Browse by Stream
QnA
Home
QnA
Go To Your Study Dashboard

Get Answers to all your Questions

header-bg qa
  • Home
  • Law
  • Read the passage very carefully and answer the following questions. In-State v. Sheo Prasad court held that a master was not liable for his servant's act in carrying

Read the passage very carefully and answer the following questions.

In-State v. Sheo Prasad court held that a master was not liable for his servant's act in carrying oilseeds in contravention of the order made under the Essential, Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946, on the ground that he had not the guilty mind. It is a well-settled principle of common law that mens rea is an essential ingredient of a criminal offence. Doubtless, a statute can exclude that element, but it is a sound rule of construction adopted in England and also accepted in India to construe a statutory provision creating an offence in conformity with the common law rather than against it unless the statute expressly or by necessary implication excluded mens rea. It is also necessary to enquire whether a statute by putting a person under strict liability helps him to assist the State in the enforcement of the law: can he do anything to promote the observance of the law? A person who does not know that gold cannot be brought into India without a licence or is not bringing into India any gold at all cannot possibly do anything to promote the observance of the law. Mens rea by necessary implication can be excluded from a statute only where it is absolutely clear that the implementation of the object of a statute would otherwise be defeated and its exclusion enables those put under strict liability by their act or omission to assist the promotion of the law."It is not enough merely to label the statute as one dealing with a grave social evil and from that to infer that strict liability was intended. It is pertinent also to inquire whether putting the defendant under strict liability will assist in the enforcement of the regulations. That means that there must be something he can do, directly or indirectly, by supervision or inspection, by improvement of his business methods, or by exhorting those whom he may be expected to influence or control, which will promote the observance of the regulations. Unless this is so, there is no reason in penalising him, and it cannot be inferred that the legislature imposed strict liability merely to find a luckless victim.

Question: Zee carried on the occupation of bone manure manufacturer on premises near D’s farm and for his business. Zee had on his location a heap of bones which caused a huge amount of pests to assemble there. The pests made their way from Zee’s premises onto D's land, and ate his corn, causing substantial loss.

 

Option: 1

Zee is not liable to D

 


Option: 2

Zee is liable to D


Option: 3

Frivolous case made out

 


Option: 4

None of the above


Answers (1)

best_answer

In Ryland’s v. Fletcher, in 1868, the House of Lords laid down the rule recognizing “No fault” liability and the liability recognized was a strict liability. i.e., even if the defendant did not deliberately cause the harm or he was careful, he could still be made liable under the rule.   Zee is not liable because the bones were not kept in unusual quantity and rats were not owned by him. [Stearn v Prentice Brothers, Limited (1919) 1 KB 394]

 

Posted by

Sanket Gandhi

View full answer

Similar Questions

Trending Articles/News

anam-khan

CLAT 2025 counselling registration ends today at consortiumofnlus.ac.in; seat allotment result on December 26
anam-khan

CLAT 2025 Cut off: NLU expected category-wise cut-off marks, past trends, ranks
anam-khan

CLAT 2025 Counselling: Registration begins today at consortiumofnlus.ac.in; first allotment on December 26

Latest Question