Mayer Hans George
Rule established
Strict construction of penal statutes. Where the literal meaning of a penal provision does not cover the act in question, the accused gets the benefit of the doubt. A transit passenger carrying gold through India was acquitted because the statute penalised "bringing into India" which requires a voluntary act of importation.
Facts
- Mayer Hans George, a German citizen, was on a flight from Zurich to Manila via Bombay
- He carried 34 kg of gold bars on his person
- Arrested during transit at Bombay airport
- Charged under Gold (Control) Act, 1963: offence to "bring gold into India"
Issue
- Whether a transit passenger carrying gold through India has "brought gold into India" within the meaning of the Gold Control Act.
Held
- "Bringing into India" requires a voluntary act of importation with intent to land the gold
- A transit passenger has no volition regarding the aircraft's route
- Penal statute construed strictly in favour of accused
- Accused acquitted
Ratio Decidendi
Penal statutes must be strictly construed. Where the words of a penal provision are capable of two interpretations, the one less harsh to the accused must be adopted. The court cannot extend penal liability by implication.
How to use it in an exam
- Indian authority for strict construction of penal statutes
- Paired with CIT v. Vegetable Products (taxing) for the same principle in different domain
- Key line: "In Mayer Hans George (1965), the Supreme Court held that a transit passenger has not 'brought gold into India' since penal statutes must be construed strictly, and the accused gets the benefit of any ambiguity."
Source
Source: AIR 1965 SC 722
This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.