Скачать с ютуб STATUTORY OFFENCE-നിയമാനുസൃതമായ കുറ്റം,mental element-മാനസിക ഘടകം necessary or not?ആവശ്യമോ ഇല്ലയോ в хорошем качестве

STATUTORY OFFENCE-നിയമാനുസൃതമായ കുറ്റം,mental element-മാനസിക ഘടകം necessary or not?ആവശ്യമോ ഇല്ലയോ

What are statutory Offences? a wrong punishable under a statute, rather than at common law. exceptional cases in which mens rea is not required in criminal law: Mens rea is not essential in respect of five offences in I.P.C., namely: • Sec. 121 (waging war), • Sec. 124 A (sedition), • Secs. 359 and 363 (kidnapping and abduction), and • Sec. 232 (counterfeiting coins). Motor vehicles act, The Arms Act; Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; The Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991; etc. Similarly, in other statutory offences like bribing, smuggling, Forex violations, sale of adulterated articles, etc., the guilty mind is not taken into account by the courts. Malum in se and Malum Prohibitum. ‘Malum in Se’ offences are inherently wrong and considered to be a social evil. Most of the heinous crimes such as murder, rape, etc. which stem from violence and gory are categorised under this type. These have developed over the past and have evolved themselves and hence are abhorred by the society at large using precedents of the courts and hence can also be considered as common law offences. ‘Malum Prohibitum’ offences on the other hand are considered wrong due to the laws made by the state. They are prohibited in order to maintain harmony in the society and to implement a better work structure in it. Traffic and Taxation laws can be considered apt examples of this. State of Maharashtra v. M.H. George 1958, where the defendant was caught carrying gold slabs at the airport from Zurich. Since the permission to do so was denied between his flights, he had no possibility of knowing the newly imposed laws. Several British and Indian cases were examined by the Supreme Court. The purpose of the FERA of 1947 was to combat smuggling. This case is related to the country’s economic situation. As a result, the Supreme Court adopted the strict liability concept rather than the maxim.