State Of Maharashtra vs Mayer Hans George- He was bringing Gold to India without the permission from Reserve Bank Of India in the view of section 23(1A) (a) of the FERA 1947 ( Foreign Exchange Regulation Act – 1947. If any of the mentioned law in act violated the term of one year sentence introduced. It was found by the Custom officers that Mr. George was smuggling 34 kilogram of Gold intend to defraud the government. But Mr. George was acquitted by Bombay High Court.
State Of Maharashtra vs Mayer Hans George
Case related to mens rea and strict liability
STAE OF MAHARASTHRA V/S MAYER HANS GEORGE – 24th August, 1965 (Equivalent Citations : 1965 AIR 722, 1965 SCR(1) 123
Bench: Subbarao, K.
M.H George, respondent in this case, belongs to German Nationality. He was bringing Gold to India in the absence of permission from Reserve Bank Of India in the view of section 23(1A) (a) of the FERA 1947 ( Foreign Exchange Regulation Act – 1947. If any of the mentioned law in act violated the term of one year sentence introduced.
It was found by the Custom officers that Mr. George was smuggling 34 kilogram of Gold intend to defraud the government. But Mr. George was acquitted by Bombay High Court.
Therefore, State filed an appeal in the Supreme Court Of India.
Statues and provisions involved:
SECTION:- 8(1), Section 23 (1A) of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947.
SECTION:- 168 (8) (1) of the Sea Customs Act.
Facts- State Of Maharashtra vs Mayer Hans George
The Respondent was caught with 34 kg of Gold-covered on his person at Bombay Airport when his flight was going to manila.
Mr. George reached Bombay Airport but he didn’t leave the plane. The custom officers examined all the coming passengers on the entrance gate of runway but not finding any consignment of Gold they entered into plane and searched respondent and recovered 34 kg of Gold and persecuted him with an offence of Section 8(1) and Section 23(1A) of FERA 1947, read with the notification, dated 8th November 1962 of the Reserve Bank Of India was published in gazette of India on 24th November 1962.
Where it was found guilty By the Magistrate but HC acquitted.
and Finally State made a further appeal in Supreme Court Of India.
Whether the liability of the Respondent for smuggling of Gold to India U/S- 8( 1) and 23(1A) of FERA( foreign exchange regulation act), 1947 read with the notification published in gazette of India dated 24th November 1962 ?
Question was raised by this appeal of the scope of the ban forced by the Central government and Central Board of Revenue in the exercise of the power given to them U/S-8 of FERA, 1947(vii of 1947) against people transferring restricted Article through India?
Taking side for the State, contents that the Act was created to obstruct pirating of Gold in the light of a legitimate issues for the financial strength of the nation and in this way, the translation of its significance arrangements of such Act, there is no extension for apply the assumption of precedent-based law that mens rea is very important of the offence.
The Object of the provisions, the contention continues to refute any such assumption & demonstrates that mens rea is anything but a fundamental element of the offence.
attorney further battles on a sensible development of the second stipulation of the warning dated November 8th’ 1962 given by the Board of Revenue. It should be held that the consent for bringing Gold to India is dependent upon the condition set down in the subsequent provision and that. as in the present case the illegal things was not revealed in the manifest, the Respondent opposed the terms thereof and was at risk to be sentenced by this way under the mentioned segments of FERA, 1947.
No contention was progressed before us U/S – 168(8) (1) of Sea custom Act & In this way nothing needs to be said about that area.
Mens rea means your criminal intention; a fundamental element of the offence which is charged and it’s not questioned that the respondent had not been aware of the notification of RBI, he could not be seen as liable for the charged offence.
The notice being just assigned enactment could be regarded to be in power when the people got cognizance of notification. The 2nd stipulation which is the washing requiring exposure in the show was not appropriate to Gold carried in by a traveler.
JUDGMENTS- State Of Maharashtra vs Mayer Hans George
It was observed that if the subsequent stipulation were applied to the instance of Gold carried on by a person a TIE-PIN, or aa WELLSPRING-PEN which has a Gold nib brought by a traveler may create in the forbiddance of Sec-8(1) read with the exception by RBI as it currently stands and that Indian law would be superfluous nonsensical and cruel.
This is not conferred as right, For the correction & sharp differentiation, exists between what is close to home things and what isn’t all last is CARGO and must be entered into manifest.
The Outcome, in this manner, is that we consider that HC’s Judges failed in clearing the Respondent. The intrigue has, thus to be permitted and the conviction of the Respondent restored. In this condition, we announced that However, cabal was permitted; the term of the sentence would be decreased to the period previously experienced which was just specialized impedance with the sentence passed by the presidency magistrate.
However, in the substance, the appeal is allowed.
By Akash Kumar