LAW OF CRIMES

MENS REA UNDER IPC

NOVEMBER 13, 2017

SHARJEEL AHMAD – B.A.LLB II YEAR
20165282
1 LAW OF CRIMES

Contents
(I) INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................3
(II) APPLICATION OF MENS REA........................................................................4
(III) HUMAN BEING IS AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT................................................4
(IV) STATE OF MIND..........................................................................................5
(V) DEVELOPMENTS IN MENS REA...................................................................6
(VI) STRICT LIABILITY.......................................................................................7
(VII) Statues where Mens Rea is Absent...........................................................8
(VIII) Statues Indicate Need to Establish Mens Rea...........................................9
(IX) SUPREME COURT TAKE ON MENS REA......................................................12
(X) DYNAMIC NATURE OF STATE OF MIND.....................................................12
Conclusion.................................................................................................................................................14
 Acknowledgment

It is my imperative duty to thank the following people for the successful completion of my
criminal law project,

- For the clarity Professor Dr.Aquib Husain brings into teaching thus enabling us to have a
better understanding of his subject. I also feel obliged to thank him for providing us with
such easy topics to choose from.
- The very cooperative and friendly staff members in the Central and Law Library who
were instrumental in our finding the necessary books without wasting much time. It has
to be noted that their contribution is essential as our University is yet to get a fully
functional centralized database for its libraries.
 Mens Rea under Indian Penal
Code

By Sharjeel Ahmad

Abstract

“Means Rea means guilty mind. This paper projects the essence of means rea in
IPC. It analyses that the mental element in crime is one of the most important
concepts of substantive criminal law and objective of incorporating it to the penal
code. It studies the development of the mens rea and its implication in the code
also describes how means rea can be established.”

(I) INTRODUCTION
Mens Rea or the mental element in crime is one of the most important
concepts of substantive criminal law. Criminal guilt would attach to a
man for violations of criminal law. However, the rule is not absolute
and is subject to the limitations indicated in the Latin maxim, actus
non facitreum, nisimenssit rea1. “There can be no crime, large or
small, without an evil mind,” says Bishop. “It is therefore a principle
of our legal system, as probably it is of every other, that the essence of
an offence is the wrongful intent, without which it can not exist 2”. The
concept of Mens Rea, guilty mind, is based on the assumption that a
person has the capacity to control his behaviour and to choose
between alternative courses of conduct3.

1
“The general rule of English law, is, that no crime can be committed unless there is mens rea.” Williamson v.
Norris, 1899 Q.B. 7, 14 PER Lord Russell, C.J. “It is a sacred principle of criminal jurisprudence, that the intention to
commit the crime, is ofthe essence ofthe crime, and to hold, that a man shall be held criminally responsible for an
offense, of the commission of which he was ignorant at the time, would be intolerable tyranny.” Duncan v. State, 7
Humph. 148, 150 (Tenn. 1846)
2
Bishop, Criminal Law, 287 (9th ed. 1930).
3
Biggs, ChiefJudge in United States v. Currens 290, F. 2 d 751 (3 rd Cir. 1961), (United States Court of Appeals), “It
is only through this assumption that society has found it possible to impose duties and create liabilities designed to
safeguard persons and property... Essentially these duties are intended to operate upon the human capacity for
 (II) APPLICATION OF MENS REA
To establish that the acts done are not offences under Section 84 it
must be proved clearly that at the time of the commission of the act
the appellant by reason of unsoundness of mind was incapable of
either knowing that the acts were either morally wrong or contrary to
law. The question is whether the appellant was suffering from such
incapacity at the commission of the acts. On this question, the state
of his mind before and after the crucial time a relevant. If a person by
reason of unsoundness of mind is incapable of knowing the nature of
the act or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law he
cannot be guilty of any criminal intent. Such a person lacks the
requisite mensrea and is entitled to an acquittal4.

