Skip to main content

Law, attribution of knowledge of


2005 (13) SCC 552

Para 8: It could not be denied that GO No. 303 dated 15.4.1997 was published in the Official Gazette on 23.4.1997. It is settled law that once publication in the Official Gazette takes place, it is deemed to be known to all. Ignorance of law can be no excuse. Once the GO was published, from the date it was published, it became effective. As it became effective from that date, the tax was leviable at the rate of 4%. If some assessing officers, due to their own ignorance or laxity accepted returns at the rate of 2% it did not permit the High Court to ignore the law and continue such laxity to prevail. It must be remembered that the assessing officer, who had assessed wrongly, could always reopen the assessment.

Para 11: It was also submitted that since there was a lot of confusion and that number of parties including assessing officers were not clear as to what was the rate of tax, this Court should not interfere with the judgment of the High Court which has been passed on equitable basis. We see no substance in this submission. If the law is clear then it must be given effect to. Merely because the parties were unaware of the law does not mean that courts can ignore the law and provide to the contrary.


2013 (2) SCC 67

Para 8: The above statement of PW1 would clearly indicate that he had only informed the accused that he could be searched before any Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer if he so wished. The fact that the accused person has a right under Section 50 of the NDPS Act to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate was not made known to him. We are of the view that there is an obligation on the part of the empowered officer to inform the accused or the suspect of the existence of such a right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate, if so required by him. Only if the suspect does not choose to exercise the right in spite of apprising him of his right, the empowered officer could conduct the search on the body of the person.

Para 9: We may, in this connection, also examine the general maxim "ignorantiajuris non excusat" and whether in such a situation the accused could take a defence that he was unaware of the procedure laid down in Section 50 of the NDPS Act.

Ignorance does not normally afford any defence under the criminal law, since a person is presumed to know the law.


Indisputedly ignorance of law often in reality exists, though as a general proposition, it is true, that knowledge of law must be imputed to every person. But it must be too much to impute knowledge in certain situations, for example, we cannot expect a rustic villager, totally illiterate, a poor man on the street, to be aware of the various law laid down in this country i.e. leave aside the NDPS Act. We notice this fact is also within the knowledge of the legislature, possibly for that reason the legislature in its wisdom imposed an obligation on the authorized officer acting under Section 50 of the NDPS Act to inform the suspect of his right under Section 50 to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate warranting strict compliance of that procedure.



Sandeep Jalan

Advocate

https://vakeelkanumber.com/

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Fraud / Misleading the Courts

AIR 2007 SC 1546 Para 21:  Now, it is well settled principle of law that if any judgment or order is obtained by fraud, it cannot be said to be a judgment or order in law. Before three centuries, Chief Justice Edward Coke proclaimed; "Fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal". Para 22:  It is thus settled proposition of law that a judgment, decree or order obtained by playing fraud on the Court, Tribunal or Authority is a nullity and non est in the eye of law. Such a judgment, decree or order by the first Court or by the final Court has to be treated as nullity by every Court, superior or inferior. It can be challenged in any Court, at any time, in appeal, revision, writ or even in collateral proceedings. Para 23:  In the leading case of Lazarus Estates Ltd. V/s. Beasley, 1956 1 AllER 341, Lord Denning observed: "No judgment of a court, no order of a Minister, can be allowed to stand, if it has been obtained by fraud."
9 comments
Read more

Prescribed procedure must be followed

2015 (3) SCC 624 Para 22:  Procedural norms, technicalities and processal law evolve after years of empirical experience, and to ignore them or give them short shrift inevitably defeats justice. ……..Laws of procedure have picturesquely been referred to as handmaidens to justice, but this does not mean that they can be wantonly ignored because, if so done, a miscarriage of justice inevitably and inexorably ensues. Statutory law and processal law are two sides of the judicial drachma, each being the obverse of the other. In the case in hand, had the Tenant diligently filed an appeal against the decree at least in respect of O.S. 5/78, the legal conundrum that has manifested itself and exhausted so much judicial time, would not have arisen at all. 2014 (2) SCC 401 Para 34: There is yet an uncontroverted legal principle that when the statute provides for a particular procedure, the authority has to follow the same and cannot be permitted to act in contravention o
Post a Comment
Read more

Arbitrariness

The act of “arbitrariness” may ordinarily mean, exercise of powers or exercise of discretion, according to one whims and personal choices, taking into considerations the irrelevant factors, not taking into considerations the factors which should have been considered whilst taking decisions or whilst acting, or acting in disregard of express statutory mandate or acting in disregard of legal principles or in disregard of any principle or logic, common sense or fairness. Arbitrariness is violence to common sense of a prudent man. When discretion is assumed absolute, man has always suffered. The Rule of law prohibits arbitrary action and also makes it liable to be invalidated. The expression “Rule of Law” may have varied dimensions, and the most apt explanation to this expression appears to be, “The People have an absolute / unqualified right to be Ruled / governed/ regulated by Law, and not by individual whims and fancies”. This is also in fact and precisely the mandate of Article 1
Post a Comment
Read more