LEGAL PRINCIPLE Ignorance of law is not an excuse in India with the practice that every person in In...........

Legal Reasoning Others

Article 22 in The Constitution Of India 1949

22. Protection against arrest and detention in certain cases

(1) No person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest nor shall he be denied the right to consult, and to be defended by, a legal practitioner of his choice

(2) Every person who is arrested and detained in custody shall be produced before the nearest magistrate within a period of twenty four hours of such arrest excluding the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the court of the magistrate and no such person shall be detained in custody beyond the said period without the authority of a magistrate

(3) Nothing in clauses ( 1 ) and ( 2 ) shall apply (a) to any person who for the time being is an enemy alien; or (b) to any person who is arrested or detained under any law providing for preventive detention

(4) No law providing for preventive detention shall authorise the detention of a person for a longer period than three months unless (a) an Advisory Board consisting of persons who are, or have been, or are qualified to be appointed as, Judges of a High Court has reported before the expiration of the said period of three months that there is in its opinion sufficient cause for such detention:

(5) When any person is detained in pursuance of an order made under any law providing for preventive detention, the authority making the order shall, as soon as may be, communicate to such person the grounds on which the order has been made and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order

(6) Nothing in clause ( 5 ) shall require the authority making any such order as is referred to in that clause to disclose facts which such authority considers to be against the public interest to disclose

(7) Parliament may by law prescribe

(a) the circumstances under which, and the class or classes of cases in which, a person may be detained for a period longer than three months under any law providing for preventive detention without obtaining the opinion of an Advisory Board in accordance with the provisions of sub clause (a) of clause ( 4 );

(b) The maximum period for which any person may in any class or classes of cases be detained under any law providing for preventive detention; and

(c) The procedure to be followed by an Advisory Board in an inquiry under sub clause (a) of clause ( 4 ) Right against Exploitation

LEGAL PRINCIPLE: Ignorance of law is not an excuse in India with the practice that every person in India should be acquainted with the law of land.

FACTUAL SITUATION: Mr. Jackson, a foreigner, came to Delhi in the winter season. He saw the people in Delhi set fire on road side during night and get their body warm. One night he came out of his hotel and asked two labourers to cut down a dry tree in Pandora Road and when they agreed he paid them Rs. 150 Indian currency for cutting down the tree. They cut and made the log into small pieces and the foreigner along with the tree cutters set fire and got their body warm. After some 50 time, the Police Patrol car watched it and arrested the foreigner and two labourers on the spot. The foreigner pleaded that the tree was dry and he did not know the cutting of tree from road side is an offence in India.

The foreigner shall not be responsible for the offence because he himself has not cut the tree but got it cut through the Indian people

The foreigner shall be punished because in India cutting of tree from road side is an offence

The pretence that he does not know such act is an offence is not an excuse for a foreigner also

Both (b) and (c).

Explanation:

the generally accepted theory is that the principle of ignorantia juris neminem excusat does not even exclude a foreigner. In the case of Re Baronet where two men acted as attendants in a duel fight claimed that they were not aware that English law did not allow killing of adversary in duel fight. But they were nevertheless held liable for wilful murder. Therefore, foreigners are not excused from any penal law.