punishable.
Preparation (2nd Stage of crime)
• Preparation refers to arranging all the essential steps to carry out the intended
criminal act. Preparation is not unlawful in itself since it is difficult to prove that
the essential preparations were made for the commission of the crime.
However, in some exceptional circumstances, mere preparation is also punished.
Preparation When Punishable
 • Collecting arms, etc., with intention of waging war against the Government of India
(Section 122 of IPC).
• Preparing coins or government stamps for counterfeiting (Sections 233 to 235,
255, and 257 of IPC).
• Having counterfeit money, fraudulent documents, or fake weights and
measurements (Sections 242, 243, 259, 266).
• Making plans to commit dacoity (Section 399 of IPC).
The reason not punishing the first two stages is that they are considered too remote to
the completion of the intended crime. They are perceived as harmless acts.
Attempt (3rd Stage of crime)
• The third stage is that of 'Attempt'. The first two stages generally are not punishable
but once an act enters the third stage criminal liability arises.
• The term attempt means direct movement towards the commission of a crime
after necessary preparations made to carry out an offence.
• The Indian Penal Code does not hold any specific definition of 'attempt', but
Section 511 of IPC does provide punishment for stiving to commit a crime.
• Criminal law punishes the wrongdoer for this stage depending upon the nature and
gravity of the attempted offence.
Certain tests to determine whether the act in question amounts to attempt:
• Proximity Test
◦ Proximity is a linkage between time and action or to the intention. It is
applied in the cases of third stage that is of attempt. It primarily focuses on
whether a person is 'dangerously close' to completing the crime or 'so near'
to the result that the danger of success is very high.
• Locus Poenitentiae
◦ The doctrine of ‘Locus Poenitentiae’ says that when an act is such that there
is ample time with the accused to choose whether to commit such crime or
not; and it is within the control of that person.
◦ The intender may change his path or may fear the consequences, if the act is
in control of the intended to not to commit the offence, then it is said to be
mere preparation and not an attempt. Hence, it is not punishable under penal
law.
• Equivocality Test
 ◦ This test is a combination of the above two tests. This test requires the
unequivocal intention through the act done which is considered to be
fulfilled beyond a reasonable doubt that the end is towards the crime
intended.
Commission of Crime or Accomplishment (4th Stage of Crime)
• Committing the crime is the final step in the process. If the accused succeeds in
his attempt, he commits a crime and will be guilty of it.
• If he fails, he will only be charged with attempting. If the crime is complete, the
offender will be tried and punished as per the specific provisions provided in the
Indian Penal Code.
Case Laws
• Abhayanand Mishra v. State of Bihar (1961):
◦ In this case, the appellant was a candidate appearing in an entrance
examination of the Patna University for the course of M.A. in English. In his
application form, the appellant had provided that he was a graduate.
◦ The University, after dispatching his admit card for the examination, found the
information to be forged.
◦ He was convicted by the lower court and the High Court under Section 420
read with Section 511 of the Code.
◦ Under the appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the contention of the
appellant was that it was mere preparation to commit fraud and not an attempt.
◦ The Court rejected the argument and held that when the appellant submitted the
forged information, it constituted preparation to commit fraud, and when the
said forged documents were dispatched, it amounted to an attempt.
◦ The court reiterated that an attempt may not be seen as only the penultimate
act, rather, it means any act in furtherance of the preparation.
• R v. Prince (1875):
◦ Prince took away a girl below 16 years of age from the position of father and
against the will of her father. Prince argued that the girl told him that she was 18
years, and the intention was bonafide as she was looking like 18 years or above.
◦ In this case, the English Court has held that he cannot be given the benefit of
the doctrine of mens rea because this is the case of mistake of law, taking
away a girl below 16 years is unlawful hence he was held guilty.
Conclusion
Actus reus and Mens rea both play a significant role in an offence. The stages of crime
or elements of a crime include intention, preparation, attempt and accomplishment. The
classification of these stages is necessary to decide the culpability of a crime at each
stage.
The attempt shall not be considered only as the penultimate act of the crime. Rather, a
series of acts shall constitute an attempt to commit the crime and the differentiation
between preparation and attempt shall depend on the facts and circumstances of each
case.

