Principle: Ignorance of Fact is excused but ignorance of law is no excuse

Fact: X was a passenger from Zurich to Manila in a Swiss Plane. When the plane landed at the Airport of Bombay on 28 Nov. 1962 it was found on searching that X carried 34 kg of Gold Bars on his person and that he had not declared it in the 'Manifest for Transit'. On 26th Nov. 1962 the Government of India had issued a notification modifying its earlier exemption, making it mandatory now that the gold must be declared in the "Manifest" of the aircraft.

Question

“There is no gainsaying that an able bodied youthful Jawan when physically assaulted by his superior may be in a state of provocation. The gravity of such a provocation may be heightened if the physical beating was meant to force him to submit to unnatural carnal intercourse to satisfy the superior’s lust. The store room incident involving the appellant and the deceased is alleged to have taken place when the deceased had bolted the door of the store room to keep out any intruder from seeing what was happening inside. By any standard the act of a superior to humiliate and force his subordinate in a closed room to succumb to the lustful design of the former was a potent recipe for anyone placed in the appellant’s position to revolt and retaliate against the treatment being given to him. What may have happened inside the store room if the appellant had indeed revolted and retaliated against the unbecoming conduct of the deceased is a matter of conjecture. The appellant or any one in his position may have retaliated violently to the grave peril of his tormentor. The fact of the matter, however, is that the appellant appears to have borne the assault without any retaliation against the deceased-superior and somehow managed to escape from the room…All that the evidence proves is that after the said incident
the appellant was seen crying and depressed and when asked by his colleagues, he is said to have narrated his tale of humiliation at the hands of the deceased…. That appears to have happened in the present case also for the appellant’s version is that he and his colleagues had planned to avenge the humiliation by beating up the deceased in the evening when they all assemble near the water heating point. That apart, the appellant attended to his normal duty during the day time and after the evening dinner, went to perform his guard duty at 2100 hrs.”
[Extracted from B.D Khunte v. Union of India, Criminal Appeal No. 2328 of 2014, para 12-13].

Answer 1

The Principle sorts every plea of "I did not know" into one of two boxes. Ignorance of fact goes in the box marked excused. Ignorance of law goes in the box marked no excuse. Answering this question is entirely a matter of putting X's plea in the correct box, and the facts make the sorting easy.

What was X ignorant of? Not the gold, it was on his person and he must have known 34 kg of bars were there. Not the Manifest, since he knew he had not entered the gold in it. The only thing he did not know was that a notification dated 26 November had removed the earlier exemption and made declaration compulsory. A notification is law. His plea is therefore ignorance of law and it goes straight into the box marked no excuse. He can be prosecuted.

The two day gap is the trap. It feels harsh that a rule two days old can catch a traveller who had no chance to hear of it. But look at the Principle again and you will not find any words about how long a law must have been in force. It is unconditional. If newness were a defence, every fresh rule would be dead law for some undefined period, and no one could say how long.

X cannot be prosecuted because he had actually no knowledge about the new notification issued two days ago: This asks for an age of the law exception that the Principle simply does not contain. The rule is stated flat, with no grace period.
X cannot be prosecuted because ignorance of fact is excusable: The statement of law is right but the box is wrong. X was not mistaken about any fact of his own conduct, only about the legal requirement.
X can be prosecuted because ignorance of law is not excusable: Correct sorting and correct conclusion. The notification is law, his ignorance of it is ignorance of law, and that is expressly no excuse.
X's liability would depend on the discretion of the court: The Principle leaves no room for discretion. It states an absolute rule, so this option adds a power that was never given.

Let's summarize:

Ignorance of fact is a mistake about what is happening, ignorance of law is a mistake about what the law demands.
X knew every relevant fact, he only did not know the new notification.
A notification is law, so his plea falls on the wrong side of the line.
The Principle grants no allowance for a law being only two days old.

The correct answer is option (C).

Answer 2

The Principle sorts every plea of "I did not know" into one of two boxes. Ignorance of fact goes in the box marked excused. Ignorance of law goes in the box marked no excuse. Answering this question is entirely a matter of putting X's plea in the correct box, and the facts make the sorting easy.

What was X ignorant of? Not the gold, it was on his person and he must have known 34 kg of bars were there. Not the Manifest, since he knew he had not entered the gold in it. The only thing he did not know was that a notification dated 26 November had removed the earlier exemption and made declaration compulsory. A notification is law. His plea is therefore ignorance of law and it goes straight into the box marked no excuse. He can be prosecuted.

The two day gap is the trap. It feels harsh that a rule two days old can catch a traveller who had no chance to hear of it. But look at the Principle again and you will not find any words about how long a law must have been in force. It is unconditional. If newness were a defence, every fresh rule would be dead law for some undefined period, and no one could say how long.

X cannot be prosecuted because he had actually no knowledge about the new notification issued two days ago: This asks for an age of the law exception that the Principle simply does not contain. The rule is stated flat, with no grace period.
X cannot be prosecuted because ignorance of fact is excusable: The statement of law is right but the box is wrong. X was not mistaken about any fact of his own conduct, only about the legal requirement.
X can be prosecuted because ignorance of law is not excusable: Correct sorting and correct conclusion. The notification is law, his ignorance of it is ignorance of law, and that is expressly no excuse.
X's liability would depend on the discretion of the court: The Principle leaves no room for discretion. It states an absolute rule, so this option adds a power that was never given.

Let's summarize:

Ignorance of fact is a mistake about what is happening, ignorance of law is a mistake about what the law demands.
X knew every relevant fact, he only did not know the new notification.
A notification is law, so his plea falls on the wrong side of the line.
The Principle grants no allowance for a law being only two days old.

The correct answer is option (C).

Show Hint

The Correct Option is C

Solution and Explanation

Top Questions on Criminal Law

Questions Asked in CLAT exam