Landmark Judgments

State of Maharashtra Vs. Mayer Hans (M.H.) George, AIR 1965


State of Maharashtra Vs. Mayer Hans (M.H.) George, AIR 1965

Fact of the case :

In this case, on 25th August 1948, a notification was passed by the government of India stating that any gold and gold article should not be bought into India or sent to India without general or special permission given by the Reserve Bank of India this was under the power of section 8 of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947. 

On November 8th, 1962 a notification was given by the Reserve Bank of India that it had restricted the transit of any gold article being sent outside India with a condition that it should be declared in the “Manifest” for transit in the “same bottom cargo” or “transshipment cargo”. This notification was published on 24th November, 1962.

Mayer Hans George, a German smuggler, left Zurich by plane on 27th?November 1962 with 34 kilos of gold concealed on his person to deliver it in Manila. The plane arrived at Bombay on 28th?of November. George did not come out of the plane. The Customs Authorities examined the aircraft to see if any gold was consigned by any passenger and found George.

On removing the jacket which George was wearing, it was found to have 28 specially made compartments, 9 of which were empty and the remaining 19 pockets had 34 bars each weighing approximately 1 kg and seized it. George was convicted by the Presidency Magistrate of Bombay and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year.

Issue Involved

Whether the respondent is guilty of bringing gold in India under Section 8(1) and Section 23(1-A) of the FERA which was published in the Gazette of India on 24th November 1962?

Held : In this case the Supreme Court refused to accept the plea of ignorance of the notification issued by the Reserve Bank of India imposing restrictions on the transit of gold to a place outside the territory of India and held the accused, a French national, liable for violating the said notification. 

Supreme Court stated that “even actus rea is enough in case of a statutory offence, and mens rea is excluded in such scenarios”. As he had already been in jail for a few months, when the final judgment was announced his imprisonment was reduced accordingly.