(III) HUMAN BEING IS AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT

Prosecution against the company cannot be sustained being a
juridical person is in a sense doli incapax and it cannot commit an
offence of cheating, which positively involves criminal intention to
deceive others. It can only be a natural person who is capable of
having mens rea to commit the offence. Consequently, the word
"whoever" occurring at the beginning cannot include in its sweep
juridical person like a company5.
The more elementary a proposition of law, the more difficult it is to
find an authority for it. “It can be equally said that the more
fundamental a concept in law, the more difficult it is to explain its
exact scope and application. So also, in the words of Dr. Glanville
Williams,

choice and control of conduct so as to inhibit and deter socially harmful conduct. When person possessing capacity
for choice and control, nevertheless breaches a duty of this type he is subjected to the sanctions of criminal law.”;
Nicola Lacey, State Punishment: Political Principles and Community Value (1988) p.63. “This concept of
responsibility [from H. L.A. hart’s Punishment and Responsibility (1968)] consists in both a cognitive and a
volitional element: a person must both understand the nature of her actions, knowing the relevant circumstances
and being aware of possible consequences, and have a genuine opportunity to do otherwise than she does -to
exercise control over.her actions, by means of choice.”
4
Baijanti Bai v. State ofM.R, 2000 Cri LJ 3253; Jai Lai v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1969 SC 15 : 1969 Cri LJ 259: S.
Sunil Sandeepv. State of Karnataka, 1993 Cri LJ 2554.
5
Motorola Incorporatedv. Union ofIndia, 2004 Cr LJ, p. 1576.
 the concept of mens rea is “the kindergarten part of the criminal
law.....To define mensrea, and the different forms that it may take is a
complex task6.

(IV) STATE OF MIND

Regarding what state of mind actually constitutes mens rea or
dealing with the problematic area of defining mens rea, attempt has
been made by various jurists. Whichever definition is used, it does not
get us towards knowing what the mens rea required for each crime is
because there is no single state of mind that must be present as
prerequisite for all crimes. Mens n rea chameleon like takes a different
colour in different surroundings7 . However, in order to appreciate the
meaning of mens rea, it is necessary to appreciate the meaning of
words like 'intention', ‘recklessness’ and 'negligence'. It can be noted
from the above that jurists8 and judges9 find it difficult to define the
concept of mens rea and the different forms that it may take.
A young child learns very early in life that to plead “I didn’t mean to
...” may evoke at the least a sympathetic response or possibly even
complete exoneration from blame. We do, it seems, draw distinction in
everyday life between deliberate destruction of property or harm to
another and that which is accidental 10. However, in primitive criminal
law, the liability was absolute11, that means the doer of a deed was

6
Dr. Glanville Williams, The Mental Element in Crime, p 9 (1927) United States v. Currcns 290. F. ed. 751 (3 rd Cir.
1961). United States Court of Appeals); Sayre, Mens Rea, 45 Harv L. Rev, p. 975, “No problem of criminal law is
more fundamental importance or has proved more baffling through the centuries than the determination ofthe
precise mental element or mensrea necessary for crime.”
7
Sayre, Mens Rea, 45 Harv L Rev,p. 1021-1022.
8
As Gajendragadkar,J. in Statev. Caulfield55 Bom.LR 768-771; See also Bridge, J. in Fagans. Metropolitan Police
Commissioned 1968)3WLR 1126.
9
As Gajendragadkar,J. in Statev. Caulfield55 Bom.LR 768-771; See also Bridge, J. in Fagans. Metropolitan Police
Commissioned 1968)3WLR 1126.
10
Mr. Justice Holmes, The Common Law(1881), “Even a dog distinguished between being stumbled over and being
kicked, I do not know any very satisfactory evidence that a man was generally held liable either in Rome or in
England for accidental consequences even of his own act”.
11
“Law in its earliest days tries to make men answer for all the ills of an obvious kind that their fellows.” Pollock
and Matland, History ofEnglish Law, (2d ed. 1923) 470. See also Holdsworth, History ofEnglish Law(3d ed. 1927) 50-
54. “The doer of a deed was responsible whether he acted innocently or inadvertently, because he was the doer;
 responsible, whether he acted innocently or in advertently, because he
was the doer12.

(V) DEVELOPMENTS IN MENS REA

Till 12th century the conception of mens rea (guilty mind) was non
existent yet not wholly disregarded. However, in 17th century, came
the maxim "Actus non facitreum, nisimenssitrea which settled that
act and intent must both concur in order to constitute the crime and
to obtain the conviction and it was established that without evil intent
conviction is unjust. The first systematic treatment of mensrea was
provided by Sir Mathew Hale13 (1609-1676). On the same approach
Stephen remarked14. "The maxim actus non facitreum, nisi mens
sitrea in the fundamental maxim ofthe whole criminal law it suggests
the notion that there is some state of mind called 'mens red the
absence of which, on any particular occasion, deprives what would
otherwise be a crime ofits criminal character". Having reviewed above
the meaning and historical development of mensrea we may now
discuss the position of mensrea with regard to statutory crimes. In
modem law the authority of the statute is paramount 15. Yet it has
been laid down that a statute must be interpreted to confirm with the
common law except where and so far as the words of the statute show
plainly that it is intended to alter the course of the common law or
cannot in their plain meaning other wise construed 16. In any crime
created by state there should prima facie be

