State of Maharashtra v. Hans George

Case Title: State of Maharashtra v. Hans George | Citation: 1965 SCR (1) 123

This case explains that some economic offences are strict liability offences. If you bring gold into India without meeting the manifest requirement, you can be punished even if you had no guilty intent. The Court said the law’s aim—stopping smuggling—would fail if proof of knowledge was required.

• Can a person be held guilty for bringing gold into India without the required manifest entry even if they lacked intention?
• Is a published RBI notification binding even on a foreign passenger who did not know about it?
• Does “manifest disclosure” apply to gold carried on the person of a passenger?

Strict Liability: For certain statutory offences, liability does not depend on proving a guilty mind (mens rea). Honest belief is not a defence if the act is prohibited.

• Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (s. 8(1) read with s. 23(1-A))
• Sea Customs Act (s. 167(8)(i))
• RBI Notification (published; manifest requirement for transit gold)

Held: Conviction sustainable. The statute leaves no room to import a knowledge requirement. The anti-smuggling purpose would be defeated if proof of intention were needed. The notification was published; a foreign passenger’s ignorance does not change liability. The manifest requirement applies for transit gold even if carried by a passenger.

Economic and customs offences can be framed as strict liability. When the law imposes an objective duty (like manifest disclosure), the offence is complete on breach, regardless of intent. Duly published notifications bind all persons who act within the territory.

• Clarifies that some compliance rules are zero-tolerance to protect the economy.
• Shows courts will respect legislative design where intent-proof would make enforcement impractical.
• Guides travellers and carriers: check notifications and manifests before transit.

1. Strict liability applies to certain anti-smuggling provisions.
2. Manifest disclosure is mandatory for transit gold.
3. Published notifications bind; ignorance is no defence.
4. High Court’s focus on mens rea was incorrect in this statutory setting.

Mnemonic: “Gold in Hand? Manifest Planned!”

• Gold: Transit gold triggers rules.
• Hand: Even on your person, the law applies.
• Manifest Planned: List it in the manifest—no excuses.

Issue: Whether liability arises without proof of mens rea for bringing gold in transit without manifest entry.

Rule: Strict liability under FERA and Sea Customs provisions; published RBI notification mandates manifest disclosure.

Application: Respondent voluntarily brought gold into India; no manifest disclosure; notification was published; ignorance does not excuse.

Conclusion: Liability established without proving intention; conviction restored/sustained.

Strict Liability

Offence where the act alone attracts punishment, regardless of intention.

Manifest

Official cargo list of an aircraft/vessel, declaring goods on board.

Delegated Legislation

Rules/notifications made under powers given by an Act.