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: When an occupier of land allowed poisonous flowers, which he had not carried on to his land, but which were its natural produce, to seed, the seed was carried on to the adjoining land which was thereby injured. Then-

 

Option: 1

Owner is liable


Option: 2

Owner is not liable

 


Option: 3

Being the owner the responsibility is there even in exceptional cases

 


Option: 4

None of the above


Answers (1)

best_answer

In Ryland’s v. Fletcher, in 1868, the House of Lords laid down the regulation identifying “No fault” liability and the liability recognized that is strict liability. i.e., even if the defendant did not intentionally cause the damage or he was careful, he could still be made accountable under the regulation. The rule is subject to exceptions. The owner of the land is not bound to prevent the growth of the poisonous flowers on it and he is not responsible for the escape of these seeds, hence it is a case of exception. [Giles v Walker (1820) 24 QBD 656].

 

Posted by

Nehul

View full answer

Similar Questions

Trending Articles/News

anam-khan

Intend to complete CLAT UG hearing at earliest for results to be declared: Delhi HC
anam-khan

CLAT 2025 LIVE: Delhi High Court reserves UG verdict, PG hearing on April 21

Latest Question