Video article: No Mens Rea Required: How Mayer Hans George Defined Public Welfare Offenses

 Dive into the shocking 1962 case of Mayer Hans George—a German caught with 34kg of gold in a secret jacket during a Mumbai stopover. Learn how a 4-day-old law established India's strict liability doctrine for economic crimes, making intent irrelevant under FERA and modern PMLA. Featuring Justice Subba Rao's epic dissent on "effective publication."

Print Page

State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George AIR 1965 SC 722: Strict Liability's Birth in India's Economic offences Jurisprudence

 

How a German Smuggler, 34kg of Gold, and a 4-Day-Old Law Shaped India's Financial Future

Imagine boarding an international flight, confident you are following every known rule. But while you are in the air, a law in your transit country changes. By the time your plane’s wheels touch the tarmac, you have, without any knowledge or intent, become a criminal.

Print Page

Video article: The legacy of Basdev vs State of PEPSU is clear and enduring: voluntary intoxication is not an excuse.

 

Print Page

"I Was Drunk": Why Basdev vs The State Of Pepsu AIR 1956 SUPREME COURT 488 Means that This Defense Almost Never Works in India

 

Introduction: A Party, a Pistol, and a Landmark Judgment

Imagine a wedding celebration—the sounds of celebratory drums and loud music, dancing, and plentiful alcohol. Suddenly, a minor argument shatters the festive mood. A gunshot rings out, and in an instant, celebration turns into mourning. This tragic scene raises a difficult question: What happens when a serious crime is committed by someone so intoxicated they might not even be aware of their actions? Does the law see it as a tragic mistake or a calculated crime?

Print Page

When Your Own Signature Becomes a Crime: Understanding Forgery Under Section 464 of the Indian Penal Code

 A comprehensive analysis of how signing one's own name can constitute forgery under Indian criminal law

Introduction

In the realm of criminal law, forgery is traditionally understood as the act of falsifying someone else's signature or documents. However, the Indian Penal Code presents a fascinating and often misunderstood legal principle: a person can commit forgery by signing their own genuine name. This counterintuitive concept, enshrined in Section 464 {S 335 of BNS} Explanation 1 of the Indian Penal Code, challenges conventional understanding and highlights the sophisticated nature of Indian criminal jurisprudence.

The Legal Framework: Section 464 IPC Explained

Print Page

Understanding Inchoate Crimes: When Criminal Intent Meets Legal Intervention

 In the realm of criminal law, not all offenses require complete execution to warrant punishment. The concept of inchoate crimes—literally meaning "unfinished" or "incomplete"—represents a crucial legal principle that allows the justice system to intervene before irreparable harm occurs. This article explores the fundamental nature of inchoate offenses and examines key provisions under the Indian Penal Code that embody this preventive approach to criminal justice.

The Philosophy Behind Incomplete Crimes

The legal maxim "prevention of crime is better than punishment of crime" forms the cornerstone of inchoate offense legislation. These crimes acknowledge that criminal liability can arise even when the intended final offense remains incomplete, provided there exists sufficient criminal intent coupled with substantial steps toward commission.

Print Page

What are essential requirement for prosecuting director of company along with company for rash and negligent act?

 By applying the ratio laid down by this Court in the case of Sunil Bharti Mittal MANU/SC/0016/2015 : (2015) 4 SCC 609 it is clear that an individual either as a Director or a Managing Director or Chairman of the company can be made an Accused, along with the company, only if there is sufficient material to prove his active role coupled with the criminal intent. Further the criminal intent alleged must have direct nexus with the Accused. Further in the case of Maksud Saiyed v. State of Gujarat and Ors. MANU/SC/7923/2007 : (2008) 5 SCC 668 this Court has examined the vicarious liability of Directors for the charges levelled against the Company. In the aforesaid judgment this Court has held that, the Penal Code does not contain any provision for attaching vicarious liability on the part of the Managing Director or the Directors of the Company, when the Accused is a Company. It is held that vicarious liability of the Managing Director and Director would arise provided any provision exists in that behalf in the Statute. It is further held that Statutes indisputably must provide fixing such vicarious liability. It is also held that, even for the said purpose, it is obligatory on the part of the complainant to make requisite allegations which would attract the provisions constituting vicarious liability.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1263 of 2019 

Decided On: 23.08.2019

Shiv Kumar Jatia  Vs. State of NCT of Delhi

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Abhay Manohar Sapre and R. Subhash Reddy, JJ.

Citation: AIR 2019 SC 4463

Print Page