State of Maharashtra v.

Mayer Hans George

In State of Maharashtra vs MH George case, the respondent i.e. Mayer Hans George who was a German
national was charged for bringing gold to India without the permission of the Reserve Bank Of India as
per Section 23(1A)(a) of the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act of 1947 and was sentenced for a year; as
he was considered being doing so with an intent to defraud the government. The High court acquitted
him, but the state made a further appeal in the Supreme Court. There, the apex court delved into
question where, apart from in situations where any arrangement in that behalf is in place (a) a
subordinate enactment could be said to have been passed, and (b) when it happens. Regarding
essentially because it depicted the offence as a grave social wrong, strict liability was imposed. The
courts need to apply the law diligently regarding the use of the assumptions, as everything relies upon
the realities of the case, just as any other statutory offence.

Sweet v Parsley

The appellant, Stephanie Sweet (S), was a sub-tenant of a farmhouse, where cannabis resin was found. S
no longer lived in the house and had let out several rooms to tenants. She did retain a room but only
returned occasionally to collect letters and rent. The appellant was charged and convicted under Section
5(b) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1965 (1965 Act) with being concerned in the management of premises
used for the purpose of smoking cannabis resin. Section 5(b) of the 1965 Act makes no reference to
the mens rea required for the offence. The issues in question for the appeal court were (1)
whether Section 5(b) created an absolute offence and (2) if not, what was the requisite mens rea
for the offence. The appellant, S, appealed against her conviction, claiming that Section 5(b)
required the mens rea of knowledge of the prohibited purposes which the farmhouse was being
used for. While S accepted that the premises had been used for smoking cannabis resin, she had
no knowledge of this use. Section 5(b) of the 1965 Act did not create an absolute offence. Unless it is
the clear intention of Parliament that an offence is an absolute or regulatory offence (imposing strict
liability), the presumption of mens rea  prevails for ‘true’ crime offences. The words ‘being concerned in
the management’ under Section 5(b) had to be read as importing a mens rea  of knowledge as to the use
of the premises for the prohibited purpose, therefore the offence was a ‘true crime,’ not a regulatory
crime. The conviction was therefore quashed, as S, did not have the requisite mens rea  for the offence
under Section 5(b) of the 1965 Act.