the owner of an instrument which caused harm was responsible because he was the owner, though the instrument
had been wielded by a thif; the owner of an animal, the master of a slave, was responsible because he was
associated with it as owner, as master.”
12
Prof Wigmoret, quoted in R.C. Nigam, Law ofCrime in 7bo,/a;Vol.l,p.82;See also Pollock and Maitland, History
ofEnglish Law(2nd ed 1923).
13
In his book, Please ofthe Crown, he stated "where there is no will to commit an offence, there can be no just
reason to incur the liabilities."
14
Stephen, History ofCriminalLaw, pp.76-77.
15
Kenny's Outlines ofCriminalLawp. 45.
16
See Craies on Statute Law{othed), Ch. IV; R. v. Morris (1867) 1C.CR. 90, By les, I., at p. 95.
 presumption that mensrea as understood in the common law is
necessary ingredient17.

(VI) STRICT LIABILITY

However, there are some crimes which are punished in criminal
law although no legal fault has been committed by the accused, the
doctrine of strict liability came into being in the later half of 19th
century according to which only actus reus is sufficient to cause
conviction irrespective of knowledge, intention or negligence. Various
reasons have been suggested for the recognition and justification of
strict liability, which include 'necessity', 'public interest', 'social
importance' and 'deterrence'. Dean Roscoe Pound observed 18 : "The
good sense of the court has introduced a doctrine of acting at one's
peril with respect to statutory crimes which expresses the needs of
society. Such statutes are not meant to punish the vicious will but to
put pressure on the thoughtless and inefficient to do their whole duty
in the interest of public health or safety or morals".
Baroness Wootton19 went to the extent of saying that crime should
contain no mens rea. She wanted strict offences to replace mens rea
one. According to her "A man is equally dead Whether he was stabbed
or run over by a drunken motorist or an incompetent one."
The recognition of the principle of strict liability in criminal law has
been severely criticised when said that it is becoming increasingly
recognised that strict liability has no place whatever in criminal law
and no evidence has ever seen for strict liability to raise the standards

17
In Brendv. Wood, Lord Goddard, L.J. said, "It is ofthe utmost importance for the protection ofthe liberty ofthe
subject that a court should always bear in mind that, unless a statute either expressly or by necessary implication
rules out mens rea, as a constituent part of a crime, the court should not find a man guilty ofan offence against the
criminal law unless he has a guilty mind.
18
Pound, The Spirit ofCommon Law,p.52.
19
Baroness Wootton, Crime and CriminalLaw,(2nd ed 1981).
 and protects the public20. It is also doubted whether strict liability
serves a useful purpose in criminal law21.

(VII) Statues where Mens Rea is Absent.

It is true that it is now well established that for establishing an
offence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act it is not
necessary to establish mens rea i.e. criminal intention either on the
part of the manufacturer or distributor or vendor. Even knowledge on
the part of all of them that the food was adulterated is not necessary.
Ignorance on the part of any one of them that the food was
adulterated would not absolve them of liability 22. The Act is a Welfare
legislation to prevent health hazards by consuming adulterated food.
The mens rea is not an essential ingredient.. It is a social evil and the
Act prohibits commission of the offences under Act23. Nothing more
than 'actus reus needed where regulation of private activity
invulnerable areas like public health is intended24.
Regarding offence relating to drugs25 and food adulteration26 to
eliminate the danger to human life from the ale of unwholesome
articles, strict adherence should be insisted and enforced. As a
measure for social defence to combat evil of deadly impact on the
society as a whole, these socio-economic offences are absolute ones
and entail punishment without mensrea27.
Prohibition of sale of adulterated food is evidently imposed in the
larger interest of maintenance of public health. If the owner of a shop

