Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 33 views

    PPT GPCL

    Uploaded by

    Anuj Sharma
    The Supreme Court of India heard the case of State of Maharashtra v. M.H. George regarding the smuggling of gold into India. [1] The respondent was found carrying 34 kilos of gold on a flight from Zurich to Bombay without declaring it or having permission as required by law. [2] The Supreme Court reinstated the respondent's conviction, finding that mens rea (criminal intent) is not required for offenses under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, and the law was properly published in India's official gazette. [3] The purpose of the law is to prevent gold smuggling, and requiring proof of intent would undermine the law's effectiveness.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    PPT GPCL

    Uploaded by

    Anuj Sharma
    33 views7 pages
    The Supreme Court of India heard the case of State of Maharashtra v. M.H. George regarding the smuggling of gold into India. [1] The respondent was found carrying 34 kilos of gold on a flight from Zurich to Bombay without declaring it or having permission as required by law. [2] The Supreme Court reinstated the respondent's conviction, finding that mens rea (criminal intent) is not required for offenses under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, and the law was properly published in India's official gazette. [3] The purpose of the law is to prevent gold smuggling, and requiring proof of intent would undermine the law's effectiveness.

    Original Description:

    mmmm

    Original Title

    19123 PPT GPCL

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court of India heard the case of State of Maharashtra v. M.H. George regarding the smuggling of gold into India. [1] The respondent was found carrying 34 kilos of gold on a flight from Zurich to Bombay without declaring it or having permission as required by law. [2] The Supreme Court reinstated the respondent's conviction, finding that mens rea (criminal intent) is not required for offenses under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, and the law was properly published in India's official gazette. [3] The purpose of the law is to prevent gold smuggling, and requiring proof of intent would undermine the law's effectiveness.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    33 views7 pages

    PPT GPCL

    Uploaded by

    Anuj Sharma
    The Supreme Court of India heard the case of State of Maharashtra v. M.H. George regarding the smuggling of gold into India. [1] The respondent was found carrying 34 kilos of gold on a flight from Zurich to Bombay without declaring it or having permission as required by law. [2] The Supreme Court reinstated the respondent's conviction, finding that mens rea (criminal intent) is not required for offenses under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, and the law was properly published in India's official gazette. [3] The purpose of the law is to prevent gold smuggling, and requiring proof of intent would undermine the law's effectiveness.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    of 7

    RAJIV GANDHI NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF LAW

    GENERAL PRINCIPLE OF CRIMINAL LAW PRESENTATION


    CASE COMMENTARY
    STATE OF MAHARASHTRA V. M.H. GEORGE 1965 AIR 722, 1965 SCR (1) 123
    PRESENTED BY:-
    ANUJ SHARMA
    ROLL NO 19123
    FACTS OF THE CASE

    • Government of India issued notification under section 8 of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act that
    any person carrying or bringing gold into India or through India to other country should take
    permission from reserve bank as manifest it as Cargo otherwise would be liable for smuggling.
    • The respondent, a German dealer, left Zurich via plane on 27th November 1962 with 34 kilos of
    gold-covered on his person to be conveyed in Manila.
    • The plane reached Bombay on next day. Custom authorities after checking manifest of the plane
    conducted searched and found respondent in a possession of gold which was not manifested.
    • The respondent was initially sentenced by the Magistrate, however, acquitted by the High Court.
    The state made a further appeal in the Supreme Court to reinstate conviction.
    ISSUES

    • Whether mens rea is an essential ingredient regarding an offence under Section 23(1A) of the Act?
    • Whether the respondent is liable for bringing gold to India under ss. 8(1) and 23(1A) of the Foreign
    Exchange Regulation Act (7 of 1947) which was published in the Gazette of India on 24th
    November 1962?
    • What was the ban imposed by the Central Government and the Central Board of Revenue in
    exercise of the power granted an under section of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act,1947,
    against person transporting prohibited goods through the vicinity of India?
    RESPONDENT ARGUMENT

    • Respondent argued that mens rea is need to be essential ingredient for a crime and quoted the
    maxim “actus reus non facit reum nisi men sit rea”. Respondent stats that he did not have
    intention contravene the section 23(1) of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act.
    • He also argued that he does not have knowledge of the publication of a notification which
    required person carrying gold to have requisite permission of reserve bank even the gold is
    bound to go outside India. he is familiar with the earlier notification only.
    • At last he argued that act mention the bringing of gold and gold article into india but he did not
    get outside of the plane at layover in Mumbai and remain in the plane only. So he doesnot fall
    under the category of bringing gold in India.
    RATIO DECIDENDI

    • According to section 8(1) and 24(1) of FERA, the burden of proof is on the accused is to prove that
    he has requisite permission to bring gold in India. There is no need of mens rea or intention on the
    part of accused other than the act of voluntarily bringing gold or gold particles in India.
    • More importantly the main purpose and intent of act is to prevent smuggling of gold and gold
    articles into India to ensure stability of country and effectiveness of the statue will nullify if a
    condition were to be read into the sections qualifying the plains words of the enactment, 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.
    JUDGEMENT

    • The court held that the very object and purpose of the Act and, its effectiveness as an instrument to
    prevent smuggling would be entirely frustrated if a condition were to be read into the Act qualifying the
    plain words of the enactment, 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. So mens rea in statutory
    offences was excluded.
    • The court also held that law is to be published where it was effected so publication of law in the official
    gazette of government of India will suffice no need to publish it outside India.
    • The court also held that if the person voluntarily bring gold into India without requisite permission is
    liable under the act but no involuntarily act of bringing gold into India make a person liable under the
    abovementioned sections.
    THANK YOU

    You might also like