LANDMARK CASE
State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George
AIR 1965 SC 722 · Supreme Court of India · Criminal law
At a glance
- Citation: AIR 1965 SC 722
- Court: Supreme Court of India
- Area of law: Criminal law
- In one line: The statute excluded mens rea by implication, so he was guilty. Hidayatullah J dissented.
1 Facts
A German passenger in transit carried gold through Bombay in breach of an RBI notification he did not know about.
2 Issue
Is mens rea required for a statutory offence?
3 What the court decided
The statute excluded mens rea by implication, so he was guilty. Hidayatullah J dissented.
4 Why it matters
Leading case on strict liability in criminal law.
5 Think about it
Is it fair to punish someone for breaching a rule published only that day?
6 Analyse it yourself
Read the full judgment from an official source or a law database, then brief it in seven steps: facts, issues, arguments, decision, ratio, obiter and significance. Always check the citation before you rely on it.
7 More cases on Criminal law
- Abhayanand Mishra v. State of Bihar AIR 1961 SC 1698
- Amish Devgan v. Union of India (2021) 1 SCC 1
- Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684
- Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab (1995) 3 SCC 214
- Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. Emperor AIR 1925 PC 1
- Basdev v. State of PEPSU AIR 1956 SC 488
All 366 landmark cases · Today's Case of the Day · Weekly quiz
← State of Maharashtra v. Madhukar Narayan MardikarState of Punjab v. Dalbir Singh →
A short teaching summary for students. Educational content only, not legal advice.