20
Jerome Hall, CriminalLaw, pp.342-59.
21
Sayre, Public Welfare Offences,33 Col.L.R.55pp.79-80.
22
M/s. Bhagwan Das Jagd/sh Chander, v. Delhi Administration and another, AIR 1975 SC 1309: Followed in Shah
Ashu Jaiwantv. State ofMaharashtra, AIR 1975 SC 2178.
23
State ofOrissa v. K. RajeshwarRad, AIR 1992 SC 240: Dineshchandra Jamnadas Gandhiv. State of Gujarat and
another, AIR 1989 SC 1011, Prohibited act constitutes offence- Mens reals irrelevant: Shah Ashu Jaiwant v. State of
Maharashtra, AIR 1975 SC 2178.
24
PyaraliK. Tejaniv. Mahadeo Ramchandra Dange and others, AIR 1974 SC 228.
25
Rajasthan Pharmaceuticalv. State ofKarnataka, AIR 1981 SC 809.
26
Krishan Gopal Sharma v. Govt, ofNCT ofDelhi (1996) 2 Crimes 218 (SC): Pyare K. Tejaniv. Mahadeo Ram Chandra
Dange, AIR 1974 SC 228.
27
DurandDidies v. ChiefSecy. U.T. Goa, AIR 1989 SC 1966.
 in which adulterated food is sold is without proof of mens rea liable to
be punished for sale of adulterated food, there is no reason why an
agent or a servant of the owner is not liable to be punished for
contravention of the same provision unless he is shown to have guilty
knowledge28.
(VIII) Statues Indicate Need to Establish Mens Rea
Mensrea (as is understood in criminal law) is not an essential
ingredient for holding a delinquent liable to pay penalty under Section
23(1)(a) of FERA 1947 for contravention of the provisions of Section
10 of FERA, 1947 and penalty is attracted under Section 23 (l)(a) as
soon as contravention of the statutory obligation contemplated by
Section 10 (l)(a) is established.
Unless there is something in the language of the statute indicating
the need to establish the element of mensrea, it is generally sufficient
to prove that a default in complying with the statute has occurred. In
our opinion, there is nothing in Section 271(l)(a) ofthe Income-tax Act
1961, which requires that mensrea must be proved before penalty can
be levied under that provision29.
For Imposing penalty under Sections 112 & 125 of Customs Act 30,
requisite mens rea has to be established 31. The requisite guilty
knowledge or mens rea under Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 135 (l)32
can be established by circumstantial evidence also" 33. The conduct of
the accused, including his untruthful denial of their possession
indicated consciousness of their struggled character or mensrea34. In

28
Saijoo Prasadv. The State ofU.P., AIR 1961 SC 631.
29
M/s. Gujarat Travancore Agency, Cochin v. The Commissioner ofIncome-tax, Kerala, Emakuiam, AIR 1989 SC
1671 followed in Additional Commissioner ofIncome-tax, Gujaratv. M/s. I.M. Patel and Co., AIR 1992 1762.
30
52 of 1962.
31
AkbarBadrudin Jiwani ofBombayv. Collector ofCustoms, Bombay, AIR 1990 SC 1579.
32
The Customs Act, 1962.
33
State of Maharashtra v. NatwarlalDemodardas Soni, AIR 1980 SC 593.
34
Balumal Jamnadas Batra v. State ofMaharashtra, AIR 1975 SC 2083: Hukma v. The State of Rajasthan, AIR 1965
SC 476.
10 LAW OF CRIMES

order to establish contravention of Section 52A of the Sea Customs

Act no mens rea need be proved35.
The breach of a "civil obligation" which attracts "penalty" under
Section 23(1) (a) and a finding that the delinquent has contravened
the provisions of Section 10 of FERA would immediately attract the
levy of 'penalty' under Section 23 irrespective of the fact whether the
contravention was made by the defaulter with any "guilty intention" or
not36 .
The element of mens rea in export of fertiliser bags without a valid
permit is therefore not necessary ingredient for convicting a person for
contravention of an order made under Section 337 if the factum of
export or attempt to export is established by the evidence on record38 .
The violation of foreign exchange regulations and smuggling
activities are having an increasingly deleterious effect on the national
economy and thereby a serious adverse effect on the security for the
state. So mensrea is not essential for having a delinquent liable 39.
Mens rea in the sense of actual knowledge that act done is
contrary to law is not an essential ingredient of the offence under
Section 8(1) read with S. 23(1A) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation
Act 194740. The provision of Section 3 of TADA Act embodied the
principle expressed in the maxim 'actus non facitreum,
nisimenssitrear,' both 'mensred and a criminal act are the ingredients
of the definition of 'Terrorist Act.' The mens rea required is the
intention (i) to overawe the Government as by law established; or (ii) to
strike terror in the people or any section ofthe people; or (iii) to
alienate any section of the people; or (iv) to adversely affect the
harmony amongst different sections of the people41. The word

