Fact of the case :

The defendant in this case was a licensee of a public house (i.e., a person licensed to sell alcohol). Under Section 16(2) of the Licensing Act 1872, it was an offence for a licensee to supply alcohol to a police officer on duty. A police officer, while present at the establishment, purchased liquor. However, the officer was not wearing his armlet, a device worn by officers to indicate they were on duty. In this case, the absence of the armlet was widely regarded as indicating the officer was off duty. Based on this common understanding, the defendant assumed the officer was not on duty at the time and thus served him liquor.

In this case the defendant was convicted of selling alcohol to a police officer whilst on duty under section 16(2) of Licensing Act, 1872. It was customary for police officers to wear an armlet whilst on duty but this constable had removed his armlet. The appellant therefore believed that he was off duty. 

The statute was silent as to the question of whether knowledge was required for the offence or not. Upon being convicted, the defendant appealed, contending that the prosecution was required to prove that he had knowledge or was willfully ignorant of the officer’s duty status, given the absence of explicit wording in the statute imposing strict liability or dispensing with mens rea.

Issue Involved

Whether the offence required the defendant to knowingly serve liquor to an on-duty officer.

Whether the presumption of mens rea applied to this offence under the Licensing Act, even though the statute itself was silent on the mental element.

Held : There is a presumption that mens rea is an essential element of every offence. But this presumption is liable to be displaced either by the words of the statute creating the offence or by the subject matter with which it deals. The appeal was allowed and his conviction was quashed.  

“The court noted that there are 3 types of cases which fall under strict liability: 

1. All cases of public nuisance. [Ex: if a person throws garbage near the door of his neighbour, civil action may lie. But, criminal jurisdiction may be triggered if the same garbage is dumped in public place. In certain situations, civil as well as criminal action may arise out of same case] 

2. Acts not criminal in real sense but prohibited in public interest. [Ex: if a person digs a manhole in the public place and another person fall into it. Action may be taken by the victim in civil law and criminal case may also be filed by any interested member of the society]

3. Civil rights enforced through criminal law. [Ex: Possession of adulterated foods]”

Note

The principle laid down in this case is followed in several Indian decisions such as Union of India Vs. M/s Ganesh (AIR 2000 SC 1102) [The court recognized the exceptions of mens rea liability].