Question

PRINCIPLE: \(\textit{ignorantia juris non excusat}\) and \(\textit{ignorantia facti excusat}\).
FACT: George was a passenger from Zurich to Manila in a Swiss Plane. When the plane landed at the airport at Bombay on 28th Nov. 1962 it was found on search that George carried 34 kgs of gold bars in person and that he had not declared it in the ‘Manifest for transit’. On 28th Nov. 1962 Government of India issued a notification and modified its earlier exemption. From 30th Nov. it is necessary that the gold must be declared in the “Manifest” of the aircraft.

• A. : George cannot be prosecuted because he had actually no knowledge about the new notification issued only two days ago.
• B. : George cannot be prosecuted because it is mistake of fact which is excusable.
• C. : George’s will be prosecuted because mistake of law is not excusable.
• D. : George liability would depend on the discretion of the court

Hint:

Always remember: Not knowing the law does not protect a person from liability — but misunderstanding facts may.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is C

The principle \textit{ignorantia juris non excusat} means “ignorance of the law is no excuse.”
In this case:
The law requiring declaration of gold in the manifest was already in force by 30th Nov.
George failed to comply with the law — regardless of whether he knew about it.
Since it is a mistake of law, it is not a valid defence in prosecution. Mistake of fact may be excused, but not mistake of law. \fbox{Final Answer: (C): George’s will be prosecuted because mistake of law is not excusable.}