Sweet V. Parsley summary

SWEET Vs. PARSLEY

CASE DIFFERENTIATING REGULATORY CRIME AND TRUE CRIME ON BASIS OF MENS REA 

Facts of the case. 

Stephanie Sweet was a sub - tenant of property of which she has rented several rooms. She didn't live there, but just went there occassionally to collect the letters and rent. Once there found the cannabis resin of which she was totally unaware. She was booked under the section 5(b) of Dangerous Drugs Act, 1965 as she was responsible for the arrangements there.

Question before the court :

As section 5(b) does not provide anything about mens rea therefore it is to be decided whether the section makes absolute offence or otherwise what were the requisite of the mens rea for offence. 

JUDGEMENT

The lower court convicted sweet under section 5(b) of Dangerous Drugs Act as it observed the non applicability of principal of mens rea in this case. However the conviction was quashed by the House Of Lords by stating that the knowledge of the use of land is necessary and as it is absent here, therefore it is not the 'regulatory or absolute' crime but a 'true' crime.
While delivering the judgement, Lord Reid observed that 
  1. Whenever a section is silent about mens rea, it should be presumed the applicability of mens rea in such provisions. 
  2. Whenever there are two interpretations of a section, the interpretation which is in favour of the accused should be give priority.
  3. If any section of an Act makes the offence absolute, that does not conclude the offence under other sections of the same act to also be absolute. It should always be seen the circumstances of the case and examine them to establish the possible intention of the parliament. 


YOU MAY ALSO LIKE 


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Kailash Wati V. Ajodhia Parkash case summary

Image
KAILASH WATI Vs. AJODHIA PARKASH PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT  19 NOV 1976 CASE UNDER SECTION 9 OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT. Question before the court Whether the hindu marriage act sanctify or recognise (what may be called as) week end marriage as of a right at the unilateral desire of the wife. Facts of the case The appellant smt. Kailash Wati was married to the respondent Ajodhia Parkash in June 1964. Both of them before marriage were posted as village level teachers. Wife at her parental village of Bilga and husband at kot Ise Khan. After marriage the wife was transferred to her husband's station and they lived together in the matrimonial home for 8-9 months. Contention of the parties Husband : The allegation of the husband is that the wife has got herself transferred back to her parental village and ever since has been residing there with her parents against his wish. Therefore he filled an application for the restitution of conjugal rights under section 9 of HINDU MARRIAGE ACT. 
Read more

Savitri Pandey V. Prem Chandra Pandey summary

Image
SAVITRI PANDEY Vs. PREM CHANDRA PANDEY SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  2002 CASE FOR SECTION 13 OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT ON THE GROUNDS OF CRUELTY AND DESERTION Facts of the case :  The appellant - wife approached the court for the dissolution of marriage under section 13 of HMA alleging cruelty and desertion against the husband.  Contention of the parties :  Petitioner : Petitioner plead for the dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion by the husband. Respondent  : Respondent - husband argued that no acts of cruelty were performed to the wife and the petitioner is trying to take advantage of her own wrong.  JUDGEMENT :  The trial court passed the decree in favour of the wife. The court observed that although nothing can establish cruelty against husband, desertion by husband provides sufficient grounds for dissolution of marriage.    High court opined that there was nothing to prove cruelty as against husband and further there was also nothing to prove the desertion by th
Read more

Swaraj Garg V. K. M. Garg summary

Image
SWARAJ GARG  Vs. K.M. GARG DELHI HIGH COURT MARCH 7, 1978 . CASE UNDER SECTION 9 OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT Question before the court : Where will be the matrimonial home located after the marriage when both the parties are gainfully employed and there does not exist any agreement either implied or written before the marriage.  Facts of the case : The wife Swaraj - petitioner lived in her village, Sunam, from 1956 and techer at the the school. She was the head mistress at government high school in 1969. She got married to the respondent in 1964. The husband was not having a satisfactory job and earn only 500 p/m in Delhi where he resides. She came to live with her husband for some time and then grt back to her village and continue living there. The Husband therefore filed the petition under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights.  Contention of the parties :  Petitioner  : The petitioner argued that respondent's condition is not satisfactory that he can maint
Read more