35
Indo-China Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. v. Jasjit Singh, Additional Collector ofCustoms, Calcutta and others, AIR
1964 SC 1140.
36
Director ofEnforcementv. M/s. MCTM. Corporation Pvt. Ltd. andothers, AIR 1996 SC 1100.
37
The Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
38
State ofM.P. v. Narayan Singh andanother, AIR 1989 1789.
39
Directorate ofEnforcement v. MCTMCooperation, 1996 Cri. LJ 1823 (SC).
40
State of Maharashtra v. MayerHans George, AIR 1965 SC 722: AIR 1964 Bom 274, Reversed.
41
State ofT.N. through Superintendent ofPolice CBI/SITv. Nalini and others, AIR 1999 SC 2640.
 "harbours" used in TADA must be understood in its ordinary meaning
as for penal provisions. It is reasonable to attribute a mental element
(such as knowledge that the harboured person was involved in a
terrorist act) as indispensable to make it a penal act. That apart, there
is nothing in the Act, either expressly or even by implication, to
indicate that mens rea has been excluded from the offence under
Section 3(4) of TADA. If Section 3(4) is understood as imposing harsh
punishment on a person who gives shelter to a terrorist without
knowing that he was a terrorist such an understanding would lead to
calamitous consequences. Many an innocent person, habituated to
offer hospitality to friends and relatives or disposed to zeal of charity,
giving accommodation and shelter to others without knowing that
their guests were involved in terrorist acts, would then be exposed to
incarceration for a long period. Therefore the mens rea is an essential
ingredient for the offence envisaged in Section 3(4) ofTADA42.
Mensrea, thus, to commit the crime under section 3 of MCOCA
must be established besides the fact of agreement.
Under Section 123(4) of the Representation of the People Act,
1951, mens rea is a necessary ingredient of the corrupt practice and
the person who publishes a statement, whether he is the author of it
or not, does not commit a corrupt practice, unless he has the
requisite knowledge"43.
In Offence under Section 63 of Factories Act 44, it is not necessary
that means rea must always be established. The responsibility exists
without a guilty mind45.
In an article46, it is stated that in modern statutory offences the
maxim has no general application and the statutes are to be regarded

42
Kalpnath Raiw. State through C. B. /., AIR 1998 201.
43
SheopatSingh v. RamPratap, AIR 1965 SC 677.
44
63 of 1948.
45
State ofGujaratv. KansaraManila!Bhikhalal, AIR 1964 SC 1893.
46
TheEclipse ofMens Rea, The law Quarterly Review (1936) p. 66.
 as themselves prescribing the mental element which is prerequisite to
a conviction.

(IX) SUPREME COURT TAKE ON MENS REA

The Supreme Court of India on more than one occasion has
reiterated that unless a statute either clearly or by necessary
implication rules out mens rea as a constituent part of crime, a
person should not be found guilty of an offence ifhe has not a guilty
mind47. On the application ofthe doctrine of mensrea to Indian Penal
laws, it is said that the general doctrine of mens rea is not of very
great importance because the law is codified and the offences are
carefully defined so as to include mens rea in the definition itself. The
definitions clearly states not only what the accused must have done,
but the state of mind with regard to the act when he was doing it,
'voluntarily', 'knowingly', 'dishonestly', 'fraudulently', 'corruptly',
'maligntly and maliciously', 'wantonly' or the like.

(X) DYNAMIC NATURE OF STATE OF MIND

All major crimes, especially those involving breaches of morality,
require mens rea, e.g. rape, murder and theft etc 48. But mens rea
does not mean single precise state of mind, it differs from crime to
crime49. In case of murder it is intention to kill or to cause grievous
bodily injury or knowledge of the foresight of the consequences of
death and in rape it is intention to have a sexual connection with a
woman without her