Leading Cases
State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George, (1965) 1
SCR 123 AIR 1965 SC 722
Introduction
• The entire criminal law is based on the concept of mens rea or mental element of
the offender.
• Mens rea, of the offender, is a culpable state of mind capable of committing the
crime.
◦ To commit a crime, there should be the presence of bad or malign intention.
Key Details:
• Petitioner: State of Maharashtra
• Respondent: Mayer Hans George
• Date of Judgement: 24 August 1964
• Bench: Justice K. Subbarao, Justice Rajagopala Ayyangar, Justice J.R. Mudholkar
Facts
• Mayer Hans George, a German smuggler, left Zurich by plane on 27th November
1962 with 34 kilos of gold concealed on his person to deliver it in Manila.
• The plane arrived at Bombay on 28th of November.
• George did not come out of the plane.
• The Customs Authorities examined the aircraft.
• On removing the jacket which George was wearing, it was found to have 28 specially
made compartments, 9 of which were empty and the remaining 19 pockets had 34
bars each weighing approximately 1 kg and seized it.
• George was convicted by the Presidency Magistrate of Bombay and sentenced
to rigorous imprisonment for one year.
 • After the appeal in High Court, HC acquitted George allowing the legal defence
that he raised.
• An appeal by state was filed as a Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the
Constitution of India, 1950.
• The bench was comprised of Hon’ble Justice K. Subbarao, Hon’ble Justice N.
Rajgopala Ayyangar and Hon’ble Justice R. Mudholkar.
• The pivotal issue in the case was whether mens rea is an essential ingredient in
respect of the offence charged under Section 23(1)(a) of the Foreign Exchange
Regulation Act, 1947 (FERA).
Issues Involved
1. Whether mens rea is an essential ingredient in respect of an offence under Section
23(1A) of the Act?
2. Can strict liability be applied in such case? Can a person be convicted even without
guilt mind? Answer - Yes.
3. Whether 'Ignorantia facti excusat, Ignorantia Juris (legis) non (neminem) execusat‘
(Ignorance of fact is excusable, but ignorance of law is not excusable) is applicable?
Answer – Yes.
4. Whether the respondent is liable for bringing gold to India under Sub Section 8(1)
and 23(1-A) of the FERA which was published in the Gazette of India on 24th
November 1962?
5. What was the scope of ban imposed by the Central Government and the Central
Board of Revenue in exercise of the power granted under Section 8 of the Foreign
Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, against person transporting prohibited goods
through the vicinity of India?
Observations
• The interpretation of the main provisions involved in the case implies that there is
no scope for the invocation of the rule of mens rea.
• The Act is designed to safeguard and conserve foreign exchange which is
essential to the economic life of a developing country.
◦ The provisions must therefore be stringent and so framed as to prevent
unauthorized and unregulated transactions which might upset the scheme
underlying the controls.
◦ The penal provisions are aimed at eliminating smuggling which is a concomitant
of controls over the free movement of goods or currencies.
 • Thus, the fact that the accused should be proved to have knowledge that he was
contravening the law before he could be held to have contravened the provision
will frustrate the purpose of the act.
• The Court referred to the cases of Bruhn v. King (1909), Regina v. St Margarets
Trust Ltd. (1958) and Indo-China Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. v. Jasjit Singh,
Addl. Collector of Customs, Calcutta (1964) etc.
Conclusion
On 24th August,1964, the appeal was allowed, and the conviction of the respondent
was restored but sentence imposed was reduced to the period already undergone.

State of Madhya Pradesh v Narayan Singh and Ors.

Facts:
• There was a vehicle carrying fertilisers from Madhya Pradesh to Maharashtra.
• The vehicles were intercepted at Sendhwa Sales Tax Barrier near the border of
Maharashtra.
• The vehicles were found in possession of invoices and other records but did not
have the permit issued under Fertilisers (Movement Control) Order read with
Section 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.
• They were prosecuted for the offence of exporting fertilisers to another state
without a permit.
• The accused had agreed to the said facts.
• The Trial Court and the High Court announced their acquittal on the grounds that
the prosecution failed to prove mens rea on the part of the accused.
Issues Dealt with in the Case:
1. Whether the prosecution must prove mens rea on the part of the accused for
exporting fertilisers without a permit to establish their conviction?
2. Whether the accused were merely involved in preparation for effecting the export
of fertilisers to another state without a permit and not in an attempt of the same.
Arguments by the parties:
Respondents:
1. The accused argued that they were not aware of the contents of the documents
seized from them; hence, there was no mens rea involved on their part.
2. And that they were not engaged in transporting fertilisers to another state in
conscious violation of FMC Order as they had not crossed the border, which would
result only in preparation and not in an attempt of the act.
Appellant:
 1. They argued that the accused were involved in transporting fertilisers because the
laws also provide for unintentional export to other states, which means that mens
rea is not an essential requirement to establish conviction.
2. They also argued that the accused had attempted transporting fertilisers to
Maharashtra without a permit because had it not been for the checking at the
Sendhwa point, the fertilisers would have reached Maharashtra; hence, it was not
just mere preparation.
Judgement:
1. The Court held that the Trial Court and the High Court were wrong in acquitting
the accused; hence, held their verdicts unsustainable.
2. The accused were convicted of the crime of exporting fertilisers to another state
without a permit. However, no punishment was awarded to them.

R. v. Prince (1875)

Facts: Henry Prince was charged under section 5573 of the Offences Against the Persons
Act, 1861. This section related to abduction. There was no category of offence like
kidnapping under this Act. At that time, unlawfully taking a girl below the age of
sixteen years without the permission of a lawful guardian was an offence. It was proved
that the prisoner took the girl, whose age was below sixteen years, from out of the
possession of lawful guardians without their permission. The real age of the girl was 14
years. Actus reus was present, but mens rea was absent. The accused proved that he
took the girl, who appeared to be 18 years old, with her consent and after her reply that
her age was 18 years. He claimed to have acted in good faith.
• Actual Age of Girl: 14 Years
• Abduction Under the age of 16 years
• She appears / Accused thought Near about 18 years
Decision: The Court denied these defences. This section had no mention of mens rea
(intention, knowledge, reason to believe, etc.). Justice Blackburn denied applying the
maxim Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea and held that the provision did not require
a guilty intention or knowledge, so the Court could not insert the requirement of
intention or knowledge based solely on the maxim. Prince was convicted even without a
guilty mind. The principle of strict liability was followed.