Question

Principle: Ignorance of Fact is excused but ignorance of law is no excuse

Fact: X was a passenger from Zurich to Manila in a Swiss Plane. When the plane landed at the Airport of Bombay on 28 Nov. 1962 it was found on searching that X carried 34 kg of Gold Bars on his person and that he had not declared it in the 'Manifest for Transit'. On 26th Nov. 1962 the Government of India had issued a notification modifying its earlier exemption, making it mandatory now that the gold must be declared in the "Manifest" of the aircraft.

• A. X cannot be prosecuted because he had actually no knowledge about the new notification issued two days ago
• B. X cannot be prosecuted because ignorance of fact is excusable
• C. X can be prosecuted because ignorance of law is not excusable
• D. X's liability would depend on the discretion of the court

Hint:

Ask precisely what X did not know. He knew he was carrying gold and knew he had not declared it. The only thing he missed was the notification, and a notification is law, not fact.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is C

Step 1: Understanding the Question:
A notification was issued on 26 November 1962 requiring gold to be declared in the aircraft's Manifest. Two days later X landed at Bombay carrying 34 kg of gold bars that he had not declared. The obvious defence he would want is that he never heard of the notification. We must decide whether that works.

Step 2: Key Formula or Approach:
The Principle draws one line, between ignorance of fact and ignorance of law.
Ignorance of fact is excused. This covers a mistake about what actually happened or what a thing actually is, for example not knowing that a bag handed to you contains gold.
Ignorance of law is no excuse. This covers not knowing what the law requires of you, including a rule that was made very recently.
So the whole question becomes, which kind of ignorance is X pleading.

Step 3: Detailed Explanation:
Start with the facts X did know. He knew he was carrying gold, since it was on his person, 34 kg of it. He knew he had not entered it in the Manifest. So he was not mistaken about any fact of his situation.
Now identify what he did not know. He did not know that a notification issued on 26 November had made declaration compulsory. That notification is a piece of law. Not knowing it is ignorance of law, plain and simple.
Apply the Principle. Ignorance of law is no excuse, so X's plea fails and he can be prosecuted.
The two day gap looks unfair and it is meant to. But the Principle draws no line based on how old the law is. A rule issued two days ago is as much law as a rule issued twenty years ago, and the Principle offers no exemption for freshly made rules. Once you accept a shortness of time defence, every new rule becomes unenforceable for a while, which is exactly what the maxim refuses to allow.

Step 4: Checking the wrong options:
Option (A) is the two day argument. It asks the Principle to make an exception it does not contain.
Option (B) claims ignorance of fact. It mislabels the ignorance. X knew every fact about his own conduct, he only did not know the legal requirement.
Option (D) hands the matter to judicial discretion. The Principle states a flat rule with no discretion in it, so this option invents a power that was not given.

Step 5: Final Answer:
What X did not know was the law, not a fact, so he can be prosecuted. That is option (C).