47
See. also the decisions of other courts as well Ravula HariprasadRao v. The State ofMadras, A.I.R. 1951 S.C. 204;
State ofMaharashtra v. M.H. George, AIR 1965 SC 722; R, Balakrishna Pillai. v. State ofKerala,AYR 2004 SC 1012,
Sadak Ah' v. Emperor, A.I.R. 1948 Cal. 47; Sri Nivas Mali v. Emperor, A.I.R. 1947 P.C. 135; Ammav. P. Nair, 1954 Ker.
L.T. 977; In re. KasiRaja, A.I.R. 1953, Mad 156; Pantan Venkayya, A.I.R. 1930 Mad. 246.
48
Michael Jefferson, Criminal Law,p.l 16, People's Union for Civil Liberties and another v. Union of India, AIR 2004
SC 456.
49
Queen v. Tolson (1889) 23 QBD 168.
 consent. Under the Indian Penal Code these states of mind pre-
requisite for criminality has been expressly involved in every
definition. The distinction between the offences of culpable homicide
and murder is the presence of special mens rea which consists of
four mental attitudes in the presence of any of which the lesser
offence becomes greater. These attitudes are stated in Section 300,
IPC as distinguishing murder from culpable homicide not amounting
to
murder50.
The "intent" and "knowledge" in the ingredients of Section 299
postulate the existence of positive mental attitude and this mental
condition is the special mensrea necessary for the offence. The guilty
intention in the first two conditions contemplates the intended death
of the person harmed or the intentional causing of an injury likely to
cause his death. The knowledge in the third condition contemplates
knowledge of the likelihood of the death of the person51.
The basic requirement to bring home the accusations under
Section 405 are the requirements to prove conjointly (1) entrustment
and (2) whether the accused was actuated by the dishonest intention
or not misappropriated it or converted it to his own use to the
detriment of the persons who entrusted it. As the question of
intention is not a matter of direct proof, certain broad tests are
envisaged which would generally afford useful guidance in deciding
whether in a particular case the accused had mensrea for the crime 52.
For establishing the offence of cheating, the complainant is required
to show that the accused had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the
time of making promise or representation 53. For the purposes of
holding the accused guilty under

50
Subhash Shamrao Pachundev. State ofMaharashtra, AIR 2006 SC 699, “the ingredients of the said Exception 4
are (i) there must be a sudden fight; (ii) there was no premeditation; (iii) the act was committed in a heat of
passion and (iv) the assailant had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner.”
51
Jayarajv. The State ofT.N., AIR 1976 SC 1519: AIR 1966 SC 148 followed.
52
Anwar ChandSab Nanadikar\. State of Karnataka, AIR 2004 SC 986.
53
Him LaiHari LaiBhagwativ. C.B.I., NewDelhi, AIR 2003 SC 2545.
 Section 420, the evidence adduced must establish beyond reasonable
doubt mens rea on their part54.

Conclusion
The application of mens rea in statutory offences is not clear. As Russel55 puts it, "The policy of
the courts (re: mensrea in statutory offences) is unpredictable". Reasons have been given for and
against the imposition of strict liability for the violation of some offences in which the
prosecution need not to prove the accused's mind at fault for conviction. However, neither the
justifications nor the criticisms alone are satisfactory, There is need of proper balancing between

54
AnilKumarBose v. State ofBihar, AIR 1974 SC 1560.
55
Nathulalv. State ofM.R, AIR 1966 SC 43: AIR 1947 PC 135 and AIR 1951 SC 204 and AIR 1961 SC 631. Rel. on;
Gopaldas Udhavdas Ahuja and another v. Union ofIndia and others, AIR 2004 SC 3830; Union ofIndia and others v.
M/s. Ganesh Das Bhojraj, AIR 2000 SC 1102; Dr. D.C. Saxena andDr. D.C. Saxena v. Honble the ChiefJustice ofIndia,
AIR 1996 SC 2481; State ofMaharashtra v. Mayer Hans George, AIR 1965 SC 722; Jaswantrai Manila! Akhaney v.
The State ofBombay, AIR 1956 SC 575.
these two different approaches. The idea that crime should contain no mens rea and of strict
offences to replace mens rea one56 is wholly unacceptable and liable to be criticised.

It is true that for the protection of the liberty of the citizen, in the definition of offences
blameworthy mental condition is ordinarily an ingredient either by express enactment or clear
implication; but in Acts enacted to deal with a grave social evil, or for ensuring public welfare,
especially in offences against public health, e.g. statutes regulating storage or sale of articles of
food and sale of drugs, essential commodities, it is often found necessary in the larger public
interest to provide for imposition of liability without proof of a guilty mind57.

Yet the legislature may prohibit an act or enforce a duty in such words as to make the
prohibitions ofthe duty absolute: To ascertain whether a particular Act of Parliament has that
effect or not, regard must be had to the object of the statute, the words used, the nature of the
duty laid down, the person on whom it is imposed, the person by whom it would in ordinary
circumstances be performed, and the person upon whom the penalty is imposed58.

The mens rea means some blameworthy mental condition, whether constituted by
knowledge or intention or otherwise. The plain words of the statute are read subject to a
presumption, which may be rebutted, that the general rule of law that no crime can be committed
unless there is mens rea has not been ousted by the particular enactment. But this rule has several
exceptions. The principal classes of exceptions may be reduced to three. One is a class of acts
which are not criminal in any real sense, but are acts which in the public interest are prohibited
under a penalty. Another class comprehends some, and perhaps all, public nuisances. Lastly,
there may be cases in which although the proceeding is criminal in form, it is really only a
summary mode of enforcing a civil right59.

To sum up, it can rightly be said that Mens rea is an essential ingredient o-j of a criminal
offence60. A statute may exclude the element of mens rea; it is, however, a sound rule of

56
Russel On Crime (\2th ed) p.61.
57
Supra note 7.
58
In 1952-1 All ER 380.
59
The State ofGujarat and another v. Achaiya Shri Devendraprasadji Pande, and others, AIR 1971 SC 866: 963 AC
160 and (1895) 1 QB 918, Followed.
60
Nathulalv. State ofM.P., AIR 1966 SC 43: AIR 1947 PC 135 and AIR 1951 SC 204 and AIR 1961 SC 631. Rel. on;
Gopaldas Udhavdas Ahuja and another v. Union of India and others, AIR 2004 SC 3830; Union of India and others v.
M/s. Ganesh Das Bhojraj, AIR 2000 SC 1102; Dr. D.C. Saxena andDr. D.C. Saxena v. Hon'ble the ChiefJustice of India,
construction which is adopted in England and also accepted in India, to construe a provision
which creates an offence in conformity with the common law rather than against it except where
the statute expressly or by necessary implication excludes mens rea. Of the question whether the
element of guilty mind is excluded from the ingredients of an offence the mere fact that the
object of the statute is to promote welfare activities or to eradicate a grave social evil is not by
itself decisive. Only where it is absolutely clear that the implementation of the object of the
statute would otherwise be defeated that mens rea may, by necessary implication, be excluded
from a statute. The nature of the mens rea that would be implied in a statute creating an offence
depends on the object of the Act and the provisions thereof.

AIR 1996 SC 2481; State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George, AIR 1965 SC 722; Jaswantrai Manila! Akhaneyv.
The State ofBombay, AIR 1956 SC 575.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
 BOOKS
 o K.D. GAUR – CRIMES
o Michael Jefferson, Criminal Law
o BISHOP – CRIMINAL LAW 9th EDITION
o RATANLAL & DHIRAJLAL
 Cases
o Queen v. Tolson (1889) 23 QBD 168.
o Jaswantrai Manila! Akhaney v. The State ofBombay, AIR 1956 SC 575.
o State ofT.N. through Superintendent ofPolice CBI/SITv. Nalini and others,
AIR 1999 SC 2640.
o Kalpnath Raiw. State through C. B. AIR 1998 201.
o SheopatSingh v. RamPratap, AIR 1965 SC 677
o Anwar ChandSab Nanadikar\. State of Karnataka, AIR 2004 SC 986.
o Him LaiHari LaiBhagwativ. C.B.I., NewDelhi, AIR 2003 SC 2545.
o AnilKumarBose v. State ofBihar, AIR 1974 SC 1560.
o State ofGujaratv. KansaraManila!Bhikhalal, AIR 1964 SC 1893.
o TheEclipse ofMens Rea, The law Quarterly Review (1936) p. 66.
o Ravula HariprasadRao v. The State ofMadras, A.I.R. 1951 S.C. 204.
o State ofMaharashtra v. M.H. George, AIR 1965 SC 722.
o Balakrishna Pillai. v. State ofKerala,AYR 2004 SC 1012.
o Sadak Ah' v. Emperor, A.I.R. 1948 Cal. 47.
o Sri Nivas Mali v. Emperor, A.I.R. 1947 P.C. 135.
o Ammav. P. Nair, 1954 Ker. L.T. 977.
o KasiRaja, A.I.R. 1953.
o Mad 156; Pantan Venkayya, A.I.R. 1930 Mad. 246.
 Online Refrences
o SCC ONLINE
o MANUPATRA
o LEXIS